It's not hard to make an argument that Akira Kurosawa was Japan's greatest writer/director. He established an international reputation with Rashomon (10) and sustained it through many years with films like Ikiru (8), Yojimbo (8), Tsubaki Sanjuro (7), and Dersu Uzala (8). This film, whose English title is "I live in Fear" (although a closer English translation of the Japanese title would be "Record of a Living Being", is lesser known but quite interesting for a few reasons.
First off, this movie shows off a stunning performance by Toshiru Mifune, an actor whose best roles came under Kurosawa. Here, at age 35, he convincingly plays a stubborn old (using very little makeup!) man who has a somewhat paranoid fear of nuclear holocaust. And that subject is the next most interesting aspect here. After all, this is Japan in the 1950s, so everyone is at least a bit fearful of nuclear bombs. So when Mifune's character decides to build a bomb shelter and then move his embittered family to Brazil, it's not too hard to empathize with him.
The story revolves around his family's efforts to oppose his move, and is often shown through the point of view of one of the mediators of their legal dispute, a dentist played by another Kurosawa stalwart, Takashi Shimura. Shimura's character becomes increasingly drawn into the dispute. The idea here is that nuclear bombs are so horrific that the more you think about them, the more fearful you become of them, and that is what happens to both Mifune's and Shimura's characters. And as the film ultimately suggests, what if Mifune's character is correct in thinking that a bomb is right around the corner?
Aside from the nuclear fear theme, this is a story about family disputes. Mifune's character wants to bring not only his immediate family, but also his two mistresses and illegitimate children along to Brazil, but meets opposition from just about all. They legally block him from selling the family factory on grounds of insanity, thus necessitating the mediation. The film starkly shows this family's conflicts and greed.
A thought provoking 7 rating.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Alice In Wonderland -- Burton, 2010
First off, I saw the 2-D version, but I don't think it matters much except that some of the effects might be more novel. Clearly the strength of this film is in the graphics and art direction, even in 2-D.
Tim Burton is a master of the "almost-excellent" film. So many times he gives us an interesting premise, great art direction, and enough quirkiness to give us a promising film. And so many times he lets us down with mediocre dialogue and story line. Beetle Juice (6), Edward Scissorhands (6), Big Fish (6), and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (6) are all films which could have been rated higher without script flaws. All the rest of his movies, I have rated 5 or less, with one exception -- Ed Wood (7), which is Burton's only truly excellent film.
And Alice In Wonderland fits squarely into that "6 but should have been a 7" category. The main difference between this film and Burton's other 6s is that good parts are better and the bad parts are worse. Three of the main art directors are fresh off of Avatar, and do a fabulous job here. And the animation is first rate. Like most of Burton's better movies, most of the actors do a great job with their quirky characterizations. Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover are clearly the best of the bunch here, and Mia Wasikowska is fine, so long as her character is in Wonderland. Unlike most of Burton's movies, Johnny Depp is not a highlight. He gives us one of his rare bad performances as the Mad Hatter. It's actually painful to watch him in some scenes, especially knowing that he is (or was) capable of so much more.
As for the story, I liked the premise of an adult Alice returning to a mixed-up version of Wonderland (and one that seems to incorporate Looking Glass land as well). However the beginning and ending sequences in the real world are not done well, and even most of the Wonderland story is mundane. The dialogue in this film is particularly spotty. It just reeks of big budget compromise and lowest common denominator plot line. And unfortunately that seems to work, as this film is doing great at the box office.
A 6 rating.
Tim Burton is a master of the "almost-excellent" film. So many times he gives us an interesting premise, great art direction, and enough quirkiness to give us a promising film. And so many times he lets us down with mediocre dialogue and story line. Beetle Juice (6), Edward Scissorhands (6), Big Fish (6), and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (6) are all films which could have been rated higher without script flaws. All the rest of his movies, I have rated 5 or less, with one exception -- Ed Wood (7), which is Burton's only truly excellent film.
And Alice In Wonderland fits squarely into that "6 but should have been a 7" category. The main difference between this film and Burton's other 6s is that good parts are better and the bad parts are worse. Three of the main art directors are fresh off of Avatar, and do a fabulous job here. And the animation is first rate. Like most of Burton's better movies, most of the actors do a great job with their quirky characterizations. Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover are clearly the best of the bunch here, and Mia Wasikowska is fine, so long as her character is in Wonderland. Unlike most of Burton's movies, Johnny Depp is not a highlight. He gives us one of his rare bad performances as the Mad Hatter. It's actually painful to watch him in some scenes, especially knowing that he is (or was) capable of so much more.
As for the story, I liked the premise of an adult Alice returning to a mixed-up version of Wonderland (and one that seems to incorporate Looking Glass land as well). However the beginning and ending sequences in the real world are not done well, and even most of the Wonderland story is mundane. The dialogue in this film is particularly spotty. It just reeks of big budget compromise and lowest common denominator plot line. And unfortunately that seems to work, as this film is doing great at the box office.
A 6 rating.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Crowd - Vidor, 1928
I'm a big King Vidor fan. No one is better at combining realism with heart-tugging sentimentalism. He gave us great films such as The Big Parade (8), Street Scene (8), The Champ (7), Our Daily Bread (7), and Stella Dallas (8). He directed films from 1913 to 1959. And even some of his post-prime, later films, such as Ruby Gentry (6), still have that interesting mix of gritty realism and emotional symbolism.
And to my mind, The Crowd is his best film. I've seen it three or four times and come away impressed each time. First off, you have some absolutely amazing location shots of New York City. The scenes where they are riding around on the bus are unlike any I've seen in movies of that era. And the long tracking shot of New York City into the office building filled with a screenful of symmetrical desks is a perfect example of Vidor's eye for artistic symbolism. In this case, the theme is alienation and relationship of the individual to the "crowd". The protagonist has high hope to set himself apart and above the throng, but is hopelessly not up to the task.
Another notable aspect of The Crowd is its realism. Whether the characters are in their tiny apartment, or at the beach, or on a boat, you feel that they are behaving pretty much exactly how you would expect them to in real life. This is supposedly the first movie to depict a toilet flushing (BTW, Hitchcock's Psycho, made 32 years later, is often, absurdly given this distinction!), in a scene where the couple has a domestic squabble. And many, including the MGM studio head, considered that obscene at the time!
Also significant is the complex and tragic plot. Just when it looks like things are going to turn around for this guy (just as it does in so many Hollywood films, where his ship magically comes in and everything is fine after that) the protagonist is instead dealt a crushing blow. Yet unlike simple tragedies, where the ending is a simple nose-dive from there, we are instead left with a bittersweet, semi-tragic, semi-hopeful ending, that is truly poignant.
Vidor purposely used unknowns for the lead characters, in an effort to preserve the feeling of a realistic everyman/woman. It worked then, as the film was both a critical and box office success, and it holds up very well today. The Crowd got two Oscar nominations for Best Picture (actually, in those days, there were two Best Picture categories, one for Production, and the other for "Unique and Artistic Production", and this film was nominated for the latter) and also for Best Direction (likewise, there were two categories, one for comedy and one for drama). Vidor lost to the capable Frank Borzage (who, ironically, also directed from 1913-1959!) and his now largely forgotten 7th Heaven. And The Crowd lost out to Murnau's masterful Sunrise (9), perhaps the only other movie of those years in the same league as The Crowd.
A 9 rating.
And to my mind, The Crowd is his best film. I've seen it three or four times and come away impressed each time. First off, you have some absolutely amazing location shots of New York City. The scenes where they are riding around on the bus are unlike any I've seen in movies of that era. And the long tracking shot of New York City into the office building filled with a screenful of symmetrical desks is a perfect example of Vidor's eye for artistic symbolism. In this case, the theme is alienation and relationship of the individual to the "crowd". The protagonist has high hope to set himself apart and above the throng, but is hopelessly not up to the task.
Another notable aspect of The Crowd is its realism. Whether the characters are in their tiny apartment, or at the beach, or on a boat, you feel that they are behaving pretty much exactly how you would expect them to in real life. This is supposedly the first movie to depict a toilet flushing (BTW, Hitchcock's Psycho, made 32 years later, is often, absurdly given this distinction!), in a scene where the couple has a domestic squabble. And many, including the MGM studio head, considered that obscene at the time!
Also significant is the complex and tragic plot. Just when it looks like things are going to turn around for this guy (just as it does in so many Hollywood films, where his ship magically comes in and everything is fine after that) the protagonist is instead dealt a crushing blow. Yet unlike simple tragedies, where the ending is a simple nose-dive from there, we are instead left with a bittersweet, semi-tragic, semi-hopeful ending, that is truly poignant.
Vidor purposely used unknowns for the lead characters, in an effort to preserve the feeling of a realistic everyman/woman. It worked then, as the film was both a critical and box office success, and it holds up very well today. The Crowd got two Oscar nominations for Best Picture (actually, in those days, there were two Best Picture categories, one for Production, and the other for "Unique and Artistic Production", and this film was nominated for the latter) and also for Best Direction (likewise, there were two categories, one for comedy and one for drama). Vidor lost to the capable Frank Borzage (who, ironically, also directed from 1913-1959!) and his now largely forgotten 7th Heaven. And The Crowd lost out to Murnau's masterful Sunrise (9), perhaps the only other movie of those years in the same league as The Crowd.
A 9 rating.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Atonement - Wright, 2007
Joe Wright broke away from directing TV mini-series with a very capable version of Pride and Prejudice (6) in 2005. He followed it with this film, Atonement, an adaptation of an Ian McEwan novel. I haven't read the book yet.
It is immediately apparent that this is a visually striking film. The scenes in the opulent Tallis Estate and the later war scenes, most particularly the long sequence following the refuges on the beach, are gorgeously shot. This movie was nominated for Oscars in cinematography and art direction, and was completely robbed by not winning both of them.
One can make a pretty fair argument that it was robbed by not winning best picture as well, particularly as it was an especially weak field that year. Saoirse Ronan shockingly got an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest Briony Tallis. Surprising not because she wasn't good, but because she was only 13, and I thought Romola Garai was equally good as the second version of Briony. James McAvoy and Keira Knightley are also solid in their roles as star-crossed lovers.
Christopher Hamilton is a screenwriter who often works on film adaptations of classic books (A Doll's House, The Secret Agent, The Quiet American, etc). I'll be interested in seeing how he does with the upcoming remake of East of Eden.
A 7 rating.
It is immediately apparent that this is a visually striking film. The scenes in the opulent Tallis Estate and the later war scenes, most particularly the long sequence following the refuges on the beach, are gorgeously shot. This movie was nominated for Oscars in cinematography and art direction, and was completely robbed by not winning both of them.
One can make a pretty fair argument that it was robbed by not winning best picture as well, particularly as it was an especially weak field that year. Saoirse Ronan shockingly got an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest Briony Tallis. Surprising not because she wasn't good, but because she was only 13, and I thought Romola Garai was equally good as the second version of Briony. James McAvoy and Keira Knightley are also solid in their roles as star-crossed lovers.
Christopher Hamilton is a screenwriter who often works on film adaptations of classic books (A Doll's House, The Secret Agent, The Quiet American, etc). I'll be interested in seeing how he does with the upcoming remake of East of Eden.
A 7 rating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)