Browsed by
Month: June 2013

Passion de Jeanne D’Arc, Le/Passion of Joan of Arc, The (1928)

Passion de Jeanne D’Arc, Le/Passion of Joan of Arc, The (1928)

Comments 2 comments

“Listen, Joan — we know that your visions come not from God but from Satan!”

Synopsis:
Joan of Arc (Maria Falconetti) faces intense interrogation before being sentenced to burn at the stake.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Theodore Dreyer Films
  • Christianity
  • Courtroom Drama
  • Falsely Accused
  • Religious Faith
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this iconic silent classic — written and directed by Carl Theodore Dreyer, who based his story “on Pierre Champion’s transcript of the actual trial of Jeanne d’Arc” — as “one of the greatest, most intense films ever made”. He writes that Dreyer “creates a sense of feverishness and horror at the trial through repeated camera pans across the line of intimidating inquisitors, eerie zooms into their ugly faces as they menacingly move forward toward Jeanne, and sharp camera angles which make the inquisitors especially domineering”. But he notes that “we are constantly surprised to feel waves of tranquility come over us each time Jeanne looks to the heavens and, judging from her smile and the calm look in her eyes, is obviously in a state of grace”, with “only the tears on her cheeks remind[ing] us of the terrible things that have happened and will continue to happen to her during the course of this farcical trial”. He points out that “the actors got so much into their roles that bystanders heard them condemning Jeanne d’Arc off screen as well as on”, and that “it’s probable Falconetti” (who was discovered “doing boulevard comedy”) “really got to feel she was Jeanne, so strongly and believably does she convey the young martyr’s feelings”.

I agree with the essence of Peary’s review: there’s no denying the audacious visual power of Dreyer’s work, which stands apart from its same-era peers as a daringly minimalist cinematic presentation of this much-studied historical event. And Falconetti’s performance — shown almost entirely in extreme close-ups — is indeed marvelous; the fact that she was an unknown actress merely adds to the veracity of the tale. Yet I disagree with Peary’s claim that this is “one of the greatest, most intense films ever made”, simply given its narrative limitations. As a silent film, it remains a masterful tone poem — a gorgeously evoked elegy to a tragic young martyr, allowing one to palpably feel the “feverishness and horror” of this infamous trial and its gruesome outcome. But given that it covers such a limited portion of Jeanne D’Arc’s storied existence, it ultimately lacks narrative depth, and begins to feel repetitive. The first few times Dreyer’s camera masterfully pans across the leering faces of Jeanne’s inquisitors, one shivers at how perfectly Dreyer has captured the essence of their menace; the fourth time, one begins to question exactly where else the material can go.

With that caveat stated, I’ll reiterate that Le Passion de Jeanne D’Arc nonetheless remain essential viewing for all film fanatics, at least once — and it’s thankfully now available in a gorgeously restored version, with a lovely soundtrack by composer Richard Einhorn (sung by the Anonymous Four).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Maria Falconetti as Joan
  • Stunning direction and cinematography




Must See?
Yes, of course, as a genuine silent classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (1982)

Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (1982)

Comments 1 comment

“My plan was to kiss her with every lip on my face.”

Synopsis:
A private detective (Steve Martin) interacts with a host of iconic Hollywood characters while helping a sexy female client (Rachel Ward) investigate the mysterious disappearance of her father.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Reiner Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Steve Martin Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “ridiculous noir parody” — about a “forties detective” who “says a lot of… stupid things, shaves his tongue, strangles anybody who says ‘cleaning lady’, makes java with about 1000 beans per cup, and dresses like a lot of women” — is, when “taken a scene at a time”, “quite amusing (and often hilarious) and genuinely clever”; but he posits that “without breaks… the novel concept becomes tiresome.” Time Out’s reviewer similarly argues that while “some amusement is derived from watching a film that so obviously had to be worked out backwards”, it occasionally feels like merely a “fairly amusing, clever exercise in editing”. However, I believe the film deserves a bit more credit than this. Given that it was made at a time when splicing “vintage footage from forties melodramas” with “newly shot black-and-white footage” was a purely mechanical (rather than digital) feat, one can’t help marveling at how masterfully this is done, with nearly every scene carefully plotted and blocked; film fanatics will be in trivia heaven as they attempt to determine which classic movie each clip is taken from, and how director Carl Reiner will manage to integrate pre-existing dialogue into the new (connective) storyline.

Meanwhile, Edith Head (in her final cinematic credit) does marvelous work crafting and matching outfits across films, and Miklos Rozsa was an inspired choice to write the appropriately atmospheric score. My main complaint is that the humor occasionally feels a bit forced and/or juvenile. For instance, the cited scene involving Martin’s inept attempt to make coffee goes on for about three times too long, and Martin’s obsession with “readjusting” Ward’s breasts simply makes one sigh. But for every groaner, there’s a clever line or interaction up ahead — and both Martin and Ward (“surprisingly funny and a good sport as Martin’s comic foil”) remain appropriately invested in their roles, never letting on that they’re actually in a parody. This one is definitely worth a look by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Remarkably seamless screenwriting and editing

  • Michael Chapman’s b&w cinematography
  • Edith Head’s impressive “costume-matching” work
  • Miklos Rozsa’s classically “generic” score

Must See?
Yes, for its obvious film fanatic appeal.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Nickelodeon (1976)

Nickelodeon (1976)

Comments 1 comment

“Any jerk can direct!”

Synopsis:
In the early days of Hollywood, an attorney (Ryan O’Neal) and a cowboy (Burt Reynolds) — both in love with the same woman (Jane Hitchcock) — become involved in the burgeoning motion picture industry.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Brian Keith Films
  • Burt Reynolds Films
  • Comedy
  • Hollywood
  • Lawyers
  • Movie Directors
  • Peter Bogdanovich Films
  • Ryan O’Neal Films
  • Stella Stevens Films

Review:
Peter Bogdanovich’s unabashedly affectionate paean to the earliest days of the motion picture industry remains a curiously uninvolving effort — one so focused on recreating elements and attributes of its era that it forgets to tell a compelling tale in its own right. The ultimate point of the storyline seems to be that luck and timing (i.e., serendipity) played a defining role in determining who found work and success in early Hollywood — see the selected quote above for an indication of the attitude on display, supposedly meant as a contrast to the arrival of “real” (i.e., auteurist) cinema (as signified by the film’s powerful culminating sequence, in which the various characters join a wider audience to watch the inaugural screening of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation). Meanwhile, Bogdanovich’s screenplay incorporates weak attempts at silent-era slapstick (bespectacled O’Neal is a sort-of stand-in for Harold Lloyd), as well as a standard-issue love triangle subplot which fails to involve us. While serious cinephiles will surely be curious to check this one out given its subject matter, it’s ultimately a missed opportunity; see Howard Zieff and Rob Thompson’s Hearts of the West (released the previous year) for a much more successful and authentic evocation of early Hollywood.

Note: TCM’s article offers some valuable insights into why this film wasn’t as successful as it could have been; Bogdanovich’s vision was apparently thwarted.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Burt Reynolds as Buck Greenway
  • An affectionate homage to early Hollywood

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look simply for its obvious interest to cinephiles.

Links:

Wedding March, The (1928)

Wedding March, The (1928)

Comments 1 comment

“There is no such thing as accident. It is Fate — mis-named.”

Synopsis:
A fun-loving Viennese prince (Erich von Stroheim) is warned by his parents (George Fawcett and Maude George) that he must marry for money in order to maintain his sumptuous lifestyle; but despite becoming engaged to a club-footed heiress (Zasu Pitts), he falls in love with a beautiful innkeeper’s daughter (Fay Wray) whose own fiance (Matthew Betz) is a bullying brute.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Erich von Stroheim Films
  • Fay Wray Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Silent Films
  • Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
Peary seems to be an enormous fan of this fragmented silent epic by Erich von Stroheim, whose notoriously sadistic, perfectionist tendencies on set resulted in a bloated initial cut (11 hours!) which was eventually edited down into two films — this and its sequel, The Honeymoon (the only copy of which was lost in a fire in the 1950s). As with von Stroheim’s Queen Kelly (1929), The Wedding March must thus be viewed as a butchered version of the director’s original vision — yet despite being lauded by many as one of von Stroheim’s finest films, I simply can’t agree. Yes, the cinematography is lovely and the sets painstakingly rendered — but the melodramatic storyline and stereotypical characters (other than Wray’s luminous “Mitzi”) leave one feeling decidedly neutral about the actual proceedings. While it’s argued that the film’s story arc stands just fine on its own, one can’t help feeling that it is indeed (as intended) merely part of a longer, richer narrative. The Wedding March is ultimately only must-see for fans of silent cinema and/or von Stroheim’s uniquely truncated oeuvre.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fay Wray as Mitzi
  • Meticulously crafted sets

Must See?
No; only von Stroheim fans need seek this one out. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book, and named one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars. Selected for preservation by the National Film Registry.

Links: