Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread II
- Thread starter kihei
- Start date
- Status
The Earrings of Madame de.... (1953) Directed by Max Ophuls
Director Max Ophuls uses the device of a pair of earrings that go their own way on more than one occasion to explore a comedy of manners that gets darker and darker the longer it goes on. The Earrings of Madame de.... is a deliciously directed work that starts out like it is going to be one of those sophisticated continental romps that directors like von Sternberg and Lubitsch could pull off with such ease. But while the initial scenes provide a veneer of sophistication and humour, Ophuls is more intent on exploring the emotions that are churning just beneath all of the studied civility (not completely unlike The Rules of the Game, though that is clearly the superior movie). It was a change of pace that I took some time getting used to when I first saw the movie, but now The Earrings of Madame de..... is among my favourite movies from the immediate post-war period.
A couple of quick points about the movie: anyone who thinks black and white cinematography can't be beautiful should watch this almost perfectly constructed film. The detail is astounding. Second point: Charles Boyer was a great actor who has never received the credit that he deserves. Mainly that's Hollywood's fault. After he "came over" from France, he was too often cast as the sort of human equivalent of Pepe Le Pew. Director George Cukor's Gaslight showed how effective a lead actor he could be, but it wasn't until he aged into a character actor that his full talent became evident in North America. I had the privilege of seeing him on Broadway very late in his career in a Terrence Ratigan play, Man and Boy. It was a complex character study and he held the stage effortlessly.
subtitles
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
The earrings of Madame De... (1953) dir. Max Ophüls
Madame De..., a French society woman in the laste 1800s, decides to sell some of her jewellery to get out of some money trouble her husband doesn't need to know about. Since they were given to her by him at their wedding, she tells him they've gone missing and presumably stolen while they are at the theatre. When the story reaches the papers, her jeweller informs her husband of the real fate of the earrings, and gives them back to the husband. To make the story disappear and avoid any embarrassment for any party, he sends them with a lover leaving for Constantinople indefinitely. The lover isn't as lucky as she might have hoped, and she gambles them away. Later they are bought by Italian diplomat and charmer Donati, who is going to Paris on his next assignment. In Paris Donati catches the attention of Madame De... and she his. Now the earrings are again dangerously close to Madame De..., but no one knows that, yet.
The earrings are a great MacGuffin, that the story always revolves around, even when the characters don't know it for most of the movie. But for the viewer who knows more than the characters, it adds a nice bit of tension to the drama, which might otherwise lack it a bit. Monsieur de... doesn't seem tobe particularly embarrassed by his extramartial affairs, even though he doesn't explicitly tell his wife about. He also refers to her as a flirt to Donati, and tells him to not to get his hopes up. He doesn't seem to mind the little affair between Donati and Madame de... either. The moment he does start to care however is when the word love gets mentioned. Suddenly the affair is much worse from his point of view. So with the liberal marriage, the earrings add that bit of tension that is needed to keep the viewer interested and the plot rolling.
My favourite part of the movie is about halfway through when the romance between Donati and Madame de... is first blooming, and they are going to a series of parties together. We seem them dancing and the movie cuts seamlessly from one party to the next, and the camera moves in a way where it's almost dancing with them. The background and their clothes change, and we know that there's other people around them dancing, but we hardly notice either thing because the movie captures that feeling of being two persons completely alone while surrounded by other people. I think the way that Ophüls captures the romance is a highlight of the movie. In general the movie is well directed, Ophüls gets some good performances out of his three main actors. The movie also looks good, the cinematography is great and the grand sets in the big ballrooms and the in the house of the de... family look amazing. Ophüls also likes to keep his camera moving a lot. It's not Bourne-like, but it gives the movie a little bit of urgency, and I like that.
The Earrings of Madame de... is a very well executed love drama. It doesn't try to be more than it is, but what it does it does very well. I think it's a movie that a lot of people would have a lot of fun watching if they gave it the chance. At the very least it's a hard movie to dislike.
Madame De..., a French society woman in the laste 1800s, decides to sell some of her jewellery to get out of some money trouble her husband doesn't need to know about. Since they were given to her by him at their wedding, she tells him they've gone missing and presumably stolen while they are at the theatre. When the story reaches the papers, her jeweller informs her husband of the real fate of the earrings, and gives them back to the husband. To make the story disappear and avoid any embarrassment for any party, he sends them with a lover leaving for Constantinople indefinitely. The lover isn't as lucky as she might have hoped, and she gambles them away. Later they are bought by Italian diplomat and charmer Donati, who is going to Paris on his next assignment. In Paris Donati catches the attention of Madame De... and she his. Now the earrings are again dangerously close to Madame De..., but no one knows that, yet.
The earrings are a great MacGuffin, that the story always revolves around, even when the characters don't know it for most of the movie. But for the viewer who knows more than the characters, it adds a nice bit of tension to the drama, which might otherwise lack it a bit. Monsieur de... doesn't seem tobe particularly embarrassed by his extramartial affairs, even though he doesn't explicitly tell his wife about. He also refers to her as a flirt to Donati, and tells him to not to get his hopes up. He doesn't seem to mind the little affair between Donati and Madame de... either. The moment he does start to care however is when the word love gets mentioned. Suddenly the affair is much worse from his point of view. So with the liberal marriage, the earrings add that bit of tension that is needed to keep the viewer interested and the plot rolling.
My favourite part of the movie is about halfway through when the romance between Donati and Madame de... is first blooming, and they are going to a series of parties together. We seem them dancing and the movie cuts seamlessly from one party to the next, and the camera moves in a way where it's almost dancing with them. The background and their clothes change, and we know that there's other people around them dancing, but we hardly notice either thing because the movie captures that feeling of being two persons completely alone while surrounded by other people. I think the way that Ophüls captures the romance is a highlight of the movie. In general the movie is well directed, Ophüls gets some good performances out of his three main actors. The movie also looks good, the cinematography is great and the grand sets in the big ballrooms and the in the house of the de... family look amazing. Ophüls also likes to keep his camera moving a lot. It's not Bourne-like, but it gives the movie a little bit of urgency, and I like that.
The Earrings of Madame de... is a very well executed love drama. It doesn't try to be more than it is, but what it does it does very well. I think it's a movie that a lot of people would have a lot of fun watching if they gave it the chance. At the very least it's a hard movie to dislike.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
The devil wears earrings with heart-shaped diamonds: there's high maintenance, and then there's Madame. The Earrings of Madame de… is a tragic-comic romance featuring three fairly despicable characters; I was hoping they'd all die at the end. Oh well, two out of three ain't bad.
Still it's fun to watch them deceive, cheat and lie to each other's faces, all the while maintaining the high degree of civility expected of their social class. Set amongst the aristocracy, their dialogue is polite and genteel but must be decoded: when Donati discovers Madame has been lying to him he says "I look forward to seeing you again" (or something like that...forget the exact words). Of course, he's merely being polite in this case, he doesn't wish to see her at all. And Madame knows the cordiality is meant to be an insult; she knows he would say the same thing to just anybody.
As talky as The Earrings of Madame de… is it's an even better visual experience. The camera floats and dances about, the film is not so much shot as it is choreographed. Next time I'm going to pay less attention to the subtitles and just watch.
Still it's fun to watch them deceive, cheat and lie to each other's faces, all the while maintaining the high degree of civility expected of their social class. Set amongst the aristocracy, their dialogue is polite and genteel but must be decoded: when Donati discovers Madame has been lying to him he says "I look forward to seeing you again" (or something like that...forget the exact words). Of course, he's merely being polite in this case, he doesn't wish to see her at all. And Madame knows the cordiality is meant to be an insult; she knows he would say the same thing to just anybody.
As talky as The Earrings of Madame de… is it's an even better visual experience. The camera floats and dances about, the film is not so much shot as it is choreographed. Next time I'm going to pay less attention to the subtitles and just watch.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Beau Travail begins with a series of seemingly random images: local girls dancing in an African nightclub, soldiers going through the motions of their training exercises, beautiful shots of landscapes; visual motifs which we will return to throughout the movie, strikingly composed with vibrant colours, set to transcendent music, although at first their connections aren't clear. The movie looks like it might be some kind of impressionistic travelogue essay film, but about ten minutes in a semblance of storyline begins to coalesce and we return to earth. Or at least somewhat closer to earth. Beau Travail remains always a little up in the air, open-ended. What we see in an early shot should be a tip-off: sunlight dappling on ripples of water dissolve to close-up of a pen writing the narrator's story on paper: get ready for some fluid storytelling.
The story, loosely based on Herman Melville's Billy Budd, concerns a regiment commander in the French Foreign Legion, posted in Djibouti, dealing with his feelings toward one of his troops who appears to be a much better soldier than he. Those feelings may be envy, lust, hatred, jealousy, self-loathing--you decide. When attempted murder doesn't work, he connects with his inner John Travolta.
The story, loosely based on Herman Melville's Billy Budd, concerns a regiment commander in the French Foreign Legion, posted in Djibouti, dealing with his feelings toward one of his troops who appears to be a much better soldier than he. Those feelings may be envy, lust, hatred, jealousy, self-loathing--you decide. When attempted murder doesn't work, he connects with his inner John Travolta.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Beau Travail (2017) Directed by Claire Denis
Beau Travail is a radical re-imagining of Herman Melville's Billy Budd in which an unworldly young deckhand for reasons that are hard to fathom becomes the whipping boy for an experienced British officer whose envy and jealousy of the lad's innocent nature and pure spirit tragically warps his judgement. Trade the British Navy for the French Foreign Legion and the ocean for the Sahara and one has the makings of an interesting interpretation of the classic tale. Director Claire Denis strips the movie of most of its spiritual and psychological dimensions and replaces the complexity with a fairly blatant homo-eroticism that is plastered on thick. This is no longer a story about the torments of an individual officer's soul so much as it is an examination of an individual's secret desires and the extent that they cloud his judgement. I think Claire is definitely on to something here, especially as Melville seems to often struggle with complex ideas that he doesn't always have the words to express clearly--there always seems to be something going on just beneath the surface of his tales. She takes what is subtext in Billy Budd, in other words, the homosexual desires, and amplifies that theme until it becomes the main force that determines what happens to the characters. Where she may overstep the bounds of Melville's story is in making the military itself seem like a hotbed of gay potential. She is fortunate to have the ultra-weird Denis Levant, an actor who can make Klaus Kinski and Udo Keir appear models of normality, to do the heavy lifting as her main character. He keeps things both interesting and obvious simultaneously. The homo-eroticism on display seems garish and overplayed to me, but I guess from the director's perspective it might be a case of in for a penny, in for a pound. She certainly made her point, though.
subtitles
Ivan, the Terrible, parts 1 and 2 (1944/45) Directed by Sergei Eisenstein
Ivan, the Terrible is a very loose biography of the 16th century Tsar who fought to unify Russia, defend its vast borders, and protect its interests from the always devious and greedy boyars, the Russian feudal lords who saw Ivan as a threat to their way of life and their dominance over the peasantry. Under Eisenstein's guidance, this is probably as close as cinema has ever gotten to opera, and, indeed, in the final minutes of Part 2 it even crosses that line. The style here is lavishly, brilliantly expressionistic with both the acting and mise-en-scene way, way over the top. Never has a movie used images more dramatically to tell its essential tale of a great leader on all sides beset by deceit and potential betrayal.
Part of the reason for this approach is that not only was Eisenstein a leading pioneer of silent film but also that he virtuallly created the grammar of editing through his vastly influential theories of montage. As well, starting in silent film meant that he was comfortable letting his images tell his stories, and that is very obvious in both parts of this film. Dialogue is hardly necessary; for that matter, even intertitles are hardly necessary. It is easy enough figuring out what is going on most of the time by just watching the images and the extreme facial expressions, which are both devilishly exaggerated and virtually constant, one of those rare movies where I didn't want to blink for fear that I might miss something. Set and costume design are spectacular (Zhang Yimou look to your laurels). From the short, cramped oval shaped doorways to Ivan's beard which get aggressively more pointed as he grows older to some of the costume designs which could be at home in a science fiction movie, the movie is a constant delight to the eye, Part 1 perhaps being the most visually imaginative and eye-catching film ever made.
Clearly Eisenstein idenitifies strongly with his pent-upon Tsar. It is amazing Eisenstein got as much of this film as he did past the post-war censors as the film certainly is critical of those with entrenched interests. Part 2 appears rushed, opts for a few scenes in colour which was not that great an idea, and actually devolves into song and dance briefly in another wrong-headed attempt to take the movie to another level that wasn't needed in the first place. Regardless, Ivan, the Terrible continues to be one of the great watersheds of 20th century cinema. As a director, Eisenstein remains virtually in a class by himself.
subtitles
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Posting from vacation (hey, I'm actually in Canada at the moment), so this will be a two for one post so I'm caught up.
Beau Travail
Denis (1999)
“Maybe freedom begins with remorse.â€
We first get the tale in flashes — a dance club, a train, French Foreign Legion soldiers on a deserted and dusty plain (meditating? Tai Chi?). There is music and some chanting, but otherwise it takes a good six or seven minutes before anyone in Beau Travail speaks. It’s Galoup (Denis Lavant), speaking in the present. He was the leader of a group of Legionaries stationed in Djibouti. He was a consummate professional. He was. He longer is. Dismissed from the service, he narrates much of the rest of the film, which is the story of his disdain for one of his charges, Sentain (Gregorie Colin).
Djibouti is a dull assignment. There is a small social scene. As for work, save for a helicopter crash, treated as a brief flash with Sentain as the hero of the moment, most of the job is training. Running obstacle courses. Digging. Stretching. Tai Chi. They don’t say much. They’re animal-like. Denis has a languid camera, content to linger on the sweat and the swimming. Is this Galoup’s gaze? At some point it begins to feel that way. What is his beef with Sentain? I read the movie is a riff on Melville’s Billy Budd. As in that story the commander is jealous of the good looking and well liked underling. Also as in that story the underling strikes the commander. Unlike that source of inspiration, it is Galoup who is court-martialed. Punished with a long walk back to camp (and sabotaged with a malfunctioning compass), Sentain nearly dies.
Denis seems to put an exclamation point on it with an unexpected final scene of Galoup alone in a dance club, Corona’s Rhythm of the Night pounding through the speakers. He smokes, bobbing to the song slowly at first. As he begins to dance, the film cuts to the credits. After a moment, it cuts back and he’s in a full bore spastic, wild performance to the song. Is it too crass to call it orgasmic?
It takes a while for the pieces to come into place as the story hops around a little in time. Despite the 90 minute run time, the film is slow paced. I don’t mean that as criticism because it creates a certain mood. It’s easy to imagine a much more bombastic version of this tale in another’s hands. Not that there isn’t some flourish here. The soundtrack is equal parts disco and opera. It’s even a little spooky at times. Around the 30 minute mark there’s a scene of the soldiers carrying a man through an alley. They switch and carry Sentain. Galoup watches from a distance. It’s backdropped with a menacing synthesiser.
Ivan the Terrible (parts 1&2)
Eisenstein (1945, 1958)
“I will be terrible.â€
Ivan IV is coronated as the Tzar of Russia and his first decree seems to be — **** every body off. His announcement to unite the country and form an Army (forcing both the church and the rich to pay for it), is not well received to say the least. So begins part one of Sergei Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible. That opening scene sets the table for the next three-plus hours as Ivan attempts to rule amid a Shakespearean assemblage of cohorts and backstabbers determined to undermine and murder him. There is plenty of intrigue and plotting. He comes across as paranoid, but he really isn’t since everyone pretty much is out to get him. Ivan fakes his death at one point to weed out traitors. He goes into exile and comes back. Late in part two there is another fake death deception.
I’m so used to American epics, it’s always fascinating to see how artists in another country tackle their formative histories and tales. This one started off interesting. I only know the broadest strokes of Russian history so I was interested both in Eisenstein’s art and the actual story. But I have to admit this one drained me as it went on. The films unfold in what feel like a series of prolonged scenes many centered on ceremonies or performances or presentations. It rarely leaves the walls of churches and palaces, though the few times it does, it’s beautiful such as the shot of the caravan winding through the dessert (though the wall shadows were often great). I wanted more epic from this epic. Maybe that’s unfair? Normally I’m all for getting weird, but the stranger Ivan the Terrible gets, the more tedious I found it to be. Starting from the lengthy performance of the three children in the church though to the aunt singing a completely bizarre song to the weak-willed pretender Vladimir about a black beaver to the shocking switch to color and another prolonged musical number. Am I missing something in the (artistic) translation? Operatic for sure. I think Eisenstein’s silent film habits are a bit of an anchor here too. Maybe it was the style of Russian film at the time, but the constant stream of wide-eyed reaction shots became humorous to me pretty quick. Character speaks — the next 3-5 shots are characters around the room slowly reacting in shock.
Ultimately I don’t think I learned much. Funny enough, Ivan never seems truly terrible. Few in the movie are particularly likable, Ivan included. And I’m not the type of viewer who always demands someone be likeable. But the characters have to be interesting. This one failed on that front for me too. Just felt like a collection of wide-eyed expressions all grasping for power and not much else. I feel like I’d fail a history test on Ivan the Terrible despite spending the past three-plus hours with a (admittedly artfully done) biopic of him.
It’s a pair of films I’m glad I have seen to further my education, but I’m not sure I will revisit either.
Beau Travail
Denis (1999)
“Maybe freedom begins with remorse.â€
We first get the tale in flashes — a dance club, a train, French Foreign Legion soldiers on a deserted and dusty plain (meditating? Tai Chi?). There is music and some chanting, but otherwise it takes a good six or seven minutes before anyone in Beau Travail speaks. It’s Galoup (Denis Lavant), speaking in the present. He was the leader of a group of Legionaries stationed in Djibouti. He was a consummate professional. He was. He longer is. Dismissed from the service, he narrates much of the rest of the film, which is the story of his disdain for one of his charges, Sentain (Gregorie Colin).
Djibouti is a dull assignment. There is a small social scene. As for work, save for a helicopter crash, treated as a brief flash with Sentain as the hero of the moment, most of the job is training. Running obstacle courses. Digging. Stretching. Tai Chi. They don’t say much. They’re animal-like. Denis has a languid camera, content to linger on the sweat and the swimming. Is this Galoup’s gaze? At some point it begins to feel that way. What is his beef with Sentain? I read the movie is a riff on Melville’s Billy Budd. As in that story the commander is jealous of the good looking and well liked underling. Also as in that story the underling strikes the commander. Unlike that source of inspiration, it is Galoup who is court-martialed. Punished with a long walk back to camp (and sabotaged with a malfunctioning compass), Sentain nearly dies.
Denis seems to put an exclamation point on it with an unexpected final scene of Galoup alone in a dance club, Corona’s Rhythm of the Night pounding through the speakers. He smokes, bobbing to the song slowly at first. As he begins to dance, the film cuts to the credits. After a moment, it cuts back and he’s in a full bore spastic, wild performance to the song. Is it too crass to call it orgasmic?
It takes a while for the pieces to come into place as the story hops around a little in time. Despite the 90 minute run time, the film is slow paced. I don’t mean that as criticism because it creates a certain mood. It’s easy to imagine a much more bombastic version of this tale in another’s hands. Not that there isn’t some flourish here. The soundtrack is equal parts disco and opera. It’s even a little spooky at times. Around the 30 minute mark there’s a scene of the soldiers carrying a man through an alley. They switch and carry Sentain. Galoup watches from a distance. It’s backdropped with a menacing synthesiser.
Ivan the Terrible (parts 1&2)
Eisenstein (1945, 1958)
“I will be terrible.â€
Ivan IV is coronated as the Tzar of Russia and his first decree seems to be — **** every body off. His announcement to unite the country and form an Army (forcing both the church and the rich to pay for it), is not well received to say the least. So begins part one of Sergei Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible. That opening scene sets the table for the next three-plus hours as Ivan attempts to rule amid a Shakespearean assemblage of cohorts and backstabbers determined to undermine and murder him. There is plenty of intrigue and plotting. He comes across as paranoid, but he really isn’t since everyone pretty much is out to get him. Ivan fakes his death at one point to weed out traitors. He goes into exile and comes back. Late in part two there is another fake death deception.
I’m so used to American epics, it’s always fascinating to see how artists in another country tackle their formative histories and tales. This one started off interesting. I only know the broadest strokes of Russian history so I was interested both in Eisenstein’s art and the actual story. But I have to admit this one drained me as it went on. The films unfold in what feel like a series of prolonged scenes many centered on ceremonies or performances or presentations. It rarely leaves the walls of churches and palaces, though the few times it does, it’s beautiful such as the shot of the caravan winding through the dessert (though the wall shadows were often great). I wanted more epic from this epic. Maybe that’s unfair? Normally I’m all for getting weird, but the stranger Ivan the Terrible gets, the more tedious I found it to be. Starting from the lengthy performance of the three children in the church though to the aunt singing a completely bizarre song to the weak-willed pretender Vladimir about a black beaver to the shocking switch to color and another prolonged musical number. Am I missing something in the (artistic) translation? Operatic for sure. I think Eisenstein’s silent film habits are a bit of an anchor here too. Maybe it was the style of Russian film at the time, but the constant stream of wide-eyed reaction shots became humorous to me pretty quick. Character speaks — the next 3-5 shots are characters around the room slowly reacting in shock.
Ultimately I don’t think I learned much. Funny enough, Ivan never seems truly terrible. Few in the movie are particularly likable, Ivan included. And I’m not the type of viewer who always demands someone be likeable. But the characters have to be interesting. This one failed on that front for me too. Just felt like a collection of wide-eyed expressions all grasping for power and not much else. I feel like I’d fail a history test on Ivan the Terrible despite spending the past three-plus hours with a (admittedly artfully done) biopic of him.
It’s a pair of films I’m glad I have seen to further my education, but I’m not sure I will revisit either.
Just to let people know: I am having trouble finding Silence and Cry anywhere, let along with English sub-titles. I'll try my local library, but I might be sitting this one out when its turn comes up.
Hey, K, I hope you are enjoying your time in Canada.
Hey, K, I hope you are enjoying your time in Canada.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
I don't even think of Ivan The Terrible as historical biopic, I think of it as propaganda--it's more about Josef Stalin than any medieval Prince of Moscow. Confiscating the property and curtailing the powers of the church and bourgeoisie, claiming central Asia as Russian hinterland, annexing the Baltic states, allying with England to fight the Germans, positioning himself as champion and defender of the working man, mistrusting those close to him who may be conspiring to usurp his power...they check a lot of the same boxes. Ivan The Terrible illustrates the qualities of a glorious leader who just happens to have a lot in common with a certain dictator of the day.
That's my half-time report after seeing part one. Got part two on deck for tonight.
Race you to Bay Street video kihei, they have it there. (At least, they have it listed in their database. I sure hope it's there…)
That's my half-time report after seeing part one. Got part two on deck for tonight.
Race you to Bay Street video kihei, they have it there. (At least, they have it listed in their database. I sure hope it's there…)
Last edited:
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Beau Travail (1999) dir. Claire Denis
Galoup is a former Sergeant in the French Foreign Legion, now back in Marseille writing his memoirs. Through him we hear the story of his in Djibouti, and how he was expelled from the Foreign Legion.
Beau Travail is absolutely beautifully filmed. The desert backdrop of Djibouti is beautiful and makes everything seem more raw. It also seems like a perfect representation of Galoup's behaviour towards Sentain, heated, lifeless, and deadly. The many training and exercise scenes are filmed like dance numbers accompanied by the amazing score of the film, these are probably the most beautiful part of the movie. The score in itself is amazing here. At times it almost seems like the movie is built around the score and not the other way around. Galoup's flashbacks are sort of dreamlike I feel, and the music is a big part of that.
Denis Lavant is great as Galoup. A big part of the movie is not what's being said or narrated, but all what's unsaid inside Galoup, and Lavant tells a lot about what's going on inside Galoup, but he's also very restrained in his approach to the role, and he never tries to go big with his acting, even though he's perfectly capable. But this role is better with his restrained approach.
I think Beau Travail is one of those movies that gets better and better with every rewatch. There's much going below the surface, and it's interesting to dig it out bit by bit.
Galoup is a former Sergeant in the French Foreign Legion, now back in Marseille writing his memoirs. Through him we hear the story of his in Djibouti, and how he was expelled from the Foreign Legion.
Beau Travail is absolutely beautifully filmed. The desert backdrop of Djibouti is beautiful and makes everything seem more raw. It also seems like a perfect representation of Galoup's behaviour towards Sentain, heated, lifeless, and deadly. The many training and exercise scenes are filmed like dance numbers accompanied by the amazing score of the film, these are probably the most beautiful part of the movie. The score in itself is amazing here. At times it almost seems like the movie is built around the score and not the other way around. Galoup's flashbacks are sort of dreamlike I feel, and the music is a big part of that.
Denis Lavant is great as Galoup. A big part of the movie is not what's being said or narrated, but all what's unsaid inside Galoup, and Lavant tells a lot about what's going on inside Galoup, but he's also very restrained in his approach to the role, and he never tries to go big with his acting, even though he's perfectly capable. But this role is better with his restrained approach.
I think Beau Travail is one of those movies that gets better and better with every rewatch. There's much going below the surface, and it's interesting to dig it out bit by bit.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Ivan The Terrible Part I and II (1944+1958) dir. Sergei Eisenstein
Ivan crowns himself as Tsar of all of Russia, and vows to protect Russia from all outside invaders. However the Boyars are not at all pleased with a Tsar, and there's a lot of grumbling in corners. But before anyone has a chance to move on Ivan, Kazan attacks Russia. Ivan crushes Kazan, but falls gravely ill on his return journey, which causes the Boyars to start lining up successors to Ivan. But you shouldn't sell the skin before you've shot the bear.
In Part II Ivan starts grabbing more power for himself, and taking power and land away from the Boyars, which causes further hostility towards him. Ivan responds by living up to his nickname, and turning a plot to assassinate Ivan into an assassination of Vladimir, the Boyar selected to replace Ivan, and son of Efrosinia, who murdered Ivan's wife.
Commissioned by Stalin, himself a big admirer of Ivan The Terrible. Part I was a big hit with Stalin and the Soviet top for its depiction of Ivan. The parallels between Stalin and Ivan are obvious, and between the movie and WWII which was going on when the movie was made. Ivan is the strong leader, who quells dissent from the aristocracy and destroys the enemies of Russia. Exactly the man Stalin saw himself as. Problems arose however when Stalin saw Part II, where Ivan becomes more ruthless. Stalin was no longer a fan of the Ivan he saw, it was not the image of Ivan he admired or he himself wanted to be presented as. Though many outsiders would probably say that the parallels between the two are still there. Just not the parallels Stalin wanted to see. This meant the movie was thrown away, and the planned Part III was never made. Part II was not released until after Stalins death.
It's somewhat hard to look past the movies being obvious propaganda pieces that were crafted to present Stalin in a certain light, even though Stalin himself wasn't a fan of Part II. But when I get past that I still think that the movies tell a fun and interesting story. And I think from a storytelling point of view, this is the strongest of the Eisenstein movies that I have seen. Maybe it's related to the fact that the movies don't really make use of Eisenstein's signature montage editing, which wasn't really in vogue any more by that time. Eisenstein's use of montage is incredibly effective as a tool of emotional manipulation, but I don't think it's that great a tool when telling an epic story like the one of Ivan The Terrible. Even if Eisenstein uses more conventional editing in this movie, it is far from short on style. Much of the movies take place inside the Tsar's palace. And in here Eisenstein often uses lighting to cast long and vast shadows of the characters, particularly of Ivan. The shadows are almost a character in themselves. It looks extremely good, and tells a lot about the characters and the power play between them, without a single word. No matter what you think about the story and the historical context, I don't think anyone can claim this film is boring to look at.
Ivan crowns himself as Tsar of all of Russia, and vows to protect Russia from all outside invaders. However the Boyars are not at all pleased with a Tsar, and there's a lot of grumbling in corners. But before anyone has a chance to move on Ivan, Kazan attacks Russia. Ivan crushes Kazan, but falls gravely ill on his return journey, which causes the Boyars to start lining up successors to Ivan. But you shouldn't sell the skin before you've shot the bear.
In Part II Ivan starts grabbing more power for himself, and taking power and land away from the Boyars, which causes further hostility towards him. Ivan responds by living up to his nickname, and turning a plot to assassinate Ivan into an assassination of Vladimir, the Boyar selected to replace Ivan, and son of Efrosinia, who murdered Ivan's wife.
Commissioned by Stalin, himself a big admirer of Ivan The Terrible. Part I was a big hit with Stalin and the Soviet top for its depiction of Ivan. The parallels between Stalin and Ivan are obvious, and between the movie and WWII which was going on when the movie was made. Ivan is the strong leader, who quells dissent from the aristocracy and destroys the enemies of Russia. Exactly the man Stalin saw himself as. Problems arose however when Stalin saw Part II, where Ivan becomes more ruthless. Stalin was no longer a fan of the Ivan he saw, it was not the image of Ivan he admired or he himself wanted to be presented as. Though many outsiders would probably say that the parallels between the two are still there. Just not the parallels Stalin wanted to see. This meant the movie was thrown away, and the planned Part III was never made. Part II was not released until after Stalins death.
It's somewhat hard to look past the movies being obvious propaganda pieces that were crafted to present Stalin in a certain light, even though Stalin himself wasn't a fan of Part II. But when I get past that I still think that the movies tell a fun and interesting story. And I think from a storytelling point of view, this is the strongest of the Eisenstein movies that I have seen. Maybe it's related to the fact that the movies don't really make use of Eisenstein's signature montage editing, which wasn't really in vogue any more by that time. Eisenstein's use of montage is incredibly effective as a tool of emotional manipulation, but I don't think it's that great a tool when telling an epic story like the one of Ivan The Terrible. Even if Eisenstein uses more conventional editing in this movie, it is far from short on style. Much of the movies take place inside the Tsar's palace. And in here Eisenstein often uses lighting to cast long and vast shadows of the characters, particularly of Ivan. The shadows are almost a character in themselves. It looks extremely good, and tells a lot about the characters and the power play between them, without a single word. No matter what you think about the story and the historical context, I don't think anyone can claim this film is boring to look at.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
And they said Chaplin was stubborn and reluctant to let go of the aesthetic of silent film. The guy's got nothing on Eisenstein. Ivan The Terrible was made only about a decade and a half after the sound era had completely torpedoed the silent era but even then it must have seemed like such a throwback and Eisenstein the practitioner of a long lost art form.
Ivan The Terrible is a talking picture, yes, but not really a sound picture--there are almost no sounds outside of the actors speaking. The actors proclaim their lines in near-monotones while striking poses and exaggerating gestures, often standing still like chessmen purposefully positioned but waiting to be moved if necessary. Insert title cards to replace the dialogue--not much nuance would be lost here--and it looks like something from 20 years earlier. Good for him says me, Ivan The Terrible doesn't really need sound or the naturalistic acting it enables or the sense of realism it creates. It just needs a Prokofiev score and rich visuals take care of the rest, the screen a canvas for a succession of striking images, the frame almost always static. Camera movements are few, usually reacting only to Ivan's movements, as though he alone could alter the boundaries within which all his subjects were confined. There's a very dramatic zoom into closeup of Ivan the boy prince when he decides to assume and exercise the power which is his right rather than continue to be a puppet of the boyers (Ha...that'll teach ya to lie on the bed with your shoes on!)
And yet Part 2 seems more adventurous in using more cinematic tools…some use of colour and exxxtreme closeups (when the monk Philip leans in to the camera lens, eyeball to eyeball with the audience, to say "justice must be done to the tsar", I wonder if Stalin squirmed just a little bit)...I can only try to imagine what tricks had been planned for Part III. But what we have is enough. The late, great Lester Bangs said that in the long run art matters more than politics. Like the religious icons painted on the tsar's castle walls, Ivan The Terrible will still be speaking to people centuries from now, long after tsars, premiers and other pharoahs are forgotten.
Ivan The Terrible is a talking picture, yes, but not really a sound picture--there are almost no sounds outside of the actors speaking. The actors proclaim their lines in near-monotones while striking poses and exaggerating gestures, often standing still like chessmen purposefully positioned but waiting to be moved if necessary. Insert title cards to replace the dialogue--not much nuance would be lost here--and it looks like something from 20 years earlier. Good for him says me, Ivan The Terrible doesn't really need sound or the naturalistic acting it enables or the sense of realism it creates. It just needs a Prokofiev score and rich visuals take care of the rest, the screen a canvas for a succession of striking images, the frame almost always static. Camera movements are few, usually reacting only to Ivan's movements, as though he alone could alter the boundaries within which all his subjects were confined. There's a very dramatic zoom into closeup of Ivan the boy prince when he decides to assume and exercise the power which is his right rather than continue to be a puppet of the boyers (Ha...that'll teach ya to lie on the bed with your shoes on!)
And yet Part 2 seems more adventurous in using more cinematic tools…some use of colour and exxxtreme closeups (when the monk Philip leans in to the camera lens, eyeball to eyeball with the audience, to say "justice must be done to the tsar", I wonder if Stalin squirmed just a little bit)...I can only try to imagine what tricks had been planned for Part III. But what we have is enough. The late, great Lester Bangs said that in the long run art matters more than politics. Like the religious icons painted on the tsar's castle walls, Ivan The Terrible will still be speaking to people centuries from now, long after tsars, premiers and other pharoahs are forgotten.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Fargo (1960) dir. Coen brothers
The fictional based on a true story movie ever made. Ienpt carsalesman Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) arranges the kidnapping of his wife, with the purpose of extorting money from her rich father. He hires out of town gangsters Carl (Steve Buscemi) and Gaear (Peter Stormare). On their way to their hiding spot outside the small town Brainerd, they get stopped by a policeman, and end up killing him and two passerbys. This means that pregnant Brainerd policewoman Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) gets involved in the case, and it turns out that she might be the worst thing that could happen to the bad guys.
For a movie that has this much killing, dismemberment and generally awful things happening. I am laughing and smiling a whole lot throughout this movie. I am generally a fan of the Coen's sense of humour. It's delightfully dark, and lowkey. They are one of the few American directors who really excel at dark comedy. In Fargo they have also done a great job with the casting. The principal actors all do a great job. William H. Macy is great as the schmuck Jerry who gets in way over his head, and who thinks he's a lot smarter than he really is. As much as Jerry lacks money, he really lacks respect. Not a home, not a work, not anywhere does anyone respect him. Not even when he arranges his wife's kidnapping is he able to put himself into a position of power. Her father still just rolls right over him without any problems. Macy and the Coen's greatest trick here is that you almost start to feel sorry for the man several times, until you remember what a terrible person he is. Steve Buscemi does what he does best here. Which is act big and loud, but he does it in a way that feels believable. The best performance however has to be from Frances McDormand. We don't meet Marge until at least half an hour into the film, but she steals the show for the rest of the film. She doesn't look like much, pregnant in a small town, struggling to get up so she can go to a murder scene. After the murder scene scene, it's impossible not to love Marge. Her matter of fact comments about the victims and crimes are delightful, amplified by the accents of the people in Brainerd, you betcha. The accents might be exaggerated, but there's no malice in it. No one is laughing at the accents, but they add so much to the movie and I can't imagine how the movie would be without it. In that way Minnesota is just as much a character in the movie as the rest, and might be one of the most important ones.
I'm a big Coen brothers fan, while there has been a few misses along the way, there's at least a handful of their movies I would call great, and at least a handful more I would call good. Fargo is one of the very best they have made. It's funny, has a good story and a great set of characters that you really enjoy watching again and again.
The fictional based on a true story movie ever made. Ienpt carsalesman Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) arranges the kidnapping of his wife, with the purpose of extorting money from her rich father. He hires out of town gangsters Carl (Steve Buscemi) and Gaear (Peter Stormare). On their way to their hiding spot outside the small town Brainerd, they get stopped by a policeman, and end up killing him and two passerbys. This means that pregnant Brainerd policewoman Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) gets involved in the case, and it turns out that she might be the worst thing that could happen to the bad guys.
For a movie that has this much killing, dismemberment and generally awful things happening. I am laughing and smiling a whole lot throughout this movie. I am generally a fan of the Coen's sense of humour. It's delightfully dark, and lowkey. They are one of the few American directors who really excel at dark comedy. In Fargo they have also done a great job with the casting. The principal actors all do a great job. William H. Macy is great as the schmuck Jerry who gets in way over his head, and who thinks he's a lot smarter than he really is. As much as Jerry lacks money, he really lacks respect. Not a home, not a work, not anywhere does anyone respect him. Not even when he arranges his wife's kidnapping is he able to put himself into a position of power. Her father still just rolls right over him without any problems. Macy and the Coen's greatest trick here is that you almost start to feel sorry for the man several times, until you remember what a terrible person he is. Steve Buscemi does what he does best here. Which is act big and loud, but he does it in a way that feels believable. The best performance however has to be from Frances McDormand. We don't meet Marge until at least half an hour into the film, but she steals the show for the rest of the film. She doesn't look like much, pregnant in a small town, struggling to get up so she can go to a murder scene. After the murder scene scene, it's impossible not to love Marge. Her matter of fact comments about the victims and crimes are delightful, amplified by the accents of the people in Brainerd, you betcha. The accents might be exaggerated, but there's no malice in it. No one is laughing at the accents, but they add so much to the movie and I can't imagine how the movie would be without it. In that way Minnesota is just as much a character in the movie as the rest, and might be one of the most important ones.
I'm a big Coen brothers fan, while there has been a few misses along the way, there's at least a handful of their movies I would call great, and at least a handful more I would call good. Fargo is one of the very best they have made. It's funny, has a good story and a great set of characters that you really enjoy watching again and again.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Fargo
Coen (1996)
“I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.â€
I still flashback to its original poster, a wonderful piece of faux-needlepoint with the tagline “A Homespun Murder Story,†which really cuts right to it. A “true†story of the greed, evil and incompetence of a few petty schemers and crooks pitted against a decent and deceptively competent Chief Marge Gunderson (an iconic performance from Frances McDormand) and set amid a snowy Minnesota backdrop. Jerry (an equally game William H. Macy) arranges his wife’s kidnapping in order to extort his father-in-law for money to help with a business deal. His hired goons (a manic Steve Buscemi and an ominous Peter Stormare), however, manage to botch the job from the start leaving a few bodies in their wake. This is some black, black comedy amid all that blinding white snow.
I’ve been a die-hard Coen fan since the live-action cartoon that is Raising Arizona. Fargo ranks among both my favorites of theirs and among their best. What stands out the most to me is how perfectly calibrated that tone is. It is at times ghoulishly violent and serious and yet it’s also very funny AND it never manages to tilt too far into ridiculousness despite those accents. As filmmakers, they’ve been dogged in the past for maybe not caring about their characters, maybe being too distant or detached. I’ve never felt that in general and it certainly isn’t the case here, especially with Marge. Their detective is an indelible creation, an amalgam of pure kindness and real steel (she isn’t hesitant at the violent part of her job). Oh and she’s pregnant. I used the word deceptively earlier not so much because her competence isn’t clear in her world, but because it isn’t clear in ours. I imagine many sat down to watch this, heard the folksy accent and underestimates our hero. Our heroes just don’t talk or look like that. I’m often content to let a movie be the movie, but I wouldn’t say no if anyone ever attempted to give the character a life in continued stories (our Midwestern Poirot).
Macy’s pathetic, stuttering panic is fantastic as well.
The Coens, as always, march to their own beat. Marge doesn’t enter the story until about a half-hour in. There is a seemingly out of place interlude with an old high school friend, but when you ponder it further, you see how it leads into her next interrogation of Jerry. The Coens don’t make it obvious though, which I appreciate.
The setting is cold, but the film has always felt very warm to me. Good triumphs over evil.
Cinematographer Roger Deakins is a god to me.
I would be remiss if I didn’t use this as an opportunity to plug the Fargo TV show from FX. Though the Coens are involved in name only, creator Noah Hawley somehow, someway has managed to capture both the tone of Fargo the movie and the spirit of the Coens in generally. It’s impressive (albeit derivative) and entertaining work. Highly recommend if you’re a fan of the Coens.
Coen (1996)
“I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.â€
I still flashback to its original poster, a wonderful piece of faux-needlepoint with the tagline “A Homespun Murder Story,†which really cuts right to it. A “true†story of the greed, evil and incompetence of a few petty schemers and crooks pitted against a decent and deceptively competent Chief Marge Gunderson (an iconic performance from Frances McDormand) and set amid a snowy Minnesota backdrop. Jerry (an equally game William H. Macy) arranges his wife’s kidnapping in order to extort his father-in-law for money to help with a business deal. His hired goons (a manic Steve Buscemi and an ominous Peter Stormare), however, manage to botch the job from the start leaving a few bodies in their wake. This is some black, black comedy amid all that blinding white snow.
I’ve been a die-hard Coen fan since the live-action cartoon that is Raising Arizona. Fargo ranks among both my favorites of theirs and among their best. What stands out the most to me is how perfectly calibrated that tone is. It is at times ghoulishly violent and serious and yet it’s also very funny AND it never manages to tilt too far into ridiculousness despite those accents. As filmmakers, they’ve been dogged in the past for maybe not caring about their characters, maybe being too distant or detached. I’ve never felt that in general and it certainly isn’t the case here, especially with Marge. Their detective is an indelible creation, an amalgam of pure kindness and real steel (she isn’t hesitant at the violent part of her job). Oh and she’s pregnant. I used the word deceptively earlier not so much because her competence isn’t clear in her world, but because it isn’t clear in ours. I imagine many sat down to watch this, heard the folksy accent and underestimates our hero. Our heroes just don’t talk or look like that. I’m often content to let a movie be the movie, but I wouldn’t say no if anyone ever attempted to give the character a life in continued stories (our Midwestern Poirot).
Macy’s pathetic, stuttering panic is fantastic as well.
The Coens, as always, march to their own beat. Marge doesn’t enter the story until about a half-hour in. There is a seemingly out of place interlude with an old high school friend, but when you ponder it further, you see how it leads into her next interrogation of Jerry. The Coens don’t make it obvious though, which I appreciate.
The setting is cold, but the film has always felt very warm to me. Good triumphs over evil.
Cinematographer Roger Deakins is a god to me.
I would be remiss if I didn’t use this as an opportunity to plug the Fargo TV show from FX. Though the Coens are involved in name only, creator Noah Hawley somehow, someway has managed to capture both the tone of Fargo the movie and the spirit of the Coens in generally. It’s impressive (albeit derivative) and entertaining work. Highly recommend if you’re a fan of the Coens.
Fargo (1996) Directed by the Coen brothers
Okay, fun movie, one that you can watch over and over and still enjoy. Can't hold a candle to No Country for Old Men, and I like Blood Simple more, too, and maybe even Miller's Crossing. But, still, if all American movies were this good, I'd be delighted. But that's not my issue of the day.
My issue of the day is: Is Fargo contemptuous of its characters? Is the movie a snooty take down by the Hipsters of the Rubes., or is it an affectionate elbow in the ribs of the northern flyovers? Every time I see it, the more that I think that its portrayal of its characters is kind of nasty. It seems to go beyond spoof in the direction of genuine condescension. Part of it is the way in which the characters use of regional language is portrayed, and part of it is the general simpleminded dimness displayed by many of the characters in the movie.
What keeps the derision a little at bay is Frances McDormand's uncanny ability to humanize any character that she plays. William H. Macy should receive similar praise here, too, because I don't think this script is necessarily easy to play. With the wrong actors, the regional ticks evident in each character might overpower the narrative. McDormand and Macy manage to somehow keep their characters believable and sympathetic despite the abundant mannerisms that they have been given to play with. I guess art walks this kind of line all of the time. and the risk is part of the fun. Certainly, there is a bit of the same thing going on in Blood Simple, though it is mild in comparison. Fargo ups the ante tenfold. But I wonder what the good people of Minnesota and North Dakota think of this movie. I have the feeling that not all of them would love it.
Last edited:
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Fargo reminds me of the joke about the condemned man before the firing squad, the commander offers him a last cigarette. "No thanks" he says, "I'm trying tro quit". Gallows humour, that's the deal here. Mocking some sad and unpleasant truths with oblivious, happy-go-lucky normalcy. It's the fasten-your-seatbelts signal chiming while bodies lie dead in the snow, cops arrive at the murder scene but coffee and chit chat take immediate priority over the investigation.
Though Frances McDormand's performance received more accolades I think it is William H. Macy who really stands out here, he has the dark side within him but must maintain a pleasant and amiable façade. Schizophrenic in a way and it's tearing him apart. Doesn't know whether to be friendly or serious when first meeting Carl and Gaear so he flashes a big smile then immediately wipes it off and goes poker faced. We see him close a deal with some irate customers by simply outlasting their anger and frustration until they're too exhausted to argue anymore. He knows in the end most people are too nice to make a big deal of his incompetence and will eventually let it slide. But a GMAC loan proves to be a tough thing to fudge and a murder investigation is even worse. It's fun to watch him squirm as the noose tightens around him.
Though Frances McDormand's performance received more accolades I think it is William H. Macy who really stands out here, he has the dark side within him but must maintain a pleasant and amiable façade. Schizophrenic in a way and it's tearing him apart. Doesn't know whether to be friendly or serious when first meeting Carl and Gaear so he flashes a big smile then immediately wipes it off and goes poker faced. We see him close a deal with some irate customers by simply outlasting their anger and frustration until they're too exhausted to argue anymore. He knows in the end most people are too nice to make a big deal of his incompetence and will eventually let it slide. But a GMAC loan proves to be a tough thing to fudge and a murder investigation is even worse. It's fun to watch him squirm as the noose tightens around him.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Charade
Donen (1963)
“You can’t even be honest about being dishonest.”
Charade always has me from the very first percussive beats of that Mancini score and the darting, roving, colorful lines of the Maurice Binder title sequence. That’s just ‘60s shorthand for fun. The second scene of the movie only confirms it as a gun trains itself on beautiful Reggie Lampert (Audrey Hepburn playing Audrey Hepburn) only to be revealed as a water pistol. Reggie, vacationing in Switzerland tells a friend she’s ready to divorce her husband. She has a meet-cute with Peter Joshua (Cary Grant playing Cary Grant) in the first (and my favorite) of what will be numerous playful exchanges between he pair. The divorce proves to be unnecessary, however, as Mr. Lampert turns up dead. While this saves Reggie paperwork, it creates a whole new stress. Dear hubby, it appears, had a secret life and $250,000 that’s now missing. The French police want answers. The CIA in the form of amiable bureaucrat Walter Matthau want the money. As does a trio of craggy-faced thugs. Turns out Joshua’s interest are more than just on Reggie as well.
What unfurls is a classic who-is-playing-who plot where loyalties (and identities) are never quite clear right up until the very, very end. It’s a Hitchcockian tale but with an ample amount of sugar applied on top. Dare I say the best Hitchcock film that the master himself did not make? Perfect casting from the three leads who are tasked to do exactly what they do best to the trio of rogues — most notably James Coburn and George Kennedy in an early movie for both eventual famed character actors. Jacques Marin as the French inspector is a joy in each of his handful of scenes. It’s a textbook type of film that it feels they truly don’t make any more and it’s a damn shame because when it’s done well (John Huston’s Beat the Devil is another personal favorite), it’s a true delight.
Donen’s light touch is ideal. Coming from the world of musicals like On The Town and Singin’ in the Rain, Grant and Hepburn don’t dance in Charade, but they may as well be. This baby has rhythm.
All that said, for as frothy as the proceedings are for the most part, there’s a few very well done moments of tension, particularly the climactic chase through the subways and final confrontation in the plaza (with that revealing cutaway to the real Bartholomew at a party sandwiched in there for good measure). Among the thugs, Coburn’s Texas cackle grates a bit, but his brief matchstick-armed menacing of Hepburn in a phonebooth is great low-volume creepiness. His face, frozen in a pain after being suffocated makes for a surprisingly gruesome little shot amid the otherwise amusing goings on. The 25-year age gap between Grant and Hepburn always makes for a small hurdle for me, but they’re both likable enough that it fades as I watch and Grant, for the most part, resists the temptation of romance in favor of focusing on the job. The fully clothed shower he takes may be a tad too silly for my tastes, but otherwise I find this mix of comedy/mystery to be one of the best of its sort. I also always chuckle in the dialogue toward the end when Hepburn asks Grant why she should trust him and his response is that there is no real logical reason to do so. Proudly steers right into its movie-ness.
Donen (1963)
“You can’t even be honest about being dishonest.”
Charade always has me from the very first percussive beats of that Mancini score and the darting, roving, colorful lines of the Maurice Binder title sequence. That’s just ‘60s shorthand for fun. The second scene of the movie only confirms it as a gun trains itself on beautiful Reggie Lampert (Audrey Hepburn playing Audrey Hepburn) only to be revealed as a water pistol. Reggie, vacationing in Switzerland tells a friend she’s ready to divorce her husband. She has a meet-cute with Peter Joshua (Cary Grant playing Cary Grant) in the first (and my favorite) of what will be numerous playful exchanges between he pair. The divorce proves to be unnecessary, however, as Mr. Lampert turns up dead. While this saves Reggie paperwork, it creates a whole new stress. Dear hubby, it appears, had a secret life and $250,000 that’s now missing. The French police want answers. The CIA in the form of amiable bureaucrat Walter Matthau want the money. As does a trio of craggy-faced thugs. Turns out Joshua’s interest are more than just on Reggie as well.
What unfurls is a classic who-is-playing-who plot where loyalties (and identities) are never quite clear right up until the very, very end. It’s a Hitchcockian tale but with an ample amount of sugar applied on top. Dare I say the best Hitchcock film that the master himself did not make? Perfect casting from the three leads who are tasked to do exactly what they do best to the trio of rogues — most notably James Coburn and George Kennedy in an early movie for both eventual famed character actors. Jacques Marin as the French inspector is a joy in each of his handful of scenes. It’s a textbook type of film that it feels they truly don’t make any more and it’s a damn shame because when it’s done well (John Huston’s Beat the Devil is another personal favorite), it’s a true delight.
Donen’s light touch is ideal. Coming from the world of musicals like On The Town and Singin’ in the Rain, Grant and Hepburn don’t dance in Charade, but they may as well be. This baby has rhythm.
All that said, for as frothy as the proceedings are for the most part, there’s a few very well done moments of tension, particularly the climactic chase through the subways and final confrontation in the plaza (with that revealing cutaway to the real Bartholomew at a party sandwiched in there for good measure). Among the thugs, Coburn’s Texas cackle grates a bit, but his brief matchstick-armed menacing of Hepburn in a phonebooth is great low-volume creepiness. His face, frozen in a pain after being suffocated makes for a surprisingly gruesome little shot amid the otherwise amusing goings on. The 25-year age gap between Grant and Hepburn always makes for a small hurdle for me, but they’re both likable enough that it fades as I watch and Grant, for the most part, resists the temptation of romance in favor of focusing on the job. The fully clothed shower he takes may be a tad too silly for my tastes, but otherwise I find this mix of comedy/mystery to be one of the best of its sort. I also always chuckle in the dialogue toward the end when Hepburn asks Grant why she should trust him and his response is that there is no real logical reason to do so. Proudly steers right into its movie-ness.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
I hope this will not be hard to come by (and if it is, I can come up with an alternative) but my next pick is Battles Without Honor and Humanity, Fukasaku (1973).
Related, I'm still having trouble tracking down Silence and Cry. I haven't given up yet, but I haven't found anything streaming and my library system, which otherwise has been good, turns up nothing. All the video stores that at one time might have had it are long gone.
Related, I'm still having trouble tracking down Silence and Cry. I haven't given up yet, but I haven't found anything streaming and my library system, which otherwise has been good, turns up nothing. All the video stores that at one time might have had it are long gone.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Charade (1963) dir .Stanley Donen
Regina Lampert (Audrey Hepburn) is skiing in Megeve and tells her best friend that she intends to divorce her husband Charles once she returns to Paris. She also meets fellow American, Peter Joshua (Cary Grant), a charming older man. Upon return to Paris Regina finds her apartment completely empty and Charles gone. Police informs her that he was found murdered on a train while intending to leave the country. She is given a bag with the belongings he took with him. At the funeral three strange men show up, and afterwards Regina is contacted by a man from CIA, who informs her that Charles and the four men were supposed to deliver a lot of money to the French resistance, but Charles ran off with it. Now they are here for the money. Peter Joshua also tracks down Regina, and helps her move into a hotel.
It's hard not to have certain biases about movies before you watch them. I hadn't heard of Charade before kalio picked it, and I just gave it a cursory glance on IMDB before watching it. Where I saw Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn and it being tagged as "romance". Which lead me to believe it was one of those Classic Hollywood romantic comedies I usually steer well clear off if I can. Not that there aren't fun ones, but there's so much else I'd rather spend my time watching, even when they are good. Luckily my preconceived notions abou the film turned out not to be 100% correct. There are romantic comedy elements, but there's also a great murder mystery with some spy thriller elements in it as well. These parts are really fun to watch, much more than the expected Grant/Hepburn romance. The story takes a lot of twists and turns as everyone searches for the money. And every time we think we know something about what is actually going on, the movie throws another curve ball at us. Just so we can be sure not to resolve the whole thing in under 1½ hours. It's all good fun though, but it does become a bit frustrating after a while, because you know that what you think you know, will just be disproven in five minutes anyway. There's of course the catch that we only know as much as Regina Lampert, which is nothing. So we also have to figure out who we can trust to tell the truth.
Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn as good as usual. I don't know if there's anyone these two couldn't have chemistry with, and certainly have it with each other. This makes them a compelling couple to follow. Grant also manages to be just ominous enough that we don't really know what to think about him. Even if we should have expected him to be the good guy all along, I think it goes to his credit that I was unsure about what to think of his character several times throughout the movie. The supporting cast wa also fine. Walter Mathau, James Coburn, George Kennedy and Ned Glass all looked like they had a lot of fun with their roles.
Charade is a very fun murder mystery sort of thing. Certainly more fun than I expected it would be, and I wouldn't mind watching it again. But perhaps next time I should pair it with a good bottle of French wine. Seems like the sort of movie that wouldn't become worse in that sort of situation.
Regina Lampert (Audrey Hepburn) is skiing in Megeve and tells her best friend that she intends to divorce her husband Charles once she returns to Paris. She also meets fellow American, Peter Joshua (Cary Grant), a charming older man. Upon return to Paris Regina finds her apartment completely empty and Charles gone. Police informs her that he was found murdered on a train while intending to leave the country. She is given a bag with the belongings he took with him. At the funeral three strange men show up, and afterwards Regina is contacted by a man from CIA, who informs her that Charles and the four men were supposed to deliver a lot of money to the French resistance, but Charles ran off with it. Now they are here for the money. Peter Joshua also tracks down Regina, and helps her move into a hotel.
It's hard not to have certain biases about movies before you watch them. I hadn't heard of Charade before kalio picked it, and I just gave it a cursory glance on IMDB before watching it. Where I saw Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn and it being tagged as "romance". Which lead me to believe it was one of those Classic Hollywood romantic comedies I usually steer well clear off if I can. Not that there aren't fun ones, but there's so much else I'd rather spend my time watching, even when they are good. Luckily my preconceived notions abou the film turned out not to be 100% correct. There are romantic comedy elements, but there's also a great murder mystery with some spy thriller elements in it as well. These parts are really fun to watch, much more than the expected Grant/Hepburn romance. The story takes a lot of twists and turns as everyone searches for the money. And every time we think we know something about what is actually going on, the movie throws another curve ball at us. Just so we can be sure not to resolve the whole thing in under 1½ hours. It's all good fun though, but it does become a bit frustrating after a while, because you know that what you think you know, will just be disproven in five minutes anyway. There's of course the catch that we only know as much as Regina Lampert, which is nothing. So we also have to figure out who we can trust to tell the truth.
Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn as good as usual. I don't know if there's anyone these two couldn't have chemistry with, and certainly have it with each other. This makes them a compelling couple to follow. Grant also manages to be just ominous enough that we don't really know what to think about him. Even if we should have expected him to be the good guy all along, I think it goes to his credit that I was unsure about what to think of his character several times throughout the movie. The supporting cast wa also fine. Walter Mathau, James Coburn, George Kennedy and Ned Glass all looked like they had a lot of fun with their roles.
Charade is a very fun murder mystery sort of thing. Certainly more fun than I expected it would be, and I wouldn't mind watching it again. But perhaps next time I should pair it with a good bottle of French wine. Seems like the sort of movie that wouldn't become worse in that sort of situation.
- Status
