moonbus-982-519398 Reviews

My Fair Lady (1964)

Just change your clothes and your accent, dear

[7/10 · 18 September 2024]

The premise of the story is this: the British class system has nothing to do with breeding, education, or taste. The British upper class is a complete sham, and to prove it, Prof. Henry Higgins, upper class, jaded, snobbish, pedantic, cynical, and a confirmed bachelor, enters into a wager with his friend, Col. Pickering (Wilfrid Hyde-White), that he (Higgins) can take any dirty working class girl off the street and pass her off as an aristocrat merely by putting nice clothes on her, training her in 'proper' diction, and restricting her to talk at social occasions of nothing but the weather and other people's bodily ailments. Set this to music, line up the right cast, and you've got the makings of solid and funny Broadway production.

Now, transpose this to the silver screen, with a sufficient budget and crew, and you get a Hollywood classic.

I watched the remastered/restored version, which gave good sound quality and colors. Good marks for the dvd as such.

Now, as to the film itself: top marks for Rex Harrison, who reprised his stage role and well deserved his Oscar for this performance. He is entirely believable as the affably unlovable Higgins who, despite himself, falls in love with his 'project', eventually growing "accustomed to her face." Best song: "Why can't a woman be like a man?"

The role of Eliza, the guttersnipe, was originally played by Julie Andrews on stage; in the event, the film role went to Audrey Hepburn (Andrews was cast instead in Mary Poppins that same year, for which she won an Oscar). Hepburn is not quite believable as the dirty flower seller early on in the film, but quite enchanting when transplanted into Henry Higgins's house struggling to pronounce her letters 'properly' and later duping the aristocrats at their fancy social occasions. Who cares whether she sang the tunes or was dubbed; that's just part of the magic of film, compared to the stage. Tony Curtis didn't speak his lines as Josephine in Some Like It Hot either--so what?

In another dig at British upper class morals, Eliza's father, played by Stanley Holloway, has a fine role as the unemployed pub urchin who, as a result of a prank by Higgins, comes into a small fortune as a model of morality and virtue. He laments that now, as a man of wealth and fine clothes, he is beset by people begging him for money and that he has become so morally corrupt that he will marry Eliza's mother: "Get Me To The Church On Time" sung while cavorting with all the bar maids and street girls he can lay hands on.

There is a fine scene in which Higgins, Pickering, and the household staff are celebrating the grand success, "You Did It", after Eliza has fooled the aristocrats into thinking she is of royal blood. The chorus are all in the foreground, prancing about, while Hepburn is back in the shadows. The disappointment and sorrow written on her face absolutely shouts above the din of the chorus of jubilation for Higgins's 'accomplishment' in transforming her. No credit given to her at all, and Hepburn's misery is palpable; how this tiny silent girl back in the shadows can steal the boisterous musical scene is one of the most moving passages in the whole film. Splendidly acted and directed.

The film has been criticized for lack of chemistry between Harrison and Hepburn; for the complete lack of any developing romantic interest between Higgins and Doolittle.

I'm not at all sure this is a weakness of the film or the underlying story, so much as yet another dig at the superficiality of the British upper class. One did not marry for love; for that, one took a paramour. And anyhow, one became accustomed to her face....

The film was quite a thing in its day, though some will say it looks dated now. Think of it as a time capsule, not only about the British aristocracy (which Harrison and Wilfrid Hyde-White pull off splendidly), but also a time capsule of lavish Hollywood productions. My only complaint is that it is very long.

7 out of 10 from me.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

2049 Film-Noir

[8/10 · 22 June 2020]

BR2049 received a number of poor reviews here, mostly panning the film for being slow and boring. If those viewers expected relentless action (laser-sabre duels, pod races, and/or starship battles), they were watching the wrong film; BR was never that sort of sci-fi. The film unfolds more like a Raymond Chandler novel than a JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot.

I found BR2049 very timely in respect of how a society treats its underclass and de-humanizes slaves. The 'real people' in the film assume that replicants do not have souls, and the replicants believe this, too. One is reminded of a quote from James Baldwin: "The real tragedy of prejudice is that the victims themselves eventually believe it."

The first BR was very atmospheric, very dark (L.A. always in rain), and the soundtrack was excellent (Vangelis). It gained iconic status for its vision of a dystopian future and set a benchmark for sci-fi films.

I don't think BR2049 quite matched that level again; still, I don't think it deserved the many poor reviews it got here. I used to be annoyed that the Bogart version of "The Big Sleep" left so many loose ends. Until I read Chandler; the novel is that way, too, deliberately vague about how many crooks are involved and what their motives are. BR2049 has that sort of Chandler-ish feel about it, with so many 'bad guys' trying to hunt down Deckard and clues which lead the replicant 'K' (and the viewer) astray. If some viewers found this sort of detective-hunt boring and slow, I guess they wouldn't like Chandler either.

The sequel has some big pluses and a few minuses.

Big plus: Ford reprises a major early role and is quite believable in this one. You can read his thoughts and feelings in his face (no dialog needed) when he is confronted by Niander Wallace with a grim choice.

The story picks up some of the loose ends from the first film. This is both a plus and a minus: plus for those who watched the first film, minus for those who did not.

The film is visually stunning. Big plus.

The anclliary characters (Chief of LAPD played by Robin Wright; Wallace's Major Domo the beautiful but ice-cold replicant aptly mis-named "Luv"; the lovely holo-entertainment-girl also aptly mis-named "Joi" whom you can see but not touch) are all very well cast, very well played, and very well integrated into the story.

Minus: too much of long looking at ruined landscapes. Yes, these bits were slow and boring.

Plus: the film dares to broach some tough philosophical questions: what is it to be human? How do we know replicants don't have souls? Is there something special about having been born and not 'hatched' in a test tube? Replicant Lives Matter.

Overall, I'd say the 2049-update is a worthy eight-star sequel to the original ten-star BR.

Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women (1968)

Escape from the Planet of Brainless Babes

[1/10 · 27 May 2013]

I will not further detract from the content of film, as other reviewers here have done so more than adequately. There is nothing in this film to indicate that Bogdoanovich would someday produce anything worth watching. A word about the story: we're supposed to believe that prehistoric women were telepathic; clever trick avoid the actresses having to memorize or recite any lines.

I will devote my further remarks to the recording and the DVD medium.

My DVD says it is the output of Estree Hill Entertainment, copyright 2010 Penwick Group Ltd., serial no. 763799. B&W, English only, no subtitles, no special features, no trailers.

My first criticism is the sound track: very poor. One channel only; mono I don't mind, but through both speakers, please. Moreover, there is incessant noise in the background: rushing waves, crashing breakers on the shore, roaring rocket engines, beeping- whizzing-whirring machinery, howling wind--it is nervy and often obscures the dialog. Subtitles would have helped.

Second criticism: the source film was badly scratched and blistered, none of which was 'digitally remastered' (not that I would have expected anyone to go to the trouble). I have seen better- preserved films from the 1930s.

Third, many of the spliced-in shots of the Venusian mermaids were over- or under-exposed. Amateurish is the word.

Don't pay more than a buck for this at a rummage sale. Maybe it looks better after three joints.

Small World (2010)

Depardieu in top form

[8/10 · 26 May 2013]

Gérard Depardieu leads a very talented cast in this film, closely based on a story titled "Small World" by Swiss author Martin Suter. Simone (played by Alexandra Maria Lara) marries into a very wealthy family. The wedding is crashed by the besotted old friend Konrad (Depardieu) of her father-in-law, Thomas (Niels Arestrup). Konrad is an acute embarrassment to the family, but instead of being thrown out of the house he is treated with surprising gentleness and deference. Konrad (Depardieu) is suffering from early stages of memory loss (possibly Alzheimer's). Rather than put him up in a clinic, Grandma (Françoise Fabian) insists that he be installed in the guest house on the family estate with round-the- clock nursing care. Simone gradually discovers that there are terrible family secrets lurking about, and Grandma and Konrad appear to be the focal point of them. The problem is: Grandma lies about the past, and nobody will believe Konrad because of his deteriorating sanity. As Simone probes more deeply, she finds herself at odds with her new husband, Grandma, and the house staff; she draws closer to Konrad and a very moving relationship develops between them, made increasingly difficult for her by Konrad's not remembering who she is from one day to the next. But his childhood memories are intact, and they keep contradicting Grandma's version of what happened. Simone's discovery of a photo album corroborates much of what Konrad has been babbling, and precipitates a family crisis.

