Films of the Month: February

 I kicked off the month with a watching of George Steven's predecessor to Giant with a viewing of A Place in the Sun (1951). I'd been very much looking forward to watching this, as I had forever heard good things about it, it also starred Montgomery Clift who I had been impressed with in A Judgement at Nuremberg and Red River, as well as a teenage Elizabeth Taylor, and the formidabble Shelly Winters. I was not to be disappointed, very much of the similar realist approach that Giant took, A Place in the Sun was bold, daring and ahead of it's time. Clift takes the role of a young drifter-types who turns up at his rich uncle's office looking for a job. He is assigned to a lowly role within the company, where he meets and falls in love with his simple colleauge Shelly Winters. But as Clift character impresses in his job, his uncle gives him a promotion and even invites to a lavish party he is holding. Feeling out of place he decides to shoot pool away from the other guests. Here he catches the eye of his uncle's colleaugue's daughter, played by the always luminous Elizabeth Taylor. He begins a relationship with her, when he then learns of Shelly Winters pregnancy. Just as he is on the brim of high society, he is brought back to Earth with a bang, and he tries to work out a way to get what he really wants.
                                            

 It's hard to talk about this film without giving to much away, but one of the trully great moments is when Shelly Winters' character goes to the doctor seeking an abortion. As the subject was such a taboo back then, it is heart rendering how Winters tries to convince the Doctor what she wants, without revealling she is out of wedlock. Many of George Stevens' friends state that when he went to Europe to film footage of concentration camp victims, he's style changed forever. The sheer gravitas of this realist piece, reflects these sentiments perfectly. It's an incredibly mature piece, that deals with issues of immaturity and loss of innocence from it's characters. Like Giant Stevens' manages to get the very best out of all three leads. Montgomery Clift particularly excels as he manages to generate alot of sympathy for his deeply flawed character. It's obvious to see why there are so many comparrisons between him and Brando, but wheras Brando was more of an extrovert in his roles, Clift was very much an introvert with more subtlety in his performances. It's amazing to think, had Clift not had such a physical and mental decline in 1954, he probably would have been as successful, maybe moreso than Brando, he was even first choice for On The Waterfront (1954). The final scene in this film serves as a kind of a homage in a way to Clift's own tragic life. As for Taylor and Winters, they help compliment Clift's role vastly, whilst some are quick to criticise Winters' character Alice, it is down to Winters' great interpretation of the character that gives us these very real opinions and feelings towards her character. Definetly a great film, I even thought it was slightly better than Giant, and I look forward to watching it again.

 Another classic film I finally got round to seeing was Fitz Lang's Metroplois, certainly one of those films that was high on my 'must-see' list. Set in a dystopian future, the film focus on the lives of two different classes of people, the higher class city planners, who live an affluent life above the city; and the lower class city workers, who live in the slums below the city. The son on the Metropolis' creator, falls in love with a prophet who fortells the coming of a 'mediator' who will resolve the city's differences. Along the way, his father and a mad scientist devise a plan to use a robot, disguised as the prophet, to quell a worker's plot against the city.
 Whilst the film was a technical landmark in cinema, I couldn't help but felt a tiny bit let down by the experience. The film was segmented into three parts (beginning, middle and end), but whilst I found the beginning and end to be entertaining and exciting, I really struggled to stay awake in the middle of the movie. At the start, I was really enjoying it, it was Orwellian before Orwell, and touched on the familiar theme of films set in in dystopian societies. It was also interesting to see that a lot of different interpretations on the types of allegory's that could be drawn from it. The strong emphasis on socialism as well as futurism are in-line with facist sentiments at that time, and it's easy to see why Joseph Goebbels became so fascinated with the film. Indeed the worker's burning of the robot-disguised as the prophet, after they learn that her actions have resulted in the supossed death of their children, felt quite similar to later acts of incrimination of the Jews for Germany's own economic and social problems by the Nazi's. On that basis again it was interesting.

 As a film though Metropolis was a bit to hit and miss, and though the end was quite dramatic, it felt like the ultimate message of the film, was a bit too naive and simplistic, to give it credence as a politically aware piece. As I say, the real merit of the film is Fitz Lang's incredible vision of futurism and the special effects used, as well as the vast scale of set pieces that resemble our own world somewhat. Also Lang's camera work, shots and camera effects also seem ahead of their time, but for me I think Lang's later masterpiece M (1931) was more engrossing and rewarding as a film.

 A more disappointing experience was definetly The Woman in Black, based on the Susan Hill novel. I wasn't expecting a "game changer" in the horror genre, but was expecting a bit more originality. The same old formulaic "let's make the audience jump" were there throughout, although there were a couple of interesting more subtle technique's utilised. My biggest problem with it though, was the feeling throughout that "I know exactly where this is heading", and sure enough, the blueprint of the movie was followed throughout. I'm not sure whether it was trying to be clever, as the ending was very obvious throughout the movie, it was hard to see whether the maker's themselves thought they might fool the audience. As for Daniel Ratcliffe, I'm still not convinced by him as an actor, he was ok in this, but I would hardly consider him in the next generation of great actors. Though I must admit, I think he's probably a nice guy in real life, but acting should be measured on ability not sentiments. As for the support, I thought it was bit mismatched, Ciaran Hinds performance felt to me particularly "phoned in", though critics seem to suggest otherwise. By no means was this a bad film, but I definetly wouldn't need to see it ever again. Distinctly Average.
                                    

 Towards the end of the month I finally got round to watching In Bruges, having heard so many great things about it I was expecting the hype to outweigh the content. Starring Colin Farrell, who it's fair to say I despise, I was ready to hate this effort, but it was such a funny, entertaining and charming film, that it was even impossible for me to find fault with Farrell. Indeed I'd even go as far to say as he worked well in this film, complimented by his "partner" Brendan Gleeson, who gives the kind of assured performance we've come to expect from this seasoned pro. Ralph Fiennes hams it up to great effect as their gangster boss and manages to deliver the majority of the movies funniest lines. Having enjoyed this movie immensely I started to worry that the ending would be an anti-climax as most recent films decide to be too clever and ultimately send their films to the realms of mediocrity with endings that don't make sense. Whilst In Bruges did become somewhat "poetic" in it's ending, it really worked and left me with a great sense of satisfaction when the credits rolled. It was film that really rebuilt my faith in "word of mouth" films, one of the best black comedies in recent years.

                                      

 The Fighter was another recent release that I finally got around to watching. Based on the real events of light welterweight boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his older half-brother Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale), who trains Micky in spite of his personal drug problems. This synopsis suggests that this film was prone to melodrama and over-sentiment, but for me it never fell in to that trap. Even when their mother (Melissa Leo) cries at her son's drug abuse and he sings to her to cheer her up, it felt realitive and understandable and came across as genuinely heartfelt. Of course to pull off scenes like that you need the actors with the talent, and Bale and Leo deliver powerful performances throughout, so much so they both won Best Supporting Oscars. Whilst Wahlberg is somewhat inhibitted with his role as the focused fighter, his performance serves as the perfect platform for which his co-stars can deliver such impressive displays. Wahlberg's onscreen girlfriend played by Amy Adams, is the one who tries to push Wahlberg closer to his dreams at the expense of his family. Again another truly impressive performance, by a woman who is currently setting the bar for young actresses in Hollywood. She seems to have noticeably put on a bit of weight for the role, but her beauty still resonates appropriately for the role.

                                                      
 It's hard to talk about anything other than the acting in this film, as it is a great showcase for that, but credit has to be given to the fight scenes. They're hard hitting and give that sense of realism of 90's boxing, though admittedly they're not Raging Bull level. And whilst the film doesn't follow the true story coherently, the film's story is a very rewarding watch that you can forgive any inaccuracies (maily in the chronology of the events). I feel I need to say more about Bale's performance, as he has recently attracted attention for the wrong reasons. His turn as Dicky Eklund is nothing short of superb, a quick video is shown during the credits of the real Dicky, and the two are pretty indistinguishable. In regards to his rant on the Terminator salvation, I would say it would be naive to think that actors and directors are all very civil on sets of films. Whilst I can't condone his actions, I doubt he's the first or last to act in such a way, and he should be remembered for the amazing performances he delivers, more often than not. As for The Fighter, I thought it was as good as Rocky and better than Million Dollar Baby; Raging Bull however is still reigning champ.

 The final film I finally got round to watching this month was amongst the Marilyn Monroe collection, though Marilyn had a fairly minor role. Monkey Business starred Cary Grant as a scientist trying to discover a youth pill for the world. He accidently tries the effect of the real dose after he extinguishes a remedy made by one of the test monkey's into the water cooler. He begins to revert to young adulthood, whilst his wife (Ginger Rogers) regresses further into childhood. It's the kind of fast paced Hawks' comedy we've come to expect, as things become more and more complicated, but for me the humour seems a bit tired at times. The film isn't without it's charm, but it has too many moment's where the regressive states of Grant and Rogers are a bit annoying. Parts are also a bit too far fetched, even for a screwball. As for Marilyn her part is small, but she is in her era of peak beauty, and she looks luminous. She has some funny moments to, as the receptionist who she believes is being sexually harrased by Grant. Not one of the best Hawks' comedies I've seen, but it was quite fun at times in spite of it's absurdities.