Browsed by
Month: October 2021

Vivre Sa Vie (A Film in Twelve Episodes) / My Life to Live (1962)

Vivre Sa Vie (A Film in Twelve Episodes) / My Life to Live (1962)

“I think we’re always responsible for our actions. We’re free.”

Synopsis:
After leaving her husband (Andre Labarthe), an aspiring actress (Anna Karina) eventually turns to prostitution to earn a living, working for a pimp (Sady Rebbot) with questionable morals.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Character Studies
  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that in his “exceptional fourth film” — after Breathless (1960), Le Petit Soldat (1963) (actually completed in 1960), and A Woman is a Woman (1962) — Jean-Luc Godard presents “Karina’s prostitute,” a woman who “winds up a prostitute in order to pay her rent,” as “detached, not because he doesn’t care about Karina but because his remote style is meant to underscore the fact that this woman makes no emotional connection with the men she has sex with.”

He argues that “Godard’s point — made by the old philosopher (Brice Parapain) with whom Karina converses”:


… “and proven to her by the young client she comes to love… is that pleasure and fulfillment come less from the sexual act than through a stronger form of communication: talking, the interchange of words.” Peary adds that “as in all early Godard films, he experiments with his camera (i.e., juxtaposing abstract and real images in order to express ideas)” and “makes thematic references to films, literature, [and] music.”


While this film isn’t a personal favorite, I appreciate both Godard’s innovative style and Karina’s gripping performance. Even in an elusive role meant to distance us somewhat (Godard’s approach to her prostitution lifestyle is strictly clinical), Karina’s humanity shines through, and she’s a pleasure to watch on screen.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Anna Karina as Nana
  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, for Karina’s performance.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

Contempt / Mepris, Le (1963)

Contempt / Mepris, Le (1963)

“I have to know why you despise me!”

Synopsis:
An aspiring screenwriter (Michel Piccoli) hired by a crass American producer (Jack Palance) to support an adaptation of “The Odyssey” by director Fritz Lang quickly finds his marriage to his beautiful wife Camille (Brigitte Bardot) on the rocks when he encourages her to take a drive with Palance.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Brigitte Bardot Films
  • French Films
  • Fritz Lang Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Hollywood
  • Jack Palance Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary doesn’t write very much in his review of this “slow but beautifully shot and unusually insightful Jean-Luc Godard adult film about movie-making and marriage,” other than noting that “Piccoli and Bardot give fine performances”:

… “as does Fritz Lang (playing himself), the philosophical director of Palance’s travesty.”

Peary does comment that “since The Odyssey is, in part, about a wife, Penelope, who waits 20 years for her husband to return from his journeys, Godard is obviously making a comment on the fickleness of lovers today — particularly women”; however, I think that’s far too reductive of a stance to take. Indeed, I was surprised and impressed by how much subtlety there is in Bardot’s performance and character:

Her Camille is an insecure yet savvy woman who understands that the men around her put value almost exclusively on her beauty and sexual availability, and she refuses to simply play this game without protest.

Visually speaking, the movie is bright and colorful — and as always, Godard makes interesting use of space, unique sets, and montage.

Georges Delerue’s score is also integral to this film; indeed, the orchestral theme song is so instantly recognizable that I was surprised to learn it’s part of the original score for this movie rather than a classical piece.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Brigitte Bardot as Camille
  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography


  • Georges Delerue’s indelible score

Must See?
Yes, as an intriguing classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Quest for Fire (1981)

Quest for Fire (1981)

“80,000 years ago, man’s survival in a vast, uncharted land depended on the possession of fire.”

Synopsis:
While out seeking fire, three prehistoric members of the Ulam tribe — Amoukar (Ron Perlman), Naoh (Everett McGill), and Gaw (Nameer El Kadi) — encounter various predators and competitors in addition to a love interest (Rae Dawn Chong) for Naoh.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Prehistoric Times
  • Survival

Review:
French director Jean-Jacques Annaud has had an interesting and varied career, with his debut film — Black and White in Color (1976) — earning an Oscar as Best Foreign Language Movie of the Year, and this subsequent movie breaking numerous conventions by taking place 80,000 years ago and not containing any known language (the limited dialogue spoken by various tribes was written by Anthony Burgess). At first it’s challenging not to laugh at the depiction of Paleolithic humans acting more like violent, primitive monkeys or gorillas than the “civilized” beings we associate ourselves with:

… but we quickly grow to see the three main characters as individuals, and can believe their interactions as authentic. The make-up (which took up to five hours to apply each day), costumes, and body movements are impressively realistic:

… and the location shooting by cinematographer Claude Agostini is often breathtaking. With that said, your interest in the storyline may or may not hold, given that there’s no discernible dialogue, and the plot points all concern either base survival (i.e., the trio sleeps in a tree to avoid saber-toothed tigers):

… or cultural interactions with different tribes:

Interestingly, we see this leading to evolution-in-action, as individuals quickly learn from and mate with one another, thus ensuring future generations will be even better prepared to face life’s challenges.

While this isn’t must-see viewing for all film fanatics, it’s certainly worth a look as a one-of-a-kind movie.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Authentic-seeming makeup, costumes, and body language

  • Beautiful cinematography


Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)

Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)

“Why deny the obvious necessity of remembering?”

Synopsis:
While making a film in Hiroshima, a French actress (Emmanuelle Riva) having an affair with a Japanese architect (Eiji Okada) reflects back on her doomed romance with a German soldier (Bernard Fresson) during World War II.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Alain Resnais Films
  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Flashback Films
  • French Films
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Nuclear Holocaust
  • World War II

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Alain Resnais’s complex first feature, a seminal film of the French New Wave, could better be described as a mood piece on love and madness or a visual examination of the subconscious than as a straight narrative; in any case, it invented new ways to tell a story.” He notes that “the film is known for the breakthrough use of the subjective (rather than chronological) order during flashbacks” (though Resnais disliked the use of the term ‘flashbacks’, insisting that memories of the past are part of one’s present reality); “flash cuts from images the character is currently seeing to those past images the character is reminded of”:

… and “parallel montage whereby juxtaposed shots of [Riva’s hometown of] Nevers] and Hiroshima are filmed similarly and at the same speed — so that the unity of past and present (an important theme) is conveyed.” Also unique to this groundbreaking film are “surreal tracking shots of empty Hiroshima”:

… and “the insertion of footage from the Japanese film Hiroshima [1953], with its grisly shots of A-bomb victims.”

However, Peary posits — though I and many others disagree — that “while the film’s technical achievements are vast, there are problems with the central storyline.” He argues that despite “Resnais and Duras den[ying] that they were trying to draw parallels between the Hiroshima holocaust and the tragedy that befell Riva in Nevers at the same time,” they nonetheless “offer as a theme that love will vanquish terrible memories,” “suggesting that the memory of Nevers is as tragic to Riva as the memory of Hiroshima is to Okada but presuming that the Japanese are trying to forget about Hiroshima in order to move forward.”

Frankly, I don’t see any of these ideas playing out in the film. Love is not presented as a way to eradicate terrible memories; rather, sensual connection is shown as a form of visceral engagement with uncomfortable truths. By pointing out parallels between the bombing of Hiroshima and Riva’s past — when the German soldier she was in love with “was killed by a sniper on Liberation Day” and “she had her hair shorn by villagers, and her parents locked her in a cellar,” and “at one point she had a mental breakdown”:

— Resnais and Duras are simply making note of the many (indeed, uncountable) tragedies that befall people across the globe as they go about their daily lives during wartime.

Peary seems to be part of a critical camp asserting that “a major problem” with this film “is that Duras did not know what to do with Okada, or know what he represents,” so “Duras concentrates on Riva and foolishly, and insultingly, ignores Okada’s story.” Peary adds: “That Riva tells [Okada] her past and doesn’t ask him to reciprocate and that he accepts this suggests that Duras regarded the white woman as being more important to the film than her Japanese lover.”

However, we now understand that attempting to represent someone else’s lived experience in art — while occasionally successful — is generally not recommended; rather, one should write about or from one’s own truths, which is exactly what Duras does here, to strong effect.

Since the publication of Peary’s GFTFF in 1986 and 1987, we (film fanatics) have many more resources available to help us understand and contextualize the titles he’s listed and reviewed — including restorative DVDs with commentaries and online analyses and discussions (i.e., through blogs and videos posted on YouTube). This film is, to me, an example of where Peary’s reviews begin to show their age: he was writing at a time when nuclear threat (though still very present and real) was at the forefront of everyone’s minds, and I believe he writes about this film through that Cold War-era lens of (justifiable) paranoia.

What our country did to Hiroshima remains undeniably controversial (to say the very least), and of course a false equivalency should never be made comparing this catastrophic event to one young woman’s shaming at the hands of fellow villagers. But what Resnais seems to be saying here (though he has professed he doesn’t analyze his own films — he simply makes them) is that grief and unspeakable trauma at all levels resonate across geographic, gender-based, and cultural boundaries; only by deeply listening to one another can we begin to process the harm we cause each other — and yes, Okada’s character should be given a chance to make a film from his own unique perspective (it’s a movie I’m sure we’d all be eager to watch).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Strong performances by the leads
  • Michio Takahasi and Sacha Vierny’s cinematography



  • Marguerite Duras’s screenplay
  • Giovanni Fusco’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a most unique and powerful New Wave film.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Je T’Aime, Je T’Aime (1968)

Je T’Aime, Je T’Aime (1968)

“I love confusion — things that change.”

Synopsis:
A suicidal man (Claude Rich) is taken from the hospital to a secret laboratory, where a team of scientists send him back in time to relive a minute of his life — but instead he’s caught in a back-and-forth journey between the lab and his memories of loving a woman named Catrine (Olga Georges-Picot), whose death he feels guilty about.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alain Resnais Films
  • Flashback Films
  • French Films
  • Science Fiction
  • Suicide
  • Time Travel

Review:
Peary lists nearly all of French director Alain Resnais’ pre-1987 feature-length films in his GFTFF, from his debut, Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), to Life Is a Bed of Roses (1983) — but I’ll start by jumping in with a review of his fifth title. Je T’Aime, Je T’Aime falls exactly within the paramaters set forth in Wikipedia’s description of Resnais’s work as “frequently explor[ing] the relationship between consciousness, memory, and the imagination” — and, given that Resnais was known “for devising innovative formal structures for his narratives,” it’s no surprise that this movie jumps back and forth in both time and genre. It begins as a mystery-filled sci-fi flick (what are these scientists up to — and why is Rich so willing to go with them to their laboratory?):

… but eventually shifts towards a non-linear exploration of (Rich’s) memory, guilt, and sense of reality. Certain random scenes from Rich’s past are replayed repeatedly (i.e., a snippet of his snorkeling adventures on the beach):

… while others are merely flashes of conversations or glimpses into his life at work or play:

We never fully understand what happened with his lover Catrine, who was clearly depressed:

… or whether Rich will successfully return from his experimental jaunt through time. It seems he’s stuck in a series of loops — much like his own obsessive thought-process — and we don’t know what’s ultimately in store for him. Your appreciation of this film will depend entirely on your interest in avante garde cinema — i.e., stories more concerned with exploratory impressions and philosophical wonderings than with anything resembling a logical trajectory; though to Resnais’ and co-screenwriter Jacques Sternberg’s credit, the entire affair does cohere.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • A unique storyline and narrative approach

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look for its historical relevance. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Run of the Arrow (1957)

Run of the Arrow (1957)

“There’s no hiding place for what ails you, son. We’re all under one flag now.”

Synopsis:
An embittered Confederate veteran (Rod Steiger) who refuses to concede the reintegration of the United States of America meets an aging Oglala scout (Jay C. Flippen) and joins his tribe, making peace with its leader, Blue Buffalo (Charles Bronson), and living with a Sioux woman (Sara Montiel) and her adopted ward (Billy Miller). However, when a U.S. captain (Brian Keith) — with assistance from the man (Ralph Meeker) Steiger shot but didn’t kill on the last day of the Civil War — leads a group of soldiers in building a fort nearby, and the Sioux want to attack, Steiger’s loyalties are once again tested.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Brian Keith Films
  • Charles Bronson Films
  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Native Americans
  • Ralph Meeker Films
  • Rod Steiger Films
  • Sam Fuller Films
  • Veterans
  • Westerns

Review:
Writer-director Sam Fuller’s tenth feature film was this “revisionist western” in which taken-for-granted tropes of westerns and American history are turned on their head. From the opening scenes, we’re asked to relate to a protagonist (known simply as “O’Meara”) who — even against his mother’s advice — refuses to concede the Confederacy’s loss, thus becoming a man without a nation:

Given that O’Meara’s sentiments reflect those of many in our nation today, this feels like an especially intriguing and worthy tale to pay attention to as it unfolds. Like Kevin Costner’s Lt. John Dunbar in Dances With Wolves (1990), O’Meara attempts to escape through assimilation with the Sioux, after “winning” a contest from which the title takes its name:

(Note, however, that Chris Smallbone of NativeAmericans.co.uk informs us this supposed custom — of an arrow being shot out onto the land, and the accused person attempting to outrun his assailants once he reaches the arrow — was made up by Fuller.)

The thrust of the film centers on whether and/or how O’Meara will eventually reintegrate into his original society, and what tensions will inevitably emerge during this transition. While it’s jarring seeing Charles Bronson as a Sioux chief:

… and hearing (uncredited) Angie Dickinson’s voice dubbing Montiel as “Yellow Moccasin”:

… it’s still refreshing to see what appear to be authentic Native Americans hired as extras.

This compact, character-driven tale remains worth a look despite its limitations — but be forewarned there’s quite a bit of violence, including yet another supposed Sioux custom (skinning alive) that isn’t authentic.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography and direction

Must See?
Yes, as yet another unique outing by Fuller. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Thunder Bay (1953)

Thunder Bay (1953)

“There’s oil out there; somebody’s got to get it!”

Synopsis:
When an offshore oiling entrepreneur (Jimmy Stewart) and his friend (Dan Duryea) receive funding and support from an investor (Jay C. Flippen), they arrive in a Louisiana fishing town ready to employ its citizens — but a local patriarch (Antonio Moreno) is not happy about Duryea dating his daughter (Marcia Henderson), and Henderson’s sister (Joanne Dru) is cynical about outsiders interfering with their way of life.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anthony Mann Films
  • Dan Duryea Films
  • Fishermen
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • Joanne Dru Films
  • Oil Drilling

Review:
Jimmy Stewart’s fourth film with director Anthony Mann — after Winchester ’73 (1950), Bend of the River (1952), and The Naked Spur (1953) — was this less engaging widescreen adventure flick. It takes place off the Gulf of Mexico, but otherwise follows the general themes of a western, with “boats and oil standing in for horses and guns” — or, as Stuart Galbraith IV proposes in his review for DVD Talk, miners and cattlemen replacing oilers and fishermen in an ongoing battle for land (water) use. Unfortunately, it’s especially challenging to relate to Stewart’s character given what we now know about the toxic outcome of mining the Earth’s resources; hearing him make speeches like the following to Dru, we can’t help cringing:

“Maybe you don’t know how oil was formed millions of years ago: it was formed by things dying and being held in the Earth. Well now, if I can reach down there, and bring up the results of all those millions of years, and make them work for the present and the future, then I’ve done something, haven’t I?”

Yes, Jimmy — you certainly are doing something, though we don’t blame you because you don’t yet understand the impact.

At any rate, the storyline is a rather standard melodrama of romantic entanglements:

… culture clashes, high hopes, and competing priorities, with a group of people at one point deciding to band together in a “Let’s put on a show!” type of endeavor (which conveniently leads to said “show” happening just in the nick of time).

This film will likely be of interest to fans of Mann’s work, but isn’t a must-see entry in his impressive oeuvre.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • William Daniels’ cinematography

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

Sea Wife (1957)

Sea Wife (1957)

“Why shouldn’t I love you? You’re young and beautiful and brave and good.”

Synopsis:
A former officer during World War II (Richard Burton) reflects back on his experiences as a castaway with an incognito nun (Joan Collins), a racist white man (Basil Sydney), and a black purser (Cy Grant). Will the quartet be able to survive together given racial tensions and Burton falling in love with the unattainable Collins?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • At Sea
  • Flashback Films
  • Joan Collins Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Nuns
  • Race Relations and Racism
  • Richard Burton Films
  • Survival

Review:
DVD Savant accurately describes this flashback-driven wartime melodrama as “colorful, reasonably well acted and almost completely unsatisfying”. The central conceit — that Collins won’t reveal her true identity as a nun to Burton — makes no sense whatsoever, driving a storyline that keeps us increasingly frustrated as we wonder why (oh, why) she doesn’t just tell him already. No — because then there would be no tension at all, other than the secondary subplot about Sydney’s toxic racism driving him to literally want to snuff out Grant. Ew.

