On the Waterfront (1954)

The Stats: won 8 out of 12 Academy Awards it was nominated for, including: best picture, director (Elia Kazan), actor in a leading role (Marlon Brando), actress in a supporting role (Eve Marie Saint), art direction-set direction (black and white), cinematography (black and white), film editing, and writing, story and screenplay.

I've decided not to waste your time (or mine) on a plot synopsis, plus I'll probably ruin the ending for you.

So this was my first serious Marlon Brando experience. I've seen him in Guys and Dolls, but let's face it, that is not the "bad boy" Marlon Brando one immediately thinks of. And, anyway, who pays attention to him when Frank Sinatra is sharing the screen? Certainly not me.

I once heard somewhere that Johnny Depp's portayal of Willy Wonka in the 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was based on Marlon Brando. Now it's hard to compare the two immediately:

But when you listen to the tone quality, intonation and speech patterns of Marlon Brando you can TOTALLY see how Johnny Depp mimicked him as Willy Wonka. Just go and listen, it's uncanny. For such a suave and ruggedly handsome leading man, he certainly has a goofy voice. Alas, you love him anyway as Terry Malloy in this gritty, underdog vs. the man (mob?) story.

You really hate Terry Malloy in the beginning. He's a lazy kiss up to the mob who is willing to do what he needs to do (regardless of what happens to others) so he can keep his cushy position doing nothing on the docks. And you hate Edie Doyle (Eve Marie Saint) even more for falling for the bad boy that she hopes to convert. But by the end Terry is the hero you were hoping he would become. Yet, it's less grand then what you're used to. He hardly seems victorious, covered in blood, walking back to do the same labor they always did, just free of the mob this time, but he changes the lives of the crowd that follows him. Because one man chose to stand up, he led the rest to do the same. Well, Terry isn't really the man who started the revolution, it's Father Barry (Karl Malden), but we'll get to him later.

As I watched this movie, I wondered "is this really what life was like for some people in the '50s?" They took out loans from the mob just so the mob would let them work. That's right, they paid the mob so the mob would give them work. It's not just the controlling mob that's frightening, it's their control over the masses, who overlook ANYTHING so they don't cross the mob. For example, Joey Doyle is killed in the beginning and his very own father is unwilling to even look at Terry after he testifies against the mob (who killed Joey) in the investigation of Joey's murder. His own father! Before Terry turns to help destroy the mob he tells Edie, "I'd rather live like an animal then end up like Joey...quit worrying about the truth all the time and worry about yourself." The underworld of the waterfront has so polluted the lives of it's inhabitants that they morality is non-existent. We see this in the scene where Terry tells Edie that he had a (unknowing) hand in her brother's murder. As he tells her, you can't hear what he says, all you can hear is the noises of the waterfront: ship horns, hammering, clanking, machinery, and it gets louder and louder. So as he tries to pull himself out of the muck of the waterfront, he can't escape, it's all around him, drowning him out.


And who is there to drag them out of the dregs of the waterfront? Father Barry. He inspires those around him to fight against the mob, and is one of the most convincing, passionate, ring leaders I have ever scene. After the death of another man who sought to fight against the mob, he comes to see the body. When told to go back to the church he says, "boys, this is my church. And if you don't think Christ is down here on the water front, you've got another guess coming...only you with God's help have the power to knock them out for good." This is one of the BEST inspiring speeches I have ever seen.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XLbRI0kdLg

I just realized that the reason I love Father Barry so much is because his character is what makes the movie transcendent. Without him, it would have been just a normal underdog vs. the man movie, but because of him it becomes a piece of transcendence, a spiritual awakening.

The Ides of March

With my recent Golden Globe experience, I've been trying to keep up with this years contenders for the Academy Awards, as well as those for years past. The Ides of March is one such contender, mainly for best picture, best director, and best supporting actor (Ryan Gosling).
Side note - I was just looking for pictures for this posting and was distracted by a blog about The Ides of March and WOW, I really suck as a film writer. But that's why this blog is just for me. And that's why I have no future in the world of film, besides my own ramblings, premature thoughts and living room screenings.

Anyway, this film was surprising. It is, in essence, a "talkie." There's very little action and very much talking. And, it's kind of dense in the beginning, but somehow you muddle through and it really begins.

