April revivals: first half

Hey, Mike here with a small-ish of revivals for the first half of April. It would have been a little bigger, but I'm not posting Titanic in 3-D. I've caught this mediocre film once in theaters. Never again. Ok, I'm sure the sinking ship will look good in 3-D; if there's only 1 director out there who will take tender loving care with regards to the 3-D process, it's James Cameron. But the script itself, no thanks. I realized when it came out this wasn't for me, more for 12-18 year old girls (and the emotional equivalent) for whom this was their Star Wars back in 1997-98. Have fun, but I won't push this onto others, as opposed to these flicks. Here we go:

RUGGLES OF RED GAP- Wed Apr 4, and Tues April 10 at 7:30 and 9:30- Film Forum- Interesting timing for myself that this film comes along for a week-long run at the Film Forum. I've just come off from watching a production of The Man Who Came To Dinner. Watching it with an audience that not only gets a reference to actress ZaSu Pitts made in the classic play, but laughed long and loud at said reference. Unlike most people under 40 who didn't work in this production, I knew Pitts, if only from her appearances in It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and Life With Father, the later as Elizabeth Taylor's mother. Now I have the chance to add a third film, a comedy, starting April 4th, and so can you.

Ruggles of Red Gap, not that different from say, Mr. Belvedere or Jeeves from Jeeves and Wooster, is based on a popular book from the mid 1910s. Charles Laughton plays Ruggles, a "gentlemen's gentleman". A butler whose master lost him in a poker game. No, that's not the worst part. Ruggles is now under the employment of an uncouth American (is there any other kind?). No, that's not the worst part either. Ruggles must move to Red Gap, Washington! Hardly the epicenter of society, especially back in 1908. But by having himself referred to as Colonel and making goo-goo eyes at wacky widow Pitts, things could change . . . 

Features Laughton performing his version of the Gettysburg Address, something Laughton would perform on TV, stage and radio for the rest of his career. Directed by Leo McCarey (Duck Soup, The Bells of St. Mary), and Oscar nominated for Best Picture. It plays from April 4 through April 10, the only nights I can make:   

http://www.filmforum.org/movies/more/ruggles_of_red_gap

ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (1976)- Fri April 6 at Midnight- IFC Center- From IFC Center's retrospective of John Carpenter films at Midnight. Carpenter's second film, a mean and lean little B movie from 1976. A father kills a gang member who shoots his little daughter to death, a shooting that seems tame today but back in 1976 almost earned the picture an X rating for violence. The rest of the gang pursues the father. The dad hides in the nearest building, an old police precinct building scheduled to permanently close in a few hours. Inside the building is a newly promoted young Lieutenant, a veteran desk Sargent, two civilian workers, and a prison official guarding three prisoners, one of whom is a violent murderer on his way to Death Row. But they must all band together when the gang, with their silencers and automatic weapons, cut their power and lay an all night siege on the nearly empty precinct.

Wasn't warmly accepted when released in the States. A cheap ($100,000 budget) overly violent film with an unknown director and cast, who cares. But European audiences embraced the film, and as Carpenter's career grew, Assault on Precinct 13 received a critical re-evaluation and a cult following in America. Basically a re-working of the Howard Hawks film Rio Bravo, with a touch of the inside setup of Night of the Living Dead. Not a perfect film, mind you. The attempt at romantic sparks doesn't work. But as a straight up action film? It's a nice gritty little number, perfect for a Midnight screening:

http://www.ifccenter.com/films/assault-on-precinct-13/

BIRD- Mon Apr 9 at 8:30- Walter Reade at Lincoln Center- Part of Lincoln Center's series of films that made an impact at the New York Film Festival. Might be considered the best Jazz film ever made. A definite change of pace in Clint's career, where he gets to share his love of jazz, depicting the short life of Charlie "Bird" Parker. A radical change of pace for American film goers, when it came to Eastwood directed pictures. For the few who saw it in this country that is. In Europe, Bird placed Eastwood among the leading directors in film, as Bird won at Cannes. It took Unforgiven for the U.S. to feel the same way about him, though I get the change began when Bird played at the New York Film Festival.

Bird was going to be a tough sell. A two hour, forty-one minute film about one of the greatest jazz musicians, depicting his slide into alcohol and drug addiction, despite a wife who refused to leave his side no matter what, until his death at 35. This was before the Behind The Music style bio pics were in vogue, good luck selling this in 1988. Combined with the best known person involved with the film isn't on screen, and the lead wasn't box office, gulp. Clint made the film because he believed in the story, Warner Bros seems to have made the film to stay in the Clint Eastwood business. Maybe a few Oscar nominations might have helped, but only winning for Best Sound wasn't the plan I'm sure.

Speaking of sound, you get some lengthy scenes of Bird's music performed, restored back in 88 so they could sound great in Dolby Stereo. And years before Last King of Scotland earned him an Oscar, Forest Whitaker earned praise from critics for his performance in the title role. Pulling him up from a career of supporting roles (Good Morning Vietnam, Platoon, The Color of Money) to show he could carry a film in the lead, artistically at least. Forest even learned the proper breath control and finger playing to duplicate Parker's style, and the recordings did the rest. The love Bird had for his wife, family and friends are also shown , and how none of it was enough to stop him from sliding further into heroin addiction and an early grave.

