Foreign Correspondent (1940)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Foreign Correspondent (1940) – A. Hitchcock

Alfred Hitchcock’s second American picture (just after the Oscar-winning Rebecca, also 1940) is more of a thriller in line with his best British films (The 39 Steps, 1935; The Lady Vanishes, 1938) – which means there is a MacGuffin (the secret clause in the treaty between Holland and Belgium that relates to what happens if they are invaded by the Nazis) and everyone is trying to find it or to prevent someone from finding it.  In this case, the secret clause is known by Mr. Van Meer, a Dutch diplomat, who is variously kidnapped or shot dead by those who wish to disrupt any peace process.  Joel McCrea is the newspaper reporter of the title, sent to Europe to interview Van Meer and to get a story.  He falls in with the leader of an organisation pushing for peace, led by Herbert Marshall, and falls in love with Marshall’s daughter, played by Laraine Day.  George Sanders (also in Rebecca) is on hand as a rival reporter who supports McCrea in tracking down the villains who have kidnapped Van Meer.  Of course, Hitchcock uses all of his powers to make this adventure an exciting one, creating suspense and excitement, even while offering next to no detail about the MacGuffin (his own term for the thing that drives the plot dynamics).  He gives us the clichés about Holland – windmills chiefly (but with a few mentions of cheese) and when the setting moves to England, he pokes a bit of fun at his own culture too.  McCrea is likeable as always and, although a bit of a dolt at times, he manages to be in the right place at the right time to deliver the happy ending required.  Hitch dazzles with a tremendous airplane crash, as well as a few other set-pieces (those umbrellas in the rain); he’s already a master of his craft by this point in his career.  The ending, a monologue by McCrea seeking to encourage Americans to get involved in the War, was tacked on afterward, just before release and just around the time the Nazis started bombing London.  A real period piece, then, and while not in the highest echelon of Hitch’s films, still very enjoyable and worth your time.

  

Calendar (1993)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Calendar (1993) – A. Egoyan

Armenian-Canadian director Atom Egoyan (known for Exotica, 1994, and The Sweet Hereafter, 1997) here explores ethnic identity in the context of interpersonal relationships – but he does it very obliquely, to be sure.  Egoyan himself plays a photographer hired to shoot a calendar’s worth of pictures of ancient churches in Armenia.  He brings his Armenian wife along to translate (for he, himself, has assimilated to Canadian culture and can’t speak the native tongue).  Their driver (Ashot Adamyan), cum guide, an Armenian national, interacts exclusively with the wife (Arsinée Khanjian, Egoyan’s real wife).  This sets up a certain tension between husband and wife, as Egoyan begins to get jealous and petulant (offscreen).  But the scenes of the calendar shoot in Armenia are interspersed with videotape, presumably shot on the trip, being rewatched by Egoyan at some future point (and sometimes rewound or fast forwarded), always with Arsinée as the main focus.  Some answering machine messages start to piece together what this future entails – husband and wife are separated with Arsinée still in Armenia, possibly with their guide.  Another sequence of shots shows Egoyan eating dinner with a succession of beautiful ethnic women who each abruptly ask to use the telephone, leaving Egoyan at the table, drinking wine and eventually writing letters to his wife.  The answering machine again reveals that these women may be actresses auditioning for Egoyan rather than dates.  So, this is largely an experimental feature (at only 73 minutes) with some cognition required to uncover its themes and meaning. To the extent that Armenian identity is what joins and separates the three main characters, this is a very modern and relevant film.  What does it mean to be from somewhere, if you have never learned (or at least not maintained) that place’s language, norms, or culture?  At a base level, this seems inauthentic.  Yet, others may still treat you as a member of that cultural group, for better or for worse.  Egoyan’s film only scratches the surface of these complexities, although its mysteries may reward further scrutiny.

  

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) – R. Johnson

At this point in the saga’s development, Star Wars fans have learned to extract the good bits from each film and to overlook missteps and excesses.  That is, I’m not sure anyone is wholeheartedly accepting all of the directorial or production choices in each film anymore.  (But I say that still not having seen Revenge of the Sith, 2005).  Rian Johnson (who made a promising directorial debut with teen noir, Brick, 2005) guides the franchise’s renewal here, focusing attention on Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) after the previous film zoomed in on Han Solo.  Princess Leia, er General Organa, also stars – in a part shot just before Carrie Fisher’s death.  We pick up where we left off with new heroine Rey (Daisy Ridley) on planet Ahch-To (Ireland’s beautiful Skellig Michael Island) as she approaches Luke to return to the Resistance, to rejuvenate the Jedi religion, and to take on the First Order, led by supreme leader Snoke and Han Solo & Leia’s son Ben (Adam Driver), now turned to the dark side of the Force and called Kylo Ren.  Meanwhile, the rebel fleet is being attacked by the First Order’s battleships and might soon be completely wiped out, if a crazy plan involving a casino at Canto Bight doesn’t come off (John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran star in this sequence with Benicio del Toro as a shifty ally).  As promised, there is a lot of action (with Oscar Isaac returning as fighter pilot Poe Dameron and Laura Dern joining as a Vice Admiral) and things do blow up and light sabres do get to thrusting and slicing.  Johnson’s production design is splendid, whether CGI or not, with color-matched costumes and widescreen interstellar backgrounds.  The Jedi “tree” is a nice touch (and the scene in which it features contains another treat for the older generation).  But the film does seem to drag on and there are times when it gets exposition-heavy (explaining the relationship between Luke and Kylo Ren) and some plot developments feel “unearned”.  But as I said, Star Wars fans have learned to overlook some things (and fortunately the porg aren’t as intrusively cute as the ewoks before them).  All told, an enjoyable return to this universe – but it is hard to say where Episode IX could go.

  

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) – R. Brooks

Tennessee Williams apparently disowned this movie version of his play, because any clear or direct references to homosexuality were eliminated to appease the Production Code censors, still holding sway over Hollywood in the 1950s (even though his Broadway hit, directed by Elia Kazan, remained intact onstage).  Paul Newman took over Ben Gazzara’s part for the film and Richard Brooks directed.  Newman, Brooks, and Elizabeth Taylor (taking over Barbara Bel Geddes’ part) were nominated for Oscars. Brooks does a reasonable job transferring the play to the screen, though most of the action takes place in one room in a Mississippi manor and by action, I mean dialogue.  Newman (Brick) is a former football star, now an out-of-work alcoholic, married to Taylor (Maggie) who he bluntly does not love and with whom he is not interested in having a physical relationship (hence they have no children).  They have come up from New Orleans to hear the results of the cancer screening for Brick’s father, “Big Daddy” (played by folksinger Burl Ives, whose harshness here is definitely against type – at least from what I remember of the LP we had as kids).  Brick’s brother and sister-in-law and their five kids are also there, making a bid for the inheritance.  On one stormy night, all of the tensions implicit in these family relationships are inflamed and explored and, to some degree, resolved.  Although we don’t really get told that Brick’s guilt over letting down his friend Skipper (ultimately a suicide) years earlier is exacerbated by their same sex love, it isn’t hard to read between the lines, if you are tipped off (as most audiences would be).  Newman puts in a sullen performance and Taylor is shrill and anxious – but both relax by the end of the picture.  I’m not sure whether the ending rings true, perhaps not.  But there is no denying the drama and fine acting on display here.

  

Personal Shopper (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Personal Shopper (2016) – O. Assayas

Olivier Assayas won the Best Director award at Cannes for this ghost story, starring Kristen Stewart as a young woman waiting for a sign from the afterworld from her twin brother who has just died of a heart attack. It is very creepy at times, as Stewart spends several nights alone in the dark in a (presumably) haunted house.  By day, she is a “personal shopper” for a narcissistic actress who basically ignores her and her alienation is increased by the fact that her boyfriend is away in the Kingdom of Oman doing a months-long cybersecurity job (they can only skype).  When Stewart starts getting mysterious text messages from an anonymous stranger, she starts to wonder whether it is the sign from her brother.  But everything feels much more sinister.  As in his other highly recommended films (Irma Vep, 1996; Summer Hours, 2008; Clouds of Sils Maria, 2014), Assayas isn’t really interested in the plot; instead, he seeks to portray humans with real depth in situations (particularly social interactions) that elicit human needs and emotions – or in this case, he seems to be suggesting that it is the failure to have real satisfying social interactions that leaves Stewart haunted.  Another reading of the film might focus on her grief and the way it infuses her life, leading her to ruminate and lose her sense of direction.  In any case, it is a strong performance from Stewart.  And, in the end, Assayas is happy to have it both ways, adding a (more commercial) supernatural “thriller” to his oeuvre while also keeping the film consistent with his quiet interest in human relationships and social connectedness. 

Phantom Thread (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 

Phantom Thread (2017) – P. T. Anderson

Paul Thomas Anderson’s “fashion film” is actually nothing about fashion (except perhaps as a working example for a partial study of the creative process itself). Instead, this is a film about relationships between people, how we react and respond to each other’s needs and personalities – and how we choose behaviours to complement or counteract those of our partner.  Daniel Day-Lewis again plays a domineering and powerful archetype, focused only on maintaining the conditions that he feels allow him the perfect environment for designing dresses for the rich and elite in 1950s London.  He always has his own way and his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) polices his rules among the staff and others who enter the house.  However, it is clear that she is able to maintain her own independence and can resist his tempers, if she chooses.  Reynolds Woodcock (Day-Lewis) is a confirmed bachelor but appears to have made a habit of inviting young women to live with him as model, muse, and seamstress; then, when he tires of them, they are discarded, sent away by Cyril. Enter Alma (Vicky Krieps), a foreign waitress, who is seduced by Woodcock to take up this role.  However, she has ideas of her own about how the dressmaker should be treated.  Thus, the film vibrates to a set of tensions between Woodcock and Alma and between Alma and Cyril.  Woodcock hallucinates visions of his mother in her (second) wedding dress that he sewed for her, suggesting a persistent need/desire that perhaps Alma will fulfil for him.  Is it possible that we unconsciously select partners who can satisfy these (largely unconscious) wants? Or is it really the luck of the draw and bad pairings will out themselves?  As the movie progresses, it is hard to know which pattern will prevail.  As with previous Anderson films, the period design and cinematography are exquisite, all the more incredible because Anderson apparently served as his own Director of Photography with ample assistance from his camera operators and other crew members.  Although most of the film takes place inside Woodcock’s lavish house (a chamber piece, then), the shots that are outside are like a breath of fresh air, especially those night-time driving scenes in the Bristol 405.  Anderson manages to capture different textures by using various forms of natural light (including the scenes where Alma speaks to the young doctor by firelight) and there is no denying that his artistry is being sustained at a peak; his films are all worth watching and anxiously awaiting.  That said, Phantom Thread takes its own sweet time developing its relationships and its central tensions and resolution (if resolution there be) and it is necessary to be patient and perhaps even to re-watch this one to absorb its subtle pleasures.