FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When a beautiful young Swiss woman (Ursula Andress) flees through the jungles of the Philippines with her lover (John Derek) after the attack on Pearl Harbor, she watches a sadistic lieutenant (Richard Jaeckel) become increasingly invested in killing the Japanese, and befriends a young virgin (Ron Ely) hoping for a sexual experience before he dies.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Refugees
• Richard Jaeckel Films
• Ursula Andress Films
• World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “John Derek directed and starred with his onetime wife Ursula Andress in this peculiar WWII action drama,” a “bleak and brutal” film in which it’s “hard to tell what’s going on at times.” He points out that at least “Andress (more sensitive and vulnerable than usual) is always watchable”:

… “Richard Jaeckel is perfectly cast as a bald, psychopathic soldier”:

… “and, surprisingly, Derek’s direction (so awful in his films with Bo) is often interesting, particularly when using superimposures and freeze frames.”

Indeed, in his debut film, Derek seems to be having plenty of creative fun with all sorts of cinematic tricks, making this a visually intriguing outing above all else.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Creative direction
  

Must See?
No, though it’s actually worth a one time look.

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
Upon landing in Paris, the grown daughter (Pamela Franklin) of a wealthy businessman (Hugues Wanner) is kidnapped by a chauffeur (Marlon Brando) who quickly meets up with his girlfriend (Rita Moreno) and her brother (Jess Hahn) at a beachside house where a psychopathic henchman (Richard Boone) is ready to “watch over” Franklin until her father pays ransom; meanwhile, a curious local fishing policeman (Gérard Buhr) wonders what is going on at the house.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Hostages
• Kidnapping
• Marlon Brando Films
• Richard Boone Films
• Rita Moreno Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “minor cult film” featuring “blond Marlon Brando” alongside “Rita Moreno (also a blonde)” centers on Brando’s concerns “that the [kidnapping] plan is doomed to fail” given “that Moreno is cracking up” and “Boone is a psycho who wants to kill his accomplices and Franklin and run off with all the ransom money.”

Peary notes that “after a couple of sloppy scenes” (I’m not sure what he’s referring to), “you’ll worry that the entire film is going to be a mess, but you are swiftly drawn into the cleverly plotted story and become intrigued with the offbeat characters.” He argues that “director-co-writer Hubert Cornfield does quite well on a slim budget,” using “a series of two-character scenes to build tension”:

… allowing “the pent-up violence to explode in a burst of deadly gunfire,” and capping “it off with an exciting scene.”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review of this non-essential but reasonably well-crafted caper flick, which features a truly menacing Richard Boone (some of his lines will cause you to gasp):

… and an authentically vulnerable Rita Moreno as a drug-addicted, highly insecure woman who becomes increasingly paranoid as the film progresses:

SPOILERS

Peary concludes his review by noting that “viewers will have mixed reactions to the ending, a horror-movie cliche,” but I view the “flashback” structure as simply a representation of Franklin’s final thoughts as she dies: she is reflecting back on the moments when she met the undercover criminals who would change (and ultimately end) her life.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine performances by the ensemble cast
  
  
• Good use of windswept locales
  

Must See?
No, though Brando fans will want to give it a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
In 1920s Kansas, a teenager (Natalie Wood) and her boyfriend (Warren Beatty) struggle with managing their sexual urges while listening to confusing advice given by the adults around them — including Beatty’s dad (Pat Hingle) and Wood’s mom (Audrey Christie).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming-of-Age
• Cross-Class Romance
• Elia Kazan Films
• First Love
• Historical Drama
• Mental Breakdown
• Natalie Wood Films
• Pat Hingle Films
• Sandy Dennis Films
• Sexual Repression
• Warren Beatty Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “William Inge scripted and Elia Kazan directed what is still the quintessential film about young love — first love, true love, eternal love — which is wonderful but terribly confusing while it lasts, [and] mercilessly cruel when it ends.” He points out that “this [was] also the first film that dared emphasize that teenagers are ruled by their sexual drives and that, because of their immaturity and inability to get practical information and advice from their parents, doctors, ministers, etc., they are unable to cope with their feelings.”

He argues that “Kazan has tremendous sympathy for [the] lovers and beautifully conveys their painful sexual frustration and confusion,” and notes that the film “perfectly captures feelings of most who have met former lovers years later and have been disappointed… by [the] person whom you once were obsessed with.”

He writes that “throughout [the] film, Kazan’s direction of actors is superlative,” with Beatty “very controlled and sympathetic in his screen debut,” but the film ultimately belonging to “Wood, who has never been more ravishing, sexy, energetic, or revealing of her own personality.”

In Alternate Oscars, Peary names Wood Best Actress of the Year for her performance here as “Deanie” Loomis. While conceding that “Natalie Wood was an inconsistent actress whose bad performances were deserving of the Harvard Lampoon awards given her,” he asserts that “on those rare occasions when she played characters with problems to which she could relate, she opened up as few actresses could, stripped off all her protective pretenses, revealed herself completely, and turned in portraits that were emotionally shattering.”

Although Wood and Beatty dominate our attention in the lead roles, strong performances are given by other members of the cast as well — including Hingle as Beatty’s overbearing father:

… Christie as Wood’s over-protective, misguided mother:

… Barbara Loden as Beatty’s alcoholic sister:

… and Zohra Lampert — star of Let’s Scare Jessica to Death (1971) — as a kind young woman who takes an interest in Beatty when he’s away at college.

Also watch for Sandy Dennis in her film debut as one of Wood’s circle of friends:

… and Phyllis Diller in her film debut as a performer named “Texas Guinan”.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Natalie Wood as Deanie Loomis
  
• Warren Beatty as Bud Stamper
  
• Audrey Christie as Mrs. Loomis
  
• Pat Hingle as Ace Stamper
  
• Vibrant cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, primarily for Wood’s performance but also as an overall powerful show.

Categories

• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
In early 20th century America, aging former sheriff Steve Judd (Joel McCrea) is hired to transport gold from a mining town to a bank, and enlists help from his former colleague Gil Westrum (Randolph Scott) and Scott’s young assistant Heck Longtree (Ron Starr), not realizing that now-corrupt Scott and Starr plan to make off with the gold. Meanwhile, the trio end up coming to the rescue of young Elsa Knudsen (Mariette Hartley), who is desperate to escape the grip of her hyper-religious father Joshua (R.G. Armstrong) and has gone to town to marry her beau Billy (James Drury) without realizing his four aggressive brothers — Henry (Warren Oates), Elder (John Anderson), Sylvus (L.Q. Jones), and Jimmy (John Davis Chandler) — believe they will have “access” to her as well.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Joel McCrea Films
• Outlaws
• Randolph Scott Films
• Sam Peckinpah Films
• Warren Oates Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
In Guide for the Film Fanatic, Peary refers to this Sam Peckinpah film as the director’s “finest achievement, and one of the best westerns ever made”; indeed, in Alternate Oscars, he names it the Best Picture of the Year, and calls it “a fitting swan song for two of the American Western’s icons, Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott.”

He also discusses the film at length in his third Cult Movies book, and I’ll cite from all three of his overviews interchangeably in my review here. Peary writes that while Peckinpah’s “second film hasn’t the scope of his expensive, expansive, more famous The Wild Bunch,” it’s “equally beautiful thanks to their common cinematographer, Lucien Ballard,” the use of CinemaScope, and “breathtaking scenery.”

He argues that Ride the High Country is “several cuts above most westerns… because it has themes important to both the genre and to Peckinpah,” and writes that he sees “the film as a parable in which the corrupted Westrum, novice sinner Heck, and Elsa learn from watching Judd the rewards of leading a moral Christian life.”

Peary points out “many memorable scenes” in the film, including “Judd showing up for the bank job and being told he’s older than the man they expected”:

… “Heck racing a camel against a horse”:

… “Judd and Knudson arguing and quoting Scriptures over a tense dinner, while the amused Westrum quotes “Appetite, Chapter 1”:

… “the terrified Elsa saying her vows during a tinted, hallucinatory, Felliniesque wedding-orgy scene, complete with a drunk judge, a fat madam as a bridesmaid, whores as flower girls, and the boozing Hammond brothers about to pounce on the bride”:

… “Judd and Heck exchanging gunfire with the Hammonds on the wind-swept mountains”:

… and “Westrum, forgetting his own welfare, riding to the rescue when the Hammonds have Judd and Heck trapped in a ditch.” He calls out the finale as “one of the greatest final scenes in movie history,” “ranking up there with the final shots of such films as Queen Christina (1933), The Roaring Twenties (1939), Citizen Kane (1941), Casablanca (1942), The Breaking Point (1950), and The 400 Blows (1959).” He closes his review in Alternate Oscars by noting that “whenever the last movie Western is made, this is the scene that should put the genre to sleep.”

Peary writes in much more detail about the film’s themes, actors, and connections to other classic movies in his Cult Movies review, where he notes, for instance, that “Judd serves as moral inspiration for and the conscience of Westrum in the same way Pat O’Brien does for James Cagney in Angels With Dirty Faces (1938), Humphrey Bogart does for Claude Raines in Casablanca (1942), and John Heard does for Jeff Bridges in Cutter’s Way (1981).” He points out that “McCrea, Scott, Starr, and Hartley are supported by fine veteran character actors,” and that “Peckinpah regulars Warren Oates and L.Q. Jones… are well cast.”

I’m in overall agreement with Peary’s positive assessment of this film. While I wouldn’t necessarily consider it the single best western ever made, I agree it is must-see viewing, and remains a fine, unique entry in the genre.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Joel McCrea as Steve Judd (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Randolph Scott as Gil Westrum (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Mariette Hartley as Elsa Knudsen
  
• Lucien Ballard’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic western.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Articles
• TV Guide Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A secret agent posing as a reporter known as “Lemmy Caution” (Eddie Constantine) arrives on the planet of Alphaville hoping to find a missing colleague (Akim Tamiroff), discover the planet’s creator (Howard Vernon), and destroy its sentient supercomputer; once there, he falls in love with Vernon’s daughter (Anna Karina) and attempts to teach her the concepts of love and conscience.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Akim Tamiroff Films
• Dystopia
• French Films
• Jean-Luc Godard Films
• Journalists
• Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, in this “amusing” film, Jean-Luc Godard “blends popular lowbrow entertainment — comic books, pulp fiction, ‘B’ detective movies, James Bond, and sci-fi — with political satire,” filming the entire futuristic flick (set in “intersidereal space”) in “undisguised modern office buildings and large tourist and small seedy hotels in Paris.”

He describes Alphaville as a “computer-run, robotized society where technology has replaced humanity”:

… “where there is repression/murder of all who don’t think logically”:

… “whose women, like the leader’s daughter, Natasha (Anna Karina), have numbers tattooed on their backs”:

… “and function as first-, second-, or third-class prostitutes/seducers; where words such as ‘conscience’ and ‘love’ do not exist in its Bible-dictionary.” He points out that “picture has the novel twist of having a two-fisted tough guy teaching a sensual female the meaning of ‘love'”:

… and he notes that while “the political themes aren’t that novel,” “Godard’s direction is consistently offbeat and fascinating.” For instance, he notes that Godard’s “use of flickering lights (including those from Lemmy’s camera), sounds (including a monstrous male voice on a loud-speaker), ominous suspense music, choice settings…, and sudden, unexpected actions by characters… makes us feel we’re in another world whose look and rhythm are different from our own.”

He posits that while the “film isn’t altogether successful,” it “has moments of brilliance” and features “exceptional cinematography by Raoul Coutard.” He also notes that “the casting of ‘B’-movie actor Constantine was inspired”:

… and points out that Akim Tamaroff, playing “a corrupted ex-agent,” looks “like his co-star in Touch of Evil, Orson Welles.”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’ assessment of this unexpectedly provocative, typically low-budget Godard film — one in which, as DVD Savant puts it, “what we see and what we hear are at constant odds with one another”. There are enough interesting ideas explored here, in visually creative ways, that it’s easy to stay engaged; and film fanatics will surely take note of how closely some aspects of this film — particularly the end — resemble (and perhaps inspired) Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Raoul Coutard’s cinematography
  
• A provocative script:
  

  “No one has ever lived in the past; no one will ever live in the future. The present is the form of all life.”
  “We are unique. Wretchedly unique.”
  “You shouldn’t call this dump Alphaville; it’s Zeroville.”
  “The present is terrifying because it is irreversible.”

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Criterion Essay
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A tightrope walker (Pia Degermark) and a married lieutenant (Thommy Berggren) who has left his post and his family have a final romantic trip before they must decide how to handle their untenable situation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Infidelity
• Romance
• Runaways
• Scandinavian Films
• Star-Crossed Lovers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, writer-director “Bo Widerberg’s romantic classic” — “set in Denmark in the 1880s” and “based on a true story that has achieved legend status in Scandinavia” — shows a young couple whose “love for each other is so great that they are willing to sacrifice all, to blissfully detach themselves from society.”

However, “they must keep on the move (their photos are in the paper), and their money runs out. They have nothing to eat. They fall into despair, and realize there is only one solution.” Peary adds that while this “film is often lumped with A Man and a Woman, that other famous European romance of the ’60s,” “this is far superior.” He refers to it as “poetic, yet unsentimental,” “with excellent, intelligent acting by Berggren — his character is very likable and interesting”:

… and “the lovely presence of amateur Degermark” (whose real life took a tragic turn in the years after her brief acting career.)

Peary also calls out the “gorgeous cinematography” of “faces, countryside, [and] provincial towns” by Jorgen Persson, and “a compelling theme which appealed to the drop-out-and-love generation.” He points out that the “picture has several memorable moments, including: Sixten’s apology to Elvira”:

… “Sixten inquiring about his children”:

… “hungry Elvira eating flowers and wild mushrooms”:

… and more. Others that stand out to me include a servant shyly showing Elvira how to knit and sew:

… Elvira rigging an impromptu slack-rope to practice her walking on:

… and Elvira’s enjoyment of a visiting string quartet.

While it’s challenging to go into this story knowing the tragic outcome, the film itself remains a surprisingly lyrical and absorbing tale of star-crossed lovers in their final days together.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Thommy Berggren as Sixten Sparre
  
• Pia Degermark as Hedvig Jensen
  
• Luminous cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Foreign Gem

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
During the Cold war, a U.S. secret agent (Stephen Boyd) is recruited by General Carter (Edmond O’Brien) of the CMDF (Combined Miniaturized Deterrence Forces) to join a team — including Dr. Duval (Arthur Kennedy), Dr. Duval’s assistant Cora (Raquel Welch), Dr. Michaels (Donald Pleasence), and a pilot (William Redfield) — travelling on a submarine into the brain of a dying scientist (Jean Del Val) in order to remove a blood clot so he can share a vital secret about miniaturization.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Kennedy Films
• Donald Pleasence Films
• Edmond O’Brien Films
• Raquel Welch Films
• Richard Fleischer Films
• Science Fiction
• Stephen Boyd Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary doesn’t seem to be a huge fan of this ’60s sci-fi adventure film “directed by Richard Fleischer, who did a marvelous job years before on 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, which has a couple of plot similarities.” He notes that as the team travels the scientist’s body, “they encounter a fantastic foreign world of giant monsters (antibodies) and other dangers” — and “to make matters worse, one of them [on the team] is trying to sabotage the mission.”

While Peary concedes that “the premise is terrific,” he adds that “considering it can be used only once in films” (why is that, exactly?) “it’s a shame this effort wasn’t a bit more exciting and inventive.” He writes that while “there are a few good moments,” the “special effects aren’t particularly effective, the sets look phony, the dialogue is trite, Stephen Boyd makes a dull leading man (have you ever met a Stephen Boyd fan?), and Raquel Welch, the era’s sex symbol, is too bundled up.” (Boyd doesn’t seem too upset about this in the shot below, when he’s “forced” to stare at Welch’s bust during a particularly turbulent moment on the ride.)

I think Peary’s review “misses the boat” a bit (sorry for the pun) for this film. Yes, some of the dialogue is dated and corny at times — but humorously so, as when Boyd tries in vain to bow out of the mission:

Boyd: But I don’t want to be miniaturized!
O’Brien: It’s just for an hour.

Or in this ensuing discussion about Welch:

Arthur O’Connell (as Colonel Reid): A woman has no place on a mission of this kind!
Kennedy: I insist on taking my technician!
O’Connell: You’ll take along who I assign.
Kennedy: Don’t tell me who I’m going to work with! Not on this operation. I’ll do what I think is best, without interference!
Pleasence: Dr. Duval has relied on Miss Peterson for years…

Meanwhile, I disagree that the “special effects aren’t particularly effective” and “the sets look phony”: authenticity seems besides the point in a fantasy adventure like this. Instead, one marvels at the audacity and precision of the proceedings, which carry forth in all seriousness (it takes more than half-an-hour for the team to finally get going on their trip):

The miniaturization effects are suitably impressive for the era:

… and the Oscar-winning sets are visually memorable:

Sure, there are a ton of “holes” to be poked (sorry again for the pun) in the science of this storyline — but it’s all in good fun, and one watches with genuine investment to learn the fate of this plucky crew. This film is worth a one-time look simply for being so unique and fearless in its approach.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ernest Laszlo’s cinematography
  
• Oscar-winning art direction and special effects
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique sci-fi adventure with impressive moxie.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
Years after his dad is gunned down in an alley, an ex-con (Cliff Robertson) seeks revenge on the men responsible for his murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cliff Robertson Films
• Ex-Cons
• Mafia
• Revenge
• Sam Fuller Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In Peary’s review of this film about an ex-con who “infiltrates the mob in order to rub out the three surviving criminal bigwigs whom he saw beat his father to death years before,” he points out that “only in Sam Fuller’s America can a petty thief move all the way up in the organization” as Robertson’s Tolly Devlin does.

He adds that “this unflinching crime drama… draws parallels between criminals and lawmen, who wage war against each other in the identical emotionless manner, planning their strategies in nearby buildings.”

He points out that the “picture shows how the criminal element has ruined the fabric of our society”:

… and that “Fuller’s sympathy lies with children who are victimized if parents are either mobsters or top-level lawmen (who are forced to accept payoffs to keep their kids alive) or who are seduced into a world of prostitution and drugs.”

He notes that the film depicts mobsters as “some of our most respectable, philanthropic citizens when not involved in criminal activities”; for instance, “Fuller has them meet by a swimming pool to contrast their filthy personalities with clean water.”

Indeed, Fuller is not exactly known for his subtlety; throughout the film we see “typical strong Fuller visuals”, and know exactly how characters are meant to relate to one another through strategic placement and framing (particularly of baby photos and dolls).

Peary warns us that “you’ll want to wash our hands after [this film is] over,” given the “unusual” fact that “our ‘hero’ really is a bastard.” In his review of the film for TCM, Richard Harland Smith notes that “even with the studio vetting, Underworld U.S.A. remains brutal stuff, with characters beaten, shot, drowned, burned alive and one 9 year-old innocent run down in the street as a warning against finking.”

Yikes. With that said, as Peary points out, “Robertson gives one of his best performances”:

… and there are several “memorable” performances among the supporting cast, including “beautiful Dolores Dorn as Robertson’s prostitute girlfriend”:

… “Beatrice Kay as his surrogate mother (who is incapable of bearing kids of her own, so collects dolls)”:

… “and Richard Rust as a hit man.”

This long-con revenge tale — while morally challenging — remains well worth a look by film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Cliff Robertson as Tolly
  
• Excellent supporting performances
  
  
• Highly atmospheric cinematography
  
• Typically solid direction by Fuller
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as another powerful and unique film by Fuller.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review (spoilers alert)
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When grown Apu (Soumitra Chatterjee) — living in poverty after dropping out of college to work on his writing — receives an invitation from his friend (Swapan Mukherjee) to attend his cousin’s wedding, he unexpectedly finds himself married to the bride-to-be (Sharmila Tagore); but once their life together is tragically altered, will Apu be able to rally himself on behalf of his young son (Alok Chakravarty)?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Father and Child
• Indian Films
• Newlyweds
• Satyajit Ray Films
• Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “final installment in Satyajit Ray’s classic Apu Trilogy” shows us a surprising view of an “arranged marriage” in India, in which the new couple “illuminate each other’s lives, falling deeply, madly in love, and living for each other’s company.”

Of course, “as in most of Ray’s films, there will be great tragedy, reflection, guilt, and, ultimately an affirmation of life,” which circles back once again to the grounding anchor of nature.

Peary writes that while this “beautiful film has [a] familiar plotline” (I disagree), “Ray presents everything in unique ways” and the “final shot… is the perfect reward for us having gone through so much suffering with Apu in Pather Panchali, Aparajito, and this film.”

He points out that “Ray has been criticized for failing to give a clear picture of the changing India,” but counters that “here we see industrialization, get a quick view of a picket line, hear of strike-breaking, get a glimpse of a decrepit school where no education is possible and the back room of a factory where workers waste their lives ‘labeling’ for slave wages.”

Peary concludes his review by noting that “even if this isn’t a social document, it manages to give us insight into people (men and women, children) that few filmmakers have been able to match” — and “for viewers, there aren’t many films that are as emotionally rewarding as the Apu films.”

I fully agree. Although I find Pather Panchali (Ray’s debut film) to be the most magical of the trilogy, this one is a close second given its mature depiction of love, heartbreak, and compromise. Young Aparna is stunningly beautiful:

… and she and Chatterjee make a fine couple; her willingness to leave behind a life of relative leisure with servants to follow her unknown husband to his ramshackle apartment speaks volumes about her loyalty and character. We fully understand the depth of Chatterjee’s grief when tragedy strikes, and are grateful that Ray allows us to experience the relentless impact of this as it hits Chatterjee over a period of days, weeks, and years. While this film’s storyline (based once again on a novel by Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay) is far from easy, we know we’ll be rewarded by authenticity and genuine pathos.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Soumitra Chatterjee as Apu
  
• Sharmila Tagore as Aparna
  
• Subatra Mitra’s cinematography
  
• Ravi Shankar’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a moving finale to the trilogy, and a fine film in its own right.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review (older DVD review)
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
Ten-year-old Apu (Pinaki Sen Gupta) moves from rural Bengal to the city with his mother (Karuna Bannerjee) and father (Kanu Bannerjee). As a teenager, Apu (Smaran Ghosal) decides he wants to go to school rather than becoming a priest — but how will his widowed mother respond to being left alone?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Childhood
• College
• Indian Films
• Satyajit Ray Films
• Single Mothers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “second film in Satyajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy” really “conveys [the] special relationship between mother and son,” with teenage Apu (Ghosal) realizing “that he means everything to her, but can’t allow that to dictate his life.” Peary adds that “the scenes between the boy and his mother are priceless — he assuring her that she’s a better cook than the guy at college”:

… “she smiling slightly but with infinite happiness when her son returns home for one extra day of vacation time, claiming to have missed the train.”

Peary describes Aparajito as a “lovely, perceptive film, with a second unforgettable, understated performance by Banerjee (smiling more and acting nicer than in [the] original) as one of Ray’s many fascinating, untraditional women.”

While I’m not nearly as enamored with this second installation in the Apu trilogy as I am with the first (which remains a truly unique gem), I appreciate Ray allowing us to continue Apu’s journey with him, seeing his passion for learning and clear trajectory towards a life of the mind.

And while nothing can compare with the beauty of rural Bengal captured in Pather Panchali, Ray makes excellent use of location shooting in the city of Varanasi, showing citizens praying, exercising, gathering, and bathing near or in the Ganges River.

This classic Indian film remains well worth a look by film fanatics — and I’ll be back shortly with my assessment of the third entry in the trilogy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine location shooting in Varanasi
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• Ravi Shankar’s score

Must See?
Yes, as the second in a highly regarded trilogy.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Movie Diva Review