Triumph of the Will (1935)

Triumph of the Will (1935)

Comments 1 comment

“It is our will that this state shall endure for a thousand years. We are happy to know that the future is ours entirely!”

Synopsis:
In Leni Riefenstahl’s controversial “documentary”, Adolf Hitler greets adoring crowds during the 1934 Nazi Party Convention in Nuremberg.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Documentary
  • Nazis
  • Propaganda

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to “Leni Riefenstahl’s documentary on the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg” as “one of the most argued-about films ever made”, noting that it’s “worth seeing if only because of its fame”. He writes that “Riefenstahl always contended that her film was art rather than propaganda”, which is “nonsense” given that she and her vast crew of assistant directors “employed tremendous cinematic artistry to glorify Nazism and the Fuhrer, who comes across as a Messiah”, a “hero”, a “solemn and caring father figure”, a “military leader”, and a “respected firm party leader”. (The resulting film, which took 6 months to edit, represents only 3% of the total footage shot.) He points out that “most controversial is how on occasion she filmed the people/soldiers as if they weren’t human, but statues or part of Albert Speer’s new architecture”, and notes that “equally disturbing are images of uniformed Hitler youths having the time of their lives, looking no more dangerous than Cub Scouts as they engage in playful roughhousing”.

In his review, Peary provides a useful overview of Riefenstahl’s many “expert” techniques in projecting “a positive image” of Hitler — including her “employment of symbols”, “camera movement (to keep potentially dry material from seeming static), camera placement (Hitler is always shot from below to make him seem heroic), and thematic use of light and darkness”. All of this is true — and yet Roger Ebert provides a slightly different perspective in his “Great Movies” review, where he argues that it’s actually “a terrible film, paralyzingly dull, simpleminded, overlong and not even ‘manipulative’, because it is too clumsy to manipulate anyone but a true believer.” However, Ebert’s perspective on the film seems to come from a modern viewing stance, rather than acknowledging its impact on those who were watching it at the time; while I’ll concede that I found it boring to sit through the entire two-hour film, I’m not its target audience — i.e., a German citizen in the 1930s wondering about the fate of my country. As Peary notes, the “film made [Aryan] Germans feel comfort about their future”, and to that end, Riefenstahl most definitely “succeeded” in her disturbing goals.

In sum, though it’s tempting to “boycott [the film] strictly because of its ideology”, it’s worth sitting through once — though “ironically, you’ve probably seen most of the footage already”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Plenty of evidence of strategically propagandist (and undeniably “artistic”) direction


Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its historical notoriety.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

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

Links:

Last Metro, The (1980)

Last Metro, The (1980)

Comments 1 comment

“It takes two to love, as it takes two to hate.”

Synopsis:
In German-occupied France during WWII, the owner (Catherine Deneuve) of a theater hides her Jewish husband (Heinz Bennent) in the basement while rehearsing a play with a new leading man (Gerard Depardieu) and an ambitious young starlet (Sabine Haudepin).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Catherine Deneuve Films
  • Francois Truffaut Films
  • French Films
  • Gerard Depardieu Films
  • Resistance Fighters

Review:
Given that Francois Truffaut spent part of his childhood living in Nazi-occupied France, he had long wanted to make a film set during this era; he settled upon this fictionalized tale (albeit one loosely based on various real-life scenarios) of a female theater director hiding her Jewish husband in the theater’s basement while carrying on daily operations and rehearsals up above.

It was enormously popular with both American and French audiences upon its release, and was nominated for an Oscar as Best Foreign Film of the Year, but ultimately hasn’t held up all that well as a compelling tale of wartime occupation. Since so many other films have covered (and continue to cover) this devastating period in world history, one’s expectations can’t help but be raised — so to see Truffaut presenting the material in such a sanitized light is somewhat disturbing; as Time Out’s acerbic capsule review puts it, “Playing for cute nostalgia, Truffaut lets the realities go to hell.”

According to an interview with Truffaut cited in TCM’s article, he himself admitted that The Last Metro could be seen as representing “the theater and the Occupation [as] seen by a child”, which would explain why the life-and-death “danger” risked by Deneuve and Bennent on a daily basis never feels as threatening as it should, and why both characters are seen taking ridiculous risks time and again (i.e., Deneuve slips away to visit Bennent in the midst of a post-production party!!). With that said, Deneuve and Bennent’s underground relationship remains compelling throughout; we genuinely believe that this pair is deeply in love and would do what it takes to maintain contact — which is why a sudden romantic plot twist during the final half hour of the film makes absolutely no sense at all, and truly seems to come out of left field. (Some viewers claim to sense a sexual tension between the two individuals in question throughout the film, but I just can’t see it.) Fortunately, the film is at least a visual treat throughout, thanks to Nestor Almendros’ cinematography — but film fanatics needn’t consider this one of Truffaut’s “must see” titles.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Catherine Deneuve as Marion Steiner
  • Heinz Bennent as Lucas Steiner
  • Nestor Almendros’ cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links:

Story of Adele H, The / Histoire de Adele H., L’ (1975)

Story of Adele H, The / Histoire de Adele H., L’ (1975)

Comments 1 comment

“One can be in love with a man and still despise everything about him.”

Synopsis:
The daughter (Isabelle Adjani) of French novelist Victor Hugo travels undercover to Nova Scotia in pursuit of a former lover (Bruce Robinson), but becomes increasingly unhinged and deluded about their aborted relationship.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Francois Truffaut Films
  • French Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Obsessive Love

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that “Francois Truffaut’s extremely passionate telling of the true story of Adele Hugo (Isabelle Adjani), the younger daughter of Victor Hugo” is “a moving, fascinating, original film, beautifully photographed by Nestor Almendros, with special attention to period detail”. He writes that “Truffaut’s characters are always driven by their hearts rather than by reason and, typically, they love those who don’t love them equally or at the same time” — but he notes that “this is the one film where he really explores the humiliation and the pain one can endure when deep love is unfilled”. Indeed, given how undeniably “heartbreaking” Adele’s psychological downfall is, it’s especially remarkable that Truffaut’s film remains as riveting as it is; we can’t help watching with fascination to see what will happen to her next (or rather, what new plan she herself will concoct to perpetuate the life of fantastical lies she’s become so inextricably bound to).

While much credit should go to Almendros and Truffaut’s set designers for presenting such a faithfully rendered, atmospheric vision of the era and location, most of the film’s success belongs squarely on the shoulders of young Adjani, who was deservedly nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year by the Academy, and is given this award by Peary in his Alternate Oscars. In this text, he notes that she gives “one of the truly unforgettable performances of the decade” as a woman with “no sense of pride”, who eventually “goes insane” (in real life, Adele was apparently schizophrenic). He provides a bit more analysis of her character’s strange motivations in pointing out that “Adele’s need for love from her suitor is rooted in her need to escape from the house of her unloving father, to prove to him she is worthy of love” — with the ultimate irony being that “becoming slave to another man is her way of achieving freedom from her father”. One can’t help wanting to research more about the real-life Adele Hugo after watching this riveting “biopic”, which does ample justice to her tragic fate.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Isabelle Adjani as Adele H.
  • Nestor Almendros’ cinematography
  • Fine attention to period detail

Must See?
Yes, for Adjani’s stunning performance, and as an overall powerful film.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Bride Wore Black, The (1968)

Bride Wore Black, The (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“You took something from me that you can’t give me back.”

Synopsis:
A vengeful widow (Jeanne Moreau) plots to methodically murder the five men — Michel Bouquet, Jean-Claude Brialy, Charles Denner, Claude Rich, and Michael Lonsdale — she believes are responsible for her husband’s premature death.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Femmes Fatales
  • Francois Truffaut Films
  • French Films
  • Jeanne Moreau Films
  • Revenge
  • Widows and Widowers

Review:
Made shortly after he published his series of interviews with Alfred Hitchcock (as the book Hitchcock/Truffaut [1967]), this adaptation of Cornell Woolrich’s 1940 crime novel remains Francois Truffaut’s most explicit homage to the master of suspense, even going so far as to include a score by Bernard Herrmann. We’re plunged immediately into Moreau’s vengeful plot, as she cleverly lures two unsuspecting men into her snare by posing as the type of woman each would find most alluring; about mid-way through the film, we finally discover exactly why she’s so hell-bent on murder, as we see the most pivotal moment in her life (her new husband’s death just after their marriage) playing out in flashback. The remainder of the storyline continues in like fashion, with Moreau doggedly crafting new variations on her siren-like persona — which brings up the slightly uncomfortable fact that Moreau (looking somewhat dowdy and dour at 40) is not entirely convincing as the alluring femme fatale she’s meant to portray here. Indeed, while she captures the aura of “grieving widow” perfectly, she’s simply not stunning enough to be convincingly sexy in the way Truffaut apparently imagines her to be. With that said, the screenplay is clever enough to keep one engaged throughout (we’re definitely kept wondering when and how Moreau will finally be stopped in her tracks), even as it occasionally defies credibility.

Note: Film fanatics will likely assume that this film was an enormous influence on Quentin Tarantino when he was crafting his Kill Bill epic (starring Uma Thurman as an equally vengeful widowed bride) — but, amazingly, he claims this wasn’t the case.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A clever (if occasionally implausible) script


  • Pierre Cardin’s outfits

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended.

Links:

Flamingo Road (1949)

Flamingo Road (1949)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m not running! Do you understand that?”

Synopsis:
A carnival dancer (Joan Crawford) falls for the sheriff (Zachary Scott) of a small town ruled by a corrupt politician (Sydney Greenstreet), who plans to make Scott puppet-governor of the state, and will stop at nothing to prevent his relationship with Crawford from flourishing. Soon Lane (Crawford) becomes romantically involved with another politician (David Brian), but continues to find herself butting heads with Greenstreet.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • David Brian Films
  • Framed
  • Joan Crawford Films
  • Michael Curtiz Films
  • Political Corruption
  • Revenge
  • Sheriffs
  • Small Town America
  • Strong Females
  • Sydney Greenstreet Films
  • Zachary Scott Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that despite its “pat” ending, this Joan Crawford flick “is well directed by Michael Curtiz, has a solid group of characters, and, probably more than any straight drama up until then (All the King’s Men was also released in 1949), paints a realistic portrait of political corruption in America.” He argues that “Crawford is much better than in Mildred Pierce, giving a deeply felt, multi-faceted characterization” as a woman who’s “smart, sincere, and stronger than any man in that she alone stands up to Greenstreet (playing one of his most memorable villains)”. While I enjoyed Crawford’s low-key, Oscar-winning performance as Mildred Pierce, I’ll agree that she’s just as effective — and even more enjoyably feisty — here, giving one of her best later-career performances (she’s 43, but — naturally – looks great as the central love interest). Meanwhile, Greenstreet is indeed “memorable”, playing a truly “larger than life” man so confident in his abilities to exert a corrupting influence that he barely blinks an eye when setting his next plan into action. Curtiz’s direction — assisted by Ted McCord’s fine cinematography — adds a noir-ish yet Gothic tinge to the proceedings, turning this melodrama into an appropriately cynical look at the corruption seemingly lurking in small towns everywhere.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joan Crawford as Lane Bellamy (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • Sydney Greenstreet as Titus Semple
  • Solid direction and cinematography by Michael Curtiz and DP Ted McCord

Must See?
Yes, simply to see Crawford in one of her best later-life roles.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

High Anxiety (1977)

High Anxiety (1977)

Comments 1 comment

“Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup.”

Synopsis:
Renowned but highly strung psychiatrist Dr. Thorndyke (Mel Brooks) becomes the new director of a mental institute, where a militant nurse (Cloris Leachman) and her colleague (Harvey Korman) are involved in nefarious dealings related to a wealthy patient whose grown daughter (Madeline Kahn) is concerned about her father’s well-being.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cloris Leachman Films
  • Madeline Kahn Films
  • Mel Brooks Films
  • Mental Illness
  • Satires and Spoofs

Review:
Mel Brooks’ sixth feature film was this explicit homage to Hitchcockian thrillers, which satirizes many of his most beloved titles (including Vertigo, The Birds, Spellbound, and Psycho), in addition to giving a quick nod to Vincente Minnelli’s The Cobweb (1955) (through reference to the institute’s drapes!), and poking fun at One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’s Nurse Ratched through the over-the-top character of Nurse Diesel (Leachman).

Indeed, there are so many cinematic references and in-jokes packed into the storyline that film fanatics will likely find themselves in a near constant state of recognition (“Oh! Look what he’s spoofing now!”) — which makes it all the more unfortunate that the storyline itself doesn’t do justice to the series of endless referential gags. Brooks gives away the film’s villains from the get-go, so what we’re mostly left waiting for (in addition to more gags/references, as well as a completely gratuitous and self-indulgent rendition of the title song by Brooks himself) is Dr. Thorndyke’s belated recognition that his own life is in danger. It’s difficult to fault Brooks for his clear attempt here to have fun with the genre, and it’s especially enjoyable to see Leachman given the opportunity to literally dominate the proceedings; however, the film as a whole doesn’t work well enough to designate as must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Cloris Leachman as Nurse Diesel
  • Some fun spoofs of Hitchcock’s best-known films

Must See?
No, but film fanatics will probably want to check it out at least once. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Silent Movie (1976)

Silent Movie (1976)

Comments 1 comment

“Mel Funn — once Hollywood’s greatest director, until drinking destroyed his career — is trying to make a comeback.”

Synopsis:
A has-been director (Mel Brooks) and his friends (Marty Feldman and Dom DeLuise) convince the ailing head (Sid Caesar) of a major movie company to take a chance on their latest project — a silent film featuring several big-name stars — as a last-ditch attempt to prevent a take-over by the greedy corporation Engulf & Devour.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Burt Reynolds Films
  • Has-Beens
  • Mel Brooks Films
  • Movie Directors
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Silent Films

Review:
Film fanatics will likely get a kick out of Mel Brooks’ affectionate homage to silent movies, given how cleverly he recreates so many of the era’s classic tropes while keeping his film’s storyline (and actors) squarely grounded in modern times. Indeed, a surprising number of Brooks’ sight gags remain enjoyably humorous, with only a few representing Brooks’ more traditionally low-brow humor (i.e., a running joke in which Brooks, DeLuise, and Feldman repeatedly find themselves huddled together in a compromising position, and jeered at by passers-by as “fags”). Examples of effective scenes include Brooks and Bernadette Peters (as vampish singer “Vilma Kaplan”) running through a field and stripping off their clothes in wild abandon, only to find themselves leaping over hurdles as unexpected rivals in a race (a sequence that reminds me of something Woody Allen would attempt):

… Feldman playing around with Caesar’s life support machine at the hospital; and Brooks et al.’s visit to James Caan’s teetering trailer, where they find that even the sprinkling of pepper on a bun puts everything off balance.

Speaking of Caan, all the “big name” stars elicited to participate in the film through cameo roles (Caan, Burt Reynolds, Liza Minnelli, Paul Newman, Anne Bancroft, and Marcel Marceau) seem to be having a great time, which adds to the overall festive mood.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Numerous enjoyable sight gags

  • Amusing cameos by game film stars

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable homage to the silent film era.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Young Frankenstein (1974)

Young Frankenstein (1974)

Comments 2 comments

“With such a magnificent body, all we need now is an equally magnificent brain.”

Synopsis:
A neuroscientist (Gene Wilder) returns to the home of his infamous great-grandfather, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, where he enlists the help of two loyal assistants — hunchbacked Igor (Marty Feldman) and busty Inga (Teri Garr) — in resurrecting a corpse and bringing a Creature (Peter Boyle) to life.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Frankenstein
  • Gene Hackman Films
  • Gene Wilder Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Madeline Kahn Films
  • Mel Brooks Films
  • Peter Boyle Films
  • Richard Haydn Films
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Teri Garr Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “this spoof of Universal’s 1931 version of Frankenstein (1931)” — as well as its two direct sequels, Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and Son of Frankenstein (1942) — “is the only Mel Brooks film that almost everyone likes”. He notes that “for a change, Brooks remains tasteful throughout; keeps his actors under reasonable control…; maintains the picture’s tone by including only one ‘burlesque’ interlude (Frankenstein and the Monster perform a hilarious rendition of ‘Puttin’ on the Ritz’)…; and, while the humor is outrageous, it is subtly played”. He further points out the critical fact that “Brooks shows a knowledge and affection for both Frankenstein and the horror genre that he would not display for the western in Blazing Saddles,” and notes that “the use of lab props from the 1931 movie, the use of black-and-white film, and an atmospheric score by John Morris contribute greatly to Brooks’s attempt to recapture the ambiance of the old Universal horror pictures”. Finally, he points out that all the actors “do justice to the clever Brooks-Wilder script”.

I agree with Peary: Young Frankenstein remains a remarkably restrained and respectful homage to the films it’s satirizing. Fine attention is paid to recreating the overall feel and look of Universal’s classic flicks, whose fans — at least those willing to allow their beloved films to be poked fun at — will have a field day seeing scene after iconic scene tweaked for humorous effect (i.e., the Monster’s encounter with a young girl [Anne Beasley] near a well; the Monster’s not-so-comfortable encounter with a well-meaning blind hermit [Gene Hackman]; etc.). Meanwhile, the cast is indeed game throughout, with “wild-eyed” Wilder giving an appropriately impassioned performance as the conflicted Dr. Frankenstein (he fills the shoes of his classic thespian predecessors quite nicely), and Feldman wonderfully over-the-top as his wily assistant. I don’t quite agree with Peary that Brooks “remains tasteful throughout”, though I suppose the term “tasteful” is relative — and it’s definitely kept mostly in check here. In sum, this is one of a small handful of Brooks films that all film fanatics should be familiar with, and will enjoy revisiting from time to time.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Gene Wilder as Dr. Frankenstein (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • Marty Feldman as Igor
  • Fine supporting performances by the rest of the cast




  • Wonderfully recreated Gothic sets
  • Gerald Hirschfeld’s b&w cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as one of Brooks’ most beloved comedy classics.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Important Director

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

Links:

History of the World: Part I (1981)

History of the World: Part I (1981)

Comments 1 comment

“And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth: the critic.”

Synopsis:
Mel Brooks takes a comedic romp through various stages of world history, including the Stone Age, Ancient Rome, the Spanish Inquisition, and the French Revolution.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Historical Drama
  • Madeline Kahn Films
  • Mel Brooks Films

Review:
It’s hard to know exactly why Peary includes this final pre-1986 Mel Brooks title in his GFTFF, given that the only other Brooks film he openly praises in any way is Young Frankenstein (1974). HOTW Part 1 (thankfully, there’s no …Part 2) is chock-full of typically Brooks-ian low-brow humor, minus any kind of cohesive satirical narrative to hold it together — in other words, even less of interest to anyone but his most diehard fans (of whom there are plenty). Naturally, in a film filled with insistently non-stop jokes and gags, at least a few are bound to elicit chuckles; as noted in All Movie Guide’s review, however, its “bad parts are so unworthy of its good parts that it creates a state of total schizophrenia.” Meanwhile, some of its “bad parts” (as in Blazing Saddles) edge beyond what most would consider common decency — i.e., a real-life chess game dictated by King Louis XIV (Brooks) in the French Revolution segment eventually devolves into a gang bang sequence that’s played for laughs. Film fanatics can definitely feel free to stay away from this one.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A few mildly clever sight gags and scenes

Must See?
No; despite its enduring popularity, this one is strictly for Brooks fans.

Links:

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Comments 1 comment

“There is one thing standing between me and that property — the rightful owners.”

Synopsis:
A corrupt politician (Harvey Korman) hoping to build a railroad through the town of Rock Ridge plots to drive out its racist, ignorant inhabitants by appointing a black man (Cleavon Little) as sheriff — but Little enlists the help of an alcoholic gunslinger (Gene Wilder) in fighting back against Korman.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Gene Wilder Films
  • Madeline Kahn Films
  • Mel Brooks Films
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Sheriffs
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
While I disagree with Peary’s sour take on Mel Brooks’ delightfully irreverent debut film The Producers (1968), I’m in full agreement with his review of this follow-up western satire, which may have been “an enormous hit” but remains “graceless and stupid”, with “humor” that’s “crude, rude, obvious, repetitive, [and] self-impressed”. Peary writes that “scenes are like clunky Carol Burnett Show routines combined with stilted burlesque revue acts”, and argues that “Brooks consistently relies on either raunchy humor or anachronisms to get laughs”; the fact that the film’s “most famous scene has cowboys breaking wind around [a] campfire” indicates the level of humor generally at work. While it’s true that Brooks “shows no fondness for the western genre”, even worse is how his attempt to satirize racism falls completely flat: he shows us African-Americans (referred to repeatedly as “N*ggers”) and Asian-Americans (“Chinks”) being treated worse than animals, with the intention that we’ll laugh at how absurdly ignorant these bigoted white townsfolk come across — but the satirical “pay-off” is far too facile, and doesn’t begin to make up for having to sit through such offensive behavior and language.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder as Bart and Jim
  • Occasional snippets of humorous dialogue:

    Korman: What’s your crime?
    Little: Stampeding cattle.
    Korman: That’s not much of a crime.
    Little: Through the Vatican?
    Korman: Kinky…

Must See?
No; this one is only recommended for Brooks fans.

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

Links: