Romancefest 2011: The Band Wagon

The last movie of Romancefest 2011 is another Fred Astaire one, so it's good to go out on a happy note.

THE BAND WAGON stars Astaire as a washed up Hollywood song and dance man who is traveling to New York to hopefully revive his career on the Broadway stage. Along the way he butts heads with his co-star (Cyd Charisse) a no-nonsense classically trained ballerina and attempts to transform a flop of a show into a hit. Of course, eventually, Charisse and Astaire fall in love.

The supporting cast is great, if a little under-utilized, including Oscar Levant and Nanette Fabray as the neurotic married writers of the show within a show and Jack Buchanan as an eccentric director/producer/actor who is obsessed with transforming an innocent romantic comedy into a modern day retelling of FAUST.

The memorable numbers range from the inspired to the bizarre. On the inspired side of things we have the song and dance near the beginning of the film between Astaire and a shoe shine man (Leroy Daniels) who improvises moves with the contents of his shine box. Things get a little weird when Astaire, Charisse and Buchanan team up to perform as a trio of infantile triplets who hate each others' guts.

There's an interesting moment in the middle of the film that I can only describe as "dance foreplay." Up until this point of the film, Astaire and Charisse haven't danced together, and the way they've been paired off in a scene involving a carriage ride through Central Park, the audience can sense a number is coming on. But, Astaire and Charisse ride in the carriage, walk through the crowds in the park, and stroll along alone for what seems like an eternity before finally making the first couple flirtatious moves to dance with each other, before erupting into a full routine. The suspense leading up to it makes the actual number even better.

That, along with one smaller scene and one bigger scene, was my favorite moment of the movie. The smaller scene is a sequence, after the depressing debut of the show within the show, in which Astaire parties with the cast and crew of the musical and sings a tribute to beer. The bigger one is the climactic finale, a song and dance sequence inspired by noirish detective stories, with Astaire as the hard boiled detective and Charisse as both the blonde damsel in distress and the brunette femme fatale, complete with a twist ending. This sequence made me wish Astaire had done a full length noir musical in this style. Charisse looked beautiful as the femme fatale, especially when she shed her trench coat to reveal a hot red dress.

So, as a result of Romancefest 2010 and 2011, I've now seen every single movie on the American Film Institutes "100 Years, 100 Passions" list, as well as a few more from another list. Quick wrap up:

MOVIES WHERE ONE OF THE MAIN COUPLE (OR TRIANGLE) DIES

9 out of 28

METHODS OF DEATH

3 shootings, 1 death by Spotted Typhus, 1 suicide by drowning, 2 probable Yellow Fever deaths, 1 bombing, 1 fall from a high place, 1 death by broken heart

HAPPY ENDINGS

15. . . couples got married, got engaged, ran off together, and stayed married.

MUSICALS

4

MOVIES WITH PARIS

3

MOVIES INVOLVING WAR

5. . . First World War, Bolshevik Revolution, Vietnam, Korean War, action between World Wars

MULTIPLE APPEARANCES BY A LEAD ACTOR OR ACTRESS

3 Katherine Hepburn movies, 2 Marlene Dietrich movies, 2 William Holden movies, 2 Jane Fonda movies and 2 Fred Astaire movies

REPEATED DIRECTORS

2 movies by William Wyler -- JEZEBEL and WUTHERING HEIGHTS. Honorable mention goes to Rouben Mamoulian, who directed LOVE ME TONIGHT and started to direct PORGY AND BESS before he was fired.

MOVIES WITH SWEET BACHELOR PADS

Both WAY DOWN EAST and PILLOW TALK, though separated by decades, involved sweet bachelor pads in which the bachelors in question could simply flip a switch and transform a seemingly normal room into a den of seduction.

Romancefest 2011: Love Me Tonight

LOVE ME TONIGHT came out of nowhere to charm the pants off me.

It was fun to see Maurice Chevalier star in this one after watching GIGI last year. In GIGI he was an old perv -- LOVE ME TONIGHT is from 1932, so this is young Chevalier. I never realized Chevalier was so cool. Now I know.

The story involves Chevalier as a tailor named Maurice (creative!) who falls in love with a princess played by Jeanette MacDonald named Jeanette (creative!). They meet when Maurice is invited to stay at the estate of a gentleman who owes him a bunch of money for suits (Charlie Ruggles). Once at the estate, Chevalier charms everyone (including me), and everyone assumes he's a gentleman of high standing. Chevalier meets the Princess' horny sister (super hot Myrna Loy), a trio of fussy aunts (Elizabeth Patterson, Ethel Griffies, Blanche Friderici), the bumbling master of the estate (C. Aubrey Smith) and a count who also wants to bang the princess (Charles Butterworth).

This musical had me constantly admiring how far ahead of its time it was. Even though it's from 1932, the early days of sound, it makes full use of the soundtrack with dialogue, sound effects, a musical score and lots of singing sequences. Similar films I've seen from the time struggle to comprehend what they're supposed to do with their soundscapes. This one's overflowing -- from the very opening scene, we see the streets of Paris slowly waking up, as one sound effect adds to another until the soundtrack is full of a song made up of the rhythm of the city's sounds. This is almost 40 years before Pink Floyd's MONEY, around 60 years before shows like STOMP.

The direction by Rouben Mamoulian is similarly ahead of its time, using several interesting techniques to tell the story, including an early sequence in which the camera seems to float around the exterior of the giant estate house (it looks kinda like Hogwarts!), peeking in different windows to pick up on different little issues with the various characters in the house.

The movie has a wide variety of humor, ranging from physical pratfalls like the scene where Chevalier has to ride an insane horse named Solitude, to wacky word play, mostly involving sexual double entendres. Some of my favorite quips were from Myrna Loy, who spends most of the movie bemoaning her lot in life, cooped up in a manor house without a single man to sleep with in sight.

The songs by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart are also funny, as well as catchy, and seem to fit well within the confines of the snappy dialogue. The songs never slow the action down, and the movie clocks in at a brisk hour and a half, refreshing for a romance.

I'd like to reiterate how awesome Chevalier is. He's kind of a big oaf with a body and face that seems to have been slapped together somewhat haphazardly, but his style and charm more than makes up for it and his character is so in love with the notion of being in love that he's hard to resist.

Romancefest 2011: Pygmalion

I was familiar with the story of PYGMALION going into it, having seen MY FAIR LADY -- the musical adapted from the play -- before. The two films are very similar, and both are good. So, there's yet another nail in the "all remakes suck" coffin.

In this version Leslie Howard stars as the language professor who makes a bet with his buddy (Scott Sunderland) that he can transform a low class flower seller (Wendy Hiller) into a proper society lady, presentable to those of the highest pedigree. Meanwhile an unlikely romance blossoms between the two stubborn characters.

Wendy Hiller is no Audrey Hepburn, but that actually works to her advantage here -- she's more believable in the role, both as the street girl and eventually as a street girl turned lady. She doesn't have the impeccable beauty and star quality of Hepburn, which keeps her and the story a little more down to Earth and a little less in the realm of a fairy tale.

Leslie Howard is hilarious as the fussy bachelor Higgins. Almost every line he utters is an insult to at least one other character, and I found myself wondering why Howard never became more famous. His most famous role is the supporting role as Ashley in GONE WITH THE WIND, but he shows so much comic potential here (and co-directed the film) that I ended up looking him up to read about his career.

Turns out he died in 1943, shot down by German fighters. So, that's that.

Romancefest 2011: Wuthering Heights

Heathcliff's a badass.

How come they couldn't have just told me that in high school? I don't remember anyone selling WUTHERING HEIGHTS to me in high school as a glorious revenge story in which a dude gets back at everyone who wronged him.

I guess maybe that's because that's not the point of the book. Still, that's what I latched onto for the first part of the movie. Then Heathcliff went a little too far. Oops. The problem with glorious revenge stories is that revenge is never as awesome as you think it's going to be.

Laurence Olivier stars as Heathcliff, a street kid adopted by an estate presided over by a kindly master (Cecil Kellaway). He and Kellaway's daughter, played by Merle Oberon, grow close to each other but the Kelleway's nasty son (Hugh Williams) can't get past the class differences. When Kelleway dies and Williams becomes master of the estate, he sidelines and abuses Olivier, treating him as a servant. Olivier tentatively carries on a romance with Oberon, only to be betrayed by her when she gravitates towards a wealthy neighbor (David Niven) who might be a good marriage option.

Olivier's Heathcliff is at first encouraged by Oberon to go out and seek his fortune so he can come back and sweep her off her feet properly, but as her romance blossoms with Niven, Olivier ends up going off to seek his fortune specifically to come back and seek revenge against all those who have wronged him.

A pawn in his plan is Niven's sister (Geraldine Fitzgerald) and this is where Olivier kind of crosses the line. It's all fine and dandy to punish Williams for treating him like shit and try to upset Niven and make Oberon jealous, but to marry Fitzgerald just out of spite and then, to add insult to injury, not treat her very well afterwards -- that's not too cool.

Anyway, this is another Samuel Goldwyn production, interestingly directed by William Wyler in beautiful black and white. The movie is good at setting tone with the dreary, swampy locations and drafty old houses.

Romancefest 2011: Morocco

Here’s another somewhat rare one – MOROCCO is one of those flicks that seems to have only come out as one part of a Marlene Dietrich box set. Outside of that, it hasn’t been on DVD as far as I can tell, so I went back to Movie Madness and picked it up on – gasp – VHS.

Remember VHS?

Anyway, MOROCCO stars Marlene Dietrich as a traveling cabaret singer who finds herself entertaining at a bar in the title country just as the French Foreign Legion marches into town. Gary Cooper, as one of the Legionnaires, is seduced into a lustful romance with Dietrich after he checks out her hot act in which she slinks around in a tuxedo and kisses an unsuspecting chick in the audience.

That’s probably the most famous scene. The rest of the movie is kind of slow – it’s from that awkward era when silent films had just gone out of fashion but sound films hadn’t quite been figured out yet. Still, being pre-code, it has a little more style and flair than some later more restrained flicks, and with the help of Dietrich’s performance, is able to maintain a certain sultry level of eroticism for most of the running time.

The movie does transcend its own limitations a little bit right at the last moment, in a lonely final shot of Dietrich marching off into a windswept desert that seems ahead of its time and out of the ordinary for a mainstream Hollywood flick. There’s no big swell of over dramatic music, just the dull drum beat of war and the sound of the sand blowing in the wind.

Romancefest 2011: Porgy and Bess

Turns out PORGY AND BESS is kind of a rare flick these days. I didn’t realize that when I made my list of movies to watch for February. It wasn’t available to Watch Instantly or by mail from Netflix, so I checked the greatest video store of all time, Movie Madness. Sure enough, they had it. When I found it on the shelf it was clearly a bootleg of some kind with all kinds of warnings on it:

“DVD-R – may not play in some players!”

“Special $1.00 rental!”

“Transfer quality – fair.”

As I read up on the film, I got a few conflicting stories about how neither the Gershwins, who wrote the opera the film is based on, nor Samuel Goldwyn, who produced the film, were particularly happy with the finished product and buried it after a short release. On top of that it seems most of the major cast members didn’t particularly care to appear in the film and Otto Preminger, the director, didn’t particularly want to make the film Goldwyn wanted to make.

All this is a shame, not so much because the movie is a bona fide great film – it’s just okay – but more because it’s a rare example of a big budget Hollywood showcase specifically for African American talent. Viewing this movie hammered home just how white Romancefest has been – both this year and last.

The movie stars Sidney Poitier as Porgy, a crippled beggar living in a poor, all-black neighborhood just after the turn of the century. A murdering, gambling, drug addict/rapist (Brock Peters) goes on the lam and leaves his floozy girlfriend Bess (Dorothy Dandridge) behind to fend for herself. She resists an offer to go to New York with the local drug dealer (Sammy Davis, Jr.) and ends up living in Poitier’s humble shack and growing to love him in spite of their circumstances.

It’s tough to judge the cinematography and other technical aspects looking through the haze of the “fair” transfer on the bootleg I watched, but it was still easy to see that the entire movie has a slow melancholy tone about it, right from the very first mournful notes in the opening scene. Both lead roles, Porgy and Bess, are kind of thankless, and it’s my understanding neither lead provides their own singing voices, so the two roles really worth noting are Brock Peters as the over the top villain and Sammy Davis, Jr. as the drug dealer. My favorite scene was probably the one at the community picnic in which Sammy Davis, Jr. interrupts a sermon to do a song and dance where he points out that just because it’s in the Bible, it doesn’t necessarily make it so.

In an era when almost any movie is readily available in some form of home media, it’d be nice to see a movie of this cultural significance get a real release with some extras putting it in historical perspective and some restoration to make the widescreen look as beautiful as it should.

Romancefest 2011: Black Narcissus

Speaking of repressed British people, here’s another flick from England, this time by way of those filmmakers known as The Archers – Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. You know it’s going to be good when you see that bull’s eye logo at the beginning.

Deborah Kerr stars as a nun sent to make a convent out of a remote palace in the Himalayas. The local general (Esmond Knight) hopes the nuns will bring modern medicine and education to his people. As the nuns struggle to adapt to the new way of life, the new climate, the constant intrusions of nature upon them and the overwhelming sense of isolation, Kerr must also put up with the general’s boorish, drunken English speaking go-between (David Farrar), a spoiled prince (Sabu), a troubled local girl (Jean Simmons), a servant as old and crazy as the palace itself (May Hallatt) and a jealous fellow nun (Kathleen Byron).

This isn’t really a traditional romance, but it was interesting to watch back to back with BRIEF ENCOUNTER since they have so much in common. Both deal with British characters of the stiff-upper-lip variety, unwillingly forced to face their buried emotions. Both films also get most of their romance from a forbidden love that’s never even consummated – BRIEF ENCOUNTER is more obvious about this relationship, but BLACK NARCISSUS is more about general eroticism than specific lovers. The movie is sexually charged because of the repression, not in spite of it, and also gets a lot of mileage out of juxtaposing opposites, most specifically, the reserved nuns vs. the uninhibited locals.

The use of Technicolor and painted backdrops to create the exotic Himalayan locale is pretty amazing. The palace/convent is perched precariously on the edge of a high cliff, with the bell that Kerr has to ring dangerously close to a steep drop. There are vast views of the massive mountains, and it’s all movie magic, put together in a studio.

The color in these productions from England always seems more dark and saturated than it does in Hollywood movies of the time. I’ve heard it speculated before that this might be because Hollywood interiors were lit brightly to imitate the California sun and empty blue skies, while the lighting in Europe was different and meant to imitate sun coming through overcast skies. Whatever the case may be, Technicolor in the productions of The Archers always looks a little more rich and realistic and moody than its candy-coated Hollywood counterpart.

Now that I think of it, this movie kind of reminds me of BLACK SWAN -- aside from the similar titles, they both deal with female characters going a little mad while trying to manage their strong emotions. They also both keep you guessing until the end -- watching BLACK NARCISSUS, I didn't know who would live or die or get together or stay apart until the words "The End" showed up on the screen.

Romancefest 2011: Brief Encounter

Here’s another flick from overseas, BRIEF ENCOUNTER, this time from England. Directed by David Lean, director of the classic LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, a personal favorite of mine, BRIEF ENCOUNTER is probably the most mature approach to romance I’ve seen all month.

This is the story of a middle class housewife (Celia Johnson) who meets a handsome doctor (Trevor Howard) during her weekly train visits to town. She usually shops, eats, and goes to the movies alone, but after a chance encounter, the two characters grow steadily closer and it becomes clear that a romance is developing. This romance is only ever pursued in weekly episodes, each one more involved than the last.

The interesting way the story is told is also the only real weakness of the film – the housewife tells the story in a voice over, as she imagines confessing the escalating affair to her nice but aloof husband (Cyril Raymond). This is an interesting device, but as the action unfolded, I noticed a couple scenes where the voice over seemed a little intrusive. There were two or three intense sequences I watched wondering what it would be like without the narration. Of course, we’ll never know, but I think playing up the ambiguity in a few of these scenes would have helped the film.

Still, I’m nitpicking – the movie’s basically perfect. Like all of Lean’s films, it is beautifully shot and well-acted. The two leads do a lot with what little there is on the page, but that’s no complaint about the Noel Coward screenplay, which expertly avoids being over-written.

Why did this film seem so mature to me, compared to the others? I guess because it puts some sense of responsibility over personal gratification. Notions of love and romance can be so selfish, sometimes. That’s all right, to an extent – I mean, people should pursue their happiness to a reasonable degree. But, it’s refreshing to see a film, kind of like CASABLANCA, where characters put larger issues ahead of their personal wants and needs.

Granted, part of the point of the story is to show the drawbacks of a repressed society following strict rules of right and wrong. But let’s be honest – if the leads in this film gave in to their desires and ended up together, how long would it last? Would the romance end the second they got out of bed? Would it be worth it?

Or, conversely, were the original decisions that eventually led to this dilemma worth it in the first place?

Romancefest 2011: Top Hat

Last year for Romancefest I watched the Fred Astaire / Ginger Rogers movie SWING TIME, and this year it's TOP HAT. I'm glad I go out of my way to do stuff like this because I feel like left to my own devices, I would have never watched these movies, and they're great.

TOP HAT's plot hinges on a case of mistaken identity, but that doesn't really matter because the whole thing is just an excuse to get in a few good song and dance scenes with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

Astaire plays a stage star who falls for his downstairs neighbor, a model played by Rogers, after he keeps her up all night tap dancing. Rogers falls for Astaire in return after a romantic dance in a gazebo during a rain storm. Everything seems to be going well until Rogers mistakes Astaire for the husband of her best friend (Helen Broderick). Her best friend's actual husband happens to be the producer of the show Astaire is in (Horace Hardwick). All four of them travel to Italy, along with a fussy Italian fashion designer (Erik Rhodes) and a bumbling manservant (Eric Blore), and the series of misunderstandings gets more and more complicated, and funny.

The nice thing about movies like this is you feel like everyone involved was having fun making them. This may or may not be the case -- after all, staging complex dance numbers in one long take can't be easy. Still, Astaire and Rogers are as adept at light hearted comedy as they are at dancing, and their supporting cast is also great.

The most famous sequence is in the middle of the film, as Astaire sings "Cheek to Cheek" and dances with Rogers on a huge set that's supposed to represent the streets and canals of Venice, Italy. It's about as close as you can get to cinematic perfection.

The only problem with the movie might be that this central scene is so great that it almost stops the show in its tracks. After this scene, most of the movie just involves sorting out the plot contrivances and then there's one last big number. Problem is, the big number isn't as awesome as "Cheek to Cheek" and we, as an audience, don't really care how all these plot issues get sorted out. I've had similar issues with other dance movies where the really, really big number that serves as the climax of the film is actually weaker than other numbers that came before it.

Still, the movie doesn't overstay its welcome as badly as some, and Astaire and Rogers are so likable it hardly matters.

Romancefest 2011: Pillow Talk

Now here's a movie that relies on a premise that doesn't even make sense today. If they made a remake of this one, there'd have to be some serious rewriting. PILLOW TALK has a plot that relies on the concept of a couple people sharing a party line.

When I was a kid, I knew what a party line was because I had one friend who lived out in the country and apparently his family shared a phone line with other houses in the area. But I bet there are a bunch of people my age who have never even heard of the concept.

In PILLOW TALK, womanizing bachelor Rock Hudson shares a party line with no nonsense single woman Doris Day. Hudson is constantly on the phone romancing his multiple girlfriends, and Day isn't afraid to pick up the phone and tell him off. The two characters eventually meet by chance -- Hudson knows who Day is, but Day doesn't know who Hudson is, and Hudson decides to invent a charming, innocent Texan alter-ego in an attempt to romance her. Of course we all know Day will eventually figure it out and the shit will hit the fan, and meanwhile Hudson will fall in love with her in spite of himself, but the movie still manages to entertain us getting there.

Day and Hudson have good chemistry, and there's a good supporting cast including Tony Randall as a mutual acquaintance with Hudson and secondary romantic interest for Day, and Thelma Ritter as Day's drunken housekeeper.

In a couple scenes Hudson's cruelty goes a little too far, I think -- he seems to relish the ruse he's pulling on Day just a little too much. And, in the end, though Day gets her revenge, I think she gives in to Hudson a little too easily. Still, the movie's attitudes towards sex don't seem to be quite as antiquated as some of the other movies of the era, presenting Day not necessarily as a "typical" woman, but more like a woman with some standards, which is respectable. The attitudes towards Hudson's womanizing bachelor, on the other hand, are a little more stereotypical and of the "boys will be boys" variety.

Also, it's interesting to note by sheer coincidence, I happened to watch two films in a row starring French actor Marcel Dalio -- he shows up in a supporting role here, and played one of the leads in THE RULES OF THE GAME.

Oh, and, another interesting note: PILLOW TALK reminded me of something I meant to mention about WAY DOWN EAST, the silent flick from the 20s. Both movies feature womanizers with apartments that turn into swinging bachelor pads at the push of a button. In WAY DOWN EAST, there's a scene where a cad lures a woman to his place, flips a switch, and a phonograph starts up all by itself across the room. That MUST be the earliest use of this joke, right? Anyway, it's a little more involved in PILLOW TALK -- yeah, he can get the record player going with the flip of a switch from across the room, but he can also transform his couch into a bed with the flip of another switch AND make sure his front door locks with a flip of yet another. Decent.

Romancefest 2011: The Rules of the Game

Jean Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME might seem like an unlikely candidate for Romancefest because it's not really a romance in a traditional sense. There simply is no central couple to root for. However, it is about a group of adults who are obsessed with their frivolous relationships to the point of distraction.

This is the first foreign film of Romancefest. I've been working off of the American Film Institute's list of "100 Films, 100 Passions" and I'm running out of films. So, this film takes us to France, a country synonymous with romance.

THE RULES OF THE GAME is often considered one of the greatest films of all time. Watching the film, I was able to intellectually admire the technical wizardry at work, but it is difficult to clear my mind of the 70 years of films that came after this one. The movie didn't really engage me emotionally until the last few scenes, and I imagine the average modern viewer would give up by then. Then again I suppose if you're sitting down and deliberately choosing to watch this movie, you are the type of person who might stick with it regardless.

The story involves a wide variety of characters who meet up at a hunting estate in the French countryside outside of Paris. The big ensemble cast ranges from the idle rich to their servants, and multiple love affairs are carried on between the various characters. This is the type of movie where everyone has a secret or has told a lie to someone else, everyone's sneaking around behind each other's backs, and characters are constantly sneaking down corridors and flitting from room to room either to report some gossip or to commit an act worth gossiping about.

The main group of characters include Roland Toutain as a record-breaking aviator who is disappointed that the woman he is in love with (Nora Gregor) fails to show up at his triumphant landing. She is married to the rich owner of the hunting lodge in question (Marcel Dalio) who in turn is carrying on an affair with another woman (Mila Parely). In an attempt to approach these entanglements with class, each lover kind of agrees to look the other way and they all meet up for a weekend in the country.

Meanwhile, the various servants carry on similar affairs. Gregors' servant (Paulette Dubost) is married to the game warden (Gaston Modot) but has a poacher (Julien Carette) chasing after her. The aviators' assistant, played by Renoir himself, is also chasing Dubost, while carrying on an intimate friendship with Gregor that dates back to childhood.

Eventually all the intrigue leads to a murder stemming from a case of mistaken identity, but there's a lot of running around and partner swapping before we get to that point. Most of the love affairs seem to be carried out more as a hobby than as anything involving lust or passion, and the characters are just as content to look the other way as they are to pretend to be offended or intrigued by each others' love lives. There seems to be an unspoken agreement between everyone that as long as they carry on in a certain way, it's okay. If they carry on in a non-approved way, we run into problems. And I guess that's the rules, and that's the game.

The movie was a controversy when it first came out, upsetting filmgoers and banned by entire governments. In a way, the movie breaks the rules of the game itself by admitting there's a game. My assumption is that audiences weren't used to movies turning around and pointing a finger at them. They were used to the unspoken agreement that movies agree to show fantasy, reinforce stereotypes, and keep making excuses for society by kind of looking the other way. Instead, THE RULES OF THE GAME is a "warts and all" portrait.

There's a memorably graphic hunting sequence at the heart of the film in which the various characters kill game on the estate for sport, shooting rabbits and birds and other small animals. The whole thing is set up as a sort of artificial ritual. The characters go through the motions of the hunt without truly "hunting" anything, just like they go through the motions of their love lives without really "loving" anyone but themselves.

This movie, like SUNRISE, has lots of long takes and complex camera set ups that would be difficult today even with all of our advances in technology, and therefore must have been nearly impossible back then. Unlike SUNRISE, this film involves more than a couple characters, and there are long sequences in which the camera keeps rolling and moving around the house as ten or twenty people run in and out of frame, carrying on overlapping conversations and advancing multiple story lines.

I think a movie like this takes multiple viewings to really enjoy on a profound level, and I'm afraid I will probably never give it those multiple viewings. Still, I'm glad I've seen it.

Romancefest 2011: Barefoot in the Park

Watching BAREFOOT IN THE PARK is like a 2 hour hang out session with that couple no one can stand. You know, they’re just too happy, too good looking, too into each other. You suspect they might be lying but you can’t prove it because you never get to see them alone. They’re their own number 1 fans – so self-satisfied that they don’t really care if it comes at someone else’s expense. They’re the stars, everyone else is the audience, and that’s the way they like it.

So, I didn’t like it.

In this case, Robert Redford and Jane Fonda play the newlywed couple in question. Sounds good on paper, and they’re fine in the roles – Redford has kind of a thankless part as a total square, but does as well as he can with it and delivers his more sarcastic lines with easy flair, and Fonda is both hot enough and vivacious enough to more than fill the role of the sex crazed housewife.

The screenplay is by Neil Simon, based on his own stage play, but it doesn’t crackle the way movies like THE ODD COUPLE or THE GOODBYE GIRL do. There just seems to be something missing. The movie is light, but maybe it’s too light? The main characters aren’t that likable, but the movie isn’t about that. I think we’re basically supposed to like them, which is a bad sign. The movie isn’t self-aware. Maybe with a faster pace some of the recurring jokes, like the fact that every character has to enter the newlyweds’ apartment after climbing 5 flights of stairs, would be more funny.

The story has Redford and Fonda starting out as “just married” and then moving on to deal with a less than perfect apartment in Greenwich Village which eventually leads to their first real blow out fight. Again, there’s not much to it, and if you don’t like the central couple, you’re going to have a hard time enjoying the movie.

Still, Neil Simon does get one or two good back and forths in there between the main characters, and the mother in law (Mildred Natwick ) and bohemian neighor (Charles Boyer) characters are interesting, offbeat, sympathetic and fun.

Maybe the movie should have been about them.

Romancefest 2011: Witness

WITNESS is another one of those movies I’ve seen bits and pieces of over the years, but for some reason, I never got around to watching the whole thing. I always liked what I saw, the premise always fascinated me, and I’ve always liked Harrison Ford, who was probably the first movie star I really recognized thanks to Indiana Jones and Han Solo.

So, it was only a matter of time, and now I’m glad I’ve finally watched the whole thing. WITNESS is a great movie and has something for everyone. Like many great movies it mixes genres, switching easily from cop thriller to romance all while telling a fish out of water story and carefully observing the unique Amish culture. It’s funny, touching, suspenseful and insightful all at the same time.

Harrison Ford stars as a homicide detective investigating a murder that was witnessed by a small Amish boy (Lukas Haas). As Ford uncovers corruption in the police department and ends up in danger, he finds himself hiding out in the nearby Amish community with the boy’s recently widowed mother (Kelly McGillis). As Ford slowly begins to become integrated into the community, a mutual attraction begins to develop with McGillis.

So, this is pretty hot just based on the whole forbidden love thing – Ford’s drawn to McGillis because she’s everything his society is not, and McGillis is drawn to Ford because he’s an exciting and complex outsider. But, it’s not cheap, which makes it even hotter. This isn’t like a stolen roll in the hay or anything like that. This is a situation where the characters stare at each other with deep respect growing inside of them.

A key line in the movie is spoken by Ford after a particular night charged with sexual tension:

“If we made love last night, I would have had to stay. Or you would have had to leave.”

It’s true – in this relationship, giving in to desire means changing lives forever. As McGillis searches for words to respond and can’t quite find them, you realize how believable she really is. She doesn’t stick out, as Hollywood actresses sometimes do, and inhabits the role humbly.

The movie works because it is understated. Well, most of the time. Ford does get a couple good outbursts in, but for the most part a lot of the important stuff goes unspoken, nothing is hammered home more than it needs to be, and even the scenes dealing with the murder plot are kept short and sweet and don’t bog down the rest of the movie. The movie is not bogged down by unnecessary plot, and moves along at an easy pace, content to observe and let things sink in. It tricks you into wanting to move to Amish country, without laying anything on too thick.

The movie also has the guts to proceed to a logical conclusion. It ends the way it has to, and the last scene between Ford and the boy, sitting in the grass, says more than a million overwritten screenplays ever could.

Romancefest 2011: Love is a Many-Splendored Thing

Here’s the second William Holden movie of Romancefest 2011 – LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING. Although I’ve always liked Holden, PICNIC was a big let-down for me and I went into this one hoping he’d redeem himself. For the first half of the film, I thought I was in trouble. But as it came to a close, it won me over.

Jennifer Jones plays a Eurasian doctor living in Hong Kong, practicing medicine at a hospital where she cares for patients including European and Chinese refugees who have fled the civil war in China. Holden is an American correspondent, estranged from his wife for several years. It’s late 1949 and the Korean War looms on the horizon as the two meet and slowly strike up a romance – Holden is enthusiastic and seemingly instantly in love, while Jones is more reserved for a variety of reasons ranging from her marriage to her work to her Chinese upbringing. Attitudes of the time and region conspire to try to keep the couple apart – it’s suggested by her co-workers that Jones shouldn’t keep her job while also pursuing a love affair, and also suggested by her family that she’d be better off not marrying a foreigner.

Those reasons are all red herrings, though, I think. The biggest obstacle Jones has to overcome is her own reluctance to open up for fear of being hurt. There’s an interesting bit of dialogue in the middle of the film where Jones explains Chinese farmers who fear the angry and jealous Gods will lie about their prosperous rice fields and yell, “Bad rice!” up at the heavens. She compares the farmers to herself, hinting that she fears that if it’s too clear that she’s happy, or in love, something bad will come along and ruin everything.

That’s a pretty insightful human observation in the middle of a strangely cold movie. The somewhat stiff tone of the flick is what kept me at arm’s length for most of the first half. Jones seemed stilted and flat. I’m not sure if that’s a misguided result of her trying to act Chinese or what. Still, it leads one to wonder what Holden would see in her, and there doesn’t seem to be much chemistry between the two.

On top of the performances, even the cinematography makes the film a little inaccessible. There are big, sweeping scenery shots, getting the fullest out of the authentic Hong Kong scenery, but there are very few intimate shots, which is strange for an intimate story. This is essentially the story of two people, but it’s shot and directed as if it’s an epic, even in quiet indoor dialogue scenes. All the sets are huge, because the camera always seems to be placed as far away from the action as possible.

The opening credits proudly advertise the fact that this movie was shot using the widescreen Cinemascope process and as the movie progressed I began to wonder if the long shots were a symptom of that fact. Reading up on the movie after it was over, I found that that was the case – in the early days of Cinemascope, apparently shooting close ups was difficult and wasn’t perfected until the technology matured a little. You could say close ups are abused these days and most mainstream films are rendered boring and stale by the uniform way they focus on medium shots and close ups. But, the other extreme is equally as off-putting.

I guess on the big screen everything is kind of relative – after all, a wide shot of a person on a giant screen still makes their face easy to see. But, it doesn’t translate as well to the small screen and I’d hate to think what this movie would look like cropped for old fashioned TVs.

Anyway, as I said at the top, the movie did grow on me as it progressed. As Jones’ character loosened up, her performance did, too (a little). And, although repetitive, the famous theme song still works its magic as it swells at the end of the film. That, plus the tragic love story, set against the beautiful scenery, elevates the material at the last second, which was enough for me.

Romancefest 2011: Jezebel

Bette Davis showed up for a couple films in last year's Romancefest, and here she is again, this time playing a Southern Belle who could give Scarlett O'Hara a run for her money in JEZEBEL.

JEZEBEL is set in 1850s New Orleans, and Davis' brand of Belle is headstrong and unafraid to buck convention at every turn. Unfortunately she's also self centered and seems to think of herself as untouchable. On one hand, this can be charming, as a lot of the conventions she flaunts are silly anyway -- she wears her "riding clothes" to a formal social gathering, for instance, because she has arrived late. Scandal! But ultimately, it's her life, and if she wants to be the first woman to be brave enough to dress down, so be it.

On the other hand, she doesn't always have the conviction to back up her seemingly confident moves and is often motivated by vanity. Early on, she interrupts her banker boyfriend (Henry Fonda) in the middle of an important business meeting. When he attempts to explain that he's busy, she seeks revenge by deliberately wearing a red gown to a ball where the other single women traditionally always wear white. Once there, when she realizes Fonda's going to go through with the whole thing, and realizes what a scandal she has caused, she attempts to back out. Fonda won't let her, and ultimately dumps her.

The rest of the movie deals with Davis' attempts to get Fonda back. She pridefully believes he'll come back to her, and when that doesn't happen, she resorts to manipulation, pitting people against each other as pawns in her own soap opera. It isn't until a deadly outbreak of yellow fever strikes New Orleans that Davis finds a chance at redemption.

The movie has interesting parallels with GONE WITH THE WIND, which only hit theaters one year later. The central characters are similar and allow for fierce performances from their leads, the southern plantation setting is similar, and even the disease outbreak verges on being almost as apocalyptic as the burning of Atlanta.

But, the films are also quite different -- JEZEBEL is shot in beautiful, crisp black and white while GONE WITH THE WIND is a showcase for the wonders of Technicolor. JEZEBEL is short and sweet and GONE WITH THE WIND is epic length. And so on. Viewed with the benefit of hindsight, it's interesting to compare the two, but they're really telling two very different stories.

Davis has a little more fun with this feisty character than she did in a few of her later more tragic psychological dramas, and gets to glide around in lots of show-offy gowns, looking possibly the most glamorous that she ever did on screen.

I touched on it a little earlier, but I want to reiterate that the fascinating part about Davis' character is the disconnect between the way she acts in front of everyone, and the way she feels inside. The genius of the movie is that we don't really get any scenes of exposition in which Davis' character tells a confidant how she actually feels. We can just see it on her face, despite what she's actually doing. In one scene, she insists Fonda will come back for her, and we can tell just by looking at her that she knows she's blown it and he's not coming back. In another, after basically setting a deadly duel into motion, she tries to act oblivious to her actions and the result is an overwhelming sense that she's a nervous wreck. Davis pulls off the tricky job of acting simultaneously totally confident, and totally scared, all at the same time. She has the art of secretly second guessing herself down.

Watching JEZEBEL, you sometimes get the feeling you're seeing a woman who is almost a spectator to her own life -- so much at the whim of her own impulsive actions, that she's as amazed and appalled at herself as everyone else is.

Only, she has to pretend not to be. God forbid someone should find out she's human.

Romancefest 2011: Coming Home

It turns out I like Hal Ashby movies. Unlike other directors I've grown to like or follow over the years, I never went through a deliberate Ashby phase where I decided to watch all his stuff or specifically get acquainted. I just started to notice his name on stuff I like -- HAROLD AND MAUDE, THE LAST DETAIL, BEING THERE and now COMING HOME.

Ashby's movies have this kind of deceptive nuts and bolts simplicity to them. The stories are told in a straight forward fashion without many attention seeking frills, all taking place in a world that seems very realistic. In some ways this is a hallmark of lots of serious 70s cinema. In others, it's integral to the look and feel of Ashby's stuff.

Jane Fonda stars the wife of a Marine (Bruce Dern) who is leaving for Vietnam as the story starts. We get the clear idea from the offset that Fonda has made the transition from high school cheerleader to dutiful wife without much in between, and left stateside alone, she doesn't really know what to do with herself. So, she starts to volunteer at a hospital for vets and finds herself drawn to the at first seemingly out of control with anger, paralyzed vet played by Jon Voight.

As the two grow closer in Fonda's husband's absence, they both begin to change. Fonda becomes more independent and starts to form her own ideas about the state of the troops who have returned home and what war does to men. Voight begins to slowly transform his anger into passion and goes from ranting victim to lecturing activist. All the while, the return of Fonda's husband looms in the distance, sure to bring some kind of end to this relationship that everyone can agree won't be pretty.

Aside from the involving story and powerful acting, the movie also boasts a rock and roll soundtrack of amazing quality, featuring the likes of the Stones, Hendrix, The Beatles and Simon & Garfunkel. Almost every scene seems to be set to a rock classic, or a deeper cut that should have been a classic.

Songs are used to tie whole sequences together. There's a long sequence in the middle of the film mostly tied together with "Sympathy for the Devil" where Voight and Fonda's post-hospital lives are contrasted. Voight returns to his apartment, enjoys little things like grocery shopping, tries to sleep with a hooker, and then responds to an emergency situation with another vet. Fonda flies to Hong Kong to visit her husband who is on R&R and finds him totally changed, and unhappy with the changes in her life. The sequences cut back and forth and the tension rises as Jagger's vocals and Richards' guitar carry things along.

The morals and ethics of the film are a little murky, but I guess the morals and ethics of Vietnam were also murky. Hell, the morals and ethics of every day existence are murky. Is it okay for Fonda to indulge in adultery just because she feels bad for a vet and misses her husband? Does she owe it to her husband to stick with him during his tough times? Is it wrong of the vet to speak out against the war? This movie has the messiness of a film driven by character, not plot. It's about the way the characters change because of each other, or in spite of each other, and we rarely feel the screenwriters behind the scenes turning the screws.

The fact of the matter is, Fonda's character sealed her own unhappy fate when she got married too young, with too little experience -- it's only a matter of time before the wider heretofore unseen world of thoughts, feelings and experiences starts to look attractive, regardless of the circumstances.

In any case, the movie works because of the way it approaches these subjects -- for the most part, it is quiet and even a little tender, relying on little personal revelations as opposed to big dramatic moments. The characters for the most part are realists -- by the end of the film, they're not deluding themselves or lying to themselves anymore. They're just trying to deal with what life has thrown their way, and it's hard.

Romancefest 2011: The Quiet Man

Here's the second flick in a row with a kind of antiquated "battle of the sexes" plot, this time THE QUIET MAN starring John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. It's one of those older flicks where the romance gets a little bit rapey, which could be okay in certain contexts but comes off as creepy when you know it's from a (slightly) less enlightened age. Don't get me wrong, I understand men are men and women are women and what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults is none of my business. It's just creepy when you get the feeling THE QUIET MAN was meant to be about and for ALL men and ALL women.

All that aside, I still liked it. There were just a couple wince-enducing moments, okay? You know what's weird, though, is that some of those moments were actually the most emotional, effective, and stirring. So, whatever that means.

Wayne stars as (spoiler alert) an ex-boxer with a troubled past. He retires to a small town in Ireland where his family originally hailed from and buys a cottage to hopefully live out the rest of his days in peace. Once there, he becomes friendly with most of the eccentric townsfolk and catches the eye of a local country girl (Maureen O'Hara). Determined to marry the old fashioned girl, Wayne must take the proper steps of courtship which involve getting the blessing of O'Hara's brother (Victor McLaglen). He's reluctant to give his sister up, and, later, there is a struggle over O'Hara's dowery -- Wayne just loves her and is content to have her for a wife, O'Hara is so old fashioned she won't be satisfied and settle down with Wayne until all traditions are observed.

This leads to lots of scenes where O'Hara flashes her fiery temper, and Wayne has to put her in her place as a wife, which is where things get weird. Viewed as a story about a stormy couple who is always fighting, sure, I guess this works. Viewed as a quaint lovers' quarrel you're supposed to kind of wink and nod and laugh at, it's a little creepy. This ranges from the standard "too forceful" Hollywood kiss, to Wayne throwing O'Hara across the room (thus breaking the bed) and even literally dragging her by her coat, across the ground, over the green pastures of Ireland.

Speaking of the green pastures -- that's two strengths of the movie: the beautiful Technicolor, and the picturesque Irish scenery. Most of the movie is done in exteriors, and each location is prettier than the last, whether its a big open field or a cute little town.

The wide array of supporting characters is a plus, as well, especially Barry Fitzgerald, the local matchmaker and sidekick to Wayne who spends most of his screen time totally wasted. I also liked the priest (Ward Bond) and reverand (Arthur Shields) who are almost more into fishing and boxing, respectively, than preaching.

So, THE QUIET MAN isn't without its faults but it's also an entertaining and visually impressive couple of hours. I guess it just depends on how much you get hung up on these little moments of sexism. On one hand, it's a rightfully iconic shot when Wayne pulls a retreating O'Hara through the door by her arm, and forces her into a kiss, the wind blowing at their clothes. On the other, it's a good thing O'Hara happens to be in love with him.

Romancefest 2011: Woman of the Year

WOMAN OF THE YEAR marks the third Katherine Hepburn flick of Romancefest 2011 so far. It’s interesting to watch so many Hepburn flicks back to back because you can really appreciate the subtleties of what makes her such a great and iconic actress. At a glance, she has such a strong persona, you could easily think every performance of hers was the same. But, examined individually, you can clearly see the Hepburn of AFRICAN QUEEN is not the Hepburn of BRINGING UP BABY – and neither of them are the Hepburn of WOMAN OF THE YEAR.

However, I’d say Hepburn in WOMAN OF THE YEAR is probably most like what I’d call her famous persona. . . glamorous while sticking to business, feminine while hanging with the guys, and above all, smart.

The juxtaposition of putting her opposite an actor like Spencer Tracy is genius. This is one of those cases where the casting gets about half the story telling done. The story involves Spencer Tracy, as a down to Earth sports writer, entering into a little bit of editorial column warfare with a high profile, globetrotting columnist played by Hepburn. He’s one of the grunts at the paper and she’s one of the stars. Their feud blossoms into mutual admiration, romance, and then marriage. Then, they have to learn how to live with each other, and their egos.

The juxtaposition of putting Hepburn opposite an actor like Tracy is genius. This is one of those cases where the casting gets about half the story telling done. Tracy is able to be a handsome movie star without having that somewhat untouchable quality that some leading men end up with sometimes. Watching him, you truly believe he’s just a regular, likable, common sense guy. In the movie, even when he’s pissed off or upset or let down, he’s totally sympathetic. Hepburn is also sympathetic, if only because you have to admire someone who’s as put together as she seems to be.

The whole “battle of the sexes” angle is a little antiquated and can get weird for a modern audience at times, but the movie’s heart is in the right place, and in the climactic scene it’s fun to watch Hepburn attempt to cook breakfast in a pinafore-style dress as if she’s never seen a kitchen before.

Romancefest 2011: Sense and Sensibility

Aw, crap, I'm getting behind in writing these things. I'm not really behind in watching them, though. Here we go:

SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, based on Jane Austen's novel, came out in the mid-90s but doesn't seem out of place at all compared to some of the older movies I've been looking at this month. Set in the late 18th or early 19th century in England, the story involves the sudden loss of wealth thrust upon a widow and her three daughters as the man of the house dies and passes his estate to his brother. Forced to adjust to living within their means in a cottage on another estate, the group of ladies, especially the oldest two daughters, find themselves under more pressure than before to find themselves mates and marry off.

Emma Thompson, wrote the screenplay and clearly feels close to the material, stars as the eldest sister. She's a little past her prime, but still pretty and level-headed, approaching life's problems with reserve and logic. The middle sister, played by Kate Winslet, is more free with her emotions and feels Thompson might be unhealthily keeping her true feelings hidden. This just makes it all the more dramatic when Thompson finally lets go in the last scenes of the movie.

Most of the story deals with a revolving door of suitors who may or may not be perfect for the girls, and episodes with the various extended family members who either help the girls out or stand in their way. It's an impressive cast and everyone is entertaining, not least of which is Hugh Grant as Thompson's love interest, an affable but slightly befuddled gentleman who would rather pursue a modest career in the clergy than go after his family's (or another's) wealth. But, my favorite was Alan Rickman as the tragic, quiet, and ultimately honorable suitor who comes calling for Winslet. He's a little older than she'd like, and a little too boring for her tastes, but he's about as gentlemanly and devoted as they come. His performance is heart breaking.

I don't mean to make this sound like a boring, stuffy drama. Part of the strength of the movie is how funny it is. Austen's original novel, I assume, and Thompson's screenplay along with Ang Lee's direction and the quirky performances of the ensemble cast allow a lot of room to pick up on the inherent humor in a lot of these situations -- Elizabeth Spriggs and Hugh Laurie, for example, make a lot out of supporting roles: Spriggs as the loud, energetic, queen of gossip, who thinks she's pulling the strings but is always a step behind, and Laurie as a gentleman who has been married off and spends most of his time rolling his eyes at the proceedings before him . That's how the movie avoids being a complete soap opera -- we can tell the individuals involved in the gossip and intrigue know how ridiculous some of it is, but they're kind of stuck acting their parts out. Here's a culture that doesn't spend much time actually talking about their feelings or sharing secrets with each other, so there's little choice but to rely on gossip and intrigue in order to figure out what's going on with the people around you.

The film is also beautiful to look at, with lots of great sweeping shots of the green countryside and surrounding ocean, taking the changing seasons into account and setting important moments out among nature instead of within the walls of estate houses.

Romancefest 2011: Sunrise

I’ve been meaning to watch SUNRISE for a long time. I’m not sure how long – it seems like as long as I’ve been reading about movies, I’ve been reading about SUNRISE, the silent romance directed by F.W. Murnau. I knew the name Murnau from his association with horror films – he directed NOSFERATU, the first vampire flick and, some say, the greatest horror film ever made. I always found it fascinating that the name Murnau, so associated with the horrific images of NOSFERATU, was also the director of this reportedly beautiful romantic film, SUNRISE.

Anyway, I finally watched SUNRISE yesterday and I wasn’t disappointed. As always, I had to try to get in the right frame of mind for a silent film, but SUNRISE made it easier than most – it’s only an hour and a half long, and, being from 1927, it’s about as modern as you can get for the era. The bonus is that Murnau is a groundbreaking director who was ahead of his time.

SUNRISE is the story of a husband (George O’Brien) and wife (Janet Gaynor) who live in the country in an unspecified time and place -- the whole film has kind of a fairy tale quality, without really involving any elements of fantasy. O’Brien is tempted into an affair by a woman who is visiting from the nearby city (Margaret Livingston) and who hatches a plot to have Gaynor murdered. Livingston suggests O’Brien should lure Gaynor out into the water on his rowboat, and then drown her, making it look like an accident. O’Brien, like a doomed robot or zombie under the control of Livingston’s seduction, reluctantly sets the plan into motion, suggesting he and his wife take a day trip to the city across the water.

This first half hour is pretty dark and moody. Without giving too much away, the husband and wife reach the city in spite of the murder plans, and things gradually lighten up. The rest of the film deals with their day out on the town, first as an estranged couple, then as a couple slowly forgiving each other, and finally as a couple at the height of their love for one another. They get spruced up at a barber shop, attend a stranger’s wedding, get their photograph taken, go to a carnival, and have a romantic dinner. Because of the out-of-time setting, the story plays out as more of a metaphorical allegory of a marriage, as opposed to a literal story, taking the viewer through decades of a relationship in only 24 hours.

The movie deals in many contrasts, not least of which has to do with the setting of the film – half of it takes place in the country side, which is idyllic in some shots and dark and foggy in others, while the other half takes place in the bustling city. Then, there’s the contrast between the “woman from the city” and Gaynor as the wife – the woman from the city is either clad in black or half disrobed, constantly smoking, overly concerned with her hair and shoes and lit harshly while the wife has plain clothes, non-descript hair, and is shot softly. There is only one main male character, the husband, but as the story unfolds he goes from a guilt-ridden, depressed, murderous monster to a light-hearted romantic hero, and the transformation is physical. In the first part of the film, O’Brien carries himself almost like Karloff would later in FRANKENSTEIN – stomping around, hunched shoulders, eyes downcast -- I wouldn't be surprised if James Whale took this as direct inspiration. O'Brien's hair is unkempt and his face is obscured by several days’ worth of stubble. Once he gets to the city, he gets cleaned up, starts walking upright, and even smiles.

The way SUNRISE is put together is strikingly modern. The filmic language is more like modern day films than it is like films that came before it or even films that came decades after it. The camera and editing have a freedom in this film that you don’t normally see in movies prior to. . . oh, I don’t know. . . the 60s? There are lots of long takes, often involving complex camera movements, the likes of which were later associated with guys like Scorsese, Altman, PT Anderson and DePalma – except they had technology and decades of collective experience on their side.

The most famous shot is an early one in which the camera follows O’Brien over rough terrain and through overgrown trees to his secret rendezvous with Livingston at the edge of a swamp. This involves not just the camera seemingly floating around and through obstacles, but also a set that includes the foreground foliage, a distant lake, and a ghostly moon on the horizon. There are similar shots, often following characters as they walk – the camera stalks Livingston as she strolls confidently through the country town, it follows the husband and wife as they cross a street in the city busy with traffic, cars careening everywhere, and it sits stationary in a trolley, looking over the shoulder of the conductor as we travel from the country into the heart of the city. Each of these involve amazing sets as most of the film was not shot on location, but on the Fox back lot, where limited space was transformed into vast country and cityscapes thanks to the magic of forced perspective.

A lot of what I’m saying here has been informed by the insightful and stimulating commentary by John Bailey provided as a special feature on the DVD version of the film that I watched, which I listened to partially because Roger Ebert’s review of the film mentioned it. Commentaries like this can be very valuable when it comes to putting a film in the proper context, especially one removed by decades of time. So much of film language is kind of subconscious that you don’t always fully realize what you’re looking at until you take a step back to examine it outside the moment. The DVD also contains outtakes from the cutting room floor, which is a pretty amazing find for a film of this age, and especially interesting to look at in a film with such complex camera set ups. This is why the DVD format (and Blu-ray) is so great – if you have the right DVD of the right film, you can give yourself a little self-taught film appreciation class.

Still, even without all that, you can tell you’re watching something special as SUNRISE unfolds. It doesn’t look like any other silent film I’ve ever seen, and is more fluidly put together than most sound films from the following decades.

Romancefest 2011: Picnic

PICNIC sucks.

It’s like a parody of a Tennessee Williams play – a bad parody. A parody that doesn’t even understand what it’s making fun of. Watching PICNIC is frustrating and sad. You can see star William Holden trying his damndest and finding absolutely nothing to work with. It comes off as pathetic, and I love William Holden. You can see Kim Novak sleep walking through the role and you don’t blame her. There’s simply no role to play.

Holden plays an ex-college football star who is aimlessly riding the rails on the bum with no goals in life. He ends up visiting his old fraternity brother (Cliff Robertson) looking for a job in a small Kansas town. His frat brother is dating the hottest chick in town (Kim Novak) who is sick of everyone only looking at her because she is pretty. Her mom (Betty Field) recommends she marry a rich guy. Her sister (Susan Strasberg) is on the verge of going to college, reads books, smokes cigarettes, dresses like a tomboy, and is generally the only person in town with any likable traits.

Holden’s welcomed into the group and goes to the big Labor Day picnic with everyone, ostensibly accompanying the bookworm sister. However, eventually, Novak and Holden are irresistibly drawn to each other and as the booze flows, controversy erupts. That’s right – this is one of those flicks that takes place over the course of one night when everyone gets more and more drunk, like CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF or WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF. Only, this movie sucks and those ones are good.

The movie thinks it’s making a point about the frustrations of small town life for Midwestern women in the 1950s, but it’s insultingly shallow. We have a bunch of broads who are bored with their lives, and one, Novak, the hottest chick in town, who finally decides to do something about it, only the thing she does about it isn’t all that ground breaking: she runs off with a dude she likes. When Holden shows up in town, the first thing he does is take his shirt off so his pecs can glisten with sweat, and that knocks all the chicks over. They fall all over themselves welcoming him. Novak keeps bitching about how people only look at her while she’s pretty. Meanwhile she apparently falls in love with Holden because he’s pretty, and he apparently falls in love with her because she’s pretty. They have no chemistry and the script gives us no reason to understand why they’re drawn to each other, beyond lust, which would be fine, if the movie was honest, but it’s not – it hides behind some desperate attempt at a moral that’s not there.

The movie is laughably inept, especially for one that’s apparently held in high regard. The dialogue is either obvious or goes nowhere, the widescreen cinematography is hampered by a flat color palette that looks like Kodachrome at times, the middle of the movie is dragged down by an endless sequence of stupid shots of the dumb picnic everyone seems to be enjoying (looks like hell on Earth to me), and the music is hilariously overblown, never more so than when Rosalind Russell’s desperate aging schoolmarm character tears off William Holden’s shirt during the (apparently) famous dance scene.

Wikipedia claims after being a box office and critical hit in the 50s, PICNIC fell out of favor as attitudes changed with the times, only to come back into favor again when a restored version hit theaters in the 90s. I don’t know, it still seems pretty antiquated to me. Hell, WAY DOWN EAST was made in 1920, and it was definitely antiquated, but I think it might have even been a little more forward thinking than PICNIC. The era is really no excuse – there are plenty of movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s that have a lot more brains than this one.

Look, I don’t doubt the Midwest of the early 50s was a backwards place and being a woman there probably sucked. But the movie is so short-sighted it misses the fact that there’s a perfectly good woman already in it – the Susan Strasberg character. She keeps referring to herself as the ugly sister, and the other characters seem to basically agree. But she’s totally cute! And, she has personality – way more personality than the “hot” sister, Novak. In fact, I’d say Strasberg is at least as hot as Novak, if not more so. So, she’s equal there, has a better personality, and more prospects (college). But the movie is kind of ambivalent about her, and so is Holden. I mean it’s just as well, since it’d be depressing to see a girl like her go off with a clod like the one Holden plays, but still -- why? What’s the point? Why is the robot Novak the one we’re supposed to sympathize with? I don’t get it.

Maybe I read the movie all wrong. Maybe it’s supposed to be a tragedy about the dead end lives of Novak and Holden and how they’re deluding themselves. I think that’s a little too much to hope for, though. When Novak gets on the bus at the end of the flick, I don’t get the ironic “what do we do now?” feeling I get from a movie that’s smart, like THE GRADUATE. Instead, I get the feeling the movie actually believes Novak’s character is going somewhere.