Catching Up with the Classics: Safety Last

Wheeeeeee!

I don't know that I've ever seen comedies quite as engaging as silent comedies.  There's a cartoonishness to the slapstick that I've only ever seen elsewhere in the Looniest of Tunes, and the actors' ability to express their emotions with their faces is truly impressive.  It's almost gotten to the point where I get disappointed every time a tile card comes up, because I find I don't really care what the actors are actually saying.

Of the trinity of silent film comedy gods - including Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin, of course - Harold Lloyd is the one I've known the least about.  I caught one of his pictures at Salt Lake's Organ Loft some time ago, but, beyond that, I had no experience with him.  I had, however, heard of the clock scene from Safety Last, so I decided to pick the movie up the last time Barnes and Noble had a sale on their Criterion Collection DVDs.

Now that I've finally seen it, I've gotta say... Harold Lloyd was REALLY DARNED GOOD!  His grasp of physical comedy and spectacular stuntwork is surprisingly sophisticated.  His face is just so darned expressive, and those glasses he wears are simply iconic.

Of course, the film really grabs you at the climax, when he scales a twelve-story building without any sort of safety harness.  Now, APPARENTLY he actually did have a stunt double, and APPARENTLY he is climbing a fake wall built atop a skyscraper, so he's not REALLY in as much peril as he appears, but the danger Lloyd is in as he performs these stunts is still palpable.  It's a revolutionary film from the perspective of stunt work and spectacle, and it's still incredibly entertaining today.

Catching Up with the Classics: To Kill a Mockingbird

Last September, my book club picked up To Kill a Mockinbird, which is (and I say this objectively and without overstating) probably the best gosh darn book in the history of anything that has ever been written, ever. Now, I remember studying the book back in my junior high days and, as part of the curriculum, getting to see the movie with Gregory Peck. At the time, I loved the movie.

Of course, I also watched Yu-Gi-Oh religiously. Please don't let my questionable taste warp whatever little credibility I may have left.

Anyway, I saw To Kill a Mockingbird for sale at Target ($10 for a blu-ray! Not bad!). I figured there were worse uses for my money, like... I dunno, food or something. So I decided it was time to catch up with a classic film I hadn't seen in years.

Now, I hate to be this guy, especially when we're talking about one of the great classics of American cinema, but... the book is better.

Like, TONS better.

The movie gets all the highlights from the book - specifically regarding the Atticus and Tom Robinson plot - but they just don't capture the complexity of the setting. They completely omit large portions of the Boo Radley plot - heck, Boo's hardly mentioned outside of fifteen minutes at either bookend. And they do a complete disservice to the character Scout, who's almost totally sidelined in her own story.

That's a real shame, because Mary Badham is actually a pretty great child actress. Heck, she and Phillip Alford, who plays Jem, both manage to bring a lot of intensity to the scenes they're in. Alford's got this way of showing that he knows more than maybe a kid his age should, and Badham brings this great energy to the tomboyish Scout that makes her a joy to watch.

I'd probably say they were the best actors in the whole movie if they weren't sharing the screen with Gregory frickin' Peck. Seriously, that man can act better with the back of his head than most can with their whole bodies. And that voice... I either want to curl up in it like a blanket or flagellate myself, depending on whether he's comforting me or calling me a racist.

Really, the whole cast is excellent. I don't think people talk enough about Brock Peters's turn as Tom Robinson, and Robert Duvall steals the scene when he steps into the light as Boo Radley... and he doesn't even say anything.

Even the camera work is impeccable. There are some really brilliant shots, especially during the attack at the end of the film. And Mary Badham's eyes... whoosh! Goose pimples.

So, yeah, the movie's not exactly terrible. It's just not quite as good as the book. Luckily, living in the age we do, we don't have to choose one or the other. We can appreciate both for just how incredible they are!

Hey! Are you appreciating them yet? Get on it!

Catching Up with the Classics: A Night at the Opera

Hey, it's been a loooong time since I've done one of these.

