Salamandre, La (1971)

Salamandre, La (1971)

“The girl’s name is Rosemonde.”

Synopsis:
Two writer friends (Jean-Luc Bideau and Jacques Denis) research a contested news story concerning an enigmatic young woman (Bulle Ogier) who may have deliberately shot her uncle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Character Studies
  • Love Triangle
  • Swiss Films
  • Working Class
  • Writers

Review:
Alain Tanner’s second feature film — a clever satire on the writing process and ‘truth’ in reporting — provocatively explores the nature of veracity in storytelling, and the ways in which personal involvement inevitably skews our perception. While not as pointed as his debut film — Charles, Dead or Alive (1969) — or as openly humorous as his later, more accessible ensemble film Jonah, Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000 (1976), La Salamandre remains a classic entry in Tanner’s oeuvre.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bulle Ogier as the seductive, sullen Rosemonde
  • An unromanticized look at the boredom and limited prospects of working-class life

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended.

Links:

Sterile Cuckoo, The (1969)

Sterile Cuckoo, The (1969)

“It’s gonna be nice to get away from all these weirdos.”

Synopsis:
Eccentric Pookie Adams (Liza Minnelli) pursues a quiet entymology student named Jerry (Wendell Burton), who she meets on the bus while travelling to college.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan J. Pakula Films
  • Character Studies
  • First Love
  • Liza Minnelli Films
  • Nonconformists
  • Romance

Review:
Alan J. Pakula’s debut film offers an insightful exploration into the exhilaration, complications, and devastation of “first love”. Many scenes — such as when Pookie and Jerry are about to make love for the first time — ring remarkably true, and are handled with sensitivity and gentle humor; and Minnelli’s Pookie — while unbelievably irritating at first — quickly becomes sympathetic, as we recognize a little bit of ourselves in her desperation to have a romantic relationship at any cost. Unfortunately, as pointed out by numerous reviewers (see links below), Pakula occasionally turns his non-conformist love story into a “traditional romance”, complete with montages of the lovers running across fields and holding hands while sappy music plays in the background. These scenes detract from the authenticity of the story, since we prefer to see these characters up close in all their awkward realism, rather than from a fuzzy distance. Fortunately, for every generic montage, Pakula provides a well-written, sensitive scene which brings us back to the truth of Pookie and Jerry’s relationship.

Perhaps inevitably, things slowly begin to crumble between the misfit couple, as Jerry (well played by an appropriately bland Wendell Burton) realizes he wants to spend time with the other “weirdos” around him in college, and actually focus on his studies. Ironically, as we watch Pookie become increasingly desperate to hold on to Jerry (she fabricates a pregnancy, and guilts him into spending time with her), we start to care for her more and more, as we recognize the true depth of her neuroses. Our compassion is due in no small part to Minnelli’s powerhouse performance; a couple of particularly poignant scenes late in the movie — in which she pleads on the telephone with Jerry, and cracks up at a frat party — especially showcase her acting chops, and give credence to her worthy Oscar nomination. Ultimately, while The Sterile Cuckoo is an uneven film, Minnelli makes it worth seeking out at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Liza Minnelli’s inimitable performance as Pookie
  • Jerry nervously taking Pookie’s clothes off before they make love for the first time
  • Pookie’s desperate call to Jerry
  • Pookie trying her best not to disturb Jerry as he spends his entire spring break studying

Must See?
Yes, simply to see Minnelli’s Oscar-nominated performance.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Tin Men (1987)

Tin Men (1987)

“I’m going to find out everything about this son of a bitch, and then I’m going to find the one thing that cuts him right to the quick.”

Synopsis:
When two rival aluminum siding salesmen (Danny DeVito and Richard Dreyfuss) in 1963 Baltimore accidentally hit each other’s cars, they seek continued revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barbara Hershey Films
  • Barry Levinson Films
  • Black Comedy
  • Con-Artists
  • Masculinity
  • Revenge
  • Richard Dreyfuss Films
  • Salesmen

Review:
Barry Levinson’s fourth feature film — taking place, once again, in his hometown of Baltimore — suffers from an incurable dilemma: its two lead characters (as well as their “tin men” colleagues) are utterly unsympathetic. In fact, it’s downright uncomfortable watching these hucksters con gullible homeowners into paying for aluminum siding when they haven’t been given anything close to a fair sell. Of course, this is part of Levinson’s point, given that a major subplot of the film revolves around the Home Improvement Commission’s investigation of the tin men’s practices; yet the commissioners are clearly posited as the “bad guys”, and thus, we’re left without a clear side to root for.

Similarly, when Dreyfuss shamelessly cuckolds DeVito by seducing his unhappy wife (Barbara Hershey), we’re not sure how to react — especially when the two fall genuinely in love. Are we supposed to root for the happiness of a man as devious and conniving as Dreyfuss? Since he undergoes a sort of character transformation (shifting from self-avowed bachelor to pseudo-family man), he’s supposedly more sympathetic than DeVito, who remains selfish and clueless about his dire straits until the very end — yet DeVito is, ironically, the more compelling of the two con-men. It’s his performance — as well as Levinson’s impressive set designs, and some occasional moments of genuine humor — which keep us watching, even as we cringe at the story itself.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Danny DeVito as the eternally optimistic “tin man” whose life goes slowly downhill
  • Jackie Gayle as Tilley’s Bonanza-bashing partner, Sam
  • A detail-perfect evocation of 1960s Baltimore

Must See?
No, but it’s probably worth watching simply for DeVito’s performance (which Peary nominates for an “Alternate Oscar” as one of the best of the year).

Links:

Swimming to Cambodia (1987)

Swimming to Cambodia (1987)

“Who needs metaphors for hell or poetry about hell? This really happened, here on this earth.”

Synopsis:
Spalding Gray discusses his experiences while filming a small role in The Killing Fields (1984).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Character Studies
  • Jonathan Demme Films

Review:
Spalding Gray is one of the best-known monologists of the late 20th century, and Jonathan Demme’s Swimming to Cambodia — an edited combination of two live performances, accompanied by Laurie Anderson’s evocative sound effects — provides a fascinating glimpse at his prowess. In this unusual storytelling event, Gray intersperses humorous vignettes from his experiences filming in Thailand with a concise history of the brutal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia — an unexpected, yet surprisingly effective, marriage of ideas. Gray’s monologue is poignant rather than hilarious; he’s not a stand-up comedian, but rather an astute commentator on the intersection of personal travails and public tragedies.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Spalding Gray’s charismatic storytelling presence
  • Laurie Anderson’s memorable sound effects

Must See?
Yes. All film fanatics should see at least one of the late Spalding Gray’s filmed monologues, and this is probably his best.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Muppets Take Manhattan, The (1984)

Muppets Take Manhattan, The (1984)

“I’m staying! You hear that, New York? THE FROG IS STAYING!”

Synopsis:
Kermit and his Muppet friends head to Broadway, where they struggle to get their musical — “Manhattan Melodies” — produced.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Amnesia
  • Let’s-Put-On-a-Show
  • Musicals
  • New York City
  • Puppets and Ventriloquism

Review:
The Muppets’ third big-screen adventure (directed by Frank Oz) will primarily appeal either to those who fondly remember watching it as a child, or, naturally, to hardcore Muppet fans. While it contains a few humorous moments, there are an equal number of embarrassments — including the insufferable “Muppet Babies” doo-wop number.

Juliana Donald as Kermit’s sympathetic new friend is instantly forgettable:

though it’s mildly amusing to watch Miss Piggy (with an ’80s perm!) fuming at her with jealous rage. Most entertaining are the scenes in which an amnesia-ridden Kermit — the indisputable star of the show — hangs out with his well-meaning, yet hopelessly square, new frog buddies: Bill, Gil, and Jill.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Amnesiac Kermit — a.k.a. “Phil” — interacting with his new colleagues
  • Linda Lavin (as a doctor) testing Kermit’s “reflexes” after his accident
  • A truly campy moment as Miss Piggy roller skates through Central Park while trying to catch a purse snatcher

Must See?
No. This one is for Muppet fans only; it’s not clear why Peary listed it in the back of his book, other than perhaps its Oscar-nominated score by Jeff Moss.

Links:

High and the Mighty, The (1954)

High and the Mighty, The (1954)

“Tell me what’s wrong with this airplane!”

Synopsis:
When an airplane en route from Honolulu to San Francisco starts losing fuel, its passengers and pilots (Robert Stack and John Wayne) prepare for an ocean landing.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Airplanes and Pilots
  • Claire Trevor Films
  • David Brian Films
  • Disaster Flicks
  • Ensemble Cast
  • Jan Sterling Films
  • John Qualen Films
  • John Wayne Films
  • Robert Newton Films
  • Robert Stack Films
  • William Wellman Films

Review:
It’s impossible to watch William Wellman’s The High and the Mighty without thinking about the countless times its basic premise has been spoofed — most notably in the Zucker brothers’ comedy classic Airplane! (1980). Indeed, as a “straight” melodrama, The High and the Mighty falls flat, with hopelessly cliched characters, truly laughable dialogue (“How can I ever be afraid when you hold me like this?”), and not nearly enough genuine drama or excitement for a disaster flick. Unavailable for many years, this film developed nearly a cult following (see posts on IMDb), with fans clamoring for its release on DVD; but its appeal will ultimately be limited to either devotees of John Wayne (who, surprisingly, doesn’t dominate the proceedings), or those anxious to see the film which inspired Airplane!.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Countless spoofable moments and characters — including pilot Robert Stack, who would later “reprise” his role in Airplane! (1980)

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look as perhaps the definitive “airplane disaster” flick.

Links:

Point of Order (1964)

Point of Order (1964)

“Apparently, Senator, you believe that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is a Communist.”

Synopsis:
Senator Joe McCarthy shows his true colors while standing on trial against the U.S. Army.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Courtroom Drama
  • Documentary
  • Downward Spiral
  • Emile de Antonio Films
  • Political Corruption

Response to Peary’s Review:
Emile De Antonio took more than 180 hours of television footage from the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings and crafted this fascinating glimpse at the crash and burn of America’s most infamous “Commie witch hunter”. As Peary notes, de Antonio offers us the “perversely satisfying” opportunity to “watch [Senator Joe] McCarthy sweat and squirm” while “being railroaded by military and political big shots” — all, notably, without the “voice of God” narration so common in documentaries at the time. Though there are some dry patches in the film (especially while various participants in the trial read all the way through certain documents), this is more than made up for by countless too-good-to-be-true moments of drama and hilarity. Especially compelling is Boston lawyer Joseph Welch, who sits “in a slouch with hand on chin and wearing a bow tie”; indeed, Welch displayed such genuine presence during the hearings that he was drafted by Otto Preminger to star as the judge in his courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder (1959). De Antonio rightfully recognized that the true drama of the case lay not in its ostensible subject (whether McCarthy and his counsel, Roy Cohn, granted special favors to Pvt. G. David Schine), but in McCarthy’s spectacularly pigheaded behavior — the beginning of his final fall from grace. Point of Order remains a potent time capsule of this infamous event, and demonstrates de Antonio’s genius for crafting pre-existing footage into incisive political barbs. See also de Antonio’s Millhouse: A White House Comedy (1967) and In the Year of the Pig (1968).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Welch making his famous statement to McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
  • A fascinating time-capsule glimpse at one of the most famous court trials in American history

Must See?
Yes. This remains a pivotal film in documentary history.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Who Killed Teddy Bear (1965)

Who Killed Teddy Bear (1965)

“Norah, don’t you see? I’m with you everywhere.”

Synopsis:
A disturbed busboy (Sal Mineo) makes anonymous phone calls to his d.j. co-worker Norah (Juliet Prowse); meanwhile, Norah’s case is investigated by an eager police detective (Jan Murray) who specializes in sexual perverts.

Genres:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Obsessive Love
  • Sal Mineo
  • Peeping Toms

Review:
Joseph Cates’ atmospheric b&w stalker film features fine performances (especially by toothy dancer Juliet Prowse); smart dialogue; and a creepy turn by Sal Mineo as the troubled young man whose traumatic childhood — in typical mid-century Freudian cine-analysis (see The Mark, 1961) — has led to his frightening sexual disturbances. Framed as a film about desire, every character except Norah is depicted as wanting something from someone else: Detective Madden hopes to use Norah to find her stalker (as well as every stalker in town) in retribution for his wife’s rape and murder years earlier; Norah’s boss (Elaine Stritch) wants to comfort her in a more-than-maternal fashion; Mineo’s brain-damaged younger sister wants him to take care of and play with her; and Mineo, of course, wants Norah’s body. There ultimately isn’t much new in this tale of sexual obsession, but Prowse makes us care about her fiercely independent character, and we watch with concern to see what will happen to her next.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Juliet Prowse as Norah
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Jan Murray as the obsessed detective determined to nab Norah’s predator
  • Elaine Stritch as Norah’s sympathetic — perhaps too sympathetic — boss
  • Effective use of New York City locales

  • Smart dialogue

Must See?
No. While this is an atmospheric, well-acted thriller, Who Killed Teddy Bear is ultimately not must-see viewing.

Links:

American Madness (1932)

American Madness (1932)

“I’m not interested in profit. I’m interested in the bank — in the depositers; they’re my friends. They’re looking to me for protection, and I’m not walking out on them!”

Synopsis:
Warm-hearted banker Thomas Dickson (Walter Huston) is pressured by his Board of Directors to stop giving loans so freely, but he refuses on principle. When one of his debt-ridden employees (Gavin Gordon) facilitates a heist led by a group of gangsters, however, panicked depositors mob the bank to cash their savings, and Dickson must find a way to save his bank before it’s too late.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Depression Era
  • Do-Gooders
  • Frank Capra Films
  • Heists
  • Naive Public
  • Pat O’Brien Films
  • Walter Huston Films

Review:
It’s easy to see shades of Capra’s later films in this fable-like story about a magnanimous banker (wonderfully played by Huston) who refuses to let anything stand in the way of his devotion to “the people”; indeed, fans of It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) will immediately recognize the familiar plot device of panicked townspeople descending upon a bank and demanding their money back. These crowd scenes are handled impressively, as are the more quiet moments between Huston and his wife (Kay Johnson); less enjoyable, however, is the script’s heavy handed morality, which insults our intelligence. Fortunately, the film is redeemed by excellent performances from nearly all the actors (Gordon is an exception), stunning art deco set designs inside the bank, and a fascinating look at Depression-era mentality about money.

Note:Although it comes across as a naively optimistic alternative to traditional banking methods, Huston’s philosophy about loans actually makes some sense, and can be seen in Bangladesh’s famous microcredit program run by Grameen Bank.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Walter Huston as the people-trusting banker
  • Kay Johnson as Huston’s frustrated wife
  • Pat O’Brien as Huston’s loyal right-hand-man
  • Constance Cummings as O’Brien’s fiancee
  • Gorgeous art deco set designs
  • Effective use of rapid-fire editing, fast-paced action, and overlapping dialogue

Must See?
Yes. As the first film to demonstrate Capra’s unique style and thematic interests, most film fanatics will want to see this movie at least once. Peary lists it in the back of his book as a Personal Recommendation.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Modern Romance (1981)

Modern Romance (1981)

“One, two, three! And-I-don’t-even-miss-her, two, three!”

Synopsis:
After breaking up with his beautiful girlfriend Mary (Kathryn Harrold) for the umpteenth time, self-absorbed Hollywood editor Robert Cole (Albert Brooks) wallows in self-pity before trying to woo Mary back.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Albert Brooks Films
  • Dating
  • George Kennedy Films
  • Los Angeles
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Winning Him/Her Back

Response to Peary’s Review:
Critical opinions seem squarely divided on this early romantic comedy by Albert Brooks, which Peary inexplicably labels as “often brilliant” and “much underrated”. One’s ability to enjoy Modern Romance rests on how easily you can relate to the lead character — Peary finds him “sympathetic yet obnoxious”, but I think he is, quite simply, insufferable. Indeed, it’s impossible to have any sympathy for someone as “completely oblivious to his awful traits” as Robert is; one can’t help comparing him with Woody Allen, but at least Allen’s characters always exhibited a healthy dose of neurotic self-deprecation.

Kathryn Harrold does a fine job as Robert’s girlfriend, but it’s difficult to enjoy her performance simply because we can’t figure out why she’d want to be with this loser in the first place — let alone after the way we see him treating her again and again. The only mildly enjoyable scenes focus on Robert’s work as a film editor for real-life director James L. Brooks — yet these have nothing to do with the primary story, and could easily be from a different movie entirely. Read DVD Savant’s review instead of Peary’s to get a much better indication of what you’re likely in store for with this clunker.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bruno Kirby as Robert’s long-suffering friend and colleague
  • A clever inside look at the politics of filmmaking and editing
  • Robert being pressured into buying far too much running gear
  • A few mildly amusing moments between Robert and Mary — such as when Robert eyes Mary’s revealing knit dress with jealous disapproval, and tells her it makes her nipples look like eyeballs

Must See?
No. While some would argue this is an essential film in Brooks’s early oeuvre, I can’t in good conscience recommend it as must-see viewing for anyone but fans of Brooks.

Links: