FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A small-town Texan (Jon Voight) heads to New York City in hopes of making a good living as a gigolo for wealthy women. Instead, he finds himself hustling to survive, and relying on the friendship of a down-and-out con-artist (Dustin Hoffman) who dreams of moving to Florida.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Con-Artists
• Dustin Hoffman Films
• Friendship
• John Schlesinger Films
• Jon Voight Films
• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Sylvia Miles Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this infamous cult movie — the first “X-Rated” film to win a Best Picture Oscar — “has humor and moments of warmth”, it nonetheless possesses a “cruel edge” which he believes is generated by the “America-hating director, John Schlesinger, who seems to enjoy victimizing [the two male leads] in the name of America”. From what I’ve read, Schlesinger’s relationship with America was actually much more nuanced than Peary indicates (he grew to love Los Angeles), and I can’t quite agree with Peary that the film’s “cruel edge” has anything to do with how its director chooses to “treat” the characters. Peary further complains that “scriptwriter Waldo Salt doesn’t… include any scenes in which the men open up to each other and discuss their deepest feelings or their past”, yet he praises both Voight and Hoffman (who he names Best Actor of the Year in his Alternate Oscars) for giving “excellent, sympathetic portrayals” which allow us to “understand both the reasons for and the depth of their friendship”.

In the remainder of his review, Peary labels Schlesinger’s use of flashbacks as a “technical imposition” which merely exhibits “his desire to use film to play with time,” given that we “never find out” how a gang-rape endured by Voight and his girlfriend (Jennifer Salt) “affected him”. I disagree: while it might be nice to understand a bit more about these and other earlier scenes from Voight’s life, we clearly understand that he comes from a troubled background, which is enough to help us sympathize with his desire for a better life in NYC. Similarly, we don’t find out much about Ratso’s background, or even learn exactly what illness causes him to cough so persistently — yet what’s most important here is that he and Voight find each other and develop a most unusual companionship in the midst of abject poverty. Their (mis)adventures together, while certainly often depressing, always ring true, and are (ironically) tinged with an air of subtle optimism given the obvious loyalty they’ve developed towards one another; indeed, despite a decidedly heartbreaking ending, I can think of a hundred different ways the storyline for Midnight Cowboy could have been even “crueler” than it is.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jon Voight as Joe Buck
  
• Dustin Hoffman as “Ratso”
  
• Sylvia Miles as Cass
  
• Adam Holender’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of Harry Nilsson’s instantly memorable rendition of Fred Neil’s “Everybody’s Talkin'”

Must See?
Yes, as an historically relevant cultural icon of late ’60 cinema.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Historically Relevant
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• Q Network Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article
• Washington Post Review

Synopsis:
An ambitious journalist (Peter Breck) persuades his reluctant girlfriend (Constance Towers) to pose as his sister in order to convince a mental hospital that he’s acting in an incestuous manner and needs to be committed. Once there, he’s determined to uncover the truth behind a recent murder by interrogating the three inmates (James Best, Hari Rhodes, and Gene Evans) who witnessed it. But can he maintain his own sanity in such a challenging environment?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Journalists
• Mental Breakdown
• Mental Illness
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Sam Fuller Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that “more than any other film, Sam Fuller’s cult favorite” — about an “immature, dishonest, self-serving crime reporter… who attempts to win the Pulitzer Prize by solving a murder that occurred in an insane asylum” — “treads a fine line between art and trash”, given that despite the “stilted” dialogue, “every few minutes one of the characters says something more honest and brave and moving than we are used to in American cinema” of this era. He argues that the “film thrives on sensationalism”, with “all the sexual content… solely intended to make the picture lurid”, but “beneath the sleaze is a mature, sad-eyed view of America, where people are encouraged to strive beyond their capacities for accomplishment and to do their country proud even if they can’t accept responsibility or fame”.

Peary’s review nicely highlights the unexpectedly hard-hitting nature of Fuller’s screenplay, which is all the more surprising given its obvious B-movie context and production values. Many viewers will find themselves groaning during the heavy-handed opening sequence between Breck and Towers (his “stripper girlfriend”), as Towers laments Breck’s “self-serving” motives for feigning insanity, and shrills some humorously hysterical dialogue: “You’re on a hopped up, lunatic stage — get off it! Don’t be Moses leading your lunatics to the Pulitzer Prize!” However, once Breck actually enters the asylum and begins encountering his fellow inmates, the tone immediately becomes at once more serious and more bizarre.

The three witnesses Breck is specifically interested in interrogating are all deeply damaged souls, indicative of all that’s most secretly corrupt about American society. The most memorable is undoubtedly the character played by Hari Rhodes — an African-American who, after a failed attempt to integrate into an all-white university, has internalized extremist racist attitudes to the point where he believes he’s white; he dons a Klan hood, harasses a fellow African-American who he claims is “after his daughter”, and carries around an inflammatory sign saying, “Go Home Nigger”. Best and Evans are also haunting in their portrayals as (respectively) a brainwashed Korean War vet and a guilt-ridden nuclear scientist, and Breck’s roommate — the overweight “Pagliacci” (Larry Towers) — adds yet another bizarrely damaged character to the milieu.

Further highlighting the surreal nature of Breck’s experience is Stanley Cortez’s “shadowy cinematography”, as well as the strategic use of special effects, including Towers appearing superimposed over Breck’s resting head (taunting him in her stripper outfit), and the photographing of “midgets at the end of the corridor set so that it would appear to be longer than it was”; close inspection quickly reveals that the same sequence of the midgets pacing back and forth was looped many, many times, but it’s still effective. This utterly unique cult favorite is one film fanatics won’t want to miss seeing at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Stanley Cortez’s cinematography
  
  
• Fuller’s surprisingly hard-hitting screenplay
  
  
• Fine supporting performances by Best, Rhodes, and others
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique cult classic by an iconclastic director.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• SciFilm Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An up-and-coming industrialist (Joseph Cotten) loves the wealthy daughter (Dolores Costello) of a local millionaire (Richard Bennett), but they each end up marrying someone else. When Costello’s spoiled son (Tim Holt) grows up, he falls for Cotten’s daughter (Anne Baxter), and Cotten renews his interest in Costello — but Holt’s disdain for Cotten prevents romantic happiness for all involved.

Genres:

• Agnes Moorehead Films
• Anne Baxter Films
• Historical Drama
• Joseph Cotten Films
• Orson Welles Films
• Rise-and-Fall
• Small Town America

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of Orson Welles’ adaptation of “Booth Tarkington’s [1918] Pulitzer Prize-winning novel,” Peary recounts just some of the film’s infamous production history, noting that “while Welles was out of the country, editor Robert Wise and his assistant, Mark Robson, were ordered by RKO to drastically cut the 131-minute picture that preview audiences didn’t like”. He argues that while many “critics now regard the mutilated version as being equal to Citizen Kane and other Welles classics”, he doesn’t “consider this to be one of his masterpieces”, and bluntly states that “the cutting hurts terribly”. However, he argues that “even if it were intact, it seems to be missing a lead character”, given that “Tim Holt’s George Minafer hasn’t enough stature to carry the latter part of the film”. Despite his complaints, however, he does concede that “Welles presents what may be the most effective look at late 19th-century small town life”, and notes that “the early montage, depicting changing styles… is memorable”. He feels that the “acting is uneven” but calls out Agnes Moorehead’s Oscar-nominated performance (playing Holt’s spinster “Aunt Fanny”) as “dynamic”, “especially when projecting near hysteria in her scenes with Holt”.

I don’t quite agree with Peary that the film is “missing a lead character”. As Peary himself notes, the “story, which is set between 1883 and 1912,” is more broadly about “the decline and fall of the Ambersons-Minafers, and the simultaneous modernization of their once-quaint small town — all due to the industrial revolution, which is emblemized by the advent of the automobile”. It’s this larger socio-economic theme which Welles is concerned with exploring, through the prism of Holt’s hopelessly spoiled and arrogant George Minafer, as well as through the star-crossed would-be romance between Costello and Cotten (who become Holt’s unwitting pawns). Ultimately, …Ambersons is more a film about clashing values in a life-changing era than any kind of straightforward melodrama with a recognizable central protagonist — which is perhaps what disappointed so many audience members at the time of its release.

However, one tends to watch The Magnificent Ambersons even more for its undeniable artistic merits than for its storyline. As Peary notes, “Stanley Cortez’s creatively lighted deep-focus photography is extraordinary”, with “the scenes in the snow and the scenes in the Ambersons’ mansion… among the most visually striking in all of Welles’ [oeuvre].” Some have complained about Welles’ penchant for utilizing overly stylized camera angles at every opportunity, but a more pedestrian approach would surely have detracted from the film’s relentlessly intense emotional impact. Even in its “butchered” form, The Magnificent Ambersons remains a flawed but stylistically ambitious classic, one which is certainly worthy of any film fanatic’s attention.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Joseph Cotten as Eugene Morgan (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Agnes Moorehead as Aunt Fanny
  
• Consistently creative direction by Welles
  
  
• Stanley Cortez’s impressive deep-focus cinematography
  
  
• Bernard Herrmann’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a unique — albeit flawed and disputed — American classic. Listed as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Important Director
• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review (spoiler alerts)
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Shortly after receiving accolades for her first play, writer Lillian Hellman (Jane Fonda) is asked to carry out a dangerous mission to Nazi Germany on behalf of her lifelong friend, Julia (Vanessa Redgrave).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Flashback Films
• Fred Zinnemann Films
• Friendship
• Jane Fonda Films
• Jason Robards Films
• Maximilian Schell Films
• Resistance Fighters
• Vanessa Redgrave Films
• World War Two
• Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “superb adaptation of Lillian Hellman’s beautiful, suspenseful story, contained in her memoir Pentimento,” is “truly a well-made film, with provocative characters and relationships, a unique view of Europe in the 30s and great performances from the three leads”. Interestingly, he seems either unaware of — or unconcerned with — the swirl of debate concerning the veracity of Hellman’s story: a woman named Muriel Gardiner, who employed the same lawyer as Hellman but never knew her, claimed to have been the very woman Hellman referred to as “Julia”, and wrote a memoir in 1985 detailing her experiences. However, while I find it strange that Peary doesn’t even mention this notorious controversy in his review, I agree with him that Julia remains a powerful, finely acted film, one that is “now too easily forgotten”.

Peary points out that this movie allowed Fonda “another chance to play a woman who becomes politicized and who has a special bond with another woman”; he notes that you can “see the love these women have for each other”, and argues that “the most interesting point of the film” — given that “it breaks with movie stereotyping” — is how “being a leftist has not deprived Julia of her warmth, her humility, and her concern for people like Lillian who are not as politically dedicated as she is”. Regarding their special relationship, some have taken issue with the fact that the theme of lesbianism in the play (The Children’s Hour) Hellman is seen slaving over in her Cape Cod beach house — where she’s mentored by her older lover, Dashiell Hammett (Jason Robards) — is never openly discussed. While there is a later scene in which a character (John Glover) mentions the “gossip” surrounding the play, some critics believe a chance is missed to more concretely connect the play’s theme of strong female friendship and accused lesbianism with Lillian and Julia’s own story of intense love and devotion.

However, while those familiar with Hellman’s work may find deeper meaning in these earlier scenes, those viewing the film without such literary insight will still appreciate the fact that Fonda’s character is not only being asked to risk her life to help Julia’s cause, but to leave behind a clearly defined world of newfound fame and fortune — thus highlighting the magnitude of her “sacrifice”. Oscar-winning screenwriter Alvin Sargent incorporates just enough flashback scenes from Lillian and Julia’s youth to help us understand why Lillian would feel such intense loyalty for her friend; and while some complain that the title character (Redgrave won an Oscar for her supporting work) is on screen far too little, I believe this merely adds to one’s sense of her commitment to a world far, far removed from the comforts of Hellman’s existence. The climactic train journey into Berlin is especially well-handled, nicely highlighting the magnitude of the dangers Fonda is exposing herself to — and while it may or may not have happened to Hellman herself, it certainly makes for good storytelling.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jane Fonda as Lillian Hellman (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Vanessa Redgrave as Julia
  
• Jason Robards as Dashiell Hammett
  
• Maximilian Schell as Johann
  
• Douglas Slocombe’s cinematography
  
• Fine attention to period detail
  

Must See?
Yes, as a powerfully acted and scripted memory drama. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Good Show
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Talk Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Jigsaw Lounge Review (scroll down)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Three working-class motocross riders (Hans van Tongeren, Toon Agterberg, and Maarten Spanjer) are smitten with a sexy, socially ambitious short-order cook (Renee Soutendijk) who arrives in town with her brother (Peter Tuinman).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming of Age
• Dutch Films
• Motorcyclists
• Social Climbers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that there are “many admirable things” about this “cult film by Paul Verhoeven”, which follows “three young male friends… as they go through crises with girls, fathers, ambitions, self-identities, and their own masculinity” — including “the authentic atmosphere and working-class people; the uncensored treatment of sex; … [and] Soutendijk’s fascinating, sympathetic ‘bad’ girl”. However, he points out that “much seems to be missing” from the film as well, noting that the “film is like a drastically shortened adaptation of a long book, in that no storyline seems complete”, and that “because it only skims the surface of the individual stories, the characters all come across as hackneyed or unrealistic, despite the fine acting”.

I don’t quite agree with Peary’s assessment of the characters, who seem entirely realistic to me. My primary problem with the film is that none of the leads are particularly likable. Indeed, for the first twenty minutes or so, all we see are these punkish kids at their worst, as they once again give motorcyclists a bad name on film by (just for instance) cruelly taunting a gay pedestrian. Eventually, we do come to feel some interest in Soutendijk’s character, who’s an interesting variation on a working class femme fatale; and, later in the film, van Tongeren’s plight generates some authentic pathos. However, the film as a whole plays far too much like a tawdry soap opera (those orange peels!) to be truly insightful or compelling on anything other than a “what will happen next?” level of curiosity. Ultimately, Spetters will be of most interest to those who somehow tap into its cult appeal, and/or those interested in seeing the trajectory of Verhoeven’s pre-Hollywood oeuvre.

Note: Be forewarned that the “most controversial scene” in the film, involving a gang-rape of one of the protagonists, is indeed disturbing, not just in its presentation but in its immediate implications. Also note that spoilers abound when reading about the plot online, so avoid reading anything about it if you want your viewing experience to remain “pure”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Hans van Tongeren as Rien
  
• Renee Soutendijk as Fientje
  

Must See?
No, though it may be of interest to film fanatics simply for its cult status.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoiler alert)
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A Napoleonic soldier (Jack Nicholson) wanders onto a spooky estate where an elderly baron (Boris Karloff) appears to be haunted by the specter of his young, deceased wife (Sandra Knight).

Genres:

• Boris Karloff Films
• Dick Miller Films
• Ghosts
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Roger Corman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “Roger Corman costume drama was made in three days without much of a script”, taking advantage not only of existing sets from Corman’s The Raven, but the remainder of Karloff’s acting contract.

The resulting “muddled plot” consists largely of “Nicholson try[ing] to figure out what’s going on” as he “explor[es] the dark castle” —

… but given that “there are no scares and nothing really happens until the end of the film”, the entire affair comes across as “pretty boring”. Meanwhile, Nicholson is surprisingly “lousy” in the lead role — though not nearly as bad as his then-wife (Knight), who acts as though she was instructed to literally sleep-walk through her performance.

With that said, the film as a whole isn’t nearly as much of a mess as it could have been, given that the script is actually relatively easy to follow, and it possesses numerous “ridiculous plot twists”. Plus, as Peary points out, the “photography is surprisingly good” — indeed, atmospheric cinematography and sets go a long way towards making this ultimately forgettable horror flick relatively easy to sit through.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Atmospheric sets and cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; this one is strictly for Corman fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An aging performer (Fred Astaire) is invited by his songwriting friends (Nanette Fabray and Oscar Levant) to stage a comeback in a new musical they’ve written, to be directed by a pretentious new auteur (Jack Buchanan). Tensions soon arise, however, when Buchanan’s vision for the show saps it of any humor, and Astaire clashes with his balletic co-star (Cyd Charisse).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cyd Charisse Films
• Fred Astaire Films
• Has-Beens
• “Let’s Put On a Show”
• Musicals
• Oscar Levant Films
• Vincente Minnelli Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “extravagant MGM musical, directed with much flair by Vincente Minnelli”, co-written by Betty Comden and Adolph Green, and featuring “impressive set design[s] for [the] musical numbers”, “starts out slowly but keeps getting better and better as great musical numbers keep piling up.” He notes that “musical highlights include ‘Dancing in the Dark’, ‘That’s Entertainment’, ‘Triplets’… and the lavish, episodic ‘Girl Hunt’ dance sequence, spoofing Mickey Spillane”. In his short review, Peary doesn’t provide much critique of either the film’s occasionally hokey “let’s put on a show!” storyline or the central performances, which perhaps speaks to how dominant the musical numbers really are; with that said, the narrative is guaranteed to tickle both fans of Astaire (who gamely pokes fun at his own waning popularity as an aging star) and theater insiders, who will surely appreciate its merciless skewering of artistic pretentiousness run amok.

In terms of the performances, I’m a big fan of Nanette Fabray’s turn as a character loosely based on Comden herself. She’s relentlessly cheerful, yet in a way that comes across as infectious rather than annoying (and film fanatics will be glad to have seen this big-name musical actress in at least one movie). Her musical number with Astaire and Buchanan (“Triplets”) remains my personal favorite in the film — though it’s a bit sad to know how painful it was for Fabray to film it. Equally memorable — in a film filled with memorable sequences — is Astaire’s early shoeshine number, danced with real-life shoe shiner Leroy Daniels. And naturally, all film fanatics will want to see the film where the infinitely hummable “That’s Entertainment!” was first showcased; it’s performed here with plenty of flair and creative choreography.

The Band Wagon is frequently compared with its predecessor, Singin’ In the Rain (also co-written by Comden and Green, and produced by Arthur Freed), with fans endlessly debating the merits of one versus the other, and many taking a decisive “side”. In truth, while I’ll admit to being a more devoted fan of SITR, both films remain vibrantly colorful, cheerily escapist, masterfully danced musicals in their own right. My primary complaint with The Band Wagon lies with the lackluster romantic subplot between Astaire and Charisse, whose “rivalry” never really poses much of a narrative threat — then again, when those two dance together, all such concerns melt away, and we remember why we’re sitting down to watch a film like this in the first place.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many enjoyable, creatively choreographed, wonderfully danced musical numbers
  
  
  
  
  
• Fine use of Technicolor
  
• Nanette Fabray as Lily
  
• A clever skewering of artistic pretensions in the theatrical world
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic mid-century musical. Voted into the National Film Registry in 1995.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TV Guide Review
• Roger Ebert’s Great Movies Review
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A neurotic comedian (Woody Allen) falls in love with an aspiring singer (Diane Keaton), but they’re ultimately too mismatched to last.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carol Kane Films
• Diane Keaton Films
• Flashback Films
• New York City
• Romantic Comedy
• Shelley Duvall Films
• Star-Crossed Lovers
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that “Woody Allen’s first genuine comedy masterpiece is an autobiographical, therapeutic work” in which his on-screen alter-ego, a stand-up comedian named Alvy Singer, “thinks back on his relationship with an equally neurotic” aspiring singer, played by his former girlfriend (Keaton, whose real-life last name was Hall, and whose nickname was Annie). He argues that the “film is very perceptive and romantic in addition to being hilarious” — indeed, it’s amazing how easily we can laugh at and enjoy the proceedings of the film, given that we know from the beginning how things will end for Alvy and Annie. Peary notes that “the two characters are real and we root for them to work out their problems; but, like Alvy, we come to realize that they were meant to be no more than positive influences on each other during difficult, transitional times in their respective lives.” He points out how “sweet” Alvy’s final comment is “at the end” of the film — a moment that’s guaranteed (even on repeat viewings) to bring a lump to your throat.

