Here is the info for Some Like It Hot, and the info for Vertigo. As I wrote on the preceding blog, both are considered two of the greatest films made, interestingly enough made by two non-Americans: Billy Wilder was German, and Hitchcock was British.
Here is Jack Lemmon and Joe E. Brown tangoing. It doesn't end up where it starts—as one can say so much of the movie.
And the famous ending. I haven't heard you all laugh this much in a while.
So a certifiable classic, pretty much universally acclaimed as one of the great comedies and farces ever.
1. When I asked what you thought of the film, only a few offered responses. So what did you think of the film? Like? Dislike? Why? What stayed with you from it?
2. How do you think it has held up in the 58 years since it was released? Did this bring up problematic issues or questions the way Seven Brides for Seven Brothers did? Did you find it off-putting or offensive? If you see this as different than the Donan musical, what makes it different? If you see them similar, how so?
3. Why do you think that this has held up for critics and many viewers (perhaps even yourself)? You don't have to agree or support what you write, but think about what has made this movie considered by contemporary critics and film writers as...well, if not the greatest, then certainly one of the greatest American comedies (and in the BFI poll, 42nd greatest film) ever?
4. Two sentence response to what you've seen of Vertigo?
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers was a major success when it was released in 1954, though the studio had little invested in it and did not foresee its success. It was nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture, and won one, for Best Musical Score for a Movie. It has been included on the National Film Registry for "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films." It also is on the American Film Institute's list of 25 greatest American musicals.
I've been reading contemporary reviews of the film, many of which are laudatory. Here is the one from the New York Times. Please read it. Here is a more contemporary review, acknowledging the "problematic nature" of the film. Here is a direct addressing of that problematic nature. At the time it was released, as far as I can tell, there was little to no comment on the sexism of the film, not to mention the kidnapping of the women. There was comment on the superlative dancing and singing. Indeed, all but one of the brothers, and all of the women, were professional dancers. The most famous part of the movie is clearly the barn raising dance. But this moment strikes me as just as important, as the brothers yearn for the women they fallen for. It's almost operatic to me.
Laney talked in class today about how she didn't take seriously—or too seriously—that "problematic nature" we all were struck by—and some of the rest of you echoed that. This is not the Dardenne brothers; it's not even Creed. It's people singing and dancing on clearly fake movie sets (interestingly enough, Stanley Donan did want to shoot this on location; that would have been interesting to see). The classic Hollywood musical was designed to be escapist fare, entertainment plain and simple. It could get serious—South Pacific addressed racism, as did West Side Story, along with youth gangs and the effect of poverty on youth. But even in those musicals, you had this:
And in West Side Story, while making a legitimate point about prejudice against Puerto Rican immigrants, you still were mostly blown away by the dancing:
So....
1. Emory asked "what was the point" of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. It does have a story and theme and a point, muddled perhaps, but there is something going on there, certainly with the issues between Adam and Millie. So aside from the dancing and singing and humor: what point do you think it was trying to make? What is it about? Don't dismiss this question even if you hated the movie. And maybe the movie didn't succeed fully in this. But as some of you said in class, some things are different at the end than they were in the beginning. And Adam certainly is changed.
2. This movie is sexist and un-PC as can be; we all get that. But the dancing is extraordinary as is much of the singing. Some of you expressed your liking for it. So how do you reconcile the 50s attitudes it presents with the positive parts of it—allow for them to co-exist? And if you can't, why not?
3. One of the questions we asked in class was did the movie itself get the joke? Was it aware of in any way, shape, or form, its "problematic nature"?
200 words in all, as always. Tomorrow, we will begin what is considered by many critics to be the greatest American comedy ever, Some Like It Hot (1959), directed by Billy Wilder, and starring Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon. The British Film Institute has it as the 42nd greatest movie ever made. The American Film Institute has named it the greatest American comedy ever and the 22nd greatest American film ever. Here's the trailer.
Here is the New York Times review of the film. Please read it. And please read The New Yorker reivew here. And finally, this from the Fresno Bee. This is a film that received almost universal accolades; certainly Marion Cottilard's performance was applauded as one of the best of 2014. Some critics call is a suspense film, which it certainly is. Others could call it—yes—a woman's film. It occupies a similar space as Moonlight and Middle of Nowhere in its investigation of characters who lack glamour and live everyday lives, but taken to a much greater degree of realism and naturalism than those two films. I would call it a political film.
1. Today in class, Dylan said she felt no connection to Sandra—yet felt empathy for her. Kayla went farther and said she didn't like Sandra. I liked her—I grew to love her in the way we can for characters in movies. But I also didn't find Brian pervvy in Middle of Nowhere. I think the Dardenne brothers would have no issue with either Kayla or Dylan's feelings about their character. So for a minute, assume that the film doesn't necessarily want us to feel connected or even like its protagonist. How could that work to the film's benefit? Or why might the directors deliberately desire that effect? What purpose can it serve for the film for us to feel distanced from Sandra?
2. Who is the villain in the film? Or what is the villain in the film? How do we know this? What scene or moment best supports your answer–and how so?
3. I called this a political film. What does that mean to you in this context? Explain your answer.
200 words. Really investigate these questions. Tomorrow, for a major change of pace...
This is the scene we left on at the end of class. It captures so well how the Dardenne brothers have approached the film. I found it powerful. Finally, someone wants to help Sandra.
Two Days, One Night brought Marion Cotillard an Oscar nomination in 2014. Look here at the end of the article for the accolades it received. This is the 9th of the 10 films the Dardennes have written and directed together. Here is the information for the film.
1. So 30 minutes into the film...what do you think? Like? Dislike? And why? Additionally: are you drawn into Sandra's journey to save her job? Do you care? Explain your response.
2. The Dardenne Brothers are known for their hyper-realistic approach to making films. Yet it's not all that far from what Barry Jenkins and Ava DuVernay do in their films. What strikes you about the look of the film and the technical approach to the film: setting. editing, sound, shots, costumes? Focus on two of the categories I listed. Does the movie remind you in any way of either or both of the last two movies we've watched in its look and the technical aspects of it that you just wrote about? How so or how not?
You may not believe this, but Middle of Nowhere was received warmly by many critics when it got a limited release in 2012. Here is Manohla Dargis' review in the New York Times—please read it. Here is Kenneth Turan's review in the LA Times—please read it also. Please read this review from the Toronto Globe and Mail. Not that the film got universally good reviews; a number of critics complained about its pacing, its slowness, the way some of you did. But this is a respected independent film that garnered several awards, the most prestigious being the Best Director Prize at The Sundance Film Festival for Ava DuVernay.
1. I'm curious: what do you go to a movie for? What is it you want from a movie? Please be specific—and name two or three movies in answering this, okay?
2. I asked in class today what genre would you consider Middle of Nowhere: Isaac said drama, which it certainly is, but I proposed a Woman's Picture, as they used to be called. Read this definition from the oracle. As the oracle says, the term itself has dropped out of use, but I would argue it still applies to this film. In the same way that Moonlight is clearly Chiron's story and as much as Moonlight concerns itself with the masculine world of Chiron, Middle of Nowhere concerns itself with the feminine world of Ruby.
My first question: would you agree that this film is indeed a woman's film? If so, why? If not, why not? My second question: is this a genre you are drawn to—or could imagine yourself drawn to? Why or why not?
3. We talked about the absence of measurable plot in the movie today. Call it plot—call it story: what is the film about? Write a couple sentences.
4. I would propose that this film shares some of the major themes of Moonlight. How could that be true? Where does Moonlight and Middle of Nowhere overlap?
5. Reaction to the film? Expand on what you said in class today. Mention a specific moment or image or scene in answering this.
200 words, folks. Some of the responses on the last blog were pretty short.
On Monday, after we talk a little more about DuVernay's film, we'll begin Two Days, One Night (2014), by the Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, two Belgian filmmakers.
*'“Creed” is a dandy piece of entertainment, soothingly old-fashioned and
bracingly up-to-date. The punches fly, the music soars (hip-hop along
with Ludwig Goransson’s variations on the old Bill Conti brass) and the
ground is prepared for “Creed II.” We’ll see how that goes. But for now
it is sweet to have this lesson in the importance of fast footwork,
brute power and brotherly love.'
**'Ingeniously, Coogler has transformed “Rocky”—the modern cinematic myth
that, perhaps more than any other, endures as a modern capitalist
Horatio Alger story of personal determination and sheer will—into a
vision of community and opportunity, connections and social capital,
family and money.'
The first quote(*) is from the New York Times review of the film. Read the rest here. The second quote(**) is from a review in The New Yorker. Read the rest here. The film got mostly positive reviews, and as yesterday's blog stated, made almost $174 million in its run—not bad for a boxing movie. This is clearly a commercial film, capitalizing on a popular series and with the weight of a major studios behind it—MGM, New Line, and Warner Brothers—it was designed to be a popular film in ways Moonlight wasn't (Creed made over $100 million more than Moonlight which never got the wide release Creed did). At the same time, Creed was, like Moonlight, directed by newcomer, Ryan Coogler, who had done only one movie before this and was 28 years old when he made Creed, and like Moonlight, it starred a young actor (Michael B. Jordan who had only recently come to movies from TV—The Wire, Friday Night Lights, Parenthood), and like Moonlight, had a predominantly African-American cast. The last Rocky film, Rocky Balboa, was released back in 2006, so it wasn't as if audiences were clamoring for a new one. So while clearly a commercial venture, Creed was not a sure success—more so than Moonlight, but the question was still would an audience come out for a Rocky movie starring a young black man and in which Rocky himself was a supporting character?
1. You haven't finished the film (please don't find out the ending, if you haven't seen it). So—separate—from your reaction to Moonlight: don't compare them yet—what is your reaction to it? Explain your response. And what moment, scene, image, stayed with you—and why?
2. Would you recommend this film to your friends? Why or why not? And what would you say this movie is about to them if you wanted them to see it—or what would you say is the problem is what the movie is about if you couldn't recommend it?
3. Can you make a case for why this film was such a success? Is it simply because it is a Rocky movie? That it co-starred Sylvester Stallone? That it has a straight-forward plot (much like Jaws, another hugely successful genre film)? The audience could not have all been boxing movie, Sylvester Stallone, Rocky fans; what else in this movie could have appealed to those viewers?
4. Creed and Moonlight: Commercial vs. Art; genre film vs. personal story; straight vs. gay; etc. They would appear to be polar opposites. Is there any crossover here though? Is there a place where these films meet—where they share certain theme(s) or conflicts? If so—how so? If you think not, why not?
We'll talk about both films tomorrow; then second half of class we'll begin Middle of Nowhere, the second film by Ava DuVernay for which she won the Best Director Prize at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. She went on to direct Selma, nominated for Best Picture at the 2014 Academy Awards, and the documentary 13th, nominated for Best Documentary at the 2016 Academy Awards. This is the trailer for Middle of Nowhere.
I don't know about you all, but that last segment of Moonlight—"Black"—left me emotionally wrung out. Ironically, when I saw the movie in the theater, this section left me the least moved. Not this time. Here is a thoughtful review by A.O. Scott in the New York Times. Here is an excellent review by Hilton Als in The New Yorker...and a follow up by Richard Brody in the same publication. Please read these three reviews.
1. I asked yesterday what you thought the movie was about, after the first 40 minutes. Now that you've finished it, what is it about? You can quote from any of the reviews above, refer to them, refer to what others on the blog have said, but come up with your own conclusion(s). And what scene, image, or moment, best defines what the film is about for you.
2. You're talking to a friend who has not seen the movie: would you recommend it to them? Why or why not? Is it, for you, a movie worth seeing?
We started Creed today—another film about a young black man in America today. It is, as I said in class, a sequel (of sorts) to the popular Rocky series. The original Rocky, made in 1976, was as much a surprise Oscar winner as was Moonlight in many ways: a small boxing film starring (and written by) an unknown (Sylvester Stallone). The film cost $1 million to make; it made $225 million. Creed is 30 year old Ryan Coogler's second full-length film; his first, Fruitvale Station (2013), also starred Michael B. Jordan and won many awards: it made $17 million on a $900,000 budget. Creed, costing $35 million, and made almost $174 million. It garnered a number of accolades. It made a number of bests and top 10 lists as well.
3. In class today I made one distinction between the two films: Moonlight is an art film and Creed is a commercial film. In watching the first 25 minutes of Creed, what distinguishes it most of all from Moonlight in terms of style and/or approach? This is not saying it's not as good or anything—I just want you to consider the distinction between a commercial film and an art film (imprecise terms, I realize).
