Beverly Hills Cop (1984)

 

Frækkere end politiet tillader

“Beverly Hills Cop” is another 1984 classic, which, to my pleasant surprise, actually made it onto the List. This is a movie I watched countless time in my childhood, but I believe it must have been a few decades since last time I watched it. It is still fun to watch, but I remember it as being much better than how I found it now. To me, it has not aged well.

In Detroit, Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) is an undercover police officer who is known for his controversial stunts that sometimes backfires. One evening he finds an old friend of his, Mikey Tandino (James Russo), in his apartment. Mikey clearly has something he wants to share with Axel, but never gets to fully explain before he gets shot and Axel knocked out by unknown gunmen.

Axel Foley is told in no uncertain terms to stay out of this case, so he takes “vacation” and follow Michaels trail to Beverly Hills. This is right here the basis for much of the comedy in “Beverly Hills Cop”, the bummed out, black policeman in uber posh Beverly Hills. Anybody familiar with Eddie Murphy will know this is a situation he can get a lot out of (a good example is “Trading Places”).

Axel quickly manages to get arrested by the local police who do not wish to have this potential disaster in their precinct. Detective William Rosewood (Judge Reinhold) and Sergeant John Taggart (John Ashton) are to babysit him until he leaves town, but Axel manages to get them on his side to find Mikeys murderer. The murder is, of course, only the tip of an iceberg of much bigger crime...

As a crime story, “Beverly Hills Cop” is one big cliché. Everything from the villain to Axel’s angry boss through the investigation, which is a combo unlawful entry and sheer provocation, is something we have seen both before and after in many versions. Be it a private eye or an actual police detective, the story is almost as old as the film media. Let us just say that it is not the excitement of solving the criminal case that keeps us awake watching this movie.

The reason we, or at least I, still enjoy watching this movie has a name and is called Eddie Murphy. It is strange to learn that “Beverly Hills Cop” was not actually written for Murphy, but actually intended for Sylvester Stallone. It was only when the action his version would involve got too expensive for the studio that they turned to Eddie Murphy and rewrote it to fit him. When you watch “Beverly Hills Cop”, it screams vehicle to high heaven. Every scene Eddie Murphy is in, and that is somewhere above 90%, he totally steals the picture. Reinhold and Ashton, good actors in their own right, are reduced to stooges for Murphy’s hijinks. Fortunately, Eddie Murphy is good and many of his stunts are funny. He is maybe a bit unbelievable as a cop, but, hey, this is the eighties, social realism got left behind in the previous decade.

Three or four decades ago, “Beverly Hills Cop” gave me hysterical laughing fits. Watching it now, they are reduced to a chuckle and that I found disappointing. The gags are simply not that funny anymore and without the fun, the rest of the movie looks poor and barely sticking together.

The soundtrack is still good though. Faltermeyer’s Axel F theme is one of those classic scores you never forget and in a strange coincidence, “The Heat is Up” was selected last Friday at the company Christmas lunch as the theme song of the Energy Systems department... This music still lives.

Recently, a new, fourth, Beverly Hills Cop instalment was released. I have not watched it yet and I worry. This was a franchise that took a steep downhill after the success of this first instalment.

 

The Killing Fields (1984)

 

The Killing Fields

This took a long time to get through. Not because it is bad but because it is devastating to watch. “The Killing Fields” pulls no punches and leaves you an emotional wreck. It also makes you loose hope in humankind.

Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) is a New York Times journalist working in Cambodia together with photographer Al Rockoff (John Malkovich) and interpreter Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor). It is 1973 and Cambodia is a mess. We see them cover what looks like a US airstrike and being somewhat at odds with the American presence in the country. Fast forward to 1975, the Khmer Rouge is taking the capital and Pran gets his family evacuated while the trio stays to cover events. Pran saves the two Americans from being killed by the Khmer Rouge, but when the city, including the French embassy where all westerners are interred, is emptied of Cambodians, they fail to protect Pran who is taken away to a work camp.

Back in the America Scharnberg drives a campaign to find and rescue Pran but to little avail. He also takes care of Pran’s family. Meanwhile, Pran is experiencing life under Khmer Rouge from the inside. He witnesses the destruction of society, the corruption of children and mass slaughter of civilians. In the agrarian-maoist system of the Khmer Rouge, anybody with a hint of education is suspect and Pran survives by pretending to be a very simple person.

“The Killing Fields” tells two stories. The apparent story of Scharnberg and Pran is the human interest story that the plot is hung up on. It is compelling because of the nightmare Pran goes through, but the quest of Scharnberg to pin the misfortunes of the Cambodians on the US government is rather unconvincing. Or, rather, Scharnberg himself is convincing in his almost religious zeal, but compared to the US fumbling in Vietnam, the actions in Cambodia seems trivial. If anything, it would be the inaction that is the problem here.

The second story is the tragedy of Cambodia itself. The complete meltdown and destruction is described both in poignant detail and confused context, leaving the viewer in bewildered horror of the sheer brutality of what happened. It is to my mind one of very few movies to describe this tragedy and that is just way too little. Yet, “The Killing Fields” makes up for this lack up public attention by driving the point all the way in. We see it in the small with casual executions and the complete disregard for the value of human life and in the massive scale of mass murder. When Pran walks through a swamp littered with the rotting remains of thousands of people we start to grasp the scale of this insanity and it forces you to really look while all you want is to look away. This is mass graves where not even the grave is offered. We also see it in the faces of children, the dehumanization that on a mass scale turn children into monsters. This is heartbreak in the extreme and I would have to press stop and wait another day to continue.

We see it all, mutilated bodies, executions, maimed children, despair and suffering. This is documentary, but shows us details documentaries would balk at. It is soul-numbing and yet you feel every punch. It manages to tell us that each of these millions of dead is a heartbreaking tragedy, yet is disposed of as casually as if it was a videogame by the Khmer Rouge.

I am hopelessly uninformed about the Cambodian tragedy. I tried to read up on it for this movie, but I cannot say I understand much of the politics involved. Something about that the Khmer Rouge was backed by China, who also backed Northern Vietnam, yet the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge were fighting it out between them. But all this matters little and even less for the movie. What matters is the complete corruption of humanity and the devastating tragedy.

Haing S. Ngor was a doctor in Cambodia before the civil war and spent four years in captivity. In his role as Pran, he was in a sense reliving the nightmare of his life and I cannot help thinking that this is why he is so convincing, and I wonder how it felt to him to go through all that again.

I am also very impressed with how real and authentic all this looks. In an age before CGI, we see details that you can only think of as being real, yet it cannot be, can it? Impressive and scary.

“The Killing Fields” won 3 Academy awards, including an acting award for Haing S Ngor, and was nominated for another 4. All very deserved.

It will take some time to get over this. Not for the faint hearted.

     

Stranger than Paradise (1984)

 

Stranger Than Paradise

“Stranger Than Paradise” is a movie that challenges the concepts of what a movie can and should do. While Hollywood has not entirely (some would say not at all) shed the classic story arch and format, by the mid-eighties, this format was even more entrenched. Sure, David Lynch had pushed the boundaries, and a number of arthouse directors did whatever they wanted, but it is my impression that “Stranger Than Paradise” came as a surprise for many viewers. Despite being completely different, it works and very well indeed.

The story unfolds in three acts. In the first, Eva (Eszter Balint) arrives in New York from Hungary. She is supposed to go live with an elderly woman in Cleveland, known as Aunt Lotte (Cecillia Stark), possibly her mother (?), but as she is in hospital, she must stay for ten days with her cousin Willie (John Lurie) in New York.

Willie is a small time hustler or sees himself as one. He lives in a little one-room apartment and does practically nothing. When he finally does something, it is gambling at the races or cheating in poker with his friend Eddie (Richard Edson), an equally vacant type. He has no idea how to deal with Eva and together they just sit in his little apartment and smoke vast amounts of cigarettes. Eventually Eva leaves for Cleveland.

In the second act Willie and Eddie muster enough initiative to borrow a car to drive to Cleveland to visit Eva. Once there, the activity level drops to zero again and they are just sitting playing cards with Aunt Lotte. Eva has a lousy job vending hot dogs and a maybe-boyfriend, but is also bored.

For the third act, Eddie and Willie get the spontaneous idea of taking Eva to Florida, only to check into a motel there... and get bored. Eddie and Willie go gambling at the races and Eva stumbles on some money and heads to the airport to find a flight home.

In a sense, this is a movie where nothing happens. Or more precisely, about people who has petrified into eventless lives. Willie and Eddie think they are cool and have something going but it is comically clear that they are two losers with zero going for them. Their bland, uneventful lives are well represented by the slightly grainy, black and white cinematography and the cold, dark and hazy winter weather. Even Florida has never looked so bleak. I love the scene where Wille and Eddie are sharing a beer in Willie’s apartment, saying absolutely nothing, because they have nothing to say.

Eva is the outsider who likely has a hope of a new an exciting life in the States, but all three places she goes, it is the same bleak bucket of nothing. Even the music she plays is quickly turned off. Her frustration is felt very clearly, sitting on the bed, left to do nothing. She is the only one who takes a job, listens to music, does something, but it changes nothing.

This all sounds bleak and depressing but it is actually funny in that underplayed absurd way that makes you smile and shake your head, but not laugh out loud. The characters are perfectly relatable but also ridiculous in the way we ourselves are sometimes ridiculous and I am certain that we are amused and touched by something we recognize in ourselves.

I suspect that the overall theme is the disappointment that the fabled American dream does not somehow materialize all by itself and that reality is really, really disappointing. Then, again, maybe it does in a weird turn at the end of the movie. I would not say it is a criticism of this American Dream, but a mockery of what people think it is. It is never actually mentioned but the disparity between self-perception and hopes on one side and the actual effort and skill put into it on the other is what makes this movie interesting.

As mentioned in the opening, all this is told without anything like a traditional Hollywood story arch. There is not really a beginning or end, not a mid-crisis or resolution. It is just a state these people move around in. It is a movie that leaves you with a sentiment, not a story, with characters, not character development. And this it does very well.

I watched “Stranger than Paradise” first time years ago and I usually like Jim Jarmusch’ movies. This is no exception, and it is still amusing and thought provoking. Highly recommended.

 

A Passage to India (1984)

 

A Passage to India

“A Passage to India” is David Lean’s last movie. He has been with us for a long time and has several memorable entries on the List. “A Passage to India” may not be his strongest movie, but it is a worthy representative of his career and a suitable swan song.

The story is an adaption of a novel (by E.M. Forster) and clearly a condensation of what is likely a very detailed and complex book. This is evident in the way Lean tries to juggle several themes and narratives, which or may not tie together. I have identified at least four.

Lean loved big cinema. Vistas, colours, busy scenery and outlandish culture. India provides all that and the chance to showcase this appears to have been a big motivation for David Lean. This is a beautiful movie and the setup rivals that of “Lawrence of Arabia”. Even if I did not care about anything else, just to enjoy the pictures would be reason enough to watch the movie.

Secondly, there is a theme about sexual frustration or at least some pent-up psychological issues. Adela Quested (Judy Davis) is a new arrival in India to meet her fiancé, Ronny Heaslop (Nigel Havers), the magistrate of Chandrapore. While eager to meet the “real” India, she is soon overwhelmed by the impressions. Sexual statues, aggressive moneys, echoes in caves and the underwhelming reception by the groom to be. This climaxes when she imagines herself raped. This is clearly an important element of the movie and, I think, is supposed to be key to the story, yet, I do not think it comes across very clearly. A British girls lost in India falls a bit short as a subtext.

Thirdly there is the criminal story. Dr. Aziz (Victor Banerjee) is an Indian doctor who randomly meets and befriends Miss Quested’s companion, the elderly Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft). When Miss. Quested asks the school principal, Richard Fielding (James Fox) to meet some Indians, Aziz is suggested. Aziz is very excitable and servile and all too pleased to be of service to the British. He sets up a picnic to the Marabar caves which he can hardly afford and while out there, alone with Miss Quested she suddenly disappear, claiming to have bee raped. The British colonial masters are ready to lynch Dr. Aziz in a kangaroo court with Fielding as his only support among the British, when Adele Quested suddenly realizes that she was not raped at all. This is more a story of judicial murder than a criminal case, really, but it is set up as a court drama.

Finally, the court case becomes a proxy for the much larger (and almost unrelated) struggle between the colonial lords and the colonials. India versus Britain. The old world order versus the new and a criticism of the curious western idea of the white mans burden (the obligation of westerners to “help” the ignorant developing world to do the right thing). The British are exceptionally arrogant and the Indians really takes to this case to demonstrate their disgust with the British Raj. It is reflected in Aziz who turns from friendly to disgusted by the British.

My problem with “A Passage to India” is that these four themes individually are very interesting but tie together here a bit oddly, as if the film media is too small for this combo. And despite this overload, the movie seems strangely thin on story. There is plenty of ambience and build-up, but it fizzles out in the end in something not quite satisfying.

This does not change that it is a movie I did enjoy watching (with emphasis on “watching”) and it does demonstrate the craftmanship of David Lean. It is also very much a product of its time, with the post-colonial sweep of the seventies and eighties, the revisionist view of western behaviour and misbehaviour in the rest of the world. I do not want to apologize for these horrific British overlords, but I do think “Ghandi” struck a better balance there and felt a tad more realistic.

A fair recommendation from me.       

Gremlins (1984)

 

Off-List: Gremlins

When I think of horror comedies, the first movie that always comes to mind is “Gremlins”. It was not the first by a long shot, but it managed to hit the balance exactly right. It is horrific enough to keep us in suspense throughout, and, at least as important, it is hilariously funny in that dark, gruesome way horror comedies are meant to be funny. On top of this, we get excellent production value by any standard. This is a movie that age very well indeed.

Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligans) is a young man who lives at home and works at the local bank in small town Kingston Falls. Billy’s father, Randall (Hoyt Axton), is an inventor of the more ridiculous kind as his technical marvels inevitably backfires. As a recurring feature of the movie, it is a constant source of comedy. While away on a business trip, Randall finds a strange but cute little creature, a mogwai, in a Chinese shop. Thinking this is the perfect Christmas gift, he brings it home to Billy.

The mogwai is super cute, but comes with three important rules: Keep it away from sunlight, do not get it wet and do not feed it after midnight. Such rules are of course meant to be broken...

Soon, the little mogwai has multiplied into a horde of not so cute gremlins. The gremlins look like gargoyles without wings and are like evil fairies. They are like mischievous, cunning cats or children and completely without scruples. The way they get a kick out of terrorizing people is both absolutely horrendous and hilariously funny. The stunt they pull on the (awful) Ms. Deagle (Polly Holliday) is typical: They (somehow) know she hates Christmas carols, so they line up a choir in front of her door, mutilating a Christmas song, while one of them sneaks inside to mess with her elevator. The double effect is freaking her out and sending her rocketing through her upper window.

Billy’s mother, Lynn (Frances Lee McCain) fights off the monster invasion in her home like an imitation of Ripley in “Alien” with spectacular kills, such as microwaving and blending gremlins. Still, the most amazing and crazy display is the party the gremlins are having in the bar where Billy’s girlfriend, Kate Beringer (Phoebe Cates), is forced to wait on them. It is both ridiculous, full of logical holes and immensely funny. The gremlins are going all out on all the vices we, as civilized beings, are supposed to refrain from and they are having immense fun doing it.

Billy and Kate have to fight off the invasion and that is of course fraught with danger and suspense, but throughout the highlights both in terms of horror and comedy belongs to the gremlins. They steal every scene they are in. It does not matter that they defy logic in everything they do because of the way they press that combination of fun and terror, timed exactly right. Think too much about it and the story collapses, this is a movie to enjoy for what it is.

“Gremlins” is a Halloween movie relocated to Christmas and as such works for both holidays. In our home, we watch it almost every Christmas as a season staple and we can quote most of the movie. I have a feeling we are not the only ones, and I would go so far as to consider “Gremlins” a true classic. That of course begs the question why this movie is not on the List? I have no other answer than the editors thought they had filled up their quota of blockbusters and comedies for 1984 already. It is also clear that critics at the time was not exactly won over by “Gremlins”, which is just their loss.

“Gremlins” is one of the best movies in an already amazing year and I cannot recommend it enough.

   

Ghostbusters (1984)

 

Ghostbusters

When I was 11 years old, I went to watch “Ghostbusters” in the local cinema. I do not remember why I went alone, but it was the first time I was in the cinema without any friends or family. When the stone creatures came alive, I got so frightened that I left the cinema, not very proud of my self. You might have thought such an experience would scar me for life and maybe it has. Today it is one of my favourite movies of all time, somewhere in top 10 or so.

Doctors Stanz (Dan Aykroyd), Venkman (Bill Murray) and Spengler (Harold Ramis) conduct highly dubious and not quite productive research in the paranormal at Columbia University, when they get thrown out of their protected world for being just that. Stanz and Spengler are tech nerds while Venkman is just a deucebag.  Left to themselves they form a paranormal investigation unit, the Ghostbusters, to catch and remove paranormal pests.

After a slow start, the trio gets busy as something is staring to unravel in the city, starting with a demonic god living in the fridge of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). Catching ghosts is messy business, involving lots of slime and mayhem, but the Ghostbuster becomes good at it with their beam guns and traps.

