Robert Aldrich’s What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? lies perilously close to Sunset Blvd., so much so that the screenplay by Lukas Heller and the visual style by Robert Aldrich would be shameless repeats if they weren’t so rapturously evocative and explosively effective. You can call it whatever you want: a drug-addled fever dream variation on Sunset, a hysterical nightmare that Sunset had about itself, a corrosive purifying of Sunset so that all the relative cleanliness of the material had been washed away until only the abrasive sandpaper at the core remained. Ultimately, what saves What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is not how it differentiates itself from Sunset, but how it rips into the Sunset aesthetic with such scabrous gusto and full-throated commitment that it exposes the horror cinema trappings of the chiaroscuro noir-speckled visuals and wonderfully garish vulture-like acting of Billy Wilder’s venerable 1950 film, the ultimate Hollywood work on the perils of Hollywood. Continue reading
Category Archives: Review
Un-Cannes-y Valley: Z
Thrillers are so serious. Grimly, absurdly, stuffily serious from time to time, and, as a matter of interest, Costa-Gavras’ most famous film, 1969’s Z, is a mighty serious affair as well. But it is also a Costa-Gavras film, which means the seriousness is as macabre and sinisterly naughty as humanly possible. Right from the beginning, with an opening credits montage set in a government meeting where the camera cuts around and into the debate, the kaleidoscope of off-kilter, anti-continuity angles instigates the meeting, presenting it as a cohesive jungle of governmental nonsense and anti-sensible incoherence. What they are talking about almost doesn’t matter, and indeed, the point is that no one seems to care or have any idea why they are actually having this conversation. Costa-Gavras is cutting deep, but the scene plays like a demented carnival as well as a serious inquiry. I could not describe it in any way that meaningfully elucidates the humor as anything other than the driest variety, but the sheer dissonance of the shots and the edits, coming when we least expect them and giving us absolutely no sense of what is occurring before us, is brutally funny. Dry and abrasive, but cripplingly funny. Continue reading
Hawks, Ford, and Wilder: Ace in the Hole
Billy Wilder was the Hollywood cynic. We all know this. It wasn’t necessarily always the case (Some Like it Hot is one of the most delightfully buoyant screen comedies ever made, despite a dark edge). But he had it in him from the very beginning, and he kept it in him until the very end. If you want scabs though, and I mean pus-filled, oozing, inventing-colors-so-they-don’t-have-to-be-just-black-and-blue scabs, you have to stick with mid-period Wilder, who, with Sunset Boulevard, turned Hollywood against itself like a rabid dog unsure of its target and found that even this wasn’t enough. One year later, unfulfilled and still in need of making the nastiest Hollywood film yet made, he unleashed Ace in the Hole upon the world, and his vengeful edge, his sickly grotesque demeanor and love of exposing the least well-lit regions of human activity, absconded down the churlish rabbit hole. Continue reading
Hawks, Ford, and Wilder: Red River
Edited
For someone so often compared to John Ford, it is faintly surprising that Howard Hawks largely strayed away from conventional Westerns early in his career. In fact, he strayed away from conventional Westerns throughout his entire career (his two Western masterpieces, one of them our present subject and the other to come eleven years later, are hardly conventional). But he strayed from Westerns entirely for most of his early career at least. Perhaps he felt his duty lied elsewhere, perhaps he wanted to avoid the Ford comparison, or perhaps the ever-humble and straightforward, workaday director just did what he was told by the studio. For this last reason, Howard Hawks is often considered the secret auteur, or the greatest craftsperson in all of cinema, a director who favored perfection of nuts and bolts filmmaking over stylistic invention running away with his films. Continue reading
Hawks, Ford, and Wilder: Stagecoach
Another little temporary series here. Nothing too fancy – mostly an excuse for me to catch up on some films I haven’t seen or haven’t seen in a while. We’ll be looking at three classical Hollywood filmmakers over time: Howard Hawks, John Ford, and Billy Wilder, visiting each once in the annus mirabilis of classical cinema, 1939, when they were all still (relatively) young, again in the late ’40s and early ’50s at the middle of their careers (and the middle of classical Hollywood’s career), and finally when things were waning for each director and for classical Hollywood in general in the early ’60s, before the new school American New Wave would wreck up the joint.
So, John Ford made Westerns, right? And John Wayne, he starred in them. They both had careers before they first met, but if 1939 is a notable year in film history, the truest reason for this may be the galvanic, volcanic meeting of talents with Stagecoach, a small, intimate film with an endless amount to say about humanity and the Wild West. Under the visage of a simple, largely narrative-less stagecoach trip from a small, lonely town to a slightly less small, less lonely town in the West, we meet a cast of broad, mythic types: a thoughtful prostitute (Claire Trevor), a old-school Confederate with no small disgust for progressive values (John Carradine), an Eastern dweller struggling to acclimate to life out West (Donald Meek), a female stalwart of conservative social mores (Louise Platt), a doctor suffering from alcoholism (Thomas Mitchell), a naïve driver (Andy Devine), a federal marshall (George Bancroft), and a corporate type who generally shows disdain for anyone who isn’t himself (Berton Churchill). Pointedly, we don’t only meet them; they also meet each other, and if Stagecoach isn’t a Beckett-level exercise in avant-garde post-modernism, its decidedly conversational willingness to simply put these characters in a room and see what happens marks a serious progression in the artistry and conceptual thoughtfulness of the cinematic Western world. Continue reading
Hawks, Ford, and Wilder: Only Angels Have Wings
Another little temporary series here. Nothing too fancy – mostly an excuse for me to catch up on some films I haven’t seen or haven’t seen in a while. We’ll be looking at three classical Hollywood filmmakers over time: Howard Hawks, John Ford, and Billy Wilder, visiting each once in the annus mirabilis of classical cinema, 1939, when they were all still (relatively) young, again in the late ’40s and early ’50s at the middle of their careers (and the middle of classical Hollywood’s career), and finally when things were waning for each director and for classical Hollywood in general in the early ’60s, before the new school American New Wave would wreck up the joint.
By director standards, Howard Hawks is a peculiar case. By auteur standards, we only mount the confusion further still (and Hawks, by matter of fact, is definitionally one of the great auteurs, as he was one of the test-case directors used for the formation of the auteur theory by the French New Wave). Then again, an auteurist approach is perhaps best for Howard Hawks, a man who would have probably bemoaned auteur theory down to the core, owing primarily to his studio workhorse demeanor as a person. He was a man who made films sharply and quickly, a director who preferred to do as he was told while also quietly tackling his personal fixations within the bounds of the studio film. Continue reading
Midnight Screening: Suddenly, Last Summer
In honor of the thick, physical, downpouring heat of the August Summer nights upon us, the sorts of nights where (quoting Thelma Ritter) rain doesn’t cool anything down, but simply makes the heat wet, I decided to tackle two films from the all time literary master of making the heat feel so wet you can drown in it: Tennessee Williams.
Suddenly, Last Summer is by no means the most famous Tennessee Williams play adaptation, but no filmic version of the writer’s work is more convincing. While Elia Kazan proved a moderately persuasive choice for A Streetcar Named Desire, that film was limited by its inability to fully deluge itself with playfully sweaty, torrid visuals to strangle and suffocate its characters. It danced with danger, but it was ultimately a film of “good taste”, something director Joseph Mankiewicz clearly has no qualms about. Which is for the best; Williams’ plays are not plays for the good or the tasteful, but devilishly naughty backwoods moonshine tales of slippery Southern décor and the often grotesque humans who reside there. How do you translate this sort of high-melodrama to the film whilst retaining a sense of “good taste”? Continue reading
Midnight Screening: A Streetcar Named Desire
In honor of the thick, physical, downpouring heat of the August Summer nights upon us, the sorts of nights where (quoting Thelma Ritter) rain doesn’t cool anything down, but simply makes the heat wet, I decided to tackle two films from the all time literary master of making the heat feel so wet you can drown in it: Tennessee Williams.
It is easy to get lost in Marlon Brando’s barbarous turn as Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire, so easy that one can accidentally forget that a film lies around him. Brando here epitomized a new style of acting, “the Method”, long championed for realism but which is as unrealistic, in its own way, as the pure composure and restraint of classic Hollywood. Method acting is vastly easy to overrate, to excuse its somewhat belabored formality and emphasis on ticks and mannerisms and presentation and inhibition at the expense of impulsiveness and even the accidental successes of acting that let’s itself go with the moment. It is an acting style that has, over the years, turned into an ego-stroking talking point more often than not, often mired as heavily as “classical acting” in the conventional tools of the trade. For lack of a better term, it can be too studied, too educated, and too literate to even bring the realm of acting forward in time. Continue reading
Review: Minions
The trouble with Minions, the third film in the abnormally successful and assumedly long-living franchise from Illumination Entertainment, is that it kind of works. Moments of whimsy abound, from a charmingly amateurish claymation fable to a breathless opening act as the family of ruler-less assistants, the Minions, hurtle from evil owner to evil owner and helplessly (and accidentally) murder them all. There is a scabrous anti-Disney (and, admittedly, anti-Southern United States) dig that paints Orlando, Florida (home of Disneyland) as a crumbling, lateral murk of weeping swampland sans human activity. Continue reading
Review: Ant-Man
Peyton Reed’s Ant-Man is a surprisingly fleet-footed, dexterous little film when it wants to be. The troubled production, with the film written by British screwballs Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World’s End, Scott Pilgrim) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block) with Wright planned to direct, ended with Wright leaving the film over concerns about its need to fit in with the Marvel universe. Adam McKay and star Paul Rudd rewrote the screenplay to make it more accessible, and the journeyman Reed took over directing. The film leaves no doubt that Wright’s version would have prevailed (not spectacularly so, but still more than your average Marvel film) but enough of that manic British deadpan is retained to cheer the film up a little beyond the usually grim, dour Marvel attempts (see Avengers 2) to layer self-serious gravity onto their flicks. Comparatively, Ant-Man is a chipper, domestic, even lightweight affair that benefits from never raising the stakes too high. Continue reading
