The walls...

....of Jericho. They come a-tumblin' down.

Romantic road trip next up on the quest to get through all of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in a very concentrated time (a little less than 12 months duration wise - just over 15 months on the calendar.  I had to take 5 months off).

Film 84

84.  "It Happened One Night"  (AFI Rank #46)

If you've followed this series at all, you know this answer, but you may not remember it.  As such, I'm starting off with a TRIVIA QUESTION!  (answer at bottom of post)  There are three (3) films that have won the "Grand Slam" at the Oscars (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor, and Best Actress).  I'm going to tell you that this film is one of them.  Now.  Name the other two.  Like I said, answer below.

So, this is the second of three Best Picture winners I'll be watching in a row.  What separates it from the other two, besides the "Grand Slam" thing, is that it appears as if NO ONE associated with this film thought very much of it.  Practically inventing an entire film category or two (screwball comedy and "road" movie), this film was so different from anything else out at the time, it's little wonder it was viewed with such skepticism.  This film was directed by Frank Capra, starred "The King," Clark Gable, and he played opposite an absolutely dynamite female lead in Claudette Colbert.  The pieces all make sense for this to gel into a remarkable whole.  And largely, this film does.

What makes it great, though?  The story is pretty basic.  Rich girl elopes against her father's wishes, her father announces that she will be annulling the marriage, rich girl escapes father's clutches, and goes to bus to go from Miami to New York, where she will continue her life with her husband.  On the bus, she meets a freshly unemployed newspaperman, who recognizes her, and offers to help her if she'll give him an exclusive to her story.  Along the way, they encounter problems with theft, her "fish out of water" persona, lack of money, wacky characters, and suspicious hotel owners.  They also fall in love.  It's Hollywood, so they wind up with her getting a divorce, them getting married, the end.  Simple story we've seen a million times.

No, what makes this film unique in this regard are a couple of things.  It is really well written, and really well acted.  Relying on witty rejoinders, an INTELLIGENT woman character (if naive), and a sense of defying current moral tide, the script really clips along at a furious pace.  We get to know these two people - intimately - and we wind up really rooting for them to succeed in whatever the hell it is they are trying to accomplish.  The script never sets up HUGE exposition which would be denying us our intelligence.  It shows us situations, we get to figure out how they got into them, and away we go.  The longer I go on this quest, the more I enjoy films that treat me with respect, and allow me to get it for myself. This one does that.  The entire opening of the film, set aboard a yacht, is bristling with energy.  Why?  Because the people involved in the scene speak to each other like whatever they are talking about didn't just start right then, at that moment.  We feel like we got dropped into the middle of something, and we are privileged to not have to have EVERYTHING spelled out for us.  This intelligence continues throughout the film, as the love story that we witness doesn't really just spring from nowhere, but we see the machinations of attraction, of recognition of commonalities/differences, and of willingness to compromise.  It's a love story for people who think.  I love it.

Capra directed this.  There are some stunning visuals in this (a moonlit landscape is particularly juicy), but for the most part, Capra focused on relationship building.  He paid attention to details.  There is a moment where Colbert's character heads for a shower in a motor park.  Outside, Capra didn't skimp on details.  He fleshes out the scene with LOTS of background characters, generally from  lower economic status.  We see a typical low-rent motel.  Maybe you've stayed in one at some point, and maybe you remember kids everywhere, playing in the dirt, or the little playground, or whatever.  It would be easy to spare those details and just have Colbert walk to the shower.  No, we NEED that moment, so we see just how out of her element she is.  Mr. Capra was one of the greats, no doubt, and we sense his touch throughout.  I guarantee he thought he did better work on other films.  That doesn't mean that what was accomplished here wasn't also first-rate.

I mentioned acting.  Clark Gable was a HUGE movie star.  HUGE.  You know what he is in this?  An actor.  Yes.  I said it.  Sure, he's got a knack for tying to make himself look good (I suffer from a similar affliction, often, on stage), but in this film, he lets artifice slip away.  Maybe because he thought it was so bad, maybe because he was lent to the film by his studio as a punishment for having an affair with Joan Crawford, whatever.  Gable is uninhibited in this.  He allows himself to look foolish at times.  He really goes for physical comedy when it is presented to him.  And his timing is exquisite.  I think that's probably it.  Gable had absolutely zero fucks to give about the quality of the film, and as a result, just WENT for it.  It's precisely that performance that makes him look so natural.  Check out the hitchhiking scene.  Gable really looks like a goof explaining the 3 different ways to signal drivers.  Then, watch as he flawlessly executes those moves one after the other, as cars whiz by, and the comedy escalates.  He may not have been having fun, but his body says otherwise.  There is great freedom in not caring about something.  Gable has it in spades here.

So does Claudette Colbert.  Like Gable, she's not afraid to look foolish in this film, nor afraid to be vulnerable.  But what really, REALLY, makes her so good is the fierce intelligence that she imbues into the role.  We understand why Gable falls in love with her.  We understand why she doesn't want King Westley (current husband).  We understand how much she loves her father, and how much she, in turn, is loved by him. Her acting choices are clear.  She may be an idealized socialite, but dammit, she's real.

Ultimately, this is kind of a wacky screwball comedy, though, and it does a great job of that.  There was another one on the list, "Bringing Up Baby."  This one really resonates with me, and really feels like a great film.  The other one feels like a great vehicle for a couple of major movie stars.  That's me.  And tell me that the line of demarcation, the "walls of Jericho," and watching what happens on either side isn't just sexy as hell.

There you have it.  It's a terrific film that invented a couple of genres...and didn't even know it.  And everyone doing it didn't like it, or think much of it.  Here we sit, 82 years later, still entertained by it, still a little in awe of the skill on display, and still loving it.  That's some amazing kismet, that's for sure.

Oh, and this movie doesn't happen in one night.  It happens over several.  I kinda like that the title is what it is...you need to see it.

I want you to watch this movie if you haven't.  I want you to watch it again if you have.  It's that good.  I really enjoyed watching it again this year.

No Ebert this time.  There is an essay about the film if you Google "Ebert it happened one night," but it's not written by him.  More of what you see above, but much snobbier.

Bah.  Great film.

TRIVIA ANSWER:  There have been 3 films that hit the Oscar "Grand Slam" (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Screenplay).  They are:  "It Happened One Night" (1934); "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" (1975); and "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991).  Did you get it right?

Unfairly, and fairly knocked...

...this film is a huge one.  HUGE.  Titanic, even.

This film is one of the most modern films on the list of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).

Film 83

83.  "Titanic" (AFI Rank #83 - HAHAHAHAHA for coincidence)

Let's not even pretend on this one.  You've seen this movie.  I'll take my odds on that and bet on it.  Every film that was released prior to 2007, with the exception of "Jurassic Park," that held the box office record for U.S. domestic gross in its initial release, unadjusted dollars, is on the AFI list of the Top 100.  Since 1937, we have "Snow White..." which held the record until "Gone With The Wind," which held it until "Jaws," which briefly held it until "Star Wars," which yielded to "E.T.:  The Extra Terrestrial," supplanted by "Jurassic Park," then came this one.  Since 2007, two other films have grossed more than this one, but that wasn't available at the time this AFI list was made.  Lots and lots of people have seen these films.  A great deal of the reason for that is that these films are really, really good, often great.  This film...don't hate me...qualifies.

There are myriad errors made in this film, and I'll discuss a few of them later, but this film, folks, is ambitious as hell film-making, with a populist love story thrown into it, telling the tale of a real-life enigmatic tragedy.  Scads and scads of books are written on the JFK assassination.  You know what else has scads of books written about it?  The RMS Titanic.  Why?  Because of the human tragedy, for sure, but a great deal of that is also because of hubris, and the notion that something so grand could go away so easily, on its initial voyage.  It's a compelling tale, and it makes for a hell of a film topic.  Know why the Titanic still inspires us to research?  Because for decades, it was believed that the ship went down in one piece.  Now we know it broke in two, but there are teams of experts that say it didn't snap at the deck first, but in the hull, and that it was a concave event rather than convex.  Other teams of experts say that's bullshit.  It is the idea of unanswered questions that drives this tale, and we humans are suckers for that.

James Cameron wrote and directed this film.  I mention both, because I want to discuss some of the obvious flaws in logic that happen in this film (I'll leave the big one until late in the post), and why I think they may be there.  Cameron's writing never is awe-inspiring in this, but it's above average to very good.  His direction, likewise, is at times great, but suffers from serious oversights/impossibilities that I think, looking at it, may be the result of a writer trying to direct a film, and a director trying to write one.  Take, for example, Old Rose (Gloria Stuart) at the end of the film.  OK, I said I know you saw this, so I'm not spoiling anything.  We see a 101 year old woman in a starkly white nightgown, who's been confined to a wheelchair or a cane whenever we've seen her prior, walking the back deck of an insanely well-lit ship, climbing up a railing and tossing a priceless diamond necklace overboard.  OK.  NO WAY no one comes out and checks on her.  Impossible.  It's good for the story, though, so the writer won this battle over the director who should have said, "Really?"  We also have a scene early in the film where Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) is teaching Rose (Kate Winslet) how to spit.  "Hock it back (?!)" he implores her.  "Hock (?!)"  That's some mighty modern slang there, Leo.  I understand this scene was ad-libbed, but what the director wanted was to establish a budding romance/commonality between these two seemingly VERY diverse characters.  So, that time the director kicked the writer's ass.  My point is that I recognize that there was more going on here than just some mistakes.  The choices seem intentional, but they seem wrong.  This isn't that unusual with HUGE films written and directed by the same guy (I'm looking at you, Lucas).  It must be nigh impossible to do all that work and get it all right.

I mentioned before that this film qualifies as really good to great.  It does.  Visually, it's stunning at times (although the technology used in CGI has rapidly made this seem obsolete and clunky).  Getting to see the Titanic, looking real, sailing on the ocean, is wonderful.  I think the love story is reasonably compelling, if at times, clunky.  We needed to have a reason to want to stay with this until the ending.  We knew what was going to happen.  The boat was going to hit an iceberg, it was going to sink, and lots of people were going to die.  Yet, Cameron spends so much of this film taking us on a tour of this grand ship, that when the inevitable end comes, the violence with which it is rent asunder is brilliant.  He illustrates this further by not skimping on graphic violence happening to people as Titanic falls to pieces underneath them.  If I say "propeller guy," you know that there's a moment where a guy falls off the back of the ship, and he hits one of the propellers with a sickening "CLANG," then continues to his death.  There are other moments where we see bodies slammed into railings, and into walls, and into whatever.  This wasn't a peaceful death.  This was painful, horrifying death that visited these 1500 people that wound up losing their lives in this event.  Cameron really, really does a masterful job of showing that.

Equally masterful is the completely insipid way in which the boat begins to sink, when shown from the perspective of the interior of the ship.  It starts slowly, as an unrelenting force that just starts creeping across the dry floor, but we fear it, because we know that eventually, that water we see is going to be omnipresent, and that Titanic won't be able to resist its destructive persistence.  Watch as the sinking progresses.  Water fills rooms in FAR more violent bursts later than it did when it started.  We FEEL it.  Captain Smith's (Bernard Hill) death is heartbreakingly violent, considering that just moments before we see the boat peacefully succumbing to the water's surface.  It's visceral.  It's great filmmaking.  I will say that the moment when Titanic leaves the surface, and we see it, just for the briefest of moments, as the stern sinks away, with "Titanic Liverpool" painted on it is crazy moving for me.  Dry land has just slipped away.  We then are taken to THE shot of the film, for my money, the long-range shot of the still alive passengers flailing and screaming in the water, with no hope of rescue/survival.  That moment got me in the theatre the first time I saw this, and it got me again this time.

I mentioned the love story.  There is a real chemistry between Winslet and DiCaprio.  You genuinely believe the two of them are falling in love.  DiCaprio wasn't a star of the first magnitude when this film was made.  He'd turned in a few AMAZING performances before this, but this was the film that made him a STAR. As such, you forget how good he can be.  Even here.  Winslet is a treasure, and her Rose hits all the right notes.  Not so believable, and mostly a flaw in the writing, needing to insert more drama into scenes where it maybe wasn't required, is Billy Zane's almost comically evil Caledon Hockley.  Watching this last night, I was struck by how much Cal HAS TO WIN, no matter the cost.  He, on several occasions as the ship is sinking, puts himself in harm's way to try and prove some point to himself, or to Rose, or to Jack, I guess.  It smacks as dishonest at times, but helps to explain the populist appeal of this film.  Look at the films that make TONS of money.  One thing you don't see in them is real moral questions of good/evil.  Nope, the archetypes are there, and they sell a lot of tickets.  Also perhaps over the top at times is Rose's mother, played with an unflinching, icebergish (heh) demeanor by Frances Fisher.  Ruth does redeem herself, somewhat after the boat sinks.  We see her seeking comfort in her previous nemesis Molly Brown's (Kathy Bates) arms.  We see Cal share a flask with an obviously-beneath-him stranger.  We see lots of moments of real change in some of the characters as they survive at the end.  I also should mention that Victor Garber is really good as ship designer Thomas Andrews.

Framing the telling of the tale of the Titanic are an opening and closing in which we meet the wacky characters aboard the research vessel Keldysh, led by Bill Paxton as Brock Lovett.  Showing the actual Titanic, resting on the ocean floor, however, was a masterful idea by Cameron.  I should also mention that I really, really like the performance of Lewis Abernathy as Lewis Bodine (Bearded guy).  He's so obviously not an actor that his scenes just drip honesty.  I like that guy.  By the way, did you know it's 20 minutes until we see the Titanic in its original state?   Yeah.  20 minutes.  All of this modern stuff absolutely helps propel the story along, and while it, at times, feels a little awkward, it fits.  It just does.

Soundtrack is very good.  I understand that there may have been a song that got famous as a result of this.  I do, however, particularly want to mention one thing about music.  It is a fairly well known fact that the string quartet did play as long as they could on the deck of the Titanic as it sank, concluding with "Nearer My God To Thee."  Its use in this film, as background to the violent end happening to Titanic, is brilliant.  Just brilliant.

Other details I like:

1.  There was a cook rescued from the water who claimed he stayed alive because he was nipping at his flask.  Yup. He's the guy next to Rose and Jack at the back of the ship.
2.  I love that we can find the characters we know in several long shots of the boat sinking, specifically Cal wrestling with the lifeboat, and Jack and Rose leaping to the back deck.
3.  I mentioned the violence happening to the humans and the ship.  Don't want to shortchange that.  It's stunning work.
4.  I like the fact that in the final shot, as Rose reappears on the Grand Staircase and is reunited with Jack, that Captain Smith doesn't clap until we see him.  It's a nice moment.
5.  I kinda like that whole last sequence on the Grand Staircase.  No. I don't kinda like it.   I like it.
6.  Showing the baby in the water, dead in its dead mother's arms was vital.
7.  OF COURSE DR. BOMBAY WAS ON THE TITANIC.  (Hat tip to my sister on that one...but it also is a hat tip to the previous film about the Titanic, "A Night To Remember" in which actor Bernard Fox also appeared)
8.  Cameron took the time to introduce a lot of insignificant people to us that don't make it, and we see them as their lives end.  It's good stuff.

OK.  I mentioned something at the top of this that I cannot forgive.  At the end of the voyage to America, after her rescue, and aboard the Carpathia, Rose, when asked her name, gives it as "Dawson.  Rose Dawson."  Now, I'm all for paying tribute to the man who saved her then *SPOILER* died, but...Ruth, Molly Brown, Bruce Ismay, and Cal all survived  the wreck, and all of them knew both Rose...and Jack DAWSON.  Having a survivor's list (and they're easily accessible online now, but I guarantee they were available widely back in 1912 also) that included someone named ROSE DAWSON would mean that EVERYONE WHO KNEW HER knows she's still alive.  That, THAT, is unforgivable, as the film wants us to believe that Rose slipped away into her own life and away from all those people without ever seeing any of them again.  BULLSHIT.  Just BULLSHIT.

OK.  Glad I got that off my chest.

Look, I'm not telling you about a movie you don't know.  I'm telling you what I find great about it.  You probably look at this film with a little disdain now, and it is perhaps fashionable to do so.  Know what James Cameron loves?  He loves the story of the Titanic.  Know what he's spent a LOT of time doing in his life?  Exploring the wreck.  Know why this film is great?  Because that guy cared about what he was doing.  A LOT.

Watch it again.  Watch it for its craft.  It really is a terrific film.  Just terrific.

Julie laughs at me when I talk about Ebert's reviews of films on this list, and how eerily my thoughts echo his.  She especially laughs when I point out to you that I didn't read his review before writing mine.  I didn't again this time.  Here's his.  I'll leave it alone, and not comment further.

"The horror...

...the horror."

I'm kinda glad to be nearly done with the Vietnam portion of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).  These films tend to be pretty brutal.

Film 82

82.  "Apocalypse Now" (AFI Rank #30)

I'm going to knuckle down and really try and write a critic-worthy review of this film.  Shortly.  First, some business.  I watched this film for the first time when I was in high school, fairly well baked-to-the-bejesus.  I've mentioned somewhere that I used to consume mood altering chemicals, yes?  I haven't for 28 years, but I earned that privilege through some pretty heavy use when I was young.  As such, I didn't recall...nearly ANYTHING about this film.  This will be the last film in the list that I've seen before that will be like that.  Anyway, I'm looking at this film, really, for the first time...kinda.  My reactions are more visceral, and less well-informed that they will be when I watch this film again.  Yes, I said "when."

With filming beginning in 1976, nearly 3 full years before the release of the film, "Apocalypse Now" takes a book published in 1902, and places the story in the Vietnam War, with many, many alterations.  It would be like taking a work of Shakespeare, say "Romeo and Juliet," and setting it in the dust bowl era of the Great Depression.  Yes.  I've seen that production.  Oh, and while we're at it, instead of Romeo dying by drinking poison, Tybalt gets him.  That makes it different.  The story/archetypes are all there, but the location adds new dimensions to the story, as does the ending.  I haven't read "Heart of Darkness," written by Joseph Conrad, but I've read the Wikipedia page, so as to have SOME knowledge of its contents.  The story told by "Apocalypse Now" is not necessarily that true to the source material, but it isn't a complete departure.  None of that matters, of course, as I am not reviewing that material, merely the film.

Kicked around in Hollywood for a while, "Apocalypse Now" was supposed to have been directed by George Lucas, and produced by Francis Ford Coppola.  Lucas, before filming could begin, started a little project called "Star Wars," and as such, pulled out of the commitment he'd made to Coppola.  So, Coppola did exactly what he should have done, which was to take over the film himself.  This film is ranked REALLY high on the AFI Top 100 list.  I'm going to say it now.  I'm not sure it shouldn't be ranked higher.  I think, at times, this film steps on its own feet, and gets a tad muddled, and that, likely prevents us from discussing it as one of THE great films of any era, but it's a hell of a film.

Plot is relatively simple.  Returning to Vietnam for his SECOND tour of duty, an Army Captain, Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen), who works in Special Ops, has been assigned to find and kill a Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a fiercely intelligent, highly educated, and extremely talented soldier who has disappeared into Cambodia along with an army of his own.  Kurtz has been deemed insane by the military, and a danger to himself and others.  Willard is assigned a PBR (Patrol Boat, River - look at me getting all technical) with 4 crew members, Mr. Clean (a 14 year-old Laurence Fishburne), Chef (Frederic Forrest), Lance (Sam Bottoms), and Chief Phillips (Albert Hall) to take him up river, and into Cambodia, where he is to "terminate - with extreme prejudice" Kurtz's command.  The balance of the film is spent with various (and sometimes so absurdist - they defy logic) encounters that the crew has with other U.S. soldiers (some of whom have an unquenchable thirst to surf), enemy forces, a sexy USO show, peasants in a small boat, and finally, Kurtz's compound of death.  While there, he meets a photojournalist (Dennis Hopper), the silent Lt. Colby (Scott Glenn), who was already sent on the mission Willard is on, but fell in with Kurtz.  *SPOILER* Then, he kills Kurtz, and the film ends.  That's it.


However, that is far from "it."

Calling this film a masterpiece may be selling it a bit short.  Every moment of this film feels like it's there on purpose.

I'm going to start with the aural assault we experience.  Beginning with the very opening of the film, as we hear helicopter blades slicing the air in complement to the jangly, trippy prelude of The Doors' epic "The End," we are transported into the world of the film not only visually, but with our ears as well.  I must confess that the song has a special place in my heart (see above commentary on mood-altering drugs), and while this film was released before I discovered the piece, I always felt as if it had soundtrack potential.  I just didn't know then that Mr. Coppola had already thought of that.  I will also say that I cannot imagine a better use for the song, nor using better parts of the song than what is presented here.  It reappears at the end of the film...and...it's...well.  It's perfect.  Just perfect.  At the beginning of the film it is used to set the tone for what is to come, and to set us up for the insanity to follow.  At the end of the film, it's used to underscore the brutal ritualistic killing of an actual water buffalo (and Kurtz's assassination).  Whereas the beginning of the film focuses on the set up and lyrical content, the end of the film focuses on the pulsing sexual energy of the instrumental break in the song.  As I said, the use is perfect.  I haven't even gotten into the use of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" during a rousing helicopter attack sequence (and I defy you not to be genuinely moved by this sequence), nor the PBR dancing to "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", nor the instrumental track, which was composed by Coppola's father, Carmine, along with the drummers from the Grateful Dead.  Apparently, Bill Kreutzmann and Mickey Hart came in and improvised their bits while watching a rough cut of the film, composing on the spot, and using a bizarre combination of drums, stringed rhythm devices, and whatever the hell else they felt like making noise with.  Coating the film with a hazy, disorienting feel, the soundtrack is amazing.  Just...amazing.

Visually, this film, in the hands of Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who won the Oscar for this film), is an absolute feast for the eyes.  Stuffed with cross fades that take a little longer than you would normally expect, along with dazzlingly well-choreographed moments, this film is a delight.  Scenes that take place in twilight really take on a sense of the changing mood of the sun, a battle sequence absorbs the smokiness around it, and the finale, with Kurtz shot in various shadows (Brando supposedly came up with the idea?) really drive home the overall theme.  We feel the "Heart of Darkness" throughout the film, and its visualization is executed flawlessly.  There is one scene, however, that is kind of in the background of the film's memorable moments. but one that I want to talk about here.  When the PBR lands at the bridge that essentially marks the border between Vietnam and Cambodia, it is night.  The entire scene is so confused, visually, because of the lack of light, that it brings us right into the moment.  We have no idea where we are, why we are, or anything.  Tack onto that the fact that Lance has taken acid in advance of this moment, and you've got a scene that really inserts its subconscious aspects into our consciousness.  The whole scene, visually, replicates a little, in its inability to remain focused, the feeling of LSD.  It's damned cool.  Damned cool.

At the center of all of this, of course, is Francis Ford Coppola.  I've talked about directors being really responsible for two things, the technical and the "moments."  I've described the technical above, but this film is also lousy with "moments."   Some may be acting choices, some may be director choices, but all of them are given the thumbs up or thumbs down by the guy in the center.  Let's talk briefly about a couple of things that we can use to illustrate this.  The entire character of Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall), whose name was supposed to be Colonel Carnage, is an absurd, profoundly impacting character.  Here's a tough as nails soldier, who relishes combat with ferocious, often humiliating consequences for the enemy, but who appreciates bravery, no matter what side it's on.  Oh, and he is really, really concerned with finding a place to surf.  REALLY concerned with it.  In fact, he picks a fight, specifically, to help the PBR up river, sure, but his secondary concern, and I think the real reason he went so gung ho for this assignment...was because the area that needed to be secured had the best surfing conditions he'd found in Vietnam.  Never seeking shelter/cover despite ordinance exploding all around him (also present in another Vietnam film tough guy, Sgt. Barnes in "Platoon"), Kilgore gets after a soldier to get out and surf in spite of the battle still raging.  That, THAT is the kind of thing that a director has a lot to do with.  Tack on to this so many other things (for example, just sticking Martin Sheen in a room and telling him to rage while he filmed it), and you see a filmmaker not just telling a story, but creating a work of art.

I mentioned "Heart of Darkness" as a theme.  I think Coppola's choice with this film is to make us question what that means.  Is it Kurtz only?  Is it Kurtz's followers?  What about Willard?  What about guys like Kilgore, or the Vietnamese?  Is it in all of us?  See, that's the way I view things.  I see every one of us as creatures capable of great evil or great good.  It is the choices we make that dictates which side we most see.  It is odd, to me, that great films about Vietnam tend to really get down to ambiguity over good/evil.  That's the overwhelming theme of "Platoon," "Full Metal Jacket," and this film.  Films about older wars tend not to get into that, and clearly define good versus evil.  Iraq war films tend towards the ambiguous, too, I suppose.  However, one thing that this film, and most Vietnam films do REALLY well is show how absolutely terrifying that particular conflict must have been, not because of the danger of violence, but because of the nature of the combatants.  ANYONE could be the enemy, and this film highlights that in two pivotal scenes.  One of them features the U.S. soldiers as the victims, and in the other, the peasants were.

Another key moment, for me, is the scene which is apparently lifted from the book, somewhat, when the PBR is attacked by an unseen enemy shooting arrows. It's terrifying, and when it is discovered that the arrows are just harmless sticks, one gets a moment of reprieve.  Then, out of nowhere, a spear is thrown into Chief's back, emerging from the other side.  His face, indeed, and the spoken line are priceless.  "A spear?!"  It takes us into that world.  It takes us into a world where ANYTHING can get us.  It says, all at once, "I signed up for the army to fight another army.  Now, I'm getting killed by a primitive method by an enemy that I'm not even sure is the enemy."  It's haunting, funny, and important.  Very, very important.

Acting performances in this film are good to great. Of particular note, of course, is Duvall.  His commitment to Kilgore is spot on.  I will say one thing, though.  You can really see the difference in how the lead carries the film between Martin Sheen and his son, Charlie, in "Platoon."   Sheen's performance in this is subtle at times, over the top when it needs to be, yet always, always, feeling like it bears an intense intellect behind it.  Charlie never felt that way in "Platoon."   Brando is terrifying as Kurtz, and although he didn't commit to the film, he absolutely commits to the character.  The only acting performance I really didn't care for was Hopper, but I think that was more a function of writing than Hopper's performance.  He's TOO wacky.  I never mentioned that both Harrison Ford and G.D. Spradlin are in this film, and both do capable jobs.

This film is brutal at times.  Graphic, for sure.  I cannot recommend it enough, though, as a piece of art.  I went on about audio and visual.  What I didn't mention is how much better the visual is because of the audio, and vice versa.  That's a great symbiosis, and as I've said before, it's really only available in film.  This film uses all those tricks to maximum effect, and you need to see it.

I should also mention that the version I watched had no credits, at the front or back of the film.  That is a great, great choice.

Roger Ebert was a HUGE fan of this film.  I defer to his eloquence in the article you can find here.

See this film.  It's that important.  It is.

One for the kids...

...and for the ages.


Modern cinema changed after this film.  This is a hugely important step on my quest to watch and comment on all the films in the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition). 


I don't think, when this is all said and done, that this might, just might, be one of the most important films of all time.  I think its ranking is FAR too low, but understand conservative voters (with only 12 years of history) wouldn't see it that way. 


Film 81

81.  "Toy Story" (AFI Rank #99)

I was 14 years old when the first "computer animated" film arrived from a major studio - Disney Studios made the film "TRON," with several brief computer animated sequences.  Then came "Young Sherlock Holmes," in which a computer animated piece of stained glass turned into a soldier, and fought a duel with Young Sherlock.  Then, in 1993, Steven Spielberg released a film with realistic looking DINOSAURS, rendered on computer, that didn't move like stop-motion animation, and didn't feel "fake."  That, of course, was "Jurassic Park."

Then, in 1995, a little movie studio named Pixar, which had dabbled in fully rendered computer animation in the form of shorts, released this film.  Taking an idea, and drawing, lighting...well...EVERYTHING on the computer for the first full length film of  its kind.  Since that time, Pixar was bought up by Disney, Computer Generated Imagery appears in nearly EVERY film, other major studios have been created, and last year, 8 MAJOR films were released using this technology.  Computer animated films have been consistent money earners, because, partly, we parents love to take our kids to them.  And that is the point of THIS film.  Why do we parents so consistently fork over our dollars for "Kids" movies?

Because they may be targeted for children, somewhat, but they are hardly "Kids" movies.  This film led the way in that, and I just loved watching it for the umpteenth time.  Yeah.  I got kids.  I've seen this movie probably a couple of dozen times.  It's been a while, though, as the kids have moved on to Marvel movies, or the latest releases, but this film is still tremendous fun to watch.  

Created by John Lasseter (directed seems...weird...when discussing this), "Toy Story" starts with a simple question:  what if our toys were really...ALIVE?  It then asks more questions.  How would they interact?  How would they know not to let the humans catch on?  What do they think about being abused?  What do they think about being played with?  These were the questions upon which the creators based this film, and we get answers.  Lots and lots of them.

I'm not going to pretend that this film solves any great world crisis.  It's the story of a bunch of toys.  What this film does, however, is present us with a bunch of really great characters, and puts them into situations that lead to a really terrific resolution.  We meet Sheriff Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), an old rag doll with a pull-string voice box.  He has been Andy's favorite toy for a while, earning him the position as the leader of all the toys, and the honored spot of sleeping with Andy in his bed.  The film opens as Woody finds out that Andy's birthday party has been moved up a week, because the family is moving, and things need to be wrapped up.  What follows is a tremendous scene in which Andy's toys scramble and deal with their fears of being replaced by new toys that Andy will be receiving for his birthday.  We get a sense of what it must be like to always be worried about being replaced by the newest, coolest thing...or worse...having the kid outgrow you, and winding up in a yard sale.  Voiced by veteran actors John Ratzenberger (Hamm, the piggy bank), Wallace Shawn (Rex, the dinosaur); Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), R. Lee Ermey (playing a little green army man...), Annie Potts (Little Bo Peep), and...I mentioned in a recent post that one of the joys of getting to do this quest is that it involved no Jim Varney films.  Except here he is, playing Slinky Dog.  Yup, Ernest made it into one of the Top 100 films of all time.  Good on him.  

Despite all the other toys' worries, the safest of the bunch, the favorite - Woody, is the one most threatened by the greatest toy EVER being given to Andy.  Woody's new threat is the shiny new space action figure... Buzz Lightyear, played by Tim Allen.  Complete with glow-in-the-dark plastic, a laser, pop-out wings, a voice box controlled by BUTTONS, a helmet that springs open, fully moving arms and legs, and a karate-chop action arm, Buzz is about the coolest toy you've ever seen.  Of course Andy bumps Woody aside and focuses all his energy and playtime on his new friend.  Woody is shattered, and seething with jealousy.  Of course, it doesn't help that Buzz doesn't even realize HE'S A TOY.  And that is what sets up the rest of the film.  Throw in a sadistic kid next door with a propensity towards destruction, and Buzz and Woody winding up in his clutches through a series of mishaps, and you've got yourself one tidy little story.  

That, ultimately, is the triumph of "Toy Story" and Pixar.  Besides booking A-List talent for the voice work, Pixar helped vault animation into the forefront of filmmaking because of its incredible storytelling.  This was the first film in a series of GREAT films released by this studio, and they didn't really hit a stinker until "Cars 2."  Yes, these films are beloved by children, but there's plenty for adults.  In fact, I'd say that all of their films are targeted at adults, but kids can enjoy them.  Yes.  I said that.  "Toy Story" speaks of children growing up, moving on.  It speaks of nostalgia.  It speaks of rivalries, perceived or otherwise.  It speaks of change, and our inability to handle it.  It speaks to LOTS of things that we grown-ups deal with every day.  It's a tremendous, tremendous film.

I cannot deny that it is rough, and that the animation seems really primitive, compared to what we know now.  Humans are frightening looking.  The subtle texture/lighting that has been achieved since is not always there.  The technology wasn't available.  However, notice the woodwork in Andy's room. It's all beat up, and has been covered with paint.  It looks like a home that's been up for sale.  It looks like a home that has been lived in.  It looks...well...it looks real.  It's a set that was constructed out of whole cloth.  They didn't go into a real house and film it, they CREATED one.  And the one that they created would likely contain more detail now, 21 years later, with much more technology available, but it's...the attention to detail is there.  That, as I've said throughout this series, is what great filmmaking is.

Beyond that, there are plenty of little subtle things that detail oriented people can catch.  "Binford."  "Whack an Alien."  "A113."  "Luxo." "Dinoco."  There's the Pizza Planet truck, which somehow makes its way into every Pixar film (including "Brave").  There is also the brilliant use of Tim Allen and Tom Hanks.  Both are absolutely perfect for the roles they play, and while the actors never interacted in voice recording, it sure felt that way.  Allen has made a huge living off of playing the befuddled macho stereotype, while Hanks is America's Everyman since Jimmy Stewart is dead.  

"Toy Story" is a tremendous achievement in film, and deserves better than a ranking of 99 in the "Top 100 US Films of all time," period.  It's that important, but more than that, it's that good.  It really is.  It bothers me to no end that the obvious "historical perspective" films on this list ("Intolerance," "Bonnie and Clyde," "Swing Time," "Bringing Up Baby," TWO Marx brothers films when one might have been enough) get put higher on the list than this does.  This is a better film than #99, and its historic importance vaults it higher than that regardless of its story/acting/directing quality.  It happens to merit both.  Bah.

If you're a "grown-up" and don't have kids, and haven't seen this film...why?  Why not?  What's it going to cost you?  I watched it without kids this time.  It's great.  Truly great.  While you're at it, watch some of the other animated films this film's success was able to spawn.  You deserve it.

Ebert's original review is here.  Right on, Roger.