4/6/11

Woodn't you rather be watching Polanski?

This months matchup between Wood and Polanski gives us one of the larger gaps between the directors. After looking back it appears that Chaplin vs. Anderson had a longer stretch between actual dates of films but I felt that Chaplin back in the 20s had a more modern mindset in filmmaking than most directors we’ve seen. But Sam Wood did not. In fact Wood may be the oldest feeling director I’ve seen.

Chinatown (1976) – In all honestly I think I need to reveal that Chinatown is one of my all time favorite films and is one of the films I would point to if I needed to produce a perfect American film. While the plot doesn’t sound all the different from a thousand films that came after it Chinatown did it first and in most cases best. JJ Gitts(Jack Nicolson) an LA detective gets hired by a woman to investigate her husband who may be cheating on her. Nicolson in one of his most recognizable characters ever quickly uncovers a hidden secret that leads him down a rabbit hole of LA sleaze, power, and corruption. Notable performances come from Faye Dunaway playing the femme fatale and John Huston a director we’ll see later in the contest playing the iconic Noah Cross.

Nicolson is the perfect blend of brilliant fool doing a half Phllip Marlow half arrogant prick that has the audience constantly looking the wrong way only to realize in the end just how over his head he really is. Polanski’s script somehow feels fresher today than it did when I first saw it in my teens and if possible is perhaps even more innovative after watching 10 years of half baked rip-offs. There isn’t much more to say here that hasn’t been written a thousand other places so I’ll just skip all the gushing praise other than to say that if you haven’t caught this one it should be the next movie you watch.

King’s Row (1942) No matter what we watched from Sam Wood it wasn’t gonna match Chinatown but King’s Row really showed a class difference between the two directors. King’s Row is the story of a small New England town that beneath the idyllic surface has just as much evil coursing through its veins as any large city. The plot centers around a pair of friends Parris Mitchell (Robert Cummings) and Drake McHugh (Ronald Regan) whose lives head in completely different directions following childhood. The two are childhood friends who grow up together one going to medical school becoming a psychologist and the other the town’s woman chaser. Mitchell has a strange incident where his girlfriend is murdered by an overprotective father and McHugh’s life takes a strange turn after a bizarre train accident where a former girlfriend’s father decides to unnecessarily remove his legs to prevent her from marrying him. These plot points may sound strangely interesting but the execution is sloppy and most of the tense moments are overacted to the point of ridiculousness.

The film for me was most notable for its inability to mention sex in any way despite being filled with characters obviously having sex. Apparently the book the film was based on was a steamy bestseller but the self imposed Hayes code of the 1930s and 40s prevented the film from mentioning sex or sexual acts so what you end up with is a jumbled mess.

The Pianist (2002) By 2002 almost every film you could make about the Holocaust had already been made. Almost a decade had passed since Spielberg’s epic and emotional Schindler’s List, half a decade since the “dark comedy” Life is Beautiful, there had been about a dozen versions of Diary of Anne Frank, and Europa Europa had shown the near unbelievable story of a Jew turned undercover Nazi.

So by the time Polanski, who himself escaped German persecution as a child, turned the camera around to that subject matter he would really need to search to do something different. He decided to go with the personal story of Władysław Szpilman (Adriane Brody in the Best Actor winning performance of his career) a Polish_Jewish pianist who barely survives the Holocaust. To be honest I was a little disappointed with start of this film. We start with Szpilman at the beginning of the German occupation and watch his family slowly coming the realization of what the Nazis are doing. Unfortunately Polanski decides to do this by having the family going through bland dialogue detailing each moment of what the Germans are doing. But what this film will be known for are the long tracking shots of destruction and personalized battle scenes and of course Brody’s intense physical acting as he becomes near unrecognizable near the end. The scene that I think will stick with me the most is where Brody is running to escape a squad of Germans turning flamethrowers on houses and he struggles to climb a stone wall revealing miles and miles of destroyed buildings off into the distance. Based on the way it was shot I am convinced there was no CGI used or only used sparingly and Polanski must have found a way to destroy 10 city blocks worth of buildings.

