#342- 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her

Quick recap: No idea. I think it’s about commercialism? Or maybe prostitution. Or possibly pinball.

That lady in the background playing pinball was just about the only thing that made sense

Fun (?) fact: The ‘her’ in the title refers to Paris, not the main character, like I thought while watching the entire movie. It only goes downhill from here, folks.

This scene, where a guy whispers philosophy into his coffee lasted FAR too long.

My thoughts: The movie opens with a creepy guy whispering off camera about a woman on screen. He describes her as an actress and also details what she is wearing. Then the camera switches to another woman who looks exactly like the actress, except she is facing the other way. The whisper guy describes this woman as the main character and details what she is wearing. I spent the entire movie confused because I thought the plot was about two friends who looked exactly alike, but only one kept popping up in the narrative. It wasn’t until I read the basic plot outline that I realized the whisper guy was talking about the same woman. I think it’s time to take a break from French films for a bit.

So, you may ask, what are things I know about Paris after watching this film? Well…..

  1. There was a lot of construction going on in the late 60s.

2. And the construction mostly led to ugly, expensive apartments.

3. The ugly apartments led to housewives turning to prostitution to continue their lifestyle.

4. And prostitution mostly led to affording products that have similarities to ones we have in the US.

Considering I came up with 4 things instead of 2 or 3, I think that makes me smarter than the movie. Who’s laughing now, Jean-Luc Godard??

Final review: 1/5

Up next: The Cranes are Flying

 

Advertisements

#336- The Philadelphia Story

Quick recap: Tracy Lord, daughter of one of the richest families in Philadelphia is about to get married for the first time. The only things standing in her way are her ex-husband and a tabloid reporter, who also just so happen to be in love with her. What’s a girl to do?

ok,Katharine, give me the ‘oh, you guys’ look and boys, why don’t you just stand around her and…I don’t know, just point at her scalp. Perfect!

Fun (?) fact: 3 things I learned about James Stewart that endeared him to me even more:

  1. he never expected to win Best Actor for the film and planned on sitting at home instead of attending. A person tipped him off that he should show up anyway in a dress jacket, and he ended up winning.
  2. The Oscar has the word ‘Philadelphia’ misspelled on it
  3. Stewart never felt that he deserved the award, instead saying it was ‘deferred payment for my work on Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’

Of all the James Stewarts in the world, he’s the James Stewartest.

I’m just saying, if there had been a James Stewart/ Cary Grant buddy comedy, maybe the world would’ve been better off

My thoughts: To kick this off, I’d like to first acknowledge the elephant in the room: High Society. I watched it way back in the beginning of this blog and if you care to click the link, you will find that I didn’t enjoy it very much. I still stand by that review, except that now that I know it was just a remake, I kind of wish I could go back and lower my score. Which, I totally could, considering this is my personal project but something something about precedent and high standards and all that.

So, without a doubt, I enjoyed The Philadelphia Story infinitely more than High Society. The main reason being that I didn’t have to sit through all that silly singing. The plot made much more sense this time around although I still classify it as ultimately silly. And I also LOVED the casting her. It makes even less sense to me why Grace Kelly would be chosen for the role Katharine Hepburn was made for. There was so much chemistry here, especially between Hepburn and Grant. Stewart seemed like an odd choice but he totally made it work. Everyone here was just perfect and although I didn’t really laugh much, I enjoyed myself thoroughly.

That being said, this movie is hella problematic. In the very first scene, Dexter is leaving Tracy and as he is about to drive off, she storms out and breaks one of his golf clubs. This sends him into a rage and he comes after her, knocking her to the floor. Thereafter, the incident is referred to almost as a wistful, funny memory most couples have. I spent most of the movie either being disturbed by the lengths Dexter was going to in order to win Tracy back (like giving her a model of their honeymoon boat as a wedding present) or admiring him for his persistence. I still don’t know how I feel about their relationship but at the end when they decide to SPOILER remarry, they seemed genuinely happy and hopefully had both matured since then.

Final review: 4/5

Up next: Jules and Jim

 

#331- The King of Comedy

Quick recap: Aspiring comedian Rupert Pupkin wants nothing more in the world than to be on the Jerry Langford Show and he’ll do anything to secure his spot.

Fun (?) fact: Robert De Niro, a method actor, said anti-Semitic remarks to Jerry Lewis to get a rise out of him during the scene when he crashes his weekend home. It worked.

My thoughts: This movie was a total surprise- from the time I learned it was directed by Martin Scorsese to my first glimpses of Robert De Niro to the ridiculous ending. And I loved it all, even if the embarrassing moments made me want to hide forever.

With a name like The King of Comedy, I expected something hokey and I was a little disappointed that Scorsese would go for such cheap comedy. But from the very first scene as Jerry Langford tries to exit his building through a mob of rabid fans, I knew I was in for something dark. De Niro is perfect as Rupert Pupkin. I found myself constantly wavering between feeling sorry for him and supremely annoyed. The same with Sandra Bernhard as Masha, although she made me cringe much more than have empathy for her. Rupert and Masha are in this microcosm of fans who are obsessed with a celebrity and they feed off of each other. Rupert, as mentioned above, is an aspiring comedian but about the only practice he does is make tapes of himself pretending to be on the Jerry Langford Show. He is so determined to be there that this becomes his focus, instead of actually honing his craft. And Masha is in love with Jerry and is convinced they deserve to be together.

Rupert’s fantasies of a relationship with Jerry Langford are confusing because they blend in so well with the actual plot. The first one is of Langford begging him to take over the show because he needs a break for a few weeks. It’s very obvious this is a figment of his imagination but the end of the movie has Rupert actually becoming a star because he kidnapped Langford and I can’t tell whether this really happened or not. There’s a point about how obsessive the public can be with celebrities and how fleeting love can be, so it would make sense Rupert lives in infamy just as much as it makes sense he is completely forgotten. Not knowing somehow makes this movie even darker and more sad. And speaking of which, Rupert’s set on tv is so self-deprecating that it physically hurt to watch but the audience loved it. Or did they? I kind of love that I don’t know for sure.

Final review: 5/5

Up next: Atlantic City

#330- Amarcord

Quick recap: stories of various residents in an Italian city in the 1930s

same, most days

Fun (?) fact: Amarcord is a phonetic translation from the Italian phrase ‘A m’arcord’, which means ‘I remember’.

The scene I’m mostly likely going to remember

My thoughts: Seeing as this is my 3rd Fellini film, Amarcord is make or break in regards to how I see him as a director. I was confused but amused by both Juliet of the Spirits and 8 1/2, which is as good a review I’m willing to give Italian cinema. I enjoyed Amarcord the most of the 3 and was proud that this time there was no confusion, except for reading trivia afterwards and learning that there are several scathing rebukes of fascism. Oops.

Without sounding too dramatic, I was completely in love with the movie from the very beginning. I always try to go into a film without knowing much so that I can make an unbiased judgement.Which, in turn, lead me to believe  ‘Amarcord’ was some woman. The first part of the movie starts with a bonfire to celebrate the start of spring and then there’s a scene at a religious school. I patiently waited for ‘Amarcord’ to show up and I grew more excited to see how all the characters would all connect. And then I eventually realized that this was more a vignette style of story rather than one centered on a handful of characters. Somehow this realization made the movie infinitely more interesting and I wish that I could go back and watch the beginning again so I can soak up everyone.

Growing up in a small town, I could connect to this Italian town somewhat. My tiny Texas town was decidedly less depraved than this one but there were ‘characters’ that stood out and tall tales that have been passed down for generations. And even though it’s become somewhat of a trope, I loved how Fellini used seasons to indicate the passage of time. Small towns live on traditions and this one is no different. Also, I totally wish mine had an endurance car race like the Mille Miglia or a boat expedition to see the new luxury cruise. We mainly just had parades and football games, although those came with their own set of problems for the locals to discuss again and again.

Even though there is a sad scene, the movie ends with a wedding, as the seasons drift right back toward spring. The whole experience was lovely and makes me wonder if I have been too harsh on Italian cinema recently.

Final review: 5/5

Up next: The King of Comedy