Sundays and Cybele (1962)

Sundays and Cybele (1962)

Comments 3 comments

“I’m nothing. I’m nothing anymore.”

Synopsis:
An amnesiac veteran (Hardy Krüger) living with a sympathetic nurse (Nicole Courcel) meets a 12-year-old girl named Francoise (Patricia Gozzi) when her father drops her off permanently at an orphanage. Pierre (Krüger) and Francoise, a.k.a. Cybele, soon become close friends despite their difference in age — but how will the rest of the world view their relationship?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Friendship
  • Orphans
  • Veterans

Review:
French director Serge Bourguignon’s Oscar-winning Best Foreign Film tackles the challenging topics of PTSD and cross-age friendships with sensitivity and compassion. From the film’s distressing beginning, we learn that Gozzi’s character — who goes by the Christian name of “Francoise” but was actually born as “Cybele” — is deeply scarred by outright rejection from both her parents:

… and eager to secure a bond with a reliable adult. To that end, traumatized Krüger (emotionally stunted after believing he’s killed a girl in combat) fits the bill perfectly. However, Krüger and Bozzi’s age and gender differences make their friendship inherently problematic, and their situation is further complicated by Bozzi’s quasi-romantic overtures (she insists that once she’s old enough at 18, they should marry).

To his credit, Krüger’s Pierre never shows anything but non-sexual love and intentions towards Francoise; however, the concerns of those around him make complete sense. While a sympathetic artist-friend (Daniel Ivernel) insists that Pierre’s friendship with Francoise is a good thing (“With this little girl he’s found a world where he fits in, where he’s happy.”):

… the risk of harm in one way or another is real. Gozzi’s performance is remarkably natural and precocious (she apparently had fun simply “playing” with Krüger during shooting), while German-born Krüger is believably innocent yet troubled in a challenging role.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Hardy Krüger as Pierre
  • Patricia Gozzi as Francoise/Cybele
  • Nicole Courcel as Madeleine
  • Henri Decaë’s cinematography



Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance and as a fine film to check out.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Man and a Woman, A (1966)

Man and a Woman, A (1966)

Comments 3 comments

“It’s crazy to refuse happiness.”

Synopsis:
A widowed script-girl (Anouk Aimee) meets a widowed race-car driver (Jean-Louis Trintignant) while they are each picking up their child at a boarding school, and the pair fall in love — but Aimee finds that persistent memories of her beloved dead husband (Pierre Barouh) get in the way of their would-be romance.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anouk Aimee Films
  • Car Racing
  • Flashback Films
  • French Films
  • Romance
  • Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that Claude Lelouch’s “enormous commercial hit and Oscar’s Best Foreign Film winner” is such a “pretentious, shameless romance” it “makes even simple Love Story seem complex.” He argues that while Aimee and Trintignant would “probably get together in about four seconds,” “Lelouch gets in their way,” forcing them to “flash back to skimpy, wordless scenes featuring their wonderful first spouses.”

He adds that while “Trintignant is a decent actor and Aimee gives a fine, natural performance”:

… “the empty script allows them nothing to do, not even the opportunity for the characters to express their feelings” — though “Lelouch tries to express characters’ moods through his dreamy photography and romantic settings.”

Peary also asks, “Can anyone explain why Lelouch cuts back and forth between color and black-and-white footage,” given that it “has nothing to do with past and present?” However, this has since been answered by Lelouch himself; as DVD Savant clarifies, “Money was the issue when it came time to choose color or black and white – Lelouch needed the color for commercial export purposes, but saved lots of cash by shooting his interiors in b&w.”

I’ll admit to feeling the same way as Peary about this overly slick and shallow audience-pleaser, which is needlessly drawn out through extensive flashbacks, and features far too many shots of characters through rainy windshields. In addition, “the sickeningly sweet saccharine romance score by Frances Lai” — which was “quite popular in 1966” — is guaranteed to become an earbug and never leave your consciousness (that is, if you’ve somehow managed to escape it until now). With that said, it’s all beautifully photographed and sensitively performed by Aimee and Trintignant:

… so it’s easy to see how American audiences at the time would fall for it.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography and location shooting

Must See?
No, though you may be curious to check it out once (but consider yourself forewarned).

