Cary Grant Won't Eat You

Classic movies for phobics

  • About
  • eBooks
  • Previous Blogathons
Classic movies for phobics

1990-current films

Like The More the Merrier? (1943) Watch Singles (1992)

10/04/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 2 Comments

It’s curious what will relegate a film to “dated” status. Of the last 30 years of rom-coms, Singles (1992) would make my top five. Yet due to its grunge soundtrack and location in then-trendy Seattle, Cameron Crowe’s paean to dating has been forgotten. I wonder why The More the Merrier (1943), with a whole premise based on the WWII housing shortage in D.C., hasn’t suffered a similar fate. The two movies resemble one another in many unexpected ways, and deserve credit for being what films in their genre–despite its name–so rarely are: funny and romantic.

Both films are notable for their winning leading ladies. That trembling voice of Jean Arthur’s; equally able to capture passion, sense, and vulnerability; her perfectly timed delivery; and her gentle expressions all have so completely overcome audiences by the start of The More the Merrier that she remains the center of our attention despite considerable competition from her roommates: sexy Joel McCrea as Joe and adorable Charles Coburn as matchmaker Benjamin Dingle.

JeanArthur
Kyra Sedgwick, the heroine of Singles, was one of those charismatic, promising starlets who gave up her career for her family (husband Kevin Bacon & kids), only to claim it back years later with The Closer. In Singles, you can see what might have been had she stuck around instead of leaving us with one-note Jennifer Aniston.

KyraSedgwickSingles
As Linda, she woos you in the first few minutes with her dismay over her broken car, reluctant acceptance of masculine help, and joy when the knight proves to not be a player. Her mobile face catches every emotion–reluctant trust, passion, joy, and ultimately, of course, despair, as she’s, of course, wrong about him, and her resolve not to let her heart be broken again sets the stage for her resistance to the film’s hero, Steve (Campbell Scott).

KyraSedgwickCampbellScott
Since Singles is an ensemble film, we’re also treated to heroine Janet (Bridget Fonda), who is passionate about her hilariously untalented rocker boyfriend, Cliff (Matt Dillon). I’m not sure why Bridget Fonda never took off. She’s so endearing in this role, apparently a part written just for her. She’s funny and vulnerable and cute and tough all at once.

BridgetFonda-Singles
Her lovable fragility reminds me of Jean Arthur’s as Connie. And like Connie, Janet recognizes more about her boyfriend’s lack of commitment to her than she’s willing to admit. While he prioritizes his band over her, again and again, we watch Janet registering it, even as she supports him.

MattDillonandBridgetFonda-Singles
When the inevitable breakup comes, we’re not surprised; Janet is not as clueless as she chooses to appear at the start of the film, when she expresses faith in Cliff’s fidelity despite evidence she shouldn’t:

“Look, Janet, you know I see other people still, right? You do know that, don’t you?” says Cliff.

“You don’t fool me,” Janet answers.

“Janet, I could not be fooling you less.”

Likewise, Connie knows her fiancé’s career trumps their relationship–and her needs. She’s just so busy selling his good salary and reliability that she’s unaware just how hollow she sounds as she’s bragging. Her dismay at Dingle and Joe meeting him says it all.

TheMoreTheMerrierensemble
Luckily, Connie has matchmaker Benjamin Dingle (Charles Coburn) forcing her to confront her future husband’s selfishness. Dingle knows a deal helping her fiance’s career will make him dump Connie for the night, leaving the path open for the far hotter and sweeter Joe (Joel McCrea). The sign for Connie that Joe’s worth her time? He could have read her diary, and didn’t. He bought her a wedding gift–no strings attached–that displays his understanding of her: a travel bag with neat compartments, for a girl so organized she’s planned out every minute of her morning.

JeanArthurandJoelMcCrea
Singles
is all about paying attention to such signs: What should make you keep committing? What should make you give up? As writer/director Cameron Crowe obviously realized, it’s important to pay attention when single, or you’ll get your heart caught by someone who’s not worth it, making you less receptive to the lover actually worth your time.

For Steve (Campbell Scott), the sign is simple: a flick of the finger: Linda (Sedgwick) opens the car door lock for him, surely a sign that she likes him in spite of their prickly date.

Janet (Fonda) has been so beaten down by bad dates that such little gestures are all she’s now expecting of a guy, as captured in one of the film’s best scenes. She’s in the waiting room to get her breasts enlarged (her shortcut to Cliff’s loyalty).

“Tell me, from a girl’s point of view, what do you really want from a guy?” asks Steve, who has accompanied her for moral support.

“Well, when I first moved out here from Tucson,” Janet begins, warming to the theme, “I wanted a guy with looks, security, caring, someone with their own place, someone who said bless you or Gesundheit when I sneezed, you know? And umm, someone who liked the same things as me, but not exactly, and someone who loves me.”

“Tall order,” he answers.

“Yeah, I scaled it down a little,” she admits, her disappointment deflating both expression and voice.

“Well, what is it now?”

“Someone who says Gesundheit when I sneeze, although I prefer bless you, it’s nicer.”

As it turns out, the surgery doesn’t happen: Janet’s nerdy plastic surgeon (Bill Pullman) advises against it, suggesting she looks great now. Although no romance develops between them, his kind words make her realize how much she’s compromised for Cliff, just as in The More the Merrier, Dingle makes Connie recognize how little her fiancé values her. While Connie’s realization leads to endless tears, Janet is relieved. She gives Cliff one last chance, sneezing as he’s ranting about a poor review of his band.

“Hey babe?” he answers, handing her a tissue. “Don’t get me sick. I’m playing this weekend.”

Janet glances at the tissue box and then over at her boyfriend.

BridgetFonda-Singles-sneeze
Wait a minute,
she reflects in a voiceover. What am I doing? I don’t have to be here. I could just break up with him.

BridgetFonda-Singles-sneeze2
After dumping him, she dances alone, almost as beautifully as Connie does early in The More the Merrier. I won’t spoil where the story goes from there–for Janet, Linda, or the other quirky characters of Singles. Watch the film. Even if the love stories don’t get you, the funny sight of Pearl Jam members playing backup for Cliff will–one of many, many reasons even “chick flick” accusers can warm to this hilarious, charming rom-com.

MattDillonandPearlJam

Share
Posted in: 1940s films, 1990-current films, Romantic Comedies (film) Tagged: Alice in Chains, Bridget Fonda, Pearl Jam movie, review, rom-coms, Singles film, Soundgarden, The More the Merrier

Female’s Heroine: 1933’s Amy (of Trainwreck), Samantha Jones, or Don Draper?

08/27/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 4 Comments

RuthChattertonFemalefilm
Given its plot synopsis, I expected Female to be shocking: a promiscuous executive casually sleeps with men until she finds the right guy. But I didn’t expect to gasp at its daring. A few of the heroine’s typical comments:

Falling in love: “To me, a woman in love is a pathetic spectacle. She’s either so miserable that she wants to die, or she’s so happy you want to die.”

