Blog Directory CineVerse: September 2025

Big Easy blues

Friday, September 26, 2025

Long before he became a prima donna punchline known for phoning in his overpriced performances, Marlon Brando set the stage – and then the cinema – on fire with his electrifying method acting. Perhaps the greatest proof of this talent is evidenced in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), directed by Elia Kazan and adapted from Tennessee Williams’s Pulitzer Prize–winning 1947 play of the same name. Set in a steamy New Orleans apartment, the narrative concerns fading Southern belle Blanche DuBois (played by Vivien Leigh) as she arrives to stay with her younger sister Stella Kowalski (Kim Hunter) and Stella’s brutish, working-class husband Stanley Kowalski (Brando). Blanche hides a troubled past and clings to delusions of gentility, but her refined airs clash violently with Stanley’s raw, animalistic energy. Tensions escalate into a battle of wills and desires, culminating in violence and Blanche’s mental breakdown. The powerhouse cast also includes Karl Malden as Mitch, Stanley’s friend and Blanche’s would-be suitor, whose disappointment adds to her unraveling.


To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of A Streetcar Named Desire, conducted last week, click here.


In the early 50s, this film would have certainly been controversial for its unflinching treatment of sexuality and violence. From the start, there is a strong carnal undercurrent running throughout the story that would have been difficult to get past the censors. The implied rape of Blanche by Stanley is shocking and disturbing, while hints of female lust and nymphomania – Stella’s longing for her husband, the sexual tension between Blanche and Stanley, and Blanche’s own repressed desires – push the boundaries of what audiences at the time expected on screen. Stella endures both physical and verbal abuse, and Blanche’s backstory includes the suggestion that her husband was homosexual, a revelation that, combined with her taunting of him, may have contributed to his suicide. The bleak and tragic ending only intensifies the discomfort: Blanche has been assaulted and committed to a mental institution, and Stella will presumably take Stanley back (her vow in the final scene to never return to her husband rings hollow to the ears of modern audiences).

At its heart, Streetcar is built on an ideological clash between the past and the present. Blanche represents the old South, a pretender living in denial, a pseudo–southern belle yearning for a time that has passed. Stanley, by contrast, embodies the new South, one shaped by capitalist and industrial forces, a primal presence standing as the antithesis of the gallant white knight who once saved damsels in distress. Between them stands Stella, exuding fertility and representing a new Southern attitude – one in which women tolerate the brutality of men, having shed the gentler accents and illusions of their upbringing. Together, these three characters dramatize the struggle between decaying traditions and hard-edged modernity.

Blanche and Stanley, in particular, operate as opposing forces locked in a Darwinian struggle over Stella’s loyalties and over the symbolic survival of their respective “species.” Blanche’s attempts to “save Stella from the brutes” and to restore a bygone Southern culture place her directly in conflict with Stanley’s raw, unapologetic dominance. Critics and scholars have often pointed to this tension as emblematic of a survival-of-the-fittest contest. Stanley ultimately wins: The birth of his son signals his line will continue, while Blanche is expelled from the environment altogether. In the end, Stella chooses the flesh over the spirit, staying with Stanley and sealing Blanche’s fate.

The casting deepens and enriches these themes. Leigh is the spot-on choice for Blanche, bringing with her the association of Scarlett O’Hara and the old South from Gone With the Wind. Leigh’s own emerging struggles with bipolar disorder may also have informed her layered, tremulous performance. Kim Hunter is also perfectly cast as Stella, her plain appearance underscoring her earthy sensuality and quiet strength. Brando, meanwhile, is a force of nature: His physicality, emotive body language, and dangerous allure create a believable and complex character. Historians widely see his performance as a turning point in film acting, ushering in a new era of nuance, detail, and range. Roger Ebert noted that American actors before Brando often portrayed violent emotions with restraint, holding back a certain modesty. Brando shattered that restraint, paving the way for Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Jack Nicholson, Sean Penn, and others who embraced rawness as the new standard.

The movie’s visual and aural design amplifies its psychological intensity. Tight, claustrophobic interiors close in on the characters, increasing the sense of pressure and conflict. Viewers can feel the sweat, heat, and grime of New Orleans – there is no romanticizing here, only a seething sauna of sexuality and confrontation. Even the score reflects the characters’ inner lives: brief musical cues infused with New Orleans–style jazz conjure an atmosphere of brooding desire and unrest.

Beneath these surface elements run themes of illusion versus reality and old values versus new values. Blanche’s misleading letters, her purple shade over the light fixture, and her pining for Belle Reve all reveal her clinging to a fading ideal of Southern manners and gentility. Yet this gentility is met not with sympathy but with brutality, indifference, and ignorance. The story also explores different kinds of desire – sexual, emotional, and social – along with the search for identity and the power of sexuality to either destroy or redeem. Through these intertwined threads, the film presents a world where the past and its illusions are crushed by the unstoppable force of the present, leaving its characters trapped between longing and survival.

Similar works

  • Sunset Boulevard (1950)
  • Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
  • Baby Doll (1956)
  • Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
  • Sweet Bird of Youth (1962)
  • Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
  • Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967)
  • Last Tango in Paris (1972)
  • Closer (2004)
  • Blue Jasmine (2013)

Other films by Elia Kazan

  • A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)
  • Gentlemen’s Agreement (1947)
  • Viva Zapata (1952)
  • On the Waterfront (1954)
  • East of Eden (1955)
  • Baby Doll (1956)
  • A Face in the Crowd (1957)
  • Splendor in the Grass (1961)

Read more...

Cineversary podcast celebrates 50th anniversary of Dog Day Afternoon

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

In Cineversary podcast episode #86, host ⁠Erik Martin⁠ takes it to the bank as he commemorates the 50th anniversary of Sidney Lumet’s Dog Day Afternoon. Joining him for this golden celebration is Maura Spiegel, a film studies professor at Columbia University and author of the book Sidney Lumet: A Life. Together, they examine how this film remains resonant and relevant, the impression it made another filmmakers, major themes, and much more.
Maura Spiegel
To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including
Apple Podcasts
and Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com.

Read more...

Seek out this De Sica gem

How do you top Bicycle Thieves and steal the title of perhaps the greatest Italian neorealism film ever made? Make Umberto D., that’s how. Amazingly, both pictures were helmed by Vittorio De Sica, with the latter released less than three years after the former. Written by Cesare Zavattini, Umberto D. is named after its title character, Umberto Domenico Ferrari (Carlo Battisti), an elderly retired civil servant in postwar Rome who struggles to survive on a small pension. Faced with eviction from his boarding house and increasing isolation, his only real companion is his loyal dog, Flike. Maria-Pia Casilio plays Maria, the young maid who befriends the old man.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Umberto D., conducted last week, click here. (If you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page.)


This work eschews melodrama for a quiet, humane focus on everyday struggles, particularly the overlooked plight of the elderly poor. It isn’t sentimental, mawkish, or emotionally manipulative. For proof, consider the scene where Umberto looks for his dog at the pound and sees all the confined canines who will likely be euthanized; the filmmakers certainly could have tugged at your heartstrings more here, but they don’t. They simply let the scene play out without manipulation.

It’s a bleak, warts-and-all character study that can be depressing and downbeat. There’s very little humor or comic relief, and few exciting things that happen to this man or his dog. And the lack of sentimentality can actually cause viewers to feel less or no sympathy for the protagonist. Per reviewer Glenn Erickson: “The story doesn't have cute kids, dreamy lovers, or crime thrills to distract the audience. Instead, we get the kind of grinding real-life problems faced by the honest poor. I can see less generous viewers reacting to Umberto's lack of options by deciding that his problems are his own fault. It's true: the average audience will accept social realities in their entertainment, but even an arthouse crowd wants to be 'entertained'. Umberto D. is an uncompromised neorealist experience.”