Links:

Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane / Ninth Configuration, The (1980)

Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane / Ninth Configuration, The (1980)

Comments 1 comment

“I don’t think evil grows out of madness; I think madness grows out of evil.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after the end of the Vietnam War, Colonel Kane (Stacy Keach) arrives at a castle housing mentally distressed veterans, including a former astronaut (Scott Wilson) who has lost his faith in humanity, and a lieutenant (Jason Miller) attempting to mount a Shakespearean production with dogs. Kane works closely with a colonel (Ed Flanders) to craft activities that will support the men in healing; but is shell-shocked Colonel Kane in need of support and healing himself?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Mental Illness
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Neville Brand Films
  • Stacy Keach Films
  • Veterans
  • Vietnam War

Review:
William Peter Blatty — best known as the author of The Exorcist (1971) and its Oscar-winning screenplay adaptation — made his directorial debut with this adaptation of his own novel, first published as Twinkle, Twinkle, ‘Killer’ Kane! (1966) and later reworked as a new novel entitled The Ninth Configuration (1978). His film remains a beloved cult favorite, with English critic Mark Kermode referring to it as an “extraordinary theological thriller” in which Blatty offers “scabrous satire with sanguine spirituality in one of the most genuinely bizarre offerings of modern US cinema.”

Kermode goes on to describe the film as “a breathtaking cocktail of philosophy, eye-popping visuals, jaw-dropping pretentiousness, rib-tickling humour and heart-stopping action.” With that said, he concedes it’s “a work of matchless madness which [nonetheless] divides audiences as spectacularly as the waves of the Red Sea, a cult classic that continues to provoke either apostolic devotion or baffled dismissal 20 years on.”

Unfortunately, I happen to fall in the latter camp. I’m not a personal fan of movies exploring “who’s really insane” — i.e., King of Hearts (1966), One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), etc. — and this outing is no exception. It’s filled with countless lines of dialogue intended to highlight the patients’ wacky yet cultured personas:

“I am punishing the atoms. I am making an example of them.”
“This man treats crocodiles for acne!”
“The man in the moon tried to f**k my sister!”
“You wouldn’t know Kafka from Bette Davis.”
“Quit drinking buttermilk daiquiris in the closet.”
“Read the classics; it improves the whole respiratory system.”
“There’s nothing less attractive than a psychiatrist who pouts.”
“Listen, I know my rights: I want to see my urologist.”

Meanwhile, I don’t understand the humor in — or purpose behind — Miller attempting to stage Shakespearean works with dogs (and why does his own dog look like it’s covered in shaggy carpet?):

I’m equally uncertain why the film intentionally includes cinematic references (such as an inexplicable poster of Bela Lugosi’s Dracula on the wall).

The film’s “big reveal” about Keach midway through didn’t come as much of a surprise to me:

… and while I can imagine audiences at the time being appreciative of such a frank look at the life-altering PTSD experienced by so many Vietnam vets, I find it all overly calculated and heavy-handed. Watch for Neville Brand in an underdeveloped role as a military assistant:

… and other recognizable names and faces (Moses Gunn, Robert Loggia, Joe Spinell) in bit parts throughout.

Note: I fact-checked a distressing claim made by one character about the high suicide rates of psychiatrists, and sadly, it turns out to be true.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine sets and cinematography


Must See?
No, though of course it’s worth a look if you’re curious, given its enthusiastic fan base. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Judex (1963)

Judex (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“I don’t understand what it is that this Judex wants.”

Synopsis:
When her corrupt banker-father (Michel Vitold) is kidnapped by a mysterious caped crusader known as Judex (Channing Pollock), a waifish widow (Edith Scob) enlists the help of a bumbling private detective (Jacques Jouanneau), not realizing that she will soon be kidnapped herself by a woman (Francine Bergé) posing as her daughter’s nanny, who is working in league with her devoted lover and accomplice (Théo Sarapo) to secure Vitold’s riches.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comics and Comic Strips
  • French Films
  • Georges Franju Films
  • Kidnapping
  • Millionaires
  • Superheroes

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that director “Georges Franju not only wanted to make a feature remake of French master Louis Feuillade’s 1917 serial but to also re-create the fun and excitement present in all of Feuillade’s early serials, including his classic Fantomas.” However, he notes that “while Franju’s film of the caped crusader” — “who has his own unlawful ways of meting out justice” — “also mixes the fantastic with relevant social criticism, it is more poetic, unreal (rather than being surreal), melancholy, subtly humorous, and slowly paced than Feuillade’s work.” He asserts that this “enjoyable film keeps surprising you,” with “most surprising… how little Judex himself accomplishes after his initial rescue of Jacqueline early in the film.”

While Judex “promises to protect her,” “she is kidnapped and would die a couple of times before he reaches her if it weren’t for a couple of fluke happenings (chance plays a major part in this film).” Indeed, it’s really “greedy, cunning, sexy villainness Diane Monti” (Berge) who takes center stage in the storyline:

As Peary writes, “Whether putting on her moral act, plotting a crime while doing a hip-bopping dance with Morales”:

… “checking her looks in the mirror while wearing her habit, stabbing Jacqueline in the back, or coming on to a tied-up Judex”:

… “she has a lot of flair.”

Meanwhile, during a crucial rescue scene, after “Judex daringly climbs the outside of a tall building in order to capture Diane and Favraux” only to be “conked on the head and tied up,” it’s “a woman, Daisy [Sylva Koscina]” — the “circus-performer girlfriend” of Jouanneau — who “just happens along [at the right time] in her circus garb, climbs [a] building, and unties [Judex].”

This is a girl-power film for sure. With that said, fans of Franju’s incomparable Eyes Without a Face (1960) will be disappointed to see that Edith Scob’s character here is neither compelling nor energized:

Again, it’s Berge’s show all the way, and she alone makes it worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Francine Bergé as Diana
  • Marcel Fredetal’s cinematography

  • Fine sets and costumes

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its historical relevance.

Links:

Night of the Comet (1984)

Night of the Comet (1984)

Comments 2 comments

“I hate days that start like this.”

Synopsis:
A teenager (Catherine Mary Stewart) spending the night with her boyfriend (Michael Bowen) in a movie projection room awakens to find they are two of the only survivors in Los Angeles after a comet has turned all exposed humans into either piles of red dust or zombies. After Bowen is killed by a zombie, Stewart learns that her cheerleading sister (Kelli Maroney) has also survived, and the duo head to a radio station where they encounter yet another survivor, a truck-driver named Hector (Robert Beltran). Will the small group survive attempts by a team of exposed scientists — including Dr. Carter (Geoffrey Lewis) and Audrey White (Mary Woronov) — to harvest their blood as a potentially life-saving cure?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Horror Films
  • Los Angeles
  • Post-Apocalypse
  • Science Fiction
  • Survival
  • Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “former soap actresses Catherine Mary Stewart and baby-dollish Kelli Maroney” — who “break loose as spunky, funny sisters who are among the few survivors after a deadly comet passes over earth”:

— would “make a fabulous, permanent comic duo.” He highlights “their fantasy-fulfilling romp through an LA department store that hasn’t any security guards or salesgirls to look over their shoulders” as “a joy to watch”:

… and notes that director “Thom Eberhardt adeptly mixes comedy and scares,” with the film benefiting “from an extremely witty, offbeat script, some nifty camera work, and an excellent cast,” with “Stewart, in particular, sparkl[ing].”

Peary concludes his review by describing this film as “an unexpected pleasure that’s headed,” he hopes, “for cult status” (it was).

While it’s easy to see how this film must have pleased audiences at the time — and certainly retains a huge nostalgia factor given its Very 80s vibe and soundtrack — it’s not really all that compelling. Stewart is sleeping with an idiot (Bowen) for no apparent reason:

… other than perhaps to get away from her witchy stepmom (Sharon Farrell), and Maroney shows chutzpah in standing up to Farrell but is otherwise an airhead.

Beltran is a welcome addition to the cast:

… but he’s gone for far too much of the storyline. Meanwhile, the shoot-out at the mall by a band of thuggish survivors doesn’t really pass the sanity test (wouldn’t they be at all eager or curious to talk with fellow-survivors — especially such pretty ones?):

… and the subplot involving the “evil” scientists is underdeveloped, with Woronov giving a surprisingly subtle and sympathetic performance for a role that doesn’t really seem to deserve it (though it’s always good to see her on screen).

Most impressive are the low-budget effects showing Los Angeles as a red-tinted wasteland; it’s convincingly creepy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • An effective low-budget portrayal of nearly-abandoned Los Angeles

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its cult status.

Links:

1776 (1972)

1776 (1972)

Comments 1 comment

“I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm; and that three or more become a Congress!”

Synopsis:
At the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, John Adams (William Daniels) pushes for independence from Britain, and is given leave — along with Benjamin Franklin (Howard Da Silva), Thomas Jefferson (Ken Howard), and others — to draft the Declaration of Independence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • American Revolutionary War
  • Blythe Danner Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Musicals
  • Play Adaptation

Review:
This adaptation of Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone’s 1969 Tony-winning Broadway musical offers an intriguing counterpoint to Lin Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton, with both historicizing (and musicalizing) key moments from the earliest years of the United States. As with most historical dramatizations, 1776 is filled with inaccuracies (see Wikipedia’s entry for specifics), but it seems to get the overall gist of the moment “right” — meaning, we strongly sense how confoundingly hot it was in the closed-window rooms:

… how dull and trite most of the Congress’s work generally felt:

… and how contentious key issues (i.e., slavery) were to moving forward as a collective:

Because we already know the eventual outcome of this momentous event, the storyline necessarily focuses on the personalities behind the scenes, highlighting (indeed, over-emphasizing) their key qualities for dramatic impact — so, we see Adams berating himself time and again for being so “obnoxious and disliked” (not actually true in real life):

… Jefferson’s driving lust for his wife (Blythe Danner):

… and Ben Franklin’s irrepressibly scampish nature (Da Silva is a highlight of the movie):

Unfortunately, the songs aren’t all that thrilling, though a few will stick in your head (for better or for worse) long after they’re done.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Howard Da Silva as Ben Franklin
  • Fine historical sets and cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s definitely must-see for American history buffs.

Links:

Maitresse (1976)

Maitresse (1976)

Comments 2 comments

“It’s fascinating to get into people’s madness so intimately.”

Synopsis:
When a petty thief (Gerard Depardieu) breaks into an apartment owned by an S&M dominatrix (Bulle Ogier), he quickly falls for her and the pair begin living together as lovers — but can Olivier (Depardieu) handle the mystery of not knowing who Ariane’s mysterious, wealthy friend Gautier (Holger Löwenadler) is?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barbet Schroeder Films
  • French Films
  • Gerard Depardieu Films
  • S&M
  • Strong Females
  • Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “perverse romance” by Barbet Schroeder — who “never chooses ordinary material” — features “appealing” leads and “has definite shock value,” given that “a real dominatrix was hired to be Ogier’s double during the S&M scenes and to actually torture and humiliate real-life masochists.”

However, he argues that “while Schroeder presents a bizarre relationship, he says nothing new about male-female power struggles” unless he’s “saying that even the most bizarre relationships have the same old problems as the most mundane relationships.”

Peary asserts that “Schroeder’s theme is unclear”, and “worse, it’s obvious… we’re supposed to see that Ogier has a dual personality (much like Kathleen Turner in Crimes of Passion), yet are never provided with sufficient insight into either side,” meaning that “why she is as she is remains a mystery.”

I don’t see Ogier’s Ariane as having a “dual personality” so much as being a complex and conflicted person with unique skills and desires. We never do fully understand the “why” behind her career, but we’re not meant to; rather, the story is focused on Depardieu’s (Olivier’s) desperate need to understand what he’s stumbled into. He’s clearly intrigued by S&M, and one of the films strengths is showing us what seems like a reasonably accurate portrayal of how this world plays out, with secrecy, compacts, and hidden identities all critical components:

When Depardieu can’t abide by these rules, he jeopardizes the entire enterprise, leading to the film’s tense ending. Ogier’s lead performance is particularly noteworthy, showing us the complexity of emotions — both authentic and enacted — required to carry out this kind of work. She alone makes it worth a one-time look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Bulle Ogier as Ariane
  • Gerard Depardieu as Olivier
  • Nestor Almendros’ cinematography
  • Fine sets and production design

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing given its historical relevance — and for Ogier’s performance.

Links:

Biches, Les (1968)

Biches, Les (1968)

Comments 2 comments

“I love hunting.”

Synopsis:
A bored, wealthy woman (Stephane Audran) picks up a beautiful street artist (Jacqueline Sassard) and takes her back to her country home in St. Tropez, where Sassard is seduced by a handsome architect (Jean-Louis Trintignant) who Audran soon falls for herself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Claude Chabrol Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • French Films
  • Lesbianism
  • Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “ambiguous study of lesbian lovers” and “the man who comes between them” “bears much resemblance” to director Claude Chabrol’s “earlier film Les Cousins, about two male cousins and the woman they both love.” Once again, “an innocent comes to live with a sophisticate… who serves as a corruptive influence” and “each wishes she were more like the other,” developing “resentment and jealousy to go with the admiration.” In his review, Peary questions what’s really going on in this unusual storyline, filled with plenty of unexpected twists and turns:

“Has Frederique [Audran] chosen to seduce Paul [Trintignant] so she can experience what Why [Sassard] did with him, or to claim Paul and thus prevent Why — who she loves — from leaving her for him, or because she harbors heterosexual feelings? Is she running away from herself?”

It’s hard to say, but one is definitely left wondering (and analyzing) the entire way through. It’s refreshing seeing a lesbian relationship treated so naturally:

… even if this is eventually dropped in favor of both women falling for Trintingnant, and the film’s other gay-coded characters (Dominique Zardi and Henri Attal) shown as bumbling, shallow leeches.

More front and center to the storyline are both class and gender dynamics: Sassard comments to Audran that her work seems better suited for a man; Audran walks around in “masculine” garb; Audran bosses Zardi and Attal around; Sassard eventually adopts more and more of Audran’s moneyed persona. Your enjoyment of this odd tale will ultimately depend on your appreciation for Chabrol’s unique sensibility — but it remains worth a look for its historical relevance as a turning point in Chabrol’s career.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Stephanie Audran as Frederique
  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a unique (albeit puzzling) outing by a creative director.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Play Misty for Me (1971)

Play Misty for Me (1971)

Comments 1 comment

“There are no strings… But I never said anything about not coming back for seconds.”

Synopsis:
A psychotically obsessed fan (Jessica Walter) of a small town radio DJ (Clint Eastwood) seduces him, then refuses to leave him or his girlfriend (Donna Mills) alone.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Obsessive Love
  • Psychopaths
  • Radio
  • Winning Him/Her Back
  • Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “impressive directorial debut” by Clint Eastwood once again — as in The Beguiled (1971) — features a character “who is impressed by his ability to attract women” only to have “his taking women for nothing more than sexual playthings backfir[ing] on him.”

He writes that while “Eastwood’s come up against great villains, from Lee Van Cleef in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to Andy Robinson in Dirty Harry,” the “superpsychotic Evenlyn… takes a back seat to no one.”

Peary notes that “the film is exciting, weirdly amusing, and scary (many critics compare the knife scenes to Psycho), but the most enjoyable thing about it is watching Eastwood’s cool-talking disk jockey become increasingly confused, perturbed, and terrified by this lunatic he has no control over.”

He adds, “Significantly, no future Eastwood character would become involved with two women at once; in fact, Eastwood never again exploited his image as a romantic lead.”

I agree that this remains an enjoyably taut and tense stalker film — though I’m frustrated by a couple of plot points that don’t make much sense (or at least position the characters as waaaay dumber than one would expect). However, Walter’s powerhouse performance makes this worth a one-time look despite its flaws, and the overall gist of the movie — that fame and sexual attraction can lead to incredibly risky encounters — remains just as powerful as ever. Excellent use is made of location shooting in Carmel, California, where Eastwood eventually became mayor.

Note: Highly recommended is the 2001 documentary Play It Again: A Look Back at ‘Play Misty for Me’, in which Eastwood, Walter, Mills, and others reflect back on their experiences making this movie.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jessica Walter as Evelyn
  • Fine cinematography


  • Beautiful location footage

Must See?
Yes, for Walter’s performance, and as a strong directorial debut by Eastwood.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

I Am a Camera (1955)

I Am a Camera (1955)

Comments 1 comment

“I’ve been most divinely chaste!”

Synopsis:
In 1931 Berlin, hedonistic, penniless nightclub singer Sally Bowles (Julie Harris) — living with aspiring young writer Chris Isherwood (Laurence Harvey) — wracks up terrible debt during a night on the town, and allows a wealthy American (Ron Randell) to wine and dine her. Meanwhile, a poor friend (Anton Diffring) hoping to marry into money woos one of Harvey’s students (Shelley Winters), but soon finds himself falling authentically in love with her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Flashback Films
  • Gold Diggers
  • Julie Harris Films
  • Laurence Harvey Films
  • Shelley Winters Films
  • Writers

Review:
South African-born Henry Cornelius — director of Passport to Pimlico (1949) and Genevieve (1953) — helmed this adaptation of John Van Druten’s 1951 play, best known as one of the sources for Bob Fosse’s Cabaret (1972). Given the time of its release, it covers some rather scandalous material — including pre-marital sex, promiscuity, and abortion — thus leading America’s Production Code Administration to deny its approval of the finished film. Those familiar with Liza Minnelli’s iconic, Oscar-winning portrayal of Sally Bowles in Cabaret will likely find it jarring to see Harris (so different looking!) in the role, but she’s ultimately convincing here and helps anchor the film in wackiness.

Indeed, the entire affair has an air of comedy to it that underplays (while not entirely ignoring) the risk of rising Nazism:

What’s primarily missing from this iteration of the story is any hint of Isherwood’s sexuality or intimate involvement with either Sally or the character played by Randell. Meanwhile, Diffring and Winters’ romance is simply glossed over quickly, and not given much weight or significance.

While this film remains notable for taking risks most others at the time wouldn’t dare consider, it’s only must-see viewing for those interested in Isherwood’s stories.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Julie Harris as Sally Bowles

Must See?
No; this one isn’t must see. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: