The Maltese Falcon

The Maltese Falcon 21/07/11

Writer/Director: John Huston

1942

Much like The African Queen (1951) the pairing of John Huston in the director’s chair and Humphrey Bogart as leading birthed a genre defining classic. Appropriately here Bogart is at his most hardened and self preserving, even more so than Casablanca (1942), and shows us what being a detective in a mystery noir is all about. He is brought into the search for the Maltese falcon reluctantly and makes sure that he comes out of it better off.

            While Bogart’s character Sam Spade isn’t completely admirable we back him all the way thanks to his confident, witty and straight talking demeanour. There is an excellent supporting cast of Mary Astor as the female lead as well as Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet (his screen debut), both of whom went on to roles in Casablanca. Considering that this was Huston’s directorial debut it is well paced and shot, which probably is because of his meticulous planning beforehand.

            We are introduced to Sam Spade by the camera moving down from a window showing the San Francisco skyline to Spade sad dominantly behind his desk (larger than his partners) and we immediately know that he is the boss. He handles the police like inferior life forms and makes fun of angry folk with guns pointed at him, which immediately makes him seem more dangerous than his enemy. With great lines like “When you’re slapped you’ll take it and like it” and casually asking “Who do you think I shot?” he convinces the audience that he will not be anybodies ‘sap’ and that if we stick with him we will be just fine. He doesn’t need flashy action or a big gun to own this film, Bogart does it just with a grin before he gives Peter Lorre a good old fashioned punch in the mouth. Two previous versions of this film insisted on giving the audiences endings that they were supposed to like, however Huston filmed the original book, and the story is superior, the acting brilliant and the direction is perfect. A must watch noir.

Harvey

Harvey 15/07/11

Director: Henry Koster            Writer: Mary Chase

1950

            From the outset of Harvey we know the Elwood P. Dowd is a strange fellow. But really this has nothing to do with his imaginary friend Harvey; he is strange to us because he genuinely believes that “Every day is a beautiful day”. Does anybody in the real world actually feel like that? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

            I certainly regard this as a beautiful film, though simple and uncomplicated in composition I like small touches such as shots having Harvey in the frame despite his invisibility. It seems quietly rebellious from what I expect a Hollywood production from that era to be, with its quiet and docile protagonist who is friends with ex-criminals, depicted as alcoholic and mentally ill. He takes little interest in Peggy Dow who is the eye-candy of the film, and is perfectly pleasant to his sister and niece who see him as a social inconvenience. His whole character highlights how strange constantly being nice is, and therefore reflects how society can be cynical and selfish.

            Thankfully the tone of the film is light and we aren’t beaten over the head with any wider messages it may have; a good story is allowed to speak for itself. Elwood’s attitude certainly affects those around him, comically driving an accomplished psychiatrist onto his own couch, and driving his sister to tears. He attributes everything to his friend Harvey, and there is the question of whether or not Harvey exists. Well he has his own hat and coat...why would he need them if he were imaginary?

Dog Day Afternoon

Dog Day Afternoon 11/07/11

Director: Sidney Lumet           Screenplay: Frank Pierson

1975

The opening montage of Dog Day Afternoon shows us a cross section of New York lifestyles of the 1970’s; a juxtaposition of businessmen and the homeless, of haves and have-nots. It is summer in the city, and as the film develops we see this is the perfect time of year for a film that deals with the harsh pressures that a city can put on people. Based closely (as far as films go) on actual events from 1972, this film is a template for many subsequent heist and hostage films, and the actual events helped shape police procedure for hostage negotiation, and knowing that people experienced what the actors pretend to do helps audiences empathise with them.

            Al Pacino as Sonny is the mastermind of a robbery that is painfully amateur right from the beginning when an accomplice realises that he isn’t cut out for a life of crime and has other things to be doing. Not a good sign. But our protagonist struggles on and manages to get into the vault. He does so with the assistance of sensible and mostly calm bank employees, including the head teller who doesn’t let the gun pointed at her head stop her from telling Sonny to watch his language. Moments like this, the use of humour in stressful and dark moment right up until the final moments help offset the intensity of the situation, and also make Pacino and John Cazale’s characters endearing.

