New(ish) Releases!! Brooklyn, The Big Short, and Bridge of Spies

Brooklyn (2015)

Director: John Crowley

A great example of a simple tale told exceptionally well.

Brooklyn is the story of Eilis (pronounced "Ay-lish", and played by Saoirse Ronan), a young woman in Ireland who emigrates to Brooklyn, New York in the 1950s. Though very smart and attractive, Eilis goes through most of the typical stages of culture shock and homesickness. She eventually settles into her job and begins a romance with a charming young local man of Italian heritage. Just as she decides to fully commit to him, though, she is pulled back to Ireland by an unexpected tragedy. She is then torn between choosing between her old life in Ireland and her new one in New York.

There is nothing terribly complex about the plot in Brooklyn. Rather, its complexity lies in the emotions at play when someone must make a very difficult, life-altering decision. Eilis's is not a tale of epic, world-changing choices or even wide-sweeping tragedy. Instead, it is about more common life decisions which greatly affect the person who makes them and the people closest to them, when either option will cause severe pain to several people involved. In Brooklyn, the different options are set across the Atlantic from each other, but the vastness of the emotional differences is what gives the movie its dramatic power.

Brooklyn looks amazing. So amazing, in fact, that it is quite obvious that it is a work of fiction. The actors' good looks and the high sheen on every prop and set offers us viewers enough separation to realize that we are not watching a documentary or even a film memoir. This might be a weakness in other films, but in Brooklyn it works since the tale and the acting are organic and masterfully performed. In a way, it actually enhances the struggle and sadness Eilis deals with, given that it is happening in an otherwise supernaturally beautiful place.

I don't know that I will ever need to see Brooklyn again, unless I wish to drink in the aesthetic once more. It was, however, an excellent movie and well worth seeing.

The Big Short (2015)

Director: Adam McKay

Who knew that learning about big finance and a massive recession could be so entertaining?

With a dazzling combination of strong narrative, steady pacing, daring creativity, and phenomenal acting, director Adam McKay crafted Michael Lewis's source book into an educative and often surprisingly fun ride. The movie follows a few groups of individuals who were among the small handful to accurately predict the impending housing market crash in 2008. Leading us through the complicated tale is the fourth-wall battering ram narrator Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), a smug financier who takes several breaks from his attempts to get filthy rich betting against the housing market in order to teach us viewers about exactly how things went so horribly wrong. It's a great device that spices up what could otherwise be some rather dull details about the minutiae of high finance. One could rightly argue that it is a narrative crutch, but it is an entertaining one.

The characters central to the story are portrayed as varied bands of oddballs, crusaders, noble aspirants to wealth, or some combinations of those three. The film versions of Michael Burry, the awkward mathematical genius and medical doctor-turned financier, and Mark Baum, a righteously furious financier with a serious grudge against corrupt bankers, are magnetic. The performances of Christian Bale and Steve Carell, respectively, bring them to life in hilarious and fascinating ways to the point that I found myself itching for the next scene with them. While those two stand out, the many players around them all nail their roles to a tee.

The unraveling of the causes behind the greatest economic crash in modern history makes for a fascinating and upsetting education. The Big Short, despite its steady humor, lets us all in on the rampant greed, irresponsibility, and grand-scale corruption that essentially allowed a relatively small group of wealthy bankers and financiers to bilk millions of people out of nearly a trillion dollars. It has a very similar feel to Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street, though focused on the entire odious panorama of banking thievery rather than a single avaricious crook and his Biblical hedonism.

I would gladly watch this movie again, if not to try and pick up some of the economic and financial explanations more clearly, then to simply re-watch the great performances and galloping narrative. I don't know that this movie will win the Best Picture Oscar for which it is nominated, but it is definitely in that top tier of candidates.

Bridge of Spies (2015)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Flawless technique. Crisp narration. Strong acting. Fairly predictable story arc. In other words, a Steven Spielberg film.

Bridge of Spies's greatest strengths lie in its source material and in its actors' and director's technical abilities in terms of storytelling in film. At this point in their careers, guys like Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg simply do not drop the ball. Ever. This is not to say that everything they do is fantastic. In fact, I find very little creativity in anything they do. However, they are also masters of professionalism and the technical aspects of film. Their movies always look great, feature clear narratives, and allow top-flight actors to play their roles extremely well. Bridge of Spies is no exception. Sets and costumes look great. The lighting, cinematography, and editing are above reproach. Lines are delivered in appropriate tones and with expert timing. None of this should surprise anyone who has seen more than a few Spielberg's many films. The only criticism that one can level at Spielberg is that he really never takes any artistic chances. By now, though, we know that, as great a director as he is, the man is simply not an auteur.

The story itself is certainly an interesting slice of real history. Hanks plays James Donovan, a brilliant insurance lawyer in the 1950s who is tapped by the U.S government to be legal counsel to Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance). Abel is accused of spying for the U.S.S.R., and the U.S. government wants to ensure that Abel is shown to be given competent legal advice, so as to avoid any public accusations of mistreatment or lack of due process. The case was one of many such ostentatious political maneuvers during the height of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Donovan does an exceptional job, even managing to help Abel avoid what would have almost certainly been the death penalty. Three years later, Donovan is again recruited to negotiate a prisoner exchange, whereby the U.S. will exchange Abel for a captured U.S. pilot and a captured college student. Donovan must achieve all of this under very shady and uncertain circumstances in a chaotic East Berlin, where the infamous Berlin Wall has just been completed.

The summary itself should spark a fair amount of interest, and the tale is unfolded as well as one would expect from this group of film-making talents. I must say though, as is typical for most of Spielberg's movies, the ultimate outcome was never really in question (and no, I hadn't read anything about this case before seeing the movie). Thankfully, some of the details and the paths which the story takes are a bit surprising, but the ultimate destination held nothing remarkably thoughtful. Of course, this can be due to the limitations of telling a historical tale. This doesn't make it any more exciting, though.

I personally put this movie in that second tier of this year's Best Picture nominees: "Very good, but not winning material". It's a very well-done movie which will probably have no lasting impact on the landscape of cinematic history. 

Oscar-Nominated Animated Short Films for 2015

I usually try to catch the collections of all of the Oscar-nominated films in the "animated short film" category, which are always shown as a collection in a theater near me. This year's set was, as a whole, one of the best groups I've seen over the four or five years that I've seen these collections:

As always, you can expect a vibrant display of color in Pixar's
entry in the category this year.

Sanjay's Super-Team 

Director: Sanjay Patel

This year's Pixar Studios entry. It's a mostly visual tale about a young Indian boy, Sanjay, who is obsessed with a cartoon superteam of vibrantly costumed heroes. When his devout father has him leave his TV show to pray with him, Sanjay reluctantly joins him at his prayer station. Just as Sanjay's attention starts to completely drift, though, his imagination is sparked by the wondrous Hindu figures in his father's prayer box. What follows is a dazzling action scene in which Sanjay envisions the Hindu gods becoming versions of the superteam characters, who fight off a menacing monster of darkness. As usual for Pixar, the animation and visuals are first-class. The story is a nice little departure for them, too, into the realms of a religion which is not common in the U.S. Still, it's not the best Pixar short I've ever seen. This one was my third favorite of the nominees.

World of Tomorrow

Director: Don Hertzfeld

Mind-blowing. Strong words, I know, for an animated short film, but they are appropriate. World of Tomorrow is a simultaneously hilarious, poetic, and brilliant little piece of speculative fiction. Using rather rudimentary visuals, this 17-minute short tells the story of Emily. A very young Emily is visited by a distant clone of herself from 227 years in the future, who begins telling her about many of the things to come. The future Emily tells tales of space exploration, memory control and

Yes, the animation might look crude at a glance, but its
abstract style makes perfect sense for the story and dialogue.

manipulation, extra-sensory communication, and many bizarre facets of future civilizations which one might find in some of the most fascinating and creative works of science-fiction. The future Emily delivers even the most terrifying and wondrous facts about her future in a dry monotone, which enhances the comedy value exponentially. An unexamined look at this film's visuals might make it seem cheap and simple, but they actually serve as a very plausible way of depicting how the young Emily, who is probably around 3 years old, is attempting to process ideas which are far beyond her mental grasp. This is one of the most creative animated films I've ever seen, and it was my favorite of the group.

Bear Story

Director: Gabriel Osorio

Great animation, but overly sentimental. Bear Story follows a humanoid adult bear who uses a complex mechanized box to both entertain children and tell the story of how he was abducted from his wife and son into a zoo. The animation is digital, and it showcases some spectacular visuals which emulate other animation forms such as stop-motion animation and elaborate, moving dioramas. The story, however, is all about the low-hanging fruit of making you feel sorry for the fluffy, sad bear. No new ground being tilled, here. This wasn't a bad film, but it was my least favorite of the group, by far.

We Can't Live Without Cosmos

Director: Konstantin Broznit

Terrible title, but great little film. Using relatively simple, hand-drawn animation, this film follows a pair of aspiring cosmonauts. The two are roommates who are among a larger group of potential cosmonauts competing for the chance to go into space. There is a touching yet unsentimental feeling to their story as it unfolds, and there is a wealth of great visual storytelling and gags. This one found a rare and welcome blend of gravity, humor, and creativity to make for what I thought was the second best film of the set.

The short Prologue features some stunning, traditional
pencil drawing to tell its story of the horror or warfare.

Prologue

Director: Richard Williams

The hardest-hitting of the bunch. So hard-hitting and graphic, in fact, that this one came with a disclaimer suggesting that young children not see it. Prologue goes old-school with its graphics, using color pencil sketches to depict a battle between four ancient warriors, seemingly from Classical Greek times. The four soldiers, armed with spears and bows, brutally attack and kill each other. The final images convey the horrors of warfare, and everything is done without the use of dialogue. This one showed some nice traditional animation skills and sticks with a profound, if not exactly novel, message. My fourth favorite of the group, though right on par with Sanjay's Super Team.

Final Thoughts

This year's was actually a good group, top to bottom. In recent years, there have always been at least one short which seemed pointless beyond displaying some commendable animation. In past years, there have also been at least one extremely sappy, sentimental entry, which almost always wins. This year, though, I felt that only Bear Story was conspicuous in its attempts at your emotions. The others steered well clear. If I had my way, World of Tomorrow would be the hands-down winner this year. In terms of creativity, it is well beyond the other entries. If it doesn't win, I expect that Sanjay's Super Team could pull in down, both for its strong animation and its culturally inclusive nature. 

Oscar Stuff: Live Action Short Nominees

I got a chance to see the five nominees for the live-action short films. The Oscar website here has synopses and some previews. Here's what I thought:

The nattering Jewish trio who are trying to get back home in
time for Shabbat. Their attempts to work with silent nuns
provide some nice, light comedy in a tense part of the world.

Ave Maria

Directors: Basil Kalil and Eric Dupont

This 17-minute film is solid, pure comedy, and I thought it the third best of the group.

Taking place in the West Bank of the Israel/Palestine region, it tells the tale of a Jewish family - a son, his wife, and the son's mother - who run their car into a statue of Mary in front of a convent housing five nuns who have taken vows of silence. The gags all stem from the eight people trying to dance around their various religious beliefs, practices, and vows in order to get the Jewish trio back to their house before Shabbat begins. It's an amusing affair, well-acted and shot, and it makes for some welcome humor set in a place best known for its violence and intolerance. 

Shok (Friend)

Director: Jamie Donoughue

Harrowing story set in 1990s Kosovo, where two Albanian boys confront the horrors of violent ethnic discrimination. The movie is not without some small doses of humor, but much of what is depicted is injustice, fear, and sorrow. The framing device is thoughtful and moving, and the acting and cinematography are outstanding. Well worth seeing once, but probably too grim to see again. The second best of the bunch, in my view. 

Alles wild gut (Everything Will Be OK)

Director: Patrick Vollrath

Set in modern Germany, this short is the story of a father who is attempting to flee the country with his young daughter. The crescendo of tension and emotion is paced extremely well, and the acting is excellent. This is especially true of the young girl. However, the story ultimately fails to satisfy, as we are never given enough of the father's story to decide whether his desperation and sorrow are well-founded or not. The final scenes drag on rather brutally, and I came away with little to feel over it other than vague discomfort. My fourth favorite of the five.

With subtlety and humor, this shy, stuttering fellow evokes
the kind of empathy and engagement that some of the other
nominated films failed to capture. 

Stutterer

Director: Benjamin Clearly and Serena Armitage

Clocking at 12 minutes, this is the shortest of the group, and also my favorite. Told from the perspective of a young Londoner with a crippling stutter, we get a great sense of just how frustrating such a condition can be. It is a charming, rather light story, with the protagonist trying to work up the courage to meet the woman whom he's been chatting with online for 6 months. There are several smart and thoughtful additions to this romantic angle, which prevent things from becoming sappy, and the technical merits are top-notch. Certainly not the most hard-hitting of the group, but the one which I felt showed the most all-around cinematic skill. 

Day One

Director: Henry Hughes

Leave it to an American director and production company (AFI, surprisingly) to offer us a film using immensely high production values to tell a ham-fisted tale that borders on insulting. Day One is the story of a female Arabic-English interpreter on her first day on the job in Afghanistan. In probably the most insanely unrealistic combination of dramatic instances ever to take place in a few-hours span, she is nearly blown up, is almost forced to cut a dead newborn out of a terrified local mother, actually deliver the newborn when it is found to be living, then look over the newborn and its older cousin after the mother dies and the father is taken into custody by U.S. armed forces. This short felt so emotionally manipulative and heavy-handed with its commentary on maternity that I was actually angry about it. Despite the skilled cinematography and acting, this was easily my least favorite of the group.

Overall Thoughts

This is actually the first year that I've managed to see the short film nominees. It was a mixed bag, to be sure, though all films showed strong technical merits. Though I obviously liked Stutterer the best, my guess is that Shok is likely to win, given its much harder-hitting nature. 

Oscar Run-Down (an incomplete review)

So here is my run-down of the six of the eight Best Picture nominees.

American Sniper

Director: Clint Eastwood

After the recent weeks of controversy and debate over this film, I finally saw it. I find it to be a very good movie about one singular man's experience with war, though it's not exactly a flawless masterpiece of cinema.

The story is that of Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history. Kyle was a man driven to enlist by patriotism and a strong urge to fight very real terrorism. As such, he did four separate tours in Iraq during the 2000s, distinguishing himself mostly through his unmatched skill in long-range shooting, which gave much-needed cover to ground troops. Also depicted are Kyle's struggles to reacclimate to life away from combat and back with his wife and children.

Most things are done quite well in the film, and they speak to Eastwood's deftness as a director. The battle scenes are intense without being gratuitously violent. Kyle's subdued intestity and levity feel extremely authentic, thanks to Bradley Cooper's understated yet nuanced performance. My main problems with the movie come from two places: one is that Kyle's wife, Taya, becomes a one-note refrain of "Don't go." It's an important sentiment, to be sure, but the film never does much to innovate on the theme.

The other, larger, problem I have is that there was clearly some manipulation of the facts in order to present a more exciting film narrative. In fact, I have even heard Cooper himself say that they had always pitched the film to be a "Western in the desert." This is fine in a work of fiction, but when you are telling the tale of a real man and the effects he felt of war, then artificial elements come off as a bit cheap and disrespectful to the subject. It doesn't help that some of these fictional manipulations can be seen as nationalistic propaganda, even if this was not the filmmakers' express intent.

My general feeling about the controversy around the movie is that both sides are blowing things a bit out of proportion, in order to support their pre-existing beliefs. One could perhaps make an argument that there is a hint of propaganda about the film, but it's certainly not clear-cut. However, I really didn't get the sense that the filmmakers were trying to make any kind of grand political or social statement about war. It's simply a well-done look at a gifted soldier and war's brutal effects on him.

Will it win Best Picture? I seriouly doubt it. Eastwood has done better movies, and the flaws are a little too glaring.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Director: Alejandro Inarritu

I just watched this one, and it's certainly a trip. Using a heavy dose of Stedicam cinematography and extremely clever editing, Birdman follows Riggan Thompson, a once-immensely popular star whose best-known role as the titular superhero has become an anchor on his soul. Seeking to legitimize himself as a serious artist, Thompson burns through his remaining finances and emotions to try and pull off a successful production on Broadway. It is, of course, no acident that Thompson is played by Michael Keaton, whose "biggest" role was as Batman in the two massively successful Tim Burton movies in 1989 and 1992. Keaton is great as the celebrity going through a very serious mental and professional crisis, and his performance is worthy of the Best Actor nomination that he's received.

The film has a lot ot absorb, and I  must admit to feeling a tad burned out during the last 30 minutes or so. Still, it's mostly an engaging look at a few intense days in the life of a man whose sanity is fraying more with every passing hour. There is plenty of magical realism to be had, and the performances are as impressive as they come. It can be a bit tough to glean an ultimate point through all of the criticism that Inarritu hurls in nearly every direction: celebrities, self-absorbed actors, theater critics, the public, and basically anyone involved with theater or film. Regardless, it's absolutely worthy of the 9 Oscar nomination it got, and it certainly should take home at least a few of the technical awards.

Will it win Best Picture? I doubt it, since the film takes so many pot-shots at every aspect of showbusiness, though it's a highly creative and worthy contender.

Boyhood

Director: Richard Linklater

An excellent film, in keeping with Richard Linklater’s naturalistic style while being a rather new achievement.

Boyhood follows the twelve formative years of a child named Mason, from ages 6 through 18. It is a tapestry of moments, of varying intensity, that leave an imprint on him as he grows towards adulthood. Similar to Linklater’s Dazed and Confused and other films, there is no particular “story” here, other than a single American boy experiencing a rather typical childhood in Texas between 2001 and 2013. He has an older sister; a single, working mother; and a wayward father who is periodically involved in his life. Mason has to deal with his mother’s sometimes strict, alcoholic boyfriends/husbands, his nagging sister, and the attempts to find any sort of purpose in life.

The brilliance of the movie is just how organic and subtle everything is. While there are a handful of shocking and traumatic moments, none of them is the stuff of high cinematic drama. Most of the movie is given over to the little moments that slowly shape Mason: the discovery of female bodies through lingerie catalogues; a casual conversation with his father that alters their relationship ever-so-slightly; a brief shove from a pair of bullies; a stern talk with his photography teacher. These and many more moments tell the tale of a boy who becomes sullen but hopeful that life does have something to offer a young person who is never completely sure of his footing. It’s a long movie, in terms of time (2 hours and 45 minutes), but it never feels it as we smoothly transition through Mason’s childhood years.

I may not feel the need to watch Boyhood again any time soon, but it is clearly an outstanding film achievement.

Will it win Best Picture? Perhaps, given Linklater’s place in American film history and the fact that he hasn’t been honored in such a way before. It is certainly one of the strongest contenders in the field.


The Grand Budapest Hotel

Director: Wes Anderson

It's a Wes Anderson movie, alright.

Told with several chronological jumps and a ridiculously talented cast, we follow the adventures of Gustave H., the legendary concierge at the title Hotel. He's a curious character, who lives to be the very best at his prestigious job, while bedding wealthy women of advanced age. Gustave is sold to us by the hilarious performace of Ralph Fiennes, who completely nails the shifts in register required by Anderson's ever-quirky script. The story is rather ridiculous, as have been all of Anderson's movies to varying degrees, but there is always a unity to each movie that allows us to accept the strange ways in which they work.

I'm of two minds these days about Anderson. He's clearly a unique filmmaker, and I still find his movies amusing and impressive for their exacting detail and singular blend of childlike glee and more universal and profound human sentiment. However, I can't shake the question of whether he's capable of doing something truly outside of the clear niche he's created for himself. In Grand Budapest, we even see the first marks of self-referential narcissism with a montage of other concierges across the globe, with each one being an actor who is an Anderson movie mainstay: Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, and others. The joke is only remotely funny if you know Anderson's films. Such egotism is a bit annoying, in my view.

Will it win Best Picture? No way. Though it might be another tiny step towards the "Life-Time Achievement Award" that Anderson will win 20 years from now.

The Imitation Game

Director: Morten Tyldum

An otherwise very good film made excellent by an outstanding acting performance.

This film, in keeping with the unoffical "biopic" theme of 2014, looks at key moments in the life of British mathematician Alan Turing. Turing is the father of modern computer science, and the film mostly traces his enlistment by the British military to crack the Enigma Code - Nazi Germany's code for military transmission used in World War II. The code was considered unbreakable until Turing and his small team put all of their mental efforts towards cracking it.

The Enigma Code puzzle is the intellectual meat of the plot, given its greater place in world history, but the film takes a close look at Turing himself, who was himself a cipher to many who knew him. Awkward with people and a closeted homosexual (homosexual acts were illegal in England during Turing's life), his struggles with himself are almost as fascinating as his desire to solve logical puzzles. The more personal elements explored in the film wouldn't have had nearly the power that they do if not for a spellbinding performance by Benedict Cumberbatch. Like most in the U.S., I first knew of Cumberbatch through the incredible Sherlock series on the BBC. What I saw in The Imitation Game was an actor going well beyond the norm to bring a singular historic person to life on screen. I have to think Cumberbtach a serious contender for Best Actor.

Will it win Best Picture? There's a very good chance, given how solid the movie is, in all respects.

Whiplash

Director: Damien Chazelle

This is a fantastic movie about obsession, drive, and the question of how far people will go to find and inspire greatness, either in themselves or in others.

The story follows Andrew Neimann, a freshman drummer at a highly prestigious music conservatory in New York City. Andrew's presence, skill, and determination are noticed by the school's most accomplished instructor, Mr. Fletcher, who quickly invites Neimann to try playing with the school's elite jazz ensemble. Neimann's excitement is soon burned away by Fletcher's unrelenting, scathing style of discipline and verbal abuse towards his pupils, especially Neimann. The young percussionist's drive to excel is driven by his own passion for greatness as well as his growing hatred for Fletcher.

The movie is uncomfortable in many places, as we watch Fletcher abuse Neimann in every way imaginable: physically, emotionally, and psychologically. Fletcher's rationale is that only through such manipulation and pressure can a musician become one of "The Greats." To support his theory, he often cites a famous anecdote about legendary jazz saxophonist Charlie "The Bird" Parker having a cymbal thrown at his head. We viewers are left plenty to ponder this notion of artistic acheivement and whether it is worth the cost. The cost, in Neimann's case, is his relationships with family, friends, and other musicians.

The music is the film is great, as you would expect, and the sound and film editing enhance it to a great degree. The highlight is clearly the performance of J. K. Simmons as Fletcher, who brings the sadistic music instructor to frightening life. Simmons will likely win Best Supporting Actor for the role, and he alone is worth watching, even if it can be difficult to witness the maelstrom of torment that he heaps upon Neimann.

Will it win Best Picture? I'm skeptical, due to how specialized the topic is, but it is clearly an all-time great "music" movie.

Selma & The Theory of Everything (and a few final thoughts)

I wasn't able to see either of these movies, try as I might. Based on the buzz, though, it sounds like we can expect Selma to completely get the shaft, while The Theory of Everything may merit little more than a Best Actor award for Eddie Redmayne.

Overall, I have to say that this year's crop of Best Picture nominees is a fairly solid one, though not exactly a year that will be seen as a historically great year. When we look back at these eight films twenty years from now, I don't know that more than one or two of them will have acheived "all-time great movie" status.

Film #4: The Last Command (1928)

Note: This film not being in-print on DVD, I had to order a VHS version. I was able to catch a whiff of nostalgia as I pushed the tape into the decades-old player in my classroom. The whirring, clicking dinosaur sounded not unlike the first Terminator at the end of the film: nothing but a twisted torso and one robotic arm desperately scraping itself along the factory floor, lunging for Sarah Connor. Man, these old machines are great.

Times Previously Seen: none

Initial Release Country: United States

The Story (in which I flatly describe the plot and spoil the hell out of the movie for you):
A palsied, uncertain old man is hired as an extra in a Hollywood war movie, seemingly because he has the right look and merely claims to be a former general in the Russian Imperial army and cousin to the fallen Czar. We quickly learn through flashback that this man is not lying. In fact, he is former Grand Duke Sergeus Alexander, and the the director of the movie is a former Russian revolutionary who recognizes the old general and sees this as an opportunity to exact his revenge on the man who arrested him 10 years prior. It is also the director's last stab at the Russian aristocratic power of the past.

During the flashback, we see the general to have been a bit arrogant and blustering, but also deeply concerned about his troops and the welfare of Russia. He has loyalty to his cousin, the Czar, but does not blindly follow orders. He is a thoughtful man who develops a sincere caring for a beautiful young actress. The actress, a revolutionary herself, is captured and swayed into admiration for the general. Once the Bolshevik Revolution occurs, the young woman saves the general's life from a bloodthirsty mob, then herself falls victim to a tragic train crash. The general, torn apart professionally, spiritually and mentally, flees Russia.

Ten years later, in Hollywood, he is made to reenact his past role as general. In the middle of acting in the scene, the vivid memory of his past life is triggered, he slips into a delusional passion to defend his mother Russia and dies on the set.

A scene from the beginning of the film, depicting the distant, haunted gaze of Sergeus Alexander.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (A review done before any kind of research on the movie):

This is a great film, silent or not. Sure, there are some elements and aesthetics that I can gripe about (and I will, further down), but this film is a masterpiece. So much so that, during the last 20 minutes or so, I wasn't even taking the notes that I normally take when doing these reviews. I was that gripped. The main character, Sergeus Alexander, is that rare thing in all stories, be they in films, TV, novels or theater: a complete human. So many stories are weakened by simplified caricatures of pre-determined archetypes: hero or villain; good or evil; powerful or weak, and rarely do the twain meet. The greatest characters, however, are people in full, warts and all. Sergeus is one of those characters.

In the beginning of the movie, you feel pity for this old, traumatized and feeble man as the other extras on the movie set taunt him, thinking his claims about his identity are nonsense. When we start to see his life as a general, we quickly resent him, his arrogant posture, his belittling of disrespectful officers, and his seeming callousness toward suspected revolutionaries. Then, we start to see more aspects of him: his tenderness towards the young actress, despite her attempt to assassinate him; his genuine concern for his soldiers' lives; and his deep love for the integrity of his home country. Once we get the sense of the complete man and understand how admirable he is, despite and because of his flaws, it's truly painful to see it all come crashing down around him. He loses his livelihood, his love, and his country, all in one fell swoop when the Empire falls. During the end scene, I was completely enthralled by the general's unbridled release of emotion - emotion that had been caged in by a decade of sorrow.

One of the first scenes in which the seemingly tyrannical general subtly reveals his more humane tenderness.

Something else that you can see in this clip is how the acting has evolved. Almost gone are the grandiose movements of earlier silent films. The actors behave and talk much more realistically, being on-par with modern thespians. Thanks to this, the 21st century viewer can more easily sense the emotions of the characters and empathize with them. As exhibit A, I suggest looking at the general's walk and face when he's retrieving his mistress/would-be assassin's cigarette, pondering whether he's about to die for his love of her; maybe even dutifully accepting it. The whole movie is filled with such moments. The capper is the look on Sergeus' face as his life is ripped from him. From contented to utterly haunted, his wide eyes are burned into my mind. Emil Jannings, who won the very first "Best Actor" Academy Award for the role, was truly amazing.

Alas, it was not a perfect viewing experience. A few minor things made me wince just a bit. One was the music score. Maybe the original, in-theater score was better, but this tape had the standard silent film organ music. I realize that this was the norm for the day, but here in 2010, it made me feel like I was watching an Icecapades extravaganza during an intermission at a minor league hockey game. For a moment, I thought the Hanson brothers were going to charge onto the screen and start throwing wicked hip checks.

Another, more prominent blemish is the gaps in the story. The flashback format works extremely well, but the ten-year time jump gives you no explanation as to how Alexander gets from crying in the Russian snow to subsistence living in a Hollywood boarding house. I realize that it's not the most crucial detail, but I wondered about it all the same.

The only other bugaboo was the titles. It has nothing to do with the acting or the other, more essential components of the movie, but a few of them were distractingly hokey. The prize-winner was when the general captures his revolutionary mistress and says, "You are now my prisoner of war. And my prisoner of love!" Ouch. Not even Sir Laurence Olivier could pull off that line.

But that's it for the downside. Fairly easily overlooked, and leaving me saying that this is easily the most enjoyable film I've watched from the list so far. In fact, I had initially planned to sell the tape after watching the film. Now, I plan to keep it and watch it at least once more. If you think you have the patience for a silent flick (it's just under 90 minutes), this one's a gem.

Take 2: A Few More Thoughts After Some Research (or, "Why Film Geeks Love This Movie"):

There's actually not a ton of analysis of this film out there, perhaps because the story, while packing emotional power, is rather straightforward. The one thing that the critics of the past and present point to is the acting. As mentioned, Emil Jannings garnered the very first Academy Awards for Best Actor in this one (amazingly, he was also nominated for The Way of All Flesh in the same year). Here's the original TIME Magazine review of The Last Command. I particularly like the description of Jannings as "clumsy-faced, blacksmith-muscled" and "think-fingered," while the writer praises him.

In addition to Jannings's brilliant acting is that of William Powell, who portrayed the general's nemesis as the Russian Bolshevik revolutionary-turned-Hollywood film director (it's far less ridiculous in the film than it reads - trust me). I know Powell from a few talkie films like The Thin Man and My Man Godfrey. While he's fantastic in those later films, I agree with critics who give him the nod - his subtle facial gestures and calm, steely gazes were just as effective in silent films. He lent yet another strong presence to an incredible movie.

That's a wrap. 4 films in the can. 101 to go.Next Film: The Crowd (1928):
I guess this film was a smash-hit in China, based on the bilingual movie poster here. Like the previous two films, this one will be a totally new experience for me. Check back in a few days for the review.