Tirez sur le pianiste

Francois Truffaut's follow-up to his smash debut (still my favorite ofhis, one of the best films ever made), The Four Hundred Blows, is thistip of the hat to film noir, even if the crime/gangster element takesup less than half the film. Character-wise, there could've been alittle more (the gangster sub-plot involving Charlie's brother wasambiguous enough to be of interest, but while well written I wantedmore than just conversation from the guy with hat and the guy with thecap). But, what bit of information isn't given by Truffaut doesn'tdetract much from what succeeds in his film, which is an interestingdilemma for the protagonist Edward, aka Charlie (Charles Aznavour, in aun-forced and cool-like performance), and the style of the film. Thestory is of a famous concert pianist, Edward Suaryon, who gives up theprofession after a tragedy in his life. He settles into a low-key gigat a saloon, where his skills match the atmosphere of the placeremarkably. Enter in his brother Chico (Albert Remy), who's in troublewith some gangsters, and also Lena (the lovely Marie Dubois) who worksas a barmaid. But, thankfully, Truffaut gives his story a boost- itstarts off with him in the bar, not as a concert pianist, so that theflashback does act as something of a catalyst for the rest of the story(and one that includes one of Truffaut's best scenes with his actors).

The highlights of the film, however, come from two portals- the fluid,dark, quasi-documentary style lensing by Raoul Coutard. This ranksamong some of his finest work of the new wave period, as he knew whatTruffaut wanted in his mis-en-scene- the faces and camera sweeps- asmuch as he knew what to do in Godard's early films (although it mightbe somewhat un-fair to compare the two). Then there's the music scoreby Georges Delerue, who's rhythm and craftsmanship almost rivals thefilm itself. From the wonderful numbers he writes for the maincharacter to play, or from the rising, sometimes somber melodies in themore dramatic scenes (and there are quite a few), his work on this filmis nothing less than, well, true. It's true to the nature of thesepeople in this environment, to the talent that is with the maincharacter that he suppresses, and it's a true piece to behold. The filmitself, asks to be watched again, as do Truffaut's other films. Iwouldn't place it as high on a list as 400 Blows or Day for Night, butfor noir fans and those just getting into the new-wave, see it, atleast once.

Charlie, a pianist at a cheap Parisian nightspot, inadvertently getsmixed up with some gangsters who have been double-crossed by hisbrothers. The gangsters also kidnap Lena, a waitress at the club, whois in love with Charlie and knows his secret - he used to be a famousconcert pianist until something terrible happened …

Based on the book Down There by David Goodis, and scripted by Truffautand Marcel Moussy, this is an interesting, fast-paced mix of classicalFrench character drama with a more escapist Hitchcockian plot anddialogue. It doesn’t quite work as a suspense picture although thereare several tense moments, but the characters are fascinating and thereis a terrific sense that Charlie - the only normal person in a galleryof nutcases - is so used to being powerless to change the melodramaaround him that his only answer is to sit down and play the piano. Thecast are good, particularly the three female leads; thestunning-looking Dubois as the femme fatale, Berger as the tragic wifeand Mercier as the happy hooker next door. Featuring ultra-darkphotography by the great Raoul Coutard, and memorable music by GeorgesDelerue. An odd, intriguing movie, where French New Wave meets AmericanFilm Noir. English title - Shoot The Piano Player.

Truffaut’s homage to film noir is bulking with the anarchisticenthusiasm of a dawning great-to-be filmmaker. The result is annoyingat first, until you get the hang of it, but then increasingly livelyand almost screwball-enjoyable. Just don’t expect any serious depthfrom the characters (although the scene where Aznavour’s wife commitssuicide quite grabs you) or the story, that just takes off in quirkydirections and leaves many loose ends that aren’t supposed to bescrutinized.

Also, superb B&W photography from Paris, with a memorable climax in thesnow… and isn’t that pair of gangster thugs just hilarious?!

6/10 from me.

Asks the interviewer, "What place would you give Shoot the Piano Playerin relation to your other films?" Answers director François Truffaut,"No place. Simply the second film I made." Considering his firstfeature film was The Four Hundred Blows and his third was Jules et Jim,Truffaut's matter-of-factness and lack of pretense is worth a smile.

Shoot the Piano Player is worth smiles, too. It's a clever film,playful at times, even funny. More than anything, however, it defiescategorization. The movie is a strange and successful amalgamation ofcrime and comedy, suspense and inevitability, tragedy and love, andgangsters, girl friends and violence. It's the story of Charlie Koller(Charles Aznavour), a piano player in a Paris dive, who used to beEduoard Saroyan, a famous pianist, whose wife committed suicide.Truffaut says the movie is a film about a shy man. Charlie is the kindof shy man who cannot bring himself to touch the hand of a woman hewants. He can't go back and open the door to the room where he left hiswife sobbing. He thinks about what he should do, but can't do it, andthen circumstances take over. Charlie, thanks to his brothers, findshimself in a gangland underworld where double-crossing is going to leadto a shootout in the snow. Some say Shoot the Piano Player is an homageto American gangster films. Perhaps it is, but I challenge anyone tospend much time considering this possibility while watching the movie.The film is original, funny, moving and sad. It's the kind of film thatpeople who love movies write essays about. All I know is that I wasmoved by Charlie. We leave him where we met him, playing piano in aParis dive.

Charles Aznavour, a diminutive man with a hangdog look, plays Charlieperfectly. Aznavour is probably better known in the U. S. as a singer,but in France he's seen as both an actor and a singer. He's aminimalist, he says about himself. Charlie thinks too much and does toolittle. Aznavour lets us see into Charlie's soul with few words. It's amarvelous performance that left me saddened by Charlie, but liking him.

what i enjoyed most about this film was the creative camerawork andediting.My favorites were the triple take of the mans finger going to ring thedoorbell and the insertion of the kidnappers mother dropping dead after heswears on his mother, very funny stuff. overall a good picture withoutstanding use of cinemaography and editing.

Truffauts fast-packed and fresh romantic thriller has more STYLE then anyother film I have ever seen.It´s about:When his gangster brother begs himfor help, a former concert pianist(Tottaly fantastic played by CharlesAznavour) heads down a precarious path of murder, intrigue andpassion.

The acting by Aznavour is fantastic as the pionist Charlie.Still I must say is a little to twisted that I should give

it a 5 stars but if I will see it again I will maybe give it5stars but untill then I give it a strong four.

Rating: 4+ out of 4

François Truffaut is often considered to be one of the finest Frenchdirectors of cinema as he along with Godard and Chabrol are creditedwith French New Wave. Shoot the Piano Player is arguably one of hisfinest works. There are two basic ways to approach Truffaut'scinema—his choice of subjects and the way he dealt with those subjects.

Truffaut had a gift for spotting interesting literature in pulpfiction—that too from distant lands—and turning them into remarkableworks
of cinema. Shoot the Piano Player was based on an American novelcalled "Down There" by David Goodis. (Others include Cornell Woolrich'snovels that were the basis of the Truffaut films Mississippi Mermaidand The Bride wore Black and another of Ray Bradbury that metamorphosedinto the Truffaut film Fahrenheit 451). This gift of spotting gems frompulp fiction actually helped the struggling authors. After the successof the film Shoot the Piano Player, the noir fiction writer's book"Down There" was republished as Shoot the Piano Player, a rare exampleof how cinema affects literature in a positive way.

Truffaut grew up relishing Hollywood noir films of the Forties andFifties—films in black and white, cigarette smoking heroes with darkpersonal histories, with a penchant for wry humor often winning theirpersonal wars at the end of the film. Truffaut transposed theingredients of American noir film into a French setting in Shoot thePiano Player. The dour-faced Charles Aznavour replaced the typicalcigarette smoking, tough-talking Humphrey Bogart of the Hollywood withgoons ("heavies"), brawls, deaths, investigating cops and lonelygood-looking women thrown in good measure to spice-up the viewer'sappetite.

What did Truffaut find attractive in Goodis' work? The wonderful linefrom Goodis' novel "What you did yesterday stays with you today"essentially captures the essence of many Truffaut films (right up tohis later films such as The Woman Next Door). Truffaut was probablyattracted to the theme of loyalty that pervades the Goodis story:loyalty to one's family (the four odd brothers sticking together),loyalty to wife/husband in true love, and loyalty to the café even whenowners and colleagues change. There is nothing American or French aboutit—it is universal. My guess is that Truffaut found the sudden rise anddownfall of an individual at the peak of success that the Greeks called"hubris" appealing. Goodis provided Truffaut with three types of women:one that would go to any extent to prove her love for her husband(Therese), one that would seek out the ideal mate for her with aresolute purpose (Lena), and finally one sees a mate that providesfriendship, physical and moral (Clarisse). After spotting theinteresting story, Truffaut the director paints the story with humorand pathos. When a goon says a blatant lie and swears on his mother'slife that it is true—the quaint Truffaut, with typical French humor,shows his mother collapsing and dying, even though the woman has norole to speak of in the story. When a bad café owner, Plynie, isdiscussed in conversation, three separate telescopic images of thecharacter are shown simultaneously. Finally Plynie correctly surmisesthat the piano playing hero Charlie is "scared", the hero is initiallystumped, reflects on the charge and then admits "I am scared."

