Wednesday, May 12, 2010

112. Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

Stars:  Charles Laughton (Captain Bligh), Clark Gable (Fletcher Christian), Franchot Tone (Ensign Byam), Maria "Movita" Castaneda (Tehani), Mamo Clark (Maimiti)
Director:  Frank Lloyd

Awards / Honors
  • 1 Oscar win - Best Picture
  • 7 Additional Oscar nominations in 5 different categories - Best Director, Best Actor (Charles Laughton), Best Actor (Clark Gable), Best Actor (Franchot Tone), Best Writing (Adpated Screenplay), Best Music (Score), Best Film Editing
  • #19 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains - Captain Bligh, Villain (2003) 
Genre:  Drama
Running Time:  2 Hours, 12 Minutes
Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 2 Stars)

John's Take
This was a film that neither Beth nor I had seen before we started our little Odyssey.  Now that I have seen it, I am left with a single question:  Is it possible to really like a movie, but not have anything to say about it?  Because when it comes to Mutiny on the Bounty, I got nothing.

I have been thinking about what I was going to write about this movie for some time now. I  thought I might write about how this was the first movie where Beth and I really had divergent opinions.  I really liked it.  She really didn’t.  I could write about that.  As I started putting words to paper, however, I remembered that her response to the question, “Why didn’t you like it?” immediately after watching the film was “I don’t know. I just don’t”.  That didn’t really leave me a lot to write about, so I sort of ditched that idea.

Then I thought that it might be interesting to write about how Movita, one of the female leads of this film, ended up becoming getting to married to Marlon Brando in the late 50’s and they remained married until Brando starred in the 1962 re-make of Mutiny on the Bounty.  Marlon would go on to marry his co-star Tarita Teriipia, who was played Fletcher Christian's Tahitian wife in the ’62 version of the film.  An odd little coincidence to be sure, but I couldn’t figure out how to stretch that out to 1000 or so words.

It then occurred to me that I could write about how this is first time I had ever seen Clark Gable without a mustache.  I think it is pretty safe to say when most people picture Mr. Gable in their minds; they see him with a mustache – ala Gone with the Wind, It Happened One Night, etc..  But then, while a clean-shaven Clark Gable is a strange little aberration, it is hardly worth a thousand words. 

There is also the fact that Mutiny on the Bounty was the last movie to win the Oscar for Best Picture without winning an Oscar in any other category.  This is despite the fact that Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, and Franchot Tone were all nominated for the Best Actor award, yet the trophy still managed to end up in the hands of Victor McLaglen for his role in The Informer.  Again, a weird occurrence, but I wasn’t sure how to stretch that out to a full post.

I could always just fall back on the old “stand-bys”; how the acting is great, the cinematography is spectacular, the writing superb, etc., etc..  The problem is that none of those things are really true.  They are all executed well, mind you, just not spectacularly.  You can find better examples of any of those cinematic elements in the movies that preceded this one in the list.  So, I guess that idea is out as well. 

So where does that leave us?  I guess that leaves us with the answer: Yes, it is possible to really like a movie, but not be able to say much about it.  That is because it is possible that the film does all the little things just well enough to make the whole endeavor an enjoyable experience, but does not do anything well enough to make any one element truly stand out.  Mutiny on the Bounty is one of those films.  It is a film has lots of little flourishes and interesting little facts surrounding it, which all combine to make for a great movie, even if you might not be sure why it is great.  I give Mutiny on the Bounty a rating of 4 Stars.

John 

113. 12 Angry Men (1957)

Stars:  Henry Fonda (Juror # 8 - "Davis"), Joseph Sweeney (Juror # 9 - "McArdle"), Martin Balsam (Juror #1), John Fiedler (Juror #2 ), Lee J. Cobb (Juror #3), E. G. Marshall (Juror # 4), Jack Klugman (Juror # 5), Edward Binns (Juror # 6), Jack Warden (Juror # 7), Ed Begley (Juror # 10), George Voskovec (Juror # 11), Robert Webber (Juror # 12)
Director:  Sidney Lumet

Awards / Honors
Genre:  Courtroom Drama
Running Time:  1 Hour, 36 minutes
Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars  (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take
12 Angry Men may in fact be the first “grown-up” drama movie I ever watched.  I was probably around 10 or 11 when I first saw it on television at my grandparent’s house.  Don’t misunderstand; I certainly wasn’t a sophisticated child.  If a show wasn’t animated, or if it didn’t have a laugh-track you probably couldn’t get me to watch it.  Despite lacking both of these elements, there were two reasons why I ended up watching the film anyway.  The first reason was because I recognized Jack Klugman from re-runs of The Odd Couple, so I assumed he was going do something funny at some point.  The second reason was because there was literally nothing else to do.

