Ronhamprod

The Running Man (1987)
Dir: Paul Michael Glaser
Stars: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Dawson, Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto and Jesse “The Body” Ventura

The film opens in a prison.  Must be the future.  There’s an attempted breakout led by cigar smoking Ben Richards, or as some folks refer to him, “The Butcher of Bakersfield.”  Of course, we know him simply as Arnie.  The breakout’s going pretty well when one of the prisoners decides to run for the prison border before the computer geek can deactivate some sort of detection field… and the poor guy’s head gets blown to bits by the explosive necklace around his neck.  So THAT’S the type of movie it’s going to be, eh?  Typical super-action-’80s flick!  And let me tell you, these movies can quench your action-adventure thirst like no other (see also the catalogs of Van Damme, Stallone, Seagal and all of the Lethal Weapon movies…)

Well, soon we’re in the city, with the now familiar brooding and synthesizer/80s style musical score playing to remind us that trouble is brewing, it’s fermenting, it’s getting very close.  Richards and gang are meeting with some mercenary-resistance types who are handy at removing the explosive collars still wrapped round the prisoners’ throats.  As Richards sits in the chair to have his collar remove, the resistance fighters pitch him on the idea of joining their gang and fighting the corporation that kind of runs society with the government.  The only way the corporation seems to maintain control is by airing this popular, three hour long game show called The Running Man, on which prisoners like themselves run for their lives from various “stalkers” in a territory called “the zone.”  But, if they are still alive after the three hours, they’ve earned their freedom!  Richards scoffs at all this nonsense – both the idea of joining the gang and this silly show – and insists he’s going to go to Hawaii with his brother and that’s where the story ends.

Well, it doesn’t, obviously.  When Richards goes to his brother’s apartment, he finds it’s now inhabited by the lovely and fit Amber Mendez.  He’s none too happy to see her, but figures he can use her as cover to get to the airport and Hawaii.  Well, he doesn’t, obviously.  At the airport, Amber exposes Richards, and he’s taken into custody by these SWAT team looking dudes who fire a really fun rope/net catcher thing at him – those of you who’ve seen this film know what I’m talking about!  It’s pretty sweet.

Regardless, Damon Killian, who’s the host of The Running Man, gets a look at Richards trying to escape both the airport and the prison from a news report on TV.  He insists on getting this big man to play the game.  It’s worth mentioning that so far there have been, well, TWO WINNERS.  OK.  Could be just me, but I’ve watched this film a few times and I never got the impression that The Running Man was in its first or second season?  Regardless, as you might expect, Richards has no plan to submit to Killian and play his stupid game.  So, as a little convincer, Killian shows Richards video of his fellow escapees and says if he doesn’t go on, they will.  So, onto the show he goes, led by a bunch of leotard clad ladies and into a little, durable looking cage which is fired into a huge tube and into “the zone” where he will be tracked by the stalkers.

While they’re leading Richards in, the show displays a video of what Richards did to the live studio audience.  Apparently, he went to jail for shooting countless civilians who were rioting for more food.  But we remember from the first scene that it wasn’t like that at all: Richards wouldn’t follow orders and fire on the foot riot, so his fellow officers in the helicopter beat the snot of him and then fired on the folks anyhow.  But, Killian and the network have re-cut the tape.  As if this little humiliation weren’t enough, Killian has gone back on his promise and put Weiss and Laughlin, Richards’ fellow prison escapees, in two other cages to send into the zone!  Ruh roh… all Richards can say to Killian before he’s propelled into the zone is, “I’ll be back.”  To which Killian replies, “Only in a rerun.”  God, I do love these 80s dialogue exchanges… I do love them so.

What follows is a bunch of twists and turns and battles with the physically huge and colorful stalkers including Buzz Saw, Sub Zero, Dynamo, Fireball and of course, Captain Freedom – those of you who’ve seen the film can confirm that I’m not making these names up.  To say that this is a penultimate ’80s action flick would be most appropriate: we have huge, muscle-bulging stars toting machine guns and other violent weaponry.  We have the gorgeous woman who helps out at the right times.  We got a TV personality that stars as the villain and even a pretty great hair-band ’80s song to play over the credits!  You can’t say “spoiler alert needed,” because you already know what I’m going to say: the hero gives the villain exactly what he deserves, bucks the system and gets the girl!  What’s not to like!

By the way, does any of this sound familiar?  See my next post on The Hunger Games to see what I’m talking about (and I’m sure I’m not the only one associating these two films…)

Take Shelter (2011)
Dir: Jeff Nichols
Stars: Michael Shannon, Jessica Chastain and Shea Whigham

I love that line in The Matrix, when Morpheus asks Neo something to the effect of whether he’s ever had a dream that seemed so real that it was difficult to tell fantasy from reality?  With Take Shelter, it’s as if the director, Jeff Nichols, took that question and made a movie of it! The opening scene of Shelter supports my suspicion: Curtis, played masterfully by Michael Shannon, is standing in the driveway of his rural Ohio home when he notices a mysterious cloud above.  It’s monstrous, as if it’s just waiting for the precise moment to funnel down into a tornado.  But instead, rain starts to fall on him… and Curtis looks at his hands… and it seems to be motor oil?  Well, this does not bode well!  It’s literally :90 seconds into the film and I’m hooked.

The manner in which this scene is presented really toes that line between dream and reality.  I had to go back and watch it again, and the signs are somewhat there, but the viewer isn’t necessarily wrong in viewing the montage as reality.  Regardless, this episode is the first of several dreams that poor Curtis experiences over the course of Act One.  A half hour into the film, Curtis is so worried about the bizarre, post-apocalyptic dreams he’s been having that he decides to build a massive tornado shelter in his backyard – and he doesn’t care what it costs!  To put Curtis’ rash decision in perspective, one dream involved him meandering into his backyard to watch his little girl playing.  This action, at first, seems very run of the mill.  There’s even the family dog tied to a tree nearby.  But then, the storm starts to come again (incidentally, this time we’re more prepared for the dream sequence).  And then the dog starts going berserk.  Growling and barking, more and more, Curtis looks from the ominous cloud to his daughter, to the dog, back to the cloud – and then the dog breaks the chain holding him around the tree!  Curtis bravely dives in front of his daughter to protect her from the dog, but the canine bites down, hard, on poor Curtis’ forearm!  Here’s the icing on the cake: the next day, Curtis’ forearm is really, really sore, though it bears no distinctive marks.  Yeah, I might want to build a little bunker in my backyard after an experience like that…

Let’s change gears and talk about Curtis’ family.  His wife Samantha, played by the actress that starred in a total of 110 films in 2011 (least it seems that way – and the more the better in my opinion), Jessica Chastain, is faithful, productive around the house, caring for the daughter and even finds time to make homemade household items and sell them at the local market.  Samantha also dreams of hitting the beach in a luxurious condo, but she presents this idea to Curtis in a very loving manner, not nagging at all.  Curtis’ daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewart), is hearing impaired, and the family’s finances and energy is focused on her.  The family works together to keep Hannah learning new signs and her parents continually learn them with her.  The disability that Hannah lives with is a detail indicative of how sophisticated this script is.  This is not a random element to her character, which effects the whole family, too.  It’s not just thrown in there.  It would be easier for Curtis to look after her if she could hear – just like it’d be easier for Samantha to talk to Curtis regarding his sudden impulse to build the storm shelter, if only he wasn’t challenged by his own inability to communicate.  This weakness of Curtis’, that he’s secretive and non-communicative is explained to us – we know he’s a loving father.  To other characters in the story, however, they might see Curtis as a bad guy who acts a little crazy.  But, he’s building the shelter with his family’s survival in mind.

About halfway in, here’s where the story really gets going.  Curtis finally goes to visit his Mom, who has been mentioned here and there, but not discussed thoroughly (see note 1).  It turns out that when his Mom was in her mid 30s, she took him to the grocery, left him in the car… and never came back.  Diagnosed with schizophrenia, poor Mom has been in a mental care facility ever since.  So here’s the big(ger) question – is Curtis seeing visions, or is he a schizophrenic like his Mom?  The rest of the film, which involves some tremendous acting and a particularly difficult, cringe-worthy climax, is well worth a watch!

And here is the only semi-complaint (more of a question) I had with Take Shelter.  Wouldn’t it have enriched the story even more to have Michael Shannon’s Curtis character be a religious man?  What if the element of his schizophrenic Mom remained as it was presented, but it was also revealed that Curtis had seen visions as a kid?  That the family’s pastor or priest or preacher had chatted at length with Curtis about some of the things he’d seen?  Particularly with the film being set in rural Ohio, I think this element might have fit.

I don’t want to end this entry on a critique, though.  So, I’ll credit primarily the acting and special effects of Take Shelter as the two elements that put this movie over the top.  What I mean is, Shannon and Chastain were completely believable as a couple.  They convinced me of who they were and what they wanted was clear.  And Michael Shannon in particular stood out because of the myriad of emotions he had to portray: in this scene he was completely contained because it involved his boss, while in that scene in the community center, his “boiling over” didn’t seem forced – it felt right as if it had been a long time coming.  As far as the special effects go, the “super storm” looked and sounded like what it sounds…. I think that the nature of the effects in Take Shelter were appropriate and not over-done: and best of all, essential to the story!

Note 1: This visit was another strength of the script: the story didn’t make it necessary to tell me, the audience member, everything I needed to know about Mom.  In other words, the script kind of moved at the “speed of life,” as in I knew there was something to do with the character’s Mom, but I found out at the appropriate time.  Too many stories give this grand update to the audience in the form of a meeting at the Pentagon, or a back room after the funeral.  Frankly, I look forward to Mr. Nichols’ next film, particularly after liking his debut Shotgun Stories, too.

Big Fan (2009)
Dir: Robert D. Siegel
Stars: Patton Oswalt, Kevin Corrigan, Marcia Jean Kurtz and Michael Rapaport

My love for the Green Bay Packers is sometimes displayed in ways that I’m not necessarily proud of.  There are videos that exist of me hopping up from my chair, ranting and raving at the teley in response to a play, pacing, pulling my hair… again, I’m not proud of these displays, but my adoration for the Packers sometimes overwhelms me.  And I’m sure there are those amongst you who can relate, right?  Anyhow, to quote one of the ladies that attended the 2011 Super Bowl party at my pal’s house, she said right after the game, “It’s good to have you back.  We didn’t like scary Burke who showed up in the third quarter.”  Yes, well sweetheart, “Scary Burke” as you refer to him wouldn’t have had to show up at all if the Packers had played some bloody defense in the third!  But never mind… the Packers won the Super Bowl (again), didn’t they?

How is this discussion at all relevant to the film, Big Fan?  Well, if any of you are sports fans as well as movie fans, I think you’ll find this picture particularly – and almost uncomfortably – close to home.  It concerns the story of Paul Aufiero, played masterfully by Patton Oswalt.  You will hopefully recognize Mr. Oswalt: if nothing else, you’ll recognize his voice from Disney’s Ratatouille.  Regardless, Paul is a New York Giants super-fan.  He wears their jerseys – specific ones for specific days.  He is known as Paul from Staten Island whenever he calls into a sports radio show, which seems to be several times a week: put it this way, the DJ knows his name.  He goes to the Giants games with his best pal, Sal (the always excellent character actor, Kevin Corrigan) – but they don’t actually go in the game.  I mean, who can afford it?  Particularly on a parking lot attendant’s salary, which is how Paul spends his days.  No, they tailgate, then wire a small screen TV to the car battery and watch the game in the parking lot of the stadium.

The point is that Paul’s love for the Giants consumes his life.  He ignores his family’s hopes for him to find a better job, to get into a meaningful relationship with a (gasp) woman, and other things that quote “normal people” do.  So, it should come as no surprise that when Paul and Sal spot one of the Giants’ star players, Quantrell Bishop, in their neighborhood, they follow him all the way to a club in Manhattan and send him a drink.  The story heads smoothly into Act 2 when Quantrell misinterprets the gesture and beats the living shit out of Paul.  When Paul awakens from his surgery in the hospital, his first question is, “What day is it?”  His second question is, “How’d we do?” referring to the Giants game on Sunday that he missed.

So, the theme from Big Fan is the level on which some fans live, and exploring the effect a “super fan” can have on himself and his family.  To me, that’s a great discussion.  ESPN and the rest of the sports media world WANTS guys like Paul, they need him, right?  But, the film does a great job of establishing that a super fan’s lifestyle may not be the healthiest.  That said, the film portrays this in a world in which we live – I’m talking about the existence and presence of the NFL in the film.  Think about it for a minute – you’ve all seen other sports themed films with made up professional league names.  What was that team that Pacino’s character was coaching for in Any Given Sunday?  You know what, I can’t remember it either!  And I’m not going to look it up because it doesn’t matter: what matters is, it WASN’T the Dolphins… and therefore, it takes much more to invest me in the story.  With Big Fan, I could immediately identify and almost sympathize with Paul (see paragraph one of this very entry).  Why?  Because he’s committed to the Giants, that team that booted my Packers out of the playoffs this past January.  So, I fetl like I kind of knew the guy, if you see what I mean…  Anyhow, the decision on the part of the film makers to use the “real” NFL really worked for me: the film grossed less than $250,000 at the box office after a very limited release.  That said, perhaps it flew under the radar of the license-savvy NFL?  I don’t know…

Miller’s Crossing (1990) *** Burke Favorite
Dir: The Coen Brothers
Stars: Gabriel Bryne, Albert Finney, Marcia Gay Harden and John Turturro

Just in time for St. Patrick’s Day!  Can you think of any other St. Patty’s Day-worthy films, aside from perhaps Darby O’Gill and The Little People?  [My apologies, folks, but I’m not really available to provide a review on that little gem Darby just now…]  And besides, Miller’s Crossing is appropriate for this holiday because of its themes.  It focus on a group of Irish gangsters, led by Albert Finney’s Leo, who’re being muscled in on by a group of Italians (Jon Polito & Co.).  The story is reminiscent of Kurosawa’s Yojimbo and even Last Man Standing, both of which are loosely based upon Dashiell Hammet’s novel, Red Harvest.  Regardless, the story construct is basically this: each of the gangs, the Irish and the Italian, is sure it’s the best in town.  In the process of fighting each other, they’re tearing the town apart until one man – in this case, Gabriel Bryne’s Tom Reagan – manipulates both gangs till he himself actually rules the town.  I’m not saying that’s the end of Miller’s Crossing, just trying to offer a context of the story.

Regardless, this qualifies as a film with “Burke Favorite” attached to it for several reasons – it has “THE” scene, some phenomenal, quotable dialogue and an entertaining motif.  I’m not going to touch on story specifics, like John Turturro’s Bernie Birnbaum or Steve Buscemi’s cameo as Mink Larue.  Instead, we’ll touch on these three elements to this deeply satisfying action-drama.

“THE” SCENE
Every good film, and I do mean every one of them, has that one phenomenal scene.  That scene that makes the whole film worth another watch.  Some great films have three or four “can’t miss” scenes.  You know the kind I mean, when you’re sitting on your couch after a run on Saturday afternoon and the chase scene involving a Police horse from True Lies comes on.  Looks like you’ll be late to the dinner party.  Check the AFI top 100, for example and see if I’m lying here – every great film has at least one incredible scene.

Miller’s Crossing is no exception.  In this scene, the first shot is of Irish Boss Leo, played by Albert Finney.  He’s enjoying a cigar, the evening paper and a listen of the Irish classic Danny Boy on a record player as he lounges in bed, already dressed in his comfortable pajamas.  The next shot is of a dead man’s blood spilling all over the floor in the living room downstairs.  In the foreground, the dead man’s cigarette lights his newspaper on fire.  Ruh roh…  In the background of the shot, two pairs of slacks with Tommy Guns aside them stroll up the stairs.  The next shot is of Leo, taking a nice puff of his cigar and then softly removing this reading glasses… his face seems to say, “Is that SMOKE that I see emerging from the floor boards?”  Next shot is a closer perspective of the slacks and machine guns climbing the stairs.  Then, we see Leo put his feet in some slippers, put out his cigar and lay his hand on a revolver.

I’ll leave it to you to enjoy the rest of that scene, either for the first time or the latest in several viewings.  However, I hope the point is clear – the Coen Brothers are as visually adept at building tension as Hitchcock…. They seem to have a different sense of humor as you’ll see in how this scene plays out, but they deserve credit for telling compelling stories with pictures, not talking heads.  Actually, I guess they tell great stories using both techniques, don’t they?  Let me finish “THE Scene” by saying that this montage involving Leo and his assassins is really one of several great ones in Crossing – but let’s consider the Coen Brothers’ talents at dialogue for a moment…

DIALOGUE
I’m just going to insert some favorites here to give you the flavor of the character’s speech.  When I think of some top films with great dialogue that aren’t written by Quentin Tarantino, I think of this, old Sam Spade pictures, several David Mamet titles and Michael Mann’s Heat.  My reference for this section is a copy of the script that I found on <Dailyscript.com>  It’s a great site to look up scripts for your reading pleasure, or to find little snippets, like you’ll see below:

Tom stops in Verna’s apartment for a drink –
TOM: I was in the neighborhood, feeling a little daffy.  Thought I’d drop in for an aperitif.(pause).  Rug Daniels is dead.
VERNA: Gee, that’s tough.
TOM: Don’t get hysterical.  I’ve had enough excitement for one night without a dame going all weepy on me.
VERNA: I barely knew the gentleman.
TOM: Rug? Bit of a shakedown artist.  Not above the occasional grift, but you’d understand that.  All in all, not a bad guy if looks, brains and personality don’t count.
VERNA: You’d better hope they don’t.

Tom, with a nasty hangover, bangs on Verna’s door.  She opens.
TOM: I want my hat.
VERNA: I won it.  It’s mine.
TOM: What’re you going do with it?
VERNA: Drop dead.
Pause as Tom gets the door slammed in his face, knocks and Verna opens it again.
TOM: I need a drink.
VERNA: Why didn’t you say so?
She opens the door wide for him to enter.

Johnny Caspar (the Italian’s lead gangster) talks to Tom about whether or not his henchman, The Dane, is selling him out:
CASPAR: I’ll admit, since last we jawed, my stomach’s been seazin’ up on me.  The Dane saying we should double-cross you; you double-cross once, where’s it all end? An innaresting ethical question.

These lines aren’t there for show – they all mean something to the character that’s saying them.  Take Johnny Caspar’s ongoing reference to the “high hat.”  Johnny’s a little insecure, he’s balding, he’s a little heavy and he hates people thinking he’s NOT the number one villain in town.  So when, in the first scene, he asks Leo for a favor and Leo denies him, Caspar explodes –

CASPAR: I pay off to you every month like a greengrocer–a lot more than the Motzah–and I’m sick a gettin’ the high hat–
LEO: You pay off for protection, just like everyone else. Far as I know–and what I don’t know in this town ain’t worth knowing–the cops haven’t closed any of your dives and the D.A. hasn’t touched any of your rackets. You haven’t bought any license to kill bookies and today I ain’t selling any. Now take your flunky and dangle.

Caspar SLAMS the desk and steps close into frame.

CASPAR: You think I’m some guinea fresh off the boat and you think you can kick me. But I’m too big for that now.  I’m sick-of takin’ the strap from you, Leo. I’m sick a marchin’ down to this goddamn office to kiss your Irish ass. And I’M SICK A THE HIGH HAT!

The high hat, folks.  The high hat.  Don’t give it to Johnny Caspar.

MOTIF
That damned HAT – and I mean Tom’s fedora, this time.  It’s in the dream in the beginning… would you agree that it’s Tom’s soul?  Let me go a little slower.

First off, what the hell’s a “motif?”  It’s basically that recurring image or sequence of images that help define a character over the course of a film.  One of my favorite examples is Russell Crowe’s Maximus in Gladiator: if you notice, before every battle Maximus gets into – whether it’s on a field or in the arena – he picks some dirt up off the ground and rubs it in his hands as if to say, “I’m ready to get messy, here.”

While there are plenty of other examples, in Miller’s Crossing, Tom’s hat is the motif.  It’s there in his dream during the credits, which he references to Verna later in the story after a little bed play.  He MUST get it back when he wakes up totally hungover (see the dialogue reference above).  Leo tosses it onto Tom’s chest after he beats the snot out of him to make sure everyone knows “we’re quits.”  And it’s there in the very last bloody frame of the film!  Watch that last frame, how carefully Tom applies the hat to his head…

What I’m implying is that the story concerns Tom trying to do his best for his pal and boss, Leo, but without losing himself (or his HAT) in the process.  There are several instances when it looks like Tom might lose his hat.  While the dream sequence is more figurative, the scene in which The Dane takes Tom back out to Miller’s Crossing and tosses his hat off his head before he pulls the gun on him kind of supports what I’m saying.  It’s as if The Dane is visually alerting us, “I’m about to kill this guy – see, I can do whatever I want with his hat!”  I don’t know…  I’ve watched this film a LOT, so please pardon my thoughts and ramblings here: but to briefly summarize, my thinking is that Tom’s soul, his ethics, his very person is visually defined by his hat.

Long and short, what a great film to celebrate the genuine themes of St. Paddy’s Day, which I’ll let Johnny Caspar elaborate on for me:

CASPAR: I’m talkin’ about friendship. I’m talkin’ about character. I’m talkin’ about–hell, Leo, I ain’t embarassed to use the word–I’m talkin’ about ethics.

Rear Window (1955)  *** Burke Favorite ***
Dir: Alfred Hitchcock
Stars: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter and Raymond Burr

You might say that the title of this entry could have been the “log line” for this Hitchcock classic.  As we’ve talked about before, the “log line” is that one sentence answer whenever someone asks, “What’s that movie about?”  Regardless, I was appalled, astounded and alarmed that I hadn’t discussed a Hitchcock film yet in this blog’s nearly 100-post deep library.  The insanity!  Let’s pull this James Stewart starring film apart, shall we?  Now, get cozy: get a cup of tea, a glass of wine or your favorite snack, because this is going to be a long one…

The story concerns a famous photographer, L.B. Jeffries, played by Stewart.  Poor “Jeff” is in a wheelchair with a broken leg, which was the result of an accident on a recent photography expedition.  This man’s dedication to his job is evidenced by numerous exotic photos all over his apartment, which is where most of the story takes place.  Jeff’s only got a week to go until the cast comes off, and to him, that week can’t pass soon enough.  The only interesting thing for this globe-trotter to do has been watching the goings-on in the courtyard behind his apartment.  In other words, he’s kind of been spying on his neighbors.  Please remember, this is before everyone had a T.V.  The story does a fine job of establishing that Jeff isn’t exactly the type to curl up with a good book.

I have two theories why this spying is OK with us, the audience.  First, it’s James Stewart.  We know this guy!  By this time in film history, we had seen him in It’s a Wonderful Life, not to mention several other Academy Award nominated films.  In real life, he even jumped into the Air Force with both feet (and retired a General, I believe?).  IE, we like the leading man just fine.  The second reason the audience is likely to accept his “peeping Tom” behavior is a little more personal and awkward: we can identify.  Who amongst us hasn’t taken the opportunity to watch an individual, a couple or a group of people who were sure he/she/they were alone?  We’re not proud of it, perhaps, but we did it.  So, we can at least appreciate where Stewart’s L.B. Jeffries is coming from.  And another element worth mentioning, Jeff is not malicious in his observations.  I’ll come back to this one later when I let you in on a little question I had…

Before the trouble starts, there are plenty more “fun and games” established.  We get to meet the neighbors in the courtyard – through IMAGES and some punctuated sound design.  In other words, if this film had been silent, it wouldn’t have been as good, but it would have definitely worked.  Jeff has affectionately nicknamed many of his neighbors: there’s Miss Lonely Hearts, the Musician, the Couple (with the dog they lower down to the courtyard in a basket), a Husband and Wife (she’s bedridden), a newlywed couple and my personal favorite, Miss Torso.  She’s quite the dancer and hostess.  But consider for a moment how almost all of these characters are revealed to us in long shots: only later do we meet one or two in close up shots that communicate more of their character.  Hitchcock’s choices of when in the story and how he frames his characters is textbook film making.  A perfect example is Miss Lonely Hearts.  We meet her “far away,” or in long shot, in Jeff’s apartment.  Only when the story demands it do we get closer to her – through Jeff’s binoculars and telephoto lens.

We even get to meet Jeffries’ girlfriend Lisa, played by Grace Kelly (please see “BIG FAT NOTE” below).  She’s a gifted fashion designer and model – and she’s in love with Jeff.  In fact, she loves him so much she even has a five-star dinner catered to his Chelsea apartment.  Sometimes she “slips into something more comfortable,” if you know what I mean…  Short of a bum leg, Jeff’s got quite the life!  Except he doesn’t: one of his neighbors is a murderer, and without his involvement, the guy will go free.  And there ends Act I.

As we jump into Act II, it’s fascinating that Hitchcock doesn’t hide who the murderer is.  Everything from how the killer probably did it to his motive is put on the table, and this decision to “lay his cards down” speaks volumes about the story told cinematically (that’s a word, dammit, it’s a word it tell you).  Think about it: if I handed you a Mickey Spillane novel and then told you who did it, why and how, you’d hand it right back.  But with film – and particularly how Hitchcock portrays suspense – it’s all about the HOW, isn’t it?  Rear Window is no exception, and shows Hitchcock’s prowess at its best.

Act II continues with further conflict, in a textbook fashion.  Not only does the behavior of one of the neighbors become more and more suspicious, but also the tension between Jeff and Lisa grows.  It’s almost as if, in a funny way, the murder investigation keeps Jeff and Lisa together.  He’s made it clear that she’s too good for him: translation, “I want to run through the mud and shoot photos and you’re a New York fashion gal – and our relationship doesn’t make sense.”  I’m surely not saying anything new here, but isn’t it interesting how Jeff must have this investigation to keep himself occupied (AND solve a murder, I know), but Lisa needs it because it’s the first thing in a long time that Jeff has let her be involved in!  The ultra-tension that exists in one particular scene in which a character we’ve come to love is caught somewhere they shouldn’t be literally gets your butt on the edge of its chair.  Stewart’s reaction in this scene is priceless.  He shakes his head, widens his eyes and grabs his hair in his hand – just like we are!

Let’s come back to something I mentioned before, regarding a question I had… I said that Jeff isn’t malicious in his observations: my question is why he never took pictures of the murderer…  I haven’t read up on this film in detail, but my suspicion is that Hitchcock decided that if Jeff took pictures, perhaps we the audience wouldn’t feel so interested in his desire to expose the murderer.  We have all observed other folks candidly, as I said – but perhaps the director and/or star decided that taking pictures would’ve been over the line?  I ask this question because it seems to go against Jeff’s inquisitive, adventurous nature.  Particularly if Jeff loves his job as much as he says he does, wouldn’t he snap a few of the murder suspect?  Also, consider the fact that his good pal, the cop Detective Lieutenant Doyle, refuses to believe him… despite hearing about how the suspect has been seen wrapping sharp tools in newspaper for disposal!

Hopefully, I’ve whet your appetite to see this Hitchcock classic.  It’s got unforgettable moments and some pretty funny parts, too.  Think of when the nurse, Stella (Thelma Ritter – you may recognize her from Miracle on 34th Street, amongst others…) puts a nice hot breakfast in front of Jeff only to go on and on about another insurance job she was on – and all the bloody details.  Oh, and don’t forget to keep your eye out for “Hitch” himself: he was infamous for inserting himself into his films at one place or another (my favorite might be North by Northwest when he misses the bus in the opening credits).

Big Fat Note: Let’s talk about the old “fly on the wall” fantasy for a moment, shall we?  I’ve had this fantasy thousands of times and you probably have too, but how fun would it have been to be that fly on the wall as Hitchcock broke the news to Stewart that his character, L.B. Jeffries, would NOT be “gaga” over Grace Kelly’s Lisa.  Here’s an idea of how I see that conversation going in a little bungalow on the Paramount lot –

HITCHCOCK (takes deep breath, which sounds like it may be his last): You see, Mr. Stewart –
STEWART: Oh, come on now, doggone it, I’ve told you, call me JIMMY!  It’s OK with me… now, now, what was that you were saying?
H: Well, Jimmy, your character, Mr. Jeffries, will not be head over heels in love with Miss Fremont, portrayed by Miss Grace Kelly.  In fact (DEEP breath), he will find her too perfect, and therefore see himself as better off continuing his adventurous lifestyle.  (rubs brow with handkerchief)
S: (wearing his perplexed face): Well, now, ahhh, wh-wh-wh-wh-WHAT?  Mr. Hitchcock –
H (DEEP breath): Please, Jimmy, call me Alfie…
S: OK, OK, ahhh…. ALFIE!  Who’s going to buy that a woman that looks like this (holds up Kelly’s headshot) can’t get a fella like ME to like her?  Now, now, now don’t’cha see… it, it, it, it just doesn’t make SENSE!

Somewhat Educational Note: Hitchcock, during one interview I have seen, said that the real work in the film, for him, was the storyboarding.  This is the process of putting the image down on paper.  Literally stick figures – sometimes more elaborate drawings are rendered, of course – are drawn out on a page with arrows meaning this angle and/or movement, etc.  Hitchock insisted that once he got to set, he had kind of already seen the film and it was just a matter or capturing it on film…

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)
Dir: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa
Stars: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Julianne Moore and Marisa Tomei

So, I was riding down the elevator at the office with a colleague a few Mondays ago, and I asked what she thought of The Vow.  I remembered she was all excited to see this title, which was released in theaters earlier this month.  It has done very well, too, making it one of the highest box office titles for Sony’s Screen Gems division.  All that said, my colleague got this scrunched up look on her face and said, “Oh, it was AWFUL!  Just plain AWFUL – I can’t believe how bad it was…”  Needless to say, I’ve had that feeling, you’ve had that feeling…  It’s no kind of fun.

Which makes a title like Crazy, Stupid, Love all the more enjoyable.  From the preview and the TV spots I caught last summer, I underestimated this one.  Depending on the ad, they made it look like either a pure romance such as The Vow or Dear John, etc. or like a Will Ferrell-esque/over-the-top comedy.  Regardless, this is a special film because it has a genuinely romantic storyline peppered with comedic scenes, which “stay in their lane.”  I’ll explain what I mean.

I am going to gush and gush about the script here – fair warning.  I loved how it jumped right into the action, but it did so VISUALLY.  One of the opening shots is of feet under restaurant tables: bear with me here.  There are feet belonging to fellows with nice, fashionable shows – and other feet donning impressive high heels.  And several pairs of these feet are kind of cozying up to each other under these restaurant tables… it’s kind of a romantic shot, right?  Then, we come to Julianne Moore – equally donning nice heels – and her husband played by Steve Carrell, dressed in his New Balance sneakers…  What’s brilliant about this scene is that we visually know the problem before a word of dialogue is spoken: and even when the dialogue comes, it cuts to the point!

Cal: What would you like for dessert?  Let’s say it at the same time…
Emily: I want a divorce.

Whoa!  Got a problem we need solved before the end of the film, don’t we?  Woe to those of you who got to the theater late and are still looking for a seat!  Right into Act 1 we go, with Cal getting himself his own place.  We also see that Cal has two great kids, Robbie and Molly.  13 year old Robbie is in love with the family babysitter, Jessica.  Turns out Jessica is in love with the father, Cal!  Is this a summer movie or a Shakespeare melodrama?  We got a lot of interesting twists already… and we haven’t even met The Man yet.

Let me sidebar here a moment with a quick commentary on “Primary Frame”.  Now, some movie books talk about this and that technique, but I personally feel that the “primary frame” is one of the more important cinematic techniques.  Think, for a moment, the first time you see James Bond in Dr. No.  We only see his hands, smoothly dealing those cards in that plush casino for the longest time…  And then, the gorgeous lady he’s been talking to asks the dealer for “another thousand”.  Bond says, “I admire your courage, Miss…”  And she answers, “Trench.  Sylvia Trench.  I admire your luck, Mr…” And then we got a nice, medium size frame of this Man, as he casually lights his cigarette and says in an almost bored tone, “Bond.  James Bond.”  The “Primary Frame” of Ryan Gosling’s character in this film is no different in what it communicates to us – this is simply The Man.

The primary frame of Ryan Gosling as Jacob Palmer in this film is no different.  We get a slow motion shot of him walking through the bar (which was apparently the ONLY bar the characters preferred to visit throughout the film).  He’s dressed in the highest fashion, obviously in fantastic shape with a perfect haircut and smooth dialogue to match his look.  Right away we want to know this fellow – admit it!  He approaches Emma Stone’s Hannah and begins to talk her up… he wants to buy her a drink – and she turns him down!  Her friend wants to kill her, but Hannah leaves the place.  What does The Man do?  He takes it in stride.  We are HOPING he stays in the story…

Jacob is actually a huge part of the story.  He observes Cal (Carrell) bitching and moaning at the bar to whoever’ll listen about his wife and how she left him, etc.  Jacob gets Cal’s attention, waves him over and before he asks Cal to sit down, he politely asks the young lady he was talking to if she’ll excuse them?  Of course she will – because he’s The Man!  Jacob proceeds to take Cal under his wing.  New clothes.  New attitude.  New haircut.  The theme is tremendous: if Cal really wants his wife to appreciate him, shouldn’t he value himself first?  While there are literally hundreds of Cable programs with the “Makeover Theme” applied to them, this movie did not overdo it, nor was this montage of Jacob helping Cal trite in any way.  See how the film “stayed in its lane”?

The remainder of the film concerns twists and turns as Emily tries to decide whether she wants to get back with Cal, or let Kevin Bacon’s character, David Lindhagen continue to seduce her (the pronunciation of his last name is a recurring joke throughout the movie).  Will Robbie actually get Jessica to love him?  Will Jessica actually get Cal to love her?  Will Jacob ever changes his life, the biography of which might be entitled, The Way of Nightly Casual Sex with Different Partners.  These are all great questions – and let the gushing over the script continue – which are all presented with entertaining and appropriate answers!  There were twists that came about in Act 3 that I didn’t see coming at all.  And yet, they were original and most importantly, not overdone!

In closing, let me say a few words about Marisa Tomei.  You may hear certain comments related to her along the lines of, “She’s good, but… she didn’t really deserve that Oscar.”  Or maybe, “Didn’t she have a guest role on Seinfeld?”  I’m going to say it loud and say it proud – she’s an incredible actress.  If you’re a fan of hers as well, consider The Wrestler, My Cousin Vinny, The Slums of Beverly Hills, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead and this film required viewing.  She literally stole the show for me – and you know what a deep bench they had on this title!  I had to watch, rewatch and watch once more a certain scene in which she conducts a parent-teacher conference.  The title of this entry is her character’s line, in case you haven’t seen the film…  And Carell’s character is correct in the film when he says it: she IS the perfect mix of cute and sexy!  OK, I’ll stop now.

NOTE:  A friend of a friend of mine told me once that it is in Tom Cruise’s contract that in whatever movie role he accepts, there must be a scene included with him running.  I couldn’t think of a film of his where this isn’t true… while you think of that, is it just me, or does Julianne Moore have a similar clause in her contract that she MUST CRY in every role?  Not a complaint, mind you, just an observation….

Based on the new rules of The Academy, this year we have nine titles to choose from for Best Picture.  Did you know that a total of 5% of all Academy voters have to vote for one film to win Best Picture for it to be nominated in that category?

I’ve seen seven of them, which is a decent amount, although I am sorry to miss both War Horse and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.  As with all other years I’ve been watching The Oscars, I feel that some movies should have been nominated for this or that and for whatever reason they weren’t… well, that’s part of the fun of it, isn’t it?  I’ll warn you that it’s much better if you’ve seen these films before reading on – as I was drafting this post, I realized I have a great many “spoilers” included below, so be forewarned!  Let’s dive into these one by one – in no particular order:

Midnight in Paris
Dir: Woody Allen
Stars: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen

I want to be clear and forthcoming from the get-go that I have never been to Paris, France.  Paris, Kentucky, yes, but not the City of Lights.  There are phenomenal shots of the city as the trailer effectively showcases: at night, during the day, the evening, even in the rain.  I am not arguing that the idea for the movie is a bad one, either: in fact, it’s phenomenal!  Who wouldn’t want to meet their literary influences from another era?  Making it personal for a moment, what wouldn’t I give to have a sit down dinner in the early 1960s with David Lean?  So, it’s a great idea and a fine setting with excellent production quality – those are the film’s strengths.

My frustration with the film is the aggravation I experienced in its main character, a character I’ve seen in countless other Woody Allen films.  Am I wrong in saying that the film would have been much more engaging with, I don’t know, let’s try Emile Hirsch as the star?  And he’s a just-graduated Lit Major with a minor in French Culture or something and he’s saved up all his money to go to Paris right after graduation with his dubious girlfriend of three years who he knows he wants to marry, but she isn’t so sure…  Wouldn’t that be more engaging to watch rather than have Owen Wilson’s character “gee” and “gosh” his way through the countless insults from Rachel McAdam’s parents in the movie?  And perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t feel sorry for a fellow who has to move to Malibu, CA.  I can’t shed one tear for that character, so I don’t care about his opinions in meeting all these incredible people!  I felt like he didn’t deserve their company: my take is simply that Midnight is worth a watch, but not Best Picture caliber…

Tree of Life – already covered this one and I stand by what I said!  Have a look here -http://ronhamprod.com/?p=485

Moneyball
Dir: Bennett Miller
Stars: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Stephen Bishop

I think this film totally deserves the nod for Best Picture.  I was chatting with a pal of mine the other night, who didn’t like the film as much as I did, and he asked outright, “what was it ABOUT???”  I’ll do my best to recap that discussion.  To me, Moneyball is a cautionary tale.  Brad Pitt’s character, Billy Beane, is so focused on winning the World Series – with OAKLAND, and no other team – that he can neither see nor enjoy the success that’s unfolding in front of him.  Think about this: once a year, a Major League Baseball team wins the World Series… but it may never occur again in Beane’s lifetime that a team has a streak like that A’s team did in 2002.  A team he assembled!

And yet, Beane can’t watch the games.  He is incessantly tense around his older-than-her-age daughter (see note at the very bottom of this post).  He can’t begin to rekindle things with his wife.  As we check into his life, we see he’s willing to alienate all of his scouts, push his owner to the very limit both financially and from a respect standpoint – and why?  Because he wants a Series that bad.  What’s cool about the film is that a lot of Pitt’s best scenes as Beane come across very genuine because of the set up.  When he destroys the team’s good time after a loss and asks them if losing feels that great, it doesn’t come across canned at all – we believe him.  I completely agree with his nod for Best Actor, too: isn’t it a fact that this is Pitt’s own Jerry McGuire role?  But the frustrating thing about Moneyball is that Pitt’s doing what perhaps many of us do – he takes for granted the little things and doesn’t exactly enjoy living this wonderful life he’s got.

Now let’s talk about Jonah Hill for a minute.  Not sure if you’ve seen Superbad, but I promise a review on that instant classic one of these days.  Regardless, if there’s one element to Hollywood’s personality that will never change, it’s that they love a reinvention.  Hill is the latest example in a long line of reinvented actors.  His performance in Moneyball was pitch perfect and further, the writers (Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin and Michael Lewis who wrote the book the film’s based upon) deserve some credit here for combining the antics and energy of Pitt’s Beane with the straight man of Hill’s character, Peter Brand.

The Descendants
Dir: Alexander Payne
Stars: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley and Beau Bridges

The latest Alexander Payne offering is a more sophisticated and emotional drama than any of his previous works: I’d describe the film as a serious drama, peppered with comedy and certainly not the other way around.  Regardless, I think the story is an engaging, cautionary tale, much along the same lines of Moneyball and The Artist.  Wouldn’t you agree that a common theme between these three titles is simply, “Be careful how you live your life?”

The film concerns Clooney’s character Matt King as he navigates treacherous waters with his daughters after his wife, whom he’s separated from, has a terrible sea accident.  As if this family emergency isn’t enough, King also has to deal with his brothers and sisters and cousins as they decide whether or not to sell a substantial plot of land on the island.  You’d be surprised how well these two storylines intersect.

And I’ll give The Descendants a big piece of credit for letting the setting embody the entire work.  What I mean is, this film MUST be set in Hawaii: the story demands it, the music and sets accentuate it – even the poster plays on the idea of what Matt King says in voice over in the beginning of the film, that just because Hawaii is a destination, a vacation many of us can only dream of, it doesn’t mean that the folks who live there don’t struggle like the rest of us.  My final thought on this film is how nice the final image of this film felt…  I won’t ruin it in case you’re reading this without having seen it, but the last frame of The Descendants speaks to Payne’s ability to take you on a dramatic journey without going overboard with any one element, like the Sid character, for example…

Hugo
Dir: Martin Scorsese
Stars: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sacha Baron Cohen and Ben Kingsley

There was no need for me to “drink the Kool-aid” on this one – I liked it immediately.  Leave it to ol’ Scorsese to mix in a message about film preservation into an adapted children’s story!  My point is that Hugo has something for everyone: 3D technology for the film geek in me, a kid’s story for the kid, film preservation for the guy thirsting for knowledge, and Sasha Baron Cohen’s station cop for comic relief – what’s not to like?

I had studied Melies’ films way back in Intro to Film, but those lessons didn’t take away from the storyline of Hugo at all. When you think of films that make you feel like a kid again, I think this one easily fits in the category.  Hugo reminds you of a time in your life when being small had its advantages: within the film, the title character is able to maneuver amongst the catacombs of a Paris train station in the 1930s because of his size… So, while the storyline concerning the little boy was great in its own right, I really dug the scenes dedicated to the early days of films, and how pioneers like Melies – who came from different artistic backgrounds – created the techniques that we, as an audience, have come to expect today.

Hugo is incredibly imaginative thanks to its art direction, cinematography and costumes – not to mention prop department!  Think of the automaton, such a key part of the story, and how the film kind of made you want to play around with it, right?  How did the film makers create that feeling?  I’m not adding anything new in saying that I thought the production’s use of 3D technology added a special layer to the film – IE, it helped to tell the story from a cinematic standpoint instead of feeling “tacked on” like many blockbusters of recent years.  On the subject of the automaton, I think it’s kind of interesting how in our digital age of everything conveniently located on your mobile/smartphone, we’re suddenly fascinated by things that have moving parts – is analog coming back?

The Artist
Dir: Michael Hazanavicius
Stars: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Belo and James Cromwell

If you haven’t guessed by now, I’m a bit of a film geek.  So, perhaps it’s natural that I didn’t like The Artist – I loved it.  What a charming tribute to the birth of film, which was essentially music videos.  When, in the early 1900s, you would buy your ticket to the theater, you’d have moving pictures displayed on a screen, and you’d have an organist or pianist playing music: that’s all your nickle would buy.  The Artist does a splendid job of taking us back to those days – but in an entertaining way.

I don’t think the film will spawn a new day of silent features.  I do think that it was a great idea that was executed extremely well.  We have a hero we like in Jean Dujardin: I mean, look at that smile!  The way he plays with his dog and rescues the girl and all that…  What a fellow!  Do we have a romantic interest?  Yes!  Berenice Bejo more than fits the role as Peppy Miller, one of thousands of actresses who gets her big break and falls in love with George Valentin, the Errol Flynn-esque star played by Dujardin.  The love story that results is set in motion by the birth of sound in motion pictures during the late 1920s.  Peppy is in exactly the right place at the best time to become a star, while guys like Valentin, well, the audience doesn’t want to hear him speak.

What surprised me about the film was how genuinely it delivered its message of the importance of loyalty and how pride can literally ruin a person.  If dialogue had been added, I’m not sure the film would have achieved the same emotional level.  Perhaps that’s why the industry has so unequivocally embraced the movie is that, in this day of incessantly adding new layers to Film in the form of visual effects, animation and 3D, The Artist strips it all away to its very base and reminds us that the medium is about telling a story through moving pictures.  That’s it!  Perhaps its message is a reminder to K.I.S.S.

The Help
Dir: Tate Taylor
Stars: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, O, Jessica Chastain and Bryce Dallas Howard

I’m not sure what my problem is with dramas released in the month of August, but it seems to take me forever to see them.  The Help is no exception and for whatever reason, I finally got to it last night – what a fine feature it is!  It reminded me of Rudy and Moneyball in that its message is dependent on your perspective.

What I mean is, some people hate Rudy because “it’s a Notre Dame movie.”  My response has always simply been, “No, it’s not.”  I can see how some theater goers may have put up some walls about this title, as in, “Gee, that looks like a made-for-TV movie…” or, “Man, I’m just not in the mood for that kind of drama…”  Concerning the subject matter, folks  may say The Help is about race.  Or, it’s about your parents wanting you to do anything but what you’ve chosen to do with your life.  It’s about ignorance being passed down from one generation to another.  The film could even be about the hateful ways that women interact with each other once they get pissed off…  Isn’t it about all these things?  And isn’t that depth what Academy voters salivate over when they select the nominees?

I was impressed with the acting and the way these characters were able to seamlessly move in and out of Jackson, Mississippi’s social tiers.  This was no Lifetime movie: it moved and felt like a true cinematic drama.  The costumes looked like the clothes that these characters would wear, and did not go “over the top.”  The lighting and cinematography had its promotional photo moments, but it did an ample job of setting the scene: IE, I felt hot when the ladies were fanning themselves…  Bottom line, I think this title did a tremendous job of telling a compelling story of race and “caste” life in the ’60s South, without making it trite or feel like a “movie of the week.”

One final note of disagreement with the Academy… and I say this with no disrespect… but I thought Bryce Dallas Howard got snubbed for her role as Hilly Holbrook.  Again, I’m not taking anything away from Ms. Chastain nor Ms. Spencer – they both did a SWELL job!  But I wanted to wring Holbrook’s neck, and I felt throughout the movie as if the actress was familiar, but I simply couldn’t place her….  That’s hard to sink into a role to that level.  Anyhow, you’ve got to see this link – Rotten Tomatos seems to have thought that Ms. Howard is Ms. Chastain (see pic #7 of 33 in the link below)?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/gallery/2012_oscar_noms/#10245388

And here are my thoughts on the Awards from last year…
http://ronhamprod.com/?p=365

Note: Does anyone else share my opinion that this trend of youths who are much, much older than their age in films is wearing thin?  I don’t mind one or two lines of dialogue from kids orteens in Indy films that make you go, “huh, what a great line/perspective/thought!”  But this idea that kids are SO ahead of their time is, to me, a little much.

True Romance (1993) *** Burke Favorite
Dir: Tony Scott
Stars: Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Val Kilmer,
Gary Oldman, Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini and Bronson Pinchot – really!

In honor of Valentine’s Day, we’re going to chat about a very romantic movie indeed – just be forewarned, this film is ultra-violent…  However, if you can stomach some of the more gruesome scenes, I think you’ll agree this film deserves the classic status it has earned in the last few years.  This action-adventure boasts a shocking cast – both from a character perspective and the “names” involved.  I mean, how much would it cost to get all these folks in a picture today?  Anyhow, True Romance also has the infinite elements of film firing on all cylinders: breakneck photography, a terrific soundtrack and a thrilling story, all contribute to the film’s success.

The opening scene establishes that Clarence Worthy is quite a character: before the credits start rolling over seedy, yet romantic shots of Detroit, we know Clarence LOVES Elvis, kung fu movies and is quite lonely.  He even propositions a working girl to go see not one, not two but three kung fu movies with him!  Clarence is disappointed when the prostitute tells him that “it’s not my cup of tea.”  But, little does he know that his generous boss at the comic book shop already has a call girl named Alabama headed his way.  She dumps a huge bin of popcorn all over Clarence in the middle of one of Sonny Chiba’s classic films. He catches her up on the story, they flirt and end up having pie – and much more – together.

Act one concerns Clarence and Alabama falling in love: their romance is fun to watch because they have believable chemistry.  You want these two “dumb kids” to make it.  But, if they lived happily ever after in the first twenty minutes, it’d be a pretty weak movie, right?  Trouble brews when Alabama tells Clarence about her former pimp, Drexel.  We’ve met Drexel in an early act one scene in which he shoots a couple of guys dead in a filthy motel room and takes what looks like about 400 pounds of coke from them.  Well, Clarence insists on heading over to Drexel’s to “pick up her things”.  He walks in and meets this dreadlocked (played by an almost unrecognizable Gary Oldman) maniac who wants to negotiate over some Chinese take out.  Let me be clear, this is a scary scene that sets the tone for the rest of the film.  But for clarity’s sake, I’ll tell you that Clarence leaves with Drexel’s suit case full of cocaine.

And here we arrive at a terribly romantic scene.  Clarence, all bloody and beaten to a pulp from his meeting with Drexel, returns to the apartment carrying what he thinks is Alabama’s suit case in one hand and a bunch of cheeseburgers in the other, saying simply “I killed him.”  Alabama, needless to say, is pretty upset.  Clarence misinterprets her mood and starts yelling and screaming at her, demanding to know if she loved Drexel?  Instead, she keeps saying, “I think…” over and over again until he finally lets her finish with – “I think what you did was… so romantic.”  This line of dialogue is one of my favorites in all the films I’ve seen because of its honesty between the two characters.  They’re not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they’re resourceful and they believe in each other – and they’re in love – so dammit, we want them to make it!  When was the last time you felt that strongly about two characters in a film?

Moving on.  They hug and kiss for a bit and then they open that suit case full of cocaine.  Alabama says, “These… aren’t my clothes.”  After a couple of scenes with Clarence and his Dad – not to mention a local Detroit gangster played by none other than Christopher Walken – it’s off to California we go.   There, Clarence knows an old pal who’s in the acting game named Dick Ritchie.  Clarence figures Dick’ll be able to help him sell the Bolivian Jumping Powder quickly and he and Alabama will be able to fly off to some place to relax.  That’s the plan anyway.  The gangsters from Detroit follow them there and the deal – as most movie drug deals go – goes poorly.  I’ll leave these details and scenes for you to decide their merit, but I will tease you with these mini-scenes and lines of dialogue that to me, make this title such a classic:

1) Dick Ritchie’s roommate, Floyd, is played by none other than Academy Award nominee, Brad Pitt.  Many gangsters stop by Ritchie’s apartment in acts two and three.  But no one is there but Floyd, and he is all too happy to give these tough guys directions to where his pals are – with Soundgarden playing loudly in the background.  In one ridiculously funny scene, about seven gangsters come in the living room just as Floyd is smoking a bowl – he is SURE he’s tripping.

2) Clarence offers Dick Ritchie’s friend, Elliot (Bronson Pinchot) some animal crackers in the middle of negotiating a drug deal.

3) Alabama’s infamous fight scene with one of the gangsters from Detroit (played by the man who would become Tony Soprano – James Gandolfini…)  There are different versions of the film – one of which is NC17, I think – but regardless of which one you see, this is one of the toughest scenes to get through… ever?

4) The few but potent scenes in which Clarence talks to Elvis (Val Kilmer).  These are valuable scenes because they put us in the mind of a guy who we can identify with, but who’s also kind of a madman.  I mean, he’s talking to Elvis for crying out loud!  We don’t get a lot of information about Clarence’s Mom – and the scenes with his Dad (Dennis Hopper) make it clear that Clarence didn’t really have a lot of genuine guidance growing up.  So we feel for the lad when Elvis looks at him in the mirror and says, “I like you, Clarence.  Always have (snaps & points fingers at him)… always will.”

Limitless (2011)
Dir: Neil Burger
Stars: Bradley Cooper, Robert DeNiro, Abbie Cornish and Tomas Arana

There are some cinematography “stunts” in this film that had a dizzying effect on me.  Let me try and explain what I mean – and keep in mind that I watched this title in the comfort of my teeny-tiny apartment on a TV screen the size of a postage stamp.  OK, perhaps it’s not that small, but I’m trying to decide what kind of teley to get to replace my old one and in the meantime, I’m watching stuff on a 20 inch monitor – not ideal, I know.

The cinematography “stunt” I refer to had the effect of an endless hallway: there are numerous shots of downtown New York streets, but it’s as if we’re zooming down them at high speed – and they just keep coming and coming at us.  Through a most effective mix of photography and editing, the shots literally make you feel what Bradley Cooper’s character, Eddie Morra feels – as if he can digest any amount of data, literature, new languages… he is “limitless” in his abilities.

How so is he “limitless”, you ask?  Glad you did!  Turns out Morra is kind of a knucklehead, wannabe writer.  He’s like a lot of guys in movies of late in that he can barely pay the rent, he’s unshaven and long haired, he mooches off his girlfriend for meals and money and then is shocked – positively shocked – when she breaks up with him!  Bottom line is Morra is a bit of a loser… that is until he runs into an old brother of his ex-girlfriend’s named Vernon.  He has this super-duper-pick-you-up pill that he offers Morra.  Well, upon digesting the pill, Morra turns into super man.  He cleans his apartment.  He shaves.  He has all the motivation and intelligence needed to finally finish that novel and deliver it to his publisher.  He buys new clothes and redesigns himself.  All of this takes place in a pretty entertaining montage to end “act 1”.

From here, however, trouble starts to brew.  He gets a little greedy and starts to play the stock market and play if very well, which gets the attention of a Warren Buffet sized executive played by Robert DeNiro.  With Morra’s work due to DeNiro, his party boy lifestyle that keeps him up till dawn, his continual dealings with a rough gangster and his reliance on the pills, there is plenty of action to keep Morra busy throughout act 2.  There is even a character that seems to be following him (see Final Note, below).

The neat element to Limitless is that its set up is so engaging that you’re definitely enjoying the ride through the end of the film. I’ve referred to “log lines” in other posts, and I think that this film has a great one: if there was a pill that allowed you to finish all those things on your list, lose the weight, ask the girl out… would you take it?  It’s such a relatable question that was executed very well in an action packed 90 minute film – and even tacked on an ending I didn’t see coming.

Final Note: Concerning the character actor Tomas Arana, who is credited as The Man in the Tan Coat,  readers of my blog know that I’m a big fan of those actors who you recognize, but you can’t remember for the life of you where from.  Tomas is one of those guys.

You’d remember him if I mentioned Gladiator, in which he played one of the Roman advisers.  Or maybe you’d remember him as one of the tough guys from L.A. Confidential that Capt. Dudley Smith uses to “discourage” out of town criminals?  Regardless, in Limitless, Arana plays that creepy kind of pursuer who heightens the tension and the action as the story unfolds – Hitchcock uses characters like The Man in the Tan Coat a lot, as do some more modern movies like Knowing.  We’re not really sure what he’s after, but he looks (no disrespect to Mr. Arana) threatening, like he’d be OK with our sudden departure from this Earth…

Taxi Driver (1976)
Dir: Martin Scorsese
Stars: Robert DeNiro, Cybill Shepherd, Jodie Foster, Harvey Keitel and Albert Brooks

I’ve obviously seen this Scorsese masterpiece before, but like many top American films, I seem to take a new element or theme away from it with each new viewing.  I know, plenty has been written and analyzed about this film prior to my little post here – so all I can do is give you my latest take!  Hopefully, it’ll at least help motivate you to see this classic again.

For those of you unfamiliar with this title, it concerns the story of Travis Bickle, an ex-Marine who simply can’t sleep and spends most of his nights riding around Manhattan on buses and subways.  He’s only 26, and as time will tell, he’s incredibly lonely.  What makes this film and this character so relatable is that he wants what most of us want: to love and be loved.  But poor Travis struggles with this desire, as demonstrated by a brief relationship with a Presidential campaign manager named Betsy (Cybill Shepherd.)  As Travis’ voice over tells us, he saw her one day at the campaign headquarters and felt “they can not touch her.”  You might be wondering, “who’s they?”

As we listen more to Travis’ thoughts in voice over and observe him writing in journals, it’s clear he’s having more and more trouble relating to people on any kind of agreeable plane.  The guy is just plain awkward – he tries so hard!  I mean, already he’s built this Betsy into a being that has an awful lot to live up to.  Sure enough, he bravely approaches her during her work day, amongst her colleagues – including a wonderfully awkward and “silly” co-worker named Tom (Albert Brooks) – and actually gets her to agree to see him.  He takes her for coffee and pie, which goes well.  But the second date, during which he takes her to the porno movies, ends poorly as one might expect.  One of the best shots in the film occurs right after this disastrous meeting: Travis is talking to Besty on the phone and trying to convince her to see him again.  The conversation is obviously not going well – we’re hearing only Travis’ side as he chats with her on a pay phone.  Anyhow, when he asks Betsy if she received his flowers, the camera moves slightly to the right, about six or eight feet until Travis is out of frame, and reveals a deserted, dingy, filthy hallway leading to the street.  The conversation concludes and Travis disappears down the hallway and into the street, continuing his ongoing battle with solitude.

Just a little bit more on the story: the middle of the film focuses on all of the bizarre and upsetting things Travis witnesses as a taxi driver hauling folks all over the streets of New York.  For example, a bearded man (Martin Scorsese) has the cabbie pull over to the side of the curb and keep the meter running as he describes to Travis how he’s going to murder his wife who’s cheating on him – then points her silhouette out for Travis in a second floor window!  Travis decides to arm himself for whatever events he has conjured up in his mind.  In another memorable scene, he meets with “Easy Eddie” in a disgusting motel room and buys not two, not three, but four pistols, including a .357 Magnum, which as Eddie advises, could be used to stop a charging elephant.  We see Travis spending more time practicing with the guns, equipping himself with holsters and homemade contraptions so that he may carry all four at once.  For what, pray tell?  He even starts shadowing the Presidential candidate that Betsy was working for, Charles Palantine.  Ruh roh…

The only other distraction for Travis is a very young prostitute named Easy, AKA Iris, played by Jodie Foster.  She hops in his cab one night and demands to be “taken out of here.”  But, her pimp, played with creepy confidence and bravado by Harvey Keitel, drags her out of the cab and tosses an atrocious looking $20 bill at Travis.  Well, another night, Travis runs into Iris and decides to look her up the next day.  Turns out she’s not even 13 yet and would very much like to get out of her current lifestyle – but only when she’s high.  The resolution to the story I’ll leave for you to either remember or experience for yourself.  But I’ll say this – do yourself a favor and have Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy on stand-by as the second film in your double feature – you’ll need it.

A few more observations about the film: Taxi Driver seems to be a nocturnal movie.  Even when I think of the day time shots, there are few of them, and most of them occur indoors.  Even Travis observes early on in the movie, “All the animals come out at night.”  I don’t think this is an earth-shattering note, but I think it speaks volumes to Travis’ “arch,” or his journey from a bad mental and emotional place to an agreeable one by the end of the movie.  We humans are meant to work during the day, have a bit of camaraderie with each other and enjoy life: poor Travis seems stuck living at night, alone and in a revolving door of despair.

Think of the use of voice over for a moment.  It’s creepy to be let inside a character’s mind, much less one like Bickle, and DeNiro’s precise, specific delivery of Paul Schrader’s dialogue drives the film.  I’m not sure Driver would have the same effect without its use of voice over.  Now, I’m aware that a lot of screenwriting coaches and gurus insist that voice over is the kiss of death, but that’s what I like about Taxi Driver: if you were to watch the film on mute, you’d still be pretty concerned and/or frightened by Travis!  The voice over is more of a supplement and not a highlight.  Another thing I only picked up on during this viewing was how Iris’ Dad provides the final voice over.  Think about it for a moment: when Betsy hops in the cab in the final scene, Travis has no voice over to offer us after he drops her off, does he?  Again, he lands in an agreeable place to (hopefully) live the rest of his life in peace.

Other supplements to the story that contribute to the overall effectiveness of the picture include the music, cinematography and acting.  Bernard Herrmann’s score provides the perfect mood for the romantic scenes with Betsy, the “touring” scenes with Travis driving around town and the crazy, bloody climax.  The scenes with Bickle just driving around have tremendous shots of parts of the cab with the New York streets “scrolling” behind them.  Herrmann’s marching tune accompanying these shots make you feel like Travis is making up his mind, biding his time, awaiting the best moment to clean them up.  And I won’t even get into the acting.  Yes, the supporting roles are a big part of why the movie works, but come on… You imitated DeNiro after you saw this movie the first time, I did, my friends did and continue to do so today – I still do “You talkin’ to me” by myself from time to time!  There’s no getting around the fact that this was a stellar performance that has been mimicked and imitated countless times since its debut.

Note 1: Have a look at the trailer here – is that me or is it James Coburn providing the voice over??

Taxi Driver (1976) Trailer

Note 2: I gotta say what an incredible year 1976 was in film.  We have Taxi Driver, sure, but we also have Rocky, Network, Carrie and All the President’s Men.  Not too shabby, eh?!