Depardieu is simply fantastic in this role of a man with an increasingly tenuous grip on reality. His seemingly effortless performance compares to Hoffman's portrayal of the autistic man- child in "Rainman". Alexandra Lara shines as the newly-wed wife thrown into the deep end of a profoundly troubled and conspiratorial family. Françoise Fabian might remind you of Livia from "I Claudius"--a snake bit her and the snake died!

In addition to convincingly real performances, fine direction and a solid screenplay make this a very good film.

Jeff Beck at Ronnie Scott's (2008 TV Special)

If you haven't heard this guitarist, you should

[10/10 · 25 January 2013]

Beck is one of the 3 seminal guitarists of his generation of white blues-rockers (the other two being Clapton and Page) and by far the most versatile of them; this concert shows his staggering range of rock (heavy as well as melodious), blues, boogie, gospel, jazz, John McGlaughlin, swamp funk, whale song, and you won't believe what this man can do with a bottle neck. He has a terrific backing band for this gig (keyboardist and drummer from Sting's band), and a sassy bassist young enough to be his granddaughter. The recording and photography are very good. Yes, that's Robt. Plant in the audience. The special guests are great, too: Imogen Heap does vocals on two tracks, Joss Stone on one track, and Clapton comes on at the end.

The DVD features a long interview w/the man himself, which is great fun. He is articulate, modest, and amusing, and gives good insights into his choice of tracks for the gig.

For many rock fans of my generation (Cream, Yardbirds, Led Zep, etc.), Beck was a mythical figure who seemed to drop off the radar. While Clapton and Page went on to make it rich and famous in the rock world, Beck went sideways into jazz fusion and experimental things. But he never forgot his roots (blues-rock). This video is an excellent demonstration of him in top form.

Clapton is master of his instrument--Beck and the instrument are one. This video is a must-see for any aspiring guitar hero.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

serious flaws marred a grand concept

[6/10 · 24 January 2013]

The film is not as bad as some reviewers claim, although it has flaws which have been exhaustively cataloged by other reviewers. The flaws mostly concern the manner in which scientific research is portrayed: bungling and amateurish. However, there is a deeper message and it is very much to do with the consequences of bungling and incautious science. Not all of the flaws can be excused in this manner, and I mention just one: when the protagonist, Shaw, discovers she is incubating a monster, she runs to an automated surgical cabinet to have the fetus removed by cesarean section; the cabinet answers (yes, it talks) that it is not programmed for female physiology. This is a director's trick to introduce time-pressure tension. However, the device is the private possession of the woman ostensibly in charge of the spaceship, Meredith, who could certainly have outfitted a private spaceship with a surgical unit programmed for females. Perhaps a trivial detail, but, as other reviewers have mentioned, there is a long litany of similar errors of detail which, taken together, seriously detract from the film. The complete lack of elementary safety precautions is especially glaring: don't take off your helmet on a strange planet; don't pick up an unknown snake with your hands, use forceps; don't open the door of a spaceship without first verifying who knocked; the list goes on and on. These are indicative of a weak screenplay

On the positive side, the film tackles some big issues and delivers some powerful punches. The purpose of the journey into space is, ostensibly, to "meet our makers", the presumption being that our makers could answer some big questions, such as why we are here. In a flashback, the protagonist, as a girl, confronts her father with "why did mommy have to die" and "where do people go after they die", and her father gives her a fanciful answer that dead people go to a better place. When challenged by his daughter to justify his belief, he cannot but can only say that he chooses so to believe. This is picked up again later in the movie when adult-Shaw realizes the journey has not brought the traditional (fanciful) answers she had hoped for. The film challenges our presumption that if we were to meet our makers, we would get answers. Message number one: be careful what truth you seek, because you might not be able to bear it if you get it.

As the film progresses, it becomes apparent that several characters have alternative agendas to Shaw's scientific curiosity. Meredith (Theron) is out to inherit the Corporate Empire. David (Michael Fassbender, excellent performance), is the crowning achievement of the Corporation -- an android -- whose purpose in life is to serve his maker. David's dying creator (spoiler: also Meredith's father) -- played by Guy Pearce--, bankrolled the journey in hopes of evading death. Plot tension is generated by the interaction of these characters with their conflicting and sometimes secretive purposes; you could call it underplayed, or weak direction, as they are subordinate to the almost overwhelming visual attention commanded by the alien encounters.

The David-Meredith dynamic works well: David is the son the tycoon wished he had had, and is physically a male version of the tycoon's beautiful daughter, Meredith; but David is without emotion, and therefore without love or reverence for his maker. Whereas, the daughter emulates David's emotional coldness so far that the ship's captain (perhaps jokingly) suspects that she too is an android. She has tried to find grace with her father through a kind of gender role reversal, and failed--only loneliness and bitterness remain between them. Guy Pearce is under- utilized, but Theron gives a good performance. A more human aspect of her character (with her hair down) appears on the Blu-Ray disc; too bad it was cut from the cinema version.

There is some excellent dialog between David and the humans in which the humans lament not knowing what their makers' intentions were, whereas David is certain of his maker's intention yet finds no comfort in it. This irony is echoed in the scene in which the tycoon realizes his maker despises him, just as the tycoon ultimately despises his robot-ersatz-son. The tycoon's last-gasp "it's nothing", David flatly comments with "I know". He knew all along there is no "big answer" to the "big question", but no human would have believed him because he's a robot--humans have to learn the hard way.

Our makers, it turns out, were not gods, but genetic engineers-- flawed mortals like ourselves--who played with fire and got burned. In another deleted scene, the second major message of the film is set up: the dangers of unfettered science. The ship's captain tells how a research facility had to be blown up with all personnel because "somebody spilled something" and it got loose. Well--spoiler!--, our makers spilled something and it got loose. As in Greek tragedy, where man triggers his own doom by trying to avoid it, so here, the black goo has been contaminated/activated/mutated by the scientists' own breath (don't remove your helmet on a strange planet!). David, in obedience to his maker's instructions, continues the experiment, incubating the alien genetic material in human guinea pigs, to see whether human immortality can be 'engineered'--with horrific results. Prequel alert: a monster familiar from other films appears: metamorphosed during the course of this film, beginning as genetically engineered molasses, having been incubated through human contact, then hatched out of the body of one of the pale muscle-bound aliens who were ultimately our creators--and now it's loose.

The film grasps some thorny thistles, gives them a good shake, and provides, if not pleasing answers, then considerable food for thought -- in this respect the film succeeds. Visually, absolutely stunning. However, as many reviewers remarked, it is marred by inaccuracies of detail inexcusable from such an experienced director.

6/10

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

Imaginarium of Terry Gilliam

[6/10 · 2 January 2013]

I found this film interesting and visually stunning, but flawed. At least one of the flaws cannot be attributed to faulty writing/production, but several others can be. For example, there is nothing new or original in the story: it is a straightforward retelling of Faust, the man who makes a pact with the devil and discovers that the devil is smarter and has all the time in the universe to prove it. The ideas of a man who asks for immortality but neglects to ask for eternal youth, and of a child born with a curse on her because of a prior wager her father has made with divine powers to further his own interests, are taken straight out of Greek mythology. Still, one could do worse than borrow from Goethe and Greek mythology.

The movie weaves in and out of mundane reality (the traveling freak show in modern England) and schizophrenic hallucinogenic scenes inside the Imaginarium, which is the carnival attraction into which Dr. P lures potential sacrificial victims in his attempt to outwit the devil. The scenes inside the Imaginarium show what happens when you give an ex-Python unlimited access to digital effects: quite stunning, but having little to do with the story. They show the fantasy of Gilliam running wild on a huge budget, more than effectively advancing the story of Dr. P and his accursed daughter. I ask myself what a 1930s producer/director, Fritz Lang or Tod Browning for example, might have done with this story and these characters, but without the digital effects- -the story might have benefited from leaving the hallucinogenic details more to the imagination of the viewer than brow-beating us with a pixel- barrage of details. The real horror of what Dr. P is doing is masked by the almost Dr. Seussian silliness of the visual effects (dancing policemen??): Dr. P is luring souls to eternal damnation in an attempt to free his daughter from a wager he made centuries ago. Dr. P is, in essence, trading in human souls. Dr. P himself is immortal, but his daughter is not, and time is running out for her; the horror of her situation, and the evil Dr. P is willing to perpetrate to undo the effects of his own damnable wager, could certainly have been ratcheted up by more subtle means than Gilliam employs here.