So in Bird, I'm recommending a good film. Not a happy film, but a good one.

http://www.filmlinc.com/films/on-sale/nyff-88-bird

THE GRADUATE- Wed April 11, Sat April 14 and Mon April 16 at 7:30 and 9:30- Film Forum- A new 35mm print of the classic Dustin Hoffman-Mike Nichols film. On both AFI Top 100 lists and in my own personal top 40. An Oscar for Nichols for Director; nominations for Picture, Hoffman for Actor, Anne Brancoft for Actress, Katharine Ross for Supporting Actress, Buck Henry and Calder Willingham for Screenplay Adaptation and Robert Surtees for Cinematography. I could go on about the story, but if you look at revival lists like these, you probably know the story just as well as I do. So instead I'll take a different tack. I stumbled upon an online article a few weeks ago on the Flavorwire website: 12 Great Movies The Critics Got Dead Wrong by Jason Bailey. It featured mostly classic films like Wizard of Oz, All About Eve and Annie Hall, with a small piece from a contemporary critic, tearing the film a new one. I'll post a brief piece of what Pauline Kael wrote about The Graduate. I quoted her before when she got right regarding Purple Rain, I'll quote her again as she whiffed regarding her attack of The Graduate:

“The Graduate only wants to succeed and that’s fundamentally what’s the matter with it. There is a pause for a laugh after the mention of ‘Berkeley’ that is an unmistakable sign of hunger for success; this kind of movie-making shifts values, shifts focus, shifts emphasis, shifts everything for a sure-fire response. Mike Nichols’ ‘gift’ is that be lets the audience direct him; this is demagoguery in the arts.” – Pauline Kael, Harper’s

Nobody's perfect but oy vey Pauline, oy vey. Alongside the link to the Film Forum regarding The Graduate, I'll also post a link to Jason Bailey's article. The link leads you directly to The Graduate, but it's easy to navigate yourself to the rest of the article.

http://www.filmforum.org/movies/more/the_graduate

http://flavorwire.com/272219/12-great-movies-the-critics-got-dead-wrong#8

Now as for The Graduate, it plays for 9 days at the Forum. I'm 99% sure I can make, but two of those days kinda conflict with another revival posted below. . . 

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING introduced by director Philip Kaufman and author Annette Insdorf of "Philip Kaufman" on Wed April 11 at 7:30- or Sat April 14 at 3:30 with no intro- MOMA- The only film from the Philip Kaufman retrospective that I will have time for. I wish I had time for The Right Stuff; for me it's the best film of 1983 over stuff like A Christmas Story and Terms of Endearment. But no, I'll have to settle for The Unbearable Lightness of Being, which actually isn't a bad thing to settle for at all.

From 1988, though set in the 1960s. Young Daniel Day-Lewis' first starring role of note, and yes I'm not counting My Beautiful Laundrette so nobody give me any grief. Anyway, Day-Lewis is a doctor, with a beautiful girlfriend (Lena Olin), and an eye for the women. He leaves the big city for a spell, but comes back with a new girlfriend; a small town girl (Juliette Binoche) with whom he's equally passionate about. The potential difficult arrangement is pushed aside, because the big city I was talking about is Prague. It's 1968 Czechoslovakia, the three of them are together during the Prague Spring. Once the Soviet tanks begin rolling in however, nothing can ever be the same . . . 

An example of the kind of taste Philip Kaufman has in material (Unbearable Lightness is usually cited as one of the more successful book-to-screen adaptations), the kind of young actors he was willing to put into major roles, and the kind of film Orion Pictures liked to bankroll. If this was maybe 5 years later, Day-Lewis and Binoche would have been big enough names to maybe help this film's box-office chances. But this was 1988, and despite critical acclaim and Oscar nominations for Screenplay Adaptation and Cinematography, there was little audience for this ambitious picture. The respect for this film I feel has only grown, but not enough for consistent TV or revival screenings. It's age, lack of success, adult subject matter and nearly three hour length make screenings rare, so you should take advantage if you can.   

Your choice of two screenings. The first is on Wednesday April 11th, with an intro from Kaufman and Annette Insdorf, author of the new biography "Philip Kaufman". The second is on Saturday April 14th, without introduction. You tell me which one works best:

http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/film_screenings/14873

http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/film_screenings/14874

Let me know if there's interest. Happy Easter and Happy Passover, later all.

March revivals: second half

Hey all. Mike here with a revival list for the rest of March. Small list, so I have a little time for some writing. Specifically, about the recent free screening of To Kill A Mockingbird at the Ziegfeld theater on Thursday March 1, organized by TCM. For me, I loved it. This was the first time I'd ever seen it on the big screen, and maybe the second time I'd ever seen it without commercials. No Lawrence of Arabia, which came out the same, but still excellent. It wasn't as big a draw at the Ziegfeld compared to the TCM's screening of All About Eve in 2010; that film took up practically every seat there. Even New York screenings of The Birds and The Manchurian Candidate filled up higher percentages of their respective auditoriums than Mockingbird did. This Ziegfeld screening wasn't empty for sure; almost the entire center was filled with some side seating filled in the middle. Not sure why exactly beyond less comfortable weather and earlier in the year than the other screenings I just mentioned, but I won't take time here.

The screening was hosted by Robert Osbourne and Spike Lee; the only TCM free screening that doesn't have someone involved in the actual film being screened serve as a guest/ co-host. Osbourne offered tidbits about Mockingbird, but nothing you couldn't learn on IMDB beforehand. Spike had even less to offer about Mockingbird, aside from it being one of his favorite films. But Spike had stuff to say. Among the notable stuff:

His mom is the one who took the family out, to movies, to museums, whether they/he wanted to go through it or not. She's the one who turned Spike into a Cinephille.

He had a bit of fun with a junior high prep school boy, when the kid asked for the meaning behind 40 Acres in a Mule. A professor at NYU, Lee played teacher, having the kid give his interpretation. The nervous kid started ok, but then when off the rails and Lee had a little fun with him. Something tells me that as a teacher, Lee is the kind worth being taught by, though it may take years to get over the scar tissue from the process.