Pride of that Yankees (1942) – This is possibly the most disappointing film I’ve seen since the showdown started. Considering this film led to a Best Picture nomination and a best actor nomination for Gary Cooper and one of the film’s most iconic movie lines I cannot believe how bad this was. The film is a bio pic of Lou Gehrig and for those who don’t know Lou Gehrig was the first ballot hall of fame first baseman for the New York Yankees probably best known for his streak of 1000 plus consecutive starts and for being an all-around no drama good guy who died at a young age of a disease that would eventually be named for him. To be honest there is really nothing worth noting from this film. The director seemed to make every wrong decision and that acting is horrible. I think the biggest problem is that the film was completed and released within 17 months of Gehrig’s actual death and absolutely every frame of this film seems to be dedicated to preserving his heroic iconic status. For the first two hours of this film Gehrig is simply going through life succeeding at everything he tries, doing everything honestly, and always seeing the bright side of everything not that he has anything to grumble about. Then Gehrig discovers what will eventually kill him and he struggles through that and dies gracefully. I’ve never seen a film that made the life of an elite pro baseball player seem boring. Bottom line: This film has the depth of a Sesame Street episode.

Polanski runs away with it in what might be one of the most lopsided contests we’ve had yet.

Wood v. Polanski

I'd like to say that I go into this match-up without expectations or bias, but honestly, Polanski is the favorite to win in my eyes. I've never heard of Sam Wood, so he could completely knock me off my feet, I have no idea, but I have seen Chinatown and it is one of my all time favorite films. It is such a powerhouse that it's difficult to imagine a movie (or even two) that could beat it in this competition. That said, I'll try to approach this round as open-minded as I can be and will allow Wood to surprise me.

King's Row


I have to admit it, Reagan was a bit of a hottie. And not a terrible actor, either. I was a bit surprised by the quality of this film, especially with the warning that it was made shortly after the Hollywood rules came into play and movies could not be realistic about sex. Sex is a major part of the plot and even defines many of the characters in King's Row, an adaptation of the novel by Henry Bellamann. Those who are having sex and how they are viewed is very central to the themes and key to the romantic relationships. And this movie was able to communicate that without ever being explicit. In many ways, the rules made this film feel more authentic as a period piece because the assumption is that it was improper to mention sex just as it was improper to engage in it. Another positive aspect of the film is that it switched focus between characters very smoothly and was able to shift from one storyline to another, ending one loop and creating something new without feeling forced or like multiple films combined. I am glad that I have seen this movie and I'm almost certain I wouldn't have if Wood hadn't come up in the contest.

Chinatown


As I said before, I love this movie. It is so near flawless and has such consistent, impressive tone throughout and brilliant, surprising and engrossing storytelling that I am having a hard time finding a crack to point out. It is easily my favorite Jack Nicholson movie (even beating Batman) and has such striking visual power. Seeing it for a second time was actually even better than the first, showing how rich this film is. I discovered more on another viewing, saw how the entire story was there in the actor's performances all along and was so engrossed in that process that the ending of the film hit me again like a truck, shocking and different from most films, willing to commit fully to its own themes and message in an impressive way. This film has so many layers and different strands blended together, it plays as a noir crime drama, but includes political intrigue, romance, family drama, subtle points of humor and suspense in each story line. One of my all-time favorite movies, if you are interested in a film that thinks with a beating, bleeding, living core, watch Chinatown. Over and over again.

Pride of the Yankees

"Plot as two-dimensional as this poster!"
Well, this movie was disappointing. It's going to be hard not to bash it going forward because it was so bland, one-sided, and almost propaganda-like in its positive, all-American portrayal of Lou Gehrig and his life story. It was a completely one-dimensional story tauting Lou Gehrig as a nearly perfect man who had almost no conflict in his life until he started to suffer from the disease that killed him. Very little seems authentic about this story and the lack of conflict has you wondering, Why should I care? And I don't care, ultimately. I care about Lou Gehrig, the real, complex human being who certainly struggled with many challenges and was an admirable person. But I do not have anything invested in Gary Cooper's portrayal of Gehrig beyond his facial expressions sometimes being cute.

The humor of the film completely misses the mark and is usually more cruel than funny, such as the scene in which Mrs. Gehrig allows one of their closest friends to believe that her husband is having an affair and he says in desperation, "I've lost all my faith in humanity!" She then pulls up at a little league game where Gehrig is the umpire and laughs at her friend's despair. The emotions of the film are largely flat because none of the other characters react realistically or accordingly. And the mother of the film is treated so poorly by her son and husband as they lie to her for months, pretending that Gehrig is at Harvard when he is in actuality playing in the minors in Hartford and also tell her the money coming in is from a job her husband has as a politician when he is apparently actually a layabout. Anyway, I would skip this and if there are any excellent directors out there willing to take on this story once again, I encourage you to make a better, more complicated portrayal of an actually interesting life.

**One note of redemption that has to do with the filming of this movie: to make Gary Cooper look like the lefty that Lou Gehrig was, all players wore uniforms with reverse numbers and Cooper ran towards third and they reversed the film.

The Pianist


I had never seen this movie before and I am so, so glad that I have now. It is moving, visually stunning, well-acted and heartbreaking. This Holocaust story forced me to imagine myself in the place of the main characters, watching as my siblings and parents were ripped from me and taken to an unknown, invisible place on an unlabelled cargo train. Polanski and the creative director of this film force you to look, to see the horror that took place in Warsaw during the war. See the dead on the sidewalk, the remorseless murders of human beings and put yourself in this emotional, desperate place. This is what history films should look like and The Pianist has now taken its place among my list of most impressive and moving historical dramas.

Though I know there is more to say, time is short and we are moving along. And so is Polanski, the big big winner of this match-up.

3/2/11

Normal(ish) versus Weird

This match-up brings the director who created some of the most loved movies from my childhood (Ferris Bueler's Day Off, The Breakfast Club, etc.) up against the director of one of the most intriquing, strange television shows ever to appear on network tv, Twin Peaks (as far as I know...plus it depends on your definition of strange--most reality shows are weird as f**k). It's my old favorite, weirdness, versus the powerful force of nostalgia. Bring it.

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles


I had seen a lot of John Hughes movies, but never Planes, Trains, and Automobiles starring John Candy and Steve Martin. My main impression of this film is that it is the progenitor of the now classic disaster comedy with heart that has brought us many of Ben Stiller's films, including the terrible Focker series. While some of this movie was funny, and I'm glad that the message about kindness and friendship came through at the end, Hughes had a surprisingly difficult time convincing me that these were real people with a real connection that I should care about. Candy was delightful and complicated, and he was the closest to creating a full person in his annoying, lovable schmuck character. I'm not sure why Hughes made this movie. It's like he thought to himself, Hey, why keep making hit comedies with teenagers that touch people and connect with them? Instead I'll make a shallow, glad-that-isn't-me everday adventure movie with adults that are stagnant and disconnected. Maybe he got dared to do a movie with adult characters or just got bored. But why not stick with what works, especially when it works so well?

I guess a lot of other people enjoyed this movie more than me because otherwise we wouldn't watch it for this showdown, but for me, it just falls flat. I'm not sure if it's the antics from Martin that feel stale or how much it reminds me of Meet the Fockers, but for some reason I'm not buying this movie from a director who usually delivers real emotional connections with characters that feel genuine.

Blue Velvet


Lynch goes beyond weird. He requires a new label, a new definition for this film. The reason this film is worth watching, though, is that the weirdness all pays off. It is there for a reason and Lynch thought it through, he didn't just throw random shit together, he thought about a consistent, interesting message and the most shocking, effective way to convey it.


There is a theme that begins with the first scene: an examination of the underground and the role it sometimes plays as a distraction from troubles and dangers that are closer to home. When the main character (played artfully by Kyle Maclachlan of Twin Peaks) comes home from college because of his father's potentially fatal and  mysterious accident, he embroils himself in the underground drama of a near-insane woman (Isabella Rossellini), seeking out danger and crisis that can distract from the possibility of his own life becoming too difficult to handle. The distance allows him to deal with the insanity of the world he has snuck into, but once it overwhelms him, the narrative moves back to his own family and life. Not only is the story Lynch creates iconic and visually shocking, but meaningful and deep. I really enjoyed this crazy movie and I'm interested to see more of what Lynch does with a full film.

The Breakfast Club


I have loved this movie from the first viewing, which was so long ago that I can't pinpoint the timing. I have identified during different periods of my life with most of the characters in the film (and interestingly enough, in this most recent time watching it, I thought about how pissed off I would be if students trashed my library that way). Is this movie realistic? Not really, but part of making and watching movies is suspending disbelief. There is enough truth in this film to make it important and worthwhile, and when the students begin to search deeper, beyond how they look, talk, or behave, they begin to connect on a purely human level, sharing secret, valuable parts of themselves, becoming vulnerable and real to each other. This is the type of movie that can help people recognize humanity in others. We love the characters which means we start to love the people they are meant to represent: the prom queens, jocks, criminals, brains, and freaks that we see every day, especially in high school.

This reminds me of a comic from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal that I absolutely love and that highlights a lot of what I think is wrong with our society:
We are so afraid as we get older about what other people think that we stifle our individuality and stifle ourselves. And then one day, it's too late and we've lost connection with that passionate child that will draw the way they want to draw because they have to be themselves, have to find themselves. I hope I never lose connection with that part of myself. I hope I'm always weird simply because it's who I am. Hughes reminds me of that wish through this movie and I recognize that there's a very good reason it holds a special place in my nostalgia-driven heart: it's really freaking' good.

The Elephant Man


This movie absolutely blew me away. I wasn't sure what to expect, but what I got was an emotionally wrenching, intelligent, suspenseful and impressive drama about how we treat those who are different and highly abnormal. What happens to the titular "elephant man" says a lot about society and about him as an individual. What he craves is to be normal, and normalcy is defined by the way others treat us. He never attains that dream, even when he spends time in "normal" activities like having tea with guests, those guests are not there for the pleasantness in his demeanor, his polite, gentle nature, or to engage him in discussion. They are there to become more notable, because it's fashionable, or because they want to see the infamous "elephant man." This brings up a very important question: when what is in vogue is something positive and good, does the efficacy and value of doing that good thing for the sake of popularity and others' regard still as impactful? It reminds me of the "Green" movement. Most of the time I say to myself, "The commodification of green living is a positive force because money is what moves in our society and if people are doing it because it's hip, they're still doing it." But the issue is more complicated than that, because if anyone can slap "Green" on a t-shirt just to sell it without actually taking into consideration how to produce it equitably, we run into the crux of the problem.

If a movie set in late 19th century England about a deformed man can take me on this kind of inquisitive journey, it has successfully communicated across time. It has also stirred things deeply connected to my passions, that are important for me to stew over and connect and everyone should take the time to wonder: "How would I treat John Merrick if I were to meet him?"


If it isn't apparent that David Lynch just won this contest, I haven't done my job. Planes, trains, and automobiles has sunk John Hughes battleship. And I am so pumped for Eraserhead.

Will Chaos Reign or Highschool Rule?

David Lynch vs. John Hughes may be one of those rare moments in life for me where the expected outcome is nearly 180 degrees opposite the direction that it seemed to be heading when this contest started. You probably can’t get more heartwarming that the director of Pretty in Pink and if you had to pick one director who could somehow complete a romantic comedy staring the character of Charles Manson you’d probably turn to David Lynch. And I would have said before we started this round that trying to compare these two should be near impossible because they have nothing in common...


But surprisingly enough that turned out not to be the case. A first I was grasping at any sort of common ground I could find “Well I guess The Elephant Man is kinda like Judd Nelson or Ally Sheedy in the Breakfast Club, rough on the outside but deep down want to be liked.” Then the comparisons started to grow “Wait! The Elephant is exactly like the burnouts in the break fast club! Same backgrounds, same motivations!” And pretty soon I had it “Holy crap!!! The Breakfast Club is just the Elephant Man goes to high school!” Both directors despite their widely differing techniques and genres delve into the effects of societal pressures on their characters. Both directors believe that love can push aside all obstacles. And both Directors build whole films in the difference between expectations and the deeper undercurrents of truth that connect us all.


In the end there is more common thematic ground that that pushes these guys together than the plot points, dialogue, and genre differences that pull them apart.


Planes Trains and Automobiles (1987)- I’ve never seen this before and since seeing this thing like a month ago I’ve discovered that I may be the only person in the world who doesn’t find this one of the most heartwarming and funniest films of their childhood. Firstly I will apologize in advance for this because he seems like he’d be hilarious but Steve Martin just isn’t funny. I don’t care how many times he scrunches up his face and throws his arms in the air and runs down the street.


He didn’t come across to me like an angry everyman but more like a jerk who sees himself like an everyman, which was the change that you weren’t supposed to see coming until the very end of the film. Candy on the other hand was far better and just like Uncle Buck and Cool Runnings is pretty much the only reason to watch it. But too much of his performance was lost when you saw exactly where he was going long before he got there. For example there was the scene when they are on their plane at the beginning when Candy starts talking to Martin about plane food and its pretty obvious early on that Martin is getting annoyed and Candy is going to end up eating all of his food. Then Hughes gives us a ten minute scene where each joke is only funny if you don’t get that Candy is going to ask to eat each and every thing on Martin’s plate. In fact the whole film is kinda like that. The humor only works when you can’t totally predict where its going even though its completely obvious.


It goes a bit like this:

Candy: Hey Martin we need to get back to Chicago.

Martin: Damn sure we do its almost Thanksgiving! I’m soooo mad.

Candy: Well how do you think we’ll get there?

Martin: Well we’ve tried a plane and that didn’t work and we tried a train and that didn’t work so I guess based on the title next up is automobiles?

Candy: Well good thing I know some guy with a car who lives around here and I already called him and he agreed to bring us part of the way (but not all the way cause the movie isn’t over) to Chicago.

Martin: Well since nothing so far has worked out and everyone we have met has been totally nuts I bet based on the odds nothing with this guy will go wrong and he will be completely normal.

(Guy show up and is a stereotype of a Okie Redneck and things go awry)

Martin: I’m sooo Mad!


By about a quarter of the way through felt like I could have finished everything but the ending myself.


Blue Velvet (1986) - So like Taurog, Rossen, and Fosse before him I had not seen a David Lynch film before Blue Velvet (other than Fire Walk With Me which shouldn’t count). All I knew going in was that Lynch is weird and on top of that he’s really weird. And man was I not disappointed.


So basically the plot is like this:

(Kyle Mclaughlin) returns to hometown after near death of his father falls in love with local head cheerleader (Laura Dern). On their first date (Dern) tells him about a mysterious woman in town who acts kinda weird (Isabella Rossellini) and McLaughlin decides he’s gonna sneak into her apartment. Of course things don’t really go according to plan and he ends up figuring out that Rossellini is being tormented by a small town gangster (Dennis Hopper). He decides he’s gonna help and ends up following the mystery down the rabbit hole to uncover the seedy underbelly of the small town.


The chaos is on display from about the 31st minute on and things just keep getting weirder and weirder. Normally a movie that hardly gives away any information easily and constantly has you asking yourself what the hell is going on would piss me off. But maybe it’s the fact that I’ve been exposed to more and more films where they play with an unconventional narrative (No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, anything by Darren Aranofsky) or the fact that I’m maturing as a movie goer but I could really follow the method of Lynch’s madness. Sure there were parts where I think that Lynch could have tightened up some of the themes and there were times where the acting was a little too melodramatic but I found the idea of exploring these two halves of this small town through characters that were slowly learning they themselves as well as life was a lot more messy than they originally thought really worked. Also Dennis Hopper’s crazy gas huffing megalomaniac Frank Booth may be one of the craziest and freshest characters to ever be on screen. I don’t know what it is about great actors going psycho crazy late in their career that really works…Silence of the Lambs.


The Breakfast Club (1985) - If John Hughes has a masterpiece this is it. Hold it! Everyone calm down Ferris Buhler is pretty damn good too. But here Hughes is at his best. He takes 10 minutes to set up 6 easy to understand characters then over the course of an hour complicates, contrasts, and compares their lives until they are nearly indistinguishable except for the expectations that the world has on them. I know that probably sounds boring but really unless your watching for it your not even going to realize that he is doing it. The writing is cross generationally superb and each of his iconic characters gets a full and complete story arc. And of course since its John Hughes he throws in just enough jokes and sentimental moments to keep it from being bogged down in drama but not so much that it gets sappy or slapstick like he tends to get later in his career.


If there is a down side to this film (and I’m really sure that there is) it might be that the darkest of these characters here are too relatable. As batgirl pointed out while we were watching it the worst thing Judd Nelson might do is punch a table and if he’s supposed to be the meanest guy at that school he could be way worse than that. But like I said I’m not really sure this is a down side if Hughes went any darker the whole thing might not have felt as internally real as it did.


But like I said I personally feel if you wanna try one John Hughes film to see if you enjoy him this is the one to try. You’ll get everything he’s great at (teen romance, heartwarming humor, societal insight) and nothing he’s not (realistic minority characters).


The Elephant Man (1980)- I think honestly if you watched this film and didn’t already know it was a David Lynch film there is no way in the world you could have played guess the director and gotten it right. Nothing about the standard Lynchian story narrative is here. There’s no guessing at whether or not this is really happening. None of the off the wall characters or plot points. It’s just hard hitting societal drama that is poignant and insightful. If I hadn’t already seen the film I would have been waiting the whole time for the trap door to drop out and a real Lynch film to start.


Basically (John Hurt the bad guy from V for Vendetta) is a deformed carnival attraction when he is come upon by (Hopkins yeah Hannibal Lecture from earlier) a medical doctor during turn of the century London. Initially drawn to him because of his deformities Hopkins vows to help him live a normal life and the two eventually become close friends as they attempt to acclimate him to modern society.


As you can see by the description it sounds kind of like an after school special or perhaps a dramatic Disney film. But its way way darker than that. Firstly Lynch made the great call of keeping the whole thing in black and white to accentuate the darkness of turn of the century London which makes it way more Schindler’s List than Oliver! Secondly John Hurt’s performance is every bit deserving of the Oscar he didn’t win (up against De Niro in Ranging Bull) as a massively deformed man who can barely walk or talk normally and the constant focus on The Elephant Man’s broken breathing is a constant reminder that even the most basic functions of life like eating or speaking for him is a marathon. And if your heart isn’t roused by the first speech given by Hurt when he’s auditioning in order to stay in the hospital then you might as well move to Dickensian London yourself and start going by the name scrooge.


