Dr. No

I finally did it...I finally watched a Sean Connery James Bond movie.  This is only my third James Bond movie.  This is part of my father's legacy, as he didn't like James Bond, and therefore I grew up not having anything to do with Bond.  He never forbade it, but since he had no interest in the films, I just never saw any of them.  The first Bond film I watched was "Goldeneye" with Pierce Brosnan.  I was in my 20's at that point, so I had waited quite awhile before my first Bond film.  In that case, I couldn't understand the Bond fuss, though I had heard that the Brosnan Bond movies weren't the best ones.  Fast forward to recently, when I watched "Casino Royale", and I actually reviewed it here on this blog.  Click the movie title to go to that review if you wish.  I was impressed by that movie, yet the two Bond actors who star in the most films (Sean Connery and Roger Moore) had still alluded me.  So, last week, not only did I finally watch a Sean Connery Bond film, but the original one.  "Dr. No" was the first James Bond film, and one can see many of the elements of the mythology coming together this early.  I went into this movie expecting it to be a corny, cheesy no brain movie.  Instead, I was actually pretty impressed with it, and I had a better idea as to why this film franchise can work pretty well.  I say "can" work pretty well because even friends of mine who are Bond movie fans will readily admit that the quality of these movies varies a lot.

When I watched this movie, I saw an engaging spy caper.  While Bond does cast off women with frightening ease, I still found a lot more substance to his character then I suspected I would.  I have also always heard that one of the benchmarks of the best Bond films is the quality of the villain.  While I have little to compare this villain to (the villain in "Casino Royale" was great), the villain Dr. No is great.  The best decision the director made in this movie was to keep the villain off the screen for most of the film.  There is one scene when all the viewer experiences is the menacing sound of his voice, as Dr. No deals with a subordinate who has not done his job properly.

In the center of it all, the essence of cool, is Sean Connery.  One can see very easily why this film launched a franchise.  His character is both macho but also vulnerable in his own way.  I always thought that when I finally arrived at a Connery Bond film that he would be impervious to emotion and threats to his physical well being.  Instead, we see a multi dimensional character here.  As other Bond films follow, we come to learn why James Bond cannot afford to attach himself to any life or any woman.  His job is so high risk that attachments are an impossibility.  Of course this leads to a litany of buxom women which can't resist the man, but I digress.

The plot is somewhat standard.  Dr. No is trying to dominate the world, and Bond is trying to stop him.  Along the way, Bond has several people helping him, and some people who turn on him.  This is all standard plot stuff, but it is done effectively and attractively.  More than anything, I think what I appreciated about this movie was that it represents the Bond mythology at a high point.  As I delve more into the Bond films, I'm sure I will be shown even more clearly why this one is so good.  In any case, this was a good movie, and to see Sean Connery in this role that made him famous felt like a small rite of passage in my movie viewing life. 

Best Actor?

My obsessive fair-mindedness keeps me from being too critical of the Oscar winners, since I have not seen all of the movies which were nominated for Best Picture.  Also, I did not see all the performances which were nominated in the acting categories.  Of the 9 nominated films this year, I have only seen 3: "Lincoln", "Les Miserables" and "Zero Dark Thirty."  The other 6 films will be on my Netflix queue, and I look forward to seeing all of them.

There was one oversight, however, about which I have an opinion, and I have shared it with my wife constantly since Sunday night.  My vote for best actor would have gone to Hugh Jackman over Daniel Day Lewis in a heart beat.  I say this for two main reasons.  First, since we all know that there is no objective measurement of acting greatness, the Oscar sometimes becomes symbolic, or a way to honor certain kinds of work.  In that light, since Daniel Day Lewis has already won two Oscars for best actor, the academy passed up an opportunity to honor a special kind of performance.  They missed this opportunity when they gave Daniel Day Lewis an Oscar for his fine work in "Lincoln."  Now, I have not seen the other 3 performances that were nominated.  Bradley Cooper, Joaquin Phoenix and Denzel Washington are all fine actors, and I am sure that their work was worthy of an award as well.  However, my question to Academy voters would be this...why does Daniel Day Lewis automatically win this award?  He has now won an Oscar for his last two performances...should we simply assume that he will win each time he makes a film, or did the cool beard and stove pipe hat hypnotize the voters into such a trance that an unprecedented third best Oscar simply was the only choice?

