Watching The Last Jedi again having seen the first episode of (seriously good) The Mandalorian. There is a theme running through the film, a brilliantly meta textual one, that both Luke and Leia are trying to make the same point to their sequel trilogy protégés (Rey and Poe, respectively) of, these great heroic moments that people remember from the eras portrayed in the other 6, are not what matters, you have to look at the wider world. Both trying to show, and indeed Luke says, Jedi vs Sith is just a never ending cycle of death and loss that benefits only those in the outer reaches selling the weaponry for this, in the end, pointless conflict.
That is the point of Finn’s story, he is witnessing the big picture that Rey and Poe are being guided towards; the children suffering and the arms dealers benefiting because of this short sighted, yet seemingly endless, conflict.
The Anderson Tapes (1971)
Wow, it really took me a long time to get around to seeing this one. Connery is in top form at the early stages of “Look Ma, no toupee” mode and pretty much carries the film, plus it’s a lot of fun to see Christopher Walken so young. Dyan Cannon is surprisingly appealing given I never really warmed to her in anything else, ever. I even liked Garret Morris in a small role as a policeman, and I’ve actively disliked him in everything before this. Maybe it’s because it’s a mostly straight role with a bit of humor thrown in through Morris’ approach, instead of a role that was written for laughs, up front. Turns out he’s better as a light actor than he ever was as a straight-up comic.
I’d read a lot about this film’s prescient take on surveillance, technology and the loss of privacy in modern life, but to be honest, I felt like that theme didn’t go much of anywhere in the end. The most substantial effect of all the listening and taping going on is that Duke Anderson loses the girl (because her sugar daddy’s monitoring her while he’s not around), but the surveillance of various other people in Duke’s circle amounts to nothing, in the end. As Duke puts his master scheme together, every skull session he has with his confederates is monitored and documented, so when they show up at the scene of the heist you expect the authorities to be waiting for them. But no, everyone’s content to passively listen and do nothing, and in the end all the tapes are erased. Ultimately, it left me with the feeling that the surveillance subtheme was tacked on and could have been completely edited out without much impact on the plot.
On the up side, the film is a great time capsule of 70s New York and worth watching for that, alone (though that angle can’t have meant much to audiences at the time). It’s fun seeing the director warn us, “Look, everyone’s listening to you…with shotgun mics and gigantic reel-to-reel tape recorders!” 70s kids didn’t need the internet, with their ham radio sets. And when Walken started taking his “spy” pictures with a camera almost as big as a lunchbox, I laughed out loud. Everything moves quickly enough, and the cast is uniformly competent to strong.
On the down side, regardless of your politics you’d have to feel uncomfortable with the way Martin Balsam’s character, and gays in general, are treated throughout. That and a couple of awkward moments in race relations put this trip to the 70s more in the realm of “fascinating” than “nostalgic”. It’s a wild place to visit, but I’m glad we don’t live there any more. In terms of lack of privacy, this film got it right; things have only gotten worse. But in other regards, we’ve come a long way.
First, I am glad to see love for a favorite Sidney Lumet movie of mine (which just this week I re-watched). Your post captures all of its charms. The movie was made in six weeks which I think helped–Lumet works best fast (which is why Connery loved to make movies with him).
As for Martin Balsam’s performance–I think it is a hoot that they even decided to have a gay character as part of the gang. The film tries to be as decent to queers as it could be in 1971–the year that also gave birth to my namesakes–Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. Imperfect representations, but a good way from fags-as-villains indication.
Side note: I think Lumet’s handling of queerness in DOG DAY AFTERNOON is actually worse than it is here. Chris Sarandon’s performance comes off as more stereotypical than Balsam’s (possibly because the surrounding film strives for a naturalism that THE ANDERSON TAPES eschews. Interestingly, both movies were written by Frank Pierson).
If you haven’t seen it, then try The Offence 1973. It’s connery’s best collaboration with Lumet and perhaps even Connery’s best performance (going against type is always fertile ground).
I was lucky enough to see it with Sidney Lumet doing a Q&A afterward at the Brooklyn Academy of Music (about one year before Lumet died). Both film and Lumet were fun. THE OFFENCE is also the film Connery got financed as part of his deal to do DAF. The other one–a version of “Macbeth”–was cancelled when Polanski’s version was released.
I should have been clearer: I didn’t take issue with Balsam’s approach, which could easily have veered much further into camp. I was more responding to the portrayal of 1971 society in general: What struck me was how often everyone called him, and one of the building residents, a “fag.” Maybe that wasn’t as offensive a term in 1971 (maybe it still isnt; I can’t keep up) but it was more a matter of the way people said it. “The fag upstairs” or “Unidentified male entering building: Middle-aged. Fag.” It seemed used as a dismissive descriptor, the last word on a guy , as in, "He’s a fag, 'nuff said. "
It feels weird to write that because I’ve never been what you’d call politically correct or, I must admit, a champion for civil rights, but I guess I’m going soft in my old age. I found it jarring every time they used the word. But on the upside I guess putting Balsam’s character on the team could be seen as subversively pro-gay in its way, and Duke – obviously meant as the hero of the piece – seems to have no hang ups about it.
I totally agree, probably down to the actors as much as the directors, Connery always seemed more relaxed in a Lumet movie and has a genuine chemistry with Balsam.
I think both Pacino and Sarandon were indulged in their performances and made the sexualities of the characters the most important aspect of the characterisations. Balsams sexuality is one of the least interesting things about his character.
Rosemary’s Baby (1968) - still creepy after all these years
Polanski at his best. Another great, very creepy Polanski masterpiece from that phase is The Tenent. If you haven’t seen it you’re in for a treat.
Yes, I love the Tenant, another amazing film.
It was definitely a slur in 1971 and is still considered one today (though some queers have reclaimed it for specific uses).
As for how the word “fag” is deployed: for me it is a record of how people wold have used it as a “dismissive descriptor” at the time–a celluloid time capsule. Also, as you note, the film’s record of common usage is contrasted to how how Duke accepts Tommy as part of the team–a very Lumetian approach.
Operation Crossbow (1965)
Saw a poster for this in a restaurant about 25 years ago and always wondered about it. Sophia Loren gets top billing but only appears for about 10 minutes in the middle. George Peppard is billed second and arrives a half hour in. He’s reunited with Jeremy Kemp from “The Blue Max” who I keep waiting to reveal himself as evil before turning to Terrence Howard, who also comes up clean. Stupidly I have not reckoned with Anthony Quayle, who I remember too late is never pure of heart in anything. Helmut Dantine returns as a nattily-dressed Nazi again 20 years after battling Errol Flynn in “Northern Pursuit” and “Edge of Darkness.” The more I see of Richard Johnson, the more I want that peek at an alternate reality where he got the Bond role.
Peppard was ridiculously handsome in his youth, and heroic here if a bit too relaxed to sell the danger at times. There are V-2 rockets and what we used to call “flying buzz bombs” and the effects involve strong model work, maybe some real ( miniature) rockets and effective use of wartime footage. The Nazi rocket base is on par with anything SPECTRE built. The music is effective if unremarkable.
I wouldn’t consider it one of the great WW2 “caper” films, but it’s well done. Probably the strongest point is that it spends time on both sides, so you almost sympathize equally with Germany’s desperation to pull out a bottom-of-the-ninth victory and England’s determination to hold out through a pounding, and strike back. Almost.
It’s still a cool poster, too, if not very representative of the actual film.
I am a huge fan of Operation Crossbow and always felt the influence of the Bond movies was especially strong, particularly in the set design as you point out. It meanders a bit but is genuinely exciting in its extended climax. Overall very satisfying.
Over the Thanksgiving break, I saw “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” for a heartwarming story of how wonderful people can be to each other. Then in fairness to the other side, I saw “Knives Out.” LOL
Both films are excellent in their own – very different – ways. The Mr Rogers pic was very cleverly constructed and despite my conviction that no matter how prodigious his chameleon-like qualities, Tom Hanks could never convincingly masquerade as so familiar a cultural icon as Fred Rogers, that’s exactly what he did.
“Knives Out” flew by and looked great with a terrific cast that all got their moments to shine, though Ana DeArmas was a standout. Also I was impressed that after serving so long as the moral center of the Marvel Universe, Chris Evans could be so thoroughly convincing as an over-privileged Millennial slimeball. It was also good to see Don Johnson looking well and doing something fairly high-profile.
He was great in the first ep of the new Watchmen. He deserves more roles - imo he stole Cold In July from Sam Shepherd and Michael C Hall, which is saying something.
Gremlins (1984) - introduced it to my daughter for the first time.
THE IRISHMAN
Okay. Scorsese is technically impeccable. He has made films that belong to cinema history. And his new film, running 3 1/2 hours long, is… fine. But IMO massively overpraised.
The last hour actually engaged me since only then the consequences for De Niro´s hitman become visible and palpable. And all the bookending scenes with age becoming the real horror were so much more interesting than the usual tropes of the first two hours which did not tell me anything new and which Scorsese and Coppola already turned into much, much better films.
Also, astonishingly for Scorsese, the visual storytelling is quite conservative and - dare I say it - ordinary. Lots of over the shoulder shots for long conversations. The camera does move for some good sequences - but mostly it remains static.
The critics raved over this film as a summation of Scorsese´s work. I totally disagree. For me it was a rehash of stories better made by him before, with only the bookend really bringing out a new aspect.
Even the acting by DeNiro becomes interesting only in the third hour. Before that it is been there done that, and the same goes for Pacino, on the brink of overacting. Pesci does get to do something else, which is nice, staying very low and subtle. But with the old age makeup for all these actors, it sometimes felt to me like a parody of their work.
Did the overlong running time fly by as suggested by many reviewers? Not for me. While the movie has a swift tempo and lots of incidents it drags until the episodic nature of the first two hours gets replaced by a long and emotionally exciting sequence in the third hour.
So - for me THE IRISHMAN is a good enough film, but nowhere near the masterpiece it could have been with more interesting plotting.
MARRIAGE STORY
Now that was a surprise.
Noah Baumbach´s movies so far always left me a bit dissatisfied, they were good but should have been better. And while at first I was hesitant here because the divorce proceedings depicted happened to a theatre director and an actress, my fear that this would become navel gazing, creating a distance to the audience, this movie really grabbed my emotions and told the ordinary story in a totally fresh way.
Touching and funny, tough and still hopeful, the movie managed to hold my full attention for all of its 138 minutes, featuring great editing and engaging cinematography - but centering, of course, on two towering performances by Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson, both of whom have never been this magnificent. (Even the supporting cast, Laura Dern, Ray Lotta and Alan Alda deliver in such a stellar way that it left me totally in awe of their work.)
And there is one confrontational scene in the film (in which Driver´s character lets down his guard) which is the most gut wrenching and devastating scene between a (former) couple I have ever seen. That the film nevertheless manages to end on a melancholic but uplifting note is proof for its greatness.
Definitely one of my favorite movies of this year.
Just watched Marriage Story last night and agree it was really great - Laura Dern was fantastic as the divorce lawyer who is manipulative but has her client’s interests at heart - and the evolution of their relationship by the end of the film is uplifting but not in a cheesy way.
ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD
Do you hear that? This is the sound of me eating my hat. And it is delicious.
This film is simply magnificent, start to finish. And it´s the first film in which every character is a believable human being, which probably made me be emotionally invested in a Tarantino film for the first time. While previous films of his were always depending on genre stereotypes, playing with tropes but always consisting of stories familiar from other films, this latest Tarantino is finally doing something fresh.
Using the friendship between a washed up actor and his stunt double at the time of the horrible murder of Sharon Tate, Tarantino manages to deal with the loss of innocence on the big canvas of late 60´s Hollywood, when the culture war escalated into chaos and everything changed afterwards.
Shot, edited and scored to perfection, the film features career highs from DiCaprio and Pitt, and in contrast to the ending of “Inglourious Basterds” the re-imagining of real events really work as a haunting reminder of what was lost that night and should have never been. Also, for the first time, the violence in the last half hour did not feel like the show-off which make so many other Tarantino´s blood lust scenes in his other pictures pandering. In this film, the violence is shown as absurd and horrifying in itself, and if there still is wish fulfillment in the punishment of the Manson family members, it still is criticized as violence coming from Hollywood - while at the some time making fun of those who justify their actions by blaming Hollywood.
In any event, Tarantino really does not waste a single frame - everything is carefully written and designed, and the critics who thought that some scenes should be cut completely misunderstood. This film is the best Tarantino has ever done, the work of a filmmaker finally matured, showing true emotions without getting sentimental. Maybe he needed to get free from Weinstein himself to be able to stop giving “the fans what they want” and to start giving movie audiences what they need.
One of the best films of this year and of the decade.
Great review - it’s a fantastic movie!