|
|
---|
Showing posts with label Billy Wilder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Billy Wilder. Show all posts
Friday, 3 June 2011
I’ve got something of an aversion to physical comedy. Even as a child I couldn’t stand cartoons like Tom and Jerry which made their “humorous” point without the use of dialogue. In Iris Kate Winslet has this quote, “Without words, how can one think?” and although I get the sense that cinema is a visual medium I need words in my life. So, it makes sense that when I think of the comedy I’m most drawn to, it centres on wordplay. Enter Woody Allen...

As much as I love Woody, I can watch each of his films and understand why his humour won’t work on everyone. I love it, nonetheless. It’s probably a bit marginalising of me to call him a comedic writer/director but even in his most serious of films he retains that imprudent humour that makes for a wholly irreverent cinematic experience. It’s alleged that Katharine Hepburn was not a fan of him, but I always like to think of what the two would have been like to have one her zany characters in a Woody piece. Imagine Alice Adams lost in Manhattan or Susan Vance squaring off with Annie Hall. Hilarity would ensue, I tell you.

Humour is a funny thing, though (funny, weird). I wouldn’t say that it’s more difficult than drama, but it’s much more subjective. Me, I laugh harder when there’s a darker undertone looming. It’s like that episode of Pushing Daisies when the candy store opens opposite and the guy says that candy tastes that much sweeter with a taste of the bitter. That’s comedy for me.
Who are your comedic giants?
Labels: Billy Wilder, Birthday Marathon, Gosford Park, Woody Allen
Monday, 28 June 2010
There’s Nothing Like It: Movie-wise, Love-wise, laugh-wise or otherwise-wise
0 comments Posted by 2011 at 10:54Of the two dozen and more films that Billy Wilder helmed I find it odd that the two that won the Oscar for Best Picture are often less remembered than the losers like Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity, The Seven Year Itch or Witness for the Prosecution. Wilder is not the only director it occurs with, and I would not exactly pledge my undying allegiance to The Lost Weekend but I find it strange that even though few would claim that The Apartment is a poor film, not enough are vociferous about it being an excellent film – which I do consider it to be. So I’m especially glad when it’s remembered…Univarn of the always funny A Life in Equinox writes…
That essentially sums it up, a script one could only dream of writing…but you know I’m wont to get loquacious. The original poster and tagline for The Apartment always amuses me (click on the picture adjacent for an enlargement - the post title is a derivative), and really it’s a claim that’s a bit brave. But, I think it’s accurate for the most part because – really – The Apartment is unlike little that appears on the screen movie-wise or otherwise-wise.
"What makes The Apartment great isn’t just the talent involved; it’s the encompassing grandeur of the collective effort. Wilder’s natural wit and charm exude the tale of these two lost souls. While Lemmon and MacLaine entrance the viewer with their dynamic chemistry, and down to earth personas. Aided by the perfect timing of MacMurray as the evil Mr. Sheldrake. And, of course, a script so heartfelt, one could only dream of writing it."
That essentially sums it up, a script one could only dream of writing…but you know I’m wont to get loquacious. The original poster and tagline for The Apartment always amuses me (click on the picture adjacent for an enlargement - the post title is a derivative), and really it’s a claim that’s a bit brave. But, I think it’s accurate for the most part because – really – The Apartment is unlike little that appears on the screen movie-wise or otherwise-wise.
The concept of The Apartment isn’t original because of its focus on a heroine involved in an extramarital affair neither is the originality stemming from the fact that its hero isn’t as assertively “mannish” as conventions would purport. In fact, Wilder’s decision to make Shirley MacLaine’s Fran into something a suicidal simp realising the errors of her ways in the middle of the film is more compliant with societal norms of the era than dissenters were willing to admit. What makes The Apartment so revolutionary (to me, at least) is its dedication to the sort of subtle and almost incidental comedy that is unlike most things we normally see. Chances are, if The Apartment was ever remade (god forbid) producers would either turn it into an unapologetic introspective, sentimental drama or decide to do an about-face and turn it into some bawdy attempt at serious slapstick. Naturally, both attempts would be failure. Even though The Apartment seems to exist as the usual black and white comedy of manners with a penchant for melancholia its end result of discovering the sweet humour in even the most dire of circumstances is surely something worthy of praise and something unlike most of what we’d normally find on the screen – either big or small.
Still, even though every Wilder films seems to have a decidedly Wilder-esque stamp on it (it doesn’t roll of the tongue quite as nicely as Capra-esque, though) The Apartment impresses me more than even the more oft-cited Some Like It Hot. The Apartment’s humour depends to a large part, almost completely – I would say – on the success of its cast. It’s the very reason why I cited Lemmon’s performance as one for the books (even if that list was made a bit arbitrarily, the top 6 hold up). Lemmon’s Baxter is more introspective than audiences seem to remember, I’ll always cite Lemmon as the master when it comes to facial comedy – which is a dubious phrase itself, but I do prefer subtle movements of the face to the more physical stuff (which is, of course, why Chaplin is not a favourite of mine). I know Nick has his issues with Lemmon, and I’ll admit he’s more comfortable playing a specific type than he realises – I still fall hook, line and sinker for his shtick every time and no place else more unequivocally than in The Apartment. Yojimbo goes into it a little bit more with his thoughts on the films specialness.
"The situation drips with irony: an insurance company, where the exec's juggle statistics and mistresses with no moral compasses. And the hierarchy of executive structure is paralleled to the status of folks in their private lives: the mistresses are treated with contempt if they begin to interfere with the home turf. And Baxter is literally left out in the cold every night, as the executives hedonistically burn through relationships that Baxter doesn't have the roots to start. It's only when a crisis occurs that Baxter begins to grow a conscience over the moral compromises he's making and providing. It seems like a fairy-tale today with current rubber-board rooms of the business-world filled with sociopaths. But, at the tale end of the 50's and the concerns of the world moving away from our boys in khaki to the boys in grey-flannel, it was a cautionary tale. Revolutions of all sorts in the '60's and plagues, both sexual and financial, in the 70's have made the film seem...one shudders at the word... "quaint."
But, that doesn't affect its wit, its insight, its charm, or high entertainment quotient. As a film it's a perfectly built comedic construction, a bon-bon exquisitely made and wrapped, with just a hint of bitterness at its core. And in the running gag that permeates the conversation of the film, it delivers its bellyful of laughs with no disconnect to the head, on its way to the heart, intellectually-wise."
Though I’m not one to lambast Elizabeth Taylor’s first bid for Oscar, I still wish Shirley MacLaine could have taken the prize. She has the ability to emanate that feeling of “lead actressishness” even though I’m sure that she’d be pushed into the supporting category if the film opened today. If Lemmon is responsible for keeping the comedy, MacLaine is responsible for not making it a tragedy. Her suicide attempt manages to play out (marginally, I will admit) as realistic and not some maudlin attempt at faux-sympathy. It’s because Marge isn’t intent on ensuring that we leave the film in love with her. Thus, by downplaying the very thing that’s her ace in the hole (another Wilder film I’m ignorant of) she ends up being even more attractive even if she’s self destructive – but perhaps that’s the very thing that makes her so attractive…
The Apartment becomes even more atypical when I consider that all the craziness is happening around Christmas time. It’s not exactly the seasonal picker upper we would anticipate. The Apartment is one of those films that make me feel lucky to experience the “classics”. Even though four films 1980 and before show up higher on my list of favourites, The Apartment just screams classic. And yes, there’s nothing like it – movie-wise, love-wise or otherwise-wise. It’s #10 on my list of favourites…
The countdown to the top begins, The Apartment is #10…9 more to go. What do you think of Wilder's piece?
Labels: Billy Wilder, classics, favourites, Jack Lemmon, reviews, Shirley MacLaine, sixties, The Apartment
Friday, 19 March 2010
This guest post is contributed by Pamelia Brown, who writes on the topics of associate degree . She welcomes your comments at her email Id: pamelia.brown@gmail.com.
Walk the Line, Ali, and The Aviator were all critically acclaimed films that were also huge blockbusters. Major movie stars that happen to be at the peak their career headline stories about entertainers and public figures who are just as dynamic, and they become films that everyone puts on their must-see list. But this list highlights four great biopics that you may have missed, or just forgotten about. They deserve to be seen, too.
The Spirit of St. Louis
Jimmy Stewart famously depicted Charles Lindbergh in this 1957 film directed by Billy Wilder. In the movie, Lindbergh prepares for and flies across the Atlantic in his plane, "Spirit of St. Louis," as he struggles with technical problems and his own faith. Recent movies like Aviator and Amelia may have better cinematography for up-in-the-air shots, but this is a classic movie that Stewart takes to another level.
The Last Emperor
This 1987 film deals with the story of the last emperor of China, Puyi, and it is directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, who won an Academy Award for the movie. While China has a reputation for banning movies and propaganda that it believes undermine the integrity of the country, Bertolucci was granted official permission to film inside The Forbidden City. The Last Emperor earned nine total Academy Awards, an Oscar for every category in which it was entered.
La Vie En Rose
Marion Cotillard won an Oscar for La Vie en Rose in 2009, but the French-language film was still not a blockbuster hit in the United States. Cotillard played legendary singer Edith Piaf, who was one of the most popular entertainers in France, especially during World War II. The young and graceful Marion Cotillard transformed herself into a rough, sad and often crude woman in a film that is supremely emotional and colorful.
Mrs. Brown
Hollywood loves making movies about English aristocracy, and films like Elizabeth, The Queen, The Other Boleyn Girl and The Duchess have all starred famous actresses and performed well at the box office. The 1997 film directed by John Madden Mrs. Brown stars Judi Dench -- who has appeared in other English royalty films -- as Queen Victoria during her grieving widow years. As she befriends a Scottish houseman, Queen Victoria emerges from her isolation and learns how to live and rule again. The film was nominated for two Oscars, and won numerous other awards, including two BAFTAS and a Golden Globe.
Four excellent biopics. Have you seen any?
Labels: Billy Wilder, classics, guest post, Jimmy Stewart, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard
Saturday, 29 August 2009
So I finally saw Billy Wilder’s adaptation of Agatha Christie’s play Witness For the Prosecution and it was a thoroughly satisfying experience. It’s always great to experience old cinema and to see how different genres were treated in those days. After seeing this movie I was on the usual high that occurs after seeing any good film. At first I was tempted to include Witness For the Prosecution in my 100 Favourite Films, but I was still on that high. And I had to come down – it wasn’t until later that I realised that it is not as great a movie as it seems. It still is a really good movie – deserving each of its six Oscar nominations, and then some. But there is just that fractional margin that prevents it from being a masterpiece. And it is really is a small margin.
When an aging barrister, Wilfrid Robarts[Charles Laughton] suffers a heart attack his intrusive Nurse Miss Plimsoll [Elsa Lancaster] wants to prevent him from taking any cases that will be stressful and detrimental to his health. Despite being crotchety Rovarts realises that her advice is good, but when a most puzzling case falls into his lap he has no choice but to defend the unlikely suspect. The suspect is Leonard Vole [Tyrone Power], an out of work and would be inventor, who has recently befriended an older widow, who just so happens to be well off. When Mrs. French dies one night, evidently after a burglary, Leonard’s wife is certain that he will need a lawyer. This is how he ends up at Jones’ office. A congenial man, Leonard purports his innocence, not certain that he really is a valid suspect. But he is a valid suspect as an insurmountable amount of circumstantial evidence against him begins to row.
The beauty of this film lies in the denouement of events.
Continue reading if you don’t mind spoilers...
Robarts finds that Christine, despite presenting a wonderful alibi for Vole, is much too composed for his taste. She does not seem to have her husband’s best interest at heart. Surely this woman must have some agenda. And so she does. When the Prosecution calls their final witness, to everyone’s surprise that witness is none other than Christine Vole; or Christine Helm as she is now called. Apparently she and Leonard’s marriage was illegal owing to the continuance of a previous marriage. Christine’s testimony is the symbolic nail in the coffin that the prosecution has been fishing for. And Leonard’s goose is all but cooked. However, since this is an Agatha Christie play, Jones gets a mysteriously call from a Cockney woman who has some unflattering letters written by Christine to a certain Max. Seeing that you’ve already seen the film, you know who this unnamed Cockney woman is. This is a brilliant part of the film... although it could almost have not worked. The makeup used to transform Dietrich is not as extensive as one would think and there is an obvious resemblance. A resemblance I picked up on, but then disregarded. I mean, no one looks like Marlene but Marlene. But her acting in that pivotal scene was so good…you really don’t even begin to assume. You’re so caught up in the suspense of the film, that never for a moment do you suspect...
Of course these damning letters completely discredit Christine’s testimony and after a great scene pitting Dietrich against Laughton Leonard Vole is found not guilty. This is where the film more or less veers off. And it’s not so much the film’s fault as it is the source material. The part I’m referring to is Christine’s confession to Robarts. It spoils the film a bit for me. I’m no criminal, but having done my share of terrible acts NEVER have I felt a sudden desire to tell it all. Maybe I’m just not boastful but having Christine confess to Jones is a ridiculous notion. Of course it’s important for us to find out the punch line, and how else would we find out the punch line you ask? Why not have Christine and Leonard leave separately. And after the crowd dissipates we cut back to the Vole home. Leonard comes in and he and Christine embrace. The viewer is confused and as the shot widens we see the very costume of the Cockney woman. That would have been very much more interesting, or something along those lines. This is not a play, everything need not be resolved by speech; but alas that could not have happened because the story is not done there.
Yes, Christine has perjured herself but its Leonard who has been playing us all. He is guilty, and what’s more he has another woman. This just decimates the film into a tawdry affair for me. Yes, every good film has a twist, and we don’t really see it coming...but was it really necessary. After sinking to this though the film has nowhere to go but up and when Christine performs her execution it’s a beautiful moment and almost made me disregard what happens earlier. But I can’t. Still the actual ending is wonderful. As Christine is carted off and Ms. Plimsoll tells Mayhew so sagely. We’re not going yet. The look on Ms. Lancaster’s face makes me fine with her Oscar nomination. She knows way more than she’s letting on, and that final line. You’ve forgotten your brandy. It’s so telling and adds a bit of humour in light of sad events.
I realise that my few reservations about the film have more to do with the source material and I can honestly say that the only way it could have been improved was by diverting from the source material, which probably would not have stood as well with audiences. But Christie’s original ending would have worked much better on film. Don’t let my somewhat negative stance fool you though. This is a wonderful film. It’s not as dismal as Sunset Boulevard but its every bit as taut a drama, maybe more so.
And let me get to the main issue with this movie. Marlene Dietrich – did she deserve an Oscar nomination? My answer is a resounding YES. But in what category? That’s the issue. It’s not a true lead performance but I suppose voters would be wary of putting in supporting; which is where I think it belongs. Because at the end of the day this story is about Robarts, it’s not about the Voles. And it’s a great film. See it. It’s worth it. See it for Laughton, see it for Wilder, but most of all see it for Dietrich.
Labels: 1958, Billy Wilder, classics, Oscars, reviews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)