After the film flopped upon release, you can see why the
producers wanted to cut up its flashback order to try to make it more
chronological – which may have made it not unlike other widescreen colour (this
time Eastmancolor) films of the 1950s.
But that would have removed some of director Max Ophuls’ clever/genius
moves, as it is the contrast between the circus framing device (where she is on
display toward the end of her short life, still selling herself to get by,
ordered about by ringmaster Peter Ustinov) and the recalled memories of the
flashbacks (more truthful or more self-deceptive is hard to say) that highlight
the themes of the film. Ophuls has used
the real life story of “Lola Montez” (born Eliza Gilbert) who travelled the
world as a dancer but became famous for her affairs with famous men (Franz
Liszt and the King of Bavaria Ludwig I, both portrayed here, the latter by
Anton Walbrook) and then played them up to commercial success (including a scandalous
tour of Australia in the 1850s and a speaking tour of the US, neither in the
movie, but not a circus). Her life allows Ophuls to consider his longstanding
interest in sex and its social functions along with the power it grants women
who otherwise had little in those days but to take this theme all the way to
its final stop in degradation, shame, and humiliation (but who is really to
blame?). All of this is managed in the
most glamourous of styles with expensive sets and art decoration (perhaps
treating French sex symbol Martine Carol as Lola as just another prop) and
Ophuls’ famous gliding camera.
Art's Cinema Spot
Capsule Reviews of Films Past and Present (Only Good Ones!)
Tuesday 5 November 2024
Lola Montés (1955)
Les Enfants du Paradis (1945)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Les Enfants du Paradis (1945) – M. Carné
Filmed during
the Nazi Occupation of France but released shortly after liberation, the movie
became a symbol of French Resistance/Independence (this, even though some of
its participants were later accused of collaboration). This is often called one
of the greatest French films of all time and the masterpiece of the director-writer
team of Marcel Carné and Jacque Prevert (who also made earlier poetic realist
classics such as Le Jour Se Leve, 1939, with Jean Gabin, not featured
here). Due to Nazi-imposed regulations
prohibiting films longer than 90 minutes, the film is divided into two separate
halves, released separately but shown together. The first “The Boulevard of
Crime” introduces us to the Parisian theatre district of 1828 and the many
important characters: Garance (played by
Arletty), the much sought after beauty who has seen it all; Baptiste Debureau
(Jean-Louis Barrault), the pantomime artist who falls for Garance; Frédérick
Lemaître (Pierre Brasseur), the charismatic and flamboyant wannabe actor; and Pierre-François
Lacenaire (Marcel Herrand), the philosopher-criminal resigned to his own fate.
Late in this half we also meet Édouard comte de Montray (Louis Salou), another
suitor for Garance (they all are, whether seriously or not), wealthy beyond
reason. The melodramatic plot leaves us hanging as Garance is arrested as an accomplice
for an attempted murder arranged by Lecenaire – but may have an out. The second film, “The Man in White”, opens
six years later. The characters have all
improved their lots, with Baptiste and Lemaître especially famous. Life has moved on without Garance, who has
disappeared. When she does return to
Paris, the plot mechanics move inexorably in a seemingly pre-ordained direction
and end abruptly with the conclusions left for viewers to imagine. The film is
justly famous, partly for its amazing sets (by Alexandre Trauner) and
mise-en-scene, but also for its portrayal of the many varieties of theatrical
performance, from base to lofty, that lend the film its main theme – the thin
line between art and life, acting and reality.
There may or may not be metaphors here related to the plight of France
in WWII but the film allows for many interpretations. In addition to the
impressive acting on display, that’s another reason why it is great.
Tuesday 13 August 2024
A Tale of Two Cities (1935)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
A Tale of Two Cities (1935) – J. Conway
Having not read
the book for decades, the plot unfolded as if new for me, and although there is
some spectacle (the storming of the Bastille, for example) and numerous
character actors, the film was elevated primarily by Ronald Colman's
performance as Sidney Carton whose moral action at the end of the film only
slowly sunk in, a day or two after viewing. The Dickens novel must be much
better but this remnant of the Golden Age of Hollywood might be as good as a
pared down version of the book could be.
Sunday 14 July 2024
Gosford Park (2001)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Gosford Park (2001) – R. Altman
I never watched Downton Abbey but perhaps I should
have because I really enjoyed writer Julian Fellowes’ script for this late
Robert Altman outing. I suspect I first
watched it because it was Altman but perhaps also because, like the Charlie Chan
films it references, it was heralded to be a pretty good whodunit, taking place
in the Upstairs-Downstairs world of British period drama (circa 1932). And it is that, but, of course, Altman lets
the plot meander all over the place, introducing characters who may not be
entirely distinguishable who also talk over each other (a directorial
trademark) making it difficult to determine exactly why they are there in the
country estate owned by patriarch Michael Gambon and younger wife Kristin
Scott-Thomas. Suffice it to say that we
hear enough to deduce that very nearly every character – at least those
upstairs, if not also downstairs – has a motive for killing Gambon (which doesn’t
actually happen until quite a long way into the film). Only new ladies maid Kelly MacDonald (working
for Dame Maggie Smith) and perhaps outsiders Bob Balaban (a Hollywood producer)
and Ryan Philippe (his valet) are unlikely suspects (or are they?). The cast
features an amazing array of British acting royalty, doing their thing
expertly: Helen Mirren, Alan Bates,
Derek Jacobi, Emily Watson, Richard E. Grant, Clive Owen, Stephen Fry, Jeremy
Northam, Eileen Atkins, and more. Class
differences are trotted out and the whole thing is gloriously gossipy. In the
end, Altman and Fellowes drop enough hints to help viewers to figure out the culprit,
even if detective Fry probably never will, but then again, there’s a twist that
makes the watching even more worthwhile.
Dark City (1998)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Dark City (1998) – A. Proyas
Preface: I found this blu-ray when cleaning out our laboratory which has now been refurnished as staff office space (students don’t attend class in person now, let alone show up for psychology experiments). I don’t think I can describe it without some spoilers (although I’m sure I watched it decades ago and didn’t remember a thing). So be warned.
Written and directed by Alex Proyas (who had previously
made The Crow, 1994, and subsequently made I, Robot, 2004, among other less
successful films), this takes its cues from film noir, with Rufus Sewell waking
up in a sordid room with a dead prostitute and no memory of who he is or how he
got there. The film seems to take place
in the 1940s to boot, with wife Jennifer Connolly singing in a nightclub and detective
William Hurt traversing the city at night looking for clues (and for Sewell who
has fled the scene). But all is really
not what it seems, as Proyas melds science fiction onto the noir frame to create
something much more unique (but which still plays like a crazy homage to cinema
classics gone by). I suppose the film could be called “high concept” if you had
time to dwell on whether our memories make us who we are or whether there is
something more fundamental or innate than that.
But there is no time for that, what with Kiefer Sutherland’s mad psychiatrist
running around with huge hypodermics at the beck and call of some bizarre alien
creatures animating corpses from the nearest morgue (including children) to
pump everyone full of other people’s data.
There, I’ve done it – but isn’t this a spoiler that just makes you want
to see what kind of insane work this may be, a work that Roger Ebert called “a
great visionary achievement”? For the
record, I watched the Director’s Cut.
Sunday 12 May 2024
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Night of the Living Dead (1968) – G. Romero
The first thing that Romero’s original low-budget zombie
flick has going for it is that you feel that it could really be happening – the
characters do the things you expect them to do, if facing this (otherwise
implausible) scenario. The second thing is that Romero manages to sneak some
social commentary (chiefly about race relations) into what would have been
expected to be just grindhouse fare. The third thing is Pittsburgh – it just
feels like a place where a zombie manifestation could happen. Dawn of the Dead, the first sequel, may be
even better, although the franchise loses steam after that. If you’ve only seen its more recent
descendents (or remakes), you really owe it to yourself to check out the opening
salvo.
Le Samourai (1967)
Le Samourai (1967) – J.-P. Melville
Jean-Pierre Melville is one of my favourite directors – his films typically combine elements of film noir (gangsters, heists) with the technique of Robert Bresson (an existential focus on process) and an obsessive commitment to particular colour palettes. I have seen Le Samourai, starring Alain Delon as a lone wolf hitman, countless times, having once owned it on VHS. However, only last night (after watching it again and reading an interview with Melville), did I think that the movie had another more mystical reading than the standard surface understanding. More specifically, I had never thought that the pianiste, Cathy Rosier, who witnesses Jef Costello (Delon) executing his contract (a club owner) might actually be Death herself. One remembers that Melville worked with Cocteau early on (Les Enfants Terrible, 1950) and was perhaps influenced by the latter’s Orpheus (also 1950) in which Death is also personified. In any event, to reconceptualize Jef as infatuated with his own death rather than the piano player is almost to see a different film (and one where the ending is somewhat even more satisfying). Of course, the straightforward reading of the film still works too, with Jef compromised when he is seen by witnesses and confused when his no-longer-airtight alibi still holds up (his pursuit of Cathy to understand why she didn’t dob him in and their subsequent triste is the alternate explanation for his final act). As with most Melville films, there is great pleasure here in following Jef’s methodical actions as he comes to terms with his situation, fleeing the police (led by crafty Commissaire François Périer) and contending with his double-crossing employers. Delon remains cool throughout. A masterpiece.