Posts
Open the pod bay doors, CineVerse…
Sunday, November 27, 2016
No CineVerse meeting on November 23
Sunday, November 20, 2016
CineVerse will not meet on Wednesday, November 23 due to the Thanksgiving holiday. We will reconvene next week on November 30. Enjoy your turkey day.
Read more...
A film that doesn't exactly follow the herd
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Howard Hawks' "Red River" is a memorable flick for multiple reasons, not the least of which is its colorful characterizations, sharp themes, tense familial dynamics, and awe-inspiring size and scope (the filmmakers really did have to manage about 1,500 head of cattle in addition to the large human cast). Many film scholars point to this picture as a turning point in the development of the American western movie – one that marks a diversion away from the simple white hat versus black hat struggle for survival and supremacy in the old West. CineVerse came to these conclusions after watching the rare prerelease version last evening:
HOW IS THIS MOVIE DIFFERENT FROM OR SIMILAR TO OTHER WESTERNS?
• It’s shot and set almost entirely outdoors, filmed primarily in Arizona. Yes, there are some rear projection shots used and scenes that were filmed on the studio lot, but unlike many other Hollywood westerns, this one had to be shot outdoors to depict the cattle drive.
• Speaking of, Hawks and his crew really are responsible for moving 1500 head of cattle in this production; it’s yet another example of how epic this film is in scope, theme, look and feel.
• A woman solves the main conflict between males by the end of the film. That’s a rarity.
• There are many familiar western tropes and conventions here, including character caricatures, like Walter Brennan’s cook and the sharpshooter Cherry.
• This is an especially long movie – with over a two hour run time in its theatrical version and a few minutes longer in its prerelease version. For 1948, most movies still came in around 90 to 110 minutes.
• It features, in the prerelease version, text narration that we only see quick glimpses of, as if to say that action is more important than words.
• It’s exceedingly well cast: this is the role by Wayne that impressed John Ford enough to continue using The Duke in future productions. Wayne plays a psychologically complex character whose stubbornness and tunnel vision create palpable tension. Montgomery Clift, by contrast, employs the Method style of acting and uses characterization subtleties to evoke an a quiet, brooding intelligence and bravery that other actors may not have been able to achieve. Hawks’ stock company also fills out the supporting roles dutifully, including a great Walter Brennan.
• There are suggestions of homoerotic undertones peppered in this picture – as evidenced by dialogue between Matt and Cherry like, “That’s a good-looking gun you’ve got there,” “Want to see mine?” and “I’ve taken a liking to that gun of his.”
• The love interest in this movie, as embodied by Tess, doesn’t appear until the 95 minute mark – quite late into the picture for a romantic subplot.
• The ending is abrupt and unexpected – almost anticlimactic. In fact, there are two expected showdowns hinted at that don’t amount to much: the showdown between Matt and Cherry, and the showdown between Matt and Dunson.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE DÉNOUEMENT OF THIS MOVIE? DOES THE ENDING FEEL CONTRIVED AND TACKED ON OR DO YOU LIKE THE WAY THE FILM CONCLUDES, WITHOUT THE FATHER ATTEMPTING TO GET EVEN WITH HIS SON?
• It’s worth noting that the movie’s conclusion differs from that of the original story written by Borden Chase, which ends on a darker note.
• On one hand, you can consider it fresh and original that Hawks chooses to have the female lead intercede and prevent bloodshed between Dunson and Matt by employing a comic shaming of those two characters.
• On the other hand, critics some critics argue that this undercuts a main theme of the film – betrayal and revenge – by having everything wrapped up neatly and peacefully simply based on the words of a strong female character.
• Film scholar Glenn Erickson wrote: “It’s as if Lucille Ball intervened between Ahab and Moby Dick, arguing that their big deal feud doesn’t amount to a hill of blubber in this crazy world.”
WHAT THEMES ARE AT WORK IN RED RIVER?
• Betrayal and revenge.
• Rivalry: between father and son, between Matthew and Cherry, and between Dunson and other landowners/peers.
• The ties that bind: in this case, familial ties and bonds prove stronger than hate and resentment.
• Fathers versus sons and the conflict that ensues between familial generations. Roger Ebert suggested: “The theme of Red River is from classical tragedy – the need of the son to slay the father, literally or symbolically, in order to clear the way for his own ascendancy.”
• Ebert also suggested a second major theme: “The father’s desire to gain immortality through a child.”
• How skill and professionalism can overcome obstacles and prove priceless. This is a theme often explored by Hawks: “The cult of professional skill is something to hang onto any world that might otherwise prove meaningless,” as posited by Criterion Collection essayist Geoffrey O’Brien.
• The danger of tunnel vision and obstinacy. Consider that Dunson’s instincts are almost always wrong or appear wrong: his insistence on his wife staying behind results in her being slaughtered; his steadfastness in driving the herd all the way to Missouri would appear to be a fool’s errand destined for failure; and his decision to overwork his crew and punish them via draconian measures leads to desertions and mutiny.
OTHER FILMS AND WORKS OF LITERATURE THAT COME TO MIND AFTER WATCHING RED RIVER
• Mutiny on the Bounty
• Come and Get It, a 1936 film directed by Hawks
• Moby Dick
• Only Angels Have Wings and Rio Bravo, two other Hawks films where strong female characters interrupt a powerful male universe
OTHER FILMS DIRECTED BY HOWARD HAWKS:
• Scarface
• Bringing Up Baby
• Only Angels Have Wings
• His Girl Friday
• Sergeant York
• To Have and Have Not
• The Big Sleep
• Gentlemen Prefer Blinds
• Rio Bravo
Read more...
The Duke makes the river run red
Sunday, November 13, 2016
A spoonful of saccharin mixed with a dash of downbeat flashbacks
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Many biopics are guilty of the sin of perpetuating a revisionist history that doesn't jive with the true facts. Such is the case with "Saving Mr. Banks," a Disney-produced homage to the magic, majesty and mastery of the Disney brand and its founding father – whose creative vision and influence, if we are to believe this film, were responsible for convincing "Mary Poppins" author P.L. Travers to permit a big screen adaptation of her work. Despite playing loose and free with the facts, however, "Saving Mr. Banks" proves to be an entertaining story-behind-the-story film enriched by memorable performances. CineVerse took a closer look at this picture last evening, and here's our supercalifragilisticexpialidocious spin on it:
WHAT DID YOU FIND INTERESTING, UNEXPECTED, DISTINCTIVE, REFRESHING OR DISAPPOINTING ABOUT SAVING MR. BANKS?
• There’s a lot of star power and acting talent running the engine here that’s hard to ignore or not enjoy.
• The film’s setting and subject is a curious one, considering that most box office today is directed toward teens and younger viewers, the vast majority of whom have never seen or heard of Mary Poppins; this film is obviously an attempt to primarily appeal to baby boomer nostalgia over the 1964 movie, which is now over 50 years old.
• The flashback scenes to Travers’ childhood, some argue, grind the film to a halt and add a depressing sheen to an otherwise upbeat and wistful picture. So tonally, the film may feel inconsistent to many viewers.
• It reinforces the power of movies to help us escape from our troubles while also demonstrating that real troubles are often what motivates artists to create escapist art.
• In a crass and cynical reading of the film, you could make a case that this is just a feature-length commercial for the Disney brand, the myths and magic behind its founder and empire, and the classic films well represented in its vault. Viewers who subscribe to this theory may feel mistrustful about this film’s characters, plot and motivations for its making.
WHAT THEMES CAN YOU PINPOINT ARE AT WORK IN SAVING MR. BANKS?
• The dangers of living in the past, choosing to be haunted by guilt and regret, and not forgiving yourself for past actions.
• The ability for art to be both transformative and limited in its power.
• Art can be a collaborative process whereby a creator compromises his or her vision to allow another artist to shape or adapt that creation for the benefit of pleasing the most people possible.
• Art can also have deeply personal inspirations and motivations behind it that may or may not be identified and appreciated by the masses. Travers may have been driven to create Mary Poppins based on her childhood experiences and feelings about her father, but that knowledge is not necessary for us to be able to enjoy the 1964 Disney film Mary Poppins.
MUCH OF THIS PLOT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED AS FACTUALLY INCORRECT – INCLUDING THE FACT THAT DISNEY HAD ALREADY OBTAINED THE FILM RIGHTS TO MARY POPPINS WHEN TRAVERS ARRIVED TO CONSULT WITH THE DISNEY STAFF AND THE FACT THAT TRAVERS HATED THE FINISHED FILM; DOES THIS KNOWLEDGE DETRACT FROM YOUR ENJOYMENT AND APPRECIATION OF SAVING MR. BANKS IN ANY WAY?
• Many viewers can fall into the trap of believing most or everything they see in a film biopic because cinema wields a mighty power to persuade.
• You have to consider the source here: this is a movie made by Disney about its beloved founder and one of its most treasured properties, so it’s highly doubtful they would tackle anything truly controversial about the true nature of this subject or the true life facts about the making of Mary Poppins.
• Nevertheless, this picture arguably doesn’t do any harm in serving as a validation of the mastery and magic that went into the creation of an indisputable movie masterpiece – Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins.
• That being said, because most of us have such a favorable impression of the 1964 Mary Poppins film, it’s easy to look at the Travers character as depicted in this movie as being overdue for an epiphany, change of heart or even an apology to Disney himself; portraying her as stubborn and obtuse about a soon-to-be-made film that we know has been widely beloved and acclaimed predictably telegraphs to us that this character will be proved wrong.
OTHER MOVIES THAT COME TO MIND AFTER WATCHING SAVING MR. BANKS:
• Finding Neverland, about Peter Pan creator J. M. Barrie
• Miss Potter, about Peter Rabbit creator Beatrix Potter
• Shadowlands, about Narnia author C.S. Lewis
• Hitchcock, about the famous director
• Gods and Monsters, about Universal Studios horror movie director James Whale
• Dreamchild, about the woman whom Alice in Alice in Wonderland was modeled after
• Nanny McPhee
OTHER FILMS DIRECTED BY JOHN LEE HANCOCK
• The Rookie
• The Alamo
• The Blind Side
Money in the Banks
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Revised CineVerse November/December schedule posted
Friday, November 4, 2016
Curious to know what we'll be viewing and discussing at CineVerse over the next several weeks? Our updated November/December calendar is now ready for viewing. Click here to access it.
Read more...
Birds of a feather flock together
Thursday, November 3, 2016
"The Birds" is one of the most challenging films in Hitchcock's canon, particularly because of the unexplained rationale for the avian attacks, diverging plot line, ambiguous ending, and other elements. But there is a method to this madness and an overall effect that the Master of Suspense was trying to achieve; perhaps this method fails for many viewers, but the overall impression he creates will indelibly be etched into your mind and linger long after the film concludes, for better or worse. Here's our CineVerse group's take on the movie:
WHAT IS THE MACGUFFIN IN THIS FILM?
• The very question: “Why are the birds attacking”? This is left ambiguous and unexplained.
• The would-be growing relationship between Melanie and Mitch
HOW DO YOU FEEL ONCE THE FILM CONCLUDES?
• Perhaps puzzled, bewildered, anxious, unsettled, and/or disoriented.
• There is no tying up of loose ends or a happy ending tacked on here: it’s highly likely that the bird attacks will continue and the survivors driving away face an uncertain future that could and soon in violent death. This is anticlimactic to the extreme.
• Unlike previous horror movies, where the monsters, aliens or giant bugs and their motives or reasons why they attack are explained, this film doesn’t provide any answers or solutions. The “good guys” don’t win in the end, and the monster/threat is not vanquished or understood.
o Critic Richard Scheib suggested that The Birds ushered in a new era of horror cinema, after which: “Standard horror stories… were represented without classical moral/psychological definitions – without happy endings, explanations and solutions or regard to victims. In the 1930s, 40s and 50s, these films would have had strident moral messages about monsters of science unleashed or about the atomic bomb looming over everybody. Far more frighteningly, in the 1960s you never knew why monsters were attacking humanity – they came and went out of the blue... And, as Night of the Living Dead demonstrated, characters could no longer be guaranteed survival just because they were designated the hero.”
HOW IS THE BIRDS DIFFERENT FROM OR SIMILAR TO OTHER HITCHCOCK PICTURES?
• The motivations for the terrorizing/threatening force (in this case, the birds themselves) are not explained, just as it’s not explained why Melanie wants to go to such trouble to pull a practical joke on Mitch. Additionally, there is no proper closure by the dénouement of the film: we are left with an open ending wherein very little is clarified.
• It doesn’t employ a proper musical score – instead, it utilizes an innovative sound design that incorporates live bird sounds and electronic sounds meant to simulate birds, as well as strange sounds and noises like ambient hum and dangerous animal sounds (like a rattlesnake).
• Like Psycho, it features a long pursuit sequence and extended first act buildup in which we think the story is going in one direction (in this movie, a growing relationship between Mitch and Melanie) but suddenly turns in another direction and subverts our expectations.
• It features elaborate special-effects for the day, including animated birds mixed with live and electronic birds, realistic matte paintings, complex optical effects and more.
• This was the third time Hitchcock attempted to adapt a story by Daphne Du Maurier – previous efforts include Jamaica Inn and Rebecca.
HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS MOVIE? WHAT THEMES ARE AT WORK HERE?
• You can attempt a feminist/Freudian psychological reading of this movie as such: Melanie enters the life of Mitch and upsets the natural order and structure of the flock who depend on him, which includes his mother Lydia, his previous girlfriend Annie, and his sister Cathy – all “birds” (in the English slang, a term that refers to females). Melanie’s arrival into their lives represents an external threat to their place in the roost that revolves around Mitch. Hence, the avian attacks symbolize the hatred, fear and resentment these three females – especially mother – feel toward Melanie.
o Essayist Brandie Ashe posits: “The attacks only and when Melanie essentially sacrifices herself to an onslaught of birds in the end of the film – her subsequent catatonia and helplessness lead Lydia to take on the role of mother, and it can be assumed that it is her implicit acceptance of Melanie (and of the regaining of her position as the head female character) which precipitates the end of the chaos and the uneasy detente at the conclusion of the film.” In other words, the birds stop attacking because mother has accepted Melanie – and vice versa (Melanie has found a new mother figure to fill that void in her life).
• Melanie as albatross: she serves as a kind of bird of ill omen and bad luck, and her arrival into the town precedes the attacks. A town resident even insinuates that she’s a kind of witch, asking “who are you – what are you?” and suggesting that her presence provoked the bird attacks.
• Birds of a feather flock together – especially when forced. Keep in mind that Mitch and Melanie both have names that start with M and R both sexually flirtatious and attracted to one another. Another M character – mother, who creates an “M” love triangle – at first rejects Melanie but comes to accept her by the end of the film.
• You can also ascribe a biblical/apocalyptic religious reading to the movie: consider that the bird attacks bring to mind the various animal plagues of Egypt described in the Old Testament. We also hear an old drunk character quote the Bible and warn of the end of the world.
• It’s important to remember also that this was the height of the Cold War between the United States and Russia – thus, the movie can be viewed as a cautionary tale or allegory about escalating tensions between the two factions and the carnage and destruction that could be unleashed upon the world because of it.
• The Birds can also be interpreted as a nature’s revenge tale: remember that early in the film, humans keep birds and cages, but by the end of the movie birds keep humans in cages (like Melanie trapped in a phone booth).
OTHER FILMS THAT THE BIRDS REMIND US OF:
• A flock of “nature revenge” movies from the 1970s, including Frogs, Night of the Lepus, Killer Bees, Squirm, The Food of the Gods, Rattlers, Empire of the Answers, Jaws, and The Swarm.
• Birdemic: Shock and Terror
• Kaw
• Cujo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)