Johnny Simmons

Someone, who I cannot recall, commented to the chagrin of the majority that A Serious Man was a film for Jews only. I wouldn’t make that claim, as much as I would say that knowledge of the Jews would probably increase you’re appreciation of the piece. In Guyana the religious spectrum is almost evenly divided among Christians, Muslims and Hindus. To my knowledge, I’ve never met a Jew. So my knowledge of the Jews is minimal at best. I say this preamble because watching A Serious Man I couldn’t help feeling that I was missing something that would illuminate the entire film and show some wisdom that the Coen’s were attempting to imbue to the film. But, alas, I can’t be certain what that something is, or even if there is a veritable anything that I was missing form the narrative.

On a superficial level, A Serious Man is competent. Michael Stuhlberg plays our hero [?] college Physics teacher with some serious issues, both professionally and domestically. I can’t fault Stuhlberg, even though I feel that he’s been written into a sort of box. There doesn’t seem to be any significant character arc that the Coens’ have written for him, so it all feels feel rather pointless after the fact, which is not an unnatural feeling after any Coen film. I always feel like their intent is always to make us leave their films thinking “what just happened”. Sometimes it serves the plot, but I just wonder if A Serious Man may have been more successful it had a little more structure. I wish the Coen’s would have done a movie instead of trying to make some [existentialist? Jewish?] point.

                

I’m hitting an impasse trying to write about this film. I wish I could have loved Stuhlbarg physics' professor a bit more, and I wish that Sari Lennick would have been given a real role instead of being relegated to mere prop device - she's sensational at times. I really wanted to at least appreciate it for its merits but it all ends up feeling slightly clunky to me.

                    

I wrote the above early January which was a few weeks after actually seeing A Serious Man. Since, I've heard the "explanation" that it's a Jewish account of the Book of Job which only annoys me even more - parallels are there. The issue with the Coen's is that the don't seem to take anything seriously and at the end of the day I look Larry not even with empathy, or sympathy but just exasperation. Perhaps, a C+ in retrospect...then again, no.

Casablanca always saddens me a bit. It is ironic how despite being advertised as one of the greatest love stories of its time it’s really quite depressing. The film is really quite bleak and is all about dealing with what life throws at you. Try as I may I can’t write an adequate review of it; probably because it’s all been said before. Sure it’s not my favourite film, but I won’t deny the sheer gorgeousness of it all. The acting – is spending, and the consummate supporting actor – Claude Rainns – is good here. Of course it all comes down to Ingrid and Bogart. Ingrid Bergman remains as one of the loveliest faces to brighten the screen and she’s exceptional here, but you already know that.

Casablanca ranks with The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Schindler’s List as those films that you have to love…or else. I like two very much, respect one and the other I am not too fond of.. Casablanca I suppose is ranked just a little too low. But the thing with these massively popular films is that it’s often difficult to get that personal feeling for something that everyone is enamoured with. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mitigate the sheer brilliance of Curtiz’s film. Casablanca is good film making, and it’s a classic for a reason. Here it is at #82.

Often forgotten characters are cameos that enhance their films, even their not remembered long afterwards. If done right I’m always ready for a good cameo even though it’s more common in the comedies. In 2004, though, a favourite cameo and forgotten character occurred with this man:

                         

Jude Law has one scene in The Aviator, a film that towers at just below three hours. It’s no surprise that this is forgotten stuff, it’s not exactly that essential to the plot, but it sure is interesting. Howard and Katharine Hepburn are out on what’s probably their first of dates when Hughes’ press agent and the brash Mr. Flynn crash their table. Jude Law exudes the charm of old Hollywood; it’s the kind of cameo that you wish could become the subject of a film – because he certainly could pull it off. It’s of course just an excuse for us to hear about Old Hollywood, but it is welcome. Errol kisses Kate’s hand praising her turn in Alice Adams whilst simultaneously remarking that she should use Lux on her hands, to which she self consciously looks at her knuckles. He then launches into a hilarious tirade involving his prospective seduction of a “Ms. DeHavilland and her equally luscious sister”. It all culminates in Errol extracting a pea from Hughes’ dinner plate which only ticks the schizophrenic Hughes off. What makes this scene work is that Jude plays it as if he’s the star here, and it’s perfect for what we perceive Hollywood legend Flynn to be like. What’s even more delightful is Scorsese’s directing. As Howard and Kate leave the Coconut Grove we pan over to Flynn beginning a fight with a not-so-innocent patron that hints at – but doesn’t overstate – his anger issues.

Jude Law is an excellent actor, even if he’s hit a slump lately and his bit performance in The Aviator is just proof of his talent, and seeing Cate opposite him [even if it's only for a few moments] is good enough for me.

Ridley Scott is a director that doesn’t get enough credit. Sure, he did Gladiator which was the more or less a return to form the epic but he’s no one trick pony. I, for one, am anticipating his interpretation of Robin Hood next summer. In 1992 Scott earned an Oscar nomination for a film that people often forgot he helmed. Thelma & Louise looks like a chick flick, perhaps it is a chick flick. But it is also a thoroughly enjoyable film that features two exceptional lead performances. It’s the story of two friends – Thelma & Louise – one a meek housewife, the other a brash waitress who head out for a bit of fun on a road trip, which goes horribly awry.

I cannot think of Thelma & Louise without affection and even though it’s not exactly a comedy there is that subtle feeling of joie de vivre one unearths from it. Much of that comes from the two lead performances – Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis. I have nothing against Jodie Foster, but I’d not have voted for her on either of her Oscar wins. I often wonder if Susan Sarandon failed to gain an Oscar because of vote-splitting with Geena Davis. The two women are outstanding in their roles and they do some fine bits of acting off each other. The womanly affection they have between themselves is beautiful to see and its an enduring example of cinematic friendship. A young Brad Pitt makes a showing as an intrepid and possibly dangerous drifter and his unlikely chemistry with Geena Davis is lovely to watch.

                              

When we remember Thelma & Louise we often remember than iconic final jump, and that only goes to show how Ridley Scott put his indelible stamp on this film. But above all else Thelma & Louise’s success lies in its story. Callie Khouri is skilled and manages to make all the outlandish occurrences believable and never insincere. It’s a good piece of writing, and I can turn a blind eye to the horrific Mad Money.

                    

Thelma & Louise is a tour de force for Scott. It’s edited wonderfully, features good performances and boasts a top notch script. It’s fun and sometimes even funny and above all else it’s a good piece of film. Not bad for something that people are prone to refer to as a chick flick. It’s #78 on my list of favourites.

Forgotten Characters was probably the lone lucid feature that I had on my blog, even if I’ve done nothing to reignite it recently. I’m still ignoring the overwhelming chatter of Oscar predictions that abound but what better way to incite Forgotten Characters fever than by looking at someone who’s probably getting a nomination come Tuesday. A favourite of mine last year:

             

I’ve already waxed about my overwhelming affinity to Pride & Prejudice. I remarked that as far as the sisters go the show belongs completely to Ms. Knightley with Rosamund Pike as a worthy ally. The other sisters don’t get that much legwork, which of course is the reason for their forgotten status. Kitty is the youngest of the Bennett girls, most noted for being the ally of her sister Lydia, played by a pleasant Jena Malone [the fourth sister]. The film opens to the two chattering incessantly about the imminent Mr. Bingley. We see them as they shrieking anticipate the ball and along with their similarly vacuous mother go out to see the regiment marching, their own Elizabethan version of watching celebrities, I suppose.

Carey’s significant moment comes somewhere in the middle of the film, and is ridiculously silly. Lydia is offered the chance to go away for a Holiday and Kitty is both annoyed that she’s been denied a chance at this “adult” occasion and the thought of losing he rally. She descends into hysterics as Lydia maliciously chatters about the prospective experience. Carey is a good crier – as we saw in An Education – although here her crying needs to be definitively histrionic. It is. Hilariously so. Pride & Prejudice is the story of Elizabeth Bennett, not of the Bennett girls. However, Joe Wright crafts it all so beautifully that for some moment each of the girls gets their chance to shine. Nevertheless I still can’t think of Carey in it without remembering her and Jena Malone’s irrepressible giggling as Mr. Collins proposes to Eliza. And, I suppose, that’s how it should be.

                    

Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart are both talented actors, they’re also legends whose very name suggests to us aptitude and glamour. You’d think that having these two glamorous creatures of Hollywood team up would be something of a noir-like, sensational eye candy of sorts? Well, no. The African Queen features these two glamorous beings at their grimiest. Bogart as a bachelor sea captain and Kate as a spinster, the two travel on sea aboard the eponymous African Queen to do their bit to fight the enemies during the war. What an adventure it is.

It’s no secret, I am smitten with Ms. Hepburn; and though Bogie isn’t my favourite of the era, he’s still exceptional. The African Queen treads that margin between comedy and drama that is often so difficult to do right. Sometimes I see it more as a farce than anything else, but not quite. With just two actors for the majority of the film John Huston has the difficult task of directing this, and of course he does great. He directs it like an action film, and it works, the shots of Africa and the pacing are all excellent. You wouldn’t think two people talking could be so gripping, but it is. Of course, though, it all comes down to the acting. Katie and Humphrey. Naturally, it’s good. Watching these two go at it [and they really do go at it] is a treat. They manage to sell any potential missteps of the plot and even that ending which gets a little too schmaltzy for it’s own good seems fine with them doing the heavy lifting.

                         

It probably would not be untoward to label this a fantasy, for The African Queen is most definitely not a slice of life. But it’s still wonderful, Huston directs it superbly and Kate and Humphrey do what they do best. I remember reading Kate’s account of the experience and how Lauren Baccall came along and they two were in charge of housewifery on set. It’s always great to see two legends coalesce and The African Queen is not exception. It’s #73.

The nineties had their share of comedies – from the usual stuff to the more sophisticated. Much of it was lost in the drivel, some deservedly so. However, one of my favourite comedies from the nineties is an oft forgotten piece, one of my favourites from 1991 and a film featuring the best work Robin Williams and possibly Jeff Bridges have done – as far as I’m concerned anyway – the title in question is The Fisher King. The Fisher King, is the story of a cynical former radio host  Jack[Bridges] who befriends a homeless man  - Parry -[Williams]. It turns out that an indiscretion by Jack has led to the unravelling of Paddy’s life. So at the urging of his girlfriend Anne [Mercedes Rhuel] he makes a move to help Parry find what he feels he needs – the Holy Grail.

                                    

The Fisher King is a comedy that veers dangerously close into the supernatural, but for all its humour it’s also vividly poignant. Robin Williams is known most for his comedic work, though he has excelled in the occasional drama. In The Fisher King he toes the line between both genres. Parry is a funny man, but he is also a broken man and Williams is able to show us the pain and hurt while still making us laugh. Jeff Bridges must play the straight man to Williams and he’s excellent as the cynical Jack I actually can’t say that either is better than the other. However, the highlight of the film comes with Mercedes Ruehl who earned an unlikely Oscar playing Bridges’ girlfriend. Like Whoopi Goldberg immediately before her and Marisa Tomei immediately after she is a huge source of comedy. Like Williams too she also needs to get dramatic and does it well. That is why her performance is a favourite of mine.

The Fisher King has unfortunately become forgotten. I don’t think that Terry Gilliam will ever be able to supersede the comedic yet emotional core of this. This is sort of the film that people see and it makes them feel happy without insulting their intelligence, the script is vibrant, the acting is excellent and it is a completely satisfying film. It’s an underrated gem of the nineties and at #66 on my list of favourites.

Months ago when I listed some of my favourite musical scenes I highlighted an under-loved gem from the underrated 1964 musical Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins is on the obvious levels a comedy about the clashes between Mary and everyone she meets but the [few] emotional juggernauts are what speak to me. When she shakes that snow globe and begins to sing that “lullaby” of sorts “Feed the Birds” represents my favourite moment of the film, as Julie croons and we see Jane Darwell in her last screen performance [a cameo] there’s that sense of contentment and satisfaction; childish but true.

Julie’s performance has become undervalued in recent times, I listed it as one of my favourite Best Actress – it’s a list of nepotism, not of skill – but that shouldn’t make you think that Julie isn’t acting here. It’s a copout to just say that she does all that is asked of her, she does, but it’s not that simple. Julie Andrews has a charm that does not come as easy as she makes it seems. On paper Mary Poppins could be silly, I certainly found to the books to be thus, but Julie Andrews is a star – not in the Elizabeth Taylor sense – but one nevertheless. And it is her star quality that makes Mary Poppins works.

              

She doesn’t work completely on her own though. I never was too enthralled with Dick Van Dyke’s Bert, and I often found myself forwarding through his solo numbers when I was younger, but upon recent viewing it’s not as a annoying as I remembered. Of course, he’s no Julie – but who is? The Banks are played wonderfully by David Tomlinson and especially Glynis John who lends a perceptible comedic timing that should not go unvalued. It is a pity she didn’t do more film work. Then, of course, the Banks children. It’s so simple to write them off, but they [Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber] lend a perfect sense of bewilderment, astonishment and wonder at seeing Mary’s theatrics, and the two of them along with Dick and Julie make us believe even the most dimensional things seem real.

                            

Mary Poppins is light and fun, you could always try to find some hidden subtext and of course the aged theme of childhood remains true. I find it delightful that it earned a Best Picture nomination, even if some will look back with disdain. Mary Poppins is a wonderful film, and above all else it introduced the world to Maria Von Trapp – the singer. It’s #100.

There is some unwritten rule that says tension must be sustained for any film to be good. I suppose in a rare few instances films are devoid of any acute sense of emotional tension: there’s no worrying whether or not the heroine/hero will get married, if that character will get the job, win the competition. It’s just a series of interesting, and sometimes profound events – On Golden Pond is one of those rare few films.

The plot of On Golden Pond would read thus – an elderly take their usual holiday on a cabin with the son of their daughter’s fiancé in tow. It doesn’t really tell you much, and On Golden Pond isn’t a story about actions as it is a story of people, of people in love. Norman and Ethel Thayer are well on their way into the grace [excuse the morbidity] and they are the perfect – if utopian – example of the couple as much in love at eighty as they were at twenty. Their relationship, one of ease and dependence, is the driving force of the narrative – Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn as such as the driving force of the film. The film definitively depends on them, and the ease and trueness of their relationship is clear from the get go. It’s a beautiful thing to watch these two actors – both legends – playing off each other. There is no shouting, no histrionics, no fights and not even any particular showing of tears. What we get instead is sheer simplicity that is just beautiful to observe.

                                      

Jane Fonda plays the daughter of the couple. Critics have somewhat lambasted her for not matching the brilliance of her “parents” but it’s a silly contention. These are acting legends; it’s difficult for anyone to match them. Fonda’s strongest scenes are those she plays opposite Hepburn. I’ve always found Kate to have amazing chemistry with her on-screen women [especially Holliday, Hussey, Houghton] and she brings out the best in Jane. It’s beautiful to watch.Doug McKeon and Dabney Coleman are good, the former gives a formidable child performance though the latter doesn’t get that much to chew, still their nothing to match Hepburn and Fonda [senior].

                               

Rydell did something special with On Golden Pond and in a year of Reds and this, I always sigh a little that Chariots of Fire took home the Oscar, but prizes are just superficial, and On Golden Pond is such a lovely film that lack of them do nothing to mar its beauty. I’m not sure if all will like it as much, but On Golden Pond is an especial piece of cinema. Simple, effortless and exquisite – it’s #59.

...wherein we come to the end. It's been lovely looking at the nineties in review, and I'm not going to end with a list of my favourite films from the period. That would be boring. Instead, I will highlight the ten best Ensemble Works from the decade. Firstly, remember this list is purely personal. So you may disagree. Secondly, this is not a list of my ten favourite films of the nineties. It's all about the ensemble, those films where you feel every actor is working in tandem with each other. The sort of "You jump, I jump" scenario from the actors. Yes, that one's there.

Continuing from Ep 1, Ep 2 and Ep 3 on to The Best Actresses. It was a bit difficult narrowing all the wonderful nineties performances, but here are those that I felt the strongest about. Two were Oscar winners, three were nominated.

Someone once said that after seeing Amadeus they were so moved, they felt they could get up on a grand piano and play a symphony. It’s quite a reaction, but it’s not an unseemly one. It’s a film experience in every sense of the word and deserves that rarely used title – masterpiece – that is often given so lightly. It’s the greatest work from Milos Forman, it features some of the best male performances of the eighties and is just so beautiful to look at.

The name Amadeus is the middle name of Mozart, one of music’s most influential voices [not literally]. His story has become legend. Mozart was nothing short of a prodigy in his youth and composed beautiful music. Amadeus, I suppose, is not a credible biopic in its conventional sense. I’m not quite sure how much I would take its word as truth, but it portrays Mozart as the biggest cad of them all. He is talented in his music, certainly, but boorish in all else. Whilst Mozart effortlessly composes beautiful piece after beautiful piece the aging Salieri watches on with envy. This is one of the beauties of Amadeus. We get a legend, but we are told his story through the eyes of another. Salieri would be sympathetic if he was not so idiosyncratic and it is an incredibly performance by F. Murray Abraham who prances about opposite Tom Hulce’s Mozart. Salieri is a man doomed to mediocrity. It was one of the few occasions that saw two leading actor nominations from a same film, and if there was any time this category should have been a tie, it was then. Of course, I cannot fault the Academy’s choice of Abraham, his performance as the older Salieri leaves me with chills.

I’ve expressed by love for cinematography – those gorgeous shots we all revel in, and like a true period piece Amadeus doesn’t let up. The colours, the costumes, the sets are all so saturated with colour and feeling it’s almost orgasmic. Then – the music. I suppose that Mozart is not the music for everyone in this modern age, but I dare you not to be moved as that final piece is composed towards the film’s end. Amadeus is just exceptional film-making; there really is no doubt about that. It takes the time worn story of jealousy and revenge and it’s not that it turns the conventions on its head, but it’s all done so exceptionally well that I cannot help but be impressed.

                          

There are some films that don’t really depend on its payoff. Amadeus is not as much about what happens at the end, though it is shattering. It’s a film all about what happens, each shot, every line. It’s almost perfection, I think perhaps I’m not even appreciating it enough. But Amadeus must be experienced, for the acting or the direction or the story; but above all else for the notes of Mozart – the music.

           

It’s my #60.

I’ll just bite the bullet now. I’m a fan of Lindsay Lohan. She’s definitely hitting a rough patch, but in her heyday she showed the promise of becoming one of the more talented performers of her time. It’s not often that a teen movie makes you think as much as it makes you laugh, and it’s not often that a modern teenage film about girls can be smart enough that it doesn’t turn into a chick flick. But, there is always that one special one and for me Mean Girls is that one.

                          

I figure a good deal of my early appreciation of Mean Girls derived from my teenage lust appreciation approval for Lindsay Lohan, however that doesn’t distil the goodness of the film.; both as a cinematic treat and a teenage experience. I have two older sisters, so my repertoire of light [and often senseless] teenage films is not exactly sparse. I’ve seen Bring It On  which is fine[and the dreadful sequels] more often than I’d care to admit, many of Julia Stiles’ and Lindsay’s and even some Hilary Duff [not too much, thankfully], Cruel Intentions, The Hot Chick and on and on and on.

Generally, I like to think of Mean Girls as the best of its kind. You may think me blasphemous, but I see no reason why it couldn’t have gotten some love from the Academy. As much as I love my AMPAS, [or used to]  I have to admit that a film’s reception often depends on momentum. Sure they weren’t in competition against each other, but having a teenage film like Juno up for laurels and Mean Girls not even getting a screenplay nomination seems awfully backward. But I digress. Big surprise. Back to Mean Girls. As someone who’s generally reticent about Tina Fey I have to applaud her effective writing of Mean Girls, not just by teen films’ standards – but generally. The script is riddled with quotable line after quotable, Gretchen's breakdown and the catch-phrase that's so fetch. It's just funny moment after funny moment, and the cast is more than up for it. Lindsay, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chebert, Amada Seyfreid, Amy Poehler, Tim Meadows, Lizzie Caplan and even Tina Fey doing her non acting schtick, are all on point here.

              

Mean Girls is a film that works well for males as well as females; for adults as well as children. In its own way it’s little intricacies are just as fulfilling as any serious film. Okay, I’ll level with you. Mean Girls isn’t the best acted, best directed or best written film. But we can’t all be! It’s a good watch. It’s satisfying and funny, but it’s real and serious. It’s thought provoking but never moralistic. What more could you want in a comedy? My name is Andrew, I’m a straight guy – and I like Mean Girls. Perhaps I should be in therapy, but tt’s my #80?

               

Am I alone on this one, or can you appreciate the loveliness?