Seven Shadows: DAY 2 - Mildred Pierce

Along with Double Indemnity, The Postman Always Rings Twice, and Sudden Fear, Mildred Pierce is one of the few films noirs that I have had the pleasure of seeing on the big screen. Because of this, it’s a sentimental favorite of mine, but I also love it on its own merit – and there’s so much to love! Here are the top 10 reasons why I’m wild about Mildred Pierce (and be sure to check out Andrew’s review of this film over at my site, for Day Two of Seven Shadows):

 

1. The film’s opening. We’re taking in the view of a beautiful beach house on the edge of the Pacific when the film’s pleasant score is suddenly interrupted by the sound of repeated gunshots. Inside the house, we see that the target of the shots is a tuxedo-clad, mustachioed gent, Monte Beragon (Zachary Scott) who falls forward into the camera, muttering one name before he dies: Mildred. I’m not ashamed to admit (well, maybe a little) that the first time I saw Mildred Pierce, I went through the entire film never doubting that I knew who killed Monte.  

Mildred Pierce starts out with a bang. Literally

 

2. Jo Ann Marlowe. She played Kay Pierce, the younger of Mildred’s two daughters. I don’t remember ever seeing her in any other movie (although the IMDB states that she played uncredited roles in Yankee Doodle Dandy and Of Human Bondage), and her last film was in 1950, but she was a delight to watch, cute as a button and a completely natural young actress. 

 

3. The little signs that point to the fact, early on, that Veda is a massive bitch. Like when she chides her baby sister for playing ball in the street and mussing her clothes, telling her she looks like a “peasant.” Her snooty tone when she informs her mother that “Valse Brilliante” means “brilliant waltz.” And when she returns her mother’s declaration of love, but adds, “don’t let’s be sticky about it.” 

 

4. The scene where Mildred learns that Veda lied about her pregnancy in order to extort money from her would-be spouse. It starts with Veda tenderly kissing the ten thousand dollar check she received. From there, it doesn’t take long for it to dawn on Mildred that, in her own words, Veda is “cheap and horrible.” Veda delivers her great speech about why she wanted the money (see below) and when Mildred tears up the check, Veda serves up a slap that literally knocks Mildred off her feet. But, boy, when she gets up! I love the steely look in Mildred’s eyes, the barely perceptible quaver of rage in her voice, and her economical choice of words when she tells her daughter, “Get your things out of this house before I throw them into the street and you with them. Get out before I kill you.”

 

This scene is mesmerizing - no matter how many times I see it.

 

5. Jack Carson. In doing a little research for this post, I learned that during his career, Jack Carson was never even nominated – let alone won – an Academy Award, or any other kind of movie award. Such a shame. Because Carson’s portrayal of Wally Fay was definitely of award-winning caliber. Carson took this fellow, infused it with equal parts humor, intelligence, and charm, threw in some ruthlessness and deceit, added a dash of cool – and gave us one of his most memorable and watchable characters.

 

6. The women’s clothes. My favorites were the suit and matching hat worn by Veda on the day she got her new car, the shiny striped number Ida wore to Veda’s 17^th birthday party, and the jaunty little hat Mildred had on in the scene in the attorney’s office. Honorable mention to Mildred’s gorgeous fur jacket. (Sorry, PETA!)

 

7. Ida Corwin. She was the cool pal that every woman would love to have – somebody you could share a drink with in the middle of the day, and count on to give it to you straight, no chaser. Both literally and figuratively. If you know what I mean. 

 

Wouldn't you love to have a pal like Ida? I would!

 

8. Joan Crawford. Actually, this should have been number one. What was I thinking? 

 

9. Maybe it’s the romantic in me, but I love the fact that Mildred winds up with Bert in the end. 

 

10. And, finally, the lines – oh, the lines! Like these:

 

“What’s on your mind, lady? You know what I think? I think maybe you had an idea you’d take a swim, that’s what I think. You take a swim, I’d have to take a swim. Is that fair? Just cause you feel like bumping yourself off, I gotta get pneumonia. Never thought about that, did you? Okay. Think about it. Go on, beat it now. Go on home before we both take a swim.” Policeman on Pier (Garry Owen)

 

“Being a detective is like making an automobile. You just take all the pieces and put them together one by one. First thing you know you’ve got an automobile. Or a murderer.” Inspector Peterson (Moroni Olsen)

 

“I was in love with him, and I knew it for the first time that night. But now he’s dead and I’m not sorry. He wasn’t worth it.” Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford)

 

“With this money, I can get away from you. From you and your chickens and your pies and from everything that smells of grease. I can get away from this shack with its cheap furniture. And this town and its dollar days, and its women that wear uniforms and its mean that wear overalls. You think just because you made a little money, you can get a new hairdo and some expensive clothes and turn yourself into a lady. But you can’t. Because you’ll never be anything but a common frump whose father lived over a grocery store and whose mother took in washing. With this money I can get away from every rotten, stinking thing that makes me think of this place or you!” Veda Pierce (Ann Blyth)

 

"I was in love with him...But now he's dead, and I'm not sorry."

 

“Oh, men. I never yet met one of them that didn’t have the instincts of a heel.” Ida Corwin (Eve Arden)

 

“Personally, Veda’s convinced me that alligators have the right idea. They eat their young.” Ida Corwin (Eve Arden)

 

“You still don’t understand, do you? You think new curtains are enough to make me happy. No, I want more than that. . . . The way you want to live isn’t good enough for me.” Veda Pierce (Ann Blyth)

 

“You don’t really believe I could be in love with a rotten little tramp like you, do you?” Monte Beragon (Zachary Scott)

 

May 2, 2012  12:00pm

by Karen Burroughs Hannsberry

Read More

808. Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)

Running Time: 99 minutes
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh
Written By: Steven Soderbergh
Main Cast: James Spader, Andie MacDowell, Peter Gallagher, Laura San Giacomo
Click here to view the trailer

A DOUBLE SHOT OF SODERBERGH: 1 of 2

This is actually the first of three "double shots" that I'll be featuring during this batch of 100 films. I actually didn't plan on doing one for Steven Soderbergh, but I received "Traffic" in the mail from Netflix and owned a copy of this, so I figured, what the hell.

 There are four principle characters in Soderbergh's 1989 debut feature, "Sex, Lies, and Videotape". First off, you've got Ann Bishop Mullany (MacDowell), a woman in therapy, who worries about problems facing the world - problems she has no control over. Ann is married to John (Gallagher). The two have a sex life that is basically non-existent. Sex doesn't interest Ann and she even goes so far as to admit that she's never had an orgasm. As Ann spills her problems to her shrink, what she doesn't know is that John is having an affair with her sister, Cynthia (San Giacomo). John is a junior partner at a high profile law firm, who continually pushes his clients to the back burner in order to sneak out of the office for a quickie with his sister-in-law. Lastly, there's Graham (Spader), the most important piece of the puzzle. Graham and John went to college together and as the film opens, Graham is riding back into town, for a reunion with his old friend. Graham and John quickly realize that they've grown into different people and in an effort to get more time with Cynthia, John sends Ann out to apartment hunt with Graham. What spawns is a relationship between Ann and Graham, that starts as a friendship but grows into something deeper.

SPOILER ALERT!

I saw this film for the first time, many years ago. In fact, when I first saw this film I was probably a teenager and probably liked it more because of it's sexual subject matter, rather than for the reasons intended. When I re-watched it again tonight, I realized that there was a lot here to take in and a lot to like. Lets start with the cast of characters, of which Soderbergh doesn't waste any time establishing. In fact, Soderbergh gives us all we need to know about each character within the first ten minutes (maybe less) of the film and from there we have enough information and feel like we already know everyone included. He establishes Ann as a sort of an oddball, worrying about menial things. Ann is also a bit of a prude, who blushes when her therapist asks her about masturbation and detests foul language. John is a cocky, lying lawyer, who steps out on his wife on a daily basis. Cynthia's role really isn't that big, as she's just kind of there. She is who she is, a brash mouthed southern girl, who loves sex and gets off at the thought of "doing it" in her sister's bed. And then you have Graham, who we don't get to know fully until the picture progresses, but who is a loner and a drifter, a man who enjoys the fact that his key ring only has one key. Once these very different, but very interesting characters are established, it's not hard to immerse yourself into the plot of the film.

Later, we learn that Graham is impotent and even later than that, we learn that he gets off on videotaping women, asking them questions of a sexual nature (their first sexual experience, their fantasies, what they've done, what they'd like to do) and later, re-watching the tapes and pleasuring himself. To Graham, this is his way of making love to these women. Since he can't get an erection in the physical presence of them, he, instead, gets an erection in the videotaped presence of them. During the scenes where we're actually seeing the videotapes on the screen, the soundtrack that plays is an eerie, intense music, almost something out of a horror flick. It feels as though we shouldn't be seeing what we're seeing and Soderbergh does a great job of making us feel uncomfortable. It's a good kind of uncomfortable though, an uncomfortable that is meant to be, that makes you realize how powerful those certain scenes are. Of course, the final climax leads to the videotaping by Graham of Ann. The way it all plays out is quite brilliant. First we see the videotape start and then we flash forward to a shot of, what seems to be, Graham assisting Ann back into her clothes. Later, we see all the juicy details and it's up to us to fill in the blank, a pretty obvious blank if you ask me.

The end also sees Ann divorce John and John fall even further when it's hinted that he also loses his job. At the very end, we see Ann arriving home and when the shot pans out we see that she's arriving home to Graham. The film ends with the two sitting on the porch, making small talk about an impending rainfall. It's a really nice, low key ending that I really thought was suitable. It's an ending that says, despite being a big part of a relationship, sex isn't everything. You had these two completely different characters, from a sexual standpoint, in Graham and Ann. One who wanted nothing to do with sex, didn't want to talk about it and certainly didn't want to do it and the other who was consumed with it, possibly because he wasn't physically capable of doing it. In the end, their sexual desires (or lack thereof) meet at a crossroads and the two end up better off for it. Ann finally unleashes her sexual repression and Graham, possibly because he's in love with Ann, overcomes his impotency and his desire to videotape women.

It's a film where you can pick the characters, their actions, their motivations and their dialogue (and what fantastic dialogue!) apart and really peel back the film, study it and immerse yourself in it. The acting is A+ all the way and even though I love "The Office", this film really makes you realize that James Spader needs to get off that show and get into some more high profile films, because the guy can go with the best of them. The direction is top notch too and even the editing is flawlessly done. As a viewer we're made to feel uncomfortable and awkward at various times throughout the picture, but anytime a filmmaker can make us feel what they want, that's always a great feeling.

RATING: 8/10  Man, the hits just keep on coming! Check back later this week for my review of "Traffic", the continuation of Seven Shadows and the April 2012 recap. Whoo! Busy week!


MOVIES WATCHED: 437
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 564


May 2, 2012  2:14am

Read More

173. Murder, My Sweet/Farewell My Lovely (1944)

Running Time: 95 minutes

Directed By: Edward Dmytryk

Written By: John Paxton, from the novel Farewell My Lovelyby Raymond Chandler

Main Cast: Dick Powell, Claire Trevor, Anne Shirley, Otto Kruger, Mike Mazurki

Click here to view the trailer

SEVEN SHADOWS WEEK: DAY 1

 

Boy, watching all these film noir movies for the next week sure isn’t going to do anything to help me kick the habit of smoking. However, I couldn’t have picked a better night for our journey through film noir to begin, as a rainstorm rumbles outside, soaking the streets and providing me with the perfect setting for a bit of noir.

Our first film noir tale is based on a Raymond Chandler novel and stars one of Chandler’s more notable characters, Philip Marlowe. This go around Marlow is played to near perfection by Dick Powell, someone who I clearly remember singing “Honeymoon Hotel” to Ruby Keeler in “Footlight Parade”. Well Powell traded in his dancing shoes for a trench coat and hat and in “Murder, My Sweet” pounds the pavement of his city, working as a private dick (no pun intended). Early in the film, Marlowe is visited by a brute of a man, whom we later learn is named Moose Malloy (Mazurki). Moose was recently released from the pen and wants to get back in touch with his old flame Velma Valento. Marlowe agrees to help, but before he can get too deep into the case, he’s visited by another client – a Mr. Lindsay Marriott. Mr. Marriott needs Marlowe’s assistance in a delicate matter that involves handing over some money in exchange for the return of a piece of jewelry. Marlowe doesn’t really get why Mr. Marriott can’t do the swap on his own, but for a cool $100, Marlowe tags along for the ride. Of course, we’re in the midst of a film noir here, so the handoff doesn’t go as planned and Marlowe ends up whacked over the head and knocked unconscious. However, he still ends up better than Mr. Marriott, who ends up dead. When Marlowe comes to his senses he finds himself in the hands of the police and as a prime suspect in the murder of Mr. Marriott. He’s released and since he’s a murder suspect, he has the motive he needs to find out why Mr. Marriott is no longer breathing. From there we get a fairly confusing story about a jade necklace, the introduction of “psychic consultant” Jules Amthor (Kruger) and let’s not forget the dames: Ann Grayle (Shirley) and Helen Grayle (Trevor).

To be completely honest with you, I wish we could’ve started out “Seven Shadows Week” with a little more ‘oomph’ than what “Murder, My Sweet” brought to the table. Sure it had the atmosphere down pat: a smart-mouthed dick, with dames hanging off his shoulder and danger around every street corner. Shadows bouncing off the actors’ faces and more cigarettes & guns than you can imagine. If I was just paying for the atmosphere, then I certainly got my money’s worth and then some. And hell, if you’re the type who doesn’t care much for the stories and simply wants to jump into the criminal underbelly of the big city, with the trench coat donning tough guys, then this films right up your alley. But me, I like a little more plot with my noir and “Murder, My Sweet” failed me in that respect. You see, I had a feeling that this one was going to take some wild twist & turns (like most noir’s tend to do), but by the time we got to the end, I didn’t know who stole the jade necklace, if anybody, why so and so killed Marriott (I’m trying my best to make this spoiler free – can you tell?) and what Mr. Grayle’s part in the whole mess was. 

Sure you can argue that it’s not really about the plot, it’s about the style and the atmosphere. Or you could say that I simply failed to pay attention and that if I had only watched more intently everything was as clear as a bell. Well I’d fight you on that last one, because by the end of this thing, the plot was in such knots even the most gifted of boy scouts couldn’t have untied the mess. I’m not saying that “Murder, My Sweet” was bad. In fact, I was able to buy it for its noir-ish qualities alone. All I’m saying is that had it had a little more strength in the plot department and had they made it a little simpler to follow, I would’ve enjoyed it a whole lot more. I did, however, also thoroughly enjoy Dick Powell, as I wondered, prior to watching this, how he would fair in the big, bad world of film noir. He did an outstanding job, transforming himself from a song bird into a hard-nosed P.I.

RATING: 6.5/10  Not bad, by any means, but certainly not the bang that I wanted to make with the first installment of “Seven Shadows Week”. Oh well, there’s always tomorrow. Next up: “Mildred Pierce”. 

MOVIES WATCHED: 436
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 565

NOTE: Please don't forget to head on over to Shadows & Satin today and read Karen's take on "Murder, My Sweet". As she says, you only owe it to yourself. And if you're on Twitter, don't forget to follow us both; @adduvall1984, @TheDarkPages, for multiple chances to win a free book on film noir.

March 31, 2012  2:13am

PUBLISHED: May 1, 2012  12:00pm

 

Read More

977. Bin-jip/3-Iron (2004)

Running Time: 90 minutes
Directed By: Kim Ki-duk
Written By: Kim Ki-duk
Main Cast: Jae Hee, Lee Seung-yeon, Kwon Hyuk-ho
Click here to view the trailer

"IT IS HARD TO TELL THAT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN IS REALITY OR DREAM"

Just to forewarn you, with this week being the week that Karen and I bring "Seven Shadows" to your doorstep, expect to get bombarded with posts on this blog. For starters, you'll have the seven posts that will make up "Seven Shadows" and since those are already written and ready to go, you'll also have me continuing to draw myself closer to the halfway mark of THE BOOK and post reviews on a regular basis.

Tae-suk (Jae Hee) is a drifter and a loner. He doesn't have a home and spends his days cruising on his BMW motorcycle and hanging flyers on people's doors. Later in the day Tae-suk revisits the homes that he hung flyers on and if the flyers are still hanging, he breaks in and makes himself at home. In most cases, the homeowners are on vacation or away on business. Tae-suk doesn't break in with evil intentions, but rather to do his laundry and sleep somewhere other than the street. In fact, Tae-suk usually goes the extra mile and does some chores for the unknowing victims of his harmless "B&E's", such as fixing their stereos and watering their plants. The film picks up steam when Tae-suk breaks into the home of a business man and husband, while he's away. What Tae-suk doesn't know is that the businessman's wife, Sun-hwa (Lee Seung-yeon) is still in the home. She follows him around, watching him do his usual routine when entering a strange home and finally, as he masturbates to some snapshots of her, he notices her. He especially notices her bruised face and signs of domestic violence. When the husband returns, Tae-suk punishes him for what he has done to his wife, by swinging golf balls at him and bloodying him up. From there, Sun-hwa joins Tae-suk on his roaming adventures.

"3-Iron" is not a straightforward film. In fact, I'd even go so far to say that "3-Iron" isn't going to be for everyone's tastes. However, I thought it was brilliant, in a word. It's funny, because there were elements of this picture that I really could have torn apart and nitpicked over, but when it came down to it, I couldn't stop basking at the sheer beauty and poetry that was conveyed here. This is only the second Kim Ki-duk (or should it be said "Ki-duk Kim"?) film I've ever seen, with the other one being "The Isle", which has stuck with me well, but that I didn't care for upon my one and only viewing. It's probably something that needs to be seen again, but I'm rambling and getting off topic. "3-Iron" actually reminded me of one of my personal favorite films and one of the sins of omission from THE BOOK; "Last Life in the Universe". A story about two people, with no one else in the world and nothing to really live for, happening upon one another and giving the other one purpose.

In "3-Iron" our main character, Tae-suk has absolutely no dialogue and our other main character, Sun-hwa, speaks only three words throughout the entire picture. It's a movie where questions arise and things don't always make sense, but one where the questions seem to play second fiddle to just sitting back and experiencing the film. The ending is quite ambiguous too and just for the record, the "the ending is open ended so that the viewer can decide what he/she wants to happen" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be and is more the sign of a lazy writer than a brilliant film. However, that's kind of the deal here, as the ending (in addition to various other segments of the film) are kind of left up to each individual viewer to decide and as the ending line suggests, the line between reality and dream is blurred, somewhat...or not, it's up to you, I guess. As I watched "3-Iron", though, I wasn't as fixated on deciphering the code of the movie or trying to answer the questions, as much as I was, like I said, just letting it all happen and enjoying the experience. The actors (unseasoned ones, I believe) did a marvelous job and Lee Seung-yeon was hard to look away from, as her beauty radiated through the screen. Check this one out for sure, but don't rack your brain trying to answer questions and write the films ending. This film is like a piece of poetry - you may not understand it entirely, but you know it's beautiful. And, for the record, I'll admit that I have a few theories on the events of the film, but they haven't all come together clearly enough yet and another viewing could do the trick in sorting some things out.

RATING: 10/10  It seems like I should've written more for a '10' review, but that's all I got. An easy candidate for my TOP 20 and we're smack dab in the middle of an absolutely EPIC batch of 100.


MOVIES WATCHED: 435
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 566


May 1, 2012  1:29am

Read More

Introduction to Seven Shadows

Greetings and salutations, readers of Andrew’s 1001 Movies I (Apparently) MUST See Before I Die! It is a pleasure for me to be occupying this spot today, and a privilege to join with Andrew to welcome you on our film noir journey known as Seven Shadows.

Let me say from the outset that I do not consider myself to be an “expert” on film noir – unless such expertise can be defined by the number of films one has viewed and how much those films are dearly loved! I have been attracted to film noir for years; I saw my first picture from this era, Double Indemnity, when I was about 14 years old. (We won’t discuss how many years ago that was, thank you.) I’d never even heard of film noir before then, and some of the innuendos and subtleties were over my head, but I wasn’t too young to appreciate the fascinating characters, the snappy dialogue, and the exquisite look of the movie. It was like nothing I’d ever experienced, and I’ve been wild about these films ever since. My love for film noir has been manifested through two books that I’ve written – Femme Noir: The Bad Girls of Film and Bad Boys: The Actors of Film Noir; a bi-monthly film noir newsletter that I edit (offered in both hard copy and electronic form) called The Dark Pages; and my latest venture, my blog, Shadows and Satin, which focuses on film noir and my other cinematic passion, pre-Code film. 

Speaking of cinematic passions, I don’t quite know how or when I discovered Andrew’s ambitious and endlessly entertaining blog, but I do know that two of my earliest comments on his posts were about vastly different movies – not just from each other, but from the kind of feature that usually sparks my interest: Hoop Dreams, an “urban” documentary, and Heavenly Creatures, which marked the film debut of British actress Kate Winslet. Whatever serendipity or kismet led me here, I was instantly engrossed by Andrew’s excellent writing style, fascinating insights, and unique voice. I found that perusing his blog was like eating Lays potato chips – once I’d devoured one post, I wanted to keep reading more and more! As a result, I was deeply honored when Andrew contacted me last year and shared his idea for Seven Shadows.

After Andrew first asked me to team up with him on this project, I’d planned to simply provide him with some articles on film noir movies that I’d already written and posted on my blog – what could be easier? Fortunately, Andrew postponed the launch of Seven Shadows for several months in order to take a much-needed break from watching and writing. It was fortunate because when he recently contacted me again with his idea for a new and improved Seven Shadows, I decided to take the opportunity to write all new posts, rather than relying on retreads. This gave me the chance to re-watch some old, familiar favorites, as well as rediscover some classics that I hadn’t seen in a while. It was a sheer joy!

Seven Shadows focuses on seven features from the classic film noir era: Murder, My Sweet, Mildred Pierce, The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Killers, Out of the Past, Gun Crazy, and The Asphalt Jungle – one picture will be spotlighted on each of the following seven days. Each day, both Andrew and I will offer a post on the film of the day on our respective sites, and on three of the days, we will provide guest posts on each other’s site – so I’ll be back here later this week!

So mark your calendars and join us on this foray inside the dim, desperate and dangerous world of film noir – perhaps you will learn something new about your own favorites, or maybe you’ll discover some features you’re never seen before. Either way, I hope you’ll visit both our sites each day of the week-long blog event . . . like I always say, you only owe it to yourself!

April 30, 2012  12:00pm
by Karen Burroughs Hannsberry

Read More

997. La Vie en rose (2007)

Running Time: 140 minutes
Directed By: Olivier Dahan
Written By: Olivier Dahan, Isabelle Sobelman
Main Cast: Marion Cotillard, Gerard Depardieu, Sylvie Testud, Jean-Pierre Martins, Emmanuelle Seigner
Click here to view the trailer

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF EDITH PIAF

 After a brief respite (due to the fact that I'm on a seven day stretch at work), I've returned to shower you all with more of my mediocre movie reviews and pull myself one step closer to my ultimate goal of watching all 1001 of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die". This entry will highlight "La Vie en rose" - a 2007 biopic documenting the life of Parisian singer Edith Piaf.

To detail the plot of "La Vie en rose" would be to detail the life of Edith Piaf. Born in Paris, Edith Gassion, the daughter of a street singer, often neglected while her mother belted out tuned in exchange for coins, or hopefully a piece of two of paper money. When her mother neglected her to the point of Edith developing into a sickly child, her father stepped in and handed the child off to his mother, the madam of a whorehouse. At the brothel, Edith is fawned over by the prostitutes and taken under the wing of a particular girl named Titine (Seigner). Once a bond is formed between young Edith and Titine, she is ripped away from the brothel when her father returns to reclaim her. Her father, a contortionist for the circus, takes her on the road with him, but is fired soon after. When Edith's father takes his act to the street, the crowd demands that Edith be made part of the act and when she belts out a rendition of "La Marseillaise", Edith Piaf is born. From there, Edith takes to the streets well into her teenage years, singing for money. Later, she is discovered by Louis Leplee (Depardieu), the proprietor of a cabaret. Her star continues to soar, as she gains worldwide fame, often traveling to New York to perform. As her star rises, her health deteriorates, as she's involved in an auto accident and gets addicted to morphine. The story is told in non-linear format, shifting back and forth between Edith's life in a linear narrative and Edith in her final days.

In my opinion, there are two golden rules when it comes to a biopic. They are:

1. If you know the subject, prior to seeing the film, it will make for a much more enjoyable experience. You'll be familiar with the subject and be able to see the events that shaped their life fictionalized and it's just a lot more fun if you know what's going down.

2. If you don't know the subject of said biopic, then it is the goal of the filmmaker to interest you in the life of the subject and educate you on the importance of the figure. This is the category I fell in, as it pertains to "La Vie en rose"...

...However, I'm not so sure the filmmaker (in this case Olivier Duhan) enticed me enough into the life of Edith. I thank the film for the education, that's for sure. Prior to watching this film, all I knew about Edith Piaf was that she was a singer and I only knew that because I read the plot synopsis on the Netflix sleeve. The film reminded me of all the great people that were born and died before I was even born. It's amazing to think of the amount of greatness that came and went prior to my birth.

I've got to say that I wasn't all that thrilled with the way the story was told either. I think going in a straight, linear path would have been the way to go, especially when it comes to a biopic, the type of film that basically writes itself. I applaud the filmmaker's for trying to tinker with the recipe for a biopic, but I think, ultimately, it wasn't a successful way to tell the story. I found myself being more intrigued with the life of Edith as the story went on. When the film started, I felt like this would just be another hard luck story about a woman who overcame the raw hand she was dealt to rise to super stardom. However, as the film went along, I realized that Edith's story wasn't a typical story and the events that shaped her life weren't your typical events. For someone unfamiliar with Edith (yours truly) there were surprises to be had and as the film progressed I found myself more and more drawn into the life of Edith Piaf. And do I even have to mention Marion Cotillard's performance. It was phenomenal, nuff' said.

RATING: 6.5/10  A '7' just seems a tad too much, so I'll draw the line at half past six and maybe I'll stew on that for a few days until recap time rolls along.

MOVIES WATCHED: 434
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 567

COMING SOON: 
**SEVEN SHADOWS begins tomorrow, with an introduction from Karen Burroughs Hannsberry. Starting Tuesday, the seven films start flowing, including: "Murder, My Sweet", "Mildred Pierce", "The Postman Always Rings Twice", "The Killers", "Out of the Past", "Gun Crazy" and "The Asphalt Jungle".

Also, coming this week: 
City of God (2002 - Fernando Meirelles)
3-Iron (2004 - Kim Ki-duk)
Traffic (2000 - Steven Soderbergh)
Now, Voyager (1942 - Irving Rapper)

April 29, 2012  10:26pm

Read More

158. Fires Were Started (1943)

Running Time: 80 minutes
Directed By: Humphrey Jennings
Written By: Humphrey Jennings
Main Cast: Philip Disckson, George Gravett, Fred Griffiths, Johnny Houghton, Loris Rey

I WAS A FIREMAN

Taking in a whole lot of long pictures recently, today I decided to take in something much shorter, in the form of "Fires Were Started", an eighty minute picture by Humphrey Jennings.

Jennings was a documentary filmmaker, however "Fires Were Started" really doesn't fall under the category of documentary, as it's actually a story, with acting and effects. The people doing the acting, however, aren't actually actors, but rather they are fireman with fictional names. The film takes place during one day in the lives of a fire company, during World War II and the "Blitz on Britain" via German bombers. The picture begins with a new recruit showing up to work, meeting his fellow firefighter brethren. The group go through their day, starting off slow, playing pool and singing songs, before the fire alarm rings and they're thrust into the heat of battle, as they wage war with the flames.

I don't want to drag this film down too much, as it was obviously made by a man who wanted to pay homage to the firemen and women who risked their lives during World War II, in an effort to keep the city from burning to the ground. However, it just didn't appeal to me. It baffles me that pictures like this are included in THE BOOK, when ten star movies are left out in the cold. It's also a head scratcher as to why THE BOOK feels the need to include something from every facet of motion picture making, rather than simply including the 1001 best films, in the author's opinion. I would not call "Fires Were Started" a MUST SEE picture and unless you're going on the same journey as me, or have an interest in World War II, the Blitz on Britain or firefighters and their role in the war, then avoid this film. The audio is bad, the "actors" aren't experienced and they do a lot of mumbling through their heavy cockney accents, so it's quite hard to understand them a lot of the time.

I will say, however, that it is a bit of an inspirational picture. It really shows you what these guys risked on a daily basis to keep their city from crumbling. It speaks on brotherhood, pride in country and soldiering through in the face of adversity. The scene where the company sings a song together, before going out to fight fires, is actually quite touching. How they're not afraid when the rumble of a nearby bomb hit shakes their building and cracks their walls and how they keep singing their songs and preparing for battle. I'll give it that much, at least.

RATING: 3.5/10  Can't go much higher than that folks. It's one that I feel shouldn't have been included in THE BOOK and actually a waste of a spot.


MOVIES WATCHED: 433
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 568


April 26, 2012  9:37pm

Read More