George Clooney does a fantastic job playing a slimy character, and yet he's STILL charming. He's slimy, but charming. Ryan Gosling's character is the opposite. You want him to succeed, but only in the beginning - and then all of the tables turn and you don't know who you're rooting for - Philip Seymour Hoffman maybe?


Joke. It's certainly not Evan Rachel Wood (the love interest). Maybe I couldn't get past her hair and makeup but I just feel like they could have done better, especially opposite Ryan Gosling.

Once you're in the film, you're in it. It was well done, has a different ending than you're used to (back to the New Wave where nothing ends happy, or even content) and it was refreshing. The cinematography was well done - it draws you in more than anything else and it is just beautiful at some points.
And it was written and directed by George Clooney - he is really blossoming in the film world as an artistic contributor.

All About Eve (1950)

The first film of this experiment: the 1950 best picture All About Eve.

The stats: All About Eve won 6 of 14 awards it was nominated for, including best: actor in a supporting role, costume design, director, sound recording, screenplay and, of course, picture.

What shocked me most about the film was that when it started I thought it would be one of those upbeat showbiz movies. Instead it almost had a horror feel - not in the story or in how it was presented, but just how Eve sneaks in and becomes this fearsome creature, who takes the place of Margo, and in the end it appears that another "Eve" comes to take her place.

The film starts at what seems to be the climax of Eve's career. Then, through different character narations we see the story unfold. Eve is a fan of the great theater actress Margo Channing, and through the kindness of Margo's friend, Karen, Eve and Margo are introduced. Margo takes Eve under her wing and gives her a job. Shortly thereafter Margo feels Eve as a threat and throws child like tantrums about Eve, Eve, Eve. This is where you think, "man I really don't like Margo - she is out of control" yet, you have an eerie feeling that Eve isn't as sweet as the smile on her face. Through a series of "innocent" events, Eve replaces Margo as a grand actress, and Margo lets go of her actress identity and moves on to pursue her career as a woman. Eve, the whole time, was manipulating and lying in the hopes of becoming greater than the great Margo Channing.

The storyline is great, but it is definitely the screenplay and acting that make this film what it is. The dialogue is witty, vivacious and vivid. I wanted to imprint every line in my memory forever.

It is hard to say whose performance was better, Bette Davis (Margo) or Anne Baxter (Eve). They were both PHENOMENAL and were nominated for best actress. You just loathe Margo in the beginning, especially with her arching, expressive eyebrows, droopy eyes, and down-turned mouth (only because she pouts for the first half of the film).
And then, with those exact same features she wins you over - she is a changed woman who is no longer controlled by the theater, but who is in control of her own life, and this change jumps out at you from the screen. And then there's Anne Baxter whose face is so serene and gentile and whose voice is so soothing, yet you know she is just a sugarcoated lemon, and this shows through her eyes. You see the bad in her come out through her eyes. By the end of the film every feature on her face has gone from sweet to sour.

Can you see the difference? It's so subtle yet you can't forget it once you notice it.

Both women played their roles so brilliantly - where has this acting gone? They don't come as great as Anne Baxter or Bette Davis anymore.

The screenplay, the one that my life's ambition is to memorize, exuded the film's themes. My favorite is the life of the theater and how an actress isn't a woman, but "a body with a voice that [sometimes] pretends it has a mind." What does a woman do once she has destroyed everything in her path to become a great actress? I believe it's Margo who says, "the things you drop on the way up the ladder so you can move faster, you forget you'll need them again when you get to be back to being a woman." You see Margo almost self-implode when Eve threatens her place on the ladder. Then, somehow, she lets go and moves on to a great career as a woman, while Eve remains behind that when she is asked "All that for a part in a play" she says, "I'd do much more for a part that good." There is a constant discussion throughout the film about the theater and the obsession with it that makes you, and then ultimately breaks you. Which is kind of ironic, because Marilyn Monroe makes an appearance as an acting ingenue, and her life was pretty much destroyed by the profession she committed it to.

Basically I LOVED this movie. It has a powerhouse cast and the production quality to back it up. Go see it. NOW.

The Golden Globes Inspiration Project

Every year I can't wait for awards season. I always watch the ENTIRE Academy Awards, all ten hours (or so it seems) of it. Lately, I've been watching the Golden Globes.


They're not as...official? important?...well I can't think of the word, but they're not to be taken as seriously as the Academy Awards. They show the possible contenders for the Big Show, and you get to see everyone all dressed up.

Claire Danes was one of my favorites this year.

So, as I'm sitting through Ricky Gervais abusing the stars

(he had a new alcoholic beverage each time he walked on stage)

and as I'm watching scenes from the years "best films"

(a still from "The Artist" - one of the nominees I can't wait to see)

I think, "wow as a film graduate I have no idea what's going on in the industry that I studied." I mean I love film, and after four years of studying and writing about and breathing in the best films of the century, I'm just burned out. And even after those four years, I still don't have a clue about what films have been made. But now I'm ready to jump back into the world of film!

So, to start, I thought I would watch all of the Academy Award winners for "Best Picture." So, that's what I'm going to do. And hopefully, I'll keep this up, and write about all of them.

So, "Come on, everybody. Here we go!!!!!!!!!"

Peter Pan - the first of many

"To live would be an awfully big adventure."

I'm in a transcendence in film class and we had to read an article about active spectatorship. This is a journal I wrote for the class, based on two interesting points from that article. One point the article discussed was how film is spiritual vessel to the divine. One particular point that really made an impact on me was how our “understanding of how God works in our lives is expanded and clarified through film” and how film is a useful tool in considering out spiritual nature. People normally consider film as a form of entertainment, but it is an educational tool to help us reach more divine perspectives. As we watch films, we step into the shoes of other people and see through their eyes. We understand the world in a whole new way. Surely learning everything we can about this life brings us closer to the divine. Film helps us understand important things through visual storytelling. It is like a parable: there is the surface story, but when you search deeper there is greater depth and meaning.
This point becomes significant as I watch Peter Pan (2003). The story of Peter Pan is one that has always resonated with me because I think the concepts are so universal. This film is an incredible tool in considering my spiritual nature. Peter Pan represents all that is innocent, a boy stuck in childhood forever. Captain Hook represents adulthood, and all the scary things that come with it, like wisdom, power and greed. Peter Pan is constantly struggling against Captain Hook, resisting adulthood and the scary things that come with it. Yet through the whole film the children play house and pretend to be grown up, because they desire to be adults. An example is when Wendy and Peter appoint themselves parents of the lost boys and insist that they take their medicine. I feel like this is a similar struggle that the spiritually minded face. Do we keep our innocence and stay close to the spiritual, or do we venture out into the scary world and try to make it a better place. Peter Pan, to me, represents spirituality and innocence. Neverland is the happy place in my heart where I commune with Heavenly Father. Captain Hook is the world, and while I want to hide from the world and not face the evil in it, I must face it like Peter must face Captain Hook. Those that are spiritually oriented need to go out into the world and conquer evil, without becoming evil. It is our duty and quest to conquer Captain Hook and make the world better.
A second point that I found interesting was that “the film experience consists not only of our watching the film but of later reflecting on it personally and discussing it with others, in various contexts.” In order to gain a greater understanding of our spiritual nature through film, we must reflect on the film after the viewing experience and decipher what it means to us, what that meaning says about us and how we can learn from that. It is our responsibility to reflect on the films that we see to learn these things about ourselves and see what may be blocking our path to further insight, learning, and growth.
This point is also significant as I watch Peter Pan. I am drawn to every film that derives from this story, like Hook and Finding Neverland. I frequently find myself pondering the similarities and differences between these stories and why I am so drawn to them. I love this story, and I think that says a lot about who I am and the fears that I have. I am drawn to the fantasy world of Neverland and I wish I could go there sometimes and see the mermaids and Indians. I think this is my desire to escape the world and live somewhere where life is easier. This is something that blocks my growth, a constant desire to remain a child to protect myself from difficult things. I am terrified of new experiences and of having to be an adult, but like Peter I have to face my fears. In reflecting Peter Pan I find something that blocks my growth: my fear. This meaning of childhood and the fear of adulthood that I derive from the film draws me to a closer love of the story. It acknowledges all of my fears and tells me how to face them. I love to discuss the different stories of Peter Pan because they resonate with me and who I am, and upon deeper reflection I can learn more about myself and about how to overcome my fears.