When Lee was asked who he imagined could do a remake of Mockingbird, Lee was apoplectic. To do one well? Through the studio system the way it is today (my paraphrasing)? Impossible, said Lee. Because if the best Hollywood can do in terms of race relations was The Help . . . At that point, Lee stood up and did a silent impersonation. I couldn't tell if Spike was doing Bojangles or doing Stepin Fetchit. Either way, his contempt for the film The Help was clear.

Lee was asked what he thought was the single best element of Mockingbird, whether it was in front of or behind the camera. Lee seemed to have a hard time with the question, so Osbourne jumped in and answered. Robert didn't and wouldn't single out one aspect. All aspects: source material, screenplay, writing, direction, casting, costuming, score, editing, all of these aspects are at their peak and if one element faltered . . . Osbourne then gave The Iron Lady as an example where there was one excellent element (Meryl Streep's performance), but with a screenplay that was "very unsatisfactory". Now on with the list. Here we go:

THE LADY VANISHES (1938)- Fri March 16 at 9:30 for a $7.00 bar minimum- introduced by author Brandon Morrow- Rubin Museum of Art- A showing of the 1938 film in the Rubin Museum of Art's screenings room. The 39 Steps may have gotten America's attention about Alfred Hitchcock, but The Lady Vanishes is what got Hollywood's attention. Or at least got David O'Selznick's attention and that's good enough. This also made a big star out of Michael Redgrave, as the only man a young flighty woman can trust in the disappearance of an elderly governess on a speeding train. A "governess" who happened to have her attention captured when a folk singer hummed a particular tune, and was soon found dead. The governess and the young woman get acquainted on the train, until a flower pot intended for the governess hits the young woman instead. When the young woman wakes up, the governess disappeared and all the passengers act like the old lady was never on the train to begin with. The young woman can only rely on Redgrave's character to find the governess, why so many people may be lying, and . . . wait . . . . why is this train going into hostile territory? Light, fun, Hitchcock. The film will be introduced by author Brandon Morrow. Don't know why he's doing an introduction, but he's doing an introduction nevertheless.

Now, how can you see all this? You can go to the Rubin Museum as early as 6pm, when admission is free. You can check the Museum out, which I highly recommend. You can get a bite to eat on the ground floor area to your left when you enter the Museum, but you can find cheaper food and/or more filling food elsewhere in Union Square. But make sure you get to the bar, order your drink or drinks, and find the person giving the tickets. If you can't find the person, just ask the bartender, he'll know. You get your free ticket, and you can bring your drink(s) to the screening room. It worked out well with a dark film like Dogtooth, it should work even better with a concert film like this:

http://www.rmanyc.org/events/load/1574

CASABLANCA- Wed Mar 21 at 7- AMC Empire, College Point Multiplex, and AMC Kips Bay on E. 32nd St, plus elsewhere in S.F., Denver, Miami, Columbus, parts of New Jersey, upstate NY and elsewhere- No point in breaking down the Bogart classic. On both AFI lists, (top 5 on both), Multiple Oscars including Best Picture, in my personal Top 15, and if it isn't in yours, what the hell is wrong with you. Preceding the film will be a special about the making and I believe history of Casablanca, hosted by Robert Osbourne and featuring some talking heads. So expect about 2 hr- 2hr 15 minute night:

http://www.fathomevents.com/classics/event/casablanca.aspx?d=3/21/2012

http://www.fathomevents.com/upcoming/alllocations.aspx?eventid=1067

ARMY OF SHADOWS- Mon Mar 26 at 3:30- Walter Reade at Lincoln Center- I'll will make time for one of my favorites, especially if you've never seen it. Which is most of you. Basically, a war film about members of the French Resistance battling the Nazis and traitors within. But it was shot thru the filter and style of a film noir. Some Resistance members come off more as ordinary people or gangsters, as opposed to downtrodden soldiers.

Apparently, art house distributors had little interest in Melville as a director, the thought was there would be no American audience for this during the heights of Vietnam. The initial lack of positive reaction in France didn't help. Never released in the US until April 2006. It's found somewhat of an art house/cult audience, every critic who's seen it seems to have put it in their top 5 of 2006, and it was the surprise winner of Best Foreign Film by the New York Film Critics (a funny story how the critics managed to unintentionally pull that off, but you can find some other film bloggers to tell you if you look hard enough.). The kind of film that stays with you days after it ends. I have no problem making plans to catch this again:

http://www.filmlinc.com/films/on-sale/army-of-shadows

SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER- Thurs Mar 29 at 7 and 9:30 for 7 and Sat Mar 31 at 10 for 10- Chelsea Clearview Cinema- 3 total screenings of the 1977 classic starring John Travolta in his star-making, Oscar nominated performance. Yes, I have the poster of the PG rated version poster here, but it's the original R rated cut so no worries.

Watch John go from TV sitcom guy, to Disco icon, then Movie icon, as the king of Brooklyn disco, who wants more out of life, and out of Brooklyn. The film is specifically structured where if Tony doesn't see it happen, the audience doesn't experience it. At least three quarters of it is basically Tony slowly growing up, which is why the film survived the "Disco Sucks" backlash. The rest is at the disco, where director John Badham's visuals, Travolta's dancing, and The Bee Gees' music is what's remembered and loved the most. One of the first films to ever use the Steadicam.

Your choice of a 7.50 screening with Hedda Lettuce at 7pm on Thursday the 29th, a 7.50 9:30 screening on the 29th without Hedda, or a 10pm screening on Saturday the 31st for 10 dollars. Yes the Saturday screening is more expensive than the Thursday screenings, but it is cheaper than current, mostly mediocre films playing now, so there's still value:

http://clearviewcinemas.com/classics/classics-chelsea.shtml

Let me know if there's interest. Later all.

March revivals: first half

Hey all. Mike here with a list of revivals for the 1st half of March. One of my best lists in quite a while. I'll keep descriptions to a minimum and just get on it with it. Yes, I've heard complaints about going on to long, so I'll keep this as brief as possible. Here we go:

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD- Thursday March 1 at 7:30 (get on line outside by 5:30-6)- with a pre-film discussion/ Q and A between Robert Osbourne and Spike Lee- free with a flyer- The Ziegfeld Theater- 141 W. 54th St.- TCM continues its Classic Film Festival, with its only New York State screening. A free screening of the classic To Kill A Mockingbird at the Ziegfeld. Chances are you know the Gregory Peck classic, so I won't take up time now. Starts at 7:30 with a pre-film talk between TCM's Robert Osbourne and Spike Lee. So don't expect to get out before 10:10.

Now to do this, click the TCM link below this paragraph. If it doesn't work and you know, let me know and I'll forward you the PDF file. Each copy is good for 2 people. But admission isn't guaranteed. Get to the Ziegfeld, or at least have someone in your party with the flyer get to the Ziegfeld, sometime between 5:30-6. Probably sometime between 6:30-7, they'll start letting people in. If you're not there before then, the odds you'll get in isn't good. Hopefully the weather will be decent enough for this to be a reasonable outing:

http://www.tcm.com/2012/roadtohollywood/detail.html

4K DIGITAL SCREENINGS AT THE FILM FORUM- I get the idea that it's getting harder for the Film Forum to get new 35mm prints from movie studios for revival screenings. It's not exactly news that film is going away, from digital camera use to Kodak going bankrupt, to digital become an easier format to get your indie film out there, to preservation purposes where films like Jeff Bridges' Winter Kills now only exist on digital. So here's a week for the Forum to educated its members and customers of the inevitability of digital only revival screenings, as well as the quality of digital restorations. The claim is that the restorations from 35 and 70mm films have improved to the point that the restorers can duplicate the film's original look more successfully than what can be achieved with film labs today. So from Friday March 2nd through Thursday March 8th, the Forum will be screening some of the best films restored by Sony Pictures and their labs. I'm guessing all of the featured restoration has been done by Sony; the Forum makes no distinction. Now for my purposes, it's easier to list the films and times that I can do. Note that it's separate admission for these films, no double features I'm afraid:

DR. STRANGELOVE- Fri Mar 2 at 4 and 7

5 EASY PIECES- Sat Mar 3 at 7:50

GOLDFINGER- Sat Mar 3 at 9:50 (but only if 5 Easy Pieces sells out)

THE GUNS OF NAVARONE- Sun Mar 4 at 1 and 6:10

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY- Mon March 5 at 1 and 6:50

THE SHINING- Mon March 5 at 3:30 and 9:30

THE RED SHOES- Tuesday March 6 at 6:30

WEST SIDE STORY- Wed March 7 at 6:30

REAR WINDOW- Thurs March 8 at 4

The Dr. Strangelove screenings will be the ones where there will be a special guest and demonstration. Sony Pictures' Grover Crisp, a senior VP who has led the restoration teams that did a beautiful job recently on Taxi Driver, will be at the Strangelove screenings. Crisp will explain the process and the particulars on why what he does is different than the restoration is different elsewhere. Crisp will give a demonstration with Dr. Stranglove, showing it what it looks like in a good 35mm print and as its been digitally restored. As for myself, the only one I'm aiming for is Five Easy Pieces, only doing Goldfinger if Pieces sells out. But as you can see, there are other films I'm interested in, so you tell me if you want to what they look and sound like digitally restored:

http://www.filmforum.org/movies/more/this_is_dcp#nowplaying

PLAYTIME- Wed Mar 7 at 7:30- Cinema Arts Center in Huntington- For Long Island people, here's a bone tossed your way. A French comedy directed, co-written by, and starring Jacques Tati, as his famous M. Hulot character. If you saw one of this year's Oscar nominees for Animated Film, The Illusionist, based on an unproduced screenplay of Tati's, then you are familiar with the character. Imagine the klutzy M. Hulot going from typical Paris to not just any metropolis, but to an actual Metropolis. As in a place similar to the city from Fritz Lang's Metropolis, but with enough alienation and little use for individuality, that Tom Stoppard and/or Terry Gilliam had to know this film when making Brazil. A mega-flop in its day, but with ever growing appreciation for it as the years have gone by. The film shot in 70mm by Tati, but won't be screened that way here. The Cinema Arts Center doesn't have that large a screen, but they have the screen and sound system that's more than capable to screen this properly:

http://www.cinemaartscentre.org/event/playtime/

NORTH BY NORTHWEST- Fri Mar 9 at 7 and Sat Mar 10 at 6- Museum of the Moving Image- Part of the Museum of the Moving Image's See It Big series, pushing people to see films that work best on 70mm or IMAX screens, as opposed to computer or iPad screens. Your choice of either a Friday night or Saturday night. Not making a major push, majority rules with regards to this one. The best of all the lightweight Alfred Hitchcock films. No big morals here. Just sit back and relax, as everyman Cary Grant gets confused as a secret agent by sinister forces led by James Mason. He runs from them and runs from the law, for a murder at the United Nations he didn't commit. Of course all this running around doesn't stop Grant from taking time to flirt with mysterious Eva Marie Saint, in some of the most fun innuendo that the remnants of the Production Code would allow.

I use the term everyman loosely when describing Grant. But according to Gene Wilder on his episode of Inside The Actors Studio, that's how Grant described himself during a chance meeting on a cruise ship, where the Northwest homage Silver Streak, was playing. Wilder was pleasantly stunned to here this description, as well as how Grant was nice enough to include Wilder as being on the same level, but I digress.

Fun film, with good performances, a snappy though unsubtle Herrmann score, with one of Saul Bass's best opening credit sequences. Oscar nominations for the great Editing, Art Direction, and Ernest Lehman's script. Have never seen this on the big screen. I missed my chance about 6 years back, when it was screened for several weekends at midnight at the Paris theater. I'm sorry I missed catching it on the Paris's large screen, but I blame a girl named Amanda for that. The Forum's screen will be adequate for the occasion, their sound system should rock the hell out of Herrmann's score, so to speak:

http://www.movingimage.us/visit/calendar/2012/03/09/detail/north-by-northwest

http://www.movingimage.us/visit/calendar/2012/03/10/detail/north-by-northwest

MOONLIGHTING- Tues Mar 13 at 6- Walter Reade at Lincoln Center- Part of Lincoln Center's series of films that made a big splash at the New York Film Festival. Moonlighting, from 1982 by writer/director Jerzy Skolimowski, made while he was in self-imposed exile in England while Poland was under martial law. Skolimowski's most successful film, both critically and commercially. Jeremy Irons is the young foreman of a group of older Polish workers, who have arrived illegally in London, to work on a house of a rich Polish businessman. They blow what little money they have early on the trip, so all they can really do is work in this strange land, where Irons' character is the only one who speaks English. But as it gets harder to keep the food supply for his workers running smoothly, the unthinkable happens. Martial law is imposed in Poland, where Irons worries for his wife and family back home. Trying to keep the workers satisfied, trying to keep them in the country to finish the job, trying to keep them from starving, Irons' character has to resort to almost any means necessary to keep things intact. Including shoplifting for stuff. Including forcing his men to work 18 hours a day. Including controlling every bit of news from the outside. Any comparisons between a Communist government and the foreman's tactics are intentional, but the strain it puts on this lone (and alone) man is just as palpable.

On almost every top 10 list from major critics back in 82, and was a minor art house hit. By the early 1990s, Moonlighting seemed to have almost disappeared from the face of the Earth. It is on DVD, but good luck finding it. This film contains proof that Irons doesn't have to play a villain or some sort of sleaze in order to be really good at his craft:

http://www.filmlinc.com/films/on-sale/nyff-82-moonlighting

SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT with director/stuntman Hal Needham in person- Wed Mar 14 at 7- Cinema Arts Center in Huntington- Part of Cinema Arts Center's Action Heroes series. Not every film needs to be brain surgery. So just sit back and watch Burt Reynolds smuggle Coors across state lines (illegal at the time), pickup runaway bride Sally Field (sigh), and get chased throughout the Southeast by sheriff Jackie Gleason (politically incorrect by any standard in any era). Did well in the summer of 1977, even up against Star Wars. An Oscar nomination for its Editing. Director/ Smokey creator/ legendary stuntman Hal Needham will introduce the film, and do a post-film signing of his autobiography, Stuntman:

http://www.cinemaartscentre.org/event/smokey-the-bandit-with-director-stuntman-hal-needham/

Let me know if there's interest. Later all.

Best of 2011

Hello, all. Mike here with my list of Best films of 2011. Yeah, most people cough these things up back in December. Those people are paid to watch these movies, I'm not, so here we are. A lot less studio fare on my list than usual. I found that to get watch a quality film this year, the studio system wasn't succeeding as well as previous years. Lots more mining through indie and foreign fare for me than usual.

When it came time to put this list together, films 1-4 came very easily. The complications came from the order of 5-9, and what would be number 10. Now in the past, I've written that these lists are subject to change. I've made one such change with last year's list, placing Dogtooth #9 in my Top 10 of 2010, dropping Gas Land. Something tells me it might happen again with this list, but here's my top 10. But before we get to the list, here's what just missed the cut:

11) The Artist- I liked it and enjoyed it. But the best of 2011? Instant classic? C'mon people, see more silent films. Hell, see more films. Oh, and how do you like the picture of Jean Dujardin sleeping on Ryan Gosling? There's a whole website devoted to Photoshoped pix of Dujardin in all the strangest pop culture places. Here's the link:

http://jeansleepingonpeople.tumblr.com/

12) Incendies- One of last year's Oscar nominees for Foreign Language film. Good drama, but some unconvincing old age make-up (though not on the horrible level of J. Edgar), and too much Greek tragedy aspects keep out of the Top 10 for me.

13) Tintin- Boy was this fun. Nice throwback to some Raiders of the Lost Ark-style action, but a little too lightweight to get on the list.

14) The Descendants- Other years, all this nice underplaying would make a top 10 easily. This is a film I might better appreciate once I'm in my 50s. But I'm not, and I wouldn't put above Alexander Payne's About Schmidt, Sideways or Election, so it's not making it on this list.

In terms of what I missed, I only feel bad about not getting to The Help, Warrior (had the chance but it felt like work, which is unfair to the film), A Better Life, Margaret (thanks for nothing Fox Searchlight for holding such a grudge against Kenneth Lonergan most of us may never see the film) and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. In fact I wish I saw that recently, as opposed to We Need To Talk About Kevin. Not that, I'm trashing Talk About Kevin, it has two great performances from Tilda Swinton and Ezra Miller. But when you watch a film like this and think "I wish I saw lighter instead, like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.", you know you're watching something tough.

I didn't get to Melancholia and Extremely Close either, but I don't feel bad about that. I've written before that I'm done with von Triers, and as for Extremely Close, you have to pay me to see it, not vice versa. Now here we go with the list:

10) HUGO- Second best film I've seen in 3-D in 2011. Great looking ,semi-idealized vision of Paris. Ok, that's not entirely accurate. Great looking vision of a child's view of a Paris. Semi-idealized, occasionally scarier looking than it would to an adult. Not sure what was physically built and what CGI at all times, and I don't care, I bought the entire look. Not really a children's film per se. But for mature kids 10 and up, not every film has to be a Transformers or Harry Potter or Star Wars pic. Mix it up a little. One part call for film preservation as well. The recreation of the making of Georges Melies films was one of the highlights; Martin Scorsese wants us both informed and in awe of the handmade process and we are.

This film would be higher but for two beefs on my part. One, the narrative moves a little glacially at times. At times, slower than the film at my number nine slot on the list, and that's slow. Yes, the idea in the film of it's not just the family you come from it's the family you form with your friends is familiar but well executed, but did it have to take forever to get there. A bigger problem was newcomer Asa Butterfield's performance in the title role. His scenes with fellow child actor Chloe Grace Moretz are all good. But scenes with him scared, and most of his close-ups.: not so good. Looking a little lost there a lot of the time. But wait, shouldn't he look that way based on his perils, and in what scenes? Sorry, go to a profession acting teacher for that. I'm not saying the kid is untalented or incapable of getting better. But I will say the kid is raw, unpolished, lost too many times in close-up from this perspective, and it's to this film's detriment. Moving on.

9) PINA- Finally, a Wim Wenders film I was looking forward to that didn't disappoint. Sorry Wings of Desire, I didn't mean you. Sorry The End of Violence, I meant your incoherent dumb ass. Anyway, this documentary on the work of the late choreographer Pina Bausch won't tell you anything about her life, except hint that maybe her work was her life and that her life didn't happen away from the stage and the rehearsal rooms. Maybe not, but like I said, this documentary isn't going there. But it will show what got Pina excited: dance and the stories you can tell. Love stories, despair, aging, that just scratches the surface.

Some of the dances are performed mostly by her former dancers and collaborators. They went into the project when she was alive. Pina died just before filming began, so the film changed from a bit of a wake, based on some of the dancers interviewed still in morning, into a celebration, mixing Super 8, 35mm film and 3/4" video footage of Pina rehearsing or performing, with her dancers performing her work in front of Wender's cameras. And not just performing on a bare stage, but stages with dirt, or chairs, or rock with water coming down, or thrown around by other dancers. And the dancing doesn't go on just on a stage or performance space. The cameras and the dancers go outside, onto an elevated train, above and below said train, in an industrial park, by a mine. All with stories told through dance that would fit in with say, a Brecht piece, Or Beckett, or in the world of The Artist.

All enhanced with the use of 3-D. Shapes, the use of perspective, all a visual treat. Since most of you reading this isn't likely to get the chance to see it in 3-D, an appreciation for dance will be needed, even in 2-D. But a love of Fantasia will help even more. Seriously, since this isn't a straightforward documentary, Disney's Fantasia is the closest comparison I give as to what you can expect from Pina.

8) TINKER TAILOR SOLIDER SPY- This might be a Cliff Notes version of the John le Carré novel, especially when compared to the 1970's Alec Guinness version. But it's so damn hard to pull a spy thriller; think of all the spy films you really like that don't have James Bond in them. Small list, isn't it. Well this Tinker Tailor joins them. Yes, this film actually thinks the audience is filled with adults and treats them as such. All those with emotional ADD or need things dumbed down for them need not apply.

All praise to director Tomas Alfredson, screenwriters Steven Straughan and the late Bridget O'Connor, and that cast, oh that cast. Too bad we'll never know what John Hurt would be like in the role of George Smiley. But considering we get a great one in Gary Oldman, as well as Hurt as Control who almost reeks of tobacco, even if this film wasn't shot in Smell-O-Rama. There were some actual Oscar Prognosticators who felt Oldman would lose out on a Best Actor nomination to Leonardo DiCaprio for the disappointing J. Edgar. Yes, Leo put an almost unrelenting amount of energy and effort into his work, but anyone with more than a little knowledge of acting and with over a 100 IQ could see the seemingly minimal effort done by Oldman here. And I say seemingly; Smiley the great poker player who keeps almost everything in check. The picture of restraint when just a little loss of control could have catastrophic results. Bring on the two potential sequels if Oldman returns as Smiley and if the quality standards remain high.

7) DRIVE- A cool modern noir, that combines the best of Michael Mann's Thief, Walter Hill's The Driver, the Steve McQueen persona, stirs with a generous amount of sharp dialogue and a good cast, and lets the tension and blood flow nicely. Ok, so Ron Pearlman makes a lot out of his seemingly underwritten role, as does Carey Mulligan, who appeared to be lit in a constant halo and dressed in colors to highlight this. The connection between Gosling and Mulligan is nice, the overly chaste love story, not great. And if it is true that Drive is actually an allegory for the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood executives, sorry, fail. It doesn't play well; my allegory stuff regarding Meek's Cutoff holds up more.

Not the first film to show "the dark underbelly of Los Angeles", but it's about the execution of the familiar. Director Nicolas Winding Refn executes well, a major improvement over his last film, Valhalla Rising. And as for this Ryan Gosling guy? I don't think there's a role who couldn't pull off out there? Could he pull off Voldermort without make-up? Probably. Could he play say, Jane Fonda's role in a remake of 9 to 5, complete with wig and vintage wardrobe? Easily, I say. Very good indeed in Drive.

6) MEEK'S CUTOFF- The Western's not dead, folks. It can still be used effectively. It was effective earlier in 2011 with the fun and decent Rango, and the same goes for Kelly Reichardt's Meek's Cutoff. Also the best of Michelle Williams' two 2011 releases. I enjoyed My Week with Marilyn, and I understand going for Oscar gold with Marilyn as opposed to Meek's. Marilyn is good, but it's an above average episode of Masterpiece Contemporary. The depiction of the young man near the center of the story, as a naive but darling young angel, reeks of bullshit to me, but I'm digressing . . .

Set in 1845, a group of family settlers are lost while being lead by a loud guide who may or may not where he's going. The first ten or so minutes may be slow for many, and I wouldn't attack someone who feels that way, especially if they see the film on a typical TV screen or smaller. But it's important to set up the initial difficulties, the difficulty of the terrain, and how easy lives, possessions and equipment can be lost. After weeks of being lost, with the men unsure of whether to keep following the guide or not and the women's opinions going ignored, a new potentially dangerous element comes into their lives: a lone Indian. A non-white man who may or may not know the terrain, who may or may not help them. Do they follow this non-white man over their loudmouth guide? Do the settlers kill one of them? Do they kill them both?

All that may not be enough, but when you put what's going on in the film in the context of political America of the past ten or so years, then Meek's Cutoff takes on new dimensions. Imagine America, in the form of three families, being led by a likable Texan, played by Bruce Greenwood in pleasant scenery chewing mode. The journey is far more difficult than the Texan has led the party to believe. The Texan, who we'll make George W. here, appears far better at making himself sound good than in leading the party to the Promised Land. All of a sudden, they run into an Indian, and let's make Obama the Indian here. Eventually, the Indian sees symbols, and starts travelling in a direction different than what the Texan has been advocating. The Texan wants his polar opposite dead. Two of the couples represent opposite extremes; their fears and/or hysteria and/or anger toward the unknown, their own perilous situation, and toward the Indian who is a different skin color, not of the same religion and doesn't speak English. Now where is the Indian going? Is he leading himself to a better place and encouraging the others to follow? Is he even interpreting the symbols or directions properly? Is he even going somewhere at all, or is the Indian merely on some sort of walkabout? It's up to the third couple, the Center of the party or country if you will, that Williams' character is a part of, to try to figure out and try to force the rest of the party to follow. Whether they like it or not.

Now when you place all this allegory in, or rather when writer/director Reichardt places all this allegory in, then Meek's Cutoff really makes an impact. Throw in the idea that it may fall on Ms. Williams' character to decide the group's fate; someone without the right to vote in an era when socially she should barely be seen and not heard from. Throw that into the mix, and Meek's Cutoff becomes one seriously impressive little film.

P.S. The photo of the settler costumes from Meek's Cutoff here is mine. Taken in the Film Forum. The costume on the left is Zoe Kazan's, the one on the right is Michelle Williams's.

5) SHAME- This very adult film is a rough ride. It doesn't appear that the terrific Michael Fassbender's character is just a mere sex addict. There appear to be flashes of OCD to him in terms of hoarding all manners of porn in his work drive and in his apartment, body issues, and the need to have things just so, and more than a few hints of being abused by at least one parent. In the film's early section, as we get to know the character (sex with hookers, 1 night stands, the need to masturbate at work at about the same time each day), I was beginning to dread sitting through Shame. "Oh great, several long days and nights of a man who constantly needs the sexual release but can't feel any emotion or intimacy in any of the acts, what did I get myself into?" is what I felt.

It all changed once Carey Mulligan comes into the film. A game changer, both in terms of Mulligan's career and for Shame itself. Now we meet his sister, who's the polar opposite of the brother with whom she might have had some sort of incestuous relationship with. She's walking around ready to give affection and intimacy to anyone who glances her way. As long as you don't mind the mood swings that come along with it. Never knew Mulligan could sing, and I never imagined the song New York New York" could be performed as a borderline suicide note, but damn she pulls it off.

Don't look for deep interpretations or self-anaylisis of the onscreen behaviors. Also don't expect to have every answer of both characters' past filled in nice and neat. You get the bear bones of what you need so that the film maintains forward momentum. Not a pleasant trip and not one I necessarily want to repeat, but an interesting one.

4) MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE- I'm a sucker for the kind of suspense film that Hitchcock made. I'm also a sucker for the kind of suspense thriller Hitch might have at least considered making if he was alive today. That's why in 2003 I rated Swimming Pool higher than others I know, and I wrote this when I put Tell No One on my Best of 2008 list. I'm glad I got to see an American film join these similarly-veined French films in Martha Marcy May Marlene. Though I feel this is more akin to a Christopher Nolan type re-interpreting a Hitchcock-style script. That's how good I thought Sean Durkin's feature length directing/ writing debut is. The Manson-like cult that Elizabeth Olsen's character escapes from, feels familiar in terms of charismatic leader (wonderfully creepy John Hawkes), sway and sexual manipulation of his group. What felt unfamiliar in a fascinating way, was how easy it was to take innocent cult members and make them co-conspirators in recruitment, theft and possibly murder. Escaping brings her back to what's left of her family: a sister who seemed to get out of a seemingly hellish family life, and left her younger sibling to cope alone. A sister who, alongside her husband, doesn't understand who this damaged creature, is not equipped to stem the damage, and might have reason to be afraid. I'm sorry more people weren't willing to give this a chance, and I really look forward to Elizabeth Olsen's performances, to see where she goes from here. Maybe not the upcoming Silent House, but other projects.

3) PROJECT NIM- As much as I've liked documentaries such as Bill Cunningham: New York, The Interrupters, and Herzog's two 2011 documentaries, I recommend Pina over all of them. But the 2011 documentary I like most however is Project Nim, from the director of Man On Wire. Would make an interesting double feature with Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Now the makers of Rise didn't base their story on Nim, though the confusion would be understandable, since the story is similar to poor Nim's. Professor Herb Terrace of Columbia University sets about with a study to raise a chimpanzee as a human and teach him to communicate in complete sentences, back in 1973. So you rip Nim away from his mother when he's a baby, and place him with a human family, a wife, husband and some little kids. The only qualification the family seems to have is that the wife used to sleep with Professor Terrace, which in the early 70s seems to be qualifications enough. Never mind that there are little kids around a growing ever strong chimp, and no one involved has any experience with chimps, let the study begin! After awhile, to "help" speed up Nim's development, Nim is moved to a new home, where a different assistant Professor Terrace is sleeping with, and caretakers that have trouble handling the adult Nim.

The study becomes popular and we see coverage of it in magazines and on the Today show. Now if you've ever had a pet, then you know they can communicate with you. They may not talk to you or sign to you in complete sentences, but they find ways to communicate. Now thanks to photos and Super 8 movies of the study, we see Nim has learned to express him, alternating sign language with gestures, grunts and so forth. But the combination of not signing in complete sentences, difficulty in managing Nim's aggressiveness and increasingly more violent attacks, and a loss of funding, stripped Nim of yet another family. Nim would spend years as part of a subject of medical experiments and in a hellhole of a ranch in isolation, before other humans found another place to make Nim's last years peaceful. But most of the humans involved in Nim's life, most of whom are interviewed in the film, make one wish that scientist-types take an oath of some sort to do no harm, because Nim definitely suffered. Some of the people express guilt and regret in their interviews while others, especially Professor Terrace, not so much. Powerful film-making.

2) A SEPARATION- The best constructed screenplay in terms of story and dialogue combination, one that seems destined to lose unfortunately to Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris. When you're working on a low budget and living in a country where a government department can shut you down (like the Iranian Ministry of Culture did on this film's shoot), I guess extra emphasis needs to place on screenplay construction. And when I bring up the dialogue, I'm not talking about great poetry. Realistic dialogue from people in varying rapidly deteriorating situations.

Felt almost like a thriller, similar to Incendies. No bad guys here. One middle-class couple separates, but there's no divorce on the eve of their finally receiving an exit visa. The husband refuses to leave his Alzheimer's-riddled father behind. Their pre-teen daughter, who refuses to see her parent's break-up as inevitable, so she stays with her father. The wife won't leave her child behind, so she moves out and moves back home. The husband is forced to hire someone to take part time care of his dad; a devout woman with a husband threatened with jail over his debts, and a little daughter always in tow. She's more cunning than bright, though how cunning and bright is open to speculation. But she's not supposed to work in a single man's home, and we're not sure if she fears Judgement from the afterlife, her husband or her clerics. She's also pregnant and understandably stressed. When things go wrong, it puts them all in the hands of a government bureaucracy that leaves them all powerless, with narrow definitions of felonies and life-altering punishments.

I literally sat through the first half in knots, and stayed entranced throughout. Now if you're the type who hasn't gotten over the idea of subtitled films by Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, well that's a shame but I probably don't give your idea of movies any credence. So I'll just say see this, and move on to the only film I liked more than A Separation . . .

1) THE TREE OF LIFE- Probably the most divisive film on this list. You're either into this or you're not, and you'd probably have to be a big fan of at least two of Terrence Malick's prior films to get into The Tree of Life. Not calling this flawless, mind you. So few films are. Malick's film is unforgiving for those with short attention spans or mental ADD. I didn't embrace the modern day scenes with Sean Penn, but was surprised about how much I embraced the desert and what it lead to. I was dreading some kind of Gerry redux (in reference to the Gus Van Sant film), but so glad it didn't go in that direction. If Malick chose to just keep the film in Texas circa 1950s and 60s, it would have been just fine. Even though he did good work in Moneyball, this here might be Brad Pitt's career performance to date. Changing his ways to give his sons tough love to survive in a world that is crushing his own dreams, only to wonder if this is the right thing to do at all. Heartbreaking, complex, and human. Matched by Jessica Chastain as almost the embodiment of unconditional love, who may not be strong enough to discipline her sons effectively or protect them from her husband's aggression; again complex and human. Good job from Malick with regards to working with the non-professional boys who comprise the rest of the family, especially Hunter McCracken as the son who may go one way or another.

But it was after the screening that the following thoughts came to mind: What if you had questions for God? What if the answer is silence? Is that silence because you are mortal, & you're asking your questions to a deity that doesn't exist? Or are you asking to a deity that focuses on large concepts, and doesn't deal with mortal concepts? A deitiy that doesn't and maybe won't conform to the varying mortal interpretations that surround us? But what if you had at least some of the answers already & you didn't realize it? Maybe you had them from the way you were raised, from the way you were spoken to by your parents, your loved ones, or the way you spoke to them? All that and you never knew . . . Maybe the needs, ideas, power of choice and/or simple inexperience interfere with the mortal from understanding? Is it possible to gain understanding later in life? And if what I just described doesn't match what you go through or went through, does that matter?

There are more questions, but I have no answers, & neither does The Tree of Life. But these questions and more come up, and I recommend that you see it & decide for yourself. I understand that it might be tough to sit through on the big screen or on a large HD screen, and much tougher if you see on a small non-HD screen or if you tend to avoid art house films like they have the plague. But this film will be brought up again over the next few months, & I suspect for far longer. Like many things, you have to decide for yourself.

With all that said, no, I'm not sure what dinosaur life (a technological improvement over Jurassic Park) has to do with Brad Pitt trying to raise a family in 1950s Texas. Like other parts of the film, you're on your own. But I hope you give this a chance, and have a lot patience going in.