 In all fairness, it's perhaps incorrect to call Robert Altman's 1978 ensemble piece 'forgotten'. A Wedding is certainly held in high regard by Altman fans, and Filmbrain knows quite a few who happily clutch to their old pan-and-scan VHS copies, as no other version is (legally) available. Still, it doesn't get screened that often, and coming on the heels of 3 Women (one of his best), it often gets relegated to lesser-Altman status. Seeing it recently on the Fox Movie Channel (letterboxed, but a poor quality print), Filmbrain is convinced that it deserves to be reconsidered (or, at the very least, released on DVD!) The late 70's through mid-80's was an awkward period for Altman. He made some "difficult" films that left fans and critics scratching their heads (Quintet), several attempts at commercial crowd-pleasers that were, for the most part, failures (A Perfect Couple, Popeye) and a few that tried to recreate the Nashville formula -- large casts, overlapping dialog, and multiple plot threads (A Wedding, Health). Though Streamers and Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean were slightly more successful, it would be many years before Altman found himself commercially in the black again (1992's The Player). Commercial success or failure aside, some of Altman's films during this period are truly wonderful. Filmbrain has always had a soft spot for Popeye, and thinks that Secret Honor might be one of his best. [Filmbrain just learned that Secret Honor, Altman's Nixon film (with Philip Baker Hall in a bravura solo performance) is being released on DVD by Criterion in October. This is incredible news.] When watching A Wedding, it's almost impossible not to compare it to Nashville. But whereas both films contain dozens of characters, intertwined plot threads and an eclectic cast, A Wedding never manages to fully get off the ground. Part of the problem is the characters themselves -- many of Nashville's denizens were ruthless, two-faced phonies (politicians, musicians) while the family members and guests at the wedding are simply the idle rich. Family scandals abound, but even they are strictly run-of-the-mill. (Altman would greatly improve on this idea years later with Gosford Park.) The other problem with the film is the selection of actors. Instead of picking from his troupe of regulars, he instead opted to work with a new ensemble -- perhaps not the best decision in a film with over fifty speaking roles. Sure, Geraldine Chaplin and Bert Remsen are present, but the film is screaming for a Shelley Duvall, Elliott Gould, or Henry Gibson. It's not that Carol Burnett, Paul Dooley, Pat McCormick (and the others) are slouches, but many of them don't seem entirely comfortable working in this format. Mia Farrow is the most interesting in the film -- physically resembling Sissy Spacek's character from 3 Women, she plays the enigmatic sister of the bride who, though only uttering two (important) lines, turns in a remarkable performance. Yet even with all these gripes, A Wedding is still a fabulous way to spend two hours. The unfolding of the story is deftly handled -- for the first half hour we haven't a clue who anybody is, and working out the connections is part of the fun. The dialog is witty, and the deliberately paced (but always rising) dramatic tension builds to a satisfying crescendo before the resulting chaos at the film's end. Altman uses his trademark zooms, which allows him to film from a distance, thereby leaving the actors clueless as to whom he's focusing on -- a brilliant technique. Filmbrain hopes this gets a proper DVD release with commentary by Altman -- it would be fascinating to hear his thoughts on this film. |
« August 2004 | Main | October 2004 »
Posts from September 2004
2004.09.13
2004.09.10
Forgotten gems of the 70's: John and Mary
 [NB: In the interest of full disclosure -- John and Mary was actually released in 1969, but it's a 70's film in spirit.] Manhattan. 1969. Women's liberation, the Vietnam War, and the sexual revolution are hot topics. In a crowded bar, a designer (Dustin Hoffman) overhears a woman (Mia Farrow) cleverly discussing Jean-Luc Godard's Weekend with a few friends. Impressed with her comments, he butts into the discussion and winds up asking the woman if he can buy her a drink. Cut to the morning after. The two have spent the night together, and now the awkward bit begins. This is the simple premise behind Peter Yates' 1969 film, John and Mary. The genesis of a relationship in the course of a single day. Filmbrain doesn't know how or why this film escaped him for so many years -- it's not only a wonderful film, but a small piece of screenwriting heaven as well. (File under: they don't write them like this anymore!) The film is somewhat of a precursor to the current day RomCom, just much more intelligent, and not so much Com. Instead of the painful artifice of Nora Ephron types (Harry/Sally), here we have two very real characters navigating their way through the day after a one night stand, trying (subtly) to learn more about each other while at the same time working through their own relationship fears and anxieties. What keeps the film interesting is the non-linear structure -- at times we're not sure if a scene we're watching is in the past, future, or simply imagined. Screenwriter John Mortimer keeps the dialog flowing, but it's short, sharp, and precise. We are granted the luxury of hearing both John and Mary's inner thoughts -- a technique that can be (and often is) disastrous or cloying, but here is used to great effect. The verbal tennis match between the two is quite natural -- this isn't meant to be Edward Albee or William Inge -- rather it's the subtlety of their dialog that winds up revealing more about them. Filmbrain greatly prefers this approach to the Before Sunrise/Sunset model, which (while not bad films at all) feels the need to have the characters constantly saying something interesting and/or profound. Awkwardness between characters is a wonderful thing, and this is what Filmbrain often strives for in his own screenplays. Both John and Mary are very much products of the time. Mary's a liberated woman who chooses to have one-night stands (something John feels is fine for men, but not women) and is at the same time involved with a married man. She speaks openly about sex, her desires, etc. John, on the other hand, is quite reserved. He lives in an apartment so clean and stylish that Mary is convinced he's married. He likes to cook, listens to classical music in the afternoon, jazz at night, and brass music in the morning. Mary's initial thought is that he's a bore. He, on the other hand, sees her as a wild sex freak who is simply trying to worm her way into his apartment -- something his former girlfriend did, nicely incorporated in a series of flashbacks. Each is continually trying to trap the other one into saying something that will give justification to their doubts, rather than confronting their own cynicism. It's a joy to watch, and doesn't seem dated at all. Relationships, and the angst associated with them, hasn't really changed much since the end of World War II. What adds to the film's success is the casting -- both Hoffman and Farrow are so suited for their respective roles, and there's a wonderful chemistry between them that never seems forced. Director Peter Yates (a Brit, though many of his films were made in the states) is probably best known for the Steve McQueen film Bullitt, though he did go on to direct a few other interesting films in the 70's, including The Hot Rock, The Friends of Eddie Coyle, and the Oscar nominated Breaking Away. John and Mary is sadly not available on DVD, though it does air regularly on The Fox Movie Channel. Filmbrain would love to hear from others about the film -- please feel free to comment. |
2004.09.09
Best described as Freaky Friday meets Lolita
 Most of the time, Filmbrain writes about films he's seen that he likes/loves/respects/admires etc. This is due (in part) to his conscious decision to steer clear of films he knows he'll hate -- i.e., just about everything at the multiplex. Yet occasionally a film sneaks its way in that appears promising, but is in fact a glorious failure. Yojiro Takita's Himitsu (Secret) is one of those films. Filmbrain can honestly not remember why this wound up in his Cinflix queue -- maybe he read a review of it somewhere. The DVD was sitting on his desk for nearly two months before he got around to watching it, and as he put it in the player he had no idea what to expect. The premise is a gutsy one, to be sure. Heisuke and Naoko are a rather typical but extremely happily married middle-aged couple with a teenage daughter, Monami. Naoko and Monami are in a freakish bus accident, and Naoko dies as a result, but at the moment of her death she somehow sends her spirit into Monami's body. (We never really learn what happens to Naoko's spirit.) Heisuke then finds himself living with his wife in his daughter's body. The creepy complications that follow are pretty obvious, but instead of turning into a complicated (and perhaps more interesting) psychosexual drama with incestuous overtones, it simply becomes a Hallmark-channel quality weepy. Sure, some screen time is spent on the sexual dance of "will they or won't they" but it's all handled rather superficially -- and this is the problem with the film as a whole. For slightly over two hours, we get to see Naoko enjoy her new young body whilst Heisuke jealousy broods at home. Yawn. Unlike the slew of other actors who have played the child in an adult body (or vice-versa), Ryoko Hirosue (star of Love Collage, another film Filmbrain hated) turns in a performance so flat, that there's no noticeable difference when she switches between Naoko and Monami. Filmbrain suspects that unlike virtually every other Asian film, Secret won't be bought by Hollywood for a remake, given the touchy subject matter. Avoid at all costs, unless you are in dire need for some schmaltz. 2004.09.08Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Week 10 (Final for Round One!)
2004.09.07Filmbrain's Berlin Report: Greatest city for film lovers?
2004.09.01
Recent Posts
Blogs of Distinction
Blog Stuff
|
