Tom Jones

A mix of good and bad.  If something is usually described as “bawdy”, chances are I’m not going to like it.  Maybe I’m a bit of a prude or something.  I just roll my eyes at that kind of thing… winking innuendo, lusty looks, guys caught with their pants down with a “whoopsie!” embarrassed expression.  Bawdiness annoys me.  Fortunately, the movie isn’t bawdy all that often.  But even the non-bawdy humor is obnoxious: sped-up camera, knowing glances at the camera, awful wacky music and a series of zany wipes (for no particular reason, perhaps Tony Richardson just couldn’t decide what kind of wipe he liked best).  It grated on my nerves.  But it’s not all bad.  The film is to be commended for dispensing with the usual stuffiness of a period picture (although this wasn’t unprecedented, it was atypical at the time).  When it isn’t trying to be all bawdy and wacky, the story is very engaging and clever, with some Bunuel-esque jabs at the upper class.  And Albert Finney’s rakish charm is perfect for the role, so much so that I wish he had been given even more of a chance to showcase it.  So I kind of enjoyed this movie despite kind of hating it.  I suspect that I’d prefer the novel.  Rating: 6

IMDb

La belle noiseuse

An interesting study of the artistic process and how it can affect those involved, as an old painter tries to find inspiration in his resistant model.  Rivette has a naturalistic style with very little fuss… most of the fussiness is left to the dialogue.  I felt the script was the weakest aspect of the film, with everyone talking in such an introspective, abstract manner as if they spent every waking moment pondering the human condition.  Otherwise, I was more engaged than I expected to be.  You could say this doesn’t need to be 4 hours long, but I found the length didn’t bother me much.  I can’t think of anything that was particularly superfluous.  While I certainly wouldn’t call the film a masterpiece (and I think it wouldn’t get as much attention if it wasn’t so lengthy) it was pretty intriguing.  Rating: 7

IMDb

Cries and Whispers (rewatch)

It’s been over 7 years since I last watched this, my first Bergman.  Not that I’ve been avoiding it, just you know… too many movies, too little time.  I’d forgotten how experimental this film is.  Of course I recalled the striking, vivid photography.  Those overwhelming reds, whites and blacks, some of Nykvist’s most astonishing work.  And I remembered how the performances were not “realistic”, but rather steeped in hysteria and drama.  But I had forgotten how trancelike it all is, and the ambiguous event that occurs in the third act.  It’s like a fever dream, a nightmare of the soul.  I have to say this one doesn’t quite do it for me.  It’s harrowing and beautiful, and the performances, although you’d certainly call them “over the top” (especially Thulin’s), are captivating.  It just doesn’t really seem to add up to as much as it should.  There are the usual great moments of insight, and as a mood piece it’s very provocative, but I don’t end up carrying enough away from it.  Still, I have hope that future viewings might prove more rewarding.  Rating: 8

IMDb

The Naked Spur

I don’t really LOVE Mann’s westerns, but he almost always seems to do a very fine job with them.  Jimmy Stewart hunts down an outlaw for a big reward, and finds himself saddled with two unwanted partners.  When the bad guy tries to pit them against each other, it becomes a tense drama of mistrust, akin to Treasure of the Sierra Madre.  A really solid script, beautiful Technicolor photography (all shot on location), tight plotting, strong characters and good performances from Stewart et al (Janet Leigh could have been better).  This one doesn’t really have that something special to push it over the top, but without any glaring flaws, it’s quite satisfying.  Rating: 8

IMDb

Murder by Contract

A spectacular B-movie noir about a hitman with a difficult assignment.  Vince Edwards is glorious as the cold, calculating, philosophical killer.  Watching him coolly go about his work with detachment and precision is gripping.  Director Irving Lerner tells the story with economy and flair, constructing a number of memorable sequences.  The “waiting for the call” montage is a clear influence on Taxi Driver… indeed, Martin Scorsese is a big fan of the film.  One of the most striking elements is the score: jaunty jazz guitar, very reminiscent of (and probably inspired by) The Third Man.  The music builds and takes on a driving rhythm as the narrative becomes more tense.  I got a huge kick out of this unique and compelling film.  A few really shoddy rear projection shots and a somewhat annoying secondary character are the only notable flaws in this otherwise spellbinding treat.  There are times when it seems like a chore going through the TSPDT 1000 list, but movies like this remind me why it’s worth the effort.  Rating: 9

IMDb

The Touch (rewatch)

Bergman’s other big failures are notably outside his comfort zone.  High Tension is a thriller and All These Women is a broad sex comedy.  But this is well within his milieu: a 3-character domestic drama.  And so it’s even more disappointing in its blandness.  It could almost be a TV movie (of course Bergman did some excellent TV movies, but you know what I mean).  It’s hard not to blame the language.  The film was originally supposed to be in Swedish (when appropriate) AND English, but the studio demanded all English.  Apparently a restoration of the dual-language version is making the rounds, but I doubt it would be much of an improvement.  Elliot Gould’s in 80% of it, so those scenes would still be English.  And Bergman just doesn’t write or direct well in English.  A lot of it sounds so phony and wrong.  And nothing else about it is that great, either.  The music is lame, the photography lifeless, the symbolism blunt… even the editing is off.  There are some good scenes, though, particularly towards the end.  Rating: 5

IMDb

You, the Living (rewatch)

Just came out on DVD, and with generous extra features.  It’s very much the baby brother of Songs from the Second Floor, but that’s fine with me.  It’s supposed to the second of a trilogy anyway.  Andersson can keep churning out similar movies for the rest of his life and I’ll be happy (sadly, with his age and the time he takes on each film, there might not be many more).  I just love his sense of style… the drab, sterile environments, the (mostly) static camera, the careful compositions, the interplay between foreground and background, the walking dead look of the actors, the ubiquitous sousaphones, the sense of the fantastic meeting the crushingly mundane.  This one definitely has a lighter touch than its predecessor.  There’s even some camera movement!  In two different scenes!  But it’s also darker.  Andersson finds dark comedy in our eternal tragedy, and deep melancholy in our minor joys.  The one scene that could be considered “happy” is a dream.  And largely the film is about our inability to live our dreams, our profound inadequacy as human beings.  Rating: 9

IMDb

8 1/2 (rewatch)

This is my third viewing, and it just gets better every time.  Every scene is amazing.  You find yourself looking forward to the parts you remember, and during the other parts you’re thinking “I can’t believe I forgot this scene!”.  For most directors, the meta-narrative about a filmmaker who can’t seem to make his film would be plenty.  But what’s magical about 8 1/2 is that it’s about so much more than that.  Guido isn’t simply unable to commit to his film… he’s unable to commit to anything.  His dreams, his fantasies and his past keep intruding on reality with childlike abandon.  And it’s done so brilliantly, it just flows perfectly and doesn’t feel written at all.  It really is a perfect movie, even though I kind of hate to say it, partly because I like Nights of Cabiria even more, and I wouldn’t call that one “perfect”.  The lighting is perfect, the music is perfect, the casting is perfect (especially the minor roles and background actors — what a sea of amazing faces!).  It sweeps you off your feet.  There are films I love that aren’t canon, and there are canon films that I’m not fond of at all, but sometimes canon is canon for a very good reason.  Absolutely one of the best films ever made.  Rating: 10

IMDb

The Bad and the Beautiful

Vincente Minnelli’s Hollywood exposé doesn’t live up to his dazzling musicals, but it’s not bad.  It chronicles the rise and fall of an ambitious Selznick-like producer, as told via flashback by a director, actress and writer… all people he’s screwed over while clawing his way to the top, but each benefited from his attentions nonetheless.  The film isn’t nearly as scathing as it could be, but the script is pretty well-written and it’s pretty entertaining.  Largely because of Kirk Douglas’ charismatic performance, and the rest of the cast is good too.  These characters obviously have real-life analogues, and the prestige director “Von Ellstein” is even a dead ringer for von Sternberg.  Some excellent cinematography seals the deal, making it a fine picture, although one that falls short of greatness.  Rating: 7

IMDb

The Informer

An incredibly stupid man rats out his murderer IRA buddy, and then his guilty conscience makes him absurdly defensive.  “Subtle” usually isn’t in John Ford’s vocabulary, but this film has a slightly more complex morality than his usual work (for example, the protagonist is a violent, impulsive drunk).  But Ford makes a fatal mistake: he assumes your sympathies lie with the Sinn Fein.  I don’t have a massive hardon for Ireland the way Ford does, and I don’t approve of the IRA’s tactics.  So I really couldn’t care what any of these idiots did to each other.  And Victor McLagen’s performance is so over-the-top that I never developed any sympathy for him either, whether I was meant to or not.  However, the black & white photography is very impressive, almost noir-ish in its gritty contrasts.  And the film does provide some tense scenes, especially the trial (reminiscent of M).  Rating: 6

IMDb