Although I have to say this is probably cheating a little.  I love me some Marx Brothers entertainment.  Which is kinda funny, since I really don't like many slapstick, goofy comedies.

The Marxes, though - they own their particular style of comedy in a way no other comedian does.  Nobody does snark like Groucho, and Harpo's peculiar prop-centric slapstick is surpassed only by cartoons, where they can actually blow themselves up with Acme-brand dynamite.

Chico, though... I've never really been a big fan of Chico's faux-Italian shenanigans.  I wonder if it felt different back in the time period, but today it feels a little... culterally-insensitive.

That said, the famous "contract scene" towards the beginning of A Night at the Opera had me laughing.  Groucho and Chico have a great chemistry when they banter, and they carry a lot of comedy that I don't think would otherwise come out.  Chico's accent actually does detract some from the scene, though.

But, then again, Chico is one of the most entertaining pianists I've ever seen.  The obligatory musical interlude feels out of place as always, but I never complain.  Chico's a delight to watch, and Harpo on the harp always manages to bring a tear to my eye.

Yeah, I, um, cry at Marx Brothers movies.  Is that weird.

Whatever.  They're great.

Catching Up with the Classics: Sherlock Jr.

Do you have ANY idea how difficult it was to find this picture when there's a fairly famous "junior" out there playing Mr. Holmes right now?

I almost didn’t count this one. After all, my purpose behind Catching Up with the Classics is to find new things to love. And, well, I kind of already love Buster Keaton.

I mean, what’s not to love? He’s this tiny, adorable man who’s always unlucky in love and hard on his luck. He runs and jumps and fights and scraps, and he never changes his expression. It’s a very special kind of comedy, and one I love deeply.

However, I’d never seen Sherlock Jr., and it regularly makes “Best Movies of All-Time” lists. So I guess from that perspective, it totally counts.

Well, to no one’s surprise, this movie’s pretty awesome. There are some fantastic camera tricks that, even today, are worthy of applause. Back in the day, I can only imagine what the response would be like.

And the stunts… There wasn’t much along the lines of special effects back in the day. A lot of tricks in movies we take for granted nowadays – things like jumps from great heights and wild acrobatics often – are often brushed aside as camera tricks or wireworks. Sometimes, when you get a chance to see those kinds of stunts without dramatic angles or visible wires, you respect them a lot more. And that’s certainly the case with Sherlock Jr.

I don’t want to give away the final scene for anyone who hasn’t seen it – it’s not one of the great film endings of City Lights or Gone with the Wind or whatever, but there’s still something lovable about watching poor, hapless Buster trying to mimic what he sees on the screen in his own love life. I’m sure there’s some critical analysis I could do here regarding the way film instructs life or something like that, but, for now, I’ll just enjoy a good movie.

You should, too.

Catching Up with the Classics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I'm not a huge fan of Westerns in general. I don't hate the genre, but I've not seen many of them. I think the only westerns I've ever watched are Rio Lobo and Tombstone.

And Jonah Hex, I guess, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't count.

I picked The Good, the Bad, and the Etc. based on its inclusion on several "Greatest Films" lists, not realizing that the film is the third part of a trilogy. I found myself a little let down that there was so much character work done beforehand that I just never picked up on.

At least, that's what I assumed happened. I kinda figured I was already supposed to know who Tuco and Angel Eyes were, but after a cursory scan of Wikipedia, I'm not so sure.

My biggest complaint about The Good, the Bad, and the Incontinent is the length. The movie clocks in at three hours. I had to take two naps in the middle before I could get to the finish.

Also, the action moves deliberately very slowly. Sometimes, it creates an interesting effect - there's not a single line of spoken dialog for the first ten minutes (I counted), and the silence helps build the suspense. Frequently, though, I just found the slow pace boring.

The designations of the title characters seem extraordinarily arbitrary. I get that Angel Eyes is "The Bad," but I can't for the life of me figure out what makes Clint Eastwood's character "The Good." He's pretty much a %@#^. The only thing that distinguishes him from the other two is his blonde hair, and if that's what makes him "good," then the film's classification of Mexican Tuco as "The Ugly" is extremely suspect.

So, yeah, I guess I didn't care for The Good, the Bad, and the Santa Maria that much. However, the ending duel between Tuco, Angel Eyes, and the "Man with No Name" is excellent. A single sequence lasting maybe five minutes nearly justifies the entire 150 minute buildup.

Final verdict - the film's a classic for a reason. No real surprise there. It's just not one I feel like revisiting again.

Catching Up with the Classics: Vertigo

Still working on plugging up those holes in my movie history knowledge. I think this is the last Hitchcock film I can count towards completing my goal, although I'll definitely be coming back for more. Heck, I might even watch The Birds again.

Of course, that might just be to wash the taste of Birdemic out of my brain.

I'll admit I was a little disappointed in Vertigo. Some scenes were genius - especially poor ol' Jimmy Stewart's dream sequence, but, all in all, I found myself getting BORED.

The bulk of the movie is just watching Mr. Stewart trailing a woman he's been hired to stalk. There are a lot of driving scenes and almost no dialog. I spent about 30 seconds wondering what the woman was up to, and then another two minutes asleep on the couch.

Sorry, Mr. Hitchcock, but you're just not that good at suspense.

Like the rest of Hitchcock's films - and really the suspense genre in general - Vertigo gets a twist ending that's the REAL payoff. Sometimes, a film endures even when you know the twist ending. Psycho, for example, has a lot of very compelling acting and memorable scenes that are a joy to watch even when you know the twist. Unfortunately, Vertigo just wasn't as compelling. The twist was good, I guess, but the ending felt far too abrupt - there wasn't really enough time to process it. You almost missed the fact that you'd been fooled.

I'm not saying Vertigo was BAD at all. Neither, for the record, is The Sixth Sense. I don't feel a strong urge to watch EITHER of those films again.

Catching Up with the Classics: Rear Window

Ever have an uneventful Saturday night, where you hit the streets with money in your pocket that you just have to spend? That's the situation I found myself in this past weekend, and I walked away with a pretty impressive collection of Alfred Hitchcock movies.

Should make meeting my goal a little easier.

Rear Window is the first movie in my remedial Hitchcock education. I'm quickly getting to the point where I can call myself a Hitchcock "fan." The unusual cinematography created a unique movie-watching experience - nearly everything is shot from within a single room, which cultivates a claustrophobic and paranoid atmosphere. And speaking of paranoia, Jimmy Stewart does paranoia very well in a role QUITE different from the one I'm used to seeing him in.

Hitchcock is a master of suspense, and the suspense is strong in Rear Window, especially near the conclusion. Unfortunately, that suspense may be the film's biggest weakness (possibly a weakness in ALL Hitchcock films - I'll have to let you know later). Suspense compels the viewer to fear for the life/well-being/sanity of the protagonist; however, when we already know how things will end, suspense loses it's power over us. I worry that the several long, drawn-out scenes will bore me on a second viewing.

However, we're talking about the FIRST viewing today, and that was a good one. In my mind, Rear Window is an obvious classic, and well worth a look if you haven't seen it.

Catching Up with the Classics: The Maltese Falcon

Thanks go out to my friend Larissa who provided me with the opportunity to watch The Maltese Falcon – a movie I’ve known only by reputation and not by… anything else you could know a movie by. I only had a basic understanding of what the movie was about, and after watching it, I know just as much now as I did before.

The Maltese Falcon is incredibly dialog heavy. I’m guessing that, due to more stringent content restrictions at the time (or perhaps technical limitations), they couldn’t actually SHOW much of the gritty content that would have made this plot of intrigue, betrayal, and greed more coherent. As it was, they had to rely on a lot of dialog that both Larissa and I found difficult to follow.

I’m sure that difficult was due ENTIRELY to the complexity of the plot and had nothing at ALL to do with the fact that we were both sugar-crashing after eating a huge ice cream sundae.

Objects in camera are tastier than they appear.

I saw Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca and actually kinda hated him there – he’s too wooden to be a convincing romantic lead. However, as unethical detective Sam Spade, Bogart shows that he has a lot more range as an actor that I gave him credit for. He KILLS the part.

(Just for fun, if you want to play The Maltese Falcon drinking game, simply down a shot every time Sam Spade makes a phone call. You’ll be smashed before intermission.)

Also, Peter Lorre is in the film, and Peter Lorre makes EVERYTHING better. He’s so good at these sniveling, conniving characters that you just love to hate him… or hate to love him. Either way, you feel dirty and never want to be clean again.

I feel about The Maltese Falcon the same way I felt after watching Ghajini – I don’t quite know what I saw, and I’m not even sure I liked it, but I’m pretty sure I want more of it. I’m drawn to the old-school, hard-boiled detective model, and I saw a lot in The Maltese Falcon to like. Character motivations are complex, and, sometimes, I kinda dig a story where NO ONE is likeable, which is certainly the case here. Moral ambiguity in fiction is like cheesecake – delicious, sinfully rich and probably really bad for you.

Catching Up with the Classics: 12 Angry Men

I actually watched this movie last week, which is why it doesn't appear on the list. Technically, though, 12 Angry Men is one of the FIRST classic movies I selected to fill the gap in my life.

And... well, it's pretty good, but I've seen better.

The central message of the film is pretty strong - it's all about civic duty and the importance of one man's life. I'm pretty sure that the investigation these jurors undertake goes a bit over the line - in fact, there's one bit of evidence submitted that is clearly said to be illegal. Still, the casualness and callousness with which eleven men are willing to pass judgment on another's life is worth questioning, and that's what the film does.

There are some pretty powerful moments - I'm especially fond of how the racist Juror #10 is pretty brutally shut down after his diatribe. I think my favorite moment may have been the exchange between Jurors #8 and #4. #4 was by far my favorite - his motivation was clear, and he seemed to let logic dictate his actions.

The entire film, with maybe a couple minutes excepted, takes place in a single room. The audience feels the same stifling claustrophobia the jurors do. It's actually a well-executed effect.

If there's one TECHNICAL problem that I have with the film, it's the dramatization of some of the shots. The story is simple enough that it doesn't need extreme camera angles to make its point - the strength of 12 Angry Men is in its dialog and the strength of its characterizations. So, when they're employed, some of the close up shots come off a little too... intense.

I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Still, 12 Angry Men is a solid movie. It's a classic, and deservedly so.

Catching Up with the Classics: The Initial List

True story: Once upon a time, I hated movies.

Well, not ALL movies. I developed a philosophy back in college that anything which entertains you must also edify you in some way. It isn't enough for a movie to be funny or exciting. It has to be thought provoking as well.

At the time, my opinion earned me a pretty sticky "snob" label - and, I don't know, maybe I deserve it. I do have a tendency to condemn movies that look stupid without ever watching them (*ahem*).

Recently, though, I've decided that it's a far better use of my time to talk about the stuff I LIKE rather than the stuff I think is silly - unless it's silly in a good way.

I don't talk about it much on the blog here, but I LOVE old silent comedies - Charlie Chaplin's quickly become one of my heroes. I've gotten a lot out of watching classic silent films. As with literature, when something's called a "classic," there's USUALLY a reason behind it (although every rule has exceptions).

There's been a bit of a gap in my film knowledge, though. I love silent films, and I love "modern" classics, but there are a LOT of classic movies that I know nothing about beyond the word "Rosebud."

So that's what this list is about. Here are movies I'm planning on watching to brush up a bit on film history. This is, by no means, a COMPREHENSIVE list - I'm ALWAYS open to suggestions (hint hint). Eventually, I'm hoping to get into some more international films, but I'm focusing just on American films for now.

• Citizen Kane
• The Graduate
• The Maltese Falcon
• Rear Window
• Vertigo
• The Manchurian Candidate
• A Night at the Opera
• Sherlock Jr.
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
• The Wizard of Oz