In A World...(2013)

Director: Lake Bell

This was a rewatch, and it was well worth it. Liked this movie when I saw it in the theater back in 2013, and I still like it.

The movie follows Carol Solomon (Lake Bell), a voice coach and voice actor in Hollywood who is trying to break into a larger role. The daughter of a highly successful movie trailer narrator, Carol faces an uphill battle in the male-dominated, chauvinistic world of movie-trailer voice-overs. A little stroke of luck opens a small door for Carol, which she then parlays into ever-better voice-over gigs, eventually landing a chance to voice the trailer for a massive, blockbuster upcoming movie franchise. However, there is some very stiff competition for the job, including her self-important, chauvinist father. Carol tries to keep her eye on this occupational prize, all while juggling several rough hiccups in her personal and family lives. 

In a World... is a really fun look into a part of the movie business that many of us don't ever see and probably never think much about. And it's a world that writer, director, and star Lake Bell, a highly accomplished voice-over artist, knows plenty about. Despite seeming to be a minor, almost inconsequential part of a visual medium, she offers us a look at a cut-throat world filled with massively outsized egos and comically competitive scrambling. Once the dash for the coveted movie voice-over job is on, it's hard not to be invested in Carol's prospects of winning the gig. Unlike many of the "behind the scenes, movies about movies" shows that we've seen over the years, the stakes here are smaller on one level, but they also carry plenty of weight for the authentic characters we get here. In addition to Lake Bell, her father is played by longtime voice-over master Fred Melamed, who brings a ton of comic acting chops to the movie. These two and others help make a "small" world carry some actual weight for the people who dwell in it. 

The voice- and sound-obsessed Carol (left) 
surreptitiously records her unwitting sister. Plenty
of humor in the movie comes from Carol trying
to get various recordings for her work.

More importantly, though, is the humor. While there is some effective drama in the movie, this movie is mostly a comedy, and it is hilarious at times. Whether it's Carol helping star Eva Longoria not sound like "a retarded pirate," her egomaniacal father waxing machismo, or awkward coworkers played by comedians Dmitri Martin, Tig Notaro, and others going about their lives and jobs, the laughs come steadily. I've seen two of Bells' dramedy/rom-coms (the other being the hilarious Man Up), and I've been impressed with just how well she balances the humor with the emotion. I'm not much of a rom-com guy, and In a World...isn't strictly a rom-com, but it has some of the elements and executes them extremely well. 

I highly recommend this one to anybody who enjoys movies about movies or smart comedies about people trying to break through barriers to flex their talent. 

Dolemite Is My Name (2019)

Director: Craig Brewer

Hilarious "based on a true" underdog story that helps remind all of us of just how great a comic actor Eddie Murphy was and still is.

The movie tells the story of the creation of the blacksploitation movie Dolemite, a crass, low-budget, crime-action movie centered about the title character. Dolemite was the brainchild of then-struggling stand-up comedian Rudy Ray Moore. Inspired by stories from a local vagrant blessed with a dash of the raconteur and a gift for foul language, Moore developed the fictional character Dolemite, a pimp-like figure who spoke in dirty rhymes about his toughness and sexual prowess. The character soon became a huge hit within the black community, and Moore quickly found a modicum of success by selling records of his performances, usually given in night clubs in black neighborhoods. Moore's ultimate dream, though, was to bring the character to the big screen - something highly unlikely, given the blue nature of the character and the seemingly niche fanbase. Yet, the energetic comedian hustles his way to finding the resources to make it happen. He and a ragtag crew of semi-professional actors and young filmmakers manage to cobble together the low-budget action comedy movie of Moore's dreams. By any measure of the mainstream, it should have died on a cutting room floor. Instead, it became one of that year's biggest hits, and a cult classic that still lives to this day.

This was such a fun movie. The origin of Rudy Ray Moore's Dolemite character is compelling enough, but the dramatization of elevating such a clearly adult-oriented persona into a movie star, albeit a cult one, makes this a great overall dramatization of real-life events. I was familiar with Moore and the Dolemite character before seeing this movie, so I knew what to expect to an extent. The pleasant surprise was that my wife, mostly unfamiliar with Moore, seemed to enjoy it just as much as I did. This speaks to the movie's clear strengths.

A curious fun fact which I never knew - Moore's Dolemite
character is widely credited as being the godfather/proto-
type for the rap and hip-hop styles of rhyming which would
emerge within about five years after Dolemite's stage debut.

The story is a great underdog tale, which is hard to pass up. Moore was a down-on-his-luck, mediocre stand-up comedian performing at strip clubs before he hit on the Dolemite persona. And watching Eddie Murphy enact Moore's conception of Dolemite and gradually bring him to life is a treat. There is something about the character that is such pure performance. He's not telling jokes. He's not telling stories. Almost all he does is just brag on himself using one-sentence rhymes. But he carries it off with such pizzazz and swagger that it's as magnetic as it is hilarious. And while it's a bit of a trope, seeing his motley film crew put the Dolemite movie together is as satisfying and funny as any "can pull this off?" tale you've seen in film.

Perhaps the greatest takeaway for me from this movie is how it serves as a reminder of just how great a comic actor Eddie Murphy is. Like nearly every Gen-X English speaker on the planet, I grew up with the legend of Eddie Murphy's stand-up and comedy film genius through the 1980s. I also watched the steady decline through the 1990s in the quality of his movies, right through to the G- and PG-rated disposable family fare that he's almost exclusively been doing for the last two decades. But Dolemite is My Name says this loud and clear: the man is just as funny and as good an actor as he ever was.

Highly recommend this movie. Get ready for some seriously R-rated, blue humor, but if that's not an issue for you, then you'll dig it. 

New Release: Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood (2019)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Tarantino's purest love letter to 1960s B-list action leading men and the stuntmen who helped make them, Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood is an expertly-crafted - if hardly urgent - piece of cinema.

Taking place over the course of several month during the first half of a semi-fictional 1969 Los Angeles. It follows fictional actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his closest friend and stuntman fill-in Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Dalton is a former leading action star of B-level (or A-minus at best) movies, but his star has faded to the point that he is now playing lesser roles as arch villains in TV shows. Dalton's feelings of inadequacy are brought into even clearer focus when the house next to his is bought by arguably the hottest couple in Hollywood - the very real director Roman Polanski and his young, beautiful wife, actor Sharon Tate. While Dalton's personal story unfolds, a much more sinister situation - also based on real events - is brewing not far outside of L.A., where Charles Manson and his "family" of violent and devoted followers are hatching their plot to send a murderous message to the wealthy and glamorous of the nearby City of Angels.

It's been nearly a week since I watched Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, and the more I dwell on it, the more I like it. Back when I saw Tarantino's The Hateful Eight, I wrote in my review about how I would love to see if Tarantino could tone himself down enough to do something a little more grounded, such as his underrated Jackie Brown back in 1997. Though this new movie certainly isn't as small-scale or grounded as that earlier picture, this one has far more authentic feeling and far fewer over-the-top, cartoonish elements to it than any movie he's done since then. Rather than the mythically simple and homicidal characters populating movies like The Hateful Eight or, to a lesser extent, Inglorious Basterds, this latest picture focuses on a character who evokes actual empathy and even sympathy, even if it is often done in humorous ways. Rick Dalton may not be the most admirable of people, but there is a genuine vulnerability to him which makes him different from nearly any Tarantino protagonist which I can think of.

The story itself is a rather fun "alternate history" re-imagining of the infamous Manson Family murders of Sharon Tate, her unborn child, and a family friend who happened to be staying at her and husband Roman Polanski's home while Polanski was away working. I also have to cite NPR film critic Justin Chang for articulating something which I only vaguely realized - that DiCarpio's Nick Dalton character can be seen as a version of Clint Eastwood, had Eastwood never really hit it big in Sergio Leone's "Man With No Name" spaghetti westerns of the mid-1960s. The result is a tale which, though obviously the stuff of pure fantasy in its liberties, is an extremely satisfying combination that probably only Quentin Tarantino could have even imagined combining in a movie.

Very much of the story is a buddy movie between Rick and Cliff,
and the chemistry between the two is endearing.

If you know anything about the cast, you shouldn't be surprised to be told that the acting is outstanding. Though most of the secondary characters play relatively limited roles, they all do them perfectly well. From Margot Robbie's turn as the wide-eyed, charming Sharon Tate to Mike Mo's performance as the iconic Bruce Lee, to all of the actors portraying the vicious little hippies at Charles Manson's eerie compound, everyone enhances the movie. Brad Pitt unsurprisingly nails his turn as straight-talking tough-guy Cliff Booth, even if the role doesn't require much of him beyond a certain easy swagger and smugness. Leonardo DiCaprio, though, has yet again proven to me that he has long gone far, far beyond the pretty boy, teeny-bopper idol whom we all saw back in the 1990s. He may spend a majority of his screen time giving us laughs with his desperation and depression over his fading stardom, but there are several wonderfully captivating sequences where he breaks down in anger or sadness, and DiCaprio completely sells every moment of it. I will all but guarantee that he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role, strong as it is.

There weren't many things that I didn't like about the movie, but a couple come to mind. One is simply that there were a few sequences that felt as if they were drawn out a bit too long. Not terribly so, but noticeably so. In particular, the moments when Cliff Booth shows up at the Manson Family compound, senses something amiss, and expresses his desire to sniff around a bit. There is certainly genuine tension built here, but at a certain point a few of the scenes felt as if they could have been trimmed a bit here or there. There were a few other moments such as this, but they hardly ruin the overall pace and fun of the film.

The only other "issue" I have with the movie is more of an observation that can be leveled at any Tarantino flick, and it is that there is no greater purpose to the film beyond being a love letter to a bygone era as well as a reminder of a brutally dark moment in U.S. history. Tarantino most likely would agree with me, but his films are never about more than watching strong, entertaining characters get mixed up with each other. There's never any greater message, deeper thoughts involved, or even any especially creative cinematic artistry. Tarantino is just exceptionally good at a variety of already-established film techniques, and he knows how to tell a ripping good story about amusing characters. In the sense that he knows how to find phenomenal cinematographers, costume designers, actors, and editors to bring his vibrant stories to life is a testament to how good a director he is, even if he offers very little in the way of intellectual or spiritual stimulation. Alas, it is a movie about movies, and that always plays well with critics and movie-lovers such as me.

I'll most likely go out to see this one again on the big screen, and I may even be able to convince my wife to join me. 

Last Action Hero (1993)

Director: John McTiernan

Last Action Hero was a good idea that couldn't quite pull off the execution (cue the Jack Slater bad pun here).

The movie tells the story of Danny Madigan, a 12-year-old who's obsessed with movies, especially action flicks featuring his hero, Jack Slater. Slater is a virtual parody of the already-over-the-top action hero that dominated the box offices through the '80s and early '90s, and the character is played by none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger himself. On one particularly tough evening, Danny is given a magical ticket that transports him into the latest Jack Slater sequel, where he quite literally becomes a part of the world of the big-budget action film as Jack Slater's sidekick.

The real trouble begins when one of the arch villains in the picture - an icy-cold assassin named Benedict (played brilliantly by Charles Dance, whom you may know as Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones) - finds Danny's magical ticket and transports himself into "our" world, the realistically dour and dingy New York City. Benedict's master plan involved using the ticket to go into various films and bring other villains into this world where, as he puts it, "The bad guys can win." Danny brings the fictional Jack Slater into the real world to try and stop Benedict. The problem is that Slater, no longer in his world, is now vulnerable in ways that he has never been in his own movies.

The icy-cold and wonderfully sarcastic Benedict - probably
the most consistently excellent thing about this movie.

Last Action Hero does have its moments. It was certainly a parody that was due back in 1993, as that particular style of action movie had reached untold heights of commercial success and featured no end of formulaic and often downright silly elements. These elements are spoofed in both obvious and subtle ways, in turn. A prime example is when Danny is first transported into the latest Jack Slater movie, right into the back seat of Slater's speeding muscle car. As he looks around at the ridiculous and cacophonous action unfolding around him, he takes note: "Wait a minute. The bad puns...the explosions...the hard rock soundtrack...I'm in the movie!!" And with those observations, Danny was unwittingly giving Michael Bay his formula to mindless action movies that net disgusting amounts of money (for those counting, Bay's latest Transformers movie grossed $100 million on its opening weekend, despite being labelled all but worthless by any critic worth his or her salt).

The ideas behind the movie are good, and some of the intentionally cheesy dialogue is funny enough. Among the highlights are the police station in Slater's world, where we see an amalgam of every action movie police station cliche in the book. An added gag is the pair of lines of mismatched cops who are being partnered up for their "buddy movie" pairings: old cop + young cop, real cop + cartoon cat cop, living cop + Humphrey Bogart's ghost cop, and on it goes. Such jokes border on Zucker brothers zaniness, but never quite go all the way, which is probably for the best.

While the gags are pretty good, the movie does lose steam about halfway through. I attribute this to just how much time Danny spends in Slater's movie world. Sure, a lot of the gags are pretty funny, but not all of them hit the mark. And there are actually moments when you get the sense that the director McTiernan fell into his own trap - he actually wants us to be enthralled by Slater's ridiculous exploits, rather than simply ask us to keep laughing at them. This incongruous tone is completely at odds with the point of the movie.

The Ripper - one of several uninspired elements of the film.
The idea of using villains from movies is great, but they
could have done far better than this bland parody.

This same shift into a real attempt at action movie intensity carries into the end of the film, at which point its lost any impact. The one saving ingredient is that of Benedict's attempt to draw various fictional film villains into the real world. However, even this intriguing plot device isn't used to much effect. What we end up with is simply one already-introduced Jack Slater villain and the personification of Death (in a pretty cool little cameo by Sir Ian McKellan, incidentally). Otherwise, why is the film asking me to take seriously the very thing that it just spent over an hour mocking? Poor planning, if you ask me.

To me, this is the textbook mediocre movie. I didn't feel like I wasted my time watching it, but I feel no need to ever watch it again. There's just enough merit to see you through the two-plus hour running time, but it's too inconsistent to be called anything more than a really good idea that couldn't quite live up to its vast potential. 

Film # 83: The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)

Director: Woody Allen

Initial Release Country: United States

Times Previously Seen: once (about 2 years ago)

Teaser Summary (No spoilers)

Depression-era dame escapes from the drudgery of her life at the movie theater, only to have one of the screen characters come to life and pursue her.

Extended Summary (More detailed synopsis, including spoilers. Fair warning.)

New Jersey, the Great Depression. Cecilia (Mia Farrow) is feeling the full brunt of the economic malaise that the country is in. She lives in a tiny, run-down apartment and struggles to maintain a monotonous waitressing job at a local diner. To make matter much worse, her husband Monk (Danny Aiello) is a complete leech. He wastes his time gambling with friends and cavorting with other women rather than looking hard for a job. He also drinks too much and abuses the meek Cecilia regularly.

Cecilia’s only real pleasure in life is watching movies. She is a regular at the local theater and voraciously watches everything that plays. She knows all of the films’ stories, actors, and actresses, and she adores the romantic personalities and stories on the screen. Even though no one around her, including her sister and her husband, shares or understands her passion, Cecilia is perpetually enthralled by movies.

Cecilia (in the front), slogging through her waitress job. Her sister, like everyone else close to her, dismisses Cecilia as a flighty dreamer.

One day, Cecilia goes to see the latest film release – The Purple Rose of Cairo – which is a standard 1930s adventure/screwball comedy/romance picture. She loves the film, especially the character Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels), who is a handsome, well-spoken and well-mannered explorer from a rich family. Cecilia tries to explain her love of the picture to her sister at her job the next day, but gets distracted, drops several plates (something she has done several times before), and she gets fired. She returns home to find Monk drinking and joking with another woman, both of whom drunkenly stagger out into the night. Cecilia decides to go back to the movie theater.

Over the next few days, Cecilia continues to watch The Purple Rose of Cairo repeatedly. Suddenly, in the middle of her fifth viewing, the Tom Baxter character on the screen turns and makes eye contact with Cecilia. He then begins to address her directly. Cecilia, stunned at first, then replies. They talk briefly about how much Cecilia must love the movie, and then Tom Baxter literally walks out of the movie – from the black and white screen to full-color “real” life with Cecilia. All of the theater-goers witness the same thing, but before they can do anything more than stammer, Tom and Cecilia leave the theater.

Through the evening, Tom and Cecilia stroll around town and talk. It becomes clear that Tom, though now in the real world, is still very much a fictional construct. He is brave and adventurous, and he has highly romantic notions about love, sex, and the world around him. Cecilia is highly captivated by Tom, and she almost seems to be falling in love with him; however, she pulls away on account of her being married. They part ways, but Cecilia promises to return the next evening.

Cecilia and Tom get to know one another, despite the massive divide of one being a real human and the other being a fictional character come to life.

Back at the movie theater, The Purple Rose of Cairo is still showing, sans Tom Baxter. The rest of the characters in the movie, rather than continuing on with their parts, have stopped what they were doing and are directly addressing the audience. It seems that they cannot continue the movie until Tom returns. Word of this gets out and makes it all the way back to Hollywood, where the movie studio that produced The Purple Rose of Cairo begins to panic about possible ramifications of a rogue movie character that has entered reality. On top of this, other “Toms” in other movie theaters around the country have begun trying to “escape” the screen.

The studio goes into action. They contact the actor who plays Tom Baxter, Gil Shepherd (Jeff Daniels). Shepherd is a self-involved rising star in Hollywood, and he is interested only in advancing his career. When he hears about the escaped Tom Baxter and the potential fallout for his career, he jumps on a plane to New Jersey.

The next day, Tom Baxter explores the city, unintentionally ending up in a brothel. There, his naivete and charm woo the prostitutes, though he has no intentions of sleeping with any of them, due to his impossibly pure sense of nobility and honor. Elsewhere, Cecilia accidentally runs into Gil Shepherd, who has arrived to track down Tom. The two men looking exactly alike, Cecilia first mistakes him for Tom, but soon realizes that she is talking to Gil, an actor whose work she has admired for years. The two pair up to seek out Tom and sort out the entire situation.

Through the day, Cecilia and Gil seem to grow close. As they roam the town searching for Tom, Cecilia shares her love of movies with Gil. Gil, completely egoistic and narcissistic, is all too happy to soak up her admiration. In a moment of seemingly true affection, the two end up in a music shop and play several songs together, Cecilia playing a ukulele and Gil singing. A real romance seems to be budding, and this forces them to find some sort of solution to their strange dilemma.

In the middle of their search for Tom, Cecilia and Gil seem to find the beginnings of a legitimate romance. Little does Cecilia expect the awful truth.

Eventually, Cecilia and Gil find Tom back at the movie theater, where the screen characters of The Purple Rose of Cairo still wait impatiently for Tom to rejoin them. Tom and Gil both engage in a war or words for Cecilia’s affection, with Gil eventually convincing Cecilia to let Tom return to the screen, so that she can join him. Gil tells her to return to Hollywood with him, where they can be together. Cecilia chooses Gil, and Tom reluctantly reassumes his place on the silver screen.

Gil returns to his hotel, with a promise to meet Cecilia so they can go back to Hollywood together. Cecilia goes to her own rickety home, packs her bags, and bids a very short farewell to her befuddled and angered husband, Monk. When Cecilia gets to Gil’s hotel, though, she is told that he has already left. We briefly see that this is true, with Gil on a plane already headed back to California. Apparently, his “love” for Cecilia was mostly a ruse to get her help in forcing his Tom character back to the screen. Though Gil does seem somewhat guilty over his machinations, he does not return for Cecilia.

Back in New Jersey, Cecilia is now without a lover, home, job, or husband. She returns to her one place of refuge – the movie theater. There, she loses herself in the latest film – Top Hat, starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, who gleefully dance about the screen, possessed of a joy that Cecilia may never come close to knowing.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (Done after this most recent viewing, before any further research)

I enjoyed this movie a bit more than the first time I watched it, and I can see why it is widely considered Woody Allen’s best and most accessible movie.

For people who either don’t know or don’t like Woody Allen movies, The Purple Rose of Cairo is one of the least “Woody Allen” of them. By this, I mean that it is the very rare Allen movie in which Allen himself does not appear and there is no “Woody Allen” proxy, as we find in films like Bullets Over Broadway, Celebrity, or Midnight in Paris, in which the “Woody” is played by another actor like John Cusack, Kenneth Brannagh, or Owen Wilson, respectively. For anyone who finds Allen’s ever-neurotic intellectual persona annoying, this is a major merit in favor of The Purple Rose of Cairo.

Owen Wilson, the de facto "Woody Allen" in Midnight in Paris. For those who don't care for these characters, Purple Rose  is blessedly absent of them and their predictable neuroses.

Another feature that often shows up in Allen’s movies is the intellectual vibe, which is something that the Purple Rose of Cairo mostly lacks. This is a good thing. Often, Allen’s movies feature jokes that require a viewer’s knowledge of literary or cinematic history. This is easily seen in his most recent film, Midnight in Paris, in which most of the gags are lost if you don’t have some background knowledge of Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and the like. While I personally enjoyed the jokes in that film, I find them somewhat exclusionary at times. The Purple Rose of Cairo is a movie that requires no such prior knowledge on the part of the viewer. It is self-contained, and thus can be enjoyed by nearly anyone.

Purple Rose does, however, bear certain other hallmarks of Woody Allen storytelling. The entire concept of a movie character literally coming to life shows some of the zaniness that you get in some of his other films, again most notable in Midnight in Paris, in which the protagonist is able to cavort with various literary figures from the past. Similarly, The Purple Rose of Cairo is a flight of fancy that sets up some really humorous and thought-provoking interactions and conversations.

This brings up what, to me, is the strength of the film, though one that doesn’t quite go far enough – the study of we viewers’ relationships to films and the film industry. All of us who watch fictional movies are, to some degree, escapists. We seek to escape into some other world and dwell there as passive observers for a time. The character Cecilia is far more dedicated (one could say “addicted”) than most, and with good reason, given that her reality is so miserable. For her, films are the one place where things make sense and are pleasurable. However, this far from tells the whole tale.

The hopelessly transfixed Cecilia, whose attraction to film goes beyond affection and well into the realm of dependency. There are probably far more Cecilias out there than we care to acknowledge these days.

Once Tom jumps off of the screen and Gil becomes involved, the tale begins to approach a criticism of movie magic and the film industry in general. One can start to see Cecilia as a dupe who has been lured by the carefully crafted, artificial glitz and glamour of Hollywood. Not just the films themselves, but also the entire culture surrounding movie stars. This is typified by the Gil Shepherd character. While it becomes clear early on that Gil is totally self-obsessed with becoming a film star, we and Cecilia are led down a romantic path of “true love”, only to be left high and dry at the end. I can’t help but see Cecilia as being the eternal mark for various con artists – her deadbeat husband, the fantasy world of popular movies, and the movie business itself. All of these elements in her life, exemplified in the film by Monk, The Purple Rose of Cairo, and Gil Shepherd, extort her for everything she has. While I felt that Woody Allen was making these criticisms, I think he eased up just a tad, so as not to make the film overly depressing or to rob it of its oft-comic tone.

It is this “going half way” feeling that I have that prevents me from considering this movie an absolute great. There were a few too many topics that were either half-baked or incompletely explored. For instance, the Tom Baxter character often explains his actions as “being written into his character”, as if they were set in stone and unchangeable, such as his duty to defend Cecilia by getting into a fist fight with Monk. Yet, there are certain moments when he makes realizations about the “real” world and starts to adapt, such as when he insists on running out on an expensive dinner check. These conflicts of innate character could have been delved into a bit more and given an even-more thorough treatment. If we’re going to start mashing up fiction and reality, let’s see what the ramifications will be, especially on people like Tom and Cecilia.

On the technical side, The Purple Rose of Cairo is all but flawless. It’s a great film to look at, hear, and just take in, especially for film lovers. Woody Allen’s affection for cinema is very clear, despite an implied condemnation of its overall effect on certain people. The film paints an evocative portrait of the Depression in the U.S., even though it only covers a handful of geographic areas. Anyone who enjoys 1930s styles and attitudes would certainly love the aesthetic of The Purple Rose of Cairo.

It's not hard to bask in the look and feel of many of the scenes in the film. Especially in the movie theater, the Art Deco style does a great job of transporting us back to a time when very few of us were alive.

For a fairly light-hearted movie like this, I often ask myself “Would I watch it again?” My answer is “Yes,” which speaks to its staying power. However, I wouldn’t go quite so far as calling it a “great” film. I don’t know that it broke any barriers or showed any particular mastery of the medium. I find it to be a clever, imaginative, and well-told story, but not one that I feel compelled to return to again and again.

Take 2: Why Film Geeks Love this Movie (Done after some further research.)

Since The Purple Rose of Cairo is not some epic, laborious task of a film, there’s not a ton of insight to be found in researching it. This is not a film with the combative release history of Brazil, or a film that was the target of hardcore blacklisting like Citizen Kane. Thus, analysis and criticism of it is somewhat limited and narrow. Also, none of it adds much that one can’t see upon viewing the movie for oneself. There are a few interesting thoughts, though:

One is the point that the movie ends on such a down note. This is something that may very well take a first-time viewer aback, given the otherwise playful tone of the rest of the film. In fact, the distributor Orion Studios wanted Allen to change it (here we go again, with the U.S. film industry wanting the “happy ending” to beef up the bottom line). Like other filmmakers with integrity before him, Allen absolutely refused. This truly did make for a much more poignant and thoughtful film. Had Cecilia been able to fulfill her dream of escaping her sad life with either Gil or Tom, the deepest and most meaningful points of the movie would have been lost.

On these deeper points, uber-critic Roger Ebert did a nice job of summing it up in his original review. Ebert does a good job of explaining its understated strengths, and signs off on his critique with the great sentence, “The more you think about "The Purple Rose of Cairo", and about the movies, and about why you go to the movies, the deeper the damned thing gets.”

I can’t say it better myself.

That’s a wrap. 83 shows down. 22 to go.*

Coming Soon: The Fly (1986)

 This movie scared the absolute hell out of me when I was 11 years old. All the same, I watched it no less than half a dozen times. Why would I do that to myself? Maybe I’ll figure it out when I watch it again.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.

*It has come to my attention that a mere few weeks ago, the main film critic at TIME magazine, Roger Corliss, has thrown a curve ball. Corliss helped compose the original “100 Great Movies” List that I have been using for this blog, but he has just added 20 films to the list, ranging the entire chronological spectrum from 1923 to 2011. I may try to add what I can, but here are his additions, if you’re curious.

Film #71: La nui americaine (1973)

Title for us English-speaking types: Day for Night

Director: Francois Truffaut

Initial Release Country: France

Times Previously Seen: none

Teaser Summary (No spoilers)

A director deals with the endless technical and emotional chaos on the set of his current picture. 

Extended Summary (A more detailed plot synopsis, including spoilers. Fair warning.) 

France, 1973. Noted film director Ferraud (Francois Truffaut) is trying to get his current project up and running smoothly. Well, as smoothly as possible for a film. The financial backing is imposing stifling deadlines, the script is in constant flux, and the cast and crew have brought all of their emotional baggage with them. The film the Ferraud is attempting to make, May I Introduce Pamela, involves a young man bringing his new bride home to meet his parents, only to have her and his father fall in love and leave the rest of the family.

As emotional as this fictional tale might be, it pales in comparison to more immediate concerns of the cast and crew trying to bring the story to life. Ferraud must deal with almost no end of troubles. Each member of the cast either has gone through, is going through, or is trying to recover from some sort of depression or mental fatigue. The lead actress, Julie (Jacqueline Bisset) is returning from a hiatus to recover her mental health. The young actor Alexandre is an emotional juvenile whose neediness and jealousy knows almost no bounds. The elder supporting actress, Severine (Valentina Cortese), is in the full grip of alcoholism and struggles to so much as remember her lines. Add into this the little quirks and difficulties of the crew, from the script co-writer right down to the lowliest prop man, and Ferraud has his hands both full and tied.

It takes an army. Virtually everyone in this shot either loves, hates, has slept with, and/or will sleep with someone else in this shot. Maybe multiple someones. 

The greatest tests come near the end of filming. First, Alexandre’s girlfriend, the older and more worldly Liliane, leaves him for a British stuntman. This leads to Alexandre sleeping with his co-star Julie, much to the chagrin of Julie’s real husband. Just as all of this gets sorted out, one of the other key actors, Alphonse, dies in a car accident. Despite the insanity and tragedy, Ferraud manages to see the film through to its end. As shooting wraps up, the cast and crew part ways, though many of them clearly expect to see each other on projects. As strange and chaotic as it seems to most, this is the life they choose.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (Done after this first viewing, before any further research.) 

Day for Night is an enjoyable, extremely well-constructed film that I probably don’t need to watch again. In a style similar to some of Robert Altman’s more renowned movies (M.A.S.H., Nashville, and especially The Player), Francois Truffaut decides to give us a panoramic view of the insanity surrounding a film set. I suppose some people see the subject matter as being self-important and self-aggrandizing, but Day for Night certainly doesn’t come off that way. The interactions between the characters is far often far too playful to be mistaken for pretension on Truffaut's part.

Director Ferraud instructing Julie on exactly how to hold her hands. Day for Night is full of such minutiae of film-making. It's actually fascinating. 

There is no way that I can avoid comparing this movie to its chief forebear: Federico Fellini’s 8 ½ . If looking at a brief treatment, it may seem as if Truffaut pirated Fellini. Both films are about making a film, and both convey the maelstrom surrounding the endeavor. Fellini, though, focused much more on the fantastic inner mental workings of the director-as-artist. Truffaut’s Day for Night takes in the entire scope of the project, not giving too much time to any one person, only delving slightly into a few characters’ minds. The only other clear similarity is that both films expertly achieve what they wish.

As mentioned, there are some graver moments and themes in the movie, such as Severine’s waning ability and waxing alcoholism. But this is tempered by her generally amiable demeanor. There are also Julie’s recovery from depression and her affair with Alexandre, as well as Alphonse’s sudden and tragic death. These, as upsetting as they may be, are quickly resolved and the film, just as the crew in the film, moves on. We viewers are given little more than a few brief moments to feel any lingering pain before being swept away by the inertia of the film-making process and lifestyle. Truly, the show must go on.

Technically, the film is brilliant. While there are no special effects to speak of, the cinematography pulls off plenty of great little maneuvers to draw the eye. To add a layer, you are often getting to look behind the curtain of filming, as we see plenty of the wild and contorted techniques that the May I Introduce Pamela cameramen have to employ to achieve the desired shots. At times, it’s like watching gymnasts do magic tricks in the middle of their routines.

One of the many shots that's not only eye-catching but also pulls back the movie magic curtain a bit. 

On par with the visuals is the acting. Every person plays their part perfectly, from the highly emotional and quixotic actors to the earthier and more practical crew members. Even Truffaut, playing himself in spirit, if not in name, does admirably. The key is that virtually all of the characters are either intriguing, funny, tragic, or a compelling combination of all three. In this, Day for Night taps into the voyeurism that is at the core of the appeal of cinema. We want to watch what all of these people do with and to each other.

All of this being said, I doubt that I will ever watch the movie again. As much as I enjoyed it and can see its strengths, I simply don’t know what I could get out of a second viewing. Hardcore film experts and budding film-makers could probably milk it for endless inspiration and knowledge, but I’m neither. I’d recommend it to anyone who enjoys learning about the filming process and enjoys a healthy dose of oft-light drama and humor. It’s also a great little follow-up to the aforementioned 8 ½ .

Take 2: Why This Movie’s Considered “Great” (Done after a wee bit o’ research.) 

A very wee bit.

It would seem that this movie has gained its praise for the sheer love of film that it conveys. Roger Ebert revisited it in this 1997 review, and he expresses a lot of the enjoyable elements of it well. He points out how the film shows how all of those involved in the film industry, creators, actors and crew alike, are often inebriated on the culture of the filming process. The quirky, high-drama relationships that develop and then dissipate over the course of a few weeks of filming seem as a drug. I suppose it should be no surprise that film critics, almost all of whom must truly love the medium of film, would love such a movie. It taps into their own passions, so a playful, thoughtful, and entertaining movie on the subject is bound to be adored by the professional critics. Day for Night fits the bill.

After this little bit of digging, I feel that Day for Night is a touch overhyped. Compared to nearly all of the other movies on this list, including Truffaut’s own 400 Blows, Day for Night I feel is considered great more because of its subject matter rather than any standout novelty. I do think that viewers who are looking for something a little different and humorous would enjoy it, but perhaps shouldn’t expect the mind-blowing movie that you may expect from an “All-TIME 100 Film”. 

That’s a wrap. 71 shows down. 34 to go.

Coming Soon: Chinatown (1974):

The classic film noir genre gets brought up to date in this slick 1970's Roman Polanski classic. This film kicks off a great streak of 1970s movies in the coming weeks that are some of my absolute favorites. Come on back for my take on it.

 Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.

Film #56: 8 1/2 (1963)

Director: Federico Fellini

Initial Release Country: Italy

Times Previously Seen: once (about 5 years ago)

Teaser Summary (No spoilers)

Star film director attempts to balance the manic production process of his current project with his own flights of fancy and real personal problems.

Extended Summary (A more complete plot synopsis, spoilers included. Fair warning)

Star film director Guido Anselmi (Marcelo Mastroianni) is surrounded by chaos. He is in the midst of producing his latest movie – a high-budget monster that has his creative team scrambling to and fro, trying to meet their distracted director's insufferably vague demands. Wannabe actors and actresses constantly badger Guido for parts in the movie, financial backers seek to know more about the mysterious project, and critics, religious figures, and journalists from all over the world nag him for his views on everything from love to politics to religion. In the middle of the maelstrom, Guido, suffering from poor health, goes to a spa, bringing the entire circus with him.

In his mind's eye, Guido dreams himself a balloon about to be brusquely yanked back to earth.

Added to all of the hoopla surrounding the movie itself are Guido's personal problems. He asks his mistress, the pretty but hopelessly dense and materialistic Carla (Sandra Milo), to join him. She offers a bit of escapist comfort, but only for a short while before the pressures of the film start to weigh down on Guido once more.

Throughout the dizzying tap-dance, Guido often finds his only respite in his own fantasies. He recalls past loves and scenarios, painting them with the exceptionally vibrant palette of his revisionist imagination. From floating above the crowd as a balloon, to interactions with past lovers, to conversations with his dead father, Guido loses himself in his own mind as easily as he lights up a fresh cigarette. However, just like the cigarette, each fantasy burns down to its end, leaving him back in reality.

The ever-chic looking Guido, taking in the world around him. What the mind behind the shades does to that world is anyone else's guess.

His reality becomes even more muddled when, after his desperate plea for mature companionship, Guido's wife Luisa (Anouk Aimee) comes to visit him at the spa. The reunion is amiable enough at the start, but soon turns sour as Luisa realizes that her husband is still the same immature dreamer who has cheated on and left her many times in the past. Their 20-year marriage seems completely destroyed when, at a set of screen tests, Luisa sees that her husband has used their most intimate conversations as fodder for his movie script. She storms out of the screen tests, with only marginal protests by Guido.

By this time, the pressures on Guido to become more active in the filming process, respond to critics, and answer to his financial backers finally get to him. At an ill-conceived tea party at one of the movie sites (with scaffolding for a massive rocket ship), Guido is put on a dais and commanded to give answers. In his mind, he escapes by imagining himself crawling under the table, pulling a gun and shooting himself. In reality, he merely cancels the entire picture and sends the entire hoipaloi packing.

In his final waking dream, Guido stares at the now-useless scaffolding and imagines an entire carnival of characters being led about by a little boy in all white, with a flute. The boy directs everyone off of the stage, remains for a few moments more, and is the last to leave.

My Take on the Film

This is a movie that will divide viewers into 2 clear camps: those who find it incomprehensible, Eurotrash nonsense, and those who find it a phenomenally skillful, humorous and entertaining look at the life and mind of an artist. When I first watched this movie about five years ago, I was probably more in the former group, but I am now with the latter.

If you are a movie viewer who demands a plot-driven story that follows the classic hero/heroine overcoming obstacles to prevail for truth and justice, Federico Fellini is not the director for you, and the film 8 ½ is probably the ultimate Fellini film. This is not least of all because it is certainly the most auto-biographical of his many films. I suppose some may say that a film director making a film about a film director making a film is the height of narcissism and self-aggrandizement. This thought did occur to me, but I dismiss it. For any person who has ever attempted any artistic endeavor, it is not hard to understand the character Guido Anselmi's desire to leave behind the trappings of the material world and vanish into any number of fantasy worlds of our own making. Therein lies the emotion of 8 ½ – the desire of escapism. After all, what are most of us looking for in films but to escape?

That attempt at intellectual analysis aside, the most striking thing about 8 ½ is the portrayal of Guido's daydreams. On my past viewing, I simply wasn't paying enough attention to see how they were related to everything else going on in the film. Now, however, I see the very clear connections and why each and every one of his flights of fancy are touching and/or hilarious. This is part of what is captivating about this movie – the viewer is waiting to see just when Guido will warp the world around him into his own vision, and exactly how he will do it. From the very beginning, in which he imagines himself drifting out of his car stuck in traffic and up into the air like a balloon, to the very end in which he sees his role as director symbolized by the little boy leading around thousands of strange characters, it all points to the absurdities that swirl around the world of art.

This is not to equate the absurd with the useless. Absurdity is the ocean in which many comic treasures can be found, and Fellini was the Jacques Cousteau of finding such. He had a such a great eye for the strange, silly, and wonderful moments in life that entertainers can provide. From the little, insensitive comments towards babbling actors to the hilariously ridiculous visions of Guido as the head of his own harem, 8 ½ runs a spectacular gamut of humor.

The ocean-side prostitute, Saraghina - One of the countless indelible images in the movie.

Not only could Fellini find this great variety of humor, but he could present it in such an appealing, eye-catching way that his films are often a pleasure to watch. Even someone who has no time for the fanciful nature of 8 ½ has to admit that the film is captivating to look at. From the cast, all striking either for their beautiful or singular looks, to the sets, locales, and shot framing, everything is in its proper place in the movie. It all further reinforces the notion that art can provide the order and pleasure that real life rarely offers.

A final merit to be pointed out is that Fellini cut himself no breaks in this movie. While the character who represents him, Guido, is fairly likable and, but the accounts of the ancillary characters, an artistic genius, his failings as a man are made plain for all to see. Once his wife, Luisa, and his sister show up, it becomes clear that, emotionally, Guido is nothing more than a scared and selfish little child. He lies to cover up his infidelities and uses his and his wife's most intimate moments as little more than fodder for his own movie script. What you get is a man who represents many a great artist – brilliant in his medium but sorely lacking when it comes to the quieter, closer moments of life.

I suppose if I can knock this film at all, it is that it ran out of just a little bit of steam by the end. Coming in at over 2 hours and 15 minutes, I found myself flagging a little bit by the time the end was near. I felt that I had received a near overdose of Guido Anselmi's perpetual mental fluctuations and just wanted the end to come. However, I must say that this may have been because it was late at night, and I was probably just tired. Turn my experience into a cautionary tale – set aside the right time to watch this movie.

The final image of the movie, with the little "band leader" boy symbolizing the director himself.

That's a Wrap. 56 shows down. 49 to go.

Coming Soon:Charade (1963)

This one may be a bit of an effort. Despite having some kick-ass actors in it (Cary Grant and James Coburn, to name a few), it also contains one of my least favorite leads – Audrey Hepburn. Come an back to see if I can stomach it.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.

Film #37: Singin' In The Rain (1952)

Directors: Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly

Initial Release Country: United States

Times Previously Seen: once (about ten years ago)

Teaser Summary (no spoilers)

Cheeseball silent film star stumbles through transition to talkies while finding love and dancing, wearing a shit-eating grin.

Uncut Summary (The full story, including spoilers. Fair warning)

It's 1927 and silent film stars Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina LaMont (Jean Hagen) are the toast of Hollywood. They are in the middle of a string of commercially successful, if formulaic romance/adventure movies. Despite their obvious film success, however, the two could not be more different in real life. Don is a happy-go-lucky man who, with his closest friend Cosmo (Donald O'Connor) has worked his way up through the entertainment world by building his singing and dancing chops in all manner of low-brow acts. Lina is a no-talent, dim-witted, high maintenance egomaniac who seems to believe herself a princess simply because she plays them in the movies.

Along comes the landmark film The Jazz Singer – the first talking picture. While most of Hollywood dismisses it as a novelty gimmick, the film's smash success sends all other studios scrambling to follow suit, including Don and Lina's. The transition could not be rougher. Though Don has some trouble, the biggest problem is Lina, whose pretty face is no longer enough. Her high, shrieking New York “city goil” accent cannot be tamed into anything listenable. Not even costly enunciation lessons can can break through her thick skull or provincial, nasal voice.

To the rescue comes Don's new love, Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds), an adorable, spunky little entertainer whose remarkable dancing ability is only outdone by her incredible singing. Cosmo hatches the idea of using Kathy's voice as an unseen proxy for Lina. Since Lina's is the beautiful face that viewers know and love, they'll have her lip synch the dialogue and songs as Kathy sings them.

Cosmo, Kathy and Don rip through one of their many happy little tunes.

The plan works, and the latest Don Lockwood/Lina LaMont film is made. Once the movie is in the can and awaiting its premier, however, Lina starts to do the one thing that she probably shouldn't: think. Jealous of Don and Kathy's love and Kathy's genuine talent, Lina attempts to legally blackmail the movie studio into making Kathy her permanent voice. The studio head is furious, as he has plans to groom Kathy into their next big star. Flustered, all are left to stew on Lina's selfish machinations.

Everything comes to a head at the movie premier, where the film is shown to an audience who loves it. To roaring applause, Lina decides to really drive her plan home. She attempts to give a speech, but her true voice and condescending comments baffle the crowd. The uncertain viewers demand that she sing, “like in the picture.” Knowing that she has no hope of singing as well as Kathy, Don and Cosmo create the perfect set-up: they tell Lina to lip sync the words as Kathy sings the song just behind Lina and a dividing curtain. In the middle of the song, the curtain is raised, Lina is exposed as a fraud, Kathy's true talent is revealed, and all of the good guys live happily ever after.

Exit, stage right.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (done after this most recent viewing, before any research)

This musical very often flirted with sliding into the same category as Meet Me In St. Louis, West Side Story, and The Sound of Music: musical films that I simply can't stand. It did, however, manage to fall just on the right side of the line separating amusing viewing from insufferable fluff.
I guess the key ingredient for me was the intentional cheese factor. There is a self-awareness that, while not perfect, was present enough to provide some timeless laughs. From the jump, you get Don Lockwood's shit-eating grin as he shows up at he and Lina's latest premier. While on the red carpet for the pre-show interview, he claims to have always used the word “dignity” as his motto. During this pompous speech, we're treated to a montage of ridiculous and demeaning jobs that he's taken in the past. The scenes are actually pretty funny, and the sarcasm underlying it works well.

This self-effacing tone keeps surfacing occasionally throughout the film, though in fits and starts at times. When its not there, Singin' In the Rain does become rather tiresome. The most obvious moment of this is a bizarre “advertising” sequence during the “Beautiful Girls” number, which seems to be nothing more than an excuse to show off an array of fashion models posing in various costumes. It was a rather bizarre waste of screen time.

It's really the great irony of the film to me: most of the humor is based on ridiculing the superficiality of popular silent films and its stars. And while it's funny to see how talkies exposed this superficiality in the film, the film Singin' In the Rain is, itself, a showcase of superficiality in many ways. You have to acknowledge that Kelly, O'Connor and Reynolds were phenomenally talented singers and dancers. Still, the movie is almost all about flash and show. Sure, it's not as shallow as bad silent films, in which you just needed a few few pretty faces and melodramatic physical acting, but it is still a pretty shallow exercise all the same. If not for the novelty and flash of technicolor cinematography to show off the hyper-colored costumes and sets, I have to wonder if this film would have been such a marvel in its day.

Here's a perfect example of the useless, harmless tone of the film, as seen in the well-known bit, "Good Mornin'":




Despite my skepticism at the depth of the movie, I have to admit to how incredible Kelly, O'Connor and Reynolds were. Even if several of the musical numbers were contrived and hokey, some of them were masterpieces of choreography. Granted, by the end I had pretty much had it with the songs and dances (the 15-minute long 20s number was a test) and just wanted the story, such as it was, resolved, but when I was still engaged in entertainment bits, they were a lot of fun to watch.

The real gem of the movie is the second-billed Donald O'Connor, who may not have had the tanned good looks or raw dancing power of Gene Kelly, but seemed to have more pure athleticism and better comedic timing that his better-known co-star. His “Make 'Em Laugh” routine may be one of the best I've ever seen, being heavily rooted in the physical comedy of Keaton, Chaplin, The Three Stooges, and everything in between.


Here's a link to the astoundingly energetic "Make 'Em Laugh" number.

Singin' In the Rain didn't hold up on this second viewing as well as I had hoped, but it wasn't nearly the exercise in patience that watching other musicals has been. It's a light, fun little movie that I'd recommend to someone who likes musicals in general, and doesn't need an enormous amount of plot depth.

Take 2: Why Film Geeks Love this Movie (done after some further research)

No shockers here, though a few interesting little tidbits after doing some digging.

Like other films that are on TIME's list (It's a Wonderful Life, Detour, and others), this “classic” was not hailed as such immediately. The critics in 1952 seemed to like it, but considered it a touch inferior to the previous year's Kelly dance offering, An American In Paris. Like the other films mentioned, it was only after several years on the shelf and a re-release in 1958 that the masses and critics gave the movie a more special place in their hearts and minds. At this point, it's often praised as the hands-down greatest American musical of all time. I personally don't see it as such, preferring Swing Time or even Cabaret, but I can't knock anyone for the more popular opinion.

Something I didn't realize is that not one of the songs was composed solely for this movie. They were all written years prior, for a number of other shows. This may account for the seeming disconnectedness as far as lyrics and tone go. Not that it mattered much. It's clear that musicals certainly don't need inter-song cohesion to be effective. Each song in Singin' In the Rain, if not my cup of tea, is certainly snappy or catchy.

One better-known tidbit is that during the iconic title song and dance routine, Gene Kelly was operating with a 103 degree fever. I know that when I'm in such a state, I can barely lift my arm to change the channel on my TV, let alone bound and vault around with the reckless abandon that Kelly did during that routine. Incredible. Click this link to see what he did while sick as a dog.

Another curious anecdote is about Debbie Reynolds. At the time of the film, she apparently was a gymnast rather than a trained dancer. Her lack of skills in the latter area enraged Gene Kelly into yelling at her at one point, after which she left the set to have a good cry under a piano on another set. Who should find her there but one Mr. Fred Astaire. Taking pity, Astaire decided to work with Reynolds to get her dancing up to snuff. After reading this story, I can't help but move ol' Fred a few notches further up the “hulluva guy” ladder.

So the research really does nothing to change my opinion of this movie. A good, solid musical that provided me with enough entertainment so that it wasn't a struggle to get through, which his saying something considering my general opinion of the genre.

That's a wrap. 37 down, 68 to go.

Coming Soon: Ikiru (1952):

Another film about a sad old man, this one in Japan. We'll see if this poor old bugger makes out better than Umberto D.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.