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.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
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)