I watched this film for a second time the other day, and realized that this may be the most perfect summation of everything that Spanish film director, Almodovar, loves and is good at. In none of his other work has the exploration of femininity, female sexuality, love, loss, and rebirth been so fully realized. In more that just content, stylistically Almodovar has successfully been able to take 1950's classic American cinema and theater, and filter it through the crazy, campy eye of a true visionary. This is as emotionally satisfying as anything that you are likely to watch, well...ever, and will necessarily challenge your conceptions of the power of family.
Cecilia Roth is sublime as Manuela, a single mother mourning the death of her seventeen year old son, who was run down by a car while chasing after his favorite actress in a production of "A Streetcar Named Desire". She moves to Madrid to find the estranged, transgender, prostitute father that her son never new, and on the way forms a surrogate family of misfits.
There is Agrado, another transgender prostitute that Manuela knew from youth and who now tries to help Manuela find a job. Hermana Rosa is an impregnated nun who spends the duration of her pregnancy in Manuela's apartment in order to hide from her family and the Father of her congregation. Finally, and most interestingly, there is Huma Rojo (Red Smoke) who was the actress playing Blanche DuBois whom Manuela's son was chasing after the night of his death. Even before I realized that it was on purpose I had the feeling that Marisa Paredes was chosen to play Huma due to her very Bette Davis-like quality.
The four of them are lonely in their own ways and cling to each other for support in times that for some of them are the most challenging of their lives, and for the others simply because they have got no one else. Interestingly enough, I think that these four women represent the different ways in which Almodovar views womankind: there is the spiritual figure, the sexual figure, the grande dame, and the guardian. In many of his other films I have gotten the sense that Almodovar hates women and much as he loves them. Not this time, though. This time it is so apparent that this is a celebration of the female form and all that she represents. Every one of his central characters has her merits which more than make up for her faults.
I think and hope that this film will be as emotionally resonate with others as it was for me. This is a movie that brims with passion, wit, and every drop of heartbreak that could ever come from a story about a parent who has to bury her child. I have not seen anything else with Cecilia Roth as far as I am aware, which is a travesty because her performance practically tore down the walls around me. This film spans months, but half a year passes and the hurt of her loss is still as strong as when it first happens. How she was able to keep the emotions so near to the surface is mysterious and spectacular.
There is a brilliant scene in which Manuela fills in for the drug-addicted actress playing Stella. Having seen the show endless times following the death of her son, and having heard the lines nightly while working as the personal assistant for Huma, she plays the part perfectly. Almodovar creates the scene in which Stella goes into labor and Stanley carries her off. The cries she gives begin as cries of pain which become cries of grief. Even during a performance all of her anguish bursts out and hits the theater audience as well as the film audience at full force and it is incredible.
There is something very magical that comes out of the head of the writer/director in this particular film. There are things that go on that I feel Almodovar has wanted to say in the past, but I don't think that he liked his characters in other work nearly as much as he does in this one. Although it is a sad piece--a very sad piece--it still teams with life, and it is very clear that his message is not about dwelling on painful memories, but is about rejoicing that we live in a world of vivacity and interesting people with new ones being born all of the time. Where God closes a door, somewhere He opens a window, as they say. Had her son not died--which I still wish he hadn't as it would have saved me a good deal of crying--Manuela would not have been able to help those that she did, and would not have been given the miracle of rebirth that she was in the end, and that is a hopeful thought.
4/4
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Ides of March (2011)
Once again George Clooney steps behind the camera tackling the subject of morality and the biting reality of the politics of politics. But I was left asking the question: is this the type of material that needs to be rehashed again? Was there something that has been missed in all of the films going back to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or even further? or, did George Clooney think he could simply do it better? Whatever the reasoning I was unimpressed, and this film with its lack of revelatory material gave me nothing but a package of Oscar-worthy performances. Nothing more.
I am really not sure how Ryan Gosling does it, but he has been in pretty much every film that has come out in 2011. Again, he has proven himself to be a force to be reckoned with, doing a very good job as Stephen Meyers, an idealistic, super smart campaign manager for Governor Mike Morris. Stephen believes in Morris's ideas, Stephen believes in Morris. But it is down to Ohio in the primaries for the last two democratic nominees. Whoever wins Ohio will get an unbeatable lead, and so the fangs come out. This film is about what Stephen, and the senior campaign manager (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Paul, will do to beat Tom Duffy's (Paul Giamatti) candidate.
Of course Stephen, not unlike Jefferson Smith, is naive and twinkle-eyed about what really needs to happen in order for a candidate to win. He has his morals and his dignity, but everything he believes in will be compromised when he learns the hard truth of political campaigning. He will also feel the wrath of the press, especially at the hands of New York Times writer Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei), when scoops aren't given and people have compromising information about him. Like I said, nothing new.
Beyond the more obvious politicking that goes on, Stephen also develops a love interest with a very young intern, played by the ever boring Evan Rachel Wood. I really can't stand that girl, and this film followed their very obvious plotline for far too long. It becomes a little melodramatic and hackneyed at the end, and I found myself loosing patience with it.
There were some moments which gave hope that the film could have been something more. These typically revolved around the interactions between Stephen and Paul, and Stephen and the Governor. However these were all too brief. I did like the similarities between Morris and President Obama--Morris's campaign poster actually had me looking to see if it had "Yes We Can" written on the bottom of it. Clooney wears his second hat as the Governor, and I thought he was the best part of the film. When all of the cards are shown at the end it turns out that he is the most complex and enigmatic character in the movie. I hope that he receives a Best Supporting Actor nod come January.
Again, this film is really just a vehicle for half a dozen great performances by one of the best casts assembled this year. Seymour Hoffman and Giamatti are equally great as the old, broken down cynics who have lost their love of life and whose sole purpose is to create presidents. Tomei surprises me again as the calculating and manipulative newspaper columnist; I would not immediately have associated her with that type of role. And, of course, Gosling does what he does. Having his world crumble around him is at times painful to watch, and I have no doubt that either this or Drive will earn him a Best Actor nomination (though I absolutely prefer the latter).
All in all this was a very boring film. It was too much about the politics, and if they were going to go with the themes that they did then the stakes should have been raised. This was supposed to be something of a thriller, but I was half asleep. Where they did try to create twists the film ended up simply being annoying. Try to see it for Clooney and Gosling, but don't worry if you miss it.
2/4
I am really not sure how Ryan Gosling does it, but he has been in pretty much every film that has come out in 2011. Again, he has proven himself to be a force to be reckoned with, doing a very good job as Stephen Meyers, an idealistic, super smart campaign manager for Governor Mike Morris. Stephen believes in Morris's ideas, Stephen believes in Morris. But it is down to Ohio in the primaries for the last two democratic nominees. Whoever wins Ohio will get an unbeatable lead, and so the fangs come out. This film is about what Stephen, and the senior campaign manager (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Paul, will do to beat Tom Duffy's (Paul Giamatti) candidate.
Of course Stephen, not unlike Jefferson Smith, is naive and twinkle-eyed about what really needs to happen in order for a candidate to win. He has his morals and his dignity, but everything he believes in will be compromised when he learns the hard truth of political campaigning. He will also feel the wrath of the press, especially at the hands of New York Times writer Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei), when scoops aren't given and people have compromising information about him. Like I said, nothing new.
Beyond the more obvious politicking that goes on, Stephen also develops a love interest with a very young intern, played by the ever boring Evan Rachel Wood. I really can't stand that girl, and this film followed their very obvious plotline for far too long. It becomes a little melodramatic and hackneyed at the end, and I found myself loosing patience with it.
There were some moments which gave hope that the film could have been something more. These typically revolved around the interactions between Stephen and Paul, and Stephen and the Governor. However these were all too brief. I did like the similarities between Morris and President Obama--Morris's campaign poster actually had me looking to see if it had "Yes We Can" written on the bottom of it. Clooney wears his second hat as the Governor, and I thought he was the best part of the film. When all of the cards are shown at the end it turns out that he is the most complex and enigmatic character in the movie. I hope that he receives a Best Supporting Actor nod come January.
Again, this film is really just a vehicle for half a dozen great performances by one of the best casts assembled this year. Seymour Hoffman and Giamatti are equally great as the old, broken down cynics who have lost their love of life and whose sole purpose is to create presidents. Tomei surprises me again as the calculating and manipulative newspaper columnist; I would not immediately have associated her with that type of role. And, of course, Gosling does what he does. Having his world crumble around him is at times painful to watch, and I have no doubt that either this or Drive will earn him a Best Actor nomination (though I absolutely prefer the latter).
All in all this was a very boring film. It was too much about the politics, and if they were going to go with the themes that they did then the stakes should have been raised. This was supposed to be something of a thriller, but I was half asleep. Where they did try to create twists the film ended up simply being annoying. Try to see it for Clooney and Gosling, but don't worry if you miss it.
2/4
Monday, November 7, 2011
Patton (1970)
A hilarious bit of Oscar trivia for you: Patton swept the Academy Awards in 1971, winning most of the major awards. George C. Scott, after his towering performance as Gen. Patton, believed himself to be in another league than the four other actors in the same category, so he did not accept his Best Actor award. In fact he didn't show up to the ceremony at all. In fact though it was accepted by someone else he told them to return it the following day because he didn't want it. Gen. Patton was called a prima donna on more than one occasion, and I wonder if it would have been possible to find a better actor to bring to the silver screen. I think not.
This is a war film, yes. It follows Gen. Patton as he lead marvelous campaigns in North Africa, Italy and France during WWII with brilliant strategy and brilliant strategy. It is a biopic as well. The film traces George S. Patton as he navigates--or rather blunders--through the most important years of his life. But most of all this is simply a character study, which I find to be very different than a biopic, though the two often tend to work in tandem. Really though this is an opportunity for the audience, like the mid-level Nazi who profiled him, to thoroughly analyse the man who had Rommel shaking in his boots, but also had much of the American and British forces calling for his dismissal. If it seems incongruous that a man who lead campaigns that took well over 100 thousand casualties and prisoners should be shouted out of the army, then you ought to watch this film to get a full taste of what Patton was all about.
It is very interesting to watch the way in which Patton and the Nazi's were similarly drawn. He admired the war machine of Germany, and Patton and Rommel both recognized and respected each others' genius. It seems to me that the Teutons and Patton were both presented as warmongers, exceptional strategists, and far more competent than others around them. Especially on the side of Patton, who at one point said it was a shame to kill such great infantry, had a very high level of respect for his enemy. At times it even came dangerously close to admiration or envy at seeing such high quality troops on the other side of the line. But this was not really a man involved in politics. He didn't specifically hate "Nazis", he hated "the enemy". I am not even so sure that he hated them, as much as he simply loved to fight. War was interesting, war was life. Without a war, Patton was sure to die.
But that paints a rather narrow picture of the man, which the film and the actor work hard to avoid. Patton wrote poetry, was a great military historian, was a deeply religious man who believed in reincarnation, he spoke French, and was a die-hard romantic. One man called him a "16th century man" who was trapped in a war without the honor that he so craved. There were moments for glory which he seized upon, but there was none of the beauty of the wars of the Carthaginians, Romans or Greeks whom he loved so dearly.
All this we learn from Patton, and all of this Scott does unflinching conviction. It is interesting to me that often, when discussing the great film actors Marlon Brando, Laurence Olivier, Robert De Niro, Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert Reford, Paul Newman and Orson Wells always come up, but it is so infrequent that Scott does, even though he has done some of the most defining work of the 60's and 70's. A character with as much presence and nuance as Patton was not unusual for him, but it takes a character with the immense power of Patton to ever get a name to face recognition with many people I talk to. This is his crowning achievement, and I wish that it were more well loved.
Beyond the amazing personality this movie is also a great war film. The drama and politics of the high-ranking commanders is punctuated with large, moving battle sequences which are well staged, though typical of the type of film that it is. They aren't exactly necessary or the point of the film, but what would a movie about a general in WWII be if it didn't have a couple of Nazis getting blown up?
Karl Malden is good as always as the competing three-star general that worked along side Patton during many of his campaigns. It is interesting, though, that beyond these two main characters, a couple of Germans, and one or two British actors the supporting cast was really sloppy--especially from the Americans. They all did the cheesy doughboy, cornshucker routine that was awful at times. However, they were all there simply as adornment for its obvious main attraction.
Patton was the only general that the Nazi's ever feared and, frankly, I think that that was a perfectly reasonably thing to feel. He was a mad genius who saw his role in the war not simply as a duty to his country, but as his responsibility to fate. Perhaps it was fate that brought Scott to his defining role.