Second, it is my contention that Hugh Jackman's work deserved the award because his was the harder performance, and it was more uniquely suited to him.  Another way to put it would be this: Hugh Jackman could have played Lincoln, but Daniel Day Lewis could not have played Jean Valjean.  The unique achievement of Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"should not have been overlooked as it was.  Daniel Day Lewis' work was outstanding, but it was not unique.  Many actors have been enveloped by an historic figure.  This has required them to change their appearance, voice, and "become" that figure.  To be fair, there is no question that when I saw "Lincoln", I felt that I was watching Abraham Lincoln.  Day Lewis' true gift in the role was somehow to take what I would have imagined Lincoln to be like and somehow capture that on screen.  This is great work.  But Hugh Jackman not only does the same thing with his role, but his entire role is sung!  I once heard a writer say that one can never compare Babe Ruth to anyone else in baseball history because he was not only one of the greatest hitters of all time, but also one of the all time great pitchers.  As such, his talents are unique in baseball history.  In the best actor category this year, there is simply no comparison to the work that Hugh Jackman did.  Not only did he sing his entire role, but he sang it all live.  None of the performances seen on screen (save one) were prerecorded, and every moment of the performance feels fresh and as if Jackman had never spoken the words before.

Sometimes one gets the feeling that the voters have already made up their mind, based either on preconceived notions of greatness or on the desire to hear certain someone's acceptance speech.  It was a lapse in judgement on the academy's part to overlook a performance this year that was not only great, but also completely unique in the history of movie making.  "Les Miserables" as a whole was a unique experiment in movie making, and I don't think it got the accolades it deserved.  Maybe once I see the other 6 movies on the Best Picture list, I will feel differently.  However, even if I feel differently about the film as a whole, Jackman's performance outshone Daniel Day Lewis, and I was disappointed to not see that reflected on Oscar night.

Mao's Last Dancer

This is a movie in which the elements of the story that it tells are its greatest strength.  The story itself is somewhat standard, but the context of the story gives the story tremendous drama.  Even though it is a classic "against all odds kind of story", there is a lot more to this movie.  This movie's setting is what gives it power.

Chi Cao is a young boy who lives in a rural part of China.  During his boyhood, he is picked by government officials to be taken to Beijing and be trained in the discipline of ballet.  His mother and father, given no choice in the matter, watch him go, not knowing when they might see him again.  As a young man, he has become a fine dancer, due to his tenacity and drive.  He is noticed by an English ballet director who is working in Houston.  Chi is allowed to go to America to pursue dance.  While he is in America, things get complicated, in spite of the government agents warning warning him of the dangers in the American influence.

Again, what makes the film work is the context.  The cultural clashes faced by Chi Cao are what makes the movie effective.  We all know of the differences between Capitalism and Communism, but to see them depicted before us on the screen does make a difference.  As Chi Cao has before him the choice to pursue his own happiness, he is forced to contemplate that principle next to the principle that his worth is to be found in the collective of China.  This is a classic conflict of individual versus community, and it plays out very well on the screen.  Some of the most effective moments of the film depict the emotional turmoil for Chi Cao as he is forced to decide between the country and culture of his youth and this new culture in which he is honeymooning.  In one scene, Chi Cao watches in amazement as a man with whom he is socializing openly expresses how much he hates the president.  Chi Cao expresses fear for his acquaintance, since he has had the audacity to criticize a member of government.

The movie's weakness to me resided in the fact that some of the communist officials  came off as a bit of a caricature.  Granted, I have never lived in a communist country, so the depictions may be right on.  It just seemed as though the depictions were a bit broad.  As such, the story is somewhat black and white, while I suspect the reality is more gray.  At the same time, the basic freedoms I take for granted are indeed wonderful to have.  But again, my assumption is that personal liberty is the be all end all, rather than the collective good.  This movie depicts this struggle quite well.  Though it is made by westerners, I feel that it shows a certain context to the Chinese way of life that is somewhat sympathetic.  The film's emotional climax is made all the more real due to the world that the film depicts.

The performances in the movie are all great.  Bruce Beresford, the film's director, has quietly presided over several fine films ("Tender Mercies", "Driving Miss Daisy", "Evelyn").  These films all do a wonderful job of capturing small human drama.  They are not epics, but they are able to find a lot of grand meaning in small events.  The events in life for one or two people can show us something about all of us.  This movie does that very well, as the longings of one man (for freedom, love and family) are shown on the screen.

Groundhog Day Theology

I had quite a few hits on my article about Groundhog Day.  A friend of mine from church shared this article about the movie with me...it's quite good.


http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-03-012-v

Groundhog Day

It's almost February 2, and as I sit in my study on a subzero Minnesota winter day, the length of winter does seem to be a source of great concern for me.  This movie came to mind today.  As I thought about it, I couldn't help but reflect on something I once heard Bill Murray say in an interview.  One of the interesting things about Bill Murray (and there are many interesting things about him), is that he has a background in improvisation.  He spent some of his early years in Chicago's Second City Comedy Club, a club that is all about improvisation.  With that in mind, his statement about "Groundhog Day" is all the more interesting.  He stated in this interview that almost every movie he has ever done has involved a lot of improv on his part.  He sees the script as a starting point, and a lot of the work he does goes beyond what is written.  He went on to say that one of the only times that he didn't even touch the script was for "Groundhog Day", a movie that he thought was written so well that it needed no amendments.  This movie is startlingly well executed.  It is very funny, but it also is actually quite profound as well.  It is a perfect example of how the Academy does not value comedy.  This movie is not just a comedy classic, but a classic.

Phil Connors (Murray) is a Pittsburgh weatherman who is on his way to Punxatawny, PA for the annual Groundhog Day festival.  Accompanying him is his producer Rita (Andie McDowell) and Larry (a wonderfully smarmy Chris Elliot).  Phil is a prima donna.  He hates doing this annual festival.  He feels that he is above everyone in the town, and he certainly feels that he is above doing this stupid groundhog day festival again.  He phones in his story and can't wait to get back home.   Unfortunately, a snow storm keeps his and his crew from going back to Pittsburgh.  He returns to his bed and breakfast for another night, wanting desperately to get back to his home in the big city.

The next morning, Phil wakes up and realizes he is living the same February 2 again.  This troubles him obviously weird for Phil, as he seems to be living the same day he just finished, but everyone else seems oblivious to that fact.  Day after day, Phil wakes up in the same place, on the same day.  The audience is the only "person" who also knows of Phil's predicament, and it is fascinating to watch the different stages he lives through.  He goes through a sage of debauchery.  He goes through a stage of depression.  He goes through a wild stage.  He goes through a suicidal stage.  His reaction to his situation ends up running the gamut of human emotion.  Along the way, his reactions are at times hilarious.  He begins to use his sudden immortality to hit on women, take enormous risks, eat whatever he want, and basically indulge his flesh.  After a while, he begins to see his colleague Rita in a new light.  She is a lovely woman who is completely disgusted by Phil's insensitivity and selfishness.  As Phil begins to fall for her, he begins to see a new purpose for his life, and he tries to become a better man.

I had never seen a movie remotely like this before I saw it, and nothing has been made like it since.  The ability of the writer for us to be so entertained by some of the same events time and again is noteworthy.  Phil is our device to view all of it in a new light and find it all funny.  The actors around Murray do an amazing job of repeating their tone and emotions, while Bill Murray's character can react to their actions in a new way each time.  In the long run, the movie is actually quite profound.  It has a lot to say about existence, selfishness, and why we do what we do.  But the movie would not work so well if it was not also light hearted and very funny.  Not only is Bill Murray perfect in his role, but the supporting cast and character actors in the film all create a wonderful world in Pennsylvania.  As Phil becomes increasingly desperate to escape Groundhog Day, the obliviousness of everyone around him makes his frustration even funnier.  "Schindler's List" run Best Picture the year this movie came out, and that is appropriate.  But this movie is a giant, and I think it will be remembered and only get better with age.  One of the only weak spots I can find in it is how dated the music is sounds.  The last time I watched it, I found it hard to get through the song playing under the opening credits!  Other than that, this is a great movie.  Dust it off and enjoy it again!

Idea for Future Posts

Over the last couple of days, I have had a couple of friends suggest movies that they would like to hear my thoughts on...I would love to start a list of some ideas of movies on which to write.  I wondered if some of my readers would mind leaving requests for me in the comment section.  If you are not on blogspot, go ahead and e-mail me at losbascoms@mac.com.  I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

Kingpin

Art is unnecessary.  Some people, including myself, would say that it is a necessary outgrowth of any culture...but as far as the survival of the race goes, there is nothing necessary about it.  It always involves reflection, and reflection is hard to come by if one is merely trying to survive.  Paradoxically, I think we as humans do need art.  We need to be able to see that we are not alone.  Artistic expression is one way that we know that we are not alone.  From the works of the Psalmist in the Bible, to the paintings of Picasso, to the symphonies of Beethoven, to the film works of Akira Kurosawa, art emanates from every part of the globe, and from every age.

I watched a movie called "Kingpin" recently.  "Kingpin" would never be called high art.  It is low brow comedy, and it does contain a lot of laughs.  When I was through watching it, I was convinced that I had seen a work of art, but I felt worse as a person for watching it.  Some of this has to do with my faith, of course.  My faith has certain tenants regarding sexuality, and when they are joked about so mercilessly and crudely, I sort of feel like I have been dragged through the mud.  However, the movie had great comic acting, the jokes were creative and well constructed.  It's just that nearly every single one of them ended up making me cringe as well.

The movie follows an up and coming bowler named Roy Munson (Woody Harrelson).  He was brought up to bowl by his father, and he is on his way to glory when he meets Ernie McCracken (Bill Murray, playing an absolutely horrible person, and playing it well).  Ernie sees his talent, and gets the naive Roy to help him win at gambling.  One of the victims of their scam gets angry, and as Ernie flees the scene, Roy is left at the mercy of the thugs, who mutilate his hand in a bowling ball return.  Years later, Roy is living a disgusting, sad life.  At a bowling alley in Scranton, PA, he sees a young Amish man (Randy Quaid) who appears to be gifted at bowling.  He sees this young man as a ticket out of his hard luck, so the two of the set off for Reno to compete in a million dollar bowling competition.

The movie was directed by the Faraley Brothers, who went on to direct the highly acclaimed comedy, "There's Something About Mary."  I have never seen that movie, and I'm not sure I will now.  I can appreciate well crafted comedy, even when it is dirty.  Eventually however, it becomes an exercise in understanding what works for me.  This movie ended up being funny, but it didn't have enough truth to warrant the humor, nor the cheer in the humor to make it fun.  Instead, it was continual joking about either bodily functions or human misery.  As a film, on it's own, I found it irredeemable.  As it turns out, each film must be judged on its own.  For instance, I really enjoyed "Fever Pitch", another Faraley Brothers film which I found to be very funny, but much more uplifting.  It is too easy to simply write off a director or an actor without judging actually looking at an individual work.  This film is well crafted on many levels, but since art is interactive, there is more to the experience than simple craft.

It would be easy I suppose, to take the view of abstinence.  After all, if I never watch a movie again, I will never be offended again.  I would never have to have the feeling of being dragged through the mud again.  My faith, at so many levels, is about finding balance.  Sometimes one only knows when one is out of balance once one had fallen off the beam.  Fortunately, I didn't injure myself too badly falling off the beam on this one.