Yes, that's my rendering of the theme to Raiders of the Lost Ark, this week's classic cinema offering at Cinemark, and yet another film that I had not seen in its entirety on the big screen. The first time I saw it was in 1982 or 1983, at the student union theater -- where it cost all of probably 50 cents. I don't remember exactly, but what I do remember was deciding at the last minute to hit the restroom, because "nothing ever happens in the first 10 minutes of a movie; it's just the set-up."
I returned to my seat, and said, confidently, to my friend, who had warned me not to go, "I didn't miss anything, did I?" She looked at me (in the dark) and said, "Yes," and then turned back to the screen. It didn't take me long to realize that I had, in all likelihood, missed "something."
So, this was my chance to see it from the beginning in all its action-packed glory. It's marginally possible that I have seen it from the beginning on television or VCR or even possibly a DVD, but if so, it really, really didn't count. A 19" diagonal boulder just doesn't have the same impact -- figuratively or literally.
This first installment in the now-cultural capital quartet still holds up as far as storytelling, characterization, sets and costuming go. Some of the high-tech special effects seem rather obvious and clunky today, but the re-enactment of Yakima Canutt's classic "drop" stunt is a stunning as ever. Harrison Ford was -- a young Harrison Ford. The Nazis are truly nasty and villainous through and through, as is Indie's bete noir, Belloq; nothing complex or complicated about any of them.
Karen Allen's slightly-better-than-the-girl-next-door look was a refreshing change from the ubiquitous stick-insect stripper we get in so many films today, as was the fact that she was much more age appropriate at only 10 years younger. Finally, a damsel who can be counted on to pick up the nearest object and brain a villain or even, if it comes to it, shoot him in the back.
While the film draws on all of those serials and action films of the past, it also served as an inspiration for many movies and television shows that would come after it, and I'm not just talking about that hack rip-off, Romancing the Stone. The reality is that today, I would never assume that nothing would happen in the first 10 minutes of a movie. Poltergeist owes much to the opening of the Ark, as do so many supernatural-themed movies, and where would Warehouse 13 and its ilk be without, well, the search for lost relics and the warehouse?
I think we need to see Crystal Skull again now, so that I can truly appreciate it's homage-ness.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Sunday, June 2, 2013
"The Big Sleep" hat trick
I am not alone in considering the 1946 film version of "The Big Sleep" to be one of the defining American films noir. The cast is uniformly excellent, the dialogue is snappy, the action is brisk, the characters are well-defined and complex. The screenplay certainly takes liberty with the plot of the novel, but only in the interest of better film-making.
So, I was intrigued to discover that Robert Mitchum had starred in a 1978 remake. Mitchum earned his own reputation among the hardboiled set, and of course had played Marlowe in 1975's Farewell, My Lovely, so I was interested to see what he did with the role in this film. Sadly, not much. He seemed not so much world weary and cynical as bored and jaded. The film is pedestrian for many reasons, and his plodding through it is just one of them.
The script is much more faithful to the novel than the older version, but that simply demonstrates that novels as novels don't make very good movies and that there are few modern screenwriters who can match William Faulkner, especially when he was working with Leigh Brackett and Jules Furthman.
It also demonstrates that showing rather than suggesting is not necessarily -- indeed is seldom -- superior. I've read any number of reviews on IMDB that claim the original "left out" the nudity, drugs, sex, etc. of the book. Nonsense. Any adult who is paying attention knows exactly what is going on and what is being discussed. Do we need to see the nude photos of Carmen Sternwood to know why she is so desperate to retrieve them? Do we need to see the needle and the tourniquet to know why she posed for them in the first place?
However, it is testament to how little society had changed in 30 years, that the the scandals, motives, and characters of the books still had the power to titillate and shock. There is no explanation, though, for the change to the ending.
A word to filmmakers. If you're going to insist on re-making a movie that does not need to be remade, that has maintained a loyal following for nearly 70 years, and that appears on every list of classic films noir, don't try to make it on the cheap. On the other hand, if your principal is a down-at-the-heels private detective, don't put him in tailored suits and give him a $50,000 car to drive and house him in an upscale London flat.
I assume that a limited budget is the only reason for hiring a gaggle of second-rate ham actors and setting this film in London. Oh, and if you do move this quintessentially American film to London, make sure that all of the principles are British; although trying to work out why the some, but not all, of the Sternwoods were Americans living in London did provide a modicum of distraction.
If you absolutely must film it in color, keep the sets small, tight, claustrophobic. No sweeping landscapes, open, airy rooms with light, bright furnishings, or sunny gardens.
As much as I adore Jimmy Stewart, he was woefully miscast as General Sternwood. I didn't for one minute believe that he was the "very dull survival of a very gaudy life." Dull survival yes -- gaudy life, no. And he exuded far too much regret, rather than cynicism. He was sad rather than bitter, a pitiful, rather than a grand, wreck.
The rest of the cast was either amateurish or overblown. Richard Boone's Lash Canino was an embarrassment. Sarah Miles -- actually, she suffers from being compared unfairly with Lauren Bacall. She did play her character fairly closely to the one presented in the book, an unsympathetic character with no sexual tension between her and Marlowe. However, Candy Clark was painful to watch. She played the role as a spoiled brat, rather than a sly, malicious psychopath. And even at that, it is an amateurish performance. Joan Collins -- someone put that woman in a soap opera. She had all the subtlety of a high school drama queen.
Although perhaps I should not be blaming the actors; Michael Winner is no Howard Hawks. He was obviously far more interested in the violence and horror/gross potential than in the characters or their motives. There is nothing subtle or understated in the entire film and all of the supporting characters are one-dimensional villains straight out of melodrama. It could easily be argued that Winner, et al., really did not understand the essence of either hardboiled detective fiction or film noir. Their decisions as to what to life verbatim from the novel and what to leave out seem more designed to move the plot along rather than to convey character, emotion, or atmosphere.
Oh, what's the hat trick? It's the novel, which has just moved to the top of my "to be re-read immediately" list.
So, I was intrigued to discover that Robert Mitchum had starred in a 1978 remake. Mitchum earned his own reputation among the hardboiled set, and of course had played Marlowe in 1975's Farewell, My Lovely, so I was interested to see what he did with the role in this film. Sadly, not much. He seemed not so much world weary and cynical as bored and jaded. The film is pedestrian for many reasons, and his plodding through it is just one of them.
The script is much more faithful to the novel than the older version, but that simply demonstrates that novels as novels don't make very good movies and that there are few modern screenwriters who can match William Faulkner, especially when he was working with Leigh Brackett and Jules Furthman.
It also demonstrates that showing rather than suggesting is not necessarily -- indeed is seldom -- superior. I've read any number of reviews on IMDB that claim the original "left out" the nudity, drugs, sex, etc. of the book. Nonsense. Any adult who is paying attention knows exactly what is going on and what is being discussed. Do we need to see the nude photos of Carmen Sternwood to know why she is so desperate to retrieve them? Do we need to see the needle and the tourniquet to know why she posed for them in the first place?
However, it is testament to how little society had changed in 30 years, that the the scandals, motives, and characters of the books still had the power to titillate and shock. There is no explanation, though, for the change to the ending.
A word to filmmakers. If you're going to insist on re-making a movie that does not need to be remade, that has maintained a loyal following for nearly 70 years, and that appears on every list of classic films noir, don't try to make it on the cheap. On the other hand, if your principal is a down-at-the-heels private detective, don't put him in tailored suits and give him a $50,000 car to drive and house him in an upscale London flat.
I assume that a limited budget is the only reason for hiring a gaggle of second-rate ham actors and setting this film in London. Oh, and if you do move this quintessentially American film to London, make sure that all of the principles are British; although trying to work out why the some, but not all, of the Sternwoods were Americans living in London did provide a modicum of distraction.
If you absolutely must film it in color, keep the sets small, tight, claustrophobic. No sweeping landscapes, open, airy rooms with light, bright furnishings, or sunny gardens.
As much as I adore Jimmy Stewart, he was woefully miscast as General Sternwood. I didn't for one minute believe that he was the "very dull survival of a very gaudy life." Dull survival yes -- gaudy life, no. And he exuded far too much regret, rather than cynicism. He was sad rather than bitter, a pitiful, rather than a grand, wreck.
The rest of the cast was either amateurish or overblown. Richard Boone's Lash Canino was an embarrassment. Sarah Miles -- actually, she suffers from being compared unfairly with Lauren Bacall. She did play her character fairly closely to the one presented in the book, an unsympathetic character with no sexual tension between her and Marlowe. However, Candy Clark was painful to watch. She played the role as a spoiled brat, rather than a sly, malicious psychopath. And even at that, it is an amateurish performance. Joan Collins -- someone put that woman in a soap opera. She had all the subtlety of a high school drama queen.
Although perhaps I should not be blaming the actors; Michael Winner is no Howard Hawks. He was obviously far more interested in the violence and horror/gross potential than in the characters or their motives. There is nothing subtle or understated in the entire film and all of the supporting characters are one-dimensional villains straight out of melodrama. It could easily be argued that Winner, et al., really did not understand the essence of either hardboiled detective fiction or film noir. Their decisions as to what to life verbatim from the novel and what to leave out seem more designed to move the plot along rather than to convey character, emotion, or atmosphere.
Oh, what's the hat trick? It's the novel, which has just moved to the top of my "to be re-read immediately" list.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Casablanca and Cleopatra -- digitally restored and on the big screen; and evidence of First Contact
Both movies were recently shown as part of the Cinemark Classics series. Despite having seen Casablanca enough times to be able to recite nearly the entire movie along with the actors, I'd never seen it on the big screen. I may have seen it on a moderately large screen in my college film appreciation class, but that might have been Citizen Kane.
And it did make a difference -- subtle, but noticeable. The street scenes were far more detailed and atmospheric, and somewhat claustrophobic; that sense of being in a crush of people, all moving and talking and shoving, really came through. The lighting, the sets, the close-ups, the emotions : this was more than seeing the movie as it was meant to be seen, it was experiencing it as it was meant to be experienced.
So, when Mike noticed on Monday that Cleopatra was showing today, there was not question that we'd be seeing it. There is nothing subtle about this cinematic spectacle, even on the small screen, so we were prepared to be overwhelmed, and we were.
From the opening scene, with literally thousands of extras -- that's thousands of real, live human beings, not CGI clones -- to the final shot of Cleopatra decked out in her gold Isis dress, this film defines "spectacle." The colors; the sets; the cast; the sex; the politics; the sexual politics. This is a movie truly for adults, who can infer what the movie implies.
Elizabeth Taylor is luminous. Richard Harrison is, by turns, dignified and regal and terrified. He makes Caesar's transformation from Roman general to would-be dictator real and believable. Roddy McDowell is, as usual, only too believable as the scheming, treacherous Octavian. And Richard Burton -- well, only in his alcohol-fueled pipe dreams does Russell Crowe even come close to standing in his shadow. And the supporting cast is as excellent, although I found Hume Cronyn somewhat bland and wooden.
And, with the exception of a few painted backdrops, there are no "special effects" (and those hardly count). All of those sets were built from the ground up. All of those sphinxes. Everything. And then there is that triumphal entrance into Rome. The movie is worth seeing just for that scene.
Interestingly, Cleopatra's hairstyle and clothing becomes increasingly modern as the film progresses. Her straight, chin-length bob eventually morphs into a waist-length mane of romantic curls, while her initially sheer, revealing vaguely Egyptian robes give way to demure, almost matronly dresses after she becomes a mother and a woman in love. She is no longer a powerful political threat, no longer able to use her sexual abilities to manipulate men.
I won't bore you with a repetition of the plot, as we all know the story, but I did discover something fascinating. Evidence of First Contact. I thought they were Vulcans at first, but then I realized that, of course, they were Romulans. Romulans were behind the fall of the Egyptian empire. Oh, yes. If you don't believe me, take a look at this. He was going by the name of Ramos (Ramos -- Romulan. A coincidence? I think not). I saw at least two more in the Egyptian military.
And it did make a difference -- subtle, but noticeable. The street scenes were far more detailed and atmospheric, and somewhat claustrophobic; that sense of being in a crush of people, all moving and talking and shoving, really came through. The lighting, the sets, the close-ups, the emotions : this was more than seeing the movie as it was meant to be seen, it was experiencing it as it was meant to be experienced.
So, when Mike noticed on Monday that Cleopatra was showing today, there was not question that we'd be seeing it. There is nothing subtle about this cinematic spectacle, even on the small screen, so we were prepared to be overwhelmed, and we were.
From the opening scene, with literally thousands of extras -- that's thousands of real, live human beings, not CGI clones -- to the final shot of Cleopatra decked out in her gold Isis dress, this film defines "spectacle." The colors; the sets; the cast; the sex; the politics; the sexual politics. This is a movie truly for adults, who can infer what the movie implies.
Elizabeth Taylor is luminous. Richard Harrison is, by turns, dignified and regal and terrified. He makes Caesar's transformation from Roman general to would-be dictator real and believable. Roddy McDowell is, as usual, only too believable as the scheming, treacherous Octavian. And Richard Burton -- well, only in his alcohol-fueled pipe dreams does Russell Crowe even come close to standing in his shadow. And the supporting cast is as excellent, although I found Hume Cronyn somewhat bland and wooden.
And, with the exception of a few painted backdrops, there are no "special effects" (and those hardly count). All of those sets were built from the ground up. All of those sphinxes. Everything. And then there is that triumphal entrance into Rome. The movie is worth seeing just for that scene.
Interestingly, Cleopatra's hairstyle and clothing becomes increasingly modern as the film progresses. Her straight, chin-length bob eventually morphs into a waist-length mane of romantic curls, while her initially sheer, revealing vaguely Egyptian robes give way to demure, almost matronly dresses after she becomes a mother and a woman in love. She is no longer a powerful political threat, no longer able to use her sexual abilities to manipulate men.
I won't bore you with a repetition of the plot, as we all know the story, but I did discover something fascinating. Evidence of First Contact. I thought they were Vulcans at first, but then I realized that, of course, they were Romulans. Romulans were behind the fall of the Egyptian empire. Oh, yes. If you don't believe me, take a look at this. He was going by the name of Ramos (Ramos -- Romulan. A coincidence? I think not). I saw at least two more in the Egyptian military.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Star Trek : Into Darkness (Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers)
It has not been two years since we were last at a theatre, but we do watch a lot more streaming these days. Thanks to a colleague's gift of a Fandango gift card (an entirely unnecessary "thank you" for giving her a lift on a few occasions), we've recently seen "Casablanca" on the big screen, and today, ST:ID.
As with the first movie in this new franchise, I was relieved that the actors are not trying to do impersonations of the actors in "our" universe, and that the accents are accurate (ok -- more accurate). The core personalities are correct, but these are new expressions that are the result of different circumstances. And, of course, they are younger chronologically and in terms of their career.
This remake of "Wrath of Khan" -- I told you there were spoilers -- manages to introduce nearly all of the same characters and most of the same tropes, but in a 21st century framework.
Kirk's dressing down by Pike was something that many of us have been waiting 50 years for. It didn't happen in our universe, but it should have. It felt good and it felt right. We had to wait until the original "Wrath of Khan" for Kirk to finally have to take responsibility for the consequences of his command decisions.
But why did Spock agree to create the volcano neutralizer in the first place? It clearly violated the prime directive. That was never explained or even addressed. (And was I the only one whispering, "My preciousssss -- my precioussss?")
According to the Onion, this movie lacks a heavy-handed message. Whoever wrote that clearly didn't watch the film. Less than 30 minutes in, we are aware that this is truly a post-9/11 Star Trek. A terrorist attack leads to a controversy over targeting the villain vs capturing him and bringing him back for trial. Added to that is the secret development and use of super-duper smart "photon torpedos" -- or drones by any other name. Oh, and let's not forget that the villain has escaped toIraq the Klingon home world of Kronos, and that Star Fleet is developing weapons of mass destruction in secret.
Secrets abound in this entry. There are also the secrets surrounding the villain. I admit that I did not identify Khan untilSherlock he was about 30 seconds in to his speech. Of all the actors, Cumberbatch was the least effective. His trademark clinical detachment is simply not convincing; I didn't believe for a moment that he was burning with an intense desire to save his people and for vengeance. In fact, I originally thought he was some kind of robot or android. Of course, the backstory he's given doesn't support it, either. There's nothing like watching your beloved wife die to push a megalomaniac over the edge. Saving a bunch of popsicles just doesn't have the same emotional weight. Now, if Admiral Marcus had destroyed a few of them . . . but I guess there is a limit to how far the writers were willing to go.
Both Mike and I murmured that we did not trust Carol Wallace. A blonde with a Ph.D.? Please -- it's unnatural. And we were right -- and wrong. Given her accent, we thought she was in league with the villain -- both limeys -- but then it's revealed that she's Carol Marcus, pre-David, of course, with a degree in weapons engineering, not bioengineering. Why is she a limey when her daddy is clearly an American?
Uhura speaks Klingon to the Klingons -- after she forces Kirk to backdown. Sulu shows us what he's made of. Yeah, he'll be a captain of his own starship in this universe, too. And this ships are big -- massively, overpoweringly big. No short, narrow studio corridors for this crew. Christine Chapel has gone off to be a nurse. Hmmmmm . . .
The action sequences owed a little too much to "Star Wars" for my taste -- and were too long. And will someone please explain to me why the Earth has not one single planetary defense system in place? Not even over Star Fleet? Honestly -- not even a simple deflector beam to repulse rogue comets and asteroids!
And then there's the ending. Spock's big moment -- given to Kirk. I feel like Jan Brady -- "Kirk, Kirk, Kirk, it's always Kirk!" On the other hand, only a Vulcan would have stood a chance against Khan, and we get to see Spock unleash some of his repressed Vulcan rage, and Uhura gets to do something more than open hailing frequencies.
But it lacked the emotional impact of the original. By this point in the film, we knew it was coming, so there was no shock value. And, not only had I already realized how they would save Kirk, but we were not witnessing what was, for us, the end of a 20-year friendship. However, with luck, we were witnessing the beginning of one.
The epilogue, on the other hand, brought everything back around full circle. We're back in our familiar Star Trek world where normal human beings, not super heroes, have overcome poverty and ignorance and (most) disease; where every alien is a potential friend; where space holds untold wonders, just waiting for us to discover them. Yeah, that's why we keep coming back for more.
Ok -- I admit it -- I cried (a little) when the original theme started playing during the end credits.
As with the first movie in this new franchise, I was relieved that the actors are not trying to do impersonations of the actors in "our" universe, and that the accents are accurate (ok -- more accurate). The core personalities are correct, but these are new expressions that are the result of different circumstances. And, of course, they are younger chronologically and in terms of their career.
This remake of "Wrath of Khan" -- I told you there were spoilers -- manages to introduce nearly all of the same characters and most of the same tropes, but in a 21st century framework.
Kirk's dressing down by Pike was something that many of us have been waiting 50 years for. It didn't happen in our universe, but it should have. It felt good and it felt right. We had to wait until the original "Wrath of Khan" for Kirk to finally have to take responsibility for the consequences of his command decisions.
But why did Spock agree to create the volcano neutralizer in the first place? It clearly violated the prime directive. That was never explained or even addressed. (And was I the only one whispering, "My preciousssss -- my precioussss?")
According to the Onion, this movie lacks a heavy-handed message. Whoever wrote that clearly didn't watch the film. Less than 30 minutes in, we are aware that this is truly a post-9/11 Star Trek. A terrorist attack leads to a controversy over targeting the villain vs capturing him and bringing him back for trial. Added to that is the secret development and use of super-duper smart "photon torpedos" -- or drones by any other name. Oh, and let's not forget that the villain has escaped to
Secrets abound in this entry. There are also the secrets surrounding the villain. I admit that I did not identify Khan until
Both Mike and I murmured that we did not trust Carol Wallace. A blonde with a Ph.D.? Please -- it's unnatural. And we were right -- and wrong. Given her accent, we thought she was in league with the villain -- both limeys -- but then it's revealed that she's Carol Marcus, pre-David, of course, with a degree in weapons engineering, not bioengineering. Why is she a limey when her daddy is clearly an American?
Uhura speaks Klingon to the Klingons -- after she forces Kirk to backdown. Sulu shows us what he's made of. Yeah, he'll be a captain of his own starship in this universe, too. And this ships are big -- massively, overpoweringly big. No short, narrow studio corridors for this crew. Christine Chapel has gone off to be a nurse. Hmmmmm . . .
The action sequences owed a little too much to "Star Wars" for my taste -- and were too long. And will someone please explain to me why the Earth has not one single planetary defense system in place? Not even over Star Fleet? Honestly -- not even a simple deflector beam to repulse rogue comets and asteroids!
And then there's the ending. Spock's big moment -- given to Kirk. I feel like Jan Brady -- "Kirk, Kirk, Kirk, it's always Kirk!" On the other hand, only a Vulcan would have stood a chance against Khan, and we get to see Spock unleash some of his repressed Vulcan rage, and Uhura gets to do something more than open hailing frequencies.
But it lacked the emotional impact of the original. By this point in the film, we knew it was coming, so there was no shock value. And, not only had I already realized how they would save Kirk, but we were not witnessing what was, for us, the end of a 20-year friendship. However, with luck, we were witnessing the beginning of one.
The epilogue, on the other hand, brought everything back around full circle. We're back in our familiar Star Trek world where normal human beings, not super heroes, have overcome poverty and ignorance and (most) disease; where every alien is a potential friend; where space holds untold wonders, just waiting for us to discover them. Yeah, that's why we keep coming back for more.
Ok -- I admit it -- I cried (a little) when the original theme started playing during the end credits.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The Anniversary
I said I wouldn't comment on any of our recent Netflix titles, but I know that Mike wants to comment on this film, so I might was well while I'm at it.
This was clearly "inspired" by "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and others in the dysfunctional family drama genre. Why is it always a vindictive mother or shrewish wife? Are there no nasty men out there? Or are they nasty in a different way?
Bette Davis is clearly having a great time camping it up as the "Manipulative Mother of the Year," and I know that many people rave about the "black comedy," but I found it depressing and painful to watch. She knows each of her sons weak spots and not only sticks in the knife, she twists it and smiles.
I suppose you have to be in the right mood to find it funny.
This was clearly "inspired" by "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and others in the dysfunctional family drama genre. Why is it always a vindictive mother or shrewish wife? Are there no nasty men out there? Or are they nasty in a different way?
Bette Davis is clearly having a great time camping it up as the "Manipulative Mother of the Year," and I know that many people rave about the "black comedy," but I found it depressing and painful to watch. She knows each of her sons weak spots and not only sticks in the knife, she twists it and smiles.
I suppose you have to be in the right mood to find it funny.
Rango
Yes, we have watched movies from Netflix since "The Cowboys," but Mike's been monkeying around with the queue, so the less said about those films, the better.
From the first strains of the mariachi owl guitar, Rango is a movie for lovers of Westerns with a sense of the absurd. Kids will like it for what it is; adults had better have a good grounding in the genre or they'll miss all of the allusions and references and see only the surface. Some reviewers have called it "cliched," which only goes to prove that they don't know the difference between a cliche and a motif. At first I was bothered by the saguaro cacti in the Mojave desert, but then I realized that, if they were good enough for Marshall Dillon in Dodge City, they were good enough for Rango in Dirt.
There are also references to It's a Wonderful Life, Chinatown, Star Wars and other classic films, but I was particularly taken with the character references to familiar Western character actors. We'll be getting this later on DVD just to look for them, although I'm not sure that I can put names to all of them.
It's a bit slow to start, but once it gets going, you're in for a wild ride!
The score is a fantastic homage to the spaghetti western. The animation is amazing. The scenery is rich, colorful, textured, layered. The movement of the characters and objects is natural and convincing. The characters themselves are gritty and dirty and individualistic. The story is the classic hero myth; although we're fairly certain of the ending, we're not quite sure how Rango will get there. There's a surprising amount of real violence for an animated film, a surprising amount of adult language and references and humor -- all of it subtle enough to go over the head of any kid too young to understand it -- just like in the real Westerns of a few decades back.
I guess I'll leave it at that. It's loaded with surprises that I don't want to risk giving away by making more detailed comments.
From the first strains of the mariachi owl guitar, Rango is a movie for lovers of Westerns with a sense of the absurd. Kids will like it for what it is; adults had better have a good grounding in the genre or they'll miss all of the allusions and references and see only the surface. Some reviewers have called it "cliched," which only goes to prove that they don't know the difference between a cliche and a motif. At first I was bothered by the saguaro cacti in the Mojave desert, but then I realized that, if they were good enough for Marshall Dillon in Dodge City, they were good enough for Rango in Dirt.
There are also references to It's a Wonderful Life, Chinatown, Star Wars and other classic films, but I was particularly taken with the character references to familiar Western character actors. We'll be getting this later on DVD just to look for them, although I'm not sure that I can put names to all of them.
It's a bit slow to start, but once it gets going, you're in for a wild ride!
The score is a fantastic homage to the spaghetti western. The animation is amazing. The scenery is rich, colorful, textured, layered. The movement of the characters and objects is natural and convincing. The characters themselves are gritty and dirty and individualistic. The story is the classic hero myth; although we're fairly certain of the ending, we're not quite sure how Rango will get there. There's a surprising amount of real violence for an animated film, a surprising amount of adult language and references and humor -- all of it subtle enough to go over the head of any kid too young to understand it -- just like in the real Westerns of a few decades back.
I guess I'll leave it at that. It's loaded with surprises that I don't want to risk giving away by making more detailed comments.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Cowboys
We haven't been to a theatre since "The King's Speech," so we'll be reviewing our Netflix choices for awhile. I'll start with last night's viewing of "The Cowboys." I wonder whether it's worth the time to list all of the flaws in this movie? I know that for many, it is blasphemy to utter any criticism whatsoever of any of the Duke's movies, but it must be done.
Whatever the weaknesses of the film, the performances were not one of them. Wayne, Dewhurst, Brown, Dern were all as good as ever. Most of the boys turned in adequate if not stellar performances.
However, what might have been a thoughtful, heartwarming, and exciting coming of age adventure rapidly degenerated into a shallow, bloody and violent celebration of the American myth of "man as killer." Rather than becoming men as the result of struggling with themselves, as they learn the meaning of duty, responsibility, and loyalty, and with nature, they become "men" by strapping on guns and killing other men in order to exact revenge. We are meant to cheer them as they deal "frontier justice" to a dozen outlaws, finishing off the last one in a particularly brutal manner. I wish that I could believe that the filmmakers had wanted us to be sickened by the effect of the violence on the young men, but it is quite clear that we are meant to see them as heroes.
Although this is the primary weakness of the film, there are others. The plot is utterly contrived, relies too heavily on coincidences, and is episodic. We can just believe that every single able-bodied male in the county has run off to the gold fields and that boys of 13 would be rounded up to fill out an outfit, but it is asking a lot for us to accept that the parents of pre-pubescent males would send them off in the company of other boys only a few years older, and only two adults.
The boys encounter a traveling brothel, which apparently has set up alongside a stream in the middle of the wilderness on the off chance that a cattle drive will just happen to pass by. While Colleen Dewhurst makes the most of her 15 minutes, it is a cameo, not a starring performance. Her statement that "The first time should be in the backseat of a buggy with someone he thinks he loves" is hardly authentic to the period. Buggies don't have backseats.
As soon as we see Bruce Dern we know that he will show up again later as the villain -- and he does. Poor man was terribly typecast in the 70s. He is, of course, without any redeeming features whatsoever, within the stark dichotomy of the film. We must accept him as the epitome of evil in order for us to endorse the boys' acts of vengeance. Given the genuine hardships -- up before dawn, riding all day in the blazing sun or pouring rain, standing watch at night, living on beans and biscuits, sleeping on the ground, the smell of the cows, the horses and each other -- and dangers of the trail -- stampedes, river crossings, snakes, wolves and coyotes stalking the herd, horses stepping in prairie dog holes and breaking a leg, etc. -- his character is unnecessary, as well as historically inaccurate. By and large, cattle rustlers stole mavericks and calves from the open range, not an entire herd on the move. Yes, I understand that he saw his opportunity to take this herd from Wayne and the boys; that's one of the reasons I call the movie contrived.
Whatever the weaknesses of the film, the performances were not one of them. Wayne, Dewhurst, Brown, Dern were all as good as ever. Most of the boys turned in adequate if not stellar performances.
However, what might have been a thoughtful, heartwarming, and exciting coming of age adventure rapidly degenerated into a shallow, bloody and violent celebration of the American myth of "man as killer." Rather than becoming men as the result of struggling with themselves, as they learn the meaning of duty, responsibility, and loyalty, and with nature, they become "men" by strapping on guns and killing other men in order to exact revenge. We are meant to cheer them as they deal "frontier justice" to a dozen outlaws, finishing off the last one in a particularly brutal manner. I wish that I could believe that the filmmakers had wanted us to be sickened by the effect of the violence on the young men, but it is quite clear that we are meant to see them as heroes.
Although this is the primary weakness of the film, there are others. The plot is utterly contrived, relies too heavily on coincidences, and is episodic. We can just believe that every single able-bodied male in the county has run off to the gold fields and that boys of 13 would be rounded up to fill out an outfit, but it is asking a lot for us to accept that the parents of pre-pubescent males would send them off in the company of other boys only a few years older, and only two adults.
The boys encounter a traveling brothel, which apparently has set up alongside a stream in the middle of the wilderness on the off chance that a cattle drive will just happen to pass by. While Colleen Dewhurst makes the most of her 15 minutes, it is a cameo, not a starring performance. Her statement that "The first time should be in the backseat of a buggy with someone he thinks he loves" is hardly authentic to the period. Buggies don't have backseats.
As soon as we see Bruce Dern we know that he will show up again later as the villain -- and he does. Poor man was terribly typecast in the 70s. He is, of course, without any redeeming features whatsoever, within the stark dichotomy of the film. We must accept him as the epitome of evil in order for us to endorse the boys' acts of vengeance. Given the genuine hardships -- up before dawn, riding all day in the blazing sun or pouring rain, standing watch at night, living on beans and biscuits, sleeping on the ground, the smell of the cows, the horses and each other -- and dangers of the trail -- stampedes, river crossings, snakes, wolves and coyotes stalking the herd, horses stepping in prairie dog holes and breaking a leg, etc. -- his character is unnecessary, as well as historically inaccurate. By and large, cattle rustlers stole mavericks and calves from the open range, not an entire herd on the move. Yes, I understand that he saw his opportunity to take this herd from Wayne and the boys; that's one of the reasons I call the movie contrived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)