Marriage: “No thanks, not me. You know a long time ago I decided to travel the same open road that men travel, so I treat men exactly the way they’ve always treated women.”

Husbands: “Of course, I know for some women, men are a household necessity. Myself, I’d rather have a canary.”

Then there’s a typical night. She…

1. Spots a handsome employee, feigns interest in his ideas, and asks him to come over to her house that night to discuss them.

2. Discourages business talk with flirtation, as when she says, “Are you naturally enthusiastic?” to a new hire, throwing a pillow onto a plush rug with a suggestive look.

RuthChattertonflirting2
3. Orders vodka from her butler, who informs the rest of the staff of the Catherine the Great custom: serving it to soldiers “to fortify their courage.”

4. Exercises with vigor the next morning, clearly energized by the tryst, and comes up with new ideas for the business.

5. Rejects the romantic overtures of her one-night stand, annoyed by his flowers, then offers him a bonus as a kiss-off. She doesn’t want to deal with the moodiness of emotional men at work. (Women, how many times have films suggested this about us?)

At first, I thought the movie would be like Trainwreck, as Alison (Ruth Chatterton) certainly displays the same level of disinterest in building a romance with her one-night stands and blows off a guy after he calls her “ethereal” and otherwise indicates their lack of sexual heat:

Annoyed by his flowery (nonsexual) language
Amy and Alison have an impressive list of conquests, and not only express disinterest in matrimony and kids for themselves, but for others, as when Alison can’t be bothered to remember her friend’s husband’s name, or how many kids she has–much like Amy’s (Amy Schumer’s) scene at her sister’s shower. Both heroines are funny and mostly likable, as when Alison worries about her chauffeur, who has taken a punch in her honor: “Now listen, Puggy, things people say about me don’t bother me,” she says with a lovely smile. “Thanks just the same.”

But in terms of power–and what they do with it–there’s no comparison. After one-night stands fueled by liquor, Amy, hungover, struggles to get through the day.

AmySchumerTrainwreck
Alison, in contrast, looks alert, pretty, and pleased with herself, and does a brilliant job at work afterward. The word “trainwreck” is about as far from Alison Drake as a term can be.

Like her more direct heir, Samantha Jones, Alison practically bristles with authority and confidence, but unlike Samantha, she has a whole auto factory full of employees.

RuthChatterton-businessFemale
One criticism of Sex & the City was that it never took the work as seriously as the characters’ personal lives, which made it less feminist than it could have been. Here, the heroine has no chance for tight friendships, but finds her work thrilling: “Oh, but I love it: the battling, the excitement; I don’t think I could do without it now.” I soon found myself as interested in the business–such as her decision to go with automatic transmission–as in the flings, not something I expected to experience with a romantic comedy.

Like Samantha, Alison wants to sleeps with her hot employees–only in Alison’s case, she does. (Samantha waits to fires hers first).

SamanthaJonesandrudeassistant
In fact, Alison has sex with so many of them that there are a flood of bonuses on the company payroll, like some kind of stud fee. Her leer at a new designer is as hilarious to witness as Samantha’s undressing looks. And as with Samantha, her vulnerabilities are evident–in her case, a fear that men are angling for her money rather than her personality or body (either would be fine).

While it’s easy to admire Alison’s moxie, she’s guilty of sexual harassment throughout the story, as when her secretary shows her too much affection after their affair, and she transfers him to Montreal. Promptly afterward, this lovesick conquest watches the latest one-night stand leave her office and calls, “I’ll see you in Montreal.” When Alison falls for Jim (George Brent), mainly because he’s hard to get, his anger at her regular nightly ploy earns our admiration; he won’t sleep with her to keep his job, he retorts.

GeorgeBrentFemale
While she initially decides to fire Jim’s secretary, assuming the two are involved, and then plans to overload her with work, she quickly reconsiders, deciding not to be petty. While she’s still in murky moral territory due to her liaisons with subordinates, she doesn’t reach full anti-villain status, since she won’t fire someone for turning her down or stealing her guy. Still, it’s hard to forget that shady transfer…and how much she reminds us of Don Draper with his secretaries on Mad Men.

I stopped the film multiple times as the end neared, fearful about whatever sexist cliché it was headed for. This character was simply too complex, and Chatterton too wonderful in the role, for me to watch some reductive conclusion.

RuthChattertoninFemale
I was right to be scared (though I feared it would be worse). Oddly, Jim, till then annoying in spite of his rebellion, demonstrated unexpected feminist leanings near the close. Too bad the screenwriters and director chickened out and tacked on totally unbelievable concluding lines.

Despite its shock value and fascinating lead, the film hasn’t reached the popularity or accessibility today it deserves. I could only locate it in DVD form on Netflix, and went for the free month trial of streaming with Warner Archive instead. Go to the effort; it’s worth it.

Share
Posted in: 1930s films, 1990-current films, Anti-Romance films, Comedies (film), Feminism, Romantic Comedies (film), TV & Pop Culture Tagged: ahead of its time, Amy Schumer, Female (1933), Mad Men sexism, promiscuous women, Ruth Chatterton, Samantha Jones, Trainwreck

Top 10 Characters in Teaching Films & Shows

08/20/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 2 Comments

As the school year begins, I’ll be returning again to my favorite educational films–some inspiring, some hilarious. Here are the characters and performances I consider award worthy.

THE TEACHERS: 5 BEST CHARACTERS

5. Mr. Shoop in Summer School (1987)

HarmonSummerSchool
Gym teacher Mr. Shoop (Mark Harmon) plans to vacation in Hawaii with his girlfriend for the summer, but when the English teacher wins the lottery and immediately quits, Shoop’s forced to teach remedial English. He is the most likable of the teachers I’ve chosen, easygoing and even tempered, good natured even when tried. Ultimately, his slacker ways convert into effort in the classroom, and because he relates to and has no illusions about his students’ disinterest, he’s able to reach them. Most importantly, he has rational expectations of them, and celebrates progress rather than any specific target, as any good teacher should (and would be able to, would the system allow it). Plus, the film is hilarious, and Harmon is so attractive in it.

4. Elizabeth Halsey in Bad Teacher (2011)

Halsey-Diaz-BadTeacher
Cameron Diaz doesn’t always reach her comic potential, but when she does, as with Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) in Bad Teacher, she’s something to watch. The montage of her avoidance of crying students and celebrating teachers makes me laugh every time, as does her unabashedly sexy school car wash and cruel honesty in speaking with her class and grading their work. She is a terrible teacher, but her narcissism and bluntness make her a very, very funny one.

3. Teachers in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) & Peanuts

BenSteinFerrisBueller
If pressed, I’d prefer Peanuts‘ gibberish teacher to Ben Stein’s gloriously boring one, but the two are closely tied. Obviously, both types are accurate portrayals of how instructors come across to students. I love how Stein has given upon class participation, simply saying, “anyone, anyone?” then answering himself. But Peanuts’ teacher may get the edge because I have this same reaction ANY time I encounter something I don’t understand. My car is being fixed, I’m listening to explanations of the U.S. debt, and I hear that waa-waa-waa of Peanuts’ comically confusing instructor.

2. Prez in The Wire (2006)

PrezandStudentsTheWire
Season 4 of The Wire features the Baltimore school system, with former cop Roland Pryzbylewski, known as Prez (Jim True-Frost), teaching the students from neighborhoods he formerly policed. As a result, he knows what his students are up against, though he isn’t prepared for the challenge of teaching them. I’ve never seen a more accurate depiction of teaching in a difficult district. Prez’s use of gambling odds as an example to finally reach some of his students in the episode “Unto Others” is remarkably telling about their priorities–and squandered potential. We can only wish that those who had more influence in the system were as wise and compassionate as Prez.

1. Sir in To Sir, with Love (1967)

SidneyPoitierToSirwithLove
Sir’s (Sidney Poitier) school district in England is characterized as very challenging, even if it looks less so to us in 2015. We see him constantly thwarted, and frequently angry. His race becomes one more thing students have against him. His decision to throw out the lesson plan and begin anew is what any good teacher would do if it were allowed–the problem, of course, is that you only want good teachers doing so.

What I love about Sir is that he’s a reluctant instructor, only there because he can’t get a job in his field, and slowly, these rebellious kids win him over. He is a very flawed character, even socially awkward, and thus very real. Poitier deserved an Oscar for the performance. The theme song makes me tear up every time. And the film has such a lovely, perfect, subtle ending. The movie is inspiring without ever losing track of reality (as most teacher-centric films do).

THE STUDENTS: TOP 5 PORTRAYALS

5. Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)

Spicoli
Spicoli (Sean Penn), the ultimate surfer dude. I don’t think this character requires any explanation (most would expect to see him as #1). While there is a shadow of this stoner in Amy Heckerling’s Clueless (1995), it’s in her earlier film, Fast Times, that she captured an iconic form of the type, mainly due to Cameron Crowe’s script. Spicoli’s (Sean Penn’s) battles with his teacher, Mr. Hand (who deserves an honorable mention in the list above), are perfect.

Bagel tucked in jeans, shirtless, Spicoli makes us laugh before he says a word. Penn gives him an awkward gait; a spacey expression; long, wordless pauses; and an inability to detect sarcasm. As a result, he is as lovable as he is annoying. Penn turned the surfer dude into comedy gold, and actors have been imitating him ever since.

4. The Frustrated/Bored of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off & Peanuts

There’s really no need to pinpoint an individual in the mass of disinterested students who are ignoring Ben Stein’s flat delivery of “Bueller?” as he calls the roll. The Peanuts characters’ confusion at their instructors’ seeming gibberish are similarly funny, though Charlie Brown’s panic is particularly funny. What’s unavoidably true is just how typical both the boredom and confusion are in any classroom, though hopefully with occasional relief! Beautifully rendered in both cases through the facial expressions of the students as the teacher drones on.

Peanutsstudents

Buellerstudent1

Buellerstudent2

Buellerstudent3

3. The Intellectuals of Better Off Dead (1985)

BetterOffDeadClass
Most films portray the majority of students as inattentive and uninterested. This film subverts our expectations, with a class enthralled by comically difficult subject matter. They’re so enthusiastic that they groan when they have to leave the classroom, comforted only when their math teacher reassures them: “I’ll see you all tomorrow. Just remember to memorize pages 39 to 110 for tomorrow’s lesson.” It’s so obviously a teacher’s dream of what students would be like after watching too many inspiring education films that it always cracks me up. Lane (John Cusack), in contrast with his peers’ binders of work, takes out one sheet of paper with “Do homework” stuck together with gum. In this case, the slacker is the unpopular one. It’s a mistake not to watch the whole film, but at least catch this scene.

2. The Kids of The Wire, Season 4
I find it hard to write about the students in this season, as they’re far too real: Dukie (Jermaine Crawford), Randy (Maestro Harrell), Namond (Julito McCullum) and Michael (Tristan Wilds) struggle with the lure of selling drugs on the corner in Baltimore, with authority figures often encouraging or passively accepting their abandonment of education.

Watching Michael's confrontation with a drug dealer.

Watching Michael’s confrontation with a drug dealer.

It’s the most vivid and compelling portrayal I’ve ever seen of the weight so many students bear with them when they enter the classroom. The Wire, unlike 90 percent of cinematic portrayals of teaching, sees that the wider culture and systemic problems of the educational system are far greater forces than one teacher with a great idea (which Prez does have) can combat. Haunting.

1. Chainsaw & Dave of Summer School

ChainsawDave-SummerSchool
All the students in Mr. Shoop’s (Harmon’s) class are distinctive. Their plan–to exchange bribes for trying in school–is diabolical and hilarious in itself. And with characters like these–the awful driver Mr. Shoop has to train, the kid who spent the summer in the bathroom, etc.–who can stop laughing? The most memorable students are obviously Dave (Gary Riley) and Chainsaw (Dean Cameron), the wannabee special-effects guys. Who comes up with such unique characters for a silly film like this one? The tension breaker of and “I don’t know anything” dream of Chainsaw’s before the big test are my favorite depictions of academic stress in any film, book, or story. (I should, though, give an honorable mention to John Travolta’s Barbarino in Welcome Back, Kotter.) Inspired by Chainsaw, I used to suggest to friends a university-wide tension breaker when I was an undergrad.

As the school year begins, I’ll be returning to these favorites to combat moments of frustration and refresh my love for teaching. I hope some of you will do the same.

Share
Posted in: 1960s films, 1980s films, 1990-current films, Comedies (film), Drama (film), TV & Pop Culture Tagged: Bad Teacher, best, Better Off Dead, Cameron Diaz, Ferris Bueller, Mark Harmon early films, Mr. Hand, Sidney Poitier, Summer School, Teaching films, The Wire, To Sir with Love

A Legacy of Self-Amusement: Drew & John Barrymore

08/13/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 19 Comments

DrewBarrymoreCharliesAngels-main
Charlie’s Angels
(2000) is the epitome of how seriously Drew Barrymore takes herself: the hair flips, the silly punk rock past of her character, action sequences so absurdly, self-consciously over-the-top that they make you smile.

Playfulness seems to be Barrymore ‘s signature, what distinguishes her from her lesser rom-com peers. So it wasn’t surprising that this was a film she chose to produce, an ode to a dumb TV show celebrating sexism/female empowerment/both (depending on your point of view).

The show (1976-81)– for those younger folks out there–featured a wealthy but reserved guy (Charlie), who hired three beautiful detectives (the angels) for his agency. All we ever got of Charlie was his voice, as he never appeared in person and let all arrangements be managed by his assistant, Bosley. The term ‘angel,’ use of possessive, Charlie’s condescending voice, the quick rotations of actresses for the roles (suggesting they were interchangeable)—any of the four could make a feminist cringe. But the women were tough and smart, using their looks to blindside unwary men, much as Columbo used his folksiness.

The film is both a parody and tribute, using the TV show’s theme music, graphics, and basic concept, but mocking the silliness of it too. Cameron Diaz plays the supposed airhead (Natalie) to perfection. Lucy Liu takes on the kind of tough role she always plays, even imitating a dominatrix/efficiency expert in one ploy as detective Alex. As Dylan, Barrymore mocks the over-the-top femininity of her predecessors by embracing a badass, punk rock aesthetic. The strange connection the women have to Charlie is brought to the forefront when their client (Sam Rockwell) suggests that Dylan has daddy issues.

Thinking they get to meet Charlie in person...

Hopeful to meet Charlie in person…

Whatever part she’s in, Barrymore always seems to be playing herself, and part of what keeps us watching her is just how likeable she is, this woman who went through a painful past of abandonment and substance abuse as a kid, and emerged as a woman with empathy for those who contributed to the conditions that put her there. She is both the most tender of the three actresses onscreen—Barrymore always captures vulnerability effectively—and the most sarcastic. Perhaps hers is an earned playfulness, but Barrymore wears it lightly. (How else could you repeatedly perform with Adam Sandler, and more bafflingly, not only star with, but marry Tom Green? Tom Green!) While her acting never wows me, she does.

In Drew’s performances, I don’t see much of her forebears, that famous acting dynasty whose members mesmerize audiences still today. Only in her youthful roles did I ever see traces of the Barrymore family’s skill with drama. I would argue that Irreconcilable Differences (1984); an underrated film about a girl who wants to separate from her narcissistic, divorced parents (in an eerie foreshadowing of Barrymore’s own decision years later); was her strongest dramatic role. Perhaps it just was a part she knew really, really well.

But usually, the actress just prefers, and does better, at comedies. Certainly, Drew lacks the intimidation or gravitas of her great-uncle Lionel…

LionelBarrymore
the nuance of her great-aunt Ethel…

EthelBarrymore
or the presence of her grandfather John…

JohnBarrymore
Of course, her troubled past brings to mind her grandfather’s. But it’s in her self-deprecating goofiness that I see the clearest link to the Barrymore dynasty. While it’s certainly not present in all of the Barrymores’ roles, I see it in John’s charming turn in Grand Hotel, and, of course, in his hilarious supporting character in the glorious Midnight (1939). There’s such a lightheartedness to his approach to the role of Georges Flammarion, and though he was already at the cue card stage of his decline, his humor, at least, had not reached the self-parody stage.

John Barrymore in Midnight

John Barrymore in Midnight

Such lightheartedness is key to Dylan’s (Drew Barrymore’s) character, even when she’s in the direst straights. In the best action sequence in Charlie’s Angels, Dylan has been tied up by her sleazy client, Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), who has betrayed her after sleeping with her, and tried to kill her already. Knox departs to perform his nefarious schemes, leaving her to his five henchmen. After managing to get her lighter back, she spells out what she will do to escape, buying time but also revealing her confidence.

DylanCharliesAngels
As she sits in her chair, she calmly explains, smiling at her adversaries all the while, “By the time this is over, every one of you is gonna be face down on the floor, and I’m gonna moonwalk out of here.”

DrewBarrymoreCharliesAngels
As they rush toward her, she interrupts, looking at each man in turn, “You’re not listening to me. See first, you’re gonna help me out of my chair, and then I’m gonna leapfrog over you, before I break his nose…I’m gonna do all of this with my hands tied behind my back.”

DrewBarrymoreCharliesAngels2
She does exactly what she says:

DrewBarrymorefighting
And her moonwalk is a joy:

DrewBarrymoremoonwalking
You can see the full clip here.

Any actress could have had fun with such a sequence, but there’s so much self-amusement in Drew Barrymore’s portrayal that I kept thinking of her grandfather in Midnight. Sure, he had much more range and talent than she does, but in self-amusement, the two are matched.

This post is part of the Barrymore Trilogy blogathon, hosted by Crystal of In the Good Old Days of Classic Hollywood. See the fantastic entries here!

Share
Posted in: 1980s films, 1990-current films, Action & Sports Films, Blogathons, Comedies (film), Film Noir/Crime/Thriller & Mystery, Humor, TV & Pop Culture Tagged: Charlie's Angels, Drew Barrymore, John Barrymore, Midnight (1939), movie, satire, spoof

Pretending to Be Contagious: 2 Comic Scenes

08/02/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com Leave a Comment

In one of my favorite scenes from The Thin Man series, Nick Charles pretends his wife is contagious for laughs. It made me think of outbreaks, and how they’ve been used to panic audiences—or amuse them. Somehow funny scenes so often result from mocking our greatest fears. So on the lovely actress’s birthday, here’s that scene—and another like it from many decades later—when the characters mess with the crowds around them for very different reasons.

Eliminating Suitors: Nora in Another Thin Man (1939)
Nora’s (Myrna Loy’s) considerable sex appeal is a joke in many of The Thin Man movies. Ex-cons can’t believe someone so desirable could be Nick’s wife instead of his mistress. Men follow her and hit on her constantly. Just look at her.

MyrnaLoy-AnotherThinMan
Who wouldn’t? When Nick (William Powell) seeks his wife in Another Thin Man, he finds a crowd of men vying for her attention.

NoraCharlesCrowd
To clear them away quickly, he begins, “Now Mommy, you know better than to come to a place like this your first day out of bed. What if the health officers find out? They’ll put you right back in quarantine.”

At first, her expression suggests she may be annoyed by his ploy. But her response tells us otherwise: “I won’t stay in quarantine. I don’t care who catches it.”

The two are instantly alone. Whether this routine is a regular gag with them (it seems so practiced) or just a function of their quick-wittedness, the couple delivers it—as they do everything—beautifully.

Cracking Themselves Up: Sam & Carl in Ghost (1990)
We witness a smirk from Sam (Patrick Swayze) as soon as he and his friend Carl (Tony Goldwyn) enter the elevator of their business in Ghost. We know therefore whatever follows is a gag of some kind. Clearly, there’s some level of improvisation to their conversation, with each trying to outwit each other, and out-gross-out their unlucky audience.

Swayze-GhostElevatorScene
Carl starts coughing.

Sam: “How you feeling? What did the doctor say?”

Carl: “He ummm said that it was contagious. That it was really—”

Sam: “No.”

Yeah. “Yeah. He said that I shouldn’t even be coming in today.”

Sam: “What about the rash?”

Carl: “The rash?”

Sam: “Mmhm.”

Carl: “The rash is ummm also incredibly contagious. He said that…will…spreading.”

Of course, it gets even grosser from there…and the two act like 10-year-old boys instead of grown men in enjoying their little joke.

I  think I enjoy silly scenes like these because I know I would be far more likely to be the one decamping than the one making the joke. I would be the butt of the ploy, and can’t help but smile at how easily these characters would play me.

Share
Posted in: 1930s films, 1990-current films, Romantic Comedies (film) Tagged: contagious, Ghost, movies outbreaks, Myrna Loy, Nick and Nora Charles, Patrick Swayze, The Thin Man

The Man Who Knew Too Little: an Underrated Bill Murray Gem

05/28/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 2 Comments

ManWhoKnewTooLittleMurray
The Man Who Knew Too Little (1997) received a 41% on Rotten Tomatoes. It was panned by critics as only moderately funny. Experts claimed it was undeserving of the talents of Bill Murray, relied on broad stereotypes, and centered around only one gag.

Most of these critiques are true. But the film is also hilarious.

To describe the movie as a parody of The Man Who Knew Too Much (the 1934 or ’56 version) would be a stretch. Call it instead a Hitchcockian parody, and you’ll have it. Hitchcock asked us all what becomes of a civilian when mistaken for a spy (North by Northwest), or thrown into a conspiracy once in contact with one (The Man Who Knew Too Much/The 39 Steps)? Director Jon Amiel and writer Robert Farrar extend the question: “and he is totally oblivious to what’s going on?”

A suspected spy arrives in London

A suspected spy arrives in London

Here’s the tissue-thin plot: Blockbuster employee Wallace Ritchie (Murray) shows up for a surprise visit to London. His brother (Peter Gallagher) sends him to a participant theater act called the Theatre of Life until after his business dinner. Ritchie answers the pay phone call that’s supposed to begin the show. But the call that comes in (a few minutes early) isn’t from the theater, but from the employers of Spencer, a hit man tasked with killing the defense minister’s mistress, Lori (Joanne Whalley). She knows too much about a conspiracy plot to reignite the Cold War and is blackmailing the minister with incriminating letters. Thus begins Ritchie’s confusion: he thinks he’s acting; the bad guys–and Lori–suspect he’s a spy undermining their plans.

Because there is essentially no storyline, Murray is let loose to be the playful, odd guy he seems to be in real life, at least according to encounters with strangers in clubs and in cabs. In fact, I’d argue that in some ways this film is more typical of Murray’s personality than any other: the man knows how to improv his way through life.

As Ritchie, Murray has a blast ripping on a number of tough guy acts–most notably, Clint Eastwood’s. Of course, he mimics “Here’s Johnny” from The Shining. He pauses before saving Lori to put on his sunglasses. He asks for retakes, explains his life of espionage to cops, applauds a corpse for the realism of his acting.

Impressed with a corpse's acting

Impressed with a dead killer’s supposed acting

In a favorite moment, Ritchie creeps out some muggers by sobbing, “I got a couple of kids,” and then, embarrassed by his poor performance, abruptly trying another approach: “You know it’s getting so that decent people can’t even go out on the street anymore without scum like you trying to step on whatever’s decent in this world. Well you know something? Your type are just gonna be the kind of crap that sticks to the bottom of a good man’s loafer.”

Murray faux-beseeching

Murray faux-beseeching

Imagine Murray’s fake crying (pictured above) and his enunciation of “a good man’s loafer,” and you’ll have a hint of just how hysterical this film can be.

The extent to which Ritchie remains deluded stretches belief, of course: he never catches on. But who is looking for realism in an unapologetically silly comedy? And, if we’re being honest, how plausible are Hitchcock spy stories and their ilk (Foul Play, Gotcha!, Frantic, The Tuxedo, etc.)? I think we can agree that all of us would live approximately 5 seconds if mistaken for a spy or harboring the secrets of one, a likelihood this parody clearly asks us to consider.

And truthfully, the film could be about anything. What matters is this: Murray is in almost every scene, and an hour and a half of Murray goofing off is about the best mood elevator I can imagine. I watch this ludicrous flick when I’m blue, scared, angry–and I never stop enjoying it. The critics gave it a 41 percent on Rotten Tomatoes; the audience gave it a 70. As usual, the critics are missing out on the fun to be had here; don’t make the same mistake.

Share
Posted in: 1990-current films, Comedies (film), Film Noir/Crime/Thriller & Mystery, Humor, TV & Pop Culture Tagged: Bill Murray, The Man Who Knew Too Little

The Nicholas Cage Syndrome: Is Taste More Crucial than Talent?

04/24/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 6 Comments

KeiraKnightleyADangerous
I was outraged by the choice of Keira Knightley to play Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. “That woman,” I complained to my sister Rachel, “is known for her toned midriff, not her acting talent.” Although Knightley did a passable job in a decent film adaptation, I considered her subsequent Oscar nod an affront.

Rachel agreed with my assessment of the actress’s mediocrity, even if I couldn’t follow through with my plan to avoid her films. The problem was, Knightley kept selecting intriguing feminist roles, not the cheesy romantic leads her looks surely could have garnered her. The groundbreaking historical women she brought to life on the screen in The Duchess and A Dangerous Method led me to hours of fascinating research.

And then this year, an Oscar nod again, this time for an interesting biopic, The Imitation Game. When I grumbled about her second nomination, my sister disagreed. “I’ve changed my mind about her. Watch Begin Again. Two great films in one year. She has such good taste.”

And there it was, the trait so often ignored when we talk about acting: taste. Sometimes; as with Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Cary Grant; we get both: good films and incredible talent. But so often, we can’t select a movie based on the cast and assume we’ll enjoy it. Why? Because so many skilled performers have Nicholas Cage judgment.

Cage Syndrome: Good actor who stars only in trash

The Cage Syndrome: A good actor who repeatedly stars in trash.

Recall Halle Berry, still gilded from her Oscar win, choosing a bad Bond flick and Catwoman to cement her legacy. Or the previously reliable Morgan Freeman. His films since The Shawshank Redemption make me feel like a comet has crashed into my brain.

Is it possible that taste is more important than talent? I’m not saying that judgment trumps skill if the acting is bad enough to spoil the film. (I’m looking at you, Andie MacDowell.) But if the actor or actress is decent, might good taste matter more?

Let’s take another example: an actress even less versatile and skilled than Keira Knightley (who is admittedly rising in my estimation). Katie Holmes is better known for being the ex of Tom Cruise than for her acting. Her performances are largely forgettable, but her films are not. Even during her Dawson’s Creek years, Holmes displayed remarkable discrimination in her choices. The following are my favorites of her credits (the first and fifth I rewatch often):

  • Thank You for Smoking
  • Batman Begins
  • Pieces of April
  • The Gift
  • Wonder Boys
  • Go

KatieHolmes-ThankYouSmoking
By rarely starring and choosing movies that feature fine performers, Holmes has ensured I don’t need to rely on her skill to enjoy her films. Her mere presence in Woman in Gold is making me reconsider it despite lukewarm reviews. I trust her taste to impress as much as I trust Cage’s to disappoint. (I vowed during Snake Eyes never to watch his films again. Alas, I caved, remembering Raising Arizona, and even let my husband bring home Drive Angry, which did, in fact, make me angry.)

Of course, it’s hard to place the same kind of trust in the taste of classic film performers. Since studios held such tight reign over their stars, performers’ ability to select was limited. But now and then, you can, as in the interesting case of Norma Shearer.

NormaShearerDivorcee1
She (conveniently) married the production head of MGM, therefore ensuring her pick of roles (to the envy of Joan Crawford, who must have enjoyed taking her husband away in The Women).

I’m not a big fan of Shearer’s acting, which I usually find too theatrical. That said, I always enjoy her films, even staid period dramas such as Marie Antoinette and antifeminist flicks such as The Women. But it’s her fight to play liberated women in the pre-Code era that makes me trust her judgment. A woman who would go to a photographer for sexy shots just so she’d be considered for parts like that of Jerry in The Divorcee? That’s an actress I can trust. And in pre-Code films, she relaxes the affectations and easy tears that occasionally mar her pictures. Shearer is never on my list of favorite film actresses, but just writing these words has made me long to see The Divorcee again.

Are there stars whose films you go to see in spite of the mediocrity of their acting? Which talented stars’ movies do you avoid due to the Cage syndrome? And what is up with Sandra Bullock’s love for Razzie-caliber roles?

Share
Posted in: 1980s films, 1990-current films, Comedies (film), Drama (film), Feminism, Humor, TV & Pop Culture Tagged: bad acting, good taste, Katie Holmes, Keira Knightley, Nicholas Cage, Norma Shearer, Sandra Bullock, syndrome

The Debt Actresses Owe William Somerset Maugham: from Gloria Swanson to Annette Bening

02/19/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 8 Comments

SomersetMaughamActresses
I’ve read many glowing tributes to the stars of The Letter, Being Julia, Of Human Bondage, and Sadie Thompson over the years. While I’ve never questioned the talents of these actresses, I have always credited much of their brilliance in these parts to William Somerset Maugham. Their strengths are on display largely because of the characters he created in his stories, plays, and novels: women so complex, morally conflicted, modern, and real that 130 years after his birth, Annette Bening was Oscar nominated for playing one of them.

And she’s not alone. Before I get into the reasons, let’s start with the data. Here’s a list of Oscar nods to women in his films; if I’ve missed any, please let me know. It’s quite possible. The number of his film credits, and of stars listed in those movies, is astonishing. Here we go:

Academy Award Nominations for Actress in a Leading Role:

  • Gloria Swanson: Sadie Thompson (1928), based on the short story, “Rain”
  • Jeanne Eagels (first posthumous nomination), The Letter (1929), based on the short story and play. (She also made her name in the play version of “Rain.”)
  • Bette Davis, two nods: Of Human Bondage (1934; by write-in vote), based on the novel, and The Letter (1940)
  • Annette Bening, Being Julia (2004), based on the novel Theatre.

Other notable female roles include Gene Tierney’s in the Oscar-nominated The Razor’s Edge (a novel), Greta Garbo’s and Naomi Watts’s in The Painted Veil (a novel), and Madeleine Carroll’s in Alfred Hitchcock’s Secret Agent, based on Ashenden, a collection of stories.

Even fine actresses need a vehicle, and in the last fifteen years, one of the few amazing leading roles I’ve seen for a woman over the age of 30—Bening’s—was written by Maugham in 1937. I wasn’t surprised. He specialized in complex characters making immoral decisions: They cheat on and leave spouses and children, prostitute themselves, admit to irreligious or cruel behavior without guilt, contribute to or directly cause the death of others. Since Maugham resists moral judgments, his women are free to react to the traumas they’ve created rather than simply being punished for them. No wonder they’re so fascinating to watch on the screen.

In fact, Maugham is as likely to admire as condemn. As his (seemingly autobiographical) narrator in The Razor’s Edge explains, “My dear, I’m a very immoral person….When I’m really fond of anyone, though I deplore his wrongdoing it doesn’t make me less fond of him.” Thus the attention given to selfish characters such as Mildred in Of Human Bondage. Certainly, her character would have been less nuanced—giving Davis less to work with—had Maugham not empathized with Mildred and therefore made her traits and actions so interesting and believable.

DavisOfHumanBondage
Davis is Davis, but it took a number of roles before she reached this breakout one.

Maugham frequently explored the contrasts between how men and women seek to appear and who they are. While he may be gentle on others’ immoral actions, he can be scathing about their hypocritical ones. Sadie Thompson is a prostitute, but it’s the reformer trying to condemn her, unwilling to admit his own sexual appetite, whom we are led to despise. Sadie, gradually moved by the reformer, ultimately learns to appreciate her own values over his—an unexpected ending for the type of character who is usually just a one-note in a film. Swanson, not surprisingly, captures the flair, passion, and contradictions of this woman.

SwansonSadieThomson
In Being Julia, we root for the heroine in spite of (or even because of) her extramarital affair with a younger man because we enjoy her confidence. Despite her vanity and delusions, she owns and even enjoys most of her flaws. The surprises in her behavior are quite funny, and Bening takes full advantage of the humor.

Bening-BeingJulia
How wonderful is it, how gloriously human, that in the midst of her midlife crisis, Julia is obsessed with breaking her diet? How much do we love that she wants to savor her victory over a younger wannabe actress in solitude, since it’s a private triumph? What a feminist scene it is when she does, and how interesting that a man created it so very long ago. Curious to see how much the film differed from the source material, I reread Theatre, only to find it was even closer to the movie than I’d remembered: the dialogue, the focus, the character, the morality, even the final scene—all the same.

And Leslie in The Letter? Most authors would have focused on the murder and the passion leading up to it. It would have been a fairly typical noir, with an unremarkable femme fatale. But Maugham again proved to have a deeper interest in human nature than his peers, wondering not just about the crime itself, but Leslie’s efforts to conceal it, to retain that image she wants to present to the world. She is an interesting character because of her willingness to reside in her own lies, a trait that Maugham, with his typical regard for truth, seems to find more blameworthy than the murder. Thanks to his interest in motives, Davis and Eagels were granted a woman of enormous complexity to work with, which contributed to each’s stunning performance.

Eagels-TheLetter

Davis-TheLetter
Of his roles that have yet to win actresses Oscar nods, I find Kitty in The Painted Veil the most intriguing. Kitty’s husband Walter catches her cheating, and forces her to travel with him to a cholera-infested region of China as punishment. He offers her an out if her lover will marry her, knowing it won’t happen. Rejected by the man she loves and facing a death sentence from the one she doesn’t, Kitty spends much of her time alone, reflecting on her actions as Walter heals patients—quite a departure from her youth as a superficial beauty. She learns to admire Walter’s generosity, even as she pities the love for her that has turned to hatred. She wants to forgive him, and for him to do the same for her, but she can’t bring herself to love him.

Watts-PaintedVeil
What did Hollywood do with this story (Garbo’s and Watts’s versions)? Turned it into a love story. We’re meant to root for a reconciliation between the two, whether they both survive cholera or not. I don’t know about you, but once a guy tried to kill me via a deadly epidemic, I can’t imagine thinking, “Yeah, but I cheated on him; we’re cool now.” These plot alterations might have helped with commercial viability, but the result was to diminish realism and a powerful female part.

Kitty’s disappointment in herself for continuing to desire her vain, worthless lover is an essential part of the story. In the book we see enough of her life beyond the epidemic to discover that her enhanced self-awareness doesn’t lead to moral behavior. The self-deprecation and compassion she develops as a result of her failures are intriguing to witness. While Watts captured Kitty’s vulnerability beautifully, I suspect had the screenwriter more faithfully rendered the character’s complexity, he would have netted Watts the Oscar nomination, as with so many women in Maugham’s roles before her.

Maugham’s skill with character development is often attributed to his history: he stuttered in his childhood and struggled with his homosexuality. Did feeling like an outsider and being morally out of favor in his time contribute to his empathy for others? Probably. He gives another possibility, crediting his early medical training for giving him access to “life in the raw,” saying the work enabled him to see “pretty well every emotion of which man is capable.” While I suspect both of these reasons are relevant, I’ve always preferred to take as autobiographical his narrator’s confession in The Moon and Sixpence: “the fear of not being able to carry it through effectively has always made me shy of assuming the moral attitude.” Ultimately, perhaps in spite of himself, Maugham is amused by human behavior, in all of its foolish and ugly iterations, and therefore captivated by it. No wonder, with an author who claims he is “more likely to shrug his shoulders than to condemn,” that four of the women in his films have been nominated for Oscars, one twice. Let’s hope other gifted actresses take note, and give his excellent stories another run.

Share
Posted in: 1920s films, 1930s films, 1940s films, 1990-current films, Comedies (film), Drama (film), Feminism, Oscars Tagged: Being Julia, Bette Davis, great roles for women, Oscar nods, Sadie Thompson, The Letter, The Painted Veil, William Somerset Maugham

Why the John Goodman Oscar Snubs?

02/09/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 16 Comments

BigLebowski-Walter-Goodman
This post is part of the 31 Days of Oscar blogathon. I’m taking part in the Oscar Snubs segment, hosted by Once Upon a Screen! There are so many amazing posts. Check them out here. Also see Paula’s Cinema Club & Outspoken & Freckled for the other great Oscar topics.

I’m rarely puzzled by an actor failing to win an Oscar. The competition is steep, the Academy biases evident, and the campaigning too embarrassing for some well-respected professionals to attempt. But for an actor not to be nominated when he regularly appears in critically acclaimed movies (and presumably played a role in their success) is surprising. With over two decades of fine performances to his name, John Goodman has yet to receive a single Oscar nod.

He is a regular in Coen brothers’ films, and thus would presumably take on the shimmer of those critical darlings. How’s this for a partial list of acting credits?: Inside Llewyn Davis (2013), O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), The Big Lebowski (1998), The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) (voice only), Barton Fink (1991), and Raising Arizona (1987).

For two years in a row, Goodman acted in the Oscar-winning film: Argo (2012) and The Artist (2011). In 2011, in fact, he performed in two Oscar-nominated films, playing the doorman in Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close as well as the executive in The Artist. While his roles in the other two might not have been significant enough for Academy Award consideration, his performance in Argo certainly was.

John Goodman-Argo
Goodman won a Golden Globe for playing Dan Conner on Roseanne (1988-97) and an Emmy for his guest performance in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. He’s won other honors, including, of course, for comedy, but the most prestigious have been ensemble awards. His only Golden Globe-nominated film performance was for Barton Fink.

I have to ask: Why?

Is His Acting Not Good Enough?
The easiest answer is that he’s simply not skilled enough to win. I guess that’s possible, even though I find it tough to believe any other actor could have so memorably captured Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski, or the oddest hotel guest ever in Barton Fink. Even in small roles his impact is felt. I can’t stop laughing when I think about his performance as an escaped convict in Raising Arizona, especially when he gets into his never-leave-a-man-behind diatribe.

RaisingArizona-Goodman-1
And with all of Hollywood to choose from, why would the gifted Coen brothers continue to cast Goodman if they didn’t find him talented? While the directing duo features the same actors in many of their films, I think only Joel Coen’s wife makes more showings than Goodman. (John Turturro, also beloved by the brothers, has been in four of their movies to Goodman’s six.)

Are His Roles Not Sufficiently Challenging?
Goodman fits well into a number of stereotypical roles, especially the kind of good ol’ boy he plays in Alpha House. He clearly plays these with ease. But he enjoys eccentric characters too, as so many of his Coen brothers movies prove. The Academy seems to love larger-than-life characters. Anthony Hopkins and Daniel Day-Lewis have been honored for roles that bear no resemblance to actual human beings. Does anyone believe there was ever a man like those Day-Lewis played in Gangs of New York or There Will Be Blood? In what world is Hannibal Lecter anything but a caricature?

Lecter
Goodman’s oddball and sometimes sinister characters, in contrast, are typically very believable, especially Walter in The Big Lebowski. Is it easy to make a person who is comically bizarre come off as realistic?

RaisingArizona
I don’t think it is, nor do I believe the much-loved Day-Lewis has pulled off this feat nearly as often as Goodman has (admittedly, the latter’s role in O Brother also never gets beyond myth).

In terms of understated performances, which I typically think more deserving of honors, Goodman isn’t always given enough play time for the kind of nuanced and subtle acting we saw in Roseanne, and he doesn’t seem to demand meatier roles when he could. I’d like to see him attempt these types of parts more than he does. If only such understated roles were honored, Goodman being bypassed by the Academy would make sense given the number of his quirky parts. But that’s not the case. Oscars would otherwise never have been given to Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood or Hopkins for The Silence of the Lambs.

Is It the Usual Reason—No Love for Comedians?
Those of you who’ve read my blog for a while know that I regularly take the Academy to task for their lack of appreciation for comedic performances and scripts (Harold Ramis, Steve Martin, Ralph Fiennes). While Goodman has often starred in dramas, even his more serious roles are usually punctuated with humor. And with a face as expressive as this one, why would he neglect the opportunity to make us laugh?

BartonFink-Goodman
The Academy’s dismissal of comedy could explain how often Goodman is never even discussed—much less chosen—when it comes to nominations.

Could It Be the TV Curse?
In the new golden age of TV, actors can move from big screen to television and back again without losing their star status—as long as that show is on cable. Network television still retains its low status. (Doubt me? Check out which shows win most Emmys for drama.) Whatever his other accomplishments, Goodman will always be known as Roseanne’s Dan Conner. He starred too long on a hit show—and performed too well—for it to be otherwise. While we see the rare exception—J.K. Simmons’s Oscar nomination this year, for example—most network television stars never get much credit once they turn to film. I can’t explain this trend nearly as fluently as Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) does in 30 Rock.

Jackexplains30Rock
Jack is advising Tracy Jordan (Tracy Morgan) on how to tank his acting career. In the NBC TV show’s typical self-referential fashion, Baldwin is actually describing his own life:

“Do TV. No one will ever take you seriously again. Doesn’t matter how big a movie star you are, even if you have the kind of career where you walked away from a blockbuster franchise or worked with Meryl Streep or Anthony Hopkins. Made important movies about things like civil rights or Pearl Harbor. Stole films with supporting roles and then turned around and blew them away on Broadway. None of that will matter once you do television. You can win every award in sight, be the biggest thing on the small screen, and you’ll still get laughed out of the Vanity Fair Oscar party by Greg Kinnear….You wanted to hit rock bottom again? Go on network television.”