The film's contribution from Truffaut and cameraman Raoul Coutardcannot be downplayed. The camera zooming in on Charlie's attempts tohold the hands of Lena provides humor and a moving intimacy with acharacter that few directors have achieved. Finally the closing shot ofthe piano player playing the instrument staring at the camera,underlines the signature of Truffaut analyzing characters in his filmdispassionately (He repeats this again as the closing shot of his laterfilm The Story of Adele H). Truffaut and Coutard achieve a raretechnique, inviting the viewer to analyze characters during the film'srun time. The silent gaze of Charlie partly hidden sitting behind asmall piano at the camera captures the essence of the entire film,"What you did yesterday stays with you today." The tortoise hides inhis shell. Here the shell is the piano. Even a talented and good personis caged by external circumstances, basically because he is scared offacing a larger reality.

Many consider the film to be near flawless cinema, but here's a filmwhere a windshield of a car splashed by milk becomes sparkling clean afew moments later defying logic! Many critics consider Shoot the PianoPlayer to be basically Truffaut's work but it is truly a product of agreat team—Truffaut, Goodis, Coutard and Aznavour, each contributing tothe film's appeal. For me, The Story of Adele H. is definitelyTruffaut's most powerful work.

While playing piano in a bar, the pianist Charlie Kohler (CharlesAznavour) is approached by his crook brother Chico Saroyan (AlbertRémy), who has been chased by two gangsters. Charlie helps him toescape, but he upsets the two criminals, and they watch Charlie and thewaitress Lena (Marie Dubois), who is in love with him. The shy Cahrlietells his past to Lena, when he was the former famous pianist EdouardSaroyan, and he quited his successful career after the suicide of hiswife, the also waitress Thérèse Saroyan (Nicole Berger). When hisbrother Fido Saroyan (Richard Kanayan), who is raised by Charlie, iskidnapped by the gangsters, Charlie has to take an attitude with tragicconsequences.

The film-noir "Tirez Sur le Pianiste" is a weird movie about a timidman that has difficulties to express and have the correct timing withthe words. He seems to communicate only through the piano keys playingmusic, causing the death of his beloved wife and girlfriend for notsaying the right words in the right time. The story is original, and itis difficult to label a genre for this movie: is it a film-noir, adrama, a romance, a thriller, a dark comedy? I believe all the answersare correct. The result is an enjoyable movie, mostly recommended forfans of Truffault. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Atirem no Pianista" ("Shoot the Piano Player")

Francois Truffaut was known for his shyness; he was crippled by it.Journalists have expressed that in commentaries on interviews they havehad with him. The main character of the film can be described the sameway. Charlie or Edouared both are shy and sometimes say the wrongthing, like maybe Truffuat; but whats really autobiographical about thefilm are the characters occupation. A piano player. Truffaut may haveplayed piano, but not professionally, but still he is an artist and soin a way the film can be described as an essay on art. I kinda feellike Charlie writing this. A man who is troubled and has many faults,but can forget about that once he gets behind a piano; or expresssomething artistically. But sometimes the characters get bottled upinside a piano because there faults and troubles become worsened andtheir personal life falters completely. Truffaut try's to make thisobvious when the first shot is the innards of a piano this is Charliebottled up and the only way he can express himself is through acarnival piano. And Charlie is rescued from there by Thérèse Saroyan.Thérèse takes him on adventures where he can't play the piano whenecstasy approaches. It's no coincidence that in Martin Scorsese's MeanStreets the main character Charlie is caught up in alcohol and thecharacters around him that he is supposed to be like and then is savedby a girl named Thérèse. Although it was a very famous story evenbefore the film was released.

So I'm not going to go into detail with the story, except say most ofthe film is an homage to American cinema and is very French new wave. Iwill say this, the closing shot is again a close-up shot of a piano butit fades out to another close-up of Charlies face this shows himbreaking away from the piano. Thérèse has saved him. The soundtrack isprobably one of my favorites; it is low-key a piano, but very angelicmuch like Charlie, much like Truffaut.

I read mixed reviews about this film - some interesting elements but itdoesn't work completely as a whole. Having seen it recently, I wouldtend to agree with these comments. Shoot the Piano Player is about afamous piano player who falls in love with and loses two wo
men who carefor him. After the death of the first, his wife, he changes his nameand becomes a piano player in an obscure bar where he meets the secondlove of his life, a waitress. There are some sub-plots regarding hiscriminal brothers, the kidnapping of his son and the bar-owner alsofalling for the same waitress.

There are very interesting individual scenes - interesting, notbrilliant. On the whole, the film is a mish-mash of ideas and plots,all told very confusingly. Even if the narration had been morecoherent, another problem is the visual look. There are noir themes inthe narrative, but the visual style is in no way reminiscent of thosefilms. It is more rooted in realism but has the visual look of a TVfilm.

I don't know! I'm still confused by this film…

read comments (0)

The Alamo

The terrific bloody climax at the end, can’t save this OVERLY long filmfromputting one to sleep. There is conversations of the joy of a child’sbirthday; the existence of God; arguments over who is in charge; but verylittle explanation on the history of The Alamo. The film is about an hourand half too long — which makes this film a task to watch. LaurenceHarvey, as usual, is wonderful.

I am amazed at some earlier comments about historical accuracy. Iunderstand that the true story would not be as appealing to movie-goingaudiences, but it still makes it difficult to watch.

WARNING! Possible Spoilers!

Cases in point: Attack took place during pre-dawn hours. Travis waskilledby one of the first volleys in final attack. Bowie was in the infirmarythewhole time (cannot recall why). Crockett probably was run down by lancerswhile making a futile run for it, not while fighting galiantly to the end.Etc, etc.

It was not just these creative liberties that were taken that make this aaverage movie at best. Crocket’s ‘Republic’ speach almost made me retch.

I remember watching this film with a Alamo aniversery. After all itsyearsthe film still is interesting, but the acting is cheesie. The endingsavesthis film, I like the big fire fight with the Mexicans. The slaves, andwomen where left to tell the tale. Watch it late night when you can notsleep. 6/10

Other than a grand musical score by Dimitri Tiomkin, 1960’s "The Alamo"was a major disappointment.

John Wayne directed this film and I was not overly thrilled with hisportrait of Davy Crockett. A far better performance was done by FessParker on the television series.

It is rumored that Wayne demanded that Chill Wills be nominated forbest supporting actor in this film. His performance was not exactlygreat and I am certainly not surprised that he lost the coveted Oscarthat year.

Yes, we all remember the tragedy of The Alamo. Yet, this film may verywell have been overly violent for its time.

Absolutely one of the most mind-boggling big-budget mish-mashes ever putonfilm. John Wayne (star, producer, director) was obviously too close tothesubject and failed to recognize the dreadful script for what it was.Secondunit action stuff is very good, and Lawrence Harvey’s performance is astandout, given what he had to work with. Frankly the "FeatherBlowing","Blind Nell/Jocko " and "Birthday Party" sequences are as bad as anythingever put on celluloid. It is an absolute embarrassment to watch them.Richard Widmark couldn’t be worst cast as Jim Bowie. It’s really the partWayne should have taken, as his David Crockett is about as far from therealarticle as can be imagined. Still, the damn thing does have itscompellingbits and pieces….sort of like watching a train wreck. I’ve probablyseenit at least a dozen times and will most likely watch it again. At leastDimitri Tiomkin’s powerful score helps out somewhat.

John Wayne was under enormous pressure to do this film. And it was anact of love. But what a large undertaking for a 1st time director; evenone with all those years of experience acting on film sets with greatdirectors like, John Ford, William Wellman and Howard Hawks to name afew.

You can see how Wayne was so especially influenced by John Ford's useof the sprawling size of nature in relation to men. Much of the film issimilar to the John Ford style, but it is a mere glimmer of how greatthe film might have been if the master himself had taken it on. ManyJohn Ford acting veterans are also in this film like Ken Curtis(Dickenson) and Hank Worden (Parson).

There is way too much time spent in the preliminaries with unnecessaryplot lines (over 90 minutes) such as Davy Crockette's fictional loveaffair with a beautiful Mexican woman. The movie plods it's way throughto the climactic battle where the action picks up but never quite livesup to the greatness of the true story. I'll take the Fess Parkerversion over this even though it too takes the mythological path oflionizing these great characters, but does so in a more entertainingway. I also prefer by far the more recent version by John Lee Hancock.It is superior in every way: the screenplay, historically,cinematically and the acting is more engaging– not as stiff.

Richard Widmark is, as always, great as Jim Bowie. Laurence Harvey isalso very good as Travis. Both doing their best to bring life to thestiff dialog. The Duke himself is fun to watch as Crockett, a role hedid not want to play, but was forced to by the studio as they thoughtthe film needed Duke in a star role to ensure it's success. It was toJohn Wayne's credit that he wanted to concentrate on directing andproducing. You can see he is a bit more stiff than usual. Perhaps theDuke had way too much pressure on him.

The always excellent and underrated Richard Boone brings weight anddepth to a small role as Sam Houston. Chill Wills provides color andcomic relief in a role that made and later hurt his career due to hispre-Oscar shenanigans.

This film was nominated for Best Picture while a far better filmSpartacus was totally ignored. What a shame.

Were it not for the great cast, this movie would have really flopped.But as a late-night or rainy day film, once in a while it is fun towatch.

"The Alamo" is a prime example of overkill, something very common with epicsof the 1960s. John Wayne’s all-over-the-map direction and a slow-movingscreenplay keep the film from ever hitting its stride. The film is aboutthe mostly true story of the Mexican siege on the titled mission/fort in1836. A few hundred (perhaps) Texans fought valiantly to get theirindependence from the Mexicans and Santa Anna. However, it would be SanJacinto that would prove to be the Texans’ imperative victory later on. John Wayne’s obsession created the film and unfortunately kept the film fromtaking off. His shortcomings as a director proved to make the film go overbudget. He was going for a spectacle on the level of "Gone With the Wind"or "Giant", but was unable to reach those heights. The attentions tospectacle led to a lack of a suitable story-line and some very suspectperformances all the way around. John Wayne is only above-average here. Laurence Harvey never does feel right in this film. Richard Widmark is thebest, but that is not really saying much. Great character-actor Chill Willsreceived a curious Oscar-nomination in this film, this was one of his lesserperformances. In the end the film went way over budget, being the mostexpensive film ever made up to that time and John Ford had to come in and domost of the work that John Wayne was incapable of doing from the director’schair. At the box office the film was a bust, but did receive seven Oscarnominations (including Best Picture). It won only one. The film has notaged well either, it is probably less impressive now than it was 40 yearsago. In short, "The Alamo" is a could-have-been film that has never been. 4 stars out of 5.

This portrayal of the Alamo, if you are looking for an historical versiondid not fit the bill. There is a scene where James Butler Bonner comesriding in after the first attack to report that the army under James Fanninwas slaughtered. That did not happen until three weeks after the Alamo fell.In the same scene it is reported that the force lost a third of their men.They did not lose a man until the final battle. Another case concerns theinjury to James Bowie (Richard Widmark.) Bowie bell off the wall placing acannon, he wasn’t wounded in the final assault. As far as the set goes it was great, but the cast mostly made up of men inmany other of John Wayne movies it just seemed like same song, second verse.There were times that I wondered if John Wayne was playing Davy Crockett orDavy Crockett was playing John Wayne. Entertain
ing yes, a history lesson no. I am surprised the movie was notbanned in Texas.

Okay, so it is not terribly accurate historically. Most of the dialogueis corny and preachy. But the film has some very impressivemoments.the scene where the Mexican women are looking for their husbands andsons among the mexican soldiers killed in the first assault while theTexanswatch.The way Santa Anna is portrayed with galantry by giving safe passage tothe women abd children before the final battle, and saluting Mrs Dickensonas she leaves the alamo.And the final battle scene is still awesome.The acting isnt all that bad, ok frankie should have stayed on thebeachwith annette, i’ll give you that one.

and why does Bowie sound like a butchered goose when hedies?Try and find the restored and letterboxed addition.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

The 1960 film version of "The Alamo" featuring John Wayne is a greatadaptation of an overlooked part of American history (but it isn’t exactly100% accurate). John Wayne will always be Davy Crockett in my mind (BillyBob Thorton wasn’t bad, though).

Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Travis lead a team of rag-tag soldiersagainst a well-trained, well-disciplined, and well-armed Mexican fightingforce to protect the Alamo, a Texas mission and the state of Texasitself.

The ending had me scratching my head. It was totally different than that ofJohn Lee Hancock’s version, which made Texas out to be victorious whereasthe 1960 version shows Texans as, I put it, "honorable losers." Still, it’sworth a look. The DVD needs more features, though.

read comments (0)

Jungfrukällan

I’m sure that the version of this film that I have seen has been cut. Ican’t quite tell what happens to the young boy. I think he is killed butitis unclear from the version that I have seen - which leads me to suspectthat the killing of a child has been cut from UK versions.

This does affect my understanding of the film. If Max von Sydow’scharacteris disturbed enough to slaughter a small boy in the heat of the moment -then this is integral to this fantastic story.View a non-UK version if you can.

With the Yankee postman who always rings twice, that is. Well, makethis the seventh out of eight who absolutely AGREED with the postman'sreactions and sensibilities. As one who almost always, despitefascination with the likes of "The Magician" for one, found Bergmanrelatively "bloodless" and "distant," as in drily observant, or overly"thoughtful" and insufficiently visceral, this is one Bergman film thatbelies the generalization. I've also never seen, yet that is, his is it"Nicholas and Alexandra"? that is reportedly warm and immediate, as in"life" and "living," But "Virgin Spring" will spring eternal in thismemory as a film for all time and all climes. Make that a 10, please.

The film that made Ingmar Bergman here in America. It's based on a 14thcentury Swedish legend. It's about beautiful and virginal Karin who israped and killed by three brothers while crossing a forest to delivercandles to a church. Pregnant bitter Ingeri sees it. The three brothersend up spending the night at Karins' parents house. The parentsdiscover that these three men killed their daughter…

I'm not a big fan of Bergman's films. I've only seen "Smiles of aSummer Night" (which I liked) and "The Seventh Seal" (which bored me).This one I did like–but I can't say I enjoyed it. It's very bleak,stark, strange and depressing. All the acting is great (the parentsgrief is hard to watch) and it's beautifully done–but it was not apleasure to watch.

What the point of all this is is beyond me–it seems to have somethingto do with faith in God. I personally think it was Bergman's take on aSwedish fairy tale. A very adult and depressing take though. Also therape and murder are done as tastefully as possible.

Remade years later in 1972 as the sick horror film "Last House on theLeft".

This is the first film from director Ingmar Bergman that I have seen(Persona may well be the next), and I’ve waited a good three weeks betweenviewings to let the film fully sink in. Not being too familiar with thedirector’s other works, I’m not entirely sure if everything in his films issupposed to be understood, if this is the case then good, because there isstill a lot in the film that I really haven’t grasped. The film is highlyimpressive; possessing one of the coldest and quietest atmospheres I haveseen this side of Kubrick. From the long takes of the opening, as thepregnant girl goes about her chores, to Von Sydow’s amazing display of angerat the end of the film. For me this is basically a morality tale, looking atthe family bond, justice and revenge.

The rape scene was tame in comparison to today’s films, but it’s the effectthe act has on the parents of the girl at the end that gives the act it’sself the feeling of pure evil. Weather or not Bergman was trying to saysomething about the death of purity amongst modern, decadent society isunclear, like I said the film just was far too complex emotionally for me toreally have a true idea. I’m not entirely sure if I really like the film ornot. However The Virgin Spring is essential viewing for anyone interested infilms and the art of film making, read into it what you will, you may loveit or hate it, but the fact is that you’ll be thinking about some of theimages the film contains for days.

See this film if only for Max Von Sydow felling a tree with his barehands!He is so awesome to watch as he prepares to dispatch the ruffians whom heishosting (see other reviews for details). The spa scene holds the viewersuspended on many levels. The quiet rage of Von Sydow, the ritualcleansingand preparation, the servitude of the GUILTY HALF-SISTER! WOW! This filmnever fails to stirr the emotions, you cannot walk away unaffected. Thebeauty culminates in what could only be deemed a miracle, as the eponymousspring pours forth. We watch and are present for it, the water apparentlyearthly, brought forth by God in the face of Von Sydows grief and despair.The ending is so intimate as to make the viewer feel unworthy of havingwitnessed it. A beautiful film.

If anyone wants to see a good film, Junfrukallan of the director IngmarBergman is recommended. Then young Max Von Sydow acted in the film as chiefof a feudal Swedish family. His well-educated and beautiful daughter decidedto travel to see some relatives when she is caught by a group of miserablemen, who in addition of eating all what she generously gave them, violatedher killing her after. The low poor men took all her belongings and wentaround selling them. One of the visited house was the one of her family, hisfather immediately noticed that all were her items and simply discoveredthat she was violently killed. The final scenes showed Sydow preparinghimself for a fight against the miserable and fight by itself. All hate youmay feel against the miserable is poured in the violent and realistic end ofthe film.

Story about absence of God and ambiguous suffering. About death like aritual and refuge. About fall of hope and about sentiments as paganshadows.

Mixture between Scandinavian myth and Greek tragedy. Inocence andcruelty, fear and expectation, signs and paternal power, force and menlike dice of a Deus otiosus.

Same fog of existence, same mute cry and cold gestures.

Plagues of a time and mud of feelings. Some Kafkaesque scenes, decentbrutality, fragments of Romanian " Mioritza" and the image of pray likesign of soul winter.

A Bergman film: a single message, same atmosphere and absurd traces oflost golden age.

Ingmar Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring (Jungfrukällan) is,despite its winning the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in1961, one of his lesser outings. Part of this is, no doubt, due to thefact that the bulk of the film was not written by Bergman, but bynovelist Ulla Isaksson, who based her thin script upon a medievalballad called Töre's Daughter At Vänge. The title of the film is adouble entendre which refers to the chaste lead character's outingduring the springtime, and a rivulet of water that emerges from whereher corpse is eventually found by her family after she is raped andmurdered. Compared to the films which preceded it, it lacks theemotional heft of The Seventh Seal or Wild Strawberries, and comparedto the films that followed it, it lacks the filmic daring of Persona orA Passion. It is an odd film in the Bergman canon, and ranks with CriesAnd Whispers and The Serpent's Egg as one of the few filmicmediocrities the director ever crafted. Its characters are wooden,almost unintendedly comic, their motivations and reactions are whollystilted and artificial, and the symbolism is often heavyhanded.Fortunately, it's only an hour and a half in length. It's little wonderthat only a dozen or so years later horror filmmaker Wes Craven (andSean Cunningham) would launch his forgettable career with a filmheavily influenced by, if not flat out based upon, it, called LastHouse On The Left…. Yet, the reason why this film fails to live up tothe high standards of most Bergman films- although, by contrast, it'sstill worlds better than 99.9% of the Hollywood crap churned out today,all boils down to that most important, yet overlooked, reason why allfilms fail or succeed, and that's because,
despite being a visualmedium, a film must be well written, with well developed characters anda scenario that can emotionally affect a viewer, be that in thearchetypal or realistic vein, to succeed artistically. This film nevergets off the stylistic fence and decides whether it is a realistic filmnor a symbolic allegory. Thus it fails on both scores, and the bulk ofthe blame for that can be laid upon the pro-Christian leaning script ofthe novelist Ulla Isaksson, who wrote an earlier Bergman film, So CloseTo Life, a few years before. While there is no comparing Wes Craven's1972 filmic spin on this theme, Last House On The Left, in anycinematic nor artistic terms to The Virgin Spring, in one odd way,Craven's later film does seem more relevant, for it never attempts tofind reasons for, nor make sense of, its anomic violence, thus itcannot fail, on that level. Bergman's film asks the big questions, andwhen its own silence bellows forth no answers, its hollowness only tooeasily engulfs its own inquisitions, which displays flaws the lesserfilm could only dream to be vilified for.

This is a pretty straightforward story of violence, revenge , regret, and(presumably) redemption. The characters aren’t very deep, the plot islinearand predictable, and I honestly didn’t care much for the virginal victim.(Perhaps that was part of the point, that the audience, like Inge, wouldsecretly be hoping for something bad to happen to her, and we share in herguilt when it does). But even if that’s so, this movie (for me) doesn’triseto the heights to which some people have raised it.I will watch it again, though, and try to see some of the underlyingmeanings that have been espoused by some reviewers. But for now, TheSeventhSeal stands head and shoulders above The Virgin Spring, at least forme.

Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring takes place in merry (ironic I mean)old medieval times, with a farmer (Max Von Sydow, the most dependableof Bergman's male actors) and his deeply religious and fearful-of-godfamily, and tells of his daughter who goes riding to a church one day,is stopped by a couple of miscreants and their child, defile and slayher, and then pay a visit to the farmer's land. Like most Bergmanfilms, it keeps Christianity held tightly in the backdrop, and puts aneerie light on a dark, haunting tale of death and revenge. Nothing hehasn't explored in his other works, but still a worthy accomplishment;this later inspired Wes Craven's debut Last House on the Left, a moregruesome and lessor work when compared to the story telling and emotionprojected here. Worth to look for on DVD as well with perfectlyrestored picture to some of the magnificent camera angles (one inparticular is talked about by Ang Lee).

read comments (0)

Peeping Tom

Made about the same time as "Psycho" this film is no where near asabsorbing. Both films have in common a central character who is apsychopath (the result of a strange parental upbringing).

Mark Lewis (Karlheinz Bohm) is a shy, somewhat nondescriptphotographer, a loner who communicates with his camera and kills with abayonet type leg fitted to his tripod. He seems to have a dislike forredheads whom he "rapes" with his erect tripod blade and photographsthem as they scream for mercy. What a sick guy is this one! There is noquestion about "who dunnit"; there is no mystery or red herrings toconfuse. There are no complicated side issues. Simply lure the girl toa secluded spot, a quick thrust and get a never-to-be-seen-before-horror movie of the tragic incident.

Despite the savage mutilation there is no gore, no bloody bodies. Thetension is built up solely through the expressions on the actors’faces.This is where the film breaks down. I don’t think the actors werecapable of maintaining the horrific atmosphere.

I was not moved by this earliest of "snuff" movies. The wholepresentation had a theatrical feel about it. The redheads annoyed meand showed little sense in attaching themselves to such a creep as MarkLewis.

Cameraman Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm) works at a film studio and does nudephotos of women on the side. He also kills women–he stabs them in thethroat with a knife while filming their dying reactions. It seems hedoes this because his father (Michael Powell) emotionally abused him asa child. Then he meets and starts to fall in love with neighbor HelenStephens (Anne Massey) but can he control his urges to kill her? Thisfilm was considered a disgusting piece of trash back in 1960. It singlehandedly destroyed director Michael Powell’s career. It was withdrawnfrom circulation almost immediately. It didn’t show up in America untiltwo years later with about 15 minutes cut out! It wasn’t shown orrestored until 1980 when director Martin Scorsese started an interestin director Powell. In 1980 it was considered a masterpiece. It’s notTHAT good but it’s not that bad either.

I didn’t see it until 1986 on video. I wasn’t impressed–I was boredand couldn’t figure out what the big deal was. I now realize that thefilm couldn’t possibly live up to the hype about it. Seeing it now (in2005) with all the furor about it long gone, I like it a lot more. Iwasn’t bored this time around. It’s easy to see why this shocked peoplein 1960–there’s nothing really explicit about it but the horribleexperiments a doctor performs on his own son (he filmed them) and basictheme was way too strong–it was years ahead of its time. Today it’snot quite as shocking and the blatantly obvious sexual symbolism (shownagain and again) seems kind of silly. But, for its time, it was strongstuff. I think so many people today find it boring because they wereexpecting a strong, explicit horror film which this isn’t (with theexception of one none of the killings are shown).

The acting helps–Carl Boehm (a German actor) ALMOST covers his accent(it slips through a few times) but delivers a very good, well-doneperformance–you can really see how his abuse as a child makes him dowhat he does. Massey is young and pretty good as Helen. She sometimesunderplays the role a bit but most of the time she’s right on target(especially at the end). Also Maxine Audley throws in a strongperformance as her mother. Beautifully directed by Powell too.

So it is worth seeing–just don’t expect something reallyshocking–you’ll be disappointed. It’s good that Powell lived to seethis film get the acclaim it deserved (he died in 1990). Onething–this is NOT for children. It will either bore them or shockthem. I give it An 8.

Nowadays,the serial killer genre has become part of the movie landscape.Withnotable exceptions ,like "silence of the lambs",it has not improved thatmuch."Peeping Tom"contains the seeds of almost everything that will bedeveloped after in that kind of thriller.First shock:the main actor is agood-looking guy,he was Francis Joseph in the "Sissi " saga (inAmerica:"Forever,my love") ,a mushy "historical" soap opera.So the public(especially the European one where "Sissi "is an all-time blockbuster))could hardly stand their handsome emperor turned into some kind of psychoticmonster;hence the relative commercial failure of the movie which became asleeper,retaining a large cult among cinema enthusiasts.THis character is a cousin of that of Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang ’smasterpiece M.Both are mentally hill,both are enduring appallingsufferings,both can’t help but killing.The neighbor’s birthday is a verysignificant scene:our hero would like to join the party,and the smile onBoehm’s face when he’s given a slice of cake is not contrived.Peeping Tom’s murders are horrible,and filmed with a virtuosity to rival thebest of Hitchcock,but who’s responsible?The flashbacks,concerning the hero’srelations with his father are almost unbearable:how can a dad treat his sonlike that?how can a young man leave a "normal life" after such a sadisticeducation?But ,we hear,why did the father behave like that?Maybe,in hischildhood ,himself was…We’ve got to stop wondering why,and praise Powell’s mastery of thecinematographic art.

I have been of two minds about Michael Powell, ever since I discoveredthat I couldn't understand how "The Red Shoes" would make any littlegirl want to be a ballerina–any more than I have never been able tofigure out how "The Little Prince" or "The Velveteen Rabbit" could beliked by anyone under 30.

Having just watched "Colonel Blimp" and "Black Narcissus," both ofwhich are certifiable masterpieces, I think that"Peeping Tom" obviouslyshows the want of a Pressburger to make it a viable product. It's justplain bad. Bad cinematography, bad acting, bad screenplay, bad choiceof material. Were this the film by which Powell is judged, he would becompared to Ed Wood. I know Martin Scorsese likes this movie, but forthe life of me I can't figure out why.

I understand that this film has been compared to "Psycho." Can't figurethat one out, either.

"Peeping Tom" does bear comparison to a Hitchcock film, however:"Frenzy," the only one of Hitch's films whose trailer is better thanthe movie, and the only one in which Hitch resorted to cheap effects,including the choice of a bad musical score, gratuitous nudity, andthat ludicrous shot of Barbara Leigh-Hunt's "corpse." Powell doesn'tquite go that far, simply showing the "protagonist," Mark Lewis, playedby Carl Boehm, unsheathing his hidden tripod spike to stab his victimsin the throat. Powell used a stag film star as one of the victims,which I guess was kind of louche, and therefore attractive to some.

The overall cheapness of the project, despite the use of Anna Masseyand Moira Shearer, contributes to the overall tawdriness of "PeepingTom." While I certainly number some low- budget masterpieces among myfavorites, it's obvious that Powell took some awful short- cuts inmaking this one, and never asked his actors to provide anything likeacting.

The plot of "Peeping Tom" is outlined elsewhere on this web page, and Idon't feel it necessary to duplicate the efforts of others. I wouldlike to see some of the later Powell efforts, especially "Age ofConsent" and the two Pressburger collaborations in Australia from the1970's, but I think none of these probably rises to the heights Powelland Pressburger reached in the 40's and 50's.

There's some great Powell out there; however, undiscriminating praiseof his art does him no favor. If Criterion is going to bother torelease "Peeping Tom," I think it might behoove them to release some ofAnthony Asquith's previously unreleased (A
t lease in America) films,like "The Way to the Stars."

Spoilers herein.

I am writing a book about films about films. After that, I’d like to do oneon redheads in film (and how they season our notions of sex roles). Thisfilm will feature prominently in both; it is a very important event. Too badit is not good or effective.

The self-reference is plain at the first level: it is a film about the filmcommunity, a (documentary) film about the making of a documentary. But itgoes deeper: the reason for the filmmaker’s obsession was because he wasfilmed himself; the reason for the victim’s fear is that they saw themselvesbeing filmed. Film as death. Pictures as sex. The camera as bothself-revealer, sexual penetrator and weapon. Even the setup in thefilm-within has doubling: the standin is the one targeted. The girlfriend isa writer. The filmmaker is a `focus-puller’ which is a matter of determiningwhat layer is clear.

So what’s wrong? The primary problem is that filmmaker needs to beextraordinarily intelligent. Kubrick can and has done this. Soderberghmaybe. Tarkovsky surely. Powell just isn’t up to it. But there are deeperproblems that keep this from greatness.

The business about Freud. He is used as token for the way the world of themind works. In fact, Freud was more a compelling storyteller than ascientist. His theories had more to do with `making sense’ in narrative thanwith developing new laws. Using a storyteller as the clockmaker for thestory you are telling would have been a newly sweet and deep level of theself-reference, but Powell seems to have taken Freud quite seriously. Mighthave worked 40 years ago. Surely doesn’t now.

But there is another problem. The British acting tradition is one ofstepping into the character and representing the direct elements needed tomove the story along. There’s none of this North American conceit of`becoming’ the character and giving both the character and the actor’s`interpretation’ of the character. That means that American actors have thebasic capability to play multiple levels (usually irony) and British actorsdo not. It really hurts here, and my own opinion is that this attempt waswhat `blacklisted’ Powell after this film. He was messing with aself-interested tradition that simply squashed him.

The redhead thing really interests me. Obviously, there’s something going onhere: the actress and her standin; the girlfriend and her mother; thescarred model and the photographer himself are all redheads. My own theoryis that redheads play roles that are more knowing than blonds andparticularly so in just this type of cinematic self-reference. It surelyholds here. I can’t quite reconcile that with Massey’s ridiculous chirp inreading the lines and have to suppose (from Babs in `Frenzy’) that it isjust an artifact of some quaint British convention.

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

To be sure, ‘Peeping Tom’ has some very good ideas in it–so good, infact, that I’m amazed that Hollywood, in it’s zeal to put every form ofserial killer and their acts on the screen two or three times over,hasn’t done an update of the film. Powell was clearly influenced byHitchcock’s themes (someone actually discusses scopophilia–herepronounced ’scoptophilia’–in ‘Peeping Tom’ instead of simply depictingit) and style. Unfortunately, the overall production is just not up tothe task. The plot is a little too heavy-handed and literal at times,the characters somewhat cartoonish, and the pacing leaden.

Really, the biggest flaw with the film is the casting of Carl Boehm inthe roll of Mark. Looking somewhat like the offspring of Joseph Cottonand Peter Lorre in one of ‘Late Night with Conan O’Brien’s ‘If TheyMated’ routines, Boehm plays crazy all right. That the problem, though:That’s *all* he does. At no point did I believe that Mark is capable ofholding down not one but two jobs. Perhaps the British standards ofcreeping out your fellow employees is different from ours here in theStates, but the first time Mark locked eyes on me while mumbling inthat high, lispy, vaguely accented voice of his, I’d be on the phonewith Human Resources like that.

What makes Norman Bates such a compelling character is that he doeshave the ability to function in society from time to time. He can becharming, friendly, and even funny when he wants to be. Mark, however,is incapable of any of these qualities. His timidity is so pronouncedthat it’s hard to believe he could ever screw up the courage toactually kill someone because that would require human interaction. Andthe idea that anyone–even someone as apparently oblivious as or withthe appallingly low standards of Helen–could actually fall in lovewith someone Mark is hard to accept. Marion definitely sympathizes withNorman, but it is a pitying sort of sympathy. She senses there’ssomething not quite right about Norman, and because of that at no pointcan she ever feel a romantic attraction toward him. Norman isirreversibly deranged and without hope. ‘Peeping Tom,’ on the otherhand, seems to suggest that Mark *can* lead a normal life and perhapseven have a girlfriend if he just stops his habit of killing women.

….says Anna Massey halfway through the film, and she's not wrong -with that ever so posh hot-potato-in-mouth affected English accent, youjust wish you could slap her aerodynamic face and send her off toaudition for other, better films. Thank god people don't speak likethat anymore. It's not the poor girl's fault, though - anyone who putsthis rubbish in the same brackets with "Psycho" must be as blind as herwhiskey gulping mother downstairs. With his bawdy lips and perfectlyparted hair, Boehm looks more like someone loitering in public toiletsthan a serial killer "with a soul" whom we're supposed to feel for(this apparently being the spin regarding the serial killer issue,cause, you see, Boehm's character suffered childhood abuse by hisscientist father who was obviously a nutter). So it's not Boehm's faulteither. At one point, when his character seems fascinated by one of thegirls' disfigured face, you almost think, in disbelief, that the filmis about to go down the path of "The Spiral Staircase" - anotherlukewarm horror/thriller which at least has some redeeming qualities.Well, mercifully it doesn't go that way, but that's hardly a plus -this is as horrific as a meowing cat and as thrilling as a wind in thetoilet bowl. The piano solo score sounds like it was composed by theleast talented student in Ravel's class, the one taken on board out ofsheer pity. I haven't seen any of Michael Powell's preceding,apparently acclaimed films - nor have I any desire to do so afterviewing this spineless lemonade. No small wonder everyone hated it -not because it's a misunderstood masterpiece ahead of its time, butbecause it's utterly and terminally bad, equally as bad today as it wasin 1960. True, the first two or three minutes of the film seem vaguelypromising - but then every film is good at the beginning, it's how itcarries on that counts. Hitchcock must have laughed out aloud - ifindeed he ever wasted time viewing this - and in his hands this filmmight actually have worked, subject to him agreeing to direct such anawful, awful script. View if you're particularly compelled to - there'sa cute little portable reel to reel tape recorder to be seen next toMoira Shearer, earning the two stars given - otherwise steer wellclear.

I didn’t think "Peeping Tom" was all that great. It was maybe a decentB-movie but it is rather dated. In its time it may have been a shockerbutnow I found it hard not to fast forward through some of the maudlinscenes.It is way overrated but may have some interest for filmstudents.

After a lifetime of lavish but eccentric movies, Michael Powell seeminglyventures into slasher territory with this 1960 movie. However once youfinish seeing it,
chances are you will dump it as one more of dad’sgeneration’s "Things were so much better in my time …" legacy & tell himhow much serial killing techniques has moved on since then. But again, youmight be one of those who are interested in the slasher’s psyche/ a filmmaker’s ‘existential dilemmas’ / a director’s journey into darkness & light.If you are one of those film historian types, you will lap up every one ofthe 80-odd minutes Powell finally succeeded in pitting onscreen.

Carl Boehm, as normal as they come except for dark shadows in his eyes & apropensity to drive a stake thru the heart of beautiful women, is a focuspuller. At night he emerges out of the anonymity of his studio life & filmshis own movie. As he explains to a sweet little girl next door, the type whodon’t know what’s good for them but still manage to live in the end, hewants to know about fear. (This part reminds me of the ‘Asterix & theNormans’ comic book) All this is a result of some guinea pigging by Carl’sfather (the Director in a cameo - is there a message here?) when Carl wasbut a wee boy. Now why does Carl have to prey upon women for his’experiments’? Is it because they scare easier, they are more used tolooking at themselves, & usually do not fight back? A segment where MoiraShearer as a soon-to-be-butchered extra pirouetting in front of Carl willremind Powell fans of the same Shearer doing the same routine in front of aobsessed ballet director Anton Walbrook in ‘The Red Shoes’ two decadesearlier. So what’s the difference in the 2 sequences - Shearer ends up withblood all over her thanks to these demanding men in front ofher!

Anyway, behind the blood & scares - which anyway are not too convincing fortoday’s post-Se7en generation - Powell gives a very honest, & hencedisturbing, view of the process of film making. Is it a voyeuristicexamination of naked emotions behind the comfort of a camera? Is it a’projection’ more psychological (the auteur’s inner self onto theprotagonists on screen) than mechanical (the projector machine)? WatchPowell watch Boehm watch innocent women die & find out.

I saw Peeping tom after its re-release a year ago after it wasbanned.I was expecting it to be a frightening portrayal but instead there was noblood,no suspense or no thrills.What I did enjoy was the performances.Therewas a very good story among the killer and the characters that revolvearound him.The killer grows a taste for filming his victims as he killsthem.

Peeping tom was a very good movie,I just don’t see why it was banned.Psychowas alot more worse for blood (take the shower scene for example) and it gota lower certifecate.I would say Peeping tom was definitly worth thewatch,but don’t be expecting too much gore if you’re a horrorfan.I rate 4/5.

read comments (0)

L’avventura

Pauline Kael and Dwight McDonald, two critics I respect, called this movieamasterpiece. I think it’s merely boring after the first hour, and it’sfrustrating, too — sort of a 1960 "Mulholland Drive." But it’s WAY betterthan "Mulholland Drive." The movie looks gorgeous, its plot is intriguingfor a while, it is set in fascinating locations, and it has a great musicalscore, but at 2 hours 25 minutes, it seems interminable after a while. Tryit; you may like it, but I didn’t.

For me, "L'Avventura" carries an effect similar to a Bergman film: alot of profound, moving imagery (brilliantly photographed), charactersthat seem to exist in an alternate universe (where emotions dictateevery move), and a balance between pretension and 'art' that deliverson the latter about 75% of the time. It is also, like Bergman's work, afilm that almost lulled me to sleep during its opening 30 minutes.After a nap, I recovered sufficiently enough to be taken in directorMichaelangelo Antonioni's grip for the remainder of "L'Avventura"'srunning time. The film is a character-driven piece, as Sandro(Gabrielle Ferzetti–"The Night Porter") seeks out his girlfriend, Anna(Lea Massari), who disappears without a trace on an uncharted isle; inher absence, he becomes smitten with Claudia (Monica Vitti), Anna'sbest friend. The rest of the "L'Avventura" is only vaguely about thesearch for Anna, instead concentrating on the awkward romance betweenSandro and Claudia. While the romantic aspect is convincing andheartfelt, Antonioni allows the slim story to meander too often,leading to scenes that serve no function in the plot and add to analready overlong film (clocking in at 143 minutes). That being said,the plot really isn't an overly important aspect of "L'Avventura"–mostof the time, the stunning sets, lush locations, dexterous camera work,and sexy cast made me forget about cinematic convention and appreciateits aesthetic merits. Still, that doesn't keep it from being overlongby at least 30 minutes and occasionally artistic to the point ofpretension.

Beauty of artistry and symbolism as well as brilliance of technique donotmake up for the fact that L’Avventura is one of the most uttererly boringfilms I have ever had the power to sit through.

Now, don’t get me wrong, It’s really not that I have anything againstartistic films, or surreal films, or old films, or anything like that asyoumay be thinking. In fact quite the opposite, on my ten favorite filmslistcan be found films like 8 1/2, 2001: A Space Odyssey, All About Eve, LaDolce Vita (a film with a similiar subject, but it did it rightfully), andthe Like. But L’Avventura is truly one of the dullest pieces of cinemaI’veever come across, and I think most people will see it this way on theirfirst viewing. However, even though you may not make it, this film isdefinately worth a look. It deserves 4 stars even though it doesn’t lookit. It is deeply rooted in powerful meaning and symbolism. Perhaps artlike this just belongs in a painting, at least that way you wouldn’t havetostare at it for 4 1/2 hours.

This movie suffers from CDS (Charles Dickens Syndrome). Charles Dickens,ifyou recall, got paid by the word, so "concise" doesn’t exactly describehisnovels. Unfortunately, directors often have similar freedom to drag outtheir message without the constraints of length. Sometimes though, this"constraint" is actually helpful to the artist towards getting his/hermessage across. Antonioni should have hired a better editor, because heinsists, without fail, to drag out every emotion and nuance in the maincharacters with a dough-roller. If this is your cup of tea, if you likeplaying mind games with the characters in movies for hours on end, thenthismovie is for you (since it literally goes on for hours on end). As it is,Antonioni seems way too absorbed in the beauty of photography (to hiscredit, every scene is visually stunning) to bother with a film thatactually might be enjoyable to watch.

(I just read on the front page of IMDb that "L'Avventura"'s director,Michelangelo Antonioni, died yesterday. He was one of the mostinfluential directors of all time. RIP.)

The first time I saw this film, I didn't really enjoy it at all. Sure,I recognized it as being impressively filmed, but also found it deadlydull. I really couldn't see why it gained its status as a masterpiece.I decided to give it a second chance a while later, and it improvedconsiderably. Still, I can't say I was particularly entertained by it,but I realize that isn't the point of the film. If you can make itthrough the incredibly slow pace, you'll be rewarded with athematically fascinating film. Its still not my favorite film byAntonioni (that'd be "Blow-Up", which combines the themes here with anactually engrossing and entertaining storyline), but I recognize itsimportance to films.

The direction by Antonioni is very well handled, which is to beexpected by a director of his caliber. The film focuses on shallowcharacters and their meaningless lives, which is both a plus and adetraction. Its a plus in the way it furthers the theme of the filmabout how empty the rich and modern life are. Its a detraction for thefact that we never really care about the protagonists. "La Dolce Vita"tackled similar themes, but it gave us characters we felt we couldrelate to and wouldn't mind knowing, despite their ultimateshallowness. It was ultimately a much more effective film than"L'Avventura". "L'Avventura" is admittedly a more complex film than itinitially appears. However, Antonioni often focuses more on developingthemes than plots and characters, so its bound to disappoint many.(7/10)

A mystery with no answers: a disappearance that’s never solved & isultimately pushed to the background as we view the lives of quietdesperation led by the protagonists. Everyone is beautiful; the vistas aregorgeous. Still, the central characters are clueless as to how to enrichtheir lives. Even after several viewings, I’ve not tired of this film.Rewarding if you give it a chance to grow on you.

A great movie with so many themes and symbols that i don’t know where tostart.. probably the most important is the lack of communication and thesuperficial way of regarding life. Everyone seems to suffer of these"illnesses", except Claudia. They all perceive life as "l’avventura", aneasy adventure. They are all shallow and deceiving. In the middle of a groupof unhappy couples, Claudia (Monica Vitti) refuses to see life and love asnothing more than an adventure. Unfortunately, her innocence doesn’t findits place in this world: she will be terribly hurt…

Using very little dialogue or music (virtually none of the latter), this isa smartly constructed work that readily reveals its character’s psycheswithout the use of voiceover. Instead it relies on effective, rule-breakingcamera work, visual metaphors, poignant dialogue and brilliant acting(mannerisms and behavior). The cinematography is gorgeous, and there are nowasted shots here. Every frame is a painting and a clue about the innerworkings of the minds of its characters — conveying their moods, theirsthoughts . . . their next move. Ingenious!

This is one of those films that appears to be one thing in the beginning,but turns out to be something else altogether. Antonioni pulls a fast oneon us, but as he effectively uses one of storytelling’s most common andpowerful devices (the allure of the mystery), we’re already in over ourheads, utterly engrossed, when the ruse becomes apparent. This is a filmwhose story begins like a mystery, but is in fact a solution that ends witha compelling mystery.

8 out of 10

many people
have questions, that why anna is disappeared and where she’sgone? but antonioni, the director didn’t told us anything about what’sreally happened. thanks, he didn’t told us anything. so we can imagine.that’s fun. i think this film is got a 2 big keywords. first, anna’s got anerve. and the most important key is second, claudia. a character played bymonica vitti. she’s not real, she is. she’s an illusion from the start.she’s anna’s imaginary friend or should i say anna herself. remember thescene at the sea. it seems that people on the boat didn’t noticed claudia.they didn’t pay attention, and they didn’t even talk to her. except anna.and i think this is the most legendary mystery in the history of movies,that suddenly, anna has disappeared. but what’s happening is simple, shestartsdreaming. that’s why she disappeared. by the way, anna doesn’t just fadesaway. she changes into claudia. anna is claudia, and therefore, claudia isanna. and don’t forget, that, in her dreams, all the other persons are alsoanna herself. so if somebody blames claudia, it makes anna blaming herself.anna dreams a dream of searching for herself. what’s going to make herdreamsuch dreams? she might felt something deep inside. a sense of guilt,becauseshe loves sandro? is she afraid of something different? why can’t claudiafind anna? we couldn’t seem to find any answers, but at least we can feel.at the end of this film, she’s still dreaming. probably she can’t face thereality, eternally, as long as she lives. whether she likes it or not. allthe people in the world are frightened by a nightmare, because nightmareisn’t just a dream. it’s reality.

"… for a new film language and the beauty of it’s images."

I feel bad for anyone who has never seen this in a theatre or on theCriterion DVD. It’s unspeakably beautiful, every frame of this film shouldbe printed and hung in the Louvre. It’s a viscerally moving experience ofthe mind and soul.

Monica Vitti delivers one of the most natural, spontaneous and uncontrivedperformances you’ll ever see (the fact she might be the most beautifulcreature god ever created is a bonus). She exudes a sadness and depth ofcharacter you’ll only find in novels. This is film as novel, and requiresyour undivided attention. There’s a lot going, sublte characterization,frame composition thats integral to the story. Antonioni is always incomplete control, nothing happens and noone speaks without a reason. Anepicfilm about communication and the vain pursuit of happiness.

There are so many scenes worth talking about, but i’ll mention just one:atop the church, Vitti and Ferzetti ringing the churchbells like childrenplaying, other church bells responding…simply the most gorgeous sequenceever filmed and a very sophisticated metaphor.

Everything you think you know about film, you can toss out the window.Antonioni redefines the artform as only Bergman, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, andKurosawa have done.

read comments (0)

Elmer Gantry

Looking at all the Christian litmus tests this movie is put to, I havemy own non-Christian litmus test. If you don't like to hear thestandard holy harangues, this movie isn't for you. I might have foundit endurable if I only had to sit through two or three pivotal tirades.But this movie is wall-to-wall pillories. We're back in the revivaltent continuously. On top of that, the non-preaching scenes alsoregularly start with an outburst or build to one. It's exhausting.James M. Christley of the Apollo Guide praised this, writing, "The mostinteresting part of this movie is its use of broad strokes to masksubtle sketches and careful characterizations." All I found was theheavy-handedness, and maybe a little more ambiguity than usually foundin 1960.

Shirley Jones is finally allowed to show some range as a hooker, andshe does a better job of it than other 'good girls' have; Deborah Kerr,Donna Reed. Director Brooks' signature flaws are here. He doesn't knowwhen he's made his point, and he overdoes it in pitch and in length.The movie would make a good contrast with the Music Man. Lancaster'sstyle is reminiscent of Robert Preston, and both feature Jones.

Burt Lancaster dazzles in this movie. The scene where he sings withsome African Americans in a church is one of the best moments on film.The words consummate and incandescent come to mind about hisperformance. The rest of the movie is actually quite dull, fromphotography to colors to everything. He is the sole highlight of themovie, which is okay because he excels. Strangely, Shirley Jones’ haircolor and texture come closest to anything I’ve seen to looking similarto Dorothy Stratten. From some angles when you just see the hair youwould think it was Dorothy, plus there is some softness, some slightshape to her face that is similar. Jean Simmons gives a fairperformance, but everyone dulls and becomes bland in comparison to thedazzling Mr. Lancaster. Anyone who has read extensively on film flampreachers can see that he became the part in full. I don’t know why hedid not get an Oscar for this role.

I just finished reading something about Burt Lancaster and discoveredthat he took on the role of Elmer Gantry, according to Lancaster, totear down and protest against Billy Graham. Lancaster claimed to be anatheist, although I read some of his friends doubted this to be a fact.

I read the book Elmer Gantry many years ago, and some time after thatsaw the movie. Not once did the book or movie shake or change myChristian faith or belief in God. I never took the actions of afictitious Elmer Gantry to be indicative of Christianity as a whole norto be an indictment of the Christian faith. I found both interesting,entertaining, but in no way was I moved from my position of faith.Neither have I ever associated the acts of a fictitious character withthe acts of Billy Graham. That would be absurd. Only the acts of thatman himself would influence my thoughts about him.

I frankly have been disappointed to read about Burt Lancaster tonight,to find that he was such a liberal, a communist sympathizer, and a headof his local ACLU, in addition to being a self-proclaimed womanizer ofextensive, according to him, nearly epic activity. I was alsodisappointed to read of his activities to attempt to tear down valuesthat have been held dearly and closely by the very people who paid toput the very bread on his table and to fund apparently his politicalactivities, along with the luxuries acting provided for him and hisfamily.

A third rate salesman with the gift of gab joins the revival circuit duringthe prohibition/depression era. This was possibly Lancaster’s finesteffort,and the rest of the cast were also superb. One of the best movies I’ve everseen.

Old time religion and small towns is the basis of this film. You have thetraveling salesmen and their stories. Elmer Gantry comes along and then getshooked on religion. He uses the selling bit and tries to win the affectionof Sister Sharon. She has perfection in her heart and sees the real truepurpose of Elmer Gantry. On the road to Zenith to save souls and abolishdrinking and other sins, he finds his former sweetheart Lulu that he hadtried to save by ramming the fear of God into her. Lulu has beendisillusioned and turned to prostitution. Her way to hurt him is to framehim. Lulu is played by Shirley Jones who earned an academy award for bestsupporting actress. It shows the human side of Elmer. Sister Sharon isn’t sofortunate as she goes down with her church that she worked so hard for.

It has alot of conflicts here and then just when you think you know whatwill happen, it is confusing. But a good film!

It was one of those roles that earned an oscar for ShirleyJones.

As you watch Elmer Gantry you quickly realize just one thing: how dated thisfilm is! Not to say that it is a bad film because it isn’t, but it alsoisn’t a great film. Everything about this film was done in extremes, mostnotably the two main characters. Burt Lancaster’s Elmer Gantry and JeanSimmons’ Sharon Falconer come at life from two totally differentperspectives, but the two are almost dead even in their religious fervor anddeep convictions. I for one do not believe that no matter how hard hetried, Elmer Gantry could not win over Sister Sharon as easy as he did. Thefilm boasts a superior main cast of actors from the 1950’s and early 1960’swho are no longer with us: most notably Dean Jagger and Arthur Kennedy. Theone drawback to this film is its length, but the again most films from thisperiod were close enough to two and a half hours in duration. But, like anygreat film, the climax of this one surely packs a punch! Religious allegoryruns rampant through this, especially in the final scenes.

Elmer Gantry went into the 1960 Academy Awards ceremony with fivenominations, including Best Picture. The film won three Academy Awards:Best Actor (Burt Lancaster), Best Supporting Actress (Shirley Jones), andBest Writing/screenplay (Richard Brooks). It lost the Best Score Award toExodus and the coveted Best Picture Award to Billy Wilder’s TheApartment.

My rating: 3 stars

Richard Brooks directs the novel of Sinclair Lewis. A traveling con-man(BurtLancaster) teams up with an evangelist(Jean Simmons) and begins sellingreligion to 1920s America. Sins of the flesh leads to damnation. His pastcomes back to haunt him in the form of a blackmailing bad girl(ShirleyJones). A local newspaperman(Arthur Kennedy)tries to befriend the waywardpreacher and clear his name and the reputation of the evangelist as well.Strong drama about conscience, sex, pride and evangelism. Also in the castare:John McIntire, Dean Jagger and singer Patti Page. Lancaster won his onlyOscar for his fiery Elmer Gantry character. Jones and Brooks also earnedOscar’s for their efforts.

Burt Lancaster gives a fierce, bellicose and frightening performance asa salesman turned preacher, brining religion to the people in thisscreen adaptation of the Sinclair Lewis novel.

Director Richard Brooks had good taste in source material (this, "Caton a Hot Tin Roof," "In Cold Blood," to name a few), but he neverseemed to be able to make a whole-heartedly compelling film fromwhatever book or play he happened to be adapting. That's the case here."Elmer Gantry" is certainly a good movie, but one watches it unable tokeep from thinking that a better adaptation could have been done. It'shard to put a finger on exactly how or why this film fails to measureup, other than the vague impression that it's lacking a certain energyrequired to be truly memorable.

Lancaster singlehandedly tries his damnedest to supply the film withall the energy it needs, and he comes awfully close to succeeding. Hetears through the film, filling the frame with his crazed features andflailing gestures, a case of overacting for o
nce being exactly what'sneeded for the role. Jean Simmons is unmemorable; I always thought shewas a classy but uninteresting actress. And Shirley Jones breaks typeto play a floozy.

Solid, not great, film with a tremendous lead performance.

Grade: B+

Burt Lancaster won an Oscar for his theatrically fiery portrayal of apassionate, immoral, self-styled salesman-turned-Christian preacher whoworms his way into evangelist Jean Simmons' revival meetings;transforming the prayer group's usual routine under the tents, hemanages to dazzle the hungry sinners with show-biz fire-and-brimstone,ultimately helping to lead the congregation from the sticks to the BigCity. Richard Brooks adapted and directed this film-version of SinclairLewis' popular book, always hinting at brave or shockable themes butsteering clear of anything too touchy (it's still a family picture,despite broads, bourbon and fisticuffs). Lancaster hopes to light afire under Simmons, who looks ever more like a grown-up version ofMargaret O'Brien; she sees right through this hard-living huckster, yether eyes well up regardless when he takes charge of the pulpit,alternately rebuffing his advances and admiring his obvious carnality.Shirley Jones won a Supporting Oscar as a shady lady from Gantry'spast, and Brooks won for his writing, but the picture is pomp andcircumstance without any genuine wit. Lancaster gets the audiencejuiced with his maniacal charm (he's rather like the con-artist at thecenter of "The Music Man"), but his performance is intentionallyexaggerated–he's programmed to hit all the high notes–and one iseventually exhausted by him. **1/2 from ****

This movie is completely torpedoed by a terribly muddled, senseless finalhalf hour that not only left me scratching my head, but almost tearing myhair out in frustration. The first two hours are reasonably effective as itplunges into the themes of religion, sex, hippocrisy and Show Biz; though Iwas always aware I was watching a movie - there’s an artificiality to itthat left me somewhat cold. Nevertheless, Burt Lancaster is riveting andJean Simmons and Dean Jagger have their moments as well. But in the finalreel, character motivations don’t just become fuzzy, they become downrightunfathomable. Maybe it had something to do with Production Coderestrictionsof the time - whatever the case, it doesn’t make any sense at all. I thinkthe producers of the film were just determined to have a big, apocalypticclimax, even at the expense of artistic merit.

read comments (0)

Exodus

I was not surprised to see how one-sided the movie is, in depicting thebeginnings of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Seeing that suchbooks and movies appeared on the American scene as early as 1960, onecan begin to understand the American pre-occupation, both at the levelof ordinary Americans, and also at the level of policy makers, withdoing whatever is "good" for Israel.

