Week of January 31-February 6: Fantasia (1940) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

"Hey Riley, you completed the first month of 1 Year...100 Movies. What's next?"
"I'm going to Disney World!"

It's true. Our family is headed for Florida this week! But I thought instead of taking an hiatus from the blog, I would make this the week that I watch the two Disney animated films on the list. Not sure if I'll get these posted by Saturday or not, but I'll do my best. Happy viewing!

Week 4

Two films from the 50’s this week. And expectations played a large role in my respective viewing experiences for each.

Shane (1953)

There are only a handful of westerns I like. Most sort of blur together in my mind; my apologies to fans of westerns—they’re just not my cup of whiskey…or sarsaparilla. But I enjoyed Shane. It feels different than a lot of other westerns I’ve seen—especially others made during this era.

For one, the photography is fantastic. It was filmed in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, which could make a lovely backdrop for just about any film, but works especially well for this one by providing an authentic frontier feel (more than the California desert would have). It’s raw and majestic and a bit dangerous.

And I love that there’s an untold history to Shane’s past. The filmmakers don’t feel the need to over-explain anything. They’re comfortable letting us wonder. Same goes for Palance’s Jack Wilson character—we get bits and pieces of his past, but not the whole picture, which makes him seem all the more malevolent, along with his twisted smirk and his steady saunter.

Plus the fighting sequences in the film are thrilling and unique. I guess the filmmakers attached cables to the actors that would yank them back when they were “shot” on screen. Also, Director George Stevens worked very hard to replicate the sound of “real” gunfire (he even fired a small cannon into a trash can to simulate the sound). The lengthy barroom brawl in the middle of the film is great, too.  It’s almost uncomfortably long, but it’s oddly authentic. The punches sound and look pretty real. And the sequence doesn’t play much at all like a modern action-movie fight, which often includes exaggerated sound effects or stylized punches. 

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film is the central conflict—a land dispute between the ranchers and the homesteaders. While the characterizations of good and evil are pretty clear, the conflict itself is a little hazy. It’s easy to side with the homesteaders, as Ryker’s crew is presented as ruthless and greedy. But while I don’t agree with Ryker’s “case” (and certainly not his tactics), I believe his earnestness, and I understand why he thinks he’s in the right.

The African Queen (1951)

For the longest time, this one wasn’t available on DVD. A fully restored version was finally released on DVD/Blu-Ray in 2009 or 2010, and a good friend gave it to me as a gift. This version is beautiful. The picture is sharp. The colors are amazing. The only downside to such a restoration is that it makes some of the process shots (the ones shot at a studio in London) a little more noticeable. Fortunately, much of the film was actually filmed on location in the Congo and Uganda. It’s a stunning setting, and I appreciate the effort. I understand almost everyone in the cast and crew was sick during the ordeal, though. Bogie famously claimed he was the only one who didn’t get sick, because he never drank the water—he only drank booze. Unfortunately, that lifestyle likely contributed to his esophageal cancer (and ultimate demise), but that’s a topic for another day.

This is one of several films that either Bogie or Hepburn appears in on this list. And like in those other films, they’re both predictably great in this one. Their characters are well drawn, their banter is witty, and their chemistry is strong. 

Overall, The African Queen is exciting and funny, and the ending is abrupt but satisfying.

But….

Unlike Shane, which I didn’t expect to like very much but ended up liking a lot, I did expect to love The African Queen. I ended up just thinking it was “good.”

Don’t get me wrong. I did like it. I just didn’t love it, and I think it’s because my expectations were too high. This is Bogie’s Oscar-winner, after all. And he’s very good in it. But I probably had Casablanca or Treasure of the Sierra Madre or The Maltese Falcon on my mind.

How about you? Anyone get the chance to watch these two? What did you think?

Week of January 24-January 30: The African Queen (1951) and Shane (1953)

Week 3

Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Many remember this film for its violence. And while it’s tame by today’s standards, it was intensely violent for the late 1960’s—especially in its last scene. Some even suggest it glorifies violence.

But I (mostly) disagree with that.

I don’t know enough about the real Bonnie Parker or Clyde Barrow to discuss the historical accuracy of the film (although I suspect it's not particularly accurate), but the characters as they're presented in the film are sympathetic. They’re young, adventure-seeking, foolish, and rash. But they don’t seem to mean any real harm—or, at least they don’t understand that they’re causing any. Anyone they kill “made” them do it. They believe that the Law is the villain. And by the end of the whole mess, the audience might feel that way, too.

So violence is not what sticks with me from this picture--it’s sadness. In the film, Bonnie and Clyde are tragic figures. Faye Dunaway’s Bonnie (especially) is absolutely devastated about what she’s left behind, about the hopelessness of the future she’s dived headfirst into. The film even looks sad, as we move from one depressed locale to another (it does take place during the Depression, after all). Even as criminals, the gang wasn't living very large. And the majority of people they encountered along their way were even worse off than they were.

Unsurprisingly, Warner Brothers didn’t like the film. The studio wanted to bury it. They even gave Beatty (the producer) a deal granting him about 40% of the gross, because they were so sure it would be (and so wanted it to be) a flop. 

But he laughed all the way to the bank (which he, incidentally, did not need to rob).

This is another film that I last saw more than a decade ago, and viewing it this week, I was surprised by how few actual robberies are shown in the film—and the ones they do show are kind of funny. The “gang” fumbles through them. None of the characters are particularly competent criminals, aside from their ability to get out of a handful of sticky situations. Even the iconic (historical) photo of Bonnie holding a gun, with a cigar in her mouth and her leg up on a car, is depicted in the film as a photo taken at least somewhat in jest (or simply on a whim). Arthur Penn (the director) and Beatty seem to want the pair to come across as folk heroes. Or at least that the Bonnie and Clyde in the picture thought they were folk heroes.

The film swings wildly (and jarringly, but deliberately) between romantic and sexy to funny to brutally violent. And it works. I didn't love the film. The pacing is inconsistent. The process shots in some of the car scenes are distracting in an otherwise organic-looking film. And the movie certainly doesn't pack the same wallop it did when it was released nearly 50 years ago. But I still liked it. Even if it made me sad. Maybe because it made me sad. Killing kills. Actions have consequences. And justice isn't always just.

Wizard of Oz (1939)
I apologize, because I keep returning to this, and I suspect it will continue to pop up throughout this list, but the creativity that went into developing special effects before the dawn of CG amazes me. The tornado sequence in this film is both thrilling and visually stunning. The image of the cyclone in the background as Dorothy desperately seeks her family is dazzling. Even the sequence of objects flying by the window while the house spins within the vortex holds up pretty well. The effects, quite simply, are magical.

The whole movie is magical. Admittedly, it has a nostalgic effect on me. Aside from it being a childhood favorite, I had the chance in fifth grade to appear in the local high school's production of The Wizard of Oz, when they cast several upper elementary aged students as munchkins. I even got to say the line, “You killed her so completely that we thank you very sweetly” one night when one of the kids was out sick. At least, I think that was the line. It was almost 25 years ago.

But back to the film. The sets, makeup, effects, music—everything. It's just so much fun. There are so many iconic moments, but they mostly still ring true, diluted very little (at least for me) by their cultural ubiquity. I still think the Tin Man’s dance is a delight. I’m still a little freaked out about the flying monkeys. And I still think Judy Garland had some tremendous pipes.

This is also one of the few films on the list I can watch with my son. And he asked me to watch it. Some of the characters popped up in the Lego Dimensions video game that he’s been playing. And every time we fired up the Charlie Brown Christmas DVD this past year, it opened with a decade-old anti-piracy campaign that prominently features the Wizard of Oz. So he knew the gist of it and wanted to see the real thing for himself.

And he loved it. He was bouncing on the couch, cheering, dancing, singing—even cuddling into me a bit during the scarier parts. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him so animated during a film—not even during an animated film. Wizard of Oz is nearly 80 years old, and it still has the power to thrill a kindergartner (who otherwise currently thinks that farts and toilets are about the funniest things this side of the rainbow and beyond). 

Your thoughts on either? Both?

Week of January 17-January 23: Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and Wizard of Oz (1939)

Week 2

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
One of the big ones. Directed by Spielberg. Scored by Williams. Released the same year as Star Wars (and probably just as influential and iconic—at least in the film world, if not in pop-culture). Full of iconic elements—like the mashed potato Devil’s Tower and the haunting five-note melody the aliens use to communicate. At almost 40, the film has aged well. It’s so imaginative and creative. From the story, with it’s gradually unfolding mystery and building tension, to the magical special effects that still look fantastic.

This is a film that wouldn’t happen today. For a number of reasons. From a storytelling aspect, the alien encounters in the film would quickly go viral given the ubiquity of cell phone cameras, which would totally spoil the suspense and build-up and mystery about what’s going on. Few other characters would doubt Dreyfus’s character (or the other “believers”), as they would have seen alien evidence on YouTube. Also, the pacing (while perfect for the film) would likely test the patience of contemporary audiences; you take a journey with this film. And the climax, while awe-inspiring, is not action-packed. It amounts to something like a rousing, cyber-rendition of dueling banjos. Not to mention that the aliens turn out to be friendly—unlike most alien films before and since, in which aliens have come to invade and conquer and destroy instead of study and learn and befriend. Finally, the special effects would likely have been produced using computer effects (CGI, as we commonly call it). And I’m sure it would have looked just great. But it wouldn’t have been the same. Yeah, I’m old-school, but there’s something to be said about practical effects, and how well they hold up over time, how natural they look and feel, how creative the filmmakers had to get to make them happen. 

Check out how they did that crazy sky in the film. they used something called a Cloud Tank.

Tootsie (1982)
The music and clothing date it a bit, and I’m not crazy about the last 15 minutes, but overall, this Tootsie is a fun one. Excellent cast (and casting). Loved seeing a post-Caddyshack and Stripes (but pre-Ghostbusters) Bill Murray as the deadpan playwright roommate. And Hoffman is phenomenal in his dual role, especially as Dorothy. Jessica Lange, in her Oscar-winning performance, brings a believable sadness to an otherwise rather thinly-drawn character. And Teri Garr (I just realized this was apparently the unofficial Teri Garr week, as she appeared in both films) has little screen time but steals every scene she’s in.

Especially considering the era in which it was made, Tootsie does delve into some interesting explorations of gender roles. In many ways it challenges them (usually for comedic effect), but in many other ways, it affirms them (again, for comedic effect). I like Hoffman’s Michael’s Dorothy’s character a lot. And I read an interview once in which Hoffman said how important this film and role were to him. But at the end of the day, Tootsie is a broad comedy (seriously, absolutely no pun intended)--a Shakespearean-esque farce of mistaken identity that offers some interesting food for thought but ultimately maintains the status-quo.

Best line (of many): “I was a better man with you (as a woman) than I ever was with a woman (as a man)—know what I mean?”

Get a chance to watch either? Your thoughts?

Week of January 10-January 16: Tootsie (1982) 7 Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)