The Ice Harvest February 28, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Modern Films, 2000s , add a comment
The Ice Harvest
The story begins on Christmas Eve as Charlie, a mob lawyer, and Vic, who we are told “sells pornography,” have stolen over $2 million from Charlie’s mobster boss, Bill Guerrard (Randy Quaid in basically a cameo). The setting is a very icy Wichita, Kansas and the two men plan to leave town in the early morning never to be seen from again. That’s the plan, but it’s not too difficult to figure out that something will go awry. The overall story is somewhat complicated, but never to the point of confusion and is handled quite nicely by the screenwriters, novelist Richard Russo and filmmaker Robert Benton, as well as the director Harold Ramis.
The cast is superb with John Cusack anchoring the movie as Charlie and Billy Bob Thornton portraying Vic with just the right amount of sleaze and unpredictability. Oliver Platt provides some comic relief as Charlie’s friend, who happens to also be married to his ex-wife. Cusack is the real center and gives the audience a character who you root for by default, but who also balances a fine line between dimbulb and someone who could actually pull off what happens. Connie Nielsen adds a femme fatale element to the story and is always a welcome presence.
There are obvious elements of noir found in The Ice Harvest. The cinematography is appropriately dark and ominous at times considering the morbid nature of what’s happening on screen. As the evening drifts into night at the beginning of the film, the cameraman effectively uses a blue filter to strike the mood. The ice is constant throughout and makes a nice motif for the cold and slippery aspects of almost every character we see. Ice itself is a strange thing, practically invisible at times and always potentially dangerous. This film uses ice to great effect, most notably during the final confrontation between Cusack and Thornton.
When The Ice Harvest opened this past November, I was excited to see it because it looked like something right up my alley. Then I saw the reviews and was put off because they skewed quite negative and seemed to suggest that Ramis had failed to balance the story’s humorous aspects with the obviously dark storyline. With the DVD release, however, I was once again ready to give the film a look and I’m really glad that I did. I can understand why audiences were not enthusiastic about the movie because it’s not a comedy and it’s not a crime/heist picture as the studio advertised it. What it is though is a dark and adult film laced with sharp bits of humor and wit that never lets the audience know exactly where it’s going. That kind of film seems to be a rarity nowadays.
Design for Living February 26, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Classic Films, 1930s, Ernst Lubitsch , add a comment
“Immorality may be fun, but it isn’t fun enough to take the place of one hundred percent virtue and three square meals a day.”
The “Lubitsch Touch” is an often cited cinematic gift that director Ernst Lubitsch employed to give his films an unparalleled wit and charm throughout the 1930s and early 1940s. Lubitsch directed comedies that still retain their vitality and charisma, sixty or seventy years after they were made. The characters in his films have a knack for light humor that exhibits wry sophistication without crossing the line to snobbery. I was not around when Lubitsch made films, but watching them makes me wish I were and that I could have been exactly like one of the many characters found therein. That, to me, is the “Lubitsch Touch.”
Design for Living came during an especially fruitful string of films for Lubitsch. The 1933 film followed Trouble in Paradise, a wonderful comedy about the debonair thief Gaston Monescu, and preceded another highly regarded film, The Merry Widow. Lubitsch and screenwriter Ben Hecht replaced the British characters from Noel Coward’s play with three Americans, all living in Paris. A young Gary Cooper plays the struggling painter, Fredric March is the playwright who “writes unproduced plays,” and Lubitsch favorite Miriam Hopkins is the object of both their affections. Edward Everett Horton, later to be the narrator of “Fractured Fairy Tales” on the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, is Ms. Hopkins’ boss and suitor.
While Design for Living falls into the category of great films, what really sets it apart is how fun it is to see actual adult and grown-up comedy in a classic American film. It was made after the implementation of the Production Code, but apparently before it became as strict as it would be the next thirty-plus years. This allowed Lubitsch and Hecht to get away with Hopkins’ discussion about sleeping with Cooper the day before and, then, March earlier in the present day (!) and, also, for Cooper and March to make a “gentleman’s agreement” where the three would co-exist but with “no sex.” The whole film is filled with mature, yet almost screwball comedy that Hollywood has struggled to consistently produce for years, especially in today’s current cinema.
The performances here are all incredibly fun to watch. Cooper and March make a terrific team and really give the impression they’ve been great friends and have no intention of letting their attraction for Hopkins come between them, even if they can’t make good on their “agreement.” Miriam Hopkins is perfect here, as well, and makes the viewer see how two men can nearly break up a friendship over her affection. I’m really not sure why Hopkins never became a bigger star, but then again Hollywood was even more arbitrary back then than today in selecting its movie stars to feed into the movie machine. Regardless, this film, along with Trouble in Paradise show how lovely and sophisticated an actress she was. Edward Everett Horton also manages to be very funny when he needs to, never more so than when he’s attending March’s play in London and hears the line I’ve quoted at the beginning here, one which he had separately told both March and Cooper at the beginning of the film regarding their trysts with Hopkins.
Billy Wilder, who wrote the screenplay for Lubitsch’s film Ninotchka, often said that he tried to duplicate the “Lubitsch Touch” in several of his films and was never able to completely succeed. While Wilder almost always injected a knowing sense of cynicism into his comedies, Lubitsch chose to give his films an elegance and warmth that remains refreshing today. In my opinion, Lubitsch and Wilder were the best comedic filmmakers Hollywood has seen and I’m glad we have both of their films to enjoy for generations to come. I only wish the “Lubitsch Touch” would inspire more filmmakers to produce similar types of sophisticated comedies.
Casino February 25, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Modern Films, 1990s , add a comment
Released in November of 1995 to mixed reviews, Casino suffered from high expectations and failed to woo moviegoers who were instead flocking to theaters for the computer animated film Toy Story. In recent years, director Martin Scorsese’s third collaboration with Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci has been elevated to somewhat of a contemporary classic, despite not being near the level of achievement of Raging Bull and Goodfellas. Sharon Stone’s Oscar-nominated performance is often cited as the best of her career.
Casino tells the story of Sam “Ace” Rothstein, played by DeNiro when he still cared about acting, and his childhood buddy Nicky Santoro, played by Pesci when he was still an actor. Rothstein becomes the boss of a new casino, the Tangiers, in Las Vegas and Nicky eventually comes out west from “back home,” as it’s called in the film, to take advantage of what he believes to be untapped moneymaking opportunities, i.e. stealing from bookies. Stone plays Ginger, a hustler/hooker whom Ace, despite his penchant for investigating all the ins and outs of every bet and his reputation as the greatest gambler there is, marries and entrusts with $2 million in a safe deposit box. This, of course, proves to be a big mistake on Rothstein’s part and sets up the last half of the movie.
I wish I had a more positive opinion of Casino, but no matter how hard I try I see its deep flaws and wonder how it’s gained so many supporters in the decade since its release. I’ll start with the good things. Scorsese’s direction and the set design are top notch. DeNiro has never looked so dapper as he does in the colorful suits Rothstein wears here. The casino scenes are all fascinating and give the viewer a feel of how Las Vegas in the 1970s must have been. I also enjoyed the change in the dynamics of the relationship between Rothstein and Nicky as the film progressed.
Unfortunately, there were several things that I found fault with in the film. Even though Pesci gives a fine performance overall, his forced Chicago accent is a distraction especially throughout the voiceovers. Everyone knows Joe Pesci is a New York/New Jersey guy and he does not make the accent here believable. Another problem is the film’s length. At three hours, it’s just too long. It feels bloated and unnecessarily tedious at times, especially in the second hour. Some of the themes are reinforced to the point of exhaustion, particularly those involving Ginger. In fact, Stone’s character was my biggest disappointment. It just felt like a one-dimensional feat of hysterics instead of a performance. I saw little nuance and never understood what it was that attracted Rothstein to her as opposed to any other girl hanging around the casino. Stone played her as almost completely unsympathetic and gave the audience very little reason to care. I’m not someone who thinks movie characters have to be likeable, but they should at least exhibit layers of personality so that the viewer can try to understand the reason they act as they do. Here, Ginger is a former hooker who for some reason cannot let go of her pimp (played by James Woods) and becomes a drug fiend. Despite this, Rothstein inexplicably lavishes her with expensive jewelry and trusts her with $2 million in cash.
Now even though I’ve outlined several things I didn’t care for, that’s not to say I didn’t like Casino. I did. It just frustrated me that there was so much potential for greatness and the film is unable to completely deliver. It’s also quite violent, including a scene where Nicky literally causes a man’s eyeball to pop out while being subjected to a vise crushing his head. There are obvious parallels to Pesci’s Goodfellas character’s penchant for violence. This violence doesn’t bother me, but it does seem somewhat like an attempt to top what occurred in the previous film.
Though deeply flawed, Casino is an often enjoyable film best enjoyed by those who like Scorsese’s films. Scorsese is near the top of my list of active directors, but Casino is probably near the bottom of his “good” films. I don’t think it would make my personal top 10 of his films, though even at a bloated three hours, this film can be fun to watch. Just don’t be disappointed that it’s not up to par with Goodfellas or Raging Bull.
Advise & Consent February 21, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Classic Films, 1960s , add a comment
When the discussion of greatest film about American politics comes up, Advise & Consent is almost always on the short list. The 1962 film was made at the height of Kennedy’s short tenure and before the Watergate era cynicism which plagues the nation to this day. In that sense, perhaps Advise & Consent was ahead of its time. The film manages to include a dying president whose vice president initially claims to not want to be president but eventually seems more than ready to step into the oval office. There’s also a young senator who blackmails another based on “youthful indiscretions” with another man. And don’t forget the man at the center of the film, Secretary of State nominee Robert Leffingwell (played with understated decency by Henry Fonda), who happens to have been involved with a Communist organization when he was a young college professor. It’s easy to see how Warner Bros. could justify including the film in its “Controversial Classics Collection
Regardless of controversy, Advise & Consent is a fine film and solid exploration into the behind the scenes of both the dynamics of the Senate and the power battles involved in confirmation hearings. While the film is obviously fictional, it’s difficult not to wonder if there aren’t at least a few ounces of truth in much of what’s going on. As a minor political junkie, I found the film to be riveting in parts and never contrived, even if it was a tad long.
The ensemble cast is mostly quite good, lead by Charles Laughton (in his final film role) as an aging yet still powerful Southern Senator and Walter Pidgeon as the Senate Majority Leader who tries to secure confirmation for Fonda despite Laughton’s personal vendetta against the nominee. Fonda is billed as the star and on the DVD cover, but his screentime is at least third or fourth behind Laughton, Pidgeon and Don Murray as the head of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee who is tragically blackmailed. Fonda still manages to do exactly what his role requires in order for the viewer to understand how the President could be so adamant about having him as his Secretary of State despite several obstacles.
Director Otto Preminger, probably best known for Laura and Anatomy of a Murder, had a knack for making socially relevant and entertaining films. He’s frequently overlooked and perhaps underappreciated by critics. I’ve yet to see several of his films, but all that I have viewed have been enjoyable or better. One could argue that his film legacy has been neglected by critics and Preminger may be slowly becoming more appreciated with the advent of DVD.
Saul Bass once again worked on the great opening title sequence and designed the film’s promotional art. I’ve included an example of one of the posters used.
Advise & Consent is a still powerful film that remains entertaining and enlightening. It features a great ensemble cast and should be commended for showing the evils of both sides of politics without demonizing the participants to the levels of cartoons. I was also impressed with the ending, which resisted any urge to placate the viewer or provide a traditional “happy” ending.
The Face of Another February 16, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Classic Films, 1960s , add a comment
The British DVD company Eureka! has a specialty label it calls the “Masters of Cinema” Series. They have already built quite a reputation for producing high quality discs with interesting special features and lengthy booklets included with the release. Most of their DVDs are PAL format and will only play on DVD players equipped to handle Region 2 discs. Of course there are numerous DVD players that just require a sequence to be pressed on the remote to unlock region free capabilities, allowing it to play DVDs from all over the world.
Anyway, The Face of Another was released on DVD in 2005 by the Masters of Cinema (or “MoC”, if you will) as spine number 6. Like its American counterpart, the Criterion Collection, MoC likes to use spine numbers to entice collectors to purchase as many of their releases as possible. Sort of like action figures or Happy Meal toys.
The Face of Another is a Japanese film directed by Hiroshi Teshigahara that explores questions of identity, appearance and the confidence we seek from exterior sources. The protagonist in the film was badly burned in a laboratory and must wear bandages to cover his face. He has become embittered and closed off from his wife and society. After he feels rejected romantically from his wife, he grows desperate and seeks a lifelike mask to be made by the doctor who has been treating him. Soon, he sees that the mask has not only affected how others look at him, but also how he perceives himself.
I really cannot speak highly enough of this extraordinary film. I think there’s an obvious comparison to John Frankenheimer’s great Seconds, also from 1966 and starring Rock Hudson. Both films deal with a man who can no longer deal with his physical appearance and attempt to alter how he looks through a medical procedure, with disastrous results. In both films, the man initially thinks he is better off with his new appearance but soon realizes that he has lost a unique part of himself in the process. As bad as things seemed for the characters before the alterations, both men come to the realization that their identities were located in their original incarnations. Unfortunately, neither man can regain the identity he has lost.
In The Face of Another, I also see how the protoganist, played by Tatsuya Nakadai (who would later go on to star in Akira Kurosawa’s Kagemusha and Ran) struggles with confidence when he is still wearing the bandages on his face in comparison to his increased happiness and sociability once he begins wearing the mask. He is thus allowed to hide behind the mask, as well as a beard the doctor has stuck on his face and a pair of dark sunglasses. He no longer has to worry about others perceiving him as a “monster,” to use the word someone yells at a young woman whose face is scarred on the right side. This builds up his confidence to the point where he feels comfortable flirting with a receptionist at the office of the company he worked at and eventually allows him to try to seduce his wife, who he thinks will not recognize him as being her husband. The man’s folly is in thinking that others only perceive persons based on a face. While his face had been drastically changed since his wife had last seen him, he remained the same person, regardless of how he perceived himself.
“In love, we all try to unmask one another,” his wife tells him. “So I thought we should try to wear masks.” This is an important line. It probably applies not just to love, but to everything we do in the company of others. Almost everyone, if not all of us, fear showing our true selves to everyone else. We call it privacy or many other words. The truth is we lack the confidence to believe anyone could possibly tolerate or love the flaws we see in ourselves.
The Face of Another is an engrossing, fascinating work. For anyone who has ever felt like they were lacking in any way or that they would be better off as someone else, it is essential viewing.
Walt “Clyde” Frazier February 13, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Modern Films , add a commentThe epitome of cool:
