FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A photo-journalist (Herbert Gronemeyer) chronicles the harrowing existence of a captain (Jürgen Prochnow) and his crew on board a German U-boat patrolling the North Atlantic in 1941.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• German Films
• Submarines
• Survival
• World War Two

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “award-winning, epic WWII film by director Wolfgang Petersen, whose script was adapted from a popular autobiographical novel by former war correspondent Lothar-Günther Buchheim,” is a “well-made picture show[ing] a different, harrowing side of war: that experienced by Germany’s 40,000 U-boat men, of whom more than half were killed.”

He points out that “we are made to feel their discomfort and claustrophobia while inside their cramped, muggy, smelly, underwater vessel [and] their monotony, constant fear, and panic when enemy ships hover above.” He argues that “the picture is frightening because Petersen uses horror-movie techniques: the giant enemy ships emerging from the mist and lurching through the water are like great sea serpents”:

… [and] “the sweating, shouting, terrified men rushing about the ship in search of danger points (where water leaks in) could very well be characters in Alien.” Meanwhile, “the U-96 itself is like a room in a haunted house, where trapped men nervously listen to the spooky noises (i.e., death knells) on the outside. These men are in hell.”

Indeed, they are — a version of it, anyway. Peary points out that “Peterson’s goal was to show that all men in war are victims, certainly not a controversial theme” — though the picture was “criticized by those who thought Peterson — who chose not to deal with the soldiers’ politics — was apologizing for the Nazi soldiers.” Peary adds that “the film should be praised for debunking a myth that was held forth in Germany for 40 years — that German submarine warfare was a heroic, glorious adventure.”

In his review, Peary touches briefly on the fact that this “story became a five-hour German TV movie;” indeed, in the time since Peary’s GFTFF was published, several different home video versions have been released, including a 209-minute 1997 director’s cut version (which is what I watched for this review).

Peary also highlights the performance by Prochnow, who “makes a strong impression as the U-boat’s commander, who hates his superiors and war.”

Indeed, Prochnow is riveting (and perfectly cast, despite being older than the original commander) — and he’s surrounded by a cast of excellent performers, many of them inexperienced actors; the casting directors travelled around Germany to find men to represent various geographical areas.

Just a few more interesting facts about this film, which has become a solid modern classic and a bit of a cult favorite:

• This was the most expensive German movie ever made at the time.
• This is a rare foreign film to be regularly referred to by its native title rather than a translation (which would be “The Boat”).
• American directors John Sturges and Don Siegel were originally considered to helm this film.
• This was the most successful foreign film to date at the time of its release in the U.S.
• Das Boot received six Oscar nominations (but not one for Best Picture).
• Cinematographer Jost Vacano used mostly a hand-held camera for interior shots, and limited himself to shooting within the real confined space limits of a submarine.
• All actors were bilingual in German and English, and did their own voiceovers for the dubbed English version.

Note: Film fanatics will likely notice Günter Lamprecht — star of Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980) — in a small role as Captain of the Weser.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jürgen Prochnow as Capt. Lehmann-Willenbrock
  
• Fine supporting performances by the (largely unknown) cast
  
• Jost Vacano’s cinematography
  
• Highly effective sets, special effects, sound production, and editing
  

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful foreign classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When a Polish construction manager (Jeremy Irons) arrives in London with three non-English-speaking co-workers (Eugene Lipinski, Jirí Stanislav, and Eugeniusz Haczkiewicz) to illegally reconstruct a condo for his boss, he becomes increasingly stressed and paranoid about ensuring the work gets done, even amidst strife in their home country.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Corruption
• Immigrants and Immigration
• Jerzy Skolimowski Films
• Living Nightmare
• Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “beguiling film (shot and edited in one month’s time) from Polish director Jerzy Skolimowski” is at first “comedic in tone but later it’s an increasingly bleak and desperate political allegory.” In describing the spare but powerful story, Peary writes that Irons “is a married, educated Polish construction worker living in Warsaw” who, “because he knows how to speak English,” is sent by his “wealthy boss (looking for cheap labor)” to “London to turn a dull flat into a snazzy retreat to which the boss can take his mistress.”

He “takes three workers with him” who he selects “because they don’t know English and are stupid [sic], so he figures they’ll be easy to supervise” — and, “indeed, they do everything he says, including staying inside so no one will know they are working illegally.”

However, “as their stay goes on, Irons becomes more and more isolated from his men — becoming their slavedriver and watchdog and the person who rations food and clothing allotments,” “keeps all the money the boss has sent them, takes away their source of entertainment and news…, [and] manipulates them into working more hours by altering his watch.” Perhaps worst of all, “he doesn’t tell them… when he learns that there has been a military crackdown in Poland and Solidarity has been outlawed,” given “he fears they will stop work at the depressing news.”

Ironically, “in effect, [Irons] has deprived them of all their freedoms”: their “lives are so oppressive under Irons that they are enduring (on a much less frightening level, of course) what their fellow workers are going through back in Warsaw.”

Indeed, this film represents a living nightmare on numerous levels: not only are Irons and his men perceived either as non-entities or nuisances (much like thousands of immigrant workers continue to be all over the world), but there is nobody to keep an eye on (or temper) Irons’ increasing totalitarianism and paranoia. He is so fixated on working for a short-term monetary goal that any ends seem to justify the means — including repeated bouts of risky shoplifting. Meanwhile, he’s miserable; this is not a man getting high on his own power so much as someone blindly carrying out orders — and involving others — “as a puppet of the Polish elite.” By the film’s appropriately bleak ending, you will truly feel the hopeless injustice of their situation — which is, precisely, the point.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jeremy Irons as Nowak
  
• Tony Pierce Roberts’ cinematography
  
  
• Stanley Myers’ score

Must See?
Yes, as a uniquely effective film.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When a wounded Yankee colonel (Clint Eastwood) seeks refuge in a southern girls’ school run by middle-aged Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), he quickly finds himself presented with multiple opportunities for flirtations — including with sexually forward Carol (Jo Ann Harris) and demure Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Civil War
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Don Siegel Films
• Elizabeth Hartman Films
• Geraldine Page Films
• Historical Drama
• Love Triangle
• Strong Females
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Don Siegel directed this gothic horror tale (in which females are the ‘monsters’) that surely is one of Clint Eastwood’s oddest films (and one of his rare money-losers).” When Eastwood’s “injured Yankee soldier” is suddenly “surrounded by females of all ages,” he “can’t understand them and underestimates them.”

Because he’s “afraid of being turned over to the rebel army,” this “least moral of Eastwood’s characters lies his way into the passionate hearts” of numerous women — but quickly “learns about the wrath of woman scorned.”

I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that this “Southern Gothic” cult classic more than delivers on its potential. The cast — from Eastwood and Page to all supporting players — is top-notch; Bruce Surtees’ cinematography is luminous; Lalo Schifrin’s score is appropriately haunting; and we’re kept on our toes from the first moments of Albert Maltz’s screenplay (based on a novel by Thomas P. Cullinan) until the very end. There are numerous twists and turns, unpredictable character arcs, and sequences of genuine horror which nonetheless play out as entirely realistic within this particular bounded universe (I won’t share any of them here because the fun is in the watching). Be forewarned that nobody here is really who they seem — and yet they are each, very much, exactly who they are.

Note: Apparently this was Don Siegel’s favorite of all his movies, which makes sense — though I suppose it also makes sense that viewers at the time expecting more of Eastwood’s typical action fare would be disappointed (it was a failure at the box office).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Clint Eastwood as Corporal John McBurney
  
• Geraldine Page as Miss Martha Farnsworth
  
• Elizabeth Hartman as Edwina Dabney
  
• Jo Ann Harris as Carol
  
• Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy
  
• Mae Mercer as Hallie
  
• Fine location shooting
  
• Bruce Surtees’ cinematography
  
• Lalo Schifrin’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a strong cult classic by a noted director.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When ambitious Cuban immigrant Tony Montana (Al Pacino) arrives in Florida with his friend Manny (Steven Bauer), he immediately begins plans to enter into the drug trade — starting with local kingpin Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Al Pacino Films
• Brian De Palma Films
• Cuba
• Drug Dealers
• Gangsters
• Immigrants and Immigration
• Oliver Stone Films [screenwriter]
• Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly not a fan of “Brian De Palma’s… remake of Howard Hawks’s 1932 classic,” referring to it right away as “ugly” and “disappointing.” He argues that Pacino “gives one of the most pungent (as in stinky), self-impressed performances in memory — snarling, swaggering, shouting, sneering, and sniffing coke up his snout ad nauseum.”

Peary complains about nearly every aspect of the film — but before going further in citing his review, I should note that he was not at all alone in his disdain for this movie at the time of its release; De Palma received a Razzie Nomination as worst director of the year, and according to TCM’s article:

Andrew Sarris branded Scarface “… so much more a disaster than an outrage” while David Denby sloughed it off as “a sadly overblown B-movie.” Brickbats also came from John Simon, Pauline Kael and Rex Reed” — [however] “there were dissenting opinions. In The Chicago Sun Times, Roger Ebert awarded Scarface four out of four stars. In the New York Times, Vincent Canby found the film “a revelation…” and in Time Richard Corliss claimed “Pacino creates his freshest character in years.”

Peary writes that “the story details Pacino’s rise from petty drug runner to righthand man of Miami’s drug emperor to emperor himself,” noting it’s a path “marked by bloody rub-outs, great amounts of money floating about, connections with corrupt policemen and drug suppliers in South America”:

… “and fallings out with his pretty wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), faithful friend (Steven Bauer)… and decent but naive sister (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio).”

He complains that “De Palma doesn’t show the development of the incestuous, overly protective feelings Pacino has for his sister after they are reunited in Miami (and she has matured from kid to sexy woman),” noting that “it happens too quickly and comes across as just a writer’s convenience that will cause Pacino to break with Bauer (who loves Pacino’s sister.” (I disagree; inappropriate attractions can start early, and Pacino’s character is most certainly a disturbed dude.)

Peary also argues that De Palma “neglects showing [the] inner workings of Pacino’s mob,” and questions, “Where are all his men and what do they do all day? We just see a few guys repeatedly making large bank deposits.”

He adds: “They deal drugs, but, considering this is a gangster film, rules of the genre dictate we be able to envision Pacino’s territory.” (I wasn’t personally bothered by this; we get enough of a sense of Pacino’s hold on his men through the violent actions we do see.)

He goes on to complain that the “editing is terrible,” there “are many flubs,” and the “female costuming is a joke” (I didn’t notice any of these factors). He does note that the “look of the film — the sun-drenched streets, orange sunsets, Art Deco architecture (it was mostly shot in L.A.) — is good:”

… “but not so impressive now that we’ve seen television’s Miami Vice.” He points out that the film’s “heralded violence has shock value at [the] beginning — particularly in the famous scene in which Pacino’s crime mate is dismembered with an electric buzz saw:”

… but he asserts “it later becomes as calculated for audience response as are the film’s quieter, character-development scenes.”

I’m not nearly as much of a hater of this film as Peary is; my main take-away (appropriately so) is that being a drug kingpin is lonely, dangerous, shallow, violent, pathetic, and paranoia-inducing.

Pacino doesn’t experience love or even lust with his trophy wife (they never kiss, let alone show any other affection). To that end, I think De Palma, screenwriter Oliver Stone, and Pacino do a good job portraying what a miserable dead end (literally) his character’s aspirations are — which makes it all the more interesting how much of a cult favorite this film quickly became.

I’ll close by saying how appropriate it is that this film ended up as my selection for “Blogathon and the Beast.” Even Peary agrees that Pacino’s performance is animalistic; he’s a “truly despicable character” whose dramatic finale (a slaughter) is well “earned”.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Al Pacino as Tony Montana
  
• Fine supporting performances across the cast
  
  
  
• John Alonzo’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Trailers From Hell Review
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
A self-serving, would-be singer (Susan Berman) in New York City pursues a punk musician (Richard Hell) while managing and manipulating interest from a van-owning artist (Brad Rinn).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Aspiring Stars
• Homeless
• New York City
• Punk Rock

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that in this “impressive low-budget independent film directed by Susan Seidelman” — who leapt to fame a couple of years later with Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) — the director more accurately portrays Greenwich Village as “realistically, an ugly, hellish, unfriendly place where offbeat characters are too stoned, crazy, and selfish to help out their kind.” He describes Susan Berman’s “young refugee from New Jersey” as a drifter/grifter with “no money, no apartment, and no friends who will help her out” given that “most everyone has had enough of her grating personality, her lies (usually about needing no one), and her shameless taking advantage of anyone she thinks may help her.”

She’s “forced to live in a van with a nice guy (Brad Rinn) from Montana but she keeps disappointing him with her disloyalty”:

— and while “he wants her to go away with him… she’s planning on going to LA with a young singer (Richard Hell of the punk band, the Voidoids) — not seeing the signs that Hell (who is broke) is using her as she uses everyone else.” Touché.

Peary writes that while “we keep expecting Berman to wise up so she can enjoy a little happiness — we could use a little relief as well” — “Seidelman won’t let her” since “she wants to draw an accurate portrait of the typical Village loser.”

Peary points out “technically, the film is fairly polished — Seidelman composes her shots well, creating striking tableaux by situating her strangely dressed and coiffured characters in the frame with colorful props (Rinn’s van, for instance) and bizarrely designed or graffiti-colored walls.”

However, while I appreciate the effort Seidelman put into her debut indie film — made on a shoestring, with plenty of support from local artists and ample shooting delays and challenges — I’m hard-pressed to see it as anything but an unbearable downer featuring an utterly unlikable protagonist. It may be realistic (it sure reads that way), but I struggled to make it through to the end.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Good use of location shooting
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious to see Seidelman’s debut.

Links:

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

Synopsis:
While trying to crack a case of mysterious cop-murders carried out by a masked karate killer, a police detective (Jennifer O’Neill) enlists the help of a martial arts expert (Chuck Norris) whose adopted son (Eric Laneuville) is eventually put in harm’s way.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Chuck Norris Films
• Drug Dealers
• Martial Arts
• Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “pretty good Chuck Norris vehicle is much like a typical television police series, only it has some well-done karate fights to heighten the action.”

He adds that “there’s a strong supporting cast, Paul Aaron’s direction is impressive (particularly during fight sequences), and Norris’s karate exhibitions make up for the fact that he can’t act a lick in this film.”

Of most interest, marginally, is top-billed Jennifer O’Neill, who is effective playing a strong female cop.

Otherwise, there’s really nothing to recommend this one unless you happen to be a fan of such fare — and/or of Norris.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Decent directing
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re a Norris fan.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A terminally ill baseball player (Robert De Niro) is supported in staying on his team by his unwaveringly loyal friend, Henry (Michael Moriarty).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Baseball
• Friendship
• Illness
• Michael Moriarty Films
• Robert De Niro Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
When discussing what he refers to as his “favorite baseball film,” Peary notes that screenwriter Mark Harris’s story (based on his 1956 novel) is “sensitively directed by John Hancock” and centers on “how people come through for those in trouble (the same theme as Terms of Endearment).” He writes that the “picture makes you feel good about people but, at the same time, sad that we so rarely show our altruistic side.” He argues “it has wit, creates nostalgia for a more innocent baseball era,” and “also tugs at your emotions [and] breaks your heart.” He concludes by noting that “the two leads, then relatively unknown, give exciting performances” — though “at the time [he] thought Moriarty would be the one to go on to superstardom” rather than De Niro.

Unfortunately, I can’t agree with Peary’s praise of this film; I’m more in alignment with Andrew Sarris, who in his review for The Village Voice noted that it’s highly effective at bringing on emotions (the closing baseball game is a tear-jerker) but otherwise too simplistic in its presentation. I’m guessing this one may mean a lot more to those who enjoyed the novel. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Michael Moriarty as Henry
  
• The lump-inducing final baseball sequence
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing if you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article
• Village Voice Review

Synopsis:
With support from his father (John Huston) and girlfriend (Belinda Bauer), the brother (Jeff Bridges) of an assassinated president tries to follow an increasingly bizarre maze of clues leading to identifying the killer.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Perkins Films
• Black Comedy
• Dorothy Malone Films
• Eli Wallach Films
• Elizabeth Taylor Films
• Father and Child
• Jeff Bridges Films
• John Huston Films
• Murder Mystery
• Political Conspiracy
• Ralph Meeker Films
• Richard Boone Films
• Sterling Hayden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, “Comic fantasist William Richert wrote and directed this cult film adapted from a novel by Richard Condon” (who had written The Manchurian Candidate 15 years earlier). He points out that the “picture has off-the-wall humor, bizarre characters, innumerable plot twists, [and] strange moments” — including “girlfriend Belinda Bauer talking to Bridges while sitting on the toilet:”

… “Huston walking around in red bikini shorts:”

… “Bridges riding out of Dad’s earshot to yell back, ‘You stink!'”:

… “loco spy-network wizard Anthony Perkins carrying on a calm conversation with Bridges although Bridges has just broken his arms:”

… and “a doorman in a temper tantrum,” among others.

However, he points out that “there are too many loose ends and overly eccentric characters” (no kidding!), noting in particular that “we could do without Sterling Hayden’s war-games fanatic.”

He adds that “it seems as if none of the star actors read the whole script,” given that “scenes have little connection to one another.” Perhaps worst — though this is meant to be a darkly comedic paranoia thriller — is that “the tongue-in-cheek approach makes what could have been a provocative vision of the corrupt American power elite into something quite trivial.”

I agree. This seems like a film that may have once felt more relevant given its proximity to JFK’s assassination, but now merely seems too purposefully disjointed and quirky for its own good. With that said, among the many cameos or supporting performances to watch out for are Richard Boone:

… unbilled Elizabeth Taylor:

… Eli Wallach:

… Ralph Meeker:

… and Dorothy Malone.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jeff Bridges as Nick Kegan
  
• Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No; while this film clearly has its fans, I’m not among them.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Talk Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
At an early 20th century boarding school in Austria, new arrival Thomas Törless (Mathieu Carrière) is distressed to find two classmates — Reiting (Fred Dietz) and Beineberg (Bernd Tischer) — bullying a fellow student named Basini (Marian Seidowsky), who has been caught stealing.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Steele Films
• Boarding School
• Bullies
• Coming of Age
• German Films
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “compelling adaptation of Robert Musil’s 1906 novel, written and directed by [27-year-old] Volker Schlöndorff,” “presents military academies as breeding grounds for fascists, and draws parallels between what happens in the school and the rise of Nazism in Germany in the early 1930s, [including] victimization of Jews.” He adds that even “more interestingly, it’s about how similar people can, through circumstances, go in opposite directions,” with one becoming “an oppressor and the other an outcast victim.”

Ironically, while Carrière’s Thomas detests the way Beineberg and Reiting “intellectualize that what they’re doing to Basini is an experiment in human nature (to see how much he will take),” Thomas himself could be seen as the ultimate passive intellectualizer, given his lack of willingness to step in and help Basini; which is worse?

Meanwhile, Thomas’s frustration with Basini’s “masochistic [sic] acceptance of his degradation and victimization” also seems off-base, since Basini is simply and pragmatically trying to survive. Shedding additional light on this topic, film scholar Timothy Corrigan — in an essay for Criterion on the film’s historical relevance — writes:

“Although critics of the film sometimes misread Törless’s passive and intellectual response to brutality as the message of the film, there is too much dark historical irony in this drama to be denied. Seen from Schlöndorff’s perspective in postwar Germany, this prewar tale of the Austrian upper class becomes a chilling anticipation of a culture stifled by authoritarian regimes and attitudes and secreted in the violent obsessions and weaknesses of individuals supporting those regimes.”

He continues:

“Like other films with similar boarding-school plots, such as Jean Vigo’s Zéro de Conduite (1933) and Lindsay Anderson’s If…. (1968), Young Törless investigates the social rituals that shape and repress adolescents in a rite-of-passage drama. But unlike those other two films, there is no rebellion against the institution in this German drama but instead a frighteningly stoic withdrawal.”

Striking Bernd Tischer (this is his only listed film role on IMDb) makes quite an impression as the school’s dominant bully; and in a surprising bit of casting, Barbara Steele plays a prostitute who piques Törless’s curiosity more than his lust.

On a side note, I was particularly interested in revisiting this film after learning more about Carrière through his daughter Alice’s recently released memoir, Everything Nothing Someone (2023), in which she very openly discusses the impact of his eccentric, philosophy-driven parenting style on her own fragile sense of self; one can see traces of the father she describes in this much earlier role for Carrière (his breakthrough film).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Mathieu Carrière as Törless
  
• Bernd Tischer as Beineberg
  
• Franz Rath’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful early entry in New German cinema.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• TCM DVD Review
• Criterion Essay
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
After being sexually abused by her father (Leonard Jackson) and giving birth to two kids who are adopted away from her, a young Black woman (Desreta Jackson) growing up with her beloved sister Nettie (Akosua Busia) in early 20th century Georgia becomes the wife (Whoopi Goldberg) of an abusive widower (Danny Glover) whose singer-lover, Shug (Margaret Avery), turns out to be an unexpected light in her life.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African-Americans
• Child Abuse
• Deep South
• Domestic Abuse
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Steven Spielberg Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of Alice Walker’s probably unfilmable Pulitzer Prize-winning [1982] novel” — which is nonetheless about to be released in a new rendition — “is a shrewdly directed, impressively acted movie,” but “it intentionally alters Walker in objectionable ways.” He asserts that “Spielberg and [white male] writer Menno Meyjes trade in Walker’s hellish, male-controlled, black world where Celie grows from an unappreciated, exploited, sexually abused, unloved daughter (Desreta Jackson)”:

… “to unappreciated, exploited, sexually and physically abused wife (Whoopi Goldberg).”

He argues that Spielberg and Meyjes “substitute [in] a fairytale world that is shot through rose-colored lenses, where Celie’s problems with [her] husband… are no worse and no more realistic than Cinderella’s when living with wicked stepsisters” while also choosing “to downplay such controversial themes as rape, incest, racism, and most significantly, lesbianism.”

He writes that “the book’s feminist theme — [that] Celie’s personal growth, self-respect, and rare moments of happiness are the result of being with strong women like Shug and her foolish stepson’s battling wife, Sofia ([Oscar-nominated] Oprah Winfrey) and reading the letters from her sister in Africa — is almost completely diluted.”

Peary points out that while the “picture has many big scenes from the book,” “they’ve been taken out of context so that we can’t see their thematic relevance.” For instance, “we don’t see that Sofia is gotten out of jail by her former romantic rival, Squeak (Rae Dawn Chong), so we are deprived of the significant black-female-bond theme that makes the whole sequence involving Sofia important.”

It’s been so long since I read The Color Purple that I can’t recall details of all these subplots — meaning I must judge the film on its own merits. To that end, I agree with DVD Savant’s assertion that:

The film has no appreciation of what destitute misery can be — even Harpo’s broken-down shacks look like something wonderful from Tom Sawyer’s Island. There’s never a day in Georgia that isn’t drop-dead gorgeous, even when it’s raining or a storm is brewing; everybody looks well fed, if not downright prosperous. The movie is designed within an inch of its life, and cinematographer Allen Daviau drowns the screen with pretty pictures that warp the world of poverty the film aims to depict.

Indeed, this is an overly pretty, glowing film about some of life’s most challenging topics — but to its credit, it ultimately shows that women can (and will) prevail even in the face of seemingly unbearable insults. Goldberg’s fine breakthrough performance makes this film worth a look, though I ultimately don’t consider it must-see viewing — and I’m not particularly looking forward to the remake, either; I’d rather re-read the book one day.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Whoopi Goldberg as Celie
  
• Allen Daviau’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a one-time look for Goldberg’s performance, and for its historical significance as an Oscar nominee.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article