i luv cinema

Home Archives for Classics

By 11 Comments

Future Classic Movie: Hunger (2008)

First, I would like to thank Paula of Paula’s Cinema Club for asking me to take part in the blogathon, Future Classic Movies. Here is the Rule of Engagement:

The job is to predict at least one movie from 2000 to the present that will endure 30-40+ years into the future, much like CASABLANCA or GONE WITH THE WIND have done today. Bonus predictions could be who will be hosting on this channel and how will movies be delivered to the consumer (hologram, chip in the brain, etc.).

After much deliberation and back and forth, I have decided on Steve McQueen’s 2008 feature film debut Hunger. I have only seen it once and the experience had such an impact on me that I cannot imagine that this film will be forgotten by any and all who see it.

Simply stated this is an amazing debut for the Turner Prize winner; he handles the film with a level of confidence that you would expect in someone very experienced. For me this is a perfect example of cinema as an art form. Hunger features Michael Fassbender (in his breakthrough performance) and Liam Cunningham (The Guard).

The story is a very controversial one that centers on IRA member Bobby Sands (Fassbender), who along with his fellow imprisoned IRA members embarked on a hunger strike. This series of events would lead to Sands’ demise.

Not to diminish the political impact or significance of the events surrounding the film, but this is part of the reason that I feel the film will continue to be a source of debate in the decades to come.

As a work of cinematic art, McQueen uses very few words to tell us an emotionally charged story, often in disturbingly graphic detail, about the conditions the inmates placed themselves under. On a more esoteric level, the piece is on a statement on the lengths an individual (or group of individuals) will go to for a set of convicted beliefs. McQueen also manages to tow the fine line of not necessarily taking sides with the issue. In fact, in the film’s only dialogue – heavy scene between Sands and Liam Cunningham’s priest’s demonstrates the fine line between passion, conviction and irrational fervor.

By 9 Comments

A Tale of Two Silents

This past week was a bit of a triumph for me. I finally caught up with a couple of classic silent films I was told are “must see.” My reaction to each piece was a personal revelation.

Let’s start with City Lights, the 1931 silent feature written, directed and starring one Charlie Chaplin.

At the time of the film’s release, silent pictures were on the wane, ushered in by 1929’s The Jazz Singer. So you can imagine how worried Chaplin was about the reception this film would receive in the public. Chaplin need not have worried.

The story of “The Tramp” and his love for the blind Flower Girl (Virginia Cherrill) was equally parts funny and enchanting. In other words, I absolutely loved it. There is something about the coordination of the physical, narrative and musical performance that pulls you in and does not let go.

Even if you are not a fan of silent film, I can guarantee that this is a great entrée into the genre.

 

Metropolis

The story of the multiple restoration efforts has become something of legend. I feel as if that these stories only added to the idea of Fritz Lang’s sci-fi extravaganza as a “lost masterpiece.” As a result, Metropolis has been on my must-watch list and now, I was going to witness the mastery first-hand.

Click here for Metropolis synopsis (source: IMDb)

 

Well, while there is no doubt that the film is visually arresting in scale, scope and ambition (there was nothing like it at the time), I found the narrative quite wanting and middling in places. This definitely was not the futuristic dystopia I was hoped to see. But I was determined – I kept on watching, hoping at once to have that “eureka” moment, where I understand what the fuss was all about. Unfortunately that moment never came for me.

Let me clarify: the film is not bad, but rather I did not respond to it in the way I really wanted to. This somewhat (but not intentional) contrarian view on Metropolis left me wondering … did anyone have the same reaction after seeing it?

By 4 Comments

Noël Coward/David Lean’s “Blithe Spirit” (1945)

Kay Hammond as Elvira

For the past couple of weeks I have been going on a bit about the Noël Coward celebration taking place in NYC and the Film Society of Lincoln Center’s Coward on Film programming series to go along with it. This past Saturday, I had the pleasure of catching a double feature of Brief Encounter and the subject of this post, the highbrow comedy Blithe Spirit.

This was the third of four collaborations between Coward and renowned director David Lean and based on Coward’s long running West End play (ran for nearly 2000 performances – longer than the whole of WWII)!

This screening was especially exciting because the audience was treated to a newly restored 35mm print of the film (in vibrant Technicolor, no less). This guaranteed that seeing it on the big screen would not disappoint. Thank you BFI (British Film Institute).

In terms of plot, the BFI  (website) offers this very succinct and on point synopsis:

A harmless séance at the home of novelist Charles Condomine (Rex Harrison) and his wife Ruth (Constance Cummings) summons up the ghost of Charles’ glamorous first wife Elvira (Kay Hammond in a reprisal of her stage role).

With respect to the end product, Coward himself thought the film was a largely inferior product to the stage play. In fact he used words which are not suitable for this website to describe it.

For my part, there were enough moments that had me cracking up, most notably …

  • The interaction of Charles, Ruth and Elvira in their scenes. I can only imagine how wonderfully this translated on the stage.
  • The scene in which Charles and Ruth are arguing and the subject of past relationships comes up – “If you’re trying to compile an inventory of my sex life, I feel it only fair to warn you that you’ve omitted several episodes. I shall consult my diary and give you a complete list after lunch.”  This was line was excised from the American release of the film (deemed too risqué). Source: Wikipedia
  • The revelation of the cause of Elvira’s death – I was floored!
  • Madame Arcati’s absent-mindedness and incompetence at 1) not realizing what she has unleashed and 2) her several failed attempts at trying to make it right. Rutherford does scatter-brained very well.

One thing that absolutely DID NOT work to for me was the desired affect was the ghastly ghostly makeup – the ethereal, ectoplasmic other-worldliness that was the goal was completely lost in the Technicolor haze. Instead of Statue of Liberty oxidized green, maybe they should have gone for a white or off white.

Another issue of concern is David Lean’s direction. Granted, this film was quite early in his career (well before the grand, sweeping epics that would become his trademark), but it is clear that his comfort zone is in the realm of drama, not comedy. In fact, Rex Harrison allegedly was not happy with how Lean handled the production.

In the end I was able to overlook these issues because the writing and acting worked well.

 

A BIT OF TRIVIA: Ironically, according to Coward scholar and introducer of the film, curator Brad Rosenstein, Margaret Rutherford  (Madame Arcati) did not  “get” the humor of the play or film. This is ironic because she delivers a great share of the laughs in the film.

 

totalfilm600movieblogs