Blog Directory CineVerse: 2015

Feed your inner wookie

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Make no bantha bones about it--Star Wars: A New Hope (1977) was a cinema game changer that, for better or worse, ushered in the modern era of the FX-heavy big blockbuster. But whether you love, hate or are indifferent to George Lucas' original sci-fi/fantasy epic, you have to recognize the importance and impact this film had on movies and popular culture. Here's a CineVerse assessment:

STAR WARS WAS INSPIRED BY MANY PREVIOUS FILMS, BOOKS, MYTHS, AND EVEN RELIGIONS. CAN YOU CITE ITS INFLUENCES?
The Flash Gordon film serials of the 1930s, which also used a prologue screen crawl, a princess with hair buns, stories of rebels vs. imperial forces, laser gun battles, and more
Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces, which espouses that all mythology about heroes is actually a symbolic retelling of a fundamental myth concerning the personal development and growth of the individual
Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress, which has a similar story and characters
Westerns like The Searchers and Yojimbo; it’s a science fiction movie, but it has the sensibilities of a western, with rough and tough cowboys like Han Solo, a man in the black hat like Vader, a bar fight like the cantina scene, violence on the homestead like the burning of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, etc.
Many costumes and character designs borrowed from The Wizard of Oz, Metropolis, This Island Earth, and other pictures
Gone With the Wind in its epic sweep/look and high production values
Frank Herbert’s Dune series
World War II fighter pilot films like 633 Squadron and The Dam Busters
2001: A Space Odyssey, in its highly detailed shots of spacecraft and outer space
The legends of King Arthur and Beowulf
The spiritual teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, pantheism, and Manichaeism

HOW DID STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE FOREVER CHANGE CINEMA AND POPULAR CULTURE AND PROVE HIGHLY INNOVATIVE?
It revolutionized movie special effects and paved the way for more realistic, impressive digital effects: Lucas’ team employed animation, detailed miniatures, and an innovative system of computer-controlled camera systems utilizing custom processors to create complex composite shots from multiple camera passes, resulting in more sophisticated motion photography that produced realistic looking and fast-moving spaceships.
Lucas achieved his dream of letting the visuals tell the story and creating a visually cinematic universe where the story can be designed to serve the effects instead of vice versa.
Interestingly, Star Wars is not very original; it’s a mash up pastiche that borrows elements from many earlier sources and uses derivative conventions that we’ve seen and read about before; but despite its stilted dialogue and predictable “good conquers evil” outcome, the way it creatively combined these influential elements and produced breathtaking visuals for its time made it unforgettable.
This ushered in the era of the summer blockbuster and the big special effects event movie that was targeted more to younger audiences than solely to adults. The negative repercussions of this included less interest in smaller, lower-budget independent films.
It also indelibly altered the way movies are mass marketed and tied in with merchandising.
Lucas introduced the cinematic concept of a “used future,” where machines, ships, and locales looked worn, dated, and lived in, instead of antiseptically clean and perfect like 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Before Star Wars, films of the 1970s were often bleak, pessimistic, and dark in their world views, characters, situations and look, with antiheroes abounding; consider movies like The Godfather, Dirty Harry, All the President’s Men, Taxi Driver, etc.
Additionally, the film rejuvenated interest in science fiction, which was depicted earlier in the decade in “nihilistic vision(s) of a future that held no hope, with films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Colossus: The Forbin Project, The Andromeda Strain, Westworld, The Terminal Man…and THX 1138. Science fiction went from a vision of an inhospitably alone universe to a thoroughly lived-in one whose inhabitants took the miraculous for granted; production design of the future went from pristine antiscepticism to a lived-in world that was running down at the edges; robots went from dangerous A.I.’s conspiring against humanity to cute anthropomorphic sidekicks that did a Laurel and Hardy routine; aliens were no longer vast, threatening forces from out of a hostile universe but merely ugly mugs in a barroom that humanity had so managed to intermingle with that co-relationship was taken for granted; and spaceflight was less a bold, fearsome breaking of new frontiers than it was something being conducted by kids not unakin to the hot-rodders in Lucas’s American Graffiti,” wrote reviewer Richard Scheib.
Star Wars inspired audiences with a thrilling sense of adventure and wonder, with its throwback sensibilities to the swashbuckling action movie, the shoot-em-out western, the aerial dogfight war film, the damsel-in-distress rescue picture, the fairytale, and the hero’s quest for maturity and personal achievement story.
Roger Ebert wrote: “Star Wars taps the pulp fantasies buried in our memories, and because it's done so brilliantly, it reactivates old thrills, fears, and exhilarations we thought we'd abandoned when we read our last copy of Amazing Stories. The movie works so well for several reasons, and they don't all have to do with the spectacular special effects. The movie relies on the strength of pure narrative, in the most basic storytelling form known to man, the Journey. All of the best tales we remember from our childhoods had to do with heroes setting out to travel down roads filled with danger, and hoping to find treasure or heroism at the journey's end. In "Star Wars," George Lucas takes this simple and powerful framework into outer space, and that is an inspired thing to do.”

WHAT THEMES ARE EXPLORED IN “STAR WARS”?
The struggle of good versus evil (the light side vs. the dark side of the Force).
The classic journey of the hero driven by a quest for personal growth and the vision of an angel in need (Princess Leia).
The triumph of the underdog against imposing forces (rebels vs. Imperials).
The value of personal sacrifice for the good of others (Ben letting himself be killed).
The redemption of a selfish, materialistic antihero who proves to be a day-saving hero (Han Solo).
Nature is more powerful than technology (consider how Luke uses the Force in his lightsaber training and in blowing up the Death Star).


Read more...

A long time ago, on a New Year's Eve eve far, far away...

Sunday, December 27, 2015

On December 30, CineVerse has slated part 20 of the Our Favorite Films series, appropriately enough with “Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope” (1977; 121 minutes), directed by George Lucas, chosen by Erik Martin.

Read more...

Santa kicks CineVerse to the curb

Sunday, December 20, 2015

It's not quite the equivalent of getting coal in your stocking, but CineVerse will take a holiday on Wednesday, Dec. 23; enjoy your week off by spending time with family and friends. We will rekindle our love of movies on Dec. 30 (although that date may have to be rescheduled if the Park District closes the Oak View Center building; stay tuned for details).

Read more...

Early 2016 forecast calls for classic films

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Curious to learn what CineVerse will be featuring in early 2016? Visit http://1drv.ms/1RrtGlQ to view the January/February 2016 schedule, now posted. 

Read more...

...and may all your Christmases be white

Hard to find fault with a holiday mainstay like "White Christmas" (1954), a film that doesn't set out to revolutionize cinema or keep you up late at night pondering the mysteries of life. What it does well, however, is entertain with sheer talent via top-notch singing, dancing and set/costume design. CineVerse pulled this chestnut out of Santa's bag last evening and came away with these impressions:

WHAT MAKES WHITE CHRISTMAS SO ENTERTAINING?
It's bursting with heavyweight names: performers Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye (respectively, the number 1 and number 3 box office attractions at the time), songwriter extraordinaire Irving Berlin (whose titular theme went on to hold the record as the best-selling single in music history for more than 50 years), and versatile director 
It was also the very first film shot and released in VistaVision, a widescreen format that doubled the surface area of typical 35mm film stock, yielding richer colors, sharper definition and a wider canvas for the action. 
Additionally, it was the the first Paramount movie to feature the famous mountain logo that would become the studio's trademark).
Musical highlights include Count Your Blessings Instead of Sheep, Sisters, Love, You Didn't Do Right By Me, and Snow. 
The plot? Irrelevant and as fluffy as a December snowflake, as is the case with many classic Hollywood musicals. 

OTHER WORKS BY DIRECTOR MICHAEL CURTIZ:
Casablanca
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Angels with Dirty Faces
Mildred Pierce
The Sea Hawk

Read more...

Don't let global warming ruin your White Christmas dreams

Sunday, December 13, 2015

On December 16, CineVerse presents part 19 of the Our Favorite Films series with a fitting feature for the holiday season: “White Christmas” (1954; 120 minutes), directed by Michael Curtiz, chosen by Jeanne Johnson. Plus: Stick around for a trailer reel preview of the January/February CineVerse schedule.

Read more...

Frankly, my dear, we do give a damn...

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Seventy-six years can leave a lot of tarnish on an antique. But while the racially controversial material certainly raises eyebrows today, "Gone With the Wind" still looks and feels fairly fresh--thanks in large part to its stunning Technicolor sheen, masterful compositions and sweeping narrative. Here are the major concepts our CineVerse group came away with after more closely examining GWTW:

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GROUNDBREAKING ABOUT THIS PICTURE BACK IN 1939?
The movie depicts a strong-willed female character who, despite her petty and selfish behaviors, embodied the spirit of the underdog and a survivor—especially on the eve of World War II. Not only is Scarlett a free-spirited, independent thinker who perseveres to get her way, but she learns how to use her sex appeal and guiles to achieve her goals; plus, she eventually achieves sexual satisfaction, which was almost never shown in the movies in the Hays code-enforced censorship era of the 1930s. Her ascent to independence influenced other American females who would join the workforce into and after World War II.
o Roger Ebert summarized this concept well: “It was the right film at the right time. Scarlett O'Hara is not a creature of the 1860s but of the 1930s: a free-spirited, willful modern woman. The way was prepared for her by the flappers of Fitzgerald's jazz age, by the bold movie actresses of the period, and by the economic reality of the Depression, which for the first time put lots of women to work outside their homes. Scarlett's lusts and headstrong passions have little to do with myths of delicate Southern flowers, and everything to do with the sex symbols of the movies that shaped her creator, Margaret Mitchell: actresses such as Clara Bow, Jean Harlow, Louise Brooks and Mae West. She was a woman who wanted to control her own sexual adventures, and that is the key element in her appeal. She also sought to control her economic destiny in the years after the South collapsed, first by planting cotton and later by running a successful lumber business. She was the symbol the nation needed as it headed into World War II; the spiritual sister of Rosie the Riveter.”
It was the pinnacle example of a producer being the auteur and enforcing his ultimate vision, despite great odds and exorbitant costs, on a film; starting in the 1940s, directors were given greater credit and stature as being the “authors” of important films. Here, David O. Selznick conquered Hollywood with his unflappable resolve and vision to bring this story to film, despite replacing three directors and several other crew members. After Gone With the Wind, the producer’s creative muscle took a back seat to the rising power of the director.
While it was certainly not the first Technicolor film, it solidified this expensive color process as the crème de la crème look for A-list pristine films.
Gone With the Wind also used plenty of matte painting special effects wherein numerous backgrounds, building exteriors, crowd shots, etc.
Although many consider it shameful in its attempt to sugarcoat history and soften the truth about the treatment of black slaves by Southern whites, the movie actually gives fairly prominent roles to real African Americans, and resulted in the first Academy Award win for an African American (Hattie McDaniel, whose character is able to talk back to her white masters).

WHAT ELEMENTS ABOUT GONE WITH THE WIND ARE CRINGE-WORTHY TODAY?
Its treatment of black characters and its attempt to revise history before, during and after the Civil War. Nearly all the African American characters are personified as either simple-minded or ignorant or lazy; Prissy lies and acts hysterically; Pork appears lost without someone giving him orders; slaves who opt for freedom are “looked down on, either portrayed as unscrupulous or as gullible pawns of the political parties,” wrote SparkNotes in its dissection of the film.
It tries to glorify this bygone age and equate it to a utopian period and place, sort of like Camelot, as evidenced by its introductory words: “There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind.” Certainly the slaves and their descendents were not and are not wistful of this bygone time.
The whole payoff of the movie is Scarlett earning her comeuppance. The problem is that we have to suffer through 4 hours of her unscrupulous, whiny, conniving, spoiled brat behavior to earn this vindication. To many, she is a character with few redeeming qualities—an irritating, unsympathetic lead whom we are forced to root for/identify with at many points.
Likewise, Ashley can grate on the viewer because he’s actually a wishy washy character who lacks rugged, resolute, manly qualities; it’s hard to see what Scarlett sees in this weak-willed Willy.

WHAT THEMES STAND OUT IN THIS PICTURE?
Independent thinking and action is the key to survival and success.
Dreams are important, but tangible things can outlast fleeting dreams, as embodied in the terra firma of Tara itself, the land that inspires Scarlett to persevere.
The horrors of war; this is not an epic that tries to glorify the heroism of men in Civil War battles. Instead, we see the wretched suffering wrought by the conflict throughout much of the film’s first half.
The strength, determination and compassion of women can be vastly underrated. It is Scarlett’s will and doggedness that keeps her loved ones alive, and it is Melanie’s love and compassion that sets the moral compass by which many other characters follow.

OTHER FILMS THAT REMIND US OF GONE WITH THE WIND
Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Birth of a Nation, two silent films that focused on the Old South and also had racist underpinnings

OTHER FILMS DIRECTED BY VICTOR FLEMING
The Wizard of Oz
Red Dust
Treasure Island
Captains Courageous
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Joan of Arc

Read more...

Catch the last gust before it's gone...

Sunday, December 6, 2015

CineVerse always likes to finish what it's started. So count on attending on December 9 to screen part 2 of “Gone With the Wind” as well as enjoy "The Legend Lives On,” a 33-minute documentary on the legacy of this movie.

Read more...

Meet the Drama Queen Supreme

Sunday, November 29, 2015

On December 2, you have a date with the Southern Belle of the ball, the princess of pout, the comeuppance kid herself, Scarlett O'Hara. CineVerse's Our Favorite Films series soldiers on with part 1 of “Gone With the Wind” (1939; 238 minutes),  directed by Victor Fleming, chosen by Danealle Kueltzo. On Dec. 2, we will view approximately the first 170 minutes of the film, taking one short break at the “Intermission” segment. Part 2 is set for Dec. 9.

Read more...

Rest up for turkey day

Sunday, November 22, 2015

This week, it's time to give thanks, stuff up on turkey and all the trimmings, and take a break from movie discussion. CineVerse will not meet on Wednesday, Nov. 25 but will reconvene on Dec. 2.

Read more...

We're on a mission from CineVerse

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Yes, there's "Ferris Buehler's Day Off," "The Fugitive," and "Risky Business." But the king of all movies set and filmed in Chicago has to be "The Blues Brothers," the zany rambling musical comedy from 1980 that made John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd superstars. Here's our analysis of this must-see Windy City flick:

