Showing posts with label Michael Bates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Bates. Show all posts

June 9, 2020

A Clockwork Orange.

Review #1440: A Clockwork Orange.

Cast: 
Malcolm McDowell (Alex DeLarge), Patrick Magee (Mr Frank Alexander), Michael Bates (Chief Guard Barnes), Warren Clarke (Dim), John Clive (Stage Actor), Adrienne Corri (Mrs Mary Alexander), Carl Duering (Dr Brodsky), Paul Farrell (Tramp), Clive Francis (Joe the Lodger), Michael Gover (Prison Governor), Miriam Karlin (Catlady), James Marcus (Georgie), Aubrey Morris (P. R. Deltoid), Godfrey Quigley (Prison Chaplain), Sheila Raynor (Mum), Madge Ryan (Dr Branom), Anthony Sharp (Frederick, Minister of the Interior), and Philip Stone (Dad) Produced and Directed by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket, #065 - The Shining, #093 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, #1046 - Barry Lyndon, and #1301 - Dr. Strangelove)

Review: 
"I have always enjoyed dealing with a slightly surrealistic situation and presenting it in a realistic manner. I've always liked fairy tales and myths, magical stories. I think they are somehow closer to the sense of reality one feels today than the equally stylized "realistic" story in which a great deal of selectivity and omission has to occur in order to preserve its "realist" style."

Stanley Kubrick made thirteen feature films in his career, and it is interesting to note the numerous distinct genres that they all fall into, whether that meant anti-war (such as Paths of Glory), or film noir (The Killing), or period drama (Spartacus) or comedy-drama (Lolita), all the while having a touch and patience of a chess player in creating such tremendous interesting films to view. Kubrick had an interest in photography and film from a young age, and he was hired by Look magazine after he graduated high school. He would later develop interest in making his own films, which he started with Day of the Fight (1951), a short documentary that survives among two others Kubrick did before making his feature debut with Fear and Desire (1953). Over the next 46 years, Kubrick would develop numerous films that received attention and tremendous praise, and it should prove no surprise that this film is a masterpiece - one with discipline with madness and a great lead performance from Malcolm McDowell. Kubrick was inspired to cast McDowell in the film after seeing him in Lindsay Anderson's influential if... (1968), and he stated that if he could not have hired McDowell that he wouldn't have done the film at all.

If one needs to think of the context for comparing a film that is nearly a half century old to the films that purvey our screens, just remember that this was actually released by a major studio - Warner Brothers of all ones. Of all the provocative films that rocked a decade of grime and paranoia, A Clockwork Orange certainly stands out as one for its age. It was adapted from the novel of the same name by composer/writer/linguist/critic Anthony Burgess, who had written it in 1962 with a good deal of it written with a unique jargon named "Nadsat", which was Russian-influenced English to depict a subculture of young people in a dystopian society focused on extreme violence and the exploits of Alex from ultraviolence to reformation. There exists two versions of the novel: The original British novel with 21 chapters that ended with Alex deciding on his own free will to give up a life of senseless crime and violence. When brought to American publishers, they felt that the last chapter needed to be taken out as audiences would not go for this decision, so it was omitted (which proved the case for the next two decades of publication for American audiences). Burgess described that version and the film as like a fable while describing his original book as a novel with a "quality of genuine fiction". Kubrick described it as an extra chapter that he hadn't read until after he had written the screenplay, stating that it was "unconvincing and inconsistent with the style and intent of the book." Burgess had mixed feelings for the resulting adaptation (which was actually the second one done, after Andy Warhol's Vinyl six years earlier), particularly with the way it dealt with glorifying violence, stating it as making it easy for book readers to misunderstand what it was all about.

One wonders how a film like this ever got made, one with such creeping power that other films can only dare to try and defy in the following years. Others may have more blood or more frightening imagery, but there is just something about this one particular film that grips your attention as if it was some sort of disturbing hypnosis that can make you wince or laugh at its black comedy roots. It isn't all ultraviolence nor all funny but a film with a madman point of view that is handled with discipline and tremendous style. One is pulled in immediately with McDowell to observe and hear in each and every scene that shows his bold depravity that we cannot but keep thinking about now more than ever. Whether through singing "Singin' in the Rain" through a rape scene or trying to repress his violent urges, McDowell excels in conviction as someone we can't help but observe in showing what it means to have their free will challenged. Magee and Bates both do well on the sides of dogmatic reactionaries to our main focus, with the former proving a cynical foil while the latter provides blustery bluster that keeps our attention. Others have brief moments that they utilize quite well for us to observe when interacting with McDowell, whether that involves ultraviolence or not.

There is a reasonable pace of 136 minutes, carefully weaving its way through dark moments (if one can get through the opening 25 minutes, you can get through anything) with irony. We are talking about a movie that has someone killed by a phallus statue that cuts to a painting at the key moment, after all. Granted, one could have discomfort over its violent nature, because what seems like just a movie for John Q. Public isn't exactly going to provoke intelligent thought from someone who only sees the violence and nothing else (which can also prove the case with a number of satires). It's up to the viewer to assess how much it works on the satiric level about free will or violence. The argument over whether violence in film and television can have an effect on the viewer to do said violence is still something we talk about five decades later (as if violence begets more violence), particularly for a film that was pulled from release in Britain (which linked the film as an impetus for a spring of copycat crimes) just two years after release upon request of Kubrick. The US release was originally rated X, but a few subsequent small cuts by Kubrick led to an R rating, although it should be noted that current releases contain the original version (ironically enough with an R-rating). Regardless of how one thinks of the violence, it cannot be denied that this is an intensely great film, one free to do madness at its own choice that excels because of Kubrick and McDowell, a magnificently uncomfortable experience with strokes of genius in satire and dystopia that will linger with its audience long after they find themselves observing it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

June 4, 2020

Patton.

Review #1434: Patton.

Cast: 
George C. Scott (Major General George S. Patton), Karl Malden (Major General Omar N. Bradley), Michael Bates (General Bernard Montgomery), Edward Binns (Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith), Lawrence Dobkin (Colonel Gaston Bell), John Doucette (Major General Lucian Truscott), James Edwards (Sergeant William George Meeks), Frank Latimore (Lieutenant Colonel Henry Davenport), Richard Münch (Colonel General Alfred Jodl), Morgan Paull (Captain Richard N. Jenson), Siegfried Rauch (Captain Oskar Steiger), and Paul Stevens (Lieutenant Colonel Charles R. Codman) Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner (#347 - Planet of the Apes and #580 - The Best Man)

Review: 
Acting changes the inner spirit. It's fulfilling, but psychologically very costly. You can't steal enough money in a lifetime to make up for the damage. I'm ashamed for the bitterness it created in me, but it exists. Even when you're successful it's hard to rise above it. It's like a growth.


Perhaps it is not too hyperbolic to describe this as the military biopic to try and end all military biopics. The director responsible for such a grand portrait of a man bigger than life was Franklin J. Schaffner, a veteran of World War II for the Navy that worked for over a decade in television with programs such as such as Studio One and Playhouse 90 before adding films to his repertoire with The Stripper (1963). This film proved to be the pinnacle of his career, although he had (and would make) other noted films such as The Best Man (1964), Planet of the Apes (1968) and Papillon (1973). Adapting the larger-than-life general to the screen was a long process, not helped by being denied access to Patton's diaries. Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North would write the script based on two works: Patton: Ordeal and Triumph from Ladislas Farago (a Hungarian military historian and journalist) and A Soldier's Story, written by Omar Bradley (General of the Army and consultant for the film). At the helm as star was George C. Scott, who made a name for himself on stage, television and supporting roles in film starting in 1958 that eventually grew into further prominent work by the time the 1960s had ended. He had acquired the part after Rod Steiger rejected it (he stated that he did not want to glorify war, but he subsequently called it his "dumbest career move"), with this serving as the role Scott became best known for in his career, and he would later return to the role in a TV movie The Last Days of Patton sixteen years later. Schaffner, Coppola, North, and Patton would each win an Academy Award for their work (although Scott would famously refuse to accept the award, having objected to the voting process and competition for actors as a whole).

One thing that can immediately be said about the film that applies to Scott as well is the fact that neither ever seem to flinch for 170 minutes. Whether one sees an enigma with the person portrayed on screen or not, one cannot deny the gripping performance from Scott, who is relentless in conviction and stature that springs right from the opening scene with the speech to the Third Army, standing right by an American flag. The sequence (which utilized statements from the actual speech, albeit toned down in language) is a magnificent way to open the film, filled with no-nonsense bluster and rallying spirit for a war movie made in the midst of another war (perhaps one can infer something from this, as was the case with the other hit war film in M*A*S*H, which was beaten in the race for Best Picture at the Academy Awards that year). One doesn't think about the other members of the cast much when it comes to a film like this, nor do they really think about all the history leading up to Patton being where he is as the man of the moment - one might even believe that Scott and Patton have melded together to make for one encompassing performance that we care for in all of its imperfect perfections. Probably the one person who makes for substantial screen time to follow alongside Scott is Malden, who makes for a reserved but dignified contrast when he shows up from time to time, while the others fill their parts with care that don't fall prey to the contrivances that can sometimes pop up in a biopic (of course this is a movie that covers Patton from just 1943-1945). The battle sequences certainly work out in terms of scope, no doubt aided by being filmed in 65mm Dimension 150 and Jerry Goldsmith's sweeping musical score. While a film will never completely tell the tale of any one man (particularly one as colorful as Patton), this one manages to draw a composed picture on its subject with bombast and precision, which work out most of the time as an enigmatic but involving epic for the era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

July 29, 2017

Frenzy.


Review #977: Frenzy.

Cast: 
Jon Finch (Richard Ian "Dick" Blaney), Alec McCowen (Chief Inspector Oxford), Barry Foster (Robert "Bob" Rusk), Billie Whitelaw (Hetty Porter), Anna Massey (Barbara Jane "Babs" Milligan), Barbara Leigh-Hunt (Brenda Margaret Blaney), Bernard Cribbins (Felix Forsythe), Vivien Merchant (Mrs. Oxford), Michael Bates (Sergeant Spearman), and Jean Marsh (Monica Barling) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, and #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith)

Review: 
Frenzy was Alfred Hitchcock's 52nd feature film, along with being his penultimate film, with Family Plot (1976) being released four years later. This was adapted from the novel Goodbye Piccadilly, Farewell Leicester Square by Arthur La Bern. He later wrote a letter in a newspaper that described it as a "painful experience", citing the screenplay by Anthony Shaffer. If you've seen enough Hitchcock films/thrillers (or have heard about him already), there are quite a few familiar aspects present, such as the wrong man motif, and a macabre attitude at times, with more thrills than mystery present (seeing as you know who the killer is by the first hour), but it doesn't make the film any less interesting in its plunge into the dark (depending on how much you can stomach, anyway). The tracking sequence involving the killer taking his next victim is executed finely enough, and the potato truck sequence invokes a bit of nausea along with interest in where it will end up. This was Hitchcock's third British film since he had moved to Hollywood in 1939 (with the other two being Under Capricorn (1949) and Stage Fright (1950), although he shot some exterior shots in England for The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)), and this also happened to be his first (and only) ever film rated R upon theatrical release, with the violence and imagery shown on screen showing more of the ugly nature of death than previous Hitchcock films had done - for better or for worse. If you can stomach the film's macabre aspects, you likely can stomach the film as a whole just fine.

Finch is a fair main lead, being brutally blunt and fitting as the man in the wrong circumstances while not merely just an innocent lamb, which is somewhat refreshing although it may be a turnoff for others. McCowen does fine, being fairly crucial towards the climax. The humor is quite sharp and welcome, with the scenes between McCowen and Merchant feeling like the right sort of contrast in a film with a man who kills people with neckties (I happen to have no biases toward this fact, seeing as I wear zip ties); the scene with the men discussing the details of the murder in a pub is also a strange highlight. Foster has a sort of ease to his performance that is fairly off-putting and quite effective; his scene with Leigh-Hunt is haunting along with lurid. The rest of the cast are quite interesting in their supporting roles, such as Massey and Cribbins, each having a certain pull factor that works in their own way; the locations used (such as Covent Garden) is also pretty helpful in making for a unique atmosphere for the film to take place, with some of the location having changed since the film's release. The climax of the film is fairly engaging and typical for a Hitchcock movie (which isn't a criticism), having a satisfactory end - for a movie like this, anyway. It is easy to say this is not one of Hitchcock's best films, but it is at least a fair piece of entertainment that happens to fall in the middle behind genuine classics that he had made prior. Love it or hate it, it is clear that Hitchcock still seemed to know what he was doing even at the age of 73, and this is a fairly decent representation of that.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.