The reality scenes sometimes interweave with the fantastical ones in schizophrenic confusion, indicating, so I suppose, Dr. P's own tenuous grasp on reality. The schizophrenic quality of the film is enhanced by the fact that several different actors play the part of one of the main characters, Tony. I ask myself whether any producer/director would have chosen this as his preferred mechanism to unfold this story, and the answer I come up with is, "no". It is a trick which doesn't quite work for this story; though it did work for "I'm Not There" (no one could play Bob Dylan). The film just barely manages to make the trick plausible by implying that the differences in the character's appearance are due to the perspectives of the different people who perceive that character within the Imaginarium. OK, it was made necessary by the death of the actor in the middle of production, otherwise the film would not have gone public; I can see that Gilliam made the best of terribly unfortunate circumstances. But it is still a dubious trick.

The casting is excellent: Plummer is entirely convincing as the world- weary Faustian character, Miss Cole acquits herself well as the girl clueless as to her own impending doom, and Waits is superb as the devil. If I hadn't seen any other film with Heath Ledger in it, I would not have thought him an especially gifted actor based solely on this performance; maybe if he had completed the film, it would have shown his true abilities.

6/10

It Might Get Loud (2008)

good idea, imperfectly implemented

[5/10 · 27 August 2012]

This was a good idea for a film, but I found the editing poor; it lacks continuity, the film jumps around incoherently. I would have preferred three separate complete interviews with each of the guitarists, punctuated by their meeting and jamming together at the end of the film. I found it annoying that there was not a single song played through to the end, just snippets and riffs. I found it annoying that not single thought during the interview sections was pursued-- again, just bits and pieces chopped apart and juxtaposed between bits and snippets from the other interviewees. There are some wonderful moments though; for example, the opening sequence in which Jack White constructs a functional e-guitar from bits of wire and a soda pop bottle. The final jam session is great--I wish it were longer than a mere three minutes. The overall impression of the film is that of a confused jumble of tantalizing adumbrations, with nothing done thoroughly. The Edge looks like the odd man out in this trio; a strange choice of musicians--one can't even call it a tribute to guitar heroes ("Jack who??"). Page- Beck-Clapton would have made more sense. Or just Page alone-- he is certainly an interesting enough person, and a creative and innovative enough musician, to have deserved a documentary to himself, if done thoroughly.

The Band's Visit (2007)

soporific

[1/10 · 11 August 2012]

Four of the seven band members just sit around looking bored, and that's exactly what my wife and I did too. For the first half of the movie. I don't know how the rest is because we fell asleep somewhere in the middle. The rules for reviewing a film state that the review must be at least ten lines long and I don't have anything more to say about it, so the rest is filler: dull, monotonous, uneventful, uninteresting, unexciting, uninspiring, unstimulating, jejune, flat, banal, lackluster, vapid, wearisome, tiring, tiresome, tedious, ho-hum, dullsville, dull as dishwater, soporific, sedative, somnolent, tranquilizing, narcotic, sleep-inducing, somniferous--is how I would characterize the film.

When Women Had Tails (1970)

Senta Berger may rue this

[1/10 · 11 August 2012]

If you are a fan of Senta Berger--surely one of the most handsome actresses ever--then I can imagine you might want to see this. She was certainly capable of better, given a role and a script, and she may rue this film in retrospect; but at least you'll get to see her in a costume you just can't believe stays on her. They must have glued the hair piece to her chest to keep it in place. I saw a German- dubbed version; dire dialog. The humor is moronic: 3-Stooges sort of falling down and beating each other with rubber clubs. This might look better after 3 joints.

Interestingly enough, the extras section contained a trailer for a trashy movie titled Sizzle Beach USA featuring a very young and then-unknown Kevin Costner. What an embarrassment! At least as amusing as the main feature on the DVD.

Remember Me (I) (2010)

sophomoronic screenplay

[5/10 · 26 April 2011]

I gritted my teeth through 99% of this film thinking three things: 1) what a silly, pointless, witless, utterly predictable, sophomoronic romance; no doubt 18 year-olds will get a lot of 'deep' moments of self-recognition out of it and grow out of it in five years.

2) What on earth is a serious actor such as Pierce Brosnan doing demeaning himself in this ridiculous sham?

3) Any movie which has to tell me its message in plain text ("Everything you do in life will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it") by quoting a famous real-life person (in this case, Gandhi), instead of letting the message reveal itself through the story, has an incompetent screenwriter.

For that I would have given the film three stars (mediocre to poor). Somehow I managed not to walk out until clear through the credits. The one percent, however, left me thunderstruck. That ratcheted the film up two more notches for me. I guess if the film had been any less tedious for the first 90 minutes, the moment of revelation would not have been so powerful, by contrast.

My advice to prospective viewers is this: if you are going to start this film, then stick with it. The message will actually make sense, and Pierce Brosnon will actually redeem himself as a serious actor.

Not being a Rob-fan, I went into this film with no preconceptions. I went out without any, too, as to his acting ability; maybe if he gets a better screenplay, he can do something with it other than be a chaotic, rebellious youth. James Dean, where are you now that we need you?

Mother (2009)

can't decide on this one

[5/10 · 11 April 2011]

There are movies which make me want to shake the characters and scream at them "Shut up, go back to bed, and quit mucking things up with your stupid meddling!" Then there are movies which make me want to shake the characters and scream at them "Wake up and smell the coffee! The solution is right in front of your noses!" I still can't decide which one this movie is, but I definitely want to shake these people and shout something at them. The only character I found engaging was the street-wise thug who has the sense to kick some people's teeth in sometimes.

I will say this about it though: it is a movie with a strong moral, and it is this: choose very carefully what truth you search for, because you might not be able to live with it if you get it. Well-acted it is, in any case.

Mogambo (1953)

what it is and what it is not

[7/10 · 11 April 2011]

Mogambo, 1953, is bound to be compared with Red Dust, 1932. The two films are based on the same stage play by Wilson Collison; the same man, John Lee Mahin, wrote both screenplays, some of the lines are even the same; the three main characters and the love triangle (or quadrangle) they form is the same; the leading man is played by the same actor, Clark Gable; and if you saw the first film, then you already know the "bang-up" ending.

Many people will find the later film the weaker of the two, but I believe that if it is viewed for what it is, instead of for what it is not, it is not bad value for money. What made Red Dust a winner was Jean Harlow, her snappy witty lines, and the sweaty sensuality of the screen chemistry between her and Gable. That is what Mogambo is not; but it has a number of other things to offer instead. While most of the secondary characters in Red Dust, including the character of the adulterous wife (originally played by Mary Astor), are cast into the shadows by the sizzling repartee between Harlow and Gable, Mogambo allows the corresponding characters to develop and show some depth. In Mogambo, the motivations and inner conflicts of the adulterous wife (now played by Grace Kelly) are explored. The sappy jilted husband is given a great deal more depth in the later film than in the earlier one. And Gable's right-hand man, Brownie, is given a more substantial part as well. This makes the later film more rounded and the characters more believable, whereas the earlier film was basically a stage duel between the barbarian and the hooker. Red Dust has a sort of Who's-Afraid-of-Virginia-Woolf claustrophobia about it; it could have been entirely played out on a single indoor stage set. Mogambo features John Ford's typical outdoorsy-ness, some pretty spectacular wildlife photography (for 1950), and a rather tense confrontation with a tribe of angry, bare-breasted, spear-wielding natives (real Africans!). Not Ford's or Gable's best by any means, but a good solid show, worth 7 out of 10.

Gable plays the same boorish, over-confident, God's-gift-to-women type in both films, but mellowed a bit (like wine, I mean). Whether you like that kind of man or not, you have to admit that he played it with grace and poise, and he showed that he could still do it 20 years on. The Gable character has been criticized by other reviewers for being incoherent or sappy. I disagree: he shows himself to be a man of raw courage, facing down wild animals, a savage tribe, a storm, etc., but finds he has lost his nerve when it comes to confronting the wimpy clueless husband. It takes Gardner to show him it wasn't cowardice, but that he did the decent thing after all.

Grace Kelly takes over the role of the adulterous wife, a mere 27 years old (so we are told) and very naive; it takes Gable's experience, wisdom, and bluntness to make her see that she does not love her husband, whom she has known since she was five. Her performance has been criticized as confused and incoherent, and Gable too old to be attractive to her; but I can well believe that a sheltered girl who married her childhood-love would be pretty confused and dotty after the first 'real man' she had ever met had heroically saved her life twice in one week. Her distress and confusion are well played, and she screams well when confronted by a panther.