Contrary to other neorealist movies, Umberto D. doesn’t depict the struggles of the working-class everyman in or near the prime of his life; Umberto himself is a low-income, forgotten senior who lives a relatively miserable existence. He’s not rebelling against socioeconomic forces or seeking justice—he simply wants to exist alone and in peace. Additionally, the key social issues explored in this film are not necessarily economic injustice, man’s inhumanity to his fellow man, and postwar social challenges faced by most people; instead, the struggle here is to thwart shame and maintain dignity and decency in the face of old age. Truth is, this neorealism film has a much simpler and straightforward plot. The primary relationship here is simply between a man and his dog. Interestingly, the movie uses ample long shots that often show Umberto and his dog from far off, versus medium or close-up shots; the longshot effect evokes a feeling of distance, isolation from others, and loneliness.

What’s surprisingly effective is that De Sica employs real-time sequences and depicts banal everyday occurrences. Recall the maid’s humdrum morning routine or the old man’s attempts to go to sleep. It feels documentary-like, brutally honest, unscripted, and nontheatrical. This is 180 degrees from a sympathy-soaked melodrama filled with contrived conflict.

According to Roger Ebert, “Umberto D. tells what could be a formula story, but not in a formula way: Its moments seem generated by what might really happen. A formula film would find a way to manufacture a happy ending, but good fortune will not fall from the sky for Umberto. Perhaps his best luck is simply that he has the inner strength to endure misfortune without losing self-respect. It is said that at one level or another, Chaplin's characters were always asking that we love them. Umberto doesn't care if we love him or not. That is why we love him.

Umberto D. reminds us that life is often not fair, and those who often need the most help find the least help. It masterfully depicts the struggle to maintain dignity and eke out an existence in a pitiless world where no one seems to care. Yet we are shown that even the most mundane existence devoid of excitement can still have meaning and resonance. As long as you have a single loved one who needs you and vice versa, life is worth living.

Similar works

  • Ikiru (1952)
  • Wild Strawberries (1957)
  • A Man and His Dog (1952)
  • A Dog Year (2009)

Other movies directed by Vittorio De Sica:

  • Shoeshine (1946)
  • Bicycle Thieves (1948)
  • Miracle in Milan (1951)
  • Two Women (1960)
  • Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (1963)
  • Marriage Italian Style (1964)

Read more...

Every dog has its day – or at least an afternoon

Tuesday, September 9, 2025


Five decades later, Dog Day Afternoon – directed by Sidney Lumet and based on a true story – could debatably be more resonant and relevant than it was upon its release in September 1975. Exploring powerful themes of desperation, media spectacle, and social bias, the film centers on Sonny (Al Pacino), who, along with his partner Sal (John Cazale), attempts to rob a Brooklyn bank to pay for his lover Leon’s (Chris Sarandon) gender-affirming surgery, only for the heist to spiral into a chaotic hostage standoff. As the tense situation unfolds, Sonny tries to negotiate with police detective Sgt. Moretti (Charles Durning) while dealing with growing media attention and the emotional strain of his personal life. Also featuring James Broderick as FBI agent Sheldon, the film blends dark humor with social commentary, making it both a gripping thriller and a human drama.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Dog Day Afternoon, conducted last week, click here. (If you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page.)


Dog Day Afternoon stands as a high point in the careers of its creators, potentially representing Lumet’s most accomplished direction and featuring perhaps the most memorable and powerful performances ever delivered by Al Pacino and John Cazale. (That’s especially high praise for Cazale, who was practically perfect in each of the five masterpieces he appeared in before dying of cancer: The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, The Conversation, this film, and The Deer Hunter.)

This work often plays as a comedy but ends as a tragedy, all the while ticking away as a fine psychological drama and mild thriller filled with fine performances and fascinating characters that were hallmarks of early 1970s cinema. The movie has a lot to say about the power of the media, sociocultural politics, LGBTQ awareness, and the deep state of mistrust and pessimism that pervaded our culture in the mid-1970s.

It tackles the subject of a gay relationship with honesty and matter-of-factness. For a mainstream film released in 1975, it was groundbreaking in portraying a queer relationship at the center of its story without ridicule or sensationalism, instead treating Sonny’s love for his partner as a deeply human motivation that audiences could empathize with.

The picture is considered relatively authentic and fairly accurate because it closely follows the real 1972 Brooklyn bank robbery by John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturile. Lumet and screenwriter Frank Pierson stayed faithful to the main events, including the hostage situation, tense negotiations, and chaotic interactions with police and the media. Pacino’s Sonny reflects Wojtowicz’s personality and motives (he also bears an uncanny resemblance), particularly his efforts to fund his partner’s gender-affirming surgery. It achieves a striking authenticity by grounding itself in this true story and real environments. Filmed on location in New York with natural lighting, a documentary-like style, and improvisational performances, the movie captures the immediacy and unpredictability of real life, blurring the line between drama and reality in a way that still feels fresh 50 years later.

It features no traditional musical score, instead relying on atmosphere and natural sound. The absence of a composed soundtrack heightens the realism and tension, making the viewer feel as though they are truly inside the unfolding events. The only song used—Elton John’s “Amoreena” in the opening, which is revealed to be playing on the radio inside the getaway car, making it diegetic music—sets the everyday New York mood before the chaos begins, making the contrast even more striking.

This film certainly tells us a lot about life in America 50 years ago. It embraces an anti-authoritarian theme that critiques the political climate of the 1970s. By spotlighting police aggression, public distrust of institutions, and the lingering disillusionment of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the film tapped into widespread anxieties of its time, giving it both topical urgency and lasting relevance. Through tense interactions with police, the film critiques law enforcement and bureaucratic inefficiency.

According to DVD Savant critic Glenn Erickson: “Sonny, a Vietnam vet, displays a paranoia and distrust of authority that was the hallmark of the era. It may be one of the most famous scenes in film history, but Sonny's "ATTICA! ATTICA!" tirade, inspired by a notorious prison riot that ended with officers shooting numerous prisoners in the back, speaks to his disgust with law enforcement and the system in general. The robbery may have happened in August 1972, only two months after the Watergate break-in, but by the time the film was produced, Nixon was out and Sonny's view of authority was no longer counter-culture mysticism; It was a mainstream public view.”

Dog Day Afternoon "captures perfectly the zeitgeist of the early 1970s, a time when optimism was scraping rock bottom and John Wojtowicz was as good a hero as we could come up with,” wrote critic Christopher Null.

Consider that Sonny is the first openly gay/bisexual character featured in a Hollywood movie, and Pacino is the first major American star to ever play a gay/bisexual man. Dog Day Afternoon broke new ground by presenting a gay relationship as a central, fully human element of the narrative of a feature film—something rarely seen in mainstream films of the 1970s. Sonny’s sexuality is treated matter-of-factly, and his love for his partner drives his actions, giving the character depth and complexity rather than reducing him to a stereotype. Likewise, the gay character of Leon – superbly played by Sarandon – is presented with nuance and sensitivity minus clichés or caricature.

Additionally, Dog Day Afternoon deviated from the conventions of earlier heist films and debatably reshaped how crime dramas were made. Shot with handheld cameras, natural lighting, and overlapping dialogue, it adopted a documentary-like realism that gave the story a raw, authentic feel and inspired later films like Heat and Inside Man to ground their crime narratives similarly.

Rather than focusing on the mechanics of a slickly executed robbery, the film centered on the flawed humanity of its characters, with Al Pacino’s Sonny portrayed not as a criminal mastermind but as an ordinary man trapped in extraordinary circumstances—a character-driven approach echoed in The Town and Hell or High Water.

At the same time, Lumet infused the story with social and political themes of the 1970s, touching on distrust of authority, media spectacle, and LGBTQ+ identity. This willingness to mix social critique with genre storytelling influenced later socially conscious thrillers such as John Q. The film was ahead of its time, too, in portraying the robbery as a media circus, with television cameras and public spectacle becoming part of the drama, a motif that resonates in Inside Man. Some credit this film with actually prefiguring the later rise of reality TV, especially in the scene where the pizza deliveryman yells, “I’m a star!” Pacino remarked: “That was the first time that kind of recognition vis à vis TV and the real world was shown. In a way, it was reality TV.”

Films that came in the wake of Dog Day Afternoon and were likely influenced by it, even if only as bank-robber stories, include Quick Change (1990), Heat (1995), John Q (2002), Inside Man (2006), The Town (2010), and Hell or High Water (2016). This work may also have influenced Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing in that both films unfold over the course of one sweltering New York summer day, both end in violence and tragedy, and both resist offering easy answers or clear-cut morals, instead leaving audiences to grapple with ambiguity and unresolved tensions.

Fortunately, the film doesn’t pander or resort to overplayed clichés or stereotypes. Ask yourself: Did you suspect Sonny of being gay before it was revealed? It shows the Sonny-Leon relationship objectively, fairly, and impartially; consider that it’s given equal time compared to Sonny’s relationship with his wife.

On the other hand, detractors would argue that this reveal functions as an intentionally shocking plot twist designed to heighten the drama at a critical point in the narrative, effectively serving up this suddenly exposed relationship as salacious melodrama. Additionally, it presents somewhat negative portrayals of Sonny’s mother and female wife. They seem to be shrill, unattractive, inattentive listeners and out of touch with his needs; some theorize that these qualities prompt Sonny to come out of the closet and prefer a gay relationship. Yet, some of the women hostages are shown as strong and brave.

Pacino expertly plays a man who stands as a fascinating study in contradictions, which is part of what makes him such a compelling character. At times, he appears to be in total control of the situation, only to quickly reveal that he has no idea what to do next. He’s both hero and anti-hero—you root for him because of his vulnerability and humanity, even while knowing he’s breaking the law. His personal life is equally complex: he has a wife and children, yet is also married to a man, and he has a straight male partner in crime. His greatest weakness is ironically his compassion, as his attempts to help others—whether his partner, the hostages, or even the crowd—consistently backfire. And while he’s cheered on by onlookers for defying authority, many in that same crowd reject him for his sexuality, which highlights the bitter irony that what he’s condemned for is not illegal, while what earns him cheers most certainly is.

Per Roger Ebert: “Sonny isn't explained or analyzed -- just presented. He becomes one of the most interesting modern movie characters, ranking with Gene Hackman's eavesdropper in "The Conversation" and Jack Nicholson's Bobby Dupea in "Five Easy Pieces."

Ponder how Sonny is a different person to everyone around him. Interestingly, he tries to satisfy everyone and solve other people’s problems, but ultimately he fails. Like Sal, Sonny’s a living paradox (for proof of the former, recall how Sal criticizes the female bank employees for smoking yet is engaged in armed robbery). Sonny is incredibly media savvy – he knows instinctively how to whip up the crowd for the cameras, get the public on his side, and make the police look like antagonists; recall how he tucks in his shirt before heading back out to face the media, and Sal even believes Sonny has the power to control the TV news. Additionally, Sonny has good instincts for ferreting out the fakers (like the undercover cop driving the bus). Yet he’s relatively clueless about where to escape to (he prefers Algeria because they have a Howard Johnson’s), and recall that he stupidly sets fire to the bank ledger, which foils their entire plan.

Sonny is aware that he’s flawed and difficult to understand, but he has confidence in himself to solve problems, even if he is not successful. He says: “I’m a fuck-up and an outcast – you come near me, you’re going to get it”; “I’m me, and I’m different, and “I speak what I feel.”

The director deserves ample credit for infusing realism into this film and lending it a docudrama feel that attempts to capture the look and tone of the mid-1970s. But not to undercut this authenticity, he intently focuses on the psychological conflict experienced by Sonny, Sal, and their captives, depicting their states of mind, stress, and personal crises with commendable sensitivity and depth. This is not an objective reenactment of a true-life bank robbery. Yes, we are shown the perspectives of law enforcement, providing needed balance, and Sonny and Sal are seen as criminals capable of violence; yet they are both humanized and presented by the filmmakers as sympathetic characters.

Consider, as well, how Lumet uses no artificial lighting, instead employing the fluorescent lights used within the bank building. And his use of quick mobile handheld camera shots, particularly in the claustrophobic confines of the bank, is particularly effective. His opening montage of real people sequences across New York City helps set the template that this is an ordinary day in the Big Apple, set during one of the dog days of summer. With the help of editor Dede Allen, Lumet uses a series of quick cuts when gunshots are fired: first when Sonny shoots at the back window, and later when Sal is shot dead. These stylistically quick edits are meant to disorient the viewer as well as the characters.

On the subject of this film, Lumet – widely regarded as an “actor’s director” – explained in his own book that “Freaks are not the freaks we think they are. We are much more connected to the outrageous behavior than we know or admit.”

“Lumet's genius here is to design the film's environment so that his outstanding cast can really embody their roles,” critic Glenn Erickson further wrote. “While much of the dialogue has an improvisational feel, the film is very carefully structured to build at a certain pace. There is a real sense of unstoppable momentum (every error made by either the robbers or the law just sends us further down the path of disaster); the film also creates the slow-burning sensation of a situation that at times just drags on.”

Lumet directed many exceptional films, including 12 Angry Men (1957), Long Day’s Journey into Night (1962), The Pawnbroker (1964), Fail Safe (1964), Serpico (1973), Network (1976), and The Verdict (1982). But Dog Day Afternoon could be his crowning achievement.

Thematically, the film brilliantly explores the power of the media and the “15 minutes of fame” phenomenon. As the robbery becomes a televised spectacle, the film reveals how quickly a man driven to extremes can be turned into a folk hero or a public curiosity, foreshadowing the media-saturated culture we live in today, where public opinion is shaped in real time. For a few hours, Sal and Sonny are the new Bonnie and Clyde. In thematic terms, it’s fair to ask: does Sonny survive because he’s already been cemented as a media-anointed people’s champion, and does Sal die because he’s not as photogenic, newsworthy, or attractive to the masses?

Another moral to the story? Desperate times call for desperate measures. Perfectly encapsulating the mid-1970s, a recessionary era marked by public dissatisfaction with economic conditions and elected leaders – a time when heroes seemed hard to find and the country was suffering from post-Watergate/Vietnam malaise – Dog Day Afternoon taps into these concerns and our collective ennui. Distressed characters like Sonny and Sal are easier to understand in this sociocultural pressure cooker context. As threatening – and bumbling – as they are as bank robbers, we can sympathize with their money woes and intense desire to change their luck.

Dog Day Afternoon also examines the domino effect of doomed destiny. Just about everything goes wrong for Sonny and Sal in this comedy of errors, which sees their best-laid plans quickly turned upside down and their fates sealed from the outset. We know practically from the start that this is an unlucky pair destined to fail. But despite predicting these bad outcomes early on and being proven right, the viewer nevertheless remains enthralled by this botched crime and the cascading pressures that engulf the bank robbers.

Furthermore, the film masterfully explores social exclusion and bias, particularly homophobia and societal judgment, highlighting how marginalized individuals are mistreated or misunderstood even as they strive for recognition and acceptance.

As Spike Lee did so effectively in Do the Right Thing, Dog Day Afternoon works beautifully as a time capsule moment, depicting a particular place (New York City) on a particular day (August 22, 1972) and reflecting the moods, mores, and sensibilities of its era. Setting our protagonists in a high-pressure environment where crucial mistakes are made and multiple adversities converge upon them in a matter of hours – the hot weather, the media, local and federal authorities, and interpersonal crises from partners and lovers – this film manages to organically tighten the knot minus narrative trickery or implausible shoot-em-ups and without becoming too super-serious for its own good. Lumet appropriately adopts a humanistic approach in his rendering of Sonny and his complex personal relationships, but doesn’t turn the bank robbers into blameless victims or pitiable pawns in the system.

Perhaps Dog Day Afternoon’s single greatest gift is the phone call between Sonny and Leon, which mines incredible emotional depths to reveal their complex relationship, underscoring both tenderness and latent hostility from Sonny as well as vulnerability and pathos from Leon. The acting is off the charts, and the awkward intimacy of this moment adds poignancy, allowing us a privileged view inside Sonny’s headspace.

Dog Day Afternoon remains one of the greatest cinematic portraits in any era of a common, desperate man besieged by internal and external forces he’s responsible for setting into motion. Not quite shown in real time, we follow Sonny and Sal over several hours in one day and marvel at how quickly events unravel, circumstances change, the pressure mounts, and the public grows fascinated with this media circus. Sure, the funky fashions, public attitudes, and period trappings anchor it firmly as a product of its times, but the human drama on display remains evergreen and credible. Proud of his creation, Lumet himself said, “You're sucked into a world – quite claustrophobic – but you believe every second of it. There’s not a false moment in that movie.” 

This movie remains highly acclaimed and celebrated in the film industry. The American Film Institute has honored it on multiple fronts: it ranks at #70 on AFI’s 100 Years…100 Thrills list, and its iconic line “Attica! Attica!” is placed at #86 on AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movie Quotes; it was also nominated for AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movies in both 1998 and 2007. The film boasts a stellar Rotten Tomatoes “Tomatometer” score of 96 percent, reflecting widespread critical acclaim, and a Popcornmeter audience score of 90%, while its Metacritic score stands at an impressive 86 out of 100. It won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Frank Pierson and was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Lumet), Best Actor (Pacino), Best Supporting Actor (Sarandon), and Best Film Editing (Allen).

Read more...

Feeling sunshiny about a near spotless movie

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

One cinematic hybrid you don’t see every day? A sci-fi romcom. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), directed by Michel Gondry and written by Charlie Kaufman from a story by Kaufman, Gondry, and Pierre Bismuth, certainly fits that description. In this surreal 21st century masterwork, we follow Joel Barish (Jim Carrey), a reserved man who discovers his ex-girlfriend Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) has undergone a procedure to erase their relationship from her memory; heartbroken, he chooses to do the same, but as his memories are systematically erased, he realizes he still loves her and desperately tries to hold onto fragments of their connection. (It’s interesting to keep in mind that, in addition to being a fantasy, this is a science fiction story; with the rapid pace of technology and scientific innovation, it’s not far-fetched to envision a near-future where the wiping of selective memories is possible.)

The narrative also includes subplots involving Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson), who runs the memory-erasure company Lacuna Inc.; Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst), his receptionist with complicated ties to the procedure; Patrick (Elijah Wood), a technician who exploits Joel’s memories to pursue Clementine; and Stan (Mark Ruffalo), another technician entangled with Mary.

Acclaimed for its clever script, inventive visuals, and poignant exploration of memory, love, and identity, the picture features career-defining performances—particularly Carrey’s against-type dramatic role and Winslet’s unpredictable, vibrant Clementine—and won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, cementing its status as one of the most original and influential films of its era.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, recorded last week, click here. (If you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page)


This is a nonlinear narrative that can be tricky to follow because it dovetails in on itself, possibly starting with the ending and including several surreal and fantastical moments that we realize are happening in Joel’s mind. The fragmented nature of this storytelling makes Eternal Sunshine a compelling watch but one that you have to pay close attention to.

Carrey plays against type here, and deserves applause for exceptional restraint. He stays firmly in character as the melancholic Joel and resists any attempts at slapstick, broad comedy, or the manic energy we associate with him. As in previous films like The Truman Show and Man on the Moon, he demonstrates serious dramatic talent and versatility.

Winslet, on the other hand, serves as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, a character christened by Nathan Rabin as a female personality who “exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.” She’s a classic screwball dame in a 21st century story, leading her lover on a madcap and mysterious journey – this time through her male counterpart’s very psyche. She’s responsible for the several meet-cutes we observe, another trope that’s playfully explored by the filmmakers.

The script is ultra-clever in how it Joel’s memories as fragmented and wobbly. He isn’t exactly sure which memory happened first or next. The genius stroke here is how Kaufman and his collaborators have Joel change his mind on the memory erasure and empower Joel to hide his memories of Clementine by imagining the two of them as young kids. “Joel attempts to fight the erasure of his memories, and Eternal Sunshine admits early on that it’s a fight he cannot win. That he keeps on fighting anyway is the crux of the film, and a breakthrough for Kaufman—writing about the human condition more than questioning our lives as self-made fictions,” per Slant Magazine critic Jeremiah Kipp. “The fantasies here are more “real” than anything that Kaufman has ever written, because they define who we think we are. Joel rediscovers his love for Clementine through fantasy, which is to say through his clouded memories of her. Such things are precious, and Gondry revels in that world in all its fleeting, flickering, ever-mutating joys.”

The famous quotation, “’Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all,” written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, perhaps best summarizes the main message of this film. Joel learns the hard way that a romantic relationship can be cruel and painful, but typically the happy memories and love shared outweigh the negative moments.

The cautionary lesson here is that our memories and experiences – both the good and bad ones – are indispensable. They are integral to shaping our identities, provide purpose and meaning to our lives, help us grow and mature, and teach us how to avoid making the same mistakes. Permanently forgetting or erasing these recollections, impressions, and life episodes can leave a significant void (which happens to dementia/Alzheimer’s sufferers and their loved ones). This work suggests that it would be dangerous and damaging if we had the ability to pick and choose only the memories we want to keep. Roger Ebert tapped into this theme: “The wisdom in “Eternal Sunshine” is how it illuminates the way memory interacts with love. We more readily recall pleasure than pain. From the hospital I remember laughing nurses and not sleepless nights. A drunk remembers the good times better than the hangovers. A failed political candidate remembers the applause. An unsuccessful romantic lover remembers the times when it worked. What Joel and Clementine cling to are those perfect moments when lives seem blessed by heaven, and sunshine will fall upon it forever.”

Additionally, Eternal Sunshine espouses the value of rediscovery and reinvention. By resisting the erasure of his memories associated with Clementine, Joel essentially creates a reboot opportunity whereby he can fall in love with her all over again, with the possibility of reconstructing their relationship, hopefully with better outcomes. While viewers don’t have the option of erasing their memories (yet), the takeaway here is that it can be possible to start over with someone, sidestep past mistakes, and appreciate your partner for their positive qualities.

The movie further deserves applause for cleverly exploring love triangles, with paralleling threesomes: Joel, Clementine, and Patrick form one triangle versus Stan, Mary, and Dr. Mierzwiak, who represent the other triangle.

Similar works

  • Superman II (1981), particularly the ending where the titular character kisses Lois Lane to erase her memory
  • Being John Malkovich (1999), Adaptation (2002), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002), Synecdoche, New York (2008), all written by Charlie Kaufman
  • Memento (2000)
  • Her (2013)
  • 50 First Dates (2004)
  • Anomalisa (2015)
  • Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
  • Shakespeare’s The Tempest

Other films by Michel Gondry

  • Human Nature (2001)
  • The Science of Sleep (2006)
  • Be Kind Rewind (2008)
  • Mood Indigo (2013) The Book of Solutions (2023)

Read more...

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP