Water for Cats (Weekly Links)

Links to movies I reviewed for the Herald this week. Eh, sorry for the delay, the Crop Duster is on Spring Break. Posting will be spotty.

Water for Elephants. “Almost ancient.”

African Cats. “Disney Fashion.”

Bummer Summer. “Slouching toward a plot line.”

Zero Bridge. “Stuck in Kashmir.”

Circo. “The faded tinsel of the circus life.”

On KUOW’s “Weekday,” I talk with Steve Scher about our absurd interest in the British royal family, fueled by the many movies that chronicle such nonsense. It’s archived here; the movie bit probably kicks in around 15 minutes in.

At What a Feeling!, a Euro-Eighties week concludes with a highly tasteful offering from Rainier Werner Fassbinder called Querelle.

Movie Diary 4/20/2011

Water for Elephants (Francis Lawrence, 2011). The circus, a bareback rider, a devilish ringmaster – I know this movie is set in 1931, but was it also made then? (full review 4/22)

At What a Feeling!, a review of Zanussi’s Ways in the Night, which might have been shown on Polish TV in 1979 and didn’t play in the U.S. until 1984. So we’re calling it an Eighties movie.

Movie Diary 4/19/2011

Hesher (Spencer Susser, 2010). A strutting thrash-metal Jesus lands in the home of a grieving family, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the intruder role, and Natalie Portman as a nerd. You should be at least sort of intrigued. (full review 5/13)

Bill Cunningham New York (Richard Press, 2010). Even if you don’t care about fashion as much as I don’t care about fashion, this portrait of the longtime New York Times photographer will have appeal, not least for its intense New York love. (full review 4/29)

Ceremony (Max Winkler, 2011). The children of Rushmore – they walk among us. (full review 4/29)

The Bang Bang Club (Steven Silver, 2011). A group of real-life news photographers in South Africa, dramatized with some very familiar journo-romance. (full review 4/29)

At my other site, What a Feeling!, the 1980s pass by with a vintage review of And the Ship Sails On.

Movie Diary 4/18/2011

The Red Shoes (Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, 1948). Have you ever read the Hans Christian Andersen story? It’s pretty crazy, a nerve-jangling depiction of a manic episode that never ends. P&P made it specific to artistic ecstasy, and that’s the film’s triumph. Side note: if you never noticed before what a master of cutting Powell was, you will with this movie – not just the ingenious dance sequences, but almost every edit seems superbly thought-out in advance.

Zero Bridge (Tariq Tapa, 2008). It’s easy enough to say this Kashmir-filmed neorealist study is the same old thing in a new setting, but the same old thing isn’t all that easy to do well, and this one is done awfully well. Secret weapon: nonpro leading lady Taniya Khan is a movie star without knowing it. (full review 4/22)

Bummer Summer (Zach Weintraub, 2010). It’s the water? A film from Olympia, and much in the vein of Northwest experimentalism but thankfully with a formal rigor that keeps it distant from mumblecore. (full review 4/22)

African Cats (Keith Scholey, Alastair Fothergill, 2011). Big cats on the savannah. The winners get cute Disney names; the losers remain anonymous, and are eaten. (full review 4/22)

At What a Feeling!, a week of European films commences with Alpine Fire, an obscure but haunting Swiss film.

Ruthless (The Cornfield #26)

It was a mistake to watch this on a public domain DVD, as the movie looked like something photographed from a VHS tape that had been unspooled onto a dirty floor and trampled on, complete with mysterious ellipses and sudden shifts in time (the disc clocked in at under 90 minutes, IMDb has the complete version at 104; it looks like the Netflix streaming version is the long one, and a much better print). Playing computer catch-up on the longer version filled in some blanks.

A fable of pure ambition, Edgar G. Ulmer’s Ruthless tracks the success of Horace Woodruff Vendig (Zachary Scott) as he claws his way to millionairehood; the movie is obviously influenced, in theme and frequently in style, by Citizen Kane, although it also seems to be an answer to the ideas of people like Ayn Rand in its portrait of self-interest and the toll such a philosophy takes (The Fountainhead was published five years before Ruthless came out, and was a hit, and Rand was peddling her ideas in magazines and such). Vendig’s big mansion in the opening sequence evokes Xanadu, but its interiors have the strange airiness of a fascist political rally, especially in Ulmer’s architecturally-minded visual treatment.

Vendig, an old man, is announcing his great financial giveaway for the cause of peace; extensive flashbacks will reveal his true nature. Boyhood friend Vic Lambdin (Louis Hayward) is on hand to provide a skeptical response to Vendig’s generosity, and also to rub his friend’s nose in the fact that he has taken up with a younger woman who freakishly resembles the woman they both loved in their youth. Both roles are played by Diana Lynn, a curious choice for the role but a welcome actress at any time.

The female roles are interesting and well-acted: Martha Vickers plays a socialite who takes up Vendig in college (he’s now known as Woody, the better to capitalize on a vaguely respected family name of his past and add a bit of Ivy League Jazz Age sass); when he finishes using up her connections and family influence, there’s Lucille Bremer, as the wife of a corporate monster (Sydney Greenstreet, very human here). When Vendig struggles to best the Greenstreet character in a bit of capitalist chess-playing, he goes after the wife for romance and insider information, exploiting her position in his customary manner.

People describe Ruthless as a low-budget Kane, but it also looks influenced by The Magnificent Ambersons, especially in the early sequences of old houses and faded family names. Vendig the youth is played by Bob Anderson, the kid who played George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life, the George that has his sore ear slapped by Mr. Gower. The lad goes to visit his father, who now lives in a saloon/whorehouse with a large aquarium; dear old Dad is played by Raymond Burr in Gay 90s garb and mustache, a huge man who gets pushed around by his slatternly girlfriend. With various visions of what people become, Vendig can be somewhat forgiven for his super-achiever attitude.

Ruthless is missing something, even in its more complete running time. It has no “Rosebud,” for one thing, and wide-eyed Zachary Scott, such a fine cad, looks a little more overwhelmed than overwhelming here. Maybe that works, in a funny way, for the film: Vendig is carried along in the current of a corrupt system and gets destroyed, just like all the little people.

Super Scream Conspirator (Weekly Links)

Angelica, a strange case

Links to reviews I wrote for the Herald this week:

Scream 4. “How many times can a snake swallow its own tail?”

The Conspirator. “Undernourished.”

Rio. “Thoroughly fun.”

The Strange Case of Angelica. “A ghost may or may not be on the loose.”

Super. “The flavor of a 1970s film.”

Winter in Wartime. “The appeal of a well-crafted yarn.”

Potiche. “Even the little forest creatures respond to her blond glow.”

No KUOW appearance this week; bumped by a presidential speech. The man loves my time slot.

At What a Feeling!, the 1980s reviews roll on with Cheech & Chong’s The Corsican Brothers and Another Country, two films that have never been mentioned in the same breath in the history of the world.

Movie Diary 4/13/2011

Scream 4 (Wes Craven, 2011). They haven’t missed a beat, as it turns out, although this much self-reflexivity is bound to implode on itself. (full review 4/15)

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Werner Herzog, 2011). Herzog and 3D inside a prehistoric cave, with flashlights dancing on the wall and the voice of the ‘Zog in your ear. Does it get any better? (full review 4/29)

Super (James Gunn, 2011). Unexpected throwback to Taxi Driver in a vigilante-superhero movie, with Rainn Wilson and Ellen Page treading a delicate tonal line. (full review 4/15)

At What a Feeling!, there’s more Eighties wonder, with reviews of the ineffable American Anthem and All the Right Moves.

Movie Diary 4/11/2011

The Strange Case of Angelica (Manoel de Oliveira, 2010). I dunno, maybe this director is just getting old. (full review 4/15)

Rio (Carlos Saldanha, 2011). Save the Blue Macaw. Seriously. (full review 4/15)

The Trip (Michael Winterbottom, 2011). Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon on a road trip. Among other things, how interesting to see a film in which male characters seek out the homes of Coleridge and Wordsworth while competing with Sean Connery impersonations. (full review 6/?)

Potiche (Francois Ozon, 2010). Buncha French royalty, including Denueve, Depardieu, and Luchini, in a very kooky 1977-vintage women’s lib picture, more or less. (full review 4/15)

Rembrandt’s J’Accuse (Peter Greenaway, 2008). Crazy little essay film by Greenaway, starring his disembodied head listing the reasons The Nightwatch is a real-life murder mystery. When he pronounces “J’Accuse,” Greenaway says “zaccooz.”

Winter in Wartime (Martin Koolhoven, 2008). WWII yarn from Holland, about a hidden Allied pilot and a very resourceful kid. (full review 4/15)

At What a Feeling!, a look at Rocky III.

Arthur (The Cornfield #25)

Gielgud and Moore, high and low

Is it possible a single song stands in the way of this film being considered a classic? I refer to “Best That You Can Do,” also officially known as “Arthur’s Theme,” also unofficially known as “When You Get Caught Between the Moon and New York City,” which of course won Arthur the Oscar for best song in 1981. However much love you bear for Burt Bacharach, and that should be a lot, this dribble is not one of the composer’s notable tunes (its odd credit – four authors are listed for music and lyrics combined – might suggest a reason for this: Carole Bayer Sager, Peter Allen, and Christopher Cross are also the composers). Cross contributes the chamois vocal, a couple of years after breaking through with his soft-rock anthem, “Sailing.”

The song is so redolent of early-Eighties blandness, and so associated with the movie,  that it probably reflects back on Arthur in a negative way. But it shouldn’t.  This 1981 picture, the remake of which opens this weekend, really is a classic, a rare example of the screwball comedy living a nice life outside the 1930s and 40s. It features a glorious performance by Dudley Moore, a deservedly Oscar-winning turn by John Gielgud, and it allows the peculiar talents of Liza Minnelli to thrive (a rare example of the larger-than-life Minnelli fitting into a generic role but getting to flash her personality as well). You will recall that the plot involves drunken millionaire Arthur being threatened with disinheritance unless he marries a horrible socialite (Jill Eikenberry), an engagement that coincides with Arthur meeting the blue-collar kook and part-time shoplifter Linda, played by Minnelli. 

Writer Steve Gordon, who came out of TV, made his feature directing debut with this film; he also died the following year, at age 44, of a sudden heart attack. The movie doesn’t suggest he was a natural-born master of film directing, but it does show a smart insinct for comedy – especially for the business of allowing performers space to do their thing. And “space” means both the figurative room to play around (Moore is clearly riffing at times) and the literal screen space in which to see them: Gordon sets his camera back far enough so we can watch Moore’s full-body physical approach to a bit, or to keep two or three performers onscreen at the same time. The high point, arguably, is Moore’s visit to the mansion of his fiancee’s father (Stephen Elliott), when he uses both an aged butler and a stuffed moose head (“You must have hated this moose”) as props.

A comparison with the new Arthur shows how well the old one works. The 2011 remake keeps returning to close-ups, barely giving star Russell Brand a chance to use his body at all, and the jokes tend to be cut up in TV-style shot/reverse shot style. In Gordon’s version, even a simple scene (like the one in which Linda must improvise a backstory when confronted by Arthur’s fiancee in a horse stable) becomes a nicely-turned bit of comic chemistry by having Moore and Minnelli occupy the same two-shot, side by side, so that we witness how well they respond to each other, and can appreciate Arthur appreciating Linda’s in-the-moment sense of play. And, of course, allowing a few moments of wordlessness to pass by as Arthur and manservant Hobson read their newspapers, in just the way they surely do every day, is an almost-unnoticed grace note.

The new film also brings Arthur into the 21st century, or some such nonsense, because it addresses the drinking that the character indulges in for much of the running time of both movies. Granted, a 2011 movie is not going to play the character drinking from a bottle of Scotch while driving his car to the Hamptons (the one scene in the original that seems as dated as the song) for comedy. But in the new Arthur, the boozing is de-emphasized to begin with, and the hero ends up in A.A. eventually. If he were a real person, that is what we would wish him, but for the protagonist of a screwball comedy, this is a flat-line. The new Arthur is given more supposed seriousness and a dead-daddy backstory that will supposedly explain his childlike behavior, a deadening psychological approach that the original managed to convey with a couple of well-slurred comments (“Some of us drink because we’re not poets”) and Dudley Moore’s presence.

I can’t pretend objectivity about Dudley Moore, who was some kind of genius, but it’s worth noting that in this performance Moore hits all the comic notes with accuracy, as expected, but also manages to convey a neediness and an appetite that seemed to be in Moore’s own personality. Arthur isn’t really a “happy drunk,” although he frequently has a pretty good time; he’s in need of something, which needs virtually no dialogue to express, just Dudley Moore’s instincts as an actor. (When florist Lou Jacobi asks Arthur how it feels to have all that money, Moore’s response – “It feels great” – is understated and almost thrown away, not the way most actors would’ve played it.)

One last lash against the remake: you’d think that a movie released in 2011 that takes place in the New York of money and power would take a moment or two for a post-recession potshot at that venal world. But there’s almost none of that. (In retrospect, the 2005 remake of Fun with Dick and Jane is positively clairvoyant on this point.) That kind of satire certainly isn’t the purpose of the ’81 Arthur, but it’s there in subtle ways. Within Arthur’s knockabout world, it is somewhat startling that his father (Thomas Barber) casually states “We’re all criminals” when describing the moneyed realm that his son is avoiding. And the fiancee’s father is a true corporate vampire, even beyond the goofiness of his revelation that he killed someone with a cheese knife at the age of eleven. That he is played by Stephen Elliott, the lethal monster of Cutter’s Way (which came out the same year as Arthur) and thus the embodiment of what the Eighties were going to look like, only underscores the undertone. With these hints of the world that awaits him, is it any wonder Arthur drinks?

Certified Highness (Weekly Links)

Hanna/Saoirse

Links to reviews I wrote for the Herald this week:

Certified Copy. “Confounding but quite beautiful.”

Hanna. “Crashes from one thing to the next.”

Arthur. “Somehow manages to always have the camera in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Your Highness. “Just barely funny enough to get away with its nonstop raunchiness.”

Miral. (dead link; review below)

By Robert Horton

The argument that it’s possible to be too close to your subject is raised in “Miral,” a misfire of a film from director Julian Schnabel and screenwriter Rula Jebreal. Schnabel is a superstar visual artist and the Oscar-nominated director of “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”; Jebreal is a Palestinian journalist and author of the semi-autobiographical novel from which this film is adapted.

These two are also a couple in real life, which raises the point of speculation about getting “too close” to their material. Jumbled in form but fiery in spirit, “Miral” looks at recent history through the eyes of its female characters.

Last week’s film by Palestinian filmmaker Elia Suleiman, “The Time That Remains,” began in 1948, the year of the establishment of the state of Israel. So does this film. The first section revolves around a real-life figure, Hind Husseini, a wealthy Palestinian woman who founded a school for war orphans in Jerusalem. She is played by the excellent actress Hiam Abbass (“The Visitor” and “Lemon Tree”), although there’s not much to play except a heroine of Mother Teresa-like goodness.

Eventually her school becomes home to Miral, a girl who has lost her mother. The mother (Yasmine Al Massri) is also someone whose tribulations we witness, including a jail stint for slapping an Israeli woman who called her an “Arab whore.” But the main focus is on Miral, who grows up into a world in which any group of teenage friends might easily harbor a few terrorists. The role is taken by Frieda Pinto, the “Slumdog Millionaire” star, who is earnest in an underwritten part.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict underlies the events of the movie, but the storytelling is so sketchy it doesn’t illuminate much of anything. Miral’s physical abuse in jail cell is disturbing, and her interlude with a cousin who has a kind-hearted Jewish girlfriend (played by Schnabel’s daughter Stella) is tender, yet these strands don’t really play out. Miral’s life brushes against terrorism, but this is also a false start. Meanwhile, there’s virtually no mention of religion’s role in the conflict, or how it might touch Miral and her friends.

One character, late in the film, says, “One state, two states, I don’t care—I just want to live a life.” That’s a plaintive sentiment that might have made a truly compelling movie, which “Miral” is not.

Rubber and Empty Quarter. “Can kill with its fiendish vibrations.”

When We Leave. “Unfortunately the idea of the ‘honor killing’ seems to be flourishing.”

Soul Surfer. “Made for church auditoriums.”

On KUOW’s “Weekday,” I talk with Steve Scher about the flurry of movies that present questionable realities on screen, and to what extend we’re supposed to figure them out. Among the titles mentioned: Source Code, Sucker Punch, The Adjustment Bureau, Shutter Island, but especially Certified Copy. You can listen here; the movie bit kicks in around the 15-minute mark.

It’s a strange world at my other website, What a Feeling!, with a 1986 review of Blue Velvet.