Patton (1970): Shira's Take

I think I should preface this by saying movies like this are so not my thing. I find Patton an entertaining character, which is what kept me awake and sane while watching this movie (other things that contributed to my not-gouging-my-eyeballs-out: Karl Malden's adorableness and Patton's aide Codman's-Paul Stevens's-resemblance to Scott Bakula). Early on, I enjoyed myself by seeing Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in everything from the Nazi headquarters to tanks. This is how I survive while watching long movies about things I'm not interested in.

I guess I'm supposed to talk about George C. Scott's performance and how great it was. It was great. Really. I can see why it's ranked in great performances lists. And I love the anecdote about why he refused to accept his Oscar--the competition between actors being a "meat parade." Interesting dude, playing an interesting dude. But I have little interest in watching an interesting actor play an interesting asshole for three hours, interspersed with battle scenes. Not my thing.

Awesome editing and cool cinematography/art direction bring it up to a 7/10.

Oliver! (1968): Shira's Take

Oliver! True to its punctuation, this is a very big movie--are there any musicals that aren't? But, despite everything, it felt very slow and very long. Each song was about a minute-and-a-half longer that it needed to and had any right to be. And a number of the songs were totally unnecessary and awkward. With the way the movie was going, I kind of expected grumbly Bill Sikes to sing a, "I'm just a misunderstood miscreant..." type song. I definitely drifted in and out of paying attention to lyrics in many of the big numbers, like "Who Will Buy?" and "Consider Yourself." Though I definitely appreciated those songs as introductions to the yuckiness of 19th-century London and the shiny whiteness of the suburb.

All things considered, I did not hate this movie. I did not even dislike it. I appreciated Fagin's blatant Semitic stereotype and Bill Sikes's disturbing sexiness (thanks Oliver Reed for proving yet again that you can be simultaneously a drunken jerk and a beautiful, beautiful man). I liked the costumes, though I felt they were period-inappropriate, as many of the coats were late Victorian or even Edwardian, and Oliver Twist was written in the early-Victorian era. I was a big fan of how incredibly '60s everything was, especially the hair and camera angles/shots. There is one quick-zoom (I'm not sure the technical term), which immediately reminds the viewer that this movie was filmed in the late '60s. The acting was good. I really liked Jack Wild, who played the Artful Dodger. It was probably my favorite supporting role. His awesome bow-tie didn't hurt.

My own little notes...I love that we're watching these movies in order, because I can note that this is the second Best Picture winner (after It Happened One Night) to feature a sleeping-in-a-haystack scene. Fagin's look and attitude reminded me of Jim Carrey's portrayal of Count Olaf (Brett Helquist, illustrator for Lemony Snicket, probably drew inspiration from Dickensian fashion). Everything about this movie was like the poor man's James and the Giant Peach (the Henry Selick movie musical)--poor, pathetic orphan, dirty England, evil adults, and a great supporting cast. Mark Lester, who played Oliver, even had a similarly pathetic voice to the kid who plays James. 7/10

In the Heat of the Night (1967): Shira's Take

While "They call me MISTER Tibbs!" has clearly become the most quoted and memorable line in this movie, I must say that my favorite was when Gillespie (Rod Steiger) said, "I got the motive which is money and the body which is dead." Priceless.

For such a well-acted, well-written, well-shot, well-directed movie, In the Heat of the Night's plot was definitely lacking. I know it's based on a book, so I theoretically have no right to complain about the plot, but to me PLOT MAKES A MOVIE. And this movie's plot felt like a bad episode of Law and Order. The last twenty minutes or so are paced so poorly that I'm not totally sure I even understood them. It didn't help that all the tall, lanky yokel-y guys looked exactly alike, and I mistook part of the story for incest. And did they explain why the bit of fern or whatever the orchids grew in was in the car? You can tell by how inarticulate I am in writing about this movie that I didn't really follow what happened in it. And, I'm sorry, maybe if I had seen this in 1967 I would have liked it, but it can't compare to a later movie (that I had already seen) about heat waves and crazy racism--Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing.

I loved Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger. I've always wondered about the fact that Steiger won an Oscar for this performance and Poitier wasn't even nominated. I think it's fair. Poitier was good, but Steiger was way better. Plus, the idiotic Guess Who's Coming to Dinner came out in '67 as well, and I think the two Poitier performances probably split the votes and he didn't end up nominated. The photography was awesome. 1967 was a year for good cinematography (with Bonnie and Clyde winning the Oscar). In the Heat of the Night wasn't even nominated, but it totally had that hip, funky New Hollywood vibe. 7/10

A Man for All Seasons (1966): Shira's Take

What do I say about a movie like this? I feel like I shouldn't be allowed to watch them, because I'm about 70% incapable of liking them. Slow, consistently paced, grim in plot. Watching Paul Scofield's performance (which, despite what I'm about to say, I thought was really powerful and great) was painful. He has a completely blank affect the WHOLE movie. In these small play-like movies (of course, this one IS a play), it's difficult to notice anything but the plot and characters. The characters and plot were both interesting, but I already knew the bulk of this story.

Maybe I should talk positives. The screenplay was really flawless. I wish I had taken notes, so I could give examples, but it was teeming with subtle moments of great character development and plot progression. The acting was awesome. As I said, I loved/hated Paul Scofield. Other notables included the crazy Robert Shaw as Henry VIII and Leo McKern as the endlessly evil Thomas Cromwell (side note: though I know it's a different Cromwell, I couldn't help getting the Pyrates Royale's version of Young Ned of the Hill in my head any time his name was mentioned). It's just that slow Renaissance-era period films are not usually my thing. 7/10

Tom Jones (1963): Shira's Take

I cannot help but compare this movie to Barry Lyndon, which I watched recently. Clearly, they share a mid-eighteenth-century British countryside setting, but there are far more similarities--no truly likable characters, an interesting plot executed oddly (in Barry Lyndon's case, it was painfully nihilistic; in Tom Jones, it was quirky and silly), and this sort of hapless-man-that-stumbles-into-good-luck-occasionally story. You can tell my disinterest in a movie by how many celebrity resemblances I find. My Tom Jones viewing experience (Eitan can attest to this) was filled to the brim with, "Oh my god! It's Rowan Atkinson!" Or, "Doesn't he look a little bit like Quentin Tarantino?" -- These examples are Hugh Griffith (Squire Western) and Julian Glover (Lt. Northerton), respectively. A side note: Eitan mentioned the striking resemblance of Lt. Northerton to Walter Donovan of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and apparently Julian Glover DID play Donovan. So, at the end of the film, when he said something to Tom (Albert Finney) about how in his next life he should live it better and ended it with a pointed, "Mr. Jones," I think that was what made the casting director of Indiana Jones decide to cast him. He just had to change the mister to doctor, and he had the Jones villain thing down. < / tangent >

I found myself irritated that the leading lady, Sophie (Susannah York) was still interested in Tom after his eight billion love affairs with all the women of England. I found myself irritated that the cast felt they constantly were in a state of elbow-nudge inside-joke with the audience. And for some ridiculous reason, Diane Cilento (Molly Seagrim a.k.a. the worst part about this movie) was nominated for an Oscar for this hideously uninspired performance. In every way that Barry Lyndon is stark and depressing and oh-so-70's, this movie is insipid, comedic, and oh-so-60's. Movies like this just don't win best picture anymore--I would compare this to 2008's highly disappointing Mamma Mia! Entertainment is good, but without substance, it always leaves me flat. There were some great scenes, though. I loved Tom sitting across from Mrs. Waters at the inn dining table as they watch each other eat every food imaginable and somehow find the greasy chicken bits all over their faces sexually appealing. The hunting scene was shot so insanely beautifully, until the unnecessary spur-cutting-horse and run-over-goose bits. The hanging scene at the end included close-ups of faces of onlookers from interesting angles, and it was interesting and haunting. Plus, there was a baby pug, which gives any movie extra points. All in all, it's a 7/10, but that might be because it was less awful than I expected. And remember, dear readers: It's not unusual to be loved by anyone. It's not unusual to have fun with anyone.

From Here to Eternity (1953): Shira's Take

Apparently From Here to Eternity was under two hours long. I could not have told you that, though. It felt very long--not necessarily in a bad way. Elements of the story were incredible (Quitting boxing because you've blinded your best friend? Miscarrying your baby because your husband is too drunk to take you to the hospital? Tragic and beautiful!), and the screenplay was really enjoyable. In general, the movie got sappy really easily, but it was intense and powerful (and painful to watch) a fair amount of the time.

Oahu is beautiful (and I'm sure it was much more beautiful in 1941, when the movie takes place, and even in 1952, when I assume the movie was actually filmed). I don't know why they didn't utilize their picturesque surroundings. For a while, I didn't even believe it was filmed in Hawaii. IMDB.com set me straight on that.

Another problem is that the infamous beach making out scene was very, very short. They made out for like a second while water washed over them, then they made out Clark Gable-style (passionate face-eating), and then they got in a fight. Yawn. A plus, though, was that every major character (except, of course, Ernest Borgnine) was played by someone pretty. Montgomery Clift is total eye-candy. Note to myself: Remember the final line of the movie and how odd it was. "Robert E. Lee Prewitt. Isn't that a silly old name?" 7/10

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952): Shira's Take

About an hour and a half in, I thought, 'Okay, they just need to wrap up the love triangle, leaving Holly (played, annoyingly enough, by Betty Hutton) to fall into the arms of Brad (an especially gritty Charlton Heston), and tell the viewer what the hell happened to make the charming clown Buttons (James Stewart, whose performance was as good as usual, especially considering that he never took off his whiteface) murder his wife.'

Then, Eitan pointed out to me that the movie had over an hour left. Pooh.

The costumes are absolutely beautiful (Edith Head can do no wrong), and the actual circus acts are really fantastic. The plot is not great, but it is definitely good enough to be worth all the amazing visuals. That is, until the cocky Sebastian (Cornel Wilde) falls and disfigures his hand. As if that isn't unpleasant enough, Angel's (Gloria Grahame) rejected lover Klaus (Lyle Bettger) threatens her with an elephant's foot over her head and later attempts train robbery only to crash and derail the train. If they had cut out about an hour of plot, it could have been a pleasant enough movie, but instead it just went on and on...

Now, why did they choose not to tell the viewer why Buttons killed his wife? If you're going to create a far-fetched plot line like a man who murders his wife who he loves, at the very least justify it by giving us some far-fetched motive. Why was Mr. Henderson (Lawrence Tierney) written off at the end as just a silly rival when his attempted train robbery would, even if Klaus had not been involved, still probably have ended in a horrible disaster? I had a lot of problems with plot, but the movie in general was worth watching for its all-around visual beauty, so it gets a 7/10

Gentleman's Agreement (1947): Shira's Take

Disclaimer: I'm sick and very tired, so this is probably all jumbly and nonsensical:

Meh. I'm sure this was much more relevant 60 years ago. But now, though I'm sure anti-Semitism exists in New York in one way or another, New York is SUCH a Jewish city. Everyone loves bagels and speaks Americanized Yiddish, and there are kosher delis on every block in Manhattan. To modernize it, instead of thinking about it in terms of anti-Semitism, I instead thought about it in terms of homophobia (probably inspired by the LOGO Presidential Forum we watched earlier this evening). Homophobia is still very relevant, especially in the way anti-Semitism was portrayed in this movie. The classic Seinfeld bit, "Not that there's anything wrong with that," defines the democratic homophobia of today just as, "Some of my best friends are Jewish," was the democratic anti-Semitism of 1947. These people have no problem with Jews. Beyond that, they have a problem with people who DO have a problem with Jews. It's just, they will never express that. And they will still have completely different expectations of Jews than Christians. Hell, I'm Jewish, and I stereotype Jews just the same. It seems silly to get into my political viewpoints on here, so I won't.

It's interesting how Elia Kazan made this progressive movie with a message about how everyone should be treated equally, but he sold out his friends during the Red Scare. It's also interesting how at one point the concept of homosexuality was danced around (I don't remember exactly what was said, but it was something subtle about how all the good men are either married or don't like women). This is the second Kazan movie I've seen that dances around it, the other being A Streetcar Named Desire, which famously ignored Blanche's husband's homosexuality. On another Kazan-related note, I am seriously looking forward to On the Waterfront, which is totally better than Gentleman's Agreement was.

Anyway, Gregory Peck pwned this movie, which gave it extra points in my book. I liked the character of his son, mainly because he showed the juxtaposition of educated adults (who end up prejudiced) against innocent kids (who have no reason to be prejudiced yet). In short, the movie was boring, but fine. Notes to myself: Nobody should ever start a sentence with the word darling. 7/10 (would have been 6, but I just love Gregory Peck so much)

Going My Way (1944): Shira's Take

I have a feeling Eitan is writing right now about how this movie isn't worthy enough or good enough to win best picture. The way I see it, I'm watching these movies as movies and not as winners. As a movie, Going My Way was pretty good. Bing Crosby (as Father O'Malley) is always charming, and this was no exception. I had some problems with the plot of the movie. Take a gang of teenage boys, for instance, and discover that all they need is direction. So all you have to do is teach them to sing, and of course they'll be your church choir. Except, actually, they'd probably just go off and do drugs and take advantage of girls (and not hijack poultry trucks to steal turkeys). Also, take an 18-year-old girl who has run away from home because her parents just won't let her stay out late with boys. Just find her a nice rich man to be her sugar daddy, right? Except in real life, instead of marrying her, he'd probably be her pimp. Still, I never have any problem with plots revolving around old fuddy duddies meeting progressive charmers and rediscovering themselves. It's a pretty consistently fun idea for a movie.

I thought some of the singing was overkill. Do we have to hear "Going My Way" and "Day After Forever" so many times each? I wouldn't have minded hearing "Swinging on a Star" (aka "The Mule Song") multiple times, having loved it as a child when I knew it as the theme song for the tv show Out of this World. And honestly, Jenny/Genevieve Linden (Rise Stevens) DID have weird rhythm for Carmen. I thought she sang it beautifully, but kind of awkwardly. And she was way too skinny to be an opera singer. Notes to myself: THE PUPPIES IN THE BEGINNING. 7/10

You Can't Take It With You (1938): Shira's Take

This is our second Frank Capra movie (after It Happened One Night), and it just doesn't compare. Don't get me wrong. I love the Capra/Jimmy Stewart team (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It's a Wonderful Life are both amazing). But I just can't care too much about the characters. Firstly, the chemistry between Stewart (Anthony Kirby Jr.) and Jean Arthur (Alice Sycamore) was really sub-par. Aside from an adorable scene in which they are taught how to do the big apple by a bunch of kids and end up running from the cops, Tony and Alice are really a boring couple. Lionel Barrymore as Grandpa really carried the movie (as he did with earlier best picture winner Grand Hotel). I believe also that this story makes for a much better stage play than movie. I think eccentric characters feel less overdone in stage plays.

Despite everything I said above, I clearly still enjoyed the movie. It was VERY Capra; there was a scene in a court room filled with Grandpa's neighborhood friends all sticking up for him that ended in chaos as news reporters flooded in trying to get pictures. Meanwhile, Alice rebuked Tony's family and ran out, and the mass of people somehow cleared enough for her to get through, but not enough for anyone to follow her. You gotta love these charming classics. I also sort of like the message. Clearly, the Sycamore/Vanderhof family is completely insane, but I admire their dismissal of the opinions of others. In general, it could have been better, but it still had most of what I like in a movie. Note to myself: Two words: kitten paperweight. 7/10

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935): Shira's Take

Okay, I feel like a typical stupid American movie viewer when I say this, but it took an hour and a half to get to the effing mutiny. The movie should be called "(Really Hard-to-Watch Flogging Scenes Resulting Eventually in a) Mutiny on the Bounty". Basically, I'm inclined to like movies with people as charming as Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) and as villainous as Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton). The only problem is the part of this movie that showed Bligh for the sadistic creep he was lasted so so long and was truly painful. Now, I know we needed to understand why a good guy like Christian would want to take over the ship, but I think about a half an hour in we understood. I loved Franchot Tone as Roger Byam, the future admiral with conflicting feelings of loyalty to the crown and camaraderie to Christian. I'm really glad I watched this movie, because now I appreciate Frank Lloyd for the visionary director I think he truly was, instead of the oh-so-sad director of Cavalcade (a.k.a. worst movie ever). Basically, I think it was a very good movie, if a little drawn out and depressing. Notes to myself: Clark Gable became a sexy pirate at the end! Ellison (Eddie Quillan) looks just like River Phoenix. Charles Laughton is totally a charicature of himself. Herbert Mundin played a small role in this movie, and I recognized him from Cavalcade. It was very exciting, and I'm sure I will be recognizing more and more actors from previous best picture winners. 7/10