Look Back in Anger (1959)

Look Back in Anger (1959)

Comments 2 comments

“What do you really want, Jimmy?”

Synopsis:
A trumpet-playing candy stand owner (Richard Burton) living with his friend (Gary Raymond) quibbles with his newly pregnant wife (Mary Ure) when her friend (Claire Bloom) comes to stay, causing additional tensions in their cramped household.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Claire Bloom Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Domestic Abuse
  • Donald Pleasence Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Marital Problems
  • Play Adaptations
  • Richard Burton Films
  • Tony Richardson Films

Review:
Tony Richardson’s big-screen feature directorial debut was this adaptation of John Osborne’s 1956 play about a troubled marriage between a working-class vendor and his upper-class wife, notable for launching the term “angry young men”. The problem is, we’re not given a reason to understand or care about Burton’s “angry young man”, Jimmy:

… who seems to think the world is fascinated by his brooding snarl and wailing trumpet. Instead, we simply see him acting in an abusive way towards his wife (is she meant to be blamed for her entire class?):

… and towards her friend (Bloom), who promptly falls in love with him herself once Ure has left (?!).

And what, exactly, is the deal with Raymond, who simply lurks around the edges of the storyline without much to do except serve as a sympathetic listening ear or comedic ally for Burton?

A subplot about an Indian vendor (S.P. Kapoor) enduring racist slander and bullying is far more interesting than anything else going on:

… but barely given any screentime, other than to showcase Donald Pleasence in an early supporting role:

Ultimately, I have very little patience for women who put up with childish, abusive, snivelling men — and since we’re forced to watch not one but two such women here, I don’t find much to appreciate about this tale.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Oswald Morris’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though I suppose it’s worth a look for its historical significance.

Links:

Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, The / Rebel With a Cause (1962)

Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, The / Rebel With a Cause (1962)

Comments 2 comments

“It pays to play the governor’s game here.”

Synopsis:
A working-class British teenager (Tom Courtenay) serving time in a reformatory is encouraged by its director (Michael Redgrave) to develop his passion for long-distance running, and spends time during his runs reflecting back on the troubled past that led him to his incarceration.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Flashback Films
  • Juvenile Delinquents
  • Michael Redgrave Films
  • Tom Courtenay Films
  • Tony Richardson Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is less than enamored with this “Kitchen Sink Drama” by director Tony Richardson — based on Alan Sillitoe’s short story — which portray’s Courtenay’s Colin Smith as “one of the many angry men of the British working-class cinema of the day.”

Peary points out that we see yet “another bleak view… of British working-class society” in, for instance, Smith’s resentment of “his shrewish mother (Avis Bunnage) frittering away his dead father’s insurance money, then kicking him out until he could contribute some money himself.”


At least in addition to reflecting back on “his dreary home life” and “being beaten by a policeman,” we’re also shown Smith thinking about “his moments of escape with his girlfriend” (Topsy Jane):

With that said, I wish we were given more context about how and why Courtenay turns to a life of petty crime; as Peary writes, “Smith’s reasons for his defiance should be clearer and have to do with his developing an understanding of society and authority.” However, I disagree with Peary’s assertion that “we have to understand better why he relates the governor to his past life” — to me, it’s crystal clear that Redgrave’s “pompous, paternalistic” arrogance epitomizes everything Smith loathes about the unfair class system in Britain.

While this is not a film I relish revisiting — I hadn’t seen it since being introduced to it years ago in a Film Appreciation class in college — I believe it should be viewed once simply for its relevance in cinematic history. Watch for James Fox in his first credited role as Courtenay’s running rival:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Tom Courtenay as Colin Smith
  • Walter Lassally’s fine location shooting and cinematography

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical relevance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Room at the Top (1959)

Room at the Top (1959)

Comments 1 comment

“Don’t hurt her, Joe; don’t ever hurt her.”

Synopsis:
A socially aspiring young man (Laurence Harvey) from a lower-class town arrives at his new job eager to woo the pretty daughter (Heather Sears) of his boss (Donald Wolfit), whose wife (Ambrosine Phillpotts) is dead-set against her daughter dating anyone outside of her social sphere. Meanwhile, Joe (Harvey) begins a romance with an older woman (Simone Signoret) whose philandering husband (Allan Cuthbertson) keeps her locked in a loveless marriage — but will Joe’s desire for wealth and status outweigh his love for Alice (Signoret)?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Jack Clayton Films
  • Laurence Harvey Films
  • May-December Romance
  • Simone Signoret Films
  • Social Climbers

Review:
Jack Clayton’s feature debut was this adaptation of John Braine’s novel about — as Peary writes in his Alternate Oscars — “an unhappily married middle-aged woman who has an affair with an angry young social climber.” Indeed this “depressing” movie tackles challenging situations and characters head-on, introducing us right away to a head-turning young man who doesn’t hesitate to directly outline his aspirational goals to his friendly new co-worker (Donald Houston):

While Peary doesn’t review Room at the Top in his GFTFF, he briefly discusses Signoret’s Oscar-winning performance in Alternate Oscars, where he points out that “Signoret, a French actress in a British film, became the first actress in a non-American film to win the Best Actress Oscar.” He adds: “As had been the case in her European films, Signoret was impeccable, giving one of her typically strong, moving, honest portrayals. Significantly, American viewers were taken with a rare movie female who is forty and slightly overweight yet is extremely sensual… ” He asserts that while “Signoret’s part wasn’t really substantial” (I disagree), she “was impressive enough to have warranted the Best Actress Oscar… had it not been for Marilyn Monroe in Some Like it Hot” (who he gives the award to instead).

I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment of Signoret’s compelling performance, which is both heart-breaking and nuanced. This former war-bride (who surely only ended up with Cuthbertson due to lack of other options) is in an undeniable pickle, and we understand her despair when things don’t work out with Harvey as hoped.

Meanwhile, Harvey’s character gradually shows more depth as well: while we despise his naked ambitions, we come to realize that he does feel things deeply, and has a conscience lurking just beneath the surface of his calculating demeanor.

This film doesn’t present any easy solutions to the dilemmas it poses, but its honest portrayal of class relations and thwarted romance make it well worth a one-time look (even if it may be too depressing for repeat visits).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Simone Signoret as Alice
  • Laurence Harvey as Joe Lampton
  • Fine supporting performances
  • Freddie Francis’s cinematography


Must See?
Yes, as a powerful if sobering classic. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Band of Outsiders / Bande à Part (1964)

Band of Outsiders / Bande à Part (1964)

Comments 1 comment

“Arthur said they’d wait for night to do the job, out of respect for second-rate thrillers.”

Synopsis:
When a young woman (Anna Karina) in love with two petty thiefs named Arthur (Claude Brasseur) and Franz (Sami Frey) tells them about a stash of illictly gotten money hidden in her neighbor’s cupboard, the trio begin making plans to steal it.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Heist
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Jean-Paul Belmondo Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “quirky Jean-Luc Godard film is sort of a mix of Breathless (where Belmondo performs crimes in the nonchalant manner he saw in gangster films) and Les Enfants Terribles (where the two males and one female commit petty crimes for fun),” given that “pals Sami Frey and Claude Brasseur play-act crime movies… much as little kids imitate heroes from war or western movies.”

Because “their mutual girlfriend [?!], Anna Karina, wants to fit in,” she “offers a real crime to them: they can steal her aunt’s money” — but “the three bumbling… amateurs… can’t distinguish between fiction and real life.” Peary notes that “when they put on their movie criminal guises, they think of themselves romantically, as do Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen in Badlands [1973] when they commit equally unromantic crimes; but, as is the case with Spacek and Sheen, their guns shoot real bullets and people get hurt.”

Peary points out that “the overlapping of reel life and ‘real life’… is disorienting because we have a hard time figuring out the logic of the characters’ actions” — however, while he argues this is “excitingly original,” I simply find it frustrating. We know far too little about these three uninteresting characters, other than that Karina’s Odile is for some reason hopelessly insecure (she wears primarily one expression — worried and uncertain — throughout the film):

Sadly, this makes sense on a real-life level, given that according to TCM’s article, “At the time Karina was recovering from losing a child during her pregnancy followed by a suicide attempt… The relationship between Karina and Godard was also on shaky ground by this point in their marriage and they would soon go their separate ways after working together on Alphaville (1965).”

However, it’s frustrating as a viewer watching this beautiful young woman (who has a dark side of her own) caving in time and again to her (occasionally abusive) male partners; they bullishly get their way, but at obvious and inevitable costs. And what, exactly, does Karina see romantically in Brasseur? I understand the notion of a “bad boy” attraction:

… but he’s neither charming nor handsome (rather, he’s oafish and crude). To that end, Jonathan Rosenbaum points out that “The melancholy trio of Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger Than Paradise (1984) … — two dandyish, deadbeat best friends and the shy, younger woman they’re smitten with — would have been inconceivable without Godard’s adorable threesome;” however, I’m not a fan of Jarmusch’s movie, and don’t consider the trio here (or there) to be anything close to “adorable”.

One of this film’s most memorable scenes occurs when Karina, Frey, and Brasseur get up and begin dancing “The Madison” in a line:

Indeed, Quentin Tarantino was smitten enough with this sequence to pay homage to it in Pulp Fiction (1994), when Uma Thurman and John Travolta boogie on the dance floor; but here it’s merely a diversion rather than — as Godard’s somber voiceover claims — an opportune moment to offer “a digression in which to describe our heroes’ feelings.” While most film fanatics will be curious to check out this historically influential film, I don’t consider it one of Godard’s must-see movies.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though as stated above, most film fanatics will likely be curious to check it out.

Links:

Carabiniers, Les (1963)

Carabiniers, Les (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“In war, anything goes.”

Synopsis:
A pair of doltish peasants (Marino Mase and Albert Juross) are convinced by their wives (Catherine Ribeiro and Genevieve Galea) to go fight for their king in return for untold fulfillment of their desires.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Soldiers

Review:
Jean-Luc Godard’s fifth feature film is an odd-duck tale even for him — an adaptation of an adaptation (by Roberto Rossellini) of a play by
Beniamino Joppolo that is at first (for quite a long portion of its short running time) merely puzzling and annoying, but ultimately makes a powerful satirical punch in the face of consumerism, gullibility, and blind patriotism. It’s hard to believe how incredibly stupid and trustful Ulysses (Mase) and Michaelangelo (Juross) are when told that their king (their king?!) has personally invited them to serve him, in exchange for taking and doing whatever they want while at war.

In between watching Ulysses and Michaelangelo’s brutish, self-serving exploits, we see and hear snippets of letters they write home (taken from real-life letters of soldiers):

It’s only once the men return home and show the “spoils of war” they’ve collected to their wives that we understand the depth of absurdist irony Godard is reaching for. This unusual film is most definitely not for all tastes, but will — of course — be of interest to hardcore Godard fans.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

  • The truly surreal postcard sequence

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Petit Soldat, Le (1963)

Petit Soldat, Le (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“Accused of being a traitor, my only way out was to hit on the enemy.”

Synopsis:
During the Algerian War, a French special agent (Michel Subor) is sent to Geneva to assassinate a member of the National Liberation Front of Algeria, but gets distracted by his love for a beautiful woman (Anna Karina) with dubious political affiliations.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Assassination
  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Spies

Review:
Jean-Luc Godard made his second film — about the incredibly sticky topic of France’s involvement in Algeria — in response to critics who claimed his debut film (Breathless) was too apolitical. Ironically, Godard himself didn’t actually have strong views on the topic; he simply wanted to explore such ideas through cinema. It’s most notable for didactic scenes of torture, which resulted in the film being banned in France until 1963 despite being made in 1960:

Film fanatics may be most interested to see the scene in which Subor voices one of Godard’s most famous quotes:

“Photography shows the truth. Cinema shows the truth at a rate of 24 times a second.”

Indeed, the film is (not surprisingly) quite talky and philosophical, with characters often simply walking across or in front of one another while saying things like:

“When you take a picture of a face, you take a picture of the soul behind it.”
“In the ’30s, young people had a revolution: Malraux, Drieu la Rochelle, Aragon. We have nothing. They had the Spanish Civil War; we don’t even have our own war. Aside from ourselves, our faces and voices, we have nothing.”
“PeopIe look at me, but they don’t know what I’m thinking. They’ll never know!”

These quotes exemplify Godard’s obsession with meaning-making vis-a-vis a camera lens. Fans of his work will of course want to check this one out, but it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Note: The film’s title seems to stem from a scene in which Subot has Karina complete a “test”:

“You know this is a test? It’s a drawing to discover a person’s character. I often use this on women. They love to be called little girls and to play like children.”

Along with additional lines like the following:

“Women should never get older than 25. Men become more handsome as they grow older, but women don’t age well.”

… we have yet more ample evidence of Godard’s objectifying views towards women.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
No. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Some Came Running (1958)

Some Came Running (1958)

Comments 3 comments

“Bumming around can only help to make you a bum.”

Synopsis:
A veteran and aspiring writer (Frank Sinatra) returns to his hometown on a bus with a woman (Shirley MacLaine) he barely knows, and quickly causes consternation for his socially conscious brother (Arthur Kennedy) and sister-in-law (Leora Dana) — and his would-be love interest (Martha Hyer) — when he gets into brawls and befriends a hustling gambler (Dean Martin). Meanwhile he tries to mentor his naive niece (Betty Lou Keim), who is mortified to discover her father having an affair with his secretary (Nancy Gates).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Arthur Kennedy Films
  • Dean Martin Films
  • Frank Sinatra Films
  • Morality Police
  • Shirley MacLaine Films
  • Siblings
  • Small Town America
  • Veterans
  • Vincente Minnelli Films
  • Writers

Review:
Vincente Minnelli directed this adaptation of James Jones’ second published novel — his follow-up to the enormous success of From Here to Eternity (1953). Some Came Running is notable for bringing together members of the Rat Pack (Sinatra and Martin and ‘mascot’ MacLaine) for the first time:

… for being directly referenced in Godard’s Contempt (1963), when Piccoli’s character mentions wanting to emulate Martin in not ever taking his signature hat off:

… and for earning radiant young MacLaine an Oscar nomination:

Unfortunately, MacLaine’s performance — along with William H. Daniels’ beautiful Cinemascope cinematography — are the best aspects of this otherwise frustrating melodrama, shot through with sexism (Martin’s reprehensible “Bama” repeatedly refers to women, MacLaine in particular, as pigs) and trite dialogue (“We’ll have no more of that; I’m not one of your bar-room tarts!”). Sinatra’s world-weary character is sympathetic but underdeveloped:

… and his choice of Hyer as a marriage mate makes little sense:


Yes, she’s beautiful and has intense interest in his writing — but doesn’t she otherwise represent everything he’s scornful of in his brother’s small-town life?

Poor MacLaine gets the worst deal of all, playing what the video reviewer for Trailers From Hell (screenwriter Sam Hamm) casually refers to as a “dimwitted mattress back” (ouch!). MacLaine infuses more life and interest into her character than everyone else combined, yet is treated reprehensibly throughout.

(I’m not surprised that Godard and his male protagonists in Contempt — who likewise objectify the women in their lives as sex objects and workers — found connection with this film.)

The other female characters in Some Came Running are similarly posited as merely background context for the men as they live their lives and/or work out their neuroses (or not). Dana is a classic shrewish housewife who drips with condescension and entitlement, and casually “has a headache” the night Kennedy proposes some nookie (“What do you say we — go up… Sort of — relax?”)

It’s no wonder he flies into the arms of his conveniently working-late-at-night secretary (Gates) (though why they are stupid enough to drive to a common make-out spot in town is truly beyond me).

Meanwhile, Hyer seems to simply be emulating Grace Kelly in her blonde ice princess act, and is given terrible dialogue to work with (“Oh, Dave, we’ve met exactly three times. What do I know about you? What do you know about me?”). We at least have some sympathy for poor Keim, who is justifiably mortified to learn about her father’s hypocrisy, and gets to flee to New York by the end.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Shirley MacLaine as Ginnie
  • Fine cinematography



Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for MacLaine’s performance and for the adulation it’s accumulated.

Links:

Vivre Sa Vie (A Film in Twelve Episodes) / My Life to Live (1962)

Vivre Sa Vie (A Film in Twelve Episodes) / My Life to Live (1962)

Comments 0 Comment

“I think we’re always responsible for our actions. We’re free.”

Synopsis:
After leaving her husband (Andre Labarthe), an aspiring actress (Anna Karina) eventually turns to prostitution to earn a living, working for a pimp (Sady Rebbot) with questionable morals.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Character Studies
  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that in his “exceptional fourth film” — after Breathless (1960), Le Petit Soldat (1963) (actually completed in 1960), and A Woman is a Woman (1962) — Jean-Luc Godard presents “Karina’s prostitute,” a woman who “winds up a prostitute in order to pay her rent,” as “detached, not because he doesn’t care about Karina but because his remote style is meant to underscore the fact that this woman makes no emotional connection with the men she has sex with.”

He argues that “Godard’s point — made by the old philosopher (Brice Parapain) with whom Karina converses”:


… “and proven to her by the young client she comes to love… is that pleasure and fulfillment come less from the sexual act than through a stronger form of communication: talking, the interchange of words.” Peary adds that “as in all early Godard films, he experiments with his camera (i.e., juxtaposing abstract and real images in order to express ideas)” and “makes thematic references to films, literature, [and] music.”


While this film isn’t a personal favorite, I appreciate both Godard’s innovative style and Karina’s gripping performance. Even in an elusive role meant to distance us somewhat (Godard’s approach to her prostitution lifestyle is strictly clinical), Karina’s humanity shines through, and she’s a pleasure to watch on screen.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Anna Karina as Nana
  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, for Karina’s performance.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

Contempt / Mepris, Le (1963)

Contempt / Mepris, Le (1963)

Comments 4 comments

“I have to know why you despise me!”

Synopsis:
An aspiring screenwriter (Michel Piccoli) hired by a crass American producer (Jack Palance) to support an adaptation of “The Odyssey” by director Fritz Lang quickly finds his marriage to his beautiful wife Camille (Brigitte Bardot) on the rocks when he encourages her to take a drive with Palance.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Brigitte Bardot Films
  • French Films
  • Fritz Lang Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Hollywood
  • Jack Palance Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary doesn’t write very much in his review of this “slow but beautifully shot and unusually insightful Jean-Luc Godard adult film about movie-making and marriage,” other than noting that “Piccoli and Bardot give fine performances”:

… “as does Fritz Lang (playing himself), the philosophical director of Palance’s travesty.”

Peary does comment that “since The Odyssey is, in part, about a wife, Penelope, who waits 20 years for her husband to return from his journeys, Godard is obviously making a comment on the fickleness of lovers today — particularly women”; however, I think that’s far too reductive of a stance to take. Indeed, I was surprised and impressed by how much subtlety there is in Bardot’s performance and character:

Her Camille is an insecure yet savvy woman who understands that the men around her put value almost exclusively on her beauty and sexual availability, and she refuses to simply play this game without protest.

Visually speaking, the movie is bright and colorful — and as always, Godard makes interesting use of space, unique sets, and montage.

Georges Delerue’s score is also integral to this film; indeed, the orchestral theme song is so instantly recognizable that I was surprised to learn it’s part of the original score for this movie rather than a classical piece.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Brigitte Bardot as Camille
  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography


  • Georges Delerue’s indelible score

Must See?
Yes, as an intriguing classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Quest for Fire (1981)

Quest for Fire (1981)

Comments 1 comment

“80,000 years ago, man’s survival in a vast, uncharted land depended on the possession of fire.”

Synopsis:
While out seeking fire, three prehistoric members of the Ulam tribe — Amoukar (Ron Perlman), Naoh (Everett McGill), and Gaw (Nameer El Kadi) — encounter various predators and competitors in addition to a love interest (Rae Dawn Chong) for Naoh.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Prehistoric Times
  • Survival

Review:
French director Jean-Jacques Annaud has had an interesting and varied career, with his debut film — Black and White in Color (1976) — earning an Oscar as Best Foreign Language Movie of the Year, and this subsequent movie breaking numerous conventions by taking place 80,000 years ago and not containing any known language (the limited dialogue spoken by various tribes was written by Anthony Burgess). At first it’s challenging not to laugh at the depiction of Paleolithic humans acting more like violent, primitive monkeys or gorillas than the “civilized” beings we associate ourselves with:

… but we quickly grow to see the three main characters as individuals, and can believe their interactions as authentic. The make-up (which took up to five hours to apply each day), costumes, and body movements are impressively realistic:

… and the location shooting by cinematographer Claude Agostini is often breathtaking. With that said, your interest in the storyline may or may not hold, given that there’s no discernible dialogue, and the plot points all concern either base survival (i.e., the trio sleeps in a tree to avoid saber-toothed tigers):

… or cultural interactions with different tribes:

Interestingly, we see this leading to evolution-in-action, as individuals quickly learn from and mate with one another, thus ensuring future generations will be even better prepared to face life’s challenges.

While this isn’t must-see viewing for all film fanatics, it’s certainly worth a look as a one-of-a-kind movie.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Authentic-seeming makeup, costumes, and body language

  • Beautiful cinematography


Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: