Great list.
If we're including documentaries, another good one is The Salt of The Earth about the photographer Sebastião Salgado
Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread III
- Thread starter TP
- Start date
- Status
Great list.
If we're including documentaries, another good one is The Salt of The Earth about the photographer Sebastião Salgado
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Blue Valentine (2010) dir. Derek Cianfrance
Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) are a young couple with a young daughter. Their marriage is troubled and on it's last legs. As we see them try to cling to the last bit left of the relationship before it completely falters, the ending of the relationship is inter-cut with the beginning of the relationship when a young mover meets a young student who dreams of becoming a doctor.
Watched in linear fashion Blue Valentine might not be anything special. But the way that the beginning and the end of the relationship is cut together throughout the film, just seems to make the inevitable end hit that much harder. The dreams and wishes for the future shown in the beginning of the relationship, we already know won't happen from what we've seen from the ending of their relationship. Maybe they should have seen the ending coming from the begining. Dean is a sort of no-life dead beat who mostly just likes to have fun. He doesn't have any real ambitions for himself. But there's not denying his love for Cindy and their daughter, even though he knows he isn't the biological father, he loves Frankie like if she was his own. But love isn't enough to make a relationship work in the long term, and in the long term Dean isn't willing to work on the relationship and the household, and when he does work on the relationship it's by booking a night a sleazy sex motel. Cindy seems to have given up on getting Dean to contribute to running the household a long time ago, and has accepted that all the work at home is hers, which seems to cause her great frustration daily. They incompatible, even if they do love each other. But the infatuation they feel for each other at the beginning is overshadowing everything else, and they can't see anyway it could go wrong. As a viewer you get sucked into their spell as well.
Blue Valentine is Derek Cianfrance's first movie, and he hasn't reached the same heights yet with his later films. But Blue Valentine is very well directed. I like how the two timelines are distinct both in terms of audio and visuals. The meet timeline has warm colours and background music. The end timeline has cool blue-tinted colours and no background music. It really underscores the emotions in each timeline. Dean and Cindy are also just two really great characters. Gosling and Williams are great. They sell both the meeting and the ending equally well. They are both among my current favourite actors in Hollywood, and here they are on the top of their game.
I was interested in how well Blue Valentine would hold up. I really liked it when it came out, but I wasn't sure if it would still be as good as I remembered it. I lucky to report that it's still a very good movie in my opinion. Williams and Gosling are still amazing.
Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) are a young couple with a young daughter. Their marriage is troubled and on it's last legs. As we see them try to cling to the last bit left of the relationship before it completely falters, the ending of the relationship is inter-cut with the beginning of the relationship when a young mover meets a young student who dreams of becoming a doctor.
Watched in linear fashion Blue Valentine might not be anything special. But the way that the beginning and the end of the relationship is cut together throughout the film, just seems to make the inevitable end hit that much harder. The dreams and wishes for the future shown in the beginning of the relationship, we already know won't happen from what we've seen from the ending of their relationship. Maybe they should have seen the ending coming from the begining. Dean is a sort of no-life dead beat who mostly just likes to have fun. He doesn't have any real ambitions for himself. But there's not denying his love for Cindy and their daughter, even though he knows he isn't the biological father, he loves Frankie like if she was his own. But love isn't enough to make a relationship work in the long term, and in the long term Dean isn't willing to work on the relationship and the household, and when he does work on the relationship it's by booking a night a sleazy sex motel. Cindy seems to have given up on getting Dean to contribute to running the household a long time ago, and has accepted that all the work at home is hers, which seems to cause her great frustration daily. They incompatible, even if they do love each other. But the infatuation they feel for each other at the beginning is overshadowing everything else, and they can't see anyway it could go wrong. As a viewer you get sucked into their spell as well.
Blue Valentine is Derek Cianfrance's first movie, and he hasn't reached the same heights yet with his later films. But Blue Valentine is very well directed. I like how the two timelines are distinct both in terms of audio and visuals. The meet timeline has warm colours and background music. The end timeline has cool blue-tinted colours and no background music. It really underscores the emotions in each timeline. Dean and Cindy are also just two really great characters. Gosling and Williams are great. They sell both the meeting and the ending equally well. They are both among my current favourite actors in Hollywood, and here they are on the top of their game.
I was interested in how well Blue Valentine would hold up. I really liked it when it came out, but I wasn't sure if it would still be as good as I remembered it. I lucky to report that it's still a very good movie in my opinion. Williams and Gosling are still amazing.
Blue Valentine (2010) Directed by Derek Cianfranco
I rewatched this movie about a year ago, and I don't have the heart to watch it again so soon. So I am starting off with my review from the movie page, as my feelings haven't changed an iota about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Valentine is one of the most devastating examinations of a relationship gone bad in Hollywood history. By the time the story begins, Cindy (Michelle Williams) already knows her marriage with Dean is over, but, to steal a line from novelist Paul Bowles, she doesn’t yet know that she knows. Dean (Ryan Gosling), the intuitive one, senses it, but everything he does only makes matters worse. Through flashbacks, we see both the early love that the two shared, but, also, a lot of the reasons why the relationship might well not last. We feel for both characters—bone-tired Cindy and exasperated Dean. Eventually they talk themselves into a point of no return, leaving their young daughter distraught in the process. Love emerges and it disappears, and there is not enough good will in the world left to get it back. Gosling and Williams are both superb, each giving one of their best performances. While I can see why this movie struggled to find an audience, no question it is tough medicine to swallow, Blue Valentine is among the best US movies of the past decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key question here is how many times does Michelle Williams get to break my heart? She did it in Wendy and Lucy; she did it in Brokeback Mountain; she did it in Take This Waltz; she did it in Manchester by the Sea; and she did it in Blue Valentine. There are probably other times that have slipped my mind, too. But those movies really stand out. That is a lot of times to have your heart broken by the same actress. I am not a cryer at movies, wasn't even when I was a kid. The last three times that I have teared up in a movie (over roughly a fifteen year period), they were all Michelle Williams movies. Immediately that sounds suspect to me, like she is some sort of tear-jerker queen or something. But she isn't; farthest thing removed from it. All five of those characters are vividly, distinctly, uniquely different despite the fact that four of them are, in one way or another, unhappy wives. What these women have in common is Williams' ability to get into the very marrow of their being and express what she finds there with honesty, clarity and intelligence. She never panders or takes short cuts or relies on cheap tricks. Her expression of feelings always is convincingly real and very human. She is one of those actors we underrate because she never tries to give a tour de force performance and because she disappears into her roles. She has a gift, though, for portraying the tragic that lurks within the ordinary. In some ways, she seems invisible which is why, given her immense talent, she never gets as much credit as she deserves. I think she is one of the greatest American actresses ever.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Blue Valentine
Cianfrance (2010)
“You always hurt. The ones you love.”
Blue Valentine is an absolutely heart rending look at the naivety of young love. The last days of Dean and Cindy’s crumbling marriage are interspersed with key moments (generally happier) from earlier in their relationship. The time shifting by writer-director Derek Cianfrance is wise. It might be unbearable were this linear. They share a child together (though Dean is not the father), but Cindy is checked out, going through the motions. Dean seems content being the “fun” parent and just sorta scraping by. Where did it go wrong? There isn’t a cliched inciting incident. Whatever once was there just eventually … went away. We see the remnants. Fair to argue there might not have been much there in the first place other than two lonely people in need. That, sadly, does not a relationship make however. It’s a brutal lesson for our protagonists, one who only seems to want to disappear and the other intent on bullying the love (at least his conception of it) he feels he’s owed from his partner.
Williams is just god-level with grounded, realistic characters like this. No one hurts as good as she does. You start to feel bad for her at some point on a real level, not a movie level. How draining must it be to run yourself through the emotional wringer like this? (And Wendy & Lucy. And Brokeback Mountain. And Manchester by the Sea, etc. She always feels 100% real to me and often deeply sympathetic. Even her kindly doctor boss turns out to be a shit! Girl can’t get a break.
Gosling is a bit of a different animal here. I vacillate between is he too much or is he actually just enough. It varies scene to scene. I think I come down slightly on just enough, but it’s close. He’s got a young swaggering wounded DeNiro thing going on (almost even down to his accent) and it sometimes threatens to pull me out of the movie, but Dean himself is a little bit of a petulant poser, so the stance actually seems to fit. He isn't a bad man. But he's not quite a good one either. Stunted.
Williams is effortless, but with Gosling you see the sweat. That’s ultimately a fitting balance here though with one character who long ago gave up and the other straining desperately to hold on, though to what he probably couldn’t even say.
It’s a pretty harrowing watch as far a relationship dramas go. For all the talk of how powerful and uncomfortable Marriage Story was a few years back, it feels like a Disney movie compared to this. It still holds up too. I watched it a decade ago and it shot near the top of my Great Movie I May Never Watch Again list. This watch was just my second. It felt every bit as real and insightful about relationships now as it did then. And I went through a divorce myself in the intervening 10 years. Thankfully it wasn’t remotely as combative as the one here, I’d be liar if I said I didn’t see parts of myself and my ex-wife in both the characters.
If I was going to nitpick I might say some of the happier times may be a touch too cutesy. I mean I think Wes Anderson would even reject a ukulele serenade with a cartoony voice as being a tad too twee. But you know what? Young people are corny especially when they think they're in love. So I'm at peace with it.
Now it goes on the list of Great Movies I’ll Probably Never Watch a Third Time.
Cianfrance (2010)
“You always hurt. The ones you love.”
Blue Valentine is an absolutely heart rending look at the naivety of young love. The last days of Dean and Cindy’s crumbling marriage are interspersed with key moments (generally happier) from earlier in their relationship. The time shifting by writer-director Derek Cianfrance is wise. It might be unbearable were this linear. They share a child together (though Dean is not the father), but Cindy is checked out, going through the motions. Dean seems content being the “fun” parent and just sorta scraping by. Where did it go wrong? There isn’t a cliched inciting incident. Whatever once was there just eventually … went away. We see the remnants. Fair to argue there might not have been much there in the first place other than two lonely people in need. That, sadly, does not a relationship make however. It’s a brutal lesson for our protagonists, one who only seems to want to disappear and the other intent on bullying the love (at least his conception of it) he feels he’s owed from his partner.
Williams is just god-level with grounded, realistic characters like this. No one hurts as good as she does. You start to feel bad for her at some point on a real level, not a movie level. How draining must it be to run yourself through the emotional wringer like this? (And Wendy & Lucy. And Brokeback Mountain. And Manchester by the Sea, etc. She always feels 100% real to me and often deeply sympathetic. Even her kindly doctor boss turns out to be a shit! Girl can’t get a break.
Gosling is a bit of a different animal here. I vacillate between is he too much or is he actually just enough. It varies scene to scene. I think I come down slightly on just enough, but it’s close. He’s got a young swaggering wounded DeNiro thing going on (almost even down to his accent) and it sometimes threatens to pull me out of the movie, but Dean himself is a little bit of a petulant poser, so the stance actually seems to fit. He isn't a bad man. But he's not quite a good one either. Stunted.
Williams is effortless, but with Gosling you see the sweat. That’s ultimately a fitting balance here though with one character who long ago gave up and the other straining desperately to hold on, though to what he probably couldn’t even say.
It’s a pretty harrowing watch as far a relationship dramas go. For all the talk of how powerful and uncomfortable Marriage Story was a few years back, it feels like a Disney movie compared to this. It still holds up too. I watched it a decade ago and it shot near the top of my Great Movie I May Never Watch Again list. This watch was just my second. It felt every bit as real and insightful about relationships now as it did then. And I went through a divorce myself in the intervening 10 years. Thankfully it wasn’t remotely as combative as the one here, I’d be liar if I said I didn’t see parts of myself and my ex-wife in both the characters.
If I was going to nitpick I might say some of the happier times may be a touch too cutesy. I mean I think Wes Anderson would even reject a ukulele serenade with a cartoony voice as being a tad too twee. But you know what? Young people are corny especially when they think they're in love. So I'm at peace with it.
Now it goes on the list of Great Movies I’ll Probably Never Watch a Third Time.
Blue Valentine (2010) directed by Derek Cianfrance
Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Carey Mulligan… umm… I mean Michelle Williams) are a young couple raising a daughter in Pennsylvania on the verge of marital collapse. Both know their marriage is on the last legs – Cindy is tired of caring for a slacker partner who lacks ambition and is more of a child than a spouse, and Dean is exasperated trying to hold onto what is left of their marriage before the inevitable happens. While all seems lost, through flashbacks glimpses of the genesis of their relationship five years prior are shown which depict how their relationship came to be and the love that they used to share. Effectively the film doesn’t show what happens in that five year period between genesis and separation, but you can see the characteristics they both held from when they were younger which would lead to their unhappy marriage today. There is not one single event which caused resentment in their relationship, but realistically it is just the natural result of a relationship between people who just aren’t really compatible and perhaps never were actually compatible in the first place.
Michelle Williams is a tour de force in this film, but in a quiet, subtle, and restrained way. Other actors may have let loose in this role, especially playing alongside Gosling who is a little more unrestrained in his acting (although it fits his character as a man fighting for his relationship), but the cold, tired, and unhappy performance is perfect for the role. As others have noted this is definitely part of the Michelle Williams Breaks My Heart Cinematic Universe. Cianfrance was also wise to sit back and allow these two actors to make these roles their own, allowing lots of improvisation in the script from Gosling and Williams who ooze chemistry with each other which I think led to a more natural performance between two of them.
But man is this a tough movie to watch. Extremely bleak look at relationships. I’m single and have never been married but I am around the same age of Cindy and Dean’s character in the film and its hard not to see myself a bit in Dean’s character in many ways. I think I’ve had that argument about Dean’s lack of ambition from the sex motel almost word for word with an ex-partner before, so the relationship feels very real to me. Probably not a film I plan to revisit anytime soon.
Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Carey Mulligan… umm… I mean Michelle Williams) are a young couple raising a daughter in Pennsylvania on the verge of marital collapse. Both know their marriage is on the last legs – Cindy is tired of caring for a slacker partner who lacks ambition and is more of a child than a spouse, and Dean is exasperated trying to hold onto what is left of their marriage before the inevitable happens. While all seems lost, through flashbacks glimpses of the genesis of their relationship five years prior are shown which depict how their relationship came to be and the love that they used to share. Effectively the film doesn’t show what happens in that five year period between genesis and separation, but you can see the characteristics they both held from when they were younger which would lead to their unhappy marriage today. There is not one single event which caused resentment in their relationship, but realistically it is just the natural result of a relationship between people who just aren’t really compatible and perhaps never were actually compatible in the first place.
Michelle Williams is a tour de force in this film, but in a quiet, subtle, and restrained way. Other actors may have let loose in this role, especially playing alongside Gosling who is a little more unrestrained in his acting (although it fits his character as a man fighting for his relationship), but the cold, tired, and unhappy performance is perfect for the role. As others have noted this is definitely part of the Michelle Williams Breaks My Heart Cinematic Universe. Cianfrance was also wise to sit back and allow these two actors to make these roles their own, allowing lots of improvisation in the script from Gosling and Williams who ooze chemistry with each other which I think led to a more natural performance between two of them.
But man is this a tough movie to watch. Extremely bleak look at relationships. I’m single and have never been married but I am around the same age of Cindy and Dean’s character in the film and its hard not to see myself a bit in Dean’s character in many ways. I think I’ve had that argument about Dean’s lack of ambition from the sex motel almost word for word with an ex-partner before, so the relationship feels very real to me. Probably not a film I plan to revisit anytime soon.
Captain Blood (1935) directed by Michael Curtiz
Ahoy! After wrongly being tried for treason and sentenced to slavery in the West Indies, a medical doctor, Doctor Blood (Errol Flynn), leads a slave rebellion and leads a group of slaves turned pirates in the Caribbean feasting on the ships of European colonial powers. Captain Blood is notable for a couple of reasons. Primarily, Captain Blood was the first of eight (!) collaborations between co-stars Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland who were at the time unknown actors and would shoot into stardom due to this film. The film would also help launch the Swashbuckling genre of films in the 1930s, most notably Curtiz would use much of the same cast for his 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood. The film was also nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and in a strange quirk despite not being nominated, Michael Curtiz would receive the second greatest amount of votes for Best Director as a write in candidate. So obviously at the time the film captured something in the cultural zeitgeist that made in a very popular film.
But for the first hour I was very disappointed. The first hour is a bit of a slog, unexciting and with far too much exposition on the Monmouth Rebellion, and Flynn’s performance is a bit flat and unconvincing. Curtiz is also too dependent on intertitles which may be a layover from his transition from silent films. I was beginning to write this film off as one of those pop culture artifacts that just hasn’t aged well. However, the second hour of the film is where things really pick off and I can see why this film was well loved. Flynn’s charm and charisma are turned to 11 and the swashbuckling really kicks off and its easy to see why this film set the mould for swashbuckling films during the era (and today to a certain degree with its influence on things like The Pirates of the Caribbean) and made a star out of Flynn who is a natural action star. Compared to action and adventure films today, it actually is fairly low event with only one sword fighting scene and one naval battle, a big contrast to something like the aforementioned Pirates of the Caribbean or other action/adventure films today which have fights and battles seemingly every 15 minutes or more.
Gotta say though, I wouldn’t trust a doctor named Doctor Blood if they were my doctor, so the transition to pirate captain was a wise move on his part.
Ahoy! After wrongly being tried for treason and sentenced to slavery in the West Indies, a medical doctor, Doctor Blood (Errol Flynn), leads a slave rebellion and leads a group of slaves turned pirates in the Caribbean feasting on the ships of European colonial powers. Captain Blood is notable for a couple of reasons. Primarily, Captain Blood was the first of eight (!) collaborations between co-stars Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland who were at the time unknown actors and would shoot into stardom due to this film. The film would also help launch the Swashbuckling genre of films in the 1930s, most notably Curtiz would use much of the same cast for his 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood. The film was also nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and in a strange quirk despite not being nominated, Michael Curtiz would receive the second greatest amount of votes for Best Director as a write in candidate. So obviously at the time the film captured something in the cultural zeitgeist that made in a very popular film.
But for the first hour I was very disappointed. The first hour is a bit of a slog, unexciting and with far too much exposition on the Monmouth Rebellion, and Flynn’s performance is a bit flat and unconvincing. Curtiz is also too dependent on intertitles which may be a layover from his transition from silent films. I was beginning to write this film off as one of those pop culture artifacts that just hasn’t aged well. However, the second hour of the film is where things really pick off and I can see why this film was well loved. Flynn’s charm and charisma are turned to 11 and the swashbuckling really kicks off and its easy to see why this film set the mould for swashbuckling films during the era (and today to a certain degree with its influence on things like The Pirates of the Caribbean) and made a star out of Flynn who is a natural action star. Compared to action and adventure films today, it actually is fairly low event with only one sword fighting scene and one naval battle, a big contrast to something like the aforementioned Pirates of the Caribbean or other action/adventure films today which have fights and battles seemingly every 15 minutes or more.
Gotta say though, I wouldn’t trust a doctor named Doctor Blood if they were my doctor, so the transition to pirate captain was a wise move on his part.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Captain Blood
Curtiz (1935)
“I became a man of peace, not of war.”
England is in the midst of a Civil War. Dr. Peter Blood, already a veteran of past conflicts, wants to remain a neutral but that peace is threatened by the late night arrival of a rebel in need. The act of treating the wounded man gets Blood branded a rebel himself. The cohorts avoid execution and instead are shipped off to the Caribbean to become slaves. It’s here Blood can no longer avoid his destiny. A rebellion attempt is short circuited by a Spanish invasion. He saves the town, commandeers a ship and sets off for the pirate’s life. He fights the French, saves a damsel and eventually is named governor of Port Royal. Ho, ho, ho how the tables have turned. Everybody chuckles.
Disclosure 1: I did not realize the character’s name actually is Blood. Always assumed that was an ominous nickname. I LOL’d in the opening moments when he’s introduced as Dr. Peter Blood.
Disclosure 2: I also did not realize this is the move Sloth is obsessed with in The Goonies despite myself being obsessed with The Goonies in my youth.
Random observation: It’s wild to me that Olivia DeHavilland JUST died last summer.
This was a rollicking adventure. I was smiling throughout. I don’t know how much of this became a template for future adventure moving making exactly but it sure felt very familiar to me despite never seeing it. I’d say that charming rogue DNA is very much present in characters like Han Solo and Indiana Jones. The Princess Bride owes a clear debt to the big sword fight. The band of jolly misfits and coconspiritors is a staple.
Several of the action set pieces were great and that’s not even grading on a curve for the time period. Fluid, fun and exciting. There’s a scale and scope here I really enjoyed.
I’m sure there are historic and cultural nits to pick as there often are in old films, but I’m not really interested in that. I had a damn fine time.
Curtiz (1935)
“I became a man of peace, not of war.”
England is in the midst of a Civil War. Dr. Peter Blood, already a veteran of past conflicts, wants to remain a neutral but that peace is threatened by the late night arrival of a rebel in need. The act of treating the wounded man gets Blood branded a rebel himself. The cohorts avoid execution and instead are shipped off to the Caribbean to become slaves. It’s here Blood can no longer avoid his destiny. A rebellion attempt is short circuited by a Spanish invasion. He saves the town, commandeers a ship and sets off for the pirate’s life. He fights the French, saves a damsel and eventually is named governor of Port Royal. Ho, ho, ho how the tables have turned. Everybody chuckles.
Disclosure 1: I did not realize the character’s name actually is Blood. Always assumed that was an ominous nickname. I LOL’d in the opening moments when he’s introduced as Dr. Peter Blood.
Disclosure 2: I also did not realize this is the move Sloth is obsessed with in The Goonies despite myself being obsessed with The Goonies in my youth.
Random observation: It’s wild to me that Olivia DeHavilland JUST died last summer.
This was a rollicking adventure. I was smiling throughout. I don’t know how much of this became a template for future adventure moving making exactly but it sure felt very familiar to me despite never seeing it. I’d say that charming rogue DNA is very much present in characters like Han Solo and Indiana Jones. The Princess Bride owes a clear debt to the big sword fight. The band of jolly misfits and coconspiritors is a staple.
Several of the action set pieces were great and that’s not even grading on a curve for the time period. Fluid, fun and exciting. There’s a scale and scope here I really enjoyed.
I’m sure there are historic and cultural nits to pick as there often are in old films, but I’m not really interested in that. I had a damn fine time.
Captain Blood (1935) Directed by Michael Curtiz
Before the arrival of Indiana Jones in 1981, it is a toss up whether Captain Blood or The Adventures of Robin Hood was the funnest Saturday matinee movie ever. Both movies star Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland. Robin Hood is the better movie, but really the choice merely comes down to how you like your swash buckled. Nobody has ever swashbuckled better than Flynn, that's for sure, and certainly nobody has ever looked like he was having so much fun doing it. His pleasure cannot help but rub off on the audience a little bit. His performances are often over-the-top but charmingly so. He cuts a dashing, romantic figure, the good-natured, live-for-today rogue not above adding a dramatic flourish to his performance in a camera-savvy way. And a little dangerous, a little wild, the sort of guy fathers wouldn't trust with their daughters (and, it seems, with good reason).
The movie actually takes a while to get going but when it does everything fits into place perfectly: good heroine; good villain (Basil Rathbone, my generation's Sherlock Holmes); excellent action footage and swordplay. All very well directed by Michael Curtiz. Let's play an old Sesame Street game, One of These Things Just Doesn't Belong Here:
20,000 Years in Sing Sing
Captain Blood
Kid Galahad
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Santa Fe Trail
Dive Bomber
Yankee Doodle Dandy
White Christmas
King Creole
Casablanca
Correct answer: Casablanca.
Who would have thought that after a career of lightweight genre movies mostly focused on action (for example, Curtiz and Flynn made 12 movies together) Micheal Curtiz, who directed 47 (!) movies in the '30s, would have a Casablanca in him?
Curtiz should also get some serious credit for helping to make De Havilland into a star. Without her success in his movies, who knows whether she would have ever gotten a plum role in Gone with the Wind, the movie for which she is best known.
Last edited:
Yikes! Jesus Christ, what am I saying? Ronald Howard was my generation's Sherlock Holmes; Rathbone was earlier (though his movies had become standbys on late night television when I was a kid).
Last edited:
It really is amazing how prolific Curtiz was. He directed 102 Hollywood movies between 1926 to 1961, plus another 80 in Europe prior to crossing the Atlantic. In terms of Hollywood, that's basically second to John Ford I think (over 140 Hollywood films - though many were shorts)
sdf
Registered User
I watched the review of Alien Covenant, if i remember correct what was said in that video, that director absolutely f***ed all things up and creat some highly moronic and pretensious crap. And now i cannot percive that his first movie as before, knowing it was made by an idiot
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
Captain Blood (1935) dir. Michael Curtiz
Peter Blood (Errol Flynn) is a young doctor in England, who gets summoned to help a member of a rebellion against the king. Blood sees himself as a neutral in the conflict, and actively helps anyone who is injured. But he gets arrested while performing his duties. He gets sentenced to a life in slavery for treason, and gets send to Jamaica. In Port Royal he gets sold to Arabella Bishop (Olivia de Haviland), the niece of the local military commander Colonel Bishop. Arabella helps Blood get the position as the gout stricken govenors personal physician. This allows Blood a great deal of freedom, but he still hatches a plan to free himself and his fellow slaves. The plan almost goes wrong when colonel Bishop suspects something, and tortures one of the slaves. The escape however is saved at the last minute when a Spanish ship attacks Port Royal, and the slaves steal the Spanish ship and starts a life as pirates. A few years later, a ship carrying Arabella Bishop gets captured by Blood's french partner Captain Levassuer. Blood forces Levassuer to sell Arabella to him as an opportunity to turn the tables on her. However Levassuer objects and Blood has to battle Levassuer in a duel to the death.
If asked to picture a swashbuckler, most people probably default to Errol Flynn. He is the prototypical swashbuckler for most people, and it all started in Captain Blood. Flynn is the perfect action hero, charming, good looking and good with a sword. What more could you want? And he's all those three things in Captain Blood. de Haviland and Flynn have great chemistry, and they are a fun leading couple to watch. Without their chemistry and charm the film would be a lot worse.
Captain Blood drags at times, especially in the first half, where the story might be developing a bit too slowly. But in the second half it picks up, and there's some really great set pieces. The duel between Blood and Levasseur and the final battle in particular. The duel is very well choreographed, it has emotional weight, and is just really fun to watch. The final battle is the highlight of the film. A huge battle with an abundance of extras fighting. It is superbly directed, and you feel the ebb and flow of the battle without losing focus on the main character. The editing is certainly slower than what you would see today, but it fits really well, and it doesn't slow down the scene at all. Instead it allows the viewer to absorb every action much more deeply.
Many of the people who made Captain Blood would go on to make The Adventures of Robin Hood (the best Robin Hood) three years later. There's many similarities between the two. And while I like Robin Hood more, I won't say no to Captain Blood, it's just a fun two hours, and that's really what it tries to be.
Peter Blood (Errol Flynn) is a young doctor in England, who gets summoned to help a member of a rebellion against the king. Blood sees himself as a neutral in the conflict, and actively helps anyone who is injured. But he gets arrested while performing his duties. He gets sentenced to a life in slavery for treason, and gets send to Jamaica. In Port Royal he gets sold to Arabella Bishop (Olivia de Haviland), the niece of the local military commander Colonel Bishop. Arabella helps Blood get the position as the gout stricken govenors personal physician. This allows Blood a great deal of freedom, but he still hatches a plan to free himself and his fellow slaves. The plan almost goes wrong when colonel Bishop suspects something, and tortures one of the slaves. The escape however is saved at the last minute when a Spanish ship attacks Port Royal, and the slaves steal the Spanish ship and starts a life as pirates. A few years later, a ship carrying Arabella Bishop gets captured by Blood's french partner Captain Levassuer. Blood forces Levassuer to sell Arabella to him as an opportunity to turn the tables on her. However Levassuer objects and Blood has to battle Levassuer in a duel to the death.
If asked to picture a swashbuckler, most people probably default to Errol Flynn. He is the prototypical swashbuckler for most people, and it all started in Captain Blood. Flynn is the perfect action hero, charming, good looking and good with a sword. What more could you want? And he's all those three things in Captain Blood. de Haviland and Flynn have great chemistry, and they are a fun leading couple to watch. Without their chemistry and charm the film would be a lot worse.
Captain Blood drags at times, especially in the first half, where the story might be developing a bit too slowly. But in the second half it picks up, and there's some really great set pieces. The duel between Blood and Levasseur and the final battle in particular. The duel is very well choreographed, it has emotional weight, and is just really fun to watch. The final battle is the highlight of the film. A huge battle with an abundance of extras fighting. It is superbly directed, and you feel the ebb and flow of the battle without losing focus on the main character. The editing is certainly slower than what you would see today, but it fits really well, and it doesn't slow down the scene at all. Instead it allows the viewer to absorb every action much more deeply.
Many of the people who made Captain Blood would go on to make The Adventures of Robin Hood (the best Robin Hood) three years later. There's many similarities between the two. And while I like Robin Hood more, I won't say no to Captain Blood, it's just a fun two hours, and that's really what it tries to be.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
The Mission
Joffe (1986)
“The work of the mission is the work of the devil.”
Two men — a dedicated Jesuit missionary and a disgraced mercenary seeking penance — come together at a remote South American mission where their hopes to convert the native population begin to abut against the colonial’s economic desires and the church’s need for self preservation. The missionaries want to keep the refuge as a place of sanctuary and education (the natives are on their side). The colonists want to turn them into slaves. The church eventually sides with the colonists fearing repercussions from the larger Catholic church. War comes to the peaceful community.
Jeremy Irons is a rock here as the good and decent soul. While I’d wager he’s almost always good what always stands out most to me are when he’s at his worst. This is counter to that. DeNiro is an interesting foil. He does his best and has the look and physical presence but he’s ultimately undermined by the fact that he still sounds far more like Robert DeNiro than a Portugese man. Kept waiting for him to tell the church officials, “Eh you insulted the religion a lil bit, a lil bit.”
Joffe is an interesting director whose peak career seems to consist of what I’ll just call history class movies — austere and respectable productions about real life events and/or based on famed works. Message movies. If the run came a decade later we’d probably call it “Oscar bait,” stuff like The Killing Fields, Fat Man & Little Boy, City of Joy, The Scarlet Letter. The Mission feels a little lost to time, but it was quite heralded in its moment, winning the Palme d’Or and wracking up seven Oscar nominations (including picture and director) and got what I’d say is a very deserving win for cinematography. The opening of a man tied to a cross plunging over a waterfall is quite a strong visual. The almost slow motion river ambush and shootout and the last stand in and around the mission were effective bits of action film making too.
Ennio Morricone’s lush score is equally memorable and has been repurposed frequently.
Then there’s added pedigree here from Robert Bolt, famed screenwriter of Lawrence of Arabia, A Man for All Seasons, Doctor Zhivago among others. In that light, it feels little like he’s playing the hits. This isn’t nearly as rich or compelling as a couple of those prior efforts but there’s certainly a throughline with his work and interests. A more modern view on the movie might ask if any of the options were actually the right options for the natives. That’s never really floated here.
Aside from perhaps Joffe, none of these actors or contributors are that their peak here. They've all been better and done better elsewhere, but this was a sturdy, classical bit of film making.
Joffe (1986)
“The work of the mission is the work of the devil.”
Two men — a dedicated Jesuit missionary and a disgraced mercenary seeking penance — come together at a remote South American mission where their hopes to convert the native population begin to abut against the colonial’s economic desires and the church’s need for self preservation. The missionaries want to keep the refuge as a place of sanctuary and education (the natives are on their side). The colonists want to turn them into slaves. The church eventually sides with the colonists fearing repercussions from the larger Catholic church. War comes to the peaceful community.
Jeremy Irons is a rock here as the good and decent soul. While I’d wager he’s almost always good what always stands out most to me are when he’s at his worst. This is counter to that. DeNiro is an interesting foil. He does his best and has the look and physical presence but he’s ultimately undermined by the fact that he still sounds far more like Robert DeNiro than a Portugese man. Kept waiting for him to tell the church officials, “Eh you insulted the religion a lil bit, a lil bit.”
Joffe is an interesting director whose peak career seems to consist of what I’ll just call history class movies — austere and respectable productions about real life events and/or based on famed works. Message movies. If the run came a decade later we’d probably call it “Oscar bait,” stuff like The Killing Fields, Fat Man & Little Boy, City of Joy, The Scarlet Letter. The Mission feels a little lost to time, but it was quite heralded in its moment, winning the Palme d’Or and wracking up seven Oscar nominations (including picture and director) and got what I’d say is a very deserving win for cinematography. The opening of a man tied to a cross plunging over a waterfall is quite a strong visual. The almost slow motion river ambush and shootout and the last stand in and around the mission were effective bits of action film making too.
Ennio Morricone’s lush score is equally memorable and has been repurposed frequently.
Then there’s added pedigree here from Robert Bolt, famed screenwriter of Lawrence of Arabia, A Man for All Seasons, Doctor Zhivago among others. In that light, it feels little like he’s playing the hits. This isn’t nearly as rich or compelling as a couple of those prior efforts but there’s certainly a throughline with his work and interests. A more modern view on the movie might ask if any of the options were actually the right options for the natives. That’s never really floated here.
Aside from perhaps Joffe, none of these actors or contributors are that their peak here. They've all been better and done better elsewhere, but this was a sturdy, classical bit of film making.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
The Mission (1986) directed by Roland Joffé
Just watched it a few months ago, so more or less going to repost my review for it from then since my thoughts haven't really changed on it after watching it again.
Above the Iguazu Falls in the jungle borderlands between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay live the Guaraní, an Amazonian indigenous group. In the 1750s, Jesuit missionary Father Gabriel (Jeremey Irons) is sent above the falls to try to convert a tribe to Christianity. Meanwhile, Captain Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro), a Spanish mercenary makes his living capturing and selling Guaraní natives into the slave trade. However, after being tried for murdering his brother Mendoza is taken in by Father Gabriel and becomes a Jesuit priest himself and the two of them develop a mission in the Guaraní community above the falls. However, while they are building this community, negotiations for the Treaty of Madrid 1950 are ongoing which would see the territory of the mission is located be transferred from the Spanish to the Portuguese who are even more unfriendly to the Guaraní and seek to enslave the community. A tale of good and evil intentions which both ultimately equally harm the indigenous groups under colonial rule. Surprised that this was listed by the Vatican as one of the top religious films since well the missionaries may be well intentioned, ultimately their “discovery” and attempt to convert these groups led to their genocide. The film itself is very beautiful, the cinematography is mesmerizing to look at, and it has a gorgeous score from Ennio Morricone. However, despite the setting and score, I found the film itself kind of flat and found it hard to connect with its main characters and their mission. The film does feature a very early Liam Neeson role in which he has substantial appearances as a supporting character as a priest at the mission but I don’t even think he’s a named character.
Just watched it a few months ago, so more or less going to repost my review for it from then since my thoughts haven't really changed on it after watching it again.
Above the Iguazu Falls in the jungle borderlands between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay live the Guaraní, an Amazonian indigenous group. In the 1750s, Jesuit missionary Father Gabriel (Jeremey Irons) is sent above the falls to try to convert a tribe to Christianity. Meanwhile, Captain Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro), a Spanish mercenary makes his living capturing and selling Guaraní natives into the slave trade. However, after being tried for murdering his brother Mendoza is taken in by Father Gabriel and becomes a Jesuit priest himself and the two of them develop a mission in the Guaraní community above the falls. However, while they are building this community, negotiations for the Treaty of Madrid 1950 are ongoing which would see the territory of the mission is located be transferred from the Spanish to the Portuguese who are even more unfriendly to the Guaraní and seek to enslave the community. A tale of good and evil intentions which both ultimately equally harm the indigenous groups under colonial rule. Surprised that this was listed by the Vatican as one of the top religious films since well the missionaries may be well intentioned, ultimately their “discovery” and attempt to convert these groups led to their genocide. The film itself is very beautiful, the cinematography is mesmerizing to look at, and it has a gorgeous score from Ennio Morricone. However, despite the setting and score, I found the film itself kind of flat and found it hard to connect with its main characters and their mission. The film does feature a very early Liam Neeson role in which he has substantial appearances as a supporting character as a priest at the mission but I don’t even think he’s a named character.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
The Mission (1986) dir. Roland Joffé
Jesuit priest Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) travels deep into the Paraguayian and Argentinian jungle, seeking to establish a mission and convert the Guarani to christianity. Priests who have went ahead of Father Gabriel have lost their lives in the proces, the Guarani are not entirely welcoming of Europeans. Father Gabriel however earns their trust, and is allowed to live with them, and eventually established his mission. Another Spaniard in the area is Mendoza (Robert De Niro), a mercenary and slaver. Mendoza often hunts and catches indigenous people like the Guarani and sells them to plantations. One day when returning from a hunt he finds his fiancé in bed with his half brother Felipe. In an ensuing duel Mendoza kills Felipe, and is grief stricken. Gabriel offers him a chance of penance, and allows him to follow him to the mission. Over time the Guarani accepts their former hunter, and Mendoza accepts Christ as a member of the mission. With the treaty of Madrid, the land on which the mission is located is transferred from Spain to Portugal. The portuguese wishes to enslave the indigenous people, and the missions are in the way of that. A Papal emisarry is sent to rule whether the missions should stay or be broken up. The Papal emisarry under intense pressure from both Spanish and Portuguese side, eventually rule that the missions must be shut down. The Guarani opposes that, and take up arms againt the colonists, together with the missionaries, all led by Mendoza.
There's good things to say about The Mission. It looks amazing, the rainforest scenes are amazingly beautiful, particularly the Iguazu Falls and Father Gabriel's climb. There's so much eye candy. There's also the score by Ennio Morricone which is great, and fits the setting incredibly well. Then there's the story, which there's probably less good things to say about. It's a movie about the evils of colonisation and slavery, through the lens of white European colonisers. The Guarani hardly have a voice of their own in the film. There's a Guarani who stands up and says they won't accept being under Portuguese rule, and that's about it. The uprising is largely led by Mendoza, while in reality it was led by a Guarani. It would have been nice for the Guarani to have a voice of their own, when the story is largely theirs. They are the real victims of the story, not the jesuits. But we are not allowed to connect with them. We are only allowed to connect with Gabriel and Mendoza, who's emotional journey in the film are quite removed from the colonial world. Their stories could have happened in many other places with no effect to them. It makes you wish the movie took advantage of it's setting and used that to tell a unique story. It doesn't help that I find Mendoza very hard to connect with. De Niro is also uncharacteristically dreary to watch, perhaps he found Mendoza as unpenetrateable as I did. Jeremy Irons on the other hand delivers a fine performance.
The Mission is too much of Hollywood's typical approach to stories about foreign people. They are best served through people that look the people that will buy tickets in the domestic theatres. There's a great physical and historical setting here, which could have been used to tell an interesting and unique story, but it is instead used to tell a story about spiritual redemption, which could have happened anywhere.
Jesuit priest Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) travels deep into the Paraguayian and Argentinian jungle, seeking to establish a mission and convert the Guarani to christianity. Priests who have went ahead of Father Gabriel have lost their lives in the proces, the Guarani are not entirely welcoming of Europeans. Father Gabriel however earns their trust, and is allowed to live with them, and eventually established his mission. Another Spaniard in the area is Mendoza (Robert De Niro), a mercenary and slaver. Mendoza often hunts and catches indigenous people like the Guarani and sells them to plantations. One day when returning from a hunt he finds his fiancé in bed with his half brother Felipe. In an ensuing duel Mendoza kills Felipe, and is grief stricken. Gabriel offers him a chance of penance, and allows him to follow him to the mission. Over time the Guarani accepts their former hunter, and Mendoza accepts Christ as a member of the mission. With the treaty of Madrid, the land on which the mission is located is transferred from Spain to Portugal. The portuguese wishes to enslave the indigenous people, and the missions are in the way of that. A Papal emisarry is sent to rule whether the missions should stay or be broken up. The Papal emisarry under intense pressure from both Spanish and Portuguese side, eventually rule that the missions must be shut down. The Guarani opposes that, and take up arms againt the colonists, together with the missionaries, all led by Mendoza.
There's good things to say about The Mission. It looks amazing, the rainforest scenes are amazingly beautiful, particularly the Iguazu Falls and Father Gabriel's climb. There's so much eye candy. There's also the score by Ennio Morricone which is great, and fits the setting incredibly well. Then there's the story, which there's probably less good things to say about. It's a movie about the evils of colonisation and slavery, through the lens of white European colonisers. The Guarani hardly have a voice of their own in the film. There's a Guarani who stands up and says they won't accept being under Portuguese rule, and that's about it. The uprising is largely led by Mendoza, while in reality it was led by a Guarani. It would have been nice for the Guarani to have a voice of their own, when the story is largely theirs. They are the real victims of the story, not the jesuits. But we are not allowed to connect with them. We are only allowed to connect with Gabriel and Mendoza, who's emotional journey in the film are quite removed from the colonial world. Their stories could have happened in many other places with no effect to them. It makes you wish the movie took advantage of it's setting and used that to tell a unique story. It doesn't help that I find Mendoza very hard to connect with. De Niro is also uncharacteristically dreary to watch, perhaps he found Mendoza as unpenetrateable as I did. Jeremy Irons on the other hand delivers a fine performance.
The Mission is too much of Hollywood's typical approach to stories about foreign people. They are best served through people that look the people that will buy tickets in the domestic theatres. There's a great physical and historical setting here, which could have been used to tell an interesting and unique story, but it is instead used to tell a story about spiritual redemption, which could have happened anywhere.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 368
I've forgot to pick a new film. My next pick will be Her.
The Mission (1986) Directed by Roland Joffe
I don't often use the word "lagubrius" but it is a good word, and it fits The Mission to a tee. "Lagubrious" is an adjective that denotes seriousness, mournfulness, heavy-handedness, the unrelievedly gloomy. The Mission certainly is all of that and less. It is not a very good movie, not very well organized, with a message that is ultimately both insufficient and rather on-the-nose. On top of this, the movie gives off a kind of stillborn numbness around the edges that makes matters even more dirge-like. Set among the indigenous people of the Amazon rain forest, The Mission shows how they are first converted and then betrayed by Jesuit missionaries who, somewhat illogically, end up being the good guys when weighed against the combined corrupt power of the Church and the State. How Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) converts the natives is by playing a flute and they all flock to him like he is the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Come to think of it, a lot of things don't get explained very well despite the movies length.
About a third of this very long movie looks like something commissioned by National Geographic which much emphasis of waterfalls, rivers, mud, and practically naked people. A story of redemption develops concerning a former slave trader (Robert De Niro) who is looking to pay a serious penance for murdering his half brother. His penance, taking a humongous load of armour up a steep cliff, reminded me a lot of the ship-over-the-mountain scene in Fitzcarraldo, probably a semi-steal. De Niro has very little to do in this movie. He kills his time on screen by looking intensely blank which is a bit different than looking intensely empty which would be more character-related. A lot of actors have little to do--Liam Neeson plays a big guy turned worker priest who tries to look useful and Ronald Pickup, who plays a Spanish government official, spends every scene he is in looking skeptical; like virtually every shot of him, there's that "don't know really what to think of this, old chap" look. The excellent Irish actor Roy McAnally plays a Cardinal who must decide the fate of the Jeremy Irons' mission. He also, rather oddly, provides hit-and-miss narration whenever the movie has to explain something that it doesn't have time to develop. He is stuck with "the good man who knowingly does evil" role, never a happy fate.
The whole movie transpires like really seriouis sludge. There is maybe 90 minutes of story here, minus the National Geographic stuff and the hymn singing (there is a ton of background music and it is very insistent). The Mission rather overstates its theme that people deemed unimportant by the State and Church are ultimately mere pawns in an obscene game of power. That wasn't a fresh idea in 1986, but perhaps it is just so obvious in 2021 that it actually seems to go without saying anymore. On another sour note, missionaries have always seemed a weird-ass lot to me: "Come let me replace your crazy superstition with my crazy superstition and you will thank me for it." So it is hard to work up much feeling here even if the movie allowed it, which it doesn't.
Last edited:
Devi (1960) Directed by Satyajit Ray
In 19th century India, Doya marries into a well-off, extended Brahmin family. She and her husband, Umaprasad, are a love match, and all is well until Umaprasad goes away to study English in Calcutta. Then Doya’s elderly father-in-law, Kalikinkar, dreams that Doya is the material reappearance of the goddess Devi. Her father-in-law and brother-in-law begin to worship her as a reincarnation of the deity. Her sister-in-law alerts Uma of the craziness happening at home, but by the time he returns, the matter is really out of control with the whole community is worshipping Doya as the reappearance of Devi. Uma, an intelligent, secular man, gives his wife full support, but by this time even she is confused as to what has happened to her. Finally, Uma convinces her to flee with him, but at the last moment she has doubts. Maybe she really is who people think she is. She returns to her home, and an avoidable tragedy occurs involving a sick child, her nephew. Madness beckons, beyond even Uma’s control.
I don't really know where to begin with Devi, a movie that could have been an excessive melodrama but instead plays like a modern tragedy. It is a tragedy about the damage caused by superstition and about women’s lack of power in a wholly patriarchal society. However, the human dimension, not the message, is at the forefront. Doya is a good person, a happy bride with a loving husband, but she is inexperienced and, as a woman in Hindu culture at this time, she has no agency whatsoever. Through no fault of her own and wholly ill-equipped to deal with the circumstance, she is thrust into a kind of religious/superstitious fanaticism that is completely overwhelms her. She is a finch caught in a hurricane. Her father-in-law and, certainly, her brother-in-law should know better, but they allow their religious beliefs to guide them. Only her sister-in-law, another woman, sees what is happening clearly. But even with the arrival of Doya’s intelligent and supportive husband, the damage is staggering and cannot be undone. Fanaticism and superstition have lives of their own, and it takes little to make them thrive and grow like a brush fire, regardless of the human cost.
Ray was often chastised by Bengali critics for being apolitical. Yet, in terms of the plight of women in Hindu society, Charulata, The Big City and Devi show him to be more than a decade ahead of his time. In each film, women must overcome (or not) an unfair power imbalance that has been supported for centuries by all of India's religious and social institutions. Ray doesn't preach about it. He demonstrates the inequality through creating sympathetic, very human characters and examining what the pressures of powerlessness and religious stupidity do to them and their families. Ray approaches the issue as a humanist which only underscores how close humanism and feminism are at their core. No other Indian director, no other director anywhere for that matter, was tackling such potentially incendiary material at the time.
And none would have thought of doing so with such emotional depth. Though it never calls attention to itself, Ray’s technique is superb here and, as always, it is used only in service of his story, with no flash whatsoever. The subtle foreshadowing of key characters and issues in the first fifteen minutes of the film is brilliant as is his camera work throughout the move, which often involves incredibly delicate and subtle movement within the frame, movement that makes the most of the skill of his great cast. Ray makes us feel for these people; however misguided their nature, their pain has weight. Ultimately it is their singular tragedy that moved me. The implications sank in later. So did the technique.
subtitles
My next pick will be Hu Bo's An Elephant Standing Still. Available at the moment on the Criterion Channel
Devi [দেবী/ The Goddess] (1960) directed by Satyajit Ray
In 19th century Bengal, after her wealthy husband (Soumitra Chatterjee) leaves her to unnecessarily study English at college in Kolkata, 17 year old Doyamoyee (Sharmila Tagore) is left to live with her husbands family compound with her religious fanatical father-in-law. In a dream, her father-in-law envisions Doyamoyee to be the reincarnation of the goddess Kali and begins to worship her at her feet and soon enough convinces much of the rural countryside to worship her as well.
An excellent examination of both the oppressiveness of the patriarchy in India and of religious dogmatism. Thrust into the spotlight of feminine adoration in which she is literally deified by her male gawkers she is wholly unprepared for the attention and makes a fatal mistake in her power as “goddess”. While I was impressed with the film after watching it last night, it actually has grown on me even more as I have begun to think more about the implication of its themes in terms of the consequences of toxic female adoration and fanaticism which reduces someone into something they are not and with expectations they are incapable of meeting which is something quite universal even outside of India. This film could be remade to be about a girl who is thought to be the virgin Mary or even just celebrity culture in general. What helps make this film so effective is that Ray tackles his subject with such grace and elegance, he’s not there to mock the Hindu religion and its not an anti-religious film but rather anti-fanatical, and despite its perceived simplicity in storytelling it provides a very thought provoking experience with a broad appeal. This is only the second Ray film that I’ve watched, I saw Charulata about a decade ago and vaguely remember liking it but I hadn’t seen anything else, but I now mean to check out more of his work, in particular the acclaimed Apu trilogy.
Something to note is that the current restoration for this film isn’t great, at least the version that was streaming on the Criterion Channel, however, the Criterion Collection announced just a couple of days ago that a new 4k restoration of the film is being released in October.
In 19th century Bengal, after her wealthy husband (Soumitra Chatterjee) leaves her to unnecessarily study English at college in Kolkata, 17 year old Doyamoyee (Sharmila Tagore) is left to live with her husbands family compound with her religious fanatical father-in-law. In a dream, her father-in-law envisions Doyamoyee to be the reincarnation of the goddess Kali and begins to worship her at her feet and soon enough convinces much of the rural countryside to worship her as well.
An excellent examination of both the oppressiveness of the patriarchy in India and of religious dogmatism. Thrust into the spotlight of feminine adoration in which she is literally deified by her male gawkers she is wholly unprepared for the attention and makes a fatal mistake in her power as “goddess”. While I was impressed with the film after watching it last night, it actually has grown on me even more as I have begun to think more about the implication of its themes in terms of the consequences of toxic female adoration and fanaticism which reduces someone into something they are not and with expectations they are incapable of meeting which is something quite universal even outside of India. This film could be remade to be about a girl who is thought to be the virgin Mary or even just celebrity culture in general. What helps make this film so effective is that Ray tackles his subject with such grace and elegance, he’s not there to mock the Hindu religion and its not an anti-religious film but rather anti-fanatical, and despite its perceived simplicity in storytelling it provides a very thought provoking experience with a broad appeal. This is only the second Ray film that I’ve watched, I saw Charulata about a decade ago and vaguely remember liking it but I hadn’t seen anything else, but I now mean to check out more of his work, in particular the acclaimed Apu trilogy.
Something to note is that the current restoration for this film isn’t great, at least the version that was streaming on the Criterion Channel, however, the Criterion Collection announced just a couple of days ago that a new 4k restoration of the film is being released in October.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,529
- 3,380
Devi
Ray (1960)
“We pray to thee o’ goddess.”
Doyamoyee and Umaprasad live with Umaprasad’s family. While he’s away at school his father, a devout believer in Kali, and his brother grow to believe the young girl is an incarnation of the goddess herself. The sister-in-law is not convinced. But the situation gradually grows out of control. A coincidence is seen as a miracle. People begin to flock to the home. Umaprasad returns home (at his sister-in-law’s urging) to try to rescue his wife to no avail. Events take a tragic turn when their nephew gets sick and rather than medical treatment the grandfather and father put their faith in Doya. The child dies and the “goddess” descends into mumbling madness.
This is a very simple, but effective tragedy with a universal and still relevant message about the limits of and misuse of faith. Science versus belief. Layered within that is the tragedy of Doya herself who always is aware of the ridiculous of the situation in which she’s been thrust, but is completely helpless to combat it due to patriarchical factors.
I’m still a newbie when it comes to Ray’s films. Only have seen five or six but remain transfixed by his steady hand and ability to wring emotion from such straightforward, basic and even predictable stories. I feel like I knew every beat that was to come, but it mattered not. Further not a single one of these films has been overheated (at least from what I’ve seen). All pitched at a human level that makes it far more impactful. Devi in particular is an angry movie that never allows itself to rage while making its point all the same.
Ray (1960)
“We pray to thee o’ goddess.”
Doyamoyee and Umaprasad live with Umaprasad’s family. While he’s away at school his father, a devout believer in Kali, and his brother grow to believe the young girl is an incarnation of the goddess herself. The sister-in-law is not convinced. But the situation gradually grows out of control. A coincidence is seen as a miracle. People begin to flock to the home. Umaprasad returns home (at his sister-in-law’s urging) to try to rescue his wife to no avail. Events take a tragic turn when their nephew gets sick and rather than medical treatment the grandfather and father put their faith in Doya. The child dies and the “goddess” descends into mumbling madness.
This is a very simple, but effective tragedy with a universal and still relevant message about the limits of and misuse of faith. Science versus belief. Layered within that is the tragedy of Doya herself who always is aware of the ridiculous of the situation in which she’s been thrust, but is completely helpless to combat it due to patriarchical factors.
I’m still a newbie when it comes to Ray’s films. Only have seen five or six but remain transfixed by his steady hand and ability to wring emotion from such straightforward, basic and even predictable stories. I feel like I knew every beat that was to come, but it mattered not. Further not a single one of these films has been overheated (at least from what I’ve seen). All pitched at a human level that makes it far more impactful. Devi in particular is an angry movie that never allows itself to rage while making its point all the same.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Post-Game Talk: ECQF GAME 4 - BRUINS head home with a 3-1 series lead.- Latest: RiverbottomChuck
