Dr. Zhivago falls into the "epic" category. It's long--about three hours--, and it takes place during World War I. I wasn't sure what to expect from this story. I knew it was a love story, and I knew it took place during Bolshevik Russia, but beyond that, I had no idea. I knew it was one of my mom's favorite movies.
It was nominated for Best Picture that year but lost to The Sound of Music.
I didn't like it.
Okay, I didn't entirely not like it. Just overall.
Before I get into what I didn't like about it, let me give you a brief synopsis. The story follows a young woman, Lara, who is raped by her uncle (by marriage) and then drawn into a weird incestual relationship with him. She was engaged to be married to a young man named Pasha, who was working with the Bolsheviks for revolution. She finally breaks ties with her uncle by shooting him and wounding him and marries Pasha. In the meantime, Dr. Yuri Zhivago, who was orphaned at a young age, meets Lara and feels pity for her situation. Later, they end up working in a hospital together, and Lara desires that Yuri not have to lie to his wife about their relationship, and she maintains a purity in their relationship, though it is obvious that Yuri longs for her.
Moscow becomes dangerous, and Yuri moves his father-in-law, wife, and son out to the country. Yuri finds out that Lara lives in the nearest town, Yuriatin. He meets her at the library, and their affair begins. For some reason, Lara's scruples have disappeared. Yuri continues meeting with her. His wife, Tonya, is pregnant with his second child (his first was a son, Sasha), yet he goes to Yuriatin to see Lara anyway. On the way, he is taken captive by the Reds and forced to be their medic. He eventually breaks free and returns home. He finds Lara and his belongings, but his family is gone. He doesn't try to repair things with his wife or reunite with his children. Instead, he lives with Lara and her daughter, Katya, until the political situation forces him to send them away to safety.
And now for my rant...
I am sick to death of films where people cheat on their spouses in the name of "true love." It's annoying. This film, which was quite racy for 1965 (especially standing next to The Sound of Music in Oscar nominations!), follows the age-old deception, "If it feels good, do it." Never mind who you hurt in the process as long as YOU'RE happy. And, we, as an audience, are supposed to applaud and hope that Yuri and Lara will be together--because they are in love.
Forget Yuri's wife.
Forget his children.
Forget that he abandoned them to go meet his mistress.
Forget Lara's husband, even if he was a crazy.
Forget her daughter.
And I'm supposed to fall into line and say, "Yuri and Lara forever!!!"
What kind of man abandons his family?
Not one that I will cheer for, most definitely.
What kind of woman cheats on her husband--the one she made vows to?
Not a woman I want to be like.
One of the interesting themes of the movie that Dave pointed out was that the Reds were stealing people's private lives--forcing communism, requiring that all people share everything. And yet, Yuri, this poet with "subversive lines," retains his private affair with Lara and lives a secret life. One man who was chained on the train to Yuriatin told the others in the boxcar that he was freer than all of them because the Reds couldn't take away his thoughts. It's true--you can be forced to live a certain way outwardly, but no one dictates your inner life.
I'm just sad that Yuri and Lara chose to please themselves rather than serving their families. Their sin robbed them of true freedom and left them alone in the end. Many liked this film for the "love story" element. If the message was about true freedom, I think Yuri and Lara are sad and miserable people, enslaved to their own desires and not free at all.
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Friday, June 17, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
From Here to Eternity (1953)
This is the scene--the one everyone remembers--the one that advertises the movie.
But the scene was so brief, and honestly, it didn't live up to the hype, in my book. But, sex sells, so there you have it.
From Here to Eternity is a film about army life in Hawaii just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was based upon a very controversial novel by James Jones. It was controversial because of the alarming homosexual content and use of expletives. The screenplay obviously cut out both, although there was one scene where I had questioned the sexual orientation of one character. I also later read that Montgomery Clift was a homosexual and was tortured by his guilt (though he wasn't the character I held in question).
The setting of the story is a slow, uneventful, and a seemingly perfect and peaceful time in a Hawaiian paradise. I say "seemingly" because it was anything but perfect and peaceful for the characters of this film. Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) is continually punished for refusing to box for his company's boxing team. Karen Holmes (Deborah Kerr) is the wife of Captain Dana Holmes (Phillip Ober), a continually and unashamed unfaithful husband. Then there's Angelo Maggio (Frank Sinatra), Prewitt's "buddy-boy" (an oft used nickname in this movie--borderline annoying), who is both bothered and harassed by the stockade Sgt. Judson aka "Fatso." Though he wasn't particularly troubled, Sgt. Milton Warden (Burt Lancaster) was bored out of his mind--a slave to a desk job with no challenges in life...until he meets Cpt. Holmes' wife, Karen. And finally, Alma 'Lorene' Burke (Donna Reed), a gentlemen's companion at the "New Congress Club," is trying to make enough money to go home and show her hometown (and specifically an ex-boyfriend who left her for someone with money and position) that she, too, can be a proper woman with rank and fortune.
I love the way this movie was filmed--until this point, I haven't really seen a film track the stories of so many different characters with such depth. I find it difficult to point to a leading man or lady in the film because each character's story was important and not secondary to another. Lancaster and Kerr got top billing for the film, but Clift and Reed and Sinatra had stories just as compelling. The romantic stories were layered so that you could compare and contrast the relationships of Warden and Holmes and Prewitt and Burke. Sinatra's story was both for comic relief and to add depth to Prewitt's story.
Many of the characters ended up in the Hawaiian paradise in hopes of a new beginning. But, like Adam and Eve, a paradisical location doesn't ensure eternal bliss. These tortured souls duke it out in their carnal humanity, and every single one of them comes up empty-handed. This film is all about human frailty, struggle, desire, a lack of fulfillment, and emptiness. They realize that they don't have control over their destinies because of the choices that others make in their lives. The conclusion with Pearl Harbor's bombing was like nails in their coffins--two men dead, one man left fighting, one man dismissed, and two women, on a boat, questioning if fate would allow them to return.
As I pondered the title, From Here to Eternity, I struggled with the meaning. When I put this all together in my untrained film brain, I can only surmise that both the novel and the film are trying to communicate that our perception of bliss and pursuit of it are pointless. It is the choices we make that determine our course. These characters would continue living their lives as they were in the pseudo-Edenic existence, but their choices made their lives a warzone even before the Japanese started bombing. Their lives were disintegrating before war came to them--"eternity" was suddenly out of their grasps. This is the human story:
Paradise lost.
Next up: Lawrence of Arabia (Ben Hur was next on the list, but Netflix is saying it is unavailable. We'll pick it up whenever they get it!)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Citizen Kane: The Human Condition
Citizen Kane was our first film in the project. We actually ended up watching it in two installments because we're so tired we can't seem to finish a movie in one sitting (since we've had the twins).
We liked it. We found it humorous, at times, but more so, we were drawn in by the cinematography. I've done minimal research because I didn't want to skew my perspective of the film as it stands on its own (and because I don't have that kind of time). However, our Netflix movie sleeve did tell us that the film was based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper tycoon and mogul from the late 19th century and early 20th century. We read up on him a bit, and though Orson Welles (the director and principle actor) denied the film was about Hearst, you can't deny that it is when you read about Hearst's life. The similarities are numerous: his education, his work, his marriages, his politics, his art collection, and his CASTLE. Yes, he built a castle.
Citizen Kane begins with the death of Charles Foster Kane, his last words on his lips, "Rosebud." The plot follows an investigator who is trying to figure out what "Rosebud," meant. He interviews people who were important in Kane's life and learns the story of this powerful and sad figure.
As a boy, Kane was sent away from his parents with a fat pile of money (from success in gold mines, I believe) to be well-educated. He was kicked out of many schools and ultimately decided he wanted to run a newspaper. He ended up owning newspapers all over the country and running for political office. His life ends in his castle, Xanadu, fashioned after the one described in Coleridge's "Kubla Khan." The film chronicles his life and his search for love and acceptance along the way.
While the film was a parody on Hearst's life, we didn't feel that was the supreme reason why Roger Ebert declared Citizen Kane the greatest film of all time. It was many other things, in our oh-so-humble opinions.
The cinematography in this film is amazing for 1941. The fades, the lighting, the camera angles, the zooms through glass, and so much more!, really gave the film an artistic appeal that is often lacking in the stationary camera films of the mid-20th century. Dave typically hates to watch old movies because they are visually boring and feel like plays to him. I think (though I didn't ask) that he actually enjoyed this film because it was unique in how it was shot. He remarked on different camera effects throughout the film.
The makeup was also great--people were aged in such a way that it didn't appear cheesy or unrealistic. We were surprised at their techniques. Many of the characters were aged as they related the events to the investigative reporter. Yet, they were still recognizable as their younger counterparts in the flashbacks.
Sound and music were impressive as well. We appreciated the use of sound to convey moods--there were a lot of echos, both at the library and at Xanadu. They contributed to the distant feeling everyone had about Kane and his illusive persona. Dave also commented on the music overlaps from scene to scene (I didn't notice, but that isn't surprising.).
The obvious allusion to Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem, "Kubla Khan" gives a bit of insight into what Kane's motives in life were. In the poem, there is an Abyssinian maid who sings for Khan (the very opera that Susan, Kane's second wife, performs). It gives him a bit of power. In the same way, Kane's pressures for Susan Anderson to continue singing despite the public's rejection of her were merely a power play on his part. He could and would show the masses that he would not be rejected any further. Susan gave him power, and he took his power to the press.
Kane's misuse of his newspaper by printing news that wasn't quite true also empowered him. He printed things the way he wanted them to be to save face--especially concerning Susan's career in opera. It was his way to one-up everyone else by giving himself good press. This also preaches a message about the power of the news media--this film came out in the middle of World War 2. News was full of stories--some substantiated and some not so much. Perhaps Orson Welles was drawing attention to the half-truths and poor publishing?
Truly, the most compelling part of the film for me was the ways in which Kane tried to earn love and acceptance. His first wife found him lacking as he immersed himself in work, and then his affair with Susan Anderson ended their marriage. His marriage to Susan wasn't much better as she grew tired of bowing to his demands for her singing career. She too left him.
In summary, his mother had sent him away, his wives deserted him, and the American public wouldn't elect him into office. He ended up isolating himself at Xanadu, and he died alone. It is really sad and pathetic, but it does show that the ultimate desire of the human heart is to be loved and accepted. Kane never found it.
I hope you were able to watch and enjoy the film as well. Feel free to provide your own commentary; just be nice if we're way off on our synopsis!
Next up: Spellbound with a review by Dave (Casablanca had a long wait on Netflix, so we will have to get back to it later)
We liked it. We found it humorous, at times, but more so, we were drawn in by the cinematography. I've done minimal research because I didn't want to skew my perspective of the film as it stands on its own (and because I don't have that kind of time). However, our Netflix movie sleeve did tell us that the film was based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper tycoon and mogul from the late 19th century and early 20th century. We read up on him a bit, and though Orson Welles (the director and principle actor) denied the film was about Hearst, you can't deny that it is when you read about Hearst's life. The similarities are numerous: his education, his work, his marriages, his politics, his art collection, and his CASTLE. Yes, he built a castle.
Citizen Kane begins with the death of Charles Foster Kane, his last words on his lips, "Rosebud." The plot follows an investigator who is trying to figure out what "Rosebud," meant. He interviews people who were important in Kane's life and learns the story of this powerful and sad figure.
As a boy, Kane was sent away from his parents with a fat pile of money (from success in gold mines, I believe) to be well-educated. He was kicked out of many schools and ultimately decided he wanted to run a newspaper. He ended up owning newspapers all over the country and running for political office. His life ends in his castle, Xanadu, fashioned after the one described in Coleridge's "Kubla Khan." The film chronicles his life and his search for love and acceptance along the way.
While the film was a parody on Hearst's life, we didn't feel that was the supreme reason why Roger Ebert declared Citizen Kane the greatest film of all time. It was many other things, in our oh-so-humble opinions.
The cinematography in this film is amazing for 1941. The fades, the lighting, the camera angles, the zooms through glass, and so much more!, really gave the film an artistic appeal that is often lacking in the stationary camera films of the mid-20th century. Dave typically hates to watch old movies because they are visually boring and feel like plays to him. I think (though I didn't ask) that he actually enjoyed this film because it was unique in how it was shot. He remarked on different camera effects throughout the film.
The makeup was also great--people were aged in such a way that it didn't appear cheesy or unrealistic. We were surprised at their techniques. Many of the characters were aged as they related the events to the investigative reporter. Yet, they were still recognizable as their younger counterparts in the flashbacks.
Sound and music were impressive as well. We appreciated the use of sound to convey moods--there were a lot of echos, both at the library and at Xanadu. They contributed to the distant feeling everyone had about Kane and his illusive persona. Dave also commented on the music overlaps from scene to scene (I didn't notice, but that isn't surprising.).
The obvious allusion to Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem, "Kubla Khan" gives a bit of insight into what Kane's motives in life were. In the poem, there is an Abyssinian maid who sings for Khan (the very opera that Susan, Kane's second wife, performs). It gives him a bit of power. In the same way, Kane's pressures for Susan Anderson to continue singing despite the public's rejection of her were merely a power play on his part. He could and would show the masses that he would not be rejected any further. Susan gave him power, and he took his power to the press.
Kane's misuse of his newspaper by printing news that wasn't quite true also empowered him. He printed things the way he wanted them to be to save face--especially concerning Susan's career in opera. It was his way to one-up everyone else by giving himself good press. This also preaches a message about the power of the news media--this film came out in the middle of World War 2. News was full of stories--some substantiated and some not so much. Perhaps Orson Welles was drawing attention to the half-truths and poor publishing?
Truly, the most compelling part of the film for me was the ways in which Kane tried to earn love and acceptance. His first wife found him lacking as he immersed himself in work, and then his affair with Susan Anderson ended their marriage. His marriage to Susan wasn't much better as she grew tired of bowing to his demands for her singing career. She too left him.
In summary, his mother had sent him away, his wives deserted him, and the American public wouldn't elect him into office. He ended up isolating himself at Xanadu, and he died alone. It is really sad and pathetic, but it does show that the ultimate desire of the human heart is to be loved and accepted. Kane never found it.
I hope you were able to watch and enjoy the film as well. Feel free to provide your own commentary; just be nice if we're way off on our synopsis!
Next up: Spellbound with a review by Dave (Casablanca had a long wait on Netflix, so we will have to get back to it later)
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Ze Projekt: Die List
As righteous people who claim to love movies, we realized a sad truth about our lives. We are missing out on a quarry of film art. We have often made statements that we need to watch this film or that one, but we haven't made many moves toward that goal, until now.
My wife and I have compiled a list classic movies that one or both of us have not seen but know we need to. This list is primarily derived from Academy Award Best Picture winners or nominees. However, we snuck in a few important cultural movies that maybe weren't filmy enough for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Any astute searcher of the interwebs will quickly realize that we did not include every year's Best Picture winner, as we did choose based on the film's popularity (hopefully a surrogate indicator of its bodacity), and it had to be a film at least one of us hasn't seen. We skipped many very early talkies because, in our eyes, they don't fit the first criterion. We skipped many modern winners because they don't fit our second criterion. Our project plan is to watch one movie a week and write a post about our observations of the film. We have included our list so that you may follow along if desired. These are in chronological order beginning with 1941's Citizen Kane.
1. Citizen Kane
2. Casablanca
3. Spellbound
4. The Bishop’s Wife
5. A Streetcar Named Desire
6. From Here to Eternity
7. Ben Hur
8. Lawrence of Arabia
9. The Sound of Music (that's right, I've never seen it)
10. Dr. Zhivago
11. In the Heat of the Night
12. Oliver!
13. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
14. Patton
15. Love Story
16. The French Connection
17. The Godfather
18. The Sting
19. American Graffiti
20. The Godfather II
21. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
22. Rocky
23. Star Wars
24. Kramer vs. Kramer
25. Ordinary People
26. The Empire Strikes Back
27. Raging Bull
28. Gandhi
29. Terms of Endearment
30. Return of the Jedi
31. Amadeus
32. Out of Africa
33. The Last Emperor
34. Dirty Dancing
35. Rain Man
36. Mississippi Burning
37. Driving Miss Daisy
38. Glory
39. Pretty Woman
40. Good Fellas
41. Unforgiven
42. A Few Good Men
43. The Remains of the Day
44. Legends of the Fall
45. Sense and Sensibility
46. Fargo
47. Elizabeth
48. No Country for Old Men
49. The Hurt Locker
50. The King’s Speech
1. Citizen Kane
2. Casablanca
3. Spellbound
4. The Bishop’s Wife
5. A Streetcar Named Desire
6. From Here to Eternity
7. Ben Hur
8. Lawrence of Arabia
9. The Sound of Music (that's right, I've never seen it)
10. Dr. Zhivago
11. In the Heat of the Night
12. Oliver!
13. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
14. Patton
15. Love Story
16. The French Connection
17. The Godfather
18. The Sting
19. American Graffiti
20. The Godfather II
21. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
22. Rocky
23. Star Wars
24. Kramer vs. Kramer
25. Ordinary People
26. The Empire Strikes Back
27. Raging Bull
28. Gandhi
29. Terms of Endearment
30. Return of the Jedi
31. Amadeus
32. Out of Africa
33. The Last Emperor
34. Dirty Dancing
35. Rain Man
36. Mississippi Burning
37. Driving Miss Daisy
38. Glory
39. Pretty Woman
40. Good Fellas
41. Unforgiven
42. A Few Good Men
43. The Remains of the Day
44. Legends of the Fall
45. Sense and Sensibility
46. Fargo
47. Elizabeth
48. No Country for Old Men
49. The Hurt Locker
50. The King’s Speech
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)