Meanwhile, the characters won’t stop referring to each other by silly nicknames: Biscuit (Burton), Seawife (a.k.a. “mermaid”) (Collins), Bulldog (Sydney), and Number 4 (Grant) (great way to dehumanize him even further…). There’s really nothing here worth watching, other than the beautiful scenery; one imagines Peary included it in GFTFF because young Collins is as gorgeous as ever:

… and we know he had a childhood crush on her from seeing her bare midriff in Land of the Pharaohs (1955).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine location footage

Must See?
Nope; definitely feel free to skip this one.

Links:

Little Big Horn (1951)

Little Big Horn (1951)

“None of us is in any condition to ride 50 miles — let alone 250 — through what’s between us and the 7th; but we’re gonna do it.”

Synopsis:
On a trip to inform General Custer that the Sioux are waiting to attack, a captain (Lloyd Bridges) whose wife (Marie Windsor) is having an affair with one of his men (John Ireland) struggles with various leadership decisions.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cavalry
  • Historical Drama
  • John Ireland Films
  • Lloyd Bridges Films
  • Marie Windsor Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Native Americans
  • Westerns

Review:
Loosely based on the real-life exploits of Captain Frederick K. Giddleren (here Capt. Phillip Donlin) and Lt. Charles Larin (here Lt. John Haywood) of the United States Cavalry — who tangentially supported Lt. General Custer in the Battle of the Little Bighorn — this western puts a love triangle between Donlin (Bridges) and Haywood (Ireland) front and center, opening with a supposedly private rendezvous between Ireland and Bridges’ wife (Windsor) that’s interrupted by Bridges’ emergence from the shadows:

We learn that tensions between these two men will understandably be running high, making an already dangerous and uncertain military mission even more fraught. Is Bridges assigning tasks to Ireland out of spite and anger — or is he keeping military protocol and best practices at the forefront of his decision making?

The bulk of the film is spent exploring issues of trust and leadership, as the cavalry members ride their horses over rocky terrain and worry about Sioux hiding behind every boulder.

The most interesting scenes show how the men negotiate positions and tasks — i.e., Major Grierson (Reed Hadley) attempting to volunteer to “ride point” (“I’m not a brave man, but the others have got a reason for getting back to the fort”) :

… and the eventual resolution of the situation by “cutting high card to see who rides out in front”, with various men either eager to “win” or relieved to draw low:

Indeed, once the romantic subplot involving Windsor is (mostly) cut from the storyline, things shape into a reasonably taut tale of doomed heroism and duty (we already know things won’t end well for this crew). Fans of American military historical dramas and/or westerns may be curious to check this one out, though it’s not must-see viewing for all.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Ernest Miller’s cinematography
  • Several unexpectedly powerful moments

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you enjoy westerns. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Three on a Meathook (1972)

Three on a Meathook (1972)

“You know what happens when you get around women — and it can’t happen again!”

Synopsis:
When a young man (James Carroll Pickett) living in the country brings home four stranded women, they are brutally murdered, and Billy (Pickett) is accused by his father (Charles Kissinger) of committing these acts. Heading out into town, Billy meets a kind waitress (Sherry Steiner) who brings a friend (Madelyn Buzzard) with her for a visit at Billy’s home the following weekend — but will the pair be safe with a murderer on the loose?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Father and Child
  • Horror Films

Review:
Loosely inspired by the Ed Gein murders, this grindhouse debut by low-budget director William Girdler — who died at age 30 in a helicopter crash over the Philippines after completing his final film, The Manitou (1978) — is thankfully a snoozy bore rather than a shockingly crude bloodfest (as one might imagine from the sensationalist title).

Given that Girdler was hugely inspired by Hitchcock (Psycho in particular), the killings are over mercifully quickly, with more emphasis placed on character and psychological motivations — though even that is in short supply. We know Kissinger is gaslighting his son into believing he murdered his own mother years ago, and that he can’t be trusted around any women:

… but we’re unsure what this will lead to for Billy. Instead, we simply watch him heading into town:

… listening to a band perform, meeting a nice girl (Steiner):

… and making inane small-talk while wandering around.

Eventually, of course, Steiner’s life will be put at risk — and when we learn that she’s bringing a friend (Buzzard) with her to Billy’s house, we know exactly what will happen.

At least Buzzard is given a moment in the spotlight, speaking directly to the camera about her deceased veteran-husband. At any rate, we eventually learn the film’s “big reveal” — nothing surprising, yet with an added twist — and all is wrapped up in a tidy horror-film bow. Fans of this type of fare know who they are, but this one certainly isn’t must-see for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Ummm….

Must See?
Nope.

Links: