283. Salt of the Earth (1954)

Running Time: 92 minutes
Directed By: Herbert J. Biberman
Written By: Michael Biberman, Michael Wilson
Main Cast: Juan Chacon, Rosaura Revueltas, Will Greer, Henrietta Williams, Ernesto Velazquez
Click here to view the trailer

EQUALITY

So this one has been sitting on my desk for close to a month, from Netflix, because for some reason I didn't think I was going to like it. When I finally bit the bullet and popped it into the DVD player, I found that it wasn't as bad as I had it pegged to be.

The film is a total propaganda film, made in the United States and tells of a group of Latino miners who go on strike when their denied safe working conditions and basic rights, rebelling against their Anglo bosses. The main character is Ramon Quintero (Chacon), the ring leader of the strike and (one of) the voices for his peers. His wife, Esperanza (Revueltas) is the narrator of the film and also one of the main characters. When the men start picketing, the women support them, most of whom are their wives. Things are pretty hunky-dory for a while. Despite the fact that the men are on strike, fighting for their rights and safety, the brotherhood of the group brings the community together and the fact that they're having to struggle together, only serves to draw them closer. When an act is passed that prohibits the miners from continuing their strike, the women step up to the plate and demand to take their places on the picket line. The movie kind of switches to a struggle between Anglo and Latino to a struggle between men and women, as the women wish to prove that their capable enough to fight for their rights, just as much as the men are.

Sure, this wasn't fabulous movie making, by any means. However, it proved to be an okay way to spend ninety minutes and I was surprised when I realized that a propaganda film was actually going to try and tell me a story, rather than just preach it's message. Sure, there's a lot of political and racial themes in the movie and the film is obviously being made to prove a point, rather than to impress cinematically, but it kept this viewer occupied nicely.  I would say that there were times when the mixing of sending a message and telling a story didn't quite work flawlessly, but for the most part, being told a story was a nice change of pace for a propaganda film. I thought the actors, even the non-professional cast, did a fine job and I also realize that this film probably has strong meaning for a lot of people. For me, despite the fact that it was "okay", it wasn't that meaningful to me and I was more concerned with getting through it without being bored, than anything. Let's just say that it got me from Point A to Point B, but not in the most flattering of ways.

This movie also made me realize that my likes and dislikes are very predictable. I'm not sure I'll ever enjoy a propaganda film, nor am I sure that I'll ever enjoy an experimental piece. I just don't think those types of movies are EVER going to appeal to me. I'm an open-minded person and like always, I'll keep my eyes and ears open when watching them, but I don't think they're ever going to fall into my comfort zone. I like being told fictional stories and that's always going to be the reason I started this journey. If I ever do find a great propaganda (or experimental) film, then I'll be ecstatic, because it'll mean that my tastes are continuing to change and I'm continuing to grow as a movie watcher. But, really, are propaganda films really made to be good? Or are they simply made to send a message? Is "Salt of the Earth" in THE BOOK because it's a great, landmark piece of movie making, or is it in there because of the fact that it was banned in the United States and because it was such a controversial piece? I'd assume the latter is true and if that's the case, then I think even the writers of THE BOOK would agree that it shouldn't have been included in a book of "must see" films.

RATING: 5/10  However, it got me through without me wanting to gouge my eyes out, which is more than I can ask for, especially for a film that I was really dreading.

MOVIES WATCHED: 633
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 368

March 13, 2013  10:40pm

Read More

269. Johnny Guitar (1954)

Running Time: 110 minutes
Directed By: Nicholas Ray
Written By: Philip Yordan, from novel by Roy Chanslor
Main Cast: Joan Crawford, Sterling Hayden, Mercedes McCambridge, Scott Brady, Ward Bond

RAY WEEK: PART II

Continuing right along with "Ray Week" (that's Nicholas Ray Week), we come to Ray's 1954 Old West offering of "Johnny Guitar" - a western starring Joan Crawford and Sterling Hayden, which I recorded off of Turner Classic Movies months (probably even years) ago.

Hayden is Johnny Logan a.k.a. Johnny Guitar, who, when the film opens, strolls into Vienna's, a saloon/gambling joint, to meet with the owner herself...Vienna (Crawford). Vienna is a strong woman who plans to capitalize when the railroad is built through the area. As the film opens, a lynch mob, lead by Emma Small (McCambridge) and John McIvers (Bond), storm into Vienna's looking for the culprits who pulled off a stagecoach robbery. They suspect The Dancin' Kid (Brady) and his cohorts, but when that gang swaggers in behind them, they deny having anything to do with it. Already some pretty combustible elements are put into play, as you have the lynch mob and the fiery Emma Small, Dancin' Kid's gang, with Ernest "Bart Lonergan" Borgnine in tow, Johnny Guitar, who wields a guitar in one hand and happens to be a pretty feared shot and Vienna, a tough cowgirl, played boldly by Crawford. When The Dancin' Kid's gang are accused of robbing the coach and ARE innocent, they decide that if they're going to be accused, they might as well actually do something to be accused for. So they head to the bank one morning and hold it up, planning to take the gold, buy some new horses and make way for California. Of course, all doesn't go as planned and all the combustibility that is originally introduced, comes to a head in the climax of the film.

SPOILER ALERT!!

Despite the seeming excitement of the plot, the movie is actually quite a drag. They introduce lots of fire early on and in my opinion, fail to deliver the goods, as the movie is never really building to anything particularly exciting. Westerns were never really my bag anyway and the few that I have liked from THE BOOK were, more than likely, just cases of being in the right mood, at the right time and the fact that those particular westerns hit the nail right on the head, in my eyes. In fact, I can only name a handful - three or four - things I actually liked about this movie and for your convenience, I now present them in list form:

1. The initial confrontation between Johnny and Bart, at the bar and the subsequent fist fight. Pretty great stuff and had they featured Ernest Borgnine a little more prominently, I may have taken to this better. Love that guy, can't wait to review "Marty".

2. The shot where the lynch mob storms into Vienna's to find her playing the piano. The tracking shot as Emma swings open the doors and the beautiful camerawork that follows, Crawford in her billowing white dress. Was it just me or did anyone else think that Turkey was hiding under her dress skirt?

And finally

3. The finale and of course I'm talking about the shoot out between Emma and Vienna, the beautiful backdrop behind Crawford's head, the bullet between The Dancin' Kid's eyes and Emma falling over the balcony of the lair.

That's about it. The rest of the film was kind of a drag and I didn't, in the least, buy Sterling Hayden as a cowboy. You have to understand that the only other two Hayden movies I've ever seen are "The Killing" and "The Asphalt Jungle" where, in both, he plays a crook. I've been conditioned to view his as a crook, not a cowboy. And while I'm on the subject of the cast, I really didn't like Joan Crawford as a cowgirl either. She played the role fine, with confidence and vigor, but I'd rather see Crawford in noir too and to be brutally honest, she lost a lot of her attractive qualities with short hair (or was her long hair just pinned up?) and wearing western shirts and blue jeans.

RATING: 4/10  I can't even get it to the average marker and Nicholas Ray is turning out to be a big disappointment. To be honest, that rating may have been lower if this hadn't been the first movie I watched AFTER "Too Early, Too Late", which in comparison would make ANYTHING look appealing. Next up for "Ray Week": "Rebel Without a Cause".

MOVIES WATCHED: 632
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 369

March 12, 2013  12:08am

Read More

678. Zu fruh, zu spat/Too Early, Too Late (1982)

Running Time: 105 minutes
Directed By: Daniele Huillet, Jean-Marie Straub
Written By: Friedrich Engels, Daniele Huillet, Mahmoud Hussein, Jean-Marie Straub

HELP FROM OVERSEAS: 2 of 2

Before I rip into this movie, let me just reiterate how gracious I am to Ray for being so trustworthy toward me and allowing me to borrow a couple of his movies and spending the money to ship them all the way from the UK.  Thank you a thousand times over Ray. Now then...

I'm not even going to bother trying to summarize the events of this because it's barely able to be summarized. All I can tell you is that it's one hour and forty five minutes of very long takes of images and landscapes, accompanied by voiceover narration by Daniele Huillet and Mahmoud Hussein, who can barely speak English. The narration takes about revolt and gives certain facts about impoverished villages and why revolution was eventually necessary. I have to be completely honest with you here, I wasn't really paying much attention to the narrator. I TRIED to give the movie my undivided attention, but there were times when my mind would wander elsewhere and I couldn't help it. I watched every image - every long, dull image - and tried my best to make heads or tails out of the narration that I was paying attention to, but between barely being able to understand the speakers and being clueless as to the subject that was being discussed, I didn't pick up on much.

If there is ANYONE out there who watched this and actually found something in it, gave it a '7/10' or higher or found some sort of enjoyment out of watching these images, please come here to the blog and fill me in on what I'm apparently missing. I beg you to fill me in. I don't expect you to rip into my negative opinion, nor will I rip into your positive one. I just want some sort of insight into why on Earth this film would've been chosen as one of 1001 movies that one must see before one's death. It is the opinion of this author that "movies" like this, should not be included in a book, THE BOOK, next to movies that have actual actors, characters and plots. In my opinion, this isn't even really a movie, it's simply a man with a camera, shooting images and talking over them, something that literally anyone can do. The images weren't even particularly good looking, they were just vague, almost random, uninspiring images, that held no special meaning - to me anyway. Okay, so obviously I didn't like the movie and for obvious reasons, so there's no need to keep on about it.

RATING: 1/10  By far, THE WORST of the season, thus far. One last big 'thank you' to Ray, who as we speak has me one more hard to find movie in the mail.

MOVIES WATCHED: 631
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 370

March 10, 2013  11:19pm

Read More

231. In a Lonely Place (1950)

Running Time: 94 minutes
Directed By: Nicholas Ray
Written By: Dorothy B. Hughes, Edmund H. North, Andrew Solt, from novel by Dorothy B. Hughes
Main Cast:  Humphrey Bogart, Gloria Grahame, Frank Lovejoy, Carl Benton Reid, Art Smith
Click here to view the trailer

RAY WEEK: PART I

Whoa, look at me - after two days away from the blog, I use a Saturday off from work to squeeze in two reviews! Could there be three? Stay tuned. Today, after the positive "Trainspotting" review, I figured I'd keep things rolling by kicking off "Ray Week" - a four film salute to Nicholas Ray.

Humphrey Bogart is Dixon Steele, a Hollywood screenwriter who hasn't had a hit in quite some time and who is being sought out to adapt a dreamy, love novel into a hit epic. While dining at a local Hollywood hot spot, Dixon meets a hat check girl who gushes about the novel. It is also at the hot spot where we learn that Dixon has a short fuse and will tussle with anyone for even looking at him with cross eyes. Later, he picks up the hat check girl, coaxing her to cancel her prearranged date and go back to his place, so she can summarize the novel for him and he can decide if he wants to write it. At his place, the girl does just that and when Dixon gets too tired to entertain her any longer, he sends her away with $20 and directions to the taxicab stand. The next morning, a detective and friend of Dixon's, Brub Nicolai (Lovejoy), comes knocking on Dixon's door, summoning him to the station. Dixon is confused at first, but after arriving at the station is told that the hat check girl was found dead and that he's the prime suspect. Dixon takes it all in stride, playing it cool, like only Humphrey Bogart would do and can only think of one person that can vouch for him staying in the night before - his neighbor (Grahame). So, his neighbor, Laurel Gray, is brought to the station and confirms everything that she knows - that Dixon was in the night before and as far as she knows, he stayed in - and they're cut loose, only to strike up a romance, after arriving back at their apartments. Now, we have a "whodunit" on our hands, wrapped around a budding love story.

SPOILER ALERT!!

Humphrey Bogart is now 0-115 as far as his record for impressing me goes. Okay, so maybe there haven't been THAT many Bogart selections in THE BOOK, but I can think of at least five, off the top of my head - five so-called classics - that really failed to win me over. You've got the disappointing double shot with him and Bacall ("The Big Sleep" and "To Have and Have Not"), the mildly entertaining, but also mildly disappointing "The Maltese Falcon" and don't even get me started on that train wreck, so-called SUPER COLOSSAL CLASSIC "Casablanca". In fact, there has only been ONE other Bogart film that I've watched for the 1001 journey and that was "Angels with Dirty Faces", still an absolute favorite of mine, but not because of Bogart. But let's dig a little deeper, because you see, I didn't mind Bogart in "Angels" and if you'll recall, in "Angels" he played the bad guy. Perhaps we're onto something. Maybe, just maybe that's the ticket. Maybe I can't stomach Bogart as his cliche character - you know, the one he ALWAYS plays - the cigarette smoking, dame pleasing, fedora wearing, fast talking cool cat. I hate THAT guy. So maybe that's why I was ultimately so disappointed in "In a Lonely Place", because we ALMOST had bad guy Bogart back! Had they gone the route that apparently the novel took, Bogart would've been revealed to be the killer and I would've loved that. But gracious no, we can't have our beloved Humphrey revealed to be a killer!! Why that'd be like serving a grilled cheese sandwich, hold the cheese!

Okay enough Bogart bashing. I have four (that I can think of) Bogart movies left and I'm determined to find SOMETHING appealing in at least one of them. What I really should've done was watch them all as part of a "Bogart Week", then maybe he'd have grown on me, but by now it's too late for that. As for the rest of the picture (sans Bogart), I just wasn't THAT impressed. It was okay I guess, but, as far as I'm concerned it wasn't anything worth writing home about and it all seemed pretty plain if you ask me. They failed to draw any real suspense out of me and shame on them for not capitalizing on Mildred (the murder victim) screaming "Help", near the beginning of the film. I was almost sure that they'd elude to that and it was something simple that could've added some real frustrating (in a good way) and suspenseful moments for the audience. It was barely a film-noir and even though it IS classified as noir, it's a sad excuse for one. Gloria Grahame was pretty good in it, but then there's also "The Big Heat", which she's also in, provides better performances and is a FAR better example of a fantastic 50s noir. Case closed.

RATING: 5.5/10  Well Mr. Ray, not a good start. But, hey I'm an open-minded fellow and he has three more chances to impress me, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. Next up for "Ray Week": "Johnny Guitar".

MOVIES WATCHED: 630
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 371

March 9, 2013  5:11pm

Read More

911. TRAINSPOTTING (1996)

Running Time: 94 minutes
Directed By: Danny Boyle
Written By: John Hodge, from novel by Irvine Welsh
Main Cast: Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremner, Johnny Lee Miller, Robert Carlyle, Kevin McKidd
Click here to view the trailer

CHOOSE LIFE

With speculation that I won't enjoy the second "Help From Overseas" film, I've decided to hold onto it for a few days. Also, with the purchase of a new Blu-Ray player last night, my capabilities to stream Netflix through my television were restored and what better way to christen the new device than by watching Ewan McGregor crawl inside a toilet.

The film, in the same vein (no pun intended) as "Requiem for a Dream", shows us the lives of teens/twenty-somethings who are addicted to drugs, specifically heroine. The film starts out with Renton (McGregor) and pals running from the police and then we flashback, right before he's caught. Renton is your typical druggie, a boy who promises rehabilitation, tries it for a day or two and then gets right back on the stuff. He has a group of pals: Sick Boy (Miller), Spud (Bremner), Tommy (McKidd), who is clean and health conscience and Begbie (Carlyle), who is also clean, but very psychotic, picking fights with anyone and everyone. The film basically shows us the life of Renton and company, through a series of anecdotes: Renton getting involved with a 14-year-old girl (Kelly Macdonald), Renton forced to use the worst restroom in Scotland, Renton getting Tommy on the junk, Renton heisting a homemade sex tape from Tommy, which gets Tommy in trouble with his girlfriend, etc. At about the halfway mark, we catch up to Renton where we first saw him, getting chased down by the police and found out that, indeed he does get caught, along with Spud. Spud goes to jail, but as long as he commits himself to rehabilitation, Renton is released. His parents then take the tough love approach, installing a dead bolt on his bedroom door, lock it from the outside and force him to get clean. With visions of dead babies and Spud in shackles, Renton goes through hell, but comes out to tell about it on the other side and that's not even the end!

For me, "Trainspotting" has always been that movie that I've loved but never really associated with or formed a more solid opinion about. I'd seen "Trainspotting" several times before this morning, with opinions raging from "like very much" to "love", yet I don't even own it on DVD - which, for an avid DVD collector, is a bit odd. It's like that neighbor that you really like and when he sees you out you always talk to him and exchange pleasantries and even behind his back, you tell other neighbors what a great guy he is, yet you never invite him over to see your place, share a piece of pie & coffee and get to know each other a little better. That's what "Trainspotting" is for me: a nice, acquainted neighbor. Today, though, I finally had that pie & coffee and decided that "Trainspotting", despite being aimed at a more general audience (I think) is a marvelous film. Despite not really being a linear story, "Trainspotting" (as I outlined in my synopsis) uses a collection of anecdotes, which are easily watchable and range from very funny to very sad to very disgusting, all emotions that every audience member can easily tap into, to introduce us to the characters and lure us into the story - the basic story being, group of guys on drugs.

SPOILER ALERT!!

The film also has a little bit of an "escaping the old life" story wound in it, a story that I've always been a sucker for (see "Carlito's Way"), as Renton, at about the halfway mark DOES get himself cleaned up, moves to London, gets a job and finds a life. I felt sorry for the character when he was dragged back into that life and was even more pleased at the end, when it looks like he's headed back in the right direction.

I'm not going to keep on about it. It's a great movie, one that most people should be able to enjoy. It feeds upon basic audience reactions, proving that the filmmaker's know how to make a good movie. When discussing Danny Boyle, I can say that I've been turned off by him just as much as I've been turned on (cinematically speaking). While "Trainspotting" and "28 Days Later" are both successes in my book and movies that I thoroughly enjoy, "The Beach" and "Slumdog Millionaire" are movies that I really disliked. Still though, "Trainspotting" is a movie good enough to at least get him a footnote in my "great book of great director's" (that great, imaginary work). Avid movie fans need to keep their eyes peeled here for references to "A Clockwork Orange" and "Taxi Driver" (both at the Volcano nightclub) and Beatles fans will also find a few homages as well.

RATING: 9/10  Can't go the whole hog on this one, simply because I've seen better even during this season. But it was really good and I needed that.

MOVIES WATCHED: 629
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 372

March 9, 2013  12:15pm

Read More

379. Chronique d'un ete/Chronicle of a Summer (1961)

Running Time: 85 minutes
Directed By: Edgar Morin, Jean Rouch
Main Cast: Marceline Loridan Ivens, Marilu Parolini, Jean Rouch

Note: "Chronicle of a Summer", along with another movie that I'll be watching and reviewing soon, came to me all the way from the United Kingdom, via my most frequent commenter and ONE OF the first, Ray. I want to take a minute to thank Ray for allowing me to borrow two of his DVDs. Prior to our correspondence with one another (both here at the blog and through various e-mails) Ray and I were total strangers. I commend him for putting his trust in me and can only hope that I would be just as trusting a person to someone in need. Ray has now officially helped me to accomplish my goal of seeing all 1001 movies on the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" list and for that, I will always be grateful. Thank you Ray.

HELP FROM OVERSEAS: 1 of 2

So this is a review that won't take long because despite my immense gratitude for being able to see it, I really didn't care for it that much and on top of that, it's pretty short, so I should be able to get to the point fairly quickly.

"Chronicle of a Summer" is an experiment performed by Edgar Morin and Jean Rouch (see "The Mad Masters"), one of which is a sociologist (Morin) and the other an anthropologist and filmmaker (Rouch). The experiment deals with trying to capture people's real emotions, conversations and interactions and whether or not the presence of a camera will alter the reality of their responses. Morin and Rouch follow several subjects to see whether or not they can capture realism on film, including Angelo, a poor factory worker, Marceline, a holocaust survivor and Marilu, a secretary. Morin and Rouch also travel to Saint-Tropez to interview "Saint-Tropez girl" Sophie. Near the end of the film, Morin and Rouch bring all of their subjects to a special screening of the finished film and gather their opinions on what they've seen and whether or not they think the reactions were real or simply a group of people performing for the camera.

Yeah, I just wasn't interested in this particular experiment. I'm not saying it was awful or anything, simply that it just wasn't for me. I'll reference back to that quote I mentioned a couple of weeks ago in one of my Ozu reviews, about any human interaction being worthy of our attention. While I DID agree with that line, I do feel that "Chronicle of a Summer" felt more like a staged interaction. While Morin and Rouch were looking to capture realism, I feel that by placing too much emphasis on the fact that there was a camera present, only served to make me feel like the whole thing was a big contrivance. I feel that these people didn't react naturally and that they WERE probably putting on more of a show than they normally would have, even though they weren't acting particularly over the top. Most of their interactions and conversations were quite normal and subtle, and while I didn't really care for it that much, there were certain segments that worked for me. I DID enjoy the piece with Angelo, where we followed him from the time he woke-up to the time he went back to sleep. It made me realize that someone needs to make a feature film (whether documentary of fictional) about a man waking, going about his day and then going back to bed - no story, just basic everyday life, voyeurism, if you will.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I'm glad I finally got to check it out and see what all the hubbub was about, but trust me, it's not a "must see" and you can certainly go to your grave without laying your eyes upon this one. In fact, I'd like to know which of THE BOOK contributors is related to Jean Rouch, because that's the only plausible conclusion I can come up with for why this AND "The Mad Masters" were included as "must see" choices.

RATING: 3.5/10  Not awful, just an experiment that didn't work for me. I appreciated the effort though and certainly Edgar Morin wanted desperately for this to work, which apparently it did, because my opinion IS NOT the be all, end all and it DID make it's way into THE BOOK.

MOVIES WATCHED: 628
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 373

March 7, 2013  5:46pm

Read More

233. A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)

Running Time: 122 minutes
Directed By: Elia Kazan
Written By: Tennessee Williams, Oscar Saul, from play by Tennessee Williams
Main Cast: Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando, Kim Hunter, Karl Malden
Click here to view the trailer

"STELL-AHHHH!"

Started watching this late Monday night, but didn't get the chance to finish it off until late Tuesday night and by the time I DID finish it, I was too exhausted to write the review - a review where I knew I'd have a lot to say.

As the film opens, Blanche DuBois (Leigh) is arriving in New Orleans, via a streetcar named "Desire", to her sister Stella's house, where she plans to stay until she gets back on her feet. We learn through conversations that Blanche WAS a school teacher, but something happened that forced her to resign (we find that "something" out later). We also learn that Blanche and her family once owned a plantation house, Belle Reve, but has been lost due to over piling debts. Stella (Hunter) is of course happy to see Blance and likewise Blanche to see Stella, but it's apparent right off the bat that Blanche has changed, that she is much more emotionally and mentally frail than she once was. We learn much more about Blanche through conversations - that she was once married, but that her husband, a young boy, shot himself after a quarrel with Blanche. We learn darker secrets about Blanche as the film continues, but I'll let you find those out for yourself. Not long after her arrival, we meet Stanley Kowalski (Brando), Stella's husband. Stanley is a fiery Pole who takes a dislike to Blanche from the get-go. Stanley is concerned with an inheritance that he's sure Blanche has stashed away and wants to claim Stella's piece of the pie. After a while, Blanche takes to Stanley's best friend, Mitch (Malden), a gentle, decent guy (the opposite of Stanley) who, after a while, begins to see visions of marriage when he looks at Blanche. I'll stop there and let you experience the rest of the movie and the secrets it holds for yourself.

SPOILER ALERT!!

I had see "A Streetcar Named Desire" three times prior to watching it last night. The first time was just a basic curiosity to see a so-called classic, the movie where Marlon Brando screams "Stell-AHHH!". The second and third times were both during failed attempts to watch all of the movies on the IMDB Top 250 list (which, by the way, I'll probably end up doing by watching all of the movies in THE BOOK) and all three times I HATED it. I'm talking, I hated it so much that if I'd been giving ratings out back then, I'd have probably affixed it a '1'. I think my main problem those three times, was that I found Vivien Leigh's Blanche to be too annoying to actually care about. I used to HATE Leigh in this and on the other hand, I used to really love Brando. When I used to watch ASND, I actually (somehow) sympathized with Stanley, because hey, I wouldn't want my wife's sister staying with me either, especially a sister with such issues. I'm sure I had other issues with the film too, probably the fact that back then I didn't watch a whole lot of black & white cinema and when I did, unless it was particularly engrossing, I usually would decide that I hated it.

However...

Mitch sheds some light on the situation in a pretty INTENSE scene, to say the least.

With the watching of 626 of the 1001 "must see" movies before you die, many of them "older" movies, comes a certain appreciation for the classics. Sure, I don't all of a sudden like ALL the classics, but as I've noted many times before, this book will change your tastes and in the case of ASND, it has. Never before, during the watching of a film, have I been forced to think so intently about the greatness of a certain picture and let me tell you it's not easy to suddenly have your opinion do a complete 180. It's like hating peanut butter all your life and then one day popping open a jar of Skippy only to realize that it's so melt in your mouth delicious that you COULD just eat it right out of the jar. It's hard to finally face your own, former opinion and have to so radically change it. So what changed this time, what suddenly captivated me? Let's discuss.

For starters, just look at some of the issues that are being tackled, at a time when tackling issues wasn't Hollywood's strong suit. You've got a woman with a clear mental disorder, driven over the edge after many of life's disappointments. There's also talk of suicide, rape, statutory rape (the reason that Blanche was forced to resign from teaching, was because she got caught "messing around" with a 17-year-old student), prostitution and domestic violence. I mean, I don't know about you, but when I used to think of old movies, squeaky clean families would come to mind. Father's who went to work in the morning, dressed in suit & tie, milk men who would deliver glass bottles to your doorstep and wave delightfully toward the housewife, who stayed home with baby and made sure the kids got off to school with sack lunches, full of nutritious snacks. Kind of a "Leave it to Beaver" image. However, when you really start to dig (and really, who's digging, we're talking about "A Streetcar Named Desire" - a very popular flick), you realize that once in a while, Hollywood would actually get a little gritty and there's not much grittier than ASND. After this latest viewing, no more was ASND a dull movie, virtually plot-less, with an annoying lead actress. No, not at all. Now it was a poignant piece of writing, with marvelous dialogue, the highest caliber acting on display and a deep story that you can debate about and research and that will leave you feeling a little uneasy...in a good way.

Oh and for God's sake, do I even have to mention the acting? No more did Vivien Leigh come off as an annoyance. This time around I was really able to appreciate her abilities and the way she must have really had to reach deep into her repertoire to pull off Blanche. And Brando - what can you say about Brando that hasn't already been said? And if we're handing out report cards, who gets the better grade, Leigh or Brando? I really don't know. I do know that they both put on performances that have been marveled over for the past sixty years and I can only hope that in another sixty, people are still watching in amazement as two masters hone their craft. Brando has a way about him here that makes you love him as an actor, but not want to see him onscreen, because you know his character is only going to bring a sense of unease to the scene, an unease you can almost feel in your throat. And God bless Kim Hunter for not only trying, but succeeding in holding her own on a stage with Marlon and Vivien. Oh yes, Karl Malden is great too! Oh and speaking of Malden, am I the only one who thinks that HE should've been the one to "take liberties" with Blanche? Kind of like a Noodles/Deborah thing from "Once Upon a Time in America", where he wants something so bad and when he realizes he's not going to get it, he takes it. I couldn't exactly recall, but while I was watching, I thought that was going to happen - right about the time he pulls off the lamp shade to reveal Blanche's face and get a closer look at her.

RATING: 8/10  I've blathered on long enough, but let me just say that not since "Requiem for a Dream" has my opinion of a movie so radically changed. ASND is actually probably a '10', but I need some time to get used to the idea of such a radical change of opinion.

MOVIES WATCHED: 627
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 374

March 6, 2013  6:14pm

Read More