Considered the first Western to win the Academy Award, Cimarron is an ambitious adaptation of the Edna Farber novel of the same name. It has a some charm, bringing us into the world of the Okalahoma territory during the land rush, but it moves along at a snails pace. The movie was made still in the early years of “talkies” and it has its roots in silent films with stiff dialogue. The movie follows the lives of Yancey Cravat and his family over a 40 year period as they move west into the Oklahoma territory, start a newspaper and become some of the most popular citizens of the Cimarron territory (Oklahoma).
The film opens the morning of the Oklahoma land rush and Yancey Cravat a well known newspaperman is set to stake his claim in the territory. By some misfortune Cravat does not get his piece of land but returns to Wichita to get his wife and infant son to return to Oklahoma. He decides to settle in one of the largest boomtowns called Osage (fictional). When they arrive Yancey quickly realizes that he is around many of his old pals, other frontier adventurers.
Yancey decides to do what he knows best and that is start a newspaper. His paper quickly becomes a success and he becomes the unofficial mayor the town. He also becomes Forrest Gump, a major player in every event that happens in town.
First there is an outlaw gang that terrorizes many of the local citizens and businesses. Out of nowhere a gun fight erupts and Yancey leaps from his office to go out on the street and engage in the gunfight. He ends up shooting down the head of the gang and being hailed as a hero by the towns people. Yancey is now the most well known citizen in all of the Oklahoma territory.
Now things get positively confusing. The movie had a good linear story line to this point but now it breaks off into a wild screenplay that has no direction. Yancey somehow becomes the preacher for the towns church because of his ability to bring everyone together. This storyline lasts about 3 minutes. I guess this is Yancey’s fate, but he is always looking for a new challenge.
At this point the movie takes a dramatic shift, only adding to the confusion.. Yancey wants to now explore the Cherokee strip, a new land rush area of Oklahoma. He tries to convince his wife to leave but she declines and he takes off for three years. Now the character of Ms. Sabra Cravat’s character goes from being an obedient wife to a newspaper tycoon like her husband.
If none of this is making sense, just wait until you watch the movie. Sabra has now raised her family and has two adult children. Yancey returns from nowhere, saying he has no land in the Cherokee strip. Literally the day he returns there is major trial have to do with some Indian relations and somehow Yancey becomes the defense lawyer and dramatically wins the case. Yancey and Sabra’s marriage is teetering on the brink because she has now established herself.
Yancey is soon back established as the towns preeminent citizen. So much so, that Oklahoma is receiving statehood and the townspeople want him to run for governor as part of the progressive party. Though Yancey is intrigued he feels he would have to compromise his belief structure in order to be governor so he declines, but his wife is interested in the world of politics. Oklahoma is getting statehood mainly because of the discovery of oil. Again Yancey cannot resist and he runs off to be an oil man.
Sabra again becomes the head of the family and follows in her husbands footsteps, getting involved in politics. Eventually she is elected as the first female congressmen. Her kids are grown, her husband is gone and she is now the most popular person in Osage. The movie wraps up with a big dinner honoring Sabra and her accomplishments, but there is one final twist that is so ludicrous to try and describe would make your head hurt.
As you can tell from this synopsis, I was not big fan of the movie. What’s worse is I think there is a movie in there somewhere, but it was just all a big jumbled mess. Like I said earlier the movie never found its way and stayed on a storyline. The scenery and set pieces were ambitious for the time, including the opening land rush scenes, but the movie just didn’t work. It’s the first true clunker on the list and I give it only a 1.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935
One of the first real “action” movies tells the story of harsh treatment and mutiny aboard the H.M.S. Bounty, highlighting the stories of the evil Captain Bligh and First Mate Fletcher Christian. This films pits two of the best actors of its time, Clark Gable as Christian and Charles Loughton as Bligh (most famous for his role as Quasimodo in 1939’s Hunchback of Notre Dame). Though based on a factual event the movie definitely takes many historical liberties, but what historical movie doesn’t.
The film starts in the English town of Portsmouth as the men are given their orders. They are to set sail on the H.M.S. Bounty and head for Tahiti to acquire breadfruit trees. The men know that it will be a long difficult journey, two years at sea, but there is an honor and whimsical feeling of being a sailor of that era. The men are proud and happy to serve their country and truly want to be good sailors.
As they are about to set sail they quickly learn that Capt. Bligh will be a harsh commander. He takes a sailor who stole rations and sentences him to a flogging. When they pull this soldier out in front of the men, the sailor is already dead, but Bligh has him flogged anyway. The next 35 minutes of the movie uses what is commonly known as an American montage. Using a map to indicate time is passing and then showing scenes to elaborate that passage of time.
Each vignette is basically another case of a sailor doing something “wrong” and Bligh punishing him. He makes one sailor sit in the lookout post for three days through a driving rain. Another man he has thrown over board to drown, and various floggings and imprisonments to others. Many of the sailors begin to grow weary and tired of the shabby treatment. On several occasion the ships first mate Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) openly questions Capt. Bligh. After imprisoning several men for a theft they did not commit Christian decides its time to truly speak up.
Captain Bligh brings Christian up on trial for mutiny. However, as the proceedings are being conducted land is spotted off in the distance, they have reached their destination. The men will get a few months leave as they restock the ship and make repairs to sail back to England. However, Bligh makes Christian stay on the ship and oversee the repairs not granting him any shore leave. Eventually Bligh grants Christian some shore leave, but he abuses it showing up back to the ship two days late. Christian has fallen in love with a Tahitian girl, the daughter of the chief of the island.
As they ship out for their return to Portsmouth Bligh orders that water supply for the men be cut in order to provide enough water to keep the breadfruit plants alive. This turns out to be the last straw for Christian. He gathers up most of the underlings on the ship to lead a mutiny against Bligh. Most of the officers on the ship are on Bligh’s side and there is a set of 5 men who do not take either side. Christian sets Bligh and his supporters adrift on a small boat with some rations, supplies, and navigation equipment. Christian then announces to his men that they are setting sail back for Tahiti where they will live.
Bligh is an expert sailor and he sets his sights on the small island of Timor. As Bligh and his men have a harsh time getting to Timor, Christian and his men are enjoying a wonderful life on Tahiti. Bligh eventually reach’s his destination, and presumably finds safety. The men on Tahiti are enjoying themselves when after a year passes a ship is spotted in the distance flying the British flag. Captain Bligh is back for revenge, but Christian wants no conflict. He takes his men and sets the Mutiny at sail to find their own island to live. Bligh lands ashore on Tahiti and takes the five men who did not commit the mutiny under arrest.
The movie is a little confusing and jumps back and for the without much of a narrative as you can see by this rambling review. I don’t know how else to describe this movie but to try and show the back and forth. The men go back to England and are put on trial because even though they did not participate they did not do anything to prevent the mutiny. The one man sailor who is on trial is named Byam because he was heard plotting with Christian. As the trial is going on the Bounty has found an island to land on and live. But this is really the end of what we know about he sailors on the bounty. Byam is eventually found guilty of mutiny, but then the verdict is reversed and he is allowed to be a sailor again. That is the happy ending to the movie, but overall the end is rushed an inconclusive.
The movie was considered great at the time of its release presumably because of the power of the two main actors and because some of the sea scenes were monumental for the time. They actually set sail with a ship to shoot parts of the movie and went on location to Tahiti which in 1934 I can assume was not as easy as location shooting is today. Overall it was a disappointing movie, especially because of the ending. The other problem was Clark Gable was way too movie star handsome to be playing a gruff 18th century sailor. I have a problem saying it was any better than a 2 star movie.
The film starts in the English town of Portsmouth as the men are given their orders. They are to set sail on the H.M.S. Bounty and head for Tahiti to acquire breadfruit trees. The men know that it will be a long difficult journey, two years at sea, but there is an honor and whimsical feeling of being a sailor of that era. The men are proud and happy to serve their country and truly want to be good sailors.
As they are about to set sail they quickly learn that Capt. Bligh will be a harsh commander. He takes a sailor who stole rations and sentences him to a flogging. When they pull this soldier out in front of the men, the sailor is already dead, but Bligh has him flogged anyway. The next 35 minutes of the movie uses what is commonly known as an American montage. Using a map to indicate time is passing and then showing scenes to elaborate that passage of time.
Each vignette is basically another case of a sailor doing something “wrong” and Bligh punishing him. He makes one sailor sit in the lookout post for three days through a driving rain. Another man he has thrown over board to drown, and various floggings and imprisonments to others. Many of the sailors begin to grow weary and tired of the shabby treatment. On several occasion the ships first mate Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) openly questions Capt. Bligh. After imprisoning several men for a theft they did not commit Christian decides its time to truly speak up.
Captain Bligh brings Christian up on trial for mutiny. However, as the proceedings are being conducted land is spotted off in the distance, they have reached their destination. The men will get a few months leave as they restock the ship and make repairs to sail back to England. However, Bligh makes Christian stay on the ship and oversee the repairs not granting him any shore leave. Eventually Bligh grants Christian some shore leave, but he abuses it showing up back to the ship two days late. Christian has fallen in love with a Tahitian girl, the daughter of the chief of the island.
As they ship out for their return to Portsmouth Bligh orders that water supply for the men be cut in order to provide enough water to keep the breadfruit plants alive. This turns out to be the last straw for Christian. He gathers up most of the underlings on the ship to lead a mutiny against Bligh. Most of the officers on the ship are on Bligh’s side and there is a set of 5 men who do not take either side. Christian sets Bligh and his supporters adrift on a small boat with some rations, supplies, and navigation equipment. Christian then announces to his men that they are setting sail back for Tahiti where they will live.
Bligh is an expert sailor and he sets his sights on the small island of Timor. As Bligh and his men have a harsh time getting to Timor, Christian and his men are enjoying a wonderful life on Tahiti. Bligh eventually reach’s his destination, and presumably finds safety. The men on Tahiti are enjoying themselves when after a year passes a ship is spotted in the distance flying the British flag. Captain Bligh is back for revenge, but Christian wants no conflict. He takes his men and sets the Mutiny at sail to find their own island to live. Bligh lands ashore on Tahiti and takes the five men who did not commit the mutiny under arrest.
The movie is a little confusing and jumps back and for the without much of a narrative as you can see by this rambling review. I don’t know how else to describe this movie but to try and show the back and forth. The men go back to England and are put on trial because even though they did not participate they did not do anything to prevent the mutiny. The one man sailor who is on trial is named Byam because he was heard plotting with Christian. As the trial is going on the Bounty has found an island to land on and live. But this is really the end of what we know about he sailors on the bounty. Byam is eventually found guilty of mutiny, but then the verdict is reversed and he is allowed to be a sailor again. That is the happy ending to the movie, but overall the end is rushed an inconclusive.
The movie was considered great at the time of its release presumably because of the power of the two main actors and because some of the sea scenes were monumental for the time. They actually set sail with a ship to shoot parts of the movie and went on location to Tahiti which in 1934 I can assume was not as easy as location shooting is today. Overall it was a disappointing movie, especially because of the ending. The other problem was Clark Gable was way too movie star handsome to be playing a gruff 18th century sailor. I have a problem saying it was any better than a 2 star movie.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Hamlet, 1948
Set in 15th century Denmark we all know the story of Hamlet, the prince who learns of his fathers murder while his uncle has now married his mother. I am not a Shakespeare fan, to be honest if not translated Shakespeare is tough to read and understand. However, we all know Shakespeare has set the bar for many classic overused stories, like Romeo and Juliet. Sir Laurence Olivier brought to the screen for the first time an adaptation of a Shakespeare play here with Hamlet.
Olivier is widely regarded as the finest actor of his time, and maybe more importantly the greatest Shakespearean actor. In this movie his acting was wonderful, but it was in directing that makes this movie the masterpiece that it has become. Translating a play to the screen is always difficult, but Olivier did it in fine fashion.
Like the play, the movie opens with the guards on watch brining Horatio to the castle walls to witness the ghost of King Hamlet. Horatio doesn’t believe it until he witnesses it himself. We then descend into the new Kings chambers where Claudius is holding court with his new wife Gertrude. Hamlet is still mourning, believing that his father met an untimely death.
This is where the movie direction by Olivier begins to shine through. He is able to accentuate the mood perfectly. As the line goes, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” Olivier uses a lot of moving cameras here, tracking shots, and brooding music to give us the foul stench that is hanging over the castle. Instead of using straight cuts between scenes the camera often follows a character from one room into another for the new scene.
We now get into the heart of the story. Hamlet himself goes up to the castle wall at Horatio’s request to see the ghost of his late father. When he sees the apparition the King reveals to him that he was indeed murdered and wants Hamlet to seek revenge. This is where Olivier begins to show his prowess as a great Shakespearian actor.
Hamlet now has that inner conflict, knowing his father was murdered by Claudius and wanting to do something about it, but somehow not upsetting his mother the queen (for those who don’t know story of Hamlet it is like the Lion King, where Scar kills Mufassa). The famed “To be of not to be” speech is brought to life by Olivier. He anguishes over taking his own life, or avenging his father. It seems to many at this point that Hamlet is beginning to lose his mind, and after he accidentally kills Polonius his mother is sure he has gone mad. Polonius was the father of Ophelia, the object of Hamlets affection, but she indeed goes mad after her fathers death. Wandering around the castle in a daze she finally takes her own life. Laertes, the brother of Ophelia and son of Polonius, returns to take revenge against Hamlet. And at the urging of Claudius, Laertes helps to plot to murder Hamlet during their duel.
Yes this all sounds a bit confusing, but having read the play at a younger age it makes some sense to me. As I said Olivier’s superb directing keeps the pace of this movie and the details never get lost or stale.
According to many who are way more familiar with the length and intimate detail of the play, the movie shaves a bunch of that off for time constraints. The movie is cut down to two hours and thirty minutes. The last 30 of which involve the famous dual between Hamlet and Laertes. For those who have never heard or read of the story of Hamlet I wont spoil how it ends.
Overall the directing and acting by Olivier was in a class by itself. For some reason I found a lot of the other actors very dry. Horatio, Claudius and Ophelia all seemed robotic in the movie. The actress chosen to be Gertrude was far to young, and I guess skipping some parts in the play make Laertes a very one dimensional character. Due to the strength of Olivier the movie gets a 4. For Shakespeare die hards I am sure you can find things to nit pick about, but for the rest of use it is an entertaining portrayal of a timeless story, and above all a well made movie from the standpoint of directing.
Olivier is widely regarded as the finest actor of his time, and maybe more importantly the greatest Shakespearean actor. In this movie his acting was wonderful, but it was in directing that makes this movie the masterpiece that it has become. Translating a play to the screen is always difficult, but Olivier did it in fine fashion.
Like the play, the movie opens with the guards on watch brining Horatio to the castle walls to witness the ghost of King Hamlet. Horatio doesn’t believe it until he witnesses it himself. We then descend into the new Kings chambers where Claudius is holding court with his new wife Gertrude. Hamlet is still mourning, believing that his father met an untimely death.
This is where the movie direction by Olivier begins to shine through. He is able to accentuate the mood perfectly. As the line goes, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” Olivier uses a lot of moving cameras here, tracking shots, and brooding music to give us the foul stench that is hanging over the castle. Instead of using straight cuts between scenes the camera often follows a character from one room into another for the new scene.
We now get into the heart of the story. Hamlet himself goes up to the castle wall at Horatio’s request to see the ghost of his late father. When he sees the apparition the King reveals to him that he was indeed murdered and wants Hamlet to seek revenge. This is where Olivier begins to show his prowess as a great Shakespearian actor.
Hamlet now has that inner conflict, knowing his father was murdered by Claudius and wanting to do something about it, but somehow not upsetting his mother the queen (for those who don’t know story of Hamlet it is like the Lion King, where Scar kills Mufassa). The famed “To be of not to be” speech is brought to life by Olivier. He anguishes over taking his own life, or avenging his father. It seems to many at this point that Hamlet is beginning to lose his mind, and after he accidentally kills Polonius his mother is sure he has gone mad. Polonius was the father of Ophelia, the object of Hamlets affection, but she indeed goes mad after her fathers death. Wandering around the castle in a daze she finally takes her own life. Laertes, the brother of Ophelia and son of Polonius, returns to take revenge against Hamlet. And at the urging of Claudius, Laertes helps to plot to murder Hamlet during their duel.
Yes this all sounds a bit confusing, but having read the play at a younger age it makes some sense to me. As I said Olivier’s superb directing keeps the pace of this movie and the details never get lost or stale.
According to many who are way more familiar with the length and intimate detail of the play, the movie shaves a bunch of that off for time constraints. The movie is cut down to two hours and thirty minutes. The last 30 of which involve the famous dual between Hamlet and Laertes. For those who have never heard or read of the story of Hamlet I wont spoil how it ends.
Overall the directing and acting by Olivier was in a class by itself. For some reason I found a lot of the other actors very dry. Horatio, Claudius and Ophelia all seemed robotic in the movie. The actress chosen to be Gertrude was far to young, and I guess skipping some parts in the play make Laertes a very one dimensional character. Due to the strength of Olivier the movie gets a 4. For Shakespeare die hards I am sure you can find things to nit pick about, but for the rest of use it is an entertaining portrayal of a timeless story, and above all a well made movie from the standpoint of directing.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
It Happened One Night, 1934
Known as one of the first “screwball” comedies this classic film was the first ever to sweep the major Academy Awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Writing), that feat wouldn’t happen again until One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. This film marked the emergence of Clark Gable as a true Hollywood superstar and was the first of 6 Academy Award Nominations for the incomparable director Frank Capra. For this film Capra was at his best, garnering his first of 3 Academy Awards and second of six nominations, he would also win for Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and You Can‘t Take it With You.
The movie opens sort of in the middle of the story, a young socialite (Claudette Colbert as Ellie Andrews) is married to a famous pilot at the disapproval of her father. It seems her father has “kidnapped” her keeping her on his yacht in Miami. She jumps off the boat and wants to try and get to New York to see her husband. Knowing her father has money she knows she will be tracked so she decides to take a bus to New York, rather than travel by train (customary for the time). At this point we meet the swashbuckling hero, Clark Gable (as Peter Warne, sort of an earlier non-space version of Han Solo). His character is a down on his luck, semi drunk newspaper man who has just quit his job. Once he realizes that Ms. Andrews is on the run and that getting her exclusive story could mean big bucks he decides to help her get to New York. Capra’s skill as a director is in full force here early in the film. There is not much but two people on a bus, making dinner stops but Capra keeps the movie moving along at a solid pace.
The two central characters begin to grow closer and there is a great foreshadowing scene the first night they spend a night together at a motor inn. Ms. Andrews only has the clothes on her back so Peter gives her a pair of her pajamas. Being 1934, she is reluctant to change in front of him or even sleep in the same room. Peter runs a rope across the room and hangs a blanket calling it the “walls of Jericho.” Ellie finally realize that Peter can help get her to her destination.
Now Capra begins to bring us back and forth. We start to see what is going on with Ellie’s affluent father who has put out an all points bulletin for her. Peter is in constant contact first with the father for a reward, then with his old newspaper boss telling him he has the big story of the year.
Finally they arrive in Philadelphia, their last night on the road when Ellie confesses she is in love with Peter. That night Peter sneaks out to drive to New York and buy her a ring, now we are in classic Hollywood formula mode. Being the original “screwball” comedy you will recognize what is going to happen here. Ellie gets up and thinks Peter has run away, so she gets to New York and gets back with her husband. But Peter goes to her father and convinces him that he didn’t dessert Ellie but really wants to marry her. And in the end we have the Hollywood ending where they are together, I wont reveal the final scene, it is a good ending and definitely a sign of the times.
Overall I would this film is a 3 (5 star system). The movie can be choppy at points and the humor does not translate great. Frank Capra skill as a director is all over this movie. It doesn’t necessarily stand the test of time but it is one of the first big time movie stars and one of the 5 best directors collaborating so it is worth viewing.
The movie opens sort of in the middle of the story, a young socialite (Claudette Colbert as Ellie Andrews) is married to a famous pilot at the disapproval of her father. It seems her father has “kidnapped” her keeping her on his yacht in Miami. She jumps off the boat and wants to try and get to New York to see her husband. Knowing her father has money she knows she will be tracked so she decides to take a bus to New York, rather than travel by train (customary for the time). At this point we meet the swashbuckling hero, Clark Gable (as Peter Warne, sort of an earlier non-space version of Han Solo). His character is a down on his luck, semi drunk newspaper man who has just quit his job. Once he realizes that Ms. Andrews is on the run and that getting her exclusive story could mean big bucks he decides to help her get to New York. Capra’s skill as a director is in full force here early in the film. There is not much but two people on a bus, making dinner stops but Capra keeps the movie moving along at a solid pace.
The two central characters begin to grow closer and there is a great foreshadowing scene the first night they spend a night together at a motor inn. Ms. Andrews only has the clothes on her back so Peter gives her a pair of her pajamas. Being 1934, she is reluctant to change in front of him or even sleep in the same room. Peter runs a rope across the room and hangs a blanket calling it the “walls of Jericho.” Ellie finally realize that Peter can help get her to her destination.
Now Capra begins to bring us back and forth. We start to see what is going on with Ellie’s affluent father who has put out an all points bulletin for her. Peter is in constant contact first with the father for a reward, then with his old newspaper boss telling him he has the big story of the year.
Finally they arrive in Philadelphia, their last night on the road when Ellie confesses she is in love with Peter. That night Peter sneaks out to drive to New York and buy her a ring, now we are in classic Hollywood formula mode. Being the original “screwball” comedy you will recognize what is going to happen here. Ellie gets up and thinks Peter has run away, so she gets to New York and gets back with her husband. But Peter goes to her father and convinces him that he didn’t dessert Ellie but really wants to marry her. And in the end we have the Hollywood ending where they are together, I wont reveal the final scene, it is a good ending and definitely a sign of the times.
Overall I would this film is a 3 (5 star system). The movie can be choppy at points and the humor does not translate great. Frank Capra skill as a director is all over this movie. It doesn’t necessarily stand the test of time but it is one of the first big time movie stars and one of the 5 best directors collaborating so it is worth viewing.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
All Quiet on the Western Front, 1930
This is second film in my quest to watch all the Academy Award Best Picture winners. I knew going into this that some films I would just have to tolerate and get through because the just don’t stand the test of time. This film was not one of those, this was a daring and brilliant adaptation of the novel of the same name. Director Lewis Milestone created what can be called the first masterpiece of American cinema.
I had never read the novel itself, but I know what it’s about. For those of you who don’t, here is a quick synopsis of the novel which the film takes directly. It is 1914 and World War I is just underway and a group of German teenagers, encouraged by their teacher, enlist in the army. They are green and ambitious, believing they are doing their patriotic duty serving the fatherland. They are sent immediately to the western front to fight the French and English in the trench’s of WWI. Over the course of 5 years each of them suffers the horrors of war, all dying. Some go crazy, others have legs amputated and one almost survives all while experiencing the atrocities of war.
The movies cinematography, sound and editing was way ahead of its time, heck in today’s world it would still be considered excellent. The opening of the film is gripping with the use of what is now known as a tracking shot. Following German soldiers as they march through town then pulling back into a classroom where an impassioned patriotic teacher encourage the young men of his class to enlist. He preaches to the young men about loyalty to ones country, the fatherland, and the romances of war.
Six of the young men enlist and are shipped off to boot camp. Early on they realize that the army isn’t all the glory and romance that their teacher made it out to be. After they get shipped out to the western front the begin to get picked off one by one. The mood in the fill turns from one joy and patriotism to anger and disillusionment. The films underlying themes could easily work in today’s climate with the Irag/Afghan war.
The movies mood shifts to a somber war film. As the men wait in the trench’s the bombs explode around the, starvation is around every corner and if it cant get any worse they have to fight off rats in order to sleep. Paul, the most central character, tries to hold his friends together. One of them goes insane because of the noise. Another is injured and taken away toa hospital. When the boys get some leave the go to check on their friend who has had his leg amputated but refuses to admit his leg is gone. The destruction of war continues to affect Paul.
The climax of the movie begins when Paul, hiding in a fox hole, is force to stab a French soldier who jumps in the hole with him. Throughout the night as the French soldier slowly dies Paul begs for his forgiveness and questions why God has put him in such a predicament. Paul gets leave and decided to return home to try and reconnect with his youth. However, its been 4 years in the trench’s and while the town is the same he has changed.
He spends time with his father and his friends who lecture Paul on how the Germans can win the war. The men argue over how this is all for the glory of Germany. Paul disgusted by their misguided views walks out and goes to visit his teacher who encouraged him to enlist in the first place. He finds that the teacher is preaching the same message to his students and ask if Paul wants to say something. Paul, ravaged by the thoughts of what has happened to him and his friends, tells the boy of the horrors of the war and the uselessness of it all. The teacher cannot believe Paul’s change in attitude. Paul now realizes that the only place his belongs is back with his company on the front lines. When he returns he is waiting in a trench when he see’s a butterfly. As he reaches for the butterfly he comes out of the trench and is picked off by a sniper. The final shot is just that of his hand reaching for the butterfly and going limp.
The movie is a gripping realistic portrayal of war. I would say no such film until Saving Private Ryan again showed people that war is no Hollywood movie. Upon the release of the movie, Variety magazine wrote the following: “The League of Nations could make no better investment than to buy up the master-print, reproduce it in every language, to be shown in all the nations until the word "war" is taken out of the dictionaries.”
This is a 5 star film all the way
I had never read the novel itself, but I know what it’s about. For those of you who don’t, here is a quick synopsis of the novel which the film takes directly. It is 1914 and World War I is just underway and a group of German teenagers, encouraged by their teacher, enlist in the army. They are green and ambitious, believing they are doing their patriotic duty serving the fatherland. They are sent immediately to the western front to fight the French and English in the trench’s of WWI. Over the course of 5 years each of them suffers the horrors of war, all dying. Some go crazy, others have legs amputated and one almost survives all while experiencing the atrocities of war.
The movies cinematography, sound and editing was way ahead of its time, heck in today’s world it would still be considered excellent. The opening of the film is gripping with the use of what is now known as a tracking shot. Following German soldiers as they march through town then pulling back into a classroom where an impassioned patriotic teacher encourage the young men of his class to enlist. He preaches to the young men about loyalty to ones country, the fatherland, and the romances of war.
Six of the young men enlist and are shipped off to boot camp. Early on they realize that the army isn’t all the glory and romance that their teacher made it out to be. After they get shipped out to the western front the begin to get picked off one by one. The mood in the fill turns from one joy and patriotism to anger and disillusionment. The films underlying themes could easily work in today’s climate with the Irag/Afghan war.
The movies mood shifts to a somber war film. As the men wait in the trench’s the bombs explode around the, starvation is around every corner and if it cant get any worse they have to fight off rats in order to sleep. Paul, the most central character, tries to hold his friends together. One of them goes insane because of the noise. Another is injured and taken away toa hospital. When the boys get some leave the go to check on their friend who has had his leg amputated but refuses to admit his leg is gone. The destruction of war continues to affect Paul.
The climax of the movie begins when Paul, hiding in a fox hole, is force to stab a French soldier who jumps in the hole with him. Throughout the night as the French soldier slowly dies Paul begs for his forgiveness and questions why God has put him in such a predicament. Paul gets leave and decided to return home to try and reconnect with his youth. However, its been 4 years in the trench’s and while the town is the same he has changed.
