A Thing About Great Performances

I hope there are at least a few people out there who value my opinion, as well as a few who value my opinion on movies. I've seen many, know quite a lot about them, and keep up with all sorts of trivia, upcoming releases, and reviews. And, as any intelligent person can, can defend my thoughts with examples. Like I always tell the students in my classes: What you think is important, but never, ever forget the why.

With that said, I would like the state that a single great performance does not make a movie great. Let me give some examples:

The other day I watched the film 'My Left Foot.' This is a very good film. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the best actors there is, and his performance in this film was one of the best I've ever seen. The film itself, though, I felt was only 'good.' Therefore, I will not give this film a 10/10, or even a 9.5/10 strictly based on how great DD-L was. I can think of quite a few people who would.

More examples....

Meryl Streep in 'Sophie's Choice.' I don't think anyone loves Meryl Streep more than I do, except maybe her husband. She's had so many great roles--the best of which was as the concentration camp survivor Sophie. Off the top of my head, this is the best female performance I can think up. But the movie itself? Good, not great. Yes, the scenes with Sophie are emotionally extreme, but the other actors, a bit of the writing, and some pacing issues prevent the film from being great.

Let's go with an example in the opposite direction.

Take Peter Lorre's role in the classic, 'M.' 'M' is undoubtedly a great film. If I was hard-pressed to create a list of the ten best films out there, 'M' would be a close contender. The film is driven by not only Peter Lorre's phenomenal performance (compare his work here to, say, 'The Maltese Falcon'), but by the shadows and corridors, the whistling tune, the script, the direction, and all of the other actors. A film is an ensemble. One must not overlook that.

Also, take Bette Davis as Margo Channing in 'All About Eve.' Again, one of the best acting jobs of all time. No one's gonna deny that. But how tricky that after each viewing, I find myself more and more fascinated by Anne Baxter's Eve. Or the immensely articulate, perfectly paced Addison DeWitt. Or even the small Marilyn Monroe cameo. And that's just the acting. The script is sensational, mixing a buffet of highbrow allusions with blunt banter that strikes to the core. Joe Mankiewicz was a genius. This is a great film.

I shall end with one more example.

Jamie Foxx in 'Ray.' Now, who doesn't love Ray Charles? No doubt Jamie Foxx did a fantastic job in the role. But watch this film and 'Walk the Line' in the same day. Notice the almost identical storyline, sans blindness. Now, that's not the writer or director's fault, because these are based on true events. But the plot of 'Ray' borders on cliche, and even though Jamie Foxx was great, the movie is far from.

With these things and this philosophy in mind, if I ever give a movie a 10/10 simply because of one performance, you have my permission to slap me.

Continue reading...

The Aging of Mysteries

For the sake of a short post title I have lumped the genres of film noir and mysteries together. Both genres are about crime, figuring out who a killer or thief was, and bringing the viewer through a maze of plot twists, turns, and red herrings. The difference is that film noir typically puts all of these elements in the dark. The stories are in the shadows and behind bars, the women have no qualms about killing for their own good (unique to this genre), and there are never happy endings (often because of a martyr).

Film noir, for the most part, hit its peak in the 1940s and 50s. Some of the greatest movies ever have come from this genre, including The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, The Third Man, and that scene replayed a thousand times during The Shawshank Redemption from Gilda (where Rita Hayworth flips her hair). These films, when still watched today, grip the viewer until the last scene.

I try to watch old movies that aren't classics so I can have an appreciation for the gems that remain. Yesterday I watched I Wake Up Screaming, a 1941 film with a 7.4 rating on IMDb. Not bad, right? The only problem is that films like these, the ones that don't hold up well over time, have become the cliches. They aren't subtle enough, don't have enough twists, or are just plain lethargic.

I don't think anyone reading this is planning to go out and rent I Wake Up Screaming, so I won't bother avoiding spoilers.

When Betty Grable needs to pack up her things from her room, the downstairs clerk Harry Williams already has them packed. Right there, in that instant, I knew he was the killer. I would have liked to be proven wrong, but I wasn't. The problem was that this was maybe, maybe at the end of the first act. It's not that this is a bad film. In 1941 I'm sure the film was received very well. But today audiences are so stuck on plucking out the twists for themselves and claiming, afterward, that they "called it."

I try to avoid those "called it" situations. It's hard to avoid with bad movies, easy with good ones. If a movie is intelligent it will always be one step ahead of the viewer and they won't have time to figure it out -- if they pause to think they'll miss something that could either prove them wrong, or readjust their course. The Prestige was a good one. Ocean's 12 and 13, not so much (though fun movies).

What I'm trying to say is that there are two real distinctions in older films: those that hold up extremely well, and those that crumble. The middle ground is a small island. And it's not because of movie quality, but viewer expectations.

Continue reading...

Death Proof: Less Fun More Film

Tonight I watched the Death Proof segment of Grindhouse for the first time since theaters. While I think it's stupid that the two Grindhouse movies are marketed separately, I think Death Proof benefits from being singled out.

But what I realized tonight was that I like Death Proof: It is a good movie. But what keeps it from being great is Tarantino forcing himself into this box of botched film and campy scenes, when the movie would benefit from just being a slight homage -- and more importantly, not just a homage to himself.

I'll admit I like Tarantino's stuff. Reservoir Dogs, while not the greatest movie, is good. Pulp Fiction is a great movie. I didn't care much for Jackie Brown, and the Kill Bill movies were good-to-great.

Needless to say I noticed all the references to his previous work in this film before I saw it in the IMDb trivia. The fact that a character has a ringtone of the whistling theme from Kill Bill, or Big Kahuna Burger is tossed into casual conversation don't really harm the movie from a writing standpoint, but it does do two things. First, it pulls Tarantino's fans out of the scene, and second, it seems self-indulgent. And it is. One or two allusions I can deal with. But they just keep coming and coming and coming. It grows tiresome.

In my opinion what Tarantino should have done is made Death Proof as his own project -- still with all the love for old car movies and whatnot -- but taken it more seriously. No scratched film reels, or missing scenes, or endless self-indulgence. No using the same cops from Kill Bill, no abrupt ending (though honestly I could live with it as-is, but what happens to Lee should be addressed).

If Death Proof was treated more like Kill Bill, it would've been a great movie. Instead of just good.

Continue reading...