And yes, I do realize that we are month's behind -- that's why we're catching up. The only nominated film we had seen was "12 Years a Slave," and we've run out of ideas for what to watch on Saturday night, so we decided to watch all of the Oscar-nominated films, one at a time (natch). Although to be honest, we probably won't watch all of them, as there are a few that we have no interest in.
So, first up was "Nebraska." I have always thought that Bruce Dern was under appreciated, mainly because he makes it look so easy, and this film proves it. His portrayal is note-perfect, beautifully understated, utterly, utterly real. Mike had been wanting to see it, but I was avoiding it because I thought, from the description, that it would be another of those cloyingly sappy films with a tear-filled emotional breakthrough at the end, something that would have starred Alan Alda back in the 70s or 80s. I should have had more faith in Bruce Dern. Worth watching.
Next was "Philomena." I had mixed feelings about the film. Judy Dench's character felt almost too sympathetic and too perfect. Would an Irish Catholic of her age be so nonchalant about homosexuality? Would cosmopolitan Americans be so reticent to discuss it in the 21st century? And the nuns . . . caricatures. So I borrowed the book from the library. If "based on a true story" means that the names belong to real people, then this is based on a true story. Yes, Philomena's story is accurate -- but the story of finding her son, the story that makes up the bulk of the movie, is primarily fiction. Philomena does not accompany Sixsmith to the United States; need I say more? The book itself is primarily fiction, also, but that's a subject for a different review. Dench, of course, is always a delight.
Then "August : Osage County," another film Mike had been pushing. Overblown, melodramatic, artificial, stagy -- and those are the good points. Real people of the type in the film do not speak like that and they do not interact in those ways. And it really was utterly predictable, including the "big reveal," which has been a staple of soap operas and series romance fiction for generations. There were no insights into the human condition and no real grappling with the issues raised. There is an assumption that there is only one possible reaction. Not recommended.
Last night, we selected "American Hustle," because it showed up first on the browsing list. I don't really understand why this was nominated for an Oscar. "The Sting" it isn't. Yes, the costumes, hair, make-up, set design and music were terribly nostalgic for those of us of a certain age, and the actors' performances were never less than excellent, but . . . Maybe it was the convoluted plot. We spent so much time trying to keep track of what was happening that we were never immersed in the movie. And, eventually, I just wanted the whole mess to come to an end. Not a resolution, just an end. Maybe it was the fact that all of the characters are unsympathetic, and all are deliberate caricatures. Arrest them. Kill them. Whatever. Maybe it was Amy Adams' utterly unconvincing English accent -- I honestly was never sure when she was supposed to be speaking with an English accent and when she was not. Also, as faithful as the period recreation was, that very perfection contributed to the artificial feeling. It was the 1970s as viewed through the pages of high fashion magazines, not through Family Circle and Woman's Day.
Next week, either "Gravity" or "Dallas Buyers' Club."
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Monday, November 18, 2013
12 Years a Slave
Unutterably powerful performances in a film of equal weight. I did find myself wondering, about an hour or so into it, if I would be able to endure the entire thing. More than once I had to willingly unsuspend disbelief and remind myself that these were actors and it was all special effects and make-up. Every major character was full-rounded -- even the minor characters were more than two-dimensional -- so much so that, at the end, I felt ashamed and guilty for being relieved and happy that Northrup was rescued. What about all of the others?
What struck me most, living here in Louisiana now, is how slavery not only privileged, but normalized sadism, dehumanization and violence -- and how the effects of that normalization are still felt in southern society. How slavery pitted working-class whites against enslaved blacks in a competition that continues today, and how the oligarchic control of the planters is reflected in the stranglehold that the oil and gas industry has on southern society, and the almost-worshipful attitude of so many toward that industry. It is an attitude that incorporates a great deal of fear as well as envy.
