Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?

Tonight Holly and I finished up Billy Wilder's film noir classic Double Indemnity. This film is ranked 29 on AFI's list; It's traveled up nine spaces since the original voting.

This is a film that makes you cherish old Hollywood, while at the same time laughing at some of the old stereotypes of the time. The culture and values of Double Indemnity have gone the way of the dinosaurs. It's slightly funny and a little bit sad, when the only people working in Neff's office are men, and the only blacks are car washers and platform operators. This film is a time capsule.

But, I guess, one can say that about any old film, especially one that is a film noir. I've not watched many films in this genre, but when I first say this movie in video production class (waaaay back in year 2000) I was informed by my very knowledge teacher that this was the top of the genre. Whether or not this the "best" of its genre is not for me to say, but I suspect he is correct. This is a great film because it so perfectly creates the drama between Neff and Mrs. Deitrichson. Their relationship is at once so simple and so complicated, a viewer can see this film multiple times, without totally being able to wrap their finger around their motives or feelings for each other. While the film clearly portrays Deitrichson as the corrupting "femme fetal", Neff's motives are much less clear. Does he love her? If so, why exactly? There is much evidence throughout the film to suggest that he doesn't really care that much for her. Or does he?

The other main aspect of this film worth mentioning is the performance by Edward G. Robinson as Neff's nagging boss Keyes. His is possibly my favorite of the film; the character is the funniest and most endearing. The last lines of the film are just heartbreaking:

Walter Neff: Know why you couldn't figure this one, Keyes? I'll tell ya. 'Cause the guy you were looking for was too close. Right across the desk from ya.
Barton Keyes: Closer than that, Walter.
Walter Neff: I love you, too

.

This is just an all around great film. It's of course cheesy- and one could even make the case- as you could with all film noir- that It's quite misogynistic. But, if you can look past that, you're in for an entertaining two hours. I highly recommend!

The Godfather (1972)

Holly and I had our work cut out for us this week- The Wizard of Oz and The Godfather! There is really nothing that can be said about either of this films that is not cliche- especially the Godfather. There is a temptation to feel as if you must take watching The Godfather as a more serious endeavor than watching a movie like The Wizard of Oz; Which, is not unwarranted, given how critics have showered this movie with acclimation's and with how many people have claimed it influenced them. AFI has the Godfather down for six different categories on its lists: 

American Film Institute

• 1998 AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies #3
• 2001 AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills #11
• 2005 AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes:
  • "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse," #2
• 2005 AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores #5
• 2007 AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) #2
• 2008 AFI's 10 Top 10 #1 gangster film

(source Wikipedia)

---------------------------------------

As we can see, Godfather raise risen in the rankings by one in the past ten years (overtaking Casablanca). Does it deserve all of its praise? Yes. It's not exactly a fun movie, but it is indeed consequential. Roger Ebert nicely sums up the film's influence:

the story views the Mafia from the inside. That is its secret, its charm, its spell; in a way, it has shaped the public perception of the Mafia ever since. The real world is replaced by an authoritarian patriarchy where power and justice flow from the Godfather, and the only villains are traitors. 

This is probably the best way to explain the power of the film and its lasting influence on critics and the public alike. The story follows a crime family in the years following World War II; It can be seen as the "fall" of the old world style mafia Dons (Don Corleone) or as the fall of Michael Corleone as he assumes control of the family business. Like other 70s films, The Godfather is dark, gritty, and interested in portraying things as realistically as possible. There are many times in the film when it will show a character trying to think through a problem, and the camera will just stay on a character, as nothing really interesting happens. 

The story is not as complicated or deep as people make it out to be. It's not far off from Goodfellas to be honest. Both portray the crime lifestyle in the latter Twentieth century. Both try to glorify lives of crime. Both feature older gangsters who are uncomfortable with narcotics and both show the cost of the changing times. But, obviously Goodfellas would not exist if it were not for the Godfather. 

Overall, the Godfather is successful at what it tries to do. It's not exactly a joy to watch. But, I would say that the film mostly deserves the praise that it receives. Even if only because of the lasting cultural legacy it left us (the honorable gangsters). 

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Holly's post pretty much summed up my feelings for The Wizard of Oz. This movie never fails to be mesmerizing. I'm sure anyone who has seen it can recall their first experience of seeing Oz; Dorothy's character is universally identifiable. Honestly, The Wizard of Oz is about as close as you can find to watching the perfect movie. I just cant think of another movie from that time period (or today really) that holds up as well as Oz. Last summer I saw The Dark Knight twice, and then on a trip to England they happened to be playing it as the inflight movie, so I figured I would give it another shot. It's not to say that it didn't carry over or was not entertaining- but just there wasn't much that came out of seeing it, that I hadn't already gotten in my viewings six months prior to that. But the Wizard of Oz never really gets old or boring. The characters, the music, the story, are all immortal. 

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Wahooooo! We finally picked out a true great!

What can you say about The Wizard of Oz that has not already been said somewhere and at some time? It was Judy Garland's breakout role, the one that secured her place in movie history and would make her a legend. You can think about The Wizard of Oz in two contexts, and they are the context of its time, and its life and legacy generations later.

I will pick up the former first. The Wizard of Oz stands out as a fabulous musical film for 1939. At that time, musicals were common and the most popular genre in Hollywood, but they were usually low budget and almost always in black-and-white. And that is just a start. The songs of these musical films, starring most notably Astaire and Rogers, or those directed by Busby Berkeley, almost always took place on stage. The songs and dances were not integrated into the body of the story; they did not take place in the characters' everyday lives. We are used to the integrated musical today - look at Oklahoma!, The Sound of Music, The Music Man, almost any well known example of the genre. But back in 1939 it was original for a film musical to stage its numbers within the context of the story. What could be more integrated than to have the characters singing as they walk down the yellow brick road, or Dorothy singing about a land beyond the rainbow on the farm? It is astounding how modern the film appears today. If you are in any doubt about this, watch any other musical from the 30s and I can guarantee you will know what I mean.

Not only is the approach modern, but the whole film seems to look like it was made long after 1939. It has that timelessness to it which brings me to the next point - how The Wizard of Oz has managed to hold up for so long without appearing dated, how it has appealed to generations of children and adults alike, and how it looks like it is going nowhere anytime soon. Yes, you can comment on how the lion's costume looks like something you find in any second hand costume shop, or how you can tell the way most of the special effects were achieved. But the film still shines and seems as fresh as the day it was made. It also has themes that are universal and ever-appealing. "There's no place like home" may have rung true for those on the bring of war in 1939, but it still has a meaning for us all today. And we can all relate to the relentlessness of a vivid dream such as that experienced by Dorothy after her bump on the head, and the relief at having woken up and "escaped" from it all at last.

My favorite message from The Wizard of Oz is still the one that tells us we have all the virtues we desire already within us. We do not need to seek them elsewhere, although we must often travel a long road and face obstacles to find them. The Tin Man did not need to ask for a heart, he found it within himself. The Lion had to face danger in order to find his own courage. The Scarecrow did not know what brains he had always had.

The number of well known quotes that originate from this film are tribute to its deserving place in the Top 10. May it continue to delight generations!

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

I thought Midnight Cowboy was a decent viewing experience, and seemed to enjoy it more than Max did. Although at the beginning it showed signs of repeating the dull 70s trend we have seen in films like Butch Cassidy, Easy Rider, etc. with one song playing from beginning to end (in this case Harry Nillson's "Everybody's Talkin'") and the awkward zoom-in-zoom-out camerawork as Jon Voight is walking alone, it did prove to hold my interest.

Perhaps what I liked best about the film was the plot and the ways in which it explores themes of individuality vs. friendship. As Max stated, the movie does seem to be suggestive of homosexuality in the friendship between the characters of Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman, but leaving that aside, it was about the journey of one man as he discovers that true friendship holds more value than the lone adventures he was determined to have at the beginning. Voight's character sets out for NYC intent on being a "hussler" dressed as a cowboy. When he finds that life as a male prostitute in the big city offers few customers, he becomes more and more desperate and depressed. His friendship with Dustin Hoffman's character, though plagued by hunger and sickness, provides more satisfaction to him than what he originally saw value in. By the end of the film, the midnight cowboy has transformed into nothing more than a true friend, and by the same token, for the first time, a human being. On the bus on the way to Miami, Voight no longer wears a cowboy hat as he has been stripped of his false dehumanizing identity. He now belongs to the rest of the world, and is optimistic for the future.

It is touching at the end to see that they never make it to Miami. I found it a poignant story about a man who finally found the true meaning of life, but found it too late.

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Ah, just when I was thinking to myself: " You know, the AFI list could use some more grungy 60s movies," they deliver with Midnight Cowboy. It's rated #43 on the list (down 7 spots from the 1997 list). Maybe the most famous aspect of this movie is the quote: "I'm walking here! I'm walking here!' which I did not know going into this that it would be in the film- this quote is ranked #27 on AFI's 100 Greatest quotes, which I suspect is the primary reason this movie made it on the list.

Beyond that, I really don't have a lot to say about this movie. It would be unfair of me to say that it is "bad", because it really isn't. It's a decent movie and one can follow it much easier than say Butch Cassidy or Easy Rider. But, I found it really dull, and even though it only clocks in at 113 minutes, it feels so terribly long. It doesn't help when the director decides to throw in a long party segment, ware it appears that the entire crew of the film started rolling acid and proceeding along with the movie- what is it about the 60s that makes directors decide to include drug scenes that hardly fit into the narrative, do little to enhance the story, and just generally confuse the viewer? If they wanted to include drugs, why could they never make it feel more relevant to the story? Instead, the audience is subjected to 15 or 20 minutes of nonsensical wondering around and jump cuts. 

Also, as everyone knows, this movie was rated X when it came out....Why? Is it because Joe Buck ( John Voight) is a male prostitute or that there is tons of references to him and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) being gay? I suggest it is the latter, which does not necessary make the film worse, but I guess that was a surprise for me. Either way, it could have been worse, but It should have been a lot better to be on this list. 

Dr. Strangelove

I enjoyed this movie much more than Holly did. It's defiantly a black comedy, that will either make you chuckle or feeling lost. Dr. Strangelove is ranked 39 out of the 100 Greatest movies, and it's one of the few comedies on the list. It was directed by Stanley Kubrick, one of Hollywood's authentic auteurs, in his first post-studio system film, which was made entirely in his new home of England. 

As Holly said, this is apparently ranked number 3 on Hollywood's 100 Laughs, which I'm not sure I would even put it there. The film's strongest and weakest points both rest on how timely the movie is; it was made during the height of the Cuban missile crisis and tackled many of the prevailing fears of Communism and nuclear war that held sway at the time in the publics imagination. Nowadays, unless you are well versed in Cold War politics and general cultural hysteria, many of the jokes in this movie will fall flat. The movie is quite funny, but is oh so dated. All of the jokes about German scientists working with the government, water fluoridation, and even just the threat of a Communist Russia are so obsolete now. 

That being said...Having read a lot on Twentieth century politics and culture, I find many of the jokes funny. Equally, I think Peter Sellers is brilliant in his three roles. However, to explain this movie to anyone ( even to write about it) causes the jokes effectiveness to gradually wear off. At the end of the day, this film is on the list because it affirms Liberal ideas about Communist paranoia (Republicans like Berry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would be accused of being Dr. Strangelove) and because of one good quote- "Gentleman, you cant fight here- this is the War Room!'. 

Watch this movie if you are looking for a relic of Mid-Twentieth century political satire; but, for the most part, if you want someone to make you laugh on a Saturday night, I would go for Anchors Away. 

Dr. Strangelove (1964)

Dr. Strangelove is a satirical Cold War film starring Peter Sellers and George C. Scott, loosely based on Peter George's novel Red Alert. It revolves around a mentally unstable US Air Force general who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, and follows the President of the United States and his advisors as they try to recall the bombers to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. This film is placed at #3 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Laughs. I did not laugh at all, I suppose it does not appeal to my sense of humor - either that or it was all over my head.

I will leave it to Max to properly review the film, because I do not remember too much about it.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

I found this movie unwatchable. Admittedly, we did not finish it or even come close. There is not much to add besides what Max has said, I just found it so boring. Watching someone cross the desert for hours is not my idea of entertainment.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

What a disappointment! Lawrence of Arabia is ranked number seven on AFI's list- it fell two spots in the past ten years. I would concur with that sentiment; I too held this film in a high regard the first time I saw it (around 2000), but nine years later, my estimation of it went down quite a bit. Now I find myself agreeing with IMDB's ranking of it- which is forty out of two-hundred and fifty movies. 

It's not that this movie is bad, oh no, It's not bad at all- the main problem with this movie is that it is far too good to actually be enjoyable. This film is epic with the capitals -E-P-I-C. Watching Lawrence Of Arabia is like reading the Oxford English Dictionary on the beach; Its just too big, too bulky, and while it is indeed much more educational than anything you would find on a CVS or Stop & Shop bookshelf- the education value of the endeavor is not worth the trouble. I love certain scenes in this movie. David Lean was a brilliant director, and if you watch the special features that come with the movie, it's apparent that the filmmakers went to a lot of trouble to film those E-P-I-C desert scenes. But, honestly, even the beautiful cinematography gets ridiculous when every time Lawrence is riding a camel, he comes upon a high mountain, 0r a valley, or just another desert wasteland and suddenly the audience is floored with this E-P-I-C  musical score (DUUUUUUN DUN DUUUUUUUN DUN DUN DUN DUUUUUUN DUUUUN!!!!) until we see another mountain and the whole thing repeats. I desperately wanted to feel that sense of awe and inspiration that I did when I first watched this film; but, it just sadly wasn't there. I remember Holly and I lamenting that an hour and passed, and literally almost nothing happened. So, one of us got up to use the bathroom, and then came back and saw that Lawrence and his army were still crossing the same desert.

Perhaps I could even stand the long desert crossing scenes if there was a discernible story to be in the film. Within the first few minutes we are informed that Lawrence is to be sent on a mission of some importance (with another officer that is stationed with the Arabs) and so he is sent on his merry way. Lawrence is stationed in Cairo as a map-maker during World War I; but, his love of the desert and Arab culture propels him into a role of leader of the insurgency against the Ottoman Turks. This story is not to terribly bad; however, Lean does very little to orient the viewer with issues relating to the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs it controls, The British position in Egypt and the war, or any other type of back story. It would have even helped the view if Lean had bothered to mention that Lawrence had previous experience traveling in the desert and first hand knowledge of the Turks. Instead, Lean paints a beautiful picture of an English Romantic hero, floating into Arabia and leading the Arabs into a revolt- without giving us any type of back story or Lawrence's own personal interest in the cause (he just apparently with born with the desire to promote Arab nationalism).  Lean's portrait of Lawrence is essentially Lord Byran prancing around in the desert. 

Its hard to say that this movie is a "failure" or that it doesn't belong on the list- it is indeed E-P-I-C! and was beautifully shot. However, I will say that if you were to attempt to watch it, you will find very little enjoyment in Lean's 218 minute opus. 

Goodfellas

I was surprised with how much Holly enjoyed GoodFellas, but then again- I was surprised with how much I enjoyed it. I had seen it a few times over the years, and felt that the film has very little left to offer. It was a pleasant surprise to be reminded how engrossing the film is. All of the characters are interesting, and as Holly said as we were watching it, there is hardly any time to be bored with the film- as it continuously moves onto a different aspect of a characters life. It is as if the camera has ADD. The story jumps around and follows the different characters; frequently switching up the perspectives and narratives, it offers such a variety of angles, it's hard to remember why I was not interested in watching it. 

Perhaps its because the gangster genre is so over done in entertainment, and much of it is hammy. Nowadays you can play Godfather video games, rent the Sopranos, or any entertainment medium which glorifies the exploits of thuggish Italians. These things can be interesting (as the Godfather is), but I've found myself growing more, and more tired of the whole idea of "honor" behind the life of crime- as Lord Action famously said (yes this is also overused- forgive me): "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" this is the bread and butter behind all gangster films, and Goodfellas is no exception. What I found most redeeming about it- as Holly was saying- is how accurately they portray the Italian/Irish culture of post-World War II America. It brilliantly shows the demise of the big political bosses, union bosses, and crime bosses of the era. Henry Hill and his working class cronies were remnants of a local political system were indeed neighborhoods had to ban together to form order; because the political establishment was unwilling or unable to look after immigrant Italians or Irish or whomever.  While Henry attempts to win over the audience to whatever supposed nobility was involved in the mafia lifestyle; Scorsese shows the sad results of living a life outside of moral limits. Partially what makes this film so great, is that out of most modern filmmakers, Scorsese seems to believe in the soul- and equally understands the qualities that damn it. 

I highly recommend Goodfellas. There are a lot of movies on this list that I think should have been replaced, I'm glad to see a modern one that has earned its place with the classics. 

Goodfellas (1990)

We recently watched Goodfellas to continue with the AFI 100 Greatest project (which we are hoping to get back on its feet soon). I had never seen it before, and was told by Max that there were virtually no women in the movie. This did not fill me with the greatest anticipation because it is beginning to bug me that so many of the films that made the top 100 are disproportionately male in their actors, characters, content and target audience.

This, however, was an exception to my rule that male = dull. I thought it was a brilliant movie - particularly the cinematography. From the outset, the film was engaging in its choice of camera angles and movement. I remarked to Max that the camera was treated as a character all of its own, rather than a passive observer. In the beginning we hear the voice of the narrator, Henry Hill, and how he had "always wanted to be a gangster." From the moment the music of Tony Bennett's "Rags to Riches" began, I had high hopes... and I was not disappointed!

Martin Scorsese is a wonderfully talented director. We are taken through the early life of Henry Hill. The qualities that make gangster life so appealing to Henry are atrocious, but through the use of the camera we understand that it offers a fast pace of life for a young man with few other options. The film follows the mob lives of three pivotal figures in 1960s, 70s and 80s New York. It really takes you into that life and culture in a way that is deserving of a spot in the 100 Greatest Movie list.

Although you would have to be something less than human to sympathize with the characters in this movie, it still takes you on a whirlwind journey and lets you understand the game that they were all caught up in. I give the movie two thumbs up!

I will have to concur with most of what Holly said about The Graduate. As stated, the movie Garden State outright copies many of the same themes of The Graduate; which after seeing the latter, I have much less respect for Garden State. What seems to differentiate the two films is that The Graduate is more of a universal film- almost everyone will understand the feeling of isolation, that the characters feel throughout the story. Hoffman and Bancroft play their roles wonderfully.

Also as Holly stated, this film was a product of its time, that is, of generational unrest and the destruction of traditional roles and institutions. To be honest, while believable, these themes come across as rather quaint upon viewing the film now. 

Overall, The Graduate defiantly deserves its spot on the list, as a modern classic! 

The Graduate

Wow! We have neglected this blog ever since we watched The Graduate, which was months ago now. But, having seen it a number of times, I feel I can still review the movie fairly. It is a great movie, definitely deserving of its place in the Top 100. The Graduate still holds up today, and while it is reminiscent of the 60s, its cinematic feel has not aged. Its technique is remarkably modern and fresh, which leads me to believe that, in the 1960s, the movie was probably extremely original.

It is kind of embarrassing for me to have to admit that I saw Garden State, the Zach Braff movie that was extremely popular several years ago, before I got around to seeing The Graduate. So watching it made me realize just how much of the original was borrowed for the Braff movie. I mean, the storyline of a young, disenchanted and apathetic man returning to his home town, in which everyone but him is squirming with excitement, meeting a woman who can provide an escape from his psychological state? And how about the use of Simon and Garfunkel's music? Or the scene in which Dustin Hoffmann's character Benjamin is forced to dive into a pool wearing snorkeling gear? All of these were somewhat recreated in Garden State, which the young generation of the 2000s went crazy for! I have to admit that I was among them, but now I don't give Braff half as much credit having seen the Mrs. Robinson movie.

I loved Anne Bancroft in this film as the seductive, and finally destructive, older woman. Can we imagine Doris Day playing this same role? (Day was a candidate for the part early on.. but she was far too wholesome, surely!) I didn't know too much about the plot of The Graduate other than "Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me... aren't you?" and I was surprised to learn that apart from this famous sequence there was a sweet love story. Like other sixties movies of the time, The Graduate celebrates the conquering of the freedom of youth over their parents' stifling expectations and traditions. If you can stomach that, then you will enjoy The Graduate!