2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Preamble

A huge gap since my last post - I've simply been very busy - swanning off to South Africa and so on. Still, back to it. I'm watching this out of order because it happened to be the next one I got from LoveFilm.

What I already knew

Quite a lot really. I've seen the film a couple of times, and read the book (and the sequels) quite a few more times than that. So I really know the story quite well, and while there are some differences between the book and the film, these are really quite minor. So there were no real surprises for me here, but I tried to watch it with fresh eyes.

Review

This film starts quite slowly, and in fact moves quite slowly all the way through. What really stands out is that there is no dialogue for almost the fist 30 minutes of the film. The initial sequence covers a group of apes in pre-history, and and their interaction with a strange monolith that appears one day.

The apes are less realistic than I remember, but possibly quite good for the time the film was made. I think the film suffers in comparison to the book in this sequence, as it's not exactly clear what is happening There are a couple of jarring moments when there seem to be very hard cuts with sudden changes in noise or music, but generally it's not badly done. What was quite disappointing for me was the transition to the second section of the film, which is held up as quite an iconic piece of film-making. The concept is very striking - a spinning bone transitioning to a spaceship - but the execution is actually pretty amateurish to my eye, the bone spins in two different directions, and the cut is to a static spaceship. I'm just not sure why it is so highly praised. Still.

The second section of the film is really the exposition for the third sequence, and follows Dr Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester) as he travels to the moon to report on the progress of an investigation into another monolith that has appeared on the moon. The physical presentation of space travel looks a bit dated now, but visually it is very stylish and consistent, and there is some nice use of music - I particularly liked the use of dance music to cover the spaceship docking. Then, in really the only surprise for me, Leonard Rossiter appears - I had completely forgotten that he was in it. Floyd goes to the moon, there are some dodgy attempts at low-gravity effects, and some quite jarring exposition explaining what happened 'at the beginning' to Floyd (which I'm sure he would have known anyway). Then the monolith is visited, and we transition to the third section.

This section follows Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) as they go about life on a spaceship travelling to Jupiter, controlled by the on-board computer - HAL9000. HAL is really the central character of this part of the film, and was given a great presence, even though he is simply a block panel with a red light, and a disembodied voice (which is very well delivered). The depiction of space travel in this section is much better, in my opinion, to the previous section, although there are a couple of sequences which look a bit off. The plot really comes alive when things go wrong, Frank is killed and Dave is forced to de-activate HAL. This is all done with very little dialogue. Frank dies in silence, and HAL fades out singing 'Daisy, daisy...' which is another iconic scene. It's a very atmospheric section of the film, and does begin to show why the film is highly regarded.

Then, frankly, it all goes nuts and Dave spends what feels like ages going through some weird 60s acid trip journey with lots of flashing lights and general oddness, until he ends up in a room where he lives, ages, and dies all in one long very cleverly blended sequence, only to be confronted with the monolith again, and becomes a 'Star Child'

This is where I have the advantage, having read the books, I understand a fair bit of what is going on here, but I can imagine for people who have only seen the film, this whole sequence must be pretty confusing.

Overall, I enjoyed this, although perhaps not as much as I expected. It certainly caught my attention, and created a space of its own, a mood and an atmosphere, and when the end credits came on, it was a little jerk back to reality as I had almost forgotten I was watching a film - which is probably a sign of a good movie I guess. Kubrick presents the story beautifully, and does so without it being obvious what he is doing. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it as much without the knowledge form the books, but that's probably my fault. It's a great presentation, I'm just not sure that the plot is made clear. But then maybe that's the idea - Kubrick was never one to do things normally :)

Rating: rent it (then buy it if you like it)

Mrs Worm's opinion

She didn't watch it

Useful links

IMDB | Roger Ebert | MRQE

...Read more

Les Vancances de Monsieur Hulot (Mr Hulot's Holiday) (1953)

Preamble

A bit of a light break here. Although A Hard Day's Night is a light, comedic film; Mr Hulot is a very light pice of frippery.

What I already knew

I have heard of this film here and there for quite a long time. I can't remember where I first heard of it, but it has always been referred to in very complimentary terms. In my mind, Jacques Tati was always some kind of genius of silent comedy - although I have never seen one of his films until now.

Review

This film is really very simple to summarise. Mr Hulot (played by Jacques Tati) goes to the seaside on holiday - and gets into various comedic situations. It really is that simple. There is no plot as such.

I'm not quite sure why, but I had always imagined that Jacques Tati would be distinguished gentlemen in his fifties or sixties. I was utterly wrong - he is quite a simple-looking chap in his thirties. His performance, however, is very mature. He develops a character very quickly, and there are some lovely touches in the physical comedy.

On the other hand, there are some very clunky and forced moments - such as the tennis scene - which really spoil the flow of the film. I'm not even sure that I really saw anything that stands out in a cinematic sense, and I'm not sure that I was meant to. This is a simple film that carries you along without demanding anything of the viewer.

Overall, I came away from this film slightly confused about what it was trying to say. Not very much it would appear. It was enjoyable, but it felt like nothing really happened. Apart from a couple of moments, there are no really memorable scenes, and because of the lack of dialogue there aren't any sparkling lines to resonate in your mind.

Rating: Rent it

Mrs Worm's Opinion

She didn't watch it.

...Read more

Ikiru (1952)

Preamble

I watched this slightly out of order becuase my first copy was a bit dodgy.

What I already knew

Absolutely nothing. I hasn't even heard of this film until I saw it on the list - although I had heard of the director - Akira Kurosawa, if for no other reason than he is mentioned in a Barenaked Ladies song. I had also heard of the lead actor - Takashi Shimura, although I'm not really sure where from.

Review

First of all, in case you hadn't realised, this is a Japanese film and I was therefore watching it with subtitles. This necessarily takes away some of the impact of the film, because not only do you not pick up on many of the nuances in a language that you don't understand, but you are concentrating on two different things at the same time, the words and the pictures. This is one of the reason that I find foreign films to be intimidating.

The other reason is that there are often cultural differences that you simply don't understand or even notice if you are not familiar with the culture. I am certain that there are aspects of Ikiru that went completely over my head because I know little of Japanese culture, which is entirely to my detriment.

I don't want to make these reviews simply a plot summary as that's the whole point of watching the film really :) But in brief, a bureaucrat called Watanabe has worked for 30 years in the same department, but has become something of an automaton. He finds out that he has stomach cancer, which causes him to re-evaluate his life. The drudgery of his life is emphasied by the dour and opressing style of the film, at least in the early stages, which almost seems to bear down on Watanabe as he goes about his days.

In general, the visual of this film is simple, but there are some stunning moments - at the construction site, at the sunset, and on the swings in the park. The fact that there are so few perhaps makes them stand out more. In fact, visually this film felt a lot older than it was. I don't know if that was deliberate or if the technology in Japan was slightly lacking at the time. But when you compare the look of this film to Casablanca (made 10 years earlier) it seems like it should be the other way round.

The wild night out with the writer has some lovely moments in it, even then simple act of buying a new hat seems to change him significantly. The second adventure(s) with the girl from his office are perhaps less stirring; not helped by the enthusiasm, energy and childishness of the girl, although that is perhaps the point - to make a contrast and to rejuvenate him. Indeed, he says as much on their last night out, that he wants to live one day like she does. This scene is really the breakthrough, and it's simple but stirring, with Watanabe rushing out to the strains of 'Happy Birthday' from a party across the landing, the song almost seeming to be sung at him, announcing his new-found joy in life. Indeed the music is echoed through the next scene in his office.

The final section is both a retrospective of Watanabe's final project and the real message of the film. It takes place at his funeral. The message (as I understand it) is both simple and complex. In fact, different characters take different things away at the conclusion, and the same is probably true of the audience. As a civil servant, I can apprectiate many of the straightforward messages about government and bureaucracy, but I can also appreciate the human messages, none more so than the fact that we can all make a difference - something I feel very deeply myself.

There is much to admire in this film. Although I found the dialogue (or lack of it) frustrating at times, I think this helped to show Watanabe's struggle with himself - he couldn't articulate his feelings because he didn't truly understand them.

Would I watch it again? I'm not really sure. I think I would, if only to try and concentrate more on the action on screen that the words - and in places the other way round, but I'm not sure it would bear regular repeat viewings. Overall, it was less disconnected from mainstream cinema than I thought it would be, and while it is long (over 2 hours) and has a slow middle section, it is well worth the effort.

Rating: Rent it

Mrs Worm's opinion

She didn't watch it.

Useful links

IMDB | Roger Ebert | MRQE

...Read more

Vertigo (1958)

Preamble

I am watching this out of order becuase something went screwy with my copy of Ikiru, but I thought I better use the time. Be warned, in what follows there are likely to be SPOILERS - so if you haven't yet seen the film, you might not want to read the review.

What I Already Knew

It's a Hitchcock film, and has someting to do with a bloke who suffers from vertigo - that's pretty much it. A lot of people rave about it, but I have managed to avoid picking up any of the detail somehow.

Review

In what appears to be an emerging theme, something stood out from the credits. This was the fact that Mrs Worm shouted out 'Barbara Bel Geddes!' from the background - who it turns out played Miss Ellie in Dallas - you live and learn.

I have to say that the opening to this film left me cold. The credits struck me as a cut-price James Bond sequence, and the initial chase across the rooftop scene, seemed staged. Of course it was staged - it's a film - but it shoudn't feel like it.

James Stewart then starts working his magic, and he does a very good job. He is affable, funny, caustic where required, and likeable. He appears to live in a brown suit and hat - but you can't really hold that against him. As the film progresses, Stewart's character of Scottie becomes increasingly obsessive and wild-eyed - but I'm not sure that it really comes across in Stewart's portrayal, execpt in brief flashes.

Far more convincing characterisation comes from Kim Novak as Madeleine, who is stark and astere, but beguiling and vulnerable when the plot moves along. I didn't warm to her at first, but in the latter stages of the film, when she had more to do, I could see the strength of her performance.

Unfortunately, a good performance from Novak is not enough to carry what follows, which is - frankly - a pretty plodding development of a plot. There are too many questions to answer, and too many moments that stand out for me. There is a naivity in some of the plot development that I find hard to square with a 'great' film. I don't want to get into the business of listing faults - but I noted at least half a dozen. As I have stated before, I'm not a massive film buff, so if things stand out to me, they are generally pretty blatent. In fact, for a long time, the only dramatic and suspenseful part of the film is the music, which is beautifully arranged, but seems somewhat at odds with what is actually happening on screen. What is happening looks stunning, with some great sets and scenes, let down by dodgy rear-projection car scences, but that was pretty much state of the art at the time, so I'll live with it.

The real failing for me comes when Scottie and Madeleine fall madly in love. For apparently no reason. Even bearing in mind the back story which emerges later, I'm just not convinced. It seems to come out of nowhere, stemming purely from the fact that she is clearly a very attractive woman. Scotty knows that she's married (although it never appears to be mentioned apart from once) and doens't seem concerned about the underlying reasons for her 'problem' so much as giving her a good snog every now and then. It really stood out as a jarring development for me.

As with Casablanca, a 'supporting' role stands out, and I think I should note a solid performance by the aforementioned Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge. Although she's done up to look like a slightly more glamorous version of Velma from Scooby Doo, she creates as much as a character as she can with what screen time she has, and I'm not sure why Scottie isn't content with Midge?

In the latter part of the film, of course, everything changes and you realise what happened. It's a good plot twist - though hardly original. From this moment, the film actually comes alive. The characters start to develop and interact. Stewart plays Scottie well - he may be haunted, damaged and slightly creepy, but at least he's well portrayed, and Novak comes into her own - playing both sides of a trapped but infatuated woman with real skill.

The payoff is a bleak and nervy ending - quite a change for standard Hollywood fodder, but by reputation I think it is what you would expect from Hitchcock. It's not entirely convincing, but it works well in comparison with the rest of the film.

In summary, I felt like I got a 90-minute episode of Columbo, followed by 30 minutes of good film-making. Is this a 'great' film? I can't see it myself. Oh I'm sure lots of people will claim I just don't 'get it', and I can see a lot of the value in the underlying themes of obsession and control, but it didn't grab me until the last 30 minutes, which is a bit long to wait. Sorry.

Rating : Rent it

Mrs Worm's Opinion

"I'm going to bed"(and she did...)

Useful links

IMDB | Roger Ebert | MRQE

...Read more