Ninotchka

NINOTCHKA

How did this film get on the list? Well, I've never seen or heard of it referenced in popular culture BUT, it has been a film that has been recommended to me several times AND it appeared in a 100 Best Spy Movies magazine that I purchased in the airport for some light reading while traveling from San Fran to LA (or was it the other way around? the point is, it doesn't matter).

I didn't really know much about this movie. It appeared in a magazine listing best spy movies so I assumed that it would be... a spy movie. I did not expect a romantic comedy. I mean, perhaps the big blue letters at the top of the poster "Garbo Laughs" should have been a hint that it wasn't your typical action spy movie, but something more hilarious. And, I really wouldn't consider it a spy movie. I mean, Greta Garbo may play a Russian in France, but I wouldn't really consider her a spy. I mean, the one guy who I could consider a spy would be the bellboy who ran and told the Duchess that her stolen jewels were in the hotel safe of the Russians. But, I don't think that minor character would be enough to qualify it as a spy movie.

Definitions aside, I think the larger reason this movie is on my list is not so much the movie itself is culturally important, but that Greta Garbo is in the film and she's culturally important. Up until this point in time, I had never seen a Greta Garbo flick. It's kind of a similar situation to Buster Keaton scenario: I'd read about and heard about Great Garbo inside and outside of class, but had never really watched any of her movies. Although Ninotchka probably isn't the first example of this silent star turned talkie phenomenon that comes to mind when thinking of Garbo's work, she was still nominated (for the fourth time) for the role.

And for good reason. In my opinion (if you give a damn), Garbo made the movie. Although the three Russians were a bit funny in the beginning, and introducing the Duchess and the jewels was necessary for setting up the plot, I didn't feel like the film was anything special until Garbo came onscreen. Not only did she get great dialogue to start with, her flat delivery and unchanging, serious expression made the lines even more hysterical. I am tempted to put some quotes here, but upon looking at imdb's extended list of memorable quotes, they just aren't the same read as they are when Garbo says them. Her performance was a great example of the-more-serious-you-are-the-funnier-it-is. 

Speaking of being serious, halfway through the movie, amidst the laughter, I remembered the slogan of the poster/dvd label... "Garbo Laughs". Now, I get that it's a play on early 1930s film advertising with "Garbo Talks" to promote talking pictures... but halfway through the movie, she wasn't laughing! So, I was incredibly puzzled as to why this seemingly ironic statement was used for the film's advertising and promotion. But! A little over halfway through the movie, I think, she did indeed laugh... and it was a major turning point of the movie! So, I was even more confused as to why they chose to put that on the poster. I would put a spoiler alert around the fact that she laughs, but they've given it away already! Why would they do that? I have no answer. Please, someone help me with ideas.

The somewhat brief conclusion to this is this: I really enjoyed this film. It was a great example of a romantic comedy (and a very poor example of a spy movie) with the furthest possible opposites attracting: the Russian communist and the Parisian capitalist. Although formulaic, it was still enjoyable, tight (for two hours) and it somehow ended up being able to surprise me in the end with how the two finally got together.

So, if you haven't seen Ninontchka, go watch it.

COMING SOON: Woody Allen's favorite movie: The Bicycle Thief 

Gone With The Wind (all four hours)

GONE WITH THE WIND

So... I have finally arrived at the movie that inspired this entire blog... the four hour classic Gone With the Wind. 

Since the title of this blog is derived from a quote in the movie, I shall begin by discussing Clark Gable's grand finale line "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

First of all, when I read the quote on the website I looked it up on (to confirm that the line was indeed from Gone With the Wind), it said that it was his "last line" or his "last words" (I don't remember the exact phrasing...) which gave me the impression that he died in the end. SPOILER ALERT However, he doesn't die! Practically everyone else in the movie dies, but Clark Gable does not die. It may seem a little comedic to put spoiler alerts around this, but I thought it was very surprising, and worth a spoiler alert. END SPOILER ALERT. Second of all, after the movie ended, my dad (who had watched the fantastic making of Gone with the Wind, which I may have to add to my constantly expanding list of things to watch), he said that apparently it was a very big deal to use the word "damn" in the film. Scandalous!! My, my, what would the people of the 1930s think of the foul mouths of the two main characters in Superbad? They would probably think there wasn't enough soap in the country to wash out their mouths.

But, this brings me to another point. Perhaps even more than being a historical epic, Gone with the Wind is a sign of the times of 1939, which is why I think it has risen to the caliber of "classic" and will continue to remain an important film in our history. Even though movies are considerably long now (Lord of the Rings comes to mind), I can't think of any that are four hours long. But, in the Great Depression (a time period I am bizarrely fascinated with), the longer people got to sit in a movie theater, and get swept off their feet with epic romance and stories of people overcoming financial obstacles, the better. 

But just because it's a historical film (in two ways), why is it still talked about, quoted and referenced today? Is it relevant? Well, I could go into a long rant about the economy and how times are more similar to the Great Depression than ever, but it wouldn't really be true. From what I've read/seen/heard (because I can't really call the following fact since I haven't done much official research), the economy isn't as bad as it was in the Great Depression and even if it was, people's reaction to the poor economy is different. This bit I did research: although studios lost money in the stock market crash just like everyone else, movies were the most profitable business during the Great Depression and they soon gained it back from all the people who bought tickets because they were looking for an escape. According to an article in the prestigious Entertainment Weekly that I just read, the box office is extremely low this summer. Maybe it's because Hollywood's making Sex and the City 2 instead of Gone With the Wind, but it doesn't seem like people are looking for an escape by going to the movies. If anything, people seem to be going to the movies less because they want to save money (who blames them when a ticket to see Shrek Forever After in 3D in New York is twenty bucks?). 

So, where am I going with this exactly? I'm not really sure. I think my point is, that I don't really see why it's still "relevant" today other than that it is a glimpse into the past, which seems to be what people really love. I can't say this as fact, of course, but from my perspective of the world, it seems that society glorifies the past in a somewhat jealous way. It's a strange mix of "look how far we've come" and "look at what we've lost". I can't really think of why it's relevant other than the reason that it is relevant because it's a good movie that people like. 

This has gone into a long ramble about things I didn't expect to write about that I'm not an expert on. What I am an expert on is my own opinion and my thoughts about Gone with the Wind were these:

I'm glad that I saw it. I actually really liked it... until hour four struck. That last hour to me felt repetitive and I started getting annoyed with the characters (especially Scarlet O'Hara) and thinking that they were stupid. Not that they as characters were stupid, but that they're decisions were stupid (I was still very engrossed in the highly developed characters throughout the movie). But, it did feel repetitive. I mean, there were four scenes where Scarlet approached Ashley and asked her to tell her that he loved her and he gave a mixed message response. I think the "comedy rule of three" should be applied to everything, including epic romantic dramas called Gone with the Wind. To quote Schoolhouse Rock, "three is the magic number". When things happen more than three times, it gets old.

In conclusion, I'm glad that I sat through all four hours though, because now I can solve crossword puzzles that appear in the "Coming Attractions" brochures they have at my video rental store. 

15 Across: Family name in Gone with the Wind.

Although I guess I could have known that from just being exposed to pop culture.

COMING SOON: Garbo Laughs! in Ninotchka.

Frankenstein

Frankenstein

So, to finish off the first "week" of movies (really it's been three...), I've continued the scary movie trend with the 1931 Universal Studios classic Frankenstein.

Now... where have I seen this story before? Unlike The General which was much more difficult to pinpoint where it popped up in pop culture (get it? popping up in pop culture? never mind...) the story of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster is everywhere (and I was much more familiar with the story before and after I saw the 1931 version). I've seen the Kenneth Branagh version with Robert De Niro as "The Creature" (it was bad, don't see it), the parody Young Frankenstein with Gene Wilder (which was recently adapted into a Broadway musical that flopped), and the very weird but very awesome movie Frankenhooker (yes, it's exactly what it sounds like) that a friend turned me on to. The movie is referenced in other favorites of mine like Better Off Dead when John Cusack's character makes the Van Halen singing burger, and is the inspiration for Anthony Michael Hall's character to make a woman out of a computer in Weird Science. I've read part of the original Mary Shelley novel Frankenstein (I am ashamed that I have not yet written in this blog that I have read an entire book, I promise I have). Heck, I've even written my own Frankenstein short story parody called The Doctor about the creation of the Coolest Man Alive [If I'm feeling courageous, I may post it. Hell, no one reads this, I can post whatever I want! I will post it! I WHILL! (Hot Rod reference. Classy thing to do on a blog writing about prestigious movies. I will write a defense of Hot Rod as the best movie ever though one of these days and post it. Cool beans.) Moving on...].

So what's so great about the 1931 filmic particular telling of the Frankenstein story? Other than the fact it's old?

Well, in my opinion there are many reasons why this movie is great because, although it has been tough competition this "week", I may have to declare Frankenstein my favorite movie from the list thus far.

Here's Why Frankenstein Is Great (In My Opinion, If You Give a Damn)

#1) It's only 70 minutes long. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's an hour and ten minutes for those of you who don't have your calculators on you. This may seem like an incredibly stupid and shallow reason to put in defense of why a movie is great, but hear me out. By making a movie short, it forces a filmmaker to cut the fat and make the movie as tight as possible, and whoo-boy! This movie was tight! There was not a scene that did not progress the plot, and no scene went on for too long. This movie did not need to be longer than 70 minutes, and it didn't need to be shorter than 70 minutes, to quote goldilocks it was "just right". Especially considering the fact the film was an adaptation (a loose adaptation, but an adaptation nonetheless), it's trimness and leanness is even more impressive. 

It shows that the screenwriter had to be creative to really make a movie inspired by an old book fit a new medium and a new audience. The point of this movie is not about the scientific revolution, because that wasn't relevant and didn't fit. What did fit, was a fear and fascination with crime and criminals. 

**Note: The lesser, worse filmic adaptation stuck too close to the book, was stale, and lasted for a grueling two hours and three minutes. Even if 1931's fascination with criminals still isn't relevant today, the creativity (like the creativity of the original book, even though the scientific revolution isn't really happening anymore) that went into its creation shows. That is something the Kenneth Branagh version lacks.

#2) It's still scary. Okay, it isn't terrifying or gross like what qualifies as a scary movie today, but I still found myself on the edge of my seat when Frankenstein SPOILER ALERT killed the assistant Fritz. END SPOILER ALERT. The most powerful and scariest moment for me was after SPOILER ALERT Frankenstein had accidentally killed the little girl, Maria, thinking she would float like the flowers. The moment that got me was when her father was carrying her dead body through the streets, in the midst of celebrating Frankenstein's wedding. END SPOILER ALERT. The contrast was just so powerful and moving and terrifying. And it made Frankenstein scary not by showing his scary face (which isn't as scary anymore as it probably was back in the day since his image is everywhere, I'm sure I've seen his face on a t-shirt somewhere), but it made him scary by showing what he had done. 

Now, I must note here that I'm really not an expert on scary movies at all. I've seen a few, but have generally stayed away from scary movies because... well... I don't want to be scared, honestly! So, I'm trying to step up my scary movie stamina by starting with the oldies, that I'm already familiar with, before I move on to The Silence of the Lambs which appears later in my list. I liked Frankenstein because overall it wasn't very scary at all, but it still had its moments that made me sit on the edge of my seat and biting my nails a bit. Silence of the Lambs will have me clawing at the ceiling, I'm sure.

Well, I feel like this blog post has out-worded its welcome, so I'm going to end it, even though I feel like I could always write more about Frankenstein. 

COMING SOON: The next "week" of movies: The Year of 1939 (and one from 1949). First up: the four hour epic, Gone With The Wind.

Nosferatu vs. Dracula vs. Twilight (vs. Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter)

Dear Pop Culture,

What is the deal with vampires these days? Why are they everywhere? There's Twilight, there's TrueBlood,  and a scary movie that came out within the last year where vampires were running out of regular people to prey on for blood (that I forget the name of), but apparently this isn't really a new trend. I typed in "recent vampire movies" in google and the first thing that came up was a link called "Top 70 Vampire Movies of All Time" which means that there have been SO many vampire movies that you can say that there are 70 (which is a big number, it's more movies than I have on my official summer movie list) that are the cream of the crop compared to possibly hundreds more.

So, I decided to throw in two vampire movies I hadn't seen (both adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula) into my list this summer: the silent movie classic, Nosferatu, and the 1931 version simply titled Dracula.

Although the two films stemmed from the same source, Nosferatu and Dracula were wildly different from each other (other than the fact one was a silent movie and the other a talkie). The way the vampire was styled in each version was very different. Count Dracula's costume and styling in Dracula is more the vampire image most people have. I feel like if I were to dress up as Nosferatu for Halloween, with the long fingers and the scary eyes, people would be like "And who are you supposed to be?". But, if I got the cloak and white face paint and fangs (which would be a much easier costume to find) people would be like "Yes, vampire. Cool costume. I want to suck your blood. Hahaha." 

Which brings me to another point. I was waiting the ENTIRE movie for Bela Lugosi to say that famous line "I want to suck your blood" the ENTIRE time! And guess what? It never happened! Such a line does not exist in the film. And I wasn't watching the wrong Dracula movie either! Where did this quote come from? Why is "Play it again, Sam" never said in Casablanca either? I don't know. I was highly disappointed and confused.

Which brings me to another point of confusion. Despite all this vampire stuff in pop culture today, I still don't really understand vampirism (which is apparently actually a word, because spellcheck did not put the red squiggly line under "vampirism"). And, sadly, neither Dracula nor Nosferatu really helped clear that up.  My main question is, when a vampire sucks your blood, what's the difference between killing you and making you a vampire? What is the process of becoming a vampire? Do you have to die before you become one (because you have to sleep during the day in the soil that they were buried in)? How am I not more familiar with the vampire myth after watching Nosferatu, Dracula, Twilight, and Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter?

**A Note About the Twilight franchise: I may not know the vampire myth all too well... but I DO know that Vampires DO NOT SPARKLE IN THE SUNLIGHT and this is the most RIDICULOUS thing I have ever heard. Twilight is entertaining because of it's ridiculousness (which induces laughter), and for no other reason. 

So, are the vampire references in pop culture all based on the original 1897 Dracula novel by Bram Stoker because that is what the classic films are based on? Did Bram Stoker create the concept of the vampire (my spidey-senses are telling me no...)? In order to fully understand this vampire craze, do I watch those Top 70 Movies? Or read the book? Or should I read Dracula: Illustrated with Scenes from the Motion Picture that I read (a paragraph of) in high school? What is the pop culture meaning of that? When the book folds in the movie that is adapted from the book?

The conclusion is, all of these vampire movies just make things more confusing.

Perhaps I'll have more luck with Frankenstein.

COMING SOON: 

PS: My opinion/ ranking of the vampire movies I have seen (if you give a damn):

#4. Twilight: Although hilarious (it makes soap opera acting look hilarious), I have to put it as my least favorite vampire movie because I would not watch it again. Well, I might watch this scene over and over again because it's so hilarious (the song added in the youtube version just says what we're all thinking).

 #3. Dracula: I honestly did not like this version as much as I probably should have. I certainly appreciated the cinematography (I enjoyed the spotlights for Count Dracula's eyes to make them glow), but it wasn't my favorite of the week.

#2. Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter: Yes, I am not afraid to put this bizarre cult classic above THE classic. I just enjoyed it more than I did Dracula and if I had to watch one of them again, I would pick this one. It's the most creative interpretation of the vampire myth I've seen (not that I'm an expert by any means, especially since I don't fully understand the vampire myth). Well, we can't deny Twilight's creativity, what with the sparkling and all...

#1. Nosferatu: I really liked this silent film. I liked the bizarre costume for Nosferatu, and the very creepy ending. I also liked the now somewhat cheesy film tricks that were clever for the time (like tinting the film blue for night and auburn for day, even though it was all shot during the day, and speeding up the footage of the carriage to make it look like it was going faster). I must note though, that the wife looked like a man the entire time, and the music in copy I watched sounded like video game the whole time. I now have inspiration to make Nosferatu: The Video Game (coming soon to Xbox, Wii and the third video game system).