TCM
TiVo ALERT
For
June
23-June 30
DAVID’S
BEST BETS:
ENTER
THE DRAGON (June 25, 12:00 am): Enter
the Dragon is not
only the most influential martial arts movie ever made, it is also
one of the finest action films you'll see. It was groundbreaking as
the first Chinese/Hong Kong martial arts film co-produced by a major
American studio, Warner Brothers. Bruce Lee, who died six days before
the movie's release, is dripping with charisma – charisma
that was already big at the box office. Had Lee lived, he likely
would have been cinema's greatest and most successful action hero.
Not only was his martial arts ability on another planet, but his
ease, charm, intensity and sense of humor makes it impossible not to
love his character. In this film, he plays Lee, a Shaolin martial
artist recruited by British intelligence to infiltrate an island
owned by Mr. Han, a wealthy major drug dealer and a former Shaolin
student kicked out for violating the code of conduct. Han has an
international martial arts tournament on his island in which only the
best compete for huge prize money. The movie has many
fantastic action scenes including the final showdown
between Lee and Han in a room of mirrors. I've seen this film at
least 20 times, and love it every time.
JULES
AND JIM (June 28, 3:45 am): I don't have a favorite
film, but this one is easily a top 5. Directed by the brilliant
Francois Truffaut, this 1962 film takes place
over a period of about 25 years before, during and after World War I.
It's about an intense friendship between two men – Jules
(Oskar Werner), an Austrian, and Jim (Henri Serre), a Frenchman –
that is stronger than many marriages, and how it evolves because of
the presence of Catherine (Jeanne Moreau, one of cinema's all-time
best actresses), an impulsive, captivating and enchanting woman.
Catherine loves both men, marrying Jules before the war – he
and Jim are fighting for opposing countries and fearful they'll meet
in combat. After the war, Jim visits Jules and Catherine, who have a
daughter. But things aren't good between the couple and Catherine,
who's had several affairs, falls for Jim. Jules' love for her is so
great that he agrees to divorce Catherine so she can marry Jim with
all three of them, and the child, living together. But that marriage
also has its problems. The acting is extraordinary and the
voice-over narration by Michel Subor greatly enhances the storyline.
Everything works to perfection from the beautiful cinematography that
uses photos, freeze-frame, archived footage and tracking shots
to Georges
Delerue’s soundtrack to
the incredible ending.
ED’S
BEST BETS:
THE
POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (June 26, 6:00 am): This
is the original – and the best – version of James M. Cain’s
classic novel (which also inspired Albert Camus, by the way). When it
comes to noir, one would think that the MGM gloss was
off-putting, but I think it actually helps the film. John Garfield
has never been better and Lana Turner has never been more gorgeous.
Not only can we see that they’re going to hook up, we
can understand why they must hook up. The
performances from the supporting cast are superb, the photography by
Sidney Wagner is sharp and inviting, and Tay Garnett’s direction
workmanlike, as he keeps the characters and the story in constant
play. Despite the complaints of the changes in Cain’s original
story (for censorship purposes), the film still outdoes the 1981
Nicholson-Lange remake in terms of the heat between the stars, not to
mention the fact that Turner, while hardly a serious actress, ran
rings around Lange’s performance.
BAND
OF OUTSIDERS (June 28, 2:00 am): This film represents
director Jean-Luc Godard at his best, exploring the petty crime scene
and his fascination with pop-culture. Franz (Sami Frey) and Arthur
(Claude Brasseur) are two lowlifes that like to quote and re-enact
B-movies. They meet Odile (Anna Karina) at an English class and a
plot soon becomes hatched to steal the money that Odile’s father
has embezzled from the government and hidden inside their house. But
as with anything else by Godard, it is not so much the destination as
the journey that is interesting. The interaction between the
characters as they run about, dance, read newspaper stories to each
other and pretend to have shoot-outs is augmented by Godard’s
voice-over narration and his habit of letting the characters talk to
the camera. Look for the “Madison dance” sequence where the three
dance in a cafeteria. It was a definite influence on Quentin
Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction.
WE
DISAGREE ON ... THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (June 28, 12:00
am)
ED:
A++. This is
one of the seminal films in the history of the cinema, having
influenced many other directors, such as Ozu, Bresson (whose The
Trial of Joan of Arc runs
a good second in my estimation), and Godard (who used it in his Vivre
sa Vie), among others.
It has also been praised by critics from Pauline Kael to Roger Ebert
as one of the masterpieces of film. It was voted as number 9 on a
list of the 50 greatest films of all time in a 2012 poll of 846
critics, programmers, academics and distributors for Sight
& Sound. Part of the
reason for its extraordinary influence is that film does not contain
one establishing shot, instead relying on a series of close-ups and
medium shots as director Carl Theodor Dreyer (who tossed out the
screenplay in favor of the actual transcripts of the trial) tries to
get to the essence of Joan of Arc, who she was and her suffering
during the trial. And he does this brilliantly, creating an
atmosphere of threatening intimacy, in which the suffering of Joan at
the hands of her tormentors will leave no viewer unmoved. Dreyer also
makes extraordinary use of editing techniques, breaking down the film
into a series of images, allowing him to avoid the tranquility one
can usually find in a historical drama. He wants us to concentrate on
the trial, not the scenery, costumes, or any other distraction. Seem
in a theater, as I first saw it, the result is startling and almost
mind bending, as there is nothing else to distract us. As for the
acting, the performance of Renee Maria Falconetti, a famous actress
of the French stage, is nearly flawless, thanks in large part to
Dreyer filming the same scenes over and over again until he found the
right nuance in her facial expression, one in which the emotion had
been drained, leaving only the suffering. Falconetti wore no make-up,
though Dreyer did shoot her in softer grays to distinguish her from
her tormentors. Hers became a performance for the ages, though she
never performed in another film again. In my mind, any grade for this
film lower than as “A” is an act of sheer vandalism and a sign
the critic hasn’t really understood the film. (Well, it doesn’t
have an car crashes).
DAVID:
C. It's probably – definitely, according to Ed –
sacrilegious for a film lover to not think highly of The
Passion of Joan of Arc. Because I respect Ed so much, I stayed up
late Thursday to watch it again. It worked to a certain extent. Based
on my recollection of seeing the film in the past year, I was going
to give it a C-. Instead, I'm giving it a C. There's too much
"talking" for a silent film. As a print writer, my goal is
to show and not tell. It isn't always possible. Carl Theodor Dreyer
is doing the opposite in a visual medium with this movie. Lips are
moving at the speed of light at times and Dreyer provides plenty of
dialogue cards yet not a whole lot is happening – and what we see
isn't terribly compelling and, at times, repetitive. Dreyer was an
excellent director, made a number of classics and inspired others,
but he missed the mark here. It's not awful. The cinematography is
impressive at times, particularly the way the camera frames Renee
Maria Falconetti, who plays Joan. But, overall, the film is slow
moving, which is particularly distressing as it's only 82 minutes in
length. A minor point on the use of the actual trial transcript: I
question the accuracy of the document. There weren't tape recorders
or even pens and pencils at the time of the trial. The transcript
came from notaries who were at the trial and took daily notes using
quill pens. As for Ed's criticism that those who don't love this film
don't understand it, he's just trying to bait me. He loves this film.
He's also well aware that I am a fan of Ozu, Bresson and of Godard's
earlier works (before he made films that few understand), and that I
love cinema that is open to interpretation such as the works of
Ingmar Bergman. And, like Ed, I enjoy a good car crash on the big
screen, but it's definitely not a requirement needed for a quality
movie. I know I go against the grain with my opinions of this film.
It's not the first time I disagree with cinema experts and certainly
won't be the last.
No comments:
Post a Comment