Wrapping It Up: October

Another month, another wrap-up post full of this month's viewings. Let us get on to the movies of this month...

October

Saving Private Ryan(1998)(Re-watch): I have seen this one quite a few times already but this was probably the longest between my two watches. It is one of those movies that every time I see, I find someone knew I didn't know was in this film. This time it was Paul Giamatti who I completely forgot was in it. But it still awes me as much it did the first time I saw it. Yes, it's little too on the nose sometimes, like that ending, but that's Spielberg for you. And there is more than enough pathos in it to help me turn a blind eye towards such moments. And it makes me want to see The Thin Red Line(1998) again even more.



Haider(2014)(Hindi): Third installment of Vishal Bharadwaj's Shakespeare adaptations trilogy. What Bharadwaj has succeeded in doing in this trilogy is translate these stories beautifully to Indian backgrounds while keeping Shakespearean core of each intact. Bismil song in this film which replaces play in Hamlet, re-enacting his father's death, is prime example of this. He has achieved same effect with something intrinsically Indian and, if you ask me, that was easily the best part of the whole film. Bharadwaj has always been one of my favorite Indian directors and he once again demonstrates why.

Infernal Affairs(2002): The Departed(2006) is one of my favourite films. If I am not wrong, it was my first Scorsese film and still remains to be the best piece of ensemble acting I have seen. Infernal Affairs had been on my watch list since knowing Scorsese adapted his film from this one. Now I can see that The Departed had a solid base to build on. This one here is very smart film. It is relentless and equally well acted. However, best thing I can say about it is it's still an exhilarating watch despite knowing what's coming next.

La Haine(1995): Have you ever had a lingering feeling that something terrible is going to happen? You keep on thinking it's about to for a long time and it never does and then you let your guard fall for a second and it hits you right then. That was me watching La Haine. Given the way it starts, at every turn I kept expecting something terrible to befall. It never did, not really and just when I thought nothing would happen now - BOOM! It's such a beautiful film though - B&W, episodic, great flow, very natural acting, little abstract but always palpable.

Nowhere in Africa(2001): This is one of those films that if it had not won Foreign film Oscar, forget about watching it, I wouldn't have even known about this. I don't know about how it was received in 2001 but if feels like a kind of movie that not many people would know about. My first impression of this film was this is sort of Out of Africa(1985), because it is based in Africa, + Days of Heaven(1978) because of look and feel of this film. Only difference is I was indifferent at best towards either of these films and I liked this one quite a bit.

City Lights(2014)(Hindi): Not to be confused with Chaplin classic, this is a Hindi movie released earlier this year with same name. I saw this after watching Shahid(2012) last month which was first collaboration of actor-director combo of Rajkumar Rao and Hansal Mehta and was very much revered critically as well. It reminded me of Babel(2006) because just like it, nothing remotely nice happens to anyone in this film. As a movie lover, I can appreciate it on many levels but it really gets overbearing after a while. I don't think I'll came back to it anytime soon.

Dracula(1931): As has been my tradition, if you can call something I have done twice in a row a tradition, I chose a classic horror as this month's blind spot entry in honor of Halloween. This might come as a surprise but I have been mostly uninitialized to this piece of classic literature. There must be countless versions of it now but I have seen Nosferatu(1922) and that is as far as my initiation to this world goes. And what could be better place to start than this classic. What I can say is for a film made in 1931, it works remarkably well today.

A Most Wanted Man(2014): Since last year, I was very interested in watching this film just based on political nature of its plot and I am very glad that it didn't disappoint. If you don't like political thrillers you might find this one sleep inducing because this is a sort of film that runs on single speed, never picks up except in the end. But they have always interested me. And it still hurts to see PSH on screen, even more so because he is amazing in this film. The way he just lets it go in the last seen is really something, especially since he is so controlled otherwise.

The Last Temptation of Christ(1988): This was first of 3 films almost three hour long films I saw in a week. Other two were 2 films right below. Curious thing with Last Temptation is on one hand, I am really intrigued by the path it takes after Jesus' crucifixion(I am guessing that is where all the controversy surrounding it was). And on the other, other biblical aspects of his life - him turning water into wine, resurrecting dead person - really turned me off. And at the risk of starting another controversy, I don't think I would've like him at that time. He was too ostentatious.

Spartacus(1960): This was another example of a film that I would be much more in love with had it been about an hour less in run time. I was never bored while watching it, on the other hand I appreciate quite a few things in it, but I seriously cannot comprehend why does it had to be as long as it was. There really was not enough content in it to justify that length. I know Kubrick was just a for-hire vehicle here but I have this problem with some of his most acclaimed works as well - they are almost twice as long as they have any business to be.

Heaven's Gate(1980): One of the notoriously famous film for all the wrong reasons. I didn't really like it much but I found it to be better than I expected based on its status as one of the worst flops of cinema. I might sound like a broken record here but my biggest problem with this was it's run time. Any film with a run time 0f over 200 minutes will have its dull period but in this case, it was almost first full hour where I was never sure of what the hell is happening. It sort of picks up later on but damage is already done. 

King Kong(1933): Just like Dracula above, I think this also works remarkably well for a film made in 31. Early in the film King Kong looks like created from animations we did as kids - flipping through pages a of book very fast but it settled as movie went along. I had seen Peter Jackson version before so I had some idea of what whole thing was. However, King Kong here is much more plain villain. You feel quite sad for him in Jackson version. Plus, Denham is much more of an asshole in that version. Here I can defend him pretty much all the way through.

Nightmare on Elm Street(1984): For the past three years, I have been making some effort to acquaint myself with some of the horror films prevalent in pop culture. You can safely assume that I don't watch horror films for the rest of the year. So in October, I spend some time with them for Halloween. This was my first exposure to Freddy's world and I have to say that despite being very '80s, which in my case is not the best thing you want to be, I quite enjoyed this. I may not run to it but I think I'll be down for another trip down this lane.

Thor 2: The Dark World(2013): I always feel that Thor is the most neglected superhero of Marvel universe. Maybe that goes somewhere in the back of my mind as well because I had very less expectations of this one despite Thor(2011) being one of the better superhero films of recent years. Thor 2 exceeded my expectations as well. Now, it's not doing anything extra ordinary here. I guess rather than what it does, more important is what it does not do. It doesn't overdo anything and that made it very enjoyable to me.

The Great Beauty(2013): It could be the time and place I saw this film at but I went through a lot of conflicting emotions while watching this film. On one hand, there were moments in this film that I could really connect with while on the other I felt it too opulent, too frivolous and vacuous. But Jep Gambardella knows this very well; in fact showing how empty their lives are is the main point of this film and it does so eloquently. Knowing all this I should appreciate it a lot but then again, I had to fight to keep my eyes open the whole time.

Night Moves(2014): I think I can take slow movies. Or maybe I should say they don't bore me just because they are slow. I have seen and enjoyed a few to confirm. I understand that keeping your patience with it and still be able to appreciate it can be difficult but I can appreciate a movie taking its time to say what it wants to say. In this case, however, I wasn't sure what it was trying to say or it lost somewhere in the way that I didn't really care where was it going. Either way, not a movie I can say I liked for what it is. 

Army of Darkness(1992): Last of the horror movies I saw this month and unfortunately the worst one. I can appreciate self deprecating aspects of it because it would have been almost impossible to take it seriously but it was little too out there; too much of rolling the eyes. The way it makes fun of itself or jabs at many horror tropes etc. kept it interesting but there was only so much of it I could bare. I think I would have liked this more as a pure comedy than horror+comedy. Still, not the worst horror film I have seen.

A Christmas Story(1983): This is one of those movies I never would've seen, forget seeing - I never would've known, had it not been in IMDb top 250 list(Spare me your highbrow frown. Yes, I still do watch films just because they are in this list. I only have 6 more to see and I would like to say I've seen them all soon). If I had seen it a child, I think this has all the ingredients to be my favourite film. It's really sweet and cute but to tell you the truth now, with its language and looks and stupid voice-over throughout, it is too kiddies stuff.

Lucy(2014): I heard so many good things about this film that one of my major regrets in the past few months was I missed this film during its theatrical run. By luck, I got a chance to correct that but now I so wish I hadn't. This was a colossal waste of time, money and anything else that I cared to invest in it. I didn't expect much from Besson anyways but this is one of the stupidest, consistently over the top films I have seen in a long time. Even just 90 minutes of this film felt like an eternity.

Total Count: 19. 18 First Time Watches and 1 Re-watch .

2014 YTD Count

Total Count: 170. 160 First Time Watches and 10 Re-watches.

So, how was your month? Did you see anything interesting? What do you think of the movies I saw? Any favorites?

October Blind Spot: Frankenstein

First and foremost, what makes this a Blind Spot movie? In other words, why is this film essential?

I don’t think it needs any other reason than because it is Frankenstein. The reason I chose Frankenstein(1931) is, believe it or not but, I had never known this story up until recently despite being a lauded literary classic. Extent of my knowledge went so far as knowing a scientist creates some monster. That's it! For the longest time, I was under the impression that name of the monster is Frankenstein because, frankly, that does sound rather sinister name. So I thought this might be a good chance not just to check out one of the most iconic horror films in movie history but also to get acquainted to this piece of classic literature. And off course, there can’t be a more apt time of the year than Halloween for this, right?

So, what is the story about?

Henry Frankenstein is a young scientist obsessed with being a God. He wants to create life and has spent months in isolation working on his machine he believes will create life. We first meet him in a graveyard, along with his deformed assistant Frits, making rounds of cremation grounds and gallows looking for human parts to assemble complete human body to revive. Back home, his fiancée Elizabeth is worried about him and seeks help of his former teacher and mentor Dr. Waldman. Along with Victor Moritz, friend of both Henry and Elizabeth, they go to his laboratory to put some sense into him. There they witness Henry bring a monstrous, grotesque body he has composed form various stolen parts back to life. Initially Henry is extremely happy with the results but soon, because of series of misunderstandings, his monster turns on them. Henry realizes his mistake and even agrees to destroy his own creation but he underestimates the monster he has brought to life and wrecks havoc.

I am pretty sure everyone knows the story in general because I don’t think there are many more specimen like me out there. Not only have I never read Mary Shelley’s book, I had no idea what the story was until I saw this couple of nights ago. Since then I did a little research about the book and it seems that movie took a lot of freedom in interpreting the story in its own way. It not only prunes various characters and storylines but also makes it much lighter in terms of price Dr. Frankenstein has to pay for his creation. It even adds few things here and there. I would not know if it is for better or for worse until I read the book but I did like what I saw.

What did I think of it? What did I like the most about it and what didn't I like?

It satisfied me on various levels. First of all being a 1931 movie, I immediately assumed it to be a silent film. Imagine my surprise as the master of ceremony takes the stage to warn us about the horrors coming our way and he actually talks. Then there is also the matter of this unprecedented introduction. Agreed that I haven’t seen most of Frankenstein’s brother classic monster movies but I have never heard of such introduction before and it definitely got me right into the mood for a horror movie. Score!

Once again, being a 1931 movie, when you sit yourself down to watch it you have certain expectations from it. You expect to see a lot of stagey, loud emoting. Much more emphasis is on actually showing every strand of emotion than just hinting at it. I don’t mean to downplay that because it’s something you have to leave with in movies from that period. I have become used to it by now and, as I just said, even accept it as a trademark of the period. While this movie does have its share of such moments, frequency