Change Your Image
jerryuppington
Reviews
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Movie for Everybody
I recently saw this movie again after a hiatus of several years. I was able to view it with a more objective eye; the movie didn't disappoint.
Two facts stick out at me when pondering this film. First, it creates the hugest impact when the viewer sees it as a child. I still remember trembling at the Wicked Witch of the West at the tender age of seven. To a child, the Witch is terrifying--she'll scare the living Beejeesus out of him. The underlying subconscious motives of children are all addressed, in a most direct fashion, in this movie--the desire to get away, the loss of security, our feelings towards our Mothers (the Antie Em figure) and our fear of scary things. Nothing could possibly be more horrifying to a child than the crystal ball sequence, where our beloved Mother figure (Antie Em) turns into this horrible, cackling, Id-figure Witch.
People who see the movie first as an adult are less impressed; one acquaintance said,"The movie's no big deal--you're not missing much." They have missed the child's Wizard of Oz experience and can't understand the impact.
The other fact that strikes me is that this movie is truly Pan-Human--there's absolutely nothing in the film that would offend anyone, whether he be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, African, Russian, Chinese, or green or blue or purple. It truly is a film that transcends all human boundaries.
There are a few plot holes in the film made necessary by cutting the film due to over-length. I wish I could see an unabridged edition; Margaret Hamilton has said that her part was cut drastically because the children in preview audiences got too scared. I believe, in retrospect, the deletion of the Jitterbug number was a mistake; its deletion causes a glaring plot hole, obvious to those who watch the movie closely.
A little piece of errata--I remember very clearly a scene in the Witch's Castle that is either lost, or been deleted. It's when Dorothy is gazing at the hourglass. Seeing that the sand is getting ready to run out, she desperately tries to turn it over--but fails; the hourglass won't budge. Does anybody else remember this scene?
All in all, this is a wonderful movie. If you and your children haven't seen it, run--not walk-- to the nearest store and buy it.
Beyond the Rocks (1922)
A must see for everybody except stiff-lipped academics
(Contains possible spoilers)
I just loved this movie. Part of the excitement is watching a resurrected film, lost after over 80 years. It's like finding buried treasure.
This movie, however, would interest almost everybody, except experts who're jaded by years of cinematic criticism. Some points:
1. Swanson and Valentino are both beautiful to look at; Valentino is miscast, however. Swanson ages in concert with the screenplay, while Valentino doesn't; he photographs too young next to Swanson, especially in the later parts of the movie.
2. The costumes will make you wonder. Some are ridiculously elaborate. This is high regalia 20s-style. I wonder if they'd even be possible to make today? This is the best movie I've ever seen for parading 20s fashion.
3. Performances are subtle, nuanced, and believable throughout.
4. All the various stages of nitrate composition are evident here--first, the blurring, then the "freckles", then the "moldy cheese" look, then, finally, the disappearance of the image. On the other hand, some of the scenes are so crystal clear that you can see the details on the costumes. If you want to learn about nitrate decomposition, this film is a good teacher.
5. Swanson's tango dance, and the dress that was" talked about for a year", did not survive nitrate decomposition. Contrary to many reviewers' opinions, stills exist for the tango dance. The dress in question is probably the one she wears on stage, for less than a minute, during the pageant sequence. Unfortunately, because it's a long shot, we don't get to see it in any great detail.
6. The modern soundtrack is often off-putting, but during the second decomposing sequence (during the pageant), the somber, dramatic, heart-beating tune matches the action on the screen, while at the same time, dramatically draws attention to the decomposition itself. Was this purposeful? It's as if the composer was saying,"Listen, you fools! These films are disappearing. Just watch this sequence and see for yourself!"
7. While the plot is ridiculous today, it was the norm in 20s society. Elinor Glyn sold millions of books. What entertainment do we have today, that will be laughed at 80 years from now? (Rap music is a possibility.) It's too easy to look at films like this through the lens of today's sensibilities, and lose perspective.
8. About four minutes of film is missing; it's easy to pick out where, because the plot continuity reveals it.
9. Close attention to the sets will reveal that the same room, redecorated several ways, is used several times. For example, Valentino's library, and Swanson's husband's library, in the scenes after the pageant where the letters have been switched, is the same room redecorated.
For all these reasons, see the movie. If you're not enthralled by something in the film, you're jaded. All the rest of us little folks will love it--it's just plain fun.
Nashville (1975)
Film Fugue
I watched this movie one drizzly night when I had nothing to do. I wasn't sure, even while I was watching this film, whether or not I liked it.
Modern-day Rambo fans will find this movie flat-out boring; cerebral types will love it, even if they don't REALIZE they love it at the time they watch it.
Everything Gary Taylor says about this film is true--every word. I won't attempt to re-invent the wheel here. He said it all better than I could have.
The weird thing about watching this movie is that you don't seem to know what you're watching, at the time you're watching it. It's a kaleidoscope of a movie. After watching it, I thought,"What a weird movie. What was THAT all about?" The next day, after everything had sunk in, I thought,"What a masterpiece!" I think most people would reach the same conclusion.
I nominate this film as the ultimate film fugue.
I knocked this movie from 10 stars to 9, only because the sound is problematic for those of us without home theater systems. The conversations are so complex that a whole lot, apparently, is lost on an inferior system.
We Who Are Young (1940)
A good social docu-drama of the era
I don't agree completely with the other reviewer.
I think this movie is a fine social documentary of the times. Although the movie was filmed in 1940, the scene is really the Depression 30s.
Movies of that era were either 1) escapist, "fluffy" movies, about escapades among the rich and/or young, 2) musicals, or 3) gangster flicks. Mostly. None of these genres really reflected the tenor of those times.
True docu-dramas of the era are rather rare; perhaps the people just didn't want to be reminded of how awful things were.
This movie depicts the trouble a young couple has in succeeding (or even surviving) in a capitalist, Depression society. Both boy and girl loses jobs, and the girl is pregnant; one senses homelessness and breadlines around the corner. The angst felt by such couples in those days is poignantly portrayed here.
True, some of the dialog is corny and dated, but one must remember that the thinking of the 1930s was vastly different than that of today's.
The performances are spot-on, too; every one of the characters is believable.
This movie is well worth watching for the social documentary that it is.
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)
Review's a Spoiler!
Spoiler! Be warned.
This movie is similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey in every way. It's poetic, hypnotic, allegorical, boring to many. In addition, it's a very powerful sexual allegory.
I'm going to focus on heretowith undiscussed interpretations. There is, in addition to numerous heterosexual inferences, quite a few homoerotic allusions. Some obvious, others hidden.
The romance between the 2 schoolgirls is openly paraded. The lesbian inferences between the Schoolmarm and a rebellious student, hidden. There is, in addition, a male homoerotic inference. There is a boy who goes to look for the girls after they disappear. Shots from behind are made of him wearing tight, revealing pants, interspersed with shots of the Phallic-looking Rock. After he is found, he's showing definite signs of rape trauma. Was he raped, either metaphorically or literally? There are interpretations of female rape, too. One girl who returns is likewise showing signs of rape trauma, in spite of later references to her being "intact" ie virginal. Later on in the movie, the head mistress refers to the missing schoolmarm, her "masculine intellect, allowing herself to be raped and murdered" etc.
Is the whole thing a sexual allegory, referring to awakening sexuality in the Victorian era? The girl who does return from the Rock is later shown in a romance. (this footage was foolishly cut in the Director's version). Does this represent her allegorical "deflowering"?
Watch and see. Ponder, If you're an actionpacked fan, however, stay far away. This one is for the intellect.