The Godfather

Francis Ford Coppola, USA, 1972
3.5 out of 4 stars

The key question here is, was the enjoyment I got from actually, finally watching The Godfather greater than the entertainment value I got from all the times people asked me, dumbfoundedly, “you’ve never watched The Godfather?!” As much as I would like to be a perverse contrarian (I admit it), yes, it was worth the trade-off.

There is, however, something of a profound miscalculation involved in watching a film like this when one is already 27 years old, which is to say that almost nothing in film could seem as familiar as this. I’m usually not that good at anticipating things, but this time I was able to see almost every murder or atrocity coming. Recognizing the origin not only of well-worn but sometimes-amusing catchphrases, not to mention the entire gangster genre as we know it today, with its tortured attitude towards glamorization of the practice, is fun in a way, but also invariably distancing.

The fact is, some seminal, watershed films were not as heavily imitated (because people didn’t “get it” at the time) and still have amazing power even now, while some were a bit too successful and as such can be robbed of their power by the legion of imitators that one may have had the misfortune to have seen first. Let me just say that the story is compelling, but moreso in the beginning, that the characters are interesting, but not especially complex, that the depiction of and attitude towards women could have been worse, but is still pretty pitiful (so what is the point of Michael’s first marriage, exactly?), and that (and this is perhaps the most regrettable) expectations for hyper-violence and confrontation have been inordinately escalated to the point where this film seems, dare I say it, quaint in some aspects. That we, the bloodthirsty mail viewers, don’t entirely get what we want (even if, at the time, we might not have known that we wanted it), constitutes one of the few suggestions that we should actually not admire and envy the mafia; of course, the glamour is there in enough quantity that that is not the overall message most young men got from the film (in particular, an entire generation of “gangsta rappers” who made names like Corleone even more familiar for me).

I am a bit curious about seeing the next one, as I could readily imagine how it might indeed be better. I will probably wait a while, though.

Source: Paramount DVD
8 Aug, 8:08 PM

Get Carter

Mike Hodges, UK, 1971
2 out of 4 stars

At first, I felt sheepish about not getting into this more, as the plot (gangster Jack Carter leaves London for Newcastle because something about his brother’s death seems suspicious to him) isn’t even clear without reading the Netflix sleeve (for once I was glad that I did), at least not until about 15 minutes into the film, and because everything moves really slowly. Because this is a gangster film, you know that you will eventually get some carnage, but (and perhaps there is something to be said for this) it’s far some satisfying when you do (although I did let out some grim chuckles here and there). It was around the time that Jack started doling out comeuppance that I realized that I was, surprise, under no obligation to consider this a good film.

I actually tend to think of myself as someone who’s fairly fond of antiheroes, but Jack Carter makes me realize just how warm and fuzzy most contemporary antiheroes really are. The only thing that keeps you on his side is that he is trying to avenge a clear wrong; it’s equally clear that no one would ever root for him in any other situation. That’s another way of saying that crime itself is not even remotely glamorized here, which I suppose is also commendable.

Yes, Jack lacks flair for the most part, and he mostly lacks humor (and unquestionably lacks romance). I’m sure that it’s still possible to make an engrossing movie centered around an entirely despicable, joyless character with no redeeming or endearing qualities, but this doesn’t quite seem to be it. I respect what Caine and the filmmakers were trying to do, and the more I think about it, the more I do consider it to be “responsible” in a perverse sort of way, but I can’t consider it entertaining. The film itself does contain a few interesting shots, but is overall similarly lacking in flair. And I suppose it goes without saying that the sexual politics of this film are quite heinous. I can’t say it’s bad er se, but I can’t say that it’s recommended either.

Source: Warner DVD
31 Jul, 8:42 PM

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

Wofgang Reitherman & John Lounsbery, USA, 1977
3.5 out of 4 stars

First, some background information. Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree was released as a half-hour theatrical short (aired before some forgotten film) in 1966. It was followed by And the Blustery Day in 1968, with And Tigger Too! released in 1974. Apparently a bit short on material in 1977, Disney packaged all three together in this feature presentation, which features very minor new transitions, and a surprisingly moving ending sequence. The latter was, however, somewhat undermined by the eventual release of And a Day for Eeyore in 1983, which is included as a bonus feature on the DVD.

As a child, I had the latter two shorts on videotape, and I occasionally had access to the first two, but I’d never seen the feature version until now. If the same could be said for you, I would say that the aforementioned ending is alone worth renting this version. If on the other hand you’ve simply never seen the adventures of (sometimes) British youngster Christopher Robin and his menagerie of talking stuffed animals, you should certainly remedy that now.

There’s no question that this series of eminently British children’s tales has been Disneyfied and Americanized to a certain extent; it’s more that, in the context of other Disneyfications, the treatment that Pooh-bear underwent seems comparatively minor. I would say about half of the songs are good, and the others are inoffensive, and the comedic attempts, slapstick and all are surprisingly effective even for a jaded graduate student such as myself.

Of course it would not surprise you to learn that the “film” is very episodic, and not just because it wasn’t originally a feature; each short comprises roughly two stories usually connected only by vague, thematic concerns, and this feeling of disunity is perhaps the only weakness of the Pooh tales, which probably would be better viewed separately when it comes right down to it. What makes this work at all is the use of the Narrator character, through which the filmmakers introduce a degree of ‘meta” that is still fresh and surprising even when, 21 years later, we live in an age increasingly familiar with such fictional self-referentiality. The Narrator manipulates the book and firmly locates the characters within its confines. It’s one of my fondest memories of the Pooh cartoons, alongside the nostalgic pleasure of Pooh himself, once more.

Source: Buena Vista DVD
20 Jun, 9:08 PM

Killer of Sheep

Charles Burnett, USA, 1977
3.5 out of 4 stars

You may or may not have heard of this film; it's was a UCLA film school thesis long ago, never got distribution until last year due to music rights issues (too expensive). It's basically European-style neo-realism applied to a depiction of working-class life in Watts (and if all that sounds like I am cribbing off of introductory remarks by academics from my university, well that's because I am).

I'm afraid that I don't really have much to add to what others have said about this film, but I'll solider on anyway since this may possibly be your introduction to it. I was impressed by the degree to which, as many pointed out, narrative was entirely eschewed throughout. Sometimes I find this frustrating, but it seems both appropriate and effective in this instance. Too many films about oppressed people rely too heavily on grand, impending tragedy, while the Hollywood version usually relies on implausible or unearned, uplift, but Burnett shows us that things are not that simple in this environment. He chooses to focus, to some extent, on the unspoken turmoil of a family man working in a slaughterhouse, drawing obvious but understated parallels between his job and the conditions of living in his neighborhood. People bluster their way through various mundane (and sometimes, grimly hilarious) situations, but are largely unable to articulate their deeper problems. Interspersed throughout are scenes of children playing, roughly, trying to claim their post-industrial spaces as best they can, visually paralleled directly with the sheep. I can't claim that I was able to come to that profound of an understanding of the film on my own, so I will say that I appreciated seeing it in this "academic" context. It's worth a look as long as you know what you are getting into!

Source: New Yorker DVD
17 Jan, 6:26 PM

Annie Hall

Woody Allen, USA, 1977
3.5 out of 4 stars

At first I was worried. I consider Allen, perhaps unfairly, to be a misogynist at best, a child molester at worst (how the icons of the 70s have fallen – in his case, due to both new ideas in general and new misdeeds on his part) so I wasn’t sure if I would enjoy a film that began with his self-indulgent mug filling up the screen while he told unfunny jokes and made observations about himself that didn’t seem to be particularly insightful.

That said, whatever baggage Allen carries for me as a kid from the MTV generation who’s never even seen one of his films before was basically set aside after that brief sequence, after which the film became funnier and more insightful at a lightning pace.

I can only imagine that some aspects of this film were much more revolutionary when it came out, such as the confessional, talking-to-the-camera aspect of it. While we may have suffered more than benefited from this development (in my opinion, many much less talented comedians have become way too self-centered and self-indulgent in their films these days), it works surprisingly well here. Allen is quite funny and his persona is more likeable and more complex than it seems at first glance.

The off-kilter chronology of the film is something else that we see in a lot of self-consciously “quirky” movies that are released today, and it’s here that we also see Allen work with greater skill (and of course, with more innovation) than most of his imitators, seeming to tap into an emotional logic with his chronology rather than merely indulge in clever gimmicks).

Finally, the title character, as performed by Diane Keaton, is given much more personal and self than I would have expected. Of course, Allen’s persona dominates the film’s narrative and threatens to squeeze out Annie’s perspective entirely, but Allen still provides Keaton with enough moments to bring across herself as an equal partner in the relationship and a person of her own. Compare this to something like Zach Braff’s Garden State, where Natalie Portman’s character (through no fault of her own) is more a collection of attractive quirks than something approaching a self-possessed character with her own presence.

And of course, it’s just a really funny film. From what I hear, I shouldn’t ruin it by watching his later work, in which his bad urges seem to get the better of him.

Source: Warner DVD
23 Dec, 8:13 PM

The Marriage of Maria Braun

(Die Ehe der Maria Braun)
Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Germany, 1979
4 out of 4 stars

The other film I saw by R.W. Fassbinder, one of those famous European “arty” directors, demanded a lot more of the viewer (but was still good), but this is good in a different way. I’ve seen it described as an “epic” and there’s definitely a touch of bombast here. The movie is about a young woman who marries a soldier very near the end of the war, and then finds increasingly compromising ways to make do when, after the war ends, his return proves increasingly unlikely. That is to say, she never stops believing he’ll come back, but if anything, it’s her soul that becomes compromised even though she herself, materially, seems to be thriving.

Fassbinder clearly had a problem with the complacency of his postwar Germany, and here he does an excellent job of levying his critique against the society in general through the depiction of this one opportunistic woman. Lest this sound like some kind of misogynist scapegoating, let me be clear that the men don’t exactly come off clean either. Maria doesn’t allow herself to be exploited, but ultimately, she exploits herself, and Hanna Schygulla turns in an excellent performance while bringing this across to the viewer. The film is also visually stunning, vibrant but also suggesting decay, and the plot is very compelling. Although there are plenty of undertones, it doesn’t necessarily have the air of an “art film” in its accessibility (although I may be wrong).

Source: Home Vision DVD
18 November, 10:28 AM

Ali: Fear Eats the Soul

(Angst essen Seele auf)
Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Germany, 1974
4 out of 4 stars

This film is the starkest thing I’ve ever seen in such bright (if ultimately eery) colors. It’s a “more-than-meets-the-eye” melodrama about intergenerational and interracial love back when such things were even more frowned upon (and even the protagonist is shown, in odd ways, to have Hitler on the brain, despite her love for a younger Arab man). Even before they get together (fairly early on) there is such a weird sense of menace and discomfort, as if you’re being forced to see how strange and “wrong” this is even though you yourself don’t feel it personally. Everyone who thought Crash was somehow insightful should watch this film, because it’s definitely the best film about racism that I’ve ever seen, even though it’s also “more” than that. The first part of the film is not oblique at all; if anything, it’s direct, like a series of punches to the gut. The final third, by contrast, moves inward more as we see the price of compromise (and some other factors that are more difficult to understand). This is one of those film-school classics that actually lives up to its reputation, and I strongly recommend it.

Source: Home Vision DVD
6 August, 8:49 PM

Blazing Saddles

Mel Brooks, USA, 1974
3 out of 4 stars

Maybe I jinxed it by reading about how important it was too many times, but it was unquestionably funnier and a better film than The Producers, which had me beginning to wonder if Mel Brooks was anything like what he was cracked up to be. While there seem to be some lulls, Brooks overall succeeds at depicting outrageous racism, often without much humor to shield the audience or the protagonist from its blunt impact, and then succeeds in depicting an almost cartoonish comedic effort to squash it. It’s a “deconstruction” of the western in that it fills in the blanks, rather than, say, the thoughtless revisionism that leads to casting Will Smith as the lead in Wild, Wild West and hoping we’ll accept that no white character in the film notices.It is, then, interesting to see how positive and forceful the political message of this film is, considering that the most one gets out of Producers is that gays and Germans are allegedly funny. The film isn’t always a laugh-riot, but it earns our patience.

Source: Warner DVD
16 July, 9:36 PM

Superman

Richard Donner, UK, 1978
Two and a half stars

I know this film is generally well-regarded, but I can’t help but think that this is because of what it was at the time, rather than how well it stands up now. I’m sure it was quite revolutionary to have a film come out that showed a superhero as an adult, best indicated by the scene where he goes flying with Lois and makes the Peter Pan comment. I’m sure this went a long way to erasing all those “bam, pow” notions that the television adaptation of that other DC property put into the heads of non-comics fans. And even though the effects aren’t perfect, it’s fun to see Superman pick up helicopters. In fact I’d say all the parts where he is flying are probably the best

Nevertheless, most of this movie doesn’t work. The adaptation of Superman’s origin is really weak. If you know me, you know I’m not saying that because it’s “not faithful.” It’s actually quite similar to Batman Begins in that they took bits and pieces from everywhere, but making that comparison shows you how far they fell short here. The Marlon Brando floating head thing is no substitute for his parents actually playing some part in his decision to become a superhero. In fact, we don’t even see any kind of decision! It’s really astonishing how many things are conveyed in sloppy shorthand considering how long the film is, at least in this director’s cut.

That would of course be because the film spends too long with its stunt-casting. Hackman’s Luthor is atrocious, absolutely unforgivable (especially his “comic” sidekicks). And the aforementioned Brando head (as well as the Brando on Krypton prologue) is pretty rotten too. I do like the portrayal of Clark Kent for the most part; it’s overdone, but there’s a point to it. Overall though, the plot is very shoddy, and not really up to Superman’s standards. Here’s looking forward to the next installment!

Source: Warner DVD
27 March, 9:25 PM

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Terry Gilliam & Terry Jones, UK, 1975
3.5 out of 4 stars

I’ve decided that the funniest part is the bit with the killer rabbit, if only because I laughed the loudest for that. I was tempted to watch the whole thing with the subtitles borrowed from Henry IV, Part II, but that might get old I figure.

Source: Sony DVD
12 March, 11 PM

The Long Goodbye

Robert Altman, USA, 1973
3 out of 4 stars

I think that when you a person born in 1981, watching a character from the 1940s (Phillip Marlowe) whose adventures you are not familiar with, inexplicably (no reference is made to the incongruity, you have to read reviews or watch the special features) transported to the 1970s… well, it’s too many degrees of temporal separation. The 40s, the 70s… it sounds idiotic to say this since you’d think I could tell the difference between the two, but the anachronism of the Marlowe character wasn’t often very apparent to me, he just seemed like a slightly archaic hero. I also think I’m not the biggest fan of Robert Altman’s style, or perhaps I should just leave the subtitling on throughout the film. The thing is, if you’re never quite clear what everyone is saying, it’s like no one is saying anything after a while.

Source: MGM DVD
4 February, 10 PM

Chinatown

Roman Polanski, USA, 1974
4 out of 4 stars

Excellent, a “classic” that actually lives up to the film geek hype. I don’t think I realized that Jack Nicholson used to be a bad-ass (the old man version just isn’t cutting it), and the plot really hits you, especially at the end, which admittedly does feel tacked on, all the more so after you learn that Roman Polanski rewrote it against the screenwriter’s wishes (it works thematically but it doesn’t entirely make sense with regards to plot and characters). Without knowing enough about moviemaking I can tell that it’s very well shot. The idea of Chinatown being a menacing place not because of anything that we see actually happen there, but because of the bad memories they have of what has happened there, memories that ultimately have no relevance what happens at the end.

Finally, the effect of having his snooping go on in real time (actually showing him fiddle around until the receptionist gets fed up and gets him who he’s asked to see) is quite amazing. You’d think that would only fly in art flicks, and it’d be boring regardless, but I guess the 1970s were a different time for movies, and more importantly, Nicholson can pull it off here.

Source: Paramount DVD
20 January, 10:30 PM