Classics: Adam's Rib

I have no idea why, but for some reason I had it in my head that Adam's Rib was actually a screwball comedy. Perhaps it's just because it was made around the same time and featured a married couple as the lead characters. I mention this only because the fact that it actually was a rather earnest drama with quite a bit of comedy mixed in threw me because it wasn't what I was expecting. In fact nothing about the film was what I expected, and I don't know whether that changed my opinion of it or not. I've been hearing about it for decades, but I had only recently gotten around to watching it, and my delay wasn't for any particular reason so my reasons for watching it weren't that strong either.

Part of the issue is that it's a film that's often touted as being very feminist. Some of the scenes in the film are in fact very feminist in nature, and taken completely out of the context of the movie are quite impressive for their time since they are arguments we're still having. When Heburn's character talks to her secretary about the different opinions when a man cheats versus a woman cheating, it's a double standard woman are still struggling against now, over 50 years later.

The basic plot is that a working class woman has shot her husband and injured him. A pair of married lawyers have taken up the opposing sides of the case, Spencer Tracy plays the prosecuting attorney Adam Bonner, and Katharine Hepburn the defense, Amanda Bonner. Throughout the film the case causes them tension both inside the courtroom and at home, as they struggle to reconcile what their differences of opinion mean about their own ability to relate to each other.

On some levels it's a great story and the characters are interesting, their relationships compelling. It's almost redundant to say that Hepburn and Tracy have amazing chemistry. On other levels, it doesn't hold up to the passage of time because it becomes just a little bit more obvious how it's not actually as feminist as you might think. It's more what comfortable rich woman played at for feminism in the 1950's, where they were allowed to be loud and a bit bossy as long as at home they submitted to their husbands and had their quaint dinner parties and were still appropriately feminine.

Getting into why that bothered me is opening a huge can of feminist history worms, and talking about the differences between first wave and intersectional feminism and on and on. But suffice it to say, as the film went on it stopped working for me. Especially considering the character of Kip, a client of Amanda's that is smarmy and in love with her and she thinks the attention is wonderful. Everything about the way Kip interacts with Adam and Amanda is a bit gross and old fashioned, and it starts to really annoy me before the film is over. So much so that by the time we get the traditional romantic comedy reconciliation, I actually didn't care if they got back together because they'd both behaved so poorly in relation to the Kip situation that I didn't know if they deserved a happy ending.

SPOILER ALERT FOR THE LAST SCENE IN THE FILM

I also thought that having Adam end the film by claiming that he was fake-crying at the accountant's office to win Amanda back was just a very gross way to end the story, and by having her accept it as a loving gesture means that it negates much of what the film was supposed to be about. The last few scenes actually rub it in that Amanda is actually wrong, that Doris Attinger didn't have the right to shoot her husband because even men shouldn't have the right to kill a cheating spouse. It basically takes the time at the end to put Amanda back in her place, as a proper feminist should always be just non-threatening enough not to upset the status quo and her actions should only be to make her feel better, or within the confines of what society deems acceptable.

I realize I'm probably reading a lot into the movie, and it isn't necessarily fair to a film released in 1949 to be analyzing it in this light. It was a product of it's time, and it was a rather progressive one at that I'm sure. I'm just really tired of the fact that this IS what life was like then and it's what life is STILL like now, and so maybe it was the wrong movie at the wrong time for me.

"DVD" Review: Jurassic Park

I can't even tell you how happy I was to find out that my local theater was going to be playing Jurassic Park on the big screen a few weeks ago. I hadn't seen it in theaters since it came out in 1993. I was very, very in love with this movie when it was first released. Like almost every kid, I went through a dinosaur phase, though it had passed by that age. But that little thrill of being a kid and seeing dinosaurs come to life never really goes away, does it? The other amazing thing about Jurassic Park is that this is the movie that made me love Stephen Spielberg. You see, before this point, I had loved a lot of his movies and E.T. was still this very important memory to me.

But this was the first time that I was old enough and aware enough that I finally made a connection between all of those movies and realized that one man was really responsible for them. This was my awakening to directing and what it really meant.

Plus, come one, it had a LOT of awesome dinosaurs.

So when I was in middle school and this movie came out, I had the student planner, I had t-shirts, I probably had a lunch box. Trading cards, I went for the whole merchandising thing. I still have some of that stuff.

Like a lot of kids and geeky movie buffs of the time, I was really impressed with the CGI in the film. But over the years, I grew more than a little disenchanted with computer generated imagery. It never felt real like it did then, it didn't blend, it felt like a way to cut corners rather than a way to tell a better story. So after a while, I was much more impressed with the T-Rex than anything else. The puppetry was the real star.

Which is why Jurassic Park still holds up today. There were very few things in the film where it felt particularly dated, mostly the things to do with the computer system (which was never accurate to begin with, ah well). The dinosaurs themselves still looked and felt real. They had presence and somehow they had emotion, even if that emotion was just "raging killing machine wants to eat you." The entire movie hinges on believing that these extinct animals are real and it manages, largely because Spielberg had the presence of mind to mix CGI and practical effects. I wish more filmmakers would do that today, because watching Jurassic Park again really made me feel like we've slid backwards.

There are things that don't hold up as an adult watching the movie. Lex is obnoxious and the entire movie could have been done without her, but Tim is somehow even more interesting. When Ray goes to the shed to reboot the system, it's obvious that it's just a plot point to get him killed, it's not set up well enough, and there's no reason for him to have gone alone. Everyone being gone for the weekend doesn't really make a ton of sense either, when you think about it.

And there's the fact that large chunks of the science in the movie are now completely wrong.

But it's not worth thinking about because the point of the movie is simple: are there dinosaurs? Yes. Do they want to eat people? Yes. Do you care if the people do or don't get eaten? Absolutely. Do you still care almost twenty years later? A resounding yes.

Jurassic Park is, quite frankly, one of the best movies of it's kind. A sci-fi action thriller that will remain a classic until we stop being fascinated with dinosaurs, which is probably never.

Classic Film: Jaws

I don't know who decided it should be the Summer of Spielberg, but they have my thanks. After going to see E.T. at AFI two weeks ago, last weekend my best friend let me know that my local theater was showing Jaws. Apparently over the rest of the summer they'll be showing several more of his films (I'm leaving to see Jurassic Park in an hour or so). The interesting thing about Jaws though was realize that I'd never actually sat down and seen the film from start to finish. I had assumed that even if I hadn't watched it all at once, I had at least seen the whole thing in pieces. But as the movie progressed and there were so many parts I was unfamiliar with I realized that wasn't true.

Now, I knew almost everything that happens. I had seen the ending a million times, and a lot of the more iconic scenes too. Between seven years of film school, watching a million specials about Spielberg, and just generally being alive and in love with movies I'd seen clips of all the major scenes. But there were things there to be discovered in the quiet moments, and that was a real joy for me. I knew all the big shark attacks, sure. But I hadn't realized how layered and interesting the characters were. I hadn't been able to appreciate just how good a job Roy Scheider did as Chief Martin Brody. I hadn't realized how fascinating Quint really was. I didn't really know about the tension between Quint and Hooper.

The great thing about Jaws is that I don't think it's particularly dated at all. The fashion is, but the effects actually largely stand the test of time. Which is famously due to the fact that the effects didn't work at the time and they had to improvise. Filmmaking is problem solving, and solving this problem created a film classic that may never be matched, and that audiences today can appreciate just as much as they did then.

This isn't just a creature feature, even though it is the ancestor of all of those giant shark movies on SyFy. It has real characters, depth, story, and structure. It's actually fascinating to read about how the film was made because it starts to feel like the entire thing was an accident. The script being rewritten on set, the weather changing their plans, the shark not working, etc. All of the great decisions and things that make the movie work weren't the first instinct of anybody who was there.

Which just goes to show that if you have time in pre-production to reconsider things, and not fall in love with stuff before you're sure it will work, then you can make a better film, but I digress.

The other great thing about Jaws for film buffs is that while you're watching it, you'll probably start to wonder about the shoot, how they did one scene or another. Well, there's more than enough information out there about the first blockbuster, from how it was made to how it changed film marketing forever. I've added about five books to my to read list already.

Universal is releasing a Blu-Ray version this summer. I think it's well worth picking up, especially because there's a documentary feature included called "The Shark Is Still Working" that sounds excellent. If you're like me and you think you've seen Jaws, it's worth making sure you've sat down and watched it start to finish.

If you've seen it, then watch it again. You won't regret it.

Classic Film: E.T.

I could write a book about what the movie E.T. means to my life, and how impressive and amazing I think it is. I actually have written a lengthy research paper on it, so I know this film backwards and forwards. I hate being asked what my favorite movie is, because it seems silly for me to even compare some movies together. I love different movies for different reasons, they bring out different emotions and for different moods. But if I have to pick one, it's always E.T. because that was the movie that taught me how much I could love movies. I made my mom take me to the theater to see it a dozen times when I was little. So I have a lot of memories of this movie, and they're built around how I saw the film as much as the movie itself.

As a two-year-old, I was sitting in my hometown in the Pulaski Theater staring up at the screen entranced. It was so much bigger than me, and I was engulfed by the movie and by the magic. As a college senior, I was sitting in a theater with my mom, sharing a huge bag of Reese's Pieces and celebrating together. I was graduating in a few short weeks with a film degree, I had just finished a feature length documentary and a short comedy. I was having this crisis like a lot of seniors probably do, wondering what I was doing, where I was going. So sitting in that theater reminded me of who I was and what I wanted.

So then last weekend, we find me in my thirties, with a second film degree under my belt. I'm working on post-production in the largest film project I've ever made. And there I was, sitting at the amazing AFI Silver in Maryland. Like I said, I've seen this movie a lot of times. Too many to count, I've pulled apart the cinematography and I've studied the color scheme. But this was the first time since I was two that I was in a theater full of children who were probably seeing the film for the first time.

What a revelation it was, it was so wonderful to hear them laughing and enjoying the movie. I saw suddenly why the movie got a ten minute standing ovation at it's premiere at Cannes. As I've gotten older I've had a lot of people do the "ugh, that movie is so schmaltzy and cheesy, it's really not that good of a movie."

The people who say that have forgotten what the movie is about, which is being a child. The movie wasn't made for adults, at least not the ones who can't remember being kids. It's designed down to it's most basic elements to be a movie about and for children. I worried a bit that it was a movie that would be a little dated, but the kids in the theater didn't care. It's actually brilliantly directed, but I can see how it would take a close study to really get how impressive it can be.

All in all, it was a brilliant experience, and I'm so glad I had it. I think that E.T. is a movie that people need to show their kids, because it's a smart, well crafted film and there aren't too many of those available for that age group these days.

Classic Movie: The Princess Bride

I've seen The Princess Bride a million times, it's one of my favorite movies. But a few weeks ago, a local theater was showing it on the big screen as part of a matinee program that they do. I was excited to get to go and watch it, because I haven't sat down to enjoy it in ages. I expected to enjoy the movie, because I know it's a good movie. But I just gained this completely new level of appreciation for it. It's such a tightly woven script, featuring so much amazing talent. While parts of the film are a little bit dated (the top of the Cliffs of Insanity is clearly a styrofoam set and the ROUSs are more cute than menacing) for the most part it holds up to a more modern audience. It's been 25 years since the film was released, but the themes are still relevant and the characters still enjoyable.

The real star of The Princess Bride in my opinion is writer William Goldman. He was already an established screenwriter when he published the original book, and it's no surprise that he adapted the screenplay himself. Normally, I'm not a big advocate for writers adapting their own works. I think it's a bad choice, because usually novelists are not screenwriters, and they're also too close to the material.

But Goldman knew what he was doing and he will always be the exception to my rule. He kept the heart and tone of his novel so perfectly that they're sometimes nearly indistinguishable. The screenplay is as much fun to read as the novel is. And he came up with a way to preserve the crazy plot device about it being a story that is read aloud.

Of course, director Rob Reiner deserves quite a lot of credit too. And every single actor who crosses the screen. I think this film will go down in history as one of the best ensemble casts of our age. I could go on about them for ages, because there isn't a single one who has any moment where I don't completely believe in their character and their performance. Even when I think about the process of filming the movie, I can't picture them out of character and hanging around on the set. They become their characters so well that I almost just picture that these people participated in a movie about themselves.

I don't know what type of print the theater was projecting, but it was so high quality. I spotted things in the background that I had never seen before, and even if the film doesn't have the slick cinematographer of modern movies, it is beautiful.

I can't imagine there are people who haven't seen The Princess Bride, but if you haven't you should. I don't even care if it's not typically your type of movie, there's something in it for nearly every type of audience. If you ahve seen it, you should watch it again sometime soon. It's just as good as you remember.

Classic Movie: Frenzy

So I somehow have not watched any even slightly new movies in the last week, though I'm going to see two new releases this weekend. Which means this week's review will be about what I did watch, Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy. To be honest with you, I only ended up getting the film from Netflix because I had forgot to reorganize my queue and it made it randomly to the top. I had added it years ago when we first studied it in a film class during my time in grad school. It was a film that came up three or four times, so I had actually seen several of the pivotal moments already. Frenzy is famous for a very long tracking shot mid-way through the film, which is both technologically brilliant but also was very symbolic. I'm actually not going to tell you much about the scene, because I first saw it when I knew nothing about the film or the scene and I thought it was probably better that way. But suffice it to say that even in the full context of the film, that scene works.

I have a weird sort of relationship with Hitchcock, which probably comes as a surprise to any film students or film enthusiasts reading this. He's one of those directors that it's sacrilegious to speak against and that everyone seems to think is an infallible genius.

Sometimes, I agree with that stance. I grew up watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on late night tv and I loved it. I love Psycho as much as everybody else and I think Rear Window is probably one of my favorite films of all time. I have a soft spot for The Birds even though I think it seems like the early equivalent of a SyFy Pictures monster movie of the week. For a movie about birds that randomly attack people for no reason, it's really well done.

But there are a few of his classics that I didn't enjoy, and I was a little worried that Frenzy would be one of them. It seems like the more filmmakers and film professors rave about a Hitchcock film, the less I actually enjoy it personally. Frenzy was definitely one that had been praised repeatedly.

Which is a lot of build up for me to explain that my personal reaction to the film was basically, "Huh, that wasn't bad." It was a very well done murder "mystery"/thriller. It's a "mystery" with quote marks because you know from very early in the film who the killer is and what's going on, which actually makes it that much better. It's a story about mistaken identity where an innocent man is being framed, and it works very well on that level.

The film shines the most with the characters, especially the supporting cast. There isn't a single forgettable person in the film, from the detective and his wife to the main suspect's boss (played by a personal favorite actor, Wilfred Mott). In fact the suspect, Richard Blaney, is probably the least interesting character in the film. It's much more fun to track the coincidences that start building a mountain of circumstantial evidence against him.

The film is a bit dated, unfortunately. I don't know that the average modern American would enjoy it. But if you enjoy classic movies at all, it's absolutely worth a rent.

I will warn that it contains a rape/murder scene that some people would find troubling. It's meant to make you uncomfortable, and it's intentionally disturbing. But not because it's overly graphic or stylized like similar scenes in modern films. I think it's possibly because it's not slick and stylized, it has a sense of realism that makes it very difficult to watch.