Victim (1961)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Victim (1961) – B. Dearden

Homosexuality was illegal in the UK until 1967.  So, Basil Dearden’s sympathetic thriller about the problem of blackmail was clearly designed to promote social change.  Dirk Bogarde, until then a romantic leading man, took a big risk in tackling the complex role of a barrister who decides to fight the blackmailers (because he too is gay although possibly not acting on his desires).  The fact that the Bogarde character frankly expresses his desires and that the filmmakers do not shame him, nor any of the other gay characters, made the film controversial --for this was too shocking for many at the time.  And although the film soft-pedals the type of stigma that gay men still experience (no physical violence here, apart from a shop being smashed up), the impacts of the stigma on the men affected is painfully clear.  Dearden wisely utilises the structure of the thriller (rather than the social problem film) to engage viewers that might otherwise turn away from more didactic fare – and the film is engaging, building suspense from the very start when we meet a character on the run for some unknown reason.  Both the police and Bogarde realize that blackmail is underfoot but it takes some time to identify and capture the perpetrators.  In the end, Bogarde must decide whether to risk his marriage, his successful career, and his very well-being in order to expose the blackmailers and the law as morally bankrupt.  A brave and important film. 

Y Tu Mamá También (2001)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Y Tu Mamá También (2001) – A. Cuarón

What seems to be a teen sex comedy in concept proves to be something deeper and more authentic in effect.  Director Alfonso Cuarón somehow captures the raw sexual desire of teenage boys and situates it in a real context, showing how the boys’ naïveté and inexperience leads to learning and growth when allowed the opportunity from an older woman.  Of course, that last phrase reads like pure fantasy and the film certainly courts implausibility when Maribel Verdú calls to accept the offer to drive to a remote and hidden beach with Gael García Bernal and Diego Luna.  But her motives are eventually revealed and things make sense – her relationship has fallen apart and she seeks escape (or that is what we infer).  Beyond the sexual level and the relationship level, the film also operates on a third level – as a comparison of the middle/upper class lives of the three main characters and the abject poverty of the people in the Mexican countryside that they pass through on their journey (replete with roaming police and military).  The camerawork, hand-held or travelling shots, filmed on location lends added authenticity.  And as with many a coming-of-age tale, there is a wistful quality here, particularly enhanced by the authorial narration that punctuates several scenes and the coda looking back on events. Ultimately, the film pushes boundaries in a satisfying way – but it is definitely NSFW or for those who might shy away from frankness (in word and deed).

Roman Holiday (1953)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Roman Holiday (1953) – W. Wyler

The stars are especially magical in William Wyler’s light-hearted (though ultimately wistful) romantic comedy.  Audrey Hepburn, in her first major role, is innocent and gamine-like (esp. after that haircut) as a princess touring Europe with too many bureaucratic duties to perform.  Gregory Peck, less wooden than usual, is the American reporter who stumbles upon her when she makes a late-night break for freedom from her minders.  The next day, the two (along with photographer Eddie Albert) spend the day visiting Roman tourist destinations (shot on location) in a carefree way but comically underscored by the efforts of the journalists to conceal their identities and true purpose (to get a scoop for their paper).  Of course, Peck and Hepburn fall in love – but, after all is said and done, she is a princess and must return to her duties.  Or must she? Dalton Trumbo came up with the story (while blacklisted as part of the Hollywood 10) and received his Oscar posthumously in the 1990s.  Breezy and special, due primarily to Hepburn’s charisma but Wyler also knew a thing or two about directing and hits the right emotional notes, expertly playing the audience.  Lives up to its reputation.

North by Northwest (1959)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

North by Northwest (1959) – A. Hitchcock

Alfred Hitchcock was at the top of his game at the end of the 1950s (he made Vertigo, this film, and then Psycho and The Birds).  You can see his themes very clearly – this is a mistaken identity picture and, similar to The Wrong Man (1956), a picture in which a man is wanted for a crime that he didn’t commit (running from both the police and the villains).  Cary Grant is that man and in his later years he has transmogrified under Hitch’s watch from a somewhat sinister character (Suspicion, 1941) to an ambiguous one (Notorious, 1946; To Catch a Thief, 1955) to a lovable buffoon caught in a complex web that he can’t begin to understand (NxNW). Complexity is necessary because the film is also an espionage flick and the MacGuffin is some microfilm that chief baddie James Mason is seeking to take out of the country.  Hitch builds very carefully on his earlier work – instead of the hero being chased up the Statue of Liberty (Saboteur, 1942), we find him strung out on Mount Rushmore’s iconic faces. Hitch injects a fair dose of humour and along with the usual air of artificiality (studio sets, art direction), this distracts from the true horror of Grant’s position. Having seen the film multiple times adds to this problem – you really need to work hard to imagine what it would be like to be suddenly kidnapped by thugs and accused of being someone else, a presumed spy.  Why Grant (or Roger O. Thornhill, I mean) allows himself to be lured/confused by Eva Marie Saint’s femme fatale is hard to say but perhaps any friendly face in a storm is a likely choice by someone in his confused state.  This is a minor quibble because Hitch’s goal here seems to be less an investigation of deeper serious themes (as in The Wrong Man or Vertigo, 1958) and more a demonstration of the way that film craft can be used to create a masterful thriller.  He succeeds!

The Green Ray (Summer) (1986)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The Green Ray (Summer) (1986) – E. Rohmer

Eric Rohmer’s films are unique.  We observe French people talking about their lives and loves.  Often they are confused about what to do.  Here, he presents a sort of character study of Delphine (Marie Riviere, who apparently improvised enough of her part to warrant a screenwriting credit), a woman who is indecisive, even avoidant, when it comes to meeting men and starting a relationship.  She is principled and wants things on her own terms but she is desperately lonely as a result and prone to crying.  Yet the film is light-hearted and depicts Delphine’s attempts to have a holiday (first in Cherbourg, then the Alps, then Biarritz).  We meet other women who do not seem to have her problems, easily meeting men, or accepting them because of lower standards.  The title invokes a proverb suggesting that when one witnesses the last green ray of the sunset (described by a group of older people Delphine eavesdrops on), then one will gain insight into one’s own heart/purpose and that of others.  The film is the fifth in Rohmer’s Comedies and Proverbs series.  Don’t come looking for plot but instead be prepared for a wistful even frivolous look at those early days when life hadn’t yet settled. Charmant.

The Chaser (2008)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The Chaser (2008) – H.-J. Na

Vivid Korean serial killer thriller that feels a bit schematic due to its broader generic framework but which actually defies conventions in ways that keep you interested.  Yun-seok Kim is the outsider “hero” who is an ex-cop turned pimp looking for his missing prostitutes; he soon discovers that they may have been murdered by Jung-woo Ha’s sick loser.  Or at least Ha confesses that he’s done it – but actual evidence is lacking.  Both the (inept) police and Kim then spend most of the movie trying to find bodies, including one girl who may still be alive.  The result is visceral, violent, gritty, suspenseful, downbeat, gruesome, and relentlessly grim.  First time director Hong-jin Na seems to be cribbing from the best source material and the film “works.” (Even Melville is evoked in some of the rainy shots through windows – or John Woo’s version of Melville – but there isn’t as much sensitive masculinity on display here).  However, the themes don’t run deep.  Nevertheless, for this genre, it’s definitely head and shoulders above the usual crass rip-offs. Check out Memories of Murder (2003) for an even better Korean take on the (incompetent) police procedural.

High-Rise (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

High-Rise (2015) – B. Wheatley

I haven’t read the J. G. Ballard novel nor have I seen any other movies directed by Ben Wheatley.  So, I came at this more-or-less completely cold…and it knocked me for a loop.  A 1970s high rise apartment building in London (part of a complex designed by Jeremy Irons’ Architect) loses power, the residents lose their moral bearings, and we are cast into a dystopian nightmare where society breaks down into all-out class warfare.  Sort of what climate change and the widening gap between rich and poor might bring on, I think.  But in the UK, the class differences seem already firmly acknowledged and thus the ingredients for conflict are more omnipresent.  Except nothing is that clear in the film.  Our protagonist, played by Tom Hiddleston, is a medical doctor, specializing in lobotomies and brain scans, who moves into the building near the middle floor (25^th) and has various interactions with those above him (rich) and below him (poor).  He seems to have no real moral compass at all but might be working through his grief (family all dead) with passive aggression and a tidy apartment that he paints grey.  There are a lot of parties in this building.  Wheatley engages in all sorts of cinematic experiments (slow-mo, psychedelic kaleidoscopic split frames, travelling shots, interesting angles) and pushes the boundaries of sex and violence as far as they should go.  I’m not recommending this to anyone who might be easily affronted. And really it is all a bit of a glorious mess but thrilling and weird and better than Hollywood.

City Streets (1931)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

City Streets (1931) – R. Mamoulian

Rouben Mamoulian adds a dose of style to this otherwise ordinary gangster picture – but that style makes all the difference.  Instead of simply plot mechanics (girl whose stepfather is a racketeer tries to persuade her boyfriend to join the gang but then regrets it later when he does and her eyes are opened to the brutality), we have something more poetic.  Some of this is montage and some of it is inserted shots and some of it is a more natural approach to the settings and events (the couple have a rendezvous at the beach and we and they watch the waves).  In any event, the flow of the picture seems different, even if there is still rough stuff among the hoods and some dirty double-crossing familiar to fans of the genre.  Reviewers of the time didn’t like Paul Lukas as the big boss, but his lilting accent and sophisticated manner inject a little more weirdness to the proceedings.  Sylvia Sidney (young!) is captivating as the girl who wants to escape the gangster life (after a stretch in jail) and Gary Cooper (young!) is charismatic as her man who falls in and then falls out with the gang.  Mamoulian would later direct “Love Me Tonight” and, while City Streets is not a musical, the director’s flair for romance is clearly evident.