claudecat Reviews

OK Go: Get Over It (2002 Music Video)

Good, punchy visual match for good, punchy song

[7/10 · 23 May 2023]

I remember watching this the year it came out and thinking how well it reflected visual trends of the day; it shares something with the high-end stock photography I was seeing at the time (back when stock photos cost a lot more). The technical aspects are impressive: the editing is spot-on, and the zoom-jumps to details, such as the Cadillac logo, are cleverly handled, and look like they must have taken hours. It's interesting that this first video is so much more polished looking than the band's later viral hits. I was also interested to find out today that the director spent his first four years in Austria and the rest of his childhood in Los Angeles, given the "midwest recreation center" aesthetic of the video. (Perhaps the director's background actually explains this.) There are also repeated references to subliminal messaging for some reason, maybe just because those blink-of-an-eye snippets match the pace of the song.

Some of the choices seem a little clunky to me now, such as showing a literal saltshaker on the word "salt," but there are just as many brilliant moments, including the brief-but-memorable visual connection between Andy Duncan's eye and a taxidermied deer head's eye.

A worthy first entry in the band's innovative video catalog, and still fun to watch today (especially since it was thoughtfully remastered for higher res screens).

Beyond The Visible - Hilma af Klint (2019)

Lovely, informative, haunting, explosive

[9/10 · 5 August 2021]

I had read a bit about Hilma af Klint, but like most people who saw the exhibit at the Guggenheim, I was stunned when I realized how powerful her works are in person. Still, I thought I basically knew her story, so when someone recommended this documentary to me, I put off watching it for a while. Well, I finally saw it, and was blown away a second time. The filmmaker did a marvelous job showing me all the things I didn't know about Hilma af Klint. I knew she was academically trained, but I didn't know how assiduously she worked in series and developed her subjects. I knew she was interested in theosophy, but I didn't know how significant its views on women were to her. I didn't know how connected she was to scientific thought about the makeup of the universe. I thought I had seen a lot of her works but there were more and more, many astonishing.

You might have to be seriously interested in art to get caught up in this story, and some people will find the pace too leisurely, but it was exactly what I thought suited the subject. The photography was gorgeous. The art-historical points were clearly made. The multilingual "talking heads" were all lively, interesting people with useful, entertaining contributions (stay tuned after the credits for an additional tidbit from one of them).

My only complaint was that I would have liked to see some discussion of other types of abstraction, and how they fit into af Klint's work: decorative household arts of Scandinavia, spiritual art of the middle east, etc. But I suppose one doc can't cover everything. This one did so much more than I expected that it earns high marks from me. I hope my review doesn't impact anyone else's enjoyment, by getting their hopes up too high, but I was so impressed that I had to come here and write something.

8 Women (2002)

Convoluted and boringly shot

[2/10 · 19 June 2020]

I just heard this film recommended on a podcast, and it reminded me of how much I disliked it. The cast is impressive, but they aren't given very believable characters--I remember Danielle Darrieux made a lot out of her part, but that was about it. Catherine Deneuve tries to have some fun, but the role is against it; Emmanuelle Béart's performance is just weird. The film tries to be both an old-fashioned mystery and a musical, but the plot makes no sense, and is highly dependent on coincidence, so it won't satisfy mystery fans, and the musical numbers are very poorly shot, so they won't satisfy musical fans. I'm not that particular about camera work, but I remember that while I watched this film, in the theater back when it came out, I kept being annoyed by how dull the cinematography was. I remember of one musical number, my husband said, "It could have been fabulous, but instead it was just...two girls in a room."

In addition, the film seems permeated with a hatred of women, which is bizarre for a movie that's supposed to celebrate these great actresses. Even though the dead man at the center of the mystery is a horrible character who created many of his own issues, the film's POV seems to be that these scheming, awful women are responsible for every problem in the house. But the specifics of the plot don't really support this. In addition, a disturbing subplot involving child abuse is treated as inconsequential, and a violent action takes place right in front of a young teenager, punishing her for no reason. The point of the whole thing was confusing.

I wrote a review of this movie years ago, but IMDB removed it. When I asked why, they answered, "Sometimes we take down reviews," and that was it. We'll see if this one goes up.

The Leopard Woman (1920)

Well-produced, but problematic

[5/10 · 2 February 2020]

Louise Glaum reportedly put $5,000 of her own money into this production (by one account about $64,000 today), as well as deferring her fee and sewing her own costumes. So I was expecting the movie to look pretty bare bones, but it's actually quite lavish, with a full complement of extras, and exotic tableaux that make a satisfying "Cairo" setting (at least the characters start in Cairo; it's a bit hard to tell where they go next). Stumar's cinematography particularly stands out in moonlit scenes, and the intertitles are little works of art, with background paintings and high-style calligraphy. We saw a pretty nice print at the Essanay Silent Film Museum in Niles, CA, and there was a brief glimpse of color that indicated the film was originally tinted, but sadly the color has been lost for now.

Despite the glamorous look of the film, I wouldn't recommend it to most casual viewers. The plot is muddled, and the film is nakedly white supremacist in a way that's uncommonly stark even for the time. Paradoxically, African-American actor Noble Johnson actually has a substantial featured role, with (written) lines and a character arc, and most of the "ethnic" characters are actually played by people of appropriate races, but the story goes ridiculously out of its way to make the Africans appear inferior to the white "bwana." The Englishman even supposedly knows the location of the water holes better than the natives do! Insane. At one odd moment, Johnson's character moves to kill an animal with a spear, and is overshadowed by the white man with a rifle...it told a little story about colonialism and change in a few microcosmic moments, but the filmmaker's point seemed just to be a simplistic "guns are better." Johnson's acting in the scene, however, made me wonder.

The story also seems conflicted about how much agency to allow the female lead. She does make some active choices, and is clearly the (anti?)heroine of the film, but part of the time she's portrayed as strangely weak and not very successful as the scheming femme fatale she's advertised as. This is not Glaum's fault, but the scenario writer's. Glaum's looks won't be as popular with modern viewers as they were back in the day, but she plays her part with conviction. And the costumes she (with her sister and mother) made are standouts; many of them reminded me of the Vienna Workshop, and some would fit right into a Gustav Klimt painting.

Slightly paunchy but still attractive, House Peters is believably resolute as the intrepid "great white hunter" (though less plausible as a man who commands total deference from the much fitter servants around him...however, he does carry a big rifle), but his character is so entitled and obnoxious that I found myself rooting for the femme fatale even at her most law-breaking. Unwittingly, the Peters character shows that the patriarchy is more trouble than it's worth, as he seems to spend 99% of his waking hours bluffing that he's in total control at all times, and it looks exhausting.

Extra tidbits: a zebra in the film appears to be played by a painted donkey, perhaps visiting from Tijuana.

This may be the only film you ever see in which glaucoma--or the film's idea of glaucoma, anyway--plays an important role in the plot.

I haven't yet found how this film did back in 1920, but the producer supposedly stowed away on a boat to France without paying his debts.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

A big disappointment

[4/10 · 5 August 2019]

I am not generally antagonistic to Capra films: I'm touched by "It's a Wonderful Life" every time, and I enjoy "It Happened One Night" and "Lady for a Day." But I can't figure out the love for "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town." Sure, the moralizing can seem silly and naive today, and the simplistic "small towns have more heart than cities" thesis doesn't really make sense. I can forgive these. The problem for me is that the film doesn't work on its OWN stated terms. It's claimed that Mr. Deeds has better manners than city folk, but he repeatedly socks people's jaws for no justifiable reason, and in situations where anyone in real life would have been arrested. Why is this celebrated? When Mr. Deeds is given a party, he gets bored--or irritated, or something; we're never told--and throws all the guests out of his house, a violation of basic manners if there ever was one. Miss Manners would be up in arms about this, but the movie treats it as a sensible response. Mr. Deeds is a musician and poet, but he thinks it's ridiculous to support a nonprofit arts organization, and makes no effort to understand why such a thing might exist. (Sure, he has a good point that money shouldn't be wasted, but he doesn't learn anything about the organization before demanding specific changes; it's just assumed that no one ever thought about expenses before he came along.)

The plot of the film doesn't hold together, partly because so much inexplicably takes place off screen. Mr. Deeds doesn't like to drink, but a significant episode involving doughnuts happens because he suddenly gets raging drunk--why, when he had no interest in drinking before? It happens offscreen, so we don't find out. There's a big setup to a ritzy opera party, including a hundred fancy-dress extras, but the scene cuts away after just a glimpse. We find out later that the party didn't go well, but aren't told why. Why did the director spend so much time setting it up, and then bail out? It feels as if the studio ran out of budget, or there was some accident, so the party scene couldn't be finished, and they just decided to muddle on without it.

Another major issue is the way Mr. Deeds' character is manipulated for reasons of plot. The first part of the film spends a lot of time painting a complex, contradictory but still believable character who is simultaneously naive, ignorant, and sharp. When he suffers a serious emotional setback, he bounces back--until a little later in the plot, when he suddenly caves. This doesn't make any sense. It's highly frustrating to watch him repeatedly refuse to take action at this point when his character up to then has been that of an active man. That whole section of the film was just irritating to watch, but it's a major part of the story.

Contrary to the characters within the movie, I didn't fall in love with Mr. Deeds. In my opinion, the character and story rides on Gary Cooper's considerable beauty, and a wish to believe that city things like opera, big newspapers, psychiatry, and famous highbrow writers have nothing to offer regular small-town folks, who are superior in every respect, and can learn nothing from anyone outside of their settled lives. In the service of that, the film fails to explore the most interesting aspects of the story it begins to tell. Can a small-town man adjust to big city life? Could a rich man actually help a large number of poor people, long-term? (Mark Zuckerberg tried to do that with a big donation to a New Jersey public school system--and failed. I would have loved to see more details of the organization Mr. Deeds starts to set up.) Could a Pulitzer Prize-winning city reporter be happy as the wife of a small-town mill owner? The movie doesn't even acknowledge this issue.

Screenwriter Robert Riskin steals from his own recent script, "It Happened One Night," for a few bits here--Jean Arthur gets a version of one of Clark Gable's lines. In fact, the whole setup has quite a lot of similarities, from the reporter/rich person pairing to the gruff but loving father figure. And items from this movie would be repeated in later Capra works. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a problem in general, but I did find some of it a little irksome--there are lots of songs besides "Auld Lang Syne."

This is not to say there aren't good things in the film. The camerawork is great, much of the acting is excellent, and there are small character touches that are wonderful, like Franklin Pangborne's tailor, who surreptitiously reaches out to check the fabric of another character's coat. Gary Cooper has one complicated facial expression that justifies his Academy Award nomination on its own. Jean Arthur and George Bancroft have a good working relationship that's fun to see, and it's nice that Arthur's character is treated as a competent reporter in spite of being a woman in 1936. I did get somewhat invested in her relationship with Cooper, and I would even have liked to see a follow-up movie that explores their life after this one...if it was directed by someone else; Ida Lupino, maybe, and written by someone else, Samson Raphaelson, perhaps.

Le jardin oublié: La vie et l'oeuvre d'Alice Guy-Blaché (1996)

a charming documentary

[7/10 · 26 June 2019]

I learned about Alice Guy-Blaché the same year this documentary was made, but I never heard of the doc until just a week ago, in 2019. It's a well-made, artistic film that includes quite a few charming personal touches, such as dressing some of the featured film scholars in silent-film-style clothing. These idiosyncrasies apparently don't work for everyone, but I thought they were rare and fun. Many of AGB's films were lost--more were rediscovered after this doc was made--but the filmmaker manages to give a decent sampling of her work anyway. She also makes judicious choices of clips from AGB's films to illustrate the story of her life, and that worked well. A number of the shots make you want to seek out the full movie (as of this writing, you can find a few on Netflix).

A few of the claims the film makes are inaccurate, such as the idea that France began projecting films long before the United States. (In reality, projectors appeared in the US in 1895, about the same time as in France, and spread quickly across the country over the next couple of years.) French film company Gaumont was not the first company to do (nonpainted) color or sound films. They developed early color and sound technologies, but they were not the first. I'm not sure if these mistakes came out of French chauvinism (the first commercially successful color-film process--Kinemacolor--was actually British) or just the difficulty of researching this topic; there's been an explosion of silent-film research since this film was made.

I'm also not quite convinced of the claim that AGB was the only female film director for 17 years, which is stated more than once--there were a number of women directing films in the early 1910s, and it wasn't unusual for women not to get credit, so there may have been more. However, it seems to be true that AGB was the first one for some years, even if it wasn't fully 17. I'm a little surprised that the movie didn't take on the controversy about whether AGB was the first narrative film director period, as opposed to the first woman director (it hinges on whether her first film was made at the time she remembered). But I was interested to hear a respected French scholar point out that AGB was probably the first "auteur" in the New Wave sense of the word, since she wrote, produced and directed.

AGB kept a well-stocked pressbook, and this is invaluable in the movie. Her descendants are prominently featured, and the doc also includes parts of interviews that a French TV show fortuitously made with AGB in her later years, so the viewer gets a good sense of what she was like as a person. The historical images are well shot in general. I noticed that the filmmaker managed to get a lovely, clear version of a famous picture of an early Mutoscope parlor, which is usually much more poorly reproduced.

A new documentary about AGB just came out, that I haven't yet seen, so I don't know how it compares to this much older film, but "The Lost Garden" seems like it makes a valuable contribution to film history, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

You Never Know Women (1926)

Lively backstage drama

[8/10 · 9 May 2019]

I wasn't expecting this film to be as much fun to watch as it is. The backstage storyline features extravagant costumes, sets and makeup, and delightful comic bits. The audience cheered when a painting on a curtain "came to life" in a comical way. Some of the bits used were obviously stolen from Houdini, but it's always fun to see them filmed, even if Harry isn't there. A favorite player was the performing goose, who wears prop spectacles and hats when onstage. Director William Wellman knows how to put activity into a frame, so even during some of the slower conversational parts, there are often acrobats whirling by in the background. But he also knows when to tone this sort of thing down; the dramatic, emotional moments are allowed to have space. A scene where someone is trying to flee danger is shot in an effective, film-noir manner.

The players acquit themselves admirably. Florence Vidor is luminous, and, as Jeanine Basinger has written, created a heroine who is an interesting hybrid of the independent flapper and the traditional damsel-in-distress. Clive Brook is highly sympathetic as the intelligent lover. I was less sure of Lowell Sherman's casting: I couldn't figure out what Vidor's character would have seen in him. However, it's possible that a more appealing actor would have stacked the deck too heavily against Brook; both leading men were about 40 at the time of filming. (I was surprised to find that Vidor was close to 30; she appears 15-20 years younger than the men, perhaps partly due to makeup and lighting.)

The one thing I didn't like about the film was the suggestion that women who don't love the "right" man should be punished for it. I think the storyline did a decent job of resolving this issue--I can't explain without spoilers--but given the murderous intentions of some incel types, that's not a good idea to champion (which was also true then).

The lighting was magnificent in many scenes. The version I saw also had some beautiful tinting. I hope the film will be played often, so more people can enjoy it.

Her Defiance (1916)

Lives up to its title

[6/10 · 7 May 2019]

I'm afraid I must disagree with the reviewer who called this film "a potboiler." Although the basic outlines of the plot--country girl meets city lad, and trouble ensues with their respective families--are standard, the way the young woman reacts to her situation is anything but. It was quite unusual in 1914 for women, even onscreen, to defy social mores in the way that the heroine does here. Her reaction to a wedding scene is completely unprecedented in film (and unfollowed--compare it to a similar scene in "The Princess Bride").

Mostly the film is well-made by 1916 standards; I had a few quibbles with some of the makeup (even considering the conventions of the day). The actors all do pretty well, the photography is very competent, and the setting is interesting, though sometimes in ways that were unintended--an elevator in an office building fascinated me far beyond what the filmmakers could ever have expected.

Trivialities: there was one intertitle that I thought seemed inaccurate about the timeline of the story, and one dramatic incident appeared truncated--perhaps a piece of the film is missing. The dates within the film, on telegrams and such, are all written as 1914, intriguingly, but the trade publications of the day put the release date in 1916.

Monsieur Verdoux (1947)

Charlie accidentally makes a documentary

[3/10 · 13 April 2019]

I was really expecting to like this film, as I'd heard so much about how it was a "brilliant dark comedy" that audiences of the day were just too old-fashioned and prudish to appreciate. I did think it had some good scenes and performances, but mostly I was disappointed and angered. Chaplin's weird "moral," as outlined in his monologues at the end seem like the height of "what-aboutism," one of the weakest methods of arguing. Yes, it's true that states can commit mass murders and not be penalized. You could talk about that in a different movie and make an important statement. But how on earth does Monsieur Verdoux's actions relate to it? Nothing that Verdoux does was in any way forced; one of the other characters even points out that he was talented and smart enough to have earned his living in another way. He chooses not to.

In fact, Verdoux is a much more realistic portrayal of a serial killer and "toxic masculinity" than I think Chaplin intended. As essayist Alice Bolin has written, "violence against women is so often connected to men's professional and financial frustration." If Verdoux is so angry at capitalism, and industrial managers, and the government, as his monologues claim, why does he displace that anger onto targets who have so little to do with them? None of the women Verdoux goes after are big businesswomen who mistreat employees--the one who gets the most screen time is only rich because she bought a lottery ticket. Verdoux chooses his victims the way most serial killers do: because he's looking for easy targets that will fulfill his selfish desires. And it goes beyond money: he wants total control over other people. There are some specific actions I can't comment on without spoilers, but if you look to compare them to real-life killers, they match up with uncanny precision. Afterward, Verdoux blames everyone and everything but himself for what he's done, again, just like many actual murderers.

Artistically, the film has plenty of flaws. I was disappointed in Chaplin's performance--the story is tailor-made to have Verdoux assume different personas as he courts various women, but instead, he always uses the same high-falutin' English accent (hello, rolling r's) and the same mannerisms, even though he's supposed to be employed in totally different professions. Some of his reactions are pure Tramp, and that's grating in context. Also, his seduction techniques would never work.

One way in which Verdoux does actually differ from many real-world killers is that he is kind to animals--the film makes a point of contrasting this with his unsympathethic treatment of people. But this point never goes anywhere. In fact, an animal character who is important in one scene is dropped from the story with no explanation.

The timeline of the action is very muddled--the costumes don't reflect anything but the year the film was made, so it's hard to know which war is being referenced, or which recession the characters are living through. Ironically, unlike Verdoux, Chaplin is said to have gotten rich off the stock market. Make of that what you will.

The camerawork is fine but a bit old-fashioned--associate director Robert Florey complained that he was rarely allowed to use anything but stage-like long and medium shots. Florey also said he persuaded Chaplin to divide up the ending monologues a bit, or there would have been one excrutiatingly long one. Those still go on too long, as do many of the scenes. Jokes are repeated. Transitions between scenes are frequently made by cutting to the same shot of train wheels, with the same irritating music snippet, over and over (the DVD version I watched used the same music for the background of its menu screen--please, no!). Some of the plotting is clever, of course, but it's not enough. At the end, the audience is apparently supposed to consider Verdoux a kind of hero, but why? He really never does anything to earn the audience's liking, other than be played by a beloved actor.

Never Look Away (2018)

Has some good things

[6/10 · 18 March 2019]

I wouldn't recommend this film to everyone: the storytelling is a bit heavyhanded, and in my opinion it didn't need to be as long as it is, but I did enjoy the comparisons of the East German and West German art worlds, many of the performances, and most of the production design.

To give one example of what I mean by heavyhanded, the protagonist's first visit to the Düsseldorf Art Academy coincides with a student show, and the various works are all extremely avant-garde, to the point where the movement is affectionately satirized--this probably does not reflect what real students were actually showing that year. Conversely, the students in East Germany are all shown doing nothing but exaggeratedly Social Realist propaganda pieces, which again I suspect is not 100% true. But the scenes serve as shorthand guides to some basic differences between the two systems. I appreciated that the director did make one of the professors in East Germany somewhat sympathetic, and did not immediately dismiss the idea that maybe there is something constrictive about the West's demand for constant innovation and "heroic" individuality in art. Still, the film's obvious belief is that its main character, Kurt Barnert, and the avant-garde teacher, Professor Antonius van Verten (obviously based on Joseph Beuys, though I was glad the director changed the name) are heroes. (I completely disagree with Prof. van Verten's contention that artists should never vote in elections.)

Some of the scoring seems aimed at manipulating the audience's feelings, but those moments were done in such an obvious way that they only served as Brechtian distancing devices to me.

I was a bit confused by the film's treatment of women. The director obviously has sympathy for the female characters. But even the most prominent, the main character's wife, is completely separated from the hero's artistic career, which is the most important thing in his life. She is shown creating her own work as a fashion designer, but we never learn anything about it, and the protagonist never once talks to her about her designs...and she never talks to him about his paintings, even though they are partly about her family. To the director's credit, female art students are shown in both East and West Germany, but none of them have any lines. We learn what happens to Kurt's father, but, unless I and my companion both missed some bit of dialogue, his mother simply disappears from the story.

In addition, the film's POV is classically "male gaze:" if the director has any excuse to show a naked breast, he will, even when it could be argued that it's inappropriate. The only full-frontal male nudity involves artists who are completely hidden with paint--maybe the German cut of the film is different? There's even a perhaps unwittingly humorous moment when three of Kurt's male art student friends are transfixed by a nude portrait of his wife. The camera hovers above the painting, so that we don't quite take on its POV, but we see their stunned faces; the wife's opinion is never addressed.

Of course, after I saw the film I looked up the real-life events it is based on, and I was surprised to see that the person who inspired the Aunt Elisabeth character was much younger than the onscreen version--only 14 at the time of some of the important events shown in the film. I can't help but suspect that one reason the age shift was made was so that the director could sexualize the character--the film implies that Kurt finds a parallel between his aunt and his wife. The aunt's nude scenes are justified by the story, but they still seemed played for sexiness, even at the worst moments--as if the director feared the audience wouldn't sympathize with the character's plight unless she was sexually attractive at all times. (Incidental costume note: Aunt Elisabeth's anachronistic long hairdo and unseasonable outfit highly irritated me for the first few scenes of the film. But most of the production design I liked, except for the artificially blue eyes of some of the actors.)

I would recommend the film, with qualifications, to people who have a particular interest in the art world, or in Germany during the 1930s-60s, but probably not to anyone who doesn't.

Historical note: before any American goes away from this film feeling smug about our government compared to the Nazi government, please look up the 1927 US Supreme Court ruling, "Buck vs. Bell."

Sir (I) (2018)

Deserves a wide release

[8/10 · 8 January 2019]

I don't understand why this film hasn't had a wider release--it hardly has any reviews here, and doesn't seem to be available on DVD or streaming. I saw it at a film festival, and it was the stand-out picture of the series. From a brief description--maid and employer find themselves attracted to each other--I assumed the story would be full of clichés, but the movie breaks them all, and never went where I was expecting. The acting is completely believable, and I was fascinated by the brief but illuminating glimpses of the social system in India, and the relationships between the employer class and the servant class. I would recommend this film to anyone who appreciates thoughtful, insightful stories.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman (2014)

Bad history

[2/10 · 9 July 2018]

This film gives itself a huge pat on the back for debunking the Washington-and-the-cherry-tree story, and then turns right around and peddles the myth that Marie-Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake." Most movies about history end up repeating legends and lies, but they don't generally insist at the same time that they're superior historians of the truth. The old Sherman and Peabody cartoons did silly takeoffs on history that weren't accurate, but they weren't pretending to be; they were just for fun, and as a kid, I understood that. Some aspects of this new version could really confuse children who are trying to figure out how to understand and learn about history, and the braggadocio is just annoying anyway.

13 Minutes (2015)

Thoughtful and prescient

[8/10 · 15 July 2017]

I was lucky enough to see this film on the big screen during the brief period that it played locally. I didn't know any more about it than the basic subject, and I'm glad about that, because the film got some strangely negative reviews in the U.S. Some critics seemed to complain that it wasn't a Jason-Bourne-style thriller. Instead, it's a careful portrait of one man, and shows how both he and his village were changed by political events in their country.

I was surprised to find out the movie was originally released in Germany in 2015, because it included so many events that are happening in 2017 America: left-vs-right street violence, religious intolerance, disagreements about which party represents workers, and government officials who think torture is the best way to get the truth.

The photography is beautiful and the storytelling clear but unusual. For example, an explosion is shown from a far-off POV, as a small part of a beautiful landscape shot, instead of up close to the blast. The production design is thoroughly convincing (though I may not be a perfect judge of the authenticity of period films set in Germany), and the settings are lifelike. When a character swims in a lake, it reminds you of just what that feels like. The violence works that way, too. Though it's not gruesomely detailed and exposed in a Tarantino kind of way, you'll probably feel it more.

The acting is excellent overall. The leading actor comes across as more babyfaced and less worldly than the real Georg Elser, just judging by their respective looks, but he creates a memorable character that is never a stereotype, yet is not merely a movie eccentric. Though the brutality of the Nazis' actions is never toned down, there are still moments when some of them display a believably human sense of doubt. A minor character has his own complete arc, from downtrodden village man to local Nazi leader to someone unsure if the party has gone too far. I completely disagree with one reviewer who thought the movie was too sentimental. It doesn't lionize even its main protagonist, and shows the problematic aspects of his violent political act.

Afterward, I read about the real Georg Elser, and I was disappointed at a few of the fictional changes. I was sorry they cut out the character of Georg's sister Maria, who seems to have been important in real life, and since everything is seen through Georg's eyes, and he has limited knowledge, and we don't hear about some of the other people the Nazis persecuted and even murdered after the bombing. But you can read about this. I never would have known the story was worth investigating further if I hadn't seen this compelling film.

The Shock (1923)

doesn't live up to the advertising

[4/10 · 17 April 2017]

From the rather glorious poster, and the title, I was expecting a more thrilling gangster story, in the mold of "The Penalty" and other Chaney crime flicks. This film was a disappointment. After a promising opening, in which Chaney tosses menacing looks around a colorful Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, the action moves to a fictional rural town outside of the city, where a dull romance develops--the kind where the woman exhorts the man to read the Bible. IMO, too much of the plot in the middle section is told, rather than shown. For example, what kindnesses did the heroine show to the Chaney character? We join them after the relationship is developed, instead of watching it happen, and their exchanges are pretty boring. There were a couple of kids in the audience at the theater where I saw it, and I worried they would be turned off of silent movies forever.

The story does pick up speed in the last section. The earthquake sequence is fun, except that the settings look so little like the real San Francisco, especially the exterior shots of Chinatown. Chaney's directors did sometimes film on location, but the only sequence in this movie that looked to me like it could possibly have been in the actual city was at the very end...but I'm not sure it wasn't done in Monterey or Santa Monica or elsewhere. Maybe someone else recognizes the distinctive wooden fence in the shot.

It was nice to see Chaney without makeup, but I didn't find his imitation of crippled limbs as convincing here as in other films: the movement seemed inconsistent, and I didn't see how he could support himself on crutches if his limbs were so useless without them. (Maybe I'm wrong; I wish the comments page was back so I could ask others about this.) It was easier for me to judge his physical work in "The Penalty" because I have a close relative who's a real amputee (Chaney was excellent there). Also, I thought he overacted a bit in the more sentimental sequences. As Chaney said himself, he often needed a director who would reign him in.

Bonus points: "Queen Ann" looks like an Edward Gory (IMDB will not allow me to spell it correctly; I've tried to change it three times) character. Lon Chaney is shown playing with a kitten. There doesn't seem to be any obvious racism (other than the total sidelining of Asian characters). A few of the Chinatown roles looked like they were even portrayed by real Asians, albeit not necessarily Chinese people.

I would recommend this for Chaney fans, or people who want to see whatever portrayals they can find of the 1906 earthquake. People who aren't used to silent movies or melodrama probably wouldn't enjoy it that much. I won't give away the ending, but I will say that its implausibility was almost insulting, though the piano accompanist at the screening I attended did a lot to heighten the emotion, and make it almost work.

Great War Diaries (2014– )

An excellent series on WWI

[9/10 · 9 December 2016]

Assuming this is the same series as the one on Netflix titled, "14: Diaries of the Great War," which it seems to be, judging from the reviews, this is a fantastic series about WWI, told through the actual words of people who lived through it, with some additional background info for context. Sometimes the episodes can be hard to watch, as the suffering is not skimmed over (thought it's not exploited for gory effect, either). The design is a bit flashy, but that's probably good for educational purposes, as kids today are used to fast-moving imagery. The production design and acting are top-notch (each character speaks in his or her own language, with voiceovers and subtitles), and the stories at least touch on I think every nationality that was involved in WWI; they don't just focus on Germany, France and England. They also give attention to homefront activities; basically they try to cover every aspect of the war, not just the battles, but the way war touches a variety of lives--people of different occupations, ages and classes--in unexpected ways.

Sign Them Papers (1927)

Fun, tongue-in-cheek slapstick

[6/10 · 11 September 2016]

If you like silent slapstick, this is a fun short. It involves lots of ridiculous chases and an extended drag sequence that is rather astonishing. Some trick photography adds to the silliness. There are moments that get repetitive, but overall I found it very enjoyable. The "Hairbreadth Harry" film series was based on a famous newspaper comic strip of the same name. The whole thing is a spoof, so the characters are cartoony, and the producers went to some effort to cast actors who resemble the comic-strip characters (Earl McCarthy, who died tragically young, is an especially good Harry). Fun fact: the comic strip started as a spoof of stage melodrama; by the time the film versions came out, there was a well- established tradition of movie melodrama to make fun of.

A Suffragette in Spite of Himself (1912)

A well-made little gem

[8/10 · 25 May 2016]

I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed this little movie. I had read two or three film-scholar essays that described it, and they didn't mention that it's actually still funny. I laughed out loud in more than one place. It probably helped that it doesn't have the nasty anti-suffragist caricatures that a number of shorts from the period have. But I think the main reason the film works is not because of the subject matter, but because it's well-made. The actors are good (they can explain things through pantomime while still remaining somewhat naturalistic), the plot is well-constructed, with each character given a motivation for their actions, and the camera-work is lovely. Much of the action takes place on well-framed shots of London streets, and there's a nice little bit at the end in which you see characters in the deep background through a window, which added an interesting layer. At the same time, the story does capture some of the topical details of the suffrage movement, so it sheds some light on beliefs of the time, while maintaining a light tone.

Petals in the Dust: The Endangered Indian Girls (2015)

Well-made documentary about a shocking topic

[8/10 · 23 February 2016]

I saw this at a South Asian film festival, and it was one of my favorite movies of the festival that year. It's hard to explain why, since this is a documentary about the extreme unfair treatment of Indian girls, but I think the issue is important to understand, and the film is well-made. The information is presented clearly, and although some of the anecdotes and statistics are grim and shocking, they don't feel sensationalized. One of the most surprising things to me was that the story does not focus only on rural, remote parts of India. The film presents very compelling evidence that attitudes toward girls result in harsh injustices among the Indian diaspora in modern Canada and California. The topic is extremely difficult, but the documentary handles the issues with care, and makes sure that all the stories are personalized and made human. Even though the film is disturbing, it somehow manages to convey hope at the end. The women who spoke to the filmmaker are inspiring. (And at the screening I saw, which included a discussion panel, people came up to the microphone afterward and made--in some cases shouted--very moving, emotional statements.) I would recommend this documentary for any adult who is interested in civil rights and humanitarian issues.

Tigers (2014)

A solid movie about an important topic

[7/10 · 26 October 2015]

This is a well-crafted docudrama, and the performances are mostly excellent, especially Emraan Hashmi as Ayan. I've never been to Pakistan, so I don't know how accurately the hospital setting was portrayed, but it certainly looked and sounded convincing. The filmmaker added a meta framing device, showing a team of documentarians trying to figure out how to tell this story without coming up against legal trouble. Although the meta thing is often done, in my opinion, this information added an extra dimension to the story that was valuable. I had no idea it could be so difficult to take on a multinational corporation, despite solid evidence that proves what is going on. It also showed how many people are necessary to bring out a story like this. It took a very dedicated whistleblower, medical personnel, NGO workers, journalists from more than one country, producers, lawyers... It's shocking how much power these big corporations have, to stop even the truth.

Ayan valiantly--and unusually--risked his own family and livelihood to change what was happening. In this he was strongly aided by his parents and wife--if they had not agreed to support him, and suffer their own privations as a result of his attempts to seek justice, he could not have done it. (SPOILER AHEAD) And yet, despite the efforts of all these courageous people, the wrongdoing continues. The real-life couple the characters of Ayan and Zainab are based on (I believe their real names are different) appeared at the film festival screening I attended, and they are still struggling to get the word out. The film has not yet been shown in Pakistan. (Gratuitous observation: the real-life wife is just as pretty as Geetanjali!)

An interesting side note for documentary fans: Maryam d'Abo, who played Maggi (the blond NGO worker), wrote and produced a very interesting documentary on Bond Girls that is featured on some James Bond DVDs.

Les gaz mortels (1916)

A primitive thriller

[5/10 · 26 July 2015]

This early film is marred by uneven acting, and the storytelling is on the clunky side, but it does show that Gance was interested in epic themes even early on. The action takes place on two continents, and the plot concerns life-and-death questions of scientific ethics, which are still issues today. The story focuses on a scientist who invents a deadly gas—should it be used, even in wartime? Does he owe it to his country to donate his work? Complicating the issue are rivals who scheme to destroy the scientist and his inventions, and greedy family members who will stop at nothing to get his money. The villains' methods are typical of exaggerated melodramas of the period (innocents are elaborately menaced), but shot with some panache. The denouement is action-packed. POSSIBLE LIGHT SPOILER: Bizarrely, the day I saw this film was the same day a factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, France, was attacked by a disgruntled worker, in a manner that partly paralleled the events on screen.

Man Wanted (1932)

weakly plotted waste of time

[3/10 · 21 October 2013]

I love 1930's movies, and I like many of the actors in this cast, but this film just isn't worth the time it takes to watch it, in my opinion. I'm a little annoyed with myself that I didn't just turn it off. Other reviewers described most of the objections I had to the storyline, such as the poor treatment of secretaries and fiancées; they really interfered with my enjoyment. The film seems to be trying to justify the typical exploitation of workers practiced by many big movie studios (I'm not sure about Warner Bros' record with that, but it seems like the type of thing MGM would endorse). The idea of "The Office" is glorified in a way that's ridiculous. And since the film was made in the Depression, I couldn't help but wonder about the studio's purpose behind all this "if you don't work all night you're a parasite" stuff. (Possible spoiler ahead) And the characters all turn on one person in the last scene, when she's really the one who was wronged.

The film does have a few good moments, and some nice outfits and Art Deco sets, but it mostly seems to be a waste of good performers, like Claire Dodd. (I thought David Manners' performance was weak, however--just smooth talk and popping eyes.) It was nice that some respect was given to the idea of a serious woman editor, but the actual scenes showing Kay Francis working didn't convince me that she was actually that good at her job. She keeps people waiting while playing around with her husband in the office, approves some perfectly mediocre sketches, demands endless overtime of her workers, and is unable to write out her own letters if a secretary has to leave.

There just isn't enough plot to get the thing going, so the character played by David Manners has to treat someone badly just to provide some juice, and the audience is supposed to approve of this pointless behavior. Kay Francis manages to inject some believable emotion into her scenes, but her motivations are confused--(possible spoiler) it's hard to believe she could be very serious about the David Manners character, when so much of the film is given over to her relationship with her husband.

If you want to see a much snappier film about a 1930's office, I recommend "Counsellor at Law," with John Barrymore (1933). It has some of the same plot themes as this one, but does them all much better.

The Red Kimono (1926)

Very well-made "problem picture"

[7/10 · 6 July 2013]

"The Red Kimona" is a film created to explore a social evil; it's one of a series of pictures made for that purpose in the early days of cinema. (See the work of director Lois Weber for additional examples.) It's not a movie for everybody--viewers looking for pure entertainment will prefer the slapstick comedies or adventure stories of the silent era--but for those interested in social history, and able to take the picture on its own old-fashioned terms, it's a very watchable if melodramatic film, with excellent production values and a fine cast. (In fact, I didn't mean to watch the whole thing in one sitting, but had trouble turning it off.)

I loved Priscilla Bonner in the main role (she's best known today for a supporting part in Clara Bow's "It," but also does one of the most heartfelt close-ups I've ever seen on film in Harry Langdon's "The Strong Man"). Her character changes convincingly as the story goes through several years--at one point Bonner seems to age before the audience's eyes as her character faces a tough choice. The camera-work and lighting are very striking, and certainly work to help Bonner's performance. A few sequences make good use of on-the-spot locations, like the Giant Dipper roller coaster at (I believe) the Venice, CA amusement pier, and the downtown streets of Los Angeles. The supporting players all look interesting and do well. I agreed with another reviewer that the costumes were a little confusing, since they appear to be from the early 1920's although the film is set in 1917. They don't all quite look like the fashions of 1925, when the film was released, but they don't seem totally pre-war either. (The title refers to a dressing gown the heroine wears.) But period costume authenticity was something that wouldn't really be established until later in film history.

Modern viewers may have difficulty with some details of the plot, as I did. Because of the censorship laws of the time, the filmmakers presumably weren't allowed to mention the word "prostitution," so it took me a little while to figure out exactly what was going on. But it eventually became clear.

The Kino DVD release has a pleasant, low-key piano soundtrack by Robert Israel that I really enjoyed.

The Showdown (1928)

Oil madness

[7/10 · 9 June 2012]

"The Showdown" is a follow-up to Josef Von Sternberg's "Underworld," reuniting some of the same cast. George Bancroft plays "Lucky" Cardan, a tough-as-nails oilman who has a history of finding wells and losing them to the scheming reps of bigger companies, such as "Winter" (Fred Kohler). Evelyn Brent plays the "good" woman who disturbs Cardan's isolated world. The setting is rather unusual for a silent film: a Latin American jungle ("The Showdown" came out some months before Tod Browning's "West of Zanzibar").

I was a little worried that the movie would dwell boringly on the technicalities of oil fields, but the real story turned out to be about the rivalries of the Western men who work the wells. In some ways, the industry doesn't seem to have changed much: the locals are still stuck serving the richer outsiders, and the specter of Big Oil hovers in the background.

What really has changed is the movies' view of women in society. The male characters fight over the local prostitute, Goldie (charmingly played by Helen Lynch), but no one considers her worthy of respect. When a new oil-seeker appears, bringing along his high-class wife, Sibyl (intense and beautiful Evelyn Brent), the men are both shocked into behaving with more decorum, and desperate to bring her down. Cardan declares that there's no way she can remain "decent" in "this country." (I was unclear on exactly where the story takes place, but a contemporary reviewer put it in Mexico, which makes this declaration all the more ignorant.) Insulted, Sibyl insists on remaining in the isolated encampment to stand by her husband (played by Neil Hamilton, later Commissioner Gordon on "Batman").

Evelyn Brent plays a very different character than her "Feathers" gun moll in "Underworld." Sibyl is a very correct woman, who dresses for dinner even in the jungle (much to the scorn of the New York Times in 1928). Oddly, the movie argues that this level of formality is a sign of civilization: when Sibyl stops setting her hair, or dressing for dinner, Carden warns, that will show that her purity is beginning to degrade. Who knew a curling iron was the only thing standing between a woman and the total loss of her character!

The moviemaker seems totally unaware that what really threatens Sibyl is not the country.

It was somewhat encouraging to read a contemporary review of the film, available on the NY Times website, which found the story ridiculous. Let's hope most real women of the 1920's didn't have to face this kind of attitude. Yet, despite the disturbing gender politics, and the mildly racist portrayal of a Chinese character (George Kuwa), modern fans of silent dramas will find a lot to like in "The Showdown." The acting is believable, the different faces are fascinating, and the world the movie creates is compelling. The camera-work and lighting are beautiful, and the outdoor setting well-shot--the scenes don't look trapped in a studio.

The costumes do much to enhance the characters. If you've ever fantasized about dressing in 1920's splendor every day, Evelyn Brent's outfits will cure you of it. Each of the oilmen is casual in a different way--with the exception of the English rep for Royal Oil, who wears comically inappropriate, beautifully tailored suits.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that this film (or Houston Branch's play, "Wildcat," upon which it was based) helped inspire both "West of Zanzibar" and "The Night of the Iguana;" though the idea of Westerners struggling in the jungle certainly came before the movies.

Big in Bollywood (2011)

An entertaining look backstage

[8/10 · 9 November 2011]

"Big in Bollywood" is a must-see for any American, or NRI (non-resident Indian) who's interested in the Indian film industry, or just wants to know what it would feel like to be a movie star. Omi Vaidya, best known for his featured role in the Indian blockbuster "3 Idiots," takes his filmmaker college buddies along for the premiere of his first big movie, and the camera is there to witness as Omi becomes famous before our eyes.

The filmmakers do a great job being on hand for memorable moments in Omi's first publicity tour, and the lively editing keeps the story moving. Omi is a charming guide to his new world of big-movie business, knowing just when to make the joking aside that keeps everything down to earth. Omi's mother Bharati, wife Minal, and camera-toting pals are all likable and funny, and by the end of the film, it feels as if they've become your friends.

Fans of Bollywood will be happy to see icons like Aamir Khan, but those new to Indian cinema won't feel lost, as the movie gives some basic information about the industry, with the help of snappy graphic animations. The cinematography is pretty shaky at parts, so I took off some stars for that, but the entertaining content of the film makes up for it.

The shots of the enormous crowds of fans from the red-carpet point of view are astonishing. I left the film feeling happy for Omi, but pretty glad that I'm not "Big in Bollywood" myself.

The Way We Live Now (2001)

Compelling, but doesn't quite satisfy

[6/10 · 19 March 2011]

"The Way We Live Now", a BBC/WGBH co-production, is powerful, and features some fine acting and well-written scenes, as well as lush settings and costumes, but it's obvious even to those who haven't read Anthony Trollope's novel that the story has been "jacked up" for modern viewers. On its own terms, the mini-series mostly gripped my attention, but I wondered if sections had been cut from the American release, because some parts of the story seem to be missing. For example, two characters who like each other in Episode 3 have already become engaged and estranged at the beginning of Episode 4--the actual proposal having been skipped over. The decision to cut such important plot elements in favor of unnecessary but atmospheric scenes (such as a wander with some characters through the forest on a fruitless deer hunt) was strange to me, but some viewers may prefer it. The director heightens many scenes by adding unnaturally loud sound effects, which will strike some as artfully intense, and others as vulgar.

As far as its faithfulness to the novel, director David Yates and screenwriter Andrew Davies appear to have followed a "simplify and exaggerate" policy, presumably to make the story and characters clearer and more likable to a modern audience. It was easy to guess that the young women in the miniseries are made feistier and more independent than they are in the 19th-century original, but I was surprised, upon reading the book, to find that Paul Montague (Cillian Murphy) is also much more diffident on the page than he is on screen. Some changes fit well into a modern worldview: the love of Roger Carbury for his cousin Hetta is, rightly by today's standards, characterized as patronizing and oppressive, though Trollope wouldn't see it that way. But strangely, the fascinating character of Mrs. Hurtle, who has some of the most interesting speeches in the book, is reduced to being a "Southern" temptress in Miranda Otto's odd performance (since Mrs. Hurtle is only connected with Kansas and San Francisco in the original, the choice to make her speak like Tallulah Bankhead playing Julia Sugarbaker is puzzling).

Andrew Davies' screenplay has some fine moments, and certain scenes shine. However, he gives the story the same invented ending as he's given at least one other miniseries based on a 19th-century novel.

All in all, recommended for fans of period drama--with qualifications.