Firelight

Firelight (1997)

“Firelight makes time stand still. When you put out the lamps and sit in the firelight’s glow there aren’t any rules any more. You can do what you want, say what you want, be what you want, and when the lamps are lit again, time starts again, and everything you said or did is forgotten. More than forgotten it never happened.”

 

A young 19^th century woman sits in a chair carefully answering questions about her qualifications. An older woman sits across from her behind a desk asking about her previous experience at being a governess. It all seems ordinary until one notices the screen beside the older woman and the male voice whispering additional questions from behind it. What starts as routine soon takes a turn when one realizes exactly what kind of job the young woman is being interviewed for. The man wants a child. In the beginning that is all we or Elisabeth (Sophie Marceau) know about his motivations. He appears to be young, rich, cultured, and handsome. He never offers Elisabeth an explanation for his unorthodox proposal. She accepts because she is desperate. Her father has mounted up considerable debt and is now in prison. There is no way that she could earn the money he needs by continuing to work as a governess.

Of course, in the 19^th century, there was no such thing as in vitro fertilization, so any conception of said child would have to be accomplished the old fashioned way. To accomplish this, the two of them will meet for three nights in an out of the way hotel on a desolate coast where no one will recognize him.

This is how Firelight begins. The film is quite reminiscent of Jane Eyre, only its plot twists are a tad kinkier. It has a number of surprises some predictable, but others not. The acting is well done. Sophie Marceau creates a heroine that Hitchcock would approve of. She’s austere and chilly by day and hot-blooded and passionate by firelight. There is a palpable sense of waiting, even yearning, that she imparts through her eyes even in her most sedate moments. Stephen Dillane does a good job of fleshing out Charles Godwin, the man who hires Elisabeth to bear his child.

I would not want to spoil any of the surprises that the plot has in store, so I will give nothing further away. The movie is beautifully photographed with great attention to detail. Firelight plays an important part in the film and the scenes shot in it are quite lovely. I wasn’t sure if I was going to like Firelight, but upon reflection there is much to be said for its quiet charms. Anyone who enjoys period pieces, and is not squeamish about a few tasteful but revealing love scenes should enjoy this film.

Up

Up

I’m not sure how they manage it, but Pixar manages to blindside me every time. Every year, I watch the trailer for their latest offering and think it doesn’t seem that impressive or different from their competition. I read the glowing reviews and think, “Hmmm, I’ll have to try that after all.” Inwardly, though, I somehow remain unconvinced that the studio will pull it off this time…until I actually see the film. This happened to me with Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-e and now Up.

I bought the blu-ray disc of Up several weeks ago intending to watch it almost immediately, yet I kept dragging my heels. I’m not sure why. I think it has to do with expectations. I hate building up huge expectations for a film because often it can’t come close to meeting them. I’d heard glowing things about Up, but I didn’t want to trust them.

Well, they were all true. Up may easily be my favorite film I’ve seen this year. It’s thoughtful, charming, imaginative, funny and poignant. I’m not a person easily disposed to either tears or belly laughs, so when a film inspires both in me, I have to admit it’s something special. In my last post, I was complaining about the pessimism bordering on nihilism so prevalent in today’s films, especially in Science Fiction. Up is the antidote for that cynicism.

Carl Frederickson (voiced by Ed Asner) meets the love of his life as a boy. Ellie is an extroverted tomboy with the heart of an explorer. Carl is a bit shyer, but he too longs to play the adventurous discoverer. In the first ten minutes of the film, we watch as Carl and Ellie meet as children, play, grow up, marry and grow old together. Those ten minutes are both wonderful and devastating as we see Carl lose Ellie. This isn’t a film that shirks loss or underestimates the difficulty of recovering after such tragedy.

Into Carl’s life comes a young boy, Russell. Through a series of interesting plot twists, Carl and Russell end up in South America on a house floating from hundreds of balloons. Carl finds Russell little more than annoyance in the beginning. He still feels an adult responsibility to make sure that nothing happens to Russell, but it’s the sort of impersonal, condescending help that any adult feels compelled to offer someone else’s child. Ultimately, though, Carl realizes the reasons for many of Russell’s character traits that annoy him so much: his father has become absent in his life. Russell constantly strives to attract his father’s attention and approval.

This is just a lovely movie with lovely messages. We’re never too old or too young to have an adventure. The only thing to make life bearable after a crushing loss is to find some other way to love and to live. Pixar did it to me again. Maybe one day I’ll learn not to underestimate their wizardry or their storytelling skills.

Recent Science Fiction Trends

I’ve often had a weakness for science fiction films depicting dystopias. From Blade Runner to The Matrix, I’ve enjoyed catching a glimpse of the future even if it seemed dark. Lately, however, it seems we have very little optimism to balance out the grim worlds SF creators have envisioned recently. One could possibly blame The Dark Knight. Its runaway success certainly encouraged the trend to delve even more deeply into the dark – witness this year’s Watchmen, District 9 and the television miniseries, Torchwood: Children of Earth. Before these projects or The Dark Knight, though, we had Children of Men and V for Vendetta. Each succeeding movie seems that much more disturbing and cynical in its view of mankind. I’m almost starting to lose my appetite for dystopian fiction.

Upon reflection, these projects are doing one of science fiction’s primary jobs: holding up a mirror to the times and commenting upon current events in ways that the public finds more endurable than listening to the evening news. They are, in their own unique way, a parallel to the Gangster films of The Great Depression. Warner Brothers was known for its own gritty, realistic take on motion pictures. They were willing to show the ugly side of life in ways that rival studio, MGM, would never have dreamed of. Our own times are just as harsh and our cinema reflects that reality.

It’s an interesting fact that films that directly deal with the major current events of the last five years, the economy, the war, bomb at the box office. People have enough of that in real life, thank you very much. Yet, The Dark Knight was an enormous hit. District 9 was a surprise sleeper film that made over triple its low budget at the box office. Watchmen, the grimmest movie of the three, was only a modest success that only made $55 million more than its $130 million price tag.

The BBC/BBC America miniseries Torchwood: Children of Earth drew tremendous numbers in Great Britain and was BBC America’s biggest success to date in this country. It also might be the most depressing thing I’ve watched all year. Characters that we care about make damnable choices that leave one of the most beloved characters of that universe dead and emotionally devastate another. Since this is, essentially, the third season of a television series, these actions hurt in ways that a theatrical film has difficulty reaching. Russell T. Davies, Torchwood’s executive producer, managed to defy the odds that said that such a dark, gloomy look at the state of humanity (and especially Western civilization) should draw in few viewers. I’m glad for the show’s success and wish all of its creators well, but the unrelenting darkness of Davies’s vision may be the one straw too many for me. Demonstrating darkness is always more effective when contrasted with the light. I’m beginning to long for some optimism.

Perhaps that is why Star Trek was such a gigantic hit this year. Its budget was even more extensive than Watchmen, $150 million. It’s also made over double that budget in its world-wide grosses. J. J. Abram’s vision of Star Trek is not immune to the darkness creeping into the SF world, but it is not devoid of hope. In fact, the biggest insult that Abrams could have given to Gene Roddenberry’s legacy would have been to strip it of its most potent feature: its eternal optimism that mankind survives, and even thrives, into the future. While some shocking, horrible things happen in the film they serve to ground it and deepen the characters we know so well. Suddenly, there are consequences in a Star Trek film which creates an excitement that the franchise has not had in a long time. Still, the movie succeeds in creating bonds between its characters, a fellowship that has endured over 40 years. This fellowship allows the audience to feel hope, an emotion I would like to experience more of next year. After all, as another famous SF character likes to remark, “I quite like hope. Hope’s a good emotion.” I might add that adults need it just as much as children.

Late Halloween Offerings

Late Halloween Offerings

 

When it comes to the perfect Halloween movies, I have a definite preference for classic rather than current Hollywood. I prefer gothic to gore and a less-is-more approach to torture porn. This week, for the holiday, I celebrated by indulging in some oldies but goodies.

First off, is Paul Leni’s 1927 The Cat and the Canary, which should not be confused with the later comedic remake starring Bob Hope. The original Cat and the Canary is one of the first American horror movies though steeped, as most of the genre was, in German Expressionism. Like most American horror films before Todd Browning’s Dracula, the menace was decidedly non-supernatural. There is a famous shot of a hairy hand coming out of a library wall to grab a lawyer. I’d seen that shot many times in documentaries, and so was more startled by a later shot where the same hand reaches out from behind a bed to snatch a diamond necklace from the neck of the young woman lying there. I’ve got an instinctual fear of something threatening me in my bed that stems back to childhood. No, I didn’t have a monster under the bed. I was convinced that Dracula was hanging in the closet or scratching at the window.

Speaking of Dracula, I finished off the remaining films on the Universal Legacy Collections of Frankenstein and Dracula. Son of Frankenstein, I mentioned last week, so I’ll move on. The other two Frankenstein films in the set are Ghost of Frankenstein and House of Frankenstein. Ghost of Frankenstein was interesting to me for two reasons: the return of Bela Lugosi as Ygor and the first mention of a reasonable if gruesome way of permanently destroying the monster: dissect him one body part at a time, reversing the way Dr. Frankenstein put him together. Of course, this method is not used, but I found the logic sound. House of Frankenstein is one of the later monster movies where Universal liked to throw a bunch of their classics creatures together in one film. In this instance, it is Frankenstein’s Creature, the Wolf Man and Dracula. Dracula gets little to do, but I enjoyed this one because of the Wolf Man and the presence of Boris Karloff (who does not play the Creature).

The other films in the Dracula collection include the Spanish version of Dracula. Filmed at the same time as the English version and using the same sets, it is a technically superior production. Unfortunately, the absence of Bela Lugosi is painfully felt. That absence is also keenly felt in Son of Dracula where Dracula is played by Lon Chaney Jr., of the Wolf Man fame. Chaney is absolutely wrong for Dracula. His strength in playing Larry Talbot, the man cursed to turn into a werewolf, is the haunted look in his eyes. Lugosi’s eyes are haunting not haunted. It creates a sense of danger and power that Chaney can’t match. Chaney’s liquid expression calls for sympathy and pathos, perfect for the Wolf Man but not for the way Dracula is portrayed in these early films. Much better is House of Dracula. Once again the Creature, the Wolf Man and Dracula cross paths. Both the Creature and Dracula fair badly in this match-up. The Creature is barely present and Dracula’s motivations veer all over the place. The highlight of the film is the hope finally given to Talbot. If you’re a fan of the Wolf Man, don’t miss this one. Last, is one of the strongest films of the collection, Dracula’s Daughter. Here we have a female vampire and some very interesting subtext between her and her female victims that had the censors of the day hopping.

Even better fare from the ‘40s includes Fox’s Horror Classics boxed set starring three films by director John Brahm: The Undying Monster, The Lodger and Hangover Square. Brahm has been largely forgotten today, which is a shame. These are three wonderfully atmospheric, beautifully shot films with great performances. The Undying Monster is an answer to Universal’s popular The Wolf Man, down to its own little warning chant that owes a large debt to The Wolf Man’s, “Even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers at night can become a wolf when the wolf bane blooms and the moon is clear and bright.” Other than that misstep, the film is quite entertaining. The next two films, though, are quite special. Starring Laird Cregar, The Lodger and Hangover Square are complementary pieces. The Lodger is more recognizable because it is about Jack the Ripper and is a remake of a silent Hitchcock film. Hangover Square, though, contains one of Bernard Hermann’s most wonderful and evocative scores (which is quite the feat). The concerto he composes for Cregar’s character George Bone has to be heard – intensely powerful and unhinged like its fictitious creator. This boxed set is highly recommended.

Finally, I watched two films from the ‘50s: The Bad Seed and The Fly. The Bad Seed is also highly recommended. It contains one of the most chilling performances by a child actor I’ve ever witnessed. The nature vs. nurture argument is one that has been debated endlessly for years. It’s interesting to see here that the characters profess to believe in the nurture side of things, but the movie argues that nature, and possibly fate, decide who we are. The Fly was famously remade in the ‘80s by David Cronenberg. This is the original starring Vincent Price and Herbert Marshall. It was wonderful to see these two veterans give solid performances, but at its heart the movie is a tragic love story. More terrifying than any supernatural horror is the twofold idea explored here: what if your spouse changed so much that they became unrecognizable? On the flip side, what if you had an accident which disfigured you so much that your spouse rejected you? Terrible questions, to be sure.

1939 Part Two

Last week, I took a look at several of the biggest movies of 1939, the so-called “Golden Year” of movie history. Aside from The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind, I discussed such pictures as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Destry Rides Again, Stagecoach, Ninotchka, Only Angels Have Wings, Gunga Din, and Dark Victory. This week, I want to mention a few other better known pictures before moving on to some recommendations of lesser known gems.

One of my favorite films of the year is Wuthering Heights. It’s been remade countless times, but for many this remains the best adaptation. Lawrence Olivier and Meryl Oberon star as the doomed lovers, Heathcliff and Cathy. Olivier is, of course, best known for his Shakespearean performances, especially in Hamlet, Henry V and Richard III. Despite my intense and long-lasting love for the Bard, I must admit that I prefer Olivier in his early Hollywood years when he played Heathcliff, Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice and Maxim DeWInter in Rebecca. There was a smoldering sensuality about his performances in those parts that caught my teenage imagination and never let go. I suppose many women these days feel the same way about Colin Firth.

This was also the year of The Women, not to be confused with the recent pallid remake. The original film starring Norma Shearer, Rosalind Russell, Joan Crawford, and Paulette Goddard (just to name the tip of the iceberg!) had sharp teeth and claws. Its lines had the sting and bite of truth to them which the new film tries to deny. Much as I’d like to believe that all women treat each other as sisters, reality has taught me otherwise. The Women echoes advice given to me by my mother ages ago about being careful how much influence you allow your friends to have over your life. It’s also funny and possibly the best show case for actresses Hollywood ever produced.

The Golden Year had a picture for every taste. Do you love musicals? Check out Shirley Temple in A Little Princess or Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle. The latter is the last in the great cycle of RKO films that Astaire and Rogers made together in the ‘30s. They only made one more film together many years later, MGM’s The Barkleys of Broadway. A recent discovery of mine was the delightful Deanna Durbin vehicle First Love. It may be the funniest, best adaptation of Cinderella that I’ve ever seen. Durbin is lovely and talented. She possesses a warm, engaging personality that steers clear of sentimentality. With a wonderful cast of character actors to support her, she charms the audience along with an extremely young Robert Stack.

Suppose horror movies are more your taste. Boris Karloff was extremely busy in 1939. He made The Tower of London, The Man They Could Not Hang and Son of Frankenstein. The first is actually a reworking of Richard III also starring Basil Rathbone and Vincent Price. The second is a more traditional horror tale about a doctor conducting an experiment gone awry that results in him being convicted of murder. His own discoveries lead to him returning from the dead to seek revenge on those who had him hanged. Son of Frankenstein is the most fun of the three. Watching it, I was struck by how great a debt Mel Brooks owes to this one film. Basil Rathbone plays the son of the disgraced Dr. Frankenstein who returns to the castle with his wife and son intending to restore his father’s reputation. The villagers do not want him. Bela Lugosi co-stars as the fiendish Ygor who controls Frankenstein’s creature for his own purposes.

If you prefer romance instead, you have some wonderful choices. Leo McCarey’s Love Affair, starring Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer, would later be remade as the better known An Affair to Remember. The original is just as touching with Irene Dunne in superb form. I must confess to missing Cary Grant, though. Another romantic film, Midnight, is a classic screwball comedy starring Claudette Colbert, Don Ameche, Mary Astor and John Barrymore. It feels effortless and effervescent as the best screwballs do. Claudette Colbert plays a broke young woman who ends up in Paris. She makes friends with a cabdriver, but then gets hired by John Barrymore to impersonate an aristocrat in order to seduce his wife’s lover away from her. Barrymore has never been funnier. Another screwball comedy is Day-time Wife, starring Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell. It’s not quite up to Midnight’s caliber, but is solidly amusing. In it, we find Power and Darnell as a young married couple. Darnell discovers that Power is playing around with his secretary. She decides to find out what secretaries have that wives don’t, and takes a secret daytime job working for one of Power’s potential clients. Another great romantic comedy is Bachelor Mother starring Ginger Rogers. She plays a shopgirl who finds herself an unexpected mother after a baby comes her way as only a classic screwball plot can dictate. Unfortunately, this last film is still unavailable on DVD but can occasionally be seen on TCM.

 

If you prefer action instead, try a couple of Gary Cooper films, Beau Geste and The Real Glory. Beau Geste is the more famous of the two – another film that will be remade and remade and remade. I remember as a child watching Michael York in The Last Remake of Beau Geste. It’s a rousing film about brothers who join the Foreign Legion. The Real Glory is set in the Philippines during their fight for independence. Cooper plays a military doctor who is more interested in healing people’s bodies and minds than obeying orders. It’s a very interesting film that strongly resonates today with its parallels to Vietnam and Iraq. If you cross this film with the anarchic spirit of a Marx Brothers’ comedy you might end up with MASH. Another exciting film is Dodge City, Errol Flynn’s first Western. His frequent co-stars Alan Hale and Olivia DeHavilland follow him along for the ride and the result is top-notch. Other thrilling pictures in 1939 include two entries in the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes series, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and The Hound of the Baskervilles. Both are riveting, but I’d give the edge to Baskervilles.

Finally, if you prefer epics like Gone With the Wind, 1939 had others. The Brits had their own epic film The Four Feathers which holds its own with David O. Selznick’s masterpiece. Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert starred in Drums Along the Mohawk, a revolutionary war drama. Cecil B. Demille directed Barbara Stanwyck in Union Pacific about the building of the railroad and John Ford directed Henry Fonda in Young Mr. Lincoln. My most recent discovery is the wonderful The Rains Came starring Tyrone Power and Myrna Loy. Loy plays a bad girl, the bored wife of an English aristocrat. While in India she falls under the spell of Tyrone Power as a local physician. Yes, I know Tyrone Power is not Indian, but he imbues the character with not only charisma but dignity. There is a storm in the middle of the film that can hold its own against any disaster picture shown today.

There was Another Thin Man while Tarzan Finds a Son.  Charlie Chan went to Reno, Paris and the World’s Fair*, and the Marx Brothers were At the Circus. Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland were Babes in Arms while Laurel and Hardy were The Flying Deuces. James Cagney had a banner year with The Roaring Twenties and Each Dawn I Die. Bette Davis also had an outstanding year, not settling for just Dark Victory but also starring in The Old Maid (based on an Edith Wharton novella) and co-starring with Errol Flynn in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex. Indeed, there is such an embarrassment of riches in this year: Of Mice and Men, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Intermezzo, Goodbye Mr. Chips. Truly, we will not look upon the likes of this again.

 

 

*Charlie Chan in Reno, Charlie Chan in the City in Darkness, Charlie Chan at Treasur

1939 — Part One

1939 – Part 1

1939 is affectionately referred to by movie lovers as “The Golden Year.” Reverence and wonder fill the voices of film historians whenever they speak of this one year in the early 20^th Century. All of Hollywood’s newest technologies of sound and color coalesced into a benchmark of the studio system. So many wonderful films filled the theatres that year that many are often overlooked. This review deals with the most important films, but will be followed up by a second that recommends some quality movies that are lesser known.

Of course, the two biggest films of that year – the two biggest films of any year – were The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind. They are the giants, their impact so large that even today the majority of the population recognizes both their names and their importance. In this, their 70^th anniversary, Warner Home Video is releasing them on Blu-ray. The Wizard of Oz is out already with Gone With the Wind arriving in time for the holidays. The Wizard of Oz lives up to all expectations in high definition: glorious, brilliant and vibrant. The film looks brand new from the sheen of the plastic leaves in Munchkin land to the freckles on Judy Garland’s face to the sparkly sequins on those famous ruby slippers. Gone With the Wind looks to be another superlative transfer which I intend to enjoy along with friends in triple celebration: holidays, end of the semester and 70 years of magic.

The reputations of The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind are so gigantic, though, that many younger movie lovers are losing sight of some of the other highlights of The Magic Year. They are, in essence, Shakespeare during the Renaissance. Renaissance and Jacobean times possessed some of the richest dramas and most talented playwrights in English literature and yet they are practically unknown next to the Bard. Likewise, there were other exceptionally well-made films in 1939, many still well-known.

The most famous is arguably Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, one of Frank Capra’s best and most resonating works. James Stewart gives a heartfelt performance as Mr. Smith, a man who finds himself an unexpected politician in Washington. The corrupt around him intend to use him for their own designs, and when he learns of their schemes he begins to despair. His efforts to fight back and stand up for integrity in government should not be missed. Stewart is only one of many fine actors, including Jean Arthur, Claude Rains and Edward Arnold.

Stewart also had another fantastic film that year: Destry Rides Again. This is one of the first western comedies and it may very well be the best. There would be no Maverick or Blazing Saddles without this film. Stewart plays Tom Destry, the son of a famous sheriff. He’s invited to come to a small town to clean up the outlaws. Everyone gets a bit tense until they find out that Destry doesn’t even like to pack a gun. This leads to all of the macho types thinking he’s a push-over. He’s not. He’s quick-witted and stubborn. This movie is one of the jewels in Marlene Dietrich’s crown as she sings “The Boys in the Back Room” and finds herself embroiled in what has been called the greatest catfight of all times. This movie is both fun and funny and should not be missed.

Another western, serious this time, is Stagecoach which was the film that made John Wayne a star. It teamed him with John Ford, his favorite director. Stagecoach possessed many of the trappings people associate with the genre: gunfights, Indian attacks, and outlaws. At its heart, though, Stagecoach is about its ensemble cast. It delves into the souls of its characters which means that it stands up well today. Wayne is electrifying as the Ringo Kid, but the rest of the cast, including Claire Trevor, Donald Meek and Andy Devine, is also uniformly brilliant.

Bette Davis had two important entries in the Golden Year: Jezebel* and Dark Victory. Jezebel was Warner’s way of consoling her for not being cast as Scarlett O’Hara. Her Southern belle is even more selfish and manipulative than Scarlett, if that could be imagined. Henry Fonda plays the man she’s engaged to, but his admiration is stretched to the limit. Davis won her second Academy award for Jezebel. Dark Victory gives Davis a three-hankie weeper – the epitome of a “woman’s picture.” In it, she stars as a rich young woman who has everything one could desire from life, except good health. George Brent and Humphrey Bogart co-star beside Davis as she gives Greta Garbo in Camille a run for her money.

Speaking of Greta Garbo, in 1939 she starred in Ernst Lubitsch’s Ninotchka. The picture was marketed as “Garbo Laughs!” Ninotchka was an effervescent romantic comedy made by a master at his peak. Co-starring Melvyn Douglas, the film delights with a match of opposites: a strict no-nonsense Soviet-era Russian comrade with a hedonistic playboy living in that city that seems practically synonymous with sensuality, Paris. Garbo relaxes into the role seeming more natural and beguiling than ever. It would later be remade into a musical starring Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse, Silk Stockings.

If you prefer action and adventure, two Cary Grant films fill the bill: Gunga Din and Only Angels Have Wings. The first, directed by George Stevens, is based upon the famous Rudyard Kipling poem. Although the movie is decidedly not politically correct by our current standards, its title character ultimately shows more strength and heroism than the white officers commanding him. Cary Grant famously asked Douglas Fairbanks Jr. to trade roles with him. The result allows Grant to ditch the romantic lead and play to his virtuoso comic timing. By turns hilarious and exciting, Gunga Din was the Indiana Jones movie of its day. (In fact, Indiana Jones owes a large debt to this film – an acknowledgement made to those in the know by making the villains of the second Jones film, Temple of Doom, the same as in Gunga Din, the Thuggee.

Only Angels Have Wings has Grant as the owner of an air-service hauling the mail over the perilous Andes Mountains. It was directed by Howard Hawks and co-stars Jean Arthur and Rita Hayworth. As typical for Hawks, this movie exemplifies male bonding and the kind of woman who understands how to be one of the boys. Hawks really creates a tense, dangerous atmosphere as the audience waits for the pilots to come back safely. Many do not.

I’ll be continuing my look at the greatest year in film history next week, so please join me then. I’ll be briefly looking at some other well-known films, before recommending some not so well-known.

 

* Edited to add that of course, Jezebel came out in 1938, not 1939, an error I didn’t catch until writing this week’s entry.

Apologies

I apologize for letting so much time pass between reviews. Unfortunately, my health took a downturn this year, and I ended up having surgery twice. I seem to be recovering well and look forward to continuing this blog. Updates will be slower than last fall, though. I intend to post once a week and hope I can maintain that pace for a long while.

The Secret Life of Bees

The Secret Life of Bees – 2008

 

This is one of the few times in my life that I responded more strongly to a movie than the book it was adapted from. That’s not to say that I didn’t like Sue Monk Kidd’s original novel because I did. It introduced memorable characters in delicate prose that was a delight to read. When I watched the movie, though, I felt even more enriched. Some of the nags I had while reading were quieted by the screenplay. Perhaps this is because Gina Prince-Bythewood, the screenwriter and director, worked directly with Kidd while writing her adaptation. The movie feels true to Kidd’s intentions but also in a few instances improved upon the original material.

The movie tells the story of Lily Owens played by Dakota Fanning. One of her earliest memories is of her mother packing her belongings and getting into a fight with Lily’s father. There was a gun and an accident that leave Lily motherless. She has never gotten over the loss and neither has T. Ray, her father, played by Paul Bettany. T. Ray is not the kindest, gentlest father and after an incident involving Rosaleen (who works for T. Ray but is the closest thing to a mother or sister that Lily has had) and a racist who put her in the hospital, Lily decides to rescue Rosaleen and take off on a quest to find out more about her mother. This leads to one of my favorite scenes from the book when Rosaleen figures out Lily’s quest. Rosaleen is a little bitter because she was worried that she was putting Lily in danger, when Lily’s journey has almost nothing to do with Rosaleen. Jennifer Hudson, playing Rosaleen, gives the part dignity as she points out that Lily might be white, but that fact doesn’t give her the right to mess around with Rosaleen’s life. Rosaleen is a friend, not a slave and demands an equal share in the decision making.

Lily’s only clue to finding out more about her mother is a honey label with an image of a black Mary. Ultimately, it leads her to the Boatwright sisters: August (Queen Latifah), June (Alicia Keys) and May (Sophie Okonedo). Lily and Rosaleen are stunned and enchanted by the Boatwrights. They come from poorer backgrounds and have never seen independent, African American women like these. August is the businesswoman, running a successful honey business and June is not only a teacher (and thus, highly educated) but also artistic. These sisters take Lily and Rosaleen under their wings, albeit reluctantly on the part of June.

I enjoyed this movie because the characters felt very real to me. The performances are all excellent, and the script wisely makes the characters human beings and not saints or villains. Paul Bettany gives a depth to T. Ray that elevates the role from the standard abusive father. Lily’s friendship and potential romance with Zach Taylor who works for August is delicately handled, and we see both how beautiful and innocent the relationship is and the consequences it brings. My favorite scene is the film though is one between Lily and August when they are discussing Deborah, Lily’s mother. One of the qualms I had about the premise of the book and movie is the sensitive matter of having Lily, a white girl, mothered by these strong black women. It smacked a bit of the Old South and “mammies.” Why was a white protagonist needed for such a story? Couldn’t the story of the Boatwrights be told on its own merits? This is why I absolutely love the scene when we find out that August had been Deborah’s nanny. Queen Latifah’s performance here is honest and powerful as she tries to explain how complicated her relationship with Deborah was. For me, it’s the emotional backbone of the film and without it the whole thing crumbles.

I walked into The Secret Life of Bees expecting to be entertained…and I was. I was also moved much more than I expected to be. Even if you’ve never read Sue Monk Kidd’s novel, you should enjoy this heartwarming, deceptively simple tale.

Bringing Up Baby

Bringing Up Baby –1938

–When a man is wrestling a leopard in the middle of a pond, he’s in no position to run.

 

It’s no secret that my favorite actor of all time is Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn would easily make the top ten. They made four films together starting with the offbeat Sylvia Scarlett and ending with the crowd-pleasing The Philadelphia Story. In between they made two comedies: the overlooked Holiday and the sublime Bringing Up Baby. I’m never sure how to answer the question, “What’s your favorite movie?” Bringing Up Baby comes as close as any.

Cary Grant plays against type. His David Huxley is an absentminded, bespectacled professor of paleontology. He has three concerns in his life: finishing the brontosaurus skeleton he has been assembling, convincing a generous museum patron to donate a million dollars to his museum, and marrying Miss Swallow. Miss Swallow comes last. Indeed, she insists on it. She quickly makes it clear to David that their marriage will be a loveless match in name only that is a convenience for the good of his work. It is obvious this doesn’t appeal to David, but he is not given much opportunity to protest.

While attempting to play a game of golf with Mr. Peabody who represents the lady giving away the million dollars, David encounters Susan Vance (Hepburn). Susan possesses a blithe self-confidence that sees her through nearly any situation despite her occasionally scattered logic. Before the film is over, she will nearly drive poor David out of his mind. If there was ever a man caught between wanting to kiss a woman or kill her, this is the fellow.

 It has been said that the dominant emotion driving Cary Grant’s performance is rage. David was leading a perfectly well-ordered life before he met Susan, but she turns his world upside down and inside out…but then, isn’t that what love does? That thin line between love and hate, desire and disdain, lust and lunacy has never been made so clear. Love is inconvenient, maddening and chaotic. It changes us whether we want it to or not. We laugh at David’s absurd predicaments but recognize an inherent truth behind their ridiculousness.

This is one of the funniest movies ever made. Anyone who can watch the whole “oh, you’ve torn your coat” sequence and not laugh is not someone I can relate to. Other incandescent comic gems are when David and Susan attempt to call a leopard off a roof by singing “I Can’t Give You Anything but Love, Baby,” David fighting to keep the leopard from eating a truck load of birds, Susan stealing David’s clothes so he can’t leave, David following a little dog around trying to find his lost brontosaurus bone and the side-splitting sequence at the local jail that winds up most of the plot.

By the end of the movie, David has realized that he needs a little lunacy in his life. He secretly resented the idea of a staid life with Alice Swallow and now he is guaranteed a lifetime of upset, excitement and passion. After all, life with Susan may be many things, but it could never be boring.

Groundhog Day

Groundhog Day (1993)

–There is no way this winter is ever going to end as long as that groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don’t see any way out of it. He’s got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.

 

Well, Punxatawney Phil saw his shadow yesterday. Imagine that. Considering snow was pouring from the sky here in Kentucky when I heard the news and many of my students still don’t have power after the snow/ice storms last week, I can’t say that I’m very surprised. My mother informs me that there are actually four prognosticating groundhogs these days and they had mixed opinions. The two in the north saw their shadows and the two in the south didn’t. Hmm, since we’re somewhere in the middle maybe that means we only have three more weeks of winter instead of six. That would be nice.

Back in 1993, Bill Murray’s Phil Connors had an even worse winter experience. He is forced to relive Groundhog Day over and over again. At the beginning of the movie, Phil is a diamond in the rough – very rough, in fact you might as well call him coal. His attitude toward his career as a television weatherman is both condescending and superior as if he feels the job is beneath him but heaven help anyone who disparages his predictions. As many of Murray’s best roles are, Phil is caustic, flippant and occasionally cruel. He finds Punxatawney rustic in the worst sense and carries an air of weary “let’s get this over with” for his entire first 24 hours in the small town.

The movie shows us that Phil’s snide attitude is a cover for a very lonely man who uses humor as a weapon to push people away before they get too close. He’s actually very unhappy but it takes reliving the same day over and over to make him realize it and more importantly do something about it. Of course, the funniest parts occur as he’s mentally adjusting to his predicament. His reactions start off with disbelief then turn to glee as he recognizes the power he has: he can do anything without any permanent consequences. Eventually, even this grows old and he strikes out against himself and poor Punxatawney Phil as well. For me, one of the funniest scenes is the one where the two Phils go for a ride together.

Phil holds up a mirror to the audience. How many opportunities do we pass up each day that could improve our lives or the lives of others? Phil is a lonely, bitter man, but by learning to act outside of his accustomed selfish paradigm he becomes the most popular man in town. This is epitomized by his relationships with Rita (Andie McDowell) and Larry (Chris Elliott). In fact, his relationship with Larry becomes a barometer to how far his character has evolved. In the beginning, he is very rude and dismissive of Larry. As the movie progresses, we see Phil eventually start to see Larry as a human being and ask him about his life. This is even more significant than the progression of his romance with Rita since after all she is the love interest.

Groundhog Day marks an interesting benchmark in Bill Murray’s career. His previous comedies like Caddyshack, Stripes, and Ghostbusters are definitely of the slapstick mode. Groundhog Day certainly contains some slapstick humor, but also looks forward to the next phase of Murray’s career when he started doing more subtle work in Rushmore, Lost in Translation and Broken Flowers. This early ‘90s romantic comedy almost straddles the best of both worlds.