But what makes this film the best of this round and one of the best of the entire showdown so far is the work Lynch does with Hopkin’s character. At first glance in the film you might blow off Hopkins’ performance as a simple good-natured character when compared to the grotesquesness of the carnival owner Bytes (Freddie Jones) with whom Hurt was staying with before he met Hopkins. But over the course of the film very subtly Lynch forces Hopkins and the audience to really question whether there is any differences between their characters. Hopkins assumes he is helping the Elephant man by giving him better living situation than he had before and introducing him to polite society. By in what may be the most critical scene in the film Jones comes to check on The Elephant Man and what transpires completely turns the film on its head. I don’t want to ruin it for you so I’ll leave it up to you to decide if there is really any difference between Hopkins and Jones.


In the end Hughes has a better than expected showing but David Lynch’s crazy chaos is moving on to face Clint Eastwood in round two.

2/5/11

Quirky Contest - Chaplin v Anderson

This was a very enjoyable match-up for me; I knew I would enjoy the Wes Anderson films because I've seen most of his movies and was interested in seeing more of Chaplin's work.

Gold Rush

This film was interesting and engaging, especially for the time it was made. We watched the newer version which Chaplin narrated himself in the 50s once the technology was available to do so. While I found the story and characters less compelling than the other Chaplin movie we watched, the technical prowess of this directer was so apparent in this adventure film about searching for gold in the winter. The sequence in the small cabin that the Tramp and his burly companion are sheltered in breaks boundaries in a lot of ways, and I noticed iconic shots and incredible film-making in this movie.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

This might be my new favorite kids movie of all time. It is so enjoyable to watch as an adult and I get submerged in the story, believing in it as if I were a child seeing animals come to life. The artful adaptation by Anderson and intricate, talented use of stop-motion animation makes me think that Anderson may be suited best for children's movies. The dialogue is pitch perfect and it's so fun to hear familiar actors delivering the lines of badgers, foxes, and angry farmers.

City Lights

I had seen this Chaplin film once before and was very impressed by the complexity of the story, engaging acting without any speech. The love interest has depth and I feel connected to her as a character, even in comparison to the highly animated Tramp. This movie manages to coax questions about whether wealth matters, what real worth is, and how relationships develop through simple misunderstandings. We see the parallel relationships between the Tramp and the flower girl as well as the Tramp and his drunken millionaire "friend." Chaplin makes us think about what makes a person someone worth connecting to and how honorable the Tramp is, the person in the middle willing to do anything to help the person he cares most about.

Rushmore

I enjoyed this film so much more with this viewing than I did the first time I saw it, mostly I think because of my higher level of maturity. I connected less with Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) and viewed him from the perspective of a teacher. I realized why he was both insufferable and compelling, saw the connections between him and Herman Blume (Bill Murray), and rejoiced when his crazy energy was channeled towards his play and positive connections with peers rather than infatuations with adults. Anderson's style is really established in this film, and the quirky, awkward youth that he creates in the character of Max and the equally awkward, out of place character of Herman are perfectly simple and complete individuals, illuminating who Anderson is as a director and what type of stories he wishes to tell.

So, for the first time in Director Showdown history, we have a difference of result! I have decided to go with Anderson as the winner of this match-up. While I am very impressed with Chaplin, especially his ability to communicate across time, which is ultimately the job of a filmmaker, I connect more with Anderson's style and characters. I leave the movies wanting to hear more of Anderson's stories, wanting to fall in love with his characters and embrace the weirdness, the quirkiness, that is Wes Anderson.

Power to the freaks.

1/19/11

It's Finally Happened Again

So two big bits of news. Firstly We've finished the next round of the director showdown Chaplin vs. Anderson. And Secondly I've given up on my rating system. Basically I've discovered that it basically ended up as a longer version of what Laura is doing and I got tired of wasting my time. So enjoy the future of my votes that involve 100% less math.

Charlie Chaplin- The Gold Rush - 1925 - As I had just watched and rated two Buster Keaton classics I felt I had a pretty good grasp on what the movie industry was like before sound. Off the wall crazy stunts, screwball comedy, and very little character development. But Chaplin just threw most of that out the window. Don't get me wrong Gold Rush has zany off the wall stunts and relies on screwball humor at times but this is a full and complete film masterpiece. Chaplin portrays his classic (and as far as I know only) character the nameless tramp. Who wanders around in Alaska during the gold rush of the late 1880s causing havoc and hilarity where ever he goes. The film breaks down into three distinct segments that work pretty much as self contained films in themselves with only a loose overall story. But trust me this doesn't in any way hurt the quality of the film. The first act involves the Tramp on his journey into the wilderness, the second the love story back in rural town, and the third act is the climax that stretches from town to wilderness again.

Basically nearly everything I found missing in the Keaton films is found here. There is a like able character with wants and dreams I can identify with (without strange Southern sympathies) and his buffoonery while on display is always played out in ways that make nearly complete identifiable sense. At no point in the film did I think wow that's something I never would have thought of doing in a million years like I kept thinking during the Keaton films. Instead whenever a bit of jokes started it felt like a humorous thing was revealing a greater truth about life, a character, or the plot. One quick example is when the love interest of the film decides to dance with the tramp in order to make one of the bud guys jealous. Initially the tramp is surprised then as the Tramp starts to dance he is lopsided as earlier in the film he had to eat his own shoe to prevent from starving, then his pants start to fall down because he is so poor his pants don't fit and he has no belt. Eventually he distracts the girl and grabs a nearby rope and ties is around himself to hold up his pants only to discover the rope is a leash to a dog that starts running around dragging him around the dance floor as the whole time he is trying to keep the girl from noticing. Each of these jokes are hilarious, subtly reveal the characters of the Tramp, bad guy, and romantic lead, and connect to moments that came before and later in the plot. This is pure structural genius.

And for classic movie moments Chaplin brings the sequence where he turns into a mirage Rooster, the wind blowing cabin sequence, and of course the dancing potato scene which was apparently soo popular in the Berlin premier that the audience forced the projectionist to stop the film and replay the sequence three times. Chaplin also has a few cinematic moments in the film where I still have no idea how he did them. The opening shot where a crowd of gold rushers are storming up the side of a mountain was simply just set down and shot which must have rivaled the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan in terms of difficulty. And the climax where the cabin is falling in an avalanche off the side of a mountain I stupefied by.

Wes Anderson -Fantastic Mr. Fox- 2009 - Mr. Fox is clearly a work of true passion for Anderson. I believe I read somewhere that he idolized the Ronald Dahl book growing up and spent the better part of a decade trying to get someone to fund the thing. In it we see Anderson's stable of returning actors, the Wilsons, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman who each turn in performances that would fit easily into any of the Anderson films and have a signature maudlin sense of humor. The story revolves around the a pack of Animals living human-like lives and one of these animals Mr. Fox is a reformed thief who can't leave his old life behind and decides to pull one final score which inevitably spirals out of control into a massive giant winner take all struggle that crosses the life of every animal in the forest and nearby town.

While the plot manages to be simplistic the strength of the film comes in Anderson's ability to infuse each part of the story with his classic sentimental humor. The character's get introduced, connect, and resolve their issues much in the way that a fine wine smells. Unfortunately for me though there isn't much else to say about the film. I doubt in 10 years if there will be any part of this that I remember neither good nor bad. I think the reason for this is throughout the film I keep sensing a lack of heart. And I don't mean lack of passion, like I said earlier its clear that there is a love of this material from Anderson but there it sure does feel after a while like your watching a film made by college hipsters who think that everything they say is just laugh out loud clever but don't really care about what is happening. The characters that are in love don't feel truly in love, the characters that hate each don't feel that they are really that angry. In the end its necessary for the characters to tell you everything because it's hard to really feel any of it. But then again that may be the nature of stop motion animation its pretty hard to convey nuance. One example of this is when Mr. Fox (Clooney) and his son (Shwartzman) after a falling out reconnect. Clooney's character explains that his son's feelings of inadequacy are really his failings as a father and his son discovers that he doesn't need to be the person he thought he needs to be all with a conversation that is near emotionless.

Chaplin - City Lights - 1931 - While The Gold Rush had moments of genius City Lights is probably one of the best comedies ever made. Chaplin again plays the Tramp who this time haplessly falls for a blind girl who do to circumstances beyond his control believes him to be rich. He accepts this and resolves to get her a operation that can cure her blindness. Along the way the Tramp befriends a rich man trying to kill himself who whenever he is sober forgets him completely and keeps trying to have him arrested.

The humor is similar to Gold Rush in that it constantly pushes the plot along while remaining relatable. In terms of classic moments there is a boxing scene that is hilarious and involves timing so perfect that there may not be a better example in cinema. The film continues along until the blind girl regains her sight and in possibly the best ending in film history she looks on the Tramp for the first time and the film simply ends without a resolution to the love story. After an initial shock it soon becomes clear that the film itself was about the Tramps journey to cure the blindness of the woman and that story ends with her being cured whether she loves him or not.

Wes Anderson - Rushmore- 1998 - When I first saw this film in the late 90's I had no clue what to make of it. Looking back on it a second time two things are clear. One this film was marketed terribly and two Anderson new exactly the kind of film he wanted make right from the beginning. This film is basically a love triangle between Schwartzman's character a love stuck teenager who is lives completely in feeling and emotion and Bill Murray's much older businessman who is stuck completely in his head. The character's develope a friendship that is torn apart due to their mutual attraction to the same woman a teacher a Schwartzman's school. There are some hilarious scenes where the characters try to out-duel each other with competing pranks and eventually the love story sorts itself out with each of the characters learning an important life altering truth.

Rushmore is really enjoyable and looking back on it one of Anderson's best achievements is his ability to take a standard story plot and make it feel new without really doing anything structurally different at all. I think the funniest stuff in here comes from Schwartzman's character's school plays which are totally ridiculous and I imagine have some deeper thing to say about the nature of film making. But I think in the end too much of the film again feels like a hipster college kid telling me a long funny joke.

In the end Wes Anderson's films are enjoyable, fun, well-made but Chaplin is simply a film genius. For me Chaplin moves on to face Woody Allen in round two.

9/29/10

Buster vs Robert

So, even though this is taking much longer than planned (understatement of the year), we are pushing forward trying to make this epic project something we can eventually tell people in 2050 that we've decided, once and for all, who our favorite director of all time (or from the early 1900's to 2010) is. And the post below will help to tell you who it definitely is not.


The General

To be completely honest, going into this film I was expecting to be unimpressed. It's a silent movie by the acrobatic Buster Keaton set during the Civil War. Keaton plays a train engineer who is turned away from signing up to fight for the South, which doesn't look so good to the Southern Belle that he fancies. To make a short story shorter, Keaton ends up saving the day--and the girl--using his train and his apparently bumbling self. The story isn't great, and everyone except Keaton doesn't really act, but I was absolutely blown away by the brilliance of his movement and facial expressions. I was laughing out loud during this 83-year-old film, loving the astounding stunts Keaton performs with the train. His physicality is magnetic and he uses his entire body to tell the story.

All the Kings Men

I was rather impressed by this biopic on a man who comes from meager beginnings and finds his inner politician, weaving a life story that moves and changes the man through different stages of politics: as a puppet, an empowered representative of the working man, a "justifiably" corrupt politician, and a lonely, fallen man with a tainted record and destroyed family. The acting was very good, except for the main character that the audience is meant to connect with and who narrates the film. I greatly enjoyed watching this movie and it reminded me of seeing Citizen Kane in the way that it gave birth to many film devices. 


Steamboat Bill Jr.

This movie was very similar to The General in the spectacular demonstration of Keaton's abilities as a slapstick, acrobatic performer and in the storyline of a down-and-out misunderstood loser trying desperately to impress and win the girl against the odds. Some of the key differences were in the props used by Keaton to perform his brilliant stunts and the apparent use of new technology. One of the most famous scenes of Buster Keaton's career takes place amidst a rather convincing storm. I wasn't as enraptured by this movie, possibly because after seeing The General my expectations were more appropriately set.



The Hustler

Oh, I loved this movie. I'm not sure if my adoration of the film is derived from Rossen's directing or if it comes from my instant affection for Paul Newman, but either way I drank up this wonderfully crafted film. Newman, as a pool hustler named Fast Eddie who is bouncing between a place of solid skill and living life as a "loser,"creates a character who is both spectacular and just like everyone else. The acting is very skillful, especially the performances of Fast Eddie's love interest played by Piper Laurie (who later shows up in Twin Peaks), his sly, evil manager played by George C. Scott, and his rival pool player Minnesota Fats played by Jackie Gleason (later of The Honeymooners fame). Gleason plays a cool, smooth character with consistency and accuracy, and Laurie is convincingly heartbroken and heartbreaking (the role landed her a nomination with the Academy). Anyhow, it was brilliant and you should just watch it now instead of reading this stupid summary. It's freakin' awesome.

So, after much, much much (3 months?) important deliberation, I've decided that I want to see more of Rossen, and as a movie watcher, that's the important part. I have seen much of what I believe Keaton has to offer, but I'd like to see more of Rossen's range. In the end it turns out that Keaton was beaten and Rossen is the boss...en.


Stay tuned for the next round in about six months!