FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
During the Civil War, a drifter (Clint Eastwood) collaborates with a wanted felon (Eli Wallach) and a sociopath named Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) to find hidden gold.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Civil War
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Eli Wallach Films
• Gold Seekers
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, Sergio Leone’s “exceptional, extremely exciting, extravagant, and funny epic western” — “released in the U.S. in 1968, a year after A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More” — is another “episode in the life of Clint Eastwood’s deadly, nameless superwarrior (a myth figure riding through America’s West)” who “is, ironically, ‘the good’ — so designated because he kills only bad guys.”

Eastwood’s ‘Blondie’ “forms an unholy alliance with Eli Wallach’s Tuco, a ruthless (although humorous) murderer who, besides killing people, has ‘robbed countless post offices’ and taken almost everybody over the border for immoral purposes” — and is thus “the ‘ugly’ — a flawed superwarrior” (I wouldn’t use this term for him) “who has emotions, talks a lot, is religious and feels guilt”:

… “and is more human than either Eastwood or Lee Van Cleef’s ‘Angel Eyes,’ Leone’s ‘bad’ — a fallen angel/superwarrior who kills anyone who gets in his way.”

As Peary synopsizes the storyline: “All three men are after a cache of gold and they won’t let even the Civil War get in their way.” (!!! True.)

Peary points out that the film features “an imaginative storyline, elaborate set pieces (some employing hundreds of extras)”:

… “several terrific shootouts” — including “the film’s sensational climax” in which “the three invincible characters face each other in a graveyard, with the gold going to the victor”:

… “much humor (built around the Eastwood-Wallach relationship)”:

… “striking cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli, and Ennio Morricone’s best score.” He notes that the “film has [a] vague anti-war theme and, like all Leone’s works, points out that America was civilized by men who killed for profit.”

He asserts that “the three leads make lasting impressions,” and notes that “even the ugly bit actors Leone puts in close-up have remarkable screen presence.”

Peary’s review nicely sums up the strengths of this iconic western, which isn’t a personal favorite but has clearly been hugely influential, with Quentin Tarantino naming it the best directed film of all time. It should be seen at least once by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Eli Wallach as Tuco
  
• Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes
  
• Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography
  
• Fine use of location shooting across Spain
  
• The creative opening sequence
  
• Ennio Morricone’s truly iconic score

Must See?
Yes, as the third in a classic western trilogy.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Trailers From Hell Review

Synopsis:
A petty criminal (Brahim Hadjadj) is recruited by a revolutionary leader (Saadi Yacef) to fight with the FLN (National Liberation Front) in the Algerian War of Independence, and is soon among a handful of individuals sought out by French paratroop commander Colonel Mathieu (Jean Martin) and his men.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Flashback Films
• Historical Drama
• Revolutionaries

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “extraordinary revolutionary film by Gillo Pontecorvo” — who “directed and wrote the script with Franco Solinas” — covers “the pivotal years, 1954 to 1957, in the Algerian struggle for independence from France.” While the “entire film looks like a cinéma vérité documentary” — especially given cinematographer Marcello Gatti’s use of “grainy stock,” and the intentional hiring of non-actors for all but one key role — this is actually “a fictionalized account of real and representative events that took place during the National Liberation Front’s guerrilla war against the French.”

It “not only shows how to conduct an urban guerrilla war (the reason it was studied by America’s Black Panthers) but also the necessity of violence in revolution” — and “equally important, it shows how oppressors — the French, in this case — conduct a counterrevolution.” As Peary argues, “you won’t believe that the shots of women planting bombs”:

… “and those of innocent people being killed aren’t real,” and “you’ll also feel you’re watching history when the French close in on some holed-up Algerian leaders.”

I should point out that Peary’s analysis of this “fascinating, thrilling” film is just one of many that have emerged since its highly contested release (it wasn’t shown in France for five years), with Criterion’s DVD release including numerous extras for those who would like to dive even deeper. Just part of this movie’s own storied history is that it was screened by the Pentagon in 2003 “for officers and civilian experts who were discussing the challenges faced by the US military forces in Iraq” (and as of the exact day I’m writing this, it remains enormously relevant for different but related reasons).

Indeed, as “fascinating” and “thrilling” as this film may be (and it is expertly crafted), it’s also deeply disturbing and hard to watch, precisely because of its authenticity. To that end, the filmmakers don’t shy away from depicting horrors and challenges on both sides — including, for instance, children mercilessly harassing a drunk man on the street after the FLN prohibited “the sale and use of all drugs and alcoholic drink.”

(We also see explicit scenes of torture, which were excluded from earlier versions of the film). Regardless of its challenging content, however, this remains a masterful depiction of revolutionary (and counter-revolutionary) tactics, and holds a deserved role in global cinematic history.

Note: For those seeking more precise historical context on the era, I recommend this video on The Cold War channel.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marcello Gatti’s cinematography
  
  
• Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring cinematic classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Movie Diva Review
• WSWS Review
• Criterion Essay

Synopsis:
When a suddenly-mute actress (Liv Ullmann) is sent to an island to recuperate with help from a young nurse (Bibi Andersson), the two women’s identities slowly become merged.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Actors and Actresses
• Ingmar Bergman Films
• Liv Ullmann Films
• Mental Breakdown
• Scandinavian Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, “Ingmar Bergman’s intense, powerful film” — one of the most analyzed in all of cinematic history — “has tremendous impact on American viewers,” ushering “in a new era of Bergman films.” He writes, “It excited us not only because it made us aware of the filmmaking process… and the unique power film has to tell stories, make personal and/or political points, and probe the minds of characters, but also because it dealt with themes that were relevant: isolation, identity, alienation, communication, loneliness, guilt, horror, [and] schizophrenia.”

Peary points out that, famously, “Bergman places the two actresses, who resemble each other, in close proximity and uses camera tricks (superimpositions/split screen) to make it seem as if two different women were fusing into one character.”

This brings up countless questions and points of contention: “Could it be that they’re exchanging identities? Are the two women the split halves of a schizophrenic woman? If so, then is the nurse real and the actress imaginary? Or is it the actress who is real? Or, perhaps, is this woman neither an actress nor a nurse?” Peary notes that “Bergman doesn’t let us know the answers,” adding that “Figuring out — or not being able to figure out — the puzzle is much of the fun.”

I wouldn’t exactly say “fun” is the most accurate word, given how dark so much of this film is; perhaps “intrigue” is a better choice. And with that said, not everyone will be taken with a story this “meta” — a film which not only critically explores complex issues of identity and psychology but plays its cinematic experimental hand so openly. So much has been written and debated about this film that first-time viewers are recommended to simply dive in and see what sense they make of it; there’s no right or wrong.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Bibi Andersson as Alma
  
• Liv Ullmann as Elisabet Vogler
  
• Sven Nyqvist’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an iconic Scandinavian classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Criterion Essay
• What Makes This Movie Great? Video Analysis
• Discarded Image Video Analysis

Synopsis:
When a well-to-do housewife (Giulietta Masina) begins to suspect her husband (Mario Pisu) is having an affair, she consults help from both psychics and private eyes in learning what’s going on, and leans on her friend (Valentina Cortese) and sex-positive neighbor (Sandra Milo) to explore new potential paths for herself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fantasy
• Federico Fellini Films
• Housewives
• Infidelity
• Italian Films
• Marital Problems

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “difficult Federico Fellini film” tells the story of “a meek, passive woman… who suspects her husband… is having an affair with a young model” and thus “consults a medium, hires a detective to spy on her husband, and slips in and out of a fantasy world full of spirits from her past.”

He notes that the “picture has advanced, pre-women’s-movement themes” — such as that “women shouldn’t equate themselves with their problems; women withstand humiliation out of fear of being alone; women secretly wish they had freedom that could come only if their husbands leave them” — and he argues that “Masina’s feeling that she is unworthy and deserving of persecution and punishment can be tracked back to her childhood, when her character in a religious school play was raised to the rafters while being symbolically burned to death” (though the exact meaning of this connection isn’t clear).

Peary points out the “picture has such interesting themes that after a while you wish Fellini had forgone his confusing trips into the surreal world of Massina’s unconscious and just told his story.” He concludes his review by noting that “the casting of Fellini’s wife in the lead seems ill-advised,” given that “Masina looks like a Plain Jane in a world of flamboyant grotesqueness” (I agree, but figured there was a point to this somehow).

Like Peary, I’m not really a fan of this film — which, as many have pointed out, seems in some ways like a feminist “version” of Fellini’s 8 1/2 (1963). Gianni Di Venanzo’s cinematography (this was Fellini’s first film in color) is beautiful, and much care was obviously put into all aspects of the creative set and costume design:

… but the storyline is ultimately unsatisfying. While Fellini fans will naturally want to check it out, it’s not must-see for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Colorful cinematography and sets
  
• Nino Rota’s score

Must See?
No, though of course Fellini fans will certainly want to see it.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Criterion Collections Essay
• Village Voice Review (Part 1)
• Village Voice Review (Part 2)
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Video Essay: “Giulietta & Giulietta and the Spirits of Fellini”

Synopsis:
Six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a Japanese submarine is spotted off the coast of Los Angeles, setting in motion a host of responses from various military and civilian stakeholders.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Christopher Lee Films
• Comedy
• Dan Aykroyd Films
• Dick Miller Films
• Elisha Cook Jr. Films
• Historical Drama
• John Belushi Films
• Mickey Rourke Films
• Nancy Allen Films
• Ned Beatty Films
• Robert Stack Films
• Steven Spielberg Films
• Toshiro Mifune Films
• Treat Williams Films
• Warren Oates Films
• World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “pointless mayhem” — about “a lot of panicky and crazy soldiers and civilians rac[ing] around LA in 1941 thinking that the Japanese are launching a full-scale invasion” — “was directed by Steven Spielberg,” it’s “the type of comedy (i.e., Casino Royale) that looks like it was directed by anyone who came along.” He points out that while “at the outset the film has some period flavor” and “introduces some interesting characters”:

… “it becomes increasingly stupid.” Indeed, it’s “alternately smutty, racist, cruel (unless you think watching someone’s house slide off a cliff is funny)” and “it is always wasteful of its large budget.” He notes that given that “screaming, explosions, fights, car and plane crashes, and destruction in general seem to be the order of the day:”

… “one can understand why in the best scene officer Robert Stack would stay away from the chaos in the streets and tearfully watch Dumbo.” (This character and his actions were based on real life.)

The rest of Peary’s short review of this critical failure — though it did fine at the box office — lists the truly astonishing number of big-name actors either co-starring or making a cameo appearance — including John Belushi (as Captain Wild Bill Kelso):

… Treat Williams (playing an effectively cartoonish baddie):

… Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, and Ned Beatty:

… Toshiro Mifune (as Commander Akiro Mitamura):

… Christopher Lee (as Captain Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt):

… Sam Fuller:

… Warren Oates (as Colonel ‘Madman’ Maddox):

… and many, many others. Blink and you’ll miss Patti LuPone (seen here — blinking):

… and, naturally, Dick Miller makes an appearance as well.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• The incredibly filmed dance sequence
  
• Fine production design
  
• Impressive pre-CGI special effects
  
• William Fraker’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though of course it’s worth a one-time look for its infamy.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When a nameless bounty hunter (Clint Eastwood) meets vengeful Colonel Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef), the pair unexpectedly team up to hunt down the leader (Gian Maria Volontè) of a vicious outlaw gang.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bounty Hunters
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Revenge
• Sergio Leone Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of “Sergio Leone’s follow-up to A Fistful of Dollars,” Peary notes that this film “moves from a mythical age to a time when civilization (symbolized by the coming of the railroad to the West) and recorded history emerge.” He argues that the sequel is “more elaborate, more imaginatively plotted, better photographed, funnier, more brutal (the violence becomes more realistic), and more overtly adult and political than the original,” and points out that “Eastwood and Van Cleef form the first of Leone’s unholy alliances”: “whereas Eastwood’s mysterious gunfighters kill to make money rather than to achieve revenge (he has no past)”:

… Van Cleef has a very specific reason for hunting down Volontè, which we don’t learn about until the tension-filled final shoot-out.

Eastwood’s once-again-nameless, cheroot-chewing gunslinger doesn’t have much to do throughout this film other than squint and participate in cleverly choreographed gun fights:

… but of course he’s an essential component of the film’s iconography. Van Cleef (in a role which revived his later-life career) also acquits himself well — though it’s Italian actor Volontè who pulls out the most dramatic acting chops:

… and it’s Ennio Morricone’s incomparable score — filled with “twangy jew’s-harps, insanely catchy guitar riffs, iconic whistling, bell tolls, church organs” and a musical pocket watch — which ultimately steals the show.

Note: Watch for Klaus Kinski in a memorable supporting role as an outlaw enraged by being used as a human match-striking surface.

His interactions with Van Cleef lead to my favorite random exchange of the film.

Van Cleef: It’s a small world.
Kinski: Yes — and very, very bad.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Lee Van Cleef as Colonel Mortimer
  
• Gian Maria Volontè as El Indio
  
• Massimo Dallamano’s cinematography
  
  
• Notable editing
  
• Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as part of an essential western trilogy.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Trailers From Hell Review (scroll down to second review)
• TCM Article
• Matt Draper’s Video Review

Synopsis:
In 1860 Sicily, as Italian states are unifying into one nation, the Prince of Salina (Burt Lancaster) watches over his large family, giving permission for his nephew (Alain Delon) to marry the daughter (Claudia Cardinale) of “new money” (Paolo Stoppa).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alain Delon Films
• Burt Lancaster Films
• Class Relations
• Claudia Cardinale Films
• Historical Drama
• Italian Films
• Luchino Visconti Films
• Royalty and Nobility

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “opulent historical epic” — based on a 1958 novel of the same name by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, and set during a specific time in Italy’s history known as the Risorgimento — shows us “the old, loyal, refined royalty [as] represented by the picture’s central character, Don Fabrizio,” who is “majestically played by Burt Lancaster.”

While Lancaster “at first… refuses to acknowledge that civil war is taking place around him” — even “continuing his plans for a vacation with his wife (Rina Morelli), his dashing nephew (Alain Delon), and his seven children”:

— very quickly “the face of Italy changes too drastically for him to ignore,” given that “the noble aristocracy of the past is being phased out” and “replaced by” not only “greedy military and political opportunists who switch loyalties at the drop of a hat” but by “shrewd and vulgar young people who will not carry on the dignified tradition.”

Peary points out that “it’s unclear what Lancaster’s attitude toward” the “breathtaking” “Cardinale is — although he appears to approve of her and Delon because they at least have style.”

He adds that the “picture has excellent acting, surprising wit, and glorious sets, costumes, and scenery,” as well as a “lush score” by Nino Rota.

Peary’s assessment is fair, yet I struggled to find much connection with the storyline, which seems conflicted in its views on revolution. While it’s clear that social change is needed, we’re meant to (and do) relate to Lancaster’s central character (the “leopard”) — a man who represents everything noble and patient about a landed gentry which will nonetheless soon be overrun by a much more complicated national reality.

I haven’t much more to say about this film, other than that it’s widely lauded and considered must-see for its visuals alone, which are indeed impressive — but I’m not really sure why American audiences in particular would feel drawn to this tale.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Burt Lancaster as the Prince
  
• Sumptuous sets and costumes
  
• Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, though of course it’s worth a one-time look.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Criterion Essay
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
When a disheveled man (Harry Dean Stanton) is found wandering the desert after four years away, his brother (Dean Stockwell) takes him back to his home, where he and his wife (Aurore Clément) have been raising Stanton’s son (Hunter Carson) ever since Stanton and Carson’s mother (Nastassja Kinski) separately disappeared four years earlier. Will Stanton be able to reunite with his son and with Kinski?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Dean Stockwell Films
• Father and Child
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• Marital Problems
• Nastassja Kinski Films
• Road Trip
• Search
• Wim Wenders Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this modern road-trip classic by reminding us that “Wim Wenders’s German films” — i.e., Alice in the Cities (1974) and Kings of the Road (1976) — “typically dealt with men who spent their lives on the open road, escaping from marriages they couldn’t cope with, and leaving behind wives and children they longed for, creating not only a destroyed marriage but a destroyed family.” He adds that “in his second American film, which was adapted from [a] Sam Shepard story by L.M. ‘Kit’ Carson, Wenders at last gives his hero the opportunity to put his family back together, to make up for all his mistakes as [a] husband and father” — and “this time Wenders really brings home the meaning of the child to his hero.”

He notes that after the first third of the movie, when Stanton is picked up and taken home by Stockwell, “the major part of the picture deals with how the father and son become acquainted and fall in love,” then “hit the road in search of Stanton’s ex-wife” — leading to “the final third, written after the rest of the movie was filmed,” in which “Stanton, who keeps his identity a secret,” is “talking to Kinski, who works in a sex-fantasy booth.”

He writes that “this is the kind of arty picture that some people applaud for its revelations about familial relationships while others accuse it of being shamefully pretentious.” For his own part, Peary argues that the “story has the potential to be a real charmer, but Wenders, Carson, and cinematographer Robby Müller approach [the] material [too] dispassionately.” While “there are tears, [and] there is humor,” “Wenders’s unbearably slow pacing and the bleakness of [the] Texas landscape and cityscape overwhelm [the] characters, minimizing their touching moments and almost depriving the picture of warmth.”

I was unhappily surprised to find, upon revisiting this film, that I’m somewhat in agreement with Peary’s assessment. While the film is gorgeous and provocative, there were too many details and questions that left me unsatisfied this time around. First, what led to Stanton’s extreme catatonia?

Much later in the film, Stanton tells (reminds?) Kinski in the booth about the trauma that happened earlier in their marriage — but having this all delivered in a monologue isn’t sufficient, and comes far too late. Second, why don’t Clément and Stockwell have their own kids? Obviously, not all couples have kids, but we’re left wondering if they perhaps postponed their own goals out of sacrificing to care for Carson. (Not everyone will mind about this detail, but it stood out to me, especially given how uber-maternal Clément is.)

Third, how could Kinski not recognize her husband’s voice much earlier on in their interactions? While their sequences together in the booth ‘work’ on an artistic level (they’re beautifully filmed and metaphorically rich), they don’t pass logic.

Meanwhile, as Peary himself notes, “Even if you’re not a romantic, the resolution is unsatisfying” (I agree). Not mentioned in Peary’s review — but most definitely of note — is Ry Cooder’s distinctive slide-guitar score, which almost functions as a character of its own throughout the film.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Robby Müller’s cinematography
  
  
• Fine use of location shooting across diverse landscapes
  
  
• Ry Cooder’s score

Must See?
Yes. Despite my own reservations, this is a modern existential classic that should be seen at least once by all film fanatics.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
As King Henry V (John Gielgud) approaches death, his son Hal (Keith Baxter) is called back home and must negotiate a new relationship with his long-time carousing companion, Sir John Falstaff (Orson Welles).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Father and Child
• Friendship
• Jeanne Moreau Films
• John Gielgud Films
• Margaret Rutherford Films
• Orson Welles Films
• Royalty and Nobility
• Shakespeare

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Orson Welles’s final masterpiece” — which “received almost no U.S. distribution after it got a devastating review in the New York Times by Bosley Crowther” — is based on a story by Welles “which he mounted as a play in Belfast in 1960,” “taken from Shakespeare’s Henry IV Parts I & II, with bits from Henry V, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Richard II” alongside “narration… taken from Raphael Holinshed‘s Chronicles.” He notes it is “told with warmth, wit, and surprising poignancy,” portraying a story that “is simple and on a human level, since Welles makes Falstaff… the hero.” With that said, he’s a most unusual hero, given that he’s “a fat, cowardly, bawdy, lying figure” — however, “he gives Hal genuine love while the rigid, humorless Henry pays little attention to him.”

Peary points out that “Welles often played characters whose ascent to power was characterized, like Hal’s, by their quick exchange of idealism for ruthlessness” — but “while characters like Kane or Harry Lime did their friends wrong, few ever actually betrayed friendships.” To that end, he notes that “Falstaff is surely the character who, with warts, weight, and all, was closest to the real Welles.” While Falstaff “isn’t the type of guy you’d bring to a society function,” he’d “make a great Santa Claus.”

Most importantly, he may fib “constantly, but is honest; he fits in with the town dunce and senile old men, yet he has a unique knowledge of what’s important in life (love, loyalty, friendship, a good chat, a good roll in bed with a wench, a good bowel movement)” — ultimately representing “goodness in a cruel world.”

Peary points out that while the “film’s low budget caused Welles problems,” he encourages viewers to “wait out the early scenes in which the dialogue is often out of synch” and enjoy the “superb” acting (“Welles was never better”) and “often stunning” visuals.

He adds that “Welles’s choreography of the battle sequence is spectacular — only in Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky does a battle have such impact.” (Indeed, the scene is so kinetically filmed and edited that it’s hard to do it justice with a still.)

The production history of this movie is, naturally, a thing unto itself (what else would you expect with Welles?); you can read more at Wikipedia or watch some of the DVD extras (Criterion has put out a newly remastered version).

Watch for Jeanne Moreau as the prostitute Doll Tearsheet (you can see Moreau’s real-life friendship with/affection for Welles shining through her characterization):

… and Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Orson Welles as Jack Falstaff
  
• Keith Baxter as Hal
  
• John Gielgud as Henry IV
  
• Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly
  
• Highly atmospheric cinematography and sets
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful Shakespearian adaptation and for Welles’s performance.

Categories

• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Talk Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A Jewish adman named Leopold Bloom (Milo O’Shea) wanders the streets of Dublin with young poet Stephen Dedalus (Maurice Roëves), reflecting on his adulterous wife (Barbara Jefford) back at home while engaging in his own adventures, both real and imagined.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ireland
• Marital Problems

Review:
Peary isn’t a big fan of “Joseph Strick’s adaptation of James Joyce’s epic novel.” He argues that the character of Stephen Dedalus (a stand-in for Joyce) is “on screen too briefly and makes insignificant impact,” and notes that while “college lit majors and Joyce scholars will be thankful that this film was made by a devotee of Joyce,” “Strick proves — as he did with Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer [not listed in GFTFF] — that the source is unfilmable, as anyone who has read it (or carried the heavy thing in a bookbag) could have told him.” He argues that this “sleep-inducing, confusing film never sustains [the] flavor or power of [the] novel,” and that “it’s also hard to recognize Joyce’s Dublin or his colorful characters.”

He further asserts that while the “narration is from Joyce,” “Strick’s slapdash choice of images to accompany it is disconcerting.”

He concludes by noting that the “most interesting narration is by Molly as she lies in bed with the sleeping Leopold, whose feet are by her head”:

… and points out that “because the film was made back in 1967 when there were censorship problems, it’s jarring to hear her strong language,” yet “even today it’s still interesting listening to her lengthy discourse on the men in her life” (I agree).

However, I don’t quite agree with the rest of Peary’s take on this film — which is indeed super-challenging to follow, but that’s the nature of the book itself (which I’ll confess to not having read). As I’ve done more research into the storyline and structure of the novel, it seems to me that Strick admirably captures much of the flavor of the story and its characters (though maybe I would feel differently if I’d read and absorbed it first).

While I don’t fully “get” all of Joyce’s allusions, one isn’t supposed to; this is a novel meant to be explored and enjoyed over time, in conversation with others — and I can see how this film might be an interesting accompaniment to that process.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Milo O’Shea as Leopold Bloom
  
• Barbara Jefford as Molly Bloom
  
• Wolfgang Suschitzky’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, though of course anyone interested in this novel or James Joyce more broadly will certainly want to give it a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review