Peary spends part of his review in both GFTFF and Alternate Oscars — where, like the Academy, he designates Annie Hall as Best Picture of the Year — naming some of the picture’s “so many great moments” (indeed, it’s difficult to resist doing this — my stills below attest to my own challenge in picking just a few scenes to highlight!). These include the classic balcony scene, “during which Allen provides subtitles that reveal what each is really thinking (both worry they’re blowing it with each other)”; “Alvy silencing an obnoxious, self-impressed, self-professed [Marshall] McLuhan expert who talks pretentious drivel in a movie line by pulling McLuhan out of a poster to tell the man, ‘You know nothing of my work'”; “Alvy battling monstrous spiders in Annie’s bathtub”:

… “Grammy Hall look[ing] at Alvy and… see[ing] him as an Hassidic Jew with a long black beard, curls, black hat, and black frock coat”:

… “Alvy “sneez[ing] $2,000 worth of cocaine across a room”:

… and many, many more.

In his review of Annie Hall for his third Cult Movies book, Peary writes that “it’s safe to say that every Woody Allen film has a cult following”, but “only Annie Hall is loved… by every Allen fan, as well as those obstinate moviegoers who still won’t concede Allen is a great filmmaker.” (One wonders what Peary would think at this point about Allen’s most recent spate of lackluster films… But I’m still more than willing to agree with his assessment.) He notes that “it’s actually hard to find someone who hasn’t seen this irresistible movie several times, who doesn’t have a tender spot for it…, who wouldn’t make it the Woody Allen film they’d like to have if stranded on a desert island”. He further notes the historical relevance of the film by writing that it “marked Allen’s transition from a functional and slapdash, though instinctively funny, filmmaker to one who is technically innovative, thematically sophisticated, intent on capturing the beauty of the women and the city (New York) he loves, eager to explore his characters, and passionate about using the storytelling medium to its fullest”. To that end, one little-discussed aspect of Annie Hall is how cinematically creative it is — see Tim Dirk’s Greatest Films site for an overview of the many techniques Allen employs throughout the film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Diane Keaton as Annie Hall (awarded Best Actress of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Woody Allen as Alvy Singer (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Countless memorable scenes
  
  
  
  
• Fine use of New York City locales
  
• Creative cinematic techniques
  
  
• Plenty of laugh-out-loud one-liners:
  

  “You know, I don’t think I could take a mellow evening because I don’t respond well to mellow, you know what I mean? I have a tendency to, if I get too mellow, I ripen and then rot.”

Must See?
Yes, most definitely — multiple times. Enjoy!

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Great Movies Review
• Film Site Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
A down-on-his luck theatrical manager (Woody Allen) pins his hopes on a singer (Nick Apollo Forte) who he hopes will soon make the big time; but his plans become complicated when Forte refuses to sing in front of Milton Berle unless his moody mistress (Mia Farrow) is there, and Allen is tasked with convincing her to attend.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Falsely Accused
• Flashback Films
• Gangsters
• Mia Farrow Films
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this Woody Allen comedy about “a former Borscht Belt comedian turned down-and-out Broadway agent for some of the least talented acts imaginable” “never reaches the hilarious heights of Allen’s classics”, but possesses a “truly sweet oddball character” in the title role of Danny Rose. Indeed, Danny is possibly Allen’s most likable alter-ego, given his endearing devotion to “all his clients”, even “a stuttering ventriloquist and an elderly couple who make balloon animals”. The running “joke” of the film — that Allen’s clients inevitably shift to another agent once they’ve achieved any level of real success — demonstrates that Danny’s loyalties may be somewhat misplaced, yet one can’t help cheering him on in his comedically hopeless endeavors. The storyline (efficiently, humorously scripted by Allen) remains enjoyably wacky and fast-paced throughout, as “Farrow and Allen have an exciting adventure together”, and Allen (mistaken for Farrow’s lover) eventually becomes “wanted” by her mob connections.

Though Allen does a fine job playing such a sympathetic character — and Forte is completely convincing in his debut role (he wrote his own songs as well) — Farrow’s performance is the true surprise here: she’s literally unrecognizable at first in her “blond wig and dark glasses”, using a “convincing New Jersey accent”; her character’s cynical, self-preserving approach to life functions as an effectively stark contrast to Danny’s eternally helpful optimism. Meanwhile, Allen’s use of a flashback structure to frame the storyline — involving a group of stand-up comedians who reminisce in a diner about Danny Rose — perfectly establishes the film’s tone and milieu, allowing Allen to pay homage to the performance medium that gave him his start in show business. One may question why DP Gordon Willis chose to film the picture in (admittedly gorgeous) b&w (perhaps to evoke an era of nostalgia?); but while I believe the film could have worked just as well in color, I won’t begin to quibble.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Woody Allen as Danny Rose
  
• Mia Farrow as Tina
  
• Gordon Willis’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Allen’s (many) “best” films.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article (spoiler alert)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Three grown sisters — a successful poet (Diane Keaton) married to a struggling novelist (Richard Jordan); a would-be artist (Mary Beth Hurt) in a relationship with a political writer (Sam Waterston); and an aspiring actress (Kristin Griffith) — all deal differently with the increasingly unstable mental state of their mother (Geraldine Page), and with the lively new girlfriend (Maureen Stapleton) their father (E.G. Marshall) has recently started dating.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Diane Keaton Films
• Divorce
• E.G. Marshall Films
• Geraldine Page Films
• Sam Waterston Films
• Siblings
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that watching this “unusual Woody Allen film” when it was released in 1978 was “an excruciating experience” for many viewers, given that “ready to laugh, we saw before us a humorless Bergman-esque drama (without Allen in the cast)”. However, he notes that seeing it again later, he finds it a “truly beautiful, painstakingly written and directed, outstanding if… too serious film” about three adult sisters who “all grew up considering themselves failures”. Much like he argues in his review of Allen’s later Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) — which possesses numerous thematic similarities — he notes that Keaton, Hurt, and Griffin are all “emotional cripples, afraid of one another because of the damage each is capable of inflicting”, and “jealous of [each] other’s successes.”

He writes that “what’s most impressive about Allen’s film is that he creates a logic for why his characters respond to each other as they do”; even if we don’t particularly enjoy watching these sisters (and Keaton’s dissatisfied husband) wallow in their sorrows — and find the “snobby pretentiousness” of their “criticism of books, plays, [and] articles” unbearable — they’re indisputably all-too-human.

Indeed, with a mother like Page — who during the film “suffers a breakdown and attempts suicide”, yet was clearly mentally unhinged long before the action begins — it’s no surprise at all to see what a mess Keaton et al. are (nor to question the desire of Marshall to get out of the marriage as gently yet quickly as he can).

Page’s tragic performance is note-perfect, as is Marshall’s — though arguably the most memorable “older” performance is given by Stapleton, “whose bright clothes are a jolt to the picture”, and who “brings life to the drained group”. Peary notes that a final scene involving Stapleton and Hurt (which I won’t spoil here like Peary does) is the “most special” moment for him, in a film filled with “many emotionally devastating moments”. To that end, how well you ultimately respond to Interiors depends largely on: a) your willingness to suspend preconceived judgments about what a Woody Allen film “should” be, and b) your willingness to invest in the outcome of these (mostly) not-very-likable characters. For my part, I was resistant at first (as Peary notes, it’s still far “too serious” a film), but quickly found myself caught up in the power of Allen’s uncompromising vision. Good for him for daring to make a movie just the way he envisioned it, and to foil his fans’ expectations.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Geraldine Page as Eve
  
• Maureen Stapleton as Pearl
  
• E.G. Marshall as Arthur
  
• Fine cinematography by Gordon Willis
  

Must See?
Yes, as an unexpectedly powerful family drama by Allen. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review