WHAT IS UNIQUE, DIFFERENT OR DISTINCTIVE ABOUT THE BLUES BROTHERS?
It crosses over into several genres, including musical, comedy, action/adventure, road picture, and buddy film.
Its basic plot is threadbare thin; instead, the main narrative thrust are entertaining set pieces and vignettes in which the brothers encounter one unforgettable character/musical legend after another; strung together and enhanced by spectacular car chases and stunts, it the film is an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
Those car chases and stunts are old-school fantastic; they look very destructive and expensive and real; no strings or CGI attached. With this bang-em-up approach, the film serves as a wish fulfillment vehicle for the viewer’s destructive, demolition derby-hungry tendencies.  
It’s the quintessential Chicago film: arguably more than any other motion picture, this movie represents the Windy City, including many of its famous landmarks and buildings, as well as its people, work ethic, dialects, and overall vibe, with accuracy and attention to detail. 
o DVD Verdict reviewer Dan Mancini wrote: “The impact on the quality of The Blues Brothers from its having been not only set in Chicago but made by men who knew and loved the city can't be underestimated. Saturday Night may have been live from New York, but The Blues Brothers is a Chicago movie, tried and true. It shares an anarchic distrust of authority with the film comedies of Chaplin, The Marx Brothers, and many, many others, but the Blues Brothers offers a specifically working class, Midwestern variety of anarchy. When informed by a cop that traffic is blocked by the American Socialist White People's Party, who have successfully sued for the right to parade (anyone who lived in Chicago in the '70s and '80s will remember the highly publicized court cases upon which the scene is based), Jake Blues casually observes that he hates "Illinois Nazis." There's no moral outrage in Belushi's classic delivery of the line, only a pragmatic disdain at having been inconvenienced by a bunch of fringe whackos—it's the low-key response of a Midwesterner, pure and simple. The entire film is loaded with similarly matter-of-fact, common sensical mockery of authority figures and their bureaucratic folly.”
It’s one of only a handful of movies featuring SNL alums that is actually well-made, entertaining and worth rewatching. 
Belushi and Aykroyd actually perform and are not dubbed over by professionals; Belushi sings, and Aykroyd sings backup and plays the harmonica. Additionally, the actors playing the band members are actual professional musicians from bands like Booker T & the MGs, Blood Sweat and Tears, and the Saturday Night Live Band.
There is no true villain in the movie, unless you count the neo-Nazis, police officers, and country/western band pursuing them. Additionally, there’s no drama between the brothers or contrived sibling conflict meant to ratchet up the tension. 
Interestingly, although the Belushi and Aykroyd are the famous comedic leads cast here, they play their roles as straight men who react “with the same deadpan nonchalance to the chaos that erupts around them,” wrote blogger Sam Dulmage, who added: “The two characters are very close to being a single character. For the most part, their actions and reactions are identical. But imagine a single character in their place reacting with the same nonchalant deadpan. Funny? Maybe. But not a tenth as funny as Aykroyd and Belushi deadpanning in unison. This is a highly nuanced clown double act.” 

OTHER FILMS DIRECTED BY JOHN LANDIS
Animal House
An American Werewolf in London
Trading Places
Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video
Coming to America

FILMS SIMILAR TO “THE BLUES BROTHERS”
Gathering together of experts movies like The Dirty Dozen, The Seven Samurai, and The Magnificent Seven
The Blues Brothers 2000
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

Read more...

Sunglasses + SNL legends = Classic comedy

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Make plans to attend CineVerse on November 18 for part 17 of the Our Favorite Films series, this time featuring “The Blues Brothers” (1980; 133 minutes), directed by John Landis, chosen by Brian Hansen.

Read more...

They don't make 'em like that anymore

Thursday, November 12, 2015

"Doctor Zhivago" is the kind of sprawling, majestic widescreen epic that Hollywood stopped making many moons ago. Watching the film now, 50 years since its original theatrical run, it's easy to see how movies have changed from a time when old-school craftsmanship and blow-em-away casting were part of the DNA of top shelf films. Although this flick shows its age, it also has a lot to teach us about narrative style, visual compositions, creative editing choices, and pre-digital artistry. Here is what our CineVerse group concluded about" Doctor Zhivago":

WHAT ARE THIS FILM’S GREATEST STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES?

It’s lavish production values, thanks to a high budget, and A-list talent involved (director David Lean, stars Omar Sharif, Julie Christie, Alec Guinness, Rod Steiger, and Ralph Richardson, and composer Maurice Jarre) put it in a high caliber and gave it a sheen and cache that prevent it from crumbling under its own weight.
It pays great attention to detail, benefitting from period authenticity as well as high artistry and realism imbued in the sets, props and costumes. 
It looks visually stunning and sumptuous—due to the vibrant color used, widescreen aspect ratio employed, and epic scope and scale. 
The characters and their actions aren’t written overly grandiose or important; they could have been crafted as major instigators in historical events, or, as Kenneth Brown, BluRay.com reviewer, put it, “iconic revolutionaries” who “lead a movement, inspire a rebellion or fuel the terrible events that come to bear on their lives.” Instead, they are flawed, utterly mortal, and ravaged by the rise of the Soviet machine around them.
It was also the first Hollywood movie to depict the Russian Revolution, later covered by films like Nicholas and Alexandra, Reds, and Anastasia. “Doctor Zhivago marked a new path for the historical epic. Previous films had simply focused on the scope of world-shaping events. With Zhivago, director David Lean and scriptwriter Robert Bolt brought a new romantic sensibility to the epic. That Victorian ideal would inform such later blockbusters as Mary, Queen of Scots (1971), Lady Gray (1986) and Titanic (1997),” wrote TCM writer Frank Miller.
Yet, it has been accused of trivializing history by placing momentous, bloody events like World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the Russian Civil War, as backdrop set pieces against which a soap opera-ish love story is played out.
Many have problems understanding the motivations, rationales and actions of characters, including Zhivago himself, who arguably doesn’t seem that fully developed and whose choices can be difficult to understand, making it harder to root for him. He can’t seem to decide which woman he wants to be in love with—Lara or his wife—and his vacillating nature can frustrate audiences.
Many also have ethnicity authenticity problems with the casting: Sharif, while an excellent actor, looks and sounds Middle Eastern not Russian; and the English accents used by the English actors cast is off-putting, too.
The runtime is extreme: approximately 200 minutes, which can be a long sit for many viewers who can grow bored and weary of an epic, especially if character threads aren’t fleshed out/resolved or elements become repetitive (such as the overuse of “Lara’s Theme”).
Also, having the brother Yevgraf be the voiceover narrator confounds the narrative for many because Zhivago appears to be more of a spectator in his own story. 
Some critics feel the film hasn’t aged well. Brown further wrote: “Doctor Zhivago isn’t teeming with modern sensibilities—embracing sentiment, reveling in majesty and extravagance, and focusing on star-crossed lovers above all else. It shows every one of its (50) years.”

THIS PICTURE IS HEAVY ON USE OF SYMBOLS AND MOTIFS; CAN YOU CITE ANY EXAMPLES?
Trains and trolleys
window panes, mirrors and glass
Cold weather, snow and ice
Candles
Wolves
Orphans
Coincidences, happenchance encounters, and good or bad timing

OTHER MOVIES THAT “DOCTOR ZHIVAGO” BRINGS TO MIND
Gone With the Wind
Reds
The English Patient
Anna Karenina

OTHER FILMS BY DAVID LEAN
1945 Blithe Spirit
1945 Brief Encounter
1946 Great Expectations
1948 Oliver Twist
1957 The Bridge on the River Kwai
1962 Lawrence of Arabia
1984 A Passage to India

Read more...

The Doctor is in--for round two

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Don't miss CineVerse on November 11, when we'll view part 2 of “Doctor Zhivago” and also watch “Doctor Zhivago: A Celebration,” a 40-minute documentary on the making of and legacy of this film.

Read more...

A Lean epic that isn't lean on entertainment

Monday, November 2, 2015

On November 4, CineVerse's Our Favorite Films series continues with “Doctor Zhivago” (1965; 197 minutes), directed by David Lean, chosen by Patrick McMahon. Following a movie trivia game to kick off the evening, we'll screen the first 100 minutes of the film. Part 2 of the movie is slated for Nov. 11.

Read more...

Slicing through the layers of "Psycho"

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Fifty-five years may sound old, but hardly any dust has settled on Alfred Hitchcock's supreme horror film "Psycho" since its release in 1960. It's one of only a handful of films that CineVerse has screened and discussed three times in our 10-year history, and, as demonstrated by the strong member turnout every screening of it elicits, it remains thrilling, entertaining, and endlessly fascinating as a work of pure cinema. Here are some of the points we covered in our discussion of the picture last evening:

CAN YOU NAME ANY EXAMPLES OF HOW PSYCHO CHANGED CINEMA FOREVER?

