A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) – S. Leone

I’ve watched Yojimbo (1961) many times but couldn’t remember whether I’d seen this film from Sergio Leone’s Man with No Name trilogy or not.  You can see why Kurosawa and co. successfully sued to get a part of the profits – Clint Eastwood effectively takes over the Toshiro Mifune character, albeit transplanted to the West (although Yojimbo clearly borrowed from the western genre too).  Of course, Eastwood brings his own unique iconography (lots of squinting) to the part just as Mifune had earlier (lots of scratching) – both were larger than life (and went on to play the same character in one or more sequels).  Leone uses the widescreen gloriously and the Spanish terrain is a good stand in for the Mexican setting.  The plot famously sees the Man/Samurai arriving in a lawless town and playing two rival gangs off against each other until both are dead and he can ride away with all of their money.  He’s tough, cool, and in some ways more moral than the rest.  The bad get what’s coming to them and the innocent and vulnerable are set free, all to the magnificent sounds of Ennio Morricone.  I still can’t remember if I’d seen this before (or one or both of its sequels), so there is something about the blur of characters here (aside from Eastwood, of course, and Gian Maria Volontè as Ramon) that makes it difficult to stick.  For my money, I prefer Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) or Akira Kurosawa, for that matter.  Still, you can’t deny the trailblazing effect of Leone’s trilogy and Eastwood’s dogged longevity.

Jamaica Inn (1939)

☆ ☆ ☆

Jamaica Inn (1939) – A. Hitchcock

Hitchcock was outmaneuvered by Charles Laughton who gloriously struts his stuff (to a German waltz, according to Hitchcock-Truffaut) as the Lord who secretly backs the wreckers who cause ships to crash into the Cornish shore during storms and then loot them, killing all aboard.  Although Hitch claimed that Laughton demanded more screen time, thus forcing a rewrite of the script, the Master still manages to create suspense (not surprise) as we know that undercover law officer Robert Newton is imperilling himself by running to magistrate Laughton to turn in the evil band.  Maureen O’Hara drives much of the action even if she often has to bide her time in the damsel-in-distress position.  Although there were clearly ship models in use, the outdoor scenes evoke the silent era (Hitch’s training ground) and there is some fancy camerawork at the end, when Laughton is finally brought to justice.  Not the major flop that some declare (and surely one of Hitchcock’s least favourite films, by his own admission) but enjoyable nevertheless.

  

The Deadly Trap (1971)

☆ ☆

The Deadly Trap (1971) – R. Clément

René Clément (Forbidden Games, 1952; Purple Noon, 1960) directs Fay Dunaway and Frank Langella as a couple with two children (Cathy, 8, and Patrick, 4) who have relocated to Paris.  He seems to be a science writer and she is an amateur painter.  They have a close family friend, Cynthia, who lives in an apartment on the floor below them.  The plot is very vague.  Langella seems to have previously been a spy and he is being pursued by “The Organisation” that wants to sign him up for a long-term contract of some sort.  But he is uninterested.  Dunaway is plagued by failing memory, which may be the result of gaslighting (by friends and acquaintances but not Langella).  Then, their children are kidnapped, presumably by members of The Organisation.  The children’s experience reminds one of Forbidden Games but we don’t spend enough time in their world.  Details of all these events seem very sketchy, as we are given only hints about what is going on – and then there is a “reveal” that doesn’t seem earned at all.  Perhaps parts of the film were edited out?  More likely, the intent was to keep details obscure to heighten suspense, which doesn’t really work.  Finally, the colours in the print were so muted, that I suspect the film is in need of repair.  But why bother? Not worth your time.   

Lust for Life (1956)

☆ ☆ ☆

Lust for Life (1956) – V. Minnelli

Kirk Douglas takes a star turn as Vincent Van Gogh and there’s a whole lot of emoting going on.  My viewing of this film was precipitated by a visit to an exhibition of Van Gogh’s paintings (Van Gogh and the Seasons) here in Melbourne over the weekend.  Douglas looks like Van Gogh with the same haircut and beard (dyed red) but the energy and voice still seem his own.  The film (directed by Vincente Minnelli) charts Van Gogh’s adult life, from failed pastor in a mining town to painter with a growing amount of confidence (but no financial success).  He seems to use up the various places he stays in (The Hague, Arles, etc.), wearing out his welcome with his manic-depressive moods.  His brother Theo provides constant support (financial and emotional) throughout Vincent’s life but it still ends in tragedy (suicide).  The production was smart enough to obtain Van Gogh’s actual paintings for shooting here and we see an assortment of them from the early days right on up to his late masterpieces (some which I had seen only days before, which gives you a strange kind of feeling). They also shot on location in the real sites where Van Gogh painted (sometimes recreating the buildings and structures from his paintings). Overall, however, the film feels rather pedestrian, even as its subject is so extraordinary; it may be that the 1950s way of acting, not all that naturalistic, creates distance between the actors and their parts (including Anthony Quinn who won the Oscar as Gauguin).  Nevertheless, I have a greater sense of Van Gogh and his context today than I ever had before.  

  

Shampoo (1975)

☆ ☆ ½

Shampoo (1975) – H. Ashby

There’s a downbeat seventies feel to Shampoo, even as it seems to be a satire on the sexual mores of the Beverly Hills set.  Warren Beatty is the hairdresser who sleeps with all of his clients (“heads”) despite stringing along Goldie Hawn who really loves him (maybe).  But Beatty’s character is so empty we never get inside him, even as he can’t make up his mind about whether he should commit to Julie Christie, who enters back into his life as the mistress of the businessman husband (Jack Warner) of one of his clients (Best Supporting Oscar winner Lee Grant).  Beatty is so empty that he defeats the film’s attempt to make this a character study, although emptiness may be the focus of the screenplay (by Chinatown’s Robert Towne).  The action occurs on the night of Nixon’s election in 1968, sounding another bum note in the apparent tribute to hedonism (and narcissism) that was soon to come crashing down.  (And poor Julie Christie has a few crude scenes that just don’t feel right).  Still, that is one hell of a party (with Beatles, Hendrix, Buffalo Springfield soundtrack) they seemed to be having in 1968.  Unfortunately, no one here has a sense of what they really want and the film drifts as they attempt to find out.  I expected more from director Hal Ashby and this team.     

Love is Strange (2014)

☆ ☆ ☆

Love is Strange (2014) – I. Sachs

Although it utilises the same plot device as Make Way for Tomorrow (1937), in which an older couple is forced to sell their home and move to separate lodgings with their not-so-willing relatives, Ira Sachs’s film transports the situation to the modern day and stars John Lithgow and Alfred Molina as the couple, newly married but together for nearly 40 years before the separation.  Sachs doesn’t follow in the earlier film’s tear-jerking footsteps however and instead gently offers a naturalistic slice of life in a contemplative mood (aided by a pleasant piano score and some poetic interludes).  The politics of gay life is manifested a few times: a blissful wedding soon gives way to Molina losing his job as music teacher at a Catholic school for formalizing his already acknowledged relationship, Lithgow makes a quick reference to Stonewall-era protests – but these examples seem unusual in the context of the loving acceptance offered to them by everyone in the picture.  And love is certainly the focus (as it was in 1937) with the loving Lithgow/Molina relationship always centre stage (and beautifully acted), even as their living arrangements create strain on their relationships with others (including niece-in-law Marisa Tomei).  The film isn’t perfect:  a couple of subplots don’t really get started and distract away from the main story and then things end rather abruptly.  Yet, for all its brevity, it was very pleasant to spend some time in New York City with these real people and their open-minded and creative friends and family. There didn’t seem to be anything strange about this at all!

  

Nocturnal Animals (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Nocturnal Animals (2016) – T. Ford

Although Tom Ford’s film seems to take place in the same world that you and I live in, there is something not quite the same, perhaps it could be called a “heightened” reality, almost Lynchian in some ways.  Maybe this is because Amy Adams’ character works in the art world and there are heaps of shots of art objects and references to existing artists (e.g., Koons, Freud; the latter emphasised in the in-your-face opening credit sequence).  Or maybe the unreality arises because the film contains two narratives, the first that reveals Adams and her (thoughts about her) past and present relationships, and the second that shows the novel she is reading, entitled Nocturnal Animals and written by her first husband who dedicated it to her.  Novels don’t need to follow the same rules of our reality – but this one, starring Jake Gyllenhaal (who also plays her ex-husband), mostly does, particularly in the way it highlights threats of random violence that we all worry about.  (Michael Shannon also features as a rogue cop in an absorbingly odd performance). The novel could also be read as a threat to Adams herself, seeing how a similar character and her daughter suffer extreme violence in the book (this interpretation also meshes with the end of the film which also involves degradation).  Another reading might see the novel as a documentation of the author’s own pain and suffering at the hands of Adams.  In any event, the film doesn’t provide any insights into Gyllenhaal’s motivations and deals primarily with Adams’ psychological reactions and states.  Viewers are left to decide for themselves whether she has the correct take on reality (or unreality).  In a grander way, Ford may also want us to question the role of art/fiction in our lives and the motivations that underlie its creation but this theme is less successfully implemented.