The Stunt Man (1980)

The following is a review I had to write for my Writing Film Reviews class. It was one of a major writing assignments. The review is about a 1980's film that many have not heard of called The Stuntman. Our teacher chose the film because it was a movie that movie studios did not want to release. The film was saved by film critics and got distribution. Unfortunately, I do not know very many people who have seen this film so I don't know how good a saving the critics did. Either way the film recently came out on Blu Ray if you interested in seeing it.

The Stunt Man (1980)

Richard Rush's The Stunt Man (1980) is a film that cannot be categorized. The film uses a variety of elements from different genres to tell the story. From the action during the stunt man filming scenes to the drama revolving around the relationship between the two main characters: a film director, Eli Cross (Peter O`Toole) and Cameron, a.k.a Lucky Bert (Steve Railsback), the reluctant stunt man of the title. The Stunt Man does not settle into one grove. It integrates  instead different types of genre, themes, and action into the story. It creates layers which the viewer must sift through in order to get to the heart of the story. I can see how the film attempts this, but it falls flat. I find Rush's story telling has hardly any depth. Throughout the film Rush is guiding the audience to the films core message but once we arrive at this message it is laid out in such a way that it becomes an after thought of the film.

The Stunt Man is about named Cameron who falls upon a film shoot while is running from the cops. The director of the film shoot, Eli, convinces Cameron to hide from the police on his set by posing as the stunt man whom Cameron had accidentally caused the death of earlier. Cameron is then transformed into double for the main actor and is given the new name of Lucky Bert. After some training Cameron, a.k.a Bert, goes into filming the stunt scenes for Eli’s film. Amongst all this he begins an affair with Nina and he also begins to suspect fowl play on set by Eli. Nina and Cameron plan to runaway before the shooting of the last scene in which he believes Eli wants to stage his death in order to achieve a realistic performance.

You can see the lack of substance in some of the performances. Steve Railsback's (Cameron) performance seems forced and strained. He is supposed to be a cocky yet troubled young man but Railsback’s acting becomes over dramatic in his attempt and at times hardly believable. The love affair that occurs between Cameron and Nina Franklin (Barbra Hershey) is also predictable. There is no chemistry between them and so it is hard to understand why they are in love. Barbra Hershey is suppose to play a screen siren who is not only beautiful but mature in both her personality and acting ability. In her first encounter with Cameron she exclaims to him “I am the movies” after he mentions that their encounter is just like something out of the movies. After watching her performance as Nina this statement falls by the wayside because any maturity or confidence this character is suppose to have is replaced with a character who is flighty and at times more naive than Cameron. She plays Nina more like a hippie type character who can do nothing more than smile and who believes she has all the answers but really has no clue.



The only convincing performance is that of Peter O`Toole. His character, Eli Cross, exercises a godlike control over the entire production. His power is most obvious in the scenes where he is seated in the crane hovering over the set. Eli is the one who holds the strings and Cameron becomes increasingly aware of this as the film goes on. Eli cannot finish his film without a stunt man and Cameron is in need of sanctuary. Eli continues manipulating Cameron by withholding information about the scenes Cameron has to do. This causes Cameron to become more and more paranoid believing that Eli is trying to kill him for the sake of getting the best possible takes. Eli does this because he needs Cameron on his set. Cameron reminds Eli of the person he is making his film about. He uses Cameron for inspiration and manipulates him to get the reactions that he wants.

At the end of the day it is all about Eli’s film  and the message he is trying to get across: an anti-war statement. Eli is a director who has something to say but seems to have a hard time pinpointing just how to say it. It is through his interactions with Cameron that this dilema becomes clear to him. In a dinner scene near the beginning of the film, Cameron discusses making his film relevant with his writer Sam (Allen Garfield). Eli confesses that ''War isn't the disease... It’s only one of the symptoms." But Eli needs to determine what the disease is in order to make the film relevant. Through his interactions (and the way he manipulates Cameron) Eli is able to pinpoint that the disease is in fact a social one - and it stems from the paranoia in all of us.

At its heart, The Stunt Man is a story of the making of a film. I thought the film was successful in how it handles the theme of a film about the making of the film. The irony and self reflectivity of this concept is not lost on the viewer. We are constantly being reminded of the production. We are also directed to the idea that since this is a film about the making of a film almost everything is fabricated and manipulated for the film shoot. I particularly liked how Rush uses circus type music to compare the film production to the concept of putting on a show. At the end of the film the entire film crew enters on to the shooting location of the final scene like a circus rolling into town. On lookers observe them go by as they point and smile, one of them even mentions that they look like a circus.



There is a song at the beginning of the film in which there is a line  ''Nothing is quite as it seems.'' Nothing is as it seems. The boundaries between reality and fiction are constantly blurred in this film. Rush does a fine job of continually throwing the rug from under the viewer. We are introduced to Nina as an old women but in fact she is a young and vivacious woman who put on special effects makeup to fool the crew. Even some of the characters have difficulty in sorting out what is real and what isn’t. Cameron is often scared for his life while shooting his scenes but he is oblivious to the fact that precautions have been set up to keep him out of harm’s way. It is this constant haze that feeds the paranoia which is at the heart of this film.



The Stunt Man was for the most part entertaining but whatever relevance it was seeking became lost in its meagre attempts to make it meaningful. In Rush’s documentary, The Sinister Saga of Making “The Stunt Man” (2000), he claims that the film has a subversive message because it deals with the subject of war (in this case Vietnam), the effects of war, and the paranoia in all of us. That is all very nice and all but I had hard time finding the connections between these ideas. Cameron is suppose the physical embodiment of films ideals and message. He represents a Vietnam vet who’s experience in the war and modern day America have shaped him into a hard character who is suspicious of those around him but his time in Vietnam seems to be in afterthought in Cameron’s character. It seems to be more of means of playing up the cocky hard exterior he claims to have. Eli mentions, not as a fact but as an assumption, that Cameron fought in Vietnam for two years and he killed many people. Cameron exclaims “...Hey I didn’t kill that many people...”. Cameron is the key to the Rush’s and intern Eli’s message but Railsback’s performance lent nothing to the hard and troubled man Cameron was suppose to be. I could not believe Cameron to be that man and therefore I was not convinced of what the film was trying to say about the modern man.



Ironically, The Stunt Man is a film that was saved from being lost forever by Rush's efforts to have the film made and seen by not only the public, but by critics who could make or break it. The picture was released even though the powers that be wanted it to disappear. Among all this, I think the film fails to bring the audience something memorable.Its aim was to make something that was both entertaining and meaningful but it failed to do both.  The Stunt Man’s lack of solid acting, its overall surface message, and lack of clean visual storytelling left me unsatisfied.

The Process...

So I have been trying to get around to watching Do The Right Thing (1989) and then writing my review on the film but I have been super busy.  My focus this past two weeks has been cleaning my house because the mess had gotten out of control and writing my major assignment for my Writing Film Reviews course. We watched The Stunt Man (1980) in class and then we were to write a first draft of our review on the film. With merely the concepts we had discussed in class, such as visual storytelling and analyzing acting, I sat in front of my computer and waited for inspiration to hit.

The first draft was due at the beginning of the week and with the procrastinator that I am I left it to Tuesday night. I procrastinated because I disliked the movie and I wasn't sure how I was going to express this  on a paper knowing my teacher really likes the film. How do I, the Amateur Spectator, explain to my teacher that I hate this movie.

I had some ideas on the film and different ways in which I could approach but I just had no idea where to start. As it turns out I was lacking a focus. This I learned in class yesterday. Our teacher went through a sort of guide of what a good film review should be. It was a means of giving us some sort of map we could approach our second draft with. I needed this because my review as it stands now is two pages of I don't what. Somewhere in there lies the skeleton of my review.

Now I wait for my teacher to email me back his responses and points about my first draft. I await with baited breath or I may just be holding my breath because I am too scared to find out what he thinks of my first draft. I think it's crap. I know it is just a first draft but it has style or flow,  just thoughts about a film that I think I was suppose to like but didn't.

So what I am trying to say to you is that I have put off writing my Do The Right Thing Review because I have to finish this one review for class. I have seen Do The Right Thing before but it was a very long time ago so I need to watch it again to refresh my memory. As it turns out I will have another review to write for class on Meek's Cutoff (2010). I have a trip coming up so I am not sure which review I will do first. Obviously, the one for class will have to take precedent over the other but I will get to it in the next few weeks. I will post more about how my class reviews are going and if I can bare it I will even post them here. For now I think I am going sit down and watch something I don't have to think about.

INNI (2011)

Last week I got the pleasure of going to a screening of  Vincent Morriset's film INNI (2011). A film about the Icelandic band Sigur Ros. It is mostly a concert film than a documentary as you don't get to know the band  but you get to know their music through their performance. Most of the film was shot over two days during a  concert that took place at the Alexander Place on November 20-21, 2008.

We are hardly see the concert audience in the film except through projections on the concert stage. The film provides an intimate seat by which to take in both the music and stunning visuals. The viewer is positioned right on stage with the band and given a chance to see the action from every possible angle on the stage.

Archival footage is  interspersed in between musical performances giving the viewer a break from the sensory overload that each performance is.We don't get to know much through this archival footage about the band except for the origins of the bands name. This inter-cutting of archival footage also gives the viewer a visual sense of the evolution of the band over the years since their inception over a decade ago. We see image of them playing in a very small stage in what looks to be a very small bar. We then see them in almost costume like dress on stage performing for thousands of people. I don't think that the point of this film is to get a behind the scenes look at the band, Dean DeBlois' documentary Heima (2007) provides us with that. In INNI we get to know Sigur Ros'music through this live performance. To hear them live is to know Sigur Ros. It is about the art itself in its purist form, the live concert.

The concert was originally filmed in HD. It was then transfered to 16mm and then projected and re-filmed, sometimes through glass and other found objects. Because of this distortion the concert footage seems as if it was shot in the past.  This distorting effect along with  extreme close ups of the band at odd angles and of their instruments as they perform gives the film an impressionistic look and feel.Their music has an inherent outer worldly quality to it and these effects add to this haunting mood.

Visually and musically INNI is a treat for the senses. You sit there and indulge in the sights, sounds, and haunting voice frontman Jonsi Birgisson. I distinctly recall getting goose bumps at different moments in the film. It is an all encompassing experience to watch this film. You actually feel you are at the concert and after the film was over I  really couldn't wait for them to come to Toronto.

If  you are not a fan of the band I am not sure you would enjoy this film. This film is really meant for the viewer to experience as much as to sit and watch it. But if you love a good concert, music, or a more expressionistic form of filming you will get a lot out of this film.

As far as I know INNI will only be playing TIFF Bell Lightbox for a limited run at the end of this month. Check it out if you get a chance. I don't think there will be another chance to see it on a big screen and this movie needs to be seen on the big screen.

Blade Runner (1982)

After watching Blade Runner for the first time (Yes, it took me a very long time to actually watch the film) it became apparent to me where this film gleaned some of its ideas and the influence this film has had on science fiction/ fantasy films that followed it. I am sure I am not the only one to say that Frtiz Lang's Metropolis must have been the first contributing factor to the style and subject matter Ridley Scott took on in Blade Runner.The most apparent concepts that connect these two films are the overal visuals of both films and their vision of city of the future. The futuristic city of both Soctt and Lang are distinct in their landscapes, geography, and social structure.These two films sought to envision a future where technology was the basis by which society functioned. Technology was the culture and the cities would crumble without it.


Although the studio cut of Blade Runner was not a box office hit when it was released in 1982, it's reputation has grown since, especially since the director's cut was released (Blade Runner). Blade Runner became a cult classic. "The film may have survived long enough to benefit from a renewed taste for darker, more violent sci-fi. It's appeal has less to do with a fascination for outer space (which does not feature beyond reference in a few lines of dialogue) than with a vision of earth and humankind in the near future'' (Roberts and Wallis Pg 157-8). Partly for this reason, it became known as one of the best si-fi films of all time. It has influenced many si-fi films that followed it. Some of these films delt with the subject of the andoriod and some sought to further explore other ideas that Blade Runner brought forth regarding the futuristic city. I would like to explore the latter here.


The futuristic city of Blade Runner is very different from what we know a city to be in our modern time. It is a  crumbeling dystopia. We see this concept early on in motion picture history in Fritz Langs's Metropolis (1927). In Metropolis society is divided into two classes: "one of planners and management, who live high up in luxurious skyscrapers and one of workers, who live and toil underground" (Metropolis). In Blade Runner we see a city in which different things seem to be happening on different levels. While the film Metropolis mainly deals with social classes and the plight of the worker, Blade Runner, although not enterily about the division of class, does touch upon this concept. The big corporate headquarters, for example the Tyrell Corrporation, are situated in large skyscrapers high up closest to the clouds while down at ground level there is garbage everywhere and buildings are deteriorating (i.e. J.F. Sebastions apartment).

Metropolis (1927) city view

Blade Runner (1982) city view.

I find it so interesting that even though these films were made in different times their ideas about the futuristic city and society are almost identical. Ridley Scott's construction and ideas of what life in the city of the future would be like are extremely similar to Lang's.Lang's film set the bar for science fiction films at such an early era of the moving picture it is hard to miss the influence it has had on films like Blade Runner.


In both films we are presented with a dystopian like society in which the classes have reached far extemes and  society has neglegted its enviornment in pursits of technology and material things. In Blade Runner we are shown a Los Angeles in 2019, in which, technolgy has progressed but civilization seems to have decayed. "There are no brightly lit scenes in the film, suggesting a world choked with an atmosphere of dark smog and that has to conserve power everywhere owing to the density if the population and it's high consumption" ( Roberts and Wallis 158). The city is dirty, cramped , dark, poluted, and congested. Along side this, consumption seems to increase while all other things get much worse. Real, organic like humans, and animals things are hard to find as they are becoming extinct. It's it difficult to distinguish between humans and andrioids. The snake in the market seems so real it is hard to believe it's a machine.

If one looks at the times in which these two films were made we can glean a bit about why these films portrayed such a bleak future. Firstly, Metropolis was made and releasesd while Germany was still recovering from WWI and its aftermath. The country was stepping into a time of change and a shift in politcal power. (Metropolis)  Secondly, one must take into account the artist movement and genre in which this film is categorized. Although the film was released at the end of the German Expressionist movement, Metropolis is still considered to be a German Expressionist film. The main reason for the appearance of German Expressionism in film was that German filmmakers needed to find a way to compete with the lush films of Hollywood at the time. They sought out to create their own style in which a deeper meaning is conveyed in a film through  symbolism and mise-en sense, focusing on the darker aspects of the human experience (Bordwell and Thompson 408).  The political climent at the time and the style in which this film was made play a big part on the look, feel, and  ideas presented in the film. .Life was not easy as German society found itself with an undeiced future. We can see this uneasiness in the film; the powers that be lived in luxery, without regard or concern for the workers who keep them in that life style. The working class is disposable and their futures are dark and uncertain. Lang was portraying what seemed to be for them the inevitable future.

Blade Runner, was made during a time when the world was under constant threat of nuclear war. The second half of the the Cold War loomed over everyone as a constant reminder that nothing was certain (Blade Runner). Technology was advancing and along with it better weapons that would one day mean the end of it all. Scott captures this doom and gloom feel of the time in the film through the dark setting and isolation of the characters like Rick Deckard (Harriosn Ford) and J.F. Sebastian (William Sanderson). They are both solitary characters that live seperated from society.  Deckard lives alone in a dark apartment and Sebastian lives among the robotic toys he has created. The film reflects  the climent at a time in which those in power were wealthy, secure, and had the world at their finger tips while the rest of society lived in fear.

There are many stylistic elements that are common in most science fiction films, like Metropolis and Blade Runner and the many films influenced by them. Films like Steven Speilburg's Minority Report and Lou Besson's  The 5th Element came directly to mind when I was watching Blade Runner for the first time. Unlike Blade Runner, both films did resonably well at the box office, but also unlike Blade Runner they are not necessarily cult classics. Both films do bare resemblance to Blade Runner in terms of the the construction of the futuristic city and the technologies of the future.


In Minority Report we are shown Washington D.C. in the year 2054. For the most part Washington looks like any other contemporary city we know and live in today. There are regular houses, on regular streets, in regular neighbourhoods. People shop in malls like we do now. This city, unlike the city depicted in Blade Runner, seems to operate on a single plane. By the looks of the city in Minority Report society is not crumbeling nor are they low on resources. If anything, it looks like the future Washington D.C. is striving. If one takes a closer look though there are some indications of decay. For example, the scene in which Cheif John Anderton (Tom Cruise) goes out for a run while looking to buy the psychoative drug he is addicted to is dark, dank, and inhabited by drug dealers. Speilberg shows us a socitey where not everything is what it seems. Throughout the film we are lead to believe that city is in a certain state of utopia due to the invention of the PreCrime program. As it turns out the city is not so safe and free of crime. Anderton's superior Lamar Burgess (Max von Sydow) is the head of the program. PreCrime is a program  used by a specialized police department to apprehend criminal base on the premonitions provided by three psychics called "precogs". They arrest "criminals" for crimes they have yet to commit. It the means by which Burgess brings about peace and harmony to a city but because of his thirst for power he makes it into something whose mere inception leads to murder and deception thus rendering it a failure.


In Minority Report  we see a city, much like in Blade Runner, where advertisment and consumerisum play a major part in the citizens every day lives. We see advertisments on every availble public space. In Minority Report the advertisements on these public spaces change to directly appeal to the person or people who happen to be walking past them. No wall is untouched. In Blade Runner we see entire office buildings being used as giant billboards that even those in an aircraft would be able to see. Obviously, this is a strategic placement because in this future city there exists flying cars.


In The Fifth Element we see a future city that is more vibrant and full of colour then most futuristic cities but we also see a city that is riddled with garbage (the airport), cramped (Korban Dallas' apartment), and consisting of many levels. Like in Blade Runner, the city portrayed in Then Fifth Element exists on a vertical plane. It consists of many levels.This is seen in the scene where Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) meets Korban Dallas for the first time (Bruce Willis) when she jumps off a ledge and falls through the roof of Korban's taxi cab. We are given a glimes downwards onto a city that  falls several feet down to the bottom.In the background we see people going about their daily business at various levels of the city.  There is no clear indication as to where the ground level of the city actually is.It appears almost as if there is no ground.


Tiered cities, flying cars, space crafts, futuristic highways, digital advertisements are all predominant in the landscape seen within  Blade Runner and subsequently other films like Minority Report and The Fifth Element. Such ideas were taken and perfected upon from Lang's ideas  of the city scape in Metropolis.. This influences on other sci-fi films can not be ignored. The futuristic city as it has been embedded into our collective conciseness through the si-fi films mentioned here and many more like them ( I could make a very long list here) all come back to Blade Runner. It was this film that cemented this idea of what cities would be  like and how they would function in the future to an entire generation. It was only after re-watching Metropolis that I see where such notions came from.

    "Blade Runner's great strength is in a way its valedictory vision of the future pervades every image and scene, but without resorting to heavy explanitory dialogue. The richness of the designs and art director depicting a decadent society showing a clearly flatering modernism are arguably more importnat in their dramatic weight than the core thriller plot, when tied to the film's existential interest in life, humanity, and reality." (Pg 158 Key Film Texts) 

To me the richness of Blade Runner does not lie in its plot but in its exploration, even if in a fantastical way for what is science fiction if not fantastical, of what the future city would look and feel like. It takes certain issues that are prevalent in our society and fictionalizes the future out come of these concerns by showing what our city, society, and even planet would be like if these things were still issues. The the notions of the enviornement and the dangers of technological advancement are examples of this. In the film there seems to be very little sun and there is no greenery to be seen. This is something our society is currently trying to avoid. He also explores the notion of the dark side of technological advancement by imagining what it would give us in the future. For one thing it could give us androids who look act, and inhabit our cities like we do. He dreams of a world in which the robots we have created become so intelligent and indistinguishable from adult humans that society fears them.

Blade Runner may have been influence by Metropolis but Blade Runner took the notion of the futuristic city further and made it more tangible. I think the reason why Blade Runner is considered by many to be the best science fiction film ever made is because it dared to be something more than just be a si-fi film. It was a si-fi film with a thiller plot in a film noir type setting. The film made you look past the surface of things and made you look deeper into the what the story was telling you. It allowed the viewer to see it from their own perspective. Nothing was given to you, the inherent plot invites you to interpret for yourself what is going on and what the conclusion of the film really is thus giving you a si-fi film that is both entertaining and intellectual. It was the si-fi film that would define and influnce all other films like it that followed. It is like in music where if certain bands like The Beatles or Joy Division never existed then we would not have the music we have today. This may be a bold statment to finish on but I am going to do it anyway, if Metropolis was never made then we would not have Blade Runner. Consequently if Ridley Soctt had not made Blade Runner we would not have films like Dark City, The Matrix, The Fifth Element, Minority Report, Gattica etc. This list could go on and on.

Works Cited

''Blade Runner.''  Wikipedia. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc... 01 July 2011

 .

Bordwell, David and Kristan Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction 6th Edition.  New York: McGrall Hill, 2001.

"Metropolis." Wikipedia. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc... 01 July 2011

 .

Roberts, Graham and Heather Wallis. Key Film Texts. London: Arnold , 2002.
*********************************************************************************
Next film, #96, is Do The Right Thing (1989). I promise I won't take as long to write this review as it took me to write the Blade Runner review.

Black Swan 2010

I'm suppose to finish my Blade Runner write up, and I will, but after seeing Black Swan I had to write this first.

Black Swan takes us into the world of ballet and prima ballerinas. It is a psychological thriller that delves into the hallucinations and life of a neuritic perfectionists dancer named Nina (Natalie Portman). She is a dancer for the New York City ballet company with aspirations of being the main soloist of the company. The ballet director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) reluctantly gives Nina the part of the Swan Queen in his production of Swan Lake in which the same dancer must play both the white and black swan. I say he gives her the part reluctantly because he knows that her innocence and naivete maker her a perfect fit for the the white swan but not the black swan and he mentions this almost every time they are in a scene together.

Nina's goal in life is to be perfect. Her perfectionism keeps her from letting go and giving into the passion of her art. This is the one thing that stands between her and performing the black swan. It is in her nature to have her technique right and choreography down. The role of the black swan requires her to feel the music and let go of inhibitions. Something that Lily (Mila Kunis), a newcomer to the company, has no problem doing. Lily is the opposite of Nina in every possible way. Darren Aronofsky brings out these differences through the characters manners of speech and even the way they dress. Nina usually wears clothes that are pink, white, and light grey while Lily wears black and darker greys. Lily wears makeup while Nina sports a natural look.  These physical differences are the first indication to the audience that these two characters opposites will play a major role to the story and how Nina perceives her world. In Nina's mind Lily is after her role as the Swan Queen. Nina sees  Lily as a darker mirror image of herself. In her mind she knows she has to either become like Lily or Lily will be the Swan Queen.

This brings me to the whole psychotic aspect of Nina's character. In this film we slowly get pulled in to Nina's hallucinations and delusions. At the beginning it is easy to differentiate reality and what a hallucination Nina's head. This very thin line gets more and more blurry as the film progresses until the audience is unable to tell w if what they are seeing is reality or all in Nina's mind It is done so well that by then end you have to really think about what you just saw.You are forced to break down every scene in your mind to take apart reality from psychotic delusions. Even then after talking to some people about the film there is no real consensus of what was real and what wasn't. The ending thus becomes open to interpretation. I don't like to spoil things here for people who haven't seen it but the main question that people leave with at the end of the film is how much of the outcome was a psychotic episode? Did she actually finally reach that so elusive perfection? We know that she performed to perfection but was the ending just dramatized in her head to feed into the idea that once perfection is reached there is no need to continue?

Natalie Portman come out of her own shell as an actress at the same time as we see Nina transforming before our eyes in the film. She managed to play the fragile character so well that she constantly looked like if you even brushed  by her she would break into a million pieces. Natalie took on a character that she had never tackled before, which is always risky, and managed to become that character. It was a risk and it worked. So far she has already won the Golden Globe. Is the Oscar next? This critic thinks so.

Black Swan  brought the audience behind the curtain of an art form most people know nothing about. A world were beauty and perfection is the ultimate goal and achieving it would land you all the praise, applause and admiration you could ever hope for. The grace and elegance of a dancer comes at a great price to their health, life, and sometimes even sanity. I personally love ballet. It is so beautiful how much emotion can come through from just dance. I admire the hard work and dedication that goes into becoming a good dancer and the outcome of all that hard work. This film shows an extreme of all that must go into being a good dancer and that striving for ultimate perfection can be a destructive thing. The film displayed the beauty and ugliness of this world through impeccable acting and great use of the camera to display the inner chaos that was happening inside Nina's mind. This is a must see movie for all who love, appreciate, and create art of any form and medium.

Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

Let me just start this by saying I wasn't at all excited to see this movie. Even before I put Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) into my DVD player I had a few preconceived notions of what this movie was going to be. I would have to say I was 90% correct on those notions, 90% being that it was a hooky musical that was so patriotic that I couldn't help rolling my eyes. The film really was all stars and strips, and isn't the USA just the very best country in the world. Obnoxiousness at its finest.

That being said, the film did have redeeming factors. I was quite surprised that it wasn't all annoying. It had funny moments in which I found myself give a little chuckle. Also, I have to say James Cagney's performance was pretty outstanding considering the roles people were use to seeing him in. He was best remembered for playing "tough guys" like Tom Powers in The Public Enemy (1931). Cagney started off in vaudeville as a "hoofer" and comedian until he received his first major acting roll in 1925.1 (Wiki) He was a dancer at heart and rarely had the chance to show off his talent. Cagney seemed at home in this role. He was also a perfect fit to play George M. Cohan in his physic and natural talent. Cagney did not intend to mimic Cohan but imitated him in his mannerisms and dance style on stage and acted more in his own style throughout the rest of the film.2 He combined playing a well known figure in American culture and himself in a single roll while still managing to maintain a coherent character. It really is no wonder he won the Academy award that year, his only Academy award at that.

The film success is not only in part to Cagney's talent and performance but also in part to the time in American history in which the film was released. The film began production merely a few days after Pearl Harbour. After the events of Pearl Harbour the cast and crew of the film agreed to set out and make an uplifting and patriotic film.3 The film aimed to capture this mood at a time when the country needed it the most. After realizing this, all the flag waving and I love America in the film seemed less annoying and obnoxious.

What consistently bothered me about the film was that it recounts the life and times of this huge American cultural figure but besides the fact that he made some good anthem like songs and was a hit on Broadway nothing else happens. According to the film, George M. Cohan had a pretty good life. Nothing really bad ever happens to him in the film. The worst thing that happens is that he isn't able to sell his plays when he first arrives to New York, but even that is resolved rather pleasantly. His father dies near the end of the film but that is pretty much as bad as it got.

I know Cohan was a big figure but his life doesn't make much for a movie, at least the way it was portrayed in the film. It would have been better if it was a musical on Broadway. I guess if this film was never made then James Cagney would never have played the roll that won him his only Oscar, but that is besides the point. Where are the struggles, the pain, the means by which the viewer can sympathize with this character/cultural figure? You won't find it because it is not there. Apparently Cohan lived a peachy life and was so talented he barely had to work for it. I mean a good old fashion montage would have worked better to show how hard it was for him to sell his work. The scene where he is in a talent office singing with his lady friend trying to sell his work is pretty tame. I just got no feeling that George M. Cohan had a terribly difficult life and that an interesting story does not make.

I understand why this movie is on the AFI list even if I do have problems with it. It was about a man who meant a lot to the American public. George M. Cohan lifted the spirits of a nation with his music. He was a man who loved his country and it showed in everything he did. It was the film that gave Cagney a chance to shine and audience got to see him in a different light. Yankee Doodle Dandy helped bring together a nation when it was at its lowest and its future was hazy. It's mark on American film can not be ignored, I can see that now, but it is hard to fully appreciate if you are not an American and that is fine by me.

References

1. Yankee Doodle Dandy at the Wikipedia
2&3. Let Freedom Sing: The Story of Yankee Doodle Dandy. Dir. John Rust. Kurtti Pellerin,  2003.

********************************************************************************
I know I am behind on my reviews but it has been so crazy. I am so happy to finally finish entry number 3. I can now move forward with film to no. 97 on the AFI list Blade Runner (1982).

I am really excited about this one because I own this movie but I have never seen it. That's weird right? No, it is just quintessential me.


 

Toy Story (1995)

For some reason I thought Toy Story was made in 2000, it was actually made in 1995. To me that kind of computer animation was not possible in the mid 90's. I associate that kind of technology to the millennium. No matter what year it was made it was still the first of it's kind. Toy Story was the first computer animated feature film made.1 It was the film that started it all. Like Snow White (1937) before it, Toy Story completely changed the medium of animated films. No one had every seen anything like it before.

Toy Story also changed the idea of what the animated film was. It took animation to another level in terms of the story. Toy Story was not a musical like all the other Disney films before it. The story did not stop in order for the characters to sing a song, rather the music worked to express the emotion of the scenes and characters.2

Toy Story was also the first contemporary film in the sense that it was not a fairytale and the characters were adult. They had adult personalities and had an intelligence that adults could relate to. Being Andy's toys was like a job to them. They had staff meetings and seminars to protect themselves from injuries at work  and to help them better do their jobs (i.e. ''Tuesday nights plastic corrosion awareness meeting''). They were a team who's one job was to take care of Andy and make him happy.

It was an adult movie as much as it was a kids movie. The adults related to the characters and their adult personalities while the children were entertained by the toys and by their adventure in the adult world. The adults were also brought back to the time when they were children and could remember how they themselves played with their toys. Remember the Mr. Mike and the Mr. Spell toys in the film? I had those toys. Children and adults could all relate to the premise of the story. I know I am not the only person who thought their toys would come to life when I wasn't there.

I have seen Toy Story often enough that I know a lot of the dialogue before it even happens in the film. Even though I have seen it so many times I am never bored and I am always amazed by it. I am amazed by how the story is never overshadowed by the technology.3 Pixar really aimed do something different. The characters are likable, funny, and complicated. The characters were defined by their rolls as Andy's toys, by the world they lived in, and even the materials they were made by.4 Mr. Potato head, for example, was grumpy because his parts are constantly following off and is often left to be played with Andy's baby sister who would bang and drool on him.

Even though Pixar was under the supervision of the big Disney and at that time it was such a small company they managed to make the movie that they wanted to make and have been doing so ever since. It is no surprise to me that Pixar keeps pumping out hit after hit almost every year. This because Pixar has never wanted to compromise story over the technology. Since the release of Toy Story Pixar has managed to prefect and build upon what they created with their first feature film. It has done such a great job that it has created an entire new sub-genre in animated films and has inspired competing production companies to make computer animated films to much success. With the coming of the 3D computer animated film there is not telling what Pixar and even the genre itself is capable of.

References

1-4. Toy Story (10th Anniversary Edition)-(Making Toy Story). [DVD]. Walt Disney Home Entertainment. 

 Toy Story. Dir. John Lasseter. Pixar Animated Studios, 2000.




***************
Next up we have Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)