skimming of the Book would make you realize that the sixties were if not
dominated then at least heavily influenced by French film. I understand that
this is the new French wave or Nouvelle Vague. Frankly I am not certain what
the concept covers, I was never much into French movies of the sixties, but as
today’s movie, “Les Quatre Cent Coups (The 400 Blows)” is touted as the opening
of the genre I must assume that it will be something like this.
say that I am super excited.
It is not
that “Les Quatre Cent Coups” is a bad movie, it is not, not at all actually,
but Mon Dieu this is a depressing movie! Ten-fifteen more of these movies and I
will be ready to kill myself.
Francois Truffaut had a tough childhood. Certainly he felt enough bitterness
about it that he decided to make a movie about it. As I understand it he has
not made it a secret that the movie is to a large extent auto-biographical,
although combined with the story of a few other people he knew. During this childhood
of Truffaut’s, in the movie acted out by young Jean-Pierre Léaud as Antoine
Doinel, everybody were against him, his parents, his teachers, the social
institutions and so he had to rebel and run away. If you think about it it is
actually rather peevish.
for the movie it is played out in a realistic tone. We believe that Antoine’s
mother would rather be without him and considers him an annoying block on her
feet and that his father has very little patience with him. Looking at the
school and the teachers we also understand and believe that this is a very
hostile environment bent on making the lives miserable for the students. That
does make the movie feel less self-indulgent and makes us ready to sympathize
a good child, and mind you, that is what he is, only a child. He is trying to
fit in, at home, at school and with his friends, but both home and school are
hostile environments who cares little about how he feels and what he thinks.
Only his friends is his refuge. Children should not be raised by other children
and when school and home are abandoned there is only so much friends can
provide. Antoine lives on the street, steals and sleep like a homeless whereever
he can get shelter.
this is unacceptable, but instead of looking into the reasons why this is so everybody
seem bent on blaming Antoine and forcing him to conform.
this Antoine is almost sleepwalking. He is a witness to all that happens around
him and to him but there are only few things he actually does and that is
mainly to avoid and escape, which he does repeatedly.
I have a
hard time watching people wallow in misery, especially when they are children.
A movie that is all about that is very hard to get through. There are very few
good things that happen to him and those that do happen are double edged and
come back to bite him. Even the resolution is bittersweet: Escape, but what
then? What is he going to do?
If this is
how the next decade in movies will form I need a deep breath. This will be
positive side I would have to commend the movie on the realism of all this
decay. I do not think I have ever seen such a depressing side to Paris. This is
very very far away from “An American in Paris”. I bet there are and were a lot
of teenagers who got their dream of romantic Paris shattered here.
actor/actress here must be Claire Maurier as Gilberte Doinel, Antoine’s mother.
She is the devil. Her expression of pure malice when she tells Antoine that
they do not want him home is brilliant. She easily qualifies to my top ten of
most horrific villains in movie history.
I am so
happy I can return to some American escapism with my next movies.
...With a Chainsaw
saw a post on Facebook asking you to mention the last ten book you have read
and then add “with a Chainsaw” to the title. Silly, but the thought kept me
awake for a large chunk of the night. What if I did that to the last ten movies
I have watched?
Some Came Running with a Chainsaw
Uh, I want
to see that one!
My Uncle with a Chainsaw
is not such a cozy uncle anymore
Dracula with a Chainsaw
is an idea for a Hollywood flat out of original ideas. Merging themes has
become come il faut lately and this beats the crap out of Superman vs Batman
Ashes and Diamonds with a Chainsaw
but not that funny
Vertigo with a Chainsaw
get really confusing. Sort of a random massacre
The Music Room with a Chainsaw
bizarre music! Or maybe the room is used for other things as well.
The Defiant Ones with a Chainsaw
are they on the run, but they are armed!
Cairo Station with a Chainsaw
get out of there! The paperboy has gone completely bonkers!
is a musical with an edge!
Touch of Evil with a Chainsaw
And I will
just add an eleventh for good measure
Man of the West with a Chainsaw
work. A reinvention of the western
think about it there are plenty of good titles in movie history that would work
and completely change the movie. Spartacus with a Chainsaw. The Dark Knight
with a Chainsaw. The Fabulous Amelie from Montmartre with a Chainsaw. The
Emperor Strike Back with a Chainsaw. Julia and Juliet with a Chainsaw. The
Devil Wears Prada with a Chainsaw. Or go a bit back in history with Swing Time
with a Chainsaw or Singing in the Rain with a Chainsaw. How about Citizen Kane
with a Chainsaw?
Some Came Running
Life is a
mess. This is not the usual Hollywood message where there is a deeper meaning
to life and everything gets straightened out in the end, but as most of us will
know reality is a messy soup and nothing ever goes exactly as we planned or
hoped (and that is in fact not all bad). Then comes along a movie like “Some Came
Running” and presents us with something closer to reality. A terrible mess.
let me say that I knew nothing of this movie going in. This movie is not
included in the book I am following so I did not read a synopsis and the DVD
cover is in French… All I knew was the main cast of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin
and Shirley MacLaine and that it was directed by Vincente Minnelli. Ah, a sappy
comedy, I thought. Boy, was I wrong.
(Sinatra) is a soldier arriving in the small town of Parkman. He wakes up upon
arrival rather bewildered. Apparently he was put on the bus while drunk having
mumbled something about this town and somebody had taken that literally. He is
also in the company of a woman he does not know, Ginny (MacLaine), who seems
taken by him.
Dave and Parkman has a history so Dave ditches the girl and checks into the
local hotel. The movie is only slowly giving up its secrets so only gradually
are we finding out how things stands and that is actually one of the
interesting details of the movie. All through the movie we learn more and more
about Dave. He is a writer who has not written in years, he has a brother in
town, Frank (Arthur Kennedy), who is now one of the wealthiest men in town, but
who ditched Dave when he was only a child, and Dave has a serious drinking
The plot is
essentially what happens when Dave lands in his old and very provincial town.
For Frank his arrival is like the detonation of a bomb. He wife hates David’s
guts, and soon gossip about Dave shakes the respectability the Hirsh family crave
so much and starts a slide that threatens to explode the family. But Dave is
just a catalyst. The Hirsh’es has enough tensions built up that an explosion
For Dave it
is also an encounter with Gwen, a literature fan at the local school or college.
Gwen is in love with his writing while Dave is immediately smitten by Gwen. Dave’s
direct ways however is a complete turn-down for Gwen who image herself
completely incompatible with the life in the gutter Dave is leading.
Gwen Dave finds some comfort with Ginny, who is dumb as a door, but completely
devoted to Dave and not without charm, and Bama (Martin), a professional gambler
with an even greater drinking issue.
between striving upwards to become a better man and court Gwen and sink to the
gutter with Ginny and Bama. Clearly he does not belong in either place and that
is the trouble. In Parkman Dave is trouble and no matter what he does he is fighting
a loosing battle. It is so much easier to just flow with it.
This is not
a story that brings resolution. There is no cozy landing here and in that sense
it resembles life. At best there is shake up and that is refreshing until
people get hurt and that they do plenty.
What is Dave to do? Or Gwen? Or Ginny? The only ones I do not feel sorry
for in this story is Frank and Agnes. With their hypocrisy they deserve their
downfall. The rest are just caught in this mess called life.
are a few scenes potentially included for comedic effect this is not a comedy
or a funny movie, unless you have a very dark sense of humor. To see comedic
actors like Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine in such a movie is interesting and
it works surprisingly well. It also worked very well that I was totally unprepared
for the movie. It unfolds as it was intended, very gradually, and we just do
not know where it is leading. Much like life.
am not prone to like this type of movie I was positively surprised. There is a
poetic justice in the ending that seem fitting for this movie and I love the
chaotic route to that place. Sinatra proves his value once again and Minnelli
redeems himself. I can recommend it.
are the exception rather than the rule on the List. Many of those that have
been included are not that funny anymore as the years have not been kind to
them. Those that do survive the passing of the decades are usually focused on
visual humor and, more importantly, are intelligent. One such survivor is
Jacques Tati’s “Mon Oncle”. I do not hesitate calling this the funniest movie
on the list so far, even compared to Keaton and Chaplin. I do not remember
laughing this much from any of their movies.
is the second installment featuring Tati’s Monsieur Hulot. First time was in “Les
Vacances de Monsieur Hulot” and back then I erroneously thought that that would
be the only Hulot movie and desperately wished for some more. Luckily I was
mistaken and I now got my wish fulfilled plenty. It is obvious that several years
have passed, the Hulot character is more developed and the film itself, while
still situational, is more focused and, yes, funnier.
and Madame Arpel (Jean-Pierre Zola and Adrienne Servantie) are of the nouveau
riche. They live a very modern life in a stylized modernistic house full of
electrical appliances. Everything wirrs and buzzes and are of the latest
design. But it is also a very cold home. The garden is immaculate with straight
lines and absurd curves, impractical in the extreme and the rooms of the house are
largely empty. There are only a few items in each room and these are intended
to be looked at rather than being used. In fact the Arpel home looks like a
modernistic home design catalogue, not a place suited for living. However for the
Arpel’s it fits their ideal of modern and efficient lives perfectly. They even
have a child that serves the same purpose as the home. Needless to say Gerard (Alain
Bécourt), the nine year old son is bored stiff in this home.
be a terrible story, but it is played out for fun. All those electrical
appliances are hilarious. Some of them work less elegantly than others and
combined they make the Arpels look ridiculous. The extravagant and completely tasteless fish
fountain is the garden is a good representation of this home. Made to impress
it is actually completely laughable.
antithesis of this home is Monsieur Hulot (Tati). He is anarchistic, childish,
distracted and very inefficient. But he is also a warm and friendly character
and greatly loved by Gerard. Hulot is brother to Madame Arpel and as he is
unemployed he spends a lot of time with the boy. The scenes switch between the cozy
old neighborhood where Hulot lives and the modernistic nightmare where the
Arpels live. It is when these two worlds meet things get funny.
the Arpel house, Hulot trying out a job in Arpel’s factory making plastic (very
modern!) items, the Arpel’s trying to train Hulot. It is all a riot. I love the
job interview scene and the garden party is fantastic. The neighbor is worth a
movie all on her own and Hulot making plastic sausages instead of tubes is just
amazing. Yet the winner is all those small details you hardly notice at first,
but all contribute to make this culture clash truly epic.
the story does not really lead anywhere. There is not a crime to solve or any
big solution, only the chaos inflicted by Hulot. It becomes a prime concern for
the Arpels to rid themselves of Hulot if they cannot reform him, but in doing
so Hulot also becomes the key for Monsieur Arpel to meet his son at his eye
level and reconnect.
I love that
the movie is viewed from the eyelevel of Gerard. A nine year old would find all
that modernity useless and laughable, though he might not consciously realize just
how narcissistic it also is, and the old and inefficient, but warm and hearty
world of Hulot’s is what dreams are made of. It makes me forgive the naivety of the movie and
fills me with a warm and cozy feeling.
It is funny
to think of that all that modernity is now largely reality for many if not most
of us. Automatic doors and vacuum cleaners are pretty standard now and we are
surrounded by electric gimmicks of all sorts. The interesting thing is that
this does not detract from the movie at all. The character types are universal
and they totally work, also today.
are a lot of vampire movies around! It seems to be an inexhaustible theme, at
least for producers. For me I have a long time ago found my saturation point.
The List also has its share of bloodsucking vampire movies. Including today’s
movie I count four so far, where three of them are telling the same story. At
least Dreyer’s movie had an entirely different angle.
reason I am going into this movie on a weary note. How many times do you need
to watch this story?
round it is the British Hammer studio who are taking a crack at the story.
Until recently I knew nothing of this studio, but thanks to Bea at “Flickers in Time” I am now if not familiar then at least aware of their movies and their
penchant for the macabre.
itself hardly needs a summary. Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) arrives at
Castle Dracula as a librarian, but with the secret objective to get rid of the
count. Before he gets this far he is turned into a vampire himself. Alarmed by
Harker’s reports Dr. van Helsing (Peter Cushing) rushes to Castle Dracula, too
late to save his friend and to stop Dracula (Christopher Lee) from leaving.
set his eyes of Harker’s fiancée, Lucy Holmwood (Carol Marsh) and soon she is
also turning into a vampire. Lucy’s brother Arthur (Michael Gough) is pretty
upset about Harker’s death and blames van Helsing, but with Lucy’s illness and
(un)death he is reluctantly coming around. Dracula really seems to have a
grudge on him for his next victim is Arthur wife, Mina (Melissa Stribling).
van Helsing always seems to be two steps behind the count he is a professional vampire
killer who knows all the tricks. Will he eventually catch up with his prey?
is a retelling it is impossible not to compare the 1958 version with Murnau’s
and Browning’s versions. There is no doubt that the Hammer version (directed by
Terence Fisher) is technically more eloquent than the two former versions.
Anything else would be strange given the intervening years. This especially
counts for the special effects that now mostly works as opposed to the helpless
effects Browning relied on. The 58 version also keeps a very nice pace with a
story that actually moves and provides a reasonable amount of suspense.
number of things are not working so well here. Dracula for one. I had so much
been looking forward to see Christopher Lee give it as the count. Come on, this
is Saruman, one of the vilest and most crazy characters in cinema. But 58 is a
long time ago and Lee in his youth did not possess that venom that later made
him such an excellent villain. Bela Lugosi had more of that exotic charm and
suave that makes Dracula dangerous AND sexy and Max Schreck was an infinitely
more menacing actor. It is not that Lee is outright bad, he is just trying to
wear some very big shoes.
element that annoyed me tremendously was that although this was clearly
presented as a very gothic story taking place in Germany, each and every character,
even the innkeeper in the unnamed eastern European country Dracula lives in,
are very, very British. Accent, attitude, mentality, everything exudes
Victorian Britain and that crashes completely with the setting. Van Helsing
sounds, acts and looks more like Sherlock Holmes than a German or Dutch vampire
movie ultimately suffers from however is that it feels generic. It lacks
something to make it stand out and it feels like a good, but alas a run of the
mill rendition of the Dracula tale and in that sea of Dracula movies that is
available that is just not good enough. I am not a fan of Browning’s Dracula,
but at least it had Lugosi. Murnau’s version however was uniquely creepy and is
still for me the one I would watch again.
Am I the
only one who found Michael Gough’s Athur Holmwood totally annoying? If he was
supposed to be he did a marvelous job.