Monday, December 16, 2019

Turn the Record Over ... I'll See You on the Flip Side

Despite the title quoting their lyrics, this blog post actually has nothing to do with the alt-rock band The Gaslight Anthem. But the lyrics come from their song (and album) titled 45, which ties into this blog post. Specifically, I am back to reviewing some of the AFI's Top 100 movies as I make my way through the list. The following movies brought me up to 45 out of the 100 movies watched.

Before we get into the reviews though, I wanted to note that I mentioned last time that I doubted if many movies on the list actually passed the Bechdel test, which is set up as a bare minimum barometer for women's stories being included. Turns out that someone actually already did the research and calculations, and only 32 movies on the list pass. That's not just a failing grade, that's an abysmally failing grade. This is an important thing to note as I go into reviews because the further I wade into this list, the more I am noticing this huge problem. Women's stories are completely devalued by whomever chose these AFI's Top 100 movies. Unfortunately, that is what it is and here I go into reviews...

The Graduate 
(released 1967, #7 of 100)

This is one of those movies that I did kind of want to watch anyway, especially because it seems to be referenced all the time and is considered a classic. Before watching it for this little project, I read the book it's based on, in large part because I am also very slowly working on reading the books on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list. Overall, this movie is a pretty faithful adaptation of the book, but when the source material isn’t great, neither is the screen adaptation.

The story itself is pretty slim -- a young man graduates from college, returns home, and starts an affair with the wife of his father's business partner. It's not exactly earth-shattering nor that compelling. The movie cuts more to the point than the book (i.e., doesn't belabor things) and can be more humorous as a result. There are definitely odd camera choices though, such as an antenna crossing across someone's face, or the backs of people's heads zoomed in on too closely during the party scene. There's a decent soundtrack of Simon & Garfunkel songs, but they didn't seem to fit the scenes they were used in.

In terms of casting, I usually think you can't go wrong with Dustin Hoffman, but he was just okay here. It's definitely not his best performance but, to be fair, he was pretty young. However, he was about 30 playing a character who is in his early 20s (just graduated from college so most likely 21 or 22), and it struck me right away that he was too old to be playing that character. Meanwhile, Anne Bancroft is absolutely perfect in the role of the Mrs. Robinson; she steals every scene that she's in. Katherine Ross as Elaine Robinson was well cast as she looks like she could actually be Anne Bancroft's daughter. This Vanity Fair article provides some background into the casting process for The Graduate, and it's clear that they really did choose some of the best possible actors for the roles as the other names floated don't seem right for those characters.

Nevertheless, this really wasn't a great movie in my opinion. I can’t believe this was in the top 10 of the AFI's Top 100 list; it was okay but wasn’t anywhere near that good. Watching it for the cultural touchstone makes sense, but it could have been way further down the list.

Annie Hall
(released 1977, #31 of 100)

This is one of those movies that I probably saw before but couldn't remember if I had really watched it from beginning to end or just caught snippets of it. After watching it for this project, I'm pretty sure that I had sat down and watched it all previously. Which is fairly unfortunate given that I didn't really like it all that much and made myself watch it again.

This movie features two of my least favorite actors (Diane Keaton and Woody Allen) playing two terrible characters in what is essentially a romantic comedy -- typically not my genre of choice. In some ways, the characters remind me of Seinfeld characters in their inability to see how awful they are and always thinking other people are the problem. The movie even starts off with Alvy wondering what went wrong in his relationship with Annie when clearly he was awful pretty much 100 percent of the time. For, despite the title of the movie, it’s really Alvy’s story. Yet another male-centric story on AFI's Top 100 list. Sigh.

There are a lots of jokes in this film that really didn't age well given Woody Allen's history. For instance, Alvy and co. make "jokes" about his grandmother being raped, his friend having sex with 16-year-old twins, politicians having ethics comparable to child molesters, and his own sexual curiosity beginning at age 6. That all aside, in general, there's just way too much about Alvy's whiny need to have more and more sex while also having a variety of neuroses about sex. In addition, this movie has Alvy's friend defining VPL for the world to know, and of course it's some doofus of a guy who made that popular. Eye roll.

Honestly, many of his non-sex jokes weren't all that funny either. The situational humor is better at times, but this movie gets old kind of fast and most of the last half an hour in particular was dull. However, this film is definitely fun and interesting for having moments of breaking the fourth wall, inclusion of supertitles over the character's heads to show what they’re really thinking, out of order storytelling, split screen effects, etc. There is no soundtrack to the opening or closing credits, which was unusual (but not necessarily good or bad). This playing around with the cinematic art form is cool and the only thing that really makes the movie worth watching.

Rebel Without a Cause 
(released 1955, #59 of 100)

This is another one I was interested in seeing anyway because it seems culturally relevant; it is certainly referenced in many other pieces of pop culture. However, 15 minutes into the movie, I was already bored; there is just way too much whiny, teary teenage angst packed into those 15 minutes.

Many moments in this movie were filled with overly dramatic music to make things even more unnecessarily emotional. I'm at a point in my life where I just don't care about high school drama/stupidity, and immediately agreed with the father in the film who tries to tell Jim that he'll look back on this some day and realize it wasn't actually a big deal (until of course it escalates because Jim doesn't listen to his dad). This movie had the added non-interest for me of having a lot of machismo stunts. Bleh. So senseless.

James Dean and Sal Mineo are both good but the rest of the cast, especially the teenagers, just seem to be running through the motions. All of these actors look older than teenagers as well, which I guess is often the case but it doesn't mean I won't comment on that unfavorably. I don’t know what Natalie Wood is attempting to do in this film, but her facial expressions often seem completely off for whatever moment is happening. Although perhaps that was also due to the writing, wherein they have her running around essentially playing house at the mansion and smiling/laughing the night her boyfriend tragically died. The only character of color is a Mamie type character; it might have been less problematic to just have an all-white cast. It was the mid-50s though, so I give this movie a little bit of a pass as a result.

On the plus side, there are some interesting camera angles in scenes like the opening credits, Jim fighting with his parents after the car accident, or the climax at the observatory steps. There are also pretty landscapes in back of the high school and other places about town (mountain, cliffs, etc.). However, a handful of bucolic shots is not enough to salvage this rather disappointing movie.

***

So this grouping was all pretty discouraging, but there's still plenty more movies ahead!

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Reading Harder in 2019

So at the end of last year, I said I probably wouldn't continue on with the 2019 "Read Harder" challenge from Book Riot because I wasn't that thrilled with the guideposts set for this year. However, very quickly into the first week of January, I realized I was already reading books that fit some of the categories. Well, once the game was afoot like that, I knew I was hooked. Every time I thought I was out, they pulled me back in. (Okay, I'm done with random book/movie quotes now.)

I still maintain that some of this year's prompts are just plain dumb (Goodreads reviews are meaningless to me, for example), but some of them are interesting. Being a voracious reader of all types of books over many years, I think I have managed to read something that fits each of these categories before, but it's still fun to try out a challenge for the year.

Once again, my book tastes include children's, YA, graphic, and audio book titles. Every one of those is a valid reading choice, and I have no interest in those who want to argue otherwise. As always, I link to my LibraryThing reviews of each book; click on the titles for more on my thoughts and feelings for each title. Just because I include a title here does not mean I enjoyed it and/or recommend it.

Some titles would fit into multiple categories but I tried as much as possible to contain them to one "best fit" category. However, I did put multiple titles under some challenges if they fit the category and were not used elsewhere.

In the end, I was able to meet all 24 of the 24 categories, which is the first time I've hit every mark with this challenge. And with time to spare! Helps to start early, me thinks.

Without any further ado, here are the 24 challenges and the titles I read to meet them in 2019.

1. An epistolary novel or collection of letters

2. An alternate history novel
An alternate World War II is in both books, although it's a smaller subplot within the latter as opposed to being the whole basis for the former. 


3. A book by a woman and/or AOC (Author of Color) that won a literary award in 2018

4. A humor book
North by Northwest is not actually a book but a recording of a stand-up routine. However, I found it my library's audiobook collection and, hey, what are books but storytelling anyway? I'm counting it. Especially because Does This Beach Make Me Look Fat? was supposedly a humor book, but wasn't actually funny! Feminasty was a humor book but is one of those 'laughing-so-we-don't-cry' types of comedy. 


5. A book by a journalist or about journalism

By a journalist, and about journalism. 


6. A book by an AOC set in or about space
This is one of those "streeeetch" books. The main character is obsessed with astronomy and rocket science in particular. He does go to a rocket festival and meet folks with similar interests. He even has a dog named Carl Sagan, named after the person he repeatedly refers to as his "hero." However, it takes place here on Earth and is about a lot of down-to-earth problems.


7. An #ownvoices book set in Mexico or Central America

The book never really specifies where it's set beyond "the city." I presumed that references Mexico City, where the author was born and currently lives.


8. An #ownvoices book set in Oceania
This book is set primarily in New Zealand, with brief forays into Australia and Papua New Guinea.


9. A book published prior to January 1, 2019, with fewer than 100 reviews on Goodreads

I get that the idea is to the read an under-the-radar book instead of a buzzed about one (pardon my mixed metaphors), but I still think this is a dumb “challenge.” Who cares about Goodreads reviews?

In the end, I included one book just to tick this challenge off, but it was literally the one and only book I read this year that I bothered to look at the Goodreads number for (and I merely glanced at the number of reviews, didn't bother to read any). I was reading this book anyway at the time I decided to look at the Goodreads number, so it's not like this prompt actually challenged me in any way, shape, or form. What a waste of a "challenge."

And, for all I know, plenty of other books I read this year would have fit into this non-challenge. I just didn't care enough to look up any other titles via Goodreads.


10. A translated book written by and/or translated by a woman
Written by a woman, and translated by a woman.


11. A book of manga
A manga series I actually like! Who knew? Not me, if I hadn't done this challenge!


12. A book in which an animal or inanimate object is a point-of-view character
Yup, I'm using the same series for two categories. Oh well. At least I am using different volumes. Chi is an adorable kitten who is the protagonist of this manga series.

Fox 8 was on Book Riot's list of recommended titles for this challenge and it sounded interesting to me, but it's worth noting that it's actually a short story, not a full-length book or even a novella. 


13. A book by or about someone that identifies as neurodiverse

In his memoir, Eddie Izzard discusses his dyslexia, amongst many other topics. As a nice compare and contrast, Fish in a Tree is a fictional account of a schoolgirl with dyslexia, written by an author was says "my own life inspired the story. Although I’ve never been tested for dyslexia, I have been suspicious that I have at least a touch of it. I was in the lowest reading group in grades one through six."

The Kiss Quotient is a romance novel with a protagonist who has Asperger syndrome; the author is also on the autism spectrum. Superstar is a middle-grade novel about a child on the autism spectrum; Rules also features a child with a diagnosis of autism, although he is the protagonist's younger brother.


14. A cozy mystery

15. A book of mythology or folklore


16. An historical romance by an AOC


17. A business book
I would not have thought of this as a "business book" (my mind conjured up tomes about how to run a corporation), but I'm glad that Book Riot had it on their suggested list because I loved it and told many other folks about the story it contained. 


18. A novel by a trans or nonbinary author

Technically, it's a book of short stories, rather than a novel. But it's still fiction, so I think it's close enough for this challenge.


19. A book of nonviolent true crime

I would not have thought of this book as a "true crime" book if I had picked it up independently, but Book Riot listed it as a suggestion for this prompt. It sounded interesting -- and it was!


20. A book written in prison
This was a bit of a stretch because she was out of prison when it was written, but she does discuss her time there, so I'm counting it as a close enough.


21. A comic by an LGBTQIA creator


22. A children’s or middle grade book (not YA) that has won a diversity award since 2009

  • Fish in a Tree by Lynda Mullaly Hunt (2016 Schneider Family Book Award Winner)
  • A Moon for Moe and Mo by Jane Breskin Zalben (2018 Sydney Taylor Book Award Honor Book for Younger Readers)

23. A self-published book


24. A collection of poetry published since 2014

This children's poetry anthology was published in 2018.


Here's to happy reading ahead in 2020!


*Begun in 2018 but finished in 2019.

Monday, September 30, 2019

Dear Reader, I Watched Them All

In this post I'll be taking a brief break from my reviews of AFI Top 100 movies to discuss some other films I saw this year. Specifically, I finally got around to watching the various screen adaptations that exist of Charlotte Bronte's famous novel Jane Eyre. Many moons ago when I was still an undergrad, I took a course on Victorian literature and read Jane Eyre (alas, with the big reveal having been already spoiled for me by a too chatty classmate; I will be kind enough to tell you all that this post will indeed contain spoilers for the plot, so proceed at your own risk). After that I meant to watch some of the movie adaptations; I even recall seeing a trailer for one of them when it was new! But me being me, this kept getting pushed off to some later date when I would 'have free time' (cue laughter here).

Fast forward to the beginning of this year when I was trying to catch up on some podcasts and listened to Can I Just Say's episodes on Jane Eyre, both the novel and some of its adaptations. Of course, I couldn't simply listen to these episodes with no context though! While I didn't re-read Jane Eyre (too little time to read all the books I want to read as it is), I did make a point to finally watch the film adaptations -- the three discussed on the podcast before listening to it and then just to round everything out, I finally finished this little 'project' of mine but watching one more, which is where I'll start my reviews, as it's freshest in my mind.

Jane Eyre (1944)

This little 'project' of mine ended with the earliest of all these adaptations, which perhaps wasn't entirely fair to save for last, but that is what happened. This wasn't my favorite of all the adaptations; indeed, I found the pacing a bit slow at times. But it was certainly a solid addition to the list of Jane Eyre films and must have been so even more when it first came out to viewers who hadn't seen many previous screen adaptations of the novel, particularly as a "talkie."

The film opens with a young Jane Eyre being interviewed by Mr. Brocklehurst concerning her so-called bad behavior. Peggy Ann Gardner was the most spirited of all the young Janes I saw and was delightful as a result. Agnes Moorhead, best known for her role as Samantha's mother on Bewitched, was absolutely fantastic as Jane's Aunt Reed. She manage to convey in a few facial expressions just how awful this character was, which was necessary for this adaptation as we don't see any of her earlier abominable treatment of Jane. Young Jane's hope of a wonderful new life at school is quickly tamped out when she arrives at the dour Lowood School. But here she makes a friend in Helen, another school child who is played by a shockingly uncredited young Elizabeth Taylor!

Jane quickly ages into a young woman and the role is taken over by Joan Fontaine; I cannot recall having seen Fontaine in any other movie before, but I was immediately struck by how much she looked and sounded like her sister, the actor Olivia de Havilland, probably best known for her role as Melanie in Gone with the Wind. The role of adult Jane is incredibly difficult because she is quiet and deferential while having a very vivid interiority; the reader of Jane Eyre knows this, but the viewer isn't always as lucky. Fontaine certainly does show at times that something else is going on in the character's mind, but other times her face is just too placid to read anything more into it. This movie does have a gimmick in which lines of the book are shown and Fontaine reads them in a voice-over, but this felt like it took the viewer further out of the narrative as opposed to deeper into it, which I think was what the screenwriters were going for with this device. (Side note: A fun fact with this movie is that one of the screenwriters was none other than Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World.)

Jane moves on from the Lowood School to become a governess at a private estate. Her charge is the young Adele, played by Margaret O'Brien; it is my understanding that O'Brien was a popular child actor in Hollywood at the time but if this movie is any evidence, I cannot understand why. Her French accent was atrocious and the rest of her performance didn't make up the difference. The lord of the estate is Mr. Rochester, played by Orson Welles, whose interpretation of Rochester seems to be more grumpy and stern than brooding and mysterious, but it works well enough. Sadly, I don't think Fontaine and Welles had particularly good chemistry, which is such an essential part to this story. I think that is partially to blame for some of the movie seeming to drag a bit.

The estate itself, Thornfield, is presented here as a perfect setting for the more Gothic elements of this tale; the black-and-white filming and the gloomy shadows are appropriate. However, the exterior shots are all so clearly sound stages, and that takes away a bit from the effect they have. Other characters come and go at Thornfield, but the only actor who stands out is Hillary Brooke, who perfectly captures the haughtiness of Blanche Ingram.

Being as this movie is on the shorter side (only about an hour and a half), it straight up cuts out everything regarding St. John and his sisters, which is just fine with me. All in all, this is a fine-enough adaptation of the book, but it's not the one I would recommend as best.

Jane Eyre (2011)

So this is the one I recall seeing a trailer for before it came out in theaters, and then it languished on the 'I-should-watch-that-one-of-these-days' list for eight more years before I finally did. In keeping with my procrastination tendencies, it's been long enough since I watched it that my review will be perforce shorter and to the point.

This movie started in the middle (really towards the end) with a distraught Jane wandering the moors in hysterics. It then goes backwards through Jane's life from childhood up until this moment, before carrying onwards to St. John and his sisters taking her in off the moors. This device of starting somewhere in the middle can often draw viewers into a movie, but I think it's an odd choice for one based on such a well-known story. Furthermore, I really did not like that Jane was being portrayed as so hysterically emotional as that seems counter to her character; it was probably to draw more of a contrast to how dully placid she was in nearly all the rest of the film. Indeed, on the whole, I did not like Mia Wasikowska's portrayal of Jane as it seem to lack any depth for the character; she is at either extreme of being unreadable or far too passionate for how Jane acts in the novel. Again, Jane is a difficult character to be viewed on screen because so much of her personality is kept hidden to outsiders, but this portrayal seemed so off from how I pictured Jane Eyre to be.

On the flip side, Michael Fassbender was a very compelling Edward Rochester. His interpretation of the character came off as creepy -- not in a horror sense, but in the vibe you get from certain men to stay clear. That is how I feel about the character in the book so I was glad to see it on screen as well! The chemistry between the two leads was missing here as well, which is again unfortunate.

The supporting cast, including an underused Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, do just fine in their roles. The scenery is well done, both exterior and interior. Costumes are equally lovely. Clocking in at just about two hours, the film cuts little of the major points from the book. That all being said, that je ne sais quoi was missing from this film; I wouldn't necessarily recommend it either.

Jane Eyre (1996)

This version was directed by Franco Zeffirelli and also lived on my 'should-get-around-to-watching' list for a very long time. Incidentally, after finally watching this one, I felt there were some cinematographic similarities with the only other Zeffirelli film I've seen, namely Romeo and Juliet (1968), despite the many year gap between the two movies.

Once again, we open with Jane Eyre at her Aunt Reed's house; the young Jane is played by Anna Paquin, who seems a bit overly emotional for the role, but I'll allow it because Jane at this point is more open about her feelings. As Jane grows in to a young woman, Paquin is replaced by Charlotte Gainsbourg. She isn't my favorite Jane Eyre actor and she occasionally slips into her French accent, but I still preferred her to Mia Wasikowska.

Rochester, meanwhile, is played by William Hurt, who gives the character a little more softness and humanity than he has in the book (perhaps a little more than he deserves?). In my opinion, Hurt and Gainsbourg had the best romantic chemistry of any of the Eyre-Rochester pairings. So that's a big bonus point for this particular adaptation. The supporting actors were by-and-large well cast, particularly Joan Plowright as Mrs. Fairfax and Elle Macpherson as Blanche Ingram.

With roughly two hours of film, this movie is comparable to the 2011 version, but it somehow manages to reduce the screen time devoted to the St. John subplot. That works for me! There's lovely outdoors scenery and the interiors are not bad either, although -- credit where credit is due -- I do think the 2011 version has the loveliest interiors and costumes. In the end, this is a decent enough adaptation that I would recommend if you've read the novel and are looking for a screen version (or if you're just looking for a screen version period).

Jane Eyre (2006)

It's perhaps not 100 percent fair to compare this to the others as this is a miniseries version; whereas the others condensed the book to no more than two hours worth of film time, this one devoted four hours to getting the novel from page to screen, thus allowing it to include more scenes from the book or to explore others more deeply. For instance, this was the only one of the adaptations that managed to put in the "gypsy" scene, even if it was altered from the book.

Notably, this was the only one of these four adaptations to be directed by a woman and to have a screenplay written by a woman. And, I hadn't realized when I watched it that this adaptation actually pre-dates the 2011 film; after seeing this one, I wonder why they even bothered with making that one.

As you might guess from that last statement, this was my favorite of all the adaptations. It started out a little rough with a rather strange "red room" scene, and I was prepared to dislike it. Then when I saw Ruth Wilson -- who I knew previously only for playing a homicidal sociopath on Luther -- was playing Jane Eyre, I almost chuckled to myself, convinced this was the absolute wrong choice for the role. But Wilson soon blew me away. She was the absolute best at presenting Jane's many emotions underneath a calm exterior; I swear she even blushed in one scene, which something I have never seen any other actor do in any other movie or TV show (period drama or otherwise).

Toby Stephens, who I had never seen in anything else previously, was an excellent Rochester. Like Hurt, he toned the character's darker side down a bit so that he's not quite as terrible, but he still keeps a slightly sinister edge. (Is sinister too strong a word for Mr. Rochester? Perhaps, but it's one that keeps popping into my head when I think of him.) The romantic chemistry between Rochester and Eyre is more muted here, but their rapport is so much better; they seem like true equals and you can finally get a sense of why the two are attracted to each other.

Christina Cole is a fine actor in many a period film, so it was fun to see her here as Blanche Ingram. The rest of the supporting cast did satisfactory jobs as well. Also, interior and exterior scenery is done well on the whole, although I still find that "red room" scene a bit over the top.

If you're willing to devote the time, this is the adaptation that I think is best worth watching. Wilson cannot be beat as Eyre, and the miniseries as a whole is a good interpretation of the novel.

--

Note: When I say "I watched them all" in my title to this post, that was more for the fun of having something to follow up "Dear Reader;" this comprehensive list shows that there are many, many, many other Jane Eyre adaptations that I haven't seen. However, I think five times around with this story (the book plus the four screen adaptations) is perhaps just as much Mr. Rochester as I can handle.

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Jackie Robinson, or The Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything

Despite the pretentious title, this blog post actually has nothing to do with baseball or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But the two things both tie in with the number 42, which is a component of this entry's content.

Several months ago, I decided that I should finally hunker down and start making an effort to watch all the movies on the American Film Institute's list of "the 100 greatest American movies of all time" (hereafter referred to by me simply as "AFI's Top 100"). In the past I would occasionally give the list a once over and see how many I had seen and how many more I had NOT seen, but it didn't get much further than that. Realizing that method meant I still had seen less than half of them (a dismal 38 in total), I made it a goal to start watching them in earnest and am now up to a whopping 42 in total. Hey, progress is progress, no matter how slow it is...

Since one of my problems with the list is that for some of the movies, I cannot recall if I actually did see them in their entirety or not, I also made a decision to write up a quick review of each movie after watching it and will be posting those here, probably in batches of three or four movie reviews at a time.

Without any further ado, here are my random thoughts on the first four movies I've intentionally watched just for being on AFI's Top 100 list. (FYI, there really is no order to the way I am watching the movies from the list; it's whatever happens to be accessible at the time.)

Easy Rider
(released 1969, #88 of 100)

What a start to this project; this movie was practically unwatchable. I know it has its fans, but I am certainly not one of them, nor was my friend who watched it with me. It's as if Kenneth Anger made Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas and then amped up the trippy factor by about a thousand.

This movie opens with dullest drug deal scene ever depicted (and that’s saying a lot) before two guys embark on a road trip across America for Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Along the way, they cross paths with some unusual characters from hippies to bigots to farmers. I would have loved to hear more about the women they encounter and their lives, but this is a "bro" sort of movie so that would never happen.

The movie starts out with some rather weird cinematography choices that only get weirder as the movie progresses (and as the characters get higher from all the cocaine and other drugs they are doing). All along the "plot" is slow moving, the dialogue is mostly rather poor and uninteresting, and there is literally zero character development. On top of that all, the ending is really bizarre to the point that my friend and I were both kind of like 'was that the end? what were they even trying to say with this movie???' This may have been the movie I did the most research on after watching it, because it was absolutely puzzling to me what its purpose was or why it was on AFI's Top 100 list. While I do enjoy when I read or watch something that has so many layers that a critical analysis might help me learn more, a film should stand up well enough on its own that you don't have to see what critics are saying in order to "get it." (And quite frankly, it still doesn't seem like there was much to "get.")

The handful of highlights were good music to fill the soundtrack while the guys ride along the highways and byways, which then of course included some nice shots of American landscapes (mostly deserts but also some small towns in Louisiana). The very earnest definition of the slang version of the word "dude" (I guess it was still new enough in 1969?) was humorous. And finally, the real star of the movie was a very young Jack Nicholson, who put in a stellar performance as the day-drunk ACLU lawyer, a role fittingly quirky enough for him. I have to agree with The New York Times critic whose review of the movie at its release noted, "Nicholson is so good, in fact, that 'Easy Rider' never quite recovers from his loss." I am resigned to the fact that I will never understand why this movie is on AFI's Top 100 list.


The Third Man
(released 1950, #57 of 100)

Thankfully, AFI's Top 100 list quickly redeemed itself with this selection. This is the kind of movie that I really enjoy -- an older noir film that immediately grabs you and is compelling from start to finish.

This movie takes place in Vienna after World War II, with the main character looking into the mystery of a friend's death, supposedly an accident but surrounded by a few pesky details that just don't add up -- including the rumor of a third man at the site of the accident but not listed in the official report. There is definitely a lot of intrigue, with every character having some piece of the mystery but refusing to reveal more.

The ambiance of the film throughout is wonderful. Filmed in black and white, it plays with lighting and shadows. There are long shots, unusual angles, and other cinematography reminiscent of Citizen Kane (not surprising, considering Orson Welles was associated with both projects). The dark lighting and unusual camera angles add to the sense of unease the film is trying to portray for its main character, especially when coupled with some dialogue in untranslated German (unless you happen to understand German, it further solidifies your sense of unknowing). There are several scenes of characters running around Vienna's cobblestone streets, complete with echoey footsteps, which further adds to the mysterious tone.

But the movie isn't all seriousness at all times. There are little jokes here and there, and throughout the movie, a jaunty jazzy tune plays its soundtrack. This fun instrumental music is all played on the zither, which is an unique choice that made a distinct impact. The storyline also has a romantic subplot underneath all the mystery and intrigue. Joseph Cotton as the protagonist put in an A+ performance. Alida Valli as Anna was also excellent as were some of the supporting cast (some others of the supporting cast were a little too campy, e.g., the fellow with the dog).

Overall, this was definitely an enjoyable film and I could see why it was on the list. (A fun side note -- there is actually a small curiosity museum in Vienna dedicated specifically to this film.) Those who like film noir mysteries and/or spy-type thrillers would probably enjoy this one.


The Apartment 
(released 1960, #93 of 100)

Like The Third Man, this movie is one I'm surprised I hadn't watched before actually, given it's up my alley of movies from the late 40s to early 60s. Once the opening credits showed Billy Wilder's name, I knew I was in for a treat; there’s a reason he was referred to as "the world's greatest movie director."

The Apartment has many similarities with Wilder's other movies, including elements such as:

  • a voice-over introduction (but further narration is never heard),
  • a New York City setting,
  • a perfectly fitting instrumental soundtrack,
  • snappy dialogue,
  • black and white filming despite color being available,
  • an overall comic tone but serious at turns, and
  • issues like infidelity and suicide that can't exactly be shown on the screen (in 1960) but which are nevertheless artfully portrayed.

However, this movie has a rather different storyline from the other Wilder films I've seen in the past. A hard-working, ambitious accountant nicknamed Bud wants to succeed at his corporate life insurance job and therefore finds himself trying to curry favors with the higher-up suits. Unfortunately, the favor these men want the most from him is use of his apartment to carry on their extramarital trysts. Things only devolve further when the top boss finds out about this and wants to meet his mistress there -- a woman whom Bud has secretly had a crush on himself.

The late 50s/60s corporate culture highlighted in this film might make it of interest to fans of Mad Men, with similar explorations of gender, sex, power, and money, although with a far less serious tone. This movie has excellent performances from Jack Lemmon (indeed, he carries many scenes where it’s just him puttering around the apartment alone with no dialogue or only some mutterings to himself) as well as from Shirley MacLaine and Fred MacMurray. The happy ending feels a little tacked on / rushed, but otherwise this was an engaging watch. This wasn't my favorite movie of all time (it's not even my favorite Billy Wilder comedy; Sabrina tops that list, followed by Some Like It Hot) but it's a solid addition to AFI's Top 100 list.


Fargo 
(released 1996; #84 of 100)

This movie I went into expecting NOT to like, especially because I disliked the only other two Coen brothers' movies I had previously seen (The Big Lebowski and Intolerable Cruelty). While quirky movies hold a special place in my heart, the Coen brothers tend to operate in a zone of oddness that just isn't my cup of tea. However, this movie turned out to be weird in an acceptable sort of way for me.

The movie takes place in the dead of winter in Minnesota and North Dakota, where a car salesman with ambition pays a couple of criminals to kidnap his wife so that his wealthy father-in-law will pay the ransom. The trio assume no one will be the wiser and they will all walk away a little richer. But, of course, Murphy's law comes into play and things quickly escalate from bad to worse.

Despite the film's opening screen-cap claiming to be "based on true story," this is a work of fiction. But it is not outside the realm of possibility, which does give the film's absurdity a ring of truth. The actors in the movie -- from the leads to the supports -- are all excellent in their roles. The repartee between the two criminals, played by Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare, is definitely a highlight of the film, along with Frances McDormand's award-winning performance as the police chief working to catch them. And, William H. Macy is almost *too* good as the slimy salesman, convincing me 100 percent to hate that character.

Despite the violence at the heart of the movie, it really isn't overly gory (especially in light of what's considered acceptable in film and television today). Also, McDormand's character is a refreshingly independent and strong woman, which had been missing in the other three films reviewed above. (The Third Man and The Apartment get points for at least featuring women more so than Easy Rider, but they're not exactly going to be held up as feminist standards. I'm not doing the statistical breakdown because that's more effort than I want to put into this project, but I wouldn't be surprised to see if a great number of the movies on AFI's Top 100 list are unable to pass the Bechdel Test.) Also, the one Asian character seen in the movie is surprisingly not just stereotype after stereotype, which is sadly saying a lot for 1996. (Unfortunately, the one American Indian character in the movie doesn't quite pass the same low bar. His character is way too much the strong, silent, proud 'native' stereotype -- his last name is even Proudfoot.)

That all being said, I cannot see this being a movie I would purposefully view again, nor do I have any interest in watching the new series of the same name. However, I do understand why it made the list, if for no other reason than that it's a movie that is often referenced in pop culture.

***

Well, that's all for now folks. Catch up with you again when I have a few more movie reviews to add.