He is a director, producer, actor, and writer. He had directed more than 40 films in his life. He studied with Meisner in the theatre, New York. Pollack began his acting career, then made his name as television director in the early 1960s. He made his big screen-acting debut in War Hunt (1962). His biggest success came with Out of Africa (1985), it earn more than eleven academy awards nomination and won seven out of them. Recently he still have his movie released, Cold Mountain (2003).

Out of Africa is one of the best films I’ve seen to come out of the 1980s. It is a tour de force in acting, directing, substance, and style. I came in expecting a big Hollywood drama and came out feeling enriched and renewed. It is a mesmerizing experience to go through, and once I was finished, I felt actually very good. That is the way I should feel after watching a good drama, like I had an emotional catharsis and my head was cleared. After watching so many movies, it’s easy to become jaded, but out of Africa proved to me that no matter how many movies you watch, there’s something moving and powerful about the medium that a really good film transcends all walks of life and hits you square in the emotional causeway of your heart. Out of Africa is such a film for me.

It takes place in the beginning of the 20th century, where a woman named Karen is taken to the beautiful and unforgiving plains of Africa to start a new life with her blue-blooded husband to start a large dairy farm.The marriage is largely a sham, mostly for convenience, and things begin to tense as the dairy farm plan is scrapped and they end up trying for a coffee farm instead. And even when she thinks she might be starting to grow affections toward him, he learns that he has been unfaithful to her, shattering her fragile emotional bridge with him. He regresses into his only solace on the dark continent by hunting game, and she begins to seek emotional comfort elsewhere in the form of local big-game hunter Denys. He is caring, kind, and a handsome fellow to boot, and an affair begins between them that ignites a passion inside her heart. But can she tame his wild heart and start a meaningful relationship with him? Or is Denys too much of a free spirit to leave his carefree life behind?

Out of Africa is a very Caucasian-centric story, and I think that can be a problem for a lot of movies. I don’t want to hear about the plight of the white man in the dark continent; the African has his own story to tell, after all. But I think it can be forgiven this fact due to its sheer love of the continent and its people. Sydney Pollack obviously had a great deal of emotions about Africa in his heart, and this was a great chance to express them. He captures so well the earthy loveliness that the Serengeti provides, the plains teeming with life, the people humble and beautiful, the world staggering and humbling. Africa is really, for me, the main attraction here, because Pollack captures it so well. When the sun begins to hang low over the sweltering horizon, and the night threatens the world with its untamed ferocity, the setting is absolutely perfect for the humans to emerge from their cooled burrows and make their drama.

Meryl Streep shines as the exuberant Karen, caught between two men, two continents, and two lives. This is really a career-defining performance that can’t really be summed up in a review this small, but I will say that her portrayal of a woman in emotional conflict is divine. The subtleties in her face and the soft wording of the lines point to a dichotomy that splits her completely in half. The Meryl Streep slow breakdown rule is in effect here, and over the course of this film, she experiences an emotional devastation that is truly something to behold. Robert Redford, in another career-defining role, plays Denys like he was playing himself, even though to a small extent he probably is. He is such a natural at this role, the debonair huntsman. I felt like I was watching something perhaps I should not have, a special moment between two lovers, when I watched these two together, and it was these moments when these two actors united, that touched my heart deeply and made me feel very alive and electric. Although there has to be a 3rd wheel in every drama film, and that’s where Klaus Maria Brandauer comes in as Karen’s husband. He isn’t an evil man by any means, but he is an irresponsible fool who seems to fuck up his life, and all the lives around him with his bad investment choices, his laziness, and his syphilis (!!!). Brandauer plays this character with a roguishness that is just what he needed; he’s foolhardy and a little stupid, but he won’t usually do anything to get himself hurt. A perfect foil to Denys’s and Karen’s love.

I could go on all day about Out of Africa. Much like Karen, I feel like I’m discovering myself cinematically for the first time all over again. It’s an epic romance set in a gorgeous country, and I could not love it more. It’s probably the best Hollywood film I’ve seen since The Curious Case of Benjamin Button earlier this year. It’s a good reminder that every now and then, they don’t just mess everything up over there. I give Out of Africa 10 syphilitic coffee barons out of 10! My highest recommendation!

Come back tomorrow, when we discuss everyone’s favorite twin movie, Dead Ringers! Until then!!!

Sydney Pollack, born in July 1934, was an American filmmaker, producer, and actor. He first found success while directing television including “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” and “The Fugitive”. It was in the year 1965 where he released hi first film which was “The Slender Thread” which received an overwhelming 48 Academy Awards nomination and winning 11 Oscars. Other award winning films were “Tootsie” and “Out of Africa”. His more up to date works are “Cold Mountain” and “The Reader”.

“Film is a collective experience, as you know.” – Sydney Pollack

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

A shot from the first few seconds of the film.

I was prompted to buy Eyes Wide Shut again when I realized the blu-ray was the unrated version only previously available in Europe. I thought that might mean it would be closer to what Kubrick intended Eyes Wide Shut to be, but the additional footage is really just some extra sexual content. I should clarify that it isn’t really extra footage at all, it’s just that a bunch of robed figures blocking our view from some naughty behavior in the American release were actually removed in this version so you can see the naughty behavior. I didn’t even realize the figures were there and now I have to get my arms around the reasons why they were included to begin with. I assume the film would not have got by the MPAA at the time.  I don’t know, you judge for yourself (I’ve attached some pictures below for comparison).  If you don’t know already, Eyes Wide Shut is a film with quite a bit of nudity no matter what version you possess, so really, who gives a shit.

The shot from the left has added figures to prevent us from the seeing any naughty activities, which are visible on the right.

Kidman is nude from behind a lot in Eyes Wide Shut. Superfluous but forgiveable I suppose.

Nevertheless, I’m not convinced this is what Kubrick intended Eyes Wide Shut to be, but contemplating what he did intend is fascinating to me. I actually consider Kubrick among my favorite directors, so this fascination is probably not as applicable to non-fans. Of his films, Eyes Wide Shut is, along with Barry Lyndon, his least appreciated and most criticized, although not by me. Eyes Wide Shut is actually one of my favorite Kubrick films. Even though it is not as cohesive as his others; it is, on the surface at least, among his most stylized. The interactions characters have are slow and deliberate and it gives the meaning behind each word and each frame more clarification. Many call this quality dreamlike and it is. Expressing reality doesn’t seem to be a priority in Eyes Wide Shut and I wonder if the film was ever meant to be reality in the first place. Although the film is dreamlike per se, there is nothing at all to indicate that any of it was a dream. In fact, the presence of the cult mask on Alice and Bill’s bed verifies the exact opposite. Still, I for one believe the style is absolutely intentional and that is supported by the meticulous photography in the film. Almost every shot seems like it was mulled over again and again. It is no wonder Kubrick had the reputation for doing almost a hundred takes. He was a perfectionist and, at least visually, Eyes Wide Shut has more moments of perfection than not. The acting is good too but really, the control Kubrick has is so evident that it is hard to credit the actors. However, Nicole Kidman is particularly strong and as a bonus her ass is terrific to look at.

Tom Cruise (masked in the middle of the shot) in a scene leading to the film's climax, and yes, there are naked women in this scene too.

With all that said, Eyes Wide Shut may seem otherworldly, but its psychological commentary on marital fidelity from the male perspective is very real. Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) is told by his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) that she had at one time thought about having an affair. The paranoia, possibilities, and the trials he endures psychologically and in terms of his fidelity to her, are tested as he walks around New York City and guides us through his many surreal and outwardly sexual encounters. It is an exhibition of his gradual psychological breakdown after his wife shared her secret and all of his encounters seem to be taunting him in his fragile state. There’s more than enough here to make it a great film and to connect almost all of the dots, however, some interesting conspiracy theories exist about the orgy cult that becomes the center of the film’s climax. I’d recommend checking those out if you like this movie but I’m not going to reveal my opinion of them one way or the other.

Shot from the orgy scene.

With all of that said, I thought the characters themselves are normal and well-adjusted, so the commentary itself is even more significant. They are actually good people in a film about doing what is all too often perceived as bad things (i.e. sex). I’m sure there are good reasons not to like Eyes Wide Shut, but for the most part I thought it was unfairly reviewed because of the sexual content and the sexual commentary. We are so used to seeing nudity strictly used gratuitously, that it was easy to be cynical of its consistent use here, and that is just the visual sexual elements never mind what the film’s deeper intentions are overall. I’m not surprised I guess because if the film has a flaw, it is that it’s too cryptic at times. Either way, I think it’s a great movie and it is nice to see it gain more credibility and praise with time.

My rating is 5 out of 5 stars.

Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds comes out on dvd in December. To celebrate, here’s my unabrigded interview with the director earlier this fall. Two 20 minute sesssions, along with two different Swedish journalists. This is session one. Read the original story here and my interview with Col. Landa actor Christoph Waltz here (both in Norwegian).

How long have you wanted to do scene from a French Café?

QT: That’s a good question. The thing is, it’s only natural when we do a World War II movie, especially taking place in Nazi-occupied France, to do a scene in a French café, because I have a tendency to have scenes take place in restaurants all the time. The first scene for the first movie I ever wrote from beginning to end was Reservoir Dogs, and that took place in a restaurant. I’m a big fan of writing scenes that takes place in restaurants, so a French café is absolutely natural for me in the context of the story.

You have put a lot of attention to languages in the movie, which is not alway the case in WWII movies, where the Germans speak English with a German accent.

QT: The languages was definitely always in the script, it was always my intention. Some people are speculating, will that limit the movie’s potential, because of all the different languages? I think it’s the exact opposite. The stuff where the Germans speak like The Royal Shakespearan Company out of The Old Vic, I think that’s what makes those movies old-fashioned. That was like your father’s WWII movies. It was a contrivance you accepted then, but I don’t think people accept that anymore. Literally, that was makes them seem old-fashioned.

That’s one way of looking at it, just from an aesthetic way, but the other way is actually practical as far as the movie is concerned. Your ability with languages, either to understand them or to speak them, was the difference between life and death. Language itself is one of the most important aspects of this movie, as well it would be, in Europe. It wouldn’t even be the same thing if you were trying to deal with WWII as far as Asia was concerned. The movie could take place in China, and you wouldn’t have to speak anything other than Mandarin.

In the case of Europe, all the time you see movies like Where Eagles Dare. In it, Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood are supposed to be able to speak German so magnificently well that they could put on officer uniforms and walk into a tavern and just kick it in German, and they just know two-three-four ways about it. No worries whatsoever! For the contrivance of the movie, you more or less buy it.

But if Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood were speaking German, that would be a senseful element that would be brought into the movie. And because there would be German speakers out there, it would either be completely phony or it would be exciting. But then again, at the same time, it’s like the way a second generation person speaks German, that they learned in either Canada or they learned in America, is not necessarily the way a person who lives in Frankfurt is going to speak it. That’s just a whole aspect of excitement and suspense that I tried to take full advantage of, because it really hadn’t been explored to the depth that I was exploring it before.

Also, you have all these wonderful German actors, and what often happens in international productions. You’ll have American and British actors, speaking in their own language, maybe feign a Spanish accent, but maybe not. Jeremy Irons doesn’t do that, but then Antonio Banderas walks in, and he truly has a Spanish accent, but where the fuck does he come from? So he actually throws the film off by being authentic. With all these wonderful German actors in there, they all had to be speaking the right thing. That was also the reason that I didn’t cast Dutch or Swedish actors as, I wanted them to be German.

How will the movie be dubbed in Europe?

QT: I actually worked on the dubbing myself, especially when it comes to France, Italy and German. I ended up with a story that couldn’t be dubbed, because it wouldn’t make sense if everybody in the movie spoke the same language. What happened, in the case of Italy and France. German is German, but English will be dubbed. In the case of Germany, French becomes French.

There have been made a lot of WWII movies from historical sources. Was it important for you to make up your own story? To keep distance to History?

QT: You described it pretty well, that’s pretty much the same. I did a tremendous amount of research when I started to write the story a long time ago. I found that I was held back by the research, I got enamored with it. Six months doing research, and spent six months of trying to fit the research into my story. I wanted to show off all this knowledge that I gained, I wanted to give a history lesson.

But I had to get over that. When it comes to stuff like German cinema under The Third Reich, I already had a lot of information on that, so I didn’t need to do a lot of research as far as that was concerned. When I picked up the pen to start writing the story again, I already had done research about the occupation in France, so I had a lot of stuff back here.

I just wrote my story, I didn’t look up anything, and anything that I came to that I didn’t know exactly the historical right and wrongs of it, we’re talking about things like when was curfew during the occupation, I just made it up. I made it up so I wouldn’t have to go backwards. So I could just keep telling my story, I got the freedom to tell my the sory the way I would normally tell them. When I got to the end of it, I looked up the facts. And sometime I liked my way better.

This is the way I normally write, by not trying to make it any different. In a script you have tunnels that your characters can get into, and screenwriters put roadblocks in front of some tunnels, because they can’t afford to have their characters go that road if they want to sell it as a movie. I never had these roadblocks, but this time history itself was a roadblock. I was more or less prepared to respect these roadblocks, but when I got to them, I realised “fuck it”: My characters are gonna do what my characters are gonna do.

My characters don’t know that this is history, my characters don’t know that they can’t go down this road. History hasn’t happened yet, they can do it. If one wants to look at my story as a fairytale, then you’re more than welcome to look at it that way. I don’t look at it like that way. I look at like: My characters changed the outcome of the war. Now that didn’t happen, because my characters didn’t exist. But if they had existed, all that happened in this movie is very plausible.

It seems that Inglourious Basterds treats History like a Western movie treats the history of the American West. It’s more like World War II told as a western, populated with characters and myths.

QT: You guys are really good, I would agree with that. I did actually approach this movie as a way that you would approach a western. In westerns, there is reality and myth, and what survives is what survives.

How did you get to work with Brad Pitt?

QT: We always wanted to work together, but we’ve waited for the right character. While I wrote Aldo, it all came together. One of the things that make Brad so iconic for the role is… Brad’s in a great place as far his career and his superstar persona is concerned. He’s been around for a while, done a lot of movies and worked with some of the most talented directors. He knows what he’s doing, and he’s not a boy anymore. He’s grown out of his boyish good looks, and now they’ve become handsome manly good looks.

There is this special thing about working with Brad at this time, at this time in his career, this is one of the most exciting times to work with him. Both as part of his popularity is concerned, and as far his iconic stature and persona is concerned. He gets thrilling when you set up a shot and look through the viewfinder at him. I can imagine this is the same kinda thrill that Sydney Pollack felt when he was shooting Jeremiah Johnson with Robert Redford. He looked through the viewfinder, and thought he was at the movie theatre.

Cinema plays a big part in this movie, but do you think you could ever make a movie from a time where there was no movies?

QT: You mean before the 20th century? Yeah, I could do that. If I did a swashbuckler it wouldn’t be about the love of cinema, or maybe it would? A western maybe, how would that end up working out? I did not think that years ago, when I came up with the idea of Inglourious Basterds, that at the end of the day that the movie would end being this wild love letter to cinema.

I never thought of that when I came up with the idea of doing a WWII movie. But at some point, when I was writing the first scene between Shoshanna and Fredrick Zoller, it ended up as a conversation about Max Linder. Man, I’ll  do a WWII movie and it becomes a movie about cinema. I guess that’s who I am.

You must have enjoyed shooting the movie at the legendary Studio Babelsberg?

QT: That was so exciting! I’m a lot like Archie Hickox in the movie, and I have a fetishist love of German cinema of the 1920’s and those directors. Actually we were not only shooting in the studio, but at the same sound stages where Josef von Sternberg shot Der Blaue Engel. The place where we built the theatre, that was the stage Marlene Dietrich sang “Falling in Love Again”. And to actually walk the streets where G.W. Pabst walked, our productions offices were on Papst Strasse.

To make the movies where Papst made his movies, the fact that the studio logo was the False Mariah from Metropolis. It was more exciting than working at 2oth Century Fox. The history was lovely there, it goes all the way, our production manager’s office was actually Joseph Goebbel’s old office.

You picked your German actors from the very best of the crop?

QT: I was thinking about the international audience, and I didn’t want a famous person playing Hitler. If it’s Alec Guiness or Anthony Hopkins as Hitler you think “oh that’s Anthony Hopkins doing Hitler”. But if I watch a minor WWII movie and Hitler shows up, looking more or less like Hitler, I’ll go “okay, that’s Hitler”. I don’t really question it.

Martin Wuttke, who plays Hitler is very well known in Germany, where he had done one of the best Hitler performances ever, in a Brecht play where Hitler turns into a dog. He actually said no several times, so we had to talk him into it. In the case of Sylvester Groth, who played Goebbels, he played him before in Mein Führer, which was a black comedy. He’s an amazing actor, just look at the way he brings comedy into his Goebbels portrayal, especially at the scene that takes place at their little Hollywood luncheon. That’s the sequence that’s closest to Ernest Lubisch’s To Be or not To Be. I love the idea of dealing with Goebbels, not as this architect of evil, but as his job as a studio head. Dealing with him in this practical job, that he considered his number one job, and was the production of all these movies. He’s not like Louis DeMille, he’s not a businessman, he’s an artist at heart, much closer to David Zelnick.

And doing a WWII movie got you an opportunity to portray nazis, which you can say are very stylish villains, fashionwise.

QT: Well, whatever you want to say about the Nazis, you really can’t complain about their fashion sense, ha ha. They definitely had a very striking look, even their architecture was something to behold. It was a lot of fun, going through the uniforms and learning about them. Even the two guards outside Hitler’s opera box, those were special uniforms done for Hitler’s guard, and they have never actually been captured on film before. That was eye-opening and interesting.

What do you think of Stockholm? (obligatory question from Swedish journalist)

QT: This is my seventh visit to Stockholm, and it’s a very nice town, with a couple of bars I like. Also, you have one of the most amazing records stores in the world, Pet Sounds. Whenever you bring the name up to a vinyl collector, you think of the highest quality when you hear the name.

Part two of this interview will be published tomorrow.

Sou um grande fã de westerns. Principalmente deste retro dos anos 70, realizado por Sydney Pollack. Tem tudo, as espingardas, as setas, os índios, música country, montanhas, cavalos, cabanas de madeira,etc. O tema deste filme é o conflito com os nativos americanos. Trata-se de homem, Jeremiah Jonhson interpretado por Robert Redford, que decide viver na solidão na montanha. Ao longo do filme está sempre presente a paz e beleza das montanhas, rios, árvores e toda a beleza selvagem da América do Norte, contrastando com a brutalidade que a sobrevivência exige. A fotografia é excelente e a interpretação do Robert Redford é à boa maneira dos filmes de cowboys. Um homem duro, com um sentido rectilíneo de moral, luta para sobreviver, procura a serenidade, mas acaba sempre por de de caras com a crueza da natureza dos homens.

Um filme com semelhanças ao “Danças com Lobos”, outro magistral obra da sétima arte, o herói também se casa com uma índia, e mantém uma relação muito próxima com esse povo, no entanto, neste filme essa relação é mais conflituosa.

Abençoado canal Hollywood, filmes dia e noite, sem publicidade, apenas com intervalos para falar sobre actores e outros filmes!

Sydney Pollack

Driving a car, flying an airplane – you can reduce those things to a series of maneuvers that are always executed in the same way.  But with something like leadership, just as with art, you reinvent the wheel every single time you apply the principle.
The late Academy Award winning Director Sydney Pollack, as quoted in On Becoming a Leader by Warrne Bennis, (as quoted in The 100 Best Business Books of All Time by Jack Covert and Todd Satersten)

Bob Morris gave me a copy of The 100 Best Business Books of All Time, and I took a medium dive on my flight to Indianapolis last week.  A really good read!

It is their choice of the top books.  I might quibble a little, but not much.  I really liked that they included The Creative Habit by Twyla Tharp, one of my all time favorite books.

But this quote above by Pollack prompted this short blog post.  Pollack is right.  With leadership, you do reinvent the wheel every time…

Tengo un par de teorías sobre eso. Una es que en el fondo de su corazón sabe que no va a funcionar, y entonces sufre, y así expía como si dijéramos algún remordimiento juvenil por algo que yo ignoro. Y la otra es que, igual que todos nosotros, se ha criado entre películas y novelas en las que el amor imposible era romántico.

Maridos y Mujeres (Woody Allen, 1992)

Jessica is a tourist in Paris and in life.

(THINKfilm) Cecilie de France, Valerie Lemercier, Albert Dupontel, Sydney Pollack, Claude Brasseur, Christopher Thompson, Dani, Laura Morante, Suzanne Flon. Directed by Danielle Thompson

Life imitates art, it is often said but the reverse isn’t always true. From time to time, art – and the artists who make it – is completely at odds with reality.

Jessica (de France) is a wide-eyed innocent who was orphaned at age four and was raised by her delightful grandmother (Flon), who had a taste for luxury but unfortunately not the pocketbook for it. She contented herself by being a ladies room attendant at the Ritz Hotel, able to rub elbows with the very rich at least indirectly.

Now on her own, Jessica comes to Paris looking for a job but without much experience. She talks her way into a job as a waitress at a café on the Avenue Montaigne, a center of the arts in Paris. At the Bistro, the famous and the lowly come to eat from the stagehands and ushers to the stars of the theater and the concert hall across the street.

Three events are taking place three days from her first day; a recital by Jean-Francois Lefort, a world-famous classical pianist (Dupontel) who has grown weary of his lifestyle and yearns to play for a less discerning audience, despite the fact that his adoring wife and agent (Morante) has him booked for the next six years. There is also an art auction as a businessman and connoisseur named Jacques Grunberg (Brasseur) is selling off the contents of his former life, which irritates his estranged son Frederic (Thompson, the son of the director) who sees his father dating a much younger woman he once had an affair with (unbeknownst to the father) and leaving the legacy of his mother behind.

Finally, there is the performance of a farce at the theater starring Catherine (Lemercier), a star on a wildly popular soap who yearns for more substantial roles. She hopes she might get one in a biography of Simone de Beauvoir that an American director (Pollack) is putting together. Although the casting director for the film hates her, she still hopes she can win the director over.

Jessica moves in an out of their lives like a sprite, befriending the elderly concierge (Dani) who is retiring after the performances. With no place to live and knowing nobody, Jessica sleeps in the dressing room of the concert hall and befriends the performances so guilelessly that they can’t help but feel comfortable with her. But as things move towards the night of the performances, each performer feels the weight of their demons moving in. Can the show go on when the showman doesn’t have the will to perform any longer?

Director Thompson (Jet Lag) has crafted a typically charming slice of life in the French capital as it relates to the arts on the Avenue. This is not a love letter to Paris – although the beauty of the city is well on display, the movie takes it more as a matter of fact that you love Paris. And who wouldn’t? Even the neuroses are charming.

De France carries the movie effortlessly, a pixie in a sidewalk café who flits from situation to situation with enough pluck to make her adorable. Lemercier also captures the neurotic television star with the right mix of frenetic kinesis, nervous tics, self-loathing and blind ambition to make her believable, but with enough heart to make her worth caring about. Dupontel is also solid as a pianist who is a prisoner of his own talent and fame.

The one drawback is that it is hard to feel much sympathy for people who are so successful, so famous, so wealthy. Not that people with success, fame and wealth are without problems, but one must take them with a grain of salt.

There is also a subtext about the relationship between the young and the elderly, starting with Jessica and her grandmother but also including Jacques and his son and Jessica and the concierge. I actually kind of liked it; too often we dismiss the wisdom of our elders because of our own arrogance. The fact is we don’t freakin’ know it all.

Any movie that takes place in a French café had better be prepared to charm the pants off of you, and Avenue Montaigne accomplishes that. This isn’t something that is going to give you remarkable insight; rather it is a fluffy entertainment, a meringue if you will. Nothing wrong with that, so if you like your movies light and charming this just might be your ticket.

 WHY RENT THIS: A delightful slice of Parisian life in the arts as seen by a wide-eyed innocent from the provinces. Some timely themes about ageism and class distinctions.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: It is occasionally hard to feel sympathy for people who are successful and adored but are miserable.

FAMILY VALUES: There is some brief sexuality and some salty language but otherwise fine for all audiences.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Actress Suzanne Flon passed away shortly after filming was completed. As the end credits begin, we see a tribute page to her with the actress, offscreen, repeating a line from earlier in the film stating that she had a good life.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: None listed.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

TOMORROW: Frozen River

Título: La boda de mi novia
Título original: Made of honor
País: USA
Estreno en USA:  02/05/2008
Estreno en España: 30/05/2008
Productora: Columbia Pictures
Director: Paul Weiland
Guión: Adam Sztykiel, Deborah Kaplan y Harry Elfont (basado en un argumento de Adam Sztykiel)
Reparto: Patrick Dempsey, Michelle Monaghan, Sydney Pollack, Kathleen Quinlan, Kevin McKidd, Busy Philipps, Kelly Carlson, Chris Messina

Sinopsis:

Para Tom, la vida es maravillosa: es sexy, triunfador, tiene éxito con las mujeres y sabe que siempre podrá confiar en su mejor amiga, la encantadora Hannah. Todo va bien hasta que Hannah se va seis semanas a Escocia por trabajo. Tom se da cuenta de que su vida está vacía sin ella y decide pedirle matrimonio cuando regrese de su viaje. El problema es que Hannah vuelve prometida y le pide a Tom que sea su “dama de honor”. Bueno, al menos siempre es más fácil parar una boda desde dentro.

Opinión:

Hollywood debe de tener una especie de maquina para pre-fabricar comedias románticas a tutiplen cada año, en las que casi siempre se repiten los mismos esquemas, los mismos clichés, las mismas bromas y por supuesto al final el chico acaba con la chica, por muchos impedimentos que le pongan. Y esta comedia no se sale de la linea ni por un milímetro. Y ante la falta de originalidad uno espera que por lo menos le divierta, pero si tampoco consigue eso, mal vamos.

El rompebragas y la mojigata

Vale, tanto Patrick Dempsey como Michelle Monaghan lo hacen bastante bien y por ahí tenemos a Sydney Pollack, grandioso como siempre, en su último papel antes de palmarla, y el resto de secundarios cumplen sin reparos, pero ¿y la gracia? ¿El humor? Es que nada de nada, y para colmo si la historia te la sabes de memoria y conoces como va a acabar, lo único que estas deseando es que llegue el final. Por no hablar del horripilante doblaje, ¿porque todos los escoceses hablan como Michael Robinson con resaca?

¡Azotame, perra!

Lo que esta claro es que este tipo de films tiene su publico fiel, y por tanto son comerciales al cien por cien. Pero uno sigue esperando a que le sorprendan de algún modo, y no ver la misma película con distintas caras.

Puntuación:

4 / 10

La mia Africa è un film del 1985 diretto da Sydney Pollack, ispirato all’omonimo romanzo autobiografico di Karen Blixen.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Drammatico | Sydney Pollack | Meryl Streep | Robert Redford

Yakuza

Director: Sydney Pollack.

Guión: Paul Schrader y Robert Towne, basado en una historia de Leonard Schrader.

Intérpretes: Robert Mitchum, Ken Takakura, Brian Keith, Keijo Kishi, Richard Jordan.

Música: Dave Grusin.

Fotografía: Duke Callahan, Kozo Okazaki.

EEUU. 1974. 109 minutos.

Leonard y Paul

A Paul Schrader le conoce bien casi todo quisque mínimamente interesado en esto del cine, no tanto merced de su inmenso talento -que eso a veces va reñido por la fama-, como por la colaboración con un tándem tan mítico como el que conformaron Scorsese y De Niro a finales de los setenta y principios de los ochenta. Lo que sólo está al alcance de conaisseurs es el hecho de que antes que él había sido su hermano mayor, Leonard, quien hizo sus pinitos en el cine. Sin embargo, Leonard, que era un entusiasta de las culturas orientales, acabó mudándose a Japón donde se dedicó a la enseñanza. Datos que no resultan en absoluto superfluos para comprender el talante de una película como ésta que nos ocupa: aunque Paul Schrader sea el autor del libreto –tan férreo como los mejores de los suyos-, es Leonard quien concibió la historia que esta Yakuza nos narra. A Paul le ayuda, por cierto, otro guionista de altura y habilidad cartesiana: Robert Towne (Chinatown).

El amigo americano

Schrader y Towne manejan la historia a dos niveles, el primero de los cuales narra una historia de traiciones y ajustes de cuentas en el seno de turbulentos negocios entre un mafioso japonés y un amigo americano del protagonista que encarna Robert Mitchum (narración en la tradición clásica del cine negro, por lo demás despachada por guionistas y realizador con una magnífica capacidad de concisión expositiva), y el segundo nivel, perfectamente hilvanado sobre el primero, se detiene en las relaciones atormentadas, imposibles, entre Mitchum y un yakuza retirado, a la sazón hermano de la mujer a la que una vez, durante la guerra, acogió, y con la que por aquel motivo el hermano tiene contraída una deuda de honor y fidelidad. Así el filme nos transporta en este deambular de Mitchum entre dos aguas, viaje que supone un retorno forzado a un pasado de heridas que jamás sanaron, y que, tras los diversos acontecimientos que la cinta va desgranando, alcanzarán su catarsis. Y este viaje –ahí está la tesis de Leonard Schrader- acaba resolviéndose a favor de los códigos de conducta de la traditio nipona (que el propio filme de buen principio nos informa que es un código similar al ancestral bushido chino), por cuyas categóricas normas sobre el honor el filme muestra una soterrada pero muy plausible (desde la emoción) admiración (en ese sentido, y sin eludir otras cuestiones muy complejas, no es de extrañar que Paul Schrader dirigiera unas obras más tarde una muy particular biografía de Yukio Mishima, Mishima, que es probablemente su mejor película).

Equilibrio

Y el resultado no es sólo una de las más sugerentes, vitales y concienzudas aproximaciones del cine americano al mundo de las mafias japonesas, sino también una de las mejores películas del malogrado Sydney Pollack. Y de paso, una superlativa historia sobre la amistad. Porque en efecto Yakuza se erige -sobre los ropajes del thriller- como una historia de amistad diríase que a la par bellísima y trágica, un retrato intimista sobre el choque entre dos modos casi antagónicos de entender la existencia, que, de un modo casi intuitivo, acaban convergiendo de una forma lírica, dolorosa. Y si el filme es brillante no es sólo merced del poderoso argumento, sino también de la atinada puesta en escena de Pollack, quien sabe dotar a las imágenes en todo momento de ese tono lánguido impregnado de las pulsiones de los personajes, que sabe planificar con pericia las secuencias de acción –pocas, pero muy intensas-, y que encuentra un perfecto equilibrio rítmico en el seno de una narración compleja.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073918/

http://www.elseptimoarte.net/foro/index.php?topic=8201.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yakuza

http://www.billeteunicodigital.com/2007/07/para-ver-yakuza-de-sidney-pollack.html

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/The-Yakuza

http://elprincipio.blogspot.com/2005/06/retro-yakuza-de-sidney-pollack-la.html

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores

Parler des Trois jours du Condor ici paraîtra peut-être surprenant pour certains mais qu’importe je suis le tôlier. Le terme “hommage” serait un peu fort pour désigner cette petite chronique d’un film de Pollack qui nous a quitté l’année dernière. Je parlerais plus volontiers d’un clin d’œil. Ce film est la quatrième collaboration (sur sept) entre le réalisateur et Robert Redford, acteur charismatique et si emblématique des années 70. Il était d’autre part peu probable, alors que je commençais Zéro de Conduite, que Max von Sydow, un des acteurs fétiches de Bergman, serait évoqué dans un film tel que celui-ci. Mais faisons fi de ces considérations personnelles. Le film !

La mise en situation suit la technique hollywoodienne classique. Présentation successive des personnages, le héros est immédiatement identifié, on sait d’ores et déjà que l’action (le drame) est pour bientôt. C’est assez con, mais ça fonctionne. Joe Turner  (Robert Redford) est un romancier qui semble sans avenir et qui travaille parallèlement dans une obscure division de la CIA chargée de lire et relire toutes les publications mondiales qui pourraient éventuellement menées à la résolutions d’affaires ou d’idées pour le moins tordues. De l’aveu même de Turner, un métier pareil ça ne s’invente pas. Alors qu’il s’absente pour chercher le repas de ses collègues à l’épicerie du coin, ceux-ci sont abattus par trois hommes (dont le personnage interprété par Max von Sydow). De retour, il découvre la scène et prend la fuite sachant sa vie menacée. Un contact de la CIA lui propose un rendez-vous afin de le rapatrié en lieu sûr. La rencontre s’effectue dans une ruelle mais dégénère vite: Un blessé, un mort. Turner est une nouvelle fois en fuite. Esseulé, traqué et déterminé à découvrir qui se cache derrière la tuerie à laquelle il a échappé, il va croiser la route de Kathy (Faye Dunaway) dont il va petit à petit se rapprocher (Hollywood oblige).

Les trois jours du Condor est un film d’espionnage somme toutes assez intéressant de part son traitement, son interprétation (Redford et von Sydow en tête, une Faye Dunaway un ton en dessous selon moi) et son rythme. Comme la plupart des films américains de la décennie 70, il a les défauts de ses qualités. La profondeur psychologique des personnages passent un peu à la trappe et les retournements peuvent laisser perplexe. Quoiqu’il en soit, ce film constitue la plus belle réussite de son auteur et reste du bon et solide divertissement.

Dos hombres conducen sus coches en la misma dirección en una carretera de Nueva York. De pronto, llega el accidente. El rigor y la honradez de Jackson enfrentados a la ambición y la insolidaridad de Affleck. El acto le costará muy caro a Affleck, pues olvidará en manos de Jackson algo muy valioso para él. A partir de aquí, se instaurará el caos en la pantalla, y paralelamente el mensaje de la película: la redención progresiva de ese miserable personaje al que interpreta Affleck; la conversión en dócil de Jackson.

Metáfora sobre lo bueno que puede llegar a ser el Estado de Derecho si todos ponemos de nuestra parte. Jackson, pese a las mil perrerías que el sistema realice contra él, acabará como un hombre desgraciado pero fiel, un pobre obediente, un hombre que no debe responder con ira frente a la injusticia, simplemente debe ser manso y acatar las decisiones. Affleck, a su vez, acabará como un tiburón financiero redimido que ya no quiere burlar la ley ni reírse del sistema (¿y la carpeta qué?), ahora quiere ser un chico obediente también.

Aquí nos cuentan que todos tenemos que remar para que esto salga adelante. Los pobres, además de desgraciados, suelen ser honrados. Es decir, reman. Pero, ¿y los ricos? De 100 mamones como Affleck, 99 seguirían su vida ambiciosa y despótica sin importarle lo más mínimo el lado ético y moral del mundo. La realidad no es tan feliz como el final de esta película, la ley es de los poderosos. Y si no que se lo pregunten al personaje interpretado por Sidney Pollack. Película utópica donde las haya.

Bizarrely, the best scene in this cross-dressing movie doesn’t have Dustin Hoffman in drag. What it does have is the actor arguing with his director, Sydney Pollack. Thankfully, someone put a camera in front of them…

Word has it that Dustin Hoffman got the idea for Tootsie while working on Kramer vs. Kramer. Playing a father who also had to perform the role of a mother led him on to the story of a washed-up actor who transforms himself into a woman to get his career back on track. In Tootise, Hoffman is wonderful as ‘female’ soap star Dorothy Michaels, but he is just as good as her creator Michael Dorsey, probably because it was a part that was so close to the bone.

To imbue the movie with further realism, Hoffman desperately wanted the film’s director, Sydney Pollack, to play his agent. Pollack resisted the idea, but Hoffman was persuasive, sending the director red roses every day with a card saying: ‘Please be my agent. Love, Dorothy’. Pollack eventually relented. Hoffman, as it turns out, was right.

This early scene in the movie, where Dorsey goes to see his agent, George Fields (Pollack), is just a joy to watch. Hoffman and Pollack would argue off camera anyway, so transferring that dynamic to the screen merely enriched the movie. Pollack, who passed away last year, really was one of the good guys, and was as skilled an actor as he was a director. Sparring with Hoffman and not coming off second best would have been too high a mountain to climb for most full-time performers.

The script here is terrific – crisp, sharp and funny – and the two actors treat it with the care it deserves. Pollack’s delivery of every line is fantastic, particularly: ’Nobody wants to pay 20 dollars to watch people living next to chemical waste – they can see that in New Jersey!’ The pair’s debate over the logic of a tomato is also great, mainly because it sparks the immortal riposte from a two-time Oscar-winning actor: ‘Nobody does vegetables like me!’

WHAT IS YOUR FAVOURITE SCENE FROM TOOTSIE?

GREAT SCENES ARCHIVE

The espionage genre has gotten so stupid over the last couple decades, it’s hard to even imagine how a mediocre entry could be good. Now, it’s watching the least worst. Three Days of the Condor is such a peculiar film, even though it’s wholly commercial–I mean, Dino De Laurentiis produced it.

It’s not just a spy thriller (it’s also an urban, domestic spy thriller and one of the best New York films in Panavision), there’s the entire thing with Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway. It’s not a romance, it’s not a friendship, it’s not a companionship… it’s a thing. In the vernacular of twenty-first century American filmmaking, it’s probably unintelligible, because their chemistry has so much to do with it being the two of them, the two icons. There aren’t film icons in the same way, certainly not ones like Redford and Dunaway were in 1975.

So there are these wonderful scenes with the two of them talking. Not getting to know each other, but talking to each other.

Then there are the spy thriller scenes. It’s amazing how well Redford plays a smart guy. It’s sort of against type.

Cliff Robertson, Max von Sydow (especially von Sydow) and John Houseman are all excellent in supporting roles. Houseman, of course, just has to talk.

Pollack’s Panavision direction is great. There’s some lovely editing from Don Guidice.

The end is problematic, if “realistic.” We spend the film waiting to find out what happens and, instead, we found out why.

CREDITS

Directed by Sydney Pollack; screenplay by Lorenzo Semple Jr. and David Rayfiel, based on a novel by James Grady; director of photography, Owen Roizman; edited by Don Guidice; music by Dave Grusin; production designer, Stephen B. Grimes; produced by Stanley Schneider; released by Paramount Pictures.

Starring Robert Redford (Joseph Turner), Faye Dunaway (Kathy Hale), Cliff Robertson (Higgins), Max von Sydow (Joubert), John Houseman (Mr. Wabash), Addison Powell (Leonard Atwood), Walter McGinn (Sam Barber), Tina Chen (Janice) and Michael Kane (S.W. Wicks).

(a previous post from the former NuPoppa blog)

Our DVR is peppered with the funny (Graham Norton Show, The Daily Show, 30 Rock, SNL, Flight of the Conchords), what I’ll call WTF (Oliver Twist, Barry Manilow concert — clearly my wife’s) and the simply awesome. The “simply awesome” consists of: Fletch, Animal House, Fletch Lives, Vacation, Caddyshack, Gung Ho! and a Barry Manilow concert (kidding).

I don’t drink (anymore), but the “simply awesome” USED to be called “hangover movies.” These are the movies that, on a lazy Saturday or Sunday (or Wednesday for some of you) you can rely on. You can watch the first 20 minutes with one eye open, then fall asleep for 30 minutes, wake up, finish it to the end and still feel satisfied. Back in the day, that would have included about 5 Advil and 2.6 gallons of water to hydrate. Drooling on pillows and couches was also usually de rigeur.

These are also movies that, sadly or simply awesome-ly, most men can quote with relative proficiency. So, it begs the question: what should be the first movie that my son and I share together when he gets older? Should it be highly quotable? Should it be educational?

Some in the running:

Fletch
Pluses: It is only one of the greatest movies written and made for the male 38-42 set. Period. This tightly-wound romp is highly-quotable. I can already imagine my boy at a party of my peers saying, “John Cock..toas…ton.” Throw a lampshade on his head and he’ll be life of the party.

Minuses: I see none.

Lessons Learned in film: Never trust Joe Don Baker. I think this is a lesson we all should learn. Kidding. He would kick my ass if he read this.

Animal House
Pluses: Filmed in Oregon. Classic dialogue. A heartwarming story about college life. Shama-Lama-Ding-Dong.

Minuses: Otis Day and the Knights have never been the same since.

Lessons learned in film: Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

Vacation
Pluses: The late, great John Hughes. Beverly DeAngelo buffin’ it up a bit. Chevy Chase at his finest. The Wagon Queen Family Truckster with the optional Rally Fun Pack. Eugene Levy calling Rusty “Rueben.”

Minuses: Not 100% realistic about what a family vacation is about. It’s more like 96% real.

Lessons learned in film: There is no way in hell we are driving a long distance anywhere. I refuse to put my boy through that.

Out of Africa
Pluses: For our purposes here, very few, though it is a fine film. The late Sydney Pollack was a genius.

Minuses: It’s “Meet Joe Black”-long. I mean, REALLY fu**ing long.

Lessons learned in film: Those rich, white bastards screwed it all up. Africa is best experienced doing humanitarian work. If the boy wants to be in the Peace Corps someday, I’m all for it.

Everyone Says I Love You
Pluses: Great cast. Alan Alda. Natalie Portman. Drew Barrymore. Julia Roberts. Woody Allen. Goldie Hawn. The list goes on.

Minuses: Edward Norton, though a FINE actor, isn’t a very good singer. And he’ll probably kick my ass if he reads this.

Lessons learned in film: If s**t goes sideways, it’s OK to sing a little. Just don’t do it in public, people might think you’re a freak or something.

Die Hard
Pluses: Bruce Willis is from South Jersey, where my family lives. And, of course, Alan Rickman. He’s SO money.

Minuses: The dude with the long blonde hair. He’s creepy.

Lessons learned in film: Kick ass first. Take names later.

Say Anything
Pluses: John and Joan Cusack. Cameron Crowe (who could write something on a cocktail napkin and I’d probably read it). Ione Skye. Piven as a younger man. Seattle. It captured the angst that we all felt when we were in college.

Minuses: “In Your Eyes.” Great song, but I have this uncontrollable urge to buy a boombox and hold it over my head. It captured the angst we all felt when we were in college.

Lessons learned in film: Don’t live in Seattle. You’ll just end up going to London on a study abroad program anyway.

Believe me, we have plenty of time to go over this, but one can never be too prepared. I’d love your thoughts on the first movie I should share with the boy. It can be on the list or one not on the list that you think is a winner.