For those of you under the age of 40, you have to keep in mind that at the time there was no such thing as DirectTV, iPods, the Internet, Nintendo DSs, or DVDs.  Heck at that time Cable TV was a new concept, the Atari 2600 was technological breakthrough, Sony hadn’t introduced the Walkman yet, and only the very well-to-do had a VCR.  Even if you did have a VCR, you were still limited in what you could watch since the concept of ‘movie rentals’ was still about 5 to 8 years away.  My grandparents lived on a dairy farm in northeastern Illinois, maybe an hour or two from both the Iowa and Wisconsin borders.  In other words, they lived in the middle of nowhere and from such a location, it was possible to receive only five, that’s correct, only five channels on my grandparent’s television – 1 ABC station, 2 CBS stations, and 2 NBC stations. All six stations came out of either Rockford, IL or Madison WI.

As “unplugged” as that sounds by today’s standards, and quite frankly even by the standards of my childhood, just fifteen years earlier, the “multi-media set-up” that my grandparent’s had was probably the envy of the county.  They had this extra tall antenna on the side of the house and it had a motorized aerial on top. You could control the direction the aerial was pointing by turning this large dial that sat on top of my grandparents TV.  The outside ring of the dial had a mark on it and the interior part of the dial had a matching mark.  You would turn the outside ring, and the center of the dial would slowly turn while making a sound similar to that of a small electric motor makes being just slightly overworked until both the red marks had re-aligned.  So, if you wanted to watch the stations coming out of Rockford, you would turn the dial to the east and the aerial would turn to the east allowing those stations to come in more clearly.  If you wanted to watch the stations coming out of Madison you turned the dial to a more northerly direction.  On a really clear day, you might get lucky and be able to pick up a station out of Dubuque, IA if you turned the dial to a more westerly heading.  Needless to say this made channel flipping a little problematic.  You would have to manually turn the channel – no remote control – through the Rockford channels, with the requisite static showing up on screen as you moved through the channels with no signal.  You then had to stand up, change move the big aerial dial on the top of the TV, and then flip though the dial again to see what was on the Madison channels.  That much exertion might just kill me nowadays.  Even as primitive as all of that sounds, I still remember my grandparents neighbors coming over and commenting how great it must be to get so many television channels.

Thus, it probably would come as no surprise that despite the large number of fond memories I have about my grandparent’s farm, very few of those memories involve television.  In fact, I only have five of them. They are:
1. Watching Lawrence Welk on Sunday nights
2. Watching Hee-Haw on Sunday nights immediately following Lawrence Welk
3. Watching The Carol Burnett Show.
4. Watching the original series of Star Trek for the first time (The Devil in the Dark was the episode in case you wanted to know)
5. Watching 12 Angry Men for the first time.
The first 3 memories are due to the near fanatical devotion that my grandparent’s had to those three shows – woe to the grandchild that suggested watching something else!  The last two are due largely to the fact that it was a hassle to keep changing the channel.

So, on a rainy summer afternoon, facing the prospect of having to choose between messing with the aerial / changing the channel or turning off the TV and having nothing to do at all, I elected to take a risk on this old black-and-white movie and hope that Jack Klugman did something Oscar Madison-like. At the time, black-and-white programming was a hit-or-miss proposition in my book. Sometimes it was good (such as The Lone Ranger or Abbott and Costello movies) and sometimes it wasn’t (say something like A Place in the Sun).  But since my mind at the time operated on the concept that nurses were always nurses, firemen always were firemen, and actors known for a comedic role always played comedic roles, I was fairly certain that something funny would happen if I just sat their long enough. 

Needless to say, nothing funny happen.  Yet, for some reason, I remained transfixed on the movie.  I suspect it was how the movie keeps re-explaining and re-examining each little detail of the case; it made it easy for me to follow the story.  By the time the movie was over, and considering my exposure to suspense drama was, up to that point, limited to Scooby-Doo, it shouldn’t be a shock to you all that I believed I had just witnessed the most brilliant movie ever produced!  I actually felt smarter, as if I was now prepared to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. Henry Fonda (although at the time I wouldn’t have been able to tell you what his name was and for a few more years Mr. Fonda would be referred to simply as The-Guy-From-12-Angry-Men) had just taught me everything I needed to know about the American justice system.  I wanted to show off my new found knowledge.  Neither my grandparents nor my mother was overly impressed.  A simple, “That’s nice dear”, was about the best response that information concerning the miracle that is the trial-by-jury system could muster.  Apparently, they hadn’t seen the movie.  If they had, they would be just as impressive and worldly as I now was…

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the secret magic benefit of watching this movie.  There will be times in your life – usually at a dinner / cocktail party or business-related function – you will find yourself being forced to make conversation with one or more people that are trying really hard to show off how cultured and sophisticated they are.  They aren’t of course, because actual cultured and intellectual people usually don’t feel the need to prove that to anyone, but rarely are you free to point that out because it isn’t nice to tell your spouse’s co-workers or supervisor that they are pompous windbags. Fortunately for you, the members of the pseudo-intellectual set all love 12 Angry Men.  It is to them what Network is to Glenn Beck and his fans – which, oddly enough was also directed by Sidney Lumet.  Have these people seen 12 Angry Men?  Not usually, but they have all heard of it.  If you can manage to work 12 Angry Men into the conversation, the people you are talking to will start to gush over you thinking they have discovered a kindred spirit.  Their gushing gives them the opportunity to take back control of the conversation and allows you to continue to stand quietly and enjoy cocktail while you pretend to listen. 

Of course, you always run the risk that the person you are talking to has actually seen the film.  So, if you want to use 12 Angry Men as part of your arsenal of small-talk weaponry, you should actually sit down and watch it yourself.  Luckily for you, that is a good thing.  The story is a little simplistic (remember a 10-11 year-old version of me could follow it), but otherwise the film is outstanding. I could drone on about the acting and cinematography, but since we are not at a cocktail party, suffice it to say that that after 30+ years and countless numbers of viewings, the film is still one of my favorite movies of all time.  I may not think it is as brilliant as I did as a child, but 12 Angry Men still warrants a rating of 5 Stars.

John

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Bonus Movie: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Stars:  Boris Karloff (The Monster), Colin Clive (Henry Frankenstein), Valerie Hobson (Elizabeth Frankenstein), Ernest Thesiger (Doctor Septimus Pretorius), Elsa Lanchester (The Bride, Mary Shelly), Dwight Frye (Karl)
Director:  James Whale

Honors / Awards

  • In 2008, Time Magazine included Bride of Frankenstein in its "ALL-TIME 100 Movies" list
  • The 1996 book The Entertainment Weekly Guide to the Greatest Movies Ever Made includes Bride and considers the film to be superior to Frankenstein.
  • In 2008, the Boston Herald named it the second greatest horror film after Nosferatu
  • In 1998, famous film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum included Bride of Frankenstein on his "Alternate 100" list created to respond to the 1997 AFI 100 Years... 100 Movies list.
  • In 1998, Bride of Frankenstein was added to the United States National Film Registry, having been deemed "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant".
Genre:  Horror
Running Time:  1 Hour, 15 minutes
Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)

John's Take
Why the “bonus post”? Because the DVD we got from Netflix not only contained Frankenstein, it also contained Bride of Frankenstein.  Since we received two movies for the price of one, we decided to watch Bride of Frankenstein as well.  Plus, I was a little bit curious to discover if I had actually seen the movie as I remembered that I did in childhood, or was my mind once again creating a false history for me as it did with Frankenstein.

I was relieved to discover that my memories of Bride all fairly matched up to the film I saw.  The two noticeable exceptions being that I still remember Frankenstein’s name being Victor, not Henry, and his assistant is still not named Igor.  In fact, his assistant isn’t even a hunchback in this film, but just a guy with metal leg braces named Karl (although still played by the same actor, Dwight Frye).  Apparently, it isn’t until the third movie, Son of Frankenstein, is the character of “Ygor” introduced.  Odd that Igor would go on to become such an iconic element of Frankenstein when it wasn’t introduced until later in the series. 

It is a fairly commonly held opinion that Bride of Frankenstein is one of those few cases in Hollywood films where the sequel is superior to original film.  In general, I would agree.  However, while many would spend a great deal of time discussing the improved visual effects, the more complex use of imagery, more pathos for The Monster, etc., I am here to tell you that you can ignore all of that if you want.  A great many of those statements / interpretations of the critics are true, at least to one degree or another, but there is one specific cinematic element that is lacking in the first film but is present in the second that often gets overlooked or simply brushed aside by the experts:
Bride of Frankenstein has a music score.  Frankenstein basically does not.
Other than over the opening and closing credits, Frankenstein has no “background music”.  Bride, on the other hand, is full scored.  What different does that make?  It is score that causes that triggers or reinforces the emotions that the filmmaker wants you to experience.  For example, when the villagers are trussing The Monster up all crucifixion-style, the story or imagery may evoke an emotional response of pity from you, but the little subconscious cue you get from hearing the “sympathetic music” is what really drives the emotion home, as well as ensures that you are experiencing the “correct” emotion – pity for the creature, instead of relief that the creature has been captured.

I have no idea why there was no musical soundtrack for Frankenstein. I remember something from film history classes in college about how in the “early days” some filmmakers didn’t use musical scores because they felt that it would confuse the audience (i.e., “The man and the woman are alone in a big empty field, so where is the music coming from?”).  I am not sure if I am remembering that correctly (especially since these two movies seem to be messing with memory), or that James Whale was such a director even if it is true, but it would be interesting to find out why there was no score in the orginal film.

So, long-winded film critics / writers drone on all you want about the myriad of perceived reasons why you believe that Bride is superior to the original film.  Your points may have some amount of merit, but there is a simpler answer to why Bride of Frankenstein is better – It is the music stupid.

As far as a rating is concerned, I agree that Bride of Frankenstein is better than Frankenstein.  However, Beth and I agreed that we would keep our individual rankings to whole number values.  In other words, individually we wouldn’t give movies ratings of 2 ½ Stars or 4 ½ Stars, etc.  While Bride is certainly better than Frankenstein, it is not sufficiently better to warrant an increase of a full star.  Like its predecessor, Bride of Frankenstein is a really good “popcorn movie” – even better than the original – but it still just receives a rating of 3 Stars.

John

Monday, May 3, 2010

114. Frankenstein (1931)

Stars:  Boris Karloff (The Monster), Colin Clive (Henry Frankenstein), Mae Clarke (Elizabeth), John Boles (Victor Moritz), Dwight Frye (Fritz)
Director:  James Whale
Honors / Awards

Genre:  Horror
Running Time:  1 Hour, 11 Minutes
Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)
John's Take
Frankenstein was a film that I was sure I had seen before.  If you had asked, I would have said that I had seen it years before on some locale television station’s weekend Creature Feature show, most likely WFLD's Son of Svengoolie in Chicago, but then isn’t that when we all saw Frankenstein for the first time?  Do they even have Creature Feature shows on local TV anymore?  I moved to Saint Louis some time ago and I don’t seem to remember seeing a Creature Feature-like show when I moved to the area.  I wonder if Son of Svengoolie is even on the air anymore?  Probably not.  I feel old now.  Anyway, back to the subject at hand.  Beth gets some popcorn ready.  I pop the DVD we had gotten just a couple days earlier in the mail from Netflix into the Blu-ray player.  The movie starts and I sit back to enjoy some childhood memories.

The credits appear first.  One thing that older movie have over new movies is that you don’t have to sit through a 10 minute scroll of all the names of every single person that had even the tiniest bit of involvement in making the film.  Is my life better that I know that the director’s bagel wrangler was named Boris?  Not really.  Anyhow, I got a big kick out of the fact that in the credits where it lists the actor that plays The Monster, we get to see a big question mark (The Monster ……….. ?) instead of Boris Karloff’s name.  It is like – Where they discover such a monstrous and hideous thing? Is it even human? Bwha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

It is these cheesy-little touches that make these classic horror movies so much fun.  I wish I had been around for the days back when movie promoters would do dopey things like make you sign “waiver” before they would let you in the theater because the movie was just so scary that you may die of fright.  Despite my love of such things, truth is, I am really a big wuss when it comes to horror movies.  For example, I didn’t sleep for two days after seeing the original A Nightmare on Elm Street.  After getting mocked mercilessly by friends after seeing Children of the Corn via peering through my fingers, I ended up having to develop a technique for watching horror movies without appearing like I was looking away from the screen or closing my eyes.  I had to survive the high-school dating scene after all, and jumping from your seat and screaming like a little girl every time something happens on screen doesn’t do much to inspire the girl you are with to make-out with you.  I may share this technique with you all sometime, but for now it will remain a little trade secret.  I may have to use it with Beth sometime in the future, who knows.  My point is that despite the fact that I usually get scared silly at horror movies; there was something about the cheesiness of those old-time promotions and low-budget television shows that made horror movies palatable to me.  I was just born a little too late to fully enjoy them.  Ah well.

The other thing I noticed from the short list of credits is that Doctor Frankenstein’s name is Henry in the movie. I seem to remember it being Victor like in the book. Oddly enough, Doctor Frankenstein’s best friend in the book is named Henry and in the movie his name is Victor. I wonder why the change?  It seems so pointless. I already realized long ago that besides the title, the novel Frankenstein and any number of Frankenstein movies don’t have very much in common. I had to read the book in college and I don’t remember ever seeing any movie version that actually ever told a story that even resembled the one in the book. Supposedly that version with Robert De Niro playing The Monster came close, but I haven’t seen that so I can’t comment. Anyway, I certainly don’t remember Frankenstein being called Henry. Nor do I remember the scene where Elizabeth is talking to Victor about her concerns about the good doctor.  But then again, these scenes aren’t something that my 10 to 12-year old mind would have retained anyways.  I would have been busy trying to will the movie to get to the good part with the monster.

