...anew.
Here I am. Films 1-5 on this year's attempt to get through all 100 of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in one calendar year, then write my thoughts about each. I had not watched these films in their entirety before now, which may seem like blasphemy on one of these, but that's the way it is.
I'm not going to talk much now. I've just written a summation of this journey a couple of days ago. Time to get started. Here goes. For real. I'm starting now.
Films 1-5
1. "The Gold Rush" (AFI Rank #58)
I started this quest this time with a film by the man who is, by all rights, arguably the biggest star that film has ever produced. Charlie Chaplin, when given the chance to entertain, never fails to do so. Seriously. I showed my kids "City Lights" last year a couple of times. They LOVE it. Adults LOVE it. And most of what this man did was filmed almost 100 years ago. The YouTube video of the standing ovation he received when he was given an honorary Oscar in 1972 actually cuts short the amount of time that the audience applauded. Multiple internet sources say it was 12 minutes. I find that hard to believe, but...who knows? I don't. Someone does. Another poignant story about Charlie Chaplin comes from none other than Roger Ebert. I'm getting off track. You know who Charlie Chaplin is. If you don't, crawl out from under the rock you appear to have chosen as your home, and get familiar. Now. I've watched a lot of Chaplin shorts in my time, a few of his films, a lot of scenes from "The Gold Rush," but I hadn't watched it in its entirety before now. I'll be showing it to my children soon. Simply put, take the Tramp, put him in Alaska, and give him problems to solve/create. Yet, somehow, that doesn't do the genius on display even the slightest bit of justice. The Tramp is all of us. A dispassionate observer, a man who never speaks, but somehow, always, ALWAYS is in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time.
I don't really know what more to say about "The Gold Rush." It features one of the Tramp's signature bits, the dinner roll dance. It also features more than a few hilarious sight gags. And then it features that which we love about the Tramp, and that which took him beyond simple tool into iconic character. Hope. Love. An ability to adapt.
I chose the picture above, because, well, because it's the right moment to show just what the Tramp is in "The Gold Rush." Outsider. Struck dumb by beauty, wearing a boot crafted from a blanket because...well...because he and his friend ate the real boot. And for that matter, it kind of sums up the Tramp.
He is us. All of us, and Chaplin knew it. What a gift that he left him for us to watch on film. Go watch "The Gold Rush." Go do it soon. This is a beautiful film.
2. "Singin' In The Rain" (AFI Rank #5)
OK. Blasphemy. I'd not watched "Singin' In The Rain" before now. There, I said it. It's the truth, and I'm not particularly ashamed of it. Maybe I should be. I don't know. This is also the first film in the list that I watched with my new viewing partner, Julie. We will probably be watching a bunch of these together, and her comments may be published from time to time. I'm drifting.
I'm not here to give you a synopsis. I'm here to give you an account of my feelings on the film. Here they are. Also, some of these thoughts are conceivably blasphemous.
The story is fantastic, well constructed, and remarkably fresh. Of course, the love story seems a little forced, but this is a musical. Sarah fell for Sky in Havana, these things happen. Anyway...we have this wonderfully filmed story...then we get the Broadway Ballet number. 17 minutes of mostly unnecessary film, that doesn't advance the plot at all, but makes us all feel good about the talent on screen. Oh, and it gives us Cyd Charisse, in what was her breakout role. I guess that makes the 17 minutes worthwhile. The number is quite stunning, truly, it just takes the story on a detour I didn't need. Yes, I realize that it was simply a convention of the time. I've been in "Oklahoma!" in my day. Still, I wish it wasn't there.
If the number "Singin' In The Rain" didn't exist, it's conceivable that "Make 'Em Laugh" would be THE iconic dance number in film history. As it is, relegated to second fiddle in this film, I'd never seen it before. I can assure you I've seen that other number a bunch. Perhaps because I've seen the other so many times, and "Make 'Em Laugh" was new to me, but I found myself much, MUCH more impressed with that number than the title piece. I included the photo above from the film to explain why. In the photo, on the left, you see a guy going for it, consequences be damned. On the right, you see a technician, measuring his distance to the ground, and preparing, in complete control. One looks joyful, the other looks polished. I'll take Donald O'Connor's joyful. Any day. Gene Kelly amazes me. O'Connor thrilled me. Julie and I discussed this afterwards. She contends that she's always viewed O'Connor's dance as equal to Kelly's. I had to remark that...having never seen it...that may work for her. For me, it gets the short shrift to the ignorant public. I was one of those a couple of weeks ago. No more.
Debbie Reynolds was great, but felt under utilized. It was obvious, as a veteran of a stage production of "Born Yesterday," that Jean Hagen was channeling Judy Holliday. Still, a remarkable film. I wasn't so sure it belonged so high on the list when I saw it there. The longer I chew on my viewing of it...the more I'm getting it. Still not sure, but getting there. Definitely belongs on this list, I can say that.
3. "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?" (AFI Rank #67)
This film I consider the beginning of what many consider to be film's best era. At least, in terms of this list. This was the harbinger of what was to come in the late 60's and the 70's. It's the beginning of film really growing up.
OK. More blasphemy. I'd never seen this film in its entirety, either. The reason that it is blasphemy...is because in 2001, I played Nick in the play from which this movie was created. It was a challenging, gut-wrenching experience, one that saw me playing opposite my then girlfriend, eventual wife, eventual ex-wife. True story of the experience. We were sharing a hallway backstage with a group of high school kids performing "42nd Street" in an adjacent, much larger, theatre. It was always funny to me, as the four of us walked down that hallway, beat to shit from the night we'd just given the audience, and here are a bunch of energetic teenagers performing in one of the most innocent of musicals, playing like...well...like schoolkids. It was quite the juxtaposition. And, a metaphor for the play. We were George and Martha, we'd seen it all, had just beaten each other up, and they were the newcomers, Nick and Honey, the ones who hadn't experienced it yet, but who would, if they kept on their path, be us some day. I always get a slight smile when I remember that.
That has nothing to do with the film. The film...the film is brilliant. It's every bit the emotional gut punch that the play is, and surprisingly to this viewer, it works, just WORKS on film. I, for reasons known only to me, still have most of the dialogue memorized, and the film got almost all of it. Amazing.
This, from what I discovered, was Mike Nichols' first film. You can see a meticulous theatre director at work. Whether it's the mail left in the mail box outside the home on a Saturday night, or Martha leaving the turn signal on when she drunkenly drove on to the lawn, the attention to detail is stunning. There is a shot stolen from the film "A Streetcar Named Desire" on the line Edward Albee stole from the play. It's wonderful filmmaking. Shit. Forgot a moment. If you don't know the script, try to watch the scene where George gets the gun and tell me he's not going to blow Elizabeth Taylor's head off. Wonderful tension in that moment.
Another observation. The play gives us intermissions. So did Nichols. Being as familiar as I am with the play, I knew when the intermissions were supposed to happen. I was looking forward to the break. Then I realized it was film, and I wasn't going to get that. Except Nichols used those moments to give us a minute or two with no dialogue, and a complete resetting of the scene. It's also shot monochromatically, at a time when color was the predominant choice. I won't say black and white, because it's awfully gray. It was the absolute right choice.
The acting is tremendous. Elizabeth Taylor looks downright sexy as a slightly paunchy, slightly beat up souse. Richard Burton was only 40, but looks every bit of 50. George Segal didn't make me want to tell him to shut up, which he often does now, and Sandy Dennis was so wonderfully detached, yet entirely in the moment. All four actors were nominated for Oscars, with Dennis and Taylor each winning. The dialogue is repetitive, to be sure, and it's a bitch to perform, but it doesn't feel stilted or forced by any of the actors. It's inspiring. It's depressing. It's...well...it's right.
Watch this film. Please. Appreciate it, because we won't see anything like it...thematically, theatrically, nor acting wise...well...not for a long time.
4. "Bringing Up Baby" (AFI Rank #88)
I can see no reason for this film to be in the top 100, except for the following facts: it stars Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant; and it is directed by Howard Hawks. It also features the first use of the term "gay" to mean homosexual. Beyond that...huh? Elizabeth Taylor, mega movie star, is on the list ONLY for "Who's Afraid...," yet, Kate Hepburn appears on the list time and again, mostly in not very good films. This, however, is the only appearance on the list by Hawks. That must be the reason for its inclusion. It must be.
I tried to watch this with perspective. I did. I tried to think about the era during which it was made. Nope. I don't like it. It manages to make the incredibly suave Cary Grant look foolish trying to play against type.
I'll give the film this. Hepburn is delightfully natural, airy, and decidedly in control of her environment. She is at once sexy as hell, yet decidedly cool. A friend of mine was reminding me of the following Dorothy Parker quote: “Well, let’s go back and see Katharine Hepburn run the gamut of human emotion from A to B.”
Hepburn had far more chops than that. Her performances were nuanced at a time when nuance was new. I did enjoy her in this film.
Beyond that...nothing. It's a screwball comedy that often misses, drags the bits out too far/too long/not long enough/not far enough.
And there's a leopard. Or two.
Watch it because everyone should. I'm glad I have. I'm hoping I get through this list this year so I don't have to again.
5. "Sunrise" (AFI Rank #82)
I screwed up. I put this and "Bringing Up Baby" in my Netflix Queue before I realized I'd be watching them back to back, and that they were from films 81-90. I had already watched the first three films in this post, and I didn't have the chance to go back and fix the order...so I chose to do this. I couldn't make the genres, era and AFI rank line up. I sacrificed, this one time, on going back to back on AFI rank. The rest of the 100 won't do this. They're all lined up. I digress.
Last up for this blog post is the silent film "Sunrise." Subtitled "A Song Of Two Humans," this is a morality tale, featuring characters simply named "The Man," "The Wife," and "The Woman from the City." Made in 1927 by FW Murnau, the German filmmaker responsible for the remarkable film "Nosferatu," "Sunrise" is lauded now as a technological masterpiece.
Keeping that in perspective, it was a very good, if not great, film. The tracking shot was invented for this film. There are lots of trickery with the camera, filmed within the camera, and lots of spectacular sets. The story is familiar. Good, represented by The Man, is tempted by Evil, represented by The Woman from the City. He is asked to get rid of that which is complicating his life, his loyal, if unhappy wife.
Lots of stuff happens. Eventually, things work out the way they should, just as the sun rises. I'm not going to give a rundown. Watch the film. I watched this with perspective. The above shot is beautiful. Shadows, emotion, contrast, everything. This film is a feast for the eyes. The set piece of the fun fair is phenomenal. The traffic jam, the town, everything. It's a gorgeous film.
Then, there is the couple. I have to confess that Janet Gaynor, who plays The Wife, is a dead ringer for a girl I dated in high school, and it was very hard to watch this without seeing her. Ms. Gaynor's performance is at times over the top, at times incredibly subtle. Just what silent film was great at. The Man, played by George O'Brien, is awfully melodramatic at times. But, that's precisely what he is supposed to be in this era of film. The story, a little on the adult side...is a welcome change from our staid image of the era and what is portrayed in film.
I enjoyed this movie. I really did. Watch it, if you get the chance.
All righty! That's FIVE! The next five are films I've seen before, so I look forward to this year's perspective. Thanks for reading.