More than half of the large-for-the-early-show audience was African-American, primarily women, which made watching the film an experience in itself. Their reactions were much more personal and also more cultural, providing a Greek chorus of murmured, "Uh-huhs," "Lord have mercies," and "Yes, indeeds" to loud exclamations of, "Oh, no, she did not!" and "Oh, yes, she did." And numerous calls to "Give it to him -- give it to him now!" "Someone shoot that man. Just shoot him."
We bought the book a few years ago when the Dr. Sue Eakin spoke about her work in authenticating the narrative at the Louisiana Book Festival, but haven't read it yet. I was astonished to learn that this work, which was so well-known in its day, was all-but-forgotten in the 20th century, but admit that even I have been put off from starting it due to the 19th century phraseology.
What struck me most, living here in Louisiana now, is how slavery not only privileged, but normalized sadism, dehumanization and violence -- and how the effects of that normalization are still felt in southern society. How slavery pitted working-class whites against enslaved blacks in a competition that continues today, and how the oligarchic control of the planters is reflected in the stranglehold that the oil and gas industry has on southern society, and the almost-worshipful attitude of so many toward that industry. It is an attitude that incorporates a great deal of fear as well as envy.
More than half of the large-for-the-early-show audience was African-American, primarily women, which made watching the film an experience in itself. Their reactions were much more personal and also more cultural, providing a Greek chorus of murmured, "Uh-huhs," "Lord have mercies," and "Yes, indeeds" to loud exclamations of, "Oh, no, she did not!" and "Oh, yes, she did." And numerous calls to "Give it to him -- give it to him now!" "Someone shoot that man. Just shoot him."
We bought the book a few years ago when the Dr. Sue Eakin spoke about her work in authenticating the narrative at the Louisiana Book Festival, but haven't read it yet. I was astonished to learn that this work, which was so well-known in its day, was all-but-forgotten in the 20th century, but admit that even I have been put off from starting it due to the 19th century phraseology.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Harmonists vs the Saphhires
Coincidentally, we have watched two modern movie musicals in the past few months based on "true stories" of musical groups, and they couldn't be more different. The first, "The Harmonists," a German film released in that country as "The Comedian Harmonists," is a relatively faithful story of the career, life, and loves of the group of the same name in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. The original recordings of the group are used as the soundtrack, which adds to the authenticity of the piece and avoids any sense of parody, which is always a temptation with music from that period. The performers lipsyncing is perfect and they also flawlessly incorporate the physical mannerisms that would have accompanied the pieces in concert.
A bit of a spoiler here -- none of the characters is killed or sent to a concentration camp. Which is not to say that the politics of the time are not a major issue in the movie. The script moves seamlessly through the social and political changes between 1928 and 1934, and demonstrates with subtle, yet chilling, effect, how German society, becomes ever more anti-Semitic, almost without recognizing it. The legal restrictions that are put in place are so very gradual that individuals are able to justify and rationalize them and ignore the warnings of those with a clearer vision, until it's literally too late. More than once, a Jewish character insists that Germany is too civilized, too modern, too rational, to be going down the road that it has clearly embarked upon. Contemporary parallels were, in some cases, almost too easy to draw, particularly in regard to the rise of extreme nationalistic sentiment and vilification of "the other."
The characters in the film are extremely well-rounded; we see their strengths and weaknesses, their flaws and their finer points. Even the Nazis are shown as human beings, albeit morally and emotionally deformed ones. The movie is in no way predictable, although some of it is inevitable. We see the Jewish characters struggling with their own sense of identity, as what they consider an ethnicity, if they consider it at all, becomes an uneradicable stigma, while the "Aryan" members of the group are forced to confront the racism at the heart of "their" society. Highly recommended.
The contrast between this film and "The Sapphires" could not be stronger. Other than the setting and the name of the group, "The Sapphires" has nothing in common with the "true story" on which it is based. This would not be an issue, except that the deviations are all in the direction of cliche, formula, and sexism. The original group had made a name for itself singing in various locations in Melbourne -- they were not "discovered" in an outback talent show by a down-at-heels male musician who would become their manager and lead them to success. They were invited to sing in Vietnam; they did not have to compete with other groups. Obviously, as there was no man in the picture, there was no "Taming of the Shrew" love story. The script was written by the son of one of the original Sapphires, and, as is frequently the case, suffers from a lack of objectivity. There are far too many "lessons" being taught -- the Lost Generation, Australian racism, the horrors of war -- and the Aboriginals and their society are romanticized.
Because the characters are stereotypes and the storyline is cliched, the film drags whenever the focus moves away from the musical performances. The mildly erotic interludes are just embarrassing because they are predictable and formulaic and there is no real chemistry between the couples (well, maybe between Mailman and O'Dowd). Worse, one of the girls is made out to be something of a slut, cheating on her fiance back home. The characters are so under-developed and the plot so thin, that it is a shock when one girl accuses another of having been attracted to a soldier only because he provided her with alcohol and drugs. We never see any of that, nor is there any evidence provided for her rebuttal that all of the soldiers are stoned most of the time. While that was undoubtedly true, the line is just thrown in there to try to provide some sense of the period, without spending the time to show us.
The film is set in the early 60s, during the Vietnam Era, which makes the anachronisms -- "Cajun blackened catfish," Tupperware of the wrong period, among others -- glaringly obvious to anyone over the age of 40.
On the other hand, the music is very good and the costumes are fabulous!
A bit of a spoiler here -- none of the characters is killed or sent to a concentration camp. Which is not to say that the politics of the time are not a major issue in the movie. The script moves seamlessly through the social and political changes between 1928 and 1934, and demonstrates with subtle, yet chilling, effect, how German society, becomes ever more anti-Semitic, almost without recognizing it. The legal restrictions that are put in place are so very gradual that individuals are able to justify and rationalize them and ignore the warnings of those with a clearer vision, until it's literally too late. More than once, a Jewish character insists that Germany is too civilized, too modern, too rational, to be going down the road that it has clearly embarked upon. Contemporary parallels were, in some cases, almost too easy to draw, particularly in regard to the rise of extreme nationalistic sentiment and vilification of "the other."
The characters in the film are extremely well-rounded; we see their strengths and weaknesses, their flaws and their finer points. Even the Nazis are shown as human beings, albeit morally and emotionally deformed ones. The movie is in no way predictable, although some of it is inevitable. We see the Jewish characters struggling with their own sense of identity, as what they consider an ethnicity, if they consider it at all, becomes an uneradicable stigma, while the "Aryan" members of the group are forced to confront the racism at the heart of "their" society. Highly recommended.
The contrast between this film and "The Sapphires" could not be stronger. Other than the setting and the name of the group, "The Sapphires" has nothing in common with the "true story" on which it is based. This would not be an issue, except that the deviations are all in the direction of cliche, formula, and sexism. The original group had made a name for itself singing in various locations in Melbourne -- they were not "discovered" in an outback talent show by a down-at-heels male musician who would become their manager and lead them to success. They were invited to sing in Vietnam; they did not have to compete with other groups. Obviously, as there was no man in the picture, there was no "Taming of the Shrew" love story. The script was written by the son of one of the original Sapphires, and, as is frequently the case, suffers from a lack of objectivity. There are far too many "lessons" being taught -- the Lost Generation, Australian racism, the horrors of war -- and the Aboriginals and their society are romanticized.
Because the characters are stereotypes and the storyline is cliched, the film drags whenever the focus moves away from the musical performances. The mildly erotic interludes are just embarrassing because they are predictable and formulaic and there is no real chemistry between the couples (well, maybe between Mailman and O'Dowd). Worse, one of the girls is made out to be something of a slut, cheating on her fiance back home. The characters are so under-developed and the plot so thin, that it is a shock when one girl accuses another of having been attracted to a soldier only because he provided her with alcohol and drugs. We never see any of that, nor is there any evidence provided for her rebuttal that all of the soldiers are stoned most of the time. While that was undoubtedly true, the line is just thrown in there to try to provide some sense of the period, without spending the time to show us.
