Tag Archives: American Film Institute

AFI #63: Cabaret

Posted on by Len

I get it. Cabaret is a metaphor for the decadence that leads to the rise in nationalism that makes it possible for the Nazi Party to rise to power in Germany. Sounds like a good plot for a musical (insert sarcasm here).

I’d like to dismiss this film because I’m not a big musical guy, but the truth is I don’t mind a good musical. I love the film version of The Music Man. I loved Evita with Antonio Banderas and Madonna. A Chorus Line with Michael Douglas is one of my favorites. Hey, I even like Sound of Music which also includes Nazis so that’s not a good enough reason for me to have not liked Cabaret. I just found Cabaret to be too wannabe 60s, theater of the absurd, experimental trash. Not my cup of tea. That being said, it was a huge hit in 1972 and won eight damn Academy Awards so what do I know.

Cabaret is the story of cabaret performer Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli) and takes place in Berlin circa 1931 just as the Nazi party is coming to power. Sally is an over the top dreamer trying to make it big with thoughts of becoming a world-famous actress, but she’s really just using her body to make a living. She meets an English expatriate (Michael York) who turns out to be bisexual and both he and Sally fall for the same German baron. Meanwhile, the Nazis are gaining power and the mood of the city is “narrated” by the master of ceremonies of the cabaret, a creepy and pansexual dude played by Joel Grey. The musical numbers are raunchy and loosely tell the tale. The musical version of the show won eight Tony Awards including Best Musical in 1967.

Again, not my kind of musical and it was filmed during a film era that I don’t typically enjoy (there was something about the late 60s and early 70s that didn’t do it for me). Oscar disagreed with me and awards were handed out for Best Actress (Minnelli), Best Supporting Actor (Joel Grey), Best Music and Best Director (Bob Fosse). It did not win Best Picture…thank god. That rightfully went to The Godfather, but what it does mean is that Francis Ford Coppola not win Best Director for what was in my opinion one of the greatest films ever made. Joel Grey also stole the Oscar from the likes of Al Pacino, Robert Duvall and James Caan (who perhaps split votes leading to Grey’s win). Minnelli actually beat Diana Ross for Lady Sings the Blues which is also quite a crime.

Life may indeed be a cabaret old chum, but I hope my cabaret is a little more fun with fewer Nazis.

Next up: American Graffiti.

AFI #64: Network

Posted on by Len

A couple of year’s ago I stopped watching television news because it had become a cesspool of crime and horror. My New Year’s resolution last year was to stop paying attention to politics because it was bringing too much negativity into my life. Yesterday a friend of mine reported that he too has limited his intake of “news” because it was far too negative. Television in general has become a wasteland of “reality” that is anything but real. These days save for a couple of solid cable shows  and a whole lot of sports I use TV purely as background noise…I doubt I’ll ever be one of those people who claims to not have a television or says they don’t watch it, but I get it. Soothsayers have been saying since its inception that TV was a beast that would eventually control us, and while that seems farfetched it’s hard to argue that we haven’t become a society of slaves to the tube. Some people argue that TV is simply a reflection of society. If that’s true, god help us! Network was released in 1976 and it caused quite a stir. It’s dark humor explored what would happen if the accountants took over the news department and TV news became beholden to ratings and profitability and was run by corporations. Yep, it came out nearly 40 year’s ago even back then the disease of corporate control was under scrutiny. There’s nothing new under the sun.

The film is most famous for the iconic character of network news anchor Howard Beale, who because his ratings were slipping had a breakdown on live television and because his meltdown was good for business he was given the green light to continue to proselytize about the demise of society and the devil inside the box known as TV. His famous line “I’m mad as hell and we’re not going to take this anymore” became a national catch phrase and Peter Finch’s portrayal of Beale won him an Oscar for best actor (albiet posthumously). I’m not going to share that famous scene, but rather I’d like you to take a few minutes to watch this scene that I think sums up the spirit of Network‘s message:

I don’t think I’ll say much about the film itself other than to say it was ahead of its time and its message was eerily prophetic. But I would like to comment on where we have found ourselves in 2012 in terms of the sort of television this film considered satirical. Have you spent much time flipping through the proverbial dial on your cable box these days. Most of us are guilty of watching some of this so-called programming (I have my guilty pleasures). What the hell are we watching? Hoarders Buried Alive. To Catch a Predator. Celebrity Rehab. Hillbilly Hand Fishing. Strange Sex. Cops. Toddlers and Tiaras. Bad Girls Club. Kourtney and Kim Take New York. I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant.

These are real shows…not satire. Network was supposed to be satire. Showing the assassination of a newscaster on live television was a joke. The “Mao Tse Tung Hour” in which a left wing terrorist group filmed themselves committing crimes was a crazy idea. But honestly, how close have we come? Would anyone be surprised if the next big reality hit was a live broadcast of an execution?

What I’ll say about Network is that it was a film that made you think about the state of the media and society in general. Not too shabby for 1976. I also think a great sequel to the film (or a perfect complement for a radical double feature) would be Natural Born Killers! That’s one of my favorite films and it too takes the reality TV concept to its potential horrific end game.

Next Up: Cabaret

AFI #66: Raiders of the Lost Ark

Posted on by Len

It was June 1981 and I had just gotten out of school for the summer. Ninth grade was behind me and I was moving to a new school for high school following the summer. I was looking forward to more than two months of riding my bike, going to the beach and just hanging out. Of course, I was also looking forward to summer blockbuster movies. That summer was stellar for films, especially for a 14-year-old. Clash of the Titans. Superman II. Cannonball Run. Stripes. For Your Eyes Only. Escape From New York. Arthur. Heavy Metal. An American Werewolf in London. Even Zorro the Gay Blade! I saw them all and more…but summer 1981 will always be about one film — Raiders of the Lost Ark.

It was the dawn of the summer blockbuster. The year before Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back took in $290,271,960 in the U.S. In 1982 E.T. raked in $435,110,554. In 1983 Return of the Jedi brought in $309,205,079. Prior to 1980 only Jaws ($260,000,000) and Star Wars ($460,998,007) had ever taken in those kinds of numbers. Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas had changed the game forever. You may have a favorite from these great summer blockbusters, but mine was, and still is, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Indiana Jones was the perfect hero for a young teenager. He was smart, capable of amazing physical feats, had a wicked sense of humor and of course the ladies loved him. Not only that, he was fighting the Nazis! This film made Harrison Ford the biggest movie star in the world. Sure, he was Han Solo, but he was just a supporting character in that. In Raiders of the Lost Ark he was the leading man and action hero.

What I love so much about the film is that it’s non-stop action from the moment it begins. The first scene where he tries to steal the idol from the natives is one of the most memorable action sequences ever filmed and the scene with the boulder rolling after him has become iconic. Indiana Jones made archaeology exciting, which let’s be honest is not an easy thing to do. Another iconic scene is when Indy is chasing the ark and is jumping back and forth between the Nazi trucks trying to steal the truck from the driver. When he loses his grip off the front of the truck but slides under and hangs on by his whip it’s pure Hollywood. And of course, the final scene with the ark getting lost in the rows and rows of boxes in that giant government warehouse…spot on political commentary. My favorite scene is when he comes face to face in Cairo with the huge guy with giant Arabian swords and instead of fighting him a just reaches down for his gun and shoots the guy. LOL.

For me Raiders of the Lost Ark is the ultimate adventure film, and while many have tried to imitate it none have captured the greatness of this Hollywood classic. It’s just as cool and exciting today as it was in 1981 and the proof is that my son and I watched it recently and he loves it too. I suspect sometime 20 years or so from now his kids will love it as well.

Next: The African Queen

AFI #67: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Posted on by Len

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is about a train wreck. Well, okay, it’s about a husband and wife who seem to get off on verbally abusing each other, but it felt like a train wreck…the kind you don’t want to watch but something deep inside you makes you sneak a peek. The film is a big screen version of the Edward Albee 1963 Tony Award-winning play by the same name and it’s not a a comedy despite the play on words that it its title. The thing is you can’t really tell if the husband, George, or the wife, Martha, is the big bad wolf!

I wanted to dislike this film after the first 10 minutes, but I couldn’t seem to stop watching it and as it went on I took some sick pleasure in how abusive these people were to each other. Just when you think maybe their relationship is playful, the booze continues to pour and the repartee gets harsher and harsher. Damn…these two fucking hate each other. It’s one thing to verbally beat each other up by themselves, but they do it in front of a couple they don’t even know. Poor Nick and Honey just wanted to stop by the house for a quick drink, but they get dragged into this heavyweight bout and they barely survive. There is so much going on between George and Martha it’s hard to keep track, but the gist is that he is an assistant professor and she is the daughter of the college president and neither of them have lived up to each other’s expectations. Add to that their inability to conceive a child and a ridiculous amount of alcohol and what you get is a marriage that makes Frank and Estelle Costanza look like June and Ward Cleaver.

Did I like the film? I did, but sort of in the way you like a good crash at a car race. One thing that is certain though is that the acting is tremendous. All four characters were nominated for Oscars and both Elizabeth Taylor (Martha) and Sandy Dennis (Honey) took home a trophy. So much for the men, though Richard Burton was intense and brutal as George and a young George Segal was wonderful as Nick. This was Taylor’s second and last Academy Award for acting (she also won in 1961 for Butterfield 8), though she was nominated three other times. She’s a bit older and thicker around the middle in this film, but her performance is mesmerizing as the boozy Martha. I understand the film was also a bit risqué for 1966, but mostly for language. If you want to see people who have a co-dependence on each other’s cruelty this is the film for you.

Next up: Raiders of the Lost Ark

AFI #68: Unforgiven

Posted on by Len

I enjoy a good western, and Unforgiven is a good western. But in my opinion it’s not a great western, which is why I remember not loving it when it first came out in 1992 and also being very disappointed when it won the Oscar for best picture. Looking back at the list of nominees that year it’s clear now why I was upset — Unforgiven beat out two films I loved that year in The Crying Game and Scent of a Woman (hoo ha!).

But I’m actually quite glad I watched it again today. Maybe 20 years have given me some perspective. When the film came out a lot of reviewers lauded it for being the first realistic western, meaning it showed the ugly side of violence rather than glorifying it. Clint Eastwood made a hell of a living playing glorified cowboys and outlaws, so there is a sort of poetic justice here in him portraying the dark side of violence. His character, Will Munny, is not a hero. In fact, I’d argue he’s an anti-hero even though he avenged a brutalized woman. He didn’t do it for justice, rather he did it for money pure and simple. He also ran off on this ill-advised adventure leaving his young children home alone to fend for themselves — with no guarantee he’d ever return alive. That is no hero. The title I think could speak not to the fate of the cowboys who cut up a whore in a brothel, but rather to Munny who should be unforgiven for leaving his kids alone and putting himself at risk.

Unforgiven is dark, and unlike the traditional western you don’t feel a sense of justice at the end — you feel like the events of the film were a waste of energy and lives. Lots of people get killed, including some innocent bystanders and several lawmen. It portrays a west that is also unforgiving and hard, which is probably pretty realistic…at least more realistic than the classic western towns of films like High Noon and pretty much any John Wayne film. I guess that sets the film apart, but it doesn’t make it great and even though I liked it I wouldn’t call it great and I wouldn’t put it in the top 100 of all time.

One highlight was certainly Gene Hackman’s portrayal of sheriff Little Bill. Hackman won an Oscar for the role, and he was devilishly good. Eastwood was nominated for best actor but rightfully lost to Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman though my vote would have gone to Robert Downey Jr. for Chaplin or Denzel Washington for Malcolm X. All in all a great year for film!

Unforgiven also marked the beginning of Eastwood’s dark and introspective directing career. For me these past 20 years have been filled with ups and downs for Clint. I hated Million Dollar Baby and Bridges of Madison County, but loved what I’d call some of the best films of the past 20 years — Mystic River, Gran Torino, Changling and Letters From Iwo Jima to name a few. He is undoubtedly one of the best filmmakers of our time.

Next on the AFI list: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf

AFI #69: Tootsie

Posted on by Len

One way to tell if some of the films on the AFI list hold up is if Connor enjoys them. A film that translates well across generations surely must be a worthy film. Given that, 1982′s  Tootsie definitely belongs on the AFI list.

Tootsie is a funny film that doesn’t rely on the silliness of Dustin Hoffman in drag to get laughs but rather provides its laughs through the brilliant writing of Larry Gelbart and others. Sure, Hoffman is not exactly an attractive woman, and there are a few moments of physical humor thrown in because it’s always funny when a man tries to walk in heels, but the dialogue makes this film so amazing. Here’s an example of my favorite rant by out-of-work actor Michael Dorsey:

Michael Dorsey: Are you saying that nobody in New York will work with me?
George Fields: No, no, that’s too limited… nobody in Hollywood wants to work with you either. I can’t even set you up for a commercial. You played a *tomato* for 30 seconds – they went a half a day over schedule because you wouldn’t sit down.
Michael Dorsey: Of course. It was illogical.
George Fields: YOU WERE A TOMATO. A tomato doesn’t have logic. A tomato can’t move.
Michael Dorsey: That’s what I said. So if he can’t move, how’s he gonna sit down, George? I was a stand-up tomato: a juicy, sexy, beefsteak tomato. Nobody does vegetables like me. I did an evening of vegetables off-Broadway. I did the best tomato, the best cucumber… I did an endive salad that knocked the critics on their ass.

A juicy, sexy beefsteak tomato! And some of the best lines are left to Michael’s playwright roommate Jeff, played deadpan by Bill Murray. Teri Garr is classic, and Charles Durning is great as Jessica Lange’s smitten dad. And Dabney Coleman is perfect as the chauvinistic soap director. Jessica Lange was just ok, but somehow she managed to get an Academy Award for best supporting actress. You gotta feel for Dustin Hoffman being nominated against Ben Kingsley for Gandhi — he never had a chance. Gandhi also rightfully beat Tootsie for best picture.

I can’t provide praise for Tootsie though without saying something about director Sydney Pollack, who not only directed the film but acted in it as well, stealing some scenes as agent George Fields. Pollack was a great director who along with Tootsie is well known for directing Absence of Malice, Out of Africa, The Way We Were, The Firm and many more. Pollack liked to act as well and over his career he had some memorable roles, none better than George Fields. He made some cameos in Entourage, The Sopranos, Michael Clayton, Husbands and Wives, and many more. The guy was a Renaissance man and we lost him too young.

Next Up: Unforgiven

AFI #70: A Clockwork Orange

Posted on by Len

I think A Clockwork Orange is a film for young people. I remember really liking this film when I first saw it, which was probably when I was in high school. What could be more interesting to a high school student than a film about a bunch of young thugs getting high and performing a little ultra-violence? The thing is though, watching it now as a 45-year-old man it simply doesn’t hold up. In fact, I’d go as far as to say it’s so camp that it ‘s just not very good at all.

Stanley Kubrick directed some winners, including The Shining, Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, but he also directed some duds (2001 A Space Odyssey is totally overrated). I won’t say A Clockwork Orange is a dud, but it’s not as good as I remember thinking it was. There are some highlights: certainly Malcolm McDowell’s performance is tremendous and the juxtaposition of violence with classical music is thought-provoking. Kubrick’s direction is unique — there are some very strangely shot scenes including a fast-motion menage a trois and that eery scene of Alex with his eyes propped open being forced to watch violent scenes in an effort to desensitize him to it. It definitely has a late 60s style that is common to the period (feels like Barbarella a bit). I don’t know…it sort of left me feeling…in the words of my 14-year-old…meh!

If you saw it when you were younger and haven’t seen it since you’re probably thinking I’m nuts and that it’s a classic. But I promise if you see it again you won’t think so…

Next Up: Tootsie

AFI #71: Saving Private Ryan

Posted on by Len

I remember not liking Saving Private Ryan when it came out in 1998 and after watching it again today I remember why I didn’t like it — it’s depressing as hell. To me the plot sort of seems like it’s violence for violence’s sake. And it’s really graphic violence. What was the point of losing nearly an entire platoon to save the life of one guy? I get that Private Ryan lost three brothers, but since when is one life worth more than another?

Don’t get me wrong, I like a good war movie. I can think of several off the top of my head that were way better than Saving Private Ryan, including The Deer Hunter, Black Hawk Down and The Hurt Locker just to name a few. This film just doesn’t do it for me. I like so many of the actors in the film, from Tom Hanks to Adam Goldberg to Giovanni Ribisi…but (Spoiler Alert) they all fucking die. Are they heroes, or was this just a fool’s mission?

I will say this much — the first 30 minutes are intense as hell and some of the best war action ever filmed. I don’t know if it was realistic since I didn’t hit Omaha Beach on D-Day, but it sure felt real. And if it really was like that, holy crap! Spielberg probably earned his Best Director Oscar in those first 30 minutes alone. Talk about blood and guts. This film is not for the feint of heart.

Next Up: A Clockwork Orange

AFI #72: The Shawshank Redemption

Posted on by Len

Ask a group of people what their favorite movie is and you can be pretty confident that at least one person will say The Shawshank Redemption. It’s just one of those films that makes a huge impact on people and always seems to make “best of” lists. In fact, with more than 650,000 votes it is the top-ranked film of all-time by the readers of the world’s most complete film site, the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com). Number one…just beating out The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2. That’s unbelievable.

The Shawshank Redemption is not one of my all-time favorite films, but watching it again today made me realize that it certainly is one of the best films of all time. It certainly holds up well and even though I knew exactly what was going to happen at each turn I was thrilled nonetheless. It’s a great film…with a great plot…a great Stephen King inspired story…and great acting across the board. Would you believe it didn’t win a single Academy Award? I know, huh? It lost out to Forrest Gump for Best Picture (also nominated that year were Four Weddings and a Funeral, Pulp Fiction and Quiz Show). Morgan Freeman lost the Best Actor award to Tom Hanks and Tim Robbins wasn’t nominated.

Why do we love The Shawshank Redemption so much? I think there are several reasons. To begin, it’s an underdog story. Andy Dufresne is wrongfully imprisoned for murder and despite huge odds turns the tables on the system. It’s also about good guys and bad guys — in this case the good guys are the imprisoned and the bad guys are the law. We seem to forget (or we don’t care) that Morgan Freeman’s character Red was a convicted killer. Yet we still love him (and of course we love his narration). We all love a good prison movie, especially when there’s an escape. We sure love films when a bunch of misfits (prisoners in this case) put one over on “the man.” We do love Stephen King stories! Truth be told, it’s hard to see why this film is so beloved — it just is. I mean, it’s great…but Godfather great?

I suppose the love we have for The Shawshank Redemption will always be a mystery. All I know is it’s a great film that inspires the viewer. That’s good enough for me.

Next on the list: Saving Private Ryan

AFI #74: The Silence of the Lambs

Posted on by Len

It wasn’t as scary the second time! I always think of The Silence of the Lambs as being one of the scariest films I’ve ever seen, but watching it again today it didn’t seem so scary and not just because I knew how it ended. I’ve said it a lot during these reviews, but memory definitely plays tricks on you.

What it is, though, is one heck of a great film! Maybe that’s why we remember it as scary — just look at Anthony Hopkins’ eyes! He’s one creepy dude. It’s a great film because it has everything. It has a detailed and complex story. It has memorable characters. It has shock value. It was beautifully shot. It was a thriller unlike any other and it’s one of the best films ever made. But make no mistake…The Silence of the Lambs is all about acting.

Hopkins has never been better and the role of Dr. Hannibal Lecter is easily one of the greatest creations in film history. And he did it all with his eyes and his voice. Jodie Foster portrayed a naive but confident Clarice Starling and made us believe that an FBI student could solve the toughest crime of a generation. And the guy who played the killer, Ted Levine, was downright scary good from his voice to his intense close ups (and lest we forget the famous “tuck” scene)!

The Silence of the Lambs was of course rewarded with a handful of Academy Awards including Best Actor and Best Actress, but also Best Director for Jonathan Demme and Screenplay. And it remains one of the only thrillers to bring home the Oscar for Best Picture. Oh, and bonus points for a Chris Isaak cameo as an FBI agent!

Next on the List: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid