It's Time Again For Your Favorite Feature: Films I've Watched Lately, Some of Which I've Loved Greatly

The Awful Truth

The Awful Truth (1937) McCarey. A classic of the screwball comedy genre that is highlighted by one scene. Irene Dunne and Cary Grant are going through a divorce that’s about to become final. Masquerading as Grant’s sister, Dunne shows up at Grant’s fiancé’s mansion, where there is a formal yet intimate gathering. What ensues is comedy gold. The brilliance is that Dunne never overplays it. She acts just unhinged enough to create maximum discomfort while remaining completely committed to the performance. Grant's reactions are priceless—he's trying desperately to maintain his dignity while watching his carefully constructed world collapse around him. The timing between them is immaculate. While Dunne steals the scene, it doesn’t work without Grant as something of a straight man.

Wonder Boys (2000) Hanson. One thing I love about Wonder Boys is that it feels so much like a February weekend—especially the Sunday scenes. How does a movie do that so well? Create the feeling of a specific day? Wonder Boys blends meloncholy, humor, and a deep affection for its characters. Michael Douglas, Robert Downey Jr. and Tobey Maguire are brilliant, interesting and a bit lost. Katie Holmes and Frances McDormand do nothing but add to the film’s charms. Wonder Boys is less interested in plot than in spending time with people who, even if we can't relate to them, we at least enjoy spending time with. As someone who flatters himself to be a novelist, I particularly relate every time I see it. 

No Country For Old Men (2007) Hanson. A perfectly made film, masterfully directed by the Coens. So many memorable scenes that stay with you. Like the coin toss. It's interesting that in that scene the Coens didn't do the usual thing of making Anton a nice sort when he wasn't killing people. He was a jerk at all times. I also liked when the manager of the trailer park stood up to him and refused to give Llewelyn's workplace. There was nothing he could do. Every scene with Tommy Lee Jones is excellent. He's something like the moral centerpiece of the film. The sanity within. After this viewing I moved NCFOM into my top twenty on my all-time favorites list.

La piscine (196) Deray. My second viewing and I now regard it as a masterpiece. A love triangle starring Alain Delon, Romy Schneider and Maurice Ronet. Added to the mix is the young daughter of Ronet’s character played by Jane Birkin. It would be easy to overlook her given her three co-stars all of whom were excellent (not surprisingly). But Birkin as an actress had quiet confidence in this film and so did her character. The first time she opens up and speaks is when the movie became really interesting to me, I can't exactly tell you why, but perhaps it announced that she wasn't merely decorative and thus the whole movie was going to be deeper than I'd imagined. What La piscine does so well is build. It’s not a film that announces itself in the first minute — that’s too easy. It asks our patience and then pays off. I can’t wait to watch it again.

Lancelot du lac (1974) Bresson. I hated this movie. I’m baffled as to why it’s so highly regarded. Usually when I don’t like an acclaimed film I can at least see why others do. Not with this one. Part of it is that I’m not a big fan of Robert Bresson. I thought A Man Escaped, Diary of a Country Priest and Pickpocket were good films but I hardly consider them classics. But this iteration of the Arthurian legend — I was bored to death.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Ford. Jimmy Stewart is far too old to be playing the lead character, just as in Vertigo and Bell, Book and Candle. For one thing he’s twenty-two years older than Vera Miles who plays his wife. Why did they continually cast Stewart in roles for younger actors? The film itself is fine though if I were making a list of my favorite John Ford films, here would be at least a dozen Ford films ahead of it. TMWSLV is not as visually interesting as other Ford films, it was shot mostly on studio lots. Liberty Valance is almost cartoonishly evil. I like the political/historical themes but they weren't at all subtle.

Wagon Master

Wagon Master (1950) Ford. Somehow I’d never seen this John Ford film, given that I knew little about it, I wasn’t expecting much. I got a lot. What a wonderful film. I liked Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. as the wagon masters and always enjoy Ward Bond when he has a juicy part. Also fun to see Alan Mowbray. Beautiful film to look at and interesting that the film starts before the opening credits, which I was initially confused by. I suppose by Ford standards it’s a modest film but by any standards it’s a terrific one and typically beautiful to look at with equal respect to the characters and the scenery. 

Shampoo (1975) Ashby. One thing that particularly struck me from this viewing is what an empty person Warren Beatty's character, George is. He has no interior life and nothing profound to say. Other than wanting his own shop he's directionless. Today he'd probably be classified as a sex and love addict. Overall the film is excellent. Hal Ashby directed a string of really good movies that I love in the seventies like The Landlord, Harold and Maude, The Last Detail, Shampoo and Being There. Shampoo is set on election eve 1968 but was filmed at the heart of Watergate. An interesting combination. A great cast that includes Goldie Hawn, Julie Christie, Carrie Fisher (first film role), Lee Grant (gorgeous at fifty) and Jack Warden. Warden graced many a great film including From Here to Eternity, Twelve Angry Men, All the President’s Men, Being There, Heaven Can Wait and The Verdict. He made all those films and Shampoo better for his presence.

Dersu Uzala (1975) Kurosawa. I greatly appreciate films that combine technical mastery with deep compassion for their characters. This is a perfect example. Dersu Uzala is an odd one in a sense because here we have the great Japanese director directing a film set in Russia with Russian actors speaking Russian. It’s one of his later pictures but retains so many Kurosawa touches while being distinct from most of his other work. I really liked the title character who is a native hunter helping Russian soldiers on early 20th century surveying missions. It’s a day later and many of the film’s scenes still live vividly in my memory. Few directors have filmed nature better than Kurosawa and this is a classic man versus nature film with a heart-warming friendship and two richly drawn characters at the heart of it.

It is the Long-Awaited Return of Headlines!

Happy Pride Month Everybody!

It's been awhile (February '22) since I offered headline's from the day's news with my wise, snarky and pithy comments following. It used to be a regular feature on this blog but for the past few years there hasn't been much in the way of news so....Anyway it's back, at least for today. Enjoy!

From the New York Times:

Supreme Court Expands Trump’s Power Over Immigration

In other words xenophobia and hatred are to be codified into law. As a student of U.S. history I can tell you that this is nothing new. See, for but one example, the Chinese Exclusion Act. Is there a country that owes more to immigrants? Doubt it. But few countries vilify immigrants as much.

More Temperature Records Fall as Deadly Heat Stifles Europe

It used to be to that you could go to England in the summer and not worry about heat. No more. The temperature has hit 100 degrees in London. France has been baking. What’s at the root of it all? Don’t tell Trumpy this, but according to scientists (those weird-ohs) it’s human-made climate change.

California Will Vote on a Billionaire Tax. Billionaires Aren’t Happy

Guess what, billionaires? You’re outnumbered. And ya know what else billionaires? Fuck you. You’ve got more money than ten people would ever need and you’ve got the gall (unmitigated gall at that) to whine about a bigger tax bite? No sympathy for you, ya greedy bastards.

From CNN:

Texas is poised to require millions of students to study Bible stories

While you’re at it, Texas, why not require students to read about unicorns, Bigfoot and Star Wars? If you’re going to use fantasy stories in schools, don’t limit them to Christian ones. Of course this means that Americans (at least in places like Texas) are going to get even dumber. 

Why Seattle’s Pride match has caused outrage for the two teams playing in it

As part of Pride Month and the hosting of some World Cup matches in Seattle the contest between Iran and Egypt has been designated the pride match. Rainbow flags everywhere. The two participants aren’t happy about this because they’re fundamentalist Islamic states — in other words, raging homophobes. Don’t like it Egypt and Iran? Go the fuck home. Some of us embrace our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. Sorry you’re still back in the dark ages. (But's our culture, it's our religion. Then fuck your culture and your religion.)

From the BBC:

Could a Madison Square Garden wedding be the love story of Taylor Swift's wildest dreams?

Honestly. I don’t care. I know the woman has gazillion fans and that one of my daughters is one of them, but why would people obsess over a celebrity’s wedding? Obsess over a new album? Sure. But nuptials? Come on.

Why has Trump stayed away from the World Cup?

So he does’t have to endure more booing? Because like most Americans he doesn’t really like soccer? Because the damn president should be tending to other matters? 

From the Guardian:

Alarm over ‘extreme’ sentences for anti-ICE protesters convicted of terrorism

Harsh sentencing is a hallmark of repressive regimes, especially against dissent. This is another clear sign — like we needed one — that the U.S. is slipping into authoritarianism. 

Why did Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene leave the Republican party?

Better question: why aren’t more people leaving the Republican Party? 

From MSNBC:

FEMA official known for Waffle House teleportation claims steps down from role

Dude’s name is Gregg Phillips (what’s with the three ‘gs” in Greg?). Here’s a line from the article: “he claimed, more than once, that he was involuntarily teleported, including an incident in which he said he was sent to a Waffle House restaurant 50 miles away. In response to questions about his alleged experiences, the FEMA official continued to insist on the validity of his claims.” Trumpy, in his infinite wisdom, had appointed this election-denying nutcase as  head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Office of Response and Recovery. Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. I dare you to try,

Stephen Miller memo exposes plan to punish Americans with disabilities

You’ve always thought Stephen Miller was an evil bastard. Turns out you had no idea. Miller is behind a DOJ memo that lets states institutionalize Americans with disabilities instead of funding the community care that allows them to remain home—undoing decades of reform and precedent. Again, you can’t make this stuff up and again, I dare you to try.

I Hate Los Angeles But There Are Some Great Films Set There, Here's Ten of Them

Sterling Hayden and Elliot Gould at the beach in The Long Goodbye

I do not like Los Angeles. Never have. Never will. It’s a place where people drive their cars to visit a next door neighbor. There is no charm. No downtown. Nothing but schlock and gloss and edifice. There are beautiful neighborhoods but they have no soul. It is an endless sea of people, cars, streets, freeways and parking lots. There are many malls. You can find anything you need in L.A, but nothing you’d want. So much of everything is nothing.

New York — a million times the city L.A. is — has been the setting for countless classic films and hundreds of good ones and of course quite a few mediocre and bad ones. L.A. cannot compare — even though it is where many films are made — but it has been the setting for some of American cinemas greatest films. In other words for New York I could probably list fifty great films. For other cities, five would be a stretch, for L.A. I managed a top ten. 

Here it is.

Chinatown (1974) Polanski. One of the ten greatest films of all time and the one that is the classic expression of what the L.A. area is all about: greed, corruption and water rights. L.A. between the wars was not a boomtown but a boommetropolis. Polanski, brilliant set and costume designers and a cast led by Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway made it all look luscious. L.A. was certainly more habitable then and maybe had a bit of charm. Maybe not in Chinatown though.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) Tarantino. This the L.A. of fifty areas ago. It’s  good in in depicting that time that you can’t believe it’s time-stamped 2019. The sights the sound (it’s the car radios in the background that clinch the deal) and you’d swear the smell of L.A. in 1969. A masterpiece of design and mood and of capturing a place and time.

Sunset Blvd.(195) Wilder. Here we go back to the L.A. of 1950 when the boom was cresting and Hollywood and the studio system were still riding high. The decadence is on full display via the home of aging silent star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson in almost a case of it takes one to know one), the desperate wannabe, Joe Gillis is captured perfectly by William Holden. It’s sad, creepy but magnificent. 

The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks. This is noir L.A. at its best, which can be quite entertaining though generally not comparable to noir New York or San Francisco. L.A. actually looks interesting here. Neighborhoods, cafes and that bohemian house where the initial murder takes place.

Double Indemnity (1944) Wilder. Here again L.A. looks tolerable. The Dietrichson home and neighborhood are pleasant enough. Downtown L.A. is a wonderfully noir-like as is Walter Neff’s apartment. Overall it feels less L.A. than the other films here listed. That’s a good thing.

Pulp Fiction (1994) Tarantino. Nineties L.A. Get your kahuna burger. There’s nothing pretty about this L.A. and we see plenty of it. It is the functional L.A. with places to hang your hat, eateries, clubs and — if you’re into it —drug dealers. Nobody stops to look at what’s around them. There’s too much going on for that. A great place to be famous or anonymous.

Shampoo (1975) Ashby. It was set in November 1968 and filmed in ’74-75 so it captures a bit of both eras. This is a hip L.A. with Warren Beatty playing the classic Southern Californian — totally vacuous and yet desired. Riding his chopper from one sexual assignation to the next, he’s totally oblivious to any “real world” problems. He’s all in that empty head — ya know, just like L.A. itself. That party in the hills is L.A. at its hippest.

Rebel Without a Cause (195 5) Ray. High school L.A. the Griffith observatory and some of the homes seem pleasant enough. This is L.A. as an over-populated suburb. Gum-snapping, hot rods and the sense that there’s gotta be a malt shop around the corner. It’s teen land.

Boyz N the Hood (1991) Singleton. Not the L.A. we’re used to seeing in films. This is heavily African-American and say, where have Black people been in other L.A. films? Except for the maids and valet parking attendants they’ve been tucked away. This is a very real L.A. with starkly human stories and tragedies. A rare but important glimpse into the L.A. that their police forces tried to beat into submission.

The Long Goodbye (1973) Altman. Seventies noir L.A. with an updated version of the same Philip Marlowe Bogie played in the Big Sleep. This time it's an uber cool Elliot Gould doing the honors. Altman-style L.A. is voguish noir, with naked girls next door and angry mobsters showing up unexpectedly. There’s also the big beach house and parties. Looks like fun.

What To Do When There are Multiple Versions of a Film, The Blogger Advises on Nine Such Cases

Blackmail by Hitchcock

Something that’s become easy these days is watching a movie. Used to be that you would have to wait for a film to appear in theaters again or worse, hope it showed up on TV. In which case it would be riddled with commercial breaks — yuck! You had no control. Today you can watch virtually any picture you’ve a mind to. For me, as an example, a film I’m interested in — especially if it’s one I love — could be part of my extensive DVD collection (over 300 titles). It might be available on Netflix, The Criterion Channel, HBO, Hulu, TCM, You Tube, Peacock or Amazon. In the past few years I’ve only come across a handful of movies that I can’t find anywhere. Yes, finding a movie to watch is easy. Unless….

It has multiple versions. Which one to watch? If you’re going to invest two hours in a film it damn well better be the better version of the two or the best version of the five. Let me see if I can help.

As a general rule the “extended cut” or “director’s version” or especially the “extended director’s cut/version” is better. But not always. Often there’s a director’s cut because the suits at the studio thought the film too long and butchered it. Okay, sometimes they didn’t butcher it, but they did take out key scenes. Of course, sometimes studios make cuts that improve a film, the director was over-indulgent. Usually not.

One example is Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) Welles. The story is that Welles made a masterpiece. Then he left the country and the studio got a hold of his print and eviscerated it. Welles was mortified and refused to have anything to do with the new version. Sadly, a copy of the original has never been found and may not even exist. The studio version was a very good film. But a very good film is a far cry from a masterpiece. 

Alfred Hitchcock has to be in any discussion of the greatest directors of all time. He made cinematic classics from the silent era through the Sixties. But he also made two absolute clunkers: The Paradine Case and Jamaica Inn. What was different about those two besides the fact that they stunk? The studios re-cut them. When you’re watching one of those films (and I’d advise against it) you’re not truly seeing a Hitchcock film.

I cannot advise you on every film that has multiple versions as there are so many and so many of them are the types of films I don’t watch. Also, in many cases there is no longer more than one available, unless you go to a used DVD store. Streaming services and TV channels don’t tend to offer you more than one version. Understandably.

But I thought it worthwhile for me to offer guidance on a few films that I’m well acquainted with. All are part of my extensive DVD collection (I love saying and writing “my extensive DVD collection.”) I will try avoid telling  you that one is BETTER than the other(s) though it will be, at times, unavoidable. In some cases the differences are a matter of taste and we all have different tastes — or so I’m told.

The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin. There is the original version that was released in theaters in 1925 and then a 1942 re-release from Chaplin. The latter version includes Chaplin’s narration which is slightly shorter as Chaplin deleted a few scenes, notably ones featuring Georgia Hale, the female lead. In my opinion the narration is unnecessary and the deleted scenes are sorely missed, so I’d strongly recommend the original version. If you appreciate silent films than you’ll definitely favor the original. 

The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks. With my DVD of this great film you choose between the pre-release and theatrical versions. Without going into details, the major difference between the two is that the theatrical version has a greater emphasis on the romance between Bogart and Bacall. The pre-release is more plot heavy. To me, the plot is heavy enough and I dearly love the byplay between the two leads, so I always watch the theatrical version. Either is fine but I think the general consensus —if it matters to you, is that the romantic focus is essential to the film.

Fanny and Alexander (1982) Bergman. Here’s a case in which I’m going to say one version is far superior to the other. There is a theatrical version of Fanny and Alexander and the TV version. Watching the theatrical version is — in my humble opinion — just plain silly. Think of it this way, imagine watching three episodes of Breaking Bad edited into one episode. Fanny and Alexander was meant for TV, when you reduce its 320 minutes to 188 minutes you’re cutting down it to and into the bone. It’s silly that they even thought to make a theatrical version. Fanny and Alexander (the full version) is one of the great gems of cinema — even if it was originally for TV.

Das Boot (1981) Peterson. To me this a case of three bears where one of three is “just right” — the middle one. There is the first U.S. theatrical version which is 149 minutes. Too short. There is original German TV mini-series which is 282 minutes. Too long. Finally there is the director’s cut which is 208 minutes. Just right. Indeed the director’s cut is, for me one of the great films of all time. The other two versions are fine and if you love the story as I do watching all three isn’t a bad idea, I think if you do, you’ll settle on the director’s cut as the best best.

Blade Runner (1982) R. Scott. There have been four versions. The original U.S, theatrical version and the International version are probably pretty hard to find these days, which is just as well as they are not highly regarded. I don’t believe I’m over-stepping when I say that I’d not bother. Both feature voice over narration which is totally unnecessary and indeed distracting. Worse, they also feature a studio-imposed happy ending that maybe doesn’t ruin the film but doesn’t fit with its general tone. That leaves you with the two director’s versions, one from 1992 and the other from 2007. The latter was fully controlled by the director Ridley Scott and is the one that you’re most likely to come across today. Frankly I don’t know why anyone would bother with any other version but feel free to check out the others.

Apocalypse Now (1979) Coppola. Here’s the big one. Cinephiles are divided between the original version and Apocalypse Now Redux. The difference between the two is the added scenes in Redux which lengthen the film by fifteen minutes. I’ve read that more people like the original because it is tighter and gets to the crux of the film faster. I like the Redux better because to me it expands the story to include a bit more history and an exploration of imperialism and colonialism. I’d never get into an argument about which version is better. The best thing to do — if you really like the film — is watch them both. I have and…well, you know what I think.

Andrei Rublev (1966) Tarkovsky. This is an easy one. There is an original 203 minute cut and the director-approved version, which is twenty-two minutes shorter. The second time I watched Andrei Rublev, unlike the first time, I found myself a bit bored at times. When it was over I realized I’d watched the longer version. The third time I watched I was sure to watch the shorter version. I wasn’t bored for a second. That’s all I’ve got to say on the matter other than that you should feel free to watch the longer version, as opinions may differ.

Blackmail (1929) Hitchcock. There is a silent version and a talking version of this great film. It was made as studios were transitioning to sound, hence the two takes. I much prefer the silent version. Early talkies were not great and this is an example. Sound was just being developed for use in films and actors weren’t yet comfortable with it. This comes across in Blackmail. Also Blackmail is powerful in large part because of the striking visuals, these are emphasized more in the silent version. If you don’t like silents then by all means watch the talkie version, otherwise I’d strongly recommend the silent version.

Touch of Evil (1958) Welles. There are three versions. The original theatrical version (93 minutes), The Preview Version (108) minutes and the 1998 reconstruction (111 minutes). I’m not going to tell you outright which one to watch but I’ll say that the first version was butchered by the studio. The second version restores much of Welles’ vision. The third restores even more of it and eliminates the upbeat score that accompanies the opening tracking shot in the other versions. I don’t believe anyone prefers the originally released version and most prefer the last version — as do I. But the second version has it’s supporters, mostly people who like original score and think the third has awkward sound edits. I believe the opening scene needs to be seen without the score and with the ambient street noises as in version three.

If there’s anything else I can help you with please drop a line. 

Appreciating The Grapes of Wrath, A Classic American Film

There’s so much I love about John Ford’s cinematic version of The Grapes of Wrath that it’s difficult to know where to begin. How about here: Pa Joad and the two youngest (BTW, the actors playing Ma and Pa are way too old to have children that young, but that was the way with films from that era) enter a diner to buy a loaf of bread. The loaves cost fifteen cents but they can only spare ten. The cook insists the waitress give it to them for ten. Then Pa asks about the candy that the children are drooling over. How much, he wants to know. The waitress says two for a penny. That’s perfect for the Joads and the kinds get their candy and leave. One of the two truck drivers who are dining there point out to the waitress that the candies are two cents each, not two for a penny. She feigns ignorance. Then the truck drivers leave. Obviously heartened by the generosity they have witnessed they leave too big a tip. The waitress points out how much they’ve left. “What’s it to ya?” One of ‘em growls. Nobody gives a speech. Nobody announces that they're being generous. The waitress pretends not to notice she's being kind. The truck drivers pretend not to notice she's being kind. The Joads are allowed their dignity. The whole scene works because everyone conspires to preserve everyone else's self-respect. Warms my heart.

I also love John Qualen as Muley. Qualen had an astounding 225 credits as an actor including in such great films as Casablanca, The Searchers, His Girl Friday and Grapes. He really demonstrates his acting chops in this film. Muley is a difficult role because he could easily come across as a colorful eccentric. Instead Qualen makes him tragic. He isn't merely stubborn; he's a man whose identity is so tied to the land that leaving would mean ceasing to be himself. When he prowls around the abandoned homestead like a ghost, he's almost a harbinger of what's waiting for the Joads.

The tracking shot when the Joads drive into the first itinerant camp is memorable. It begins at a tilted angle which gives a disorienting sense to the scene. We see the faces and the shacks of the campers as their heavily laden truck pulls in. It’s but one example of how Ford managed to show the all-encompassing poverty and desperation that afflicted the migrants.

Grapes of Wrath the film, like the great John Steinbeck novel that inspired it, is masterful at showing the combined effects of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression coupled with the callousness and greed of the wealthy farmers, union busters and businessmen who took advantage of them. It is not a great representation of the American dream but it is a brilliant exposé of capitalism run amok.

What most people remember after watching the film is the speeches by Tom (Henry Fonda) and Ma (Jane Darwell) towards the end. This is as it should be. Rather than comment on them I’ll present snippets.

Tom: Then it don't matter. I'll be all around in the dark - I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too.

Ma: Well, Pa, a woman can change better'n a man. A man lives sorta - well, in jerks. Baby's born or somebody dies, and that's a jerk. He gets a farm or loses it, and that's a jerk. With a woman, it's all in one flow, like a stream - little eddies and waterfalls - but the river, it goes right on. Woman looks at it thata way. Rich fellas come up an' they die, an' their kids ain't no good an' they die out. But we keep a'comin'. We're the people that live. They can't wipe us out; they can't lick us. We'll go on forever, Pa, 'cause we're the people.

Like all of Ford’s best movies, Grapes benefits from superior camera work. One of the great cinema photographers of all time, Greg Toland worked with Ford. It’s a movie one could watch with the sound off and just appreciate the beauty of the black and white. The lighting is masterful. The choice of close-ups, medium shots and long shots is always spot on. There are shots that bookend the film of Tom Joad walking in the distance from far away. He’s barely more than a stick figure against the darkening horizon but he attains a sort of importance and dignity from being seen in such a way. Ford did a similar thing with Fonda at the end of Young Mr. Lincoln.

The Grapes of Wrath is an important film as a social document. It must have had an incredible sense of immediacy when it came out because still today it still feels as if torn from the day’s headlines, to use a cliche. The theme of the rich getting richer while the poor only get poorer is constant in American history, more so at certain times.

What a fantastic film. Surely one of the great works of American cinema.