A Room with a View (1986)

 

Et værelse med udsigt

There are many interesting benefits from following a curated list. For me, the best is that I get to see (or read on my book blog) material, I would never otherwise have watched and sometimes it moves my idea of what my preferences are or should be. One such movie is “A Room with a View”.

It is very early twentieth century, and we find the young Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter) and her chaperone Charlotte (Maggie Smith) in Florence. Lucy is a tourist and has booked a room at a pension run by an Englishwoman and catering to English visitors. Greatly disappointed with the lack of a view, they are offered the room of the Emersons, father (Denholm Elliott) and son (Julian Sands), bringing them into contact. Lucy is very much the correct and stiff Victorian gentlewoman, but Florence has a troubling effect on her. George Emerson, raised as a free spirit, fascinates and scares the virginal Lucy and when he dares to kiss her on an outing, Lucy and Charlotte immediately leave, never to tell anybody about this terrible breach of decency. Except Charlotte apparently told Eleanor Lavish (Judi Dench), a novelist, about the incident.

Back in England, Lucy is courted by the arrogant and bookish Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day-Lewis). She accepts his marriage proposal, but then the Emersons move into a nearby cottage and that opens a path for Lucy she thought had been long shut down. With Simon Callow as the insightful vicar Mr. Beebe.

The story itself is not particularly new. The repressed woman, keeping herself in a tight control dictated by social conventions, who meets somebody who helps her liberate herself to be the person she actually is. If you have watched “Titanic”, you know exactly what I mean. The special thing about “A Room with a View” is how elegantly it is done. There is that dash of comedy to keep it lively, that sense of who the characters are that makes them come alive as real people and just enough drama to feel something is at stake. There is never any doubt of the outcome, it can be predicted ten minutes in, but it is a joy to see it unfold.

That the characters are as fleshed out as they are, has of course a lot to do with the script, but I dare say that having quality actors in not just the key roles, but also in practically all supporting roles is definitely a factor. I mean, Judi Dench as the writer and Maggie Smith as the chaperone! A lot rests on Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy, and she turns out to be a lot more than just a pretty face. There is a fire in the character, but under very tight control. Her hair is a metaphor of her state. Wrapped tight in a braid or in a disciplined hairdo signal tight control but letting her hair out means she is letting go of that control. Something her surroundings are not keen on letting her do. The wilder her hair, the more she blossoms, even if it is because she is upset. It is then a liberating anger.

Daniel Day-Lewis’s Cecil Vyse is the villain in the sense that he represents the golden prison Lucy is about to walk into, but also because he comes about as both arrogant and mean. We are supposed to not like him. I am not as dismissive of him though. More than anything he is misplaced and entirely the wrong match for Lucy. In a sense, he is in as much need of liberation as her, he just does not know it. Or maybe he does near the end. He is socially clumsy and inept and masks it with arrogance. I actually feel sorry for him.

If there is a problem with “A Room view a View”, it is that as a novel being squeezed into a movie, there is a sense a lot of material missing. Especially George Emerson is not nearly enough fleshed out. There is a strong hint that there is a major story here, but that it simply did not make the cut and that makes him a bit like the prince in Snow White, not quite, but almost a non-entity.  

“A Room with a View” is a period piece in the romantic genre and almost the definition of a movie I would skip, but that would be a shame. It is actually a delightful movie.

 

Down by Law (1986)

Down by Law

You know going into a Jim Jarmusch movie that the experience will be different form the standard Hollywood fare and you know that you will spend the next few days contemplating what exactly you have just watched. “Down by Law” is no different and as this was a first-time watch for me, I am not at all done wondering what this was all about.

Somewhere in the New Orleans area, we meet Zack (Tom Waits) and Jack (John Lurie). Zack is an out of luck disk jockey whose (very pretty) girlfriend is leaving him in the opening scenes. In a drunken stupor he accepts a job to drive a car from one end of town to the other, not knowing there is a dead body in the trunk. Zack is busted and sent to prison just like that.

Jack is a pimp who is lured to meet a new girl who turns out to be a child. Too late he learns he has been set up and he is busted too.

Zack and Jack end up cell mates and are eventually joined by Roberto (Roberto Benigni), a tourist who threw back a billiard ball when attacked and accidentally killed one of his attackers.

We follow their interaction in the cell. They escape and then we follow them in the swamps.

The big question of what this is all about is still lost on me. All three are framed, but the court events are omitted. As is the actual escape. They talk about escaping and in the next scene they are on the run. For a prison break movie, those are two very curious omissions. Instead, we get long scenes where they are playing cards, arguing or just doing nothing. Except Roberto is never quiet.

The closest thing to a theme I have gotten to, is the developing relationship between the three of them, particularly seen from the points of view of Zack and Jack. They are both loners, who need nothing from other people and have trouble socializing. They see each other as enemies but are actually quite alike. Only as we approach the end, they seem to realize that, but it is very difficult for them to admit that what they have in front of them is their soul brother. That in fact, they are not alone. Roberto is almost the opposite. He very easily socializes, do not judge anybody and looks for opportunities instead of obstacles. He is not smart, but he does not need to be with those traits. He is the glue that keeps the team together and make things happen. Almost as some divine intervention.

Just like “Stranger than fiction”, “Down by Law” is filmed in black and white and gives the feel of taking place in some sub-reality that is similar to the real world, but eerily disconnected from it. This has the effect of taking the characters out of a real-world context and making their world very small and unpopulated. We see only the other cells in a single glimpse; we see only their connection to the outside world as sort of goodbye scenes and I could even believe that the prison and escape is meant as some religious purgatory leading to a rebirth.

Tom Waits I only know as a musician, but it turns out he has a massive resume as an actor and here I learned why. He is very convincing. Luckily, we get a few of his songs too. Benigni is a polarizing character. His arm-waving kind of over-the-top Italian comedy usually sits poorly with me, but somehow it worked perfectly in this movie. It must be that the character begs this sort of acting or that the two other characters were constantly trying to put a lid on it.

Did I like the movie? Well, based on the above, it is hard to say I did not, but it took me an awful long time to get into it and most of it, I only like in retrospect. I frankly admit that, especially during the first hour, i was often bored and had some trouble maintaining attention. My wife checked out after 10 minutes, but my persistence paid off and I think it redeemed itself towards the end. Probably mostly for Jarmusch fans, but a tempered recommendation from me.

 

  

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

 

En vild pjækkedag

Here is another eighties movie that goes way back for me and one I am very torn about. Parts of me enjoy watching it immensely and other parts despise the movie as abhorrent.

Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) is a senior year high school student, living in upper middle-class suburbia (or is it lower upper class?). Frequently he skips school and is in fact an expert on the topic. He convinces his parent he is sick and has a whole string of fall backs set up just in case such as snoring sounds from his room, an answering machine at the front door and a back story for the school. He even knows how to enter the school computer to reduce his record of missed classes.

Ferris wants to do fun stuff with his girlfriend, Sloane (Mia Sara) and for that he needs a car and therefore his “friend”, Cameron (Alan Ruck), who has called in sick for real. Despite Cameron’s protests he comes over and they spring Sloane from class, pretending to be her father and that her grand mother has died. He also bullies Cameron into letting him take Cameron’s father’s beloved vintage Ferrari for them to drive to nearby Chicago to do “fun” stuff, like eating in a fancy restaurant, go to a baseball game and join a parade.

Meanwhile, Ferris’ sister, Jeanie (Jennifer Grey) is upset that nobody can see through Ferris scams, the student body is convinced that Ferris is mortally ill and are running a “Save Ferris” campaign and the school principal, Ed Rooney (Jeffrey Jones), smells a rat and wants to expose Ferris so badly that he will literally go to extremes to nail him.

I understand that the point of the story is that it is a good thing to break the rules, to take initiative and ignore authorities. The youth rebellion story that this is what coming of age is. Doing what is expected of you is to follow boring, useless classes and being under the thumb of dominating parents, in other words, missing life. In this light, Ferris is successfully turning his back on the system and striking out on his own and if you accept the premise, his adventure is a lot of fun.

The problem is that this premise is seriously flawed. Ferris needs the school, he needs his parents and there are consequences to his actions, at least in real life. Ferris’ concerns are for his own gratification and what he does to Cameron to get that gratification is so beyond the acceptable. He knows Cameron is suffering from a very dominating father, he knows that taking his Ferrari will land Cameron, not Ferris, in very hot water and he hears again and again Cameron plead with him to not do this, yet Ferris persists because he wants to have fun. He even invents reasons that this is good for Cameron, but I cannot see how in any way this will do him any good. That Cameron somehow is learning to stand up for himself will only last until he encounters his father because like Ferris, Cameron also needs both family and school.

We are also supposed to laugh at or mock all those who cannot accept that Ferris can get away with things other people cannot. The sister learns that she can accept that other people can get away with things she cannot, and the school principal is the butt of most of the jokes for not accepting that Ferris is beyond the rules everybody else live under. Again, many will agree that this is small people’s thinking and admire Ferris, but I find it deeply problematic.

Jeffrey Jones’ Principal Rooney is by far the funniest character of the movie. Regardless of whether it is acceptable or not what Ferris is doing, that man is completely of the rails in his vendetta against Ferris Bueller. His efforts are comical and ultimately futile, and Jones makes the very best out of that role. Had he been a more balanced person I would have wished him good hunting in nailing Ferris, but for a character this zealous it is difficult to be on his side and that is actually a shame because he is the only one really standing in the way of Ferris getting away with his stunt.

I do not like Ferris, and I do not like the message of the movie, and I have difficulty bending my mindset into accepting the premise of the movie, but I also, grudgingly, must admit that it is a movie that makes me laugh. The ending with Rooney being picked up by the school bus is simply outstanding. So, yes, very torn on this one.

       

Aliens (1986)

 

Aliens

It is not often that sequels are as good as the movie that started the franchise. “Aliens” is one of those few movies. Director James Cameron made the smart choice to make a very different movie from the original “Alien” and doing it so well that it does not need to stand in the shadow of the original.

Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is rescued from her escape pod after 57 years of drifting in space. Everything she had is gone and she learns that the planet they found the xenomorph on has now been colonized. Nobody seem to believe her story, but when contact is lost with the colony, Ripley is asked to join the team as a consultant. Her liaison with the Company, Burke (Paul Reiser), a total deucebag, is to join the mission together with a detachment of badass space marines.

The team quickly learns that the colony has indeed been overrun by the xenomorph and this time there are a lot of them. The colonists are all gathered in the alien nest as incubators and the attempt at rescuing them is... well, the marines are getting their asses kicked and Ripley must take charge. The mission is now to get off the planet alive and nuke the critters.

Where “Alien” was a confined space horror movie with the monster lurking in the shadows, “Aliens” is all out war. It is an action movie against an enemy you actually see, but who is so scary and powerful that even the best humankind can send against them are ants to be crushed. There is a feeling of payback time, that the fight is brought to the xenomorphs, but this feeling quickly evaporates, and it becomes an escape room story instead and the enemy is not just the critters but within.

The colony is not the Nostromo, but it is every bit as dark and gritty, just differently from the spaceship. In this case it is the infestation of the xenomorph that has made this a very hostile environment and turned what should be homely living quarters into a death trap. Cameron picked up on the vibe from “Alien” and is true to it, yet he transmutes it into something new. The colony is every bit as claustrophobic as Nostromo.

As children we all had our favourite among the marines. Hicks (Michael Biehn) is an easy choice because he does the right things, but Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein) is probably the most badass marine in movie history and Bishop (Lance Henriksen) is one cool android or synthetic human. Yet, when the shit hits the fan, Ripley steps into character. In ”Alien” it was her resourcefulness that made her prevail. In “Aliens” she is armed to the teeth and totally badass. Sigourney Weaver solidified her claim to the title as the greatest female action hero around. Something that often has made it difficult to watch her in other roles. In “Ghostbuster” I always thought that Zuul made a bad choice choosing the fridge of ELLEN RIPLEY – Badass Superior.

I have watched this movie many times. Probably even more times than the original “Alien”. This time I watched the Special Edition with enough extra material to clock in at 147 minutes, just to add a little extra to the experience.

The Special edition includes scenes from the colony before the infestation including some backstory to the sole survivor, the child Newt (Carrie Henn). I can see why it is interesting to include it, but I can also see why eventually it was removed. The added action scenes however felt natural and as if they had been there all the time. You just cannot get enough of blasting xenomorphs.

James Cameron lifted the job of making a sequel to “Alien” to perfection and even today it does not feel dated at all. It is the sci-fi action movie that all other attempts into that genre must measure up against and to my knowledge few has come close, even within the franchise.

This is awesome stuff.