So You Want to Start Watching Films of the Seventies, An Introduction

So You Want to Start Watching _______is an occasional feature here at Riku Writes. It is a guide to anyone unfamiliar with a particular star, director, genre, or time period in films. After a brief introduction, I will provide a sampling of films to watch. Although I will always strive to include the best possible films for each chapter in the series, I will also look to present representative work. I'll say a little bit about each film, all of which will be provided in chronological order. This is the third of the series. In the first I provided an introduction to the films of Humphrey Bogart and the second was an intro to screwball comedies.

Question: what was the best decade of American films? Answer: that most certainly depends on your taste in movies. Most cinephiles will argue for the 1930's or 1970's. The 1950's has a few supporters, TCM host Robert Osborne likes the 1940's, silent film buffs will undoubtedly extol the 1920's and many of the younger generation favor the last decade. I don't know that the 1980's or 1990's have many advocates.

For my money (what little there is of it) the Thirties has the big edge in quantity of good films but the Seventies boasts an advantage in quality. The 1970's were a perfect storm for films. The studio system had come tumbling down as had censorship. There was a plethora of independent minded directors and screen writers who were getting free reign. Technical innovations had not yet morphed into an over reliance on special effects. And a changing Western Culture was ready for and indeed demanding more of cinematic artists. We've not seen the likes of the 70's in film since and may never. 

I could easily recommend dozens of films to get you started exploring the Seventies, but I've simplified the task for myself in the following ways: one film per year, American films only and none of the more obvious films that you're likely already seen such as The Godfather (1972), The Godfather Part II (1974), Annie Hall (1977), Manhattan (1979), Cabaret (1972), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Apocalypse Now (1979), Taxi Driver (1976) or Jaws (1975). I've also made a point to give you a variety of film types including horror/sci fi, comedy, gangster, thriller, cops and robbers and the always popular disco film.

The Strawberry Statement (1970) Why not start your tour of 1970's cinema with a film that looks at the 1960's? That is the campus protest movements that helped (as they say in documentaries) define a generation. TSS has held up over time, at least for someone like me who was "there." It centers around one student who simultaneously gets caught up in love (what guy wouldn't fall for Kim Darby in 1970?) and sticking it to the man. TSS features a great soundtrack. Sadly it's not available on DVD and is rarely shown on the telly but you can watch it via Amazon on demand.

The Last Picture Show (1971)  To many film lovers of today, Peter Bogdanovich is a frequent talking head on DVD special features and the author of some of the better books on movies. But he's had an up and down career as a director and this was his big up, so to speak. And it was a really big up. It features a great cast including Ben Johnson, Cloris Leachman, Cybill Shepard, Timothy Bottoms and a very young clean shaven Jeff Bridges. It is about the death of a West Texas town in the 1950's, including its lone movie house. Screenplay by legendary writer Larry McMurtry.

The Getaway (1972) It's directed by Sam Peckinpah so you know there's no shortage of blood. It stars Steve McQueen so you know there's no shortage of cool. McQueen is Doc McCoy who gets out of prison just in time to get in on a big bank heist. There's screw ups and double crosses and McQueen along with his lovely wife (Ali McGraw) on the lam to Mexico with murderous accomplices in hot pursuit. No production code to dictate how it all turns out.

Mean Streets (1973) Before they made Taxi Driver, Raging Bull (1980) and Goodfellas (1990), Director Martin Scorsese and actor Robert Deniro made this terrific film -- albeit DeNiro was not the star, Harvey Keitel was. It is rough, especially compared to the slicker films Scorsese has made recently. But it is wonderfully rough in a manner appropriate to the story of small time hoods in the mean streets of New York. It has a verve and excitement that presages Scorsese's later works. But it is a great film in its own right.

The Conversation (1974) Gene Hackman likes to listen, so much so that he does it for a living. This is one four Best Picture nominees from director Francis Ford Coppola in an eight year span. It is too often the forgotten one. For more see this post of mine from August '09.

Love and Death (1975) This film answers the question: What would you get if you combined Ingmar Bergman with Groucho Marx. I don't know what I can add to that. Although you could check out this post I wrote about the film last Fall.

Marathon Man (1976) Dustin Hoffman is a graduate student who likes to run. But this is the 1970's when any poor schmoe could find himself in the midst of a vast conspiracy in which no one can be trusted. Laurence Olivier is a sadistic ex Nazi dentist who works on our hero's teeth sans novocaine. Ouch. Marathon Man is one of the many excellent political thrillers of the decade.

Saturday Night Fever (1977) Daddy, did they really make a good movie about a guy who danced disco? They sure did. Re-visiting it today one is struck by how dark a film it is. Yes there's plenty of leisure suits, Bee Gee songs and John Travolta shaking his booty, but there's also a story of working class angst and the desperation to escape it. There are also people at war, not the military kind, but the day-to-day grind within families and communities. At once entertaining and thought-provoking.

Animal House (1978) I think its one of the funniest movies ever made. The late John Belushi is the star of a delightful ensemble cast. Watching it today makes one wonder what else he'd have achieved as a comic actor. Animal House the story of a renegade frat house that goes up against the stuffed shirt fraternity and the mentally constipated campus administration. Most of all its good dirty fun.

Alien (1979) My understanding is that 99% of horror and sci fi movies today are suitable only for flushing. "Back in the day" director Ridley Scott created this classic of the genre that sadly has been sequeled and imitated to death. It is an intelligent film rife with tension and it hasn't aged a day. Either this kind of film is hard to make, producers today settle for cheap thrills or Scott and company just hit a massive home run.


Others to consider: Network (1976), Three Days of the Condor (1975), All the President's Men (1976), The French Connection (1971), The Man Who Would Be King (1975), The Last Detail (1973), The Sting (1973), The Exorcist (1973), Serpico (1973), Little Big Man (1970),  Play it Again, Sam (1972), The Front (1976), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Barry Lyndon (1975) and on and on and on.....

The Appeal of the Gangster Film, and My Ten Favorites

Who doesn't love a good gangster film?

From the beginnings of cinema until the present day some of the greatest films ever made have been about gangsters. In this totally pixilated place called "real life" we (unless absent any sense at all) hate criminal gangs. Yet on film we root 'em on like they were the dear old home team. Anyone knuckle-headed enough to cheer on the cops in a gangster film has no sense of fun or imagination.

So what's the appeal of the genre, I ask myself in order to continue with the essay.  There are several things at work. One is that gangsters are not bound by laws or any other strictures of society. While us law abiding types are confined by criminal codes, ethics, morals, rules and restrictions, gangsters do whatever the hell they want. That's the way to live! And we thus live vicariously through these gun toting mobsters. Yet a mobster does answer to certain set of codes, but principally within the gang itself and to his brother criminal. We can all get behind such latter day chivalry.

So there's that but there's also the violence.  If neither over done nor gratuitous (the two go hand in hand), cinematic violence is compelling theater, so to speak. Films in general make use of violence as a story telling tool because it is so vivid and visceral. (And I for one do not for a second cotton to the notion that on screen violence plays any role in creating "real life" violence. Violent criminal gang activity was rampant in urban America throughout the latter half of the 19th century and cinema was not yet part of popular culture.) In some respects, the enjoyment or at least acceptance of screen violence in gangster films relates to my previous point about living vicariously. Many of us, as peace loving as we may be, have had deep seated fantasies about socking someone in the jaw, opening fire on our enemies or intimidating foe and bystander alike with the threat of injury or death. Gangsters on film can satisfy these primal urges for us.

A third and often overlooked appeal of the gangster genre is its appeal to our natural instincts as tribal animals. Humans, like dogs and unlike cats, are pack animals. We like to be a part of. Be it athletic teams, clubs, families, religious groups, armies, unions, fraternal organizations, most people long to be among like minded fellow humans, usually with a unifying purpose. Gangster films are all about male bonding. Sometimes in organized gangs, sometimes in crime families and usually in a combination thereof. We enjoy watching people work cooperatively toward a common goal, sharing hopes fears and dreams. Never mind that these groups are sometimes comprised largely of psychopaths. Related to this is an aspect common to virtually every family, gang or other organization: the boss. Most of us like a good leader, be this the head of the family, the coach, the pastor, the general, the president or the chief. There's nothing more satisfying then being led by and feeling watched over by a good leader. Unless its perhaps actually being that leader.


I now offer to you a list of ten American gangster films. All of which meet the following criteria: they're great films; they feature a family, organized gang or both; include violence but are never gratuitous; and have a leader or leaders. On the one hand coming up with ten was easy, on the other, confining it to ten, not so easy. You may feel compelled to rant and rave about the glaring omission of a favorite gangster film, but remember that this list, like any such endeavor, is bound to reflect the biases and tastes of the author.

Family Affair The Godfather (1972). People love this film, nobody more than I do. Like all great films of the genre it's about much more than crimes and criminals. The Godfather is about family and the transformation of one young man. The violence, particularly at the end of the film, is mostly operatic and not meant to convey the reality of dying by the gun, but to represent the means by which individuals can sacrifice their own decency to achieve their ends. First Marlon Brando as Vito, then Al Pacino as Michael, serve as the head of the Corleone family, the titular Godfather of a criminal enterprise. We see one established in his role, beloved and feared, and watch how another grows into it. From director Francis Ford Coppola.

What Price Anarchy? Goodfellas (1990). This Martin Scorsese film is rich with energy and verve, simultaneously romanticizing and demystifying the life of gangsters. From the narration of Ray Liotta as the real life Henry Hill we hear of the allure of the gangster life, how the rest of us are suckers in our nine to five jobs while gangsters boldly take what they want. But we also see the terrible price paid for choosing such a path. We revel with gangsters in the close bonds they form with one another, while then watching the cost of a single misstep. There is violence aplenty as there needs to be in telling such a story.

Family Ties The Godfather Part II. This necessary follow up to the original, continues the story while also providing the amazing backstory. We see how Vito started his rise and the terrible consequences of such a life to Michael as even fratricide becomes a viable option. Like the first film, Part 2 is about much more than breaking the law. Relationships are part and parcel to most films and they're dealt with in all their complexity and in various forms in this epic. Brothers. Husbands and wives. Business associates. Rivals. All of these and more. Of course brutal violence is often what's used to settle differences. There's no sentimentalizing in Godfather Part 2, indeed there are no trite nor obvious solutions offered. Just cause they're gangsters doesn't mean they can't make you think.

Not Your Typical Mama's Boy White Heat (1949). This is a James Cagney show through and through. He's the not all together popular leader of a gang. There's one of the proverbial rubs of gang life. You may be sitting in the catbird seat as the leader but its always possible someone wants your spot. Cagney's Cody Jarrett has to deal with this, along with the law and those fiercesome headaches. This is one nuanced character, especially for gangster film, for Cody's gang includes his dear ole ma who he's quite attached to. Like all the other films on this list, and many other good gangster films, White Heat is wildly entertaining and features a grand performance by its star. In fact, Cagney as Jarrett is as good a cinematic portrayal as you'll see of gangster.

The Penitent Man Mean Streets (1973). Harvey Keitel's Charlie is a good Catholic, or at least as good as you can be when you're consorting with and abetting lawbreakers. Oh yes and participating too. The film's tagline is: "You don't make up for your sins in church, you do it in the streets." Clearly we have a man with a conscience. Yes, clearly some crooks have one. In addition to Charlie there is the goofy and dangerous Johnny Boy (Robert DeNiro) who errs badly in not playing by the rules. That is those rules by which gangs govern themselves. Want to break society's laws? Knock yourself out. But within the criminal family you better walk the line. Mean Streets does not romanticize violence or "the life." Even the drunkenness is reeling, staggering and dizzy. So here again we see the wages of sin, whether you've been going to church or not.

Like a Candle in a Hurricane The Public Enemy (1931). Cagney again, this time as Tom Powers a young man who rises from being a two bit crook to running his own show. You can guess how this is going end up for our protagonist. Hollywood tends to want its criminals to get what's coming to them. Powers is a force of nature, as were many a Cagney character. His physicality has never been more impressive than in this mannered and interesting young man. Whether plugging an old enemy or stuffing a grapefruit in a soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend's puss. This is the classic charismatic gang boss and a movie that greatly influenced the genre. It's use of off camera violence by director William Wellman is especially effective.


Very Radical Couples Therapy Bonnie and Clyde (1967). One of the most influential films ever made in part for the manner in which it introduced more realistic violence to cinema. Contrary to Public Enemy the violence was in your face. Different strokes for different movies. Here we have a totally compelling re-imagining of the true life escapades of the real life Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, who along with Clyde's brother and sister-in-law became bank robbing folk heroes during the Great Depression. It is virtuoso story telling of the first order from director Arthur Penn, effectively employing music, humor and an innovative camera.


The Classic Rise and Fall The Roaring Twenties (1939). It shouldn't be a surprise that Cagney appears on this list three times. He appeared in a lot of gangster films and was personally responsible for their success. This is a classic rags-to-riches gangster story with Cagney as Eddie Bartlett. He's the type of crook whose fallen into his line of work by circumstances, then makes the most of it. Humphrey Bogart is an associate who turns on our hero. Like many a gangster we feel for Eddie, certainly next to Bogie's character he's the lesser of two evils We ache as the girl of his dreams (Priscilla Lane) finds love in another's arms. Gangsters can buy a lot with their ill gotten gain, but even they are incapable of purchasing love.

I Smell a Rat Donnie Brasco (1997). Johnny Depp is the title character in the amazing story of a cop who goes under very deep cover and infiltrates the mob. He even gets to see a mob victim sliced up for easy disposal and difficult detection. But most of all this is a look at the totally unglamorous working class mobster who has to hustle for every dime with death an every present danger. Al Pacino gives one of the best performances of his remarkable career as a sort of middle class mobster. Michael Madsen is at once alluring and terrifying as the boss. But it is through Depp that we see the seamy underbelly of the underside of the underworld. We are not underwhelmed.


Johnny Rocco's a Skunk Key Largo (1948). Edward G Robinson played some pretty rotten eggs but perhaps none were worse than Johnny Rocco. What awful things is he whispering into his lovely hostage's (Lauren Bacall) ear? Makes your skin crawl to think of it. I included Key Largo because in addition to being such a wonderful film, Robinson plays Rocco like the dirty stinking rat that arguably all gangsters should be shown to be.  He's also the classic gangster in that he's fully in charge and rightly feared, unwavering in his commitment to do whatever is needed for his own survival and success. Bogie shows up here too, this time as a good guy out to foil Rocco's evil doings.

Others to consider: Little Caesar (1931), Scarface (1932), Brother Orchid (1940), Reservoir Dogs (1992), Johnny Eager (1941), Gangs of New York (2002).

How to Pick Your Next Movie -or- What to Do When There's Nothing You Want to Watch on Your Netflix Queue

Got an email this morning from a reader who was struggling to find the next movie to watch. He claimed to be having a hard time refining his taste in films. He further described himself as having "eclectic taste." (Don't we all?) He just wasn't digging what was on his Nextflix queue.

As a service to my legions of fans (three people is legions, isn't it?) I now provide all of you with an expanded version of my response.

Find a director to enjoy. If, for example, you love Goodfellas (1990), watch other Scorsese films. Or if you liked Some like it Hot (1959), see what else Billy Wilder did. This is a good way to find a style of film making that you enjoy. You're almost certainly not going to like every picture a given director does but you're probably going to like most and thus may tolerate his lesser efforts. Directors, as I will discuss below, are a far more reliable way to select films than stars. Watching one director you like will often lead you to others who have a similar style. Truffaut can lead to Godard, for example, as  Hawks can either lead to Ford or La Cava.

Pick a star. This is much riskier than going with a director because actors have and do all variety of films and some may not be to your taste. Also, since actors generally appear in a lot more films than directors make, they're more likely to be in some stinkers. However with people like Cary Grant, Bogie and Marlene Dietrich you're fairly safe. Notice that the three examples I gave are all stars of bygone eras. It's my impression that even the best of today's actors are more likely to be in bad films. Within the work of a star you can also focus on a genre. For example with Grant there's plenty of screwball comedies, with Bogie there's gangster films and with Dietrich a lot of romance.

Check out Great Films website. This is a great one stop shopping site in looking for films to watch. Brought to you by Tim Dirks, Greatest Films breaks down the "best" movies (yes, subject to debate but this provides a starting point and has all the classics) by such categories as decade, genre, stars. It also has such categories as best film speeches, best film kisses and best film editing sequences. Great fun and easy to navigate, not to mention an effective way to select something for your viewing pleasure.

Fall in love with "old" films. This is real easy to do. Movies from the 1930's in particular will help inspire a love for cinema. You won't get distracted by a an over emphasis on technical wizardry and state of the art special effects. Story and character were king (or queen) which is as it should be in story telling. The humor is not of the gross out variety and although once the production code began being enforced there was de facto censorship, its nice to have stories that aren't overly reliant on shocking violence or profanity. If you have Turner Classic Movies as part of your cable package you're good to go. Sadly not all the best from the 30's are on DVD but there's plenty to get you started. They did make bad movies back in Hollywood's Golden Age, but not of the spectacularly awful variety you see today. If you pick a random movie to watch from 2009 and then one from 1939 your chances of seeing a good film are far better from '39.

Read this blog (and others as well). If you look to your right you'll see labels for various stars, directors, genres etc. that I've covered over the two plus years of Riku Writes existence. You may get some ideas there. There are scads of other film bloggers some, like me, are rank amateurs, others are world renowned film critics like Roger Ebert. In fact, go to his website and check out The Great Movies section. Books can be helpful but that often means you're spending money to get just one person's opinion when you get lots of opinions for free on the internet.

Remember the rest of the world. Given the relatively limited availability of foreign language titles in the US. when you do pick a foreign film in the states you're quite likely to get something really good. So perhaps to an even greater degree than with older films, you stand a better chance of avoiding a bomb. Most of the classics from other countries are available as well as the best of the best directors.

Careful. Don't spend too much time researching movies. Better you should pick one and watch. Happy viewing.

Films Loved by Film Lovers

Someone recently suggested to me that I write a post about films loved by film lovers. I took the suggestion to mean that I discuss movies that cinemaphiles appreciate more than do casual fans. Despite appearances to the contrary, I am not nearly so pretentious to believe that I am worthy of such an undertaking. Then again I'm no shrinking violet either. I can't imagine that any poll exists which would suggest any answers and if one did I'm sure it would be most unscientific. The best anyone can do is guess. The least they can do is provide an educated guess.

To simplify a quite complicated enough matter I will stick to English language films in this post and provide a follow up post with foreign language picks later. Also I will restrict myself to one film per decade, starting from the 1920s.

In no instance am I suggesting that any one of these films is universally loved by every single movie aficionado, such a thing is impossible. And as will quickly become obvious, I have not picked any films lacking broad appeal. I merely mean to say that to the majority of those people to whom movies are more passion that diversion, these films are highly esteemed.

Truth be told that I'm basing these guesses (for that is what they truly are) on no research or study at all save that done unwittingly in reading about, hearing about and talking about movies for many years. What I believe distinguishes the films I have chosen is that they are all unique stories not limited by traditional story telling techniques.  They are all presented with either great verve or an especially light touch or a stylish one. That is, they are each damn good movies that defy or mix genres.

More so than usual, given the subjective nature of this task, I invite your comments.


20's Sunrise (1927). The positioning and movement of the camera have been done just as good but never better. German director FW Murnau crafted a beautiful story of a young couple whose marriage is threatened by a vamp and then a storm. The silent aspect of Sunrise (it was one of the last of the silent films) is particularly critical because there are few words on the screen to interrupt Murnau's grand visual experimentation.

30's City Lights (1931). Talking pictures were well into their fourth full year when Charlie Chaplin made another silent movie. Of all the nerve! But you wouldn't want City Lights with so much as a word uttered. Pathos has never been done better. The humor is on a par with the best of his earlier comedies. It is thus simple enough to lump City Lights with those earlier films, but the ending scene alone (one of the greatest closing sequences in any film) separates it from the pack.

40's The Third Man (1949). Carol Reed made some fine films before and after but nothing to approach this masterpiece. It is one of the most visually stunning films ever made. Post war Vienna looks utterly fascinating. The story is far beyond the garden variety noir or mystery and is matched not only by the performances of stars Joseph Cotton, Alida Valli, Trevor Howard and Orson Welles but by a wonderful, if anonymous, supporting cast.

50's A Streetcar Named Desire (1951). Audiences come for the bravura acting and stay for Elia Kazan's direction. Then they come back again to watch that amazing cast. Brando and Vivian Leigh give some of filmdom's most memorable performances but Kim Hunter and Karl Malden are not to be missed either. The performances and the screenplay based on the Tennessee Williams play are done justice by Kazan's expert direction.

60's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962). "Print the legend." John Ford made a lot of Westerns that are among the very best of the genre. This is one of them. There is so much more here than the good guy versus bad guy showdown. The story has the heft of Ford's best films with John Wayne at his best and Lee Marvin at his most sinister. The gravitas of Jimmy Stewart is also key.

70's Mean Streets (1973). A far cry from Martin Scorcese's recent efforts. His films of the last decade or so are glossy, slick productions. Mean Streets, his initial hit, is comparatively a rough first draft. But what a first draft! It's very rawness was admired upon its debut and still is today. While it set the tone for later Scorsese efforts it can stand alone as an important gangster picture.

80's Do the Right Thing (1989). Spike Lee's fearless challenge of racism makes more recent films such as the regrettable Crash(2006) look like bed time stories. There are neither heroes nor villains and certainly no stick figures in this story of one hot summer day in Brooklyn. There are also no easy answers but an invitation to ponder some of life's complexity.

90's Fargo (1996). The Coen Brothers have gradually convinced audiences that they are among the world's premier filmmakers and Fargo was an important point in their argument. Fargo is a sad, funny, tragic, exhilarating film filled with wonderful performances. Quirky has been done to death the past couple of decades, but Fargo is quirky with purpose. Frances McDormand starring turn is to be cherished.

00's Match Point (2005). Woody Allen directed some of the great comedies of the modern era, this is not one of them. Match Point is an ultra sophisticated crime/drama/romance/thriller. There's nothing to distinguish this as an Allen film other than the fact that it is really good.

Others: The Lady Eve (1941), Battleground (1949), The Crowd (1928), A Serious Man (2009), The Last Picture Show (1971), The Getaway (1972), Raging Bull (1980), Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933), Sunset Blvd. (1950) and The Searchers (1956).

Coming up next, foreign language films loved by film lovers.

This Post is Not as Much About Shutter Island as it is About How We Watch Movies

It should have been obvious. If a person (in this case me) goes to see a movie a second time on the pretense of making up his or her mind about said film, that individual must like it. The movie, I mean.

I was not being honest with myself or you my vast legion of readers (hello Courtney B. in Arkon, Ohio) when I rambled on in two recent posts about needing to see Shutter Island  a second time to clear up my confusion regarding, of all things,  what I thought of it.

I mean what idiot goes to see a movie in the theaters twice in two weeks at today's ticket prices if he (or she) has any ambiguity in the "did you like it or not" area? Not this idiot.

But I was desperately curious about how a second viewing on the big screen would sit with me. As mentioned in a previous post I felt influenced by having read Dennis Lehane's novel upon which Shutter Island is quite faithfully based. I also had interference in the form of a lot going on in my life, plus there'd been a zillion reviews of the film which taken together fell into the category of "mixed."

Here's the thing, once you see a movie that has a profound effect on you, it's part of what's going on your life. Shutter Island jumped right into my brain sharing space with studying for my Second Language Acquisition class final, falling behind in my French class (tres stresse !) and other cares, woes, concerns and preoccupations. I don't know about the rest of you (of Clive N. in Leeds U.K. I have my doubts) but it can get pretty crowded in my brain. Compartmentalizing is not always so easy. You've got general stress, or elation or depression or ambiguity going on, and a movie can be a distraction or it can mix right in. And don't think you can watch a film without the filter of what's happening in the "real world" (I hate that place!).

You see movies through a prism.

Imagine watching a film with a blank slate. Okay you didn't read the book it's based on. You haven't read or seen any reviews. Your mood is just fine. Nothing much on your mind. Something is going to tap into your biases, prior knowledge or maybe even your  metacognition, for crying out loud. We've all got an affective filter going.

The lighting of a scene. The soundtrack. The actor's accent. A violent act or a kiss. We react, we relate we contemplate. Ever notice how differently people from similar backgrounds can view the same film? And I'm talking about people who all love it.

The editing! The use of metaphors! The realism! The acting! The movement of the camera in that one scene.... Because everything we see is caressed or slapped or nudged by our world view

I'm going to let you in on something -- we're all different. Very different. Its remarkable any of us get along at all. One thing that's different about all of us is that we look at the same blessed thing and see something else. Problem is that some people are afraid to like or not like certain things in our culture because of good old peer pressure. That's a powerful fear and though most prominent among teens it can strike any of us. Bravo to those brave souls who say what they like and dislike without reservation.

So I maybe wasn't quite so preoccupied my second time seeing Shutter Island. Plus I knew where the story was going, no surprises to deal with. (That's a whole other topic, how surprises in a movie can be wonderful or distracting or not really a surprise at all.) It's always with the second viewing of a film that I can really determine how much I like it because I'm not having to worry about what happens and can focus on how it happens and how it makes me feel. Sometimes that second viewing causes me to realize that the movie was just about "what" and how it was told wasn't that interesting. Other times I see it again and like it even more because of how wonderfully the story was revealed. The same phenomenon is true of songs.

If not properly done Shutter Island could have been a classic one-and-done film because of what I must assume is a very surprising twist at the end to people who haven't read the book. Thus if this story was merely adequately told people would be satisfied with one viewing but feel no desire to re-visit it. But Shutter Island is a Martin Scorsese film and whether you like this particular one or not you know you he's grand storyteller.

The other night when wife and a child were watching a network TV drama I was struck by how facile the series is and worse how intellectually dishonest it comes off. It's a bunch of actors in a made up story acting out emotions. It was as real as to me as The Flintstones.

Scorsese is nothing if not a brutally honest director. His films don't involve pretense. The story feels real, immediate, without artifice. (William Wellman and John Ford were the same sort of directors.) While, for example, Shutter Island has shades of gothic horror to it, it's every bit believable and not a single punch is pulled. Scorsese draws magnificent performances from actors and it never hurts that he's able to lure the creme de la creme from the profession. Hell, in Shutter Island Patricia Clarkson showed up for a small role

Here's another sub topic. Famous or familiar actors. You see an actor in a film and your mind steps out of the movie for a second to say: "hey look, it's Max Van Sydow!" Or even more distracting, "who's that actor, I've seen him somewhere before."  If the performance is strong enough, such mental interruptions are short lived.

Leonardo DiCaprio is in every scene of Shutter Island. That's a helluva responsibility to put on one bloke in a two hour 18 minute film. He's excellent. After the nonsense that was Titanic it was difficult to imagine Leo becoming one of our better actors. But he is.

I feel the urge to summarize now but will fight that urge to my last breath. Hot or cold I've said what was on my mind about the experience of seeing a movie.  I leave much more yet to be said but have tried your patience quite enough (thanks for hanging with me, Didrik N. of Oslo, Norway). Suffice to say, more in the future.

But, what you ask, of Shutter island? What did your second viewing tell you about the film? Fair enough questions so here's my answer: I liked it!

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.

In Struggling to Understand how I Felt About Shutter Island I Investigate the Process of Film Viewing

One of the best movie experiences I ever had was when I saw Gods & Monsters (1998). I went to see it knowing only one thing: it was getting rave reviews. Didn't know the first bloody thing about it. I did not know that it was about the director James Whale, nor that Ian McKellan starred. Hadn't even seen a preview for it. Great way to see a film and nearly impossible to replicate.

No pre conceptions, not looking for anything. Everything would be a surprise, provided the film wasn't of a formulaic. It wasn't.

I had a very dissimilar experience yesterday in going to see Shutter island. Having read the novel upon which the film is based and having seen various versions of trailers and having seen scads of reviews, I was going to be pretty hard to surprise.

I'd been anticipating Shutter Island for months and fully expected to see it on its opening weekend. I don't miss a Martin Scorsese movie and particularly one based on a novel I much enjoyed. Then the reviews came out and they were mixed. Plus I was quite busy. Not so busy that I wasn't going to any movies (been to several since Shutter Island came out in mid February) but spare time was scarce and set aside for must-see experiences.

Meanwhile the excitement about seeing Shutter Island faded fast. I'd get to it -- eventually.

Eventually was yesterday and I went more out of a sense of obligation than with any anticipation. I did wonder how the rather major twist toward the end would be handled but mostly I wanted to "get this out of the way."

Fast forward to last night after I'd returned home from the cinema. Inevitably enquiring minds wanted to know what I thought. I gave the briefest possible answer. One that would discourage a follow up query.

I just didn't know what to think.

I knew that Shutter Island was a visually stunning experience. This is no small thing. The look of a film is integral to how a story is told. I knew the book had been pretty faithfully followed and the liberties did no harm to the story. I knew that that Shutter Island boasted a host of excellent performances, not the least of which was from its star, Leonardo DiCaprio.

But I was otherwise confused and not sure why.

I'm currently reading the third and final volume of Richard Evan's remarkable history of the Third Reich. It will surprise no one to hear that reading about the shenanigans of the Nazis can, after awhile, be a bit depressing and frightening, not to mention thought-provoking. Meanwhile I'm enjoying a week off. I had a major presentation in a linguistics class on Saturday and my French class doesn't meet this week nor am I subbing this week as school is out for Spring break. My brain is free to roam a bit but it never strays to far from my studies nor the cares and joys of daily life. Then there's Nazis (the real not the cinematic kind). So then I see this much ballyhooed film from one of the great directors of all time that has met with something less than universal praise. In fact, some critics really disliked it. As someone prone to reflection and contemplation I was set up nicely to see a film dealing with sanity.

Okay, so why should I care what anyone else thought of the movie? What should I care how it compares to the book? What should I care what else is happening in my life? After all, a movie is supposed to take you away from all that. You enjoy it or dislike it for it's own sake.

In theory, yes. But that's like suggesting that journalists or historians can be unbiased. In other words it is, in truth, an impossibility. Still, if Shutter Island was any good I'd have thought of nothing else while watching it and would marvel at the achievement of it after.  N'est ce pas?

Again, you'd think.

There was a swirl of ideas that danced about my head last night as I reflected on the film. With some of these came emotions. Had it tapped into something? Had this film that is so much about the human mind and how easily and how badly it malforms struck some nerves?

Well there it is. Forget classifications. Forget how I'd rate Shutter Island on IMDb or what adjectives I'd used in describing it. I've been a slave to rating and classifying and even to defining. For me, this first time at least, Shutter Island was not about "what I thought of it" but what it made me think, how it made me think and why it succeeded so wonderfully at teasing my intellect. Shutter Island defied quantification and begged long musing.

I cannot imagine how I would have reacted to Shutter Island if I'd gone into the theater the same way I did when I saw Gods & Monsters. It is an absolute certainty it would have touched me in different ways. But you cannot leave your baggage outside when you enter a movie theater or play a DVD.  The key to a movie is how it manages to strip away that baggage or uses it further provoke and stimulate.

This is why a second viewing of a film, particularly one at a very different stage of our life, can produce such a different reaction. It's not just that we change, but the circumstances surrounding our life on that given day are altered. You can have a different response to a film not just ten years later but if you happened to see it on Wednesday rather than Tuesday.

Shutter Island was a great film viewing experience. I'm setting aside, for now, a discussion about the specific virtues or faults of the movie. I instead praise it for happening upon my life at a time when it was able to engage me, and work this little brain of mine. Who could ask for more from a film?

Okay, Okay, My Top Twenty Films of the Last Decade

I'm yielding to overwhelming and unrelenting pressure (okay a couple of people mentioned it in passing) and publishing a top 20 of my favorite films from the preceding decade. The oughts.

Initially I had balked because I felt there weren't a score of movies worthy of a best decade list. But upon further reflection, there were some excellent efforts, surely enough for a passable top twenty. And indeed this past decade is probably far better than either the 80's or 90's. (Still, this list is in no way comparable to the decade bests from the 1930's and 1970's that I recently published here.)

So here at last are my top 20 films of the oughts.

1. Inglourious Basterds (2009) Tarantino U.S.
2. The Aviator (2004) Scorsese U.S.
3. No Country For Old Men (2007) Coen Brothers U.S.
4. Barbarian Invasions (2003) Arcand French Canada
5. Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) Cuaron Mexico
6. Zodiac (2007) Fincher U.S.
7. Minority Report (2002) Spielberg U.S.
8. A Serious Man (2009) Coen Brothers U.S.
9. Downfall (2004) Hirschbiegel Germany
10. City of God (2002) Meirelles/Lund Brazil
11. Lives of Others (2006) von Donnersmarck Germany
12. Wonder Boys (2000) Hanson U.S.
13. Gangs of New York (2002) Scorsese U.S.
14. The Man Without a Past (2002) Kaurismaki Finland
15. Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008) Allen U.S.
16. Amores perros (2000) Inarritu Mexico
17. Bamboozled (2000) Lee U.S.
18. Milk (2008) Van Sant U.S.
19. The Class (2008) Cantet France
20. Bad Education (2004) Almodovar Spain

What a Great Start! My Favorite Opening Movie Scenes (Part One)

You had me at the opening credits.

Like people, some movies seem a bit ordinary and uninteresting when you first meet them. But as you get to know the film you find it to be quite interesting, perhaps even compelling. Some films seem dazzling, fascinating at first look. But it's all a false come on. They offer no substance. They shot their creative wad in the opening minutes.

Many of my favorite movies take their time developing. They need to set the stage. They build slowly. Novels can be the same way. These are your "once upon a time" beginnings. But other films grab us from the beginning and never let us go. More importantly they set the tone for the movie. Our senses are prepared for what is to come. A visual style is established, perhaps even an auditory one. We are hooked from the first moments and can't wait for more. Even if we've seen the film many times before. These openings are different than anything we've seen before. They may be exciting, but they are certainly unique. Seeing an inspired opening suggests more to come. Here is part one of a look at some my favorite beginnings to films, with parts two and three to follow in the coming weeks.

Apocalypse Now (1979) . My absolute favorite start to a film. (See above.) Black screen. The whir of helicopter blades. Jungle. Then a helicopter passes by. Light smoke slowly wafts up from below screen then disappears. Gradually a song begins. "The End" by The Doors. More smoke, a bit thicker now. We hear the helicopter again and then it passes again but only the bottom of it is visible. Suddenly the entire jungle goes up in flames as Jim Morrison sings the words, "this is the end, beautiful friend...." The jungle seems to have burned quite quickly. The helicopter makes another pass. Now a head, upside down is super imposed on the screen. Gradually the jungle fades and the whirring of the helicopter is now the sound of an overhead fan. The inferno continues as does the helicopter. Now the main backdrop to the scene is the man in a room with flames superimposed over his head and the helicopter still making passes. Once more the jungle but it gradually fades as the camera focuses on a drink glass with an amber liquor in it. Then a gun. Then the man, who looks up to the fan which sounds exactly like a helicopter.

The mood, ladies and gentlemen, has been set. It's a hell of an opening to live up to, but Francis Ford Coppola's film does exactly that. We have been immediately engaged, intrigued and prepared for the long strange trip this film is.

Manhattan (1979). This is Woody Allen at his best. His uses of narration, music and establishing shots. Gorgeous black and white shots of the New York skyline street scenes and other sights, Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" and Allen himself dictating the beginning of a novel. We see New York in various states at various times of the year. We hear Allen's character try different openings all suggesting very different prose to come, critiquing himself as he goes. When the narration stops, the song's crescendo builds and the percussion explodes we see fireworks over the New York skyline.

Beautiful. The story will mix Allen's trademark humor into a romantic and interesting story.

Goodfellas (1990). The opening credits start. On a black screen, the words, in white, come from the left stop and zip off to the right. The words move to the sound of a car passing by. We see the words, "This film is based on a true story." Then we see a luxury car driving down the freeway in the dark of night. Black screen and the words, "New York , 1970." Back to the car this time the inside where there are three men. One asleep. The driver quite tired. They hear a noise from the trunk and pull over to investigate. The trunk is opened to reveal a man wrapped in white, only his bloodied head visible. He's alive. One man approaches with large knife, cursing he begins stabbing the body. He pulls away and another man fires several shots into the body. The third man, who was the driver, looking more resigned than shocked, closes the trunk. In voice over we hear him say, "as far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster." As the trunk closes the we freeze frame on his face and hear Tony Bennett sing, "Rags to Riches." Then the credits are back. The movie's title in red.

I'm in. And I think I have an idea for what I'm in for to boot.

The Letter (1940). The opening credits are superimposed over a plantation jungle at night. The opening score is dramatic, suggesting a suspenseful story to come. The first shot after the credits finish is of a full moon. Then a sign tells us this is a rubber plantation. Next we see a white substance lazily dripping from a tree into a bucket. The camera pans to an open air hut where natives are lazing about. One plays what appears to a flute, others play a board game while still more lay in hammocks. It's all quite tranquil. Until the camera pans further and we see in the background the big house. Then we hear gun shots. People outside start to stir. Next a man comes out of the house falling down the steps. He is being shot. We then see the shooter. A woman. She continues, while standing quite erect, to fire until out of bullets. Then she slowly lowers the gun to her side, finally dropping it. The camera slowly moves closer to her until her face is almost full frame. It is an expressionless face. She's attractive, probably in her 30's. Next we see the commotion among the natives. One, however looks up. He sees clouds pass over the moon, rendering the scene that was brightly lit, very dark. The camera is back on the woman. The cloud passes and she's in the light of the moon again. She looks up at it over her shoulder as if surprised. We see the moon. Her looking at it, then she turns her attention to the prone body. But she quickly sidles away from it and back up the steps.

Wow. That the woman in question is played by Bette Davis only adds to the effect of the scene. We are full of questions. The film will slowly reveal all and we'll see that moon again at the end.

(Part two next week.)

Fred and Barney do Scorsese

You Know You Really Like A Director If... (Part Six)

A sure sign you really like a director is that you can come up with a list of ten films he's directed that you really like. As regular readers of this blog (both of us) know my look at favorite directors has become a weekly series and today's post on Martin Scorsese marks part six. Previous directors that I've recognized are Woody Allen, Alfred Hitchcock, William Wellman, John Ford and Howard Hawks.

I love listening to Scorsese talk about films. He can be seen and heard in film documentaries and featurettes aplenty. His love of and appreciation for films from all parts of the world from all decades is as evident as the brilliance of his directing. Scrosese doesn’t just talk about films and directors and stars, he enthuses about them. This enthusiasm is infectious. I liken it to two people who’ve seen a film that you haven’t caught yet. One tells you, “you’ve got to see it.” The other tells you how great the experience was of seeing it and how much they loved it. Invariably the type of recommendation the second person provided will be the more convincing to me.

Scorsese’s unabashed love of film comes through in his style of film making. He holds nothing back. Stories are told with great verve and excitement. And honesty. Is there now a more honest filmmaker?

Controversy has followed Scorsese, as it does many great filmmakers. In his case because of the violence depicted in some of his movies and the supposed unflattering portrayals of Italian-Americans. Suffice it to say his movies are not politically correct, that would corrupt the process. Many of his films, such as Mean Streets and Goodfellas draw from Scorsese’s own experiences growing up in New York. Along with several of the great gangster films ever made and other dark subjects explored in films like Taxi Driver, Scorsese has made Kundun (1997) about the dalai lama and the The Age of Innocence (1993) a costume drama based on an Edith Wharton novel. He’s nothing if not versatile.

Here are my top ten, as always, in order.

Goodfellas (1990). At the top of my list of Scorsese films and near the very top of all films ever made. Rich with unforgettable scenes, lines and performances. See my post from last February for more.

Raging Bull (1980). Scrosese has had the good fortune and good sense to surround himself with some exceptional talents. Among them actor Robert DeNiro who gave the performance of a lifetime as boxer Jake LaMotta and editor Thelma Schoonmaker, a three time Oscar winner, one for Raging Bull. This is utterly uncompromising film making. Both brutal and balletic. Considered by many critics to the best film of the 1980s.

The Aviator (2004). I seem to love this film more than anyone. I’m so clueless that I’ve never understood why it did not receive more critical acclaim and sweep that year’s Oscars. It’s the story of Howard Hughes over a 25 year period beginning with his filming of Hells Angels. It includes Hughes’ affairs with Kate Hepburn, Ava Gardner and Faith Domergue, his unsuccessful battle with OCD and his successful battle with congress. Most of all the Aviator, as its title suggests, is about Hughes the pilot and innovator in airplanes. Leonardo DiCaprio starred and is letter perfect, as is the film.

Taxi Driver (1976). This is a real poser. I mean trying to summarize Taxi Driver. Jeez, saying anything about in a few sentences seems wrong. Travis Bickle is a mentally unstable cab driver who vacillates between wanting to be an assassin or a vigilante killer. He takes an interest in a beautiful campaign worker and later a very young prostitute. How's that? For chrissakes just see it. DeNiro stars along with Cybill Sheperd, Jodie Foster and Harvey Kietel as one of the slimiest pimps you'll ever see.

Mean Streets (1973). It’s telling that a movie saw raw can be so damn good. An excellent film on its own terms it presaged much more to come. See my post from last Summer for more.

The King of Comedy (1982). Creepy, unsettling, embarrassing, uncomfortable. Yet I love it. Wrote about just the other day, see that post.

Gangs of New York (2002). DeNiro isn’t the only actor who gives brilliant performs for Scorsese. Just say Daniel Day-Lewis in this film. Also see some amazing set designs, costumes and special effects that re-create the Five Points Section of New York in the 1860’s. DeCaprio starred, though Day-Lewis stole the show. Yes its about the various gangs of mid 19th century New York but its also about immigration, city bosses and the draft riots. Wonderful history and story telling.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). Immediately raised the hackles of people who hadn’t seen it, never would and wouldn’t understand it if they did. Based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis adapted for the screen by paul Shrader, it pictured Jesus as what he was, a man. Some will argue that he was far more and the film allows for that too. Makes all those biblical epics of the 30 years prior seem like cartoons.

The Departed (2006). The only Scorsese film to garner him a Best Director Oscar and his only Best Picture winner too. Featured a rich cast of A list male actors, DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Whalberg, Jack Nicholson and Alec Baldwin. It’s the Irish mob, good cops, bad cops, people working undercover for both sides. Plenty of tension, violence and drama.

Casino (1995). Draws inevitable comparisons to previous gangster film from Scorsese and inevitably suffers as a result. DeNiro and Joe Pesci are back this time the setting is Las Vegas at the tail end of the mob’s control of the gaming industry. A very good film in its own right. That I rank it 10th suggests how much I esteem Scorsese’s other films.

Also be sure to see A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies (1995) in which he discusses some of the American films he has most loved and been influenced by and Il Mio Viaggio in Italia (1999) (aka My Voyage to Italy) a similar look at Italian films.

Better to be King for a Night Than a Schmuck For a Lifetime

Oh just to touch the frays of fame's garment. To walk and talk among the famous as an equal. To be publicly celebrated and recognized. Save only power and riches nothing else is so intoxicating so beguiling as fame. And so few ever know it.

Many films have successfully explored the trappings of fame but none have better examined the obsession to experience it, nor what its it like to be outside of it looking in as did Martin Scorsese's The King of Comedy (1982). The only movie I love that makes me really, really uncomfortable.

Robert DeNiro plays Rupert Pupkin, an aspiring comic who cannot take no for an answer. Hell, he can't even take maybe for answer, or even just a minute. He is determined to be discovered by Jerry Langford, a talk show host played magnificently by Jerry Lewis.

Rupert suffers from what has become a common affliction in our culture. He is a man who has deluded himself into thinking he has talent. And indeed he is wildly appreciated and successful in his very own fantasy life. Fair enough, many of us have imagined giving Oscar acceptance speeches or hob nobbing with the glitterati. But Rupert crosses a line. A very fine one. He blurs fantasy and reality. And thus he shows up at Jerry's weekend home with his girlfriend. In fantasy he was invited. In reality, not so much.

Wisely Scorsese shot the fantasy scenes no differently than the rest of the film. In the film they are seamless. Just like with insanity. One of the finest lines many people walk is between knowing what is real and what merely exists in their imagination.

Fine lines is what The King of Comedy is all about. It's where the discomfort comes from. Whether when meeting Jerry himself or dealing with his assistant, Rupert keeps stepping over it. There's always one too many "oh, and one more thing." Actually that would be all right, one too many. With Rupert there's many too many. Everyone always maintains propriety around Rupert for as long as they can. Boundaries take an awful beating from Rupert who is polite but persistent. Then merely persistent. He knows his destiny -- to be a famous comic -- and can't see why he should bother with any of the niceties in his way such as hard work or receptionists.

Rupert expects Jerry to listen to his audition tape and put him on the show. The notion of working on his act in night clubs is unacceptable. After all he's got a basement with a re-creation of a talk show set in it that includes cardboard cut outs of Jerry and Liza Minnelli. It's there where he rehearses his act. Of course he's also created restaurant conversations with Jerry and appearances on his show. Only the voice of his mother yelling at him from upstairs interrupts this rich fantasy life.

In fantasy we can be an instant success. Today shows like American Idol fuel this notion. Reality shows in general make our 15 minutes of fame seem so easy to come by. And that 15 minutes can be stretched. Oh to have just a bit of fame. With a touch of fame you have access to more of it. And with fame you have immortality. With fame you are right and everyone who ever doubted you, crossed you or insulted you is wrong. From the song and movie Fame (1980):

I feel it comin' together

People will see me and cry. Fame!

I'm gonna make it to heaven

Light up the sky like a flame. Fame!

I'm gonna live forever

The real pain of watching The King of Comedy is in its powerful observations of what it's like to be close to something and not have it. You can stand outside that building where you want to have an office and look at people going to work there. You can watch that girl you love, the one who doesn't even know your name, walk down the street, you can even say hi to her. You can see a famous person, or know his cousin, or watch him perform or stand where he stood. You can get so very close to all the things you want. But possessing them can be millions of miles away. You're left then with fantasies that you can hone and perfect and add detail too and embellish. "Ain't nothin' like the real thing baby," to quote another song.

When all else fails Rupert takes drastic measures. That is to say, even more drastic measures. He has a ready made accomplice. She's an obviously unbalanced woman who is totally in love with Jerry. She's played to the hilt by Sandra Bernhard. It's a part she was born for. They kidnap Jerry. She to have his way with Jerry. Rupert's goal is get on the Jerry Langford Show by using Jerry's life as a bargaining chip. As Rupert says: "Better to be a king for a night than a schmuck for a lifetime."

I'll not give away the end but will say that the great post movie debate is whether what happens next is all supposed to be reality or part of Rupert's vivid imagination. If it's the former Scorsese has made an even more powerful comment on American culture.

During the closing credits we hear Van Morrison's 'Wonderful Remark' which includes this line: "I sighed a million sighs I told a million lies - to myself - to myself." As Rupert should but doesn't know, those are the deadliest lies of all.

(Epilogue. Actor Delroy Lindo sometimes works out at the same gym that I do. I've seen him four or five times. Twice I've seen people go up to him and ask if he'd look at their screenplay. Once someone stared at him while he showered, finally saying, "your the famous guy, the star." I had nothing to do with these exchanges but nonetheless wanted to crawl into a hole.)

Jake and Jabez, Two Stories of Tortured Souls

So yesterday I watched Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull (1980) in the afternoon and then took in William Dieterle's The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941) in the evening. Couldn't have selected two movies that were any more different, could I?

You'd think....

By the middle of The Devil & Daniel I was beginning to notice some strong similarities, notwithstanding the brilliance of both films.

In one we have Robert DeNiro as Jake LaMotta, a gifted boxer of the 1940's and 50's. He had fame, riches, a devoted brother, a loving wife and children. But it all vanished. Jake was his own worst enemy. An uncontrollable temper and a tendency to a jealousy as prodigious as his pugilistic talent, were flames burning at his soul as if straight from hell.

Straight to hell, that's where Jabez Stone was headed after a literal bargain with the devil, in this case assuming the name of Scratch. His own farm, good friends a loving wife and children were not enough for Jabez. The hard work too often ended in frustration and debtors bayed at his door. The seven years of riches promised by Scratch were too good to pass up, never mind the eternal cost down the road.

The money proved an evil master and the kindly and generous Jabez soon became consumed by pernicious greed turning old friends into hardened enemies.

LaMotta ended up very much alone. The glory was a memory. The wife and children gone. The brother alienated. He was clearly a victim of his own internal demons.

Stone's wife remained loyal but his friends were now enemies and all his wealth could not bring true happiness.

Similarities with the two films do not end there. They are both utterly gorgeous. Raging Bull, with all its violence, is one of the most visually stunning movies ever made. Actually if you don't already know that I suggest you stop reading this blog right now and go rent yourself a copy. You'll be treating yourself to one of the most critically acclaimed films ever. Go on, I'm not kidding....So those of you who are left doubtless have seen Raging Bull and know what I'm talking about. But there's probably many, many more of you who have never seen The Devil and Daniel.

Folks, they had special effects 60 plus years ago. And for the most part it came in the form of masterful camera work and an occasional slight of hand. CGI? Not necessary. Especially when you've got the luster of black and white.

A few years ago the good people at Criterion dusted off the original print of the movie and worked their magic to restore it to its original form. Shading and lighting are everything (anyone who would consider colorizing this movie should be beaten with a rusty rake). Now if you're among the many who've not seen this film recently, go out and rent it. Pronto. You'll marvel at this vastly underrated film, its wonderful cast, timeless story and breathtaking cinema photography. See for yourself. Anyone left here?

Yes, I got off on a tangent. But as you can see it wasn't so much of a stretch to compare these two seemingly very different films. Both concern an eternal theme that movies can illuminate so well -- the most important war a person can fight, the one within the soul. Jake raged against his opponents and those around him, but let the better angels of his nature get pummelled by inner demons. He did not die in prison or prematurely (the real life LaMotta yet lives) and figuratively fought on. Jabez sold out, as so many have before and since. He was lucky to have the eloquent and devoted orator and statesmen, Daniel Webster represent him "in court" and in victory learned the error of his ways. The ongoing struggles to cleanse or save our souls effect not just ourselves but those around us. It is struggle fought and won or lost in many ways. These two films illuminate that fact.

And by way of a lengthy P.S., don't miss some great supporting performances in these two films. Joe Pesci as Jake's brother in Raging Bull and Walter Huston as Scratch. The Devil and Daniel is also an interesting attack on Republican style greed and individualism and a ringing endorsement of socialist style share the burden, share the wealth. Farmers form a Grange to help support one another. When Stone finds wealth he spurns the Grange and exploits its members with what is essentially predatory lending. In his redemption he sees the errors of having been so greedy.

Hey! I just noticed something else! The central character in both films have a first name that begins with a J! How bout that?