He spends time with his father and his friends who lecture Paul on how the Germans can win the war. The men argue over how this is all for the glory of Germany. Paul disgusted by their misguided views walks out and goes to visit his teacher who encouraged him to enlist in the first place. He finds that the teacher is preaching the same message to his students and ask if Paul wants to say something. Paul, ravaged by the thoughts of what has happened to him and his friends, tells the boy of the horrors of the war and the uselessness of it all. The teacher cannot believe Paul’s change in attitude. Paul now realizes that the only place his belongs is back with his company on the front lines. When he returns he is waiting in a trench when he see’s a butterfly. As he reaches for the butterfly he comes out of the trench and is picked off by a sniper. The final shot is just that of his hand reaching for the butterfly and going limp.
The movie is a gripping realistic portrayal of war. I would say no such film until Saving Private Ryan again showed people that war is no Hollywood movie. Upon the release of the movie, Variety magazine wrote the following: “The League of Nations could make no better investment than to buy up the master-print, reproduce it in every language, to be shown in all the nations until the word "war" is taken out of the dictionaries.”
This is a 5 star film all the way
The Broadway Melody, 1929
The first musical, and only second picture, to win the Academy Award for best film, this tells the story of two sisters who come to New York to star on Broadway. They come at the behest of a singer/songwriter who wants to marry the older more talented sister but winds up vying for the affection of the younger taller, blonder, more beautiful sister.
It is so interesting to watch movies from the older era because of the lack of camera movement and shots. There were probably only 3 types of camera shots in the entire movie. This makes editing more important, you cant stick with a shot too long otherwise it gets boring. This makes long scenes in one set location somewhat difficult. However the director in this movie helps that a long by having a lot of character movement throughout the scenes.
The movie seems really provocative for its time. There is a lot of men and women together, dancing and kissing and obvious sexual innuendo of women sleeping with different men. Also there are several scenes in Broadway dressing rooms and bathrooms of women changing and wearing very little clothing.
The movie has a decent story, one that could likely be told in a movie today. There isn’t much action, it is more song and dialogue driven but in its era I can see how it works. Overall I would give it a 2 (5 star system). It is worth watching if you are really into old movies but isn’t something that you would re-watch or use to teach anyone about filmmaking.
It is so interesting to watch movies from the older era because of the lack of camera movement and shots. There were probably only 3 types of camera shots in the entire movie. This makes editing more important, you cant stick with a shot too long otherwise it gets boring. This makes long scenes in one set location somewhat difficult. However the director in this movie helps that a long by having a lot of character movement throughout the scenes.
The movie seems really provocative for its time. There is a lot of men and women together, dancing and kissing and obvious sexual innuendo of women sleeping with different men. Also there are several scenes in Broadway dressing rooms and bathrooms of women changing and wearing very little clothing.
The movie has a decent story, one that could likely be told in a movie today. There isn’t much action, it is more song and dialogue driven but in its era I can see how it works. Overall I would give it a 2 (5 star system). It is worth watching if you are really into old movies but isn’t something that you would re-watch or use to teach anyone about filmmaking.
The Project
As some of you already know I am a movie hound, and a blogger at heart. I have had various sports themed blogs which occasionally touched on my love of the silver screen. Well everyone makes new years resolutions, or wants to do something they enjoy in life, I enjoy movies.
I decided that I wanted to see every picture which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It may seem like a trivial pursuit to most, but to me it is something I enjoy. With the help of services like Netflix I figured this now would be an accomplishable goal.
I got a subscription at Christmas to Netflix and now have begun my pursuit. On this blog you will see all the reviews of these movies. I think the best way to do this is to go in order. From 1988 to the present I have seen every Oscar winner, and see various others from the past like The Godfather, On the Waterfront and Bridge on the River Kwai etc. From time to time there may also be reviews of other movies I see either at the theatre or with my subscription. Stay tuned, it should be interesting.
I decided that I wanted to see every picture which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It may seem like a trivial pursuit to most, but to me it is something I enjoy. With the help of services like Netflix I figured this now would be an accomplishable goal.
I got a subscription at Christmas to Netflix and now have begun my pursuit. On this blog you will see all the reviews of these movies. I think the best way to do this is to go in order. From 1988 to the present I have seen every Oscar winner, and see various others from the past like The Godfather, On the Waterfront and Bridge on the River Kwai etc. From time to time there may also be reviews of other movies I see either at the theatre or with my subscription. Stay tuned, it should be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)