Ninotchka (1939)

By Eric Jessen 7/6/09

To hell with politics. Turn that frown upside down. What about love? What about laughter? Lets first start with a smile. It will make the whole world better.
This is the lovely and enduring message of Ninotchka and of To Be or Not Be (an equally splendid movie) and of any Ernst Lubitsch movie for that matter. To explain Lubitsch's approach further look at what Leon (Melvyn Douglas) says to Ninotchka (Greta Garbo) as he tries to get her to laugh. He pleads “Smile at anything, at the whole ridiculous spectacle of life, at people being so serious, taking themselves pompously, exaggerating their own importance” and later saying “I can't leave you. I won't, not until you laugh at least once.” That is Lubitsch's mission, and he fulfills it over and over again. Go see Ninotchka or To Be or Not to Be or Trouble in Paradise because they're all wonderful. There is so much love and joy for people, so much elegance and playfulness in a Lubitsch movie. His characters have an endearing silliness about them but are at the same time nuanced. While their comedy may at times seem slapstick, it can be very biting satire.
In Ninotchka we first meet three Russian comrades on an assignment in Paris to sell diamonds formerly owned by the Grand Duchess Swana (Ina Claire) to raise money for starving people in Russian. When the three buffoon comrades Iranoff (Sig Ruman), Buljanoff (Felix Bressart) and Kopalski (Alexander Granach) get manipulated by Leon, who is working for Duchess Swana, the hard boiled diligent Ninotchka is sent from Russia to help. When Ninotchka arrives at the train station in Paris, a man comes to help her with her bags and she calls it a “social injustice.” She's very red. The minute she meets Iranoff, Buljanoff, and Kopalski she gets right down to business and refuses to meet with the scheming Leon. When she has a break in her work she decides to go scout Paris and study its mechanical structure. While on the street she stumbles upon Leon (one of the movie's many perfectly scripted coincidences). They immediately fall in love. Leon breaks Ninotchka's rough exterior with charming wit. They don't realize that they are enemies in the legal battle over the diamonds. Their love intersects with their politics. Leon is a bourgeoisie consumerist dilettante. He once thought of love as simply juvenile and middle class. Ninotchka says she puts her country, her morals, convictions, all that stuff first and before love. But she has one precious week until she'll be sent back to Moscow so why not treasure the few moments she has with her beloved Leon? Leon has broken her shell. She can finally laugh at the world, at Russian grumpiness, and at scoundrels like Iranoff, Buljanoff and Kopalski. She looks at the photo of Lennon she carries with her and says “Smile little father, smile.” During the week Ninotchka comes to her senses. (And here comes the satire.) Who cares about the ideals, the morals, the poor workers? All her troubles wash away with one lustful glance by Leon. Shucks, what's wrong with liking the weird hats and fancy dresses they sell in Paris? Ninotchka thinks Russia might want to give crazy old capitalism a whirl. She pronounces (though drunk) “Lovers of the world unite. No we won't stretch up our arms. We won't clench our fists. Our solute will be a kiss.” In the end she forgets all that communist mumbo jumbo and just lets herself live happily ever after with Leon.
So, what about love and what about laughter? What about that first smile, that smile that will brighten the world? You'll find it in Ninotchka.

The Last Detail (1973)

By Eric Jessen 7/5/09

Billy “Bad ass” Buddusky (Jack Nicholson) is a snarly, boozing career sailor. Larry Meadows (Randy Quaid) is a naïve and timid sailor being sent to jail for petty pointless thefts. They seem completely different and yet deep down they are the same – depressed and afraid.
“Bad ass” and “Mule” Mulhall, an equally sour career sailor, finally have a job to do and it's not doing “shit detail” at the “shit hole” (their naval base) like they're used to. They've got a special job. They have to escort eighteen year old sailor Larry Meadows to the brig (navy prison). Meadows has been sentenced to 8 years in prison with a dishonorable discharge for attempting to steal 40 dollars from a polio fund box. Meadows is quiet and unassuming so “Bad ass” Buddusky and “Mule” think they have an easy job. Buddusky sees this as a good time while traveling across the county to have fun. The only problem for Buddusky is that something about the trip with Meadows scares him.
Buddusky notices that Meadows doesn't care about being sent to prison. He surmises that Meadows is just afraid of being independent. Meadows is a childlike idiot and he needs to be told what to do. Buddusky's solution is to show Meadows a good time and let him experience the finer things in life. He gets him drunk, takes him ice skating, “gets him laid” (with a young whore played with great melancholy by Carol Kane) and Meadows enjoys it. By the end we and Buddusky realize that Meadows has grown. He has broken out of his shell and values his life. This makes it all the more difficult for Buddusky to send Meadows to jail.
Meadows, Buddusky and “Mule” all have a fantastic time on their trip, but by the end depression sets in. Meadows now dreads being sent to jail. Buddusky and “Mule's” trip with Meadows reminds them of how disappointed they are with their life at the naval base. They're as trapped at the “shit hole” as Meadows will be in prison. They hate the “shit hole” but they can't live without it. They're career sailors, it's all they know. But they'll wait and wait for their next chance to hit the sea. They're probably in a weird way hoping for a war to break out.
The Last Detail is a must see movie. It's a fascinating character study. I feel like I know these characters. I want to keep thinking about them and writing about them. We see Meadows grow as a character which is rare in movies. But despite all that you should watch this movie because of Jack Nicholson. Jack is perfect for this role. He is angry and showy. He is once again so raw and vivid and so human that he's funny. He produces a nervous laugh that makes you think he's going to burst out of the screen. Jack's Buddusky doesn't know what he wants but he knows he wants something, and now. He's angry, bitter, afraid. He's a mess of emotions. As a result he drinks, he snarls and curses and wants people desperately to keep calling him “Bad ass.”
Buddusky, Meadows and “Mule” live as we live – in fear of the world they don't understand – but they seek vices for help and eventually they learn from each other

The Crying Game (1992)

By Eric Jessen 7/2/09

I always think I know what is coming next in a movie, and a lot of the times I'm right, but when I'm wrong I love it. In The Crying Game I was wrong every step of the way. I loved how I never knew what to expect. And what made The Crying Game particularly effective in keeping me on my toes was that when there was a sudden plot twist the characters seemed as shocked as I was. I was just going along for the ride with the characters as they were in one weird situation after another. The character we follow the most is Fergus, played by Stephen Rea. Fergus is a kind hearted man who works as the IRA's “Mr. Nobody” mainly because he has nothing else to do. He admits to not really being worth much and not having many skills. We first meet him when his IRA group kidnaps a British soldier, played by Forest Whitaker. It's Fergus' job to guard the hostage and if necessary kill him. Fergus, being a nice guy, pals around with the hostage Jody. When Jody realizes he's probably going to die, he tells Fergus to tell his girlfriend he loves her.
The Crying Game puts Fergus in one difficult position after another. The first is, should he kill his new friend Jody or and risk being killed by the IRA. You'll see, but he doesn't even end up having to make a decision. I thought for a second this might be a movie about the IRA but it turns out I was wrong. The shack where the IRA is holding Jody gets attacked and Fergus flees to Britain. Fergus finds Jody's loved one, Dil (Jaye Davidson), and begins what will be a strange and volatile relationship. Just as I think this movie is going to become another love story between Dil and Fergus with sex scenes and tear jerking moments, I found out there's a problem with Dil for Fergus in the bedroom (By the way, I thought she looked a little manly from the start). And, by the way, the IRA is back in the mix including the dangerous seductress Jude (Miranda Richardson). Jude says she will kill Dil if Fergus doesn't go on a suicidal mission for the IRA. Now Fergus has another tough decision to make. He wants to protect and care for Dil, he even loves her in a sterile way, but is she worth risking his life for? Remember he's an extremely nice guy. In the end he makes a very honorable sacrifice.
The Crying Game is worth seeing because we never really know what to expect. We and the characters make assumptions and think we've got it all figured out, but when we're wrong we learn something about ourselves. This movie makes me think about all the assumptions I've made about people. Maybe I was wrong. The main thing I got out of the Crying Game was that being wrong in my assumptions can be a lot of fun.

Foreign Correspondent (1940)

By Eric Jessen 7/1/09

The devastation of war was in the air in Europe and America in 1940. Alfred Hitchcock responds with a tentative anti war statement in Foreign Correspondent. He puts together a wonderful cast, a who's who of some of my favorite actors. There is the always lovable Joel McCrea as the foreign correspondent, George Sanders as a fellow correspondent, Scott, (he's less scheming in Foreign Correspondent then I prefer him.) There is also fast talking Herbert Marshal as the sort of good, sort of bad guy spy Stephen Fisher. The girl (because there's always a girl) is Carol Fisher played by Laraine Day. She's falling in love with the foreign correspondent just as he is trying to expose her father Stephen. Day is bland for my taste, not really worth risking your life for.
Foreign Correspondent is toned down Hitchcock. He appears to be pulling his punches as the master of suspense in favor of a very moral war message. It appears Hitchcock doesn't know how to make a political point. He should stick to truly twisted suspense. (How can you not love Vertigo and Psycho.) The plot is convoluted and so is the message. McCrea plays a foreign correspondent who is inexperienced and a bit of a boob. He stumbles upon the story of the year just as war approaches. There are spies, a faked assassination, the whole lot. But no one believes him. He looks to Stephen Fisher for help. Just as he starts to fall in love with Fisher's daughter Carol, Fisher tries to have him killed. He doesn't know who he can trust, and he is starting to wish he could just ditch his correspondency and marry Carol. He's in quite a pickle. Luckily smooth talking reporter, Scott, who knows the ropes, has got everything figured out. It turns out Fisher is a spy working for the Germans. This is where the war message starts to come together. Scott is trying to have our beloved foreign correspondent killed but he's just doing it out of loyalty for his country. He's really a good guy, the nasty war is making him do it. People will do terribly uncivilized things during war. And guess who's caught in the fray, the overly good Carol (Laraine Day). She still loves her father, the traitor spy, and the foreign correspondent who is trying to expose him. I guess the message is, war is bad and people are good, but war makes good people do bad things. This message is refreshing compared to the usual, that the Germans are bad and everyone else is good. Still, this is not up Hitchcock's alley. The political message muddles his ability to have a purely exciting thriller. The movie gets boring and stale. The final scene, with the American national anthem playing in the background, is bloated. It was like the painfully long speech by Chaplin at the end of The Great Dictator. These directors should just stick to what they're good at.
Overall this is not a bad movie. It has its moments of Hitchcockiness. It is well made, just not at as thrilling as it could have been. I guess with fear of war in the air, Hitchcock couldn't resist giving his two cents.

Pépé le Moko (1937)

By Eric Jessen 7/2/09

The Algerian squeal to the French police called him the “prince of plunder.” But really, he's soft at heart. He cares for his friend Pierrot and treats him like a son. He is capable of dropping his gangster ways for the lovely rich French woman who is visiting Algeria. The only problem is, he's trapped in the slums of the Algiers by the police. But don't worry, have no fear, he'll find a way out. He'll find a way to get the girl. Remember, it's Jean Gabin. It's the movies. Oh crap, oh no! I started writing this before I saw the end. This is a different kind of movie. Pepe le Moko (Jean Gabin) is not so lucky a movie gangster with a heart. This ending is different, perfect. Throw aside the predictable movie endings. He doesn't necessarily need to end up with the pretty girl for it to be romantic. This is new, it's exotic, at least for 1937. Who cares if they're French actors with bad fake tans to look like Algerians. The ending is infinitely more romantic then a predictable Hollywood ending. It is romantic in a Shakespearian way. It's straight out of Romeo and Juliet. She thinks he's dead. He thinks she's gone. He goes down easy and classy to police. Kind of dull (I'm thinking), but suddenly he gets one last look at the boat she was supposed to be departing on. There she is, but he's in shackles, so he kills himself because he can't be with her. He suffered tragically for his life of crime. Pepe le Moko is a great example of the poetic realism movement of the late 1930's.
I love this movie. How can you not? It's got all my favorite actors from the Jean Renoir movies. Gaston Modot as a gangster (not that he does anything), the wonderful Marcel Dalio as an Algerian “mail man”, and best of all the dynamic screen presence, Jean Gabin. There are also a few standout supporting role performances, such as Fernand Charpin as a squeal, who's death scene is one of the high points of the movie.
This is not Renoir's movie (I wish it were) but it is very well directed. Julien Duvivier's camera slithers at low angles along the grounds of the slums of the Algiers (some on set, some on location). The music is spicy and foreign (some of that raising snakes, flute stuff).
Above all this is a gangster movie, and the gangster's savior or cause of his demise is always the woman he falls in love with. What makes this gangster movie interesting and unique is its lead. Jean Gabin gives the head gangster complexity and vulnerability. He's unpredictable. In Pepe Le Moko the only things that makes him a successful gangster are his large posse and his ability to shake the police in the Algiers. He's not very intimidating and appears to be a coward. He almost faints anytime he comes near the city and out of the slums where the police can catch him. In the end he becomes what no tough gangster wants to be - a hopeless romantic, sacrificing himself for love. But remember this movie is different and that's why I love it.

Breaking the Waves (1996)

By Eric Jessen 7/1/09

Breaking the Waves is a courageous work of art. Its director, Lars Von Trier, delves into the deepest and most murky areas of the human heart and mind. He questions our spirituality and morality. He explores his character's most hidden emotions. As an audience we are never really ready or comfortable watching a movie like Breaking the Waves, because we are not used to hearing the innermost thought of people. But in the end, Breaking the Waves is refreshing and satisfying. He challenges us as human beings and makes us think about our own hidden emotions. In Breaking the Waves Lars, Von Trier is putting his talents to good use. It is evident that Trier understands his characters and connects with them. Although he exposes their faults he believes that they are capable of goodness.
Breaking the Waves, like any Trier movie, is an intense experience. It is thought provoking and asks difficult moral and spiritual questions. We meet a soon to be married couple Bess (Emily Watson) and Jan (Stellan Skarsgard). Bess is credulous and emotionally unstable. After she and Jan are married, Jan has to leave to work on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean. While Jan is away Bess becomes distraught and starts speaking with God. She pleads with God to bring Jan home. She says “Oh please, won't you send him home” and she replies to herself, closing her eyes and speaking in a deeper voice, “are you sure that's what you want?” Then she says tentatively, in her normal voice, “Yes.” When Jan is forced to come home because he is paralyzed in an accident, Bess believes the accident is her fault for asking God to bring Jan home. While Jan is in the hospital he asks Bess to make a sacrifice for him. He says to Bess “I want you to find a man to make love to, and then come back here and tell me about it. It will feel like you and me being together again. That will keep me alive.” Bess believes that is her duty to obey her husband. She becomes delusional and starts sleeping with strange and dangerous men. She is doing it out of love for her husband and she believes it will make him better. She also believes that she must make this sacrifice to prove her love for her husband.
The essential moral question Breaking the Waves asks is, has Bess sinned if she believes everything she has done is out of love and is God's will? It also asks whether her strong spirituality is helpful or a detriment to her recovery. Bess says God gives everyone one talent and that hers is that “I believe.” She is unwilling to let anyone, doctors or her loyal friend played by Katrin Cartlidge, help her because she thinks God is watching over her. As a result she takes unnecessary risks to prove her love to Jan, and it leads to her demise.
Lars Von Trier is a talented director. I commend him for being bold and taking chances. Sometimes his risk taking result in failure, such as in Dogville, but in the case of Breaking the Waves the result is a huge success.

Dogville (2003)

By Eric Jessen 7/1/09

I hate it so much that I admire it. I know it wants me to hate it and I do. I will never watch it again, nor will anyone who watches it once watch it a second time. They'd be out of their minds. It is a truly horrible and painful experience. It has absolutely no redeeming qualities. This movie plays like an angry hate speech done by a crazed racist. Contempt for everything, particularly people, is pouring out of its seams. America is made the example for what's wrong with everything in the world. This movie is so intrepid in displaying its hate for man and America that it astonishes me. I admire it and find it strange because it truly doesn't want me to like it, or even really agree with it. I always believed that everyone wants to be liked by others and respected, but director Lars Von Trier laughs at that proposition and welcomes the idea of being alone with his bold work of art.
I sat through the 177 minutes and couldn't believe what was being done to the movies in Dogville. Maybe I'm just like one of its characters and am deathly afraid of change. But I found Trier's, so called, innovations shocking and infuriating. The most unique innovation in Dogville is that the entire film takes place on a sound stage with absolutely no set other than chalk outlining where houses are supposed to be and a few doors, beds, and other props. Movies have the ability to take the audience on an adventure to wonderful places like Vienna in The Third Man or Neverland but instead Trier takes us to a flat sound stage with Dogville and Elm St. written on the floor. Its not meant to look real. In the distance all we see is black. It has literally no depth. As a result we see the movie mostly in close-ups. There is also a lot of cutting and jerking of the camera like in a Bourne movie to make it less boring. (I'm surprised Trier even cares if it's boring.) All the actors mime opening doors or raking leaves making it painfully obvious that everything is fake. It became clear to me that Lars Von Trier is playing a sick joke and laughing at all previous movies that ask audiences to suspend disbelief. I can imagine Trier giggling in the back ground as his actors are forced to say with a straight face “All I see is a beautiful little town in the midst of mountains” or “Admit it, you've fallen for Dogville, the tall trees, the mountains.” One scene comes to mind in revealing Trier's intent. We see in a long shot, Grace(Nicole Kidman) being raped by one of the townsman in a room with no walls and all the townspeople standing in their rooms with no walls pretending not to notice. Yes, I know what you're thinking, he's making a point about the people of Dogville. You're right. The intention is that Dogville is a symbol of America and its people represent what's wrong with people everywhere. They are cowards that do nothing but hurt each other out of fear. There may be some truth in some of Trier's criticism of people, but Dogville fails miserably at trying to prove a point, because he shows no compassion. So many elements of this movie are chilling. Such as, the entire movie is narrated by sniveling voice that at some moments sounds condescending in saying Tom's house “in good times might almost pass as presentable” and then others sounds chipper in describing the nightly rape of Grace by townsmen like he was reading a children's parable. I also find it sad that a laundry list of talented actors, who for the most part did a spectacular job, would participate in Trier's game.
At some point near the end, Dogville appeared to reach a bizarre moment of clarity when it seems to ask people to change. That at least gives them the respect that they have the ability to change. That moment is quickly squashed in an ending that is very Trier. It is, for me, both disgusting and pleasing. All of Dogville (the town and the movie) is shot up by gangsters and burned. Thus ending the movie from hell.