29 June 2025

It's Time for Another Installment of It's Films I've Watched Lately Some of Which I Loved Greatly

From Starlet directed by Sean Baker

Midnight in Paris (20110 Allen. It’s not easy to make a movie that feels truly “magical.” This is evidenced by how bad most films are that try to delve in the supernatural in any way shape or form. Woody Allen as writer and director pulled it off with Midnight in Paris. There has be to be a dash of believability to the story’s conceit. Normal conventions need to be followed within the fantasy world. The story has to be compelling enough to make its total implausibility forgotten. The actors have to buy into the story and play it straight, not with a wink and a nod to the audience whether literal or figurative. Lastly it needs to move the audience either through its action, love story or message. With Midnight in Paris Allen made one of the best movies ever of any kind. The missus and I watched it Saturday night for the perhaps the fifth, sixth or seventh time. Hard to keep track. I could watch it again tonight. The story of a man who is able to travel from the 21st century to 1920s Paris every night is perfect for someone like me who is fascinated by certain eras of the past — including Paris in the twenties. I’m also fascinated by the notion of time travel which is why all of the books I’ve written have been set in the past. Imagine a film with characters that include F Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Luis Buñuel, Josephine Baker, Cole Porter, Zelda Fitzgerald, Salvador Dali and TS Eliot, to name a few. You get that in Midnight in Paris. You get a lot and it’s all wonderful….and magical.


Prince of Broadway (2008) Baker. Watching this film and Starlet means I’ve know seen all of Sean Baker’s film. There’s not a lemon in the bunch. It’s a film that feels at times like a documentary. Baker’s films often feel like they’re shot from the real lives of people. In this case we have a West African immigrant in New York making a decent living as a hustler selling knock off clothes and shoes. He’s got business owner as frontman supporting him. It’s all good until his ex brings by what she says is his son for him to raise for awhile. He is not prepared for this. It’s supposed to be for two weeks but we just now it’s not going to be anywhere near that neat and tidy. It’s a story that draws upon so much of what is challenging about being a father, about making it in the world, about small children, about dancing around the law, about survival in the city and how close we often are to slipping off an edge. Excellent stuff.


Starlet (2012) Baker. I knew nothing about the movie when I pressed play other than it appeared to feature a young, white female in the lead role. An hour and forty minutes I was left to wonder why I hadn’t been directed towards this film before. Brilliant. Bree Hemingway stars as Jane, a young porn actress who discovers wads of cash in a thermos she bought at a yard sale. She befriends the elderly woman who sold it to her, much to the dismay of the elderly woman who’d prefer to be left alone. As in all Baker films there are arguments, fights, emotional outbursts, resolutions and issues left hanging. Much of the trouble has to do with Jane’s housemate who’s also in the porn business, she’s something of a train wreck and her all-over-the-map boyfriend is Ward Cleaver in comparison. There’s a lot to unpack in this story of a bizarre but meaningful friendship and the side issues that complicate matters. The unpacking is well worth it as much as revealed and much is left for us to contemplate. Sean Baker is now one of my favorite directors.


The Flim Flam Man (1967) Kershner. Sometimes the story around the movie or the circumstances of seeing it or what you’ve heard or seen about it can alter the way you watch a film. This is often a problem as it skews the way you perceive it, but other times it adds an element to the viewing experience. With Flim Flam Man I couldn’t help thinking that I hadn’t seen it since it first came to theaters fifty-eight years ago. All I remembered about it was that began with the two main characters by a train track. I also had a strong mental image of a very cute young woman in a nighty which revealed luscious legs. Oh yes, I remembered that it co-starred George C Scott and Michael Sarazin. I’d really liked Sarazin as a kid, he seemed like a cool guy, the type I’d like to grow up to be. Sure Steve McQueen was my hero, but he existed in another stratosphere. Being a Sarazin seemed possible. So I watched the movie lo these many years later continually wondering what the young teenaged me thought of this, that or the other. I had no memory of whether I liked it at the time but having finally seen it again I’m sure that I did. It’s one of those fun, charming movies with ridiculous chase scenes, two mismatched buddies and a love interest. A story in which are rebellious outside-the-law hucksters continually outwit the law. It was a pleasure to watch and fun to think about the lens I saw it through during my first viewing. It was also nice to see the young beauty who remembered, she was played by Sue Lyons.


Intruder in the Dust (1949) C. Brown. One of those films that is all the more remarkable given the context of when it was made. A story about racism, Jim Crow and a near lynching set in Oxford, Mississippi is not something you’d expect to have been made way back in 1949 when Jim Crow still reigned in the American South and near lynchings were less frequent than actual ones. A black man is accused of murder and the evidence all points to his guilt. Even the well-meaning white lawyer is sure of the man’s guilt. But mostly through the help of a teenaged boy who was once saved from drowning by the accused, the truth seems that it will out. It’s a good story from any time but coming out when it did is amazing.


Hearts and Minds (1974) P. Davis. My favorite documentary of all time. It’s a searing indictment of U.S. participation in the Vietnam War. It has been criticized for its bias. That’s like criticizing a Holocaust documentary for only showing the Jewish side of the story. Any portrayal of U.S. incursion into Vietnam needs to focus on American arrogance, ignorance, cruelty, barbarity and incompetence. It needs to expose the lies, the hypocrisy and the racism at the core of U.S. policies and actions. As Daniel Ellsberg says during the film: "The question used to be: might it be possible that we were on the wrong side in the Vietnamese War? But, we weren't on the wrong side. We are the wrong side.” If you’d like to understand the American position in the war here’s a quote from the film by General Westmoreland: “The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does the Westerner. Life is plentiful, life is cheap in the Orient. And, eh, that's the philosophy of the Orient. Expresses it - life is not important.” Or how about this from Lt. George Coker a former POW who said this: “What did Vietnam look like? Well, if it wasn't for the people, it was very pretty. The people over there are very backward and very primitive and they just make a mess out of everything.” There’s another side to this story? 

No comments: