carbonel: (RKO)
The Night My Number Came Up
Director: Leslie Norman
1955

This is a British supernatural drama. A man dreams of a plane crash, but laughs it off because the events of the dream don't match reality. But then more and more items in reality change to match the dream, until finally, it all comes true.

I spent more time picking holes in the logic of the story than in being thrilled, and in watching the blatant (and played for such) classism as well as the taken-for-granted sexism.

Well-acted, but I don't think the supernatural elements don't work for modern audiences.
carbonel: (RKO)
Network
Director: Sidney Lumet
Year: 1976

This is considered a prescient movie in terms of predicting today's focus on reality TV -- or even bread & circuses TV. The viewpoint switches between what I originally thought of the as the main character, who is increasingly a tool of others, and a genuinely decent guy who tries to do his best in a world that is leaving him behind -- and who is fascinated by the amoral Faye Dunaway.

I suspect this was a funnier movie in 1976 than it is today.
carbonel: (RKO)
Napoléon
Director: Abel Gance
Year: 1927

Generally I try not to read too much about a movie before I watch it; I want to do my studying afterward, so others' interpretations don't have a major influence on mine. In this case, that meant that when I started watching five hours of biographical epic about Napoleon, I had expected it to cover most of his life, probably from birth to Waterloo. But no.

This was just his early life. It turns out Gance had originally planned to make five more movies (presumably each around the same length) to cover his early life through to his death on St. Helena. After he finished the first movie, he realized just what an undertaking that would be, despite having kept the battle scenes in this movie to a minimum.

In fact, this isn't even really a biography of Napoleon's early years. Rather, it's a compilation of selected incidents (some almost certainly apocryphal) from Napoleon's life juxtaposed with critical scenes from the French Revolution in which Napoleon played no part (such as the assassination of Marat).

As with many of the early four-star movies I watched, I can see why this one was groundbreaking while still not enjoying it particularly. Wikipedia says :

The film is recognized as a masterwork of fluid camera motion, produced in a time when most camera shots were static. Many innovative techniques were used to make the film, including fast cutting, extensive close-ups, a wide variety of hand-held camera shots, location shooting, point of view shots, multiple-camera setups, multiple exposure, superimposition, underwater camera, kaleidoscopic images, film tinting, split screen and mosaic shots, multi-screen projection, and other visual effects.

It did all that. It also heavy-handedly hammered in things that today a director would trust the audience to infer from much less information. There were also places where the director chose to break the fourth wall, such as the scene in Corsica where (in a cue card) he assures the audience that all the scenes were shot on location, signing the card with his name. I don't know if the scene where it is noted that he played a bit part was his choice or the restorers', but that was another one.

In the version I watched, all the cue cards were in English. Which brings me to the issue of versions. On Wikipedia, there are three full screens' worth of versions. I believe the one I watched was one of the Kevin Brownlow restorations. From the credits, it appears to have been intended for display on UK television. There is also a shorter (3.5 hour) restoration by Francis Ford Coppola, but I figured if I was only going to watch it once, I might as well go for as entire a version as I could.

For people interested in the history of silent film, I enthusiastically recommend this movie to them. As a historical epic, not so much.
carbonel: (RKO)
A Night to Remember
Director: Roy Ward Baker
Year: 1958

I had been dreading this movie to a certain extent, because I don't like suspense, whether I know how it turns out or not. This movie was the movie about the Titanic's sinking until James Cameron made his. I haven't seen that one, so I can't really compare them, though I know the special effects of the modern one are supposed to be stunning. On the other hand, the attention to detail in this one is also stunning. The recreation of the first class dining room, the smoking room, even the bridge with the correct heading shown are all impressive. I wish it had been filmed in color, but perhaps the B&W filming covered some infelicities that I would have noticed. And I doubt the movie could have made use of actual historical footage as it does had it been in color.

The movie is based on the book of the same name, and is as attentive to historical detail as possible, though some of the real-life people were combined in the movie. The actual story is full of ironies and close calls: it was the captain's last voyage before he was supposed to retire; the ship's designer was aboard; the nearest ship never came to investigate; the ship had lifeboats for about half those aboard (2,200 total, lifeboats for about 1,000), but so many lifeboats were sent off unfilled that only 700 or so survived.

I'm glad I watched it, but -- as with so many of these four-star movies -- once is probably enough.

Also: new icon!
carbonel: (Farthing photo)
National Velvet
Director: Clarence Brown
Year: 1944

I had been looking forward to watching this, because I'm very fond of the book, and because I knew it was Elizabeth Taylor's first major role. It was a pleasant change from the usual run of four-star movie.

It's a beautiful Technicolor production, though the DVD I watched it on was clearly done on the cheap: the registration is a little off, and there are no extras, not even a preview. In some ways this is the ideal family movie: an engaging character goes after a worthwhile goal, with no angst to speak of.

As is inevitable with such things, there were some major plot changes made between the book and the movie. The biggest one was changing the character of Mi Taylor from an older mentor who lives in town into a former jockey who lost his nerve after being involved in a fatal pile-up, played by Mickey Rooney.
carbonel: (Farthing photo)
I'm embarking on the second half of the alphabet, and I thought I might try to keep some track of what I've been watching here on LJ. My insights, such as they are, are likely to either be fairly banal or based on my reading of professional reviews, but I'll do my best.

Nashville, 1975, directed by Robert Altman, is the story of 24 people during five days in Nashville, TN. There isn't a main character within that large cast, just a series of interlocking and overlapping stories. There isn't a plot in the beginning-middle-end sort of way, either, just a series of events. There is a finale, in that the movie ends with a literal bang.

The movie could be considered a musical; a full hour of the 2:40 length is spent in singing. Almost all of the songs were written by people acting in the movie. And some of them are pretty damned catchy; I've spent the day being earwormed by two of them. That doesn't actually make them good songs, but they clearly have something.

Roger Ebert considers this the best American movie since Bonnie and Clyde, and I can see why. It's not a particularly enjoyable movie, but it is a remarkable and worthwhile one.

Profile

carbonel: Beth wearing hat (Default)
carbonel

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567 891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 1st, 2025 04:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios