Change Your Image
ron101346
Reviews
The Searchers (1956)
Over-rated unless you are an inveterate Duke fan
The Searchers is in the cannon of great westerns and rated (not by me) as the best John Wayne film, but I must lodge a minority opinion and state that it is over-rated. I admit that I am using current, not contemporary standards, but lasting quality is the mark of a great film, yes? First, what is indisputable is the magnificent cinematography and setting of the film: Monument Valley will never be as well photographed as it was in Technicolor and VistaVision (A superior wide screen process that preserved high definition even in the wide format).
Like most wide screen movies, however, the drama tends to be diluted by the scenery. Even Director John Ford seems overwhelmed by the panorama, so that there are precious few moments of dramatic tension; instead, he resorts to too many gratuitous chases and gunfights to fill the frame (and waste the viewer's time).
Another criticism (albeit coming from a world view 50 years after the film was made) is that the theme that "Indians are bad, settlers are good" is stilted and contrary to the truth. In fact, the obsessive killing of Indians and taking of their land accelerated with the end of the Civil War (the time of this picture) so that their aggression is entirely justified from the Indians' point of view.
And, while we're at it, it is almost comical (and disrespectful of the Indians) to use a mishmash of contract players and just a handful of real Indians (none of whom were in the main roles). I got an especial laugh out of Chief Scar who was obviously a white man with dark makeup--and with a 1950's pompadour hairdo no less! When one wants to show the real heroism of the Western frontier, it is better to show how law and order conquered the white man (such as in "Shane" and "High Noon"), not how the white man decimated the Indians.
Ron Levine Philly
Cleopatra (1934)
What a wonderful and underrated picture this is!
Unfortunately, the colossal failure of the 1963 Cleopatra has overshadowed the less opulent but superior 1934 version. In his obsession to throw money at the production to assure its success, Joseph Mankiewicz nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox and, along the way, seemed to forget the fundamental elements of good movie-making. By contrast, in the Great Depression of the early 1930s, Paramount Studios were already near receivership, so Cecil DeMille was put in the unusual position of having to create an epic with great economy: this meant focusing on the story, demanding great acting and creating a high style within the budget that he had.
To some degree he was abetted by the old-style Academy frame, which allowed DeMille to fill the screen with just a few beautifully designed sets (the throne room, the barge); in contrast, the Mankiewicz version seemed always to struggle with how the fill the Cinemascope screen, especially for the interior shots—there was always a vastness that diminished the actors and the acting (this is a common weakness of Cinemascope—great for landscapes, poor for intimacy).
De Mille has been much criticized for the 1930s anachronistic dialog, but in truth, no version of Cleopatra on screen or on the stage has ever used contemporary 1st-Century BC Latin or even a rough translation of it! Even the revered Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra was written in Early Modern English. And who is to say that the vulgar Latin (the form of Latin used in every-day ancient speech rather than the formal Latin used in the Roman Senate) is any different from what DeMille used in his version? Some economies were obvious: in particular, the battle scenes were just montages taken from several of DeMille's earlier films, but interestingly, DeMille filmed the abduction sequence on location—this, during an era that always filmed these kinds of scenes in the studio with rear projection. But by putting his few dollars into the scene that focused on Cleopatra's vulnerability and loss of control, DeMille both heightened the drama early in the picture and magnified the viewer's interest in her later fate.
Countering the economy were many riches. The barge scene is justifiably placed in many anthologies of great motion picture moments, but what makes it so special is that it is a rare case where silent movie sensibility has been transformed intact into the sound era. DeMille had directed in both eras and he, among the few of his time, was able to preserve the visual richness and choreographed motion of the silent era and make it work in a talking picture. Another example of that exotic visual sense is the breathtaking opening and closing credits: the picture begins with the symbolic opening of the walls of an Egyptian tomb and the picture ends with the tomb closing upon Cleopatra with that same symbolism. All of this is accompanied by Rudolph Kopp's wonderful score that is uniquely (and dramatically appropriately) languid and sorrowful, rather than triumphant and bombastic as would be the case in most other costume dramas.
I won't repeat the comments made about the superb work that Claudette Colbert did here (and so different from that other masterpiece she made "It Happened One Night" in the same year!) Her work was so erotic and sensual, I wonder if some scenes were cut since the Production Code was passed during Cleopatra's production? Bottomline: See this film, appreciate its rare and now lost artistry, and recommend it to others.
Ron Levine
The Winslow Boy (1948)
Noble, principled, but still dramatic and exiting!
This is one of those pictures that sacrifices cheap thrills for a subtle, meaningful drama of ideas, which guarantees that it will never be made with quite this quality again.
One example: Terrence Rattigan intentionally eliminates what would certainly have been the most exiting scene--showing the outcome of the trial--just so he could maintain focus on how each character reacts to the verdict and how personal sacrifices paid off in pursuit of what is right.
While on that subject, I should note what was even more oblique in the plot was the failure to show (either to the characters or to the audience watching the movie) any evidence proving Winslow's guilt or innocence! And yet the movie still satisfies.
The real hero, as this picture shows, believe it or not, is the English rule of law, as established by the Magna Carta, that allows any citizen who is charged with a crime to defend himself in a court of law. Something you would never expect that a mere movie could do so well.
RonLev Philly
Ransom! (1956)
Why "little" films can be superior
Ransom is emblematic of the little, B&W films of the 50s that made up for their low budgets with high mindedness. In a similar context, it reminds me of Twelve Angry Men, made the following year. Both films expanded a profound human dilemma (how to resolve a kidnapping in one case, how to judge the guilt or innocence of a man regardless of popular consensus in another) into a cinematic drama that leaves a greater imprint on your mind than the slam-boom special-effect films of today can possibly accomplish. You leave the theater (or your home TV) thinking over and over, "What would I have done if I were in that situation?" Because of the kiddie-market mentality of modern film producers and the international demand for plots that are high in action and low in thought content, we will never see films of this kind being produced again (at least not by the majors). Savor this film and others like it.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Not what you'd expect
BBM was quite a bit different from what I expected. I thought it was going to be a "gay cowboy flick", as the late-night comedians were saying, but it turned out to be a very deep drama. The two cowboys (actually sheepboys; they met while herding 1000 head of sheep across Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming) were placed in the year 1963, but it almost seemed like 1863, since there was little difference in how they felt about themselves and about homosexuality from what someone in some past century probably felt. It was all very tightly wound and almost as frustrating and sad to watch as it was for the characters. While critics have been throwing awards at all the cast, the whole picture really rested on Ennis' character (Heath Ledger) who was AMAZING. His intensity for showing love--in ways that were absolutely forbidden for his time and culture--is a real accomplishment and a wonder to watch. (And watching two hot actors kiss and sleep together without apology or homosexual panic who are actually straight in real life is also a treat!) If he doesn't get the Oscar, then there is still 1 ounce of homophobia left in the Academy.
Ron101346 Philly