#227 Spartacus (1960)

****

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, Tony Curtis, John Gavin, Nina Foch, John Ireland, Herbert Lom, John Dall, Charles McGraw

When a rebellious Thracian slave, Spartacus (Douglas), is purchased by Baitius (Ustinov), the owner and operator of a gladiator school in Capra, he sets into motion a chain of events that forever change the destiny of millions. When forced to fight in the arena for the amusement of some visiting Roman nobility (in particular the leader of the Roman military, Crassus (Olivier)), a revolt spurs and the slaves free themselves. Leading his people into a revolution and campaign to leave Italy once and for all, Spartacus forms a legion of ex-slaves and gladiators strong enough to face legion after legion of Roman soldiers.

Taking the fair Varinia (Simmons) as his wife, Spartacus makes headway with his armies– all the way to the sea. But when they realize they are trapped on the shore without ships, Spartacus is forced to march on Rome and face Crassus once and for all.

Most of the film I spent curiously examining for any sign of Kubrick. Not so surprisingly, I found none, and it was only after the film that I read that Kubrick merely "took this on as a gig" after producer Douglas fired his standing director, Anthony Mann. It's a beautiful movie, and out of the context of Kubrick, it's not-so-surprising. A film full of interesting, twisted relationships as only can be expected when involving Roman nobility, and the battle scenes are indeed epic (for 1960). How fortunate that they put back in the classic "snails and oysters" scene between Olivier and Curtis! Also, I can now somewhat place one of my favorite films, Gladiator, into its proper context of being somewhat of a backwards homage to Spartacus. A true hero film.

#225 Novecento [1900] (1976)

**

Director: Bernardo Bertolucci

Cast: Robert De Niro, Gérard Depardieu, Dominique Sanda, Francesca Bertini, Laura Betti, Werner Bruhns, Stefania Casini, Sterling Hayden, Anna Henkel

I've been working on this epic, historical political drama for a few nights now. Viewed in its original cut at a whopping run-time of 5.25 hours (with poorly dubbed-in voices instead of subtitles mind you), the film required more than the standard dosage of patience.

So what defines "epic" in this case? Masterful... or simply really, really long? Honestly, it's hard to say. Even the director himself seems not to know, as the film exists in many versions-- some even cut down by 90 minutes. Supposedly, Bertolucci says in these cases, 'Nothing important was cut.'

Well, that really summarizes my feelings about this film, and it's not stemming from a shallow place. In fact, my favorite film of all time (Gone With the Wind) is a long one too-- I have no time limit for films! But 1900 truly lacked relationship, momentum, and defining moments. The importance of this film is in the passage of time–politically and in the specific relationship of the two star-crossed friends: the landowner and the worker during fascist Italy. Over the course of five hours, the director is OF COURSE enabled to show the gradual and radical changes. He is presented with a unique opportunity to pace in what can feel almost like real time... (Isn't that incredible by the way? Films allow us to believe in years passing in hours. We are truly transported!) And while I understand that this film was never, on any level intended to be any shape or form of entertaining, but rather, was intended to live amongst the great political dramas, I stand my ground in saying that this film lacks Glue. It lacks cohesive qualities that make it feel seamless with direction.

Instead, we are jolted uncomfortably along with characters we don't quite understand. We watch history unfold (and without a good understanding of Italian history.. GOOD LUCK!) without any vehicle for emotion.

This films packs a lot of events into 5 hours, but it doesn't pack much heat. The fire and emotional impact only arise when there is extreme violence or sexual crudeness on screen. Moments. Never by plot or character.

For me, although it is always a great experience to invest yourself more deeply in stories (ie. I always prefer long, epic novels to short books), in this case, I could've done without 3 hours of this film.

And on a completely separate note, I also could've done without seeing young Robert De Niro's full frontal.

#215 La Passion de Jeanne D'Arc [The Passion of Joan of Arc] (1928)

***

Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer

Cast: Renée Falconetti, Eugene Silvain, André Berley, Maurice Schutz, Atonin Artaud, Michel Simon, Jean d'Yd, Louis Ravet, Armand Lurville, Jacques Arnna

Passion of Joan of Arc is said to be the greatest of all Joan of Arc films, and perhaps even one of the greatest silent films of all time. On both of these claims, I have little to compare it to within my own experience, but I don't find it hard to imagine it all being true.

Filmed in France in 1928, just eight years after Joan of Arc was canonized, the film is a spectacular nonfiction (albeit highly abbreviated) account of the trials of Joan of Arcs, derived from official court documents. The film is indeed a bizarre affair, using almost no film-maker tricks to help with continuity– ie., no match-on-action, no eyesight leads, no camera angle consistencies. The jumping, motion-happy shots seem to land in dramatic angle after dramatic angle, typically far below the subject's line of vision. Joan is often viewed from below, towering over the camera with her eyes always wide and lifted as if only addressing God.

As with so many other martyr films (forgive me but only Passion of the Christ is really coming to mind at the moment), we are flung into whirls of violence and empathy. We are often asked to place ourselves into the martyr's shoes. We are asked to imagine making such a sacrifice. And often in these movie-going experiences, we are consoled by an omniscient feeling that we know more or understand our matyr better than the torturers and executioners. In this film, however, we are not given that comfort. We are not asked to identify. In fact, to the end, Joan remains a mystery. Perhaps this was artistic intent, or perhaps the director himself had not quite made up his mind about her either.

While I would say this certainly isn't one of the easiest films to get through, it is surprisingly easy to follow despite my lack of knowledge to the real historical significance of the real Joan of Arc. An obviously significant film that I am happy to have seen and look forward to learning more about.

#193 Au Revoir Les Enfants (1987)

***

Director: Louis Malle

Cast: Gaspard Manesse, Raphael Fejt ö, Francine Racette, Stanislas Carre de Malberg, Philippe Morier-Genoud, Francois Berléand, Francois Négret

In the midst of World War II, two Catholic boarding school students in France find unexpected friendship. Julien Quentin (Manesse) is a sensitive, momma's boy who despite his hatred for school has a decent amount of popularity amongst the other boys. Jean Bonnet (Fetjö) is a newcomer to the school and is finding it hard to adjust.

When Julien learns that Jean is actually a Jew in hiding, he stops taunting him with the other boys and slowly develops a friendship with him. When Gestapo receive word that the school is hiding Jews and come for Jean, Julien faces one of the hardest days of his life.

Based on the actual events of his childhood at a wartime boarding school, director Louis Malle is careful to depict the film entirely from the child's view. No omniscient understanding of the war-- only what the priests and teachers tell the children (practically nothing). This view allows for a true innocence in perspective that makes the emotions of the children completely within our empathetic grasp as viewers. In addition, the film is shot in a dark, snowy, damp setting that chills you in just watching. The title translated to English ("Goodbye, Children") refers to both the climactic departing at the film's conclusion as well as the unavoidable end of childhood innocence.

The film uses a series of interesting motifs to highlight the unusual unification of these two characters, ie. continually reminding you of their separation, even when shown together. One of the strongest motifs I noticed is the visual of the "looking glass." The character Bonnet is consistently viewed through glass, in reflection, or in a window-like frame-- and more often than not, we find that it is Quentin who views him through this frame. (Think of the piano lesson window, the mirror in Bonnet's locker, the doorway of Bonnet's exit, the framed soldier who comes for confession.) Also remember the opening scene of the movie where we watch Quentin look out through the train window, trapped and isolated, with a distinct naive view of the world. It is when viewing Bonnet through these frames that illuminates the importance difference between the two friends--it reminds us that even though they are mates, they are still very isolated, coming from two very different worlds.

Another beautiful and tragic perspective on World War II--refreshing and endearing for its unique vantage point on the happenings of the Holocaust. Of course, this film is only minutely in documentation of the war-- and more about the climax and denouement of friendship as a result of persecution. A microcosm scope.

#187 Hitlerjunge Salomon [Europa Europa] (1990)

****

Director: Agnieszka Holland

Cast: Solomon Perel, Marco Hofschneider, Julie Delpy, Rene Hofschneider, Piotr Kozlowski, Klaus Abramowsky, Michele Gleizer, Marta Sandrowicz

Europa Europa is the harrowing true story of Solomon Perel, a Jewish Holocaust survivor and Nazi war hero. Yep, you read that correctly. Discovered at a Polish orphanage after being separated from his family, he haphazardly climbs Nazi ranks as a model Hitler Youth and German citizen to avoid termination. In the face of the choice of becoming a Jewish martyr or survive-- he chooses survival. Along the way, he faces countless challenges to his faith, his body, and his true identity.

Though understandingly tragic and graphic, Europa Europa manages to remain a deeply personal narrative. In Perel's story, we examine the alternative to an honest death: the price of survival. Overwhelmed with fear, confusion, and guilt, Perel faces some of the most unique challenges imaginable-- even for WWII.

This film proves not to be the easiest in the world to form an opinion on...

On one hand, I am beyond captivated at the remarkable nature of this man's story-- and I want to go running to the bookshelves to uncover what parts of this story are true (and which were embellished for the film-- though not hard to imagine most of the horrors being true). I also believe the film finds itself a stable and respected place amongst other World War II and Holocaust films-- a subject matter that we have no right to forget.

I do have some minor gripes with the film however. One being the classic European flashback/fantasy sequences. The second being the unlikely, jolting savior-like ending. What really happened?

I wish to be more present in the protagonist's consciousness as well. I see his fear, I feel his guilt-- but what is he thinking? I want to hear some of these complicated emotions verbalized....

But I guess that's where Perel's book would be helpful...

Regardless of the details and minor gripes-- this film electrifies and humbles. Overwhelms and frightens. Pays tribute and honors. Definitely a valuable view.

#184 The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

***

Director: David Lean

Cast: William Holden, Alec Guinness, Sessue Hayakawa, Jack Hawkins, James Donald, Geoffery Horne, André Morell

A great war classic (based on the novel of the same name by Pierre Boulle) famous for showcasing one of the smaller-battles of war--the struggles of men whom were not necessarily front-line heroes, but still heroes nonetheless. British POWs during World War II are put to work to build a bridge over the River Kwai under the command of Japanese commander Saito. With his own life and honor on the line, Saito decides to put the British officers to work as well (which breaks one of the conditions of the Geneva Convention). Thus, a war of wills begins between Saito and British officer Nicholson, who for the morale of his men and sheer principle, refuses to work.

When the war of wills is won and Nicholson is put in charge of the bridge project, he begins organizing the construction of a bridge that will not merely stand as a makeshift temporary passage bridge, but rather a testament of the true skill and pride of the entire British army. Soon it becomes confused as to whether or not this bridge is for Britain or a monument to his own ego-- as he walks the line between leader and traitor, even found enlisting workers who are sick or injured.

When the British army commands that the bridge be destroyed and sends a small outfit to complete the demolition (including one American who had just escaped the work camp on the Kwai), Nicholson is eventually faced with the battle between his pride, his country, his duty, and his ego.

While at moments very suspenseful, I am surprised that this film is remembered as such an masterpiece epic. On the whole, not very much happens in this film-- truthfully, absolutely no subplots exist beyond the main bridge story. William Holden's character was unique to the screenplay and adds a sort of genuine raw masculinity to the picture. In fact, after the film I watched a short documentary on the making of the film, and the trials and tribulations of actually engineering the bridge and demolishing it were quite fascinating and made me appreciate the film much more.

#173 Lan Feng Zheng [The Blue Kite] (1993)

***

Director: Zhuangzhuang Tian

Cast: Wenyao Zhang, Xiaoman Chen, Liping Lü, Quanxin Pu, Xuejian Li, Ping Zong, Hong Zhang

Let me prequel my writing here by first stating that I don't really feel comfortable and/or qualified enough to be making any sort of judgments on a film like this.

The Blue Kite is a monumental film, packed with history-- not only in the portrayed narrative, but the story of the film itself. Banned from China even before it was finished, the film was smuggled to Japan to be sold on other foreign markets. It remains today as one of the most honest outstanding films to tackle the difficult political atmosphere of 1960s Beijing.

On Dry Well Lane in 1953, a young Chinese couple marries with much celebration, family, and food. A year later, their son, Tietou, is born. The boy flies his blue kite in the lane, and the family lives a simple life where to know the happenings of the neighborhood, all they had to do was look out the window.

But as the political climate in China changes, so does the family. The film is broken into three sections: father, uncle, and stepfather-- in representation of the Hundred Flowers Campaign, The Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. Each change of the familial patriarch marks the change in China under Chairman Mao.

I thought the film was extremely thoughtful, and even though I studied these Chinese history topics extensively in school, I still found the film very hard to follow. A lot of events were shown in the film that the fresh-eyed viewer would need further explained, ie. the sparrow-killing leading to famine. I can see, however, to the more-educated eye how impactful this film is not only as a piece of art but also as a historical document.

I also think a lot of my confusion with this film comes with my complete naivety when it comes to Chinese film-making. This is something I look forward to remedying though, and I did like the film despite some of my inability to follow all of it.

#157 The Queen (2006)

***

Director: Stephen Frears

Cast: Helen Mirren, James Cromwell, Alex Jennings, Roger Allam, Sylvia Syms, Tim McMullan, Robin Soans, Lola Peploe

The central figure of this film is Queen Elizabeth II (played by Helen Mirren) just after the death of Princess Diana. Tony Blair has just been named Prime Minister, and Elizabeth juggles the traditions of her life-long job with the innovation of her people's beliefs. Getting glimpses into the relationship of Diana to the royal family, and leaving the likes and dislikes to ambiguity, the audience of this film never really needs to form an opinion for or against the queen. We sit as quiet contemplators. Do we feel pity for her? Do we understand her? Or are we disgusted?

Politics, as with any country, are strongly connected to fads and passions that are created and felt by the masses. Movements and incidents rise into high-profile, highly emotional situations--sometimes without reason. The film addresses the queen's method of dealing with these things in the past, and her struggles to break tradition for the death of Princess Di-- a woman who no longer was a member of the royal family but had somehow remained a beacon of light for the UK as well as the rest of the western world.

It's a classic struggle of old vs. new, tradition vs. modern, and the stiffness of the characters and plot are appropriate for the content. I enjoyed the film, but I was not blown away. I did not enjoy Alex Jenning's portrayal of Prince Charles.

I was alive when Diana died, and I remember being fascinated by her and the royal family at the time. I had never stopped and wondered what things looked like from the other side, and as a young girl, of course I was oblivious to the political controversies wrapped up in the situation. Even more interestingly, I was very in-tune even as an elementary school girl to what the world (my parents included) were feeling. What did I know or care about Princess Diana? Why was I suddenly so emotionally invested? Emotions are mimetic behavior, and if the pulse of Diana's legacy was strong enough to reach me, I have to imagine how easily it reached others more familiar with her life story.

Diana was indeed a beautiful woman and inspiring philanthropist, but how did her death manage to become larger than her life? And was it really so strange and horrifying that the queen, a woman who was born without choice into her duties to the nation, wanted to follow the traditions she was taught? I can't decide.

Quet. Thought-provoking. Dull. Enlightening. Concise.

#128 Good Bye Lenin! (2003)

***

Director: Wolfgang Becker
Cast: Daniel Bruhl, Katrin SaB, Chuplan Khamatova, Maria Simon, Florian Lukas

Shot entirely in German, this is the story of a young man who is reaching adulthood in the late 1980s East Germany, just as the Berlin Wall crumbles. His mother, an extraordinarily devoted Socialist, finds her son at a protest rally, has a heart attack, and falls into an eight month coma. During her sleep, her family changes and so does her country: the wall comes down, her estranged husband crosses the border, her daughter has a baby, her son falls in love, and commercialism enters and takes over Germany. When she awakens, doctors make it clear that she cannot handle any shock due to a weak heart--thus begins her son's mission to create the illusion that East Germany still exists.

The majority of the movie is based around her son tackling the extreme lengths he must go to to keep his mother unaware of the new Germany. While entertaining at times, the film seriously dragged. By the end of the film, the son is supposedly coming to rest with many of his own uncertainties about his new life in a united Germany, but the great uplift never seems to come. I didn't think the film was particularly well-made in terms of emotion, though the historical aspects of it were pretty interesting to me. I have to wonder if this is typical of German film-making. It has always seemed to me that Germans tackle emotion in a very different way from what I am familiar with, and I often find it to be harsh.

All of the film is set to the music of Yann Tiersen-- very beautiful songs.
I wish the French had made this film. I feel like it lacked the beauty and emotion this subject matter is capable of evoking.

#123 All The President's Men (1976)

***

Director: Alan J. Pakula
Cast: Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, Hal Holbrook, Jane Alexander

A political drama following two journalists from the Washington Post (Redford and Hoffman) who slowly uncover the Watergate scandal. I was excited about this movie for two reasons:
1. I love Dustin Hoffman
2. I don't really know anything about Watergate other than it involved money laundering and lead to Nixon's resignation.

I wanted this movie to teach me more about what really happened with Watergate, and I wanted the excitement of Hollywood to mask the history lesson. Maybe I was asking too much. I enjoyed the film, but I truly had no idea (most of the time) what was going on. Names of people were flying, people were meeting in parking garages with information, and although I shared the excitement with the characters every time a new lead was uncovered, I rarely had any idea what sort of information was gained.

I think the movie focused far too much on the obstacles of the journalists. Though I realize the film comes from their perspective, it became very redundant watching them make phone calls, only to be hung up on over and over again for two hours. It would have been more exciting to see what unraveled as a result of their nosing about.

Also, the end of the film came extremely abruptly. The "epilogue" of the film was forced to make an enormous jump from the two journalists uncovering the name Haldeman... to Nixon's resignation-- and none of that was part of the actual film.
Overall, I truly did enjoy the movie, which is why it is getting 3 stars, but it certainly did nothing for me in terms of being any sort of history lesson.