Showing posts with label Humphrey Bogart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humphrey Bogart. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Popcorn Kernels: Family Movie Night

In which we explore mini-reviews of movies my parents chose for me to watch.

Casablanca


Year: 1942
Director: Michael Curtiz
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid
Run Time: 1 hour 42 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG

A tavern owner in Morocco discovers that his ex-love has arrived in town with her husband and he has the means to help them escape, should he choose to let her go.

Man, I don’t even wanna touch this one. Casablanca is such a minted classic, even by regular people who think Citizen Kane is boring, that I was nervous about how I would receive it when I finally buckled down and watched it for the first time. And I have a notoriously cold heart when it comes to romance films. It might just be the fact that there tends to be a gulf between me and onscreen couples in terms of both sexuality and approach (if you stand outside my window in the middle of the night with a boom box, I will throw things at you until you go away because I need my sleep, dammit), but love movies need to clear a high bar before they even have a chance of touching my icy heart.

Casablanca almost gets there. The romance thrums and thrives in the chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, but it’s far more present in the performance than its actualization. In their interplay, you get a perfect sense of a past Great love gone dark, but when they actually show flashback scenes of this supposed Great Love, frankly I’m not convinced. Perhaps it’s the toothless, Code-neutered interaction that dampens their physical attraction or the rather bland staging of their France apartment, but this romance only flourishes wen it’s dead.

But beyond that, Casablanca is, obviously, fantastic. Boasting a surprisingly funny script for a film – especially a drama – of its vintage, it’s a very layered piece that combines a patriotic wartime morality play with one man’s romantic struggles, played out over the various dives and skeevy locales of the border town Casablanca. It drops iconic lines like Liza Minnelli sheds boa feathers, which is even more remarkable considering that it was just a cookie cutter studio picture with a script being constantly rewritten as they shot it.

It’s incessantly remarkable how well this film works, and especially how well it still holds up today. Its dynamic lighting scheme forgives even its most ludicrously stagey setpieces, and the actors imbue their characters with personalities that stretch far beyond the scope of the screen. I’m going to leave it at that, because nobody needs another film blogger yammering about Casablanca, but I’m definitely glad I watched it.

Rating: 8/10

Unfaithfully Yours
Year: 1984
Director: Howard Zieff
Cast: Dudley Moore, Nastassja Kinski, Armand Assante 
Run Time: 1 hour 36 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG

When a famous conductor suspects his much-younger wife of cheating, he hatches a plot to murder her and her supposed lover that goes wackily awry.

The 80’s were a weird time for comedy movies. Despite an abundance of classic teen movies and high concept comic gems, there was also a massive vein of throwaway flicks to beef up video store shelves. One of these is Unfaithfully Yours, which takes a sheaf of fairly well-respected actors and applies them to a sitcom premise stretched to an unfathomable length. While Unfaithfully Yours could have been a good Halloween episode of Three’s Company, the endless padding it requires to reach feature length makes the tone of the dark comedy go haywire.

This is a movie that couldn’t be made today, at least to its exact dimensions. It leans so heavily on chauvinism and misogyny to drive its main character’s motivations that hopefully anybody in 2016 would see right through Dudley Moore like they have X-ray eyes to find the spiteful goblin he really is. It is massively unpleasant to spend time with this character, who is willing to straight-up exterminate his wife over a series of misunderstandings. This type of storyline could be played for laughs if the tone was managed properly, as it is in the opening monologue of the film, but the script seems unwilling to admit that its protagonist is a genuinely awful person.

Instead of harnessing It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’s type of misanthropic comedy, Unfaithfully Yours takes a stab at Two and a Half Men by way of Alfred Hitchcock. Dudley Moore does a fine job of drawing physical humor from his character’s incompetence, but there’s only so much time I can spend with him before the film’s cheery attitude drives me to madness.

This scenario that has already run long endlessly unspools with an extended dream sequences that is then slavishly repeated in “reality.” It’s a tiresome tactic, but the really frustrating thing is that Unfaithfully Yours could have been truly great if it was a little less hammy and tipped more toward the darker, Death Becomes Her side of things.

Rating: 5/10

While We're Young

Year: 2014
Director: Noah Baumbach
Cast: Ben Stiller, Naomi Watts, Adam Driver 
Run Time: 1 hour 37 minutes
MPAA Rating: R

A bored middle-aged couple befriends a young hipster couple who give them a new lease on life, but not everything is as happy as it seems.

Don’t you just love comedy movies that don’t really have any jokes? Aren’t they just the best? Noah Baumbach certainly seems to think so. I suppose you might call While We’re Young a “dramedy,” but the drama half is so navel-gazey and the comedy half appears so infrequently that it’s just a “…” 

A too-obvious attempt at satirizing aging dreamers too afraid to commit to their goals and the self-conscious hipness of youth culture, While We’re Young undermines itself by constantly pointing out what it’s doing. Whether it’s a pointed, inauthentic echo plastered over a key dramatic line that made me laugh out loud or the endless epigraph that opens the film using practically an entire scene from a play (this also showcases Baumbach’s lack of control over his visuals), While We’re Young is so exuberantly excited to share its trite ideas that it smothers them.

It’s a shame, because when While We’re Young is funny, it can be damn hilarious. A potential investor played by Ryan Serhant is one of the best broad comedy characters in years, with the snappy line deliveries of a young man with too much confidence and too few brain cells. A lot of side characters and little moments shine here, at least justifying the “-edy” ahlf of the portmanteau after much effort. The most consistent comic element is probably Adam Driver, whose performance precisely captures the physicality of a twee, hopelessly pretentious hipster douche. Maybe the character isn’t too far form his wheelhouse, but it’s a genius bit of over-the-top nonverbal acting that goes a long way.

But other than that, While Were Young is a bit of a dud. Stiller and Watts, as the older couple, are appropriately bristly, but nobody outside of Driver and Serhant is doing standout work here. The nuggets of comedy buried in the film make slogging through the drama worth it, but I’ll be happy if I never even have to think about watching this film again.

Rating: 5/10
Word Count: 1211

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

The Backside of Water

Alright, I'm gonna try something new here. School and work have both been keeping me busy as a worker bee, so I'm gonna expedite my blog process by combining two features together! One of my homework assignments was to watch The African Queen and write a two-page response about the characters' arcs. Normally I'd post a review and an essay post separately, but I'm gonna stick them together as a mini-review/essay feature and see what happens! Let the great experiment begin!

Year: 1951
Director: John Huston
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, Robert Morley
Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG

Fun Fact: John Huston, the director famous for his work on the 1980 slasher picture Phobia once directed an obscure adventure flick with Humphrey Bogart! What a skeleton in the closet, am I right?

Really, I'd rather watch Phobia. Not to sound like a classics-hating stabby film-lover, but I found The African Queen to be an absolute slog. Now, although I'm an outspoken opponent of the reign of Citizen Kane, I don't just hate films because they're old. Black and white cinematography doesn't make me want to claw my own eyes out like some of my modern peers.

I'll give anything a chance. Because you never know what you might enjoy. Unfortunately, this film was not it. The story of Charlie Allnut (Humphrey Bogart), an alcoholic riverboat captain, and his reluctant companion, poised missionary Rosie Sayer (Katharine Hepburn)'s escape from German-occupied Africa during World War I is interesting enough to support a good 40 minutes of its run time, but can't sustain it much longer than that.

Bogart is hidden behind a pair of false teeth and jokes about indigestion, but manages to keep up with Hepburn. These were two great actors in their prime after all. So there's that. But a leaden adventure gives way to a sallow romance in the least engaging way possible (although the film does give us one of the most hilarious "Escape the Censors" sexual innuendos I've ever seen).

And although this film has a lot to do with female empowerment, a theme far ahead of its time, that fact doesn't make up for the dull exposition and alarmingly consistently incongruous music (Bogart drinking a bottle of gin is given as many minor key bleats and crescendoes as a particularly gruesome Freddy murder).

So, no. I'm not a fan. But hey, the film gets extra points for inspiring the Jungle Cruise. And although it's a low tier classic, it didn't make me want to roll over and die like Lawrence of Arabia. Hooray!

Rating: 5/10

Prompt: How do both characters arc (change their beliefs and actions) and how does their relationship spur and mirror that change? In essence, how does each character affect his/her "flaw" and how does that occur over all three acts? 

[AN: Note how nice I was to the film in my essay. It always pays to brownnose.]

Regarding character, The African Queen is an excellent case study. John Huston’s rollicking African adventure is practically a one room drama, with most of the action taking place between a pair of isolated characters. The plot (two people must escape a river while under siege by German troops) is intentionally simple for the express purpose of allowing the audience more time with the characters and their arcs.

The characters in question are Charlie Allnut (Humphrey Bogart), a Canadian riverboat captain and hopeless drunk and Rosie Sayer (Katharine Hepburn), a straight-laced British missionary woman. In the beginning of Act One, the characters are exactly where you’d expect. Rosie is leading a roomful of natives in a hymn, the same thing she has been doing every Sunday for ten years. Charlie is delivering the mail, perturbing Rosie and her brother with his uncouth behavior.

But when the village is destroyed by rampaging German troops and the brother dies of illness, these two are thrown together in a desperate attempt to survive and escape. Throughout their journey, Rosie and Charlie will forge a formidable bond and bring out the best in one another. However, at the beginning of their journey, both man and woman are deeply flawed.

Rosie has never let her hair down. Constantly fussing with her elaborate updo and primly reprimanding Charlie for his behavior, she finds comfort in the manners and routines of her home country. Living for so long with only her brother for company has left her stiff and emotionally unavailable.

Charlie, on the other hand, has never taken responsibility. Sure, he brings the mail in on time, but that’s only because there’s nobody else who wants to do it. He’s living what he considers the good life, chugging up and down the river all day on the African Queen and drinking himself into a stupor. He’s inconsiderate during his brief stay in the Sayer’s home, but only because his laid back life has left him unprepared to care for the feelings of others.

In Act Two, everything begins to change. Rosie and Charlie constantly butt heads due to their inherently different lifestyles, but one rainy night when Rosie demands that Charlie not enter her private (and dry) enclosure, she sees that her rigidity and modesty is wildly inappropriate for the situation. She relents, both literally and figuratively letting him in, allowing him to see the first chink in her armor and finally recognizing his humanity. When the tossing river rapids show her how to have a good time, her change begins in earnest.

On the other hand, Charlie, who has only ever lived a life on his own, begins to understand the needs and desires of this woman whom he has begun to care for. Although he clings to his drink and his rugged lifestyle, Rosie showing her true colors begins to chip away at his hardened façade.

As these two characters feel their carefully constructed realities crumbling around them and realize their attraction for one another, they enter Act Three and will never be the same. The intensity of the journey has worn them to tatters and the two are at the end of their rope.

When push comes to shove, both characters come out on the other side, completely the opposite of the way they were before. Rosie suggests with bravado that they torpedo the invading German ship while Charlie, newly sensitive, thinks she’s insane. Where the adventure charged her batteries, it wore his down and the two find themselves switching positions, only to clash once more.

However, once they are captured and brought aboard the ship, Charlie realizes how lucky he is to be alive and with Rosie. Seeing her face and the new vivaciousness he has bestowed on her spurs him to new fervor as he tries desperately to save their skins. By the successful end of the finale, both characters have completely transformed and blossomed, all thanks to that fateful trip on the African Queen – and into each other’s worlds.
Word Count: 1157