The Elephant Man – 1980

Director – David Lynch

Starring – John Hurt, Anthony Hopkins and Anne Bancroft

Slow, cruel, and beautifully filmed.  These are the main adjectives I would use to describe David Lynch’s, The Elephant Man.  Set during the Victorian era in London, The Elephant Man tells the real life story of John Merrick, a seriously deformed man led from one freak show to another.  Anthony Hopkins stars as Frederick Treves, a doctor who takes it upon himself to rescue Mr. Merrick from the actual freakshow that he is performing in, puts him up in his hospital, and attempts to teach him civilized behavior.  Treves parades Merrick around, using his notoriety to advance his own reputation, all the while claiming to help him.

When word gets around that the “Elephant Man” (called this partially due to his appearance, and partially because his mother was mauled to death by an elephant) has gained a certain popularity with the upper crust, the owner of the freakshow (Bytes) comes back to collect his “treasure”.  Treves and Bytes play a game of tug-of-war with Merrick, neither considering him or his feelings in the least.  In terms of characters, Merrick himself played with a certain amount of humanity and grace by John Hurt, is the only character who really has any redeeming characteristics.  Despite his huge prosthetic make-up appliances, Hurt manages to imbue Merrick with a certain subtlety.

On the brightside, the film looked beautiful.  Shot in silky black and white, each characters shadowy nature plays itself out visually on the backdrop of dreary, foggy London.  Each of the set pieces is crawls with life, some of it unsettling and horrible, and some of it approaching dignity.  As the movie goes on, the mood, as well as the visual tone of the film grows subtly and slowly brighter.

Of the Lynch films that I’ve seen so far, I would have to say that this is smack in the middle.  It doesn’t reach the fantastic weird heights of films like Mulholland Drive, or Blue Velvet, but it doesn’t quite fall to the un-intelligable depths of Lost Highway, or Inland Empire.  If you’ve seen any of David Lynch’s other films, you will see some similarities but he clearly grew and matured since finishing this film.  Despite, or perhaps because of this, The Elephant Man was one of his more critically successful films and has since allowed him to go on and become a unique independant voice, if only for that reason, this film deserves it’s place on the list of 1001 Movies You Should See Before You Die.

I wanna thank y’all for coming here tonight. Be sure to tip the waitresses.

White Heat – 1949

Director – Raoul Walsh

Starring – James Cagney, Virginia Mayo, and Edmond O’Brien

The title of this film, White Heat, clearly comes from the boxed up frustration and rage capable of the late great James Cagney.  The character, Cody Jarrett, is a hot-headed gangster with some not so subtle mother issues.  Rounding out the cast of a 1000 dysfunctions is his wife, Verna, ready to cross him the moment he goes away, his right hand man, Big Ed, itching to step in and take his place, and his mother, Ma Jarrett, more than willing to accept and encourage his dependence on her.  Together, these characters set up the conditions for a dramatic explosion of volatility and emotion, and explode they do.

Feeling the heat for the robbery we see him commit at the start of the film, Jarrett confesses to a lesser crime alibi that he had set up beforehand.  Sent up to prison in Illinois, the federales plant a man on the inside in an effort to gain Jarrett’s trust.  While on the inside, Cody’s gang is strong-armed, and his wife is swept off her feet by, who else, Big Ed.  Without giving away too much of the story, things continue to fall apart from there.

Cagney’s performance matches perfectly with my pre-conceived image of him from the few film clips that I’ve seen, and through his performance in Angels With Dirty Faces.  Since White Heat and Angels are among some of his most popular and well-known films, unfortunately, that means that his characters don’t seem like carefully crafted creations so much as they seem like him just playing himself.  Whether or not Cagney possessed any similarity to the Cody Jarrett character, I’m not sure, but I had the distinct impression that he wasn’t really acting so much as talking.  Now I may be completely wrong on that point, lord knows I was completely wrong about my preconceptions of Humphrey Bogart, but that is yet to be discovered.

Each other character is overshadowed by Cagney’s performance, and while each probably fulfilled their roles quite adequately, none were stand outs.  Despite this fact, the story was still a very quick paced, enjoyable yarn about a self-destructing gangster.  The inevitability of Jarrett’s disintegration was never in question, the drama lay in watching how he would flame out (if you have seen this film already…pun intended.  If you haven’t seen the film…you’ll get it when you do).  Just remember when life is snapping at your heels, and it seems like everyone is after you, it never hurts to yell out “Top of the world, Ma!”

19 stycken idag. Jag jublar. Kroppen jublar. Huvudet gör volter och fingrarna undrar vad de gjort under tiden, de har legat på latsidan och vant sig vid ett lite mer avslappnat liv.

Men nu skriver jag! Pip, det kommer mer. Ola, det kommer mer himlastormande koncisa stycken om sådan ingen orkar prata om.

Och nu när inspirationen är här kanske jag inte kommer hem ändå.

Pickup on South Street – 1953

Director – Samuel Fuller

Starring – Richard Widmark, Jean Peters, and Thelma Ritter

Samuel Fuller’s Pickup on South Street is an unapologetic genre movie, and I don’t mean that in a negative way!  To the contrary, Pickup on South Street is a breath of fresh air.  Unlike Pickpocket, a film which was comparable in terms of subject matter and timeframe, Fuller’s story about a New York pickpocket who happens upon the wrong mark is a much more fully realized piece of work (though that isn’t meant to discount the value or impact that Pickpocket has had).  Not only does the film know exactly what it is and what it’s trying to be, but it gains strength from that knowledge.  Where Pickpocket was an art film experiment, Pickup on South Street is a brazen, brash, grab you by the throat type of thrill ride that never lets down.

The movie opens on a crowded subway train car, where we see Candy (Peters) getting her valuables lifted by our main character, Skip (Widmark).  She doesn’t notice, unfortunately for him, the couple of policemen that are watching Candy, do see the exchange, although they are too late to catch him before he gets off the train.  It turns out that Candy is the unwitting courier for a sensitive piece of microfilm that the Communists are anxious to get their hands on.  Now, Skip has the whole police force as well as some very determined Communist agents on his tail, willing to kill to get that film back.

Some of the beauty of this film resides in the acting of the three leads, Widmark, Peters, and Ritter all give life to some fantastically textured characters.  Skip is a three-time loser destined to be caught again, but determined to continue his life of crime, Candy is a pretty young lady, who acts boldly, but isn’t the brightest bulb around, and Moe is the stoolie, selling information in order to put money away for a fancy funeral (if she doesn’t, who else will?).  Hearing these three con, bribe, and be caught by one another is where the magic of the film lies.  Truly the film is fueled by the witty and cutting dialogue, especially Widmark who has a talent for playing characters with nothing to lose or gain.  It’s a wonder I’ve only recently heard of this guy (He played the fantastic villain in the original Kiss of Death), but now that I have, I aim to seek out more of his body of work.

New York hasn’t appealed to me this much on-screen since I first saw Woody Allen’s Manhattan, or Walter Hill’s The Warriors.  The nights are black, and the shadows are long, yet it seems familiar and somehow comfortable.  The characters know their surroundings, and act appropriately in them, yet even though the sets are limited they never grow old or boring.

My one criticism of the film would have to be in the last 10 minutes of the film.  The way Skip ends up (his attitude towards how things end up, and towards himself, Candy, and the police) seems a little tacked on, and un-natural.  I suppose despite the subversive nature of the characters ambivalence towards the threat of communism, the film was still produced in a time where a very definite stance (anti) on communism needed to be taken if only for political reasons.

All in all, Pickup on South Street is a fantastic film that deserves attention.  Richard Widmark and Samuel Fuller are each also deserving of attention, and I look forward to seeing more from both in the future.

Sherlock, Jr. – 1924

Directors – Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, Buster Keaton

Starring – Buster Keaton, Kathryn McGuire, and Joe Keaton

The strength of any Buster Keaton performance is his supreme physicality. The man’s ability to use props, his co-stars, as well as his own body to carry out extremely fun and inventive sight gags and stunts is second to none.

Especially considering the fact that his subject of his derring-do often revolves around moving vehicles (trains and cars are what I’m thinking of specifically), it is made only that much more dangerous, and consequently impressive. The weak area of the Keaton films that I’ve seen thus far (The General, and this), are the parts where he has to carry the parts in between the major stunt set-pieces. While far surpassing a lot of the action sequences in most movie of his day, Keaton is trumped when it comes to the dramatic acting. In that arena he is bested by other comedians like Chaplin, and the Marx Brothers.

Sherlock, Jr. is a short film, lasting only about 35 minutes, which I think works in the film’s favor. If it were too much longer, it would drag, and if it were feature length it would eventually become agonizing! As it is, I was more than entertained by film the entire time, and caught myself checking my watch only because I was watching some food in the oven.

The music for this production, just like in The General, serves the purpose of helping pace the film. During the action sequences, the piano music is peppy and lively. Likewise when the story wants us to dwell on the Keaton’s love interest, the music slows down and we know what’s going to happen. This tendency of using the music this way helps to keep the slower parts interesting, but allows for no surprises in the plot. We know immediately what the tone of the scene is going to be. That being said, I don’t think anyone really watches a Buster Keaton movie wondering if he’ll actually get the girl, they watch to see him do what he does best…perform.

Now I realize that Buster Keaton is a pioneer in the movie industry, but he has so many films in this book of 1001, yet some who have carried on in his name like Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung are not recognized at all in this list.  While I am looking forward to seeing whatever else Mr. Keaton has in store for me in his other films, it seems only right that other performers get recognition too.  So if you liked Sherlock, Jr. check out Dragons Forever, Eastern Condors, or Armor of God (also known as Operation Condor 2: Armor of God).

So as I troll the NaNoWriMo Portland forums, I find myself surrounded by word-counting threads. The highest I’ve seen is the 20,000 word mark.

I’ve just broken the 1000 word mark, and officially have 1001 letters at the end of a sentence. Who knew that juggling one-acts and NaNoWriMo would be so hard. Between the performances and homework, guess what takes precedence. Not my novel.

But I’m hoping that the beginning of this week will yield some better results since performances don’t pick up ’till Thurs, and I will finally be able to make it to the Wed. write in at the SE Grind.

As of now I will continue writing until my conversation with my friend online has stopped. We’re talking about very important teenage matters at the moment, so I’m switching between my novel and e-mailing her. It’s one-thirty at night, so one we’re done talking, it’s see ya tomorrow computer, hello bed.

Animal Farm – 1954

Directors – Joy Bachelor, and John Halas

Starring – Gordon Heath, and Maurice Denham

Based on the novel by George Orwell, Animal Farm, is a not so thinly veiled allegory for Russia’s Communist Revolution.  The major players in history (Stalin, Trotsky, Czar Nicholas II, etc.), are each represented by a different character here.  The difference is that each of the main characters is an animal.  A farm animal in fact.  The animals, mistreated by the drunkard, self-absorbed farmer, rebel and drive the humans out re-naming the farm Animal Farm.  The animals set up a series of rules, or commandments that must never be broken, but to the leadership and power structure, these soon become obstacles that inevitably are trampled.

If you’ve had even a brief introduction to the history of the last 50 or so years, you probably have a decent idea where this is all going.  The problem for the movie, in my humble opinion, comes with the fact that the movie is animated.  It removes some of the credibility and some of the impact of the characters and their motivations.  In place of a fiery, tyrant with dictatorial ambitions, we get a smirking, cartoon villain with no more dimensionality than the description implies.  Each character seemed a little over-simplified, a feeling that is enhanced by the animation, and the abbreviated nature of the film as opposed to say…the book.

I suppose that I’ve railed on the style of the film a bit more than it deserves.  One very obvious benefit, was the fact that the film was able to be made because of it.  In 1954, there was no computer generated anything, no animatronic puppetry, and no realistic, cost-effective way of using real animals.  The only alternative left was to use hand drawn, painted, cell animation.  This style of animation, while perhaps not conducive to the story that is being told, has it’s own artistry and beauty.  The animated movies of today are all 3D, computer-generated, and all very similar to one another.  And while a lot of these films are fine films in their own rights, ground-breaking, creative, and well told, we’ve lost something with the passing of the age of 2D animated movies.  If only for that reason, I can forgive Animal Farm it’s short comings.

Through my research, after watching the film, I found that there was a newer straight-to-video version of Orwell’s classic, one made with CG enhanced, live action animals.  I haven’t seen it, but I have to admit, I’m a bit skeptical.  The more I think about it, the more I believe that Animal Farm (the 1954 version), is a sort of document of history.  The IQ of animated films of today rarely reaches the heights of something like Animal Farm, so the very fact that something like it got made at all, at any point, is a good thing.

The Exorcist – 1973

Director – William Friedkin

Starring – Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow, and Jason Miller

As far as controversial movies go, I can think of no more infamous movie than William Friedkin’s The Exorcist. Often cited as the “scariest movie of all time”, or at the very least one of the scariest, banned across the United Kingdom from it’s release until fairly recently in the 90s, and condemned by prominant religious figures and organizations as vile and evil, it’s safe to say that The Exorcist had quite a lot to live up to. I even encountered some trouble when I tried to watch the film as my fiancee refused to be in the house when I did. I had to stop and come back to it 2 different times. But the big question is, “was it worth all the hype?” I’d have to say, resoundingly, yes.

To start with, the story. A young girl, Regan (Linda Blair), becomes possessed by a demon, and in the process, frightens her mother (Ellen Burstyn) with her foul behavior, filthy language, and her severe, self-inflicted wounds. After exhausting the options available to them through science and medicine, they turn to the church in an attempt to rid Regan of the demon. Sound original? Not really. The story isn’t a new one, stories similar to this one have been told before and since the release of the Exorcist. It is in the execution of this story, however, that the real difference comes in and where the magic lies.

The pacing of the film is huge. Without anything obviously scary happening, Friedkin still takes every opportunity to build the tension and create an atmosphere of un-ease, and anxiety. Every minute that goes by, we are slowly drawn in to the characters, the story, and the setting. The film is roughly 2 hours and 15 minutes. It could have been double that, and I still would have been caught up in it. Not one frame was wasted in moving us towards the climax, flickering lights, ambient sound, negative space, everything was used effectivly to create the mood. Without the time taken to get us into the minds of the characters, this could have very easily become a sensationalist monster movie, or a horror movie that was dependent upon shock value.

Sound. One very important method of ramping up the tension is through sound. It can be used to add an almost subliminal layer to the film, something like the rhythmic pounding of some machinery in the hospital, or the raspy breathing of Regan as she is possessed by the demon. The sound design is, when necessary, a bit more overt too. For example, the priests, fathers Merrin and Karras (von Sydow, and Miller respectively) walk up the stairs to start the exorcism and leave the girl’s miter Arther foot of the stairs watching. The camera pulls in slowly on the mother, and suddenly out of the blue, the phone rings causing her, and the audience, to jump out of our collective skins. These little, seemingly innocuous noises, like a phone ringing, or a floor creaking, or a soft scrabbling sound, go a long way towards building the tension for the inevitable climax of the movie.

Friedkin utilizes a lot of contrasting imagery to amplify the good versus evil theme of the story. One of the best examples of the use of this technique is the image used for the poster. Max von Sydow’s character (father Merrin) has just arrived at the house, and surrounded by a glowing white light he steps towards the darkly lit house. He is surrounded by darkness (evil), but brings with him light (good) and hope (still good). The light that surrounds him draws our eyes to the upstairs window of the house, where Regan and the demon are waiting, not only does this image characterize the themes of the story, but it visually connects the fate of the two opposing sides. This use of pregnant negative space occurs throughout the film. A darkly lit scene often times is immediately contrasted with a bright one, flip flopping to heighten the conflict, and draw the characters closer together. The imagery is at war with itself, vying for the audiences attention, while undermining and simultaniously accentuating the scenes that came before it. The positioning of the characters in The Exorcist speaks a lot about the battles and conflicts they face in the story. Often times characters are either ascending or descending into or from the scene (a buddy of mine actually wrote a bit about these contrasting visual qualities, you can read that here.). The staccato nature of the imagery builds to a frenzied pace, never letting up until the conclusion.

Tying all these elements together is the subdued yet distinctive musical score. It never overwealms the film, it instead helps to glue everything together. The score is instantly recognizable, and conjures up instantaneous images from the film (just ask my fiancé).

If it isn’t clear up until this point, I loved this film. Depite my lack of religion based fear, The Exorcist kept me on the edge of my seat, enthralled every step of the way. This is what horror and suspense films should aspire to. Completely and totally recommended!

Pickpocket – 1959

Director – Robert Bresson

Starring – Martin LaSalle, Marika Green, and Jean Pelegri

Ultimately, the end goal of any movie, or even any story for that matter, is to properly set up the climax for maximum impact with the audience.  For Pickpocket, Robert Bresson, bent the common movie conventions and purposefully crafted a flawed movie with sole intention of getting the most out of the climax of the story.

The story is a fairly simple one.  Driven by need as well as the obligation to provide for his sick mother, a young man becomes fascinated with the art of stealing.  Clumsy at first, he learns the art of sleight of hand pickpocketing until it becomes a compulsion for him.  Soon, he discovers that the police are on his tail, and he’s left with the option of going straight or being caught.

As far as it’s construction, the nuts and bolts that make it up, Pickpocket is flawed.  It’s flawed, but on purpose.  The missteps in the earlier portions of the movie all serve the scene at the very end.  The strange pacing, the missed musical cues, the fact that we never actually see anything concrete happen in the film, the flat un-affected acting.  All of these things, are suddenly jarred into working, and emotional heft of the plot comes into focus.  In all actuality, the plot of Pickpocket, is almost inconsequential.  The important part is the change that takes place in our main character.  The story is a means of getting him to that point where the change can occur, and the disjointed filmmaking is a means of conditioning the audience so that when the change finally does take place (and the music hits, and the acting seems natural, etc…) we feel it that much more.

Robert Bresson, a student of the school of French New Wave cinema, is interested in creating a soul for his character.  He wants the flat, mundane character that we are presented with to come to life in front of us.  His method of maintaining  aspects of the filmmaking process so that he can change them later when the story calls for it,  is not a new one.  Directors as far-ranging as Stanley Kubrick, and David Lynch have used these techniques to craft some of the most memorable performances in cinema.  What would Jack Nicholson’s horrific rampage in The Shining have been if Kubrick hadn’t maintained the still camera, and methodic line delivery?  Or how about the unsettling death tableau from Blue Velvet?  How shocking and bizarre would that have been if the set up of the main characters hadn’t been so white washed and comfortable small town?

The problem with Pickpocket is not in what it achieves, but in what it doesn’t.  Due to the fact that the whole film is a set up for the last scene, we are left with that one redeeming quality.  If in that first hour, the audience is bored and leaves, then it wasn’t worth all that effort.  The story was a bit thin, and the characters were only just deep enough to carry the plot, so there were no stakes to them failing, or to our pickpocket being caught.  Pickpocket serves as an interesting exercise in the ability of film to tell stories and convey emotion, however, it’s good that other filmmakers were able to take what was successful here and improve upon it.

La Jetee (AKA: The Pier) – 1961

Director – Chris Marker

Starring – Jean Negroni

Although this small scale, experimental film is short in length, it is certainly long in premise.

***SPOILERS***

If you’ve seen the Terry Gilliam film, 12 Monkeys, then you know the basic gist of what La Jetee is attempting.  La Jetee, the basis for 12 Monkeys, doesn’t have as much story to deal with, but still manages to pack a lot of plot into its 30 min. run time.  Unfortunately (in my humble opinion) it’s innovation and it’s stumbling block are the same, the delivery of the story not through motion pictures, but through still photos, or Photo Roman.  (For those who’ve never heard of it, Photo Roman is an older style form of story telling that is essentially photo-montage.) 

***END SPOILERS***

I say, “stumbling block”, because the pacing of the film really is unable to accelerate to the degree I felt it needed to in order to stay exciting.  The drab black and white photos, while completely serving the tone of the film, somewhat hinder it’s ability to keep the audience engaged for the duration.  Save for one short sequence, the entirety of the film is in the Photo Roman style, with a French-accented English-language narration over the top over the top of it.  While this may have been a fine choice for a work that was 10 minutes, 30 minutes is a long time.

The story, for those who haven’t seen or heard of 12 Monkeys, is a simple one in theory, but a complex one to illustrate in a piece as short as this.  We open on our main character as a young boy with his parents at the airport, watching planes take off.  While there he is witness to an act of murder, imagery that sticks with him throughout his entire life.  Soon after, a terrible disaster (in this case a nuclear fueled World War 3) strikes and his home town of Paris is leveled.  We jump forward many years in the future,  the world on the surface is uninhabitable, and people are forced to live underground.  Our main character is now a prisoner of the “winners” of the war, and subject to experiments trying to send him through time for the answers to re-populate the earth.  The strong imagery of the man’s death, makes him an ideal candidate for the process, but his keepers may have ulterior motives for him when he returns.

The music/sound effects are the only other element that helps to carry this work along, and while they are well done and very tonally appropriate, they do very little to pick the pace up.  The Photo Roman style works very well to get across the dreariness of the main character’s present-day setting, but it does very little to capture the nostalgia and romance of his earlier days.   The impression that this story feels like a found record of what happened (a’la “The Blair Witch”, or “Cannibal Holocaust”), works well most of the time, and helps to see why this movie was influential in film history.  An area that doesn’t work as well with that tone, is the airport setting.  Some of the photography is pretty stunning, but after seeing it the first time through his younger self, the subsequent times we visit the airport don’t have any more impact, and in-fact, may have less.

By and large, La Jetee was a good piece of work that was most certainly influential, but it felt incomplete, and was ultimately overshadowed by the very similar, and visually superior, 12 Monkeys.

The Graduate – 1967

Director – Mike Nichols

Starring – Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft

A classic film.  One that, I’ve been told, encapsulates an entire generation.  It sums up what it’s like being in that in-between stage in life, where you’re not quite a responsible adult, and you’re no longer a care-free kid.  I have to say that this summary of The Graduate is entirely true, although, to fully appreciate these selling points one has to be part of that demographic.  At the very least you have to be near to that demographic, otherwise the just out of college (or recent graduate, get it, get it…?) Benjamin Braddock starts to seem more and more like a shiftless young man who just doesn’t know what he wants.

The story starts out after Ben has graduated from college with a number of honors, and the pride of his parents overflowing.  The guests at his party are gushing about him, dying to know more about his time in college, but all he can think about is getting away from them and being alone.  It is during this wallowing, that he encounters Mrs. Robinson, a sexually hungry neighbor who wastes no time in seducing him.  At first Ben is frightened, but eventually days later, his curiosity gets the better of him and he voluntarily accepts her lustful advances.

Mrs. Robinson, a woman unhappy in her marriage, and unfulfilled by her choices in life, is attempting to dampen the pain through their purely physical encounters.  Conversation, and social niceties are thrown out the window, as she apathetically, almost coldly manipulates Benjamin in order to get what she wants.  Benjamin, fascinated by the attention he is getting from her, doesn’t quite know how to handle the clinical approach that Mrs. Robinson takes, and continually attempts to engage her.  Ultimately he persists long enough, and delves deep enough to find out something of why she is engaged in this deception of her family with him.

During their affair, Ben lets everything else in his life slide.  The drive and ambition that defined him in his college career, now gives way to malaise and ennui, causing his parents to finally confront him.  In an attempt to get him back on track, it is suggested that Ben take Elaine Robinson out on a date (his parents are un-aware of Ben’s affair with Elaines mother).  Ben’s submission on this issue, and his and Elaine’s subsequent date sets into motion the main conflict of the movie.

While this movie almost certainly defines what it is like to be young, and to break free of the mold that has been set for you, it also chronicles the consequences of such impulsivity.  For every life altering decision that Benjamin Braddock makes to forge his own way, there is a life long regret that Mrs. Robinson is continually trying to make up for.  For every plot element that looks forward into a promising future, there is an equally strong storyline looking back on decisions that can’t be un-made.

That being said, what you get out of this film depends entirely on where you are in your own life as you watch it.  I for example, just turned thirty, am engaged, and have a steady job that I work hard at everyday.  I see the folly in Benjamin’s decisions more than I do the glamour.  Dustin Hoffman does a great job of playing the impulsive, wandering, naivety that most college kids our just out of school.  He is young capable of getting what he wants, and most of all he is only really concerned with himself, and what seems to be best for him in the present.  Anne Bancroft on the other hand, does a fantastic job of playing the person who used to be just like Benjamin Braddock.  Someone who, only now, can see the error of her choices.

Visually, the film is put together beautifully.  It flows together much like the characteristic songs from the soundtrack.  Each shot goes with the next, and is bourne from the last.  The patterns layered in the montage scenes repeat themselves to illustrate the scheduled and repetitive nature of Ben’s life, and start to fall away when he becomes more impulsive and free-wheeling.  The color is rich and vibrant, which aides  the slightly unreal quality that one feels after completing  something as life-changing and influential as graduating college.

While the Graduate maybe didn’t have the same effect on me that it did on others, it did have an effect none the less.  While I don’t think it is the film that completely defines who I am, or who I was, neither are the films that at one time did define me.  As much as Lost in Translation once meant to me, i’m coming to it from a different perspective now, and it doesn’t quite mean the same thing.  That being said, just because it doesn’t define me, doesn’t mean it isn’t saying something important anyhow.  The same is true for The Graduate.

Back from a holiday up at the Sunshine Coast.  This is a photo of a beach at Noosa I went to with Dylan and his family on the second day. I didn’t really take many photos myself, but here’s one of the few.

I also managed to cross off one of the goals on the list, which was number 86, ‘Go go-karting’, which was quite awesome, especially once I got good control of the kart.

So, after almost a week, I’d say that I’ve  done quite well, managing to get some progress going on a couple, and getting two goals completed.

In the next week I aim to get my November NaNoWriMo novel planned, in accordance with the ‘Write a Novel’ goal, and also watch some movies for the 101 of the 1001 movies goal.  I’ll update throughout the week as to how these are going.

by Isaure Cointreau

Up at 6h30, the Eurostar leaves at 8h00. A little metro ride and I am Gare du Nord. Before getting through the gate I witness the saddest looks upon the people’s faces and as couples say their last goodbyes before taking their train, the atmosphere in the station seems as if there was a hidden camera somewhere. With their red eyes and tender kisses they make everybody feel horrible. Maybe it just makes them recall the fact they are leaving Paris, that they are alone or perhaps they just havent had their coffee yet and strive for a good breakfast. Scrutinizing the attitudes and moods of the public sphere one thing is for sure; they are many who would rather be anywhere else this morning.

As far as I am concerned it makes me think of what I am heading back to, and to be sure there are worst places than London. Music in my ears I can’t help loosing my thoughts in the moving landscapes my window goes by.

Thinking of London I knew that there was a couple of exhibition I had to have a peek at when I would return. The Pop life exhibit at the Tate Modern, the Aztec close-up at the British museum and the “Beatles to Bowie” retrospection on English Rock at the National Portrait Gallery are some amongst others. However to this prospect I realized how much there was to be done.

Walking around the town and getting lost is easy though it is certainly the best way as to understand the strings of a gigantic city such as this one. You would be surprised by the sights you could find yourself around. However I would recommend a camera as there is no comparable thing as the first glimpse you hold to a new place.

I have been living in London for quite a while now, though the fact of being a foreigner wherever I go gives me the will to understand the vibe and culture of the places I come to be of acquaintance with. Living in a place where you are well acquainted with though to which you will always be a stranger has its good sides as in you try harder to get a good grasp of it. I am not going to flash upon your eyes the craziness of Camden Down, the delicate boho ambiance of Notting Hill or the busy athmosphere of Covent Garden, as these sights can be experienced by any tourist with a good guidebook and a pair of legs. However what about a close-up on areas one never gets the chance to see if he doesn’t know where to look?

My last found was the Holborn area. Wandering around, I came across the Bloomsbury Square. Walking through an arcade I found the most magical place. An intimate terrace with a library who offers coffee shop service, an art gallery, a pub, a vintage camera outlet and a Leica Store constitute the surroundings of this intimate but public space. I recall the feelings that emerged at its sight and as if wings were popping out of my back a soothing peace came to embrace my thoughts. This Bury Place is a diamond in the rough. However, not far from there the Sicilian Avenue is not bad either and I believe this  architectural wonder twill make you question whether you are in England or else, as its style clashes with its whereabouts.

Since I came back to England I have kept being on the lookout for new experiences however I was surprised as to how easy they are to catch. Sometimes it can start with a simple walk.

The Barbican borough is a really busy area and it feels like a very intimidating and impersonal district as everybody you come across in the streets seems  not to be living there, only rushing in and out of the offices. However once again it is about knowing where to look. Searching for the Barbican centre behind the industrial looking buildings, I stepped into the most incredible space . Adding to the unusual atmosphere of this bubble the St Giles church seemed however out of place. Being aside from sunken gardens, ponds and greens and  surrounded by a modern layout, how could it feel otherwise? However I very much enjoyed this architectural combination.

The cultural centre is the size of a wide block which is to be reached by a bridge crossing a sculptural pond. It feels like the architect wanted to make you feel as if you were in a surrealistic and futurist oasis. I found this feeling very poetic, as if the arts would be the saver of the borough as in giving life to a ghost town. However don’t get me wrong as there is life during the day  but only abiding to the rule of consumerism as the area is a good high street shopping district. However, I can think of better place for that.

Aldgate East is home to Bollywood, curry and Jewish bagels. However, there are other things worth coming there for. Shopping for instance, have you heard of Absolutely vintage? Think of a huge outlet filled with shoes, bags and accessories, along with clothes and jackets, for a yummy price. It couldn’t get any dreamier. Although this is my favourite, there are other smaller vintage shops around the block so feel free to walk around.

In terms of markets you will have to make up your mind as they mainly take place on Sundays. The Spittalfieds market offers good quality products for good money on a variety of goods. On the other hand, the Petticoat Lane market is a wonder for designer clothes findings. Selling mainly things to wear, it is always interesting to go by with a few £ at hand as you’ll never know what could come around. However if you are only looking for a drink with friends there is the unforgettable cocktails at the drunken monkey or the delightful ambiance at the 1001.

It only has been a month since I came back and I already covered some grounds, however how can any one know a city like London by heart? It has so much to offer one can only try, and that’ll be my aim throughout this year.

Five Easy Pieces – 1970

Director – Bob Rafelson

Starring – Jack Nicholson and Karen Black

Jack Nicholson has made a career out of playing himself.  He usually does such a good job at playing himself, that I forget he can be restrained and believable as another person.  I was recently reminded of that fact by his rather mellow yet taught performance in Bob Rafelson’s Five Easy Pieces.  In it, Nicholson plays Bobby Dupea, who after dropping off the radar of his high society family spends his time working at a crummy blue collar job, drinking with his friends, and cheating on his girlfriend Rayette, played to the hilt by Karen Black.  He works incredibly hard to sabotage his life every chance he gets, ensuring that no one ever gets to disappoint him except himself.

The tone of the film (and Bobby’s life) is rather bleak, however the look of the film is very warm, and almost comfortable.  As a lot of movies from the seventies do, it has the color of memories that one usually associates with old photographs.  With few exceptions the set pieces seem comfortable, warm and inviting.  Everyone in the scenes seemed to be quite at ease, that is except for Bobby Dupea.  Dupea seemed the most at home when the situation had grown uncomfortable, when he was fighting with Rayette, when he was busy working his shitty job, and when he was alone.  Whenever he was put into a comfortable situation, we could see his squirm.  We would find out later that this was a trend in his life.  His past consists of a series of failed relationships with his family, most notably with his father.  This becomes especially relevant when he learns that his father has suffered from a stroke, and he decides to make the trip home to make peace before he dies.

