FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
In May of 1944, an American military intelligence officer (James Garner) is poisoned, kidnapped, and brought to a secret German site designed to look like a U.S. hospital, where an army doctor (Rod Taylor), a concentration camp survivor (Eva Marie Saint), and a German officer (Werner Peters) attempt to convince him that he has amnesia and the war is over, in order to get him to share plans for D-Day.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amnesia
• Eva Marie Saint Films
• James Garner Films
• Rod Taylor Films
• World War II

Review:
This clever suspense thriller — based on a short story by Roald Dahl — features a premise so intriguing it’s hard not to be drawn in nearly right away: what kind of powerful intelligence might one obtain upon successfully convincing an enemy that years have passed and the war is now over? In this film, we’re told that getting to that stage with Garner’s character has taken months of careful planning by dozens of players who can’t risk making a single mistake (i.e., accidentally speaking German).

And the ruse works — at first:

… until suddenly Garner suspects something’s up, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. The tension from there lies in how Garner will handle this news, how his capturers will receive what he’s forced to tell him (is he lying?), and whether the other sympathetic players in the narrative (Taylor and Saint) will turn out to be allies or enemies.

The final half-hour turns into an escape plot that drags the storyline out unnecessarily, but this flick remains worth a look simply for its thought-provoking premise.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• James Garner as Jeff Pike
  
• Rod Taylor as Major Gerber
  
• Philip Lathrop’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a one-time look. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Talk Review

Synopsis:
An over protective Italian-American (Raf Vallone) living in Brooklyn with his wife (Maureen Stapleton) and grown niece (Carol Lawrence) is distressed to learn that Catherine (Lawrence) has fallen for a young immigrant (Jean Sorel) who has come to the country illegally with his cousin (Raymond Pellegrin).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Miller Adaptations
• Immigrants and Immigration
• Play Adaptations
• Sidney Lumet Films
• Waterfront

Review:
The same year Long Day’s Journey Into Night (1962) was released, Sidney Lumet also directed this adaptation of Arthur Miller’s play of the same name — though to much lower critical acclaim. (Indeed, as of 2021, this film still hasn’t been released to video.) It’s a unique story in terms of its focus on immigrant status as a leverage point, with Vallone’s obsessive love for his niece getting in the way of doing the right and decent thing for his countrymen.

While Vallone himself is unaware of it, he harbors semi-incestuous feelings for Lawrence — and handsome Sorel bears the brunt of his anger. (In a “daring” scene for the time, he accuses Sorel of being homosexual by kissing him on the lips.)

However, arguably the most impacted by Vallone’s irrational hatred is Pellegrin, who is keeping his kids back at home alive by sending money he’s earned in America, and whose immigration status may be jeopardized by Vallone.

Meanwhile, Vallone’s wife (Stapleton) tries to intervene, but mostly simply watches events unfolding with horror. This tragedy of obsession, loyalty, responsibility, and revenge plays out in a way that hints at heartbreak from the get-go — which turns out to be accurate.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• A powerful drama of inter-familial tensions
  
• Good use of location shooting in Brooklyn
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you can find a copy. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
As Chastity (Cher) hitchhikes her way across the country and into Mexico, she encounters a kind college student (Steve Whittaker), a naive young whorehouse visitor (Tom Nolan), and a predatory lesbian madam (Barbara London).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cher Films
• Road Trip
• Strong Females

Review:
Sonny Bono and Cher’s follow-up to their debut feature, Good Times (1967), was this self-financed flop which put the couple in debt. They wanted to connect with younger audiences through Cher’s portrayal of a beautiful hippie living life on her own terms — and to her credit, Cher’s Chastity is remarkably self-sufficient.

However, everything else about this turkey — including the script (Chastity talks to herself, a lot) and the acting — simply stinks; the final scene is especially cringe-worthy. Be forewarned.

Note: As DVD Savant posits, the director “Alessio de Paola” was likely Bono himself.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Not much.

Must See?
No; you can most certainly skip this one unless you happen to be a Cher completist. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A drug and alcohol-addicted young man (Conrad Rooks) experiencing flashbacks to hallucinogenic trips checks into a treatment center in France run by Opium Jones (William S. Burroughs), with care provided by Dr. Benoit (Jean-Louis Barrault).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Counterculture
• Living Nightmare

Review:
Writer-director Conrad Rooks’ semi-autobiographical film debut, about life under the influence and in recovery, features a pulsing soundtrack by Ravi Shankar and cameos by a handful of noted cultural icons, including Allen Ginsburg:

… William S. Burroughs:

… Hervé Villechaize:

… and Shankar himself.

The “narrative” (such as it is) is decidedly non-linear — more lyrical than logical, designed to directly put us into the mind of someone lost in a series of visions and hallucinations that are both pleasant:

… and more menacing (as in a metaphorical sequence showing the literal gamble one takes when doing drugs).

Rooks’ love of cinema is evident throughout, as in expressionist scenes evoking The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920):

… as well as the strategic casting of Barrault as a doctor overseeing a patient (Rooks) who occasionally imagines himself in clown make-up much like Barrault’s character in Children of Paradise (1945).

Meanwhile, the frequent footage taking place in Asian countries brings to mind the ubiquity of white youth searching for enlightenment in the East during this era.

While this is all terribly self-indulgent, it’s unique enough to merit a one-time look by those curious to see what it’s all about.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Robert Frank’s cinematography
  
  
• Ravi Shankar’s score

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Mondo Digital Review
• SF Gate Review

Synopsis:
Three New York women — a nymphomaniac (Holly Woodlawn), an aspiring-actress heiress (Candy Darling), and a man-hater (Jackie Curtis) — form an unhappy feminist group called the PIGs (Politically Involved Girls).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Paul Morrissey Films
• Satires and Spoofs
• Strong Females

Review:
Andy Warhol and Paul Morrissey co-directed this tedious spoof about the women’s movement, starring three trans-females who are pretty unlikable: when allowed to improvise, they simply whine and act insufferably. Cult star Jackie Curtis, for instance, mercilessly abuses and ridicules her man-slave hippie:

… while Woodlawn mostly writhes around uncontrollably like an animal in heat, lashing out in lust at just about everyone around her.

Candy Darling is the most relatively appealing and intriguing — though she’s ultimately not interested in much more than breaking through as an actor and impersonating Kim Novak (which she’s reasonably good at).

While I’ll admit to getting weirdly caught up in the shenanigans of the protagonists in Morrissey’s earlier Flesh (1968) and Trash (1970), the appeal of this one eludes me completely.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Candy Darling as Candy
  

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Onion A.V. Club (scroll to second review)

Synopsis:
A spiritually-seeking young Indian named Siddhartha (Shashi Kapoor) goes on a trip of self-discovery with his friend Govinda (Romesh Sharma), eventually falling in love with a beautiful courtesan (Simi Garewal) while learning that spiritual enlightenment can’t be taught.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• India
• Religious Faith

Review:
This adaptation of Herman Hesse’s 1922 novel of the same name was written and directed by Conrad Rooks, whose only other directorial effort is the GFTFF-listed Chappaqua (1966). Sven Nykvist’s cinematography is exquisite throughout:

… but there’s not enough to this simple storyline to hold our interest. Siddhartha gives up his worldly comforts, follows the Buddha for awhile, tries a life of sensual pleasure:

… and eventually realizes that the only truth in life is what one experiences internally.

This was all very much of its time back in the early 1970s, when so many were on similar paths of spiritual seeking — but it will likely only be of interest to modern-day film fanatics who happen to be curious about how Hesse’s novel was translated to the screen.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Sven Nykvist’s cinematography
  

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
Three women active in the American labor movement reflect back on their lives and the legacy of their activism.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Labor Movements

Review:
This Academy Award-nominated documentary by Julia Reichert, Jim Klein, and Miles Mogulescu — selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry by the Library of Congress in 2022 — features interviews with three women (Kate Hyndman, Stella Nowicki, and Sylvia Woods):

… who were profiled in the labor history book Rank and File by Staughton and Alice Lynd. At under an hour long, the film doesn’t overstay its welcome, instead remaining an engaging archive of reflections from key players-on-the-ground interspersed with archival footage. Because all three interviewees are women — one black, two white — we get to hear about what the labor movement was like for (at least a few) women, and some of the ways in which racial tensions were at least temporarily overcome. This documentary remains worth a one-time look, though it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• A powerful set of oral history remembrances
  

Must See?
No, but it’s strongly recommended.

Links:

• IMDb entry

Synopsis:
Clips of the Rolling Stones recording “Sympathy for the Devil” in London’s Olympic Studios are interspersed with scenes of Black Power activists in a junkyard, an adult bookstore with Maoist hostages, and a young peasant woman (Anne Wiazemsky) being interviewed in a meadow.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African Americans
• Documentary
• Jean-Luc Godard Films
• Rock ‘n Roll

Review:
The origin story of this avant garde pastiche film by Jean-Luc Godard (part fiction, part documentary, part staged readings of political texts) is that he went to England to make a documentary about abortion, only to have the Abortion Act of 1967 make this no longer such a hot topic — so he stayed there with the intention of filming either the Beatles or the Rolling Stones (and only the latter accepted). The result is hard to make any narrative sense of at all — though it’s not necessarily supposed to. Music lovers will likely enjoy all the scenes in which “Sympathy for the Devil” slowly emerges through plenty of creative trial and error:

… (though we never do hear the final song, at least not in Godard’s version of the film). Meanwhile, Godard fans will likely view all the weird interstitial material as simply part of his broader cinematic commentary on Marxism and revolution.

The prize for oddest sequence is a tie between a scene in a bookstore where Mein Kampf is being read out loud and patrons give a heil salute after making their purchase:

… and Wiazemsky wandering around a field followed by a film crew, answering either “yes” or “no” to a serious of questions designed for exactly such binary responses (“Do you think drugs are a spiritual form of gambling?”).

Is it worth spending more time analyzing this flick? Yes. No. I’m really not sure — though of course Godard fans will have a field day.

Note: Peary lists a total of 24 films by Godard (RIP) in GFTFF; I have 11 left to watch and review.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• An awesome title track song
  
• Colorful cinematography
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Godard completists.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoiler alert)
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
When a stenographer (Suzanne Fletcher) is hired to translate an ancient Chinese manuscript, she finds the world around her subtly shifting in fantastical and sometimes scary ways.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fantasy
• Living Nightmare
• New York City

Review:
This first feature film by Jim Jarmusch’s partner Sara Driver is a quirky, decidedly experimental mood piece set in a New York City that is both mind-numbingly mundane and inconceivably fantastical. The film opens with a scroll being placed in and recovered from a secure spot:

… then shifts to an office, where we see workers trying to pass the time either by zoning out while getting their tasks done:

… or acting out, as when Fletcher’s roommate (Ann Magnuson) bugs their boss about his weight and potato chip eating, or tries to bum money off of hard-working Fletcher.

Eventually we see that Fletcher has a son (Dexter Lee):

… who seems to primarily take care of himself. Fletcher, meanwhile, is obsessed with a new job she’s gotten translating the scroll we saw in the opening sequence — and as she writes out the story, we’re meant to understand that it’s somehow impacting (and/or interacting with) her reality as well.

It’s all highly atmospheric and somewhat spooky, yet makes little sense. Watch for Steve Buscemi in one of his earliest roles as an “office worker”, though he doesn’t have much to do or say.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Good use of New York locales
  
• Jim Jarmusch’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for fans of this type of experimental cinema. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Screen Anarchy Review
• Slant Review

Synopsis:
Shortly after moving to New York City, a young woman (Nastassja Kinski) from Wisconsin is discovered by a photographer (Ian McShane) who makes her into a famous model — but when Kinski falls in love with an enigmatic violinist (Rudolf Nureyev), she quickly finds herself in proximity to a ruthless terrorist (Harvey Keitel).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Harvey Keitel Films
• Models
• Nastassja Kinski Films
• New York City
• Terrorists

Review:
Writer/director James Toback’s third feature — after an intriguing debut, Fingers (1978), and a nearly unwatchable follow-up, Love and Money (1982) — was this equally presumptuous romantic adventure featuring terrible dialogue, (mostly) poor acting, and a confused plot about a young woman finding her way in and around the world. It’s not clear why Kinski’s character has a German accent given that she grew up on a Wisconsin farm — but regardless, we can see she has a penchant for picking terrible men, starting with Toback himself in a cameo role as a predatory English teacher she’s rightfully eager to get away from.

Once in New York, she not only becomes a famous model lickety-split:

… but falls for a creep-tastic violinist played by ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev.

The pair share one of the most laughably contrived foreplay sequences I’ve ever seen: after hearing him play his violin, Kinski asks him, “What else do you play so beautifully?” and then proceeds to have her body “played” by his bow. (Yes, it’s just as weird as it sounds.)

It turns out Nureyev’s character isn’t who he seems — or so he says (though it’s not really clear how or why this is important), but there is at least one more douchebag we have yet to encounter: Keitel’s single-named “Rivas”, a malignant narcissist who seems to have formed a cult-like following of people willing to bomb, murder, and destroy on his behalf:

… and who gets to spout some of the film’s most inane lines.

“I’ll tell you what I want: good food, women, good cigars, good beds with fresh sheets, hot showers, and Hilton hotels… New shoes, poker, blackjack, dancing, Clint Eastwood westerns. That’s what I want. And you.”

Poor Bibi Andersson, getting herself sucked into this mess for even a few minutes in the opening sequences as Kinski’s mom back on the farm.

Note: Once I got far enough into this film to realize it was by the same director who made one of the worst movies in Peary’s book (and that’s saying something), I was not at all surprised to learn that Toback — who has stated, “The idea is not to have a separation between my life and my movies.” — has been accused by hundreds of women of sexual misconduct; it figures.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Henri Decae’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one unless you’re a diehard Kinski fan. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review