THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (2005)
Directed by Judd Apatow
Starring: Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogan, Jane Lynch
I don't care much for sex comedies. To me, they're nothing more than an excuse to show as much T&A as possible without having to resort to actually being funny. Which is why I'm glad I came across this movie.
Carell plays Andy, a...well, it's in the title, folks. Andy's horny, sex-obsessed co-workers (Rudd, Malco and Rogan) all do their best to help their friend in need. But the thing is, Andy really doesn't want to have sex, which everyone around him treats as some kind of disease that is in desperate need of a cure. All of this changes when he meets Trish (Keener), the woman who runs the eBay store across the street. They hit it off. Andy and Trish really care for each other. Copulation seems inevitable. But Trish doesn't want to complicate things by getting physical. But Andy must tell her his secret, while his co-workers all learn a thing or two the virtues of a celibate and/or monogamous lifestyle.
I once remember a conversation I had with a film historian about filmmakers having a conservative message, but telling it in a liberal way (Well, okay, it was in film school, and the historian was my professor, and it wasn't so much a "conversation" as a "lecture," but, it makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about). Anyway, this is a prime example of that theory. There are boobs, butts and dirty talk galore. But the overall message of the film is, "Hey, if you choose not to have sex, that's okay." It seems like such a contradiction, but it works. And it works because it does a great job of holding the mirror up to society.
It also works because it's friggin' hilarious. And again, its humor comes from observation of real life rather than contrived scenarios (with the possible exception of the chest-waxing scene). Judd Apatow actually shows a lot of restraint as to what is actually committed to film - there's not as much skin as you might think. But the dialogue alone could have gotten this film an NC-17 rating. Then again, I hear pretty much the same stuff where I work every day, so it didn't really phase me much. Also, that's probably also why I thought it was so funny.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Day 57: It's A Hard World For Little Things
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (1955)
Directed by Charles Laughton
Starring: Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters, Lillian Gish, Peter Graves, Billy Chapin, Sally Jane Bruce, Emmit Lynn
The Rev. Harry Powell (Mitchum) is an odd character. He knows the Bible chapter-and-verse, travels from town to town in a beat up jalopy and has the words "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles. Oh, and he also takes up with widows, marries them and kills them, claiming to be doing the Lord's work. But when he meets bank robber/murderer Ben Harper (Graves), he learns that there's a large stash of stolen money hidden somewhere, and only Harper's children, John (Chapin) and Pearl (Bruce), know where it's hidden. Harper is executed for his crime, but Powell (who was booked on a lesser charge) goes free. As soon as he's out, Powell finds Harper's widow, Willa (Winters), and sets out to marry her. Young Pearl dotes on her new daddy, but John is suspicious. Powell resumes his murderous ways, doing away with young Willa, but claiming to the townsfolk that she up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T. Now all that's left is to get the young'uns to divulge the whereabouts of the cash. But they get away and find themselves in the care of Rachel Cooper (Gish), who takes in wayward children. Unlike the "Reverend," Rachel is a model Christian, who bestows love on even the most hardened children. But of course, Powell finds them, which means he's only one step away from finding the loot.
There are a lot of people who say that this film was way ahead of its time, which may be true. But as I watched it, I noticed that there was a definite nod towards the films of the silent era. Several tricks of that time were used, such as using an iris in/out to make the audience focus on one particular thing. Also, much of the scenes were shot in a way that was reminiscent of German Expressionism. The honeymoon scene in particular calls to mind The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Laughton even cast the biggest silent film star of her day in Lillian Gish, who, surprisingly, was the best actor in the film.
Yes, all of this makes the film visually stunning. But the acting was way over the top, even by 1950's melodrama standards. Mitchum is chilling as the crooked Reverend, but he (and just about everyone else) overplays it almost to the point of ludicrousness.
Now, if the auteur theory is to be believed, then this film is a extension of Charles Laughton's hatred toward two things: organized religion and female sexuality. The Reverend claims to be doing the Lord's work, and whether he believes it or not is up for debate. But we know he's a monster. And how many times have we seen in the news (especially these days) those who were supposedly men of God doing despicable things? As for the latter, many of the women in the film go on and on about how sex is strictly for the production of children. One woman even states that when she and her husband have relations, she's "thinking about her canning." The one woman in the film who seems to genuinely want physical affection is Willa. And the Reverend kills her for it. Of course, talking in such a frank way about such matters in 1955 is probably what made this film so "ahead of its time."
So this is an interesting film to be sure, but whether or not it's a "classic" is really up to you and how you define what is and isn't "classic." Personally, I was pretty underwhelmed with it, and even found points of it hokey and laughable. But it's definitely worth a look.
Directed by Charles Laughton
Starring: Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters, Lillian Gish, Peter Graves, Billy Chapin, Sally Jane Bruce, Emmit Lynn
The Rev. Harry Powell (Mitchum) is an odd character. He knows the Bible chapter-and-verse, travels from town to town in a beat up jalopy and has the words "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles. Oh, and he also takes up with widows, marries them and kills them, claiming to be doing the Lord's work. But when he meets bank robber/murderer Ben Harper (Graves), he learns that there's a large stash of stolen money hidden somewhere, and only Harper's children, John (Chapin) and Pearl (Bruce), know where it's hidden. Harper is executed for his crime, but Powell (who was booked on a lesser charge) goes free. As soon as he's out, Powell finds Harper's widow, Willa (Winters), and sets out to marry her. Young Pearl dotes on her new daddy, but John is suspicious. Powell resumes his murderous ways, doing away with young Willa, but claiming to the townsfolk that she up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T. Now all that's left is to get the young'uns to divulge the whereabouts of the cash. But they get away and find themselves in the care of Rachel Cooper (Gish), who takes in wayward children. Unlike the "Reverend," Rachel is a model Christian, who bestows love on even the most hardened children. But of course, Powell finds them, which means he's only one step away from finding the loot.
There are a lot of people who say that this film was way ahead of its time, which may be true. But as I watched it, I noticed that there was a definite nod towards the films of the silent era. Several tricks of that time were used, such as using an iris in/out to make the audience focus on one particular thing. Also, much of the scenes were shot in a way that was reminiscent of German Expressionism. The honeymoon scene in particular calls to mind The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Laughton even cast the biggest silent film star of her day in Lillian Gish, who, surprisingly, was the best actor in the film.
Yes, all of this makes the film visually stunning. But the acting was way over the top, even by 1950's melodrama standards. Mitchum is chilling as the crooked Reverend, but he (and just about everyone else) overplays it almost to the point of ludicrousness.
Now, if the auteur theory is to be believed, then this film is a extension of Charles Laughton's hatred toward two things: organized religion and female sexuality. The Reverend claims to be doing the Lord's work, and whether he believes it or not is up for debate. But we know he's a monster. And how many times have we seen in the news (especially these days) those who were supposedly men of God doing despicable things? As for the latter, many of the women in the film go on and on about how sex is strictly for the production of children. One woman even states that when she and her husband have relations, she's "thinking about her canning." The one woman in the film who seems to genuinely want physical affection is Willa. And the Reverend kills her for it. Of course, talking in such a frank way about such matters in 1955 is probably what made this film so "ahead of its time."
So this is an interesting film to be sure, but whether or not it's a "classic" is really up to you and how you define what is and isn't "classic." Personally, I was pretty underwhelmed with it, and even found points of it hokey and laughable. But it's definitely worth a look.
Day 56: I Felt It. I Was Perfect.
BLACK SWAN (2010)
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder
This movie freaked me out. And coming from a guy who was unfazed by Eraserhead and El Topo, that's saying something.
The story concerns Nina (Portman), a young ballerina who dreams of dancing the White Swan in "Swan Lake." However, when the director Thomas (Cassel) announces his new take on the piece, things get a bit complicated: The White Swan and the evil Black Swan will be played by the same dancer. Nina's got the White Swan down, but she's not much in touch with her dark side. Therefore, her Black Swan suffers. But Thomas sees potential in her, so he casts her in the lead, much to the chagrin of retiring dancer Beth (Ryder). Nina tries and tries, but she can't quite get the darkness and seduction Thomas is looking for. So he tries to seduce her out of her shell. Along the way, the new girl Lily (Kunis), a green but very passionate dancer, is cast as Nina's understudy.
Sounds like a pretty common plot thread, right? Well, while all this is going on, Nina slowly starts to lose her grip on reality. Her dark side that has been suppressed for so long bubbles to the surface. But it is filmed in such a way that the audience can't quite get a hold on what's really happening - whether it's part of the story, or if it's all just in Nina's head. The more Nina lets loose, the more the Black Swan consumes her until she begins a very literal transformation.
Let me get this out of the way: I love Darren Aronofsky. I think he's one of the most brilliant directors working today. The first film of his I ever saw was Requiem for a Dream, a film about the depth junkies will sink to in order to get their fix. It's visually stunning, and extremely graphic; it should be required viewing on day one for anyone going into rehab. Black Swan is a very similar film. Aronofsky pulls no punches in his portrayal of a woman losing her mind. And, in a way, the audience feels they are losing their minds as well. This is a very difficult trick to pull off, but it's not impossible. The key is being completely and totally fearless, which Aronofsky has always been. Heck, even his film The Fountain, while incomprehensible in places, is a fearless film, made by a director who knows exactly what he wants and goes for it full-throttle. There aren't many directors today who can say that.
I was completely on edge by the time the end credits rolled. I felt as if I had gone with Nina on this journey down the rabbit hole into the darkest depths of her soul. And if that sort of feeling excites you, I recommend this film highly. But I don't want to tell anyone to skip this movie. Even if it scares the living daylights out of you, it's a great example of how a director can play an audience like a piano.
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder
This movie freaked me out. And coming from a guy who was unfazed by Eraserhead and El Topo, that's saying something.
The story concerns Nina (Portman), a young ballerina who dreams of dancing the White Swan in "Swan Lake." However, when the director Thomas (Cassel) announces his new take on the piece, things get a bit complicated: The White Swan and the evil Black Swan will be played by the same dancer. Nina's got the White Swan down, but she's not much in touch with her dark side. Therefore, her Black Swan suffers. But Thomas sees potential in her, so he casts her in the lead, much to the chagrin of retiring dancer Beth (Ryder). Nina tries and tries, but she can't quite get the darkness and seduction Thomas is looking for. So he tries to seduce her out of her shell. Along the way, the new girl Lily (Kunis), a green but very passionate dancer, is cast as Nina's understudy.
Sounds like a pretty common plot thread, right? Well, while all this is going on, Nina slowly starts to lose her grip on reality. Her dark side that has been suppressed for so long bubbles to the surface. But it is filmed in such a way that the audience can't quite get a hold on what's really happening - whether it's part of the story, or if it's all just in Nina's head. The more Nina lets loose, the more the Black Swan consumes her until she begins a very literal transformation.
Let me get this out of the way: I love Darren Aronofsky. I think he's one of the most brilliant directors working today. The first film of his I ever saw was Requiem for a Dream, a film about the depth junkies will sink to in order to get their fix. It's visually stunning, and extremely graphic; it should be required viewing on day one for anyone going into rehab. Black Swan is a very similar film. Aronofsky pulls no punches in his portrayal of a woman losing her mind. And, in a way, the audience feels they are losing their minds as well. This is a very difficult trick to pull off, but it's not impossible. The key is being completely and totally fearless, which Aronofsky has always been. Heck, even his film The Fountain, while incomprehensible in places, is a fearless film, made by a director who knows exactly what he wants and goes for it full-throttle. There aren't many directors today who can say that.
I was completely on edge by the time the end credits rolled. I felt as if I had gone with Nina on this journey down the rabbit hole into the darkest depths of her soul. And if that sort of feeling excites you, I recommend this film highly. But I don't want to tell anyone to skip this movie. Even if it scares the living daylights out of you, it's a great example of how a director can play an audience like a piano.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Day 55: You Have Part Of My Attention. You Have The Minimum Amount
THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010)
Directed by David Fincher
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Erica Albright, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella
People keep telling me I don't watch modern films. To tell the truth, the reason I started this project was so that I could catch up on the classics. But in so doing, many of the films that have come out in the last year that everyone and their dog has seen have sort of fallen by the wayside. So here I am, trying to catch up with the rest of the world.
On that note, here we have The Social Network. I was very excited when this film came out, but alas, I was broke at the time, so I kept putting off actually seeing it. Anytime you have this much behind-the-camera talent (director David Fincher, writer Aaron Sorkin and Music by Trent Reznor), the geek in me starts to surface. Of course, if the movie sucks, I get understandably upset.
But The Social Network, the film that was touted as being no less than THE film of this generation, was...pretty good. In fact, it was better than pretty good. But there was only one thing about it that rubbed me the wrong way: the protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) is here presented as one of the biggest jerks in history. Yes, the writing is great, the music is creepy - everything I was expecting from this crack team of collaborators. But I came away from this film feeling more than a bit down. I can't root for a guy who sells out one of his best friends and is so emotionally distant and cocky almost to the point of being a sociopath. Then again, the film didn't really set out to put Zuckerberg in a positive light, which is a good thing. If that had been their aim, they would have failed miserably.
All this is not to say that the film is bad. Like I said, it's wonderfully and artfully directed, written and acted. But the film's messages of how unfair life is, and how even your best friend can stab you in the back left me feeling more than a bit down. Though the final shot is a thing of genius. Zuckerberg sits alone in a room, perusing Facebook (of course), and comes across the page of his ex-girlfriend, who broke up with him in the first scene. He sends a Friend request. Captions flash across the screen about what happened to whom after the events of the film. As Zuckerberg hits the "refresh" button over and over again, the final caption reads, "Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world." And he's all alone, wondering if his ex-girlfriend still thinks about him. Just like millions of other poor schmucks.
Directed by David Fincher
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Erica Albright, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella
People keep telling me I don't watch modern films. To tell the truth, the reason I started this project was so that I could catch up on the classics. But in so doing, many of the films that have come out in the last year that everyone and their dog has seen have sort of fallen by the wayside. So here I am, trying to catch up with the rest of the world.
On that note, here we have The Social Network. I was very excited when this film came out, but alas, I was broke at the time, so I kept putting off actually seeing it. Anytime you have this much behind-the-camera talent (director David Fincher, writer Aaron Sorkin and Music by Trent Reznor), the geek in me starts to surface. Of course, if the movie sucks, I get understandably upset.
But The Social Network, the film that was touted as being no less than THE film of this generation, was...pretty good. In fact, it was better than pretty good. But there was only one thing about it that rubbed me the wrong way: the protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) is here presented as one of the biggest jerks in history. Yes, the writing is great, the music is creepy - everything I was expecting from this crack team of collaborators. But I came away from this film feeling more than a bit down. I can't root for a guy who sells out one of his best friends and is so emotionally distant and cocky almost to the point of being a sociopath. Then again, the film didn't really set out to put Zuckerberg in a positive light, which is a good thing. If that had been their aim, they would have failed miserably.
All this is not to say that the film is bad. Like I said, it's wonderfully and artfully directed, written and acted. But the film's messages of how unfair life is, and how even your best friend can stab you in the back left me feeling more than a bit down. Though the final shot is a thing of genius. Zuckerberg sits alone in a room, perusing Facebook (of course), and comes across the page of his ex-girlfriend, who broke up with him in the first scene. He sends a Friend request. Captions flash across the screen about what happened to whom after the events of the film. As Zuckerberg hits the "refresh" button over and over again, the final caption reads, "Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world." And he's all alone, wondering if his ex-girlfriend still thinks about him. Just like millions of other poor schmucks.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Day 54: If Your Life Had A Face, I Would Punch It
SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010)
Directed by Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Ellen Wong, Jason Schwartzman, Brandon Routh, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons
Have you ever wondered what it might be like if your life were more like a video game?
No? You say that was just me?
Actually, it wasn’t just me. And since somebody made a movie (and comic book series) based on that exact premise, I actually feel justified. I’m normal. You’re the freaks.
Anyway…
Scott Pilgrim (Cera) is a typical Canadian young adult. He’s in a kick-ass garage band called Sex Bob-omb, he’s dating a high school girl (“We almost held hands once, but she got embarrassed”) and lives in what appears to be a basement with his gay roommate Wallace (Culkin). Then, one magical day, he meets the girl of his dreams, Ramona. Now I know what you’re thinking: he’s got to figure out a way to get with Ramona without breaking his current girlfriend’s heart, right? Well…yeah, there’s that. But he’s also got to defeat Ramona’s Seven Evil Exes (not necessarily “ex-boyfriends”) in video-game-inspired hand-to-hand combat, complete with score counter, power-ups and extra lives.
This is the kind of movie that may not appeal to older audience members who didn’t grow up with video games and comic books. But that’s okay. It wasn’t exactly made for you, just like A Hard Day’s Night wasn’t made for your parents. But as someone who grew up with both, I have to say, this movie really nailed it. Like I said, I don’t think I’m the only one who ever daydreamed about what it would be like to take down the school bully Mortal Kombat-style. And this movie was so much like my dreams, it was a bit scary.
I know I usually talk about how good (or bad) the acting was, but in this case, it wasn’t so much about the acting, which is pretty good, considering the fact that it’s a special effects showcase. Movies like this are really more about the casting than the actual performances; trying to get the best type rather than the best performer. On that scale, it was pretty spot-on. Everyone delivered a type of sarcastic, deadpan performance, which, if you listen to the young people around us today, is right on the money. If I had to pick one performance that stands out, it would be Kieran Culkin as Wallace. I for one am glad to see a gay character that isn’t the stereotypical limp-wristed, mincing nancy-boy that appears in 99% of movies that call for a gay character. He was just a regular, everyday person, as are most gay people I know (though he is a bit of a man-whore).
Once again, I found myself watching a film based on a comic book series I had only skimmed through once when I was at Barnes & Nobel. I suppose I should stop doing that and only review films based on books I’ve read, but that’s not really the purpose here. I just tell you whether or not I liked the movie. And I liked this one a lot.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Day 53: I Like To Look For Things No One Else Catches
AMELIE (Les fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain) (2001)
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Starring: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz, Rufus, Serge Merlin, Michel Robin, Jamel Debbouze, Dominique Pinon, Clotilde Mollet
Amelie Poulain (Tautou) has always lived an isolated life. Her parents were distant to the point of being cold - even harsh. Now, she lives and works in Paris with a varied group of eccentrics who all have similarly complex problems. However, one day - specifically, the day Lady Di passed away - she finds a small box hidden in her apartment that is full of old toys. She sets out to find the man, but is much too shy to step outside of her circle of friends and co-workers. With their help, she tracks down the man to whom these toys belonged as a boy. Inspired by this one good dead, she sets herself on a quest to make the lives of those around her just a little brighter. However, the one person she doesn't seem to be able to help is herself.
I went into this film thinking it was just another romantic comedy, and we all know how I feel about those (with few exceptions). However, this film is so much more than that. Sure, there's a bit of romance thrown in (it is French, after all), but that's not the film's focus. It's more about doing what we can to make our world a better place; not the whole world, but just our sphere of influence. Also, it's about stepping out of our comfort zone to follow our hearts.
Yeah, I know, this all sounds a bit too much like an after-school special. But the thing that saves it is the fact that it is extremely well-made in just about every respect. I've only seen one other film by Jean-Pierre Jeunet - The City of Lost Children - and that was a grotesque and disturbing film I really remember little about, other than it starred Ron Perlman (who I didn't know could speak French). The cinematic style of Amelie is similar, but it is used for a much sweeter result. This is a film that never lets you forget you're watching a movie. The viewer is privy to nearly every aspect of the characters' private lives through an ever-present narrator, a series of their likes and dislikes, a peek into their dreams and even x-ray vision. Yes, Jeunet calls attention to the fact that you're watching a movie, but he does so in a fun way. It's like he found a cinematic tool-box and, like a little kid, is having a blast using everything in it. But like an adult, he exercises a bit of control. Not very much, but just enough.
One of the things I love best about foreign films is the fact that I'm usually not familiar with the actors involved, so celebrity doesn't ruin my ability to see characters rather than stars. Although this is the film that made Audrey Tautou an international star, bring her into films such as The DaVinci Code and Coco Before Chanel. But here, I didn't see an actress. I saw Amelie Poulain, the shy, sweet, wonderful young lady. And I won't lie; I was kind of crushing on her big time. But that's another story...
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Starring: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz, Rufus, Serge Merlin, Michel Robin, Jamel Debbouze, Dominique Pinon, Clotilde Mollet
Amelie Poulain (Tautou) has always lived an isolated life. Her parents were distant to the point of being cold - even harsh. Now, she lives and works in Paris with a varied group of eccentrics who all have similarly complex problems. However, one day - specifically, the day Lady Di passed away - she finds a small box hidden in her apartment that is full of old toys. She sets out to find the man, but is much too shy to step outside of her circle of friends and co-workers. With their help, she tracks down the man to whom these toys belonged as a boy. Inspired by this one good dead, she sets herself on a quest to make the lives of those around her just a little brighter. However, the one person she doesn't seem to be able to help is herself.
I went into this film thinking it was just another romantic comedy, and we all know how I feel about those (with few exceptions). However, this film is so much more than that. Sure, there's a bit of romance thrown in (it is French, after all), but that's not the film's focus. It's more about doing what we can to make our world a better place; not the whole world, but just our sphere of influence. Also, it's about stepping out of our comfort zone to follow our hearts.
Yeah, I know, this all sounds a bit too much like an after-school special. But the thing that saves it is the fact that it is extremely well-made in just about every respect. I've only seen one other film by Jean-Pierre Jeunet - The City of Lost Children - and that was a grotesque and disturbing film I really remember little about, other than it starred Ron Perlman (who I didn't know could speak French). The cinematic style of Amelie is similar, but it is used for a much sweeter result. This is a film that never lets you forget you're watching a movie. The viewer is privy to nearly every aspect of the characters' private lives through an ever-present narrator, a series of their likes and dislikes, a peek into their dreams and even x-ray vision. Yes, Jeunet calls attention to the fact that you're watching a movie, but he does so in a fun way. It's like he found a cinematic tool-box and, like a little kid, is having a blast using everything in it. But like an adult, he exercises a bit of control. Not very much, but just enough.
One of the things I love best about foreign films is the fact that I'm usually not familiar with the actors involved, so celebrity doesn't ruin my ability to see characters rather than stars. Although this is the film that made Audrey Tautou an international star, bring her into films such as The DaVinci Code and Coco Before Chanel. But here, I didn't see an actress. I saw Amelie Poulain, the shy, sweet, wonderful young lady. And I won't lie; I was kind of crushing on her big time. But that's another story...
Monday, March 28, 2011
Day 52: Have You A Pistol Handy?
OUR HOSPITALITY (1923)
Directed by Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone
Starring: Buster Keaton, Natalie Talmadge, Joe Roberts, Ralph Bushman, Craig Ward
Yes folks, this is a silent film. And I get the same complaint with silent films as I do with foreign films: "I don't want to have to read anything!" Well, get over it.
Keaton stars as Willie McKay, who was brought up in New York quite ignorant of the fact that his father was killed in a feud with the rival Canfield family (sound familiar?). When he finds he's inherited the McKay Estate (a dilapidated shack in the middle of nowhere), he takes the world's first passenger train (which, like the world's first anything, doesn't work too well) to Kentucky to claim it. On the train, he meets a nice young lady named Virginia (Talmadge) and becomes smitten with her. Once off the train, she invites him to dinner, which he accepts. But as it turns out, she is the daughter of Joseph Canfield (Robers) the head of the Canfield Clan. He and his two sons vow to kill McKay, but not while he's a guest in their house. To do so, you see, would be to violate that time honored code of Southern Hospitality. McKay gets wind of this and decides to become a permanent house guest, all the time trying to woo the lovely Virginia. But the Canfield men decide to put a stop to that and Willie is soon on the run.
This is the first Buster Keaton comedy I have ever seen, and I must say it exceeded all my expectations. Some have called it an "epic comedy," and I'd agree with that statement. Everything in this movie is big, including the laughs. But there Keaton had an eye for cinema unlike most of his contemporaries (including Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin). Every shot is wonderfully composed. But the most important thing in a comedy is, of course, the laughs, and rather than play the gags as big as possible, the comedy is much more observational; almost underplayed. Everyone in the cast seems oblivious to the fact that they're in humorous situations, which works much better than when a cast seems to be aware of the fact that they have to make the audience laugh.
Also of note are some of the spectacular stunts, all performed by Keaton himself. His history as an acrobat in Vaudeville works to his advantage, and he uses a combination of elusive camera trickery and physical prowess to keep us on the edge of our seats. Toward the end of the film, both Willie and Virginia are swept down river toward a waterfall, and Willie makes a daring rescue at the very last second. All of this was done practically, that is, they had to actually build a waterfall and Keaton had to actually dangle from a rope to save the day. And it is every bit as exciting to watch as anything they can do nowadays with CGI.
Probably the most satisfying thing about the film for me was the fact that a jaded 21st Century audience enjoyed this film. I watched with a group of people, and it made me feel a bit warm and fuzzy to hear an audience raised on Mel Brooks, Judd Apatow and Seth MacFarlane laugh uproariously at what many would call an outdated and antiquated film. If that's you're attitude, I can understand it. But it really says something when a movie that's nearly a hundred years old still holds up.
Directed by Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone
Starring: Buster Keaton, Natalie Talmadge, Joe Roberts, Ralph Bushman, Craig Ward
Yes folks, this is a silent film. And I get the same complaint with silent films as I do with foreign films: "I don't want to have to read anything!" Well, get over it.
Keaton stars as Willie McKay, who was brought up in New York quite ignorant of the fact that his father was killed in a feud with the rival Canfield family (sound familiar?). When he finds he's inherited the McKay Estate (a dilapidated shack in the middle of nowhere), he takes the world's first passenger train (which, like the world's first anything, doesn't work too well) to Kentucky to claim it. On the train, he meets a nice young lady named Virginia (Talmadge) and becomes smitten with her. Once off the train, she invites him to dinner, which he accepts. But as it turns out, she is the daughter of Joseph Canfield (Robers) the head of the Canfield Clan. He and his two sons vow to kill McKay, but not while he's a guest in their house. To do so, you see, would be to violate that time honored code of Southern Hospitality. McKay gets wind of this and decides to become a permanent house guest, all the time trying to woo the lovely Virginia. But the Canfield men decide to put a stop to that and Willie is soon on the run.
This is the first Buster Keaton comedy I have ever seen, and I must say it exceeded all my expectations. Some have called it an "epic comedy," and I'd agree with that statement. Everything in this movie is big, including the laughs. But there Keaton had an eye for cinema unlike most of his contemporaries (including Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin). Every shot is wonderfully composed. But the most important thing in a comedy is, of course, the laughs, and rather than play the gags as big as possible, the comedy is much more observational; almost underplayed. Everyone in the cast seems oblivious to the fact that they're in humorous situations, which works much better than when a cast seems to be aware of the fact that they have to make the audience laugh.
Also of note are some of the spectacular stunts, all performed by Keaton himself. His history as an acrobat in Vaudeville works to his advantage, and he uses a combination of elusive camera trickery and physical prowess to keep us on the edge of our seats. Toward the end of the film, both Willie and Virginia are swept down river toward a waterfall, and Willie makes a daring rescue at the very last second. All of this was done practically, that is, they had to actually build a waterfall and Keaton had to actually dangle from a rope to save the day. And it is every bit as exciting to watch as anything they can do nowadays with CGI.
Probably the most satisfying thing about the film for me was the fact that a jaded 21st Century audience enjoyed this film. I watched with a group of people, and it made me feel a bit warm and fuzzy to hear an audience raised on Mel Brooks, Judd Apatow and Seth MacFarlane laugh uproariously at what many would call an outdated and antiquated film. If that's you're attitude, I can understand it. But it really says something when a movie that's nearly a hundred years old still holds up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)