New Year Quiz (answer at the bottom of this post). What current American actor has appeared in films directed by Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Clint Eastwood, George Clooney, The Coen Brothers, Steven Soderbergh, Gus Van Sant and Robert Redford?
I can compile a top ten best films list for over a dozen directors. But only for Woody Allen and Alfred Hitchcock can I create a top 20 (I may eventually get there with Ingmar Bergman). Both Allen and Hitch have had a few turkeys, but the overall consistencies of their prodigious careers is truly astounding. Woody is, of course, still going.
Quick, name another movie Keir Dullea was in besides 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).
The missus just asked what I was doing. I replied, "writing a blog post, just a few odd items." Her reply: "you're an odd item." Calls 'em as she sees 'em she does.
Did the U.S. Congress really repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell? It's almost as if the United States has decided to join the 21st century. Now if the country can stop giving the filthy rich tax breaks, reduce military spending....Who am I kidding?
I received the Rossellini War Trilogy for Christmas. I hope to find time to expound glowing on it here at length in the near future. For now I want to express my gushing enthusiasm for this package which includes Rome Open City (1945), Paisan (1946) and Germany Year Zero (1948). Not only are they three terrific films but Criterion has provided the set with some truly special special features.
I never got around to writing about Tony Curtis after his death a few months ago. I wanted to extoll his acting skills which were more considerable than people sometimes realize. As proof I suggest seeing his performances in Sweet Smell of Success (1957), The Boston Strangler (1968) and The Defiant Ones (1958). Case closed.
Have you ever tried to sit down and watch an American football game from start to finish without any other tasks at hand? Either you need a mind of mush or your mind will turn into one at the end of the three plus hours. Why? The endless commercial interruptions. They speak to a certain vapidity to the American culture that I find particularly disturbing. If I must watch a game I've got two approaches. One is to DVR it and start watching about 40 minutes after the start so I can fast forward through the ads. The other is to have some other tasks at hand such as house cleaning, the crossword puzzle or translating the dictionary into esperanto.
You know who was a really funny actress? Irene Dunne. Just one example is when she pretends to be Cary Grant's sister in The Awful Truth (1937). I've been slow to warm up to Ms. Dunne, but she was an excellent film partner for Grant. They teamed several times and I particularly liked her in My Favorite Wife (1940). I think she deserves a full post. Maybe one of my legion of readers will write one. If so, I'll link it.
Speaking of wives again...I tried to convince mine that I should get Lasik surgery. She said no dice because its elective surgery and we'd have to pay for it. I came up with a perfect solution: she and some big galoot drag me into the optician's office, tie me up and force me to have the surgery. When the bill comes I tell the insurance company I did not "elect" to have the surgery but was forced to, as the doctor will testify. Problem solved.
May I recommend I Knew it Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale (2009)? I can? Goody. A short but excellent documentary on the actor who appeared in only five films before succumbing to lung caner. All five movies were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. He's best remembered as the middle Corleone bother, Fredo. The documentary not only offers insight into the man, but into the craft of acting, something at which Cazale excelled. Don't take my word for it, see what his acting contemporaries said of him. The documentary premiered on HBO and is now available on Digital Video Disc (DVD).
Quiz answer: Matt Damon
|
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Showing posts with label Italian Films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Italian Films. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Odds and Ends to Kick Off Another Year of Film Blogging
Labels:
Cary Grant,
Hitchcock,
Italian Films,
Woody Allen
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Quintuplets, Vengeance, Stuttering, Black Shirts & Murder -- Catching Up With Some of the Films I've Seen Lately
I've recently enjoyed that most treasured of all interludes, time off. Absent travel, the two best ways to occupy such time is with family or films. I've been lucky enough to do both. Details of conversations with nephews, children or others are not likely to interest the general reader, so I'll report instead on some of the films I've seen of late.
Holy Multiple Births! or The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1944). These past three years I've listed this film from Preston Sturges as one of my favorite Christmas movies. Indeed I watch it almost every December. While I'm beginning to re-think Miracle as a Holiday flick, I am hardening my position that it is joy to behold. The real miracle, of course, is that Sturges slipped this by the censors who, in days of yore, cared not for pregnancy, pre-marital sex or women going unpunished for naughty behavior. The prudes! This is not Andy Hardy's small town USA. For one thing some of the characters are, well, real characters. No better example than the father of the bride, Constable Kockenlocker (William Demarest). He's a kick, which is appropriate to say because he's constantly trying to kick one of his daughter's in the fanny and in turn landing on his own. The older daughter Trudy is the blinkered, dizzy but lovable blonde who gets, "in a family way" under circumstances that only Sturges could create. Diana Lynn is an underrated delight as the wise cracking and wise beyond her years 14 year-old kid sister. The hapless wonder in the story is the lovelorn Norval Jones (Eddie Bracken) who'll go to any lengths for his beloved Trudy. Bumbling, stumbling and fumbling all the way, Norval is just a sweetie pie that anyone would root for. Like the other half dozen or so classics Sturges made in a period of under ten years (with nary a thing before or after to boast of) Miracle is witty, silly, improbable and utterly delightful. So maybe while it's not a true Christmas film, it is a true wonder.
The Coen Brothers Go West or True Grit. I think it's safe to assert that, at least in this writer's humble opinion, the title of best working American director is a tie between Joel and Ethan Coen, who conveniently are brothers and work together. In recent years they've offered No Country for Old Men (2007), A Serious Man (2009) and now True Grit. Three films from radically different genres (and if you can figure out the genres of the former two, more power to ya). True Grit is a clearly a western. It's somewhat of a surprise that the Coens would make such a conventional film. It's no surprise that these fine craftsmen would do such a bang up job. This is not a re-make of the 1969 film of the same name which starred John Wayne. It is instead a more faithful telling of the novel of the same name penned by Charles Portis. (As per custom, the Coens did their own adapting.) I'm not in a position to compare the two films as I never bothered with the first. Still, its impossible to imagine that John Wayne did more with the role of Rooster Cogburn than did Jeff Bridges. I've seen enough of Wayne to state with confidence that he couldn't have matched Bridges' spitting, muttering, cussing and quite obviously stinky interpretation of the lawman. Bridges was a positive wonder to watch. He was clearly having a rollicking good time in the role and inviting us to enjoy the journey with him. Meanwhile newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, a mere 13 years old during filming, is amazing as Mattie Ross. The phrase, she more than held her own, springs immediately to mind. Matt Damon, Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper are also along for the ride and contribute mightily to it. But it is the Coens who should earn the most encomiums. They re-created the proverbial Old West as well if not better than has been done before. If ever a film felt like it existed in the time period and place it depicted, this one did.
How Stuttering Can Be a Royal Pain or The King's Speech. They might as well hand the Best Actor Academy Award to Colin Forth now and dispense with the nominations. I'm not suggesting that he should win or for that matter that he shouldn't, just that he will. He was considered an unofficial runner up to the aforementioned Mr. Bridges last year and he gives a wonderful performance in a prestige film this year. The King's Speech is a classy production all the way. Then again so are those Masterpiece Theater production that PBS shows on Sunday nights. This film had all the emotional heft of one of those stagey-looking productions. One of the problems being the focus on a man's (yes, I know, he was the bloody King of England) speech impediment. For crying out loud this King assumed the throne when his brother abdicated to marry an American divorcée. Then there was the little business of World War II breaking out during his reign. Both these events are treated as sidebars in the story of the stubborn prince-cum-king learning to appreciate and profit from his unconventional tutor (Geoffrey Rush). The King's Speech looked damn nice and flowed along quite well with Firth's performance a real highlight. But I could have seen the same quality on PBS and saved the $10.
The Two Mrs. Mussolinis or Vincere (2009). Earlier this year this wonderful film from Italy snuck into a few theaters across America and then snuck right back out. Some of us were lucky enough to catch it. Happily it's now available on DVD and can be watched as part of Netflix's Instant program. Do yourself a favor and see it. It is the story of Ida Dasler who was almost certainly a mistress of Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini (before he assumed power) and claimed to be his first wife and mother to his son. Giovanna Mezzogiorno as Dasler gives one of those performances covering many years in the life of a historical figure that leaves one in awe (think Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose (2007)). She is lusty, tempestuous, beautiful and utterly mad. We in turn feel much of what she's going through. The first half of the film follows her with Mussolini as he rises from newspaper editor to Il Duce. It is rich, panoramic and blends historical footage with red hot sex and passions of all variety. Then as Mussolini must protect his legitimate relationship and secure his place in history, Ida is frozen of his life. As this is her story, we see no more of him (except in some more archival scenes) and the story slows considerably. It is now about a woman's hopeless efforts to claim the man she loves for her very own. Does she go mad or is this alleged insanity a means of "getting her out of the way?" In either case the focus has changed and some viewers have evidently felt cheated. But it is honest film making and still makes for compelling viewing. If Mezzogiorno isn't enough to hold your attention you weren't paying attention in the first place.
How to Murder Your Mistress or Match Point (2005). I've been on a Woody Allen kick for over a month that shows no signs of abating (can a kick abate?). This was my third viewing of Match Point and it is a classic example of a film that gets ever so much better with each viewing. The little details of "what happens" increasingly seem merely to serve the bigger questions the film asks and the manner in which the story is told. The idea of killing an inconvenient mistress was not new to Allen who'd explored it in Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989). However, Match Point does not presume to explore moral questions. We are simply watching a cold calculating young man, Chris (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) who's principally employed charm and grace to attain all of life's luxuries. If a murder is needed to protect all he's accumulated, so be it. He's results-oriented. Match Point is one of the many Allen films to ask serious questions about its characters and thus of its audience. It also ponders the imponderable role of luck in one's life, another occasional Allen theme. On the surface Match Point is a simple, elegant film about a man's rise and his use of the ultimate crime in the service of his success. But upon repeat viewings we see more subtlety in Chris and how he maneuvers. We also see, in sharper focus, the banality of his wife and her very well-to-do family and infuriating innocence and naiveté of his lover, (Scarlett Johansson). It's impossible to conceive a list of top ten Allen films which omits it.
Holy Multiple Births! or The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1944). These past three years I've listed this film from Preston Sturges as one of my favorite Christmas movies. Indeed I watch it almost every December. While I'm beginning to re-think Miracle as a Holiday flick, I am hardening my position that it is joy to behold. The real miracle, of course, is that Sturges slipped this by the censors who, in days of yore, cared not for pregnancy, pre-marital sex or women going unpunished for naughty behavior. The prudes! This is not Andy Hardy's small town USA. For one thing some of the characters are, well, real characters. No better example than the father of the bride, Constable Kockenlocker (William Demarest). He's a kick, which is appropriate to say because he's constantly trying to kick one of his daughter's in the fanny and in turn landing on his own. The older daughter Trudy is the blinkered, dizzy but lovable blonde who gets, "in a family way" under circumstances that only Sturges could create. Diana Lynn is an underrated delight as the wise cracking and wise beyond her years 14 year-old kid sister. The hapless wonder in the story is the lovelorn Norval Jones (Eddie Bracken) who'll go to any lengths for his beloved Trudy. Bumbling, stumbling and fumbling all the way, Norval is just a sweetie pie that anyone would root for. Like the other half dozen or so classics Sturges made in a period of under ten years (with nary a thing before or after to boast of) Miracle is witty, silly, improbable and utterly delightful. So maybe while it's not a true Christmas film, it is a true wonder.
The Coen Brothers Go West or True Grit. I think it's safe to assert that, at least in this writer's humble opinion, the title of best working American director is a tie between Joel and Ethan Coen, who conveniently are brothers and work together. In recent years they've offered No Country for Old Men (2007), A Serious Man (2009) and now True Grit. Three films from radically different genres (and if you can figure out the genres of the former two, more power to ya). True Grit is a clearly a western. It's somewhat of a surprise that the Coens would make such a conventional film. It's no surprise that these fine craftsmen would do such a bang up job. This is not a re-make of the 1969 film of the same name which starred John Wayne. It is instead a more faithful telling of the novel of the same name penned by Charles Portis. (As per custom, the Coens did their own adapting.) I'm not in a position to compare the two films as I never bothered with the first. Still, its impossible to imagine that John Wayne did more with the role of Rooster Cogburn than did Jeff Bridges. I've seen enough of Wayne to state with confidence that he couldn't have matched Bridges' spitting, muttering, cussing and quite obviously stinky interpretation of the lawman. Bridges was a positive wonder to watch. He was clearly having a rollicking good time in the role and inviting us to enjoy the journey with him. Meanwhile newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, a mere 13 years old during filming, is amazing as Mattie Ross. The phrase, she more than held her own, springs immediately to mind. Matt Damon, Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper are also along for the ride and contribute mightily to it. But it is the Coens who should earn the most encomiums. They re-created the proverbial Old West as well if not better than has been done before. If ever a film felt like it existed in the time period and place it depicted, this one did.
How Stuttering Can Be a Royal Pain or The King's Speech. They might as well hand the Best Actor Academy Award to Colin Forth now and dispense with the nominations. I'm not suggesting that he should win or for that matter that he shouldn't, just that he will. He was considered an unofficial runner up to the aforementioned Mr. Bridges last year and he gives a wonderful performance in a prestige film this year. The King's Speech is a classy production all the way. Then again so are those Masterpiece Theater production that PBS shows on Sunday nights. This film had all the emotional heft of one of those stagey-looking productions. One of the problems being the focus on a man's (yes, I know, he was the bloody King of England) speech impediment. For crying out loud this King assumed the throne when his brother abdicated to marry an American divorcée. Then there was the little business of World War II breaking out during his reign. Both these events are treated as sidebars in the story of the stubborn prince-cum-king learning to appreciate and profit from his unconventional tutor (Geoffrey Rush). The King's Speech looked damn nice and flowed along quite well with Firth's performance a real highlight. But I could have seen the same quality on PBS and saved the $10.
The Two Mrs. Mussolinis or Vincere (2009). Earlier this year this wonderful film from Italy snuck into a few theaters across America and then snuck right back out. Some of us were lucky enough to catch it. Happily it's now available on DVD and can be watched as part of Netflix's Instant program. Do yourself a favor and see it. It is the story of Ida Dasler who was almost certainly a mistress of Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini (before he assumed power) and claimed to be his first wife and mother to his son. Giovanna Mezzogiorno as Dasler gives one of those performances covering many years in the life of a historical figure that leaves one in awe (think Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose (2007)). She is lusty, tempestuous, beautiful and utterly mad. We in turn feel much of what she's going through. The first half of the film follows her with Mussolini as he rises from newspaper editor to Il Duce. It is rich, panoramic and blends historical footage with red hot sex and passions of all variety. Then as Mussolini must protect his legitimate relationship and secure his place in history, Ida is frozen of his life. As this is her story, we see no more of him (except in some more archival scenes) and the story slows considerably. It is now about a woman's hopeless efforts to claim the man she loves for her very own. Does she go mad or is this alleged insanity a means of "getting her out of the way?" In either case the focus has changed and some viewers have evidently felt cheated. But it is honest film making and still makes for compelling viewing. If Mezzogiorno isn't enough to hold your attention you weren't paying attention in the first place.
How to Murder Your Mistress or Match Point (2005). I've been on a Woody Allen kick for over a month that shows no signs of abating (can a kick abate?). This was my third viewing of Match Point and it is a classic example of a film that gets ever so much better with each viewing. The little details of "what happens" increasingly seem merely to serve the bigger questions the film asks and the manner in which the story is told. The idea of killing an inconvenient mistress was not new to Allen who'd explored it in Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989). However, Match Point does not presume to explore moral questions. We are simply watching a cold calculating young man, Chris (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) who's principally employed charm and grace to attain all of life's luxuries. If a murder is needed to protect all he's accumulated, so be it. He's results-oriented. Match Point is one of the many Allen films to ask serious questions about its characters and thus of its audience. It also ponders the imponderable role of luck in one's life, another occasional Allen theme. On the surface Match Point is a simple, elegant film about a man's rise and his use of the ultimate crime in the service of his success. But upon repeat viewings we see more subtlety in Chris and how he maneuvers. We also see, in sharper focus, the banality of his wife and her very well-to-do family and infuriating innocence and naiveté of his lover, (Scarlett Johansson). It's impossible to conceive a list of top ten Allen films which omits it.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
In Honor of Today Being 10/10/10 I Offer 10 Lists of 10
The last time the date was 10/10/10 I did not have this film blog so this is the first such post I've ever done. Yes when the calender last featured a trio of tens times were different indeed. The Kaiser ruled Germany, Babe Ruth had not yet debuted with the Red Sox and movies were still more than a decade from fully incorporating sound. The internet was in its infancy....But I digress.
Today I offer what I couldn't 100 years ago in recognition of the date. Ten film lists of ten films apiece. Please note that not all are in order and none are annotated.
Ten Great Films From Italy
1. Amarcord (1973)
2. 8/12 (1963)
3. Open City (1945)
4. Nights of Cabiria (1957)
5. Bicycle Thieves (1948)
6. Paisan (1946)
7. Umberto D. (1952)
8. Two Women (1960)
9. La Dolce Vita (1960)
10. La notti bianche (1957)
Ten Terrific Westerns
1. The Searchers (1956)
2. Stagecoach (1939)
3. Red River (1948)
4. The Wild Bunch (1969)
5. Westward the Women (1951)
6. Ride the High Country (1962)
7. The Naked Spur (1953)
8. The Big Trail (1930)
9. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1960)
10. The Westerner (1940)
Ten Movies That Crack Me Up
1. Animal House (1978)
2. Duck Soup (1933)
3. The Palm Beach Story (1942)
4. Stripes (1981)
5. Some Like it Hot (1959)
6. Trading Places (1983)
7. Safety Last (1923)
8. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
9. Bananas (1971)
10. The Gold Rush (1925)
My Ten Favorite Hitchcock films
1. Vertigo (1958)
2. Foreign Correspondent (1940)
3. Shadow of a Doubt (1942)
4. Psycho (1960)
5. Strangers on a Train (1951)
6. The 39 Steps (1935)
7. Notorious (1946)
8. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)
9. The Lady Vanishes (1938)
10. I Confess (1953)
Ten Films I Like a Lot That Have A Person's Name For the Title
1. Annie Hall (1977)
2. Rebecca (1940)
3. Barry Lyndon (1975)
4. Arthur (1981)
5. Ninochka (1939)
6. Ed Wood (1994)
7. Ali (2001)
8. Vera Drake (2004)
9. Milk (2008)
10. Mildred Pierce (1945)
Ten Best American Films From the First Half of the 1970s
1. The Godfather (1972)
2. Cabaret (1972)
3. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
4. The Exorcist (1973)
5. The Godfather Part II (1974)
6. The Sting (1973)
7. Mean Streets (1973)
8. The Last Picture Show (1971)
9. The Conversation (1974)
10. Little Big Man (1970)
Ten Fantastic French Films From the 1960s
1. Shoot the Piano Player (1960)
2. Le Samouri (1967)
3. Band of Outsiders (1964)
4. Jules et Jim (1962)
5. Breathless (1960)
6. Vivre Sa Vie (1962)
7. Army of Shadows (1969)
8. The Two of Us (1967)
9. The Sorrow and the Pity (1969)
10. The Fire Within (1963)
Ten Great Films Based on Actual Events
1. Goodfellas (1990)
2. Raging Bull (1980)
3. Schindler's List (1993)
4. The Great Escape (1963)
5. JFK (1991)
6. Zodiac (2007)
7. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
8. Bonnie & Clyde (1967)
9. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
10. The Social Network (2010)
Ten Movies With Trial Scenes
1. The Verdict (1982)
2. Inherit the Wind (1960)
3. Paths of Glory (1957)
4. Wild Boys of the Road (1933)
5. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
6. Midnight Mary (1933)
7. Philadelphia (1993)
8. Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
9. Two Seconds (1932)
10. Amistad (1997)
Ten Films in Which People Watch a Film
1. Cinema Paradiso (1988)
2. Vivre Sa Vie (1962)
3. Sunset Blvd. (1950)
4. Sullivan's Travels (1941)
5. Shoe-Shine (1946)
6. The Last Picture Show (1971)
7. Gods & Monsters (1998)
8. The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
9. The Aviator (2004)
10. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
Today I offer what I couldn't 100 years ago in recognition of the date. Ten film lists of ten films apiece. Please note that not all are in order and none are annotated.
Ten Great Films From Italy
1. Amarcord (1973)
2. 8/12 (1963)
3. Open City (1945)
4. Nights of Cabiria (1957)
5. Bicycle Thieves (1948)
6. Paisan (1946)
7. Umberto D. (1952)
8. Two Women (1960)
9. La Dolce Vita (1960)
10. La notti bianche (1957)
Ten Terrific Westerns
1. The Searchers (1956)
2. Stagecoach (1939)
3. Red River (1948)
4. The Wild Bunch (1969)
5. Westward the Women (1951)
6. Ride the High Country (1962)
7. The Naked Spur (1953)
8. The Big Trail (1930)
9. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1960)
10. The Westerner (1940)
Ten Movies That Crack Me Up
1. Animal House (1978)
2. Duck Soup (1933)
3. The Palm Beach Story (1942)
4. Stripes (1981)
5. Some Like it Hot (1959)
6. Trading Places (1983)
7. Safety Last (1923)
8. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
9. Bananas (1971)
10. The Gold Rush (1925)
My Ten Favorite Hitchcock films
1. Vertigo (1958)
2. Foreign Correspondent (1940)
3. Shadow of a Doubt (1942)
4. Psycho (1960)
5. Strangers on a Train (1951)
6. The 39 Steps (1935)
7. Notorious (1946)
8. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)
9. The Lady Vanishes (1938)
10. I Confess (1953)
Ten Films I Like a Lot That Have A Person's Name For the Title
1. Annie Hall (1977)
2. Rebecca (1940)
3. Barry Lyndon (1975)
4. Arthur (1981)
5. Ninochka (1939)
6. Ed Wood (1994)
7. Ali (2001)
8. Vera Drake (2004)
9. Milk (2008)
10. Mildred Pierce (1945)
Ten Best American Films From the First Half of the 1970s
1. The Godfather (1972)
2. Cabaret (1972)
3. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
4. The Exorcist (1973)
5. The Godfather Part II (1974)
6. The Sting (1973)
7. Mean Streets (1973)
8. The Last Picture Show (1971)
9. The Conversation (1974)
10. Little Big Man (1970)
Ten Fantastic French Films From the 1960s
1. Shoot the Piano Player (1960)
2. Le Samouri (1967)
3. Band of Outsiders (1964)
4. Jules et Jim (1962)
5. Breathless (1960)
6. Vivre Sa Vie (1962)
7. Army of Shadows (1969)
8. The Two of Us (1967)
9. The Sorrow and the Pity (1969)
10. The Fire Within (1963)
Ten Great Films Based on Actual Events
1. Goodfellas (1990)
2. Raging Bull (1980)
3. Schindler's List (1993)
4. The Great Escape (1963)
5. JFK (1991)
6. Zodiac (2007)
7. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
8. Bonnie & Clyde (1967)
9. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
10. The Social Network (2010)
Ten Movies With Trial Scenes
1. The Verdict (1982)
2. Inherit the Wind (1960)
3. Paths of Glory (1957)
4. Wild Boys of the Road (1933)
5. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
6. Midnight Mary (1933)
7. Philadelphia (1993)
8. Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
9. Two Seconds (1932)
10. Amistad (1997)
Ten Films in Which People Watch a Film
1. Cinema Paradiso (1988)
2. Vivre Sa Vie (1962)
3. Sunset Blvd. (1950)
4. Sullivan's Travels (1941)
5. Shoe-Shine (1946)
6. The Last Picture Show (1971)
7. Gods & Monsters (1998)
8. The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
9. The Aviator (2004)
10. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
Labels:
French Cinema,
Hitchcock,
Italian Films,
List,
Westerns
Sunday, April 11, 2010
I Stop in For a Quickie, Comments on Films I've Seen Recently
Before I get totally immersed in studying for my Second Language Acquisition class final (next Saturday, check your local listings for exact time and channel) I'm going to make a few quick comments about some of the films I've watched recently. I offer these in no particular order and without further ado.
Female (1933). Ruth Chatteron is the wealthy CEO of a car company who uses men, sometimes as sexual playthings. At the risk of being obvious this is a pre code film and is in fact a classic example of the genre. Such a film would not only have been impossible to make in the first 30 years the code was enforced, its hard to imagine it today. Its so wonderful to see a woman in charge, even if she finally does meet her match in George Brent.
Baby Face (1933). Another pre code film, this is to me the epitome of those daring movies made before the Hays office started its heinous censoring. Moreover its one of the better films of all time. Barbara Stanwyck couldn't be better as a woman who ruthlessly sleeps her way to the top, casting men aside like used banana skins. Like Chatterton in Female, she too gets more than she bargained for upon meeting George Brent. What was it with that guy?
Lacombe, Lucien(1974). It's a good enough film but one would certainly expect more from director Louis Malle. He set himself a heck of a task making the protagonist such an unlikeable fellow. While an interesting and never boring, LL does not show the craftsmanship of most other Malle films. This was my second viewing and I like it less, maybe because I first saw at the Pacific Film Archives on the big screen. It's the story of a somewhat dim witted young Frenchmen who stumbles upon and joins forces with the collaborationist French police force during Nazi occupation. Full of good performances.
King & Country (1964). Speaking of the PFA, I saw King and Country there last Thursday. I now have another film to add to my list of outstanding World War I movies. It's got elements of Paths of Glory (1958) though the man on trial here is actually guilty of the charges. Whether he deserves the death by firing squad is another matter. Tom Courteny is excellent as the naive war weary young British soldier charged with desertion and Dirk Bogarde gives a superb performance as the officer who defends him (any Bogarde fans out there?). One of a legion of films that examines the lunacy of war. Done in 18 days on the cheap, it feels like a stage play but with all that rain and mud looks and is a really good film.
Shutter Island (2010) One of those rare films that I absolutely have to see again to decide upon. I wrote about it the other day so won't go on too long here other than to re-iterate that it has had a lingering effect on my thinking and even though I'm not sure how much I like it. Must see it again on the big screen.
Flame and Citron (2008). In terms of movies, World War II is the gift that just keeps on giving. Released last Summer in the States and now available on DVD was this film about two heroes of the Danish resistance. No, I knew nothing about the Danish resistance and in fact as much as I've studied the war I'd never given it much thought. Flame and Citron were the code names of two Danes whose primary jobs were as hit men. Their targets were generally Danes who'd gone bad, that is collaborated with the Nazis. It's a true story and a powerful one well told. Two relatively ordinary sorts become heroes due to the extremely unusual circumstances of the time and place. Appropriately bloody, sad, nerve wrecking and fascinating.
Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1943). You're a fine actor Robert Downey Jr. but when it comes to playing Sherlock Holmes, give me Basil Rathbone anytime. As for Dr. Watson, I'll take the lovable Nigel Bruce over Jude Law or anyone else any time. That said this particular edition of the Rathbone/Bruce Holmes films is merely adequate. Likes others made during WWII it tries too hard to be anti Nazi and takes us away from what Holmes does best, match wits. Still a diverting and delightful film with a good bit of sleuthing.
Taxi Driver (1976). Wow. It's one of those cinematic experiences that makes you wonder what you should single out and praise. How about the performance of its star, Robert De Niro? You could also go with the screenplay by Paul Schrader. Maybe Martin Scorsese's direction? The supporting cast? A particular scene? The mood of the film? It's influence? Great films are like that. You find different things to admire with each viewing. This time I was struck by lead character Travis Bickle and his utter and complete separation from society. Bickle made attempts to engage with his fellow humans but really didn't have it in him. The one person he got along with was a teenage prostitute and she ended up having to watch him shoot holes through three people. It's a great story of an alienated man.
Germany Year Zero (1948). I've already promised to devote a whole post to director Roberto Rossellini's extraordinary war trilogy, of which this is the third part. I'd never see this one before and suffice it to say was suitably impressed. To say it belongs right up there with its predecessors, Open City and Paisan, is high praise indeed and praise I give without hesitation. See all three and meanwhile I'll try to find time in the coming weeks to go on and on and on about them. This latter is, as the title implies, set in Germany. The war has ended and we see that Germans are paying a heavy price for their defeat. We follow in particular one young lad trying against all odds to make the best of a sad situation.
Captain Blood (1935). I didn't so much watch it as have it on while I tended to other matters. It's a familiar enough film with Errol Flynn swashbuckling and Olivia de Havilland looking gorgeous, which of course came naturally for her. You also get Guy Kibbee, the great Mr. Rathbone, Harry Stephenson and Donald Meek. Michael Curtiz directed and he knew how to make a rollicking good adventure story. You can have your Pirates of the Caribbean, give me the pirate adventures of Hollywood's Golden Age.
Europa Europa (1990). This is one of those films that isn't terribly well told but you don't mind because its such an amazing story. A Jewish-German teenager living in Poland at the outbreak of World War II escapes the Nazis and is taken in by the Soviets. When Germany and Soviets go to war he's on the run again until being captured by the Nazis. He pretends to be...well I could go on about this incredible tale. The kid ends up in of all places the Hitler Youth where he squires a young Jew-hating Aryan bird played by Julie Delpy. Wait a second, didn't I say earlier that he himself was a Jew? Yup. What makes it all the more remarkable is that this is a true story. Not a cinematic work of art but when the story is this compelling, who cares? Very well worth seeing.
Female (1933). Ruth Chatteron is the wealthy CEO of a car company who uses men, sometimes as sexual playthings. At the risk of being obvious this is a pre code film and is in fact a classic example of the genre. Such a film would not only have been impossible to make in the first 30 years the code was enforced, its hard to imagine it today. Its so wonderful to see a woman in charge, even if she finally does meet her match in George Brent.
Baby Face (1933). Another pre code film, this is to me the epitome of those daring movies made before the Hays office started its heinous censoring. Moreover its one of the better films of all time. Barbara Stanwyck couldn't be better as a woman who ruthlessly sleeps her way to the top, casting men aside like used banana skins. Like Chatterton in Female, she too gets more than she bargained for upon meeting George Brent. What was it with that guy?
Lacombe, Lucien(1974). It's a good enough film but one would certainly expect more from director Louis Malle. He set himself a heck of a task making the protagonist such an unlikeable fellow. While an interesting and never boring, LL does not show the craftsmanship of most other Malle films. This was my second viewing and I like it less, maybe because I first saw at the Pacific Film Archives on the big screen. It's the story of a somewhat dim witted young Frenchmen who stumbles upon and joins forces with the collaborationist French police force during Nazi occupation. Full of good performances.
King & Country (1964). Speaking of the PFA, I saw King and Country there last Thursday. I now have another film to add to my list of outstanding World War I movies. It's got elements of Paths of Glory (1958) though the man on trial here is actually guilty of the charges. Whether he deserves the death by firing squad is another matter. Tom Courteny is excellent as the naive war weary young British soldier charged with desertion and Dirk Bogarde gives a superb performance as the officer who defends him (any Bogarde fans out there?). One of a legion of films that examines the lunacy of war. Done in 18 days on the cheap, it feels like a stage play but with all that rain and mud looks and is a really good film.
Shutter Island (2010) One of those rare films that I absolutely have to see again to decide upon. I wrote about it the other day so won't go on too long here other than to re-iterate that it has had a lingering effect on my thinking and even though I'm not sure how much I like it. Must see it again on the big screen.
Flame and Citron (2008). In terms of movies, World War II is the gift that just keeps on giving. Released last Summer in the States and now available on DVD was this film about two heroes of the Danish resistance. No, I knew nothing about the Danish resistance and in fact as much as I've studied the war I'd never given it much thought. Flame and Citron were the code names of two Danes whose primary jobs were as hit men. Their targets were generally Danes who'd gone bad, that is collaborated with the Nazis. It's a true story and a powerful one well told. Two relatively ordinary sorts become heroes due to the extremely unusual circumstances of the time and place. Appropriately bloody, sad, nerve wrecking and fascinating.
Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1943). You're a fine actor Robert Downey Jr. but when it comes to playing Sherlock Holmes, give me Basil Rathbone anytime. As for Dr. Watson, I'll take the lovable Nigel Bruce over Jude Law or anyone else any time. That said this particular edition of the Rathbone/Bruce Holmes films is merely adequate. Likes others made during WWII it tries too hard to be anti Nazi and takes us away from what Holmes does best, match wits. Still a diverting and delightful film with a good bit of sleuthing.
Taxi Driver (1976). Wow. It's one of those cinematic experiences that makes you wonder what you should single out and praise. How about the performance of its star, Robert De Niro? You could also go with the screenplay by Paul Schrader. Maybe Martin Scorsese's direction? The supporting cast? A particular scene? The mood of the film? It's influence? Great films are like that. You find different things to admire with each viewing. This time I was struck by lead character Travis Bickle and his utter and complete separation from society. Bickle made attempts to engage with his fellow humans but really didn't have it in him. The one person he got along with was a teenage prostitute and she ended up having to watch him shoot holes through three people. It's a great story of an alienated man.
Germany Year Zero (1948). I've already promised to devote a whole post to director Roberto Rossellini's extraordinary war trilogy, of which this is the third part. I'd never see this one before and suffice it to say was suitably impressed. To say it belongs right up there with its predecessors, Open City and Paisan, is high praise indeed and praise I give without hesitation. See all three and meanwhile I'll try to find time in the coming weeks to go on and on and on about them. This latter is, as the title implies, set in Germany. The war has ended and we see that Germans are paying a heavy price for their defeat. We follow in particular one young lad trying against all odds to make the best of a sad situation.
Captain Blood (1935). I didn't so much watch it as have it on while I tended to other matters. It's a familiar enough film with Errol Flynn swashbuckling and Olivia de Havilland looking gorgeous, which of course came naturally for her. You also get Guy Kibbee, the great Mr. Rathbone, Harry Stephenson and Donald Meek. Michael Curtiz directed and he knew how to make a rollicking good adventure story. You can have your Pirates of the Caribbean, give me the pirate adventures of Hollywood's Golden Age.
Europa Europa (1990). This is one of those films that isn't terribly well told but you don't mind because its such an amazing story. A Jewish-German teenager living in Poland at the outbreak of World War II escapes the Nazis and is taken in by the Soviets. When Germany and Soviets go to war he's on the run again until being captured by the Nazis. He pretends to be...well I could go on about this incredible tale. The kid ends up in of all places the Hitler Youth where he squires a young Jew-hating Aryan bird played by Julie Delpy. Wait a second, didn't I say earlier that he himself was a Jew? Yup. What makes it all the more remarkable is that this is a true story. Not a cinematic work of art but when the story is this compelling, who cares? Very well worth seeing.
Labels:
Barbara Stanwyck,
French Cinema,
Italian Films,
Louis Malle,
Martin Scorsese,
Pre Code Films
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia -or- My Journey Through Italian Cinema (Part Nine: La Dolce Vita)
Behold the empty man, Marcello Rubini. Handsome, sophisticated intelligent in an easy unaffected way. But with no depth at all. Let's be thankful for that. Because it is through him, the protagonist of Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita (1960) that we see a wonderful episodic tale of Rome circa 1960.
We follow the adventures of this journalist and would be novelist, mostly in the wee hours of the night as he cavorts about with the beautiful, the famous and the rich. These adventures comprise nearly three hours in cinematic time. Director Federico Fellini could have cut an hour and had a nice tidy film that would have been beloved. Instead he left all stories in and let them all play out and so created a masterpiece.
We can enjoy the spectacle of La Dolce Vita because it is unencumbered by a deep and philosophical protagonist. Marcello Mastrioni plays Rubini as the ultimate nihilist. He has no strong moral center and apparently no core beliefs. He doesn't even qualify as a hedonist for he can't even manage to indulge copiously. There's a certain current day teenage girl ethos to Rubini. He's like whatever.
Sure he aspires to be a serious author, so long as actual work is not required. Meanwhile he's satisfied with collecting the snippets of life, provided they relate to the glitterati. Around him is a wolf pack of photographers, especially a chap named Paparazzo (the character who gave his name to the paparazzi). They are more obvious, intrusive leeches. Their cameras are as evident and obnoxious as Rubini's pen is hidden. They also lack his many accoutrements, such as sophisticated style.
Whether in a nightclub, a party among the upper crust or in a helicopter (Jesus statue in tow). Rubini has access to the most beautiful women in Rome. Some he falls for, some fall for him. But it's more like the old song:
There are those who can leave love or take it
Love to them is just what they make it There are those who can leave love or take it
I wish that I were the same
But love is my fav'rite game
I fall in love too easily
I fall in love too fast
I fall in love too terribly hard
For love to ever last
My heart should be well-schooled
'Cause I've been burned in the past
And still I fall in love too easily
I fall in love too fast
This is a wonderful plot convenience that Fellini has provided. Rubini's susceptibility to women's charms coupled with there's to his, allows the likes of Anita Ekberg, Anouk Aimee and Magali Noel to dance across screen.
There is also within La Dolce Vita such mysteries as the character of Steiner (Alain Curry). A wealthy sophisticate with a brain to match his bankbook and -- of all things -- a perfectly happy nuclear family. If you've not seen the film I shouldn't here reveal his fate, but suffice to say it is the anchor of La Dolce Vita's many light moments. Odd that Rubini makes the point on a couple of occasions that he and Steiner are good friends thought they rarely see one another. There's something especially piquant about this.
La Dolce Vita is like the grandest dessert tray you've ever seen. Marcello is our waiter. We don't want his life story. Just bring us the treats, maybe tell us a little about everything. This he does.
We follow Rubini, as one would a guide, albeit a handsome one.
La Dolce Vita lacks the madness of Fellini's 8 1/2, the clarity of Nights of Cabiria, or the inventiveness of Amarcord. But like these other great films it serves strong visual fare in wonderful abundance. Here is the work of a director fully confident in his story, his characters and his camera. To some the film goes on too long. These are people who leave a party early, forgetting that sleep can be had on other nights. This party, this movie, is an occasion to savor, not cut short. That's why Marcello is a perfect host. Asking little of us but to enjoy the festivities, we needn't indulge in any great philosophical dialogues. This night, this movie is for other senses.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
State of Exception, An Exceptional Documentary About A Long Forgotten World War II Massacre, My Interview With Its Director, Germano Maccioni
A monument to Monte Sole's victims.
Nearly 65 years after World War II ended the war continues to haunt us. Such a cataclysm, claiming as it did, tens of millions of lives, echoes into the second decade of this millennium. Clearly there are still lessons unlearned and healing not yet finished. We are still finding some previously unknown or long hushed tragedy with a new set of villains. We thus are exposed to new dramas and further contemplating the complexities inherent in human behavior.
If we are lucky the any new story about the war is presented to us thoughtfully and in a manner meant to heal rather than merely shock. One such example is the outstanding new documentary Lo Stato Di Eccezione (State of Exception) about the absentia trial of the perpetrators of the September 1944 Monte Sole massacre in Northern Italy. German soldiers, with the collusion of Italian fascists, massacred 770 Italians, including the elderly, women and children. The killings were a retaliation against alleged acts of resistance. In subsequent war crime trials the leader of the massacre, SS Officer Walter Reder was sentenced to life in prison. But with the intervention of the Austrian government he was released in 1984. No one else was brought to justice for the Monte Sole massacres and the Italian government filed away documents related to the incidents in what is called the armadio della vergogna (closet of shame) until 1994.
Not until 2007 were seventeen Nazis brought to trial for the massacre. As none showed up, and indeed only one hired a defense attorney, they were tried in absentia. State of Exception is about that trial. The title refers to the notion of suspending legal niceties in the event of a supposed state of emergency. The title also refers to the “exception” of there having been no trial conducted against the soldiers for over 60 years after the bloodbath.
Germano Maccioni, a young Italian filmmaker from Bologna, which is just south of Monte Sole, directed State of Exception. The documentary has been a huge success in Italy playing at numerous film festivals. Mr. Maccioni showed it last year in New York and it will be screened in California and Oregon later this month. He is currently in San Francisco Bay Area with my niece, Maijastina Hourula, who did the English translation for the film’s subtitles and their two month old daughter, Sofia Alba. Mr. Maccioni recently completed his second documentary, My Main Man about the vibrant Bologna jazz scene.
State of Exception will be shown in Portland, Oregon on January 16, in San Francisco at the Italian Cultural Institute on January 27 at 6:00 P.M., and in Berkeley on January 28. It will also be shown in Santa Cruz at a day and time to be determined. (More details on times and places will be posted on the film’s website and on this blog.)
State of Exception does its important story justice. Mr. Maccioni has done a masterful job of cutting from scenes of the trial to interviews and present day footage of the sites of the massacres, (which includes a chapel). He displays a deft touch that one would associate with a veteran documentarian. Without, in his own words “showing a drop of blood” the story is powerful and dramatic. We feel the pain of the witnesses who testify but somehow we never grow uncomfortable. Done wrong, such a documentary could make audiences feel that they are intruding upon the private sorrow and anguish of the witnesses. State of Exception is exceptional in this regard. The story has more of the cathartic feeling that was the aim of Greek tragedies. The film introduces us to new horrors but only to inform and illuminate. Judgments are left for us to make. Mr. Maccioni's delicate editing choices do not pursue a point that is obvious to all. He make the choice that all good filmmaker's do – that audiences are capable of drawing their own conclusions.
I recently had the opportunity to interview Germano Maccioni for Riku Writes and some of that conversation follows.
Germano Maccioni.
RW: What drew you to this story?
GM: I got interested in those events by going to the actual place which is not far from where I grew up. I used to go there but I didn’t know what happened. So once I learned what happened and that what happened was so incredibly bad I thought, “why didn’t they teach me this in school? Why didn’t people tell me this?" Once I found all the reasons for the government hiding files and acting in denial of this whole thing I thought it was extremely necessary to make a film about such a subject. I thought that it would be difficult to make a film about that topic but I could do a film about the trial because I was kind of like the observer and the people in the community were the characters. So for me the border between fiction films and documentary can sometimes be very thin.
RW: The documentary film maker Errol Morris once said “If you know what you’re going to say before you say it, why bother?” What do you think of this quote in relation to your film?
GM: Life is so unpredictable that even if you have a film written and a set and everything is settled, you still have that element of mystery that can happen. Like an actor could easily turn in a way that you didn’t expect so you maybe light the scene in a totally different way. So if you’re filming a documentary you have that feeling that anything could potentially happen. I think its amazing because for a film maker, a documentary maker, it's the greatest luxury. If you have the freedom to do the story the way you want it’s a great opportunity. Why do we like cinema? Because in a subconscious way it relates us to this big mystery of life, reality and the way you feel reality. Life is very exciting because it’s happening live, its unpredictable. When you’re shooting something good I can tell when it’s happening because you get that vibration. With that film there were moments I could observe and edit at the same time.
RW: I was really intrigued by the old man who broke down. I thought it was an especially nice technique that you used. When he was being sworn in you were interspersing shots of him sobbing so it prepared us for what his testimony was going to be like. Tell me about deciding to do that.
GM: That’s probably the most intense scene, that man in particular to me represents the community, the archetype who disappeared. So somehow the Nazis won because that community doesn’t exist anymore and that’s a matter of fact. Having a chance to talk to and actually listen to this old man who grew up on a farm and probably didn’t go to school at all and all of a sudden he sees this crazy thing happening like all his family...they took his family and all of sudden started shooting them. Why? He doesn’t even know what the political reasons were. Having a chance to see him 60 years after, first of all he’s a survivor. That’s the moment when you understand that no matter how many rules you have in the courthouse there’s always going to be something more intense. In fact they had to stop the trial because it was too much, not only for the old man but for everybody. I did not put in the film the whole thing because it was way more intense because he started to freak out he started saying a lot of things to the judge, he was crying, I tried to edit it. It was very traumatic for me because I had to watch it over and over again. I thought I should put the whole testimony in. But then I decided it would be more powerful this way. It was total instinct that drove me to this.
RW: Was it hard for you to watch the trial?
GM: It was painful and new at the same time. I’d never been in a courthouse before. So at first it was new but once we started to hear all the tragic stories...every half an hour I’d have to go outside and breath because it was too painful. But then slowly I became part of that community. These people learned to somehow trust me (the witnesses). The most painful part was the editing process because I didn’t use an editor. For months it was basically me and the material. It was so painful, I was like crying. I had to experience the compassion. It was very painful but it was a good pain. And I hope it's a good pain for the audience, instructive.
RW: What kind of research did you do?
GM: I made a play (wrote and directed) performed on the site on Italy’s celebration of the liberation from the Germans and the fascists. I had the audience follow the actors walk. After that I started to study more about the events. Then I heard there was a trial going on. So there was no time to ask for funding or anything. I had the urge to do it. So we started to film without any funding. (Funding was attained during filming).
RW: What was the reaction to the film?
GM: It was always good. I was surprised because it’s not an easy film (to watch). They’re showing it at a lot of high schools in Italy. I was surprised in New York because I thought that people would not care less about something that happened so far away and they didn’t even know what it is. But maybe that story tells something more universal. Something that maybe could touch anyone.
I though it was important to remember what happened especially because in Italy we have such a bad government because people tend to justify the fascism. We need to remember that part of the responsibility for that massacre we have to attribute to fascism; there is a responsibility. Italy is such an amazing country but such a strange country. We still have the fascists and communists (such extremes) and people who don’t care about anything. They don’t vote, they don’t care about their history. Stories have the power to heal. That’s why the Greek tragedy. Like a cathartic power. The community would go to the theater, cry out and they would get clean. I saw that in the trial, I saw that happen.
RW: You talked to one of the defense attorneys. Did you talk to others and why did you just show him?
GM: I decided to have him because from the beginning he was very cinematographic he was that kind of actor -- uh, actually he was lawyer, to be a good lawyer you have to be a good actor. From the beginning he was the one looking at me. Then I found out that his father was defending the super left extremists and he was a partisan and he comes from a very left family. He was the only one hired by an actual Nazi. So I decided to choose him because you have to make a summary. He was the most intriguing and also the whole trial was very complex I’m sure it was very painful for the lawyers to have to defend these men who never even showed up. I thought it was very important to give an idea for how complex it was.
I felt that I always needed to keep the audience awake. Also, I had the chance to do this in an old movie theater which is where the trial took place. A story told in a movie theater, in a theatrical ritual which is a trial where everybody has a role. All you had to do was be alert. Things like that for such an intense topic which many people would think was boring – maybe these kind of things help.
RW: It’s an easy story to get wrong because trials are not necessarily interesting because it's people talking. But you managed to find ways to keep it moving.
GM: I never showed a drop of blood. You never need to show anything, like in Shoah you didn’t even see archive footage.
RW: What’s next?
GM: It’s been released on DVD in Italy, apparently it is going really well. It’s been in a lot of international festivals and it played in New York and recently at Lisbon’s prestigious festival. Now we’re going to try to bring it to Germany; a lot of German people have been very interested in it. We’re also seeing that there’s quite an interest here in the states. So we’re going to do Berkeley, San Francisco, Portland and Santa Cruz for now.
RW: What about the jazz documentary?
GM: It’s finished and being released now. It’s called My Main Man. As soon as the English subtitles are done we’re going to try to have screenings all over. I’d found out that the city I live in also has a huge tradition of jazz. Bologna has been one of the jazz capitals of Europe. People like Chet Baker lived there. He even went to jail there. I got some never-before-seen 8 millimeter footage of Baker from the summer before his arrest. He was very big there because he could find all the drugs he wanted. Thirty-five per cent of this documentary is archive footage that I discovered.
RW: This must have been fun to make.
GW: Yes, so fun and we filmed it between Bologna, Rome and New York. I discovered a new world. I think it's a great metaphor for life. The fact that it’s unpredictable and completely improvised and life is completely improvised. As we quote in the film, [Jazz is] "an art that somehow is so close to life’s unpredictability." It’s very powerful and significant art and it's also fun and dirty and full of drugs and full of nice people and bad guys.
RW: Ermanno Olmi who directed Il Posto started out doing documentaries, are you interested in transitioning into fictional films?
GM: I just need to finish the screenplay. There’s one I’m working on but I’m not quite done yet.
RW: What about acting?
GM: Acting is fun. I started out as an actor. Recently I played a role in a film based on the events of State of Exception.
RW: Last question, does everybody in Italy read my blog?
GM: I hope so now.
RW: Me, too.
Nearly 65 years after World War II ended the war continues to haunt us. Such a cataclysm, claiming as it did, tens of millions of lives, echoes into the second decade of this millennium. Clearly there are still lessons unlearned and healing not yet finished. We are still finding some previously unknown or long hushed tragedy with a new set of villains. We thus are exposed to new dramas and further contemplating the complexities inherent in human behavior.
If we are lucky the any new story about the war is presented to us thoughtfully and in a manner meant to heal rather than merely shock. One such example is the outstanding new documentary Lo Stato Di Eccezione (State of Exception) about the absentia trial of the perpetrators of the September 1944 Monte Sole massacre in Northern Italy. German soldiers, with the collusion of Italian fascists, massacred 770 Italians, including the elderly, women and children. The killings were a retaliation against alleged acts of resistance. In subsequent war crime trials the leader of the massacre, SS Officer Walter Reder was sentenced to life in prison. But with the intervention of the Austrian government he was released in 1984. No one else was brought to justice for the Monte Sole massacres and the Italian government filed away documents related to the incidents in what is called the armadio della vergogna (closet of shame) until 1994.
Not until 2007 were seventeen Nazis brought to trial for the massacre. As none showed up, and indeed only one hired a defense attorney, they were tried in absentia. State of Exception is about that trial. The title refers to the notion of suspending legal niceties in the event of a supposed state of emergency. The title also refers to the “exception” of there having been no trial conducted against the soldiers for over 60 years after the bloodbath.
Germano Maccioni, a young Italian filmmaker from Bologna, which is just south of Monte Sole, directed State of Exception. The documentary has been a huge success in Italy playing at numerous film festivals. Mr. Maccioni showed it last year in New York and it will be screened in California and Oregon later this month. He is currently in San Francisco Bay Area with my niece, Maijastina Hourula, who did the English translation for the film’s subtitles and their two month old daughter, Sofia Alba. Mr. Maccioni recently completed his second documentary, My Main Man about the vibrant Bologna jazz scene.
State of Exception will be shown in Portland, Oregon on January 16, in San Francisco at the Italian Cultural Institute on January 27 at 6:00 P.M., and in Berkeley on January 28. It will also be shown in Santa Cruz at a day and time to be determined. (More details on times and places will be posted on the film’s website and on this blog.)
State of Exception does its important story justice. Mr. Maccioni has done a masterful job of cutting from scenes of the trial to interviews and present day footage of the sites of the massacres, (which includes a chapel). He displays a deft touch that one would associate with a veteran documentarian. Without, in his own words “showing a drop of blood” the story is powerful and dramatic. We feel the pain of the witnesses who testify but somehow we never grow uncomfortable. Done wrong, such a documentary could make audiences feel that they are intruding upon the private sorrow and anguish of the witnesses. State of Exception is exceptional in this regard. The story has more of the cathartic feeling that was the aim of Greek tragedies. The film introduces us to new horrors but only to inform and illuminate. Judgments are left for us to make. Mr. Maccioni's delicate editing choices do not pursue a point that is obvious to all. He make the choice that all good filmmaker's do – that audiences are capable of drawing their own conclusions.
I recently had the opportunity to interview Germano Maccioni for Riku Writes and some of that conversation follows.
Germano Maccioni.
RW: What drew you to this story?
GM: I got interested in those events by going to the actual place which is not far from where I grew up. I used to go there but I didn’t know what happened. So once I learned what happened and that what happened was so incredibly bad I thought, “why didn’t they teach me this in school? Why didn’t people tell me this?" Once I found all the reasons for the government hiding files and acting in denial of this whole thing I thought it was extremely necessary to make a film about such a subject. I thought that it would be difficult to make a film about that topic but I could do a film about the trial because I was kind of like the observer and the people in the community were the characters. So for me the border between fiction films and documentary can sometimes be very thin.
RW: The documentary film maker Errol Morris once said “If you know what you’re going to say before you say it, why bother?” What do you think of this quote in relation to your film?
GM: Life is so unpredictable that even if you have a film written and a set and everything is settled, you still have that element of mystery that can happen. Like an actor could easily turn in a way that you didn’t expect so you maybe light the scene in a totally different way. So if you’re filming a documentary you have that feeling that anything could potentially happen. I think its amazing because for a film maker, a documentary maker, it's the greatest luxury. If you have the freedom to do the story the way you want it’s a great opportunity. Why do we like cinema? Because in a subconscious way it relates us to this big mystery of life, reality and the way you feel reality. Life is very exciting because it’s happening live, its unpredictable. When you’re shooting something good I can tell when it’s happening because you get that vibration. With that film there were moments I could observe and edit at the same time.
RW: I was really intrigued by the old man who broke down. I thought it was an especially nice technique that you used. When he was being sworn in you were interspersing shots of him sobbing so it prepared us for what his testimony was going to be like. Tell me about deciding to do that.
GM: That’s probably the most intense scene, that man in particular to me represents the community, the archetype who disappeared. So somehow the Nazis won because that community doesn’t exist anymore and that’s a matter of fact. Having a chance to talk to and actually listen to this old man who grew up on a farm and probably didn’t go to school at all and all of a sudden he sees this crazy thing happening like all his family...they took his family and all of sudden started shooting them. Why? He doesn’t even know what the political reasons were. Having a chance to see him 60 years after, first of all he’s a survivor. That’s the moment when you understand that no matter how many rules you have in the courthouse there’s always going to be something more intense. In fact they had to stop the trial because it was too much, not only for the old man but for everybody. I did not put in the film the whole thing because it was way more intense because he started to freak out he started saying a lot of things to the judge, he was crying, I tried to edit it. It was very traumatic for me because I had to watch it over and over again. I thought I should put the whole testimony in. But then I decided it would be more powerful this way. It was total instinct that drove me to this.
RW: Was it hard for you to watch the trial?
GM: It was painful and new at the same time. I’d never been in a courthouse before. So at first it was new but once we started to hear all the tragic stories...every half an hour I’d have to go outside and breath because it was too painful. But then slowly I became part of that community. These people learned to somehow trust me (the witnesses). The most painful part was the editing process because I didn’t use an editor. For months it was basically me and the material. It was so painful, I was like crying. I had to experience the compassion. It was very painful but it was a good pain. And I hope it's a good pain for the audience, instructive.
RW: What kind of research did you do?
GM: I made a play (wrote and directed) performed on the site on Italy’s celebration of the liberation from the Germans and the fascists. I had the audience follow the actors walk. After that I started to study more about the events. Then I heard there was a trial going on. So there was no time to ask for funding or anything. I had the urge to do it. So we started to film without any funding. (Funding was attained during filming).
RW: What was the reaction to the film?
GM: It was always good. I was surprised because it’s not an easy film (to watch). They’re showing it at a lot of high schools in Italy. I was surprised in New York because I thought that people would not care less about something that happened so far away and they didn’t even know what it is. But maybe that story tells something more universal. Something that maybe could touch anyone.
I though it was important to remember what happened especially because in Italy we have such a bad government because people tend to justify the fascism. We need to remember that part of the responsibility for that massacre we have to attribute to fascism; there is a responsibility. Italy is such an amazing country but such a strange country. We still have the fascists and communists (such extremes) and people who don’t care about anything. They don’t vote, they don’t care about their history. Stories have the power to heal. That’s why the Greek tragedy. Like a cathartic power. The community would go to the theater, cry out and they would get clean. I saw that in the trial, I saw that happen.
RW: You talked to one of the defense attorneys. Did you talk to others and why did you just show him?
GM: I decided to have him because from the beginning he was very cinematographic he was that kind of actor -- uh, actually he was lawyer, to be a good lawyer you have to be a good actor. From the beginning he was the one looking at me. Then I found out that his father was defending the super left extremists and he was a partisan and he comes from a very left family. He was the only one hired by an actual Nazi. So I decided to choose him because you have to make a summary. He was the most intriguing and also the whole trial was very complex I’m sure it was very painful for the lawyers to have to defend these men who never even showed up. I thought it was very important to give an idea for how complex it was.
I felt that I always needed to keep the audience awake. Also, I had the chance to do this in an old movie theater which is where the trial took place. A story told in a movie theater, in a theatrical ritual which is a trial where everybody has a role. All you had to do was be alert. Things like that for such an intense topic which many people would think was boring – maybe these kind of things help.
RW: It’s an easy story to get wrong because trials are not necessarily interesting because it's people talking. But you managed to find ways to keep it moving.
GM: I never showed a drop of blood. You never need to show anything, like in Shoah you didn’t even see archive footage.
RW: What’s next?
GM: It’s been released on DVD in Italy, apparently it is going really well. It’s been in a lot of international festivals and it played in New York and recently at Lisbon’s prestigious festival. Now we’re going to try to bring it to Germany; a lot of German people have been very interested in it. We’re also seeing that there’s quite an interest here in the states. So we’re going to do Berkeley, San Francisco, Portland and Santa Cruz for now.
RW: What about the jazz documentary?
GM: It’s finished and being released now. It’s called My Main Man. As soon as the English subtitles are done we’re going to try to have screenings all over. I’d found out that the city I live in also has a huge tradition of jazz. Bologna has been one of the jazz capitals of Europe. People like Chet Baker lived there. He even went to jail there. I got some never-before-seen 8 millimeter footage of Baker from the summer before his arrest. He was very big there because he could find all the drugs he wanted. Thirty-five per cent of this documentary is archive footage that I discovered.
RW: This must have been fun to make.
GW: Yes, so fun and we filmed it between Bologna, Rome and New York. I discovered a new world. I think it's a great metaphor for life. The fact that it’s unpredictable and completely improvised and life is completely improvised. As we quote in the film, [Jazz is] "an art that somehow is so close to life’s unpredictability." It’s very powerful and significant art and it's also fun and dirty and full of drugs and full of nice people and bad guys.
RW: Ermanno Olmi who directed Il Posto started out doing documentaries, are you interested in transitioning into fictional films?
GM: I just need to finish the screenplay. There’s one I’m working on but I’m not quite done yet.
RW: What about acting?
GM: Acting is fun. I started out as an actor. Recently I played a role in a film based on the events of State of Exception.
RW: Last question, does everybody in Italy read my blog?
GM: I hope so now.
RW: Me, too.
Labels:
Favorite Posts,
Italian Films,
Recent releases
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Cinema Magic From Fellini's Amarcord
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia -or- My Journey Through Italian Cinema (Part Eight: Le notti bianche)

The wife hit me with the news this morning. Delivered it quite matter of factly. She thinks Marcello Mastroianni, in his prime, was better looking than me. Somehow she figured it would soften the blow if she admitted that Marlyin Monroe in her prime was prettier than she. It didn't.
This came up because we had watched Le notti bianche (1957) last which night starred the aforementioned Mr. Mastroianni. He was 33 years old at the time and I've got to admit he was no pock marked beast. He was the rare kind of guy that even vain, shallow, emotionally vulnerable men like me admit is handsome. (Wait a second, should I be using past-tense here? After all, the man is dead these 13 years, but then again this discussion relates to what he looked like while very much alive and not yet in middle age. This is particularly vexing because I'm just about to finish the most difficult course I've ever taken: Grammar Fundamentals for ESL Teachers, and it has made me conscience of every clause, phrase, preposition and modal I use or don't use. Sorry for the digression. I'll heretofore go with present tense).
So yeah, Mastroianni is a good looking chap and perhaps never more so than in this film. His opposite here is Maria Schell who is easy on the eyes too. But I must say that she can't hold a candle to other Mastroianni co stars like Claudia Cardinale, Sophia Loren or Anita Ekberg. Okay she can hold the candle all she likes but she ain't as purty as them are dames (who is?).
Why this obsession with looks? Because Le notti bianche (that translates in English to, the white night) is all about looks. The story is interesting, equalling the better film romances, but its the look of the film that is so utterly captivating. It is one of the many, many great arguments in favor of black and white movies. Indeed Mr. Fancy Pants Mastroianni prob'ly looked so good in large part because of the lack of color. That's no slight against the man, actors and actresses all look better sans the colors of the rainbow. The simple reason is that black and white does not reveal the acne that no doubt actually riddled Mastoianni's face, nor the hideous scars like the one that ran across his visage.
But seriously folks....
For cinematic beauty, black and white is unbeatable. In Le notti it's not just the faces that benefit, but the streets of Rome, especially the ones in the neighborhood where most of the story is set. In several scenes those streets are wet from rain, always a good look in black and white. For the film's heart wrenching closing scene, snow falls (hence the white night). It doesn't look cold, just gorgeous. All the exteriors were shot at night, and most of the interiors for that matter, adding to the romantic tone of the picture.
The story is: lonely man meets lonely woman and for the man its love at first sight. She's carrying a torch for another complicating the gent's efforts to win her over. He's persistent. She's moody. They dance (literally and figuratively). They laugh. He gives up. He tries again. She pulls away, gives in to him. So it goes until the melodramatic conclusion. In the hands of a hack it would be pure baloney but the director was Luchino Visconti and so its no surprise that you end up believing every word and action. Even if you're an old grump like me.
I've said this before about films and it's especially true with Le notti, you could watch it without the sound and love it to death. It's not just the people and the scenery, it's the way the story moves or stands still. Like the very best directors, Visconti knows when to hold a shot for a few beats longer than most directors would. Part of the magic of the film, one of the ways you access the romance, comes from being allowed to linger for a second or two with a character or setting or a character in a setting. There's no rush. When there is action its smooth. Neither stylized nor perfectly realistic, just, comfortable, sometimes pretty, to watch.
Mastroianni and Schell do more than just look good. They make the story work because they don't act, they are there. They are comfortable to watch in a way so many present day actors aren't. They do more with their eyes than a lot of hams do with all their verbosity and gesticulation.
I really liked this film because I liked looking at it. The story was somewhat pedestrian, but the delivery was molto bello.
But I tell ya what folks, you think Mastroianni was good looking, you should get a load of my mug.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia -or- My Journey Through Italian Cinema (Part Seven: The Bicycle Thieves)

Nothing is as pure and beautiful as truth. It may go down hard, it may have rough edges that make it uncomfortable, but it is without tarnish or imperfection. The ugly, the distasteful comes from lies and distortion. There is no beauty in deception, just artifice masking an empty vessel.
Perhaps this explains the enduring beauty, 60 years on, of Lardi di Bicicilette (1948) aka The Bicycle Thieves, directed by Vittorio De Sica.
It seems on the surface such a simple story, even too simple to be the basis of a film. Unemployed man gets job that requires bicycle. Gets his out of hock. Happily starts job. Bike stolen. Devastation. Looks hither and yon for bike and/or thief with help of little son. Despairing, steals one himself, is immediately caught but released.
It is the very starkness of the story, the realness of it, that make The Bicycle Thieves so irresistible and allows it to work on so many levels. It is the quintessential example of neo realist film making that came out of Italy beginning in the mid 1940's. Famously, De Sica used no professional actors (though Cary Grant and Henry Fonda were both considered for the lead) and every frame was shot on location in Rome.
Lamberto Maggiorani in the lead brought an everyman face that is the Latin equivalent of Gary Cooper. The son, Enzo Staiola, is cherubic and heart breakingly authentic. To me it's their relationship that is most indelible about the film. A child who loves his father unconditionally and wants to believe him regardless of circumstances juxtaposed with a father who loves his child unconditionally and wants desperately to live up to his son's faith. The boy dutifully and gladly follows his dad everywhere helping any way he can. It is a metaphor for all children and their devotion to dad, especially those like Antonio who are both forthright and have a sense of fun.
In one scene Antonio temporarily abandons the search and takes his son to a restaurant for a lunch they cannot afford. But they both deserve something for their efforts. They revel in their meal far more than the well-to-do family at the next table, for whom the repast is just another lunch. But in another scene a frustrated Antonio slaps his son. We feel bad for the boy whose devotion to papa is challenged by the man himself. But we also feel for the father, driven to an act he clearly and quickly regrets.
There is no uplifting ending to The Bicycle Thieves, only father and son forlornly walking home increasingly just part of the crowd. Tacking on a "happy ending" would have rang false to a story that was all about truth. Truths such as the reality that the police could do virtually nothing for Antonio. Truths about the scarcity of jobs and the demoralizing effect of unemployment. Truths about how a job is not just a means of earning money, but an identity and sense of purpose. Truths about how quickly one's circumstances can shift and how one act of thievery can have a ripple effect. Truths about how good intention, dogged determination and faith are not necessarily rewarded. Truths then about life. Life can be full of disappointment and pain, but in the living of that life there exists opportunity. We may eventually find redemption. We may find hope. We may even find our bicycle and another job. There are no certainties, as The Bicycle Thieves reminds us. But there it is. Life without guarantees, just us to make of it what we will. All best pursued with the aid of loved ones. It is in the reflection of others souls in our hearts that we are truly blessed.
The Bicycle Thieves has earned a place in the pantheon of "Greatest Films" lists, even topping the prestigious Sight and Sound's debut list in 1952. Watching it today I was struck by how often I was moved by moments within it. Antonio's realization that his bicycle has been stolen evoked so strongly the same feelings I've had when a possession has been stolen. His desperate often quixotic search felt familiar to any of us who have tried in vain to recover something stolen or missing. And looking at people who have their bikes, who have jobs, who have plenty of cash, recalls any trace of envy, covetousness or jealousy I've ever had.
This then is the mark of great cinema, of great art. To be moved. To relate. To see truth in all its magnificent clarity and beauty.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia -or- My Journey Through Italian Cinema (Part Six: Stromboli)

Saying that this is Ingrid Bergman at her most beautiful is like saying this is Sinatra singing his best song, or Michael Jordan playing his best game of hoops. But say it I will: Folks, Ingrid was never, ever more beautiful than when she appeared in Stromboli (1950).
One supposes that much credit goes to the film's director, Roberto Rossellini. Off camera, director and star had just began an illicit affair that would eventually lead to pregnancy, scandal, divorce and marriage. So it shouldn't be surprising that his camera treated her rapturously. It can be further speculated that Ingrid was in the head over heels phase of love that can make a woman positively radiate.
But you know what else? She played a real stinker. You thought her character, Alicia, in Notorious (1946) was shady, get a load of Karin in this picture. She is one selfish, pouty, manipulative lady. The way she treats her poor fisherman husband, Antonio (Mario Vitale) is a caution. He's not a bad bloke either. The honest and ernest hard working kind of guy that too often gets stepped on.
We meet Karin at the end of World War II in a displaced persons camp. Antonio is an Italian soldier who courts her through the barb wire that surrounds the camp. She's knocked around lot in large part because of the war and she lost a husband, totally because of the war. Karin has had some tough breaks and gets another when her application to emigrate to Argentina is denied. It's then she latches on to Antonio who marries Karin and takes her to his hometown, the island of Stromboli.
The sparseness of the island, the lack of amenities and the close proximity of an active volcano gives the bride second, third and fourth thoughts about her new situation. When the locals shun her, bad gets worse.
One of the great things about films like Stromboli is you can go interpret in two ways: 1) what was Rossellini trying to say? or 2) what do I take from this film? Indeed it is a characteristic of many films from the post war neo realism school. At the risk of a spoiler I must add that the ambiguity of the ending (though there was at one time a Hollywood ending tacked on to please low brows) certainly adds to any discussion on Stromboli's underlying message.
Rossellini reportedly wrote the film as he filmed it and in lieu of a script used his own hand written notes. Clearly characters and setting were of equal importance to anything so mundane as a screenplay. The director also utilized "real people" (as opposed to the fake plastic ones in most movies) in the form of island residents. This included amazing fishing scenes (real fish, no actors). There was audible squeamishness among the audience when I saw Stromboli recently at the Pacific Film Archives in Berkeley ( I thought some people were either going to puke or call PETA during the ferret/rabbit scene). The scenes of the volcano acting up were also amazing and doubtless done with nary a special effect. Well you can't have neo realism without such strong doses of realty. It all added to the feel of a true story. Stromboli felt like something of a documentary at times, so much so that the never lovelier Ms. Bergman couldn't totally doll it up.
Actually the Ingrid/villagers contrast was not a dichotomy. She had to be in contrast to everything and especially everyone else in the film. This was the brilliance or luck of Rossellini, to have a film goddess who was a brilliant actress to provide such a startling but believable contrast to her environs and thus make the story he was telling all the more compelling.
We watch Karin's struggles with her environment, both the physical and human. It's really a struggle within herself. Whatever is around us just is and there's little if anything that we can do about it. What's key is how we deal with and react to our surroundings. We, like Karin, also confront the question: do I stay or do I go? Either way we answer, as Karin finds out, leads to another set of ponderables.
With Stromboli you might say that some audiences would come for Ingrid but stay for the story. Not a bad deal.
(Some might squawk at my including this film in my series on Italian cinema inasmuch as it was largely in English and backed by an American studio. But this was an Italian film all the way, not just the director and all but one of the performers, but the crew and most importantly, the style.)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia -or- My Journey Through Italian Cinema (Part Five: Mafioso)
Can you have a movie featuring a Mafia Don without something untoward taking place? One can hope that what seems like an engaging, charming sometimes comic little film will leave us with a smile and nothing difficult to endure and ponder. But then it wouldn't be much of a movie.Mafioso (1962) is much of a movie. It's a lot of movie.
Antonio is a Milanese factory supervisor who takes his wife and young daughters to his Sicilian hometown for a long awaited vacation. They stay with mom, pop, the ugly duckling sister and a seemingly endless parade of extended family and old friends. Among the friends is the local Mafia Don.
It's all perfectly charming as Antonio renews old acquaintances and his wife tries to win over in laws who initially think her a snob. But you sense that Antonio's chumminess with the Don may end up having ramifications, especially when he helps our hero purchase some land for his dad. Hey, it was just a favor. Maybe it can be repaid someday.
In films with Mafia Dons, favors are going to need returning. Guaranteed.
So what's the Don going to ask of Antonio? Lesse, could it have anything to do with Antonio's renowned marksmanship? Whattayou think? Of course the Don allows Antonio the option of saying "no." But that offer is bracketed with reminders of what a lovely family Antonio has. Hmmm.....
It's impossible to go further with our story without spoiling it. Suffice to say that Mafioso mixes morality in with the smiles. Really an amazing film from director Alberto Lattuada. I felt like I'd gotten many hours worth of story in one hundred and forty three minutes of running time.
Movies fail or succeed on how much they engage and whether they resonate with us. Mafioso adds to these successes by the different ways in which it engages and resonates. Lattuada is a director who happily allows characters and their circumstances dictate his story telling. His camera follows them, deftly shifting from close up to long shots as needed to best convey their interaction with events. When Antonio is faced with his "big decision," we suddenly see his face, especially his eyes, in full frame and then those of the Don. Perfect.
Mafioso is an easy enough story for a director to get wrong and for that matter, Alberto Sordi in the lead does a marvelous job of being true to character regardless of what unfolds before him. A lesser thespian would have gummed it up. The movie desperately needed Sordi to stay within Antonio and that he did. He strikes no false notes.
I hope you see Mafioso. It's available on DVD and has been shown a few times on TCM. Do yourself a favor and check it out. Really, it's not like doing a favor for the local Don.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia -or- My Journey Through Italian Cinema (Part Four: 8 1/2)
There's this guy, see and he....He's a director struggling with...And he's got a rich fantasy life...his wife....his lover...a producer who, like a lot of....Catholics, including priests....Symbolism!
Sometimes I write about a film that's so meaningful (to me) that I figure I gotta outdo myself. All stops pulled out, a post that beats the band. Those pulled out stops are beaten by the band with a post.
Words fail.
Guido Anselmi is an artista. Specifically a film director. A ladies man, you should excuse the archaic expression. Played by Marcello Mastroianni, he is Italian cool to the nth degree. Bemused, happily tortured by the many women, supplicants, and hangers on. He's been called both a sadist and a masochist. I know this is a reflection on me, but he seems pretty together. Everyone around him is a little...a little what? A little much at times. They sure won't let the man be. Questions, comments, demands.
There's magic.
There's the Catholic church.
There's beautiful women.
There are dreams and fantasies and the all mix together for a most delicious stew. You could make this movie too provided you were Fellini. Otherwise -- forget it!
Some people don't get it. There's too much or the story doesn't hold or it's self indulgent. Oh well. I offer no insults, explanations or apologies.
It's this: a movie you can go for a walk in. You got your Claudia Cardinale, your Anouk Aimee (fer starters with the women, this is) you got life with all its best parts. The living and dreaming and the excepting that the trials and tribulations are blessings. They mean we're here that we're present. 8 1/2 celebrates life. Look, no one's dying, no one's in any real pain. There's some angst to be sure. There's a lot of existential this and that. Mostly there's rhythm, you can see it in the way people walk. There's the beat, the dance that is life. No wonder they made a musical out of this that will be a film released next month. This is a musical with visuals. (I know what I mean.)
We start in a dream sequence that's one of the most (adjective here) opening scenes you'll ever behold. Stuck in car in traffic and asphyxiated -- not so nice. But the floating, the being pulled down to the beach -- so nice.
Then to the spa. One film in the can the next about to start. But THE MAN NEEDS HIS REST. Won't get it. Will get the women. The wife, the lover, the exes. Will get the producer, typical suit worried about what, the bottom line. Will get the "collaborator" the writer. Pain in the arse, ask me. Will get those papists. Weird scene. Slip in and out of memories, fantasy. (Here's to the harem scene!).
Will get a closing scene that's one of the most (insert another adjective here) on film.
Here's what Guido says during the movie: I thought my ideas were so clear. I wanted to make an honest film. No lies whatsoever. I thought I had something so simple to say. Something useful to everybody. A film that could help bury forever all those dead things we carry within ourselves. Instead, I'm the one without the courage to bury anything at all. When did I go wrong? I really have nothing to say, but I want to say it all the same.
Hmm. This the director in the movie or the director of the movie talking? (I think so too).
I owe this movie a book. It inspires the creative in me, the artista the intellectual with a dancing soul. It dares to be great. It dares to go places and invites viewers to come along. That's what's so damn great about 8 1/2. It's a ride you get on and off as you please. It's not a one and done film. Not if you like it and if you like it you love it. There is, to flip a phrase, a madness to Fellini's method. You can watch so much here. You can play along at home. What's this mean and what's that all about. Or just enjoy the look which is really the FEEL. Oh sure and the characters too. Watch how sane, how utterly maddeningly and completely sane Guido can seem. Look at whatta crazy sunavbitch he can seem. The world's coolest everyman. (You do know this is an allegory -- no it's not!) Not many movies go in so many directions at once -- on purpose!
Mmmmmmmmm......
Monday, November 16, 2009
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia -or- My Journey Through Italian Cinema (Part Three: Umberto D.)

A MAN AND HIS DOG
I can't answer this question, though later on I'll try: How can a movie feel so real and be about so sad a situation and yet be so moving, so fulfilling to watch?
I discovered a new film to add to my list of favorites and it's one that's been around longer than I have. It is Umberto D. (1952) from director Vittoria De Sica. It was depressing except it wasn't. No story so beautifully told could be depressing. No depiction of such a loving relationship, no portrait so vividly drawn could be depressing. You want depressing watch one of those Hollywood assembly line films where no one is real, everything is obvious and no truths are revealed. None of those three cinematic sins applies to Umberto D.
This is the story of a pensioner, probably in his seventies, whose meager income isn't enough to live on. He faces eviction from the room he rents for money owed and soon due. While his landlady is heartless, she is neither stereotypically evil or cruel. Just a force of nature consumed by her own needs and desires and ambitions and oblivious to those around her, save those from whom she can profit.
Umberto has no immediate family that we are aware of, just his beloved dog, Flike. He's as cute a little mutt as you'll ever see and talented one at that. Umberto and Flike love one another in the uncomplicated way of pets and humans. De Sica does not milk this for cheap sentimentality but merely presents it. Bravo.
Umberto has human acquaintances as well, many of whom are clearly fond of him. None more so than the landlady's maid, the lovely Maria. She's as sweet as candy, but is far from an innocent as evidenced by her pregnancy and the ambiguity surrounding paternity. Umberto and Maria are allies, each accepting the other as is. They are united, in large part because of their mutual disdain for the landlady. While Umberto faces immediate eviction, Maria knows its just a matter of time before she also gets the heave ho. That time being when her pregnancy becomes obvious.
Italians did not respond positively to Umberto D. In part they felt the whole neo realism bit had been done to death, but more to the point they didn't think the film reflected well on their country. Here was the story of a man who worked in civil service for 30 years and couldn't make ends meet. In fact, the movie opens with Umberto joining a rally of other pensioners appealing for enough money to enjoy their retirement in some comfort. Also there are characters, never mind the landlady, who are not model citizens. Like the man feigning illness to prolong his stay in the hospital or the couple who provided shelter for dogs, but were clearly in it to make a buck without compassion for the bowsers. Finally there are several characters much too busy going about their lives to have compassion for others who are less fortunate.
But none of these other characters draw our attention. We care only for Umberto and his dog and to a lesser degree, Maria. By extension we care about others who have or do or will face seemingly insurmountable odds in their efforts to simply make do. We follow Umberto's efforts. Including the gut wrenching choices he faces such as whether to part company with Flike or to shuffle off this mortal coil of his own accord.
I asked a question at the beginning of this post. How is such a story, bleak story, so wonderfully watchable? Possible answers:
It is honest. There is no manufactured ending or moments, no playing with our emotions.
It is kind to its characters, it let's them breathe, have space to move and most of all to think. We see Umberto thinking all the time. And you know what? We think right along with him.
It trusts us. We are allowed to inhabit the world too. We roam around with Umberto and Flike. We discover scenes and situations and people ourselves. Nothing is telegraphed to us. We are not made to feel any given way at any given time but may decide for ourselves.
It is is beautiful to watch. A stark story but lovingly photographed. Lush black and white.
Maybe those explanations account for what a great pleasure it is to watch this film. I should add that many of the actors including the lead, Carlo Battisti, had no prior acting experience. It was supposed to add to the realism and at this it was quite successful.
I see from IMDB there is a rumored remake in the works. It's hard to think of a worse idea for a filmmaker. Certain classics cannot be replicated never mind improved upon. A nice enough film may be made based on the original but it does a disservice to that original at is pretense and will be measured by lovers thusly. Do what the first film did and create an original. For that is what makes Umberto D. so wonderful: it is unlike anything else. Maybe that's why it's so moving and fulfilling to watch.
Bravo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




















