I don't think anyone would find the history of this blog to be of anywhere near as interesting as any of these places, and nor do I, but I happened to look back at an older post a few days ago. It was previewing my first film post, and it definitely brings to mind the concept of history repeating itself.
It became pretty apparent that my random recording method wouldn’t make very quick progress of the list, or ensure that I saw the best movies out there. Sometimes I’d find myself recognizing a film name in the guide, and recording/watching it, only to find that its only claim to fame was having the 98th best film score, or something. While I might want to see that movie sometime, it shouldn’t take precedence over the ones that are best overall. So I drafted a new list and started a new plan.
In December of 2009, I set off on a quest to have a more organized approach to movie-watching, and in 12 short months I have come full circle to a helter-skelter shotgun approach, only now I have a field of thousands of films rather than the hundreds I had last year. So it's time for a re-reboot, back to the AFI top 100 list again. I'm now taking a "history of movies" approach, going from the oldest to newest. Every five films I'll post an update, whether it's on the month or not. And don't worry, though some will be repeats, I'm not rewatching everything. Some merit another view, if I feel I've been overly harsh or kind, but those should be rare.
Movies 1-5
1915 - The Birth of a Nation (#44) - I hate to start on a negative, but this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. Originally titled the Klansman, as you might infer from the movie poster, this is about as racist as it gets. So why is it on the list of 100 movies? History. Though it's not the first movie ever made, this is widely considered the first to take film to a real artform, with thought given to visuals in ways that hadn't been considered before, as well as technical innovations in the method. That's great, but the director of this film had a very skewed version of civil war history and decided to make a three-hour epic from his point-of-view. In this movie, the KKK is portrayed as a group of heroes, protecting the South from black people in the Reconstruction era. One scene in particular stands out to me, where the klan catches a black "criminal," and an intertitle is shown that reads "giving him a fair trial," or something like that. Naively, I thought, okay, so they're going to take him to town and put him in jail. It then cuts to them dumping his dead body on the porch of a local black leader, while triumphant music plays. It's really messed up, which is a shame, since the first half of the movie was surprisingly okay, kind of a Romeo and Juliet story between the North and South. And though there's a pro-South tint to the whole film, the second act digs into a whole new low that can't be forgiven, regardless of how innovative it is.
1 Srsly? owl out of 5
1916 - Intolerance (#49) - Another epic of the silent era, directed by D.W. Griffith of Birth of a Nation fame. As far as I can tell, the story is that public opinion of Birth of a Nation was overwhelmingly negative, and Intolerance was a response of sorts. Whether it was an apology or a defense of the earlier film can be debated, but the premise of this movie is that intolerance has lead to many horrible events throughout history. Over the course of three plus hours, Griffith weaves together four stories that he feels embody the effects of intolerance, cutting back and forth between the four. I fully expected to hate it, given my feelings for Mr. Griffith after seeing Birth of a Nation, but it was really interesting actually. Two of the storylines were not very well fleshed out, and could probably have been dropped from the movie to make it more watchable, but the other two were really well done. The "main" story surrounds a young couple in what was the modern era, trying to get by while dealing with the temperance movement dictating morality to everyone and the man's prior involvement with a mafia-type organization which has its claws deeply hooked into him. There's double-crosses, revenge, a really cool car chase (in 1916!) and intrigue along the way. The other good story is based in Babylonian times, and follows the "Mountain Girl" attempting to save her country from the invading army of Cyrus. This part is great, if for nothing else than the incredible sets. The filmmakers built gigantic city walls, siege towers, and palaces, and then staged giant battles amongst it all. Think Lord of the Rings scale, but at the turn of the century, all real, no CGI. It looks awesome. As I said before, the story jumps from story to story, and as the movie gets into its final act, the jumps come quicker and quicker, building up the suspense as each individual plot moves toward its climax. It was very well done, and maybe made me hate Mr. Griffith a little bit less.
3 Babylonian warriors out of 5
1925 - The Gold Rush (#74 or #58, also #25 in comedies) - I've mentioned before that I liked Charlie Chaplin's films more than I anticipated. That was definitely true for Modern Times, which I'll re-review a little later on. Perhaps that built up my expectations for his other movies, but I found The Gold Rush just a bit disappointing. It was fine; the Little Tramp was lovable, it had some fairly funny moments, and there were some serious parts that were packed with some good emotion. But for some reason, this didn't really pull me in the way Modern Times did, and I found myself feeling neither under nor overwhelmed by it. Nothing really wrong with it, but I didn't find it to be one of the greats of movie history. The storyline is simple - Chaplin plays his tramp character, who heads up to Alaska in the height of the Klondike Gold Rush to make his fortune. After numerous misadventures, he falls for a local saloon girl and tries to win her heart. It should be really cute, but there were a couple of issues. First, the action was a bit repetitive; almost all of it takes place while the characters are snowed in during a blizzard. There's some chasing around, the classic scene where Chaplin eats his boot, but it starts to get old after a bit. The other problem is the love interest. For various reasons that I won't get into for spoilers sake, I disliked her throughout the film. The Tramp is constantly seeking her approval and love, and I just kept thinking about what a crummy person she was and how he shouldn't be chasing after her. There were some chuckles, but even those were more scarce than in Modern Times, but this is the movie with the classic "Roll Dance." That is clever and funny, and really showcases Chaplin's quirky appeal. Otherwise the movie's so-so, but I kinda loved that part.
3 Gold nuggets out of 5
1927 - The General (#18, also #18 in comedies) - If you read this blog regularly (and who doesn't) you know I've already reviewed The General, and pretty much hated it. Well, for this month I didn't rewatch it, but I did track down some of the more memorable bits and reconsider my review. It's still not going to be one of my favorites, but giving it my lowest rating was probably a bit excessive. This is the one set during the Civil War, where Buster Keaton's character is a Southern train engineer who ends up on a crazy train chase with some Northern soldiers. I disliked it for its Southern bias, but I'm realizing now (especially when compared to Birth of a Nation) that it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought. It's still a bit weird to have a Confederate protagonist, but apparently this was loosely based on an actual train chase so that would be hard to change. And though there is some cheering when the South prevails in the battle, there's little in here to paint the North as the "bad guys" per se. There's still not a heck of a lot that's funny in the movie, but there are moments here and there. I suppose my favorite is a brief scene where Keaton's love interest tries to help load firewood in the train. Keaton always deadpans his scenes, as opposed to Chaplin's expressiveness, which works in some areas but leaves the humor just short of what it could be at times. Better than I thought, but still not a fave.
2 Steam engines out of 5
1927 - The Jazz Singer (#90, also #71 in movie quotes) - Another film I've reviewed before, another I disliked, but this time not really reconsidering my opinion. This is a film like The Birth of a Nation, that I think gets onto the list for its historical significance, but is really not a great movie. Not that I'm saying it's racist, quite the opposite really, even though Al Jolson does perform in blackface for one scene. My disappointment with The Jazz Singer comes in the conclusion of the movie. Throughout the entire film, Jolson's character Jakie fights with his father the cantor about his direction in life. Jakie wants to be a contemporary ("jazz") singer, while his father wants him to follow in his footsteps and sing in the church. It's a good enough conflict to drive a movie, but at the end, after so long of both of them digging their heels in, one of them simply "wins" and gets his way, without any compromise. I don't want to give it away, and I realize that after the climactic scene it looks as though both are satisfied, but the driving conflict throughout the whole movie is essentially settled by one character saying "okay, I'll do it your way," without the other really coming to respect his viewpoint. That's how I read it anyway - I know many people like this movie so I could be overreacting, but I couldn't get past that in terms of liking it. Oh, and the history? This is the first movie to have recorded speech. Kinda neat, probably mind-blowing if you'd witnessed it. I wanted to like this movie, but man, that ending really killed it for me.
1 Jazz hands kitteh out of 5
Stay tuned for the next batch of five, coming out, well, whenever I finish five more movies!
No comments:
Post a Comment