An hour and half into Mutiny on the Bounty, and finally, there is a mutiny on the ship. Unlike the previous films and posts, I'm writing this post as I attempt to finish this film. While I find the acting outstanding (it's no surprise that the three leading men were all nominated for Best Actor the same year the film won Best Picture) and the cinematography is impressive, the actual story takes too long to get started, and by the time it starts, I'm no longer interested.
According to the opening background information, the story is based on a true mutiny that changed the way British ships operated. Captain Bligh is captain on the Bounty, and he rules with an iron fist. Bligh believes that control is best achieved through fear, and when sailors disobey, he punishes harshly with flogging (whipping). The first hour of the film is the ship's journey to Tahiti to pick up breadfruit plants for the West Indies. Several crew members die on the voyage, one due to flogging. Bligh's brutality is overwhelming terrible, and I kept thinking the mutiny would happen any time but no. It just kept going on and on and on. The mutiny doesn't occur until they leave Tahiti.
Like I said, the acting is solid. Clark Gable plays Fletcher Christian, the first officer who leads the mutiny. Gable is outstanding. I kept thinking about the last film I watched for this blog, It Happened One Night, and how Gable plays such a significantly different character. His ability to transform into this role is truly impressive. But that, along with other actors, it's insufficient to make this 132 minute film bearable.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
It Happened One Night: 1934
As the first romantic comedy to win best picture, It Happened One Night is simply pure enjoyment on screen. Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable star, and in true romantic comedy fashion, they despise each other at first only to fall in love and eventually end up together, despite some difficulties and misunderstandings. When films like this win Best Picture, I find myself liking the Academy more because it shows that no matter the genre, some films are universally outstanding.
It Happened One Night is an easy movie to watch. Within the first 10 minutes, I found myself caught up in Ellie's plight against her controlling father and her desire to make her own decisions. At the same time, I scoffed like Peter when Ellie clearly shows that she thinks money will solve all problems. The chemistry between Colbert and Gable is perfect: the right amount of flirtation and frustration. They made me smile, and when they were apart, I felt their pain and confusion. This film is what modern romantic comedies should strive to be. Instead of using sex to create chemistry, the characters should use their wits, which is exactly what 1930s audiences would allow on screen. And in doing so, the romantic comedies like It Happened One Night were challenged to show love through sparring and tearing down the Walls of Jericho (watch the movie and you'll get the reference).
It Happened One Night is an easy movie to watch. Within the first 10 minutes, I found myself caught up in Ellie's plight against her controlling father and her desire to make her own decisions. At the same time, I scoffed like Peter when Ellie clearly shows that she thinks money will solve all problems. The chemistry between Colbert and Gable is perfect: the right amount of flirtation and frustration. They made me smile, and when they were apart, I felt their pain and confusion. This film is what modern romantic comedies should strive to be. Instead of using sex to create chemistry, the characters should use their wits, which is exactly what 1930s audiences would allow on screen. And in doing so, the romantic comedies like It Happened One Night were challenged to show love through sparring and tearing down the Walls of Jericho (watch the movie and you'll get the reference).
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Cavalcade: 1932/1933
So I may be an English teacher, but I have to admit,
when I picked up Cavalcade,
I had no idea what the title of the movie actually meant. According to
dictionary.com, there are a few definitions:
1. a procession of persons riding on horses, in horsedrawn carriages, in cars, etc.
2. any procession
3. any noteworthy series, as of events or activities.
What I should have done was look the definition up BEFORE watching the movie because a couple minor aspects of the film that I found odd make so much more sense now.
Cavalcade is the story of two women, both wives and mothers, who experience happiness, fear, and tragedy in England. Their stories start on New Year's Eve 1899. Jane is the wealthy one. Her husband Robert and her two sons are the center of her life, just as they should be in early 1900 England. Ellen and her husband Alfred are two of their servants, and although they are servants, their story is equally treated in the film. As the film progresses and the men head off to fight in the Boer War, Jane and Ellen become the focus. Essentially, the film presents a series of events (a cavalcade) and their consequences for each woman in parallel stories, with the women encountering each other only a few times after Alfred and Ellen leave their positions as domestic servants to run a pub.
Throughout the film, the director used varying transitions to show the passage of time. The film ends on New Year's Even 1932, and to make the passage of time clear, the director used text slides to present years and/or information between each event. He also used footage of men riding on horseback, a long line of them, also known as a cavalcade. This was the transition that I found so odd, but now that I know what a cavalcade is, it makes sense (but it's still a little cheesy).