The film is set in the early 60s, during the Vietnam Era, which makes the anachronisms -- "Cajun blackened catfish," Tupperware of the wrong period, among others -- glaringly obvious to anyone over the age of 40.
On the other hand, the music is very good and the costumes are fabulous!
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Border Incident
Mike has been adding movies to the top of the Netflix queue again. The less said about "The Witch's Mirror," the better all our lives will be, although I do need to remember to"The Sands of Iwo Jima." But first, while it's fresh in my mind, "Border Incident," a 1949 movie directed by Anthony Mann and starring a young Ricardo Montalban as Mexican special agent Pablo Rodriguez. A timely film, it teams Montalban with George Murphy as an American immigration agent. Together, they attempt to break a Mexican farmworker smuggling ring operated by the ruthless, yet civilized and genteel, Howard Da Silva. The movie also illuminates and celebrates the little-known Bracero guest worker program, in force from 1942 through 1964, which was designed to alleviate agricultural labor shortages due to WWII.
The film begins slowly and, frankly, badly. As was not uncommon at the time, the first 10 minutes or so are strongly reminiscent of educational films of the day, as the narrator provides information about the farmworker situation that verges on propaganda. In an unintentionally humorous scene, farmworkers are massacred in the Canyon del Muerte (yes, I know, that's not humorous) and their bodies dumped into quicksand. The bodies disappear in mere seconds beneath what looks like moist sawdust.
The next 10-15 minutes continue the exposition, this time with a cast of extras who make a valiant effort, but have a tendency to mumble their lines. Once Montalban and Murphy take center stage, the action -- and the acting -- improve. We are also introduced to the ringleader on the Mexican side of the border, Hugo Wolfgang Ulrich, played by Sig Ruman in a very different role from those he played in the Marx Brothers' films. Veteran actor Arthur Hunnicutt will be immediately familiar to fans of . . well, just about any 1960s and 70s television show, this time playing against type as one of the Hugo's murderous thugs.
Despite a tendency to preach, the film does an admirable job of attempting to portray the exploitation of the farm workers and the ruthlessness of those who are using them. The illegal braceros are paid one-third the legal rate; 20% of their pay is taken by the foreman and another 40% withheld for meals. One of the workers notes that he would have made more working in Mexico.
As the beginning scenes demonstrate, it does not shy away from violence. The ending, however, is so utopian and so patriotic that I had to salute. Braceros are once again working under the watchful and protective eye of two governments, in safe and sanitary conditions, and earning their full due. The movie was made before opposition from organized labor brought the program to a close, primarily because it served depress wages and decreased the number of domestic farm workers.
Filmed in and around El Centro and Mexicali, the setting and scenery are as much a part of the cast as any actor, thanks to cinematographer John Alton's deft handling. Much of the film takes place at night, and the moon, car headlights, porch lights -- all kinds of light -- are used to great effect, as, of course are shadows.
It is not, however, as many on IMDB would have it, a film noir. Yes, it is in black and white and many of the cinematic effects are derived from that style, but the essence of film noir is the decent man caught in a web of circumstance beyond his control. Noir, is at heart, cynical; the ending of this film is anything but. Oh, yeah, and there's no femme fatale. There's a bleached blonde floozy, but that's not the same thing at all.
It's not a psychological drama, either; not really. It's a propaganda piece made by two very skillful and experienced movie makers.
The film begins slowly and, frankly, badly. As was not uncommon at the time, the first 10 minutes or so are strongly reminiscent of educational films of the day, as the narrator provides information about the farmworker situation that verges on propaganda. In an unintentionally humorous scene, farmworkers are massacred in the Canyon del Muerte (yes, I know, that's not humorous) and their bodies dumped into quicksand. The bodies disappear in mere seconds beneath what looks like moist sawdust.
The next 10-15 minutes continue the exposition, this time with a cast of extras who make a valiant effort, but have a tendency to mumble their lines. Once Montalban and Murphy take center stage, the action -- and the acting -- improve. We are also introduced to the ringleader on the Mexican side of the border, Hugo Wolfgang Ulrich, played by Sig Ruman in a very different role from those he played in the Marx Brothers' films. Veteran actor Arthur Hunnicutt will be immediately familiar to fans of . . well, just about any 1960s and 70s television show, this time playing against type as one of the Hugo's murderous thugs.
Despite a tendency to preach, the film does an admirable job of attempting to portray the exploitation of the farm workers and the ruthlessness of those who are using them. The illegal braceros are paid one-third the legal rate; 20% of their pay is taken by the foreman and another 40% withheld for meals. One of the workers notes that he would have made more working in Mexico.
As the beginning scenes demonstrate, it does not shy away from violence. The ending, however, is so utopian and so patriotic that I had to salute. Braceros are once again working under the watchful and protective eye of two governments, in safe and sanitary conditions, and earning their full due. The movie was made before opposition from organized labor brought the program to a close, primarily because it served depress wages and decreased the number of domestic farm workers.
Filmed in and around El Centro and Mexicali, the setting and scenery are as much a part of the cast as any actor, thanks to cinematographer John Alton's deft handling. Much of the film takes place at night, and the moon, car headlights, porch lights -- all kinds of light -- are used to great effect, as, of course are shadows.
It is not, however, as many on IMDB would have it, a film noir. Yes, it is in black and white and many of the cinematic effects are derived from that style, but the essence of film noir is the decent man caught in a web of circumstance beyond his control. Noir, is at heart, cynical; the ending of this film is anything but. Oh, yeah, and there's no femme fatale. There's a bleached blonde floozy, but that's not the same thing at all.
It's not a psychological drama, either; not really. It's a propaganda piece made by two very skillful and experienced movie makers.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Simon, King of the Witches
After a "long wait" and a broken DVD, we finally settled down to watch what we thought would be a delightfully campy 1970s horror film. Unfortunately, it was neither delightful nor campy, and the only horrible part was the length, although it is guaranteed to offend every Wiccan out there, except maybe those with a sense of humor. They'll still be offended -- but amused at the same time.
And it reminds us of how far we've come in terms of depictions of gay men.
According to something I read somewhere, but of course cannot find now, this was either written or produced (or was it directed?) by a true believer in witchcraft who wanted to make a movie about how it "really is," and that's exactly what this movie feels like -- a low-budget documentary. Simon indulges in long, pedantic explanations of what he is doing and why, and the scenes of magic are played not only straight but sincerely.
According to IMDB it's a "cult classic," but I don't think that's quite true. It's not quite over the top enough to be a cult classic. It's more like a "cult curiosity."
I won't bore you with the plot, which you can find on IMDB. I will say that it's a real trip back to the 70s, with macrame, chokers, dashikis, and psychadelica galore. The "Wiccan" ceremony includes a priestess played by Ultra Violet, skulls, nudity and a live goat. But it is a good 30 minutes too long, which is saying a lot about a movie that is barely an hour and a half.
And it reminds us of how far we've come in terms of depictions of gay men.
According to something I read somewhere, but of course cannot find now, this was either written or produced (or was it directed?) by a true believer in witchcraft who wanted to make a movie about how it "really is," and that's exactly what this movie feels like -- a low-budget documentary. Simon indulges in long, pedantic explanations of what he is doing and why, and the scenes of magic are played not only straight but sincerely.
According to IMDB it's a "cult classic," but I don't think that's quite true. It's not quite over the top enough to be a cult classic. It's more like a "cult curiosity."
I won't bore you with the plot, which you can find on IMDB. I will say that it's a real trip back to the 70s, with macrame, chokers, dashikis, and psychadelica galore. The "Wiccan" ceremony includes a priestess played by Ultra Violet, skulls, nudity and a live goat. But it is a good 30 minutes too long, which is saying a lot about a movie that is barely an hour and a half.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Two Maltese Falcons and a Lady
One of the dangers of being confined to the house after bunion surgery is that Mike gets to go shopping by himself. A recent trip to Sam's Club for milk, eggs, and bread resulted in a 2-disc special edition of "The Maltese Falcon," which includes the 1931 and 1941 movies by that title and the 1936 version, "Satan Met a Lady." Or should I say, one of the benefits?
We're watching them in chronological order, so first a review of the 1931 film, with Bebe Daniels as Ruth Wonderly, Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade, and Una Merkle as Effie. The title was changed to "Dangerous Female" when it was sold to t.v. in the 1950s, so it's no wonder that most of us were not aware of this version.
My first reaction was that the film was woefully miscast. Bebe Daniels, while quite the looker, did not have the depth to play an international woman of mystery. Her character is only ever called Ruth Wonderly, which is emblematic of the simplification of the role. This is particularly notable when Spade mocks her for having a "throb in your voice," which could not be further from the truth.
Ricardo Cortez also lacked the necessary depth and complexity. He played Spade as a slick ladies' man, not to say gigolo. His smile was too broad, his deliver too light, his reactions too studied. Of course, he was cast for the role because the film makers were trying to produce a sophisticated, romantic film, not a gritty, hardboiled detective story. Spade's office bright, clean, and well-appointed; his apartment is large and opulently-furnished. Una Merkle was a bright spot as Sam's Girl Friday, with too much good sense to become involved with him romantically. Dudley Digges' Caspar Gutman is more a small-town crime boss than a dreaded power-behind-the-scenes; Dwight Frye looks the part of Wilmer and does a credible job with what little he's given to do; Otto Matieson was surprisingly good as Joel Cairo; he is precise rather than prissy. Probably because of the focus on Sam's exploits, the homosexual undercurrents among those three are considerably toned down, although they are still present.
The script eliminates most of what would later become iconic lines, in favor of focusing on Spade as a womanizer. When we are first introduced to Spade, it is as one half of a silhouette seen through his outer office door, of a man and woman kissing. The door opens, and the camera focuses on the woman's legs, as she adjusts her silk stockings (the ones with a seam up the back). Archer returns from a business trip, he is in time to catch his wife and Spade in an intimate conversation on the phone. In this pre-code film, very little is left to the imagination, unlike the later versions, which had to make due with insinuation and suggestion. When Spade offers to sleep on the couch and give his bed to Miss Wonderly, she replies, "I wouldn't want to put you out," and in the next scene, is coming out of his bedroom in a negligee and kimono. Iva Archer arrives not long after, forces her way into the room, sees Miss Wonderly, and demands to know, "Who is that woman in my kimona?" Next morning, we see Miss Wonderly sleeping in Sam's bed, and a very distinct impression on the pillow next to her; later, she is taking a bath and talking to Sam through the door. Later, he strip searches her in his kitchen, when the $1000 bill goes missing. He orders her to remove her clothes, and we see her throw her gloves and coat at him. Later, we see her listening at the kitchen door, bare-shouldered, her clothes clutched to her chest.
As with "Baby Face," an awkward ending is tacked on to please the censors. First, Spade presents a witness to Wonderly's killing of Archer, a Chinese man with whom he had spoken in Chinese when he went to view the scene of the crime, so that there is no doubt about her guilt. Of course, this means that he knew that she was the murderer all along, which begs the question of why he became romantically involved with her. Then, he Spade visits her in prison, to tell her that he's joined the D.A.'s office. She mocks him and sends him on his way, then looks after him with tears in her eyes. He tells the Matron to treat her well and give her anything she wants, and to send the bill to the D.A.'s office where, he laughingly says, "I'll OK it!" I'm still trying to work that one out; the best I can do is that it is an attempt to provide a happy ending and to possibly justify his relationship with her as being based on love, but they do it at the cost of corruption in the D.A.'s office. Strange.
We're watching them in chronological order, so first a review of the 1931 film, with Bebe Daniels as Ruth Wonderly, Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade, and Una Merkle as Effie. The title was changed to "Dangerous Female" when it was sold to t.v. in the 1950s, so it's no wonder that most of us were not aware of this version.
My first reaction was that the film was woefully miscast. Bebe Daniels, while quite the looker, did not have the depth to play an international woman of mystery. Her character is only ever called Ruth Wonderly, which is emblematic of the simplification of the role. This is particularly notable when Spade mocks her for having a "throb in your voice," which could not be further from the truth.
Ricardo Cortez also lacked the necessary depth and complexity. He played Spade as a slick ladies' man, not to say gigolo. His smile was too broad, his deliver too light, his reactions too studied. Of course, he was cast for the role because the film makers were trying to produce a sophisticated, romantic film, not a gritty, hardboiled detective story. Spade's office bright, clean, and well-appointed; his apartment is large and opulently-furnished. Una Merkle was a bright spot as Sam's Girl Friday, with too much good sense to become involved with him romantically. Dudley Digges' Caspar Gutman is more a small-town crime boss than a dreaded power-behind-the-scenes; Dwight Frye looks the part of Wilmer and does a credible job with what little he's given to do; Otto Matieson was surprisingly good as Joel Cairo; he is precise rather than prissy. Probably because of the focus on Sam's exploits, the homosexual undercurrents among those three are considerably toned down, although they are still present.
The script eliminates most of what would later become iconic lines, in favor of focusing on Spade as a womanizer. When we are first introduced to Spade, it is as one half of a silhouette seen through his outer office door, of a man and woman kissing. The door opens, and the camera focuses on the woman's legs, as she adjusts her silk stockings (the ones with a seam up the back). Archer returns from a business trip, he is in time to catch his wife and Spade in an intimate conversation on the phone. In this pre-code film, very little is left to the imagination, unlike the later versions, which had to make due with insinuation and suggestion. When Spade offers to sleep on the couch and give his bed to Miss Wonderly, she replies, "I wouldn't want to put you out," and in the next scene, is coming out of his bedroom in a negligee and kimono. Iva Archer arrives not long after, forces her way into the room, sees Miss Wonderly, and demands to know, "Who is that woman in my kimona?" Next morning, we see Miss Wonderly sleeping in Sam's bed, and a very distinct impression on the pillow next to her; later, she is taking a bath and talking to Sam through the door. Later, he strip searches her in his kitchen, when the $1000 bill goes missing. He orders her to remove her clothes, and we see her throw her gloves and coat at him. Later, we see her listening at the kitchen door, bare-shouldered, her clothes clutched to her chest.
As with "Baby Face," an awkward ending is tacked on to please the censors. First, Spade presents a witness to Wonderly's killing of Archer, a Chinese man with whom he had spoken in Chinese when he went to view the scene of the crime, so that there is no doubt about her guilt. Of course, this means that he knew that she was the murderer all along, which begs the question of why he became romantically involved with her. Then, he Spade visits her in prison, to tell her that he's joined the D.A.'s office. She mocks him and sends him on his way, then looks after him with tears in her eyes. He tells the Matron to treat her well and give her anything she wants, and to send the bill to the D.A.'s office where, he laughingly says, "I'll OK it!" I'm still trying to work that one out; the best I can do is that it is an attempt to provide a happy ending and to possibly justify his relationship with her as being based on love, but they do it at the cost of corruption in the D.A.'s office. Strange.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Re-viewing Abrams "Star Trek"
I told Mike that I should have watched the first of the new "Star Trek" movies again before we saw the second one because I really didn't remember it. I remembered that we watched it; I remembered the new actors; I remembered that Nimoy was in it; I remembered that it had something to do with time travel and that it created an alternate universe, but I did not remember any of the details of the plot.
So, I got the DVD from Netflix and watched it yesterday, and realized that it was a good thing that I had not watched it earlier, or I would have sat through the second film saying, "But this is the saaaaaaaame movie! It's based on the same original film! It's the same plot! It's the same action sequences! It's the same weaknesses!"
So, I got the DVD from Netflix and watched it yesterday, and realized that it was a good thing that I had not watched it earlier, or I would have sat through the second film saying, "But this is the saaaaaaaame movie! It's based on the same original film! It's the same plot! It's the same action sequences! It's the same weaknesses!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)