While he’s home, we glean a bit more into the depths of his motivation, although we never truly get a clear picture.  The fogginess of his reasoning actually serves to help the story by creating a barrier between us, the audience, and Bobby.  That barrier mirrors the barrier that exists with each of the other characters.  We can see the futility of his actions, just as many of the other characters in the story can.  Seemingly the only ones who are unable to recognize his cyclical behavior are Rayette and Bobby himself.  Rayette doesn’t see it because she truly believes that he’ll change, and he just chooses not to see it.

This behavior is cemented in place through his sudden in-ability to communicate with his father.  Once this avenue is closed off, all possibility of the reconciliation that he has been putting off since he left is gone.  All that remains afterwards is the limited connectivity that comes with his seduction of the women in his life.  Some of these are successful (Rayette), and some and some are not (Catherine, his brother’s love interest), but the result is the same either way, he remains lonely.  These fleeting relationships (usually self destructive ones) are completely, emotionally unfulfilling to Bobby.  The only benefit seems to be a physical one.  These moments of connection are so foreign and uncomfortable to Bobby that he reflexively, almost instinctively destroys them by driving them into the ground.

By the end, we have man with no options.  Having spent all of his time burning bridges, he is now exiled with himself.  Five Easy Pieces is a complex movie about an unlikable man struggling with the people who are trying to like him anyway.  To define it is far from easy, yet enjoying it is far from difficult.

To Kill A Mockingbird – 1962

Director – Robert Mulligan

Starring – Gregory Peck, Brock Peters, Phillip Alford, Mary Badham, and Robert Duvall

Upon starting this film,  I was under the mistaken impression that it was a completely different trial/courtroom movie.  Apparently, even though I had already seen it, not to mention the fact that it came out well over 30 years after To Kill a Mockingbird, I was confusing it with the 1996 movie A Time To Kill.  While I suppose there are similarities in the central themes of justice and race relations in the south, A Time to Kill, and To Kill A Mockingbird are two very different films.

To Kill A Mockingbird, is told entirely through the eyes and experiences of the trial lawyer’s children, Scout and Jem, and is more a tale of decency and acceptance than it is a courtroom pot-boiler.  The trial itself only takes up a small portion of the film, yet we can feel it’s influence throughout the entire story.  Characters that we meet through the course of the story exemplify the lessons and virtues of  the civilized behavior that the Atticus Finch character (the trial lawyer played by Gregory Peck) tries to teach his children.

This innocence and down home decency that the story is filtered through does, unfortunately,work against the emotion of the storytelling, and taints it a little bit.  Every plot twist and nuance is given a sort of ho-hum, boy howdy, type folksy quality that the story can never quite get beyond.  The unwavering goodness of the father figure, played in true 1950’s American style, never seems to get angry, or make a miss-step.  The good guys always wear white hats and the bad guys black hats, so they can be easily distinguished from one another.

On the plus side, it did function as a rather nice sort of fairy tale, much like one of the American Tall Tales.  Only instead of how Paul Bunyan  created the Great Lakes or hearing about how Pecos Bill roped a tornado, we learned how the Civil Rights movement quashed racism and bigotry, and how little kids are looked over and protected by the Boo Radleys of the world.  Operating on this level, To Kill a Mockingbird is an enjoyable film with just the right amount of heartbreak and joy.

I’ve compiled a list, and so I’m just going to start straight away, from tomorrow, being the 14th of October 2009, because I am actually quite excited about starting this list. I’ve wanted to do a 101 goals in 1001 days for ages, but I never really saw it as a definite thing to do until now. It has come to my attention I should probably work out when I’m meant to have this list done by.

As it turns out, I have until the 11th of July 2012 to have this list completed.

I’m starting off with that massive survey, because if I don’t get through that now, I’ll never bother.

Let the fun begin!

Seconds – 1966

Director – John Frankenheimer

Starring - Rock Hudson, Salome Jens, and John Randolph

With a twist that I saw coming from a mile away, John Frankenheimer’s Seconds is a film that suffers because of my knowledge of modern movie making.  Simply because of the fact that I’ve seen movies such as The Usual Suspects, Saw, and anything directed by M. Night Shyamalan, I, and others like me, are far more likely to spot an ending like this coming.

While the general plot of the movie was an intriguing one (a man gives up the trappings of his old life, and assumes a new identity in an effort to start over), the ending wasn’t alone in being rather sub-par and un-fulfilling.  Our main character, Tony/Arthur, has been receiving disturbing telephone calls from his old friend.  The problem is that is friend has been dead for a while.  It turns out his friend has enlisted the services of the “organization”.  For a cost, the organization will fake your death, and then provide you with extensive plastic surgery, dental reconstruction,  a new home, new friends, and a new job.  All this is provided for by the insurance policies that “the organization” takes out in your former name, and then collects on your behalf.

The problem comes in when the services rendered aren’t necessarily asked for or sought out.  Arthur (our main character’s name before his faked death) was told to go to a secret location by a friend who he thought was dead.  When he gets there, he is sereptitiously brought to a hidden office somewhere, drugged and then blackmailed.  It is only then, after all the hullaballoo, that he is told what the proceedure entails.  Not only this, but we are never given any real reason to believe that this is something that he would have wanted, let alone gone through with. 

Once Arthur becomes Tony (post death name), our main character becomes rightfully confused and upset by his circumstances, and begins to act out a bit.  He tries going back to see his former wife only to find that she’s moved on with her life after his death.  Understandably Tony is troubled by this, but for seemingly no reason at all he decides that the best course of action is to ask for another new life from the organization.  Now maybe it’s just my good old 2000’s common sense talking, but I wouldn’t assume you could just go demanding favors from a group of people that extort money from you by forcibly faking your death (complete with a real corpse mind you), and steering you into a new life where you are constantly monitored and confused.  I guess that’s just me.

One thing I can give this movie credit for, is the camera work.  The stark black and white photography combined with the claustrophobic positioning of the camera, provides for a very paranoid tone.  We the audience, are thrust into this situation the same way the main character is, and as a result we are very discombobulated, and off balance.  These feelings are intensified by the extreme wide angles that the film is shot in.   Close up’s of our actors faces become uncomfortable, distended, and distorted, it’s just too bad that the story doesn’t live up to the set up.

COD. 1001 
(clique na imagem para ampliar)

Vaso “garrafão” (alt = 0,57m / diam = 0,15m)

Les dejo un link a 1001freefonts para que puedan buscar tipografías para sus propuestas

The Haunting – 1963

Director – Robert Wise

Starring – Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, and Russ Tamblyn

The Robert Wise production of The Haunting suffers slightly from the fact that I saw the shitty 1999 remake first, and unfortunately it never really recovers.

Based on the short story by Shirley Jackson, the Haunting is a good example of the 1960’s horror film.  It is far enough away from the 50’s to avoid giant monsters, and a cliched premise, but it is still too far from the late 70’s and early 80’s when gore was in vogue.  By comparison, it manages a certain legitimacy that movies in either of the other two camps aren’t afforded.  The scares are based around tension rather than gross-outs or horrible creatures, which makes the film seem all that much more grown up. 

Julie Harris, stars as Eleanor, the troubled, put-upon woman who is perhaps a little sensitive to the paranormal.  She, and a few others, are the guest of Dr. Markway, a scientist interested in the spiritial disturbances that have taken place for decades at Hill House, a mess of corridors and rooms with a lonely and bitter past.  The presence of these newcomers (two of whom are sensitive to the otherworldly happenings), awakens the angry spirits in the house and causes them to run amok.

While the set up of each version of the film (the original and the remake) are the same up to this point, the remake diverges at this point and as the characters start dying.  So, having seen the latter version, I was waiting for the original version to start killing off our main characters.  I was waiting for the caretaker and his wife to turn up dead (like in The Others, another movie with a similar plot), once Markway’s wife showed up, I was waiting for her to die.  The point was, I kept waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Despite the fact that I thought the newer version was dumber, with inferior acting, and pacing, I was a little let down by the lack of death, or at least the lack of percieved danger.  This version seemed tame.  Not that tame is bad, but this seemed like it was missing a scene or two, or maybe even a whole act.  The conflict of our main character (her guilt about how her own mother died) is never fully realized, and ultimately doesn’t seem a good enough reason for her to be so introspective, and awkward.  Without the realization of threat of the spirits manipulation of Eleanor’s neediness, and fear, the motivation for what happens is not fully believable, and ultimately rings false.

Despite my disappointment, The Haunting has a number of very effective scenes, the most notable of which is the scene in which Eleanor wakes up to the sound of the ghost stomping around outside her room.  She grabs hold of the hand of who she believes is her roommate (the at times aggrivating, at times compassionate Theo played by Claire Bloom), only to find out after the moment has passed that she was much to far away for it to have been her.  Russ Tamblyn (Dr. Jacoby from Twin Peaks) has a few funny lines and is generally the best character whenever he’s on screen.

One other thing that was a bit of a disappointment to me, was the inside of the house.  It is supposed to be this awesome, fearful place, that is completely it’s own character.  It wasn’t that so much.  All I saw of it was a jumbled grouping of dark walls that didn’t convey a mood or tone.  Also I didn’t really have a sense of where in the house the characters were.  There seemed to be no main room, no kitchen, no logical layout, it was all bedrooms, and stairs.

All in all, a bit of a disappointment.

Repulsion – 1965

Director – Roman Polanski

Starring – Catherine Deneuve

I came to this film knowing nothing at all about it, except for the brief synopsis on the Netflix sleeve.  If you’re going to watch this thriller, I highly recommend doing it the same way that I did.  Going in blind is by far the best way to experience it.  I wasn’t ready in the least for the ride that I was about to go on.

The story is a fairly simple one, a young, attractive, French girl, Carol (Deneuve), lives in London with her sister.  She is very shy, to the point of uncomfortability around men, and she is scared when she is left alone.  Aside from the constant attention she gets from the opposite sex, her neurotic behavior and her fears are elevated by the fact that her sister spends all of her free time giving her attention to her live-in, married boyfriend.

But that is all prologue…the story really gets rolling when Carol’s sister and her boyfriend take a two week trip to Italy, leaving her all alone with her paranoia and fear.  Carol goes from bad to worse, gradually at first, but then by leaps and bounds.  At about the half hour mark I was still feeling a little bit board and having trouble with my attention wandering.  I was sure this was going to be another run of the mill girl fending for herself, but somehow she finds the strength to overcome type story line.  As we got further and further in, the film refused to flinch, and my attention wandered less and less.  Carol’s downward spiral progressed to such a degree that I wondered aloud just how far they were going to take it.  It was at this point that I realized, I was sitting bolt upright, with tense muscles, eyes locked on the screen.  From that point forward, that is how I stayed.

The problem with reviewing a movie like this is that it works best without knowing anything, but when it’s over all you want to talk about is the stuff you can’t talk about without ruining that effect for someone else.  With that in mind, I can’t really talk to much more about the plot without spoiling something the film works really hard for, suffice to say you should definitely check it out.

Shot entirely in black in white with an almost documentary feel, the film really puts us in-between Carol and the rest of the world.  How the camera moves with her and around her is based entirely on how she sees the world.  When she is feeling comfortable and safe, we maintain a nice distance, and are able to watch her interact with those around her.  On the other hand, when she is feeling cornered or paranoid, the camera is right on top of her, shooting her eyes and face in extreme close-up.  Her fear and anxiety radiates from the screen and infects us with an unease.  We are acutely aware of our and her surroundings as we wait for the next delusion, or psychological trap to be sprung.

The set in which we spend most of the movie, is maleable in the later stages of her psychosis.  At times it seems narrow and uncomfortable, almost maliciously crowding us, and at others it is voluminous and filled with strange, uncomfortable shadows.  The bathroom changes from nice, white, tiled bathroom, to blackened, disease ridden, and threatening in a matter of moments.  Basically this warm safe place has the potential to be dangerous and wild at a moment’s notice.  The tone of the apartment is helped tremendously by the glorious high contrast light and shadow world that exists within Carol’s mind.

Roman Polanski chose a relative unknown actress for the lead role, and found in Catherine Deneuve, the perfect red herring.  Seemingly so demure and un-assuming, she really throws herself into this role, and wakes up a hidden monster inside of herself.  Though the supporting actors fill out the rest of the real world nicely, the main attraction is Deneuve giving it her all.

I highly recommend doing what you can to avoid reading about or learning what happens before you see this film, but even if you do know, watch it and enjoy.

Stalker – 1979

Director – Andrei Tarkovsky

Starring – Aleksandr Kaidanovsky, Anatoli Solonitsyn, and Nikolai Grinko

The most arresting part of the film Stalker, is by far its fantastic imagery.  I’m sure there will be naysayers who will say that Tarkovsky’s thoughtful narrative takes center stage, or perhaps the subtext of the movie analyzing our relationships with both each other, and with nature.  To this I say…Bah!

Stalker does in fact have these other strong qualities, but the fact remains that it’s greatest asset is it’s striking use of color (or the lack of it), composition, visual continuity, and impressive use of and between the positive and negative space in the frame…however.  To fully explain the use of these visual elements, we must give at least a pre-cursory look at the films plot.

In an un-named country, on the outskirts of an un-named city, an event happened 20 years ago.  The details of this event are un-confirmed, but it is rumored to be a meteorite, or a UFO landing.  Either way, the event in question has left the area un-inhabitable by people.  The government of the city sent their armed forces in to investigate, and they disappeared, leaving behind their tanks, and weapons to moulder and become overgrown.  Afraid that this sort of devastation could extend into the confines of the city, the government restricted all access by the citizenry to the “zone”.

So problem solved, no one goes in…end of story, right?  Wrong.  Supposedly, within the “zone”, there exists a room.  If you were to enter this room, you deepest darkest wish would be granted.  These aren’t the wishes that you’d be proud to tell everyone (ie: world peace, end to poverty), instead these are the most base and selfish things that the person craves (ie: somebody dead, wealth, notoriety, etc…).  So the desire to get into the “zone” is evident, but the problem is that the natural elements and the landscape of the “zone” have acquired a consciousness, and they don’t like to have intruders.  It is the job of our main character to be a Stalker, or a guide into this treacherous wilderness.  The Stalkers are able to interpret the conscious landscape, they can navigate the changing whims of the “zone” and deliver people to “the room” and to their innermost desires.

The city, in which we start the story, is a highly dilapidated, nearly deserted industrial looking place.  Smoke stacks and rail yards dominate the scenery, and there is an ever-present haze that prevents us from seeing too far into the distance.  Everything is in ruin, and everything has a very solid, real quality.  This city actually exists somewhere.  And the production value that comes from it helps us to believe the characters and the fantastic nature of the story that much more.  It ceases to be a science fiction movie, and starts being a document of an alternate reality.

From here we can talk about the imagery…The opening of the film, and all the scenes taking place within the city are filmed in a luscious black and white photography that takes on a very distinct sepia tone.  So even though it is in black and white, it, like the rest of the city is decaying and falling apart.  The lighting is very, very harsh and high-key, like the noir films of the post-war era, they evoke a clear feeling of one way or the other, no shades of gray only absolutes.  Now, juxtapose this harsh reality with the scenes shot within the “zone”.  Shot using color,  rich greens, browns, and blues, the “zone” is less absolute, less certain, and though it is more dangerous, it is also more free.  

Here, we see what happens when we leave nature to it’s own devices.  Whatever is left of human existence is being steadily eroded by nature.  In the “zone” people hold little sway, and unlike the city, there is life everywhere.  Water is a particularly connective theme in the “zone”, it is everywhere, and our main characters are constantly in contact with it.  Our characters are given more room to breath here, both literally as well as in the composition of the images.  We are given less close-ups, and instead linger more often on longer shots.  Since we are now further away, and robbed of the facial expressions, the characters need to do more to convey emotion, and show motivation.  This results in a more languid, slower pace to the movie.

While the set up to the film sounds like an action movie, I assure you that it is not.  Tarkovsky takes his time, and gives his characters time to be still and reflect their situation (this is where all the introspective, man versus nature, man versus himself type content comes into play).  As a result, Stalker is definitely not for everyone.  If you are fond of the slow, deliberate nature of the films of Stanley Kubrick, you will probably get something out of watching this film.  On the other hand, if you find yourself infuriated with meandering action, and sullen introspective characters, you’ll probably wish it was more of an action film.

La Passion De Jeanne D’Arc (AKA: The Passion of Joan of Arc) – 1928

Director – Carl Theodor Dreyer

Starring – Maria Falconetti

Quite possibly Carl Theodor Dreyer’s most influential work, The Passion of Joan of Arc owes a lot of it’s notoriety and it’s impact to it’s lead actress, Maria Falconetti.  The fear, and passion thatFalconetti conjures on camera througout the duration of the trial of Joan,  is not merely some plot point to enhance the story, it IS the story.

Staged almost entirely within the courtroom or her jail cell, the story of Joan of Arc is fairly straight forward, so much so that most people know the jist of it even if they don’t know that they know it.  Joan, the famous saint, and girl warrior, is on trial for her alleged heresy (actually she was only officially tried for wearing in-appropriate men’s clothing).  During this trial, everything from her value structure to her manner of dress is drawn into question.  Evidence is forged, and heavy eccliesiatic persuasion is used.  Through it all Joan held to her beliefs, and was eventually sentenced to death.  This is not a spoiler, it’s too well known to have spoiled anything.

From the opening shots of the courtroom, I was immediately struck by how upclose and invasive the camera work seemed to be.  Not invasive of the actors, but of me.  Shot in striking, uncomfortable close-ups, Joan’s accusers seem warped and distended.  Each face (with the exception of Joan’s) takes on a sinister look, frowning, sneering, and conspiring with a simple furrow of the brow.  Joan on the other hand, seems to have a perpetually wet, upturned gaze, similar to a lot of religious paintings.  She is given more room in the frame and as a result, she serves as a respite for us as viewers when she is on screen.

I tried my damnedest to watch it in it’s original silent state, but after catching myself nodding off a bit, I turned on the optional audio track of accompanying music.  Let me tell you…this helps SO much!  The music serves as a balast not only for the dramatic action happening on screen, but for pacing, dramatic effect, and as an additional means of engaging the audience.

One thing I was surprised about when watching this, was the over-all quality of image that this version (the Criterion Collection edition) offered.  I am used to these older films being so grainy and damaged that they seem almost blurry, so it was quite a surpise to find that the print was clear as a bell, with only a few scratches and flaws in the picture quality.  Another final critique, since this story is based on actual documentation of the court proceedings, the reach of the story seemed lacking.  I would have liked to have heard more about Joan’s deeds before her trial, whether or not they were truthful or distortions put forth by her accusers, it would have helped to liven up the story a bit.

By and large, The Passion of Joan of Arc was a pleasant surprise to me.  The image quality in particular, but also the acting, and pacing managed to avoid the trappings (read: length) that many other silent films fall into.  While there were slow moments, the last scene of the rioting villagers being fought off by palace guards was more than enough to smack me across the face.