• Throne of Blood (1957, Kurosawa Akira)

    Co-producer, co-writer, director, and editor Kurosawa loves himself some Macbeth. Throne of Blood is Macbeth in feudal Japan, with Mifune Toshiro and Yamada Isuzu as the doomed couple. Kurosawa and his co-writers structure the film as a historical war epic, with modern-day bookends, and then fit Mifune and Yamada’s Macbeth into the war epic. But as Mifune and Yamada take over the narrative (Throne’s got a sublime pace), the war epic falls back, and it becomes more focused on Mifune as a military commander.

    The screenwriters open up the play, adapting it for a different culture (if similar calendar year), with different behavioral norms, but they keep the arc for Mifune—at least in terms of character development–super close to the play. There are a couple things they don’t integrate from the play, but the film’s never the less for it. Not to mention Kurosawa gets to bring in Japanese supernatural; Macbeth’s Weird Sisters—no offense to “Chilling Adventures of Sabrina”—haven’t been a trope since, well, long before motion pictures. And they were an extraordinary event in the original play; you couldn’t just go find yourself a witch.

    But in Throne, when Mifune and sidekick Chiaki Minoru come across a forest witch (Naniwa Chieko), they’re not super-surprised. Forest witches aren’t unlikely in Throne’s world. It adds a bunch of texture to Mifune’s descent—including worrying the witch has somehow possessed Yamada–and layers to the relationship with Chiaki. Once Mifune starts fulfilling Naniwa’s prophecy, Chiaki gets a very active role.

    Kurosawa does a lot to avoid any stagy vibes—Throne’s bookends start in long shots and gradually move in, showcasing the scale but also the merciless onslaught of time itself (another layer, Throne just as a historical drama). And then, whenever anyone’s in the forest, Kurosawa gets the camera into the literal bushes and looks out at them, making the forest a character. At least for point of view.

    But when Mifune gets back home and he and Yamada just sit around and emotionlessly bicker about whether he should take the proverbial horse and kill his boss to fulfill prophecy. These scenes are—almost by definition—stagy. It’s just Mifune and Yamada in an enclosed space, no one else but them. Again, Kurosawa turns it into intense character drama; only we don’t know the stakes. There’s no backstory for Mifune and Yamada in Throne and given her capacity for expression is literally painted over (though the makeup will change, relevantly to the plot), their relationship and its changes throughout are unknowable.

    It gives both of them lots of potential for the parts, and both realize it, though Mifune gets more just because of the plot. Because of their opaque relationship, Throne is often a character study–especially given the relatively brief present action.

    After the prologue, Throne spends about covering a rebellion via messenger updates to lord Sasaki Takamaru and his court (which includes Shimura Takashi, in what amounts to a cameo). Through the updates, Sasaki and the audience learn samurai Mifune and Chiaki basically save the day single-handedly, defeating the invaders and traitors. When the action cuts to Mifune and Chiaki in the forest, we learn more about their take on the rebellion and the general political situation. Throne is a political drama, but Mifune’s not a political animal, something his introduction establishes. There’s significant foreboding even before they realize they’re lost in the forest and come across the witch.

    For a while, since the forest is so militarily important (the main castle is the Forest Castle, after all), it seems Throne will spend a lot of time on it. Especially since, you know, it’s Macbeth. But once Mifune and Chiaki are through, it’s a while before it comes back. On their way out, however, they get lost in the fog and the fog will be around for most of Throne. It actually was already in Throne, in the prologue, with Kurosawa and cinematographer Nakai Asakazu showing off with fading back in time. Throne’s a special effects spectacular. There are some big effects sequences, but then there are some obviously complicated, precisely executed in-camera effects to get some of the shots. It’s beautiful work.

    Even being a Macbeth adaptation and working toward potentially familiar plot points, Kurosawa, his co-writers, and Mifune surprise, time and again. So good.

    Mifune’s performance is fantastic. Even with the battle action in the third act, it’s all about watching him. With Kurosawa structuring the scene perfectly; Throne’s partially a rumination on the universality of Shakespeare and the potentials of adapting.

    Great, disquieting score from Sato Masaru. The technicals are all outstanding.

    Yamada and Chiaki are both excellent, with the film hinging on them as well, but Mifune’s the star. Well, Throne all together is the star; truly masterful work from Kurosawa and company.


  • Richard III (1995, Richard Loncraine)

    Richard III takes place in an alternate history where the British are five hundred years late with their royal wars, but still in the 1940s for technology and rising fascism. The film doesn’t update Shakespeare’s dialogue, so it’s the cast performing while dressed—increasingly—as Nazis. Except they’re British.

    Well, not Annette Bening or Robert Downey Jr. Bening and Downey don’t do accents, implying there’s an accent-free United States out there. The people they’re playing in the play (who are people from history) were not American. There wasn’t a United States when the events took place. So I thought there might be some subtext to them being American. Nope. Richard III doesn’t do subtext, but it especially doesn’t do it with Bening and Downey.

    Bening is not good, but she tries. Downey’s terrible. It’s unclear how hard he’s trying. He performatively fidgets in the backgrounds occasionally, presumably to keep himself in the movie, since it doesn’t do anything for his character development. Bening tries with the character development.

    Doesn’t go anywhere, but again, she does try. And there are hints of better scenes. For example, in the second half of the film, when Ian McKellen is taking over, Bening gets together with the other women for an establishing shot and then a cutaway, but presumably, they’re very upset.

    No one in the movie gets a good part except McKellen, but it’s not like Richard doesn’t fail him too. The first act’s dynamite, with McKellen plotting against brothers John Wood and Nigel Hawthorne and forcing the audience to conspire with him. They handle the plays asides with McKellen directly addressing the camera, tickled pink with his plotting. This device almost entirely disappears by the finish, apparently an appropriate adaptation of the source play.

    But it’s not a good adaptation of it.

    Similarly, no one really thought through the third act’s visual clashes—attempted usurper Dominic West (not good, not too bad) is dressed as a British commando from a WWII movie, complete with beret, off to fight… the British Nazis. Director Loncraine is initially bad at the war action but gets much worse for the finale. Richard III coasts through most of its run time on McKellen, trying to keep ahead of the film being entirely out of steam. It seems like it’ll make it; then comes the battle finish and Loncraine’s terrible work on it.

    The film has big visual problems throughout, but Loncraine at least seemed to be trying to do something. Unfortunately, the finish is a smorgasbord of thoughtless bad.

    Other than McKellen, who’s great when the film lets him be, the best performances are Kristin Scott Thomas (who should’ve had Bening’s part for sure) and Maggie Smith. Smith’s got about three scenes and seven lines. Scott Thomas has about double. Nowhere near enough for either.

    Jim Broadbent plays McKellen’s chief sidekick and is relatively bland and obvious. It should be a better performance. There are excellent supporting players like Wood and Hawthorne, but also Jim Carter, Bill Paterson, Tim McInnerny, and Edward Hardwicke. All the actors are game (well, not Downey); it’s just Loncraine and company doesn’t put it together.

    Peter Biziou’s photography is okay. Not the occasional composite shots. But Paul Green’s editing is jerky, and then Trevor Jones’s smooth jazz score is a (bad) choice.

    Also, real quick—they reuse the same slamming door sound for about three minutes straight, regardless of door, and I’m wondering if it sounds so familiar because it’s from DOOM or something. DOORSLAM.WAV.

    Anyway.

    Richard III’s a slightly interesting but quickly pointless staging of the play. It’s never stagy, I suppose, but whatever they do instead doesn’t work either. McKellen’s first-act performance is singular, though. The rest is okay to good, but he has a unique first act.


  • Sum Up | The Nostalgia Merchant: Forty Years of Classic Movie Watching

    I’ve been watching classic movies my whole life. As a kindergartener, I was so scared by Young and Innocent’s blinking, black-faced murderer I refused to participate in an eye-closing exercise. My childhood Saturdays were filled with Svengoolie’s best, my dad and I recording them and trying to edit out the commercials. For anyone not forty-plus and American, Svengoolie is the Chicago-area local TV kid-friendly horror movie host.

    King Kong, The Mole People, Frankenstein, Godzilla, Creature from the Black Lagoon. Well, wait, we watched Creature with 3D glasses we got through a supermarket promotion, and it was a night-time thing, not a Svengoolie.

    The 3D effect barely worked, but it was a nice thought.

    By twelve, I was a big Thin Man fan. I don’t remember how I first saw it. There are many possibilities because I grew up with classic movies: my parents, their friends, my best friend’s parents, a grandma, an aunt, neighbors, video store clerks. There was always someone around talking about an old movie. It’s entirely possible I first saw Thin Man when it came out on VHS, and my parents and their friends rented it to watch, presumably for the first time without commercials.

    It’s much easier to be a classic movie fan when you’re not living in the era before the TV listings (only available in the newspaper) even identified what old movie was airing in the 2 a.m. slot.

    I do remember my mom and I watched Ex-Mrs. Bradford at some point around then, too, back when we went through the movie listings in the Sunday TV supplement to see if anything good was playing. We got cable around that time, but comprehensive listings were a few years off, and I don’t remember if we had AMC at the start.

    AMC would become a big deal. I used to record AMC during the day, come home from work, watch taped AMC until I fell asleep, wake up, go to work, repeat. I rarely made it through two movies unless they were short. Though, kind of wonderfully, classic movies tend to be short.

    But it took me a while to get into classic movies beyond the Universal monster movies or The Thin Man. Color Hitchcock didn’t count as classics because they were in color. Growing up in the early eighties, lots of TV was still the sixties, which were in color. The fifties always surprised me when they were in color. Then the thirties Technicolor musicals would completely bewilder.

    If you had color, why didn’t you always use it?

    The thing about black and white in the eighties was it was still everywhere. Lots of people still had black and white TVs. People wanted color. They wanted color, and they wanted convincing special effects. Classic movies offered neither of those things. So while classic movies became more and more accessible and available, I was mostly seeing films starring still active stars—Gene Hackman in particular, but soon Clint Eastwood and Paul Newman, with Steve McQueen also in there. I’d see something different every once in a while; we had a LaserDisc player, which meant Criterion, and my dad had a solid collection of classics. But I more wanted Jaws Criterion; movies twenty years old, not forty or sixty.

    But then I read Washington Goes to War, and something about history clicked, so I started reading more history books. The book, about Washington D.C.’s World War II-fueled boom, mentioned The More the Merrier, which synergized the interests—movies about contemporary events, which had since become history, had all sorts of layers I loved thinking my way through.

    So pretty soon after high school, I started watching old movies profusely and intentionally. I’m not sure if the classics were fifty percent—I saw a lot of movies—but it was close.

    It was the early days of the Internet; I couldn’t read Films of the Golden Age online, but I know I found their website to subscribe. AllMovie might have been a thing, offering on-demand film history information. We’d had at least two of the Encarta CD Encyclopedias from Microsoft, and they were great for film history, though arguably better when they licensed clips from Turner.

    They later had longer Leonard Maltin entries, historical not capsule, and a back catalog of Roger Ebert reviews you’d otherwise have to read on microfilm at the time. You could learn lots.

    And learning has always been a part of it. X, y, or z happens in the movie, and it’s a reference to something—if I knew about Vichy water before undergrad and the film professor telling us, I don’t remember. But I do remember finding it out after having seen Casablanca a few times. Until then, I just thought Claude Rains was being dramatic (totally in line with Louis), not making a contemporary political statement about the human condition.

    It was tough only learning about classic film passively or through osmosis. But, as I deliberately tried to know more, the interest became much more rewarding; things suddenly made sense. For example, I was in middle school when I first started noticing actors in old movies sometimes didn’t appear together, but then others appeared together all the time. It’d be years before I learned about the studio system, even as MGM/UA’s home video branding tried to hammer the idea in. I also didn’t know about the studios owning theaters or the Production Code. I’m not sure I learned it was called the Hays Code until college.

    Today, I’m sure you could learn all I’d pieced together from my parents, grandparents, family friends, video store clerks, Maltin capsules, audio commentaries, something I’d once read somewhere (I’m still convinced I read Bride of Frankenstein was severely edited down to 70 minutes), and everything else in five good hours of Wikipedia. It’s an entirely different time to get into classic film. A better time.

    Growing up, rare movies airing on television were major events. I remember one time Out of the Past aired, people had multiple recordings going at once in case someone’s VCR failed. VCR recordings always seemed to fail when you really didn’t want any problems.

    Now, of course, you can watch Out of the Past, no network of friends with good PBS signals and decent VCRs required. You can read all about its making without happening upon a book or lucking into a helpful citation. I remember film books were bad at citations.

    Though many classic film books were memoirs, which wouldn’t have them.

    You probably can’t easily read the old, out-of-print memoirs easily today. And they’re not floating around used bookstores. But there’s still Open Library. Life will find a way.

    And there are, of course, classic movies with VHS releases and no subsequent home video releases. No DVD, no Blu-ray, no streaming. Well, some of them are available streaming because of copyright lapses and so on, but they don’t look as good as Out of the Past. After years of being wishy-washy about classic movie releases, Warner Bros. fully committed to Warner Archive and released countless rarities. Unlike the Criterion Collection, which remains expensive but not unattainable (if you started at jump), it soon became clear one would have to pick and choose wisely with Warner Archive. There was already too much when they dropped the initial set, and they just released more and more.

    Now, in 2022, Warner Archive is probably in trouble. They’ve probably been in trouble for what seems like a decade but is perhaps only six or eight years. For whatever reason—despite a rabid fan base—Warner always seems ready to get rid of the MOD label and delete the masters from the hard drives, even before they started deleting the masters from hard drives. They were also bad about the no-brainer streaming platform. And then there was Filmstruck.

    So despite the studios bungling it, they still managed to deliver more classic movies than anyone could imagine. Warner Archive ran out of titles of their own to release and started releasing licensed titles from other studios.

    And TCM has remained a champion of classic film, even though it’ll be twenty years since I’ve watched it. The website, when properly run, has been phenomenal over the years. It never fulfilled its promise but sometimes seemed like it would, which is better than anything else has done.

    As a genre, classic film has opened up as well. Mainly in the last fifteen years, thanks in no small part to TCM and film scholars and enthusiasts who aren’t cishet white men soapboxing about Magnificent Ambersons being better than Citizen Kane, actually. There’s still a lot more opening up to do and a disappointing amount of support from the studios, but it’s not impossible. The studios might not come around, but the people will.

    I have, until now, avoided the subjective nature of the phrase “classic cinema.” One person’s classics are another’s childhood favorites, and so on, but every year, more movies become classics. Today, with a thriving silent film restoration cottage industry, it seems unlikely we’ll lose a film for every one aged into the category. Of course, significant restoration efforts are needed, but much of it is in the hands of those disinterested studios, who shove their classic movie catalogs into drawers until required.

    One has to imagine they’ll care when it gets closer to those catalogs moving into the public domain, but one’s often wrong.

    And I’d love to make a good Warner Bros. zing here, but it’s not like Disney has their Fox catalog streaming on Hulu or Disney+. They are at least licensing the titles; Sitting Pretty has a Blu-ray. I remember when you could buy it with the other Clifton Webb Mr. Belvedere movies from a table at Comicon.

    Of course, doing the math from my childhood—thirty-five years from the end of the Golden Age—for the kid today, it’s the mid-eighties, which I suppose is better than the early nineties. But classic movies—even as I have an arbitrary cut-off here on the blog—aren’t about saying before or after this point; they’re a combination of nostalgia, historical interest (there’s a reason fifties movies never caught on like Golden Age), inventive filmmaking, ambitious performances, and so much more.

    There’s also a lot of cringe and problematic content, which is sometimes worth navigating, and sometimes not. Thanks to de facto curators like Criterion and TCM (not to mention astonishingly toxic other fandoms), classic cinema is easily the most welcoming, inclusive (while lacking in specific diversity) fandom I’ve encountered. As a cishet white man, my experiences have been different than many; at best, much of my demographic has just been rude and tried to gatekeep. And there are worsts–lots of them.

    When I pop in The Thin Man (not how it works), make sure it’s rewound (also not how it works), and hit play (still how it works), I’m greeted with waves of nostalgia. Nostalgia for other movies with the same cast and, say, the novel; so, nostalgia for the content and related content. But also for my memories, some shared with friends and family, some solo. Those memories include the details I’ve learned, read, or heard over the years. Of course, since I’m a big fan, there’s specific content I get nostalgic about too. But it all synthesizes into a metaphorical beanbag chair of perfectly fit comfort.

    And now, without further ado, an entirely unplanned list of classic film recommendations, in no particular order: Canyon Passage (1946), Napoleon (1927), Wild River (1960), Bright Victory (1951), The Last Hurrah (1958), The More the Merrier (1943), The Grapes of Wrath (1940), Of Human Bondage (1946), Anastasia (1956), Grand Hotel (1932).


    Posted on

    Posted in

    Tagged


  • Wayne’s World (1992, Penelope Spheeris)

    Wayne’s World ought to be a no-brainer. Slick, soulless media exec Rob Lowe turns public access metalhead slackers Mike Myers and Dana Carvey into real celebrities; only they don’t like the deal they’ve made with the devil. Along the way, Myers meets metal rocker chick Tia Carrere, and they fall in like until Lowe tries to steal her away with the promise of success. It’s a ninety-four-minute movie; it shouldn’t be that hard.

    Yet Wayne’s World manages to fumble entirely, all the way to the disastrous third act. The film’s “documentary crew follows around real people” bit, which director Spheeris profoundly underutilizes, ought to have defined World as a precursor to, you know, the early-to-mid aughts found footage. Instead, the movie completely forgets about it. Even though when Myers and Carvey are talking to the camera, they’re never more likable. Especially Carvey, whose performance is atrocious. No doubt, Spheeris is bad directing actors, but there’s not a single moment of Carvey footage in the regular film they shouldn’t have reshot. He looks inordinately uncomfortable the entire time.

    Spheeris is only slightly better at directing his or Myers’s “SNL” gags. They’re some of the film’s more genuinely funny moments because writers Myers, Bonnie Turner, and Terry Turner can’t seem to find any situational comedy in the situations. The Turners have major sitcom credentials too, which adds to World’s inexplicable fumbling.

    As for Spheeris. I always—read: when I was thirteen or fourteen—thought Spheeris got the gig because she was really good at directing American verité and musical performances. Based on the Alice Cooper performance in World, she’s not good at the latter. It’s unclear about the former because World’s got no reality after the first act or so, when they flex shooting on location in Aurora, Illinois. In the second “act” (World would be a frustrating and pointless narrative to chart), the action moves between various sets with some exterior establishing shots in or around Chicago. In another genuinely inexplicable move, all the doors open out. Not sure who was responsible for that choice, but it’s a bad one. When they all go over to see Lowe’s fancy apartment, and Carrere can get impressed, Lowe opens the door out into the hallway to let them in.

    What.

    Okay, Spheeris. In hindsight, it seems more like she got the job so a woman could co-sign on the foundational misogyny of the film. It’s sometimes friendly, validating misogyny, but, hey, Myers and Carvey are so cute it’s not like they’re bad guys. Especially not since Lowe was still on his rehabilitation tour with World. He looks like he wants to strangle his agent for talking him into the gig. And his outfits, which everyone says are great, are cartoonish in hindsight. Or they cut the scenes about him wearing suits for someone 6’ or taller.

    Carrere is a heavy metal babe who’s going to go with whatever guy loves her for her looks AND her music. Though her big performance is a cover, which makes very little sense but it’s in the third act where nothing matters anymore. Carrere works her ass off in World. She’s not very good. Maybe her Chinese accent doesn’t help. But she knows it’s a primo gig, and she tries. As long as she’s willing to strip down and occasionally slut out, World’s a fine showcase.

    Unlike Lara Flynn Boyle, who the film repeatedly humiliates as a gag because sad girls deserve to be publicly mocked and derided. Wait, she didn’t originate the part on “SNL”? I assumed she was a weird continuity carryover. It’s so much worse when she’s not.

    Also, the movie’s super shitty to Colleen Camp for some reason. Like, screw you, Wayne’s World. You had to get Brian Doyle-Murray because Bill didn’t return your calls.

    The best performers are Myers and Carvey’s film crew, who have a half dozen lines total but care about getting future gigs, especially Lee Tergesen. He’s a delight.

    Myers and Carvey (mostly Myers) have enough stupid charm to get the thing through, but just barely.

    An “SNL: Wayne’s World Best Of” is likely a better use of time. Probably not ninety-four minutes of it, but….


  • Leather Underwear (1990) #1

    Lu1I’m trying to imagine how Leather Underwear would’ve read when it dropped in 1990, one of the first comics from then early twenty-something creator Roger Langridge. The comic is entirely a riff on religion, specifically Christian, more specifically Catholic, starting with a strip about the Catholic abortion service run by one Sister Knuckles. She’ll be back later, after the opening story… Professor God and Doctor Jesus.

    They’re a father-and-son comedy team. They’re hanging around Heaven, experimenting on the humans, bickering, smelling the Holy Ghost. It’s a quick mood setter for the comic, with Langridge getting to do some physical reaction humor with the characters. The Sister Knuckles strip is almost too confrontational a way to start the comic, too jarring without context; God and Jesus come through.

    Until someone farts, anyway.

    The second story is about Sid Bicycle going on a Divine Comedy-esque adventure, starting with seeking enlightenment from a heathen on a mountaintop. Sid ends up in the afterlife, rightly or wrongly, and meets God—who Langridge writes a little harsher here than, say, Ennis will do in Preacher—and then goes off for tea and crumpets with Satan. It’s the best-written story in the issue, just because Langridge is going all over the place without having a strong character to fall back on if the story thins down.

    Not a problem with the following story, which is the promised Knuckles the Malovent Nun feature. Knuckles has broken out of her original convent and is setting a new religion with herself as Pope. Langridge finds the right balance between obscene and funny. He never makes too extreme a joke if he can get by with a tamer variant, so when he does unleash, it’s always justified. Knuckles is a lovably loathsome character who finds immediate success and fame and fortune because it’s religion.

    Then comes a Noah retelling, which is fast and funny. It’s not quite an illustrated prose piece, but closer to it than a comic. Langridge still has a fine sense of layout, though. While it’s interesting to think about how Langridge would develop after this book, there’s a lot of great art in it, even if his lines are a little thicker. His expressions are already dead-on. So such good faces.

    Speaking of, the next comic is a single-pager written by Cornelius Stone: Clockedin Facehead in Face Value. It’s six panels of contrast humor, some better than others. It’s fine.

    Then Professor God and Doctor Jesus are back to close out the issue in a few pages. One of them cheats at Scrabble. Poorly enough to get caught. It’s very funny and a nice way to close the issue.

    Finally, inside back cover, another one-pager written by Stone with a couple characters writing in a Book of Destiny and making things happen. The end’s a little pat, but the pace is better than the other one-pager. The problem with both strips is the setup’s fine, but there’s not enough for six or eight panels.

    It’s a really good comic. You can see where Langridge changed and where he grew since, but Underwear stands up just fine on its own.

    Posted on

    Posted in

    , ,

    Tagged