It inaugurated a new era of increased graphic violence for intense shock value; It’s the first true slasher movie
It broke down film censorship barriers by depicting casual sex between two unmarried lovers, showing extensive footage of a scantily clad woman, showing a peeping Tom, violation of a naked woman in the shower, and was even the first feature film instance of a flushing toilet
It is the first to kill off the major character/primary hero so early—within the first third—essentially making Marion a red herring diversion and Psycho a great practical joke
It manipulated audiences into switching allegiances/sympathies from one innocent protagonist to another who turned out to be evil: think of how you felt when Norman waited for the car to sink in the swamp, or when we hear him shockingly say to his mother, “Oh, mother…the blood!”
It usurped 1950s conventionality and repressive values—turning the Ozzie and Harriet generation on its ear; according to critic David Thomson, “Most films of the 50s are secret ads for the way of life. Psycho is a warning about its lies and limits”.
The score was extremely influential: a sparse, abstract arrangement of shrieking, unrelenting strings—later copied in films like Jaws
Psycho became one of the first big buzz event movies thanks to a great publicity campaign and due to Hitchcock’s rule that no one be seated after the film started. The marketing campaign begged the audience not to reveal any plot twists; movie theaters soon initiated policies that set specific showtimes and didn’t allow audiences into the theater once a film started

THERE ARE MANY PARALLELS SUGGESTED BETWEEN VARIOUS SETS OF 2 DIFFERENT CHARACTERS IN THE FILM; CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY OF THESE PARALLELS?
Marion and Norman: You feel sympathy for both early on in the film, despite the fact that both have committed crimes—Marion the crime of theft, Norman the crime of covering up for whom you think is his mother, the murderer. 
o We exonerate Marion because she’s stealing the money for love, and because she’s stealing from a lecherous creep
Norman and Sam: Sam had what Norman wanted (Marion) but couldn’t have—he’s honorable, handsome and prepared; Norman is gangly, awkward and unprepared; both were living a double life (Sam sneaking around to be Marion’s lover)
Marion and Arbogast: both are victims of Norman, but the viewer hasn’t formed a subjective bond to Arbogast as they had with Marion
Arbogast and Lila: Both investigate Marion’s disappearance, but Lila makes it further (upstairs and downstairs) than the private eye did and doesn’t pay the price he did
Marion (first scene) and Marion (last scene): white undergarments (good girl) vs. black undergarments (bad girl)
Norman (early on) and Norman (later, when mother’s secret is revealed): split personalities
In fact, the extensive use of mirrors and mirror images throughout the movie suggests that anyone is capable of having a split personality

AUDIENCES TYPICALLY LEAVE THE THEATER FEELING TERRIFIED ONCE PSYCHO CONCLUDES. DOES THIS FEAR COME FROM THE GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND BRUTAL MURDERS, OR IS IT SOMETHING ELSE?
Because you are forced to identify and sympathize with the person who turns out to be an evil psychopath, you are forced to examine your own conscience by the film’s end and ask yourself: am I capable of committing these kinds of crimes? Do I have a bit of Norman Bates in me? Would I ever impulsively kill or steal?
Think of how the film starts: suggesting that this could happen in any random life, in any random town—thus, it could happen to you
The fear that you can’t trust anybody: at some point in the movie, we fear the police, a would-be helpless old lady, and a seemingly harmless looking young man
The horror suggested by Norman’s actions: incest, necrophilia, taxidermy of a dead person, transvestism
Also, they’ve been fooled by Hitchcock’s misdirection: you think the story is about the money theft, but it veers off into something completely different, by random chance. It’s this sudden turn of direction and arbitrary twist of fate that shocks viewers, even subconsciously

HOW DID PSYCHO DIFFER FROM PREVIOUS HITCHOCK EFFORTS IN THE FIFTIES LIKE “REAR WINDOW,” “VERTIGO” AND “NORTH BY NORTHWEST”?
Those were bigger budget, glossy, color pictures with big name stars
This was made to look like a cheap exploitation film in b/w—a longer version perhaps of one of his TV show episodes of the time
There is no calming moral resolution by the end of this film—yes, the villain is captured, but we’re left feeling unnerved by Norman’s interior monologue
There is no slick, handsome villain nor is there a hero/heroine who endures by the end

WHAT IS THIS FILM’S MACGUFFIN—THE DEVICE THAT MOVES THE PLOT ALONG BUT WHICH IS RELATIVELY MEANINGLESS?
The $40,000, which Hitchcock forces us to dwell on up to the point where Norman sinks it in the trunk
This becomes Hitchcock’s little joke—the money turns out to be insignificant by the end of the film, despite all the attention we’ve invested in it
In this way, the last shot of the car being dragged out of the swamp is Hitchcock’s final laugh: it’s his way of tacking on a happy ending to the problem about the money—it’s ultimately found

THE SHOWER SEQUENCE IS OFTEN CITED AS ONE OF THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND IMPORTANT IN THE HISTORY OF FILM. WHAT’S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS SCENE?
It borrows heavily from Soviet montage theory (of Sergei Eisenstein and others) and New Wave filmmaking
It wouldn’t be nearly as shocking/effective if Hitchcock hadn’t so masterfully developed Marion’s character beforehand and forced us to identify/sympathize with her
In fact, it becomes it’s all the more shocking the first time you see it because we feel so much better about Marion right before it: she’s decided to go home and give the money back, and she has a happier look upon her face. 
You never actually see a naked body (that’s a body double in a sheer body suit) nor does your naked eye see a knife enter it; nor is the blood real or red (it’s chocolate syrup); it’s the power of suggestion that is really at work here, and that’s how Hitchcock was able to appease the censors, a very clever solution
From the moment Marion disrobes and steps into the shower, the pace and cutting of the shots quicken; 90 cuts over 45 seconds
also, the water shoots in contrasting directions to disorient us, as it did on her car windshield earlier, creating an anxious, out of sorts feeling
The point of view is through the eyes of a voyeuristic killer

WHAT IS ARGUABLY THE ONLY BLEMISH IN THIS OTHERWISE EVERGREEN MASTERPIECE?
The tacked-on psychologist’s diagnosis that explains Norman’s actions and psychosis, which probably goes on too long and softens the blow
Yet, it makes the last scene of Norman’s internal monologue more effective, because everything we see and hear makes a mockery of what the shrink explains—this guy is pure evil (so much so that you can see a human skull slightly superimposed over his own smiling face in the second to the last shot). 

Read more...

Sleepover at Norman's house--and you're invited

Sunday, October 25, 2015

On October 28: CineVerse's Shocktober Theater concludes, but the "Our Favorite Films" series reconvenes, with “Psycho” (1960; 109 minutes), directed by Alfred Hitchcock, chosen by Farrell McNulty. Plus: enjoy a brief feature deconstructing the making of the infamous shower scene.

Read more...

The "Blair Witch" laid bare

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Love it or hate it, "The Blair Witch Project" has legs--meaning that it has survived past its initial hype and turn-of-the-millennium zeitgeist popularity to stand as one of the seminal "found footage" horror flicks worthy of continued study. Among the conclusions reached by our CineVerse film discussion group on this movie are the following:

HOW IS THIS FILM VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER HORROR MOVIES?
This is one of the first examples of the “found footage” subgenre in which would-be documentary footage, supposedly later discovered, is presented, often shot by the actual actors and featuring a shaky handheld camera style. Whoever “found” this footage edited it together and presents it as a document of what happened to the people who originally shot it.
There is no graphic violence, very little blood/gore, no physical manifestation of a monster, witch or ghost shown, no cheap shocks/popouts, and no special effects or CGI. Instead, this is a psychological horror movie.
There is no real plot, and not much happens, other than initial interviewing of townsfolk followed by camping in the woods, getting lost in the woods, and increasing arguments between the three principals. In fact, there really aren’t that many scare scenes/shots in the entire film.
There is no music, except for the end credits, which are really just ambient/industrial-sounding noises.
The actors are all nonprofessionals and unknowns, and the film really only features three people.
The ending is abrupt, and there is no resolution: all we know is that the three college students were never found again. We don’t know if they were killed or who stalked/threatened them. We don’t learn the significance of or the providers of the remnants they discover (the twig men, the eerie bundle), and the “legend” of the Blair Witch is not demystified in any way.
It was promoted as a mysterious but real event (the disappearance of the 3 students) and it became a grassroots marketing sensation, with strong word-of-mouth bringing many viewers to the theater and helping it build a reputation as one of the scariest pictures ever made.

IF YOU FIND THE FILM SCARY, WHAT MAKES IT SO?
The movie’s verisimilitude is palpable: this looks like the most amateurish of video footage, appearing too shaky, shoddy, and off-the-cuff to be fake, choreographed or contrived. That realism is a testament to the design of the filmmakers, who allowed the actors to shoot the footage without much direction and who stayed primarily off the set to allow the performances and dialogue to unfold naturally.
o The actors weren’t faking it, either: they really were camping in the woods for days, lacking sleep, exhausted, cold, aggravated with each other, not privy to the script, and unaware of what the filmmakers were going to unleash upon them. 
The film builds tension and fright via the simplest of techniques: eerie off-screen sounds, strange things presumably happening out of the frame but nearby, brief but effective night scenes that are almost completely dark except for the camcorder light, and friction/infighting between the three lost college students, which puts each of them on edge.
o The Dissolve essayist Mike D’Angelo summed it up effectively: “The Blair Witch Project" is one of the goriest movies ever made: It’s 81 minutes of nerves being slowly shredded before your eyes. The real horror lies in watching Heather (Heather Donahue), Josh (Joshua Leonard), and Mike (Michael C. Williams) gradually turn on each other as their circumstances grow bleaker, until there’s arguably no longer any need for a witch or other bogeyman to torment them. By night, the film is an unconventional horror flick... By day, on the other hand, it’s a harrowing collegiate gloss on Jean-Paul Sartre’s play "No Exit," in which three dead souls discover that their eternal punishment consists of being locked in a room with each other. The woods here are just a big, empty room, and the screaming, bickering, and blame-tossing isn’t a grating distraction from the main story. It is the main story.”
“At a time when digital techniques can show us almost anything, ‘The Blair Witch Project’ is a reminder that what really scares us is the stuff we can’t see. The noise is the dark is almost always scarier than what makes the noise in the dark,” Roger Ebert wrote in his 4-star review of the movie.
The concept of being lost, especially in the woods, as well as hunted is terrifying to many people.

THIS FILM ALSO FRUSTRATED MANY VIEWERS. WHAT ELEMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED IRRITATING/FRUSTRATING?
Nothing much really happens: again, we aren’t shown any visible monster or supernatural threat, and we don’t know what actually happens to the three campers by the film’s conclusion. The film ends suddenly and ambiguously. 
Being that these are nonprofessional actors, the performances, dialogue and infighting—as unscripted and verite-style as they are—can be grating, irksome and tedious.
When released in 1999, the film was marketed as a true story/actual event; consequently, there was some audience backlash when nothing was explained/resolved by the film’s conclusion. Many viewers wanted to learn of the fates of the 3 students and desired a confirmation of the authenticity of the footage and the events depicted. Also, many people who were told word-of-mouth that this was a terrifying motion picture felt cheated and/or duped.
The real hubris for many is that they didn’t find it scary enough.
“The Blair Witch Project is an art film that was sold to the public as mainstream entertainment. The filmmakers tried to make it more accessible [to audiences], but there wasn’t much they could do,” D’Angelo wrote.

OTHER FILMS, INCLUDING “FOUND FOOTAGE” HORROR MOVIES, THAT “THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT” REMINDS US OF:
Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
The Last Broadcast (1998)
The St. Francisville Experiment (2000)
REC (2007)
Cloverfield (2008)
The Paranormal Activity movies

Read more...

Life's a Witch, and then you die...

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Circle October 21 on your calendar: that's the date when you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares after attending CineVerse's Shocktober Theater, part 3: “The Blair Witch Project” (1999; 81 minutes), directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez. Plus, we'll have extra time to screen “Curse of the Blair Witch,” a fascinating fake documentary delving deeper into the legend of the Blair Witch.

Read more...

November/December CineVerse schedule is live

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Admit it--you're itching to learn what CineVerse will be viewing and spewing about through the rest of the year, aren't you? Your wait is now over. View the November/December 2015 CineVerse calendar by clicking here or visiting http://1drv.ms/1MEHeHW.

Read more...

The plot wick-ens

In the annals of movie horror, few features are as outright weird and disturbingly wonderful as Robin Hardy's 1973 "The Wicker Man," which can have a polarizing effect on audiences. Upon closer inspection, it is imbued with impressive elements that help it stand out from the creepster crowd. Consider, for example, the finer points we examined yesterday during our CineVerse meeting:

WHAT SETS THIS FILM APART FROM OTHER HORROR OR MYSTERY FILMS YOU’VE SEEN?
It’s actually hard to categorize – it has enough original songs to be possibly considered a musical, and you wouldn't be wrong in thinking of it as a melodrama, whodunit mystery, or psychological thriller.
Many experts categorize it in the sub genre called folk horror – in which folklore, social rituals and tradition are at the heart of the horror; cinematic examples include Blood on Satan’s Claw, Witchfinder General, Haxan: a History of Witchcraft Through the Ages, Der Golum, The Phantom Carriage, and The Devil Rides Out.
There is no blood, gore, cheap shocks, or graphic violence (other than arguably the final scene). Instead of relying on horror clichés or conventions like monsters, grotesque images, slasher violence,  shocking popouts, or unsettling special effects, this is a movie that frightens by building a growing dread and unsettling atmosphere. In fact, some say it’s difficult to describe exactly what frightens them about this movie (besides perhaps the twist conclusion).
It also doesn’t resort to depicting any supernatural power that validates or supports Summerisle’s pagan religion; in fact, we’re not even clear if Lord Summerisle actually believes the religion he espouses or uses it as a tool to control the people he governs.
The look and cinematography showcases a bright, sunny, predominantly outdoor, and colorful palette—quite a difference from the dark, shadow-filled, Gothic visuals of most horror films.
The film ends on a disquieting note, without us learning if the Islanders’ sacrifice helped their crops or if their act was brought to justice by Howie’s police force. Nothing is tied up neatly in a bow and resolved clearly here.
o An alternate reading of the film suggests that “the film ends with a triumphant single clarion note and the sun sinking behind the burning wicker head, there's every indication that the islanders' sacrifice will prove successful, their crime go undetected, and their island thrive (although Howie does plant, just before he burns, the idea that, should their crops fail another year, the islanders' next sacrifice will have to be Lord Summerisle himself,” wrote the blogger Momus.
The soundtrack, replete with buoyantly chipper or moody folk songs filled with creepy lyrics, also plays against our expectations: songs sung in a film musical can speak of conflict experienced by its characters, but they usually reinforce a feeling or belief or positivity that is shared by the viewer; here, the tunes belted out in this picture are eerie and off-putting to non-paganists.
This is a time-capsule flick that’s very much a product and statement of its times: the early 70s, after the counterculture movement had suffered defeat following the death of the free-spirited 1960s and due to public disillusionment in the wake of the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and loss of faith in our public leaders.

WHAT THEMES ARE EXAMINED IN “THE WICKER MAN”?
The dangers of religious fanaticism, although the movie arguably points out this danger in both Christianity and paganism, which it treats as equal but opposing forces.
o Consider how much an outsider and pariah Howie is to the islanders—morally, authoritatively, and attitude wise. Our allegiance is initially with him, in that he stands as a surrogate for the audience arriving at the island trying to solve a murder mystery, and he, like so many viewers, is a Christian. As reviewer James Berardinelli wrote: “We feel safe identifying with him because he has the power of righteousness on his side.”
o Yet, as the film progresses, we see the contrast between his stern, prudish, judgmental, and brash demeanor and the polite, content, happy attitudes and defensible intelligence of the islanders, whom many viewers switch their allegiance or sympathies to. Howie and what he stands for is yet another threat to the liberal/free love ideals of the hippy/counterculture crowd.
It explores the question: What if primitive pagan beliefs were practiced and allowed to flourish in mainstream society today?
It turns moral expectations on its ear: “here…law is sin and sin is law. And it’s peculiarly attractive. Law, in the form of Howie, the prudish virgin, is mocked and finally destroyed, whereas sin, in the form of unshameful sex and a deep concern with fertility, structures community life,” suggested the blogger Momus.
The hunter becomes the hunted.

OTHER MOVIES OR WORKS OF LITERATURE THAT REMIND US OF “THE WICKER MAN”
Rosemary’s Baby
The Fearless Vampire Killers
Witchfinder General (The Conqueror Worm)
The Man Who Fell to Earth
Eyes Wide Shut
Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”

OTHER FILM SCREENPLAYS WRITTEN BY ANTHONY SHAFFER
Sleuth
Frenzy
Agatha Christie’s Death on the Nile and Evil Under the Sun

Read more...

Wicker Man = wicked movie

Sunday, October 11, 2015

On October 14, Shocktober Theater returns with “The Wicker Man” (1973; 94 minutes), directed by Robin Hardy. In addition, we'll present a trailer reel preview of the November/December schedule.

Read more...

A horror film with real backbone

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Director Guillermo del Toro has proven himself to be master of the fantastical, as evidenced by his imaginatively visual works like "Pan's Labyrinth." An earlier companion film to to "Pan's Labyrinth" is "The Devil's Backbone" – a haunting ghost story set during the Spanish Civil War. For a recap of major conclusions reached by CineVerse last evening after watching the movie, read on:


HOW IS THIS FILM DIFFERENT COMPARED TO MANY CONVENTIONAL HORROR MOVIES?
It relies on a curious, satisfying blend of fantasy, politics, poignancy, tragedy, history, and horror to tell its tale.
o The setting is the Spanish Civil War, which underscores the sad circumstances of the characters and their lives; however, the film doesn’t require the viewer to be an historical expert on the Spanish Civil War to appreciate this story.
The rationale for the supernatural phenomenon and the ghost’s motivations is more understandable and sympathetic. As Roger Ebert put it: “Ghosts are more interesting when they have their reasons. They should have unfinished affairs of the heart or soul. Too many movies use them simply for shock value, as if they exist to take cues from the screenplay. (This film) understands that most ghosts are sad, and are attempting not to frighten us but to urgently communicate something that must be known so that they can rest.”
While the movie has its supernatural shocks, scares and related special-effects, arguably the real source of terror and tension in this tale is the troubled times, flawed authority figures, and political setting that these children – and all Spanish citizens subjugated by Franco’s fascism – must endure.
o Put another way, this isn’t a cheap exploitation horror film that goes for lowest common denominator “gotcha” popouts, gore and gross-out effects, or gratuitous violence. Instead, it’s a richly layered and carefully textured thriller in which we care about the characters and can appreciate the historically accurate back story.
It also tells a story from the perspective of a vulnerable parentless child, whose conflicts and disturbing experiences are all the more unsettling because of his age and dependency on undependable adults. Good horror films involving children in danger are often extra suspenseful and nerve-racking because we are forced to identify with and/or sympathize with a lead child protagonist. Carlos and the other boys are threatened and/or frightened by multiple forces, including the ghost, the ticking bomb, Jacinto, and violent soldiers.

THIS IS ALSO A FILM REPLETE WITH SYMBOLISM. CAN YOU CITE EXAMPLES?
Jacinto and his dark nature represent the infiltration of Franco’s fascism throughout Spain at this time – this nature can influence and infect Spain’s younger generation.
Santi the ghost is a surrogate for the disembodied, helpless, tortured Spanish citizens who have been forced to endure their country’s Civil War and political tragedy.
The unexploded bomb symbolizes how precarious a situation this is for Spain – with the possibility of extreme violence and destruction detonating at any moment.
The parental figures of Dr. Cesares and headmistress Carmen and the volatile young Jacinto represent an Oedipal triangle, according to critic J. Hoberman.
Carlos exemplifies the country’s future, which, at this time is uncertain.
Ghosts/objects frozen in time, as exemplified by the fetuses suspended in a solution of rum and by Santi appearing as if he’s underwater.

WHY IS THE FILM CALLED “THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE”?
Recall that the head of the school explained how the rum solution in which the fetuses were kept was sold to gullible people seeking an elixir, yet that suspension fluid worked as a perfect preservative to keep the fetuses intact and free from decay; this underscores the filmmakers’ main point here: the blurred line between science and superstition, between reality versus fantasy, and how we can interpret our events and experiences as either realistic or fantastical.

HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE GUILLERMO DEL TORO’S STYLE AND APPROACH AS A FILMMAKER?
Criterion Collection essayist Mark Kermode wrote: “His best work combines a love of the freedom of fantasy with a commitment to the strictures of social responsibility, creating populist fables with strong political undercurrents, fairy stories about the “real world,” often seen through the eyes of a child. In this context, The Devil’s Backbone (2001) is a touchstone, bringing together the personal and the political in perfect, passionate harmony...a key to del Toro’s work (is) the triumph of sympathy and melancholia over terror.
Kermode further wrote: “The recurrent themes that haunt del Toro’s work: the ghosts of history, the freedom of fantasy, the imperative of choice, the relationship between the “real” and the “imagined.” At its heart lies the conviction that horror and fantasy are inherently political.”
Kermode continued: “…it is the pain and tragedy of the Spanish Civil War that underwrite both the sense of horror and the spirit of defiance that ring throughout the movie. It is a film about repression that celebrates, albeit in heartbreaking fashion, the irrepressibility of the innocent human spirit. This duality also underpins Pan’s Labyrinth, a fable about a young girl’s exploration of an underworld. Both films balance political tensions with a feud between fantasy and reality, between the way the world seems and the way it is. And both counterpose the recurrent fairy-tale motif of choice against the specter of fascism—the ultimate lack of choice. Both films also centrally feature “a child facing a very adult situation, and dealing with it from a place of grace or purity.”

WHAT OTHER FILMS OR WORKS OF LITERATURE DOES THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE CONJURE UP IN YOUR MIND?
The Sixth Sense
The Spirit of the Beehive
Pan’s Labyrinth
The Others
Night of the Hunter (consider the imagery of Dr. Casares protecting the boys via a shotgun, similar to Lillian Gish’s character)
The Orphanage
What Lies Beneath
The Lord of the Flies

Read more...

Spooks from Spain

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Shocktober Theater, Cineverse's annual foray every October into horror/mystery/thriller films, returns with a vengeance on October 7 with a World Cinema Wednesday special from Spain: “The Devil’s Backbone” (2001; 106 minutes), directed by Guillermo del Toro. Plus, stick around for "Spanish Gothic,” a brief feature examining gothic elements used in the movie.

Read more...

Surely, you can't be serious, CineVerse

Thursday, October 1, 2015

It's hard to hold a magnifying glass up close to the film Airplane! and examine it with any seriousness while keeping a straight face. Nevertheless, this is a movie deserving of props as a pioneering modern comedy that has undoubtedly influenced innumerable imitators and admirers over the past 35 years. Here's our take on the film, without relying on any Automatic Pilot-type analysis:

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INNOVATIVE, UNIQUE, AND/OR CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT AIRPLANE! WHEN IT WAS RELEASED IN 1980?
Experts say the secret to this film’s success is that all the actors play it straight-faced and serious, including several older actors, such as Lloyd Bridges, Robert Stack, Leslie Nielsen, and Peter Graves, who were known for playing ultra-serious leading man in dramas and melodramas from decades before.
o Film scholar Glenn Erickson wrote: “The beauty of Airplane! is that it's not throwaway humor with actors doing whatever they want. Bridges and Robert Stack (the princes of countless dramas requiring deadpan intensity and terse line readings) keep straight faces despite the provocations of control-tower queen Steven Stucker's Johnny Hinshaw. Peter Graves gives every absurd dialogue line his patented 100% sincerity sales push, even when he's hitting on a nine-year-old boy.” And comedian Patton Oswalt commented: “Seeing the movie for the first time taught me a great lesson: You’ve got to play comedy as if it’s deadly serious. You’ve got to play weirdness as if it’s the most normal thing in the world.”
Additionally, while the film can be rambling, random, silly and over-the-top, it doesn’t stray from telling a complete story and sticking to its narrative; instead of stitching together a bunch of unrelated skits, spoofs and bits, this movie has a fairly cohesive plot that resolves itself by the end – allowing the filmmakers to pack in gags and jokes in between the story.
o Writer Nathan Rabin posited: “I was impressed by the economy of storytelling involved in spoofing a series like the Airport franchise, which seemed to employ the totality of not only Hollywood, but international film over the course of its run. Airplane! introduces a dizzying array of characters, each with subplots that need to be resolved over the course of a lean 87 minutes. Airplane! accomplishes an awful lot, storytelling-wise, in less than 90 minutes, while delivering at least a laugh a minute.”
Also, the film continually lampoons movie clichés, outdated film situations, overdramatic dialogue, and Hollywoodized characters and behaviors.
It wasn’t afraid to be irreverent, crude or offensive: consider the use of profanity, brief nudity, racial stereotyping, and even pedophilia as the focus of satire.
The movie uses virtually every comedic trick in the book, including slapstick, sight gags, corny puns and one-liners, ridiculous asides (the practice of cutting away from the main action to an unrelated visual non-sequitor or bizarre reference), hilarious montages.
It’s ratio of gags per minute was very high – which ensures that, while some jokes will fall flat, others will hit their mark, satisfying most audiences.
o Rabin also wrote: “ZAZ’s legacy extends beyond spoofs; the gentlemen also helped popularize a style of comedy that delights in a wide variety of humor, from smart verbal wit to proudly dumb visual gags, as well as an emphasis on quantity over quality. ZAZ threw as many gags against the wall as possible, and since they were brilliant gagsmiths in the prime of their career, an awful lot stuck.”
Airplane! also uses plentiful pop-culture references, but it doesn’t rely on these references to do much heavy lifting. In other words, while some of these references to pop-culture would have been more relevant in 1980, their inclusions don’t date the movie too badly or befuddle younger viewers who don’t get the jokes.

PREVIOUS FILMS AND TV SHOWS THAT INSPIRED AIRPLANE!
The anarchic, irreverent, madcap humor and punny comedy of the Marks Brothers films
“Zero Hour!” (1957)
“The Crowded Sky” (1960)
“Knute Rockne, All-American” (1940)
“Hellzapoppin” (1941)
“Airport” (1975) and its sequels
Disaster movies like “The Poseidon Adventure”
Skits from television and film comedians like Sid Caesar, Milton Burrell, Jerry Lewis, and Carol Burnett
The films of Mel Brooks, including “Blazing Saddles” and “Young Frankenstein”
“Bananas” (1971)

FILMS AND OTHER WORKS INSPIRED BY “AIRPLANE!”
Gross-out comedies by the Farrelly brothers, including “There’s Something About Mary,” “Dumb and Dumber,” and “Me, Myself and Irene.”
Contemporary gag-filled comedies like “Epic Movie,” “Date Movie,” the “Scary Movie” films, and African-American facsimiles, such as “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka” and” Don’t Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood.”
Modern prime-time animated series, including “The Simpsons,” “South Park,” and “Family Guy.”

OTHER FILMS BY ONE OR MORE FROM THE COMEDY DIRECTING TEAM OF JIM ABRAHAMS AND BROTHERS DAVID AND JERRY ZUCKER
“Kentucky Fried Movie” (1977)
“Top Secret” (1984)
“Ruthless People” (1986)
The first two “Naked Gun” movies (1988-1991)
“Ghost” (1990)
The “Hot Shots!” movies (1991, 1993)

Read more...

The anniversary that wouldn't die...

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

CineVerse celebrated its 10th anniversary back in June, but the media just doesn't want the party to stop! Today, the Daily Southtown newspaper published a congratulatory column promoting our film discussion group and noting our decade milestone.

Click here to read the full article.

Read more...

You can run, but you can't escape the film analysis

Thursday, September 24, 2015

In the pantheon of action thrillers, few measure up to the masterfully made "The Fugitive," which still manages to pack a strong punch 22 years later. After discussing this movie's merits, CineVerse came away with these observations:

WHAT MAKES THE FUGITIVE A CUT ABOVE THE TYPICAL MODERN THRILLER/ACTION MOVIE?
We care about these characters, primarily because there is good character development (without excessive exposition, back stories, or dialogue) and we can identify with Harrison Ford as an innocent everyman character on the run from forces outside of his control. 
Many have praised this as one of Ford’s best performances. Ford has been noted in this role as being quite effective at emoting fear, resolve, cunning, and other feelings expected in a desperate man simply via facial expressions and gestures, without having much dialogue to work with.
It’s crucial that we also care about the Tommy Lee Jones character in that he has an important job to do in seeking justice, he is an expert at what he does, and were hoping that he will uncover the truth and clear Kimball of all wrongdoing. Deputy Gerard is not the bad guy/villain here – he is the opposing force to Kimball and the driving factor behind much of the suspense, considering how close he is to finding his suspect. We understand what drives Gerard and can appreciate the consistency of his character. He and his team also serve as effective comic relief in an otherwise taut, suspenseful picture.
This is an important consideration, because the film essentially is about both characters and two pursuits that, as reviewer Owen Glieberman put it, are “running on parallel – and finally convergent – tracks. Kimball and Gerard spend the entire film on opposite sides of the law. Before long, though, we realize we’re rooting for both of them; they’re both protagonists, United and brains, dedication, superior gamesmanship.”
It’s also key that, as viewers, we are not omniscient – we only know as much as Kimball knows, so his discoveries and experiences along his journey are as revelatory to us as they are to him, allowing us to further identify with his predicament and root for his cause.
Additionally, while there are some implausible actions/plot points, this is not a film replete with ridiculously over the top escapes, getaways, deus ex machina plot contrivances, and unrealistic action sequences that plague contemporary thrillers/action movies.
What also sets this picture apart from contemporary thrillers is its traditional approach to filmmaking, especially no reliance on computer-generated effects or today’s process shots; in fact, the train crash/derailment scene early on is a real crash that had to be carefully choreographed. Also, Ford did several of his own stunts. This is one of the last examples, before the onset of the modern era of CGI effects, of old-school effects and stunts.
It’s a film that also showcases a major city in a fairly accurate way, by virtue of it having been shot on location in Chicago for many of its scenes. Director Andrew Davis said in an interview: “What I really appreciated seeing it recently again, was the Chicagoese of it. I’m from Chicago, I’ve made a lot of films in Chicago. It really captures the city in a wonderful way in terms of its casting and the way people sound and act. It sort of opened the doors to Chicago as a huge production center. “ER” was based upon a lot of what The Fugitive looked like. Batman [The Dark Knight] and all those other movies that shot in Chicago and produced by Warners were there because they had such great experience from the cooperation we got.”

WHAT ARE THE KEY THEMES AT WORK HERE THAT DRIVE THIS STORY AND ITS CHARACTERS?
The innocent man wrongly accused – a popular theme explored in Hitchcock pictures.
How pursuit of the truth trumps all other rules and laws, even over the pursuit of justice from a law enforcement perspective.
How large/amorphous/nameless forces, like huge corporations, can wreak terrible havoc on an individual. Corporate greed and the loss of individual/human rights are messages explored in this movie.
It asks the question: What would you do if you were blamed for a terrible crime and had a chance to at least temporarily escape from it?

WHAT OTHER FILMS OR BOOKS DOES THE FUGITIVE REMIND YOU OF?
The original TV series on which this film is based, which are fairly identical and set up, motivations, and situations.
Les Miserables, in that both protagonists are punished unfairly and hunted by obsessive law-enforcement detectives as they pursue vindication.
“The Third Man” – especially in its similarity with the man on the run using sewers/drainage tunnels.

OTHER WORKS BY DIR. ANDREW DAVIS
“Code of Silence”
“ The Package”
“Under Siege”
“Holes”

Read more...

A running Ford gathers no moss

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Make plans to attend CineVerse on September 23 for part 13 of the "Our Favorite Films" series, this time featuring “The Fugitive” (1993; 130 minutes), directed by Andrew Davis, chosen by Art Myren.

Read more...

"Airplane!" Rescheduled for September 30

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Due to technical difficulties last night, we had to postpone our scheduled viewing and discussion of "Airplane!" The good news is that we have rescheduled it for Wednesday, September 30. Immediately following the movie, we will screen clips from a "making of Airplane!" documentary. We hope you can join us that evening.

Note that the original movie slated for September 30, "High Noon," will be rescheduled for a later date (Jeff, who picked "High Noon" for the Our Favorite Films series, will not be able to attend that evening, so it makes sense to move "Airplane!" to that date and revisit Jeff's movie in the coming weeks).

Sorry for all the sudden calendar changes, but we want to ensure that the Our Favorite Films chooser is present the date of their scheduled film.

Read more...

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit CineVerse

Sunday, September 13, 2015

On September 16, the Our Favorite Films series continues at CineVerse with “Airplane” (1980; 88 minutes), directed by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker, chosen by Tom Nesis. Plus: Prior to the film, we will play a brief movie trivia game with the chance to win DVD prizes.

Note that "Notorious," which was originally slated for September 16, has been postponed for a few weeks due to a scheduling conflict.

Read more...

The man may be quiet, but the film speaks loud and clear

Thursday, September 10, 2015

John Ford is known for his unforgettable westerns, no doubt. But he also distinguished himself as a master director of films featuring Irish and Welsh characters, most notably with "The Quiet Man," which CineVerse examined last evening. Here are the main takeaways:

HOW IS JOHN WAYNE’S CHARACTER AND PERFORMANCE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER FILMS—IS THIS A DIFFERENT SIDE OF JOHN WAYNE THAN YOU’RE USED TO?

·         We expect a dominating, strong, wisecracking male character that we’ve seen him play previously.
·         Instead, he shows hints of quiet, reserved tenderness, and wistfulness.

HOW WAS THE QUIET MAN A DEPARTURE FOR JOHN FORD THE DIRECTOR, WHO WAS KNOWN FOR FILMS LIKE STAGECOACH, GRAPES OF WRATH, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, RIO GRANDE AND OTHERS?
·         This film is much more romantic and sexually charged than his previous pictures.
·         “The Quiet Man” is much more sentimental and comedic than Ford’s previous works.
·         There is great sexual tension, romantic chemistry and power struggle between Wayne and O’Hara: a brilliant pairing.

DOES THE FILM CARRY A PRO FEMINIST MESSAGE TODAY, OR DO YOU SEE THE “QUIET MAN” NOW AS A LAUGHABLY DATED, REPRESSIVELY PATRIARCHAL FILM  TODAY?
·         Their marriage can be viewed as an equal partnership in that her insistence on the dowry and refusal to grant intimacy gives her power.
·         She stands right up to Sean, toe to toe, and tears the stick from his hand he was given to beat her with.
·         She slaps his face when he tries to kiss her.
·         She whispers presumably something naughty in his ear, giving the impression that she enjoys sexual intimacy and communicates what she likes, vs. the expectation that wives were or should be subservient and the assumption that the man should take charge.
·         He kicks in the door, but unlike Gone with the wind, where Rhett has his way with a nonconsensual Scarlett on their wedding night, he spends the night in his sleeping bag.
·         The broken bed scene and the extended fight scene are symbolic of Sean trying to reclaim his honor— they are meant to be scenes of triumph and humor, but today can be viewed as a man dominating or abusing his wife.
·         When he buys her a horse and cart, he lets her drive.
·         Consider that the movie is predominantly shot on location in Ireland and features native Irish actors and Irish citizens as stand-ins, as well as its Hollywood stars – all Irish descendents.

BY THE END OF THE MOVIE, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT SEAN? HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT MARY? WHO IS IN THE RIGHT?

IS THE QUIET MAN A CELEBRATION OF IRISH CULTURE OR A CRITICISM OF IT?
·         The film emphasizes a positive spirit of a cohesive community.
·         There is a rich tapestry of music flavored by popular Irish songs.
·         But, the film becomes a comedy of manners as Sean is conflicted by the social mores and traditional customs of Irish courting/marriage.

IS THIS MEANT TO BE A REALISTIC DEPICTION OF 1950S IRELAND, OR AN IRISH TALL TALE?
·         The name “Innisfree” is derived from “The Lake Isle Of Innisfree” by William Butler Yeats; it immediately evokes a poetic, imaginative fancy.
·         Many of the supporting characters are stereotypical caricatures: the fight-happy brute, the leprechaun-like imp, the quirky old man, etc.
·         The romantic scenes are highly charged and influence the surroundings — a storm pops up out of nowhere seemingly in response to their passion.
·         It’s as synthetic and artificial as Ford’s idealized American west in his westerns.
·         This was intended as Ford’s homage to what he imagined as a happier, simpler time in the life of his ancestors.

AMERICA AND IRELAND ARE TWO OPPOSING WORLDS TO SEAN; WHAT DOES EACH COUNTRY REPRESENT TO HIM?
·         America stands for romantic love, passion (honk a horn and girl comes running out of the house); Ireland=traditional marriage customs (dowry, honor; you have to fight to win someone’s love).
·         The mystery of Innisfree to Sean is summed up in the question: How can his undeniable romantic passion be halted by mere tradition or custom (as exemplified by Red Will’s refusal to let sister marry him)?

WHAT ROLE DO COLORS PLAY IN THE FILM? ARE ANY PARTICULAR COLORS THEMATIC OR SYMBOLIC?
·         Warm reds and browns symbolize carnal passion.
·         Greens and blues represent tradition, protocol, and customs.

DO YOU RECOGNIZE ANY ELEMENTS OF SHAKESPEARE OR MYTHOLOGY IN THE QUIET MAN?
·         The plot is somewhat similar to “The Taming of the Shrew.”
·         Innisfree has been described as similar to the Forest of Arden in “As You like It.”
·         Critics have compared this film’s humor to the Bard’s “untidy magical comedies,” such as “A Winter’s Tale.”
The story was inspired by a Celtic myth about an epic war between two kingly deities who fought every year for the love of a goddess queen.

Read more...

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP