Odd Man Out (1947)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Odd Man Out (1947) – C. Reed

One of the first DVDs I ever bought, but it has been ages since I watched it.  James Mason stars as one of the leaders of the IRA in Belfast, Johnny McQueen, who has been hiding out after escaping from prison but is now planning a payroll robbery in order to finance their operations. Yet from the start things don’t go right – Mason plays McQueen as tentative and uncertain and director Carol Reed (later famous for The Third Man, 1949) uses expressionistic touches to show McQueen’s wooziness as he gets into the car to head to the job.  Of course, the subsequent heist suffers as a consequence and McQueen kills an innocent employee during the escape while also being shot himself. He then falls backwards out of the getaway car, with his panicked partners leaving him passed out in the road.  From there, the movie depicts McQueen’s journey through the snowy night in Belfast, encountering numerous supposed loyalists and other friendly souls, none of whom assist him enough to help him back to safety. At the same time, McQueen experiences delirious hallucinations, as he is both dying and coming to terms with his crimes. There is a burning spiritual fever in Johnny as he attempts to avoid the police dragnet – but to what end? Kathleen Ryan is in love with Johnny and wants to rescue him, but neither she nor anyone else can see a way forward beyond Johnny’s pre-ordained fate. Reed and cinematographer Robert Krasker shot the film as a blend of postwar neo-realism (the slums of Belfast), film noir (the chiaroscuro lighting and dark themes), and expressionism (McQueen’s visions distort reality). To me, the film seems to share structure and themes with Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man (1995), which also follows a man on a journey from life to death, offering a critique of society on the way. In both films, humans struggle with difficult moral decisions where right and wrong can confusingly depend on the eye of the beholder.  Yet, at the end of the day, as the police inspector hunting Johnny succinctly states, for him, there is neither bad nor good, only innocence and guilt.

 

Rebecca (1940)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Rebecca (1940) – A. Hitchcock

Less a thriller or a suspense film than a gothic melodrama (popular at the time: Wuthering Heights, 1939; Gaslight, 1940/1944, etc.) which stayed true to the novel by Daphne du Maurier (purchased for Hitchcock by producer David O. Selznick). Joan Fontaine is the awkward young woman (a paid companion for a boorish and matronly society lady) who meets wealthy Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) at Monte Carlo where he is vacationing, trying to escape memories of his late wife, Rebecca. After a whirlwind romance, Fontaine’s character becomes the new Mrs. de Winter and takes her place as the head of the household at the beautiful and remote English mansion Manderley. From the start, she feels that she does not measure up to the beautiful and sophisticated Rebecca and this feeling is encouraged by Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), the unfriendly and hard-hearted housekeeper who was overly fond of the previous Mrs. de Winter (some reviewers have suggested a same-sex attraction). Husband Max does not make things any easier for Fontaine’s character (who is given no first name), often reacting angrily and moodily when Rebecca comes up – and indeed, since there are monogrammed R’s everywhere in the house, this is very often.  In their excellent book about Hitch, Rohmer and Chabrol point out that pairing an emotional woman with an unemotional man in a two-shot became a trope of the director, something I never noticed before (but is clear in Notorious, 1946, too).  Fontaine impresses as she transforms from vulnerable and insecure to become a more confident partner to Olivier -- and both of them, as well as Anderson, received Oscar nods in addition to Hitchcock himself along with best screenplay, score, and a slew of technical category nominations. The film won Best Picture and Best Cinematography, which held true to the Gothic style and produced an air of mystery and ultimately suspense -- which Hitch injects into the film in its final minutes as a startling twist is introduced and foppish cad George Sanders almost destroys the burgeoning romance between Olivier and Fontaine.  When Truffaut suggested to Hitchcock that he developed his interest in the psychological dynamics of his characters when working on this film, the great director agreed.  A must-see.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Napoleon Dynamite (2004) – J. Hess

Totally absurd and amusing, feeling sui generis or at least unlike anything else that I had seen at the time.  But also, I guess, a straightforward high school comedy where characters learn stuff and develop over time (maybe). As written and directed by Jerusha and Jared Hess, this is funny stuff but which doesn’t make fun of its characters, however ridiculous they may be. Jon Heder plays Napoleon Dynamite as a sullen teenage nerd (even if the actor was already well into his 20s), defiantly his own person, seemingly unaware that he might be perceived as different.  He’s got an older brother, similarly but differently nerdy, and they live in rural Idaho with their butch grandma (and later cheesy Uncle Rico) – it is hard to know what decade this is because everything seems very dated (furnishings, phones, vehicles) but then Kip the older brother is hanging out in online chat rooms every night and meets a girlfriend that way. The plot, as it is, centers on Napoleon’s new friend Pedro and his decision to run for class president (against popular girl Summer).  Pedro and another of their friends, Deb, are played expressionlessly, leading to some very dry deadpan humor (also typical of Heder who delivers ridiculous lines as straight as possible).  Amon referred to them as NPCs.  Essentially an anecdotal film, with the usual high school rites of passage (school dance, confrontation with bullies, class elections), all treated with disregard and irreverence – yet there is nothing here that smacks of mainstream attitudes or commercial filmmaking (not a teen sex comedy).  There is, however, one amazing dance routine by Heder that has to be seen to be believed. 

Barbie (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Barbie (2023) – G. Gerwig

A bit under the weather on a Sunday afternoon with just Amon (aged 11) at home and the Barbie DVD having arrived from the library, so we chucked it in.  It was a bit weird to begin with – a grown man and a young boy watching Barbie – after the homage to 2001 (not quite funny but odd), the opening musical number, singing and dancing in Barbieland, had us cringing.  But then, the movie started to show its true colours (beyond just pink), critiquing the patriarchy, critiquing Barbie herself – and having fun while doing it and more importantly, letting the audience in on the fun.  Margot Robbie (Stereotypical Barbie) and Ryan Gosling (Just Ken) play the dolls as not-too-bright but they grow in sophistication (okay, she does) as the movie unfolds and they leave Barbieland for the real world (where Ken discovers men have more power than they do back home). America Ferrera and Ariana Greenblatt play our mother-and-daughter identification figures with diametrically opposed feelings about Barbie.  Will Ferrell is here as Mattel’s CEO and Rhea Perlman shows up as Barbie’s creator Ruth Handler (we get some actual Barbie history lessons, including from narrator Helen Mirren). There are a lot of in-jokes for movie-lovers with nods to Monty Python, Jacques Tati, and more. It’s silly but serious, funny but dark, and altogether knowing in a way that even Amon understood.  He thought the end of the film might bring a world where women and men are equal (at least in Barbieland) but, of course, even more apropos, the Kens (there are multiple Kens and multiple Barbies, in line with the release of doll variants) only get a slight increase in their rights (just like women in the real world).  Director Greta Gerwig manages to tread a very thin line (including a message but avoiding being too didactic) and creates a wondrous world (with old-school special effects) that lingers with you long after the movie has ended.

My Man Godfrey (1936)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

My Man Godfrey (1936) – G. La Cava

Classic screwball comedy that isn’t quite as frantic as some but which still contains a fair few throwaway jokes buried in the hubbub.  As part of a scavenger hunt searching for a “forgotten man”, sisters Irene (Carole Lombard) and Cornelia Bullock (Gail Patrick) find Godfrey (William Powell) at the New York City dump, living with other homeless men and looking the worse for it. When he decides to return with Irene (after pushing condescending Cornelia into an ash pile), the night ends up with Godfrey being offered the job of butler to the Bullocks, a surprise to father Eugene Pallette and mother Alice Brady (and her “protégé” Mischa Auer – the source of many laughs). He soon learns the family is chaotic, nearly unhinged in their need for drama, and although living in a wealthy manner, almost broke (a secret kept by Mr. Bullock).  What unfolds next is a life-lesson for spoiled children, a fairytale for those living through the Great Depression, and a well-acted/directed/written (six Oscar nominations) comedy. Surprisingly, Powell is given the straight role here but he plays it with expert skill and holds things together while those around him improvise. Highly recommended. 

 

Past Lives (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Past Lives (2023) – C. Song

Celine Song’s debut film is a wistful and melancholy reflection on many things, chiefly the people we used to be in earlier parts of our lives.  Perhaps it is telling that the film includes two lengthy flashback scenes: first, 24 years ago when the protagonists are around 12 years old and living in Korea, and then again 12 years after that, when one of them (now named Nora; played by Greta Lee) lives in New York City (after her family migrated first to Toronto) and the other (Hae Jung; played by Teo Yoo) remains in Korea.  They found each other as a result of facebook.  I am sure this was a common experience at the time (it was for me!) as people suddenly found that they could look up old primary and secondary school friends to find out where they were now (and marvel at how much everyone had aged).  But intriguingly those people you found again only knew a past version of you, one that might not even feel accurate anymore.  And, as Song points out, this odd feeling might be even more significant for migrants, who may have even starker differences between past and present selves, including speaking different languages, practicing different cultural norms, etc.  Such is the case for Nora.  Yet, it is easy to romanticize the past, probably even for those who have not moved places (as much as some of us have). In the film we are led to feel that there could be romantic possibilities between Nora and Hae Jung based on their friendship at age 12 and their rapid re-engagement 12 years later.  But another 12 years pass before they actually meet face-to-face and by then, Nora is married (to a Jewish American, Arthur; played by John Magaro).  When Hae Jung shows up in New York, will Nora leave Arthur for him?  Arthur worries about this “fairy tale” possibility (and the Korean notion of pre-reincarnation past lives creating a sort of destiny for lovers in this life). However, Nora (and Celine Song, whose story this may be) may be more realistic than the men in her life. Naturally, this film hit me in all sorts of ways and might be more relevant for me than others, as a migrant myself, married to a migrant from Japan, and, especially, as a 56 year old with many past selves. The reflective tone (punctuated by quiet shots of NYC with appropriate music) was just right for contemplating these things as well as the beautifully acted characters and relationships within the film.

Asteroid City (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Asteroid City (2023) – W. Anderson

I guess we all know what to expect from a Wes Anderson film by now: quirky characters played by name-brand actors (and handpicked children or adolescents), outstanding but heavily stylized art direction (with splendid use of colour), carefully chosen pop songs on the soundtrack, and a certain mix of nostalgic, melancholic, whimsical, absurd, wry, knowing, and even dark moments (often all at the same time).  So, with his 11^th feature, do we just get more of the same?  The answer is basically yes.  This time, Anderson takes us to Asteroid City (somewhere in the West of the USA but filmed in Spain) in the 1950s where young people who have won a science competition creating futuristic inventions (focused on space, mostly) are congregating for an event (chaired by General Grif Gibson – Jeffrey Wright). The main focus (if you are able to focus amidst the busy mise en scene) is on Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzman) who is chaperoning his son Woodrow (Jake Ryan) but who also has his three daughters with him because their car broke down on the way to the house of his father-in-law (Tom Hanks), who then arrives to take them back.  Also present are movie star Midge Campbell (Scarlett Johansson) and her daughter Dinah (Grace Edwards).  These families are marked by absent spouses and their reaction to the fractured nuclear family (caused by death/illness/violence) is the dark vein that Anderson mines here.  But it is easy to be distracted by all of the other events, characters, asides, music, visual references, etc. that he throws at you.  For example, you wouldn’t be surprised if Wile E. Coyote showed up at any moment, as the art direction here is cribbed straight from Chuck Jones (the roadrunner is here, although the coyote is noted only in passing). There are also singing cowboys, flying saucers, a very topical quarantine, allusions to Marilyn Monroe – in fact, the whole thing is staged as a play within a movie, where Bryan Cranston narrates a recounting of what appears to be a Group Theatre production (with Willem Dafoe and his actors assisting playwright Edward Norton to develop what we are seeing in the film). As such, Anderson repeatedly breaks the third wall and the actors play characters playing characters, not just the characters themselves.  It is dizzying.  So, as before, your enjoyment of the film is going depend on your appetite for Anderson. If you’ve cultivated an appetite already, I would say that Asteroid City feels a bit fresher than The French Dispatch (2021) but doesn’t reach the exalted heights of the Grand Budapest Hotel (2014).  I haven’t checked out Anderson’s other 2023 releases – a trio of shorts drawn from the work of Roald Dahl on Netflix – which suggests a surging productivity in the director.  But how much is too much?