So, then the scene shifts to the good doctor Frankenstein and his little hunchback buddy Fritz…  Fritz?  Isn’t his name supposed to be Igor?  I mean everyone knows that, right?  Isn’t that the basis of one of the jokes in Young Frankenstein – the whole “eye-gor”, “e-gor” thing?  Wow.  Fritz.  Really?  I don’t remember that either.  OK, so well, Henry and Fritz (?) rob some graves and then head off back to the tower…  Tower?  I seem to remember them being in a full-blown castle, not just a tower... 

It finally dawns on me – I, in fact, have never seen this movie before!  I had seen scenes from this movie.  I have heard people talk and discuss this movie.  I had read about the movie, and I had seen perhaps a dozen or so other Frankenstein movies – such as the later Universal and Hammer series films, but I had never actually seen the original film.  Yet, I would have bet money just 25 minutes earlier that I had seen the movie a couple of times.  I was suddenly going through a little internal crisis.  I had just realized that a memory from my childhood was in fact a lie – a lie that my very own mind had constructed, which made me feel even worse.  How many more lies about my life had my mind constructed on it own?  Something had to be done about this.  So I did the only thing I could do at that moment.  I brought this trauma that had just descended upon me to Beth’s attention.

She, as Official Friends of Beth and John’s Movie Odyssey may have already guessed, didn’t seem nearly as concerned about my newly discovered revelation as I was.  She sort of grunted an acknowledgement that she had heard me say something; gave me a only-you-would-be-concerned-about-this look and turned back to watch he movie.  I was left to work through this crisis on my own as the movie, which I could have sworn I had seen, played on before me.  As I watched the film, the idea that my entire life might be a big lie – just like Quaid in Total Recall – was soon replaced with another thought.  Sure, this is a fairly entertaining movie, but why was Frankenstein on a list of greatest American movies?

I realize that it didn’t make the cut on the ’07 version of the list, but why pray tell was it on the 1997 version of the list in the first place?  Was it that someone over at the AFI decided that the list needed at least one of the Universal Classic Monster Movies (Frankenstein, Wolf-man, Dracula, The Mummy, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc.) to be complete, and this was the one that everyone could agree on?  I think that has to be it.  I really need to find someone over there that can answer these questions for me, but until then, I going to go with that as an answer.

Frankenstein, along with the other classic monster movies, were all very successful films.  They are all films that we remember from childhood (instances, like mine, of your own subconscious deceiving you aside). They may have even ushered in an entire genre of popular film, but being important and historic isn’t the same thing as being “great”.  While I was watching Frankenstein, I didn’t see anything in that film that would make think “I am watching one of the greatest movies of all time”. That doesn’t mean I don’t like the film, but then I like Team America: World Police as well and I wouldn’t put that on a list of 100 greatest films either.  Hopefully, someone out there in the Inter-verse can give me some sort of explanation on why this movie would be considered one of the greatest of all time.  I would very much like to hear it.  I imagine that it is going to be fairly difficult to do without using the “for-its-time” caveat, however.

In the end, I liked Frankenstein, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to see it again.  Ultimately, what we have here is the second occurrence of a film that was included in one of the AFI 100 greatest American movies list – the first being A Place in the Sun – that probably shouldn’t have been. The reasons for their exclusion, however, are polar opposites. Despite the fact that I found A Place in the Sun to be a pretty crappy film, I could at least sort of see where at one time it may have been considered great, and some older members of the Institute just included it on the original list in some sort of knee-jerk, force-of-habit reaction.  Frankenstein, on the other hand, is still a pretty entertaining little film (I mean, who doesn’t get a kick out of watching the “It’s alive!” scene with the Tesla coils and all the other devices shooting electrical arcs everywhere?), but it didn’t strike me as anything more than a fairly good “popcorn movie”.  I enjoyed watching the movie; I just don’t think it is in the same league as many other films on these lists and probably shouldn’t have been included.

Then again, the movie did bring back childhood memories of weekend nights spent watching a man in bad Halloween make-up and a top hat talk to a floating plastic skull with a green mustache. That has to be worth something. Of course that is assuming that the events I remember even occurred at all…

Damn you, Frankenstein3 Stars.

John  

Sunday, May 2, 2010

115. Patton (1970)

Stars:  George C. Scott (Gen. George S Patton), Karl Malden (Gen. Omar Bradley), Michael Bates (Field Marshal Montgomery), Karl Michael Vogler (Field Marshal Erwin Rommel)

Awards / Honors
  • 7 Oscar Wins - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (George C. Scott), Best Writing (Original Screenplay - Francis Ford Coppola), Best Art Dircection, Best Film Editing, Best Sound
  • 3 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Music (Orginal Score)
  • #29 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villians list - Gen. George S Patton, Hero (2003)
  • In 2003, Patton was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
Genre:  War / Drama
Running Time:  2 Hours, 50 Minutes
Format:  DVD, Blu-ray
Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 4Stars)

John's Take
I love this movie.  I mean I really, really love it.  I first say this movie on television back when I was around 12-years old or so, and I seen this film a 100 times or more.  At one point in time I could recite the entire opening monologue from memory.  Patton is one of my all-time favorite movies.

This is why the AFI and I now have a little problem.

First, as you can tell if you have been reading any of the entries on our little blog, the American Film Institute as part of their “100 Years...” series, have put together a number of lists of films over the last 13 years; the 100 best American romantic movies (100 Passions), the 100 best American comedies (100 Laughs), etc..  One of these lists, which they published in 2005, was AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movie Quotes.  My problem?  The powers-that-be at the AFI decided that Patton – a movie just chock full of memorable dialogue – did not warrant a spot upon this list.  What’s up with that?  You mean the movie that gave us –
Patton:  Thirty years from now, when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you, "What did you do in the great World War II," you won't have to say, "Well... I shoveled shit in Louisiana."
-- doesn’t deserve a spot on a list of great movie quotes?  Blasphemy I say!!

Effectively the AFI are saying that quotes like:
"Hello gorgeous." – Funny Girl

"La-dee-da, la-dee-da." – Annie Hall

"We rob banks." – Bonnie and Clyde
are better than quotes, such as:
Patton:  Now there's another thing I want you to remember.  I don't want to get any messages saying that "we are holding our position."  We're not holding anything.  Let the Hun do that.  We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy.  We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass.  We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose!!!
Really? “…crap through a goose” looses out to “La-dee-da”? Something is wrong here.

Here is what it should say on that list:
#55 – The entire opening monologue – George S Patton – George C. Scott – Patton
Why at the number 55 spot?  Well, it probably deserves to be higher on the list, but the inclusion of "La-dee-da, la-dee-da" on the list (they aren’t even words after all) is so lame that it is just easier to knock Annie Hall off the list and replace it with Patton – at least until they pick a better line from Annie Hall, such as “That sex was the most fun I've ever had without laughing.”  I mean, Annie Hall has great lines too and the line that the AFI thought was the best and most memorable was "La-dee-da, la-dee-da."?  Lame with extra weak-sause.

The second thing that really has me steamed with AFI is the fact that they removed Patton from the 2007 version of the 100 greatest American movies of all time list! Wha, wha, wha…?!?!  Say, it isn’t so!  How come?  I will overlook the fact that it was only #89 on the original 1997 list, I mean sure everything is relative, yada, yada, yada.  But, for the film to get bumped from the list altogether in ’07?  Were these people high?

Patton has everything – acting, writing, beautiful cinematography.  Have you seen the blu-ray version?  It is GORGEOUS!  Sure the movie is a little on the long side but hey a lot happened during World War II.  What movie deserved to be on the list more than Patton did? Swing Time? All the President’s Men? Nashville? All good movies, but none of them deserve to be on the list more than Patton does.

I am very upset about this. I want somebody from the AFI to explain this to me.

Well, even if it didn’t make 2007 list, I say on to you that Patton is one of the American greatest movies of all time! And I would be proud, and it would be my honor to watch this movie with you all… anytime, anywhere.  Patton is a 5-Star general of a movie.

John

Saturday, May 1, 2010

116. Swing Time (1936)

Stars:  Fred Astaire (Lucky Garnett), Ginger Rogers (Penny Carrol), Victor Moore ("Pop"), Helen Broderick (Mabel Anderson)
Director:  George Stevens

Awards / Honors
  • 1 Oscar Win - Best Orginal Song ("The Way You Look Tonight")
  • 1 Additional Oscar Nomination - Best Dance Direction
  • #30 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions list (2002)
  • #43 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Songs list - "The Way You Look Tonight" (2004)
  • #90 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
  • In 2004, Swing Time was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
Genre:  Musical / Comedy
Running Time:  1 Hour, 43 Minutes
Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating:  4 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take
OK, so let me get this straight.  In 1997 The Jazz Singer was ranked #90 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies list.  In 2007, AFI published a new list and announced that it would do so every ten years thereafter “to mark changing cultural perspectives”.  This resulted in the removal of The Jazz Singer from the list presumably – and while this is simply speculation on my part, I can’t imagine how it didn’t play a role – because of the significant amount of performance in blackface by Al Jolson.  Yet the powers-that-be at AFI decided to replace The Jazz Singer at # 90 with another movie that contains a questionable blackface performance by the movie’s star…?

Exactly what “changes in cultural perspectives” are we talking about here?  The fact that in 2007 people were more likely to rent Swing Time than The Jazz Singer?  Was it that the questionable element of The Jazz Singer was more well know?  Regardless, the whole thing strikes me as a little odd and not very well thought out.

Swing Time was a movie that neither Beth nor I had seen before we had started our Odyssey.  Other than being aware that it was “Fred and Ginger” movie, we didn’t know anything about it.  So there we are, minding our own business, enjoying the film immensely, when – BAM! – we get blindsided by the “Bojangles of Harlem” number.  We both turned and looked at each other and Beth said “Who in their right mind thought that this was a good idea?”  It was a good question.

And it was a shame too because the dancing done by Astaire in that routine is just incredible! I mean the whole number took something like three days to shoot. I know, I know – Astaire meant the routine to be a homage to Bill “Bojangles” Robinson and to his tap-dancing teacher John W. Bubbles, but it really doesn’t come across that way in 2010.  For me, the scene just came across as offensive.

In The Jazz Singer post, I said that I found Jolson’s performance much less offensive than I found Astaire’s. I am still not a 100% sure why, but I have a few thoughts.

First, some modern reviewers of The Jazz Singer have expressed the idea of the blackface performance as a visual cue that the son of immigrants is embracing the cultural aspects of their new home.  Personally, that sounds like revisionist hogwash to me; those reviewers are simply trying to make palatable something that isn’t.  I would agree, however, that the blackface performance does, in a small way, feels like it belongs in the story.  Jakie Rabinowitz wants to grow up to become a blackface vaudeville singer.  Is that a good thing for him to want to be?  No, of course not, but at least it sort of fits within the context of the story.  Astaire’s performance in the “Bojangles of Harlem” routine, on the other hand, doesn’t have any sort of “narrative license” to fall back on.  It isn’t “necessary to the story” that Lucky do a number for the club wearing blackface and a “minstrel-suit”.  The powers-that-be in the production crew just thought it was good idea.  They were wrong.

Second, and more importantly, I think I just expected better from the likes of a Fred Astaire.  Whether it is finding out that Mark McGuire was taking steroids or that David Letterman was cheating on his wife, no one like it when their “heroes” let them down.  Hollywood spends a great deal of time and effort perpetuating the idea of Film Legends; people that we, the general public, are supposed to look up to.  So when Legends like Bing Crosby (Holiday Inn), Mickey Rooney (Babes in Arms, Breakfast at Tiffany’s), or Fred Astaire hit such a sour note, it is all the more noticeable.  Astaire had input into this performance.  He didn’t have to do it that way if he didn’t want to.  Maybe it isn’t right to be more offended because Astaire is more famous than Jolson, but there it is none the less.  If Hollywood wants to hold people up as examples of excellence then it should be OK to point out when those people made conscious, artistic choices that are clearly in bad taste.

So, is Swing Time a good film?  Yes it is. Is it a great film?  Aside from the “Bojangles of Harlem” number, yes it is.  As one might expect from a musical comedy, the story isn’t particularly deep, but the acting is superb.  Astaire and Rodgers play off each other perfectly and from this performance it easy to see why RKO would want them to make so many pictures together.  And as one might expect from the legendary pair, the dancing is amazing.  Even the “Bojangles of Harlem” number – looking at it on a purely technical level – is top notch.

So what is the final score?  Well, it would have been a resounding 5-Star rating without the “Harlem” number.  With it, Swing Time gets a very weak rating of 4-Stars.  However, do not be surprised if this film goes the way of The Jazz Singer and does not appear on the 2017 AFI list of films.

John

117. The Jazz Singer (1927)

Stars:  Al Jolson (Jakie Rabinowitz), May McAvoy (Mary Dale), Warner Oland (Cantor Rabinowitz), Eugenie Besserer (Sara Rabinowitz), Otto Lederer (Moisha Yudelson)
Director:  Alan Crosland

Awards / Honors
  • 1 Oscar Win - Special Achievment
  • 2 Additional Oscar Nominations -Best Writing (Adpated Screenplay), Best Engineering Effects
  • #71 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes list - "Wait a minute, wait a minute. You ain't heard nothin' yet!" (2005)
  • In 1996, The Jazz Singer was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
Genre:  Drama / Musical (mostly a silent film with recoded musical numbers and limited recorded dialogue)
Running Time:  1 hour, 29 minutes
Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)

John's Take
OK, we are finally up to the first really famous / infamous film on the list – 1927’s The Jazz Singer.  This is one of those movies that many people have heard of – most likely when they took a “Film 101” class their freshman year of college – but few have actually seen.  Speaking anecdotally, this is because most professors don’t want to expend the effort needed to deal with the baggage associated with movie in a class that is essentially just easy credits for the participants and is almost always run exclusively by TAs.  Sure, they will spend a few moments talking about how it is important technically / historically, but it is usually too big a hassle to actually show it.  That is a shame, because despite being over 80-years old, I believe that people would find it a great deal more entertaining than one might think – even considering the issue surrounding the film.

Like it or not, you cannot watch, or talk about this film (and a few other films our big list of 125) without talking about the star(s) performing in blackface.  While I could easily write 1000+ words just on this subject, let me just sum up my personal views on the subject:
I find the act of performing in blackface, at best, an odd thing to do and slightly uncomfortable to watch. At worst, I am downright offended by it. Ultimately, it depends on the performance.
For example, Fred Astaire’s performance in blackface in Swing Time (I will talk about that more in the next post) is not fundamentally different in manner or intent than Jolson’s in The Jazz Singer.  However, I find Astaire’s performance much more offensive than I do Jolson’s.  Why?  I am not sure, but I do.

For those of you that find the whole concept offensive, I totally understand. I am in no way trying to defend the practice in any manner.  The portrayal of African Americans and other minorities in American film during the first half of the 20th century was often down-right disgusting.  However, the film contains what it contains.  Did the use of blackface strike me as odd, unnecessary, and did it negatively affect my overall impression of The Jazz Singer?  Yes, those scenes are a little on the creepy side.  However, did I find the scenes offensive?  No.

And least you think that elements or themes of a movie taking on lives of their own outside the intention of the filmmakers is something that only happens once the film is viewed through the prism of the passage of time, think again.  If fact, it is easy to find a number of parallels can be drawn between an 83 year old movie like The Jazz Singer and the most recent “king of the blockbusters” – Avatar.

How you say?  Well, for one thing, both films are considered the technical marvels of their day.  The Jazz Singer is most often recognized as the film that gave birth to the “talkies” and heralded the end of the age of silent film.  Avatar has achieved its acclaim through though its use of computer animation and 3-D effects.  However, the similar places in history these two films share have as much to do with the promotion of the two films as it does with their actual advances.  For example, there had been a number of short films that had released prior to The Jazz Singer that used the same Vitaphone sound technology.  Nor was the Vitaphone technology the only type of its kind around.  Fox Studios had been using / experimenting with their own Movietone process and would release their own full-length motion picture, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (# 106 on the Odyssey list), just months later which used it.  Likewise, Avatar was hardly the first movie to feature 3-D effects (which have been around for decades) or computer animation / motion capture (The Lord of the Rings anyone?).  Despite all of that, there is no question that these movies changed how films would be made going forward – whether they were truly “the first” or not – due to the perfect mix critical and financial success they enjoyed (the full impact of Avatar still waits to be seen, but there certainly has been a short term effects – such as the quick adaption to 3-D of Clash of the Titans and the rash of 3-D movies slated to be released this year).

However, both movies are also more than just platforms for their technology.  They both have something to say, and surprisingly for two such radically different movies, some of the themes of their respective stories are surprisingly similar.  The Jazz Singer is, at its core, a story concerning the struggle between cultural heritage and cultural assimilation.  Avatar touches on similar themes, although seen through the prism of colonialism and cultural / environmental exploitation.  Surprisingly, both films also suffer from similar faults. The themes of both these films can get lost in the noise caused by viewers offended by certain elements of both films – the aforementioned blackface performances of The Jazz Singer and the “only-a-white-man-can-save-indigenous-peoples” element perceived in Avatar (i.e., Dances with Smurfs).

So what am I trying to go with all of this?  I believe that one does not have to resort to the dreaded “for-its-time” caveat, to say that The Jazz Singer is a pretty good movie.  However, looking at it with a modern sensibility, I think you have to use that caveat if you are trying to make an argument that it is a great movie.  So, as far I as I am concerned, the film will just have to settle for being a pretty good, cinematically historic motion picture that deserved to be removed the 2007 AFI list of greatest American movies.

And lest you think that this sort of fade from cultural prominence can’t happen to modern films, don’t forget the loose ties that this movie shares with the ridiculously successful Avatar.  It easy to dismiss some of the criticism directed at Avatar as simply backlash.  Remember, however, that hardly anyone found The Jazz Singer offensive in 1927. "The film received favorable reviews in both the Jewish press and in African American newspapers such as the Baltimore Afro-American, the New York Amsterdam News, and the Pittsburgh Courier"  (Wikipedia), as well “white” newspapers.  Any negative comment concerning Al Jolson in blackface would have been seen then as simply “backlash”.

So, as a film that is showing its age, I give The Jazz Singer – 3 Stars.

John