Oh Boy! Another Edition of Films I've Watched Lately, Some of Which I Loved Greatly

400 Blows

Dr. Strangelove (1964) Kubrick. I watched this for the first time in several years after listening to TCM’s Stanley Kubrick podcast episode about the making of the movie. There’s a lot to admire about the picture. Its wit, its relevance to the times it was made, performances from Sterling Hayden, George C Scott and Peter Sellers (well, two out of three of them). However Kubrick tended to ask for two kinds of performances from his actors: the over the top and the understated. Two good examples of the latter can be seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon. Examples of the former can be seen in Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove. However I’m always bothered by Sellers’ portrayal of the title character. It’s silly. Watching the Dr. Strangelove trying to reign in an out of control arm is tedious. Meanwhile Sellers is brilliant in his other roles: Captain Mandrake and the US president. I also the ridiculous character names distracting. I refer here to Jack Ripper, Colonel Bat Guano and Major T. J. 'King' Kong. Come on. Dr. Strangelove would have worked better as a satire than it does as a farce.

Dracula (193) Browning Freund. Of all the classic horror films of the early 1930s that Universal Pictures cranked out this one — along with the first two iterations of the Frankenstein films — is the gold standard. Poor Bela Lugosi was so damn good as the count that no one could ever see him as anything else. Directors Tod Browning and Karl Freund did a masterful job of creating mood in a film that could only ever have been in black and white. In subsequent years vampires movies have been done to death (pun not intended but welcomed) and many, maybe most of such films, have been wastes of celluloid. Once a classic gets made other films of the same type are going to suffer in comparison. Dracula is no longer scary, but it is a really entertaining watch.

The Exorcist (1973) Friendkin. I first saw this movie right after it was released in theaters. To say that there was a buzz around it would be like saying that Trumpy makes the news a lot. I saw it with two friends who were a couple. After the movie they invited me to stay at their house that night as my roommates were out of town. I unhesitatingly accepted. The Exorcist had scared the hell out of me. Later I read the book and that scared me even more. Once again there was a weekend in which my two housemates were out of town. I slept in the living room with the lights on. I bought a Christian cross on a chain to wear around my neck to ward off the demonic possession. I kept that cross for another thirty years (I’m not a Christian). Oh by the way, the movie is excellent. Lee J Cobb as the cop is particularly memorable — as is all the insanity that goes on in the poor girl’s bedroom. I enjoyed my latest viewing. The Exorcist no longer has the shock value it once did but one can admire the film making. Films about demonic possession — many based on or sequels to The Exorcist — have proliferated ever since. Originality was never a strong suit of Hollywood. Anyway my latest viewing didn’t scare me. I’m a big boy now.

Lolita (1962) Kubrick. Another film that I watched because it was the subject of the Kubrick podcast. My verdict: they should have waited another seven or eight years before making it. The Production Code was still stifling artistic freedom, meaning this film was watered down to such an extent that it lost the punch of the novel entirely. A later version was made in the late nineties starring Jeremy Irons that was much better. Lolita was surprisingly long for a film that didn’t have a lot going on it. The inability to have sex or nudity or make Humbert’s intention explicit rendered it meaningless. Also Sue Lyon was also disappointing as Lolita or as a Lolita. 

Man-Proof (1938) Thorpe. I was taken in by the cast: Myrna Loy, Franchot Tone, Rosalind Russell, Walter Pidgeon. Also I thought it was a comedy. It very much wasn’t. Pure sappy melodrama. The star power was wasted in a film in which the director, Richard Thorpe, had his actors hit their marks and read their lines but seemed otherwise disinterested in the whole endeavor. Frankly it’s the type of movie you forget about in a few days and it’s been a few days since I’ve seen it so….

The 400 Blows (1959) Truffaut. It never disappoints. A film that, no matter how well you know it, you enjoy more with each viewing and find something new to admire. I particularly enjoy watching Truffaut's portrayal of the world the characters inhabited. I confess that at times I have a hard time with Antoine, in part because of my experience as a school teacher. I do sympathize with him, however. But I sympathize with everyone in the film. It's a picture in which no one has found permanent happiness; all they get is moments. It’s not as pessimistic a film as it may seem on the surface being more observant than judgmental. Indeed all it really asks us is to watch the characters. Young Antoine, his cheating mother, his hapless father, his eternally frustrated teacher and even some of his friends make for interesting viewing.

The Candidate (1972) Ritchie. One of the great films about politics ever made and maybe the best about political campaigns. Robert Redford was made to order to play the candidate. He looks the part of the young, brash, liberal outsider waging a seemingly hopeless campaign against a longtime establishment senator who is a campaign veteran. It’s all there. The stresses of campaigning, the candidate as a product being sold to the public. The tremendous pressure to get endorsements. The repetition of messages. The underhanded tricks. The vagaries of audiences. The little mistakes and deviations that can cost votes. The savvy political and media advisors (Peter Boyle and Allen Garfield who are both excellent). It’s a surprisingly entertaining film. Credit director Michael Ritchie for the film’s pacing and editing and Redford for his being — again — more than just a pretty face.

The Trouble With Harry (1955) Hitchcock. I love this movie. It is in my top ten Hitchcock films of all time. A dark comedy in an incredibly beautiful New England autumn village. Fall foliage joins John Forsythe (was he ever better?), Shirley MacLaine (aside from The Apartment, was she ever ever better?) Mildred Natwick, Edmund Gwenn and Jerry Mathers (but not as the Beaver) in a perfectly cast picture. I suppose the central story around the dead body that everyone seems to stumble upon (in some cases literally) and many have a relationship to — or think they do — can seem a little preposterous. Nothing wrong with that. There’s a central mystery to the movie, but I always forget what we ultimately learn. Why? Because the joy is not in unlocking a mystery but hanging out with this eccentric group of people. What a delight.

Viscous Cycle: A Viewing of 400 Blows Inspires Thoughts on Dealing With "Bad Boys"

I watched Francois Truffaut's 400 Blows (1959) yesterday, an exquisite film to look at, but a difficult one to contemplate. See how schools fail those unmanageable, unmotivated students. Harsh discipline is meted out in a classic case of insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This was late fifties Paris but it could have been 21st century America. I've been out of the biz since 2008 so who knows, by now public schools may have figured out how to turn errant young people into model students (and perhaps pigs have mastered the art of flight). To be fair, school discipline became more progressive and effective (if only just) during my time and I imagine that improvement has continued apace. But ultimately the problem has a lot to do with the basic structure of schools. Young people are not meant to be gotten up at the crack of dawn then cooped up in rooms (that can have the feel -- I daresay sometimes even the look) of prisons and being fed a lot of information they don't care a whit about and seems irrelevant. Society keeps reforming schools when a revolution is in order. Still, teachers are dedicated people with high ideals and a strong sense of duty and are amazingly successful against terrific odds.

Educators have finally figured out that merely meting out punishment doesn't work. Rewards systems have been put in place and they are more successful -- if barely. 

One of the problems, as we see in the film, is the notion of suspending students for there misdeeds. On the face of it, it's a ridiculous idea. You are keeping out of school the very people who most need to be there. Suspended students are generally the ones who are behind in their studies, suspension only sets them further back. For a short time the school I taught in had in-house suspension. This was much better as students were thus not a burden on working parents nor likely to be roaming the streets. They were supervised and given classwork to do. A good solution, right? But it was eliminated because the majority of students serving the suspensions were African American so it "looked bad." In other words, let's pretend that a problem that exists doesn't exist. We went back to sending students home when suspended. Of course.

In The 400 Blows our young protagonist, Antoine, is a thief and a liar. Like many young people who struggle with authority, his home life is not ideal. Mom, who is on her second marriage, is having an affair, something our protagonist discovers while playing hooky. More concerning, she's indifferent to her son. Step-dad is okay as long as everything is peachy but when Antoine gets out of line he responds harshly. The boy is in a vicious cycle both at home and school. His teacher cares about his charges but shows it through unyielding discipline and zero tolerance. 

The more he is punished, the more defiant Antoine becomes. The more he fails the more he accepts failure as his due. The angrier adults get at him, the more sullen and disagreeable he comes. Lies lead to more lies. Punishments don't change attitudes, they harden them. Vicious cycles.

Antoine's naturally gravitates towards boy who are similarly ambivalent about school. This is common and natural. Vicious cycles. Antoine's defiance is buttressed by similarly inclined lads and by the time he is sent to an observation center for troubled youths, after an overnight stay in jail (not juvey either, adult jail) he's got even more peer influences to lead him further astray. Vicious cycles.

We are left to wonder about Antoine's future after the film's iconic closing shot. It's likely bleak but there are stories aplenty of troubled youths "turning their life around" to offer some hope. After all, he seems a bright lad, certainly resourceful. Absent serious intellectual deficits and being a true sociopath, there's a fighting chance.*

The truth is that the world has never been kind to youth who don't toe the line. The line can be a delicate one to walk for youngsters with rebellious streaks. I had one of my own but it manifest more in partaking of drugs and alcohol at a young age, which somehow never impinged on my academic achievements -- which were significant given my proclivity to buck the system.

As I said at the outset, The 400 Blows is a beautiful film to look at. The opening shots of Paris alone are magnificent. The overhead view from roofs and windows of a class out on a jaunt in which students gradually all peal away from their instructor is masterful. Paris is rendered beautifully in black and white, always looking inviting despite the nature of the story being told.

The 400 Blows is, to me, one of Truffaut's troika of masterpieces along with Shoot the Piano Player (1960) and Jules et Jim (1962). Like a lot of great films it works so well because it is personal. Much of what happens in it mirrors Truffaut's own youthful experience. Of our pain we can make art.

* Antoine appears in several later films from Truffaut as an adult and I'm happy to say he's doing all right.

I've Seen a Lot of Films Recently, My Thoughts on Some of Them Follow -- Also My Annual Top Ten will be Delayed One Week

Tis the season to go to movies and with time off from work to watch some in the comfort of one's home. These things I have done. What follows is thoughts (mine only, I have no access to anyone else's thinking) regarding some of these motion pictures. I also must plead for your patience as my annual top ten list of films -- which normally appears on our near the first of the year -- will be appearing one week later. I know this grieves you enormously, but I trust you to be strong.

Just today I joined trillions of other people in the galaxy and went to see the latest installment of the Star Wars saga, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. This may come as something of a surprise to regular readers of this blog (both of us) as I generally eschew movies in the action/adventure/scifi category. However I've always liked the original three films of the franchise and partially to test that fondness the missus and I watched them all (in order of course) on Thanksgiving last. They held up. As I was given to understand that this latest offering is in the spirit of the originals and was being hailed by critics I had no second thoughts about seeing this iteration of the storied saga.

I was pleased. Charming and witty and full of fun and rife with interesting characters. Good vs. evil with the latter being represented by The First Order, a group that only Dick Cheney could love (he probably does, you know). I was particularly taken by Daisy Ridley, a relative newcomer, who I'm sure literally millions if not tens of millions of men are currently in love with. She's not just a beauty but a damn good actress and perfect as the female heroine. Oscar Isaac further established that he is a big time movie star with his appearance and yes it was nice to see some of the originals in the cast as well, namely Carrie Fischer, Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and the two robots and the wookiee. I shouldn't forget another newcomer, John Boyega who looks to be destined for stardom. Count me in for the sequel but don't expect me to show up to any of the other garbage that was featured in the previews which was a lot of the action/adventure/scifi  rot that I abhor. Star Wars is the exception that makes the rule for me.

A few days ago I saw Carol, directed by Todd Haynes, and it was sumptuous to behold. A visual feast highlighted by co-stars Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara (another young actress who is easy on the eyes). I'd like to see it again in a theater. While I'm sure I'd enjoy Carol on DVD, its was made for the big screen. The colors, the close ups, the set design the costumes and the magnificent set pieces are breathtaking. Ms. Blanchett is the titular character, a married woman with a small daughter who falls for a shopgirl during the Christmas season. (The story is set in the early Fifties when people didn't even speak of same sex love.)  Love and trouble ensue.

I watched The Furies (1950) for the first time via DVD. Anthony Mann directed and my favorite leading lady Barbara Stanwyck starred and here she was as beautiful a 43 year old as one will ever see. Walter Huston, in his final film, plays her father and Wendell Corey is her on again off again love interest. It's amazing that as much as I know about cinema, the film only recently came to my attention. It is a powerful story of love, family, money and greed set in the New Mexico of the 1870s.
It has to rank among the top 20 or so Westerns I've ever seen. While Carol caused me to put some Douglas Sirk films (he was an obvious inspiration for Haynes) on my Netflix queue, The Furies had me adding Anthony Mann's work.

It's hard to say much about Tarantino's The Hateful Eight without including spoilers. It is the manner in which the film plays out that is to me the main talking point. As I mentioned in an earlier post I was fortunate enough to see it in the 70mm format and it was gorgeous though later gory to look at. I don't mind violence in films assuming that it's there as party of the story but it wasn't death, blood or gunplay that bothered me. I did feel that after a promising start it seemed that Tarantino ran out of ideas and took the easy way out. It's a shame too because he had a wonderful cast and had created a fascinating world in which a potentially compelling story was taking place.

Love & Mercy and Dope were too films that I'd missed in theaters earlier in the year and just caught up with on DVD. I enjoyed both immensely. The former tells parts of the Brian Wilson story, he having been the driving force behind the Beach Boys and their unique sound. Wilson's story is made for the screen given his mental and emotional struggles and the battle for his soul waged by a greedy man and a loving woman. Paul Dano played the younger Wilson and John Cusack was the older Wilson.

Dope is about three geeky high school seniors -- though one in particular is featured -- two are black one is Indian and one of the trio is a lesbian. They go to an inner city school where a nerd's life is never easy. They have a series of adventures in which they find, drugs, romance, criminals, money, strength and maturity and most of all courage. Rick Famuyiwa directed and Shameik Moore stars. One hopes for even more from them in the future. Zoe Kravitz and Chanel Iman also feature.

Among my Christmas bounty was the Criterion release of Moonrise Kingdom (2012) -- my second favorite Wes Anderson film (Rushmore (1998) is first). Anderson is a storyteller par excellence with a unique visual style. He creates unforgettable characters who take themselves and the mundane quite seriously. Situations are fraught with irony, pathos, wit and subtlety. You never see characters laugh, they just do and do and do and do. No one is terribly competent but everyone is sincere and earnest. It is the consistency of the characters and their methodical approaches to life that let the humor and -- not at all incidentally -- the truth to shine through. My god I love this movie.

Speaking of movies I love, Woody Allen's Radio Days (1987). Here's a film that never gets old. It has become something of a New Year's Eve staple of mine, largely because it ends on a New Year's Eve as 1944 is ushered in. Radio Days is one of the best nostalgia films ever made -- if not the best -- although it is so much more than that. Few films have ever evoked a time as well as this one brings us the early 1940s in America. It is especially good at revealing an era in which radio -- not the TV or internet -- was the technology that ruled the home. Like many timeless films it is rich with great songs that are especially effective in the context in which we see them. Of course Radio Days also boasts a slew of wonderful characters who blend in with the sounds and sights like breathing, talking, laughing parts of the scenery. Sublime.

One other film I wanted to discuss before I let you go (you're still with me aren't you?) is...well I can't decide. Maybe Hitchcock/Truffaut, the wonderful new documentary that ostensibly is about the latter's interviews with the former but is really about the greatness of Hitch but even more so is about film itself. Or I could write about Holiday (1938) the wonderful George Cukor film starring Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn. It's such a strong poke at the pompous upper class and such a great love story. Or I could write about Robert Altman's 3 Women (1977) his Persona (1966) like story of...I believe there are three women highlighted. It might be the best movie in Altman's storied career. I could also say a few words about The Big Short which shows how a very few financial wheeler dealers saw the burst of the housing bubble in 2008 coming and bet against the banks and won big. Or I could write about Polanksi's Chinatown (1974) or I could stop right here and make a cup of tea. Yeah, I think that's what I'll do.

Three Favorite Films From Some of my Favorite Directors Much Annotated And This is Part 2

Here I am trying to live, or rather, I am trying to teach the death within me how to live.- Jean Cocteau

Here is what I said before part one of this series which I have by the way decided will have three parts:
The title says it. I take a favorite director and pick my three favorite films he's done or did. Then I write something though sometimes off topic and not necessarily about all three films. I'm calling this part one which suggests that there will be parts to follow. When I don't know. Who can know such things. Truly.

Roberto Rossellini. Roma, citti aperta (1945). Stromboli (1950). The Flowers of Saint Francis (1950). Neo realism as it was meant to be. The human drama. In World War II. In a lonely fishing village. Among monks. The evil the beatified the depraved the tortured. I've never seen a spectacular shot within a Rossellini film but I've seen the spectacular. How do you film desperation or fear or moral decay or certitude? Seems impossible but he did it. There was magic in his style in that he created such depth and drama so effortlessly to our eyes and senses. It just sank in. Sinks. His films don't won't age.

William Wellman. Wild Boys of the Road (1933). Heroes For Sale (1933). Westward the Women (1951). Someone asked me the other day what films most captured the spirit of John Dos Passos and his novels that comprised the USA Trilogy. I said the pre code films of William Wellman which include Wild Boys and Heroes. Like Dos Passos these stories had the power of relevance truth honesty and authentic American style characters often bucking up against the rich and powerful. The struggle of individuals to survive in a cold mechanized and heartless society. Usually finding strength and comfort in numbers. Wellman was a truly American film maker who never bent his films in the direction of easy popularity. He didn't soften characters or stories. There is a timeless quality in his films just as there is in the novels of Dos Passos.

Stanley Kubrick. A Clockwork Orange (1971). 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Barry Lyndon (1975). Here comes the kitchen sink. Stanley did not play ladies and gents. Everything went into the picture all his energy and creativity and attention to detail. And it showed. What spectacular visions. Creations of worlds. Beautiful to behold even when what was taking place in the was repellant. The people were props used masterfully. Kubrick had a way of exaggerating characters to help fill the frame and fill out the story. Films that lasted in your mind and heart and ideas and wow.

Louis Malle. Au Revoir Les Enfants (1987). Elevator to the Gallows (1958). Murmur of the Heart (1971). What is he? New Wave? Noir? There are war pictures. Romances. Family drama. Philosophical meditations. There is Jeanne Moreau in the rain. There is a young Jewish boy being taken away by Nazis. There is oedipus. Lurking lurching loving and leaving and moving and heaving. Camera left and stage right and the eyes of man wandering the city. The artful director and the precise moment captured that lives a lifetime in our memory and can never be wiped away. That indelible moment. That moment. The expression. That sigh. That sign. That director. That man Malle.

Aki Kaurismaki. Ariel (1988). Le Havre (2011). Lights in the Dusk 2006). My Finnish brother. don't come to his films looking for beautiful people or action scenes or special effects. Come for the humanity and the simplicity and the beauty of human experience. The luck good and bad of being alive and going through whatever comes. How people handle the mundane and the interruption of that by the wildly unexpected. Dude is very Finnish. My father told me the Finnish proverb about a man being chased by a bear. He is relieved to come upon a river knowing the Bear won't follow him. Half way across the river he sees another bear waiting for him on the other side. He laughs.

Frank Capra. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939). Meet. John Doe (1941). It's A Wonderful Life (1946). A softer gentler America then Wellman but a liberal sentimental fighting underdog loving one. Capra was a Republican but his films were often about battles with powerful establishment figures. A neo fascist tycoon in John Doe a predatory banker businessman in IAWL and a corrupt political machine in Smith. One man taking on the vested interest against impossible odds. Very American characters played by the likes of Gary Cooper Barbara Stanwyck James Stewart and Donna Reed. Good clean believable dialog. Easy to root for stories.

Francois Truffaut. Jules and Jim (1962). Shoot the Piano Player (1960). 400 Blows (1959). Exuberant and stylish but never showy. An attention to the little movements and the short seconds that can fly by unattended. But he was a joyful director with a free floating and happy camera. Grounded in his art and telling the story just so. Just so that we would appreciate -- almost like he did -- what an amazing story he was telling.

Charlie Chaplin. City Lights (1931). Modern Times (1936). The Great Dictator (1940). The pathos. The little tramp. The comic genius. The pratfalls the chases the choreography the cute man the pretty girl the darling child the adorable mutt the pulling of heart strings...the tear -- never two. Then the silents ended and Charlie adapted but never yielded. Still mostly silent realizing that words can be so limiting. The sheer brilliance of the above three films. The painstaking attention to detail that created the  large gaps between pictures but resulted in such fine craftsmanship. Such great art. No one to compare him with before during or after.

Guido, Lenny, Alvy and Charlie: Four Characters, Four Films More Than Four Thoughts

I was on line at the pharmacy today re-filling the buckets of medications I have to take in order not to see polka dot hippopotami dancing on my walls. I patronize a small locally owned establishment that compensates with charm for what it lacks in supplies on hand. Today there was a woman in front of me just about having a hissy fit because her prescription wasn't ready. She'd been waiting for seconds on end but to her they were eons. It seemed that the pharmacists had to wait for approval from the insurance company before coughing up her drugs, so to speak. The way I heard them explain it made perfect sense to me. But she was in a state of mind that I've found myself dwelling in. It's the one in which your position seems perfectly logical and irrefutable and any delay in getting your goods and or services is an affront. Angry lady stomped off somewhere to make an angry cell phone call which in all likelihood would not have done a wit to improve her lot. As we all know patience is a virtue and when my turn came and had nearly went I was thanked for mine. That's rather odd considering that generally speaking I am about as patient as a hungry mutt listening to the can opener whirr. But I happened not to be in a hurry and my pills were ready and anyway that "lady" in front of me had set an example of how not to behave.

All of this in some way perhaps serves as a preface for a discussion of the four film characters I've hung out with the past few days. Except perhaps that their imperfections were infinitely more entertaining than the aforementioned customer. They are a film director, a piano player and a couple of comics. One is fully intended to depict a real human being who once walked this Earth, two others represent the movie's directors and indeed one is played by the director. The other is entirely a work of fiction, so far as I know. They are all in superior films, three of which are among my favorites of all time. None of this quartet of gentlemen are perfect. Perfection being exceedingly boring and nothing either to cause laughter or insights.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni) is a great film director. Women adore him,  enough to keep several guys content. He has it all and it ain't enough. He's not so much the main character of Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 (1963) as he is the film itself. To what degree his character and his struggles mirror those of Fellini I cannot say. Oh hell yes I can: to a certain degree.

The film itself comes under the masterpiece category. It's one of those movies that has a mind of its own -- a brilliant mind -- and goes where it pleases, how it pleases. Fellini was like that. Guido is a man who has it all and doesn't seem to want any of it. Well, maybe he does, you see he can't quite make up his damn mind. Duller minds would want to grab him by the neck and scream sense into his ear. At least try to cajole him into making the picture he's working on. But he's not happy, except that he is. He's a wonderfully tortured soul who knows how to have a good time (principally with the ladies) while "suffering." That's my kind of angst sufferer. Plus the guy fantasizes about a harem comprised of the women in life. That's entertainment!

Lenny Bruce was a real honest to goodness guy and it's a dirty rotten shame that so few people recognize his name. He broke boundaries, knocked down barriers and blazed trails. In part through the public use of profanity but mainly because he was a comedian who spoke his mind. Lenny Bruce got laughs while riffing on current events and decrying social injustices. He was George Carlin before George Carlin was and Carlin would have been the first to tell you that. Bob Fosse directed the bio pic Lenny (1974) with Dustin Hoffman in the title role. (Watch the film then consider the fact that Hoffman didn't win the Best Actor Oscar and it'll tell you all you need to know about the validity of the Academy Awards.) Lenny Bruce was only 40 when he died. His impact on American society was a huge part of the Sixties Cultural Revolution. Dig it.

Like Allen Ginsberg before him he faced obscenity charges for using forbidden words in public. Unlike Ginsberg, he had a series of legal battles and was not routinely winning them at the time of his death. Ahh yes, his death. Heroin. The list of great artists who have been struck down in their prime, or for that matter before it, because of drugs or booze or both is sadly quite long. Lenny Bruce among them.

I'd not seen the film in a long time and was struck (figuratively and right across the mouth) at how powerfully and accurately it tells Bruce's story. Kudos to the late Bob Fosse and to the thankfully still present Mr. Hoffman. We do not see Lenny Bruce as a larger than life figure (whatever the hell that means) but as a comic who courageously decides to tell the truth. He broke the tradition of comedians who went for easy, comfortable laughs. He evoked laughter by touching upon some of the elemental truths of human nature and the nature of American hypocrisy. That this can be done is taken for granted in a time when The Daily Show and Colbert Report combine hilarity with truth telling. Bruce helped make it happen. If only he had stayed away from the junk....

Some movies never get old. You never tire of them. They always make you laugh. For this they are the embodiment of the word "classic." Case in point Woody Allen's Annie Hall (1977). Allen is essentially playing himself, which is to say the character of Alvy Singer is wise and witty, with an emphasis on the latter. Alvy is smitten with the title character (Diane Keaton in an Oscar winning performance) and who wouldn't be? This is a modern love story that cheerfully avoids romance cliches. Alvy is the anti-romantic lead. A bumbling, fumbling, paranoid, jealous, narcissistic boyfriend. Let's add the two p's: pithy and pathos. Pith and pathotic? He's twice married and like Allen himself it seems he'll never find the perfect woman for him. His imperfections are too numerous and help to bring out the worst in the women he woos. Being too smart for your own good, being too self aware for your good, being too introspective for your own good, those are qualities that I can relate to. Me, I blindly stumbled into a relationship with the love of my life. Alvy, as the movie ends, not so lucky.

It's a debatable point, but Allen may have been his most Alleneseque as Alvy Singer. Some would argue that playing yourself is cheap and easy. Some are wrong. Doing your usual schtick is no great chore but presenting it within the framework of a narrative, albeit a comic one, is no mean feat. Alvy is adorable in part because he is not only riddled with flaws but is the first to acknowledge more than half of them. Utterly charming.

There was a period in film when the silent, stoic type of hero was all the rage. Men of few words who guarded their thoughts and feelings closely and buried their personal histories deeply. For an example see Charlie Kohler nee Edouard Saroyan (Charles Aznavour) in Francois Truffaut's second great film (and my favorite) Shoot the Piano Player (1960). Charlie is the titular pianist.

He plies his trade in a modest little Parisian establishment where he is the headliner. But he has a past in which greater fame under a different name were enjoyed. But in discovering the price of his sudden fame a tragedy occurs and Charlie escapes into anonymity. He is flushed out by love and a sibling who operates well below the law. Charlie is not to blame for sad circumstances that befall him. In fact he proves clever, passionate and oft times agreeable, belying his own often wooden exterior. But how innocent are any of us in the fates that befall us? A different path here or there, a stronger plea or evocation, the slightest change in demeanor, can alter circumstances.

Perhaps the guarded and reserved would enjoy more fortuitous circumstances if more often willing to force the action. Still, Charlie has his music and there is always the hope of a new love.

Happy Francois Truffaut's Birthday Everyone!

The great French director Francois Truffaut was born on this day 78 years ago. It's hard to believe that he has been dead for a quarter of a century. Though taken from the world much, much too soon, he left behind 25 films including some of the greats of French -- or for that matter any -- cinema.


That would be enough cause to sing his praises, but Traffaut was also an important film critic and author. His works include a book-length interview with one of his heroes, Alfred Hitchcock.


Truffaut was not just a very good director, he was an influential one, being a pioneer of the French New Wave. He thus helped establish a new style of cinema which departed from the traditional film making of the time. Now there were clever uses of the camera in the name of story telling. Now there were experiments in themes often dealing with existentialism. Now there was cinema that kept pace and influenced a rapidly changing Western Culture. The New Wave style would help bring about the cinematic revolution of the Seventies (that actually began in 1967).

Follows are a few thoughts on some of Truffaut's films:

400 Blows (1959) is considered by many the forerunner of New Wave, it was certainly the film that propelled Truffaut's career. Here was everyday realism told with verve. The film ended with one of the most iconic freeze frames in film history.


My favorite Truffaut film soon followed, Shoot the Piano Player (1960), a satire of American gangster films. I wrote about it at length in September 2008. Two years later there was another of my favorites, Jules et Jim (1962) a film featuring a potpourri of visual styles including stills, newsreels, panning shots and freeze frames. This story of a decades long love triangle was probably even more influential  for future directors than 400 Blows.


Stolen Kisses (1968) was the third of five films, starting with 400 Blows, to feature the character Antoine Doinel who was played by Jean-Pierre Leaud. It is interesting to have a series of films following the life of a relatively ordinary bloke. Indeed in Stolen Kisses he is something of a loser, though successful enough with the ladies. Day for Night (1973) is one of the best films on film making ever made. The cast includes Truffaut as the director. He appeared in or provided narration for over a dozen films.


Small Change (1976) was perhaps his most sentimental film as it follows the fortunes of various members of a small town, focusing on its children. I wrote about it last June. Truffuat's last great film was The Last Metro (1980). This is a compelling film set in Nazi-occupied Paris during World War II. A Jewish stage director is in hiding beneath the stage of his still active theater. From there he guides his wife (Catherine Deneuve) in running the latest production.


I've actually yet to see The Wild Child (1970), a film based on the discovery in 1798 of a 13 year old boy who'd lived his entire life in the wilds. However I'll be watching it shortly after completing this post. It's kind of nice to have not seen that and a couple of other Truffaut films, it's giving me something to look forward. Then again once I've seen them all I'll have the joy of enjoying some for a second, third or fourth time.

Take These Valium and Watch 7 Hours of TV a Day and You Should Be Fine

In the antebellum South slaves were discouraged from reading. Oppressive limits on slave education were imposed as a reaction to Nat Turner'ssSlave revolt in Virginia in 1831. The murderous nature of the insurrection caused shock throughout the South. It had a particularly far-reaching impact on education over the next three decades. The fears of slave insurrections and the spread of abolitionist materials and ideology led to radical restrictions on gatherings, travel, and—of course—literacy. The ignorance of the slaves was considered necessary to the security of the slaveholders. Not only did owners fear the spread of specifically abolitionist materials, they did not want slaves to question their lot; thus, reading and reflection were to be prevented at any cost.

It's difficult for a bibliophile like me to imagine a more horrific world than the one depicted in Francois Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451 (1966).

Based on the novel of the same named penned by Ray Bradbury, the film depicts a world in which books and all other printed material are banned. Any books found are burned on the spot and their possessors arrested.

It is a compelling movie for its subject matter. But at the same time awkward in the way one might expect from a film made in English by a French director with a star and  director at odds. Truffaut and Oskar Werner differed on how Werner should play Guy Montag, the ambitious "fireman" who discovers a love of books. Werner played Montag as somewhat of a robot reasoning that this was, after all, science fiction. Truffaut wanted more passion out of his lead, especially in his discovery of reading books which was quite a leap for someone charged with their destruction. Truffaut was right. We simply see Montag mechanically sit down with a book and read, then develop an appetite for more. Witnessing the transformation would have been perhaps instructive, and definitely better cinema.

Be that as it may Fahrenheit 451, which I watched for the first time today, is a fascinating look at a future that's not so unimaginable. No, one doesn't expect books to be forever banned and destroyed, but they are already being crowded to the fringes of a society obsessed with instant information in bite size form. Meanwhile we have a significant segment of society that, if it reads at all, only bothers with the occasional political tome (and at that ones which re-enforce their existing beliefs) and eschews novels and philosophy --  the most despised books in the world of Fahrenheit 451.

In F451 TV dominates the home, with wall screens in the living rooms and smaller sets in every other (welcome to the future)! Indeed TV is family with on air personalities cousins. Content is totally sanitized for mass consumption. It helps that the entire population seems to be taking one form of sedative or another at all times. This is a scary future world.  People taking addictive drugs that, rather than stimulate thought, deaden the senses. It's all not hard to envision what with the prevalence of all manner of mood stabilizers in use today. And it's no stretch to say that our TVs serve a similar purpose. There are scores of channels featuring mindless dribble in the form of "reality" shows, cookie cutter sit coms, dramas that resonate all the way until they're closing credits (if that long) and political commentary meant to rally the forces, not stimulate discussion. We have a population of docile citizens constantly "vegging out" in front of the idiot box, only occasionally stirring  if spurred by their TV.

Books are reviled in F451 for their supposed propensity to make one sad. Point taken. Books do cause one to think and we all know the hazards of utilizing our intellect. Books open up entire worlds to us and God knows that many of those worlds are rife with tragedy and heartache. But how reading stirs the imagination! What insight is to be gained, what visions of worlds that are no more, worlds we'll never see, but most importantly worlds that could someday be! And what a wonderful way to explore the human condition, to understand those alien to us and to recognize the commonalities we enjoy (or suffer). Reading is the antithesis of a world where TV does our thinking for us.

Books provide adventure, excitement, romance, knowledge, opinion and perhaps best of all feeling. To really read is to feel. We engage our heart and minds and best of all exercise our imaginations in the accomplishment. A world without books is a world where corporate-approved factoids reign supreme over the intellectual process.

451's Montag is a believer in his world (don't we all want to be? I mean wouldn't be nice if the established order had nothing but everyone's best interests at heart?). But when he dares sample the forbidden fruit, he hungers for orchards.

Montag starts with David Copperfield (excellent choice!) and there's no turning back. We know that Montag will eventually be found out and can only hope that before being caught he'll find his way to the pockets of resistance. These are not groups of people who fight back. However, they not only do not tote guns, they don't even possess books. They become books. Each person commits a book to memory then destroys it so that he'll not be subject to arrest.

One person is Machiavelli's The Prince, another is Plato's The Republic, identical twins are both volumes of Pride & Prejudice. They all thus aim to preserve these books for a time when future generations may someday revel in the printed word.

Julie Christie plays two parts in F451. She is Montag's TV and drug addicted wife and Clarisse, Montag's neighbor who seduces him -- with questions, books and stories of the human literature. Would that Werner's performance was as interesting as hers.

Despite some basic flaws with the film, it's message is powerful and timeless. Now if you'll excuse I'm smack in the middle of Ernest Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tools....

The Joys and Sorrows but Mostly The Joys of Being A Child, Truffaut Style

Being a child is the best. Being a child is the worst. Being a child is to know freedom. Being a child is like serving a sentence. Being a child is wasted on the young.

Being a child was explored wonderfully by the late great French director, Francois Truffaut in L'Argent de Poche (1976) known to most in the U.S. by its American title, Small Change.

Here's what Vincent Canby said about the film in his review of October 1976:

"'Small Change' has the air of a child's Saturday afternoon when no special activities have been planned. It ambles through the lives of these children, observing them in school, at home, going to the movies, making do on a Sunday morning when parents sleep late, trying to pawn some textbooks, making painful and hilarious discoveries that, by the time we reach the end, have encompassed most of the ordinary expressions of childhood in ways not possible in the conventional fiction film."

The great American sitcom Seinfeld was supposedly a show about nothing. That was, of course, a misnomer, it was about everything. An uncommonly hilarious look at four pixilated New Yorkers that managed to say a lot about relationships, culture and people. In the same sense Small Change is about nothing in particular and everything in general.

It takes a brave director like Truffaut to follow so many different threads in a film of just under an hour and three quarters and to do so with child actors, most of whom had never acted before. To make such a charming and insightful movie in the bargain is a mark of a true genius.

The children of the small French town of Thiers are the stars of Small Change. You may not be surprised to learn that they are no different than children in other industrialized part of the world.

Bored by school and thus adept clock watchers. Always looking for a good time. Curious about the world and their place in it, even ready to be defiant and push boundaries. Children, as I know especially well from 20 years of teaching, are great boundary pushers. Let's see just how much we can get away with before trouble starts is the common credo.

Happily the term mischievous is becoming archaic. It implied that children were "up to no good" though pure at heart. One shouldn't put such a value judgement upon what children are "up to." Who says its no good? We stuffy old adults do and by golly everyone knows the worth of our opinions. No, what children are "up to" is testing. Toes are forever poking into water to discover what's cold and what's hot and what's just right. What children are "up to" is learning, figuring out, negotiating, reconciling. They really want to know what it's all about. And for that matter, what "it" is.

That's the dad blasted thing about adults. Many of us stop looking. We decide rather quickly that we know what it's all about. We develop a world view and stick with it. All actions and events are observed through the same prism. Children take things on their own terms, unfiltered.

This is just some of what Truffuat gives us through Small Change as he follows some of the the young uns around through the last month of a school year. The kiddies range in age from about 18 months to about 14 years. Those are your prime growing up years. No longer a baby, not yet a corrupted teen who knows what it's all about.

Boys and girls are equally represented, as is when their two worlds collide at around 12 or 13. Oh sure they may play together before then but its without the complications that plague the sexes forever after puberty sets in. (There is a first kiss scene in Small Change that is oh so sweet without being at all cloying or exploitative.)

Among its other gifts, Small Change is kind to its adults. Teachers, parents and other oldsters are not the bad guys. Truffuat wouldn't cheapen his story like that, for one thing he's not dealing in stereotypes. Nor types of any kind for that matter. Everything is quite natural. Adults are seen as coping the best they can, whether with a pregnancy, a spouse who's split or a son whose friends cut his hair. Children and adults are not at war here, they just often have conflicting goals.

It is not all Pollyanna sweetness. We do have the abused child who in turn is the local delinquent. Poor lad. Truffaut handles him and his scenes appropriately, that is, without comment. A good director trusts the audience to make up their own minds.

Some films about childhood make one nostalgic for a time that in actuality never existed. That's, I suppose, the definition of nostalgia, a false memory that sanitizes the past. By being more true to reality, Small Change does a greater service to our mental meanderings. Small Change had me reflecting on childhood from the perspective of a former child, a teacher and a parent.

Parenting has been about as rewarding a venture as I could ever imagine. Both my childhood and teaching experiences have been incredibly mixed with much to recommend and much to rue. I appreciate the fact that Small Change does not sentimentalize. It does however capture more the joys than the disappointments of childhood and parenting.

TCM just showed it last night so it'll not be appearing there anytime soon. So jump, hop, skip to your local video store (imagine being part of a great adventure as you go) and rent a copy this weekend. Or if you must, go to your online account and book it for immediate delivery (by a stork!).

As the kids would say: it's fun!

The Greatness of French Cinema, 15 Examples From 15 Different Directors

In my previous post I positively gushed about French cinema and promised the list that follows. I had a made a particular point about how French film is more about making the audience think and feel than making the producers a quick buck. Story, character development and exploration and avant garde cinema photography, style and editing are at the heart of French film making.

I can't add much to the title of this post except to say that I have intentionally left out a few of the better known French films, including some my favorites of all time. For examples I have omitted Renoirs's Grand Illusion (my favorite of all French films) and Melville's Army of Shadows (second favorite) as well as such films as Truffaut's 400 Blows, Carne's Children of Paradise and Godard's Breathless. In some cases its because I've already written about that film on this blog (such as Army of Shadows) or because I like the lesser known film better (such as Carne's Port of Shadows).

I restricted myself to one film per director partially to show the breadth of French cinema but also to help myself narrow it down. This could have been a very long list indeed. Anyway I offer these films, all available on DVD and hope that you discover or re-discover one. I've linked them all to IMDb, as per my custom. The order is chronological.

Le Million (1931) Rene Clair. What a fun movie! Comedy, romance, musical numbers, even a touch of intrigue. A struggling artist on the brink of eviction wins the lottery but can't find the ticket. Sacrebleu! The fun never stops. The songs and romance flow right along with the narrative. Absolutely delightful!

Boudo Saved From Drowning (1932) Jean Renoir. It took Hollywood until the late 1960's to make a film like this. Michael Simon is Boudo, a tramp who jumps into the Seine. He is rescued and taken in by a mild mannered book store owner. Boudo makes quite an impact on the family -- a leopard can't change its spots. It is great commentary on society and the human condition. Funny too.

Port of Shadows (1938) Marcel Carne. Jean Gabin was one of the greatest stars of all time. If you never seen him before or only in Grand Illusion check out this film. Gabin plays a military deserter who finds love and a rather odd company of protectors and rivals. The performances are matched by strong atmospheric cinematography. A noir ahead of its time.

Forbidden Games (1952) Rene Clement. Utterly heart breaking, sweet, sentimental and about a central truth of war. Two children are thrown together at the outset of the Nazi invasion of France. One an instant war orphan, the other part of a large farm family. In the wrong hands its the type of story that can go horribly wrong and be maudlin or too depressing. It's simply and honestly told here and not easily forgotten.

Madame De... (1953) Max Ophuls. Opulent. Gorgeous. A beautiful movie to watch. Best to see on the big screen but what are the odds of it coming soon to a theater near you? It's a costume tradition but that's selling the story short. There's real depth to the story and its characters.

Cleo from 5 to 7 (1962) Agnes Varda. At last a female director and an outstanding one at that. It's Varda's tale of a woman who awaits word of medical tests that could bear the worst possible news by killing time in Paris. There's not an ounce of sentiment to the character of Cleo, a popular and vain singer. What she does with those two hours! Great character study.

Le Doulos (1962) Jean-Pierre Melville. Just out on DVD this is in my mind the best of Melville's many outstanding hard boiled crime films, which is saying a lot considering what preceded and followed it (Bob Le Flambeur, Le Samourai, etc.). There is double dealing aplenty as a recently released crook seeks the proverbial last big score. Jean Paul Belmondo is among the strong cast.

Band of Outsiders (1964) Jean-Luc Godard. How to see the Louvre in 15 minutes. One of a seemingly endless stream of films from New Wave directors that was supposed to be the trend setter and barrier breaker of them all. Never mind that, just enjoy the hi jinks of two young wannabe crooks and a the girl they enlist in their capers. There's a number of scenes not to be missed highlighted by the cafe dance (pictured above). Paris in a brooding, bleak, black and white was never lovelier.

Two of Us (1967) Claude Berri. A young Jewish boy is sent to live with an elderly family on a farm during World War II for his own protection. Fair enough, but what if the the man of the house is an anti semite? Fortunately this Petain-loving patriot doesn't know the young lad's true religion -- at first. The two form one of the more unlikely and extraordinary friendships in film. Michael Simon stars 35 years after playing Boudo. His gruff exterior hides the the real heart behind this heart warming story.

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) Luis Bunel. If you like surrealism, symbolism and riffs on decadence this is your film. By turns frustrating and hilarious it is ultimately a series of interesting statements of society, at least circa 1967 when everything was changing.

La Cage Aux Folles (1978) Edouard Molinaro. There was an adequate remake starring Robin Williams and Nathan Lane but as is so often the case the original is superior. Two gay men who live together and own a nightclub where transvestites are featured must hide their true natures when one of their sons marries. A hilarious set up is fully realized.

The Last Metro (1980) Francois Truffaut. In occupied France a Jewish theater owner is being hid from the Nazis by his actress wife played by Catherine Deneuve. Inevitably further complications ensue as the show must go on -- that is, plays in the theater. Our man in hiding is trying to run the show from his hideout meanwhile his wife is falling for her co-star. A new DVD release is scheduled for March 24.

Au Revoir Les Enfants (1987) Louis Malle. A boarding school in the early 1940's seems happily secluded from the war that is ravaging Europe. Even to a the newly arrived Jewish student. Inevitably, the war intrudes. Meanwhile the Jewish boy befriends a fellow student. Malle based the story on his own war-time experiences. One of the great films of our time.

Read My Lips (2001) Jaques Audiard. One of the better thrillers ever made, period. The good citizen, a 35 year old hearing impaired woman, hires the bad citizen a 20 something ex con, at her company. A plot is hatched, trouble ensues, danger, romance and surprises. Vastly underrated.

I Loved You For So Long (2008) Philippe Claudel. The highlight is an extraordinary performance by Kristin Scott Thomas. We meet Thomas' character as she is being picked up at the airport by her younger sister. We slowly learn where the older sister has been for so long, then why, then the real reason. But mostly we learn about her and the people around her. Fascinating.

Don't Shoot the Unemotional Man

I'm intrigued by the laconic post modern protagonist. One example is Charles Aznavour in Francois Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player (1960). Azavou's Charlie Kohler (nee Eduoard Sayroan) shows as much emotion as a sleeping cat. Smiles and frowns make infrequent and abbreviated appearances on Charlie's rather ordinary face. Alaim Delon in Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Samouri (1967) is another Frenchmen who can't be bothered with visible displays of emotion. He is the anti Pacino in his studied calm.

There is something engaging about these stoic characters, seemingly unruffled by fate or circumstance. Of course, seemingly is a key word for we can only guess at their inner turmoils. Given what we don't know about these men they are all the more interesting for their outward placidity.

A viewer has a certain confidence in a character who doesn't bark or blush. He allows events and other people to swirl around him reacting appropriately but betraying nothing of his feelings. Here is another key, these men act. There is little discussion, no conferences or negotiations they just do. Of course these men are loners although they usually have a beautiful woman nearby who loves him. His love for her will be expressed physically, not through words.

The French do not have a monopoly on such characters, witness Steve McQueen's Doc McCoy in The Getaway (1972) or Ryan O'Neal as the tile character in The Driver (1978). Both films were written by Walter Hill who was obviously parital to quiet men of action.

These are methodical men almost to the point of being robotic. Audiences root for them with the same fervor they do more effusive men. Perhaps because they intrigue us. Why are they so quiet? Does nothing stir them? Is there some trauma that robbed them of feeling? Or are they simply so purposeful as to be unaffected by the rest of us mortals? Perhaps that's it, while the rest of us expose our thoughts and feelings these men are in control. How wonderful to be in command of the one thing that we actually can be -- ourselves.

I love Shoot the Piano Player in part for how unflappable Charlie acts. Whether in the face of a kidnappers, a murder, or a new love he keeps on keepin' on. Given the events of the film, he is like the eye of the storm. But Charlie is not a simple man. His virtuosity on the piano and desire to raise a younger sibling suggest depth. So it is with these post modern silent types. They always suggest that there is a lot below those silent surfaces.

Such characters certainly are best suited for a particular type of film. Often European or North American movies of the 1960's and '70's. Sometimes a neo noir or crime film. Certainly where extraordinary events take place. (Being stoic in the face of washing the dishes is hardly remarkable.)

And it is not by accident that I used the masculine pronoun. This is a male type of role. Women are constitutionally incapable of such self repression -- thankfully. But, at least in film, women are drawn to the stoics, often with tragic results. Tragedy dances about and sometimes visits our silent heroes. And they never even bat an eye.

Finally it may be that in their very calm they act as mirrors for the surrounding action. In Shoot the Piano Player Charlie has brothers and co workers and neighbors who set in motion events and in turn respond outwardly and dramatically. Through Charlie the audience has a lens for the ongoing action. Charlie's mien provides our locus. We need him to stay cool he provides order.

Perhaps that's the true definition of being cool.