Ava Gardner--well, what can one say that hasn't been already? The scene in which Gardner darts into the tribal missionary church and genuflects while the rest of the safari party go on about their business, gives her character an unexpected dimension the Harlow character lacked. I think it shows grand professionalism on Gable's part that he apparently quite happily let Gardner steal scene after scene. I guess Gable didn't have to prove anything to anyone anymore.

Red Dust (1932)

unmatched for sheer screen presence

[9/10 · 10 April 2011]

For viewers who may not be familiar with Jean Harlow, this is a terrific film to start with. Her screen presence was unmatched; certainly the sexiest actress on the silver screen until MM, and extremely well-matched with Gable. Harlow plays a sassy hooker who gets most of the clever lines ("I don't usually sleep nights.").

Gable is perfectly cast as the rough plantation owner living in a thoroughly man's world with no use for women (except as playthings). The man had more screen presence in his little finger than most actors have at all. His boyishly arrogant grin after Astor slaps him is simply great.

Mary Astor shines as the lady who should be above all this but who succumbs to Gable's animal magnetism. Her face as she reflects on the first wild kiss is a landscape of emotional turmoil: "Oh my God, what have I done? Wasn't it wonderful though!"--should be required viewing for any aspiring actress.

There's not much plot--it's yer basic love triangle story: who's he going to end up with? The woman with class, or the sassy hooker? Astor's character is out of her depth in the jungle setting, so she's easily overwhelmed by the overly self-confident Gable-character. Gable's character is out of his depth with a woman of class; she would normally be out of reach for him anywhere else. Their dalliance makes sense only in that setting. Harlow at first snipes at her rival, Astor, but soon realizes that Astor is really only a victim and redirects her heavy artillery at Gable instead. The banter is terrific and bears rewinding as it goes by so quickly.

The film lives from its dialog and clever lines. Considering that the film was made so soon after the introduction of talkies, it holds up extremely well--credit to director Fleming, no doubt. The dialog in Marocco, made two years earlier with Gary Cooper and Marlene Dietrich, was awful by comparison--stilted, wooden, very awkward, and cannot be attributed to lack of actors' ability, but lack of experience with talkies as a medium. Fleming showed that he had mastered it already.

A few commentators have derided the film for being racist. DUH. The colonial powers occupying Indochina at the time were racist and probably treated the locals much more savagely than in the film. Sure it's painful to watch--it should be! Drop the political correctness nonsense and just enjoy the banter.

Unter Bauern (2009)

A tale of civic courage among ordinary folk.

[9/10 · 22 February 2011]

Forget Schindler's List, which was over-produced, over-acted, over-directed, over- everything. The horror of Nazism cannot be grasped in its enormity; it can only be filmed from the perspective of a very small group of ordinary people, and that is what this film does, very effectively.

The country which decorated a young man, Siegmund Spiegel ( Armin Rohde), in WWI is now determined to exterminate him, his wife and child, and everyone of his 'kind' it can lay hands on. A former comrade-in-arms, named Aschoff, offers to shelter him and his family on his farm in a rural community, at considerable personal risk. Spiegel's wife (Veronica Ferres) and child, who can 'pass' as Aryan, assume new identities (the name Spiegel would have been a deadly give-away of Jewishness) and may move about relatively freely on the farm, but the husband/father, who looks Jewish, must stay hidden away in a barn--for years. He can catch fleeting glimpses of his family in the farmyard as they go to work in the fields with the farmer's family and the field hands. Times are hard, food is scarce, the winters bitterly cold. Some members of the community come to know of the hideaways and help in small ways-- providing an extra scrap of food or a convenient lie when Nazi sleuths pass through hunting for Jews hiding out. Both the Jewish family and their hosts are far from safe, as some members of the community, including some of the local farm hands, are Nazi sympathizers. The penalty, of course, is death if they are discovered.

Another father and son find themselves on opposite sides of the ideological divide, and neither one will survive to the credits. It is forbidden to listen to foreign radio broadcasts (the BBC World Service, for example, reporting the inexorable advance of the Allies and the true state of the German Wehrmacht). The moment of dawning realization as the farmer's daughter learns the true identities of their guests, and the danger when a young Nazi brown-shirt begins to court her; the Star of David patch (which she had long ago tucked away and forgotten about) falling out of Frau Spiegel's pocket at the most inopportune moment in the pub ... these and a thousand other minutely drawn details fill out the picture of creeping desperation for the family and their protectors. The slightest slip would prove fatal. It is an utterly convincing tale of how paranoia and terror grip a community, how fear and intimidation paralyze people. It is also largely true; based on the memoir of the woman who was sheltered by that farmer's family (yes, they survived the war; you'll meet the real Marga Spiegel and the farmer's wife, Frau Aschoff, in the DVD's special features section).

The ultimate insult is when the Americans march in and the poor half-deranged father is finally allowed out of the barn, his head shaved (to keep down the lice)--and the American soldiers accuse him of being a Nazi. The iron cross, awarded him in WWI and which he had hoarded to show to Nazi sleuths as proof of his loyalty to the Fatherland, is suddenly damning evidence. The farmers, who had successfully hidden him from the Nazis for years, are powerless to prevent the 'liberators' from dragging him out to shoot him. If that doesn't make rage rise in your throat, you're catatonic.

The film has a gritty, Steinbeckian realism about it. The pacing is deliberate and methodical, unlike Schindler's List which was a deliberately manipulative (and exhausting) emotional roller-coaster. Don't expect cinematic fireworks from Unter Bauern; but you may not be able to sleep afterwords. The cinematography is subduedly realistic and shows what it must have been like in rural war-time Germany: mucky, cold, poor, and hungry. The cast is superb, delivering utterly convincing performances.

My only criticism is not of the film as such but merely of the title, "Saviors in the Night", for English-speaking audiences, obviously to make it 'marketable'. "Among Farmers" would be literally correct and renders the tone of the film perfectly adequately.

The film's message, conveyed in straightforward narrative without having to browbeat it into you, is this: civic courage does not require superhuman dimensions (which is how Liam Neeson's character was directed to be in S.L.). All it requires is for decent folk to do what is right. What this film shows, brilliantly, is how hard that is sometimes.

Late Bloomers (2006)

The Swiss make more than just good cheese.

[9/10 · 22 February 2011]

A little-old-lady film to warm the cockles of your heart. In a tiny, straight-laced, Swiss village, where everyone knows what everyone else is up to, where people peer out at their neighbors from behind the curtains, a widow opens a sexy-underwear shop and causes a stir. The village divides along 'partisan' lines, with the widow's girlfriends pitching in to help, versus the local politician and vicar who attempt to seize the moral high ground.

The ladies at the center of the story are played by several fine character-actresses and give sparkling performances. One of the charms of the story is that it doesn't have a bad guy; the meanest man in town merely has a bad temper and a cantankerous father to look after.

The English title, Late Bloomers, plays on a double meaning: the little old ladies are late bloomers in the sense of realizing their dreams in retirement age; and "bloomers" in the sense of ladies' underwear. The original title also plays on a double meaning: people on the last lap of life, and yet timelessly young.

While ostensibly a microscopic look at Swiss village life and mentality, what allows it to reach out and speak to a wider audience is that it is a parable about knee-jerk conservatism versus the irrepressible need for change. The Swiss dialect, while contributing enormously to the film's charm and believability, will also, regrettably, limit its reach. As with Bienvenue Chez les Ch'tis (France, 2008) aka Willkomen Bei Den Ch'tis, it will have to be suitably subtitled or dubbed in an appropriately rural dialect to attain the recognition it deserves. Hollywood would only over-produce it, I fear, and drain it of the village charm which is essential to its message.

The Hairdresser (2010)

is "german humor" an oxymoron ?

[5/10 · 21 February 2011]

An ex-East Berliner struggles with obesity and discrimination in capitalist unified Berlin. That's the basic idea. It is more of a time-capsule film than a plot-driven film. A semblance of tension is maintained by repeated applications of the what- could-possibly-go-wrong-next motif.

Is it funny? I think only a German might find it funny. I can well understand non- Germans finding it merely superficial and tedious. The film would have benefited from editing (several scenes are superfluous and could have been dropped--for example, the mysterious postal delivery). The lead, Gabriela Maria Schmeide, gives a fine and gutsy performance.

The theme of ex-East Germans suddenly confronted with unified Germany was done better in Good Bye Lenin.

For Germanic humor, I recommend Die Herbstzeitlosen aka Late Bloomers (which is actually Swiss, not German).