There are always two sides to a story. This movie provides us with anexample of why the American people only understand one side.

Recent commentators who understand this lopsided-ness in American viewshave tried to highlight the problem:http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8796

See the academic arguments here:http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

I wonder what damage we are doing to ourselves by writing falsehistory.

All history is fictional. It must be because it abstracts singlenarratives from the hubbub of life. We hope that the narrative modelssomething that can be traced back to facts, can be proved to be what wecall "true."

But movies, popular movies I mean, have so many constraints onnarrative that by the time we get through tumbling the story, we end upwith an attractive enough narrative. But it floats above reality withvery little connection. Yet this is how we see the world.

Here we have an interesting story. The real story I mean, a story aboutmen determining that a nation should exist, a nation in the modernsense, and then doing whatever necessary to bring that about.

This has happened hundreds, thousands of times, and may be the primaryforce in how we see ourselves. looking at this one case is a greatopportunity to examine what an artificial thing nationhood is, tohighlight the effort, the yearnings to establish and resist the meme.

But Hollywood wants human drama instead. Love stories. Attractive leads(no, never dark). Unambiguous motives. Goodness must exist somewhereand drive the story, necessitating evil somewhere else.

In the end, this movie is something like "Shindler’s List," slickproduction, competent storytelling on the human side, an ennoblingassociation. And very bad history. A very damaging simplification,taking away all the things we might learn if we were confronted withreal art.

So one might watch this for lessons in the history of film rather thanthe history of societies.

And that IS a pretty interesting story. Preminger was an intelligentfilmmaker. The year before, he made the remarkably astute "Anatomy of aMurder." It was a small story, with all sorts of cinematic richnesses:amazing staging and few good performances.

Meanwhile at this time, David Lean was a hack, producing big, boldHallmark greeting cards. Yet Preminger makes this empty, boring,incoherent mess of posturing posing as nobility. And Lean makes aglorious essay on the essentially the same subject that has scope aswide and ambiguous as the random formation of a nation. Interestingly,it happens to be more or less the people depicted here as savages.

Well, yes, I suppose. And I suppose they still are, but how hollow thisfilm seems. How true "Lawrence of Arabia" seems. How history iswritten!

Ted’s Evaluation — 1 of 3: You can find something better to do withthis part of your life.

This is an Epic of one of the most enthralling stories ever, it is amazingthat the IMDB plot line hits the nail on the head with the line "it beganwith A ship of Jewish immigrants arrived into Palestine"or what was palestine and now is Israel. It is one of the most beautifulstories of freedom and the most disturbing decision which effects the worldtoday, for the sake of the sanctity of the jewish suffering in the World WarII era the UN gave the jews thier own land, according to thier own wishesnot thinking what is to follow, and what has followed is a ripping apart of2 societies which has led to millions to die, to reiterate the fact thatbefore Israel was formed, there was no conflict between Jews and muslims inPalestine, there was never a war for such a long time and everyone wasliving in peace, until " A ship of jewish immigrants landed in what ismodern day Israel with the intention of making thier immigrant land thierown"

Middle Eastern politics aside, Leon Uris’ book was important in shaping myviews of Zionism, and a home country for Jewish people. The book is trulyanepic, covering generations of hardship and tons of backstory that doesn’ttranslate easily to the screen.

Exodus is a silly endeavor as a movie, however. This is a snapshot oflate-50’s hollywood, resplendant in it’s curious casting decisions,’every-book’s-a-movie’ Epics, and racist undertones.

At 3-1/2 hours, this movie is both too long and too short. Exodus, thebook,succeeds in relating the horrors these people lived through, and presentsanindependant Israel as the dream it was for Jews who just spent years in aconcentration camp, and had lost most of their families. Exodus, themovie,is a strange love story between Newman and Ste. Marie that never develops,astranger love story between Ste. Marie and Jill Haworth, and a tragicfriendship between Newman and John Derek, a very anglo-looking Arab. Thismight have made an interesting mini-series.

As for the underlying racism, the relationship between Kitty and Karen isespecially weird. So let me get this straight. All of the swarthy,Bulgarianorphans were scooped up, and only poor, emotionless, blonde-knockout Karenis left for Kitty to "rescue" and take home to America as a littleshow-petthat would go to University, and help Kitty spend her dead husband’sinsurance money. This subplot was weird in the book. And how does a lowlyAmerican nurse hobnob with British Generals, become the chief negotiatorduring a hunger strike, and wind up an Uzi-toting freedom fighter? Allmovies demand some suspension of belief in order to make them work. Sincethey were so loose with reality and the facts, why not just have U.F.O.’sintervene and let the characters morph into flying insects?

The book describes the politics behind getting the U.N. mandate. This is afascinating story of how the Israelis used the British Parliamentarysystem,and beat the Brits at their own game. This whole piece is given about 90seconds in the movie. The book tells the story of the Arab invasions in analmost biblical sense, how the Israelis were faced with impossible odds,andwon every single time. The movie takes so long to get there that it’s anafterthought.

I bailed after 3 hours, and listened from the next room afterthat.

Yes, there is beautiful scenery. This is also an interesting view of howrace and religion is handled in late-50’s Hollywood. It’s always funseeingJohn Derek in an old movie; I don’t know why. There are great ways ofspending 3-1/2 hours, however, and this is not one of them.

When Exodus came out everybody Jewish loved it!!Unfortunately watchingit today is not terribly rewarding. First of all at 3 1/2 hours it'smuch too long!! Secondly neither Paul Newman nor Lee J Cobb even bothertoo use foreign accents and just speak in their regular voices. Ari BenCannan is supposed to be a native born Israeli. Supposedly Barak BenCannan was born in Russia. Why does he sound like comes from the Bronx?Morevoer, if we are to believe this story, one family practically runsthe entire country. Ari Ben Cannan runs the Hagannah.His father seemsto be even more important than David Ben Gurion. And his Uncle runs theIrgun.

Pathetic propaganda pamphlet. Newman's acting is pathetic andexaggerated. Esspecialy scenes where he is explaining to Kitty of whatdoes mean to him of being Jew, when he finds his Arab brother dead andon the funeral. See the face of Kitty when he holds a speech on thefuneral. Sal Mineo's character is killing and stays smiling charm boy.Should I conclude something about Arabs from it?
This is not how warlooks, this is not the way that human been is behaving in an war, thisis not how life looks. After this film I have a feeling that Israelhave done all they could. If so we should conclude that Arabs didn't.There is no black and white war.At least today we know enough aboutthis conflict and about conflict at all. Trying to prove unprovableresulted pathetic screenplay and acting.

This movie is everything but right. Otto Preminger clearly didn’t

respect the works of Leon Uris further than he could throw it. Let’s

just take a look at the descriptions:

In the book Karen has dark hair, in the film she is blond.In the book Ari ben Canaan is tall, dark, with dark eyes. In the film,

tall, blond, with blue eyes.In the book Kitty has brown hair, in the film – she isblond.

The film has been made into a gooey love-story, cutting away

everything that is essential to the story. It is time it isre-made.

I realize the importance of the message and the period the film depicts,butI would liketo argue, strictly from film-making perspective, that Otto Preminger did ahorrible job.Yes, Paul Newman is not at his best, but frankly, I don’t see how PaulNewman can everbe at his best with a bad director, which is the situation we havehere.

Specifics, you ask? (1) Countless bad calls in use of props, composition,etc. (2)Horrible actor direction, particularly of Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint(two actors thatdesperately needed a strong director during that portion of theircareers).(3) Bad propchoices (particularly when David Opatoshu swears Sal Mineo into theIrgun).(4) Noexplanations at all about the origins and purpose of Hagana and Irgun.(5)Badlymanaged confession scene where Sal Mineo "remembers" that he was acapo.

Frankly, I don’t see why this film is being praised, except for thecontentthat comesfrom Leon Uris’s book about some of the origins and causes of the strifebetweenIsraelis and Palestinians. But again, that content was in the bookalready.What has thefilm added to the understanding? I believe, not much.

When making a film like this one should know a little about the ideas of thedirector of such a film. Otto Preminger was always a very positive directorand the main actor, Paul Newman too. In this film there are some otheractors playing very well like the American-Jewish Lee J. Cobb. One shouldaccept all scenes and history up to the moment when Israel is rightlycreated and accepted by United Nations. After this part, some scenes arearguable. Modestly we know that to live peacefully in any multiethnic stateit is important to have participation of all ethnics in governing bodies.Without sharing the power coexistence becomes difficult and unaffordable.Preminger asserted but not demonstrated what he asserted. It is good film tosee but not once.

This movie is long and sometimes tedious although a good story it isspoiled by poor editing and poor continuity. Firstly, why no close upsof the principal actors? Secondly, the most glaring of all was thesudden appearance of Sal Mineo in prison garb when we had been shownhim escaping from the British and no further story line on him until heappeared in prison. Thirdly, why is Sal Mineo shown playing chess withthe leader of the terrorists in one scene when the previous scene hadshown this leader in isolation? Fourthly, why is Eva Marie Saintwearing a trench-coat with the collar pulled up when it is blazingsunshine and everyone else is sweating in short sleeve shirts andshorts? Pretty awful film making eh?

read comments (0)