Vintage film review #3

It’s been a while since I’ve offered up a blog post of substance, for this, I am sorry. It’s really a strange time right now. Just when I think I know what’s going on, everything changes. The dynamics that present themselves are exciting, but stressful all the same and at the moment, it’s all a matter of making sure stuff doesn’t fall apart, as opposed to what I’d like it to be – enhancing daily existence with interesting things and observations.

So, I made some time to watch a film this weekend with the intention of reviewing it. A lot of you probably won’t know about this film. I didn’t for a long while.

super film

 

Network

Directed by Sydney Lumet

Where do I start? With Faye Dunaway’s runaway performance? (see what I did there with the rhyme scheme?) With the film’s sheer absurdity on so many levels? With the tres tres cool wardrobe?

I think I’ll start with the premise of the film: well, there was a time when television was still generally a new concept to the world. Even over a decade after its inception into modern man’s society, many people still hadn’t cottoned on to the full implication that a tiny black box would have on their lives – for the rest of their lives, as well as those of their children and their children’s children. There has long been an argument that television is a platform for a unique kind of propaganda – one that does not engage in two-way conversation, but rather, presents fiction as fact, or as some kind of ideal for living. ‘Network’ cleverly addresses this by way of an incredibly witty, dark, humorous and tragic story about the people behind the tube, and how they haphazardly control the minds of those who sit in front of the tube. It’s hard to tell which actor is actually the lead. It’s rare that there will be more than one, but this seems to be the case here. The cast is as follows: Faye Dunaway as Diana Christensen, William Holden as Max Shumacher, Peter Finch as Howard Beale and Robert Duvall as Frank Hackett. These four characters lead lives that are as equally interwoven as they are compromised by the presence of television in the world.

The story follows Howard Beale, a once-superstar news anchor who is fired and left for dead (in a sense) by a network unwilling to accept the poor ratings of his prime time news spot. Beale uses the public platform to make an unorthodox closing statement on live television, which leaves the network with limited choice in terms of what to do with him. In the meantime, Dianne Christensen sees an opportunity in Beale’s newfound ‘madness’, and aims to capitalise on it, with an interesting outcome. Max Shumacher, Beale’s longtime friend and colleague, is caught in the crossfire as he is fired, unfired, and seduced by Christensen. Frank Hackett, played by Robert Duvall, is your quintessential asshole opportunist, held at the throat by the network’s president, thus issuing a heavy-handed and erratic approach in everything he does. We see how the fickle nature of the television business is both exciting and harmful in this surprising, dynamic and rather insane account of what bad ratings can do to a man’s life – literally. The film also contains a lot of socio-political commentary, presented to us in an interesting way. It follows the activity of certain guerilla parties active in that time. This also leads into further insight of the oppression suffocating Americans during the time, and the transition from socialist to capitalist attitudes.

Faye Dunaway has stolen my heart with her energetic performance, androgynous strength, and unwitting femininity. I now understand why she was always considered a precious asset to film of the time. She is unashamedly talented and for approximately 5 seconds, I related to the cold-hearted Christensen portrayed by her.

It might seem a bit out of the way for a lot of you to make the effort to watch, digest and empathise with the characters of a film made in 1976, but I guarantee you, it will be the least effort you make. You’ll be sad when the film ends. Not because the film is sad, but because you’ll want it to go on forever.

Vintage film review #2

GOODFELLAS (1990)

yes please

 

There are very few instances where I will actually say that a film is indeed flawless. This is one of them. Those of you who have seen Goodfellas will not dispute this fact, and those of you who have yet to see it might. But there is one thing I CAN guarantee: you’ll all be converts when the end credits start to show up on screen. You’ll also be speechless. Based on a true story, Goodfellas was released in 1990. I was six years old back then, so obviously my parents were not in any kind of rush to have me see it on the spot. I grew up in a fairly liberal household in which film viewing was never restricted, and somehow, this amazing film just never found its way into my periphery. Well, not fully anyway. I’ve caught snippets over the years, but have been unable to piece them together, so it was an actual relief to see that I was not in fact imagining scenes that contained Ray Liotta and Joe Pesci together.

Think about all the mafia/gangster films you’ve ever seen, take your favourite part of each, stick them all together on with some glue on a bit of paper, and you’ll have about 25% of the magic that is Goodfellas. Apart from phenomenal casting, script writing, and cinematography (the kitchen scene is the one to look out for), this is one of the ONLY films to portray a the period of the late 1950’s to the late 1980’s in a way that looks as though the camera simply slipped into a time warp and arrived in a live situation. What I’m trying to say is – the art direction and wardrobe styling is absolutely FLAWLESS. If there was ever a film that was going to educate me on the crazy fashion that existed then, it’s this one. Please see an example below:

holy crap. look at that shoulder pad!

 

Of course, every film in this particular genre always needs to do one thing – and that’s to create and carry a certain amount of suspense from start to finish. This is done impeccably, even while the filmmakers try to charm us with close relationships and bonds created over unspeakable acts between characters. There is no relationship in this film (and there are many between many people, as the mafia dictates) that supersedes the danger of the murder of one or both parties. As a viewer, this will allow you to have a healthy cold sweat about you for the duration of the film – one caused by discomfort, of course. and then there are the absolutely hilarious gangster names. And in light of the fact that this film is based on a true story, i have to take my hat off to the name ‘Johnny Roast Beef’. Imagine being held up with a gun by a man named ‘Johnny Roast Beef’? Do you shake with fear because you’re about to be whacked, or do you convulse with laughter at the man whose name is a tribute to every Italian delicatessen out there? 

Another interesting element that exists in this film is the rise and fall of a man. While mafia/gangster films are always tres tres cool, I think it’s a social duty of filmmakers worldwide to show (as truthfully as possible) the result of the kind of lifestyle lived by our protagonist in the film. There will be moments where you’ll want to grab his face, clean it with a wet-wipe, and say: Dude, get a hold of yourself! Ray Liotta delivers an honest and convincing performance throughout his treacherous journey in a life of crime. His rise and demise are so organic that you feel you’ve lived through it with him. I’d also like to give an Honourable Mention to Joe Pesci for his performance. If you’re not scared shitless of him, then you’re just as much a terrorist as the character he portrays so well. 

People, watch this film.

Vintage film review #1

As a lover of all that is cool, I’ve decided (and have also been influenced by an acquaintance) to do something I’ve been wanting to do for ages – REVIEW FILMS. But not just any films. I also happen to have a love for all that is old, and so, I’d like to review old(er) films.

I feel that there is always so much hype surrounding newer releases, and the net is dense with info on them, but where are the reminders of the greats that hit screens years ago? And in the name of SUSTAINABILITY, shouldn’t we ‘recycle’ a bit as well? There are some films that were made 10, 20, 30 years ago that simply cannot be topped (which is what makes them great films), and I’d like to start giving them some love and coverage on this here blog as and when I have the time to watch and dissect.

Luckily, I’m going through a particularly solitary phase in my life, so this shouldn’t be a problem.

I’m going to start with the film I watched last night. It’s one that had jaws dropping at its brutal depiction of promiscuous 90’s youth, but for some reason, I never got around to watching it. Aforementioned acquaintance hooked me up with it yesterday, and I couldn’t wait to get home after work, climb into bed and check it out. Drumroll please…

Disclaimer: I am not a professional film critic. I do this for fun and all of my opinions, while mildly based on as much fact as is necessary, are subjective and my own. You are in no way required to agree with them.

KIDS (1995)

watch it twice

 

I’ve been listening to people talk about this film for the last 15 years of my life (God, I’m old) and yet, I’ve never been altogether compelled to watch it. Perhaps I was waiting for the hype to die down, or perhaps I would not have understood it at the tender age of 10. Either way, it still receives critical acclaim and is often brought up in discussion pertaining to film – all the time. Obviously, there’s a reason for it – that’s what I discovered last night.

We’re all acutely aware of the HIV/AIDS pandemic these days, simply because its become one of the world’s most widely-discussed topics, and rightfully so. However, 15 years ago, this was not the case.

Written by Harmony Korine and directed by Larry Clark, KIDS takes us through a day in the lives of a group of teenagers who hold their very own views of the world. The ‘world’ however, that they’re living in – for whatever reason – is rife with human degeneration, violence, belligerence and lust. Victims of circumstance are our main characters. This gives rise to the film’s entire reason for being – children exposed to adult living too young. It shows in the mixture of serious pursuit of adult experiences and awkward lack of experience. It leaves one feeling uncomfortable, and almost embarrassed about the time in our lives when we started experimenting. However, it’s not just a story about what these children do – it’s also about the consequences. We reach the height of realisation when one of the more innocent characters, Jenny, is diagnosed as HIV positive – even though she is nowhere nearly as promiscuous as her friends. Jenny’s search for her ‘killer’ Telly, takes us on a back and forth between the double-edged sword of the situation: he doesn’t know he is HIV positive and continues to sleep around, and Jenny’s first sexual experience has led her to her grave. I don’t know who to pity more. 

Korine did – whether intentionally or not – create a motif that constantly arises in the form of massive contrast between these characters and their environments, perhaps to illustrate the displacement they feel at the loss of their innocence/childhood. In fact, it’s what I enjoyed most after the cinematography and art direction, both of which give the ‘documentary’ feel to this film. It WAS intended to have the pseudo-documentary thing, and I’d say that the objective was met perfectly, due to the fact that simple actions were brought to the forefront of their significance in a way that kept me glued to the screen.

I can’t liken the film to any other, but perhaps one thing I can say is that it left me with the same feeling of dread and fear for our generation/those to come as ‘Requiem for a dream’. This story won’t leave my mind any time soon. Well done to the writer and makers for creating a relevant point of reference for all of us.