Could this trend explain Goodman’s snubs?

Is He Discounted Due to His Choices—and Costars?
Perhaps no number of outstanding performances can make the Academy forget this role:

JohnGoodman-Flintstones
Or the fact that he starred with Roseanne Barr, who never has gained any traction outside of TV and unfortunately earned even a presidential slam thanks to this performance:

RoseanneBarr
That the show they shared was remarkably ahead of its time, wise and real in a way few sitcoms then or since have been, doesn’t seem to make any difference.

Of course, there’s no way to know for sure why the Academy passes on this lovable character actor. My belief? The omission maybe has a bit to do with the TV curse or his former costar. But mainly, he’s ignored for the same reason Jeff Bridges was for The Big Lebowski and for many other roles that preceded it: Goodman simply makes it look too easy.

Please check out the other 31 Days of Oscar entries! (I will, by the way, return to classic movie fare on Thursday:))

Share
Posted in: 1980s films, 1990-current films, Blogathons, Comedies (film), Drama (film), Oscars, TV & Pop Culture, Uncategorized Tagged: Argo, John Goodman, Oscars, Roseanne, snubs, The BIg Lebowski

Worth Watching Before the Oscars or Not? Quick Reviews of Six Nominees

02/04/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 14 Comments

With little more than two weeks left before the Oscars, is it worth it to view all eight? Even for those of us who think this was a great year for movies, eight by Feb. 22nd may be pushing it. To help you decide, I’m including short reviews for the nominees I’ve seen so far (two left to go).

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Ralph FiennesGBudapest
Review:
Loved it. Funny, charming, even moving. Wes Anderson draws you into his impeccably created world. My vote for the Oscar of those I’ve viewed.

Pros: Originality, great acting, artistry, entertainment

Cons: Can be too quirky for some; everyone won’t find it funny.

Boyhood

Boyhood
Review:
Hated it. Watched it during a blizzard and preferred scraping off my car.

Pros: Ambition; you have to hand it to Richard Linklater for trying on something of this scale.

Cons: Gimmicky choices, mediocre acting, dull script. Very long, with supposedly subtle insights that are generic rather than thought provoking. I’m Dazed and Confused about why most of the scenes were worth depicting, and why the film is garnering so much praise given its lack of character development.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Birdman
Review:
Clever, whimsical, with impressive editing. I was engaged the whole time, and never knew what would happen next.

Pros: Strong acting, convincing portrayal of theater life, originality, wonderful transitions

Cons: The touches of magical realism can be off-putting to some. May require an interest in theater, especially backstage drama.

Whiplash

SimmonsTeller-Whiplash
Review:
Riveting. Intense. Captures the high stakes of a competitive music program and asks interesting questions about how far a teacher can push a talented kid. (Obviously, few to none would support how far this teacher goes, but the question is still an intriguing and relevant one.)

Pros: Acting: J.K. Simmons is brilliant, and newcomer Miles Teller gives an effective, understated performance. A beautifully paced, streamlined film.

Cons: Stressful to watch. Possibly limited in terms of whom it reaches; may require an interest in the arts, teaching.

American Sniper

AmericanSniper
Review:
Intense, with an impressive performance by Bradley Cooper. I have some issues with the film’s accuracy and politics. I typically dislike Clint Eastwood films, but thought this a fitting choice for him (close to a Western in its values, characterization). Overall, I thought it a good film despite all of my reservations about its message.

Pros: Much stronger than most biopics, with poignant, subtle depictions of Chris Kyle’s suffering—and by extension, that of other veterans. Draws viewers into the conflict zones, causing us to experience fear, stress, and moral confusion.

Cons: Some repetitiveness in the portrayal of his tours. A lack of nuance in many respects: Some demonization of the Iraqis (carefully chosen bad guys—even a long-term sniper rival). A one-note development of his family. Careful avoidance of the rationale for American presence there. Not a single portrayal of a wrong target hit (unbelievable with all of those kills). Glorification of a controversial figure. Why didn’t Eastwood, given the issue with Kyle’s fabrications in the memoir this film is based on, not to mention the director’s own inventions, just loosely base the movie on Kyle’s story? The tribute to veterans is heartfelt and moving, but the glamorization of this particular Navy Seal and lack of doubt about the justice of our involvement are concerning. War is never as clear-cut as Eastwood would like it to be.

The Imitation Game

ImitationGameCumberbatch
Review:
Fascinating story. Surprisingly quick paced given the subject matter. Poignant portrayal of the loneliness of a genius (Alan Turing) in a time period in which his homosexuality and socially awkward nature were poorly understood. The kind of biopic that makes you Internet research as soon as you get home.

Pros: Fine acting from Benedict Cumberbatch—so far, I’d give the Oscar to him or Cooper. Just a good movie altogether. The one I would recommend to the broadest audience; I can imagine few who would dislike it. There have been some objections to the film’s biographical accuracy, but unlike in American Sniper, the complexity of the portrayal makes it clear that Turing was not easily pinned down, that all of this story has not been told.

Cons: The story of Turing stuck to me afterward, but the movie hasn’t as much as I thought it would. I would have changed the proportions a bit, as Turing’s suffering due to his sexuality is given emphasis but not fully developed until near the end of the film.

There you have it! My highly opinionated reviews….Feel free to disagree with me.

Share
Posted in: 1990-current films, Drama (film), Humor, Oscars Tagged: American Sniper, Birdman, Boyhood, deserves Oscar, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Whiplash
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

Recent Posts

  • 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari
  • Escaping Out of the Past (1947)
  • A Weeper for Those Who Love Jerks
  • Thank You, Academy, for Not Infuriating Me
  • Challengers (2024) Is a Bad Movie

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

  • 1920s films
  • 1930s films
  • 1940s films
  • 1950s films
  • 1960s films
  • 1970s films
  • 1980s films
  • 1990-current films
  • 2020s films
  • Action & Sports Films
  • Anti-Romance films
  • Blogathons
  • Childfree
  • Comedies (film)
  • Drama (film)
  • Feminism
  • Femme fatales
  • Film Noir/Crime/Thriller & Mystery
  • Gloriously Silly Scenes
  • Horror
  • Humor
  • Mae West Moments
  • Musicals and dancing films
  • Oscars
  • Random
  • Romance (films)
  • Romantic Comedies (film)
  • The Moment I Fell for
  • Turn My Sister into Classic Movie Fan
  • TV & Pop Culture
  • Uncategorized
Share
Classic Movie Blog Hub Member

Recent Comments

  • leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com on Meg Ryan’s Fate Foretold in Joe Versus the Volcano
  • Ryan on Meg Ryan’s Fate Foretold in Joe Versus the Volcano
  • leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com on 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari
  • The Classic Movie Muse on 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari
  • leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com on 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari

Archives

  • November 2025
  • September 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • January 2025
  • November 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • May 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • September 2022
  • July 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 Cary Grant Won't Eat You.

Church WordPress Theme by themehall.com