David and Lisa.

Review #1957: David and Lisa.

Cast: 

Keir Dullea (David Clemens), Janet Margolin (Lisa Brandt), Howard Da Silva (Dr. Alan Swinford), Neva Patterson (Mrs. Clemens), Richard McMurray (Stewart Clemens), Clifton James (John), Nancy Nutter (Maureen), Matthew Anden (Simon), Jamie Sanchez (Carlos), Coni Hudak (Kate), and Karen Lynn Gorney (Josette) Directed by Frank Perry.

Review: 

It should only be natural to cover a New York director. The son of a stockbroker and an Alcoholics Anonymous aide, he was interested in the theater from a young age, working as a parking lot attendant as a youth for the Westport Country Playhouse. He attended the University of Miami before studying under Lee Strasberg and going on to produce plays in Connecticut. He served in the Korean War and became involved with television in 1961 before making his first film with David and Lisa (1962). He would make a variety of films that were generally on the edge of the studio system. In total, Perry directed fourteen feature films, where he was known for films such as The Swimmer (1968), Diary of a Mad Housewife (1970), and Mommie Dearest (1981) before he died in 1995 at the age of 65, with his last directorial effort being a documentary in On the Bridge (1992) about his struggle with prostate cancer.

It is an adaptation of the novella of the same name by Theodore Isaac Rubin, a psychiatrist and author. It was Ann Perry (daughter to playwright Eleanor Perry) who brought the novella to the attention of the Perrys. Eleanor Perry wrote the film, the first of numerous collaborations as writer with F. Perry, who was enlisted to direct (their partnership dissolved in 1971 after they divorced). Each of the Perrys received an Academy Award nomination for their work, which is no small feat for a film made for roughly over $150,000. Admittedly, the premise does sound like a film that could have just been a cheap feature for the exploitation circuit, considering that the lead character is a kid who has an intense fear of being touched. But it is a quirky love story, one that isn't just a feature of sensationalism or goop for cheap tricks, one that asks what it means to help people not stay numb inside. Dullea got his start in acting in television in the 1960s, such as Route 66 (which got him his first film role with Hoodlum Priest (1961). Dullea received notice for this role, although he did grouse at the momentary idea of him being thought of as a troubled youth for typecasting (Dullea has been quoted as saying that his true preference is for the theater). In a role filled with compulsive tendencies that could make one not know where he might spring himself next, Dullea proves worthy to the challenge of making a compelling performance, one where we see the pain wrapped inside someone scared to let someone reach within. The scenes with his parents aren't too long, but they underlie the stark contrast between the perceived "normal" family members and how he was shaped by them. This was the film debut for Margolin, who had thought about being a doctor before being encouraged to give her other interest in acting a try; in 1961, she went from prop girl at the New York Shakespeare Festival to 18-year-old Tony Award nominee. She pulls a double act in self-realization, which means a good chunk of dialogue is short or in rhymes, but she handles it in a way that is warm without cloying that makes for compelling chemistry between Margolin and Dullea. Da Silva provides solid support in efficient timing (mostly spent with Dullea) that isn't there to wax poetically or grandstand in authoritative boredom. The movie is mostly kept inside the psychiatric center, with a few interesting exceptions, such as a sequence where the group is seen out in public and reacts to a rude sentence told to them by repeating it right as they are walking off, as if being in the same room as others a bit different than them is too much. 

It is a tactful movie about people thought to be outside the margins: people who need psychiatric help. It doesn't do so by sugarcoating the leads or turning it into a simple black-and-white tale of treatment. It is the kind of movie where a simple gesture of togetherness in a film as well-executed as this makes the difference between ham-handedness and dynamite, for which the film rests in the latter category. It is a crushing tale of acceptance that makes a useful character study of two wayward souls finding some sort of path forward together. Quick to the point in 93 minutes without needing easy resolutions or cheap tricks, David and Lisa is a testament to the power of independent filmmaking and the potential it can bring thanks to the efforts of the Perrys and all involved.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Redux Review #093: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Cast: 
Keir Dullea (Dr. David Bowman), Gary Lockwood (Dr. Frank Poole), William Sylvester (Dr. Heywood Floyd), Douglas Rain (HAL 9000), Daniel Richter (Moonwatcher), Leonard Rossiter (Dr. Andrei Smyslov), Margaret Tyzack (Elena), Robert Beatty (Dr. Ralph Halvorsen), and Sean Sullivan (Dr. Roy Michaels) Directed by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket and #065 - The Shining)

Review: 
Greetings. The original review was 188 words long, which is the easiest thing to state why a Redux Review for this classic is in order, even after over six years since I wrote the review back in Season 2. In addition, it is the 50th Anniversary year of this film's release. I intended to make a review fitting of the scope of the film, which if you appreciate reviews of mine that go on the long side, this is for you. Enjoy.

Stanley Kubrick wanted to make a kind of science fiction film that dealt with extraterrestrial life and its possibilities that strove to not just be a good science fiction movie, but a well-known one. He started his vision to make that sort of film in 1964, soon finding a collaborator in Arthur C. Clarke. Together, over the next four years, the two collaborated together, writing the screenplay simultaneously with the novel. Kubrick and Clarke used a short story that the latter had written in 1948 named "The Sentinel", which was used an inspiration for the story of the film, along with using ideas from other stories. When it came time for credit on the screenplay, they shared the credit, while Clarke received author credit for the novel (which had elements cut out from the film), which was published after the release of the film. The novel provided elements to the story that the film did not cover, providing more details that you would likely expect, with one big difference being the planet that the characters take a journey to (Saturn in the book, Jupiter in the film), which occurred due to the effects crew could not render convincing rings for Saturn. Clarke would later write three additional novels: 2010: Odyssey Two (1982), 2061: Odyssey Three (1987), and 3001: The Final Odyssey (1997), with 2010 being the only one that was adapted into a film.

In any case, what can one say of 2001: A Space Odyssey? More importantly, what can one examine from something such as this? The best answer lies within what you see from it. There is a certain beauty in its scope of what it does in its 142 minute run-time, being something that clearly stood out among other science fiction films of the time in its style and execution. That's not to say that this film made other films of its genre look bad, it just means that this film sets a high bar for what a science film can strive to be, which you could also argue with regard to Planet of the Apes from that same year. The movie attempted to make an visual experience that connects with its audience like a painting, where you gaze upon what it says with what it doesn't. In an interview for the film in 1968, Kubrick stated this about trying to interpret the film: "You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point." Nothing in that statement is incorrect, in part because the movie succeeds in making an smart and well made experience that manages to create discussion and wonder after half of a century. It's interesting to watch something that tries to challenge the viewer with something that says something about the nature of man without being too indulgent in its tone. The pacing may prove to be a bit slow for some, but if you have enough patience to let the film sink itself in, you will get some fine entertainment and also something to think about. The Stargate sequence is one of the more notable scenes that endures from the film, done through slit-scan photography of high-contrast images while using landscape shots of places such as Monument Valley. It is a disturbing but breathtaking scene to look at, whether to look at its variety of color or to ponder over what it means. For effects such as these (along with others involving front projection), the film won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects that year, although due to Academy rules at the time (where only three people could be nominated for their work), Kubrick was nominated (and subsequently won) for the award over the four effects contributors credited in the film (Douglas Trumbull, Tom Howard, Con Pederson, and Wally Veevers).

In a movie filled with visual and audio beauty, the people that act within the film aren't as prominent (particularly with some of the dialogue), but they deliver the kind of performances that you would expect from a Kubrick film in that he controls what you receive with the lines, where people are not going to just deliver random one-liners or overtly ominous lines without warning. The main three actors of Dullea, Lockwood, and Sylvester prove to be fine every-man type of people that do what they are meant to do without much fanfare, with Dullea being useful enough to watch as our face for the second half. Prior to this film, Rain was known mostly for his stage work and his narration for the 1960 documentary Universe that showcased animation of a voyage through space that Kubrick viewed, garnering the help of some of the makers of the film, including Rain. As such, he does a fine job in making the voice of HAL9000 seem to come alive, not being overtly mechanical or too broad for Kubrick's intent; it can even be argued that Rain makes this character seem more human than the other actors, with the sequence at the end involving "Daisy Bell" being a key standout. Before he was hired for the "Dawn of Man" sequence, Richter worked as a street mime for a troupe in England, and he was instrumental in choreographing the sequence with the other actors playing ape-men, and he does a standout job in making the effect click - particularly the push cut involving the bone-club and satellite. The film utilizes classical music, which was innovative for the time as compared to the usual tradition of having a film score by a composer. The movie had a music score commissioned for it by Kubrick that was done by Alex North, who had composed music for films such as A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), Spartacus (1960), and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966). However, Kubrick decided to use the pieces that he had designated as "guide pieces" for the soundtrack instead of North's score. It's hard to disagree with the choice, particularly with pieces such as "Also sprach Zarathustra" (utilized in the opening credits) or "The Blue Danube" during the docking and landing sequences, or "Requiem for Soprano, Mezzo-Soprano, 2 Mixed Choirs and Orchestra" by György Ligeti (with "Atmosphères" also being utilized for the climatic sequence), a haunting piece that is just right for the scenes it is used in.

Simply put, there is nothing quite like watching 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that stands out on a cosmic scale of its own in the realm of the science fiction genre that still stands out of a hallmark of great film-making. The way that it shows its technology of what people thought 2001 would look like is intriguing  to think about, aside from the other points to think about. It is a demanding movie on an intellectual level, but it isn't something that can only be appreciated by elitists only. It won't be the perfect film for everyone, but it certainly is a monument of some kind to telling an epic story of man that is ultimately worth it. This film has numerous iconic images and moments that have endured in the years that have followed its release, whether involving its music score, the monolith sequences, HAL9000 itself or the aforementioned Stargate sequence that make this movie live on in the eyes of viewers all across the world.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Black Christmas (1974).

Review #679: Black Christmas.

Cast
Olivia Hussey (Jess), Keir Dullea (Peter), Margot Kidder (Barb), John Saxon (Lt. Fuller), Marian Waldman (Mrs. Mac), Andrea Martin (Phyllis), James Edmond (Mr. Harrison), Doug McGrath (Sergeant Nash), Art Hindle (Chris), and Lynne Griffin (Clare) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story)

Review
Yes, the same Bob Clark who directed A Christmas Story (a movie that admittedly has its own weirdness to it) directed a movie called one of the first slasher films, Black Christmas. And hey, it's a "Christmas film" along with being a Canadian film as well. I guess surprises come in threes. But is the movie any good? Yea, I suppose so. This is a chilly little film that uses perspective from the killer and some pretty odd phone calls to make for a spooky little slasher film. The highlight for me though is Margot Kidder, who certainly seems like she's having a good time even if half of the time she is...inebriated. What is unique is the fact that the killer isn't revealed, not even at the end, as the movie ends ambiguously, all in part because Bob Clark decided to. The killer isn't really shown, but by using perspective and a voice (or two, probably), it makes for a creative way of delivering scares without having to adhere to the cliches too much. And hey, it's another movie with John Saxon, who as always is a rough but watchable authority figure. It's been 40 years since this film has been released, and it has had a remake but even now this film has a cult following and I can understand why. What we have here is a stellar movie that even inspired Halloween and Friday the 13th, which is like a sign of respect, I believe. Watch the movie, and then make sure to check the caller ID on your phone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 2010.

Review #233: 2010.

Cast
Roy Scheider (Heywood Floyd), John Lithgow (Dr. Walter Curnow), Helen Mirren (Tanya Kirbuk), Bob Balaban (Dr. Chandra), Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman), and Douglas Rain (HAL 9000) Directed by Peter Hyams.

Review
It has been a while since I have discussed 2001: A Space Odyssey. So let me give a little discussion here. It's one of those films to describe it a few words: Grand. Special. Thought-provoking. Epic in scale. Effects-galore. Classic. As for 2010, what would the be the words to describe it? I'll say that later, but anyway, the film is an adaptation of the novel 2010: Odyssey Two, which was a continuation of the movie (It's weird saying this...) The performances are alright, conveying well. Dullea and Rain return, 16 years after 2001 to reprise their performances here, which works out well. While it isn't as thought provoking as 2001, it does has enough flares of thrill and skill (and strangely recounting the events of the first one) to make you watch it on its own without much stigma. Now then, what would I describe this film in a few words? Decent-looking. Some interest. Decent. 1984 (literally). And there we go.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.