100 in 100 challenge: Roberta (1935)

It occurred to me that I might not be doing the whole review-a-film-a-week-thing properly.

So, I looked up on the internet how to review a film properly.

According to Wikihow, this is what I ought to be doing. I’m now going to test this vastly unexplored step-by-step guide on Roberta, my film for this week.

So without any further ado, How to Write a Proper Film Review according to Wikihow:

Step one: Gather basic facts about the film

Roberta is a classic black and white Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers musical released in 1935, about two couples who meet in Paris and fall in love, whilst trying to deal with the everyday running of the strikingly important (yet really very unknown) fashion label, Roberta. Oh, someone’s Aunt dies about half an hour in.

Step two: Take notes on the film as you watch it

Whoops.

Step three: Consider the mechanics of the film. During and after the film, ask yourself what impression the film left with you.

Define mechanics?

It left enough of an impression with me to attempt Fred Astaire style tap dancing in the shower afterwards.

Step four: Write down your thoughts

Well actually I thought it was sexist. The way women are paraded about for a good ten minutes at the ‘high point’ of the film, just enforcing the view that constantly caring about if what you wear is fashionable is the only way to find happiness. And then there are the two dimensional characters. The femme-fatale nightclub singer who we all know has a romantic side. The modest assistant who actually the girl we all root for. The conniving bitch.

But aren’t we supposed to let that all go in a musical? When the heroine flops into an armchair sighing resignedly at the end of a film ‘Well I suppose I’ll have give in and marry you then’, isn’t that just representative of when Marie Curie and Amelia Earhart just threw away their careers for the men they loved? Do you really think I’m naïve enough to believe that in a society that actively stopped married women from working, such as the one Roberta was received in, they just carried on singing in nightclubs together for the rest of their days? Or did Roger’s character forsake all her dreams about being a famous singer for a life where she was mercy to the wishes and whims of her husband?

No of course not, but it’s a sodding musical. Just suck it up and accept that marriage, both now and in 1935, is considered part of a woman’s ‘happy ending’. Gawd.

It’s okay, anyway, the women may be two dimensional, and the most interesting character in the whole film killed off half an hour in, but the men aren’t much better. 

Step five: If you want to make sure your understanding about the film is complete, re-watch the film.

Scratch that. If you want a really good Astaire-Rogers musical I suggest Carefree (1938). Both Astaire and Rogers have bigger roles in this one; it’s fairly unconventional, surprising and hilarious. Next to Carefree, Roberta feels like Astaire and Rogers are just token actors cast to make the film sell.

Step six: Begin writing the review

Awkward.

Step seven: Provide and overview of the plot, but keep it contained

Haven’t I already done that bit?

Step eight: Critique the film

…

Step nine: Purchase the Llama and make it dance in a square. When in doubt eat a digestive biscuit.

What? That wasn’t on the website?

You’re right! The more astute of you will have realised by now that I don’t actually hope to learn anything from this (because who is Wikihow to tell me, or in fact anyone, how to go on?). But let’s stick to the script for now.

Step ten: End the review with something memorable

“YOU’RE MOM’S CHEST HAIR!”

-- Janis Ian, Mean Girls

Step eleven: Read through the review.

I’ll leave that particular pleasure to you, the reader. Meanwhile, I’m skipping off into next week to review The Breakfast Club. Auf Wiedersehen.

Next Week- The Breakfast Club (1985)

100 in 100 challenge: Fight Club (1999)

First rule of Fight Club: Don't talk about Fight Club.

Sorry! Just had to get that off my chest. No more cliched references to the film, I promise.

So I took over a week off. Shoot me. Bit of a delay because of... oh yes, my life. One thing I have definitely learnt; making time to watch a film a week and really pay attention to it is really, really hard! But here, smashing through metaphorical double doors into the still-more-laboured metaphoric court room of my blog just in the nick of time with key evidence to put the room at ease, is my review:

After three films with not much to laugh about, I had but one question about Fight Club before I sat down and watched it.

Is it funny?

The answer I got: "I wouldn't say funny..."

Damn straight this film isn't funny. For some reason my 'pre-watch' impression of this film was two hilarious hours of obese men jumping on each other. But it's really not. I think this delusion may have stemmed from a rather tortured reference to Fight Club in an adaption of a Dick King Smith novel I watched when I was a kid. Basically, an escaped piglet joins the imaginatively named 'Pig Club', where the first rule was...? 

Don't talk about Pig Club.  

Oh wow. I bet you weren't expecting that one. 

In reality, Fight Club about a lot of gun violence and underground terrorist organisations, with Helena Bonham Carter breaking the mould as a crazy, yet not evil, lady. Who has a lot of very loud sex.

I really enjoyed this film. To all those who have not seen this film you need to watch it because the plot, the satiric references to society as we know it, the soap: will all blow your mind. And plus there is a very cool twist that you only sort of expect (can't say anymore without giving it away).

But I feel like my personal viewing experience of this film was marred by my preconceptions of Fight Club. Which was quite disappointing really, because I spent most of the film waiting to laugh, and really wanting to, but feeling quite disappointed when I wasn't. 

So this post is my personal plea to anyone: be you man, woman, film adaptor of children's novels: don't ruin this film for other people. Stop making jokes about the rules of Fight Club to make others think that this film is going to make you laugh every other minute, when it actually isn't. Just stop. You're only ruining it for other people.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is:

Second rule of Fight Club: DON'T TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB

Whoops.

For the full list of rules: http://www.diggingforfire.net/FightClub/

NEXT WEEK- Roberta (1935)

100 in 100 challenge: Psycho (1960)

Watching Psycho wasn’t really anything like I expected to be.

I expected horror, in the absolute extreme. In fact, I got so wound up over it that by the time I sat down to watch it I was feeling somewhat apprehensive.

Though, of course, I forgot that this film was released in 1960. And let me tell you, the special effects aren’t really up to much if you want to be truly horrified. But they are positively hilarious to watch.

This film has the funniest on-screen death I have ever seen. The fatal overacting, the alarming lack of blood, and falling down the stairs that has clearly been aided with wires, culminated in a full five minutes of mirth at what I feel was intended to be a crisis point in film. Watching it gave me this strange, tickling satisfaction; like watching a video of a cat pushing a trolley on its hind legs: bemusement mixed with sheer joy that the world has produced something so uniquely special. I feel like I ought to write a letter of apology to the late Mr Hitchcock for watching his film wrong.  

I would, however, congratulate Mr. Hitchcock on building tension to perfection. He clearly knew how to get into your head. The sense of apprehension that you get when watching this film is what makes it so good. No matter how basic the special effects are, you still can’t shake the feeling that you about have the crap scared out of you. (You can actually see the man himself do a cameo appearance in the film- if you watch this film, and I urge you to do so, try and spot him. Or failing that, google it. I might have done that.)

On a related, but also more disturbingly personal note, I have never known any fear to create a rather bizarre tingling sensation in my feet. MY FEET. So, I feel I may have stumbled on some sort of phenomena here. A result of this blog post may be the creation of an alternative reality where people will measure how frightened they are by measuring the blood circulation in their feet… you never know.   

But I digress. I’m probably not the first (or will I be the last) person to say this, but there’s something quite awe-inspiring about watching the film where the horror genre was established. The experience of shouting stuff at the screen- “Don’t go in the basement, you idiot!” or “Stop showering, he’s behind you!”- is all the more enjoyable when you know that generations of people before you have shouted the exactly the same at their antique black and white screens.

Except, equipped with minds desensitised to explicit blood, violence and sex that is inherent in the media that modern society has been systematically exposed to, we have bonus feature of laughing at the special effects with ironic detachment.

It’s just a great time to be alive, isn’t it? 

Well that’s me, coming at you, the reader, like a psychopath brandishing a knife in a shower with a rather sentimental review this week. Anyone fancy a cat video to restore balance to the world?

NEXT WEEK- Fight Club

100 in 100 challenge: Donnie Darko (2001)

Another cheerful one this week! Donnie Darko. A month in the life of a troubled teenager, dealing with predictions of the end of the world (28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds…) given to him by a giant, sinister black rabbit who appears sporadically, seemingly out of no where.

In the past, horror films and I have not had a great relationship. I never watched any as a kid. When I finally did, I didn’t sleep properly for two months. I spent most of my nights convinced I was about to be possessed by an evil demon holding a grudge; or a member of my family (possessed by said demon), was about to walk in, stare at me expressionlessly for a couple of hours while I slept, and then kill me (I bet you can guess what film I’m talking about). Since then I’ve avoided any kind of film even vaguely associated with horror. I simply can’t stand a film with a supernatural being that appears unexpectedly with no other purpose but to needlessly frighten the audience- and by ‘the audience’ I really do mean, me.

Like I said, Donnie Darko is a film about a terrifying, seemingly supernatural black rabbit who appears sporadically, seemingly out of nowhere. Whoops.

But if I’m really going to see all the ‘must-see’ films I can in 100 weeks, the horror genre has to feature somewhere. I needed to confront my fears. To help, I enlisted my friend, who’s a horror film junkie, to assist in my scary movie rehabilitation.

So, horror movie team assembled, popcorn popping in the microwave, we sat down and watched it. And actually it wasn’t that bad. Scary in parts, yet not completely traumatic. Complex, yet not confusing.  Fantastical, yet so tantalisingly plausible.  

The first thing that struck me about Donnie Darko was how different it was to my initial expectations. I thought, going on what I had seen in the official trailer, that the film would focus on Donnie and his visions of the hellish rabbit-man (called Frank). But it is so much more than that. Sure, Frank was always lurking in the back of your mind, or, as my over-active imagination told me: (and is telling me, even as I write this) “he’s behind you”. But Frank is essentially a sub-plot in a cleverly crafted story. Other storylines in the film rival for our attention: who is Grandma Death? What is the Philosophy of Time Travel? Who is Gretchen? (and will Donnie ever get in her pants?) And most mysteriously of all, is Donnie acutally mad?     

So is that the secret to a good film? Blind sighting your audience with a good trailer? Maybe. But what I enjoyed most about this film was- for want of a better word- the unexpected twists. All the information you could possibly need to explain this film is presented to you with absolute transparency, but still you can’t predict what will happen. Frustratingly enough, because I really do think you should watch this film, I can’t really say anything more without giving it away.     

What I can say is that this film has a terribly ambiguous ending; which you will either find hopelessly incomplete or great food for thought. For those who are looking for more concrete answers, there’s a lot of websites out there that give you a plethora of different theories linking all the events of the film together (fair warning- a lot of them have a soundtrack of Frank saying “Wake up”, which scared the absolute bejesus out of me the first time I looked at them).      

Despite all this, I can’t really class Donnie Darko strictly as a horror film. Am I still jumping at loud noises? Yes. Am I having trouble sleeping? A little, but that’s just the memories of Paranormal Activity coming back to haunt me. I feel like Donnie Darko plays with your expectations of it to fall neatly into the horror genre, and uses that prejudice to surprise you with this altogether more satisfying story, that is scary, but not looking to frighten you for fear’s sake. This is a very, very good film.

In summary, I survived my rebirth into the world of scary films. Which is why next week, I’m going all out. It’s time to crack out Psycho.

A horror film? Scary rabbit anyway...

NEXT WEEK- Psycho

100 in 100 challenge: Apocalypse Now (1979)

Going to start my this post by clarifying a couple of things from my first post (great start, I know)

I have named my quest the 100 in 100 challenge because it needs a title and I'm not imaginative enough to come up with something wittier.

And I could go on forever about how this blog is to recommend films to you, but let's face it. This is about me. ME. If I'm going to write a weekly blog that no-one will read about films I watch, I am going to be unashamedly self-centred about it. 

Got that sorted? Good.

Now, what can I say about Apocalypse Now?

If you're looking for an easy-breezy, feel-good film Apocalypse Now is not for you.

If you, like me, feeling the winter chill a bit, thought you'd wrap up in bed with a Lemsip and a film before bed, do not watch Apocalypse Now. Just don't do it to yourself. Read a book. Bake a cake (actually- maybe not if you're ill). Catch up on TV you've missed. I can tell you that this film requires the right mindset (and an awful lot of time- it's over three hours long!).

Apocalypse Now is a "war epic" about a Captain in the American army returning to Vietnam having been given a strictly 'off the record' mission to assassinate a fellow soldier who had gone rogue. It is a deeply political and emotional examination of the behaviour of the American forces while occupying Vietnam; convincingly portraying the less palatable side of human nature.

With hindsight, i.e. now my cold has cleared up, the emotional point that this film portrays is incredibly powerful. I read somewhere on the internet that Apocalypse Now can be interpreted on a personal level as an exploration into the shadows of human nature, and this is undeniable. Not only is this an adventure up the Nung River into Cambodia, but an exploration into what it means to be sane. It essentially takes a mentally damaged protagonist- he punches a mirror for Christ's sake- and puts him in a place where even he starts to look normal. I guarantee you that by the end of this film even you, far separated both in time and space from the Vietnam War will be questioning your own moral compass.      

The political message of this film could not be clearer. Francis Ford Coppola clearly disagreed with the American occupation of Vietnam (as did a lot of people of that time- when the film was released in 1979, American troops had withdrawn from the country four years previously). He even goes as far as to suggest that the Americans were no better than the Nazis, in a particularly striking moment when Wagner's The Ride of the Valkyries was blasted out as army helicopters blasted a Vietnamese village to pieces.     

But neither of these points changes the fact that the actual experience of watching this film is like attempting to drink water from a very powerful hosepipe about 10 yards away from where you're standing. All the messages about the morality of warfare and the essential nature of mankind you're supposed to grasp hits you unceremoniously in the face: and you can only take in so much of it. By the time it's all over, you're soaking wet from head to toe, and looking like a bit of a tit. In short, this film was far too heavy for me to be enjoyable. Sure, you can talk until the cows come home about how Apocalypse Now locates you directly in the emotional agony of the soldiers serving in Vietnam, but it some places it is farcical. The violence never stops, and is appalling. I have now seen enough screaming men to last me a lifetime. It's so damn long even I was crying 'I surrender!' at about two and a half hours in. I may be thinking about this film for years to come, but it is too way intense for a second viewing any time soon.


NEXT WEEK- Donnie Darko

Apocalypse... when?

'Hello Down There' (1969)

Hello! 

I was merrily browsing the internet one evening, when I came across this list of '100 films that Everyone Should See Before They Die' on HubPages.com. It was, as the title suggests, a list of 'must see' films. They were made as early as the late 1930s to last decade, covering a very wide range of genres, with titles you-would-have-had-to-live-in-cardboard-box-not-have-heard-of: everything from classic Hollywood romances like Casablanca to Hitchcock horrors like Psycho. 

I have two problems. With this list, not in life in general. (cheeky- you thought it, don't deny it)

First problem: as well known these titles may be, I have seen any of barely any of the films on this list. And I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one in a similar position. 

Second problem: the list on HubPages.com is hardly comprehensive, there's a wealth of other 'must see' films out there that shows this list is only the tip of the iceberg. Firstly, why cover up to 2003? There are films that are certainly worth seeing past this date, and before 1939 too (though, ironically, I have not seen nearly enough films in general to make this assertion). 

Therefore I've set myself a challenge. I'm going to dig up the iceberg, and become infinitely more cultured. I am going to watch 100 films over 100 weeks. Then I'm going to review them and basically inflict my opinion on you (although I reserve the right to post -or not to post- stuff more than once a week). Hopefully, this will not be a completely selfish endeavour and I might influence someone else to go and watch it too. 

And here it is. To start my quest, the first 25 films to watch over the coming weeks:

1.      Apocalypse Now (1979)

2.      Donnie Darko (2001)

3.      Fight Club (1999)

4.      Roberta (1935)

5.      The Breakfast Club (1985)

6.      Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

7.      Breakfast on Pluto (2005)

8.      Pulp Fiction (1994)

9.      The Ladykillers (1955/2004)

10.    Jaws (1975)

11.    High Society (1956)

12.    Brief Encounter (1945)

13.    Cabaret (1972)

14.    A Night at the Opera (1935)

15.    Chariots of Fire (1981)

16.    Sherlock Holmes (2009)

17.    My Fair Lady (1964)

18.    The Wizard of Oz (1939)

19.    Psycho (1960)

20.    Pan’s Labyrinth(2006)

21.    Sunset Boulevard (1950)

22.    Gone with the Wind (1939)

23.    The Kid (1921)

24.    A Clockwork Orange (1971)

25. Mother (2010)

So there they are. I've tried to go for as wide a range

of genres as possible, and between the 1920s and 2010.

Again, this order may change according to what films I

can get in time/ my whim.

PEACE OUT.

Website cited: http://neakin.hubpages.com/hub/100-Movies-Everyone-Should-See-Before-They-Die