For the kid in all of us

During a lot of my reviews I will comment on if I think kids would like a movie or if it is child-appropriate; I feel like I can because, well, honestly, I have been told I can be quite child-like or childish, depending on the day. I have also seen a lot of movies with kids, and I feel like I can point out what might be enjoyable or not, and address concerns parents may have about a movie, not always, but often. I've gotten a little behind on watching new movies, so I thought I would dig into the treasure-trove of what I have already seen and review it from a kids-suitability perspective. I went for some older movies, and granted, for the most part, they are well-known movies, but they might have gotten lost in the mix with the newer movies with bigger special effects. I hope you enjoy them if you have not seen them or seen them in a while.

      Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Best Visual Effects, 1971 It’s probably violating some code of reviewing to review a movie you love so much, but I don’t care. I watched this movie when I was younger and when I get the chance, I watch it again. I think it captures everything that is great about a child’s imagination, the idea of a magical bed. Of course in the movie, the bed really is magical. The movie is set in England during World War II when the children of London were sent to the countryside to protect them from the bombings. Angela Lansbury plays an unwilling woman from the village who is assigned three children; oh, and she’s also studying to be a witch. I think for kids, the movie might start out a little slowly, but it starts to pick up once the magic spells start flying. There are great, fun songs; a soccer game on the island of Naboombu (the name itself will make kids giggle) with zebras and ostriches; magic sequences with suits of armor. The movie is small potatoes compared to the big special effects we’re used to these days, but if you’re looking for a good family movie that won’t bore the adults, I recommend this one.

      Dr. Doolittle, Best Original Song and Best Visual Effects, 1967 This movie is waaayyyy too long for a family/children’s movie. I’ve seen it a couple of times, although not very recently, and that is the first thing I think of when I think of the movie; then I think of the cool effects as Doctor Doolittle (played by Rex Harrison) and his friends (animal and human) go on their adventures. The idea of speaking with animals is interesting and intriguing and the older kids may like the movie, but don’t be disappointed if they get antsy and want to watch something a little more snazzy. Maybe use the fast forward option on the remote.

      
      Mary Poppins, Best Actress, Best Film Editing, Original Music Score, Best Original Song and Best Visual Effects, 1964 I don’t know anyone who hasn’t seen this movie, but I don’t know everyone. Julie Andrews won for Best Actress, I haven’t seen any of the other nominated films, but I’m just going to say the award went to the right actress. This is a fabulous family movie, it has something for everyone (seems to be a theme with me): fun songs, magical places (the chalk art sequence), laughing fits that make you float, and some nice parent-child moments. The cast is great, with big names and familiar faces from other Disney projects: Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, David Tomlinson (also from Bedknobs and Broomsticks), Hermione Baddeley, Glynis Johns, Ed Wynn (if the names don’t ring any bells, you’ll know them when you them). The movie is a little over two hours long, but I don’t recall ever thinking that it was too slow, Mary Poppins as the magical and mysterious nanny, makes her appearance fairly early, and she shows what she is made of right away, laying down her rules. She makes rules fun. Grab some tea, maybe some bubble and squeak, and enjoy the movie (with or without the kids). Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

      
      The Red Balloon, Best Original Screenplay, 1956 There is almost no dialogue in this movie which works because it would have been in French and would have to be dubbed or subtitled, perhaps taking the appeal to children away. There is just a score and maybe street and crowd noises. It’s a whimsical story about a red balloon and the boy he befriends. It does seem that the balloon has a personality, and the boy treats it as if it does. It’s set in Paris and although it is only 35 minutes long, it follows the boy as he goes off to school to the end of the day. As is often the case, the boy’s classmates do not like that he has this balloon and they try to take it. They chase him through the streets trying to take it and pop it. The ending was not one I expected, but I did like it, and I thought the use of colors was a great way to end the movie. It’s probably not in everyone’s taste, but since it’s only 35 minutes, it wouldn't steal your whole day.

You mean there was a book first? Flashback, part 3

I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that the following movies were books first, but I thought it was a different way to collect movies that I have already watched but not reviewed. I have some other ideas for future flashbacks, but I'm still working on those. I pretty much come down on the side that you should read the books and watch the movies (I have actually read all of the books below), it's a win-win.

      The Good Earth, Best Actress, Best Cinematography 1937 I read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck in seventh grade in conjunction with a social studies section on China. It was then I began my fascination with China. I think we saw the movie then too, but I didn’t pay too much attention (shocking in 7th grade, I know), so I wasn’t sure what to think when I watched it again, if I was going to like it or what. It did take a little while to get into the movie, but after the first 45 minutes or so, I was all in, following the lives of Wang Lung and O-Lan (played by Oscar winner Luise Rainer), especially rooting for O-Lan, and being forever grateful I wasn’t a female in China. The story takes place over many years and the family experiences famine, revolution, locusts, and through it O-Lan is the rock of the family. Buck spent many years in China and I think if you are interested in pre-Revolution China, the book and the movie are a good introduction. Be patient with the movie, but I believe you’ll be rewarded in the end.

     Rebecca, Best Picture, Best Cinematography, B&W 1940 I read the book by Daphne du Maurier in eighth grade and I have read it a couple of times since. The book is atmospheric and suspenseful and I think it still holds up today. The movie is just as atmospheric and was directed by the king of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers scared the crap out of me when I saw it for the first time. There is no blood, no dead bodies popping up, little to no profanity, just the memory of Rebecca haunting Manderley and Max De Winter (Laurence Olivier) and his new bride (Joan Fontaine). I think the movie being in black and white just adds to the feeling of dread and mystery, color film would almost make it less eerie. You can watch the movie without reading the book, but I would encourage doing both.

      The Picture of Dorian Gray, Best Cinematography, B&W 1945 I love Oscar Wilde, his plays are full of acerbic, biting wit and social satire with moments that make you laugh out loud, and The Picture of Dorian Gray is not exactly like that. The book was a relatively fast read and I thought very disturbing in parts; in this case I think my imagination was creepier than the film. There is an element of evil that lurks in Dorian Gray who essentially sells his soul to stop aging. I liked the movie, but I think I would recommend the book more, let your imagination do the work.

      Exodus, Best Original Score, 1960 I have read most of Leon Uris’s novels, and many of them have been turned into films. Even when he is focusing on one event, like the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, Uris goes back many years in history, sometimes decades, sometimes a century. I like how he tells a story and creates his characters; I have finished his books and actually believed they were real. That happened to me with Exodus and Ari, Dov and Jordana. The book is so sprawling that it’s impossible to capture all of it in a movie, even when it runs over three hours. The film was directed by Otto Preminger, and has an incredible cast, including Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Sal Mineo and others. It tells the story of the state of Israel from the time of the British Palatinate to statehood, and the desire and need of survivors of the Holocaust to have country of their own. It’s never a black and white issue and it still isn’t. I hate to do this, but I would recommend reading the book (and the others by Uris) and watching the movie. They are both worth it.

     To Kill a Mockingbird, Best Actor, Best Art Direction, B&W, Best Adapted Screenplay, 1962 This is one of my favorite books and movies of all time, reading the book in seventh grade, I wasn’t that much older than Scout and Jem. Harper Lee gives a portrayal of life in the South during the Jim Crow period that shows the innocence of Jem and Scout, but also shows them being tainted by the reality of the racial and economic inequality of the time. They are fortunate that they have Atticus to shield them when possible and to demonstrate that it is possible to do the right thing, even when it can be dangerous and frightening. Woven into this is the story of Boo Radley, which is sad and sweet because he is misunderstood, and yet still has an innate goodness. There is a lot of bias and prejudice in the story, and that’s what Scout experiences, with Tom Robinson and Walter Cunningham. Atticus Finch, in the book and the movie, is an ideal: patient, calm, generous and righteous, and portrayed by Gregory Peck, who won for Best Actor, he sets the standard for movie and real fathers. I read the book first and then saw the movie, and both have their merits. The book leaves more to the reader’s imagination and there are always bits that don’t make it to the screen; the movie gives the characters voices and mannerisms that capture the Southern imprint that is so much a part of the story, including the Ewells and Tom Robinson and Dill, the young friend of Jem and Scout. Harper Lee never wrote another book, so you should read this one and then watch the movie.

Variety is the Spice of Life

My movie selections for this past weekend did not yield the results I expected, which is another indication that I should stop trying to plan anything and just watch the movies. Of course, I do intentionally try to watch different genres and eras so the movies don't overlap too much, otherwise I'm afraid everything will blend together. Well, I had another weekend filled with great variety and diversity, and a couple of surprises. I hope some of these reviews or streams of consciousness prompt you to check out some of these movies, especially some of the ones that may be less familiar to you.
Shine, 1/19/13 Best Actor, 1996Geoffrey Rush won the Best Actor this year, and he did a great job as David Helfgott, an Australian pianist who suffered at the hands of his domineering and controlling father, eventually succumbing to a mental breakdown and being diagnosed as having schizoaffective disorder. I wanted to love this movie and have chills watching it. I had chills because it was -4 outside, but not because of the movie. I don’t know why, it’s a true story (always a plus for me); the actor who played the younger Helfgott (Noah Taylor) was as good as Rush and should have been nominated for an Oscar; Armin Mueller-Stahl, who played the abusive father; and it had great music. So, what’s the problem? I connected much more to the younger Helfgott, but just didn’t connect with the older man. I didn’t like the ending either, although perhaps it seemed like a good place to stop, with the death of Helfgott’s father. His father was his teacher, his tormentor and in many ways, his jailer. He exhibits typical abusive behavior, building David up, then tearing him down, saying he’s not good enough, and even beating him on occasion. David, and his father, are obsessed with Rachmaninoff’s 3rd Concerto, which is known for being a very complex and challenging piece (disclosure: I did not know this, I had to look it up) and after one successful performance in London where he is studying, David collapses and has a nervous breakdown. The story follows him back to Australia as he makes his way in a time where little is really known or understood about mental illness. People try to befriend him, but sometimes his behaviors and quirks are off-putting and push people away. He eventually meets his future wife, Gillian, and begins to revive his music career. Billy Bob Thornton was also nominated this year for his role in Slingblade, and in my opinion, he should have won, or at least I liked that movie a lot more, which had wonderfully rich supporting characters.


7th Heaven, Best Actress, 1927/1928

This is the second movie from this Academy Awards presentation that I have watched (Wings being the first), and while it is also set in Paris during the First World War, it is very different. Janet Gaynor plays Diane and Charles Farrell plays her initially reluctant rescuer, Chico. Gaynor won the Best Actress for this year (she also won it for two other movies because the award was originally awarded for the work of the artist for that year), and I think she was wonderful in the role of Diane. Her character evolves from a meek, frightened girl who is treated as a servant by her drunk sister into a strong, tough and determined young woman who refuses to believe that her husband was killed in the war. Chico starts his life as a sewer worker, but gets a job above-ground as a street sweeper, and in the hierarchy of municipal jobs, it’s a huge step up for him. He is a really optimistic guy, always looking up. He often refers to himself as ‘a very remarkable fellow’, and he is. After Diane’s sister, Nana, beats her in the street, Chico steps in to protect Diane, but attracts attention from the police, telling the police that Diane is his wife and so begins their unconventional relationship. Chico asks Diane to stay at his flat because if the police stop by and find that he doesn’t have a wife, he will be in trouble. So, she stays (Chico gallantly sleeps out on the balcony) and, sprinkle some magical movie fairy dust, and they eventually fall in love, although Chico refuses to actually say those words. Religion is a theme that runs throughout the movie, because Chico says several times that he does not believe in God (I think there is an indication that Chico and his fellow street sweeper are Communists with the Russian Revolution a few years off, if my timetable estimate is correct), but Diane does and her belief seems to carry her through the movie, and to Chico’s heart. I think they have one of the most romantic cinematic relationships. They don’t have time to get married before Chico goes off to war, so they get married in his apartment, exchanging their own vows, and religious medals as tokens of their love. Chico cannot say ‘I love you’, so he makes his own saying ‘Chico.Diane.Heaven’; the two of them repeat this several times before he leaves, but they promise each other that every day at 11:00 am they will say these words. They do this religiously (pun sort of intended) and it is how they ‘know’ the other is alive. I would never have watched this movie if it wasn’t for this task I set for myself, but it falls into the category of ‘happy accident’; I know a lot of people won’t watch it because it’s 85 years old has no spoken dialogue, may seem a little melodramatic, and doesn’t have any great CGI or animatronic special effects, but if you want to see something different, give this a try. After a while you forget that you can’t hear them talk because you get caught up in the story and the characters.

Pan’s Labyrinth, 1/21/13, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup 2006

I really don’t know where to start with this movie, it took me a little while to get sucked in, but by the end of it, I was marking it down as a movie I would watch again (once I get through the next 770+ movies on my list). It’s described as a ‘dark fantasy’, and that is pretty accurate. It was directed by Guillermo del Toro, and after watching this, I would have liked to see his take on The Hobbit, which he was supposed to direct. It is set in 1940s Spain, with the fight between the right-wing Francoists and the left-wing guerrillas as the setting. Ofelia and her pregnant mother go out to the country where her step-father, Vidal, is a captain in the military and in charge of tracking down the guerrillas/Maquis. Right away you just know this is not going to go well, he is one of the meanest, vile characters I’ve seen in a while and there is nothing to like about him. Her mother is very sick from the pregnancy, and Vidal is more concerned about his legacy than his wife. Mercedes is a local from the village who serves as a housekeeper/cook for the captain and grows very fond of Ofelia and her mother. Ofelia loves her books and stories and ‘discovers’ a hidden world ‘guarded’ by a magical faun. The faun believes Ofelia to be the lost princess of the magical kingdom and sets before her three tasks to complete. The relationship between Ofelia and the faun is fraught with complexity, the faun as a loyal subject, but also an instructor, a bully, a disciplinarian, and Ofelia a frightened little girl, with a sense of adventure and eventually, incredible courage. The actress who played Ofelia, Ivana Baquero, was wonderful in such an intense role; Mercedes, Maribel Verdu, was really strong and proved she was not a woman to be messed with, as Vidal found out. I liked that there was very little that was predictable about the story, you really have to hang in there until the end, and even at that point, you still may not be sure what happened. The movie won for Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Makeup and I found it to be one of the most visually interesting movies I have seen in a while. The use of shadows and color is very captivating, kind of what I would expect from the winner of Best Cinematography; it captured the mood and the different environments in which the characters live. The sets of the Otherworld were rich in detail and imagination. For the makeup, they had me at the faun (played by Doug Jones who was also the Silver Surfer) and the creature with eyes in his hands (yes, you read that right), which was very creepy, and also played by Doug Jones. The movie was nominated for three other awards, including Best Foreign Film, but lost out to The Lives of Others, which was a very intense movie based on real events, and perhaps that’s why it won (which isn’t to say it’s a bad thing, it was an excellent movie, just very different from Pan’s Labyrinth). There were certain times in the movie where I thought this would be a great movie for teenagers and a nice introduction to foreign films, since the main character is a young teenager, perhaps even 10 or 11, but then there were some very intense scenes, so I am on the fence about that. I would recommend it for anyone who enjoys the fantasy genre; don’t let the fact that it’s in Spanish turn you off, once you get into the movie, you might not even notice it’s in Spanish.

I want to be alone

Grand Hotel, 1/13/13, Best Picture, 1931/32

Grand Hotel is set entirely in the Grand Hotel in Berlin and follows several of its guests over the period of a few days. Grand Hotel is an ensemble movie with some of the biggest stars of the time (less than 5 years after the first talkie), including Lionel and John Barrymore, Wallace Beery, a very young Joan Crawford and Greta Garbo. It’s like a less complicated and less character-rich Gosford Park or Murder on the Orient Express. Garbo plays a reluctant Russian ballerina who utters the famous line ‘I want to be alone’; it wasn’t at all like I imagined it would sound, it certainly wasn’t at all how all of the imitations of the line go ‘I vant to be alone’. The movie won for Best Picture, and the only competing film with which I am slightly familiar is the boxing movie The Champ, so I don’t know if it was ‘the best’, but it was good, and I think if you are interested in the history of film and the very early years and some of the actors that have been called ‘legends’, you should watch it. I like movies where stories and characters intersect, and there are a couple of unexpected twists at the end. Some of the photography and camera angles were very different and out of the ordinary. I think a little Garbo goes a long way, and perhaps it’s more the character of her very emotional prima ballerina that makes her seem so melodramatic as opposed to her actual acting ability. I barely recognized Joan Crawford, but her character is very sweet, but also strong and independent. One trivia fact for you fans of the Academy Awards, Jean Hersholt, the namesake of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award given out during the Oscars, appears as the Porter in the movie. So, if you like classic movies, movie trivia, and ensemble films, add it to your list; it won’t kill you and you may enjoy it. If you really have no patience for movies that don’t move quickly and there aren’t big action sequences and you’re looking for a life changing movie, you can skip it, and that won’t kill you either.

Just a note: as the Oscars are rapidly approaching, I am trying to see as many of the nominated films as possible so I can be ready once the winners are announced. The hope is not to add too much to my existing list and provide some immediate feedback on the newer films. That’s the hope, but things don’t always work out as we plan (I've learned that much from all the movies I've seen).

Not even Rita Hayworth could make me like this movie

Blood and Sand, 1/12/13, Best Cinematography, 1941

The movie is set in Spain, maybe late 19th century or early 20th century and it centers around bullfighting and the aspirations of Juan Gallardo, played as an adult by Tyrone Power. I couldn’t tell if bullfighting held some symbolic meaning, I honestly didn’t look that hard. The only commentary on bullfighting came from John Carradine’s character, El Nacional (who was more like a Socialist), who made derisive comments about bullfighting and how poor people are taken advantage, and he kept swearing he was going to give it up. Juan Gallardo leaves Seville as a teenager with his friends to head to Madrid. He eventually returns, sort of successfully (Gallardo is illiterate and asks a man on the train to read an article featuring him; the man is too kind and makes up the content of the article; Gallardo later finds out the article disparages him). He comes back to woo his childhood sweetheart (played by Linda Darnell) and build his reputation as a matador. The rest of the movie follows the rise and inevitable fall of Gallardo, who starts to believe his own press and is drawn to the seductive Dona Sol des Muire, played by Rita Hayworth, who is ruthless in her quest for Gallardo. I honestly didn’t care about any of it; it may have had to do with the fact that I don’t understand the cultural importance of bullfighting or the romance, but I didn’t care about Juan Gallardo. I suppose you have to be arrogant to take on a 2000 pound bull with nothing but a cape, but it would have been nice to see a little humility. The movie won for best cinematography for a color film, and it was beautifully shot, but other than that, I didn’t find much to like about it.

Westward Ho and watch out for the buffalo

How the West was Won, 1/6/13, Best Writing, Story and Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Sound, 1963

1963 was quite the year for movies, that’s for sure: Cleopatra, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and Tom Jones, just to name a few of the Oscar winners from that year. And How the West Was Won. Four hours covering the uniquely American idea of Manifest Destiny as the movie follows the Rawlings and Prescott families as they move Westward over about fifty years. It’s not your typical Western; it very nicely incorporates elements of cowboy life, but also the lives of settlers and the impact of the railroad. It’s an all-encompassing story, but it doesn’t wander and I really didn’t even mind the length. It’s broken up into ‘episodes’ with several different directors. The cast is golden, a cornucopia of acting talent, not just from the Western genre, although that is well-represented with Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne (don’t blink, or you’ll miss him), but also the dapper Gregory Peck, George Peppard, and Debbie Reynolds. The movie’s soundtrack was nominated for an Oscar, but it lost out to Tom Jones; I haven’t heard or seen Tom Jones, but if the soundtrack is supposed to capture the essence of the film, the soundtrack for this movie definitely does that; there are some great American songs on it, and by that I mean, perhaps ‘traditional’ or ‘American folk’? Songs many of us heard growing up, or sang in school, but hearing them in the period when they were popular gave them a new context to me. There is so much to like about this movie, and perhaps that’s why I’m so effusive, is because it really surprised me (I find my effusive ratio increases in direct proportion to how much I dread a movie and then really like it). Debbie Reynolds – I have to admit, I thought oh goody, a little song and dance and spunkiness, blech. But that wasn’t the case, she had an attitude, that’s for sure, and was independent-minded, and she did sing and dance, but it would have been a waste not to use that talent. The one scene that seemed really forced and ham-fisted was the scene at the camp as she and the wagon train are moving westward and she starts up this singalong that probably was not necessary, but again, why waste the talent, I suppose. Debbie Reynold’s character, Lilith Prescott, is the only character that is carried out through the whole movie, she ties it all together. George Peppard who comes of age in the Civil War (I didn’t recognize it was him until after the war, though) and becomes one of those idealists who believes that when you give a man your word, white man or Indian, you keep it; he fights to keep his integrity as a soldier as the railroad begins its expansion across the territory of the Native Americans. And the story itself, as it follows the expansion westward, first using the Erie Canal, then wagon trains and finally the railroads, with the different characters, river pirates (featuring Walter Brennan as the gang leader); gamblers; gold miners and railroad barons. I don't know if the whole movie was filmed in South Dakota, but from what I could gather from the credits, quite a bit was filmed there, and since that's so close, that made it fun to watch. The tales of the American West have captivated us since Horace Greeley first said ‘go west, young man’ and the penny novels of the era. If this was a history blog, we would be having a very different conversation, but since this is about the movies, the conversation is this, this movie is an American classic and depicts a great time of American expansion with a great story, some funny bits, and some good action. It’s not too violent or filled with curse words, so I would say this would be a good family movie (you can even break it up by episodes if you like).Westward Ho!!

Great Caesar's Ghost

Cleopatra, 1/5/13, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Visual Effects 1963

There were a few thoughts that stayed with me for this movie:

- Oh my gosh, this is four hours….and it was originally six!

- Elizabeth really isn’t Cleopatra

- and lastly, those tunics are REALLY short

So, with those three themes in my mind, I was still able to enjoy the movie. I mean, who doesn’t like a big, hysterical historical costume piece? It was epic. Cleopatra and the Egyptians still fascinate us all today, with exhibits of King Tut touring the world. The movie opens with Caesar’s victory over Pompeii’s legions and he’s on his way to Egypt to get wheat and corn and meet with Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy. Rex Harrison played Julius Caesar, and at first I didn’t quite buy it, but before it was over, I couldn’t think of anyone else in the role. It’s too bad that he and Richard Burton (Mark Antony) didn’t have more scenes together; two of the best-spoken actors in theater would have been wonderful to hear. The story follows Caesar and his affair with Cleopatra through to Cleopatra’s suicide. It’s an oft-told tale, so I won’t re-hash it. I haven’t mentioned Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra, she plays Cleopatra. It’s not as if she didn’t do an amazing job, she did, I just could not shake the feeling that she was ‘playing’ Cleopatra, not that she ‘was’ Cleopatra. Like the way Al Pacino ‘was’ Jack Kevorkian, or Glenn Close ‘was’ Albert Nobbs. I could not reconcile Elizabeth Taylor in the time of the pharaohs. But she was really good, and played well between Harrison as Caesar, with her love and admiration for the most powerful man in the known world at that time; and then after Caesar is murdered, she begins her affair with Mark Antony (several years later, about two hours in movie time). That relationship is different; Cleopatra is a little stronger, having the memory of the great Caesar close to her heart. Antony struggles with having the memory of his mentor and friend lingering over his love affair. He is drawn to Cleopatra and as Shakespeare and history have shown us, this led to an incredible fall from grace. There are two hours dedicated to this story arc; in some ways, it’s almost a second movie. There is a third storyline, maybe more of a subplot involving Caesar’s nephew, Octavius, played by a blond Roddy McDowell (that was a little disturbing) and the Roman Senate. The film won four awards in the visual categories, and it’s main competition (I think) came from How the West Was Won (I think, because I have the DVD to watch today if I can get it to play), but from just seeing Cleopatra, I’m going to say queens and roman legions trump cowboys and ranchers. It is a hugely visual experience; I would love to see it on the big screen. The costumes for Cleopatra alone should have won a special award just for their bodaciousness; there was one headpiece that looked like it belonged on Phyllis Diller, circa 1969. Maybe that could be a drinking game, take a drink every time Taylor has a new hairstyle or headwear. Now would be the time to mention the tunics worn by almost all of the men…they were short, uncomfortably short, like I kept thinking, one wrong move and I’ll be scarred for life. And I swear they got shorter as the movie went on. Of course, perhaps I am just not the demographic for that kind of thing. The colors of the set and the incredible scope of them was overwhelming; Cleopatra makes an entrance into Rome on this huge stone sphinx pulled by hundreds of men. It makes Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade look like a neighborhood block party. Aside from the incredible story of Cleopatra and her lovers told in the movie, the movie itself was historical in its scope and its cost, and the love affair it started (Burton and Taylor) which makes for interesting viewing. I don’t think there was a movie or documentary made about it, but that might be a good project for someone. Should you see it? Sure. Make it an event, have guests come in costume, serve Egyptian or Middle Eastern food, and lie on pillows.

I'll see your Post-Impressionist and raise you a space alien

I always wind up outsmarting myself, thinking I'll load up on movies for a long weekend and crank through them, and onward and upward we go. Then I remember I need to write about them, something, proof of my quest. I don't like to write while I'm watching another movie, I'm never sure my brain and fingers will keep them straight. Hence, I am almost a week behind in writing and viewing. Ah well, lesson learned (I hope). I only have three movies at home right now, and no plans to stock up in the future. I've been asked a couple times about my methodology; it should be clear by now, there is no method, except what is available from the library and, I suppose, what I think I might be interested in seeing. I do try to avoid watching too many depressing or serious movies in a row, who would want to read about that? Yikes. Also, I try to balance movies I know to be long and what isn't (however, I have learned the hard way, I sometimes need to do my homework better). Overall, I'm pretty happy with the way things have worked out, I haven't had too many movies that I've hated, and some I have been able to recommend with great earnestness, and others that have at least addressed some of my own cultural curiosity, you know, those oblique references from tv or trivia quizzes. If nothing else, I will always have something to talk about. So, below are three movies I watched recently.

Lust for Life 12/30/12, Best Supporting Actor, 1956

Lust for Life stars Kirk Douglas as Vincent Van Gogh and follows his career and life; I thought the physical resemblance was remarkably close to the self-portraits of Van Gogh. Douglas captures the struggles and challenges that Van Gogh had, trying to find his way in the world. He tries ministering to a small coal community in Belgium, but his passion is too much for the parent church, so they remove him. He throws himself into his painting travels to Arles. There are two relationships that feature in Van Gogh’s life (in the film), the one with his brother, Theo, who was an art dealer in Paris and who helped to support Vincent financially and emotionally; and his love-hate relationship with Gauguin, played by Anthony Quinn (who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor), a relationship that spurred him on and inspired him, and yet seemed to frustrate him as well. I don’t know how accurate the portrayal of Gauguin and Van Gogh’s relationship was, but it served the purpose in the movie by showing the stark contrast between Gauguin’s larger-than-life personality, a man who is not afraid to grab life by the neck and moves through it like a bull in a china shop compared to Van Gogh’s seemingly uncertain and emotionally fragile man. The movie is notable for the number of original paintings that it featured, or at least provided the film access to in order to make reasonable copies, in fact, the museums and collectors are acknowledged in the credits. It’s worth watching the movie to see them, as well as to get a glimpse into the Parisian artist scene in the 1880s, with Van Gogh meeting artists like Pissarro, Seurat and others. The movie uses the letters between Theo and Vincent to move the story along (their correspondence and relationship has been the basis for other movies) and Vincent’s letters are read by Theo, which didn't make sense to me, usually the writer of the letters provides the narration. I thought this may have been because the actor playing Theo had a European/British accent and that ‘sounded’ better. The scenery is beautiful and you can ‘see’ Van Gogh’s paintings in the fields and in his living quarters. It’s a good movie, a nice way to be introduced to some really great paintings, and it was nice to see Kirk Douglas not overwhelm his character or setting.

Men in Black 12/31/12, Best Makeup, 1997

There are some movies that are harder to watch than others. This is true, but not for the reasons you might think; I first borrowed the movie from the library and tried in all kinds of ways to watch it, but, it was not meant to be, the disc would not play. Frustration. Curses.  But as fate would have it, I was invited to watch it with friends on New Year’s Eve. Ahhhh. There are movies that are pure indulgence, there is no socially redeeming value, no educational or historical lessons to be learned, just 98 minutes of alien comedy. This was made even better, because I had just watched Tommy Lee Jones being so serious and learned in Lincoln as Thaddeus Stevens. The teaming of Will Smith and Jones works, and Rip Torn as Zed is pretty fun, too. The movie won for Best Makeup, and no offense to the other contenders that year, Mrs. Brown (with the amazing Judi Dench) and Titanic, the makeup was really good, especially what they did to Vincent D’Onofrio. I have now seen MIB and MIB 2, just need to see MIB 3. Maybe in 2014.

 The Right Stuff 1/1/13, Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Original Score and Best Sound, 1983

If you are interested in the history of space flight, this is a must-see movie, follow it up with Apollo 13 and you have quite an afternoon of intergalactic fun. Both movies may seem like an endurance test, and I’m sure there are details from The Right Stuff that I don’t remember, but after watching it, I feel like I went through the space program myself. It’s actually not just about the space program, but of our flight program, with Chuck Yeager breaking the speed of sound and other flight records in history. The movie was over three hours, so I can’t possibly recap everything. It was nominated for several Academy Awards, and won four for the ‘sound’ of the film, which seems odd because I don’t think of this ‘aurally’ but visually. The movie is based off of the book of the same name by Tom Wolfe, and there are claims by some of the astronauts (found in Wikipedia) that the book isn't 100% accurate, and I certainly am no expert, so again, these are my opinions based on the movie. The search for the first participants in the space program, and the tests they had to endure was really interesting. I did find the tandem of Harry Shearer and Jeff Goldblum as the recruiters an odd comical insertion that I didn't quite understand. The bravado of the different candidates could be annoying, but then I was thinking that if I had to fly a fighter jet in combat, or be asked to be one of the first humans to be launched into space, a little swagger is more than necessary. It was sometimes hard to focus on all the different personalities, so it was helpful the script did it for us, focusing on Chuck Yeager, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Gordon Cooper and Gus Grissom. Yeager is excluded from the astronaut tryouts because he wasn't a college graduate, so the movie follows him pushing the limits of aeronautical exploits. The movie also includes a glimpse into the family lives of the astronauts, and how much their families sacrifice for their goals, and how they share in the glory (or not as in the case of Gus and Betty Grissom), and for Annie Glenn, the fear of her stutter and being on national television with Lyndon Johnson (or not, as she decided and John Glenn totally backed her up). There are so many things we take for granted these days, the possibility of commercial space flights, men AND women staying for months at a time in the International Space Station, and the movie takes us back to the beginning; competing with the Soviets for the lead in the space race, the trial and error just to get a rocket to successfully lift off. Aside from the great story, the movie has a fabulous cast including Sam Shepard, Dennis Quaid, Ed Harris and Scott Glenn (and more). It’s a PG film, so aside from the length, I would recommend this for any kids interested in flying and space.