4/4
This is a war film, yes. It follows Gen. Patton as he lead marvelous campaigns in North Africa, Italy and France during WWII with brilliant strategy and brilliant strategy. It is a biopic as well. The film traces George S. Patton as he navigates--or rather blunders--through the most important years of his life. But most of all this is simply a character study, which I find to be very different than a biopic, though the two often tend to work in tandem. Really though this is an opportunity for the audience, like the mid-level Nazi who profiled him, to thoroughly analyse the man who had Rommel shaking in his boots, but also had much of the American and British forces calling for his dismissal. If it seems incongruous that a man who lead campaigns that took well over 100 thousand casualties and prisoners should be shouted out of the army, then you ought to watch this film to get a full taste of what Patton was all about.
It is very interesting to watch the way in which Patton and the Nazi's were similarly drawn. He admired the war machine of Germany, and Patton and Rommel both recognized and respected each others' genius. It seems to me that the Teutons and Patton were both presented as warmongers, exceptional strategists, and far more competent than others around them. Especially on the side of Patton, who at one point said it was a shame to kill such great infantry, had a very high level of respect for his enemy. At times it even came dangerously close to admiration or envy at seeing such high quality troops on the other side of the line. But this was not really a man involved in politics. He didn't specifically hate "Nazis", he hated "the enemy". I am not even so sure that he hated them, as much as he simply loved to fight. War was interesting, war was life. Without a war, Patton was sure to die.
But that paints a rather narrow picture of the man, which the film and the actor work hard to avoid. Patton wrote poetry, was a great military historian, was a deeply religious man who believed in reincarnation, he spoke French, and was a die-hard romantic. One man called him a "16th century man" who was trapped in a war without the honor that he so craved. There were moments for glory which he seized upon, but there was none of the beauty of the wars of the Carthaginians, Romans or Greeks whom he loved so dearly.
All this we learn from Patton, and all of this Scott does unflinching conviction. It is interesting to me that often, when discussing the great film actors Marlon Brando, Laurence Olivier, Robert De Niro, Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert Reford, Paul Newman and Orson Wells always come up, but it is so infrequent that Scott does, even though he has done some of the most defining work of the 60's and 70's. A character with as much presence and nuance as Patton was not unusual for him, but it takes a character with the immense power of Patton to ever get a name to face recognition with many people I talk to. This is his crowning achievement, and I wish that it were more well loved.
Beyond the amazing personality this movie is also a great war film. The drama and politics of the high-ranking commanders is punctuated with large, moving battle sequences which are well staged, though typical of the type of film that it is. They aren't exactly necessary or the point of the film, but what would a movie about a general in WWII be if it didn't have a couple of Nazis getting blown up?
Karl Malden is good as always as the competing three-star general that worked along side Patton during many of his campaigns. It is interesting, though, that beyond these two main characters, a couple of Germans, and one or two British actors the supporting cast was really sloppy--especially from the Americans. They all did the cheesy doughboy, cornshucker routine that was awful at times. However, they were all there simply as adornment for its obvious main attraction.
Patton was the only general that the Nazi's ever feared and, frankly, I think that that was a perfectly reasonably thing to feel. He was a mad genius who saw his role in the war not simply as a duty to his country, but as his responsibility to fate. Perhaps it was fate that brought Scott to his defining role.
4/4
Saturday, November 5, 2011
American Beauty (1999)
The movie opens on a teenage girl being filmed by her boyfriend. She says she hates her father and that someone ought to put him out of his misery. He is a "horny geek boy". Her boyfriend asks her if she would like him to kill her father and she says yes. Title screen. Following is a shot of a perfect neighborhood in Anywhere, U.S.A. where all of the houses look the same and garbage cans are never allowed to stay out on the street. The voice of Lester Burnham is heard saying that in one year's time he will be dead, and the audience understands that beneath the veneer of this holiday card the people that fill these houses are dead and decaying.
Lester is a sad man with a wife and daughter who look at him with disgust when they acknowledge him at all. Lester is at a point in which his job is on the line, he hasn't consummated his marriage in a very long time, has no friends, and even though he has all of the material pleasures he could want--he has the perfectly realized life of the lower upper-class American--he feels dissatisfied.
But attending a high school basketball game to watch his daughter, Jane, perform her cheer routine, he spots Angela, Jane's 16 year old slutty best friend, and Lester is enraptured--more, he becomes obsessed. Seeing the blonde vixen he has found his reason for living, and live he does. Lester quits his job (in a very cunning way), starts working out with his gay neighbors, and takes up smoking pot with the kid next door. The less he tries to be perfect and the less he tries to care, the happier he becomes even though he and his family end up paying the ultimate price for his actions.
This is one of the angriest, most acidic pieces of modern, mainstream cinema to come out of Hollywood in decades, and it is nearly perfect. The writing is so precise and so funny, that it is far too late before the audience realizes that they are watching a heartbreaking story of a fully grown man with no vision and no purpose for being except to seduce an illegal girl. Intellectually we understand this--he makes his motives very clear--but at a gut level it isn't felt until too far in because we have been spending so long laughing at the brilliant satire of the script. In the end, however, we are laughing at miserable people who go along with their day to day lives, pruning roses and laughing at unfunny jokes, simply because they are conditioned to. This film hates the falseness in which people lead their lives simply because they believe that that is being happy. Lester is black cavity on an otherwise perfectly white tooth.
All of the other characters have their secrets too. Lester's money-grubbing, real estate wife, Carolyn, is cheating on him with the Real Estate King. His daughter has been saving up babysitting money so she can afford a boob job. Ricky Fitts, the strange observer from next door and Jane's boyfriend, runs a very successful little business selling pot to locksmiths, pediatricians, and to Lester, of course. Ricky's Marine Corp father owns Nazi paraphernalia, and has a further, more disturbing secret which I will not name.
At first I was not happy with the fact that this neighborhood and these people were painted with such a high gloss. It seems that anytime a filmmaker wants to make the point that their story could be the tale of any person in America, it becomes necessary that they sell real estate or insurance, live in a big white house, and drive an SUV. But upon further reflection it seems to me that on a scale of 1-10 most of those films make that caricature a 7, while this film probably pushed it up to an 8. The purpose of that being American Beauty needed to very forcefully illustrate what people think "America" and their lives ought to be, in order to spend the time showing what they aren't.
It is clear that Ricky Fitts is the eye of the writer. He is imperfect, but he recognizes his flaws and is unbothered by them. He films what he finds beautiful: a dead bird, a homeless women who froze to death, Jane's lopsided breasts, and most notably a plastic bag floating with the breeze. He is mentally unstable, but there is an honesty in his eyes, and love in his heart, and he is quick to realize that Angela's beauty, of which Lester is so overwhelmed, is only skin deep, and that she is as unhappy as everyone else.
This movie works because everything that is done or said or shot is realized with such intensity. The casting director has to be given a lot of credit for perfectly chosen actors. Kevin Spacey is Lester, doing less "Kevin Spacey" and far more "Lester" than he has done in most of his films. Annette Bening (one of the most undervalued working actresses) is Carolyn. Thora Birch is Jane, whose naivety is swallowed up by the force of Ricky Fitts, played by Wes Bentley who did a terrific job, though I don't know any of his other work.
All of the other parts, from the direction to the writing to the amazing cinematography, all come together to create a work of big budget art, and one of the high points of 1990's cinema.
4/4
Lester is a sad man with a wife and daughter who look at him with disgust when they acknowledge him at all. Lester is at a point in which his job is on the line, he hasn't consummated his marriage in a very long time, has no friends, and even though he has all of the material pleasures he could want--he has the perfectly realized life of the lower upper-class American--he feels dissatisfied.
But attending a high school basketball game to watch his daughter, Jane, perform her cheer routine, he spots Angela, Jane's 16 year old slutty best friend, and Lester is enraptured--more, he becomes obsessed. Seeing the blonde vixen he has found his reason for living, and live he does. Lester quits his job (in a very cunning way), starts working out with his gay neighbors, and takes up smoking pot with the kid next door. The less he tries to be perfect and the less he tries to care, the happier he becomes even though he and his family end up paying the ultimate price for his actions.
This is one of the angriest, most acidic pieces of modern, mainstream cinema to come out of Hollywood in decades, and it is nearly perfect. The writing is so precise and so funny, that it is far too late before the audience realizes that they are watching a heartbreaking story of a fully grown man with no vision and no purpose for being except to seduce an illegal girl. Intellectually we understand this--he makes his motives very clear--but at a gut level it isn't felt until too far in because we have been spending so long laughing at the brilliant satire of the script. In the end, however, we are laughing at miserable people who go along with their day to day lives, pruning roses and laughing at unfunny jokes, simply because they are conditioned to. This film hates the falseness in which people lead their lives simply because they believe that that is being happy. Lester is black cavity on an otherwise perfectly white tooth.
All of the other characters have their secrets too. Lester's money-grubbing, real estate wife, Carolyn, is cheating on him with the Real Estate King. His daughter has been saving up babysitting money so she can afford a boob job. Ricky Fitts, the strange observer from next door and Jane's boyfriend, runs a very successful little business selling pot to locksmiths, pediatricians, and to Lester, of course. Ricky's Marine Corp father owns Nazi paraphernalia, and has a further, more disturbing secret which I will not name.
At first I was not happy with the fact that this neighborhood and these people were painted with such a high gloss. It seems that anytime a filmmaker wants to make the point that their story could be the tale of any person in America, it becomes necessary that they sell real estate or insurance, live in a big white house, and drive an SUV. But upon further reflection it seems to me that on a scale of 1-10 most of those films make that caricature a 7, while this film probably pushed it up to an 8. The purpose of that being American Beauty needed to very forcefully illustrate what people think "America" and their lives ought to be, in order to spend the time showing what they aren't.
It is clear that Ricky Fitts is the eye of the writer. He is imperfect, but he recognizes his flaws and is unbothered by them. He films what he finds beautiful: a dead bird, a homeless women who froze to death, Jane's lopsided breasts, and most notably a plastic bag floating with the breeze. He is mentally unstable, but there is an honesty in his eyes, and love in his heart, and he is quick to realize that Angela's beauty, of which Lester is so overwhelmed, is only skin deep, and that she is as unhappy as everyone else.
This movie works because everything that is done or said or shot is realized with such intensity. The casting director has to be given a lot of credit for perfectly chosen actors. Kevin Spacey is Lester, doing less "Kevin Spacey" and far more "Lester" than he has done in most of his films. Annette Bening (one of the most undervalued working actresses) is Carolyn. Thora Birch is Jane, whose naivety is swallowed up by the force of Ricky Fitts, played by Wes Bentley who did a terrific job, though I don't know any of his other work.
All of the other parts, from the direction to the writing to the amazing cinematography, all come together to create a work of big budget art, and one of the high points of 1990's cinema.
4/4
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Halloween (1978)
This is several days late and at least one past All Hallow's Eve, but perhaps you can keep the spirit of the holiday alive and still find the fright from one of the best and most defining horror films of all time. John Carpenter has established himself as the Master of Horror; his film Halloween has set a bar in the horror genre that has remained relevant for thirty years, and for that reason he and his work must be taken seriously in discussion of cinema.
As a child, Michael Myers brutally killed his older sister and was institutionalized for the entirety of his adolescence. At the age of 21, though seeming tranquil enough, Michael makes his escape for which he has silently been planning with inhuman patience. Returning to his hometown, he terrorizes three girls on Halloween night while his doctor and the local sheriff try to hunt him down. His motives are unknown. As far as anyone can tell he attacks without any semblance of rhyme or reason, and is simply fueled by an unknown evil.
This sort of aimless violence, made very real by the lack of budget (everyone was asked to wear their own clothes), is what gives this film its power. When I think of slasher films there seems to be the common theme that a group of six or so teenagers of fairly one-dimensional characteristics happen upon a place which they should not have gone to or did not know that they should not have gone there. Often they receive some sort of warning from a local townsperson or sign trying to keep them away, but they either ignore it or press on to spite it. Then, in a very formulaic pattern they are picked off one by one in gruesome and mildly frightening ways. The realism has been drained out of any story they might have because the film follows conventions in order to achieve what producers know will bring in big box-office bucks. However most movie-goers will forget any of the cheap scares that they are tricked into by the time that they walk out of the theatre.
Where Halloween differs in both style and in content is that there is only one character that ever seems to have any sort of clue as to what is going on. I exclude the doctor and the sheriff, of course, because they are simply there to provide information about Michael Myers and to bring some sort of a conclusion to the film. Jamie Lee Curtis took up her first feature film as the lead character, Laurie. She sees Michael occasionally through the day from a distance, but really has no idea who or what he is about. By the evening she has completely forgotten about him, and although the boy she is babysitting is convinced that the Boogeyman is outside--which of course he is--she dismisses his fright and monster-movie mania.
There is really no collective recognition of the apparition that is Michael in the entirety of the movie. By the time Laurie realizes what is happening the film is almost over and all of her friends are dead. Right there is the lingering horror that has given Halloween and Michael Myers his power for so many decades. It is that subconscious, irrational fear when we enter a darkened house that there is someone else in there with us. We turn on the lights as fast as possible simply to prove our irrationality in the idea that a random murder has chosen our random house to kill us randomly. But what if there was someone there after all waiting for us to reach for the light switch...
Most of the spooky moments do not come from the killings, or even the moment before, but come from him watching these girls do what girls do. They drink, smoke, screw, try to earn some easy money, joke with each other, do laundry, and all the while the white mask of Michael hovers like an evil spirit just beyond a doorway. He has every possibility to kill them throughout, but it is the silent watching, the easy way in which he might be spotted if only they would turn around(!) that makes him so creepy. He stalks, and he is good at it.
As a child I watched the film When a Stranger Calls, and afterwards I could not go into my bathroom without checking behind the shower curtain. I was twelve and intellectually knew that there was no killer patiently waiting to catch me with my pants down, so to speak, but for literally months I had a ritual of checking. The day that I forcibly made myself enter the bathroom without checking was one of the scariest in my life. I obviously was not killed, but since I hadn't checked who's to say that somebody wasn't in there?
4/4
As a child, Michael Myers brutally killed his older sister and was institutionalized for the entirety of his adolescence. At the age of 21, though seeming tranquil enough, Michael makes his escape for which he has silently been planning with inhuman patience. Returning to his hometown, he terrorizes three girls on Halloween night while his doctor and the local sheriff try to hunt him down. His motives are unknown. As far as anyone can tell he attacks without any semblance of rhyme or reason, and is simply fueled by an unknown evil.
This sort of aimless violence, made very real by the lack of budget (everyone was asked to wear their own clothes), is what gives this film its power. When I think of slasher films there seems to be the common theme that a group of six or so teenagers of fairly one-dimensional characteristics happen upon a place which they should not have gone to or did not know that they should not have gone there. Often they receive some sort of warning from a local townsperson or sign trying to keep them away, but they either ignore it or press on to spite it. Then, in a very formulaic pattern they are picked off one by one in gruesome and mildly frightening ways. The realism has been drained out of any story they might have because the film follows conventions in order to achieve what producers know will bring in big box-office bucks. However most movie-goers will forget any of the cheap scares that they are tricked into by the time that they walk out of the theatre.
Where Halloween differs in both style and in content is that there is only one character that ever seems to have any sort of clue as to what is going on. I exclude the doctor and the sheriff, of course, because they are simply there to provide information about Michael Myers and to bring some sort of a conclusion to the film. Jamie Lee Curtis took up her first feature film as the lead character, Laurie. She sees Michael occasionally through the day from a distance, but really has no idea who or what he is about. By the evening she has completely forgotten about him, and although the boy she is babysitting is convinced that the Boogeyman is outside--which of course he is--she dismisses his fright and monster-movie mania.
There is really no collective recognition of the apparition that is Michael in the entirety of the movie. By the time Laurie realizes what is happening the film is almost over and all of her friends are dead. Right there is the lingering horror that has given Halloween and Michael Myers his power for so many decades. It is that subconscious, irrational fear when we enter a darkened house that there is someone else in there with us. We turn on the lights as fast as possible simply to prove our irrationality in the idea that a random murder has chosen our random house to kill us randomly. But what if there was someone there after all waiting for us to reach for the light switch...
Most of the spooky moments do not come from the killings, or even the moment before, but come from him watching these girls do what girls do. They drink, smoke, screw, try to earn some easy money, joke with each other, do laundry, and all the while the white mask of Michael hovers like an evil spirit just beyond a doorway. He has every possibility to kill them throughout, but it is the silent watching, the easy way in which he might be spotted if only they would turn around(!) that makes him so creepy. He stalks, and he is good at it.
As a child I watched the film When a Stranger Calls, and afterwards I could not go into my bathroom without checking behind the shower curtain. I was twelve and intellectually knew that there was no killer patiently waiting to catch me with my pants down, so to speak, but for literally months I had a ritual of checking. The day that I forcibly made myself enter the bathroom without checking was one of the scariest in my life. I obviously was not killed, but since I hadn't checked who's to say that somebody wasn't in there?
4/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)