Change Your Image
maduronb
Reviews
Screen One: A Question of Attribution (1991)
A John Schlesinger pic
Have no problem with stylishness such as this in motion pictures. Director Schlesinger came through with a smartly fictionalised account of the Anthony Blunt scandal of the 1980s, based on a stage piece. The remarkable character that James Fox portrays as the erstwhile knighted art authority in the Royal scene is award-worthy. The repartee in most every set scene, put forth in reasonable verisimilitude, makes for an enjoyable experience, particularly in the impromptu exchange between Blunt and H. R. H. near the last act, but not only there; a second viewing would not be wholly untoward, as these characters might say. It truly is unfortunate that 'imdb' provides not the 'memorable quotes' that usually attend their movie titles, for interested parties curious about 'A Question for Attribution' to savor.
Kings of the Sun (1963)
The endearingly bad
Rarely rate any movie under 5 stars but this one earned its own. The enthusiasm of some reviewers is understandable, particularly in regards to the conviction from Yul Brynner and the miscast beauty of Shirley Anne Field.
British director J. Lee Thompson, rarely more than a journeyman, failed to show any enthusiasm and scriptwriter (Elliott Arnold) was totally at sea in conveying a sense of authenticity in regards to culture: saw this movie only once 40+ years ago but my now wife and I still recall and occasionally quote to each other with great amusement one peculiar bit of dialogue. Balam (the George Chakiris character) reproaches Ixchel (Field) over her attraction to Bald Eagle (Brynner) - this is our recollection: IXCHEL: "Why'd you send for me?" BALAM (in a fit of jealousy): "Before, when he sent for you, you went to him willingly, and NOW I KNOW: it was not for the FIRST time!" His line, not only poorly delivered but compounded by the contrast between Field's British inflection and Chakiris' American accent - the exchange merits inclusion in some anthology.
JFK (1991)
Masterful storytelling, unreliable history
The undersigned lived through Jim Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw in New Orleans and blames the prosecutor for irresponsibly having contributed to the failure to establish clear certainty about the conspiracy theory regarding President Kennedy's assassination.
Garrison created unreasonable and unwarranted expectations in regards to blame. For many years following the trial, further inquiries that would have put the matter to rest were discouraged. Understandably, the conspiracy theory remained dormant for decades. Indeed, director Oliver Stone, too young at the time of the assassination - and given his proclivity to denounce government and big business - was much too disinclined to be objective; therefore, it was not unexpected of him to present the story with Garrison as a martyr. In that regard, 'JFK' can be regarded as unreliable and, indeed, dangerous history. The fact is, however, that 'JFK' should be appreciated primarily as a sophisticated, complex and masterful three-hour narrative which few contemporary filmmakers (with the possible exception of Milos Forman and Martin Scorcese) could have accomplished with equal skill. No character is superfluous, the casting, flawless, the pacing and editing, both impeccable. Set aside our shared reservations regarding Stone's political inclinations and, cinematically, 'JFK' will stand alongside 'Triumph of the Will'.