As a crescendo builds, it becomes clear that two things are threating the future of mankind: The god Gozer, brought forth by the mating of the Gatekeeper (Weaver) and the Keymaster (Rick Moranis), the destroyer of worlds, and Walter Peck (William Atherton), the dickless, from the EPA, who wants to shut down the Ghostbusters facility. Even with the addition of a fourth member, Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson), this is an uphill battle (literally).

This is a fun story and a very eighties one at that. As “Ghostbuster” follow a well proven story arch, there are not terribly many surprises to the plot, but then again I like those rather predictable eighties movies. What makes “Ghostbusters” stand out is how fun that ride is along that plot.

The fun is partly based on the premise. It is a loony idea to have a bunch of grown men running around in a city in coveralls, chasing ghosts. Just plain wacky. Yet, the only one of the three who is not taking it seriously is Venkman, but then again, he takes nothing serious. Ramis and Aykroyd both go all in with their characters and that in itself is totally hilarious. Then you have a demon inside Sigourney Weaver’s fridge and Rick Moranis as the little accountant who is being possessed by... something badass. Just the thought makes me chuckle.

Moranis’ line “Okay, who brought the dog?” we find can be used on so many occasions and it always makes us laugh.

The other big source of the fun is the play between Ramis, Aykroyd and Murray. A lot of it is the awesome script, but in three lesser hands this could well have fallen flat. I happen to be a fan of all three and having them together is just pure joy.

Then there is the wrapping of the movie. The iconic music, the montage, the crowds, the setting and I get transported back to a better and happier time, even if it was prone to giant marshmallow men and refrigerator dwelling demons.

If there is something wrong in your neighbourhood

Who are you gonna call?

GHOSTBUSTERS!!!

Highly recommended.

It also feels like a good Halloween movie.

 

The Element of Crime (Forbrydelsens Element) (1984)

 

The Element of Crime

In the Danish edition of “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die”, the local editors have added Lars von Trier first feature movie, “The Element of Crime”. I am not a fan of his, but at least it saves me from reserving a slot for a Danish off-List entry in a year otherwise so bountiful.

In an undefined future or past, a police detective, Fisher (Michael Elphick) is undergoing hypnosis to go through his latest case. Fisher is based in Cairo, but returns to “Europe” to solve a case known as the “Lotto murderer” case. It is never entirely clear on what basis he is working, but he seems to be in competition with a policeman called Kramer (Jerold Wells) and being tutored by his old master, Osborne (Esmond Knight), who devised a method called “The Element of Crime”, through which the detective must embrace the personality of the criminal to fully understand and find the perpetrator.

Fisher finds the trailing log of the suspected murderer, Harry Grey, and embark on a chase together with a prostitute, Kim (Meme Lai), with whom Grey has a child.

Here is the thing: Nothing in this movie makes the slightest sense.

The plot is a neo-noir detective story, while the imagery is acid-yellow pictures of broken, wet sets. The two are barely connecting and, more often than not, entirely disconnected. Most of the dialogue is narration on top of the scenes (presumably from the hypnosis), but even the spoke dialogue is strange, abrupt and disconnected. Attempts to follow the plotline is constantly sabotaged by strange cuts, out of the blue events or imagery totally at odds with the narration.

It is impossible to place the story. Is it past or future? Is it a post-apocalyptic world or is it the wreckage of Fisher’s mind seen though hypnosis? The place is referred to as Europe, place names are German, people’s names are English and so is the spoken language. All the while, I get the impression none of this actually matters.

Lars von Trier says quite clearly in the extra material that this is a movie of fascinating pictures with a story on top for those who requires a plot. This is incidentally also my impression. Von Trier concocted some imagery that looks like a mix of “Stalker”, “Alphaville” and “Last Year in Marienbad” and needed an excuse of a story to present those images. So, he is having a lot of fun making some freakish imagery for us to enjoy, except the pictures are so horribly ugly that it is just depressive. But then again, that stuff is high art.

I cannot say I enjoyed this movie. It feels amateurish because of the disconnects and I think by now I hate the colour yellow in a movie. I knew up front that Lars von Trier is not my thing, but I was curious as to where he started. Now I know and somehow this explains a lot.

An interesting piece of trivia: Meme Lai, easily the best part of the movie, had a career in Italian cannibal movies (turns out to be a thing!). “The Element of Crime” was her last movie. After this she became a policewoman in Brittain. I will let that stand for a moment.