FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A man (Jean Gabin) who has just murdered a cruel dog trainer (Jules Berry) remains barricaded in his apartment, reflecting back on what led him to this act — beginning with meeting a sweet orphan (Jacqueline Laurent) and then connecting with Berry’s world-weary stage assistant (Arletty).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Flashback Films
• French Films
• Jealousy
• Jean Gabin Films
• Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic fatalistic melodrama, masterly directed by Marcel Carné [and] with dialogue by Jacques Prevert” shows us — like “many American directors of forties noir films would do” — “how a decent, average guy can become a murderer under the right set of circumstances.”

He notes that this picture — which “would have been ideal for Fritz Lang” — is a “landmark of French ‘poetic’ realism” given that it’s “extremely intense, sensual…, and atmospheric (the sets are not just part of the background but create the mood.”

He also adds (though this is hard to believe) that he “can think of no other film in which so much import is given to costumes and props, including the gun, Gabin’s dangling cigarette, Laurent’s teddy bear, Gabin’s alarm clock, photos, postcards, hats, brooches, beds, mirrors, flowers, dresses, [and] sweaters”:

… and he points out that “characters almost always are drinking, smoking, or holding something.”

However, “most interesting” to Peary and many other critics is “the structure,” with “this four-character piece… broken down into several intimate two-character scenes”:

Significantly, however, “we never go behind closed doors to see what transpired between the most important combination [of characters], Berry and Laurent” — that is, the “relationship that drove Gabin to his destruction.” Indeed, the primary problem I have with the storyline is that Laurent’s character is somewhat of a boring cipher; we don’t understand why she turns down Gabin’s reasonable early offer of marriage (given that she seems to be in love with him), or her fascination with creepy Berry — unless we’re meant to believe that her status as an orphan has scarred her development.

This film is perhaps best known for kicking off more regular cinematic use of flashbacks. To that end, since we know about the murder from the start, our interest revolves around learning how Gabin got into (and will ultimately emerge from) his increasingly tense situation — which involves being shot at repeatedly inside his apartment (real guns and bullets were used), barricading himself using a large armoire, and shouting down at hordes of spectators who have come to watch the stand-off (and, for what it’s worth, profess to be on his side):

We do know that Gabin’s ending will be dark; at least we are prepared for that.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jean Gabin as Francois
  
• Jules Berry as Valentin
  
• Arletty as Clara
  
• Atmospheric cinematography and production design
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as a pioneering French noir.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Noir of the Week Review

Synopsis:
When the beautiful young wife (Ginette Leclerc) of a town’s new baker (Raimu) runs away with a handsome shepherd (Charles Moulin), Raimu is too depressed to bake bread. In response, a local marquis (Fernand Charpin) works together with a priest (Robert Vattier) and a schoolteacher (Robert Bassac) to plot to find Leclerc and bring her back, thus restoring Raimu’s will to bake.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cuckolds
• French Films
• Infidelity
• Village Life

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes in his short review, “Marcel Pagnol directed and wrote this wonderful adaptation of an episode of Jean Giono’s novel Jean le Blue,” resulting in a film that “has humor, warmth, sentimentality, provincial flavor, and the special lovable characters one expects from Pagnol.”

He notes that “the great Raimu” — star of his earlier trilogy Marius (1931), Fanny (1932), and Cesar (1936) — “creates such a kind, moral, understanding character”:

… that the ending (“one of the many splendid moments”) rings true, and he asserts that “you’ll believe all these characters truly live in this town.” Indeed, the screenplay is consistently delightful, beginning with a series of interactions that show us how divided the townsfolk have become over petty arguments (such as trees needing trimming):

Meanwhile, they all desperately crave decent bread after months without any; and when they finally receive Raimu’s first loaves, we know a crucial element of life — bread itself — has been restored to their village:

However, this triumph is instantly threatened by another essential life source: love (or at least amorous desire).

Raimu is such a likable cuckold that it’s impossible not to feel for him as he makes up one excuse after another for why his wife may be gone — and even once he’s finally accepted the truth of her infidelity, he is depressed and melancholic rather than angry. How their situation finally becomes resolved — with other villagers’ relationships conveniently mended along the way — is the bulk of the storyline. This comedic tale, while slightly overlong at 2 hours and 13 minutes, remains a fine introduction to Pagnol’s work.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Raimu as the Baker
  
• Fine performances by the supporting cast
  
• Excellent use of location shooting near Marseilles
  
• Pagnol’s humorous script

Must See?
Yes, as a foreign classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
In 13th century Russia, Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) leads his ragtag army of fighters in an epic battle against the invading Germans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Military
• Russian Films
• Sergei Eisenstein Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “monumental achievement by Sergei Eisenstein” is “his greatest film” — a “visual tour-de-force about Russia’s heroic 13th-century prince [who] forms a great army to wage war against the seemingly invincible Germans who have invaded the country.” He refers to it as “a peerless propaganda piece that extols Russian nationalism, displays the courage of the common Russian in battle, and viciously attacks Germany, Russian’s historical enemy, which in the 1930s was again on an imperialist march in which impersonal medieval-like soldiers committed atrocities in the name of Christianity.”

He adds that just “in the same way that Triumph of the Will is fascinating when Hitler mingles with his adoring subjects,” it’s fascinating “how Eisenstein humanizes his hero… to show he is not superior to the Russian soldier or peasant, just a better leader.”

For example, “he never talks down to his men; he lets the people decide what to do with his prisoners;” etc. Peary writes that “common men are elevated to Alexander’s level,” given that “Eisenstein films them with a camera tilted upward and sets them in the foreground against the gray sky (there is always space behind them) so that they look enormous, like heroic epic figures of Alexander’s magnitude.”

He points out how important it is that “we see the soldiers” in battle, not Alexander, and mentions “a subplot in which each of two friendly soldiers [Vasili Buslai and Gavrilo Oleksich] hopes to win the hand of a young woman [Valentina Ivashova] by fighting more gallantly than the other,” which comes across “like a stock Hollywood storyline.”

Peary inaccurately adds, “Only in this case the woman is also a warrior, fighting alongside the men”; this is actually a different female protagonist (Aleksandra Danilova) who nonetheless plays an important and distinctive role later on:

Peary notes that “Eisenstein’s picture is known for its remarkable close-ups”:

… its “innovative use of the frame (whereby action is taking place in several different planes and as far back as the eye can see)”:

… the “beautiful shots of man and landscape”:

… a “mix of realism and theatricality, gorgeous pageantry”:

… “and Sergei Prokofiev’s grand score.”

He asserts that “the climactic Battle on the Ice, a lengthy [37-minute], precisely directed sequence that employs thousands of warriors and horses, is perhaps the greatest battle scene in movie history” (at least up to that time), and “can’t be described properly without actually seeing it”:

He adds that he suspects “Eisenstein received special pleasure from directing the segment in which the ice breaks and hundreds of Germans drown,” given that we “are seeing Russia itself literally swallow invaders.”

Peary concludes his review by writing, “I admit some Russian classics are boring, but not this masterpiece.” While I agree this film is masterfully made on every level — especially given the severe Stalinist constraints Eisenstein was working under — it’s not a film I personally would return to numerous times, other than to analyze it from a stylistic perspective. I’m most taken with the striking costumes and sets, which effectively hearken back to a distant time and place. With that said, it’s most definitely worth a one-time look by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine sets, costumes, direction, and editing
  
  
• Sergei Prokofiev’s score

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical significance within Russian cinema.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• TV Guide Review
• “Alexander Nevsky: Analysis of Film Form, Auteur Characteristics, and Context” (12-minute video overview)

Synopsis:
When a grieving widower (Marlon Brando) whose wife recently committed suicide meets a young woman (Maria Schneider) in an abandoned Parisian apartment, the two begin a passionate sexual affair without revealing any information about themselves. Meanwhile, Schneider’s clueless fiance (Jean-Pierre Leaud) attempts to make a documentary film about their romance, and Brando visits his wife’s lover (Massimo Girotti) in an effort to learn more about her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bernardo Bertolucci Films
• Jean-Pierre Léaud Films
• Marlon Brando Films
• May-December Romance
• Sexuality
• Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “erotic psychodrama” by Bernardo Bertolucci — “one of the most argued-about films ever made (is it art or p***ography?)”, and “banned in Bertolucci’s native Italy” — “blazed new cinematic frontiers because its lovers communicate through sex (sex expresses their drives) rather than having sex… merely to excite an audience.” However, he points out that it’s “not about sex per se but about a broken, tortured man” who is “reacting to his wife’s suicide with confusion, sadness, anger, guilt that his inability to show his love might have driven her to her drastic act, and shame that she would reject him so brutally.”

Brando’s response is to “separate sex from all else” while repudiating “God, his name, his bourgeois life, and the outside world.”

Peary notes that Brando regresses “into childish actions at the flophouse” he owns and manages, having “temper tantrums, [having] crying fits, slam[ming] doors, break[ing] things, bit[ing] his mother-in-law’s [Maria Michi’s] hand, turn[ing] out [the] lights to scare everyone”:

… and he accurately describes Brando’s encounters with Schneider as “childish adult games” — that is, “a sophisticated, perverse version of little kids playing house.”

Peary points out that “Bertolucci was rightly attacked for having Schneider be nude through most of the picture, while not including nude scenes he’d shot with Brando.” (Bertolucci himself admitted, “I had so identified myself with Brando that I cut it out of shame for myself. To show him naked would have been like showing me naked.”) However, Peary adds that “few will dispute that this is the one film in which Brando reveals himself, dark side and all, through scenes he wrote, through improvisation, and by letting us witness his acting technique.”

He argues that Brando is “continuously dazzling,” appearing “alternatively ferocious and tender, confident and confused, polite and vulgar, touching and pathetic, tense and wickedly funny.” Peary names Brando Best Actor of the Year in his Alternate Oscars, where he adds that, “At his best Brando plays this broken, confused man with feelings that come from deep inside,” stripping “away all that protects both his character and himself.”

Peary spends a lot less time analyzing Schneider’s character — who, truthfully, is more of an enigma. He does assert that Brando represents “the father she lost,” and is “also another old relic in her collection (she collects antiques as a hobby and as a job” (though we have no idea why):

— but “she is most attracted to [Brando] because he gets her to reject those bourgeois shackles that have kept her sexually inhibited” (again, we see no evidence to support this) and “because he lets her remain a child” (once, again, we’re not sure why she would want this, other than resisting having to make a decision about marriage with Leaud). Speaking of Leaud, in Cult Movies 2 Peary describes him as “a Godardian documentarian with Truffaut’s exuberance,” someone who “uses his camera to keep a distance between Jeanne [Schneider] and him; between the real Jeanne and his idealized Jeanne.”

However, while Leaud is undeniably annoying, it’s hard to make a case he’s worse than Brando (!). Ultimately, Last Tango… really remains a male-centric film, utilizing a conveniently “available” woman to play out a troubled man’s ongoing catharsis, with Schneider inexplicably agreeing to his nasty treatment time and again — until, suddenly, she’s not.

Regardless of whether one relates to or appreciates the storyline, however, there’s no denying that this film — which features “standout cinematography” by Vittorio Storaro — remains a cultural touchstone, and should be seen once by all film fanatics.

Note: Schneider (who passed away in 2011) admitted that her only regret in life was participating in this film, and that she felt thoroughly violated by one infamous scene in particular, which was sprung on her without prior permission or discussion.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marlon Brando as Paul
  
• Maria Schneider as Jeanne
  
• Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography
  
  
• Numerous memorable moments
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its notoriety and Brando’s performance.

Categories

• Controversial Film
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• NY Times Original Review