Casino (1995) Review

A frame from the film.

Just as The Irishman feels like it’s related to Goodfellas, the same can be said for Casino. The theme of crime drawing out the worst of violent and selfish hotheads (who tend to be played by Joe Pesci) is prevalent to the point that with The Irishman and to a greater extent Casino, they work less on their own. The 1995 outfit contains similarities in the performances of Robert De Niro and especially Pesci. While both still turn in solid portrayals, especially with De Niro as Sam “Ace” Rothstein, they are clearly aping off of the good graces of what’s come before. The beginning of the movie is like a trailer, with excessive narration and attention-grabbing imagery from De Niro and Pesci as Nicky Santoro. They vaguely discuss having done a rise and fall that we’re about to see, without a sense of reflection or personality that might come from a real person. Their lines and characterless deliveries feel like impersonal documentary narration due to the extreme excess of spectacle and establishing dialogue, with the cast a step away from saying “This is just Goodfellas with some twists, so we hope you remember that movie.” The dialogue is all style, and lots of it, and no real substance. The opening moment of Sam seemingly being blown up is also comical and spoils part of the movie. Throughout the film, the score is edited chaotically, with snippets of songs coming and going, reflecting the worst of this movie’s impulses to be a rearranged version of what’s come before.

After this introduction, De Niro dramatically improves, producing an effortless likability, probably from how in control he is and how layered Sam is. It becomes clear he’s trying to make himself look as good as possible, so it’s so fascinating seeing how he copes with certain issues. When he does something like yell in public, you get the sense that he is trying to exert the power he’s been given and maintain social good graces. His foil comes with Sharon Stone as Ginger McKenna. She is introduced at surface depth, just having the core qualities of her character type. She is pretty, she likes money, and she is dishonest. Martin Scorsese has had a way with weak female characters and Ginger is often used as window dressing. This is subverted when the second half of the movie focuses on her and allows Sharon Stone to turn in an emotional and open performance of a woman losing her mind. The rawness of her mirrors the gruesomeness of Nicky, both are mean in their own way. One of the most interesting parts of this story is seeing how her behavior changes Sam, with there being great contrast on how he is with people like Don Ward or even his friend Nicky and Ginger. This second half corrects some of these aforementioned wrongs with the Ginger character, but this leads to the greater issue of how disparate the film can be, with certain plot points unresolved.

Pesci is extremely entertaining, as is typical for him, but he doesn’t draw interesting developments from Sam or the main plots in the way he has in past works. As such, he plays more as comic relief here. His various conflicts with Sam don’t have much of a climax. Something happens that may lead you to think something big will happen between them at the end, though there isn’t really. There is an arguable example of “something big”, but it doesn’t tackle the nuance of their relationship. Another backhanded compliment about the film is that from around the thirty minute to ninety minute mark, it has a very good story about the issues in Sam’s business life, then most of the rest of the film is about his personal life with Ginger. Both main plots are intriguing and complimentary, with there obviously being parallels between the two, but the issues of the first half fizzle out with little to tie them off. Ginger is then the focus. More resolution to the beginning segment and a more complex introduction to Ginger would help a lot. Another way to help them is to have both going on simultaneously. This movie is based on a true story, so maybe it wasn’t true to life that these were happening at the same time, but it’s hard to believe there was no overlap and the film takes so many creative liberties that all of the film character names are fake.

SPOILERS

While De Niro does bring a lot to the role, the script somewhat lets the character down by glossing over much of the complexity of the real life person Sam is based on. This is typified by the feud between Sam and Ginger seeming mostly caused by Ginger, though what seems to actually be true is that Sam’s basis was much more of a problem than is portrayed. While the other mentioned films do the same thing of a lighter treatment of the lead, they trade that in for the ending of The Irishman and what that says about the character and Goodfellas essentially sucking us down into the mind of Henry Hill and sitting next to him as he tries to get out of his erratic state. Sam has an almost limitless amount of power due to his wealth. The one way he doesn’t have power is that he can’t make Ginger either love him or behave as he wants. His confrontation of this problem is minimal. We’re simply told he doesn’t want her to go instead of really feeling how he does without her. We don’t even see him particularly vulnerable. He’s often very confident and has a strong backbone. When Ginger is caught saying she wants to have Sam killed, nothing changes. Sam doesn’t even seem afraid for his life. That scene may as well not be there, though in the moment we get some really quality acting from the rage of the two.

Especially considering that Sam never took back control of the money that he let Ginger have the key to until well after things spoiled for them suggests that in the eyes of Sam, Ginger’s behavior is not as extreme or inexcusable as it would seem to the audience. As is, he just comes off as stupid for not seeing the writing on the wall, due to us not seeing much turmoil from him between what she’s doing and his love for her. By contrast, we get a better sense of the love Sam has for his daughter, like when he shows concern unseen before when he finds her tied to the bed. In fact, Nicky and Sam are portrayed as surprisingly good parents. It’s just a shame we don’t see much of this, with Nicky’s son having almost no screen time and us not really seeing Sam care for his daughter until she was kidnapped.

While the power of the film comes from its strong tales, certain themes can still be read. The most evident is how love and criminality both can be dangerous and look absurd from an outside perspective. The characters show what the appeal might be. Logically speaking, Nicky was setting himself up for a whacking due to how volatile he is, wanting to follow his own personal goals even at the cost of others. Yet, to extrapolate this, why would anyone even want to be a gangster or more vaguely a criminal due to the high risk? This is best demonstrated in the end when various mafia bosses lean on the safe side by killing anyone they think might rat on them. Even if you do everything you’re supposed to, you could still be murdered if someone is just trying to be precautious. All of this seems pointless when the mafia bosses are depicted as extremely frail, so why bother getting into this stuff for just a little money? Love is essentially criticized as it initially leads to Sam allowing Ginger far more forgiveness than he should give, and later his love of his daughter leads him to threaten Ginger in public, which could have gotten him in trouble, though it doesn’t. The film also points the finger at Sam for his criminality. He initially wants to keep a low profile, but gets into trouble due to his relatively minor criminal past. His power inflates his ego to the point of him doing absurd things like getting a tv show when everyone wants him to keep quiet.

A lot of these themes should have been emphasized more, as they feel almost incidental. Ginger loving her ex mirrors Sam loving Ginger, but Ginger and her ex’s dynamic is never resolved. If it was, it could make for an interesting comparison or contrast with Sam’s romance. Why Nicky decided to sleep with Ginger could have been established better, like if it was set up that Nicky was the type of person that wanted to do whatever he could to hurt someone he feels hurt by as much as possible. Nicky crying at the sight of his brother being beaten shows a side of him that wasn’t seen before and almost seems here to force something else for the audience to think on or to give him more humanity. He has already been humanized because real people do what he does. The mafia aspect of the movie is relatively minimal, with you having to read in why they do what they do. While that’s okay to a degree, they are simply too off to the side until they suddenly come around at the end. You can imagine Scorsese wanting to fill in the blanks with Goodfellas, which is much more about being a “gangster”.

Due to the disjointed storylines of the film, it would be difficult to tie up the movie in a satisfying way. It doesn’t, with two of the three main characters simply being killed off. Such endings betray their various plots and issues, essentially sweeping them under the rug. Those deaths feel moralistic, as if saying that’s the consequences of their bad actions, which is simply boring. There’s also a severe lack of tension due to the ending being about mostly no name mobsters getting killed, when this movie before barely focused on the mob. The way this plot point provides a climax makes it feel forced in to add some violence and conclude the film. Due to us consistently seeing Sam and his development, his ending works much better, with his failed murder attempt “freeing” him from this stage of his life and encouraging him to go back to essentially what he was doing before, with the message probably being that it’s best to quit something like this while you’re ahead, instead of going down with the ship in the way Nicky does. Nicky is suspected to be the person that tried to kill Sam, but he earlier was opposed to the idea of killing him and the two didn’t seem to have that much bad blood. However, it is believable that Sam would think Nicky would try to kill him and that such a murder would be so despicable that it’s for the best Sam leave this life behind him. It is a shame we don’t see how this apparent betrayal by his friend makes him feel.

Sam’s ending is very understated, with the last shot literally of Sam reflecting, which could be seen as disappointing, but at least leads to contemplation of the character and the story, unlike with something like Nicky’s demise. This ending comes after cinematic shots of casinos being knocked down and replaced, with the intense glamor suggesting this has a sense of glory and power for someone else, with Sam upset he’s not the one with that power. When he says at the end “Why mess up a good thing?” in reference to his current life, he is mourning the loss of the good thing he had and is enjoying the way he currently has respect. The gorgeous shots of the buildings going down is a literal way Sam’s past has gone away.

OVERVIEW

Part of what makes Scorsese’s films so engaging is the deep look inside the heads of their characters and the many aspects of their lives. It all comes across as a very full picture. As such, the “telling and not showing” of the very beginning of this film is rather bizarre and unnecessary, as some of it could simply be shown. One example is when Sam mentions how charming Ginger is, with us not seeing much of her like that. The first thing we see her do is try to steal and then Sam immediately jumps to his infatuation with her. Despite the varying negatives of Casino, the strong and engaging performances and stories makes it a satisfying viewing, though reeks of lost potential if handled a little better. It’s hard to say this picture is a failure, as it has all the qualities of great Scorsese, they’re just a bit muffled.

The Irishman (2019) Review

Robert De Niro as Frank Sheeran

The Irishman is a slow burner. A lot of its runtime is dedicated to long discussions of the business and politics of its characters. While that does make for a rich and layered story, which would be very satisfying to those either interested in gangsters or those that will watch this movie multiple times, a lot of it ultimately is superfluous. The movie gets away with that by having it be an important theme of the story, which does indeed matter throughout. Point is, don’t expect something like Bill Bufalino’s knowledge of the law to still be relevant by the final act. There are many moments that are less about discussing affairs and more about intense character scenes or at least action.

To discuss the elephant in the room, the de-aging technology is not perfect. Especially when protagonist Frank Sheeran, played by Robert De Niro, is at his youngest, the effect is off-putting. Quickly the story gets going and you forget. When the characters eventually age up to middle age, the actors in their late 70s look more convincing. De Niro basically always sounds and behaves like an old man. Regardless, he proves why he’s a master of acting with his performance. Despite often being just off to the side, his realism sells you. His aging and lifestyle slowly making him wary and cautious of his surroundings is so electrifying to watch. The continual usage of De Niro, as opposed to having a younger person play Frank in the beginning, allows us to not feel disconnected and just see this one man in a cold, yet personal way. Maybe one day, possibly after director Martin Scorsese has died, there will be an attempt to improve the special effects and have everyone look more authentically whatever age they’re supposed to be? Less forgivable are when someone is fighting and you can tell the victim is not actually being hit or when Frank fights anyone period. They probably could have worked around it so the man himself does not look so silly pretending to fight like he is young.

The other more notable role is Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa. Pacino manages some laughs with how animated he is, though this is at the cost of having as much depth as De Niro. Still, you can tell his behavior is refined by constantly dealing with people and learning what bothers him. The character is written much better, with him more than most letting power come to his head and often thinking that because he maybe once had control he always will. Joe Pesci as Russell Bufalino by comparison is almost forgettable, though very solid in whatever he needs to give to the story. This story being based on the recollections of the real Frank Sheeran suggests that these are representations of how these people were perceived, not how they really were. That can explain everyone being less developed than Frank. The comedy scenes, which often involve Jimmy, might be a bit much to some, but they fill this same purpose of coming off as memories or in some way foreshadowing something about the characters.

While the narration initially seemed to distract from getting into the story, it does represent the theme of people just becoming distant memories. People can be known more for their deaths or one thing about them, when they really were a far more complicated thing. The visuals that accompany the narration are always attractive, as is the look of the film in general.

SPOILERS

Throughout the narrative, powerful men that often feel unstoppable are killed unceremoniously, very suddenly reduced to nothing, with others moving on around them. It is painful to Jimmy when he dies in a spiritual way by going to prison, with everyone essentially wanting him to quietly go away. Frank may feel more security from the resources he’s gained by shooting people, especially as those around him go to prison or die, but he is aware that essentially something is gunning for him, time. While he has hardened himself to the best of his abilities from confronting what he did, shown in when he lacks remorse for his actions at the end, that sense of it all eventually coming for him persists. When he is tasked with shooting Jimmy, he hesitates initially, as if feeling like this will continue a cycle that will eventually reach him. The camera focuses on Jimmy’s body, representing Frank processing what he’s done.

Characters like Frank’s daughter, Peggy, are horrified by what Frank has done, though due to his line of work he must be cold, though humanity shines through when he tries to justify his behavior by saying it was to keep his family safe. Jimmy’s death also represents how everyone will eventually live on, by being remembered. The long shot of the body shows that Jimmy will become mostly associated with his death beyond anything else. He will also live on in Frank. Frank in turn will live on in the mind of Peggy, who sees him as not even deserving of a conversation. He’s asked at the end to tell his story, as everyone he’s ever had to protect is gone. Frank will continue as a tale. This also serves to make the fact that we’re here watching this movie part of the narrative. Frank does not like these terms of how he will exist after death. Him having his door left open at the end is another way of attempting to “live on”, do what he knows best to try and look out for or escape death, as well as from being cut off from others, thus trying to preserve himself in the minds of as many people as possible. Ironically, he is confined to a wheelchair and needed someone else to leave the door open. His power and story has more or less ended and he hates to know it.

While some have pointed out him killing Jimmy as a crucial mistake in his life, us going all the way to the end of Frank suggests that it doesn’t really matter, as Frank will still be alone. It was stated everyone else died already, so Jimmy probably would have died of natural causes by then if he escaped murder. This also mirrors how old these actors are. They might not have it in them to do this type of movie for much longer, with them eventually being stories as well.

OVERVIEW

The Irishman’s long runtime does benefit the narrative. The murders of the beginning and the youth of Frank eventually become distant memories, representing a major theme of the story. While Frank does keep himself at a bit of a distance from everyone, including the audience, this intense look at his life leaves us feeling the withering and age of both who is depicted and the actors, who are not much younger than the former. Just like with most people, you are mostly cut out from them, but you can still witness their behavior, with us only speculating how they must be feeling. Some of the confessions of the real Frank being disputed only goes to show how people are reduced to others’ ideas over the truth.

Red Dwarf S07E01 Tikka to Ride // Series 7 (1997) Review Part 1

Cat point

Context for those unfamiliar with Red Dwarf (Spoilers for S01E01 of the show)

Dave Lister, played by Craig Charles, is the last man alive. He’s living in the mining ship “Red Dwarf” with a hologram of his dead roommate, Rimmer, played by Chris Barrie; a member of a species of evolved cats, “The Cat”, played by Danny John-Jules; and as of series three, a robot, Kryten, played by Robert Llewellyn. Rimmer died due to a radiation leak that killed everyone on “Red Dwarf”, except for Lister and non-humans.

“Tikka to Ride” was one of my favorite Red Dwarf episodes the first and second time I watched it. The concept is a reason why. The Dwarfers accidentally stopping an assassination, then realizing they shouldn’t have is an excellent idea. It could’ve been a movie. There was an idea for a Star Trek movie that is probably coincidentally strangely similar. Reviewing the episode off the third viewing, it has massive problems. Mainly that the pace is breakneck fast, as if a movie was filmed and then everything had to be cut down for the sake of the runtime. It’s also start-and-stop, as if moments of atmosphere were removed.

There are indeed quite a lot of deleted scenes. It makes you wonder why the last-minute episode “Duct Soup” was made instead of making Tikka a two-parter. It takes until about the halfway mark for the episode to start on what it’s actually about, with the first half being loosely related setup. While this extensive beginning would be more forgivable in a hypothetical movie-version, here it’s too long and results in less of the core idea. The visual aesthetic is more film-like, with big, striking sets and a certain grain to the camera. The music could also about pass as being pulled from an adventure movie. The theatrical film style looks good in its own right, but it doesn’t feel like Red Dwarf.

There are several excessive exposition dumps, they’re especially bad in the earlier scenes as they are more lifeless. It’s like everyone just wants to do them and move on. Kryten even calls one confusing and not entertaining. A scene of the crew walking, as if in a casual conversation, is brimming with exposition. The cast sound unnatural in how they deliver their lines. The recap of the end of series 6 is unnecessary, though maybe that’s better than more dialogue. Also, apparently Lister has footage from it. If it’s supposed to be security cam footage, it’s way too high-quality.

The Cat and Rimmer are so muted. If someone watched this episode without knowing the series, they might wonder why they were here. One straight man would be enough. Them being such straight straight men is out of character, as well. They’re normally brimming with their own quirks. Lister is quite selfish here. He sometimes seems to lean hard into his selfish qualities and sometimes the opposite. He doesn’t act differently than how you would expect him to based on the past. More development of this side of him would be nice, but it’s fine as is. Kryten is the best here by far, having a reason to have a different take on the character. His manic insanity makes for many good scenes. “I’ll have salads.” “Sir, you’re in shock, you don’t know what you’re saying.” is a good exchange he has. The “Texas Book Depository” gag is another funny moment, as is the Cat hearing something and quickly giving a concerned look about it. A little stick propping up the top of Kryten’s head is also surprisingly funny, getting a laugh from the studio audience.

The poor pacing is emphasized by moments like us seeing a conversation near its end, as if its setup was removed. In the last scene, everyone is wearing different clothes and looks disheveled, as if a subplot happened. Some actors, like an FBI agent, have amusingly poor performances. The leads feel a little awkward without a studio audience, but they are passable enough.

SPOILERS

The Cat and Rimmer have to be braindead in order for the story to work. Kryten acting strange and Lister acting like they shouldn’t focus on that and just go along with his and Kryten’s plan should make it apparent that something fishy is going on. Kryten also doesn’t provide any sufficient reason for them to be okay with going into the past, barely a reason at all in fact. Lister pulls Kryten in another room, though obviously still in earshot of the other two, and discusses things he’s done. Why not go to a place further away? There is a good exchange of, “Isn’t that right?” “You bet your ass!”

It’s a little strange that a guilt chip was removed from a duplicate Kryten as opposed to the original. Why not take it from the original? Not that this is any kind of big deal. The episode somewhat improves when the second half starts. The great premise helps do some of the heavy lifting. Moments like Lee Harvey Oswald being unknowingly pulled out the window by the leads is a nice bit of absurdism that demonstrates how great of an idea this is. Imagine a more committed dark comedy with lots of things like comical deaths and time travel madness? We get a little of that, but there could’ve been much more. The episode in some ways feels like a first draft. Lister seems interested in a wire that is tied to Oswald’s leg. He pulls on it and recruits the others to help him. Why would they care so much? They have nothing to gain from this. The FBI showing up and pointing guns at the leads is an example of a very sudden sequence. One even explains for no reason that JFK is alive, but wounded. Why would he explain that? As a benefit, it is funny that once the crew teleport away, they start shooting without thinking.

Kryten scans a newspaper that conveniently has all the info they need. Kryten then screens the footage on his suit. That’s another very “first draft” type of idea. All the knowledge they need just has to be crammed into this sequence. Lister at one point asks “what’s wrong with Kryten” when he’s rude. He should know, he did that to him. The Time Drive is briefly just broken so the episode can last a little longer. Rimmer says Kryten should get some food. It would make more sense for one of the characters that actually needs to eat to say that. An exceptional low point of the episode is when Rimmer condemns Lister for what he’s done. Rimmer is not the type to judge others like that as he is not beyond causing similar destruction. His voice suggests he’s sorrow. It would make more sense if he said it like he was bragging, as if he wanted to one-up Lister on a moral level. Here, he’s acting like a normal person witnessing this situation.

Another highlight is Rimmer smirking when Lister and the Cat discover they were eating a dead person. You can imagine him feeling better about being dead! This also is another example of the different bodies of the crew being used for laughs. That’s a nice way to show how Red Dwarf is distinct from many other franchises. Strangely, JFK monologues about himself in a scene. JFK shooting himself in the past already doesn’t make sense, but it makes less when you consider the beginning of the episode where the crew was killed by their future selves. Them not being able to become their future selves caused them to come back to life. The ending, with everyone beating up Lister, is quite funny. The episode goes on a few minutes longer in the extended cut, and that is preferable to the episode ending here, though it’s not a bad way to close. Especially with Kryten participating in Lister’s beating, probably just for fun, as he wouldn’t have felt annoyed by him like the Cat and Rimmer would be.

OVERVIEW

“Tikka to Ride” is one of the most disappointing episodes of the series, especially because it used to be one I liked so much. The rushed nature, Rimmer and the Cat being brushed aside, and especially the excessive explaining make it a lowlight so far.

Hearts Divided (1936) Review: A Bit Of Film Starring Marion Davies

Recommended track to listen to: Bring It To Jerome by Bo Diddley

My journey through the films of Marion Davies has led me to a strange place. A place of dread and discomfort. A place called the mid 30s. While Not So Dumb manages to be delightful, taking advantage of verbal humor, and some other installments being or seeming fine enough, fans tend to feel Davies went into decline in the 30s. This was exemplified to me by Polly of the Circus. So lifeless and hollow that it felt more like an exercise in tedium than a film, despite only being sixty-nine minutes long. Still, while the silent era of Davies didn’t manage a dud quite that bad, that can’t be representative of a trend? Especially considering that some of the silents are quite bad and some of the sounds pretty good. My confidence was challenged by seeing some moments of Operator 13, which features Marion in blackface and a stereotypical “minstrel show dialect”. Hmm. That one will probably be worse than Polly, but I can at least pretend until seeing it. Next I watched Hearts Divided. It is truly a groundbreaking work that has shifted how I see Marion Davies.

Hearts begins promisingly enough. There’s a little bit of drama between Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon Bonaparte, the latter played by the great Claude Rains. These scenes play a pretty minor role in the film as a whole. Napoleon and especially Thomas Jefferson are minor players. While the film is centralized around Betsy, played by Marion Davies, she first appears at the 11:26 mark. This is representative of the whole movie. Though things are basically about her, Betsy is in a sense off to the side. In fact, the political subplot doesn’t really necessitate that character, despite Davies being top billed. She is not much more than her connection with Jerome Bonaparte, played by Dick Powell. Davies does get top billing and all of her movies are vehicles for her, Powell certainly is the protagonist, though that may not be on purpose.

The central plot is about Jerome’s goals and experiences more so than Betsy’s. Whenever Jerome and Betsy are in conflict, Jerome is portrayed as being in the right. Anyone watching for Marion will be disappointed by her lack of presence, failing to steal scenes from the phoning-it-in Powell. Jerome holds a stiff upper lip and acts as a typical handsome lead. He does a few basic things with the intention of seeming romantic, like singing a pretty song. He never comes close to burrowing in the hearts of the audience, making you at least understand how someone could love him. The most memorable thing he does is kiss Betsy without consent, and that’s for the wrong reason clearly.

One moment of Davies saying the line, “You have no right to talk that way,” is particularly telling. Her performance shows a dead and wooden look on her face and tone in her voice. Her head tilts the way one does when you have no feeling for what you’re doing and are just going through the motions; plus maybe if you’re also a bit sleepy. Marion doesn’t seem like she cares at all. As if she is fulfilling something she’s known and is trying to make it through the day, going through the process. Seeing as this is her third-last film ever, she seemingly ran out of steam soon after Hearts.

A group of three suitors are comic relief, all inept at winning Betsy’s affection. If all of their scenes were removed, the film would be basically the same. This would be excusable if the trio of dunces actually were satisfying, but the humor is generally so alien to be impenetrable; like if you explained comedy and its purpose to a robot and asked it to write jokes. One example is when one runs into a tree and the others joke about how stupid he is. An unintentionally funny moment is when they prance through the woods as silly music plays, showing how out of place they are from the more-serious film.

To be fair, one of them got an honest laugh from me, “Tell me, senator, have you ever seen anyone quite so annoying?” “Yes.” At another point, one made an amusing expression with his interesting face. That face suggests that that actor might’ve been better in a role focused on body language and not talking. Hopefully he had a career in the silent era. These three serve as a brutal reminder that this is the only Davies film I’ve seen (of twelve) where she never tries to be funny. Normally she’ll inject some comedy into her performance, as that’s her strength. That added layer is sorely missed.

Claude Rains does the best job here. He is an effective and caring leader, who has some faults. You can imagine this performance in a more straightforward and easier-to-take-seriously Napoleon film. Rains, given little to do, doesn’t provide a masterful portrayal by any means, but he clearly is trying and knows what he’s doing. He does manage to give a few layers to his character in a scene near the end. Another benefit to the film he provides is the scene of him shirtless. Shame there’s no such equivalent for Davies.

None of the moments have weight, save for that one Rains scene. They hit the beats of storytelling, but there’s no drive or forward momentum, no room to breathe. Nothing where we can dwell in a state of mind or environment, as we have to move on apparently. If someone says something dramatic, that should matter to those hearing it. While they may respond, two seconds later we’ll move past that, with a resolution or everybody ignoring it. If you map out the typical events in a romance movie, that’s basically the number of scenes our lovebirds have, with one-a-scene. Try not to get a headache from the roller coaster of the two being pushed together, then apart, and repeat.

SPOILERS

Jerome and Betsy meet at a horse race. They make a bet where if Betsy loses, she has to go on a walk with him. At a breakneck pace; she’s persuaded, the horses race, she loses, they start walking, and then we cut to after the walk. Any of those moments would be more impactful if more time was spent on them. Jerome makes himself instantly unlikable when he kisses Betsy without consent, then afterwards says, “It’s your own fault for being so adorable.” The film either portrays him as in the right or not doing something a big deal or warranting Betsy to be upset, despite what he did and how he tried to undermine it. He never gets his comeuppance. In fact, he doesn’t really lose in the movie. He’s treated as a charismatic and loveable guy, despite either being bland or stuck in his own ego.

The film and I will tangent to one of the most bizarre and probably the worst scene in the film. When Betsy walks away from Jerome after that kiss, she comes across a little black boy she knows, and they begin talking. After sliding in a little racist joke (“I ain’t so easy to find in the dark.”), Betsy is nice to him and he responds, “Ms. Betsy, I sure glad I belong to you.” Betsy says he only belongs to his “mammy”. He responds, “Please, Ms. Betsy, can I belong to you, too?” “Alright, as long as you’re good.” “Then I always gonna be good.” Betsy returns the boy to his “mammy” as a group of slaves sing and generally seem fine. Hopefully a modern audience would understand just how uncomfortable and racist that sequence is. The nature of a group of white filmmakers filming this scene of a group of black people seeming so grateful and happy to be doing what they’re doing is deeply unsettling and I shutter at anyone who could maintain faith in this movie working out after that. Seeing as the sequence is irrelevant to the plot, to the point of none of the characters other than Betsy appearing in the rest of the film, it seems this was just someone satisfying either their jollies or some Confederate rewriting of history. Thus is a damp reminder to older cinema in general. A black child literally asking to be owned by Marion makes me embarrassed to be a fan of her.

Once Jerome is hired as her French teacher, Betsy is portrayed as silly for seeming so at arms with Jerome, an obvious attempt of her trying to hide her feelings. Despite her falling madly in love with him, the only things he had done was give French lessons, sing, and commit sexual assault. While it’s suggested they had a nice walk together, we never saw it. Next time show the walk and not the assault. Not that that would be enough. The movie is so dedicated to following a basic romance formula it doesn’t remember to give this guy something worth liking. In fact, this story is quite forgetful. When things seem like they won’t work out, Betsy’s mother tells her it’s all for the best for things to end. This scene doesn’t have a payoff. No scene of the mother giving her blessing or showing a response to the two being together at the end. This is a common “beat” in romance films, but the closure was lost in translation. Just like several other scenes, this one should be cut.

The best moment is when Napoleon seemingly gives into what Jerome and Betsy want, letting them marry, but that was part of his plan to manipulate them. It was a clever moment, though harmed by the overly-theatrical dialogue. Still, Claude Rains has such a warm voice that you can imagine him being good at tricking people. Even when looking at the script, it was genuinely a clever way to subvert audience expectations and give a realistic reason for their relationship to end. It would be very funny if that literally was the end, but alas Napoleon is later convinced and Jerome and Betsy reconnect. There’s a cold and quick fade upon their union, ending the film. Scenes like this show the importance of the scene at the end of a lot of Buster Keaton films where we see him and the love interest living happily ever after. That’s a great way to create satisfaction and fulfillment. It feels like a middle finger to just have the movie stop once the plot is resolved. Let’s see them off!

OVERVIEW

Hearts Divided is barely even a film. It doesn’t seem like anyone other than possibly Claude Rains had any affinity for the story or desire to put in effort. The pacing is so jolty that you can’t even really get comfortable with it. The ultimate signifier of how lifeless and unrealistic this love story is, the real Jerome and Betsy Bonaparte married in 1803, only to annul their marriage in 1805. So it seems we could’ve had a sequel in 1938 where Dick and Marion portray a couple ready to end it. Hearts can be only recommended to the very bravest of Marion fans. Marion fans that can stomach skipping any should definitely skip this one, and probably Polly. My hopes aren’t high for Operator. At least Polly and Hearts have nice outfits for Marion to wear. The elaborate outfits are definitely the best part of the films.

Some would feel dissuaded. Polly and Hearts Divided have challenged me on how bad a Marion Davies film and performance can be, and I suspect Operator will be about this bad. Some other 30s Marions seem to be bland, though not offensive or awful to these degrees. However, I know Davies can be a charming and hilarious performer. She’s someone who has the ability to make a girl of the 21st century traverse all the middling commercial films she’s done. Why shall I stop now? Hearts Divided may be a challenge of hubris, but perhaps it’s a challenge worth facing. Facing to know that nobody is perfect. Or maybe I’m just making things up to justify the film? Probably.

Before Stonewall (1984) Review

Recently I discovered an important figure in the LGBT, specifically Lesbian, community, Edythe Eyde. Many who know of her know her as “Lisa Ben”. This is quite possibly my favorite thing ever. Dumb puns are my oxygen. She has been involved in two films, both as someone providing music for them. The first of which is Before Stonewall. Those wanting a lot of Lisa will be disappointed, but those wanting a lot of Lesbians won’t be. This film is a fascinating study of gay people from a time many alive now aren’t familiar with or at least struggle to comprehend.

Various people give their stories of being gay in a world that doesn’t appreciate that. It’s great seeing these people progress and discuss the changing tides. The film’s structure is like many non-documentary films. Here, the underknown group of people scratch at the surface of public knowledge until it breaks. They then start growing their roots, very slowly. However, there’s various points where progress moves forward, then it moves back due to some problem. The lens of people’s stories can get you into the stress and reward of it all from a human perspective. You’re glad when these people are glad. This film is especially moving as these people are real. The film’s approximating how these individuals lived and they covered numerous topics related to that. This is emphasized by scenes of these people having a life or relaxing. These scenes show their humanity.

Several amusing clips of movies and songs were utilized. It was fun trying to spot them. Gay life was portrayed to varying degrees in films like, A Florida Enchantment (1914), Different from the Others (1919), and The Wizard of Oz (1939). One can come to realize that these films are an important avenue in how gay people were represented. Many of these clips played near the beginning of this film and they get the audience to understand and feel the world we’re in. Media is a big reflection of culture. Culture has its ups and downs. Gay people aren’t always portrayed negatively but often they are. These clips show a clash of ideas in how various people perceive Homosexuality. Another interesting portrayal of gay people is when one guy says, “I had a size advantage when I was very young, and the fact that I had an aunt, Kate, and an uncle, Vince, who were both gay.” This line, which is from the beginning of the film, show that gay people will still get in straight relationships due to pressure and will still encourage the younger generation. It also shows that being in a straight relationship doesn’t get rid of one’s Homosexual tendencies.

Everyone is painted in a very human light. There’s many ties to other civil rights movements, mainly black civil rights. This leads to a feeling of community. The end of the film is very uplifting. Several people from the film reunite and catch up. There’s tons of catharsis to seeing them just be able to live a little and not using any methods to hide their sexuality. The film paints a picture between when Homosexuals were being slandered as Communists in the 1940s and the contemporary 1980s. The film ends with lots of optimism for the future. One point of interest is that one woman that is interviewed is filmed in darkness so she couldn’t be seen. This shows that this time isn’t as progressive as one might hope as she doesn’t want to be shown. Another point was when two black women discussed how they feel that they were somewhat marginalized among other Lesbians, as if there’s a racial component. This brings up memories of The Watermelon Woman (1996) which is about black Lesbians and one of the older ones in that film mentions that they only have each other.

There’s several elements of note here. For starters, gay marriage is never brought up. I was expecting someone at the end to say, “We’re so close to equality, but we’re waiting on marriage!” You’d think that’d be on their minds. Perhaps it wasn’t what the filmmakers wanted to focus on. Secondly, Stonewall was barely mentioned, as well as goings on after 1969, when Stonewall happened. Once Stonewall is mentioned briefly, the film is basically over. This does work here, as this is about the story of “the past”. The film leaves on the note that this is the end of this story, but the beginning of the story for younger people.

Thirdly, some have criticized the film for not discussing Transgender people, who were instrumental to Stonewall. While I understand that people might not like the lack of representation, this isn’t a story about Stonewall or the Trans story. While Trans people are an important part of LGBT history, the film is about the perception and mindset of Homosexuals. Anyone in the interview that I could find info on was Homosexual and not Bisexual with the exception of one Heterosexual who did a lot of research into Homosexuality. Point being that any gender non-conforming person was excluded other than Homosexuals. This lack of mention didn’t personally bother as the film so well painted this very particular tale. Lastly, it would’ve been interesting to see a discussion of gay pornography. That’s a very intimate thing that might out someone at the time. Videographic pornography (including Homosexual porn) has been around since give or take the 1920s. By 1984, gay porn was relatively normal, with Lesbian sex often portrayed in porn for straight men, who are the biggest demographic for porn. Someone interviewed for this film might have had an interesting thought on the subject. Did they watch that stuff in their youth? How’d they hide it? This isn’t a slight against this film as it’s simply “Not porn’s story”, but it was something that entered my mind.

OVERVIEW

Before Stonewall effortlessly shows life before “the modern era” of gay rights activism. It’s a humble and human tale of perseverance and what humans can do if they put their minds and hearts to something. The film ends on a very comforting note with a Lisa Ben song which discusses how being gay is a good thing and not something to be ashamed of. It kept me and hopefully many others optimistic about positive changes in the future.

Ed Wood (1994) Review

Some of Ed Wood’s ghouls

I’ve watched Ed Wood multiple times. This being the third. I quite literally proclaimed it the greatest film ever made after the first viewing. As I got older, I appreciated it more, but didn’t think it was as good. I now appreciate and love it more than last time.

Ed Wood is an amazing, beautiful film. The cinematography is so sharp it’s astounding. The black and white film glistens and glows so beautifully. Not only does it look incredible, but it drives you in the film. Our protagonist, Ed Wood, looks at life like it’s the chance to cut a movie. The movies he’s making are in black and white. The B&W also gets one in the dumb horror movie vibe. Even if the story, or writing of this film was bad, which it mostly certainly isn’t, Ed Wood would be well known and well liked for how good it looks. The sharp contrast of lighting and perfectly lit sets are gorgeous.

The film is immediately engrossing. We start the film with Jeffrey Jones as “The Amazing Criswell”, breaking the fourth wall to introduce the tale of Ed Wood. This is one of the few weak performances, but it works as that’s the type of performance you’d get to an introduction to a shlock horror movie. Jones’ performance is much better in the film proper. There is also some infrequent awkward dubbing, presumably as there was something the matter with the performance in the used takes. Basically all of the performances are really great. Even minor actors go above and beyond what’s expected. Favorites are the depressed and contemplative Bunny Breckinridge, played by Bill Murray and the loveable and passive Tor Johnson, played by George “The Animal” Steele. Johnny Depp, who often can annoy and fall into Johnny Depp roles, where he’s playing the same, watered down character in several films, gives a brilliant performance here. The layered performance showcases Ed Wood’s stresses and comforts, what he does and why. One highlight is him at peak discomfort and frustration near the end.

However, the second best performance in this film is comically idiotic and inept when compared to the performance of Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi. Landau has elegance and subtlety and nuance and realism to his role. There’s a lot going on in Bela’s head and you can see that when Landau acts. He often feels both well and poor at the same time. This is demonstrated in his first scene where he gets out of a coffin he’s considering buying. Landau has some funny lines there, a particularly fun one is “This is the most uncomfortable coffin I’ve ever been in!” You can’t help but feel bad for Bela during the film. You want him to be younger and happier and more successful so badly. While an audience might feel for a sympathetically written character with a bad actor, here you feel for Bela and very strongly due to how he’s played.

There’s many funny and witty lines, which don’t detract from the more dramatic story. They work in building the mood and how the characters are. Some favorites are A.) “Sound?!” “We don’t have sound.” B.) “Better than not getting the job?” pause “Yes!” C.) “Well, I was wondering if maybe sometime you’d like to go out and maybe grab some dinner.” “You mean like a date? I thought you were a fag.” “Me?!  No, no, I’m just a transvestite.”

OVERVIEW

Edward D. Wood Jr. is easy to make fun of. His failure to make the high art he wanted can make someone wonder what kind of a person he was. While Ed Wood isn’t always historically accurate, it shows the audience that pretty well. Just like with Bela and all the other filmmakers portrayed in this film, you want them to succeed. You want Ed Wood to succeed as he’s such a visionary and he’s so determined. You want his movies to be masterpieces.

Ed Wood goes through a journey. He learns and changes and develops, leading to a very satisfying and well earned ending. This film has some of the best uses of music scoring an emotional moment. Usually, such moments are better without scores. The music here perfectly emphasizes the struggle and the dynamics and the drama and most importantly, the payoff of Ed’s experiences. It’s difficult to express how hard and how well the ending hits. Johnny and director Tim Burton really tie the film together. It’s doubtful that anyone could’ve given the performance that Johnny Depp did.

The Man Who Never Was (1956) Review

Pretty house

I gained an appetite for an adventure, espionage thriller. This film seemed good enough. Decent reviews, decent plot, contained a favorite actor of mine, William Russell (who unfortunately wasn’t in the opening credits). Why not?

The Man Who Never Was is a very sharp film, though it does not give that impression initially. There’s plenty of scenes of people just talking about the plot. That scene ends, then the next is more of that. It’s honestly kind of incredible how much of that there is, but it’s never boring or fluff, though you’d think it would be. This is a movie filled with high ranking military members, so it makes sense this would occur. They basically leave a spot open for the audience member to dress up in one of those nice suits and discuss along. It’s very approachable.

The plot thickens and intensifies not because of big spectacles, such as a Nazi invasion or big shocking twist. It intensifies as the plot just simply moves forward. “Let’s do “A”.” Okay, done. “Let’s do “B”.” Done. The film entices and intrigues its viewer. The conflicts come very, very naturally from just this type of situation. The kinds of problems you’d expect are shown and handled. Some of these scenes might come off as filler, but they serve to enrich the story and boost the importance of what’s being discussed. They answer questions an audience member might have. There’s a change in the film halfway, which leads to way less talking and more observing. The shift isn’t jarring at all as, of course, it’s just the sensible next step. There’s no reason to talk. There is a scene relatively close to the end that breaks from this. It’s not what you’d think would happen, but it’s dramatic. It works very well as it’s so unexpected that the tide would change at all that it doing so is engrossing.

The main character of the film (for most of it) is Clifton Webb as Lt. Cmdr. Ewen Montagu. His intelligence and way of speaking instantly draw one in the film as he’s so elegant. He’s directing and moving the plan forward the best he can. All the performances are very subtle. You say what you think or what you know, then you move on. There is one exception. There’s a subplot about a young woman named Lucy, played by Gloria Grahame, who is concerned over the safety of her fiancé, who’s in war. She loves him and wants the two to be happy together after the war. She has multiple monologues where she discusses her feelings as dramatic music plays. It’s incredibly corny and she is overacting, but not greatly. The movie wants tears jerked from the audience, but there’s no real reason to. The movie doesn’t need to do that to tell a compelling story. The scenes aren’t great diversions, but they are little annoyances.

There are a few other moments of “movie dialogue” as opposed to more realistic dialogue. “Please be quiet for a moment and let me speak. I got a gut feeling on something!” “No you listen to me!” Neither of these are direct quotes, but it’s the kind of thing you more or less get in tons of movies. It stings the ears as they’re cartoonish and over the top by nature.

SPOILERS

There’s a very large plothole in the film that is very frustrating. Lucy’s fiancé, Joe, played by William Russell, is going off to war. Some time later, she gets contacted about the death of The Man Who Never Was, named William Martin, who isn’t Joe and isn’t even named Joe. The plot is forwarded greatly by a scene where she cries over the death of William. She doesn’t even know who William is. How could she? As he was made up by the British to try to fool the Germans. It was wondered if there was a scene or line I had looked over or if something would be explained later. Perhaps Joe was killed (as backed by the Wikipedia page on the film) and she’s crying about that. Why is she crying about Will then? It was all quite baffling. I am quite curious if Joe is actually dead and if the two get a happy ending.

Before she showed up, we had probably the best scene in the film. A German spy pretending to be a friend of William, played by Stephen Boyd, discusses him with a woman involved with the British military. She knows he’s a spy wondering if this man is real and he knows he can find out from Lucy if William is real. As the tension releases very slightly, Lucy walks in. William Martin starts to feel more real as the film progresses. A backstory is given and it makes it sadder he died, even though he’s not real! The last scene is very touching and poignant on this. Montagu receives a medal and puts it on Martin’s grave, as he was buried by people who thought he was real. Montagu doing this satisfies the audience need to have some relief as there is that attachment to William. His death is accepted.

OVERVIEW

The Man Who Never Was is a very classy and sharply written, directed, edited, and acted film. There’s very suspenseful moments and good drama. It’s a great time for those that appreciate a great and well thought out story. Praise be to director Ronald Neame and writer Nigel Balchin!