            In some unknown but unsurprising way the police are alerted, and there are lots of them. Due to the overwhelming number of armed police a fairly pathetic robbery turns immediately into a super tense hostage situation, despite Sonny treating his hostages pleasantly. I think what really worked for me in this film is that unlike many other such films I have seen I wasn’t focusing on the logistics of the police operation or the felons escape, and I genuinely wanted everybody to come out better off. Because we weren’t seeing through the police point of view, and Pacino’s character was properly developed there was a real story at work. At one point Sonny is asked why he is robbing the bank, and he says for money. That is true, but many heist films would leave it at that, and the hostages would be brutalised and the police would be heroes. However here we know what the police want and why they want it and we support them, but we know there is more to Sonny and he isn’t there to get money for a nice car and an evil volcano base. On top of this is the social context. The crowd surrounding the bank supply this context, almost completely siding with Sonny, and the film also takes place under the shadow of the American-Vietnamese war. These are deep issues which director Sidney Lumet doesn’t push to the foreground but lets them speak for themselves.

At the end of the film I found myself questioning the nature of this support; was it really for Sonny or was it just an excuse to oppose the establishment. I also wondered if such support for a criminal could happen now, considering the harsh economic situations that many have to deal with. However my biggest question was about the hostage-kidnapper relationship. Did those hostages really wish Sonny well or was it just to keep him happy? I know which answers I would like to be correct.

Dead Hooker In A Trunk

Dead Hooker in a Trunk 06/07/11

Writers/Directors: Sylvia Soska, Jen Soska

2009

Coming from a small production company called Twisted Twins Productions and being filmed in Vancouver, Canada, the title of this film has to do lots of its promotional work. That’s certainly how it caught my attention at Manchester’s Grimm Up North festival in 2010. With limited time and money for the celebration of horror there was no way I was missing this film. However due to being slightly tipsy when I saw it I thought I had best see it sober and only managed to get hold of it now, but it was worth the trouble.

            With its first scene having a long take reminiscent of the restaurant scene in Goodfellas you are sucked in to the rock n roll life style of two of the main cast: Badass and Junkie. All the main characters have such names and there is a tongue in cheek reference to them not being a bunch of stereotypes in a later scene, and such awareness of typical horror narratives and divergences from such are a benefit to the film. Instead the twin sister directors/writers/stars give us a creative, low budget and self aware film.

            On the second viewing I found the first 30 minutes a bit slow, and the music/dialogue could be better. Thankfully After a scene at a dealer’s all is cured, and the gross out factor is taken up a notch. From then on the story moves along as quickly as you would want in such a film, the music is diverse and either appropriate or creates a comedic juxtaposition, and the dialogue is fuelled by obscenities and tension. And of course the audience for such a film wants swearing and gore in bucket loads (or perhaps car boot loads). However the film is more fun than just blood, and there is top level dark humour throughout, plus the refreshing sight of females in a horror film having a brain cell (and a pair of balls), with CJ Wallis playing a hilarious male foil (as well as doing much of the post production).

            So, if you come looking for a film to live up to the outrageous title you will be disgusted, lots, and laugh more than you would at the average Hollywood comedy. You may also find yourself noticing comments on friendship which are quite admirable, and thinking finding a dead hooker in a trunk isn’t a bad “you had to be there” moment to spark a friend finding adventure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SAEN43OHZc Heres the trailer.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  01/07/11

Director: Mike Nichols            Writer: Ernest Lehman(screenplay)

1966

Being mortally scared of marriage myself, the concept of a film depicting such a dysfunctional relationship intrigued me, would there be some “Hollywood” resolution of differences? Either way this film features some staggeringly good performances, and earned all 4 cast members Oscar nominations. A few days before watching it I had seen Taylor in one of her best roles in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and couldn’t really imagine her topping her on screen marriage with Paul Newman, but she did. I doubt it could have happened without her being cast opposite then-husband Richard Burton, and I won’t bother discussing their real life turbulent relationship, but it is safe to say all nominations and subsequent awards were earned.

So what struck me about this film? Well the cinematography is superb and i have Haskell Wexler(also responsible for One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest) to thank for that treat. It took me a little while to get it, at first I thought there was just some good framing, for example around half an hour in George and Honey are on the edges of the frame, excluded from the other’s flirtation, and that the close-ups were used as punctuation for the dialogue. However what is really going on is a depiction of social power, whoever is in control of the conversation and the room gets a close-up, those not in power are excluded, and this is enough to make the script shine.

That script is so important to the success of this film. Barely changed from its stage version despite Ernest Lehman writing a screenplay, the clever and sadistic dialogue challenger censors and is never boring, especially when Burton is on a roll. From the choice to have a film about an after party (not the party) some witty and vicious insults (“I swear, if you existed, I'd divorce you”), right to a quite lovely end shot, I was impressed. Watch it!