The Bridge on the River Kwai

The Bridge on the River Kwai is an up-lifting and moving film centeringaround the behavior and determination of captured soldiers during thesecond World War. It is a film about characters more than a film aboutwar. Watching this film gives me a sense of feeling for the charactersand hopes that they will succeed. Overall, this film provides some goodobservations between the relationships that the soldiers and thosehigher in command (on both sides of the war). This is greatly helpedthrough good acting, and the realistic setting puts everything in toperspective. Overall, The Bridge on the River Kwai is a feel-good filmabout characters and determination. It is definitely worth a watch.

david lean took a novel and made it the ultimate irony onirony.

each character comes up to, or goes down to the opposite of what they sayinthe beginning of the movie.

shears-what matters is to live like a human being, then kill him, killhim.

nickolson-geneva rules apply, sick bay soldiers go to work. (morecitationsto follow) of course, "what have i done" is the ultimateirony.

jack hawkins-ankle shot, can’t set the charges.

horne-training camp, ready. jungle shootout, hesitates, beach waits andwaits.

and sesue-"be happy in youurr work" is the most unsatisfied man in themovie.

there’s more, but you get the idea.

ultimately, the bridge over the kwai goes down.

it’s, well, breathless.

The lead Japanese actor in the film, S.I. Hayakawa, was not only aprominent actor but a writer and professor of linguistics at SanFrancisco State University. He was teaching there in 1973 when Hawaiiwas becoming a largely Japanese island and when many Asian immigrantswere living on the West Coast of the U.S.A. He was the chiefspokesperson for the elimination of English as the sole officiallanguage of both the islands and mainland of the U.S.A.

Here’s a quote from an article written about his quarrel with the U.S.government’s policy of closest association with Great Britain: "Thelate semanticist S. I. Hayakawa, the movement’s elder statesman, nevertired of quoting Theodore Roosevelt at his most intolerant: ‘We haveroom for but one language in this country, and that is the Englishlanguage, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people outas Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in apolyglot boarding-house’ ([1919] 1926: XXIV, 554)."

I finally got to watch this movie a few days ago and I must say it wasa bit disappointing. First, we have Alec Guinness who would rathersuffocate in a small, hot room than allow his officers to build abridge. when finally released and realizes the bridge won't be finishedin time for the enemy's use, he allows his officers to work on it andeven the men that are wounded to work on it.

THen… at the end of the film, he shows the enemy that there is a bombunder the bridge and almost messes up the entire thing.

What officer in the US army would do this? Doesn't make much sense tome. The film had its moments but one of the all-time best? no.

Watch the REAL story of the Bridge on the River Kwai (it airs frequently onthe History Channel) and listen to the accounts of the men who survived.THEN watch this piece of fiction before you comment on how it portrays theblah blah of war, and the madness of blah blah. BOTRK is fiction, nothingmore. The fact that people have praised the film for its realism and frankdepiction of war is a great dishonor to the people who were beaten, starved,tortured and even eaten in Japanese prison camps. Try to imagine, if youwill, a film about Auschwitz where the concentration camp prisoners are allwell fed, not a single walking skeleton in sight, as they whistle while theywork. No mention of ovens, gas chambers or horrible ‘medical’ experiments.Pretty offensive, isn’t it? Now try to imagine having lived through anordeal such as that, and knowing that IMBD users have voted that film intothe top 250. Anybody who feels they owe any debt of gratitude to the old menwho gave their lives and minds for our freedom, please vote ‘1′ for thisfilm. Get it into the *other* top 150, right up there with Santa WithMuscles and Manos, the Hands of Fate.

It was my late father, who was a Far East Prisoner of War, whichincluded a stint on the Kwai Bridge, who pointed out everything thatwas wrong with this film. And EVERYTHING is what is wrong with it.

The bridge was bombed by the Americans, and that is why the two innerspans of the current bridge are of a different shape to the outer two.Note again, the bridge was bombed from the air, it was not blown up byAlec Guiness's dead body falling on the blast box.

The notion that the Japanese would have been swayed by a Britishofficer who sweated out a week in the cage is utter nonsense. My fathersaid they would have beaten him till he submitted, and if he happenedto die…well, too bad.

My father also pointed out that the notion that the Japanese engineersdidn't possess the know-how to build a railway bridge to cross the KwaiRiver, and had to rely on British engineers is utter drivel.

If you can bear to insult those who died on the Railway of Death bywatching this film, do not take the film seriously. It's rubbish!

WIth a great plot and well done performances for its era, TBOTRK is afantastic view of one of the lesser known sides to WW2, the POWs on theAsian front. It’s an exciting and often nail- biting look at life forBritish POWs building a bridge for the Japanse, and the true meaning ofthe term "fog of war". However, at over 160 min this film is not forpeople who want a quick fix. The horrific editing of this great filmdemands a lot of patience from the viewer. For instance, we are forcedto watch a 10 minute cut of commandos placing mines on the bridge, ascene which could have easily been cut down to under 1 minute. Themovie basically follows this pattern throughout, as long, drawn outscenes are constantly in the way of storyline. This film could havebeen cut down to under 90 mins and still had the same effect. Poorediting, but a great film if you have the patience.

I'm pretty tepid about David Lean's epics. Yes, they're some sort ofcinematic development, but the best are a zero sum game (Laurence ofArabia) and others are just unfathomable (Zhivago, Passage to India,this). It's just not enough to go on location and get some prettyfootage into a camera. Terence Malick has probably worn out a fewcopies of this.

What to make of a movie where an hour is killed in a non-cinematicprotest about using war prisoners as a workers, only to toss thathard-won development out the window so the movie can actually getrolling..? It's a twist so corny they don't even acknowledge it; and itdoesn't result in any decent debate. Everyone here who has an opinion,just takes some half-understood, poorly-argued stance, for which themovie itself offers no supporting evidence. All I take away from it, isthat the British are a bizarre race of people; more concerned aboutafternoon tea than figuring out a coherent moral viewpoint. WilliamHolden's discomfort with the obtuse British is a proxy for my own. Theymight as well be aliens. Do we really need a British film to demonizethe British? Isn't that Hollywood's fulltime job? The movie has alreadyemasculated the soldiers, symbolically by the time it puts one of themin drag in it's hideously belabored last hour.

Every conceivable piece of footage is tossed in to delay the end fromarriving. When it finally does arrive ("Oh, give me a break!"), I wasimagining about 20 more legitimate ways to structure a movie thatneeded to get to that big finale, which is the movies sole reason forbeing. Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing to think about in thismovie. Structurally it's mush, making
it excruciatingly tedious to sitthrough. I couldn't even be bothered to look up from my work every oncein a while after hour two, to watch the exciting (snooze) mining of thebridge The DVD format is very odd. The movie eats up all its chaptersin an hour and half, then it starts 22 more chapters on its own. Havemercy David Lean… or better still, have a point!

I haven't outright hated a movie this much in a long time. This is agiant pile of B.S.

*Possible Spoilers*

David Lean’s epic about the British soldiers and officers captured by theJapanese who, in the name of pride and what could be construed as arrogance,build a bridge at the behest of the enemy is not only a great military film,but is a psychological study in the behaviors and motivations of men aswell. Alec Guinness is Col. Nicholson, a man who lets his pride and hisallegiance to the rules of war nearly kills him due to his refusal toparticipate in the building of this bridge. When he finally `gets his way’however, he takes on the project with full steam and craftsmanship. Unfortunately, the British Army is scheduling the destruction of this bridgebecause it will assist the Japanese in its occupation of India, somethingthat Guinness realizes too late and with great consequence. This is a longfilm, and probably could have been trimmed just a bit, but there is verylittle to complain about. It is an epic in every sense of the word, and therich character studies are just one of the elements that make this aquintessential Lean film. The Bridge on the River Kwai is not a typicalmilitary film, but is a fantastic addition to the genre.

–Shelly

Bridge On the River Kwai is historically inaccurate to the point ofabsolutedisgust. At no point did American, British and Austrailian prisioners ofwarwork idly with their Japanese captors. Instead, they fought the buildingofthe bridge and miles of railway by using termite infested woods andinferioriron - anything to prevent the line from working to transport Japanesesoldiers throughout the region. Hundreds on Allied soldiers died alongthisrail line and this travesty of a movie only mocks theirsacrifice.

read comments (0)

Old Yeller

I can’t tell you what a pleasure it is to return to this film as an adult.It’s every bit as moving now as it was when I was a kid. As an adult, Irealize that this is more Arliss’s story than it is Old Yeller’s. It’s atouching coming of age story. When I was a child, all my tears at the endwere for the dog. As a grown-up a lot more of them were for Arliss as heprepares to pull that trigger and become a man.

I just acquired a small female puppy that happens to be Black MouthCurr, the same breed as Old Yeller; My questions is, what was hisgirlfriends name? I wanna name this Lil girl something family orientedand that will take me back to my childhood. I think her name would begreat because of the time of my life that I was going through when Ifirst saw this adorable yet sad movie. Old Yeller kinda taught me tohold onto what I had with everything in my heart and I can’t for thelife of me; remember her name. My son has just woke up and I amactually giving him the puppy as a late b-day present. He has only seenparts of Old Yeller in and out of school. I think I’m gonna have tosearch out another copy to replace the old worn out one I had. Pleasehelp me out here…. Always, Deb

‘Old Yeller’ is a children’s film about a family in the wild west ofAmerica who find a yellow dog. The story is about companionship betweenthe loner dog and the family members: young Arliss and his olderbrother Travis and their mother. The film is filled with adventureinvolving the dangerous wildnerness. In the process of protecting thefamily, Old Yeller gets falls ill and things look pretty bad for awhile, but the film ends happily. The follow-up to this film is ‘SavageSam’, about another dog and the same family and being kidnapped by anative American tribe. ‘Savage Sam’ was not as good as this film,however.

I would recommend ‘Old Yeller’ to children. I loved watching this whenI was younger, and this was a film that I watched over many times andprobably knew the script by heart at one time. Highly enjoyable forchildren, and it has some good life morals and plenty of adventure.

Very simply said; this movie is like the classic "Shane", only with adog this time. Same sort of emotions, same sort of settings and samesort of main characters.

Just like "Shane", this movie also concentrates on issues such asfamily values. It also has some wonderful different written emotionsand character development in it, such as the oldest boy taking hisfirst steps into the progress of becoming a man, when he is left totake care of the family ranch. During this progress he is being helpedby the inspiring and loyal dog Old Yeller. So in that regard "OldYeller" isn't 'just' a family drama, it's also a coming of age movie.

In essence, "Old Yeller" is a children's movie, after all it's a'Disney'. But its also a movie that always has been great to watch byadults. It's a story for all ages, that never becomes too childish foradults and never too adult for children.

The approach of letting a dog be the central character of the moviemight sound odd and childish but it works fine for the story. It evenmakes some of the emotions and drama all the more powerful. The movieis of course best known for its emotional twist in the end, thatbasically everybody knows, even those who have never seen this movie.

There is quite a lot happening in the story and despite its emotionalheavy subjects, the movie never becomes too sappy. It also helps tokeep the movie realistic, which certainly also strengthens some of thedrama.

The movie is good looking and set in a nice looking environment. Itmakes the atmosphere of the movie, which is old fashioned but warm.

It's obvious that the acting isn't the best thing about the movie. Themovie is filled with a whole bunch of actors that you'll probably havenever heard off. They're at times weak and at other quite solid. Inother words, some really varying acting. It's definitely true thatTommy Kirk's character grows in the movie. It's quite a tough andresponsible role for a boy of his age but he handles it really well.Chuck Connors also makes a pretty good appearance in the movie. KevinCorcoran was mostly irritating as the younger always nagging littlebrother. Of course the animal acting was also really great.

As far as children movies are concerned, this one is about as good asthey can get.

8/10

I do not like the ending. Why did Disney have to put the ending in - IDO NOT LIKE THE ENDING! I would have given it 8 or more stars if itdidn't have that ending! Otherwise, this is a fun, doggy film.Mllecathy, I agree with you, this film is NOT cute. However, I do thinkthe dog is cute, a little anyway.

It is about a stray dog called Old Yeller who goes to live with afamily in the old American west. Old Yeller remains faithful to the end- UNTIL…

I recommend this for people who are not put off by bad endings, peoplewho like dogs and Westerns (as far as I recall, this was my firstWestern!).

I like the main boy even though he's a little irritating and I like OldYeller - he's the best doggone dog in the west (like in the song)!

though i gave "old yeller" a "10" rating, i must hasten to warn thosewho have not seen it to realize what they're getting themselves into ifthey do. if you are made of cast iron, have not shed a tear since asafety pin on your diaper popped open, or are a sadist (or masochist),you'll have a great time. the movie is wonderful, but so damn sad. oldyeller himself is an ingratiating, sweet and loyal-unto-death mutt,full of dog heart and dog soul. if you love animals, particularly dogs,and cannot bear to see them suffer and die, STAY AWAY from "oldyeller". i couldn't have been more than 3 years old the first (andlast) time i saw it; now i'm 50 and can still feel unshed tearssmarting my eyes at the very mention of the title. i wouldn't see "oldyeller" again if you put a gun to my head—sort of the way they put thegun to poor old yeller's.

Old Yeller has been a movie that I have loved ever since the first timeI watched it.It is one of my favorite oldie films while also being oneof my favorite animal films too.Since it was the 50's I cut slack onthe acting,but the story was a good way to go,because they made surethey did this film absolutely wonderfully.The way Old Yeller isscripted was really entertaining and they did good on keeping peopleinterested in the movie long enough to where they are still watchingwhen they get deeper into the movie.If you haven't seen Old Yeller itis a classic that no one can go without seeing,and if you have seen ityou know what I mean when I say it is one of the best movies made wayback then,right!!?Old Yeller will always be one of my favorite filmsand it should be one of yours too.

WHEN we were much younger, you know back in the 1950's, a Walt DisneyPicture's being released and playing at a Local Theatre was always anevent. Just about any and every kid in the Neighborhood would maketheir almost obligatory pilgrimage to see it. There are, of course,reasons for such behaviour. First of all, a Disney Picture, any one,was always considered to be superior fare for families and children'sviewing. That they have such fine reputation is underscored by somehigh fallutin' big shot educators, pseudo intellectuals and "Family"journals; who habitually would make their film recommendationsperpetually including Disney, probably by a ten to one to any othercompany's product.

THAT'S not to say that old Father Figure Walt didn't bring us a Lion'sshare of fine Cinematic memory; for he surely did do that thing. As amatter of fact, it is most proper to say that the Disney Misfire wasthe truly rare occurrence; and
that goes for both Live Action and theAnimated Full Length Features.

IN the picture, Mr. Disney brought us the screen version of a highlyawarded novel, which once again, was an Award Winner as a childoriented book. In OLD YELLER (Walt Disney Productions/Buena VistaReleasing Company, 1957), Disney & Company certainly topped anyexpectations that they may have had.

PRESENTING, IN A NUTSHELL, OUR STORY………………………. It is in West TexasCattle Ranching Country, in the Post Civil War period that we findourselves transported. There is a tough decision to be made at theCoates Spread. Papa Coates (Fess Parker) is preparing to leave theRanch for a Spell kin order to earn some needed extra cash for thefamily. Doing this would leave the family alone. The family includedthe Mother, Katie Coates (Dorothy McGuire) and sons Travis (Tommy Kirk)and the younger Arliss (old 'Moochie' himself, Kevin Corcoran).* Afterpainful deliberation, they decide to do it; with Pappy telling Travisthat he would be the "acting" Man of the House while the Dad was offwith the Cattle Drive.

DURING the absence of the Senior Mr. Coates, there are severalinteresting occurrences; but none more far-reaching and dramaticallypredisposed as the arrival on the Coates Family Ranch of a stray, old(not a pup) Yellow Dog. The canine is an instant hit with young Arlissbut older bro Travis is less than enthusiastic about the doggie'spresence there. Travis even attempts to give Yeller enough rope to hanghimself! Ironically, Travis comes around to love the mongrel and indeedis asked to have love enough for Yeller to make things easy for him inthe end. (Anybody recollect THE YEARLING (MGM, 1946.)).

PAPPY returns and everything is all right. The boys even have the pickof the neighbor's dog's litter without even demanding a stud fee; asOld Yeller was the father of the brood (Right, Maury? You know, the DNAtest.).

THIS turn of events corresponded to the events of the Novels "OldYeller" and "Savage Sam"; as well as being the set-up for a sequel filmSAVAGE SAM (Walt Disney/Buena Vista, 1963). But of course good buddySchultz, that is another story.

THERE are a couple of our favourite scenes that occur in OLD YELLER;with the first being a confrontation between Arliss (Moochie) andCowboy Burn Sanderson (Chuck Connors) over the ownership of Yeller. Itturns out that Yeller was the property of the Cowboy; but little Arlissnegotiated a deal that the vagabond saddle tramp couldn't refuse. Asfor the price of consummating the legal transference of clear title tothe Dog, the Coates family would treat Sanderson to a home cookeddinner. This was additional to Arliss' offer of his pet horned as atool of barter. It is a beautiful and amusing scene which contrasts thegreat difference between the boy and the man by use of high and lowcamera angles.

THE other scene has Mother (Dorothy McGuire) telling Travis that thefamily is need of meat and directing him to go to the woods with riflein hand to bring back venison. Once at the forest's edge, the boysituates himself in a tree and quietly waits for a deer to pass by.Suddenly a couple of deer emerge and Travis takes careful aim; butholds fire when his clear view revealed them to be a Doe and Fawn.(That's a Mother and Child Deer, Schultz!). Travis then displaysdelight in watching the deer play (no antelope present). He almostmisses the sight of a lone Buck (Male); but he brings down the hammer,providing the family with the need meat.

IT is a scene which the story could have well done without; yet it saidso much. The sequence relays the great pleasure of just viewing andappreciating the beauty and wonder of Nature. At the same time, thehumane and necessary use of the killing of both game and domesticlivestock is underscored. It's subtle and very beautiful.

IN many respects, the plot line and the main crisis of the story ismuch like the highly acclaimed and Technicolor visual spectacle THEYEARLING (MGM, 1946); albeit sans any pretensions that seem to bepresent in the latter film.

NOTE: * No Schultz, the name's Kevin Corcoran; not Steve Cochran!POODLE SCHNITZ!!

This movie hit the theaters on Christmas Day in 1957 starring DorothyMcGuire as Katie Coates, Fess Parker as Jim Coates and Jeff York as BudSearcy. Based on the novel by Fred Gipson, Old Yeller is set in Texasin 1869. While his father is away on a cattle drive, 15-year-old TravisCoates takes over management of the family farm. Adopting a strictlybusiness policy, Travis is irritated when younger brother, Arliss,adopts a frisky stray dog. Soon Travis is as fond of the dog aseveryone else in the family is; moreover, "Old Yeller" is an excellentwatchdog. However, while fighting off a mad wolf, Yeller is infectedwith rabies. Though Yeller seems unaffected at first, he eventuallybehaves so viciously that the disheartened Travis has no choice but to**** *** ***. A heart-to-heart talk between Travis and his returningfather coupled with the adoption of a new pup, paves the way to anemotional but reasonably happy ending. Earning eight million dollarsdomestically on its first release, Old Yeller convinced Walt Disney todevote more and more time to live-action films and less time toanimation, which at the time was a great business move. In 1963, Disneyreleased a lesser sequel to Old Yeller titled Savage Sam. I was wasn'tthat crazy about this picture either. To me once the dog got in thefight the movie was over. I give this movie four-weasel stars becausethere was not much drama or action in this movie other then the fightwith the wolf.

I saw this movie all the way through for the first time last night. yesI cried. I was sent to bed as a kid because of the ending. When he hadto put the dog down, I did not bawl, but sure did leak. I have had toput down a few myself and I cry every time. I have 3 great dogs now andto lose any of them will hurt. I know they only live so long, but ithurts every time. My kitty that I rescued when he was less than a weekold from a box someone had put out in the sun in South Florida, He was25 years old, passed peacefully while being petted on the kitchenfloor. I had to give him to a friend a few years ago. It still hurtseven though, it was for the best that I give him to my friend, as I wassick and homeless at the time and could not take care of myself letalone a pet. He was funny and smart & thought he was a dog and hadgreat personality. Our black lab treated him as her pup when I took himin he was less than a week old. His eyes were not even open yet.Someone had just stuck him and his brother and sister in a box and putout on the street in front of my house. If one gets to the point thatthey don't feel the loss of their beloved pet it is time to have a soultransplant.

read comments (0)

Le notti di Cabiria

While I used to hate the films of Fellini, I have recently seen severalmore and re-seen a few and have a greater appreciation for thedirector. In particular, I did not like LA STRADA the first time, butnow think it is a wonderful film and his earlier "forgotten" films areexceptional. My particular favorite of all his films is the segment hedid for BOCCACCIO 70–it was very surreal and hilarious. However,despite my increased appreciation, I STILL don't particularly like LeNOTTI di CABIRIA–though I liked it a little more the second timebecause at least I could see that it was technically well-made.However, the story itself of a prostitute who wants to be loved andcared for is unrelentingly awful and depressing–so much so that Inever want to see it again. Part of this might be because I am more aromantic at heart and part of it is that I just feel the film is wildlyoverrated. Sure, Giulietta Masina did a fine job–she was a fineactress (as well as Fellini's wife), but this doesn't make the movie.The problem is that the movie is so unrelentingly realistic and grim.Sure, in real life prostitutes don't find love and are oftenabused–but do I really have to see this movie to know this?! The filmstarts with Masina getting beaten up and nearly killed by her"boyfriend" and the film ends much the same way. Everything else inbetween is leading us to believe that this inevitable ending might notoccur, but it does. Now I am not saying I want a vacuous and insipidfilm about a prostitute with a heart of gold–after all, my review forPRETTY WOMAN was savage (I truly, truly hated that movie). But otherthan a grim lesson that life sucks, I really can't see why I wouldrecommend this film. It's good, but not at all pleasant. For peoplethat can stand all the emotional pain, you may like it a lot more thanme–I just want something a little more uplifting and likable.

Of course, "Le Notti di Cabiria" is a superior work compared to the Americanmusical remake "Sweet Charity," but will I be laughed out of the room if Iwere to say that, in some small ways, I actually prefer "Charity" over"Cabiria"? To explain exactly why would mean blowing several major plotpoints in both movies - suffice it to say that, IMHO, the character playedby John McMartin in the remake is an improvement over his Italiancounterpart; his motivations are more complicated and, I think, morecredible.

In this masterpiece by a great director, Fellini tells of the prostituteCabiria who spends the entire movie searching for love without ever actuallyhaving sex. I know what you’re thinking: "Ra-ra; that sounds boring. Wrong.

At the heart of this film is a feminist who is coming into her own. Theaudience feels her heartbreak as she goes from man to man looking for "theone." As a guy, I must say that I started to hate men. I guess that’s sortof the point. Cabiria’s character is essentially an innocent, and it ishard to watch people take advantage of innocents (and innocence). WellFellini makes you sit through it, and the effect is awesome.

When it finally seems as if Cabiria has found the right man, the viewercannot help but to be wary after all of the s**t she had to go through withthe others. Is the viewer right? What do you think?

The final shot gives me chills (the good kind). It stands as a testament tothe independence of womankind and their strength to persevere when they areleft with nothing.

Awesome.

Federico Fellini’s "Nights of Cabiria" is of all his films perhaps themost representative of the filmmaker and his art - it displays hiscinematic genius, his ability to draw out fantastic performances fromactors, his deluge of empathy, and his greatest weakness. Allow me toexplain; for Fellini, much of life and art are a circus. This can beseen in the comic touch of "I Vitteloni", the farcically random eventsof "8 1/2", and in the three-ring music of Nina Rota. The theme of lifeas a circus is all very well, but it sometimes leaves you hanging - asif the movie will continue forever but you, the viewer, will not. Thisis the problem with "Nights of Cabiria" - it is the tale of a youngprostitute who is trying to find some kind of salvation. She at firsttries to find it in boyfriend, moves on to a movie star, then attemptsto attain it through religion, and finally tries to discover it in love- but salvation seems forever out of reach, for each of those thingslisted above ultimately fail her, and thus the movie fails to reallyend; it simply goes on piping and marching as the viewer sits wonderingwhere s/he is left. For these reasons, "Nights of Cabiria" doesn’tfully work; but this is not to damn it, for it is for the most part aheart-wrenching, beautiful, and powerful film. 7.5/10

Federico Fellini directed his wife, Giuletta Masina, in some of her andhis most memorable screen work. Nights of Cabiria may be high up there,perhaps the most exciting. The film carries an episodic storyline thatfollows our heroine Cabiria as she has to use a hard act of cynicismand street-wise attitude to cover up a girlyish interior. Run-ins witha celebritie and other louse-abouts, a visit to a church, and alife-changing bit on a magician’s stage, and most of these sequencesare filmed superbly. Not only is there Fellini’s usual under-current oflaughs, but a perfect sense of imagination behind the on-location setsand real-life actors.

I’ve seen this and La Strada now (Masina’s other notable work), and Ifeel a little more inclined to go with this one as the better. Somecritics have written that Fellini’s films, in the evolution of hiscareer, show a gaining momentum up till 8 1/2. Although I’d have to seeboth each a second go-around, Nights of Cabiria had me enthralled andamazed for the whole two hours. There’s something so appealing about acharacter like Cabiria that’s pulled off without a hitch, even into theseemingly ‘easy’ third act. Add another fantastic Nina Rota score,fascinating supporting cast, and a genuine ideology behind theenvironment of Cabiria’s world, and it’s a winner. This is the kind offilm that COULD have appealed more so to women than men, but as itstands, the film holds up as a great romantic character study foranyone. A+

(Some spoilers below)This film is about illusions, and how everybody - individuals,governments,performers, religions, actors, prostitutes, film directors - exploitsthemfor their own ends. Some do so in ways which are harmful to others. Some,like Cabiria, harm themselves.

Fellini’s examination of illusion draws on a rich tradition, particularlyinEuropean theatre (the dominance of "seeming" over "being", illusion anddeception over honesty, goes right back to Hamlet and beyond).

The film is structured around a series of expositions of illusion,involvinga bogus lover, a famous actor, a pilgrimage, a variety show, and,finally,to close the circle…a bogus lover again. Add in the fact that thecentralcharacter is a prostitute…I think you’re starting to get thepicture.

So if all is illusion, why watch the film? Because the central purveyor(and, more importantly, victim) of illusion (the prostitute Cabiria) is aconvincingly-portrayed, complex character who exhibits a tough,life-affirming drive to take on the world (in the best Camusian, post-warexistentialist sense). It is this that makes the film such anexhilaratingexperience. Millions of people in Italy and all over Europe in the 1940’sand 1950’s had to live in a world which had utterly collapsed. In thisworld, one did what one could to get by, and religion, love, sensualpleasure, and, of course, the cinema, offered only brief respite from theeveryday realities.

The classic neo-realist edge-of-city building-site sets add the requisitetouch of alienation and barrenness to the action.But this is not the kind of hardline neo-realist tra
ct satirized byNichettiin "The Icicle Thief". Fellini’s natural sense of cinema as fantasyenablesthe viewer to feel good at the end of a film where no conventionalfeelgoodfactor is offered. And surely that’s an achievement initself.

Ever since I was bored to tears by both 8 1/2 and La Dolce Vita;Federico Fellini hasn’t been at the top of my favourite directors list.However, he went up a little in my estimation after I saw La Strada,and Night of Cabiria ensures that my opinion of him has risen furtherstill. The film is a very bleak portrayal of the life of a young womanin Italy, who becomes the victim of several men; but isn’t completelyblameless herself. The film starts with a sequence that sees thiswoman, named Cabiria, dumped into a river shortly before her purse isstolen by her supposed ‘love’. Any sympathy we have for her is quicklylost after she is rescued by some helpful villagers, and proceeds tomock their rescue by being very rude indeed. The central character isvery hard to like, as she’s seriously lacking in good points; but thisseems to be the point of the movie. Cabiria doesn’t treat others verywell, and as such; she doesn’t get a good deal very often herself. Thecharacter is never really allowed to develop - she always has the samemotives, but her situation changes around her - and Fellini gives us acinematic interpretation of the old proverb ‘a leopard never changesits spots’.

The film takes place largely in the downtrodden areas of Rome. Fellinidoes an excellent job of enforcing the character’s situation on hisaudience, and the black and white cinematography helps to ensure thatthe movie always looks suitably bleak. This film represents a reunionbetween director Federico Fellini and his La Strada star GiuliettaMasina. Masina delivers an energetic performance, which ensures thatthe film is never boring; but it also means that her character oftenappears over the top, and the film loses credibility because of that.To be honest, I don’t think this actress suits the film too well. Shefit her role in La Strada like a glove, and it may be for that reasonthat she is hard to accept in such a different persona. Anyway, thestyle of the film is great; Fellini ensures that the film feels veryItalian, and this combined with the energy from the lead makes the filmmore enjoyable than quite a few similar art films. The ending is great,and fits everything leading up to it brilliantly. This is the only waythe film could have ended properly; making the climax both fitting andsatisfying. Overall, Nights of Cabiria is an excellent classic film andone that I recommend to fans of art cinema.

Before Federico Fellini became the audacious and surrealistic filmauteur of the 1960s he was a lauded and accomplished ItalianNeorealistic film director of the 1950s, more in league with VittorioDe Sica and Lucchino Visconti, and no film better represents this eraof Fellini's art than his sterling 1957 film Nights Of Cabiria (LeNotti Di Cabiria), written by Fellini, Tulio Pinelli, and Ennio Flaiano(with Pier Paolo Pasolini scripting the Roman street slang), andstarring his wife Giulieta Masina. It won the 1957 film Oscar for BestForeign Film, and deservedly so. The film deals with the trials andtribulations of the impoverished and downtrodden in a humorous butrealistic way that Hollywood still does not dare to do. Yet, even inthis film, one can see the filmmaker that Fellini was to become in afew years, for, despite its seeming realism, there are many neattouches of Absurdism, Symbolism, and Surrealism…. In many ways, thefilm is a picaresque of one of the oldest clichés: the hooker with theheart of gold, but such a generalization utterly disservices the 'how'of how art affects one, and how it does its task. Masina's brilliantperformance, which won the Best Actress award at the Cannes FilmFestival, is often compared to Chaplin's tramp character, even thoughit is more like Lucille Ball's TV character of Lucy Ricardo, from ILove Lucy, albeit with depth, delicacy, and heart; such a depth of acharacter that a lesser actress would have let descend into burlesque.Yet, Cabiria's expressiveness is more subtle and true than eitherChaplin's or Ball's characters, for they exist only in comedies, andNights Of Cabiria is not a comedy, despite some funny moments. Cabiriaexists in a far more complex and realistic world than the Tramp or LucyRicardo. Her face contorts into twists of pain Lucy Ricardo neverdreamt of, and which the Tramp simply shrugged off, or responded towith wild slapstick. Cabiria is wary, mistrusts, and does not seem tolearn, frustrating both her and the audience she has gotten to root forher. I knew many such women in my New York neighborhood while growingup. And they can be tough, street smart, yet still gullible enough tofall for an Oscar. That said, critics have disagreed, over the years,over whether or not Oscar was conning Cabiria from the start. I thinkit's clear he was, for from her answers to the mesmerist he felt shewas an independent woman of means, assuming a poor woman would nevereven go to such a show. One can even see from their scene of meeting atthe train station that Oscar is putting on an act, changing his facialexpressions the moment he sees her, dropping a toothpick from hismouth, after looking like the consummate con man, and then assuming aweak demeanor to lure Cabiria into his trap. That the woman who makesher living in sex is still so naïve to the ways of emotional sexualinvolvement says a lot of Fellini's prescience in parsing out realitiesof character development. Then, when he found out she was a prostitute,he felt a bit guilty, as if preying on someone from his own class, andthus wanted to not know of her 'job'. A part of him, it seems, wants tonot con her, at the cliff, and this was why his demeanor is sodifferent. Yet, ultimately, he's a con, she's a whore, and realitydictates they act their parts. But, unlike Giorgio, he is no would bekiller. The only question is what his initial con was to be- to marry awoman of means, and then, failing that, to just take Cabiria's moneythe moment he saw it, knowing his original plan was dead, for he couldnot sponge off of her. Such small ambiguities, even if not pertinent toCabiria's ultimate unhappiness, nor the film's ending, makes Fellini anartist of the first rank, for only such artists pay attention to suchthings. These things, not the great things, are often the differencebetween greats and minor artists.

These sorts of subtleties in common folk are never even broached, muchless dealt with, in modern Hollywood films. Such is the richness ofthis marvelous study in class and self-deception, where humans live insmall concrete boxes they call homes, as if lab rats. That the filmdoes not follow a conventional narrative format is a good thing, for itheightens the realistic sense of the film. It also subtly repudiatesreligion, although not so much in the overtly religious scenes, whereCabiria's spiritual entreaties go unheard, nor where she mocks thereligiots as fools, but in those scenes where Cabiria reveals her mosthuman side, the non-fantastic, which is ironic, since she works in aprofession that deals with fantasy. The film also deals with survival,at its basest level, for Cabiria barely grows intellectually throughthe film. Yes, by film's end, one could argue that her latest user andabuser, Oscar, is a step up from Giorgio, whom she began the film with,but has Cabiria really ameliorated?

To close, Nights Of Cabiria owes much to City Lights for its focus onthe poor, as well as to De Sica's The Bicycle Thief, for its realisticview of life at a certain time and place, especially its end, whichsimply ends, with no indication of whether or not Cabiria will bebetter off or not, and this helps viewers more strongly identify withher, because we all are unknowing and uncertain of our futures, andeven though Cabiria's uncertainty is half a century removed, the tinglewe get in our bellies, at th
e film's end is a recognition of our fearsin her gaze toward us, and despite it's unsettling effect, suchbutterflies still flap their wings for the future.

Cabiria is an experienced, but not jaded prostitute in search of a ‘real’man.She has some savings, hence quite a few REAL men are ready to fake love forher money. Not much of a story, but Masina is a hugely enjoyable actress towatch. 8/10.

Extraordinary Felini drama that features an excellent performance fromMasina as a prostitute in Rome who searches for eternal love, but findssadness instead. Won the Academy Award for the Best Foreign Language Filmof1957 and was the basis for Neil Simon’s Broadway musical and film, "SweetCharity."

read comments (0)

Letyat zhuravli

Knowing what an important film this is, I really tried to like it. Thebest I could manage was a sort of admiration. Agreed, previously taboosubjects were touched upon but this remains a work of SocialistRealism, the characters like granite statues–handsome but not quitehuman. Though their talent is undeniable, the male and female leads area bit too old for a story that at least at the outset is about younglove.

The events are compressed, as another commenter pointed out, thesuddenness with which war comes being a backhanded slap at the "allwise" Stalin who trusted Hitler and left the Soviet Union dangerouslyunprepared when Nazi Germany attacked with over a hundred divisions.Nor is all well at the fighting front. Soldiers brawl over trifles andincompetent generals let their men be trapped and slaughtered by anunseen enemy. But this is not so boldly controversial a message as mayseem. Stalin himself had these disgraced but often innocent generalssacked–several were shot–in the wake of the early and disastrousdefeats the Red Army suffered.

The camera work is innovative for the time. Even now it is striking.But color movies were unknown in the Soviet Union in 1959 which isunfortunate. For a more appealing treatment of the subject, compare"Ballad of Soldier", a 1960 effort also in black and white butfeaturing genuinely young actors and a more human story.

While this isn't my favorite soviet WWII film (that would be the simpleand super-effective BALLAD OF A SOLDIER), it is exceptional and wellworth seeing.

Veronika and Boris are young and in love. Unfortunately, just beforethey marry, WWII comes along and despite their plans, Boris responds tothe call of duty and volunteers to fight. They are both heartbroken,but duty is duty. Shortly after this, Veronika's parents are killed inan air raid, so she moves in with Boris' family.

At this point, the movie becomes a bit confusing and this is one casewhere I really wish the film had been more explicit. Boris' no-goodcousin is living at the apartment along with the family and during anair raid, he attacks Veronika and begins kissing her despite herprotests. Then, inexplicably, in the next scene they announce they aregetting married! Either he won her over with passion or he raped herand she oddly felt that since he violated her she should marry him(that's twisted logic). It makes a big difference–if she just lostinterest in Boris that easily, it really doesn't make sense since theywere so in love and after marrying, she acts like she loves him as muchas ever. But, if she was raped, she is a far more sympathetic andtragic figure.

Now apart from that, the movie is marvelous. The camera-work(especially when Boris is shot and he is imagining the wedding thatnever was), acting and production was amazing. So much so, by the end Ireally had to fight back the tears (after all, I'm a guy and guys NEVERlet themselves cry,…except when Jim Brown gets killed in THE DIRTYDOZEN). A very loving and beautiful film that greatly humanizes theface and cost of war.

I just watched it for the first time. I’m not as wildly enthusiastic asmost of the reviewers here, but like, "Writers Reign", can imagine thatif I were in an audience back in the late 1950s of many who had lostloved ones in World War II, I’d have been more powerfully moved.

As it is, it is affecting - and the references to Waterloo Bridge andUmbrellas of Cherbourg are apt (though I prefer both). I’d also say itreminds me a bit of The Fantasticks musical in its simple story.

I find the acting of the lead woman rather over the top - and thecamera work at times distracting. At emotional moments, the film goesinto wild histrionics - rather like a silent film - the facial gesturesgo WILD, the music blares, the camera swings round and round, objectsdart about, suddenly loom huge. At such moments, it’s strange, to saythe least.

Something that offended me was the film’s pretense that the USSR hadnot been one of the three aggressors of World War II since September1939 — when it invaded Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland (seizingabout 35% of Poland’s territory which was never relinquished), andlater Finland (seizing territory which was never returned), and Romania(again, seizing a chunk which has never been returned). In this film,it is only when the USSR is invaded almost two years later, thatcharacters shout "WAR! WE ARE AT WAR!" as if millions in other nationswere not now suffering the liquidation of their clerics and theirgovernments, the wholesale slaughter, imprisonment and exile of theirmilitaries, their upper and middle classes — due to the Red Army’soccupation in 1939, 1940 and 1941. Thus, it’s only when Hitler brokehis agreement with Stalin that this film pretends that "war hasbegun!".

Still and all, it is an affecting romance and the theme of separatedlove is eternal.

This film was produced and directed about four (4) years after thedeath of Joseph Stalin the leader of the Soviet Union and is a storyabout a WW II war between Russia and Germany when Russia was attackedby the Nazi's. Tatyana Samojlova,(Veronika) played the role of a verybeautiful young Russian girl who is deeply in love with her boyfriend,Aleksey Batalov,(Boris) who enjoy the outdoors and they both view ascene with a flock of Craines flying in formation and her boyfriendwrites her a poem about these Craines. This couple is planning to getmarried and then a sudden event of War disrupts all their plans andthey are separated. This film gives a down to earth experience justwhat people had to face during World War II and how people deal withtheir lives and others around them. This is a wonderful experienceviewing this film and a great Russian film from 1957. Enjoy

A simple love story in war time. A good guy and a bad guy and a girl.The trivial love story has some patriotic ingredients, a little bit ofpropaganda and a somewhat artificially dramatized end. Maybe one mustcarry the cross because some frivolous behavior during hard times. Herethe movie misses. BUT… it is told in a stunning imagery language. Thecrowning moment is a most beautiful "sentence" of death and life leftbehind: the hero's death. The most intense parting from the beauty andlove in life. As if someone is seeing instead of hearing some ofMahler's ninth. In the end the hero falls like Mahler's hammer blow.Pity camera work was not matched by the rest of the team.

Contains Spoiler

This is a very beautiful movie. Unfortunately, it is quite a long timesinceI’ve seen it for the second and last time, so my memories have fadedsomewhat.

To the plot outline given I would add that the after the war has started,the heroine becomes the fiancee of a famous pianist, who because ofpoliticalprotection does not have to go to the front (a quite sharp criticism ofSoviet society, considering the time this film was made!).After a while, the heroine understands she has made a mistake and as anurseon the front she tries to find her former boy friend. She only finds thathehas already been killed…At the end of the film, war has ended. People are merrily singing on thestreets. Once again the cranes come flying over, as messengers of springandpeace. Everyone is merry, but our heroine’s heart is filled withsorrow.

The second time I saw this film on French TV, dubbed in French and in alessthan optimal cut. It was much less impressive than the first time I sawit.

-Spoilers- The Cranes are Flying is about a love relationship between aSoviet soldier, Boris and Veronika. Yet, Boris goes off to war beforemarrying Veronika and she is accosted by another suitor. The film triesto play off on a romantic tragedy with the demise of Boris in war andVeronika hoping beyond hope to be reunited with her love. Still, she isaccosted by another suitor where she is conflicted with her
ownemotions and finally gives into to marriage. The film opens up withcranes flying with Veronika/Boris then closes with cranes flying withVeronika and her new husband. As such, the film mirrors the realitiesof war in where people loose loved ones and must move on with theirlives or be consumed by such tragedy. Hence, the film did well withVeronika, Boris, and her new suitor. Still, this film is not a warmovie, it is a romantic film.

A good indication of the effect this Soviet film leaves me with, 50years after its initial release, is provided by the cranes in thefilm's title - they are a faked photographic effect. Besides which, ifbirds are flying out of your city (Moscow), is it necessarily a goodsign? This film seems bursting with exuberance, and so it should afterStalin's tardy death and the "thaw" that Russians immediately felt. Butmost of the photographic effects in the film, though dazzling in 1957,seem more than a little arty today. Most of the actors are either tooold for their roles or too young. And they all seem to be posing forthe next room-size Socialist-Realist mural. And notice that despite therelaxing of political repression, not a word is spoken against ComradeStalin for the reason why millions of Russians died fighting Hitler.

I gave it 7 out of 10 stars, which isn't too shabby for a 50 year-oldfilm that is beginning to look and feel its age. Eisenstein droppeddead at 50. I don't think Kalatozov would welcome any more suchcomparisons.

The cast perform well, the star is lovely; the photography is perfect, andany particular scene that I can recall – and I think I can recall most ofthem – is strong. There’s no denying this is a good film, but why do I havethe feeling that it isn’t it quite as good as it ought to be? One possiblereason is the inadequacy of the subtitles (the Russian films I’ve seen havefor some reason tended to come with particularly bad subtitles, althoughsince I didn’t see this particular one with my partner, who speaks Russian,I can only guess at how far they fell short) … but I suspect the real reasonis that everything happens too quickly. At some point – I’m not sure whichpoint – it would have been nice if we could have lingered longer. We feelthe wonderful lightness and freshness of youth well enough, but perhaps weshould have felt some of the hard slog as well.

I think I differ from most people in considering the film’s ending itsfinest moment. The War is over, the people, most of whom lost at least onerelative or friend or at least valued acquaintance, are nonethelesscelebrating, and Veronica feels that the moment is much larger than herprivate feelings of grief; this is all perfectly natural, neitherunderstated nor overstated.

While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germansfor his Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marrieshis conniving cousin Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weaknessshortly after her parents were killed in an air raid over Moscow.Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika will await word orletter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that hewill return to her.

Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply incredible photographicwork by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the manymagnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camerafollows Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to eachother as she rushes through the mob of bodies to say goodbye toBoris..and doesn't quite reach him even as we watch Boris lookingimpatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence after the airraid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up thedestroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makeshis lustful move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outsidethe building as wind rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanateinside are just two of MANY examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows hisgenius at framing images that will last forever on film. But, withoutthe power and tragedy of the story regarding how war can forever shapethe destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this filmcouldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together,however, we're left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiecefrom the Soviet Union after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feelhonored just have beheld such a great film.

read comments (0)

Funny Face

Funny Face has just about everything going for it. Audrey Hepburn, FredAstaire, Stanley Donen, great Gershwin tunes, a terrific rare glimpseof the incomparable Kay Thompson and above all some of the mostexciting visuals and overall art direction ever caught on film. So whathappened? The sad decision to let Hepburn do her own singing. That’snot to say her voice is bad. It’s very… nice. But for a full blownmusical of this scale, the audience is yearning for Hepburn’s characterto really give out with a great set of pipes. Perhaps not quite to theextent of Kay Thompson, an actress perhaps better suited for the stagethan the intimacy of the screen. Yet while the movie does not fulfillits promise, it’s still well worth seeing. The transformation ofHepburn from mousy bookstore clerk to haute couture model is aswonderful as her similar transformation in ‘Sabrina’. The modelingsessions with Astaire directing Hepburn are delightful and above allthe VistaVision presentation of late 50s gloss can not be matched, (theopening credits nearly make up for the entire movie). With RichardAvedon and Suzy Parker’s influence the movie almost makes you forgiveits failings. Still by the last frame the audience is left with onlyone thought: ‘Where’s Marni Nixon when you need her?’.

Moderately enjoyable but unworthy of its reputation as one of the bestmusicals of the ’50’s. There are practically no memorable set-pieces andvery few laughs. Some of the lyrics are (deliberately ?) inane (especiallyin the song "Think Pink"). And Stanley Donen directed in a strangelydistanced style; the camera almost never approaches the actors and theromance between Astaire and Hepburn never becomes fully believable. Thescenes where takes photos of her in various dresses and tries to get herportray various emotions are the cleverest in the film.(**1/2).

If anyone is feeling down they should watch this movie. It's acheerful, fun, lively musical about a girl who works in a bookstore andends up being a model in Paris. There is plenty of singing and dancing.I liked the clothes too. The love story that is added to it is nice andthe pink stuff isn't too overwhelming.

It's like a fairy tale watching her go from a dusty bookstore to amodel in Paris. She's smart too and she liked talking about smartthings. She loved to dance and sing and she looked so pretty in all ofher different clothes.

So if you need a release, see this movie.

Although it constitutes as enjoyable Sunday afternoon entertainment, FunnyFace has hardly enough going on for it in terms of script and plot. Thefilm is something of a stretch at two hours, even though I never rememberchecking my watch, but I just never felt the relationship between Astaireand Hepburn was entirely believable, and the whole of the final act seemedrushed, as if the filmmakers were grabbing for straws. Being directed bythe great Stanley Donen, the visuals and the musical numbers, notably thebonjour Paris number had a required visual pop, and were a complete joy towatch. I wouldn’t rate Funny Face too high, perhaps a 5, maybe 6/10 at apush, and it is worth watching, just don’t expect too much from it.

The title song "Funny Face," was shot in a photographer’s darkroom, usingheavy red lighting which made it almost impossible to enjoy the number.Several other numbers were really hampered by very dark and foggy lightingas well.

One usually sees such poor lighting only in grade-B horror films where the"monster" is not well done, so they need to film it where you can’t see itvery well.

Otherwise, a very good musical; and I appreciated the plug for my hometown,Tallahassee, in one of the well-lit numbers.

The title song "Funny Face," was shot in a photographer’s darkroom, usingheavy red lighting which made it almost impossible to enjoy the number.Several other numbers were really hampered by very dark and foggy lightingas well.

One usually sees such poor lighting only in grade-B horror films where the"monster" is not well done, so they need to film it where you can’t see itvery well.

Otherwise, a very good musical; and I appreciated the plug for my hometown,Tallahassee, in one of the well-lit numbers.

This movie has something for everyone. Fabulous costumes, great songs,wonderful locations, imaginative dancing and a truly talented cast.Even the opening credits are fun to watch. The only downside is poorAudrey’s singing. She’s just not up to par holding her own againstpowerhouse Kay Thompson who was truly spectacular, or with FredAstaire. I can see now why she was dubbed in "My Fair Lady." Howevershe does quite well with dancing, and of course looking absolutelyfabulous in those stunning Givenchy designs. Credit should also begiven to Stanley Donen for wonderful directing and also to the lightingcrew bathing walls and floors in Technicolor hues.

It's an untroubling movie that looks derivative. The plot has parallelsto >My Fair Lady< and even has Audrey Hepburn as an undiscovered gemwho must meet a Svengali-like man and submit to authority figures torealize her potential. In a plot partially parallel to that in whichthe uncouth flowermonger "Eliza Doolittle" of >My Fair Lady< becomes a'lady' through the polishing of her language, she is discovered as afrumpy bookseller in a Greenwich Village bookstore that a hard-chargingfemale editor of a fashion magazine seeks to use as a backdrop for somefashion photography when the fashion photographer 'discovers' her.

Add to this the setting of >An American in Paris<, complete withGershwin tunes and much dancing by an actor (Fred Astaire versus GeneKelly) who happens to have artistic tendencies (Kelly in >American inParis< is a painter; Astaire in >Funny Face< is a fashionphotographer). In >Funny Face<, the Gershwin tunes are bloated out ofproportion as they aren't in >An American in Paris<. There's also>Gigi<, in which a young woman blossoms as does Audrey Hepburn as sheis miraculously transformed from a highbrow poseur into a high-fashionmodel, a role for which she is more suited. If the movie is not itselfderivative, then the plot is.

You will not likely prefer this movie to either >My Fair Lady<, >AnAmerican in Paris<, or >Gigi<; it has less wit than >My Fair Lady<,less dance than >An American in Paris< (the latter containing the mostspectacular dance number in cinema as its climax!), and less subtletyor humanity than >Gigi<. Still, we are discussing superlatives amongmovie musicals, and although >Funny Face< falls short of the greatest,it still offers considerable wit, some fine dance scenes (Fred Astairecould always make another dancer look good!), some attractive music,and a largely feel-good (if somewhat implausible) storyline.

The casting is perfect.

It falls short of greatness, but it is a suitable alternative tooverexposing some other movie musicals.

Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson) is the head of a prestigious fashionmagazine who’s current edition seems as fresh as last month’s milk. Sheneeds a new face. She decides to look for someone who can embody hernewfound motto — "Think Pink!" — and sends her entire staff like thefashion police to get this new face. Who do they find? Mousy JoStockton who presides over a used bookstore and would rather recitebeatnik politics than preen and pose among the brainless models workingfor Ms. Prescott.

However Ms. Prescott will not take no for an answer and alongside withfashion photographer (and right hand man) Dick Avery (Fred Astaire,playing a Pygmalion of sorts) they groom her until she is positivelyblooming under the Paris skies and ready for her red Givenchy dress(among a slew of others).

And that’s it. No suspense,
no "will they-won’t they" element, FUNNYFACE exists solely for the purpose of cashing in on Audrey Hepburn’sethereal beauty and ability to wear Givenchy. If one can look past theMay-December romance (which renders Fred Astaire a little long in thetooth to be Hepburn’s leading man), and can just sit back and enjoy thefilm for the fashion extravaganza that it is, FUNNY FACE is solidentertainment.

Funny Face (1957): Starring Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Kay Thompson,Michel Auclair, Robert Flemyng, Dovima, Suzy Parker, Sunny Hartnett,Virginia Gibson, Sue England, Alex Gerry, Ruta Lee, Fern Barry, NesdonBooth, Genevieve Aumont, Iphigennie Castiglioni, Nina Borget, PeterCamlin, Jan Bradley, Jack Chefe, Jerry Chiat…Director Stanley Donen,Screenplay Leonard Gershe…From The George Gershwin Musical.

Released in 1957, "Funny Face" was very much a musical of its time,meaning every single element represented an aspect of the nostalgic50's. First, there is the pairing of Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire,whose chemistry carries the film and certainly drew the audiences backin the 50's. Astaire was an old Hollywood icon by this time, whileHepburn was enjoying her success in the best decade of her career. Shehad won her Oscar for "Roman Holiday" (1953) and starred in the popularBilly Wilder film "Sabrina" (1954). At first glance, Director StanleyDonen seems to be making his version of the more popular musical "AnAmerican In Paris" in which Fred Astaire was paired with Leslie Caron,but this is an entirely different animal. In "Funny Face" Hepburnportrays Jo Stockton, a timid, wallflower-ish, intellectual andunassuming book store employee who is discovered by fashionphotographer Dick Avery (Astaire) and "Quality" magazine mogul KayThompson (Maggie Prescott) and turned into a glamorous super model.From a musical by George Gershwin, the script nevertheless reveals amovie that is both romantic, touching and comedic and a sure indicationthat the movie would be just as strong without the big, showy MGM-stylesinging and dance numbers. Astaire and Hepburn dance beautifully, in asemi-balletic, semi-Broadway, semi-modern dance sort of way against therich, beautiful background of Paris. The love story in Funny Face isvery moving and sentimental, coated with sugar and satiric bite at thesame time, but few people know it's inspired by the professionalrelationship of 50's fashion photographer Richard Avedon and supermodel Dovima (who makes a brief cameo in the film) their collaborationswas well known in magazines similar to "Quality" in the movie and theirmost famous work is "Dovima With The Elephants". Photographer DickAvery falls for Jo Stockton not only because she's beautifulphysically, but intellectual, compassionate and a first-class humanbeing. She greatly admires the philosophies of Professor Emile Flostre,a parody of Existentialist legend Jean Paul Sartre played by MichelAuclair. Flostre's concept of "empathicalism" - the ability to putyourself in another's shoes - is his solution to world problems and away to promote world peace. Jo Stockton only accepts the modeling jobso she can go to Paris to see Flostre lecture at a Montmartre café. Herexperience as a model does not change her creative, intelligent andsensitive nature. Dick Avery and Jo fall for one another, despite someinitial antagonism. Genuine comic moments include Kay Thompson and DickAvery's impersonation of two Southern American tourists who mustentertain the beat-nicks at the café and the witty, satirical jokesabout the silliness of following fashion. "Think pink!" Pinktoothbrushes, clothes, kitchen sinks, swim-wear, etc. When you see thismovie and you're a modern viewer who was born after 1970 or '80 or '90,you're treated to a brief look at 50's counter-culture as it reallywas. By the late 50's, America was a place where, depending on who youwere, you were following all the latest trends or reciting poetry andexpressing your creativity and non-conformity with the bohemianintellectuals who preceded the hippies of the late 60's- theblack-clad, bereted beat nicks. The portrayal of this "free-thinking,forward-looking youth generation" is well captured, Audrey Hepburn'scharacterization of Jo Stockton is right on the money as far as how thebeat nicks were like. Perhaps her greatest scene in any of her films isher solo jazz dance "Basil Metabolism" she performs at the Montmatrecafe. This scene has of late appeared in a GAP commercial. Audreyexpresses a kind of Simone De Bouvaire feminism and several humanisticliberal philosophies without overdoing it and furthermore, charmingeveryone around her. This film was yet another success for Miss Hepburnand it was great to see Fred Astaire do his thing even that much laterin his life. This is a highly enjoyable film. Filmed in brilliantTechnicolor, the movie is alive with rainbows of colors and shades.Especially enchanting is the "Chantilly French Cathedral" lawn scenesin which Jo dances in her wedding dress. The cinematography is by RayJune and it's splendid and Hepburn's French wardrobe is by her belovedGivenchy, a fashion label which is still number one and her Americanwardrobe is by the equally wonderful Edith Head, a long time wardrobeperson for Hollywood. This is a wonderful film and a a signature 50'sfilm.

read comments (0)

Det sjunde inseglet

Mostly I use IMDb reviews to decide whether to rent a film, so I feelphilosophically that a rating and a review should reflect how the filmdoes in the context of the modern day.

So with that caveat, the look & feel of this film — which is grainyand black & white — can't earn more than a 5 out of 10, which is myrating.

To be fair, I'm an action movie guy. I don't have the sophistication orfilm school background to be able to enjoy the makeup or sets if theplot and characters are awful. But I do enjoy an intelligent film, and(with the proper mindset that I was viewing a very old film), I foundthe Seven Seals quite accessible and powerful.

Which is to say that it wasn't very, but I can see how when it came outit must have been a wild sensation. It's original, has something realto say about life. If you're going to watch one of the old classics,and want to know where that scene with Death comes from in "Bill andTed's Excellent Adventure", you should be able to get through thisfilm.

Who should see this film:

– art buffs & drama fans with a flair for classics: a must-see

– regular people like me who can see watching a film like this sort-oflike visiting Taiwan or South Africa. Fascinating place, not my kind ofthing and wouldn't want to live there, but glad I had the culturalexperience.

I'll give The Seventh Seal a showing its age but still packs a punch 5out of 10. And if you ever get a chance to see the short film "TheDove" (1968) that parodies this film — it is totally hilarious andworth every effort to see it.

This film felt sort of like a classic play. A much better play thananythingby Shakespere.I was sceptic of this film before I saw it since it’s a black and whitedrama, but I kept an open mind and was rewarded.

My favourit scene was when a man was sitting in a tree and suddenlydiscovered that Death stood at the ground cutting the treedown.

This movie shows the society of the Middle Ages in a very exact way.However, I must say that there’s a completely forgivably inaccuracy.Bergmanmixed up two different centuries: the 11th and the 14th. The 11th centurywas the time of the Crusades impelled by Urban I; so the knight that comesback from the Crusades can only be placed in the 11th.And the 14th was the century of the plagues in Europe, the plagues thatscares so much everybody in the story.Obviously, this is not a mistake; creators can adapt some parts of historybecause they have a superior artistic mission.

I sat through three other films by Ingmar Bergman: the girl in TheVirgin Spring was a spoiled brat; the old man in Wild Strawberries wasa whiny fart; the adults in Fanny and Alexander were selfish a**holes!Yet the critics' were beside themselves, Bergman had so defty tappedinto their egos. Hence, every time Iggy took a dump, the critics ravedlike a bunch of Pavolvian dogs!

So when Death, looking like a Marilyn Manson fan, makes his grandentrance, I wasn't expecting any profound insights from Iggy, and Iwasn't disappointed:

Block: Who are you?

Death: I am Death. (duh!)

Despite his claim that he is "quite skillful" at chess, The Grim Reaperblows chunks. "Beating" Block centuries before "The Mad Queen"? LOL!And his "I'm just doing my job" shtick when asked about the Divine wasa total cop-out! When Block didn't bitch-slap Grimmy and give him aweegie, I knew I was in for a long night!

The confession scene was a hoot! Block whines about how God doesn'tanswer him, wishes he could purge Him from his heart. Now you know the"monk" is Death, but because Iggy isn't half the filmmaker he thinks heis, he lets us in on it before Block (who's a few fries short of aHappy Meal to begin with) realizes whom he just blabbed his "brilliant"chess strategy to!

If Block not trying to save the girl was supposed to get us to relateto his world-weariness, sorry, all it did was make me lose all empathyfor him. Block's filthy, God-hating sidekick is the real hero of thisopus. In his one act of heroism (unintenional, I'm sure), he saves agirl from the man who talked Block into going on the Crusades (huh?),then tells her that she better come with him because he hopes his wifeis dead by now and he could have just raped her! How sweet!

Jof was just weird, and not because he has a vision of Mary teachingher Baby how to walk. He's a juggler, but can't keep two balls in theair? All I kept think was how did a dolt like that land a hot babe likeMia?

Dentistry back then was non-existent, yet the peasants have perfectlypearly choppers. The girls' faces are scrubbed clean, and have nounsightly body hair! And shouldn't the horses be sick from drinking seawater? But I digress.

I recently saw the movie again after almost 20 years. I had forgotten whatawonderful film it is. Truly magnificent.

A perfect movie in every aspect, words cannot even begin to describe thisphenomenon. Seeing this movie was pure pleasure beyond understanding.Experience it for yourself. Do yourself a favor and see this, I guaranteeityou wont be disappointed. Thank you, Sir Ingmar Bergman.

Recently returning to his beloved Sweden after participating in TheCrusades, young Antonius Block (Max von Sydow, DUNE) finds himself onthe beaches of his country, not really safe and not very sound. Death(Bengt Ekerot) follows him and tells Antonius that his time is up. Notwilling to go until he finds out the truth about the afterlife,Antonius challenges Death to a game of chess. And it's a winner takeall game (life and death).

The game takes a few days to play, and as Antonius travels with histrusty squire Jons (Gunnar Bjornstrand) they encounter other waywardsouls looking for life's meaning. Most notable among these is a band oftraveling actors; a man named Jof (Nils Popppe), his wife Mia (BibiAndersson), and their infant child (thinks Joseph, Mary, and Jesus andyou'll be right on target). Jof is a juggler, but also a visionist. Hecan see strange things, and although this is made slight of during theearly portions of the film, it is later a pivotal catalyst to theentire movie's machinations.

Antonius and his band of vagabonds drift through Sweden as The BlackDeath sweeps across the nation. Death is very busy, thus givingAntonius more time to make it home to his wife (whom he hasn't seen inyears).

But once home, Death catches up with Antonius, and he has to come toterms with the afterlife, whether he wants to or not. When Death knocksat the home of Antonius Block, everyone inside has to decide whatawaits them on "the other side". Antonius prays for enlightenment aboutGod (if there is one) and hopes to receive a sign (which never reallycomes).

In the end, his efforts at delaying Death help Jof, Mia and theirinfant child escape the unknown of the hereafter, thus giving a senseof meaning to Antonius' life.

It is noteworthy to mention that this movie has a seriously stiltedscreenplay. The actors' lines often seem strange and even out of place,making the viewer shrug in a mind-boggling way. Anybody who's seen anIngmar Bergman film probably won't be bothered by this, but it issomething to definitely prepare yourself for if you haven't.

Often heralded as one of Bergman's best films, it certainly was …upto that point.

Being severely dated by today's film standards, the low budget isachingly present but not overly intrusive. The sets, make-up and actingare all well-played. But the biggest star is the lighting and cameraangles. Careful use of light and shadow gives a terrible sense offoreboding with a minimal soundtrack. The perching of cameras in treesand on odd angles gives the film its own original look, honoring thisfilm with
several award wins (including the Cannes Film Festival'sSpecial Jury Prize …actually it was a tie that year but we won't gothere).

This is a strange movie–period! However, it is also one of the mostparodied films and for that reason alone it is worth seeing! Now, on toexplain the part that is parodied: A man is returning from war in thetime of the Reformation and the plague is about the countryside. Theman meets the Angel of Death and is told it is him time to die. The manasks if he can first challenge him in a game of chess–if the man wins,then his life will be spared. The Grim Reaper, not wanting to be aspoilsport, agrees and they play a game that starts and stops again andagain. This exact same contest has been used in Bill and Ted’s BogusJourney, the cartoon series The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, andan experimental film De Düva: The Dove (starring Madeline Kahn amongothers). In the Bill and Ted movie, they did not play chess but aseries of games including Battleship and Twister! In The Dove, it was abadminton game! I can’t remember what the game was in the cartoonseries, but instead of their deaths, the children played the GrimReaper over the soul of their pet hamster! Isn’t is weird how this artfilm has appeared again and again and in the silliest of places! Giveit a try to see the FIRST death-match and because it is a goodfilm–with excellent performances all around–from Max Von Sydow to allthe supporting players. Also, do not give up on the film too quick–Idid and only saw it all years later when my sister-in-law convinced meto give it another try!

I am from Sweden and Ingmar Bergman’s movies make me proud of being Swedish."Det sjunde inseglet" is such a big and powerful movie and you can watchover and over again. My favorite scene is when Max von Sydow and "death" isconversating in the begining of the movie.

There are human works that save on itself so much wisdom that they neverlost their beauty.When a master like Ingmar is capable to translate an eternal valor on itsfull strength ,like on this movie, we have to watch it verycarefully.This is the best movie ever. It’s like a work of picasso, van gogh, it’sjust unique ,it’s just perfect.All the symbols that are shown to us are expression of human feeling on itsgreatest and purest form. If we can still be playing this life game ,tryingto get some meaning for our existence, we can cry on this movie. Ingmarshows us one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen in arts, the fullexpression of feelings, and he shows us we can’t try to find something wethink will bring the meaning of our lives, who feel this meaning will feelit forever , who don’t feel it , just can’t feel it, and will be despairedby encountering death and will be despaired by encountering lifetoo.We can’t pretend we’re happy, if we’re happy, we’re just happy and nothingmore, there’s no explanation for this, except one:Life is in the little things of our day by day…!Right Jof?

read comments (0)

12 Angry Men

I found this movie to be rather boring and predictable. Sidney Lumetalways had an agenda in his movie making. Unfortunately he neverunderstood the word subtle. This movie is a prime example of hispretentious, preachy, sledge hammer approach to his message. From thevery beginning one could figure out the ending robbing the film of anysuspense. The characters were too broadly drawn to be believableespecially the role of Lee J. Cobb. Where is the complexity? Theexplanations of the prosecution's inconsistencies by Fonda straincredulity and would convince no one. If you like the courtroom genre offilms try Anatomy of a Murder or Witness for the Prosecution.

"Life Is In Their Hands — Dealth Is On Their Minds!" A tag-line of 12Angry Men.

12 Angry Men had 3 nominations for Oscars and won 13 other awards, butit does not mean that every one will like this movie. While the moviestarted with the dark and white atmosphere it gave me a tiresomeimpression. 12 men were just sitting in a room quarreling and sometimesmurmuring and muttering. Are movies only providing human acting andtalking?

Teenagers like me like to have something much exciting, but not sittingdully in a room. Secondly, I wasn't engrossed in the Juror quarrelingduring the film. I don't think most of you are interested in others'affairs, especially others' conflicts. Also, as the tag-line shows, thelife and death of the boy is in their hands, but how about theaudience? It seemed that we have already been left out. In addition,Henry Fonda is a good actor, however, when the movie ends, I thinkeverybody would have asked "Is that all?" I still had a hope to seeanything unexpectedly broken out before the ending, but what a pitythat it did not happen.

It may be a great masterpiece to most of people but I hardly have aslight interest on it. My comments might have changed if the 'debate'had an unpredictable result.

maybe in 1957 the characters in this movie seemed thick and nuanced buthaving seen this recently for the first time i was struck by how onedimensional each seemed. from the first few minutes of the movie youcan easily decipher who’s going to be a "bad" guy and who’s going to bea bastion of choirboy-like fairness and innocence. maybe given the selfcontained nature of the plot there is much room for characterdevelopment but perhaps something a little less like caricatures….

the other thing that bothered me about the movie that pays so muchattention to method of reason is the fact that early on in the movie itis stated that the knife had been wiped clean before the police gotthere. but according to witnesses the boy allegedly fled right a way.this seems a bit incongruent and yet no one in the movie has brought itup and no critical review of the movie seems to have brought it up. itwould seem to be a major factor in the case and i can’t believe it isoverlooked. instead it’s omission from discussion only makes the wholeplot look as thin as the characters………

4 out 10 see it to know that many a critic has been fooled.

First, I thought this film was brilliantly made. The acting was superband that an entire film could be shot in one set, and that set being asingle room devoid of everything besides a table, 12 chairs and 12 men,and still remain riveting from start to finish was astonishing. As acharacter study it is one of the best.

That said, I had a deep problem with this movie. At the end of the day,what was accomplished? They most likely let a murderer walk. And afterdoing-so, walked-off self-contently back into their everyday lives,having avoided the discomfort of judging one of their peers. Fonda hadno reason to feel accomplished. If they were too quick to judge himguilty, they were nearly as quick to judge him innocent. And Iunderstand the time limits involved in concluding this one act play,that doesn't change the betrayal I felt by this self-righteousportrayal of 'justice' being served.

The Shaw Shank redemption is very highly ranked here also. A similarvain, heroically casting criminals as victims.

The film 12 Angry Men might have been very good cinema for 1957, but inthe 21st century it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The movie wears you down while characters spend more time bickeringabout bickering than actually going over testimony and evidence. It'slike the Blair Witch Project, where the characters act loud andannoying, beating the audience into exhaustion. The characters in 12Angry Men mostly argue with each other, often screaming, making theresolution more gratifying to the audience. It's a common trick.

*begin spoiler alert* Maybe we've gotten spoiled watching too much Monkand CSI and Law & Order, but as a legal drama the movie is confusinganyway. There's no discussion of blood trails or spatters. Thedefendant claimed there was a hole in his pants, but no pants werereviewed as evidence. Davis introduced a knife he bought as evidence inthe jury room, which you can't do. The jury determined that the witnesswas nearsighted based on her nose. The jury decided a witness wasincapable of running based on how he walked. The jury never discussedwho else might have committed the murder. The thought-process behindthe plot is so convoluted, it makes the whole movie frustrating towatch. *end spoiler alert*

The movie is OK for 11 year olds so certainly carries a lot ofnostalgic value 60 year olds, but it's flawed and doesn't hold up as atimeless film.

The film may be described as a good one due to the outstanding ensemblecast of actors in it.

I found that the film is definitely liberal-slanted. Conservatives aredepicted as bigoted idiots. Henry Fonda, the juror who swayed alleventually, has a liberal, creative mind. He is really able to come upwith creative ideas that leads to the acquittal of the defendant. Fondais the dream juror for every defense attorney, as well as a nightmarefor prosecuting attorneys.

Lee J. Cobb steals the film with an outstanding performance as ahateful juror who allows his personal problems with an alienated son tofeel that the accused is guilty. Ditto for Jack Warden, who reallyswitched his vote in order to get to that baseball game.

When viewing E.G. Marshall's performance, I could not help think backabout his acting in the television series-"The Defenders." He is reallythe opposite here

Ed Begley really spews out bigoted ideas that most of "these people"aren't any good and think nothing of a life. We are constantly remindedabout the downtrodden, the abused child, slum and poverty living inrelation to crime and other factors. The film is really a goodpsychological-sociological drama if anything.

It seems as though the violent thunderstorm signaled a break in theaction. When the lights were put on, the fan worked. Why didn't someonein the court tell the jurors about the fan and the light? Especially,as it was a sweltering day.

As the jury foreman, Martin Balsam is supposed to conduct the agenda inorder. Instead, he really allows the other jurors to dominate.

Wouldn't you love to see the reaction in court when the verdict wasread? How did the accuse react? The judge? The courtroom spectators?

The way the plot develops in this movie is great. Of course it’s prettybrilliant to make an interesting movie in just one room. (By the way, seeThe Cube if you like that concept.)But especially Tony Danza plays a character that is too exaggerated. It’sthe most annoying person of the twelve and for me that really kind ofspoiled the whole thing.

TWELVE ANGRY MEN is essentially a claustrophobic slice of jury duty,where jurors are herded into a New York City courtroom to discuss thefacts of a murder trial of a boy accused of murdering his father.

Gradually, with stark close-ups
of sweating faces, we get to know themen after a brief round of small talk leads to the small details of thecase after choosing a jury foreman (MARTIN BALSAM).

Most of these fine actors are gone now, but interestingly enough thethree who played the angriest men (LEE J. COBB, E.G. MARSHALL and EDBEGLEY) all died of heart attack several years after filming this one.HENRY FONDA, as the man who carefully reconstructs what might havehappened, had a long screen career that ended after winning an Oscarfor ON GOLDEN POND.

Based on a TV play directed by Sidney Lumet, it's a faithful retellingof the tale, photographed with stark realism that catches the sweatycourtroom on a hot summer day and is basically a character study ofeach man, each one put under the microscope by a shrewd director whogets the most from his players.

The tension builds from the disagreements that arise over deliberationsuntil the final struggle to reach a decision depends on the vote of theone stubborn hold-out (LEE J. COBB). Fonda is the man who presents hisown theory of what actually happened and is able to persuade theothers, one by one, to his side of the argument.

Extremely well done drama seems almost documentary in its display ofjury room deliberations when tempers flash, where patience is strainedand reason finally sees the light of day after Fonda (never convincedof the boy's guilt in killing his father) is able to present his doubtsto the other jurors. Gripping stuff, well worth watching.

The best thing about this movie was watching the classic Hollywood andTV actors. The writing was good and is seldom found in movies today.Apart from that the film was nothing special.

After 20 minutes I could already see the end of the movie. Also Ithought it a stretch that Henry Fonda's character could be sopersuasive simply by standing his ground and saying 'maybe he's guiltyand maybe he isn't.'

Perhaps its high IMDb rating is because a lot of people agree with themoral message it preaches. Maybe the moral message is 10 star but themovie is not. If you want to see a really good, classic, one scene,character study movie, check out Hitchcock's "Lifeboat".

You couldn't make make me sit through this one again!

Watching 12 stereotypes shaken together until the cream rises to thetop is little better than watching water come to a boil. At first, thecold water is still and transparent, then tiny bubbles begin to form -yet the water is not even warm! It is the air coming out of solution!The bubbles grow larger and rise to the surface. Again, the water isclear, but movement can be detected. There are swirling convectioncurrents forming. The water becomes hot. There is more and moremovement, the surface of the water is clearly undulating, and the wateris getting hotter. Bubbles again begin to form at the bottom of thepot. They expand and begin to rise, but collapse and disappear. Theexpansion and collapse of the water vapor creates noise and the potbegins to vibrate. Then traces of water vapor begin to rise from therolling surface of the water. Finally, the bubbles of water vaporsurvive the journey to the surface and emerge - releasing steam to theair. How exciting!

Somehow, I just knew how everything would turn out - just like watchingwater boil, or shaking milk (I was around before homogenized milk).

I would recommend Andy Warhol's "Empire" to those who like this film. Iwon't give away the ending, but it's fairly predictable, and a bitlonger.

read comments (0)

A Face in the Crowd

Many great works of art are prophetic. "Face in the Crowd" foretold theemergence of Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh, the 1990’s populist opinionmakers–or demagogues, as some critics derisively call them–back in 1957.Although the movie is at times too dramatic and unnatural (e.g. 1) WalterMatthau character is so unnatural and inhuman and sounds almost like a Greekchorus and 2) at times Lonesome Rhodes, an uneducated drifter, talks like asophisticated college professor), the movie masterfully portrays the life ofLarry "Lonesome" Rhodes and how he manipulates TV, a relatively new mediaback in 1957, and American public opinion. Kudos to EliaKazan.

In addition to being impressed by the greatness of this movie, I was amazedat the talent of Andy Griffith. He is not just the middle- aged guy whoplayed nice-guy sheriff of a small town or the old guy who played the oldcrusty advocate Ben Mattlock. He is a very dynamic actor with a tremendousacting ability comparable even to acting greats like Olivier or Gielgud. (Nowonder he became a star of Broadway.) Moreover, he can SING!! In this moviehe sang country songs and blues better than many singers. Even though AndyGriffith did make some musical recordings, it is too bad that he did notmake more. With his immense acting and singing talents I do not know whyAndy Griffith did not become a bigger star. What a shame. At least, I amglad that this great thespian recently realized his life-long dream ofsinging at the Grand Ole Opry. Three cheers for this greatthespian.

The Arthur Godfrey analogy is quite correct and valid, especially inregards to the on-air firing of Julius LaRosa. But the Clinton/Sternreference is way, WAY off base as regards to this film. This movie is abrilliant indictment of the seedy underpinnings and the rot ofconservatism. The "one of us" regular guys as played brilliantly byAndy Griffith was, at heart, only in it for himself, only in it for themoney and laughed at those who believed in him, all the way to thebank. A better description of a political conservative could never befound. The Senator, who falls under Lonesome's guidance, is an archconservative who whines about "big government" while complaining thatnobody who's worth a damn ever needed an unemployment check. He evenmentions that old bug-a-boo, "big government", of which he is thebiggest beneficary. Obviously this isn't an indictment of somebody withliberal leanings like Clinton, and most certainly not of someone likeStern who is probably the most honest, if repellent, media figures ofthe last 20 years. Not a phony bone in Stern's body.

Elia Kazan's direction is nothing short of wonderful. He has such amastery of the material that even a child could see the evil behind thefacade of the down-home Lonesome Rhodes. Of course, Griffith isterrific in the role, and his singing with such wild abandon adds anice touch. You know it's Andy doing the vocalizing and he's in fineform. But I think Patricia Neal and Walter Matthau get the short shriftwhenever this film is mentioned. Neal is her typically wonderful andunderstated self. Matthau is fine as the writer who can see though thelies, and is cynically dejected when nobody else can.

The only thing that doesn't work is the rapid demise of Rhodes whenNeal flips on the cameras during Rhodes' rant. It's awfully simplistic,but of course, was a necessary plot device.

The inclusion of real-life news people like Walter Winchell, MikeWallace and John Cameron Swayze is a nice touch and shows just howseriously Kazan was taken as a director. It pays homage to PatriciaNeal's 1951 classic "The Day The Earth Stood Still" and its use ofnewsfolk like Drew Pearson.

A great film and a great indictment of conservatism and it's inherentlie of the moral high ground and love for the common man.

This movie was partially filmed in Piggott, Arkansas - (Clay County) Iwas in High School at the time and remember several of the cast beingin this small town and of Lee Remmick in our High School Class andactually staying with the English Instructor. She portrayed a HS BandTwirler. Most of our HS class was in the movie at some time and once inparticular on top of a school bus. Most everyone in the county came toPiggott when they asked for a large crowd to be present for specificscenes. Eli Kazan and the film company donated a new City Swimming poolto the community.

We still enjoy seeing the movie - not only for the "story in the movie"but for the "story" it left in our City.

An Arkansas hobo gets a second chance on the outside via a "you arethere" radio show called "a face in the crowd". Andy Griffith gives anOscar caliber performance as Lonesome Rhoads, a hillbilly spending timein Jail for being drunk. He gets superstardom on radio first, then TVdue to his supposed connection with the common folk. "Lnoesome Rhode’scracker barrel" is the name of the TV show. The woman he has ditchedfor fame leaves the mike on in the sound booth one night aftertaping… and you can figure the rest. In a sub plot, old time directorMarshal Neilan gives a masterful last performance as a senatorialcandidate place in that position by the "smoke filled back room"cronies of a political machine. This movie would portend future filmssuch as "Network" with Peter Finch as the crazed Howard Beale, and"Broadcast News" with William Hurt as a powerful newsman reduced bythroat cancer who learns his lesson.

"A face in the Crowd" was written by bud schulberg, and directed byElila Kazan. Both were very much "message" oriented film makers. Thisfilm is a must see for any film school student. Stark editing, crispdirection and great performances make this a stand out film of the1950s. My own impression is that this is the best film Rod SerlingNever wrote.

I had recently discovered this film and mentioned it to my mom. Sheattested that she remembered it very well and did not like it. It wasnot because it was a bad film, but that she knew little about the filmbut knew Andy Griffith as a comedian, so was a little put off byGriffith's extremely unlikeable persona. Perhaps too, America was notquite ready for a satire of this nature delivered by such a well knowndirector.

Given, this is before Griffith had his much successful show. However,one can not deny that this type of indictment on the media may not havegone over well at the time. It was ahead of its time and holds upincredibly well, both in its purpose and its performance.

"Face in the Crowd" is quite simply about how a drunkard by the name ofLonesome Roads is discovered by a radio personality and receives heavymedia attention, learns how to manipulate it and becomes something of amedia spin doctor for a politician. It's part "Network" and part "Wagthe Dog." These are obvious connections that have been made before.

It's the little intricacies that really show how well thought out thismovie is, however. An example is a scene where Griffith's character isasked to put a spin on a fad drug, where he suggest to advertise thedrug's ability to help one's love life. Relevant today? You betcha!Besides looking at this film as an excellent piece of social criticism,it's just purely an excellent film. Andy Griffith was a new face on thescene and if audiences had seen him as the lovable Mayberry sheriffbefore this, people would be more in tune to what a wonderfulperformance this is. Griffith comes alive as he plays a down on hisluck drunkard that embraces the media until we slowly see him selfdestruct. There is no denying Griffith's ability as an actor in thisand had it not been for the politics behind this film and its maker,Griffith's career might have panned out differently.

This is a movie about the media, the ego
s behind it, and how it shapespolitics. The performances are top notch and direction superb. I can'trecommend this movie highly enough. It serves as both an interestingsocial commentary and an excellent piece of film making.

This is a really intense, seldom-seen film. Andy Griffith is verypowerful in this film. If you've only seen him in Mayberry, you don'tknow what a really strong and underrated dramatic actor he is. He has alot to work with here, courtesy of a writer whose work is alwayspowerful. I do think this is a pretty heavy film and has to be viewedthat way. It's not light entertainment. It makes you concentrate. Irecently heard Merrill Reese, the longtime play-by-play announcer forthe Philadelphia Eagles, say that this is his favorite film, and thathe has interns at the radio station where he works watch it. Itprobably does them a lot of good if they watch it seriously.

I recently picked this up for $5 on DVD, and let me tell you folks: Itwas five bucks very well spent. I'm very surprised that this movieisn't very well known today, as it certainly deserves much morerecognition.

First off, the story somehow manages to seem current even in our moderntimes. It truly is a timeless story about corruption, greed and how wereally are just sheep to the media.

Really though, this film is character driven. "Lonesome" Rhodes is thewhole movie; it's his life, his rise and his fall. Andy Griffith, whountil now I knew only as Matlock, give an absolutely amazingperformance as the simple country boy as he slowly becomes corruptedwith power. He creates one of the most interesting characters that Ithink I've ever seen, on so many levels. The cast of the cast areincredible as well, especially Patricia Neal and Walter Matthau. Hisspeech at the end of the film was spectacular.

Last but not least, the directing. Elia Kazan really does a great jobhere, using some great metaphors and creating a great noir-esquireatmosphere. A slight flaw was the very fast pacing near the first, butit was really nothing major. We didn't get to see as much of Pickett asI would have liked but as I said, it's no biggie.

Overall, this film is really incredible. Amazing acted, written anddirected, I think it's a must see for anyone.

9/10

I saw this movie on AMC and taped it. The first time I saw it I wasquite impressed but having just seen it again I felt in many respectsthe movie was pretty corny and certainly dated, from today'sperspective.

It is certainly hard to imagine Mayberry's Sheriff Taylor playing atelevision demagogue but Andy Griffith was extremely good in this movieand probably deserved Oscar consideration, particularly since it washis first movie. Griffith had begun as a serious actor at the Univ ofNorth Carolina but had gotten national attention with his corn-poneaccount of a hillbilly going to a football game which won him nationalforensics titles. He translated that into doing stand-up comedy in NewYork City. AFINC showed he had very serious chops as an actor thoughand the contrast between that and his next movie, "No Time ForSergeants" in which he reprises his Broadway role as hillbilly soldierWill Stockdale is remarkable. Why Griffith didn't become a significantmovie star after those two movies, I don't know. He had tremendoussuccess with his TV show of course but when you watch AFITC you canfeel a regret that wasn't able to have a big-screen career. AFITCshowed he had the potential to be numbered amongst the finest actors ofhis generation.

I saw this film for the first time about 7 years ago and was blown awayby the amazing performance by Andy Griffith. Thank goodness he did thisbefore he became a household name. I can now see how typecasting canlimit an actor, as I just never gave him any credit after "Andy OfMayberry" and "Matlock". I had no idea of the immense range this manpossessed.

It has been written elsewhere that the show was based on the phenomenonof Arthur Godfrey and that is possible. I think what happened in thisElia Kazan masterpiece was a demonstration of the power of mass mediato lead people to believe what you want them to believe and blind themto what you deem convenient for them to be ignorant of. As Hitler putit, "the bigger the lie, the more likely the people will believe".

This show raises a number of issues we need to be aware of today. As amedium, television has great potential. However, it has never beenclose to what it should have become since 1957. The medium madeLonesome Rhodes an icon in the eyes of the people, but in reality, hewas a megalomaniacal monster. One hearkens back to when Hitler used thetelevision in Nazi Germany for mass-hypnotism and publicdesensitization so he could take the world into his fiendish grip. Arethe powers controlling TV manipulating us like puppets, until the daythey hold our very lives in their hands?

Unbelievable performance by Andy Griffith. This is by far his bestacting performance ever. This is a movie that ranks as one of the bestfilm's most everyone has never heard of.

If you have a film nut in your home…get them this film.

You start out routing for Andy's character and wind up hating him.Kazan gives excellent direction and the supporting cast is great.Patricia Neal's character is kind of seedy at first and you don't knowwhether or not to trust her, but tables turn and you find yourselffeeling sorry for her and routing for her.

Kazan really does a great job in flipping the viewers emotions on thisfilm.

Highly recommend.

read comments (0)