I have to admit, Cavalcade really pulled me in. Jane, played by Diana Wynyard who was nominated for an Oscar for the role, is a strong woman. When her husband and later her son leave for war, she does not wallow in sorrow. Clearly, she is distraught, but she remains strong. She is the one who comments that time changes everything, and while it is true to some degree in her life, it is even more apparent in Ellen's life.
Like two of the other movies I've watched so far, Cavalcade incorporates World War I in its storyline. It is one of the events in Jane and Ellen's lives, and while the director could have minimized the war footage, he didn't, and the film benefits. The director uses a series of montages and text slides to show the progression of the war. As the years pass, the montages grow darker, with more men dying, showing the devastation of the war on England. At the end of the war, on Armistice Day, there is an amazing scene where there are must be thousands of people celebrating on the streets of London. The camera pans over the crowd, zooming in for close shots...there are clearly no digital extras here. I can't imagine how the director managed to pull this scene off, but the thousands of extras made for an impressive scene where Jane joins the crowd to celebrate the end of the war even though the war has brought her nothing but suffering.
If you're looking for an older film to watch, I definitely recommend Cavalcade. The film work itself is impressive, and the story is engaging (it's based on Noel Coward's play). Unlike some of the other films I've watched for this project, this was one I had no trouble watching.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Grand Hotel: 1931/1932
"People come, people go, nothing ever happens"--this line from the doctor easily sums up the purpose of Grand Hotel. While things do happen, to the new guests of the hotel, whatever happened before doesn't really matter, so in a sense, "nothing ever happens." The irony of this line is over the course of the film, two people fall in love, one person is murdered, and one person wins big in his first gambling experience, not to mention the deception and near adultery.
My husband and I recently saw Grand Budapest Hotel, so I couldn't help but make a few comparisons between the two films while watching Grand Hotel, which is clearly a more serious film in that there is little comedy. One of my favorite scenes from Grand Hotel is towards the end when the concierge checks the bellboys' hands for cleanliness. It's this moment that reminds the audience that these interactions are occurring in a public hotel, not in a private home. The audience is put in its place as observers, the rubber-neckers slowing down to look at this devastating car accident and human tragedy. Zero in Grand Budapest Hotel is one of those people watchers at first, but like the good bellboy he is, he doesn't share what sees. We, instead, are privy to it because we are along for the ride. Both films reveal what happens in hotels but of different areas: Grand Hotel focuses on the wealthy clientele whereas Grand Budapest Hotel focuses on the attentive, well-trained staff. What makes Grand Hotel really different is that everything that happens in the hotel seems contained to this place...we don't see how what happens in the hotel affects the characters' lives outside of the hotel. We are left to figure this out on our own.
Of the five award winners I've watched so far, I have to say that Grand Hotel was the best acting so far. I truly believed each person was who he/she was portraying, even the French dancer (Greta Garbo) who seemed over the top at first, but once I adjusted to the performance, it just seemed like Garbo was the dramatic, highly emotional dancer, not an actress pretending to be one.The Baron (John Barrymore) was so deceptive; at points, I wondered how much truth was in his words, but then his actions would show him to be an honest yet flawed man.
Having seen two movies in the past two months set in luxurious hotels in foreign countries, I wonder how many other films fit this description. Certainly the stories are different, but the setting is so similar. If you know a film set in a hotel, let me know. This may be a whole genre that I'm just discovering. And perhaps Grand Hotel started it all???
My husband and I recently saw Grand Budapest Hotel, so I couldn't help but make a few comparisons between the two films while watching Grand Hotel, which is clearly a more serious film in that there is little comedy. One of my favorite scenes from Grand Hotel is towards the end when the concierge checks the bellboys' hands for cleanliness. It's this moment that reminds the audience that these interactions are occurring in a public hotel, not in a private home. The audience is put in its place as observers, the rubber-neckers slowing down to look at this devastating car accident and human tragedy. Zero in Grand Budapest Hotel is one of those people watchers at first, but like the good bellboy he is, he doesn't share what sees. We, instead, are privy to it because we are along for the ride. Both films reveal what happens in hotels but of different areas: Grand Hotel focuses on the wealthy clientele whereas Grand Budapest Hotel focuses on the attentive, well-trained staff. What makes Grand Hotel really different is that everything that happens in the hotel seems contained to this place...we don't see how what happens in the hotel affects the characters' lives outside of the hotel. We are left to figure this out on our own.
Of the five award winners I've watched so far, I have to say that Grand Hotel was the best acting so far. I truly believed each person was who he/she was portraying, even the French dancer (Greta Garbo) who seemed over the top at first, but once I adjusted to the performance, it just seemed like Garbo was the dramatic, highly emotional dancer, not an actress pretending to be one.The Baron (John Barrymore) was so deceptive; at points, I wondered how much truth was in his words, but then his actions would show him to be an honest yet flawed man.
Having seen two movies in the past two months set in luxurious hotels in foreign countries, I wonder how many other films fit this description. Certainly the stories are different, but the setting is so similar. If you know a film set in a hotel, let me know. This may be a whole genre that I'm just discovering. And perhaps Grand Hotel started it all???
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Cimarron: 1930/1931
Set in Oklahoma during the late 1800s, Cimarron is the story of Yancey and Sabra Cravat and his dreams of settling in a new territory. The film begins with Yancey participating in the 1893 land rush when President Harrison opened recently acquired Native American lands to any and all US citizens interested in having a homestead. Yancey has his eye on a particular plot but, due to a tricky female, loses his claim. Yancey, however, does not give up his dream of building a new society, so he returns to Witchita to pick up his wife Sabra and their four year old son Cimarron, Cim for short, and the family moves to Osage, a town that consists of saloons, gambling halls, and tents. Yancey plans to start a newspaper and to continue his fight for Native American rights. Shocked by their new home, Sabra is initially fearful but soon establishes a women's group and settles into their life in Osage.
In the first hour or so of this film, I thought I was watching Yancey's story, but during the second half, I realized that it is actually Sabra's story. Yancey has wanderlust; his adventurous nature causes him to selfishly abandon his family and seek new adventure. He only stays in Osage for four years and leaves when his daughter is toddler to head further west for another land rush. He's gone for five years, and Sabra, on her own, continues his newspaper and turns it from a weekly to a daily. Although she initially seems weak, Sabra has a quiet strength about her. She definitely fits a woman of her time period; whenever Yancey returns, she becomes obedient and sees him as the head of the household even though she's been running things just fine without him (she does love him, though, so her obedience may be connected to that). But while she fits that role, at the same time, she breaks it by running the newspaper and towards the end of her life becoming elected to be a U.S. representative for Oklahoma. Sabra is, despite her weak moments, a likable, independent female lead whereas Yancey comes off as being a selfish jerk more interested in making a name for himself than supporting his family. And when he returns, he expects everyone to be thrilled to see him, to praise him. It's incredibly obnoxious, and I wonder if that is how the role was meant to be played or just how the actor was.
I don't typically watch Westerns, but I have to say that this one worked for me. The first hour was pretty slow, but the second part picked up. The director used text screens to transition from one time period to the next and even included historical context, so at times, it felt more like I was watching historical fiction than a western. What I would have liked more knowledge of was the title of the film. The son was named Cimarron, and it's referenced as an "Indian" name in the film when Sabra's mother complains of her son-in-law who is so obsessed with "Indians" that he named his son this. Beyond this, I didn't catch much else about the name...other than seeing how fitting the name is when Cim falls in love with Ruby, a Native American girl, and decides to marry her against his mother's wishes (his father supports him). Later, Sabra accepts Ruby, which shows how she changes throughout the film.
Overall, Cimarron was a pleasant surprise.
In the first hour or so of this film, I thought I was watching Yancey's story, but during the second half, I realized that it is actually Sabra's story. Yancey has wanderlust; his adventurous nature causes him to selfishly abandon his family and seek new adventure. He only stays in Osage for four years and leaves when his daughter is toddler to head further west for another land rush. He's gone for five years, and Sabra, on her own, continues his newspaper and turns it from a weekly to a daily. Although she initially seems weak, Sabra has a quiet strength about her. She definitely fits a woman of her time period; whenever Yancey returns, she becomes obedient and sees him as the head of the household even though she's been running things just fine without him (she does love him, though, so her obedience may be connected to that). But while she fits that role, at the same time, she breaks it by running the newspaper and towards the end of her life becoming elected to be a U.S. representative for Oklahoma. Sabra is, despite her weak moments, a likable, independent female lead whereas Yancey comes off as being a selfish jerk more interested in making a name for himself than supporting his family. And when he returns, he expects everyone to be thrilled to see him, to praise him. It's incredibly obnoxious, and I wonder if that is how the role was meant to be played or just how the actor was.
I don't typically watch Westerns, but I have to say that this one worked for me. The first hour was pretty slow, but the second part picked up. The director used text screens to transition from one time period to the next and even included historical context, so at times, it felt more like I was watching historical fiction than a western. What I would have liked more knowledge of was the title of the film. The son was named Cimarron, and it's referenced as an "Indian" name in the film when Sabra's mother complains of her son-in-law who is so obsessed with "Indians" that he named his son this. Beyond this, I didn't catch much else about the name...other than seeing how fitting the name is when Cim falls in love with Ruby, a Native American girl, and decides to marry her against his mother's wishes (his father supports him). Later, Sabra accepts Ruby, which shows how she changes throughout the film.
Overall, Cimarron was a pleasant surprise.
Friday, June 6, 2014
All Quiet on the Western Front: 1929/1930
The third movie ever to win an Academy Award was another war movie, but All Quiet on the Western Front is significantly different from Wings. If you want the truth about war, then All Quiet on the Western Front is definitely the film to watch. The film follows a group of German school boys whose teacher inspires them to join the Army and fight in France in World War I. Glorifying war, the teacher goes on and on about serving one's country and becoming a man, speaking directly to these teen boys' dreams. But when the boys go to war, they realize the harsh reality of combat.
What struck me about the film was how the director panned the battle field. The camera would be in the trenches on the German side, and from that eye level, the audience watches the incoming French troops being shot down. It's not overdone, like some war movies today with excessive explosions and intense ammunition rounds; instead, All Quiet on the Western Front shows that some soldiers are hit and some continue forward. When the soldiers are hit, they don't necessarily die immediately, and that is probably the most heart-wrenching aspect of the battle scenes. The fellow soldiers and the viewer must watch someone slowly die. The same happens in the hospital scenes, of which there are several. In these scenes, soldiers lie in bed, complaining of pain in amputated limbs and wounds that will not heal. War becomes very real.
Overall, the film seemed incredibly unique to me in that at several times there didn't seem to be a main character. The main character seems to emerge as one of the few men left standing after repeated battles; I didn't figure out who he was until over halfway through the 144 minute film. There is also a distinct lack of music in the movie; in battle scenes, you hear gunfire and explosions but no music to build the intensity. This just adds to the realism; war doesn't have a soundtrack that includes violins or brass. It took me three nights to watch this film, but it seemed longer because of the grim reality. I knew it wasn't going to end well for the characters (and it didn't let me down on that prediction), yet I still watched the film to see how it would end, to see the outcome of the main character, whether it was life or death (I won't spoil that for you).
Moving on, tonight I'll be watching Cimarron, a western...not my usual movie genre.
What struck me about the film was how the director panned the battle field. The camera would be in the trenches on the German side, and from that eye level, the audience watches the incoming French troops being shot down. It's not overdone, like some war movies today with excessive explosions and intense ammunition rounds; instead, All Quiet on the Western Front shows that some soldiers are hit and some continue forward. When the soldiers are hit, they don't necessarily die immediately, and that is probably the most heart-wrenching aspect of the battle scenes. The fellow soldiers and the viewer must watch someone slowly die. The same happens in the hospital scenes, of which there are several. In these scenes, soldiers lie in bed, complaining of pain in amputated limbs and wounds that will not heal. War becomes very real.
Overall, the film seemed incredibly unique to me in that at several times there didn't seem to be a main character. The main character seems to emerge as one of the few men left standing after repeated battles; I didn't figure out who he was until over halfway through the 144 minute film. There is also a distinct lack of music in the movie; in battle scenes, you hear gunfire and explosions but no music to build the intensity. This just adds to the realism; war doesn't have a soundtrack that includes violins or brass. It took me three nights to watch this film, but it seemed longer because of the grim reality. I knew it wasn't going to end well for the characters (and it didn't let me down on that prediction), yet I still watched the film to see how it would end, to see the outcome of the main character, whether it was life or death (I won't spoil that for you).
Moving on, tonight I'll be watching Cimarron, a western...not my usual movie genre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)