The Big Lebowski

Let's see what condition my reviewing is in.

 So, the interesting thing to me about this movie is that not a single character is aware what kind of movie they are in. It's like the Coen's grabbed characters off the sets of a bunch of different films and stuck them all in a heist movie, and each character is gamely trying to make the movie they thought they were making originally in. You've got the Dude, who's making a stoner comedy, Walter, who is making a Rambo-type ignored veterans of Vietnam flick, the Stranger, who is narrating a Western, Maude, who is making a second-wave feminist art house piece, the nihilists, who are making a German existentialist movie, the Big Lebowski, who is making Citizen Kane, the Jesus, a guy who is making a particularly dirty telenovela, and Treehorn and Bunnie, who are making a porn. And Donny is just a guy who likes to bowl who wandered onto the set. There are a lot of critical pieces about how it's about men feeling emasculated by women in the late 80's and early 90's, between the castration threats, Maude using the Dude as a sperm donor without his consent, the Big Lebowski being little more than a kept man whose only illusion of power comes from keeping a woman of his own - who in turn further emasculates him by running out on him whenever she pleases and openly offering sexual services to other men. That may be true. There may also be some major criticism of the odd sexual attitudes of second wave feminism, where sex was good provided it was the right kind of sex, and the wrong kind of sex was to be severely punished as "regressive" and "patriarchal oppression". Maude is certainly a character who does not see her own hypocrisy, where it's all right for her to use a man for her own ends, but Bunnie is a slut and a nymphomaniac for doing the same.

But to me, the interest in the movie comes from the fact that these are all people in the wrong movie. Each one of them has been a tragic hero in another flick, and here, they are all just kind of absurd figures wandering around, shouting "fuck" and horribly annoying each other. I've wondered why I don't hate this movie, when it isn't that fundamentally different from A Confederacy of Dunces, which also features absurd people who all think they're supposed to be the hero but are in the wrong story to be. I guess because no one in The Big Lebowski is as repulsive as any of the characters in A Confederacy of Dunces. Even Walter, who is by all measurements a pretty horrible human being, is understandable to some degree. You've seen the character trope before, just usually you don't see him as a nutter in a bowling alley. He's usually cast as tragic because of what he saw in 'Nam, and depending on the sympathy of the director, he is either one dropped coffee cup away from killing everyone or he is so beaten by the system that his PTSD has gone untreated for however many years and it's an indictment of American society.

 I can't say whether a person will like this movie or not. It's a curious film. I'm not sorry that I've seen it, and I probably won't re-watch it. It does have a pretty awesome soundtrack.

Tootsie

I'm a better reviewer with you as an audience than I am as an audience with me as a reviewer. Does that make any sense?

 So this is one of those fun films that seems both contemporary and somewhat dated at the same time. The biggest thing dating it is, of course, the 80's fashion, but there's also a certain sensibility that doesn't seem like it would fly today. A man cross-dressing to get a part, and subsequently doing a really good job playing a woman wouldn't be treated as breaking sexist stereotypes today, but today would be looked at as sexist. Which strikes me as odd, since through seeing things from both sides leads Michael Dorsey to become a more fully rounded human being. But some would probably suggest this film is transphobic because Michael Dorsey does not actually have any form of gender dysphoria - he is just broke and he has a bad reputation as difficult as a man. But he learns quickly in the movie that his alter ego, Dorothy, is "smarter" than he is, as she doesn't waste time arguing - she simply does things her way and reaps the benefits or the punishments as they come.

 I suppose part of this is an odd film, in part because it takes place over such a strange timeline. We're told that the character of Emily Kimberely has been on the soap for a few weeks, and yet she's become a sensation and is on the cover of a bunch of magazines. Then again, I wasn't alive for most of the 80's, and I don't know if soap opera stars ever did become big break-out hits to the point of being featured on big magazines. But it is a fun little montage, watching Dustin Hoffman going between his schlubby out-of-work actor to his polished Southern lady who manages to attract both a father and a daughter, and an actor, and several other people. The nice thing with it is that we're never supposed to believe "Dorothy Michaels" is a pretty woman. This isn't like Breakfast on Pluto, where Cillian Murphy played a stunningly beautiful transgender woman. Dustin Hoffman is many things, but "pretty" isn't one of them. But the audience isn't insulted with people talking about her great beauty, but instead we're given a narrative where people are attracted to Dorothy because of her wit, her charm, and her forthright personality. When was the last time you saw a movie where men chased after a woman who could be described as plain just because she was charming? And now riddle me this - when was the last time that character wasn't a man in drag? We have a character we're supposed to believe is a middle aged woman who is being treated as sexually desirable because of what's between her ears, while in the real world, stunningly beautiful middle aged women can't get romantic parts, and stunningly beautiful women approaching age 30 can't get cast opposite men in their 50's, because apparently it's unbelievable that a man in his 50's would chase a 30-year-old with supermodel looks, so she should be recast as 23. And in 1982 they made a movie where men in their 50's were chasing Dustin Hoffman in a dress. I don't think some of the sexism messages in this movie were absorbed as well as they hoped, though this is as close to a screwball comedy as has been made since the 1950's.

 I'd say this is a definite watch. This is the third time I've seen it, and I've enjoyed it every time. It just gives me a lot to think about re: what's expected of women in film vs. what's expected of men. But it is one nutty hospital.

Bridge on the River Kwai

What have I done, taking so long between reviews? Oh right, doing stuff in meatspace. So, this was one of those films that I had always heard was a masterpiece, but seeing as it's a masterpiece that is just shy of three hours long, it's one I never got around to watching. I was actually really surprised to see it was on the Film Registry, because I had thought it was a purely UK film and thus ineligible. Turns out it was a joint effort with a British production company and an American distributor. That may explain why the character of Shears was made an American when he's British in the original novel - we Americans do love seeing the British in WWII pictures, but only if there's also a really plucky American somewhere about. Which may account in part for the popularity of WWII pictures over WWI pictures. America wasn't in WWI for long, so the most compelling stories often don't have a role for a Steve McQueen-type to hop onto a motorcycle and look really cool, while the British are being all stiff upper lip and saying devastatingly witty things. That's how this dynamic is supposed to work, and when we don't have an American lead in our war movies, they just don't become American classics. I thought War Horse was an excellent picture, for example, but it seems to have been mostly forgotten, and I think part of that is because American audiences of war pictures like to have an American to root for, and not just for the last few minutes of the movie. So, throughout Bridge on the River Kwai, we've got three main stories going: the daring escape of our charming American, Commander Shears (played by William Holden, who appeared in three other preserved movies: Sabrina, The Wild Bunch, and Sunset Boulevard), the battle of wills between Colonel Nicholson and Colonel Saito (with Nicholson played by Alec Guinness, who also appeared in three other films on the Registry: Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars, and The Empire Strikes Back), and the ultimate building and destruction of the bridge. The film has had it's fair share of controversy, since the historical accuracy actually played the Japanese prison camps for the Burma railway as far too lenient, even with the lines of graves and the memorable hotbox, and because everyone involved in the building denied that a man like Nicholson could make it to Colonel, let alone build the bridge without getting shanked. However, putting that aside, it is a truly great piece of film-making. The only flaws I really saw were technical flaws in shots and color, and it can't have been easy to shoot in the jungles of of Sri Lanka in the 1950's. Plus, the DVD I had wasn't any sort of re-mastered cut, so the colors are all kind of washed out. The night scenes are very obviously day scenes with a dark filter over the camera, but that's just nitpicking at this point. The movie is effective as a dramatic piece, where pride and devotion to duty drive a man completely mad, to the point of full collaboration with the enemy in time of war. Nicholson's last little speech, when he's leaning over the beautifully built bridge and reflecting on 28 years of service that have little to show except this monument of engineering... suddenly, you can see that he's not seeing collaboration, but seeing his only monument. His men cheered for him surviving the hotbox, but his feat of will to maintain the Geneva Convention on a technical point is not the sort of thing which leaves monuments. Yet in the end, his monument is only the hearts of his men. The only thing of worth he has done is be remembered by them. The mutterings answered by "The old man knows what he's doing" are probably answered for the men who didn't stay to see Nicholson desperately try to stop the destruction of the bridge. Instead, they saw him construct something the Japanese felt pride in and were trusting enough to send their VIPs over, only for it to be blown up. Is that then to be the legacy of Nicholson - a man redeemed by death? Or would the muttering of "What's he playing at?" continue, and the men believe they had built the bridge under the orders of a traitor? That is what makes a truly great film, where you can sit awake after watching and ask yourself questions like that. I didn't get into the character of Commander Shears because I frankly don't find his plot arc that interesting. I actually found the parts with him rather tedious and felt they slowed down the movie - I didn't care what happened to him, I wanted to see what was happening between Nicholson and Saito. That's not William Holden's fault, as he was an excellent actor. That's more a testament to Alec Guinness, and the unique sensitivity he brought to this role. Even if this movie is just shy of three hours, you owe yourself those three hours to watch it.

Blade Runner

Hold on to your electric sheep, because it's time to look at Blade Runner. I had the benefit of seeing The Final Cut first, and wow. At this point in time, most "Director's Cuts" seem to mean they add back in the violence or sex that would have earned them an R or an X-rating, add another three hours to the running time (which I don't mind in the case of Lord of the Rings), or the Director wanted to pursue his artistic vision to the detriment of the film (*cough* George Lucas *cough cough*). Blade Runner is one of those rare occasions where the Director's Cut fixes the shoehorned in studio meddling and makes for a stronger film, rather than a more special effect laden film, a less cinematic film, or a "Don't ever watch with your parents" film. Is there ever a way to add in a happy ending to a Philip K. Dick story without it feeling forced? I've read multiple novels by him, and he was just not a cheery sort of writer. While the first cut of Blade Runner may have opened up the trend of lugubrious, gritty science fiction, as opposed to shining futuristic sets, it's also kind of painful to have Harrison Ford narrating over key scenes and then to watch him and Rachael driving away into a pastoral paradise for their happily ever after. Can you imagine if The Graduate had ended with the characters smilingly holding hands on a beach in Hawaii, instead of giggling uncertainly and refusing to look at each other in the back of a city bus? But then again, people seem more comfortable with ambiguity and downer endings in stories of the real world, while audiences always seem to want a shining light in their science fiction. No matter how awful the environment gets, there has to be a spark of hope for a science fiction film to do well. Which is really odd in the continuing trend towards dystopian fiction. But either way, Blade Runner should be watched in The Final Cut form, if only because Harrison Ford acts better with his face than he does reading off cue cards. And having him flatly inflect questions about why Rutger Hauer just led him on the most insane game of tag in cinema history and then gave up is really off-putting. It works much better when he's just kind of lying there stunned and confused and presumably wondering where the hell Roy Batty managed to find a dove while he was running around half naked and howling. Sometimes you have to wonder if Rutger Hauer was confused about that too. He spends a good deal of time looking confused, but it does work for his character, since he's basically Superman with the mind of a terminally ill toddler. There are a lot of peculiar choices actors make, but when you're watching, you just don't question it. One thing I noticed on my second watch - I don't think I've ever seen this many East Asian people in an American film where none of them are doing kung fu, prostitutes, or getting their New Year's dragon smashed by a car chase. None of them really have particularly prominent parts in the movie, but it struck me as interesting. Some of the costume choices also struck me as interesting, especially given the meme circulating last year about how Back to the Future II told us we were all going to dress. And then there's the really uncomfortable sex scene between Deckard and Rachael, where without the soundtrack of smooth jazz telling us it's sexy, we have a man blocking a door, throwing a woman into a window, and then making her tell him to kiss her again. But even with the oddness and the flaws, it's definitely a movie worth the watch. Not just because I'm an absolute science fiction nut or because I really like Philip K. Dick. It's a strong film with still pretty impressive special effects, and even better, a ton of attention to tiny details. Just skip any cut that has the voice-overs.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Klaatu berada nikto roughly translates to “There's another review up”. I think. So, talk about a movie where the poster doesn't match the film! The poster of this science fiction classic has a shrieking, buxom blonde woman being carried away by a hulking robot, as explosions erupt around them from a hellish landscape of crushed humanity. The actual movie not only stars a brunette, it's pretty short on the shrieking and explosion-ridden hellscapes, and pretty long on philosophical discussions on the nature of xenophobia and international cooperation. In fact, unusually for a science fiction film of this time period, the heroine only shrieks once in the face of the Deathbot, and that's only because she panicked for a second. She quickly regains her composure, and the Deathbot is shown to be a creature wholly dedicated to justice and purely a defensive, reactionary weapon. Just the sort of creature to fly Space Jesus around. Apparently the director was hoping the whole Space Jesus allegory would be a little more subtle, and maybe it was to the first audience. But to an audience watching after the release of Stranger in a Strange Land (erotic Space Jesus), Jean Grey in The Phoenix Saga (psychic lady Space Jesus), Neo in The Matrix (computer Jesus), RoboCop (American Robot Jesus), and Harry Potter (wizard Jesus). Note that I'm only bringing up examples that came out after 1951, so no Lion Jesus or Ring Jesus. We do love a good Messiah story, and it really isn't subtle any more when our peace-speaking hero fighting dark forces is killed and then resurrected to deliver a message to mankind, even though we've gone a few different paths (Jean Grey goes crazy and commits xenocide, RoboCop shoots everyone...). That nice Mr. John Carpenter (geddit? Because Jesus was a carpenter and his initials were J.C.?) falls under the more proactive category of Space Jesuses (Jesusi?), as he is willing to be actively physically threatening. But the movie is essentially a sermon on how we really need to straighten the hell up, because our petty international rivalries will blow us up someday. It can get a bit wordy at times, but it is overall good in tone. And it is lovely to see a heroine of an early science fiction picture not be ruled by terror and actually understand the gravity of the situation she's in. So, overall, I'd say this is a good watch, if just for the cultural curiosity. It does have some issues with pacing, but it's still a good film.

The Quiet Man

Or as they put it over at the Youtube Channel "Facts." after seeing the trailer, more like the shouty, hitting man. Well, let's start making paddy-fingers in the Holy Water, and dive right in. So, I've got to write this review quick, because it's really not sticking with me. Maybe it would if I had grown up watching it, but this is another of those movies where I am not really seeing why it's on the Registry. Apparently it was supposed to be the first of five collaborations between John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara, but it ended up being the third, as the studio made them make two Westerns first to make up for the money they'd lose on making a film about Ireland and paternalistic marriage culture. And none of the movies lost money, but this one did start a trend of occasionally sending a film crew over to Ireland to film locals being canny and twee and full o' the blarney, with a lilt in their voices and a twinkle in their eyes. At least they didn't attempt to make John Wayne speak with an Irish accent, like they do with most actors unfortunate enough to appear in these pictures. This is also one of only two films on the Registry to be listed under the letter "Q", so I suppose that's something? The plot is the bog-standard "Irish-American goes to rediscover his heritage, but he is hiding his past and he falls in love with a fiery redheaded lass who is crushed under the unrealistic expectations of patriarchal, backwards Irish culture". Which I guess was fresher in 1952, when this movie came out. And at least it wasn't another old saw on "Idealistic young man joins IRA to fight the evil Brits, discovers he has become as bad as them". Part of me thinks we make these movies just for scenery. And another part is wondering if this is our own version of an exploitation film. Enough Americans are of Irish descent and have a fascination with Irish culture that yeah, we'll wear green on St. Paddy's Day (and misspell it as "Patty's"), but we also had a vague sense of superiority before the whole Celtic Tiger thing happened. After all, we didn't blow each other up over religious differences... and neither did they if you get right down to it, but Captain Planet said they would. Our ancestors managed to get out, so obviously we aren't as backwards or superstitious and we don't believe in wee green men, nor are we as backwards as to drag our wives five miles through dirt and sheep dung or to settle our differences with our in-laws with a fist fight and a few pints. I'm not going to pretend to be any sort of expert on Irish culture, but this movie seemed vaguely offensive to me. It also suffered dreadfully from Idiot Plot, in that the major conflict could have been resolved with a simple conversation. I know a lot of people adore this movie, but for me, it was a resounding "Eh".

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Magic Computer on the Desk, who is the one who can't think of a good rhyme for "desk"? This is another movie that's hard to talk about, because it's reached the point of being iconic for being iconic. It is so pioneering that any criticism leveled at it is just kind of "Well... yeah, it was uncharted territory". And everyone has heard the criticisms. The fact that the Prince is so bland he doesn't even get a name and barely exists as anything but a plot device. The fact that Snow White talks in rhyming phrases a lot of the time and squeaks a lot. The fact that characters aren't really developed so much as they just sort of exist. But that doesn't really matter, because it is all new. You can obviously tell the animators are more used to animating shorts, since the animals and the Dwarfs move more naturally and fit more seamlessly into the backgrounds than Snow White, the Prince, the Queen, or the Huntsman (whose neck isn't the same color as his face). The animators are obviously more comfortable drawing the gags then they are drawing the dramatic scenes - just compare how smoothly the jaunty little turtle walking with the other forest animals is drawn vs. how Queen Grimhilde is during her transformation sequences. Which isn't to say the movie isn't a work of art. The backgrounds are incredibly lush and detailed. Just look at the stairs while the Dwarfs are creeping up them - every single stair has a carved face on the edge. The animators did an incredible job of giving an overall Bavarian feel to the set design. The castles all look like they were designed by King Ludwig II and the Dwarfs cottage looks like it was transported from a Bavarian forest, right down to the steins and the cuckoo clocks. For the story, it's just very simple and very padded by musical numbers. But that's to be expected, because after all, they were doing something completely new. No one was sure if you could keep the audience's attention for a full-length animated feature. So they threw in a bunch of generally catchy songs and a bunch of gags from their shorts to keep the audience's attention. As a feature film - just as a piece of film-making, I think it holds up artistically, but not so much cinematically. However, it is obviously worth the watch based on cinematic importance. Disney has obviously made vastly superior films, but they wouldn't have been able to without this one.