Showing posts with label Hitchcock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hitchcock. Show all posts

02 June 2025

This Was Supposed to be About Notorious But Who Has the Time -- It Seems I Did


Okay so I really wanted to crank out a blog post today and if you’re reading this and it’s dated June 2, 2025 then I guess I did though it’s not what I’d intended. Before I go on let me address the fact that it’s in some ways rather silly that I’m so punctilious about maintaining this blog and about how often I write. The fact is that no one cares. I barely do. It’s rare indeed that anyone actually reads it. There was a time when this enterprise was still in its infancy and I wrote mostly about films that it was regularly linked on IMDb and I’d get some traffic and even comments. I average about a comment — maybe two — a year now as has been the case for many years. (This blog is just over 17 years old. It’ll be graduating from high school in year. Wow!) But as I was saying I make a point — against all reason — to keep this damn thing a going concern. You’re welcome. I wanted to have a post here in the first few days of June better to maintain my pace of about seven posts a month. I managed ten last month when we were traveling because I always post during my trips as if anyone gives two shits. The problem is that I’m busy right now preparing a talk I’m giving on Saturday June 14 at the West Berkeley Public Library. It’s about when Berkeley was Finntown. I gave an abbreviated version of the talk at the Finnish Hall at a Finnish Independence Day gathering a couple of years ago. That talk was just under 20 minutes. I’m supposed to ramble on for close to an hour at the library gig. To those who are even worse at math than I am that’s three times as long. Therefore I’ve had to do a lot of research then piece it all together. Not so easy and it’s consuming my “writing time.” I don't even have time to work on one of my many unpublished novels. 

So now I’m writing this about how I don’t have time to write this very post or anything else because of the speech. Existential. I’d started to write about the Alfred Hitchcock film, Notorious which I watched yesterday. I’ve written about the picture before as it’s well worth writing about. Here’s as far as I got: "He just walks her down the stairs. Yes, he supposedly has a gun in his pocket but there’s no daring escape, no shooting, no karate chops. Damn if he doesn’t just take her and leave, daring the villains to intercede. It’s the closing scene, the climax and it’s bloody brilliant. Not just a little bit nerve-wracking but audacious both in what it shows and that the screenwriter and director made that choice. You make Notorious today and there’s a goddamned blood-spattered shoot out at the end with bodies everywhere. Notorious is a spy film without a single visible weapon. It’s a fascinating film on so many different levels. One is the relationship between co-stars Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. It’s passionate, it’s tortured. Grant’s Devlin...."


As you can see it would have been interesting. Maybe I’ll get around to finishing it someday soon. Maybe not. Ya never know.


You may be wondering — as I have — why I’m putting some much time and energy into a talk at the library that may only draw five people (I don’t know, maybe I’ll get thirty. Like I said in the previous paragraph, ya never know). First of all they asked me and I said yes. I didn’t see anyway in the world that I could say no. Do I really need to explain that? It just seemed like something that was pretty straight forward. Someone asks you to do something and you’re one of a few people who could do it — hell, maybe you’re the only person who could do it — you oblige them. Especially when you think you can do it well. Also they’re paying me for it and it’s a pretty tidy sum for a one-hour talk though given how much work I have to put into it they’re getting me cheap.


It’ll go well, people who attend will be happy with it and I’ll feel good when it’s over. It’s like a friend of mine said when people asked him why he ran: “because it feels so good when I stop.” So, yeah, it’ll feel good when I finish.

(Then again I could bomb, feel terrible and the library might feel ill-used. Ya never know.)


Hey looky here I wrote close to 800 words. That’s legitimate blog post numbers and then some. Mission accomplished.


Blog post cranked out. Now if I could just find someone to read the damn thing....

01 May 2025

My Top 30 Films From 1925-1949 (Last of a Series)

Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday

Regular readers of this blog (I'm looking at you Geronimo O'Hara of  Narragansett, Rhode Island) will recall that three months ago I published a list of my top thirty films from the first quarter of this century. I followed that two months ago with my top thirty from the preceding twenty-five year period (1975-1999) and last month with my favorites from 1950-1974  This month I offer my top picks from 1925 through 1949. You're welcome. You will note several directors combine to dominate this list. There are four movies from Alfred Hitchcock, three from Preston Sturges and two each from John Ford, Howard Hawks, Charlie Chaplin and Frank Capra. So those six provide half the films here. Cary Grant, Joseph Cotton and Humphrey Bogart are each in three films, as is the despicable John Wayne. Ward Bond appears in a supporting role in three films and if I'd expanded the list to fifty he would have been in four or five more. But John Qualen tops that being in four pictures on this list. Among women Barbara Stanwyck and Ingrid Bergman are both in two films.

1.His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks

2. Duck Soup (1933) McCarey

3. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Capra


4. Casablanca (1942) Curtiz


5. The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Ford


6. Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) Huston


7. Foreign Correspondent (1940) Hitchcock


8. Sullivan’s Travels (1941) P. Sturges


9. Shadow of a Doubt (1943) Hitchcock


10. Rome: Open City (1945) Rossellini


11. It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) Capra


12. The Third Man (1949) Reed


13. Holiday (1938) Cukor


14. City Lights (1931) Chaplin


15. The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks


16. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) Milestone


17. My Man Godfrey (1936) LaCava


18. Red River (1948) Hawks


19. Stagecoach (1939) Ford


20. The 39 Steps (1935) Hitchcock


21. The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin


22. Citizen Kane (1941) Welles


23. Double Indemnity (1944) Wilder


24. The Lady Eve (1941) P. Sturges


25. Notorious (1946) Hitchcock


26. Bicycle Thieves (1949) De Sica


27. Hail the Conquering Hero (1944) P. Sturges


28. The Long Voyage Home (1940) Ford


29. The Big Parade (1927) Vidor


30. A Canterbury Tale (1944) Powell and Pressburger



10 February 2025

The Latest Edition of 'Films I've Watched Lately Some of Which I Loved Greatly' Includes Two By Hitchcock


Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) Weir. This is a film that has been around for nearly 50 years. In that time I’d watched it once (not sure when but it was a couple of decades ago, at least) and didn’t like it. So again I ask: what the hell is the matter with me? There have been a lot of movies that I didn’t like the first time but discovered after a second viewing such as L’Aventurra, Cries and Whispers and The Exterminating Angel. Picnic at Hanging Rock can be added to that list. A masterpiece. Maybe like a lot of viewers I was bothered by the fact that there was no answer to the film’s central mystery.  An all girls school goes on a picnic in Australia in 1900 at a place called Hanging Rock. Four go missing along with a teacher. One is later found with no memory of what happened. What the hell happened to those picnickers? In watching the film again I realized that not only do we not require an answer to that question, we’re probably better off without one. The story is in the survivor’s reaction to what has gone on and how they react to it. Picnic is also beautiful to look at. Images from the film linger long after watching. It is powerfully evocative. Somehow in watching it I was reminded of Sofia Coppola’s Virgin Suicides. I subsequently read that Coppola admitted that Picnic greatly influenced two of her films, including Virgin Suicides. Sounds like a great double bill.

Elevator to the Gallows (1958) Malle. There have been few women who’ve looked lovelier on the silver screen than Jeanne Moreau did in this, Louis Malle’s first feature. It is surely the greatest French noir ever made. It is tightly plotted, lovingly shot to emphasize Moreau’s stunning features and is highlighted by an excellent score done entirely by Miles Davis. Most of Moreau’s scenes are of her walking around Paris at night wondering what became of her illicit lover and whether he killed — as planned — her husband. Little does she know that he is stuck in an elevator. Of all the rotten luck. Complicating matters is the theft of her lover’s car and identity by a young couple who go on to commit the most serious of mischief. Elevator is much much more than just Moreau’s pretty face, but if it wasn’t that would still he a helluva picture.


Young and Innocent (1937) Hitchcock. Whenever I think of Young and Innocent one indelible scene immediately comes to mind. A car drives into an old mine and starts to sink. The heroine desperately tries to get out and the hero manages to reach for and barely pull her to safety. It’s an extraordinary moment from Hitchcock who directed many such memorable scenes. Young and Innocent is one in a long line of stories he directed in which an innocent man stands accused of murder and as in other of these type of pictures he’s on the run but benefits from the help of a lovely young woman who initially doubts his innocence. Just because he trots this same theme out all the time doesn’t mean it isn’t always successful. It is always successful. This iteration is set in England and features a cast that would be mostly unfamiliar to even a rabid cinephile such as myself. In any event it’s a good cast and an excellent film. With a stunningly shot conclusion. 


Nobody’s Fool (1994) Benton. It’s a really nice movie in which Paul Newman gives a very nice performance. It’s based on a Richard Russo novel of the same name. He writes nice books. Newman is a crotchety old man in a small upstate New York town. It is a cold winter, which adds to a certain gruffness and a certain coziness. Newman’s son, a college professor, reconnects with his dad after many years then spilts from his wife and pop and son get to know each other. Blah, blah, blah. There are characters in the film who are “real characters” who wear their personalities on their sleeves. Newman, who works occasionally for a contractor played by Bruce Willis is the center of everyone’s attention because he’s more interesting than anyone else. Melanie Griffith as Willis’ wife flashes her tits to Newman and that’s a nice moment in a nice movie that ultimately goes nowhere and does nothing original but again, it’s nice.


Blackmail (1929) Hitchcock. If I’d seen this film before it was a long time ago and I somehow didn’t fully appreciate it. Simply put it’s Alfred Hitchcock’s first masterpiece. It was also both his last silent and first talking picture as he made both versions of it. I’ve now watched both versions and both are criminally underrated. I prefer the silent one. A woman who is dating a Scotland Yard detective kills a man in self-defense and as the title suggests she is blackmailed. The story is fine and moves along nicely with a satisfactory denouement (ending at the British Museum the first time Hitch used a well-known place for a climactic scene) but it is all the little touches throughout that make Blackmail special. The seconds after killing (which we don’t see) are remarkable in large part owing to the facial expression and movements of Anny Ondra. Indeed it is from that point on the film that Hitch emphasizes key points with camera angles, highlighting sounds, camera focus and trickery. Utterly compelling.


Nazi Agent (1942) Dassin. It’s World War II propaganda and pretty effective at that. Conrad Veidt (best remembered as Col. Strasser in Casablanca) plays twin brothers. One is a bookish philatelist (is there any other kind?) who has emigrated to the U.S. to escape the horrors of Nazism; the other is quite the opposite, a dedicated Nazi who is German Consul and is also involved in espionage against the allies.

Reunited after many years they struggle, they fight, a gun goes off, one is dead and the other assumes his identity. It’s an interesting film capably directed by Jules Dassin. It was only his second feature in a career that would span forty years and it evidenced his great promise. The ending seems implausible but was clearly designed to stir up wartime audiences and I’d wager it succeeded.

21 October 2024

Yay! Another Edition of Films I've Watched Lately Some of Which I Loved Greatly

Saturday Night

Saturday Night (Reitman). They got it right. What a challenge to make a
  film whose cast of characters includes so many well-known people from entertainment (Lorne Michaels, Gilda Radner, John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Billy Crystal to name a few). Looking like who you’re playing is nice but acting like them is crucial and the cast here comes through. Jason Reitman’s direction is exemplary. This story of the ninety minutes leading up to the first episode of Saturday Night Live moves briskly with nary a dull moment. It’s funny, interesting and entertaining. One of those rare films that’s better than you hoped. 

A Special Day (1977) Scola. A special movie. Marcello Mastroianni is transcendent, opposite Sophia Loren, as Gabriel, a gay man in 1938 Fascist Italy who’s about to be sent to an island reserved for “subversives.” The day in question is when Adolph Hitler visited Rome and the whole city turned out to fete him and Mussolini. Gabrielle is befriended by a neighbor (Sophia Loren)  a beleaguered housewife who keeps a scrapbook about her beloved fascists. The pair have moments that are awkward, funny, angry and touching. Their day together forms the story and it is compelling from start to finish. This was my third viewing of A Special Day and it get’s better each time.


JFK (1991) Stone. New to the Kennedy Assassination? Watching Oliver Stone’s terrific film is an excellent start. No, it’s not a documentary and shouldn’t be taken as pure fact. But it does pose questions aplenty about the who, how and most importantly the why of Kennedy’s murder. Stone’s direction, the editing and the cast are all first class. Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison the New Orleands D.A. who led the only investigation into the Kennedy assassination that brought anyone to trial, Clay Shaw (played by Tommy Lee Jones in a brilliant performance) for complicity in the assassination. Garrison fails to make a case against Shaw but he convinces many that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy and not by a lone gunman. JFK not only raises questions but it’s also bravura cinema. 


Reality Bites (1994) Stiller. So does this film. For thirty blissful years I’d been spared watching this… I want to say, movie but is that what it was? By any name it was terrible. There had to have been the proverbial script problems from day one that were never resolved. What a waste of Winona Ryder, Ethan Hawke and Ben Stiller (in his directorial debut and how he ever got another gig after this is beyond me). The characters were unlikable, the dialogue phony baloney and…..never mind. I’d prefer to forget it.


Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Spielberg. Always great fun and it raises the question: why can’t they make action/adventure films like this anymore? Story and character reign supreme, not CGI, not over the top action. Classic good vs. evil. Harrison Ford is excellent as Indiana and the cast of Nazi bad guys is perfect. The action is veritably non-stop but never excessive. Raiders inspired numerous sequels, the third of which was just as good, if not better, than the original, the rest we could have done without. Raiders of the Lost Ark never gets old.


Mr. And Mrs. Smith (1941) Hitchcock. Alfred Hitchcock’s one foray into screwball comedy was a smashing success. Of course, it’s hard to go wrong when your film co-stars Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery but the the picture benefits from the great director’s framing and camera movement. It has a silly premise about a marriage not being legal or maybe it is but it doesn’t matter. In any event the wife hooks up (production code style) with hubby’s best friend/law partner. Husband wants the missus back and goes to hilarious lengths to that end. It’s a sure cure for depression.


Mermaids (1990) Benjamin. The missus and I enjoyed this film three decades ago when it was new. Neither of us had seen it since. We had doubts that it would hold up lo these many years later. What a pleasant surprise. Cher, Winona Ryder and Christina Ricci (then nine years old) along with Bob Hoskins make an entertaining and endearing cast. Cher plays a single mother forever on the move but maybe she finds true love in a small New England town. Meanwhile Winona as the teen daughter is asserting herself and falling in love. The movie’s flaw is her love interest, a totally uninteresting actor who should have looked like Josh Hartnett but more resembled Josh Gad.

26 July 2024

One of the Great Three-Year Spans of American Films, 1939-1941 is Here Explored

Foreign Correspondent 

I
’ve gone on long and loud about how I believe the 1970s were the best decade in movie-making.  Recently I wrote a post naming my ten favorite years in films. Six of those years were in the seventies, including the top three. Based on the list it’s easy to surmise that my favorite three-year stretch of films was from 1973-1975. But what about outside of the seventies? Was there a three-year span of motions pictures that approaches what came out is the seventies? 

Yes.


The period immediately before U.S. entry into World War II, 1939-1941. I came up with thirty films that I love from those three years including some of my all-time favorites such as His Girl Friday, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Grapes of Wrath, Sullivans Travels and Foreign Correspondent. Of the thirty films, John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock directed four and Preston Sturges three,  two apiece were by Howard Hawks, Frank Capra and Ernest Lubitsch. Among lead actors Jimmy Stewart led the way appearing in four of the films. Cary Grant was in three, as were Barbara Stanwyck  and Henry Fonda. Supporting player Thomas Mitchell was also in three and Ward Bond in four (Bond, Mitchell, William Demarest Pat Flaherty and John Qualen between them showed up in pretty much every movie made between 1932 and 1958, more on them and other frequent supporting players in a future post). So some of Hollywood's great directors and stars were then at their peak. Indeed there were some sparkling performances such as Stewart in MSGTW, Bette Davis in The Letter, Stanwyck in The Lady Eve and Meet John Doe, Fonda and Jane Darwell in Grapes of Wrath, James Cagney in the Roaring Twenties, Mitchell in Stagecoach and Grant in Suspicion. 


It was also a revolutionary time for camera positioning, shooting angles and lighting. Stagecoach really set the tone and Welles really ran with it in Citizen Kane. But Capra did some nice work with Meet John Doe as did Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent and Suspicion and Ford again in Grapes of Wrath. They were directors ahead of there times.


Twelve of the films were comedies, many of the screwball variety. Those three years saw the end of peak screwball era. Even one of Hitchcock's entries (Mr. and Mrs. Smith) was a screwball comedy -- the only one he made. It was also the rebirth of the western with Ford's Stagecoach. There were powerful statement/political films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane and Meet John Doe. The coming war and the horrors of Nazism were touched upon in The Long Voyage Home, Foreign Correspondent, and with a light touch in The Great Dictator but none of them were out and out war pictures. Those came in spades during and immediately after the war. There was a hint of film noir from The Maltese Falcon, a genre which would see its heyday following the war. For better or worse The Roaring Twenties is the only gangster picture in the lot.


If it not for Hitler and Tojo perhaps that amazing run would have continued. While Hollywood still churned out some excellent films during the war, many of the best directors were off making propaganda films for the government (and some damn good ones at that). Ford, Capra, John Huston, William Wyler and George Stevens most prominent among them. (The five and their war work are subjects of an excellent book by Mark Harris called Five Came Back which I’m just now reading.) The twenty or so years after the war ended saw nothing to compare what was produced between '39 and '41, at least not out of Hollywood.


That same time period saw a proliferation of great foreign films from the likes of Bergman, Fellini, Antonioni, Kurosawa, Truffaut, Rossellini, De Sica, Kalatozov, Ichikawa, Buñuel and Ray but from the U.S. not so much.

Here are my top ten films from 1939-1941 followed by other great films from those years.


MY TOP TEN FILMS FROM 1939-1941

His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Capra

The Grapes of Wrath  (1940) Ford

Foreign Correspondent (1940) Hitchcock 

Sullivan’s Travels (1941) Sturges

Stagecoach (1939) Ford

Citizen Kane (1941) Welles

The Lady Eve (1941) Sturges

The Maltese Falcon (1941) Huston

The Long Voyage Home (1940) Ford


OTHER FAVORITES SORTED BY YEAR

Also from 1939: The Roaring Twenties (Walsh), The Great Man Votes (Kanin), Midnight (Leisen), Young Mr. Lincoln (Ford), Ninotchka (Lubitsch), Destry Rides Again (Marshall).

Also from 1940: The Philadelphia Story (Cukor), The Great Dictator (Chaplin), The Great McGinty (Sturges), The Letter (Wyler), Rebecca (Hitchcock), The Shop Around the Corner (Lubitsch).

Also From 1941: Meet John Doe (Capra), Here Comes Mr. Jordan (Hall), Suspicion (Hitchcock), Ball of Fire (Hawks), Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Hitchcock).



04 June 2024

You Can't Choose Your Family But You Can Choose a Great Film That Centers Around One -- Eight Examples

The Royal Tenenbaums

Families are often complex units that can be highly functional and supportive, nurturing happy and successful individuals. They can also be highly destructive to the mental health of its members and do irreparable damage. They can also be anywhere in the vast land between those two extremes. Families are the home base from which we start life. Later we can form our own. Many of us model our own parenting style and philosophy based on how we were raised. Many of us try to do the opposite.

Families come in various sizes. They can be as small as mom, dad and one child. There can be multiple children, there can be grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins included. There can be children who are adopted. Some families are close and loving. Some families spend a modicum of time together. Many close, loving families are also restrictive and repressive. Some families that are not tightly-knit nonetheless adequately fulfill the needs of its members. 


Some families fight constantly. Some with real rancor and others harmlessly with no ill will. Some families hold in their feelings towards one another. Much goes unsaid. Resentments brew.


Movies that focus on a family too often deal in stereotypes. Maybe the mom is a typical nag or perhaps she is totally self-sacrificing, tolerant and a buffer to a temperamental father. The Dad can be a tyrant or he can be a milquetoast whose every other utterance to his wife is, “yes dear.” Rarely do motion pictures give every family member their own unique identity and rarer still do they seem more than cardboard cut-outs.


But I found eight films that created interesting families that are either totally believable and relatable or thoroughly entertaining. All those selected are excellent movies most by one of filmdom's great directors. They are offered in no particular order.


Amarcord (1973) Fellini. The Biondi family is one of the great delights of cinema in one of the greatest of all films. To say they are eccentric is a massive understatement. The Father (Armando Brancia) is a construction foreman, and an anti-fascist who's demanding of his children. He also quarrels constantly with his wife (Pupella Maggio) a strong-willed woman, protective of her brood. When father's frustration grows too much he tries to "kill himself" by pulling his mouth apart with his hands pulling simultaneously up and down as if he can tear his head apart this way. There’s also a horny grandfather, an Uncle in a mental hospital who forgets to unzip before relieving himself, a lazy brother-in-law who wears a hair net, and of course the children, one of whom is the movie’s central character in a wild menagerie of them. Taken together they are a seemingly a hot mess but under the deft touch of director Federico Fellini they're grand fun.


Fanny and Alexander (1982) Bergman. The Ekdahl family. The story centers on the titular characters, especially the boy Alexander. It is partially through his young eyes that we meet this wonderful family led by the grandmother and matriarch Helena (Gunn Wallgren). She’s what one would call a “cool grandma.” She’s a vital, wise, handsome woman and likes to kick up her heels. Fanny and Alexander’s loving father dies early in our story and their lovely mother (Ewa Froling) makes the mistake of marrying a stern, cold-hearted bishop. The children go from a loving extended family of uncles, aunts and cousins in their virtual playground of a house to a austere, cold home with the bishop’s dour, dull-as-dust spinster sisters. It would be a shock to anyone. Unsurprisingly it all works out and they ultimately return to the Ekdahl wonderland. 


The Godfather (1972) F. Coppola. The Corleones. Mom, Dad and five kids, four boys (one adopted) and a girl. They’re a prosperous. The parents are immigrants from Sicily who realized the American dream  starting with nothing before building a business empire. Capitalism at its finest. True, their business is organized crime and ultimately two of the boys will be murdered and Dad will be badly wounded in a shooting. Oh, and and the daughter’s husband will be killed -- by order of one of her brothers. Family stuff. The children are all unique. The oldest son, Sonny (James Caan) will blend easily into the family business though his temper will prove a fatal flaw. The middle son, Fredo (John Cazale) will also go into the biz, but the poor sap is bumbling idiot, ill-suited for such serious work. Youngest son Michael (Al Pacino) initially wants nothing to do with the business side of his family. He’s a college boy who joins the marines when the U.S. enters World War II. Ahh but here is where our tale gets interesting. Fascinating  Celluloid history. Michael changes. Boy does he ever. Circumstances force this transformation, but there’s something within the boy too. Ultimately he takes over the family business when Pop dies of natural causes. The Godfather is indeed a movie about the Mafia, but it is also about family. At that it excels. The sequel, Godfather Part 2, continues the story.


Radio Days (1987) Allen. There is mother (Julie Kavner), father (Michael Tucker), their son Joe (Seth Green) whose latter day narration guides us through this story set in the early 1940s. They live with an aunt, uncle and cousin. Radio Days is the story of how the radio was often the center of the household but in seeing the media’s effect we learn about this not always charming but always interesting family and its disparate members. They bicker, they support each other. They are quirky and eccentric and eminently relatable. Each are unique and fully realized in one of Woody Allen’s very best films. Radio Days, like the family it depicts, is touching, funny and relatable. Each family member is unique and memorable on their own merits, but would suffer mightily without the support of the family as a whole.


The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Ford. The Joad family. The displaced family. Torn from their home and sent across the country by the combined horrors of The Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, in search of the Nirvana that California supposedly was. The Joads are one of literature’s  most famous families. Through the brilliant direction of John Ford they became one of cinema’s most indelible families too. Henry Fonda stars as Tom Joad, whose story is the focal point of the family. He has an everyman quality which lends his family the same feeling. They are any of us who are unfortunate, who’ve become victims despite our hard work and best efforts. They were what happens when luck is all bad. They prove that when one door closes another one does not necessarily open. Jane Darwell as Ma Joad is perhaps film’s greatest representation of the power of motherhood. The family center holds despite misfortunate, even as some members leave or die.


The Ice Storm (1997) A. Lee. The four-member Hood Family. All families are of a particular time and place. This one is suburbia in 1973. Watergate is dominating the news. Hairstyles have uniformly changed. Many of the freedoms fought for in the Sixties are in place. Key parties are a thing. Bell bottoms and plaid are worn. Tobey Maguire as the son Paul is the center of the story. He’s in prep school developing a love of literature but a far greater love of the fairer sex which he pursues assiduously in the form of the delicious young Katie Holmes. His younger sister Wendy (Christina Ricci) is disaffected, moody, sexually curious and perhaps quite angry at her parents. She’s certainly got, as they say, “issues” — many of them. Then again everyone in this story does and that's rather the point. Ben and Elena (Kevin Kline and Joan Allen) are the parents. Ben is having an affair with a neighbor and isn’t fooling the missus. Emotions are stifled, appearances are kept. Life is awkward, something to be soldiered through. This is a dysfunctional, if fascinating and revealing family in one of the most honest portrayals of suburbia ever filmed.


Shadow of a Doubt (1943) Hitchcock. The Newton family and its Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton). They’re a pretty ordinary group and that’s the trouble for the eldest, who like her uncle is also a Charlie. There’s no excitement in their lives. Mom and Dad (Patricia Collinge and Henry Travers) are agreeable, amiable folks who love their brood. (They’re a bit old to have an eight-year-old. This was an oddity of casting in the first forty or so years of films, parents in their fifties or sixties with young children.) Charlie (Teresa Wright) who appears to be nearing twenty, is clearly the driving force of the family and when her namesake Uncle (mom’s brother) comes for a visit she feels that the sun has come out after too many dreary days. Idyllic! The beloved uncle comes bearing gifts. But Uncle Charlie brings menace too. He’s not the hail-fellow-well-met he seems. Indeed he's a serial killer of rich widows, hence his wealth. Only young Charlie can see this. Families are often all about facades. The false front that fools everyone. The Newton family doesn’t even know — except for young Charlie — that their happy face is an illusion. It’s a fascinating story and one of Hitchcock's best.


The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) W. Anderson. I defy you to find a more interesting film family that the Tenenbaums. I further challenge you to identify a weirder patriarch than Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman). He’s a rascal, a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat and a loving father. Here are a few quotes of his: “Anybody interested in grabbing a couple of burgers and hittin' the cemetery?” 

“I'm very sorry for your loss. Your mother was a terribly attractive woman.” 

“I've always been considered an asshole for about as long as I can remember.”

“Hell of a damn grave. Wish it were mine.”

The three children (Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson and Gwyneth Paltrow) are all madly eccentric in one way or the other — indeed in many ways. Only mom (Angelica Huston) has a touch of normalcy to her. It’s a mad crew that scrap and yell but ultimately get along…um, just fine? At the start of the movie they’ve all gone their separate ways but circumstances bring them all together and Royal makes himself the center of the ensuing insanity (he is the nexus wherever he goes). It makes for great hilarity but if you watch closely enough it’s also an insightful film. About families.