So, every Saturday, I watch movies. All day. My partner and I are cineophiles, and we observe the Sabbath every week of watching movies all day. We have a specific ritual: we must start with something from the 1930's (the 40's are too late), preferably Pre-Code. We move on to Second Movie, which can be anywhere from the 40's - 70's, then Third Movie, which can be 60's - 80's or 90's, and then Last Movie, which is usually recent. Certainly, since the turn of the millennium. Once in a while, we have a rare five-movie day, but in any case, we follow a chronological order.
I go into this - and trust me, there's a LOT to say about Movie Day, so I am skipping a lot of details right now - only to preface a new feature in my blog, which I have wanted to include for a long time and which I am finally going to do, starting now, with this week's Movie Day movies. I don't know exactly WHAT I want to say about them, per se, but I am going to at least list them and give some idea of a basic plot and/or interesting feature, and possibly a rating.
First Movie: The Purchase Price
1932 (Pre-Code), Black and White
Starring Barbara Stanwyck and George Brent
Adapted from Arthur Stringer's 1932 novel "The Mud Lark"
The Purchase Price was, most notably, short. One of those 70 - 80 minute movies from the early 30's. The plot is usually simple - as this one was - and they tend to end suddenly (more on that later); once you know the way it's going to end - happy or sad, and it's usually (but not always) happy.
Barbara Stanwyck pretty much made this otherwise unremarkable movie watchable. George Brent can be fantastic, but also incredibly stubborn and unforgiving, which he was in this one. There was a nice version of a barn dance with drunken Little House on the Prairie-like neighbors bringing moonshine; a funny bit with a harmonica player who played until the second he passed out, and started playing the second they woke him up to get in him in the wagon home.
Second Move: The Grapes of Wrath
1940, Black and White
Directed by John Ford
Starring Henry Fonda, John Carradine, and Jane Darwell (who won the Best Supporting Actress 1941 for her performance of "Ma Joad")
What can I say about this classic? Faithfully portrayed, adapted from the Steinbeck novel that was published just the year before (and for which he won a Pulitzer Prize), and pretty depressing. Mostly depressing in the way that it seems like, really, not very much has changed in this country.
Third Movie: The In-Laws
1979, color
Directed by Arthur Hiller
Starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin (not the 2003 remake)
Classic. Really. The two of them are pretty funny together, and I've loved Alan Arkin's work since the first time I saw him, in Catch 22. He's fantastic as the flustered New York Jewish dentist thrown for a loop when his prospective in-law (their kids are marrying) turns out to be a CIA agent, and involves Arkin's character in a series of hijinks and larks. Some super classic late-70's scenes.
Fourth Movie: Avatar
2009, color / 3D
Directed by James Cameron
Famous for starring unknown actors. Also Sigourney Weaver to give it sci-fi cred.
My partner had never seen it, and had heard a few bad things about it. I explained it really did have a lot of good ideas: the indigenous peoples' connection with the land (literally, through that weird hair-tip plug), the lovely phosphors world, HomeTree and the Tree of the Ancestors. I like that Cameron had a lot of action that wasn't violent - it was beasts chasing someone, or the hero learning to ride a crazy dragon thingy. I get sick of violence - the conflict being resolved by a war. I mean, honestly, let's move on here. But overall, Avatar was enjoyable on the second viewing.
Now, there's an odd thing that happens during Movie Day - we noticed it years ago, and it's been consistent, which is this: there always arises (or usually) a common theme or element among the films. We'll get to the end of the day and realize all four movies had, for instance, a prominent character that was a defrocked priest, or at least something like they all had a big scene on a yacht.
Today, it was all about the poor, the rural folk, struggling against the larger (and nasty) institutions. In the first one, there was a lot of struggling with the local bank, so they could buy enough time to plant their super wheat seed. Grapes of Wrath - well, that was pretty much EVERY scene. The In Laws had it the least, but it was full of dictators and the CIA in poor countries. Very prominent in Avatar.
We often wonder why. It's odd when we recognize an element - oh my gosh, another blind daughter! - and we don't always see that there's a relevant meaning. Some movies stick with you and some don't, as much, but it's not like the weekly theme resonates afterwards. It's just a weird, fun way the universe plays with us, and says it's watching Movie Day too, or that's as likely as we can figure.
I go into this - and trust me, there's a LOT to say about Movie Day, so I am skipping a lot of details right now - only to preface a new feature in my blog, which I have wanted to include for a long time and which I am finally going to do, starting now, with this week's Movie Day movies. I don't know exactly WHAT I want to say about them, per se, but I am going to at least list them and give some idea of a basic plot and/or interesting feature, and possibly a rating.
First Movie: The Purchase Price
1932 (Pre-Code), Black and White
Starring Barbara Stanwyck and George Brent
Adapted from Arthur Stringer's 1932 novel "The Mud Lark"
The Purchase Price was, most notably, short. One of those 70 - 80 minute movies from the early 30's. The plot is usually simple - as this one was - and they tend to end suddenly (more on that later); once you know the way it's going to end - happy or sad, and it's usually (but not always) happy.
Barbara Stanwyck pretty much made this otherwise unremarkable movie watchable. George Brent can be fantastic, but also incredibly stubborn and unforgiving, which he was in this one. There was a nice version of a barn dance with drunken Little House on the Prairie-like neighbors bringing moonshine; a funny bit with a harmonica player who played until the second he passed out, and started playing the second they woke him up to get in him in the wagon home.
Second Move: The Grapes of Wrath
1940, Black and White
Directed by John Ford
Starring Henry Fonda, John Carradine, and Jane Darwell (who won the Best Supporting Actress 1941 for her performance of "Ma Joad")
What can I say about this classic? Faithfully portrayed, adapted from the Steinbeck novel that was published just the year before (and for which he won a Pulitzer Prize), and pretty depressing. Mostly depressing in the way that it seems like, really, not very much has changed in this country.
Third Movie: The In-Laws
1979, color
Directed by Arthur Hiller
Starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin (not the 2003 remake)
Classic. Really. The two of them are pretty funny together, and I've loved Alan Arkin's work since the first time I saw him, in Catch 22. He's fantastic as the flustered New York Jewish dentist thrown for a loop when his prospective in-law (their kids are marrying) turns out to be a CIA agent, and involves Arkin's character in a series of hijinks and larks. Some super classic late-70's scenes.
Fourth Movie: Avatar
2009, color / 3D
Directed by James Cameron
Famous for starring unknown actors. Also Sigourney Weaver to give it sci-fi cred.
My partner had never seen it, and had heard a few bad things about it. I explained it really did have a lot of good ideas: the indigenous peoples' connection with the land (literally, through that weird hair-tip plug), the lovely phosphors world, HomeTree and the Tree of the Ancestors. I like that Cameron had a lot of action that wasn't violent - it was beasts chasing someone, or the hero learning to ride a crazy dragon thingy. I get sick of violence - the conflict being resolved by a war. I mean, honestly, let's move on here. But overall, Avatar was enjoyable on the second viewing.
Now, there's an odd thing that happens during Movie Day - we noticed it years ago, and it's been consistent, which is this: there always arises (or usually) a common theme or element among the films. We'll get to the end of the day and realize all four movies had, for instance, a prominent character that was a defrocked priest, or at least something like they all had a big scene on a yacht.
Today, it was all about the poor, the rural folk, struggling against the larger (and nasty) institutions. In the first one, there was a lot of struggling with the local bank, so they could buy enough time to plant their super wheat seed. Grapes of Wrath - well, that was pretty much EVERY scene. The In Laws had it the least, but it was full of dictators and the CIA in poor countries. Very prominent in Avatar.
We often wonder why. It's odd when we recognize an element - oh my gosh, another blind daughter! - and we don't always see that there's a relevant meaning. Some movies stick with you and some don't, as much, but it's not like the weekly theme resonates afterwards. It's just a weird, fun way the universe plays with us, and says it's watching Movie Day too, or that's as likely as we can figure.
I liked Avatar for the whole invented world. It was very pretty, especially in 3D. I also liked the 3D just on its own; there were a lot of little touches with video screens being used by the characters, that also provided 3D to them.
ReplyDeleteBut I didn't care much for the story itself. I don't like stories about the oppressed indigenous people successfully fighting off the greedy capitalists.
I prefer stories where the capitalists win, and the viewer gets to watch in horror as the delicate tendrils of culture that we've learned to appreciate over the course of two hours, are inexorably and indifferently destroyed.
Why was Avatar so popular in the theaters? Certainly not because all those people really supported an anti-capitalist message. No, it was because the message was not anti-capitalist at all. The message was that the capitalists should make a *small* effort to do things a *little* differently. To spend a little more money getting something in a way that doesn't feel quite so destructive.
I think a better version of Avatar would take place 10 years after the real damage was done, and we see those glorious native people diseased and starving; the connection with the land utterly broken. And the star of the film would be a lackey who got more and more disgusted with himself as he learned about the truth of the situation, and how things used to be; but still in the end, does nothing, because he feels that the problem is too big for him or anyone else to have an impact on.
Then as the credits rolled, the viewer could be presented with a montage of scenes filmed right here on earth, in many different countries, in the present day, illustrating pretty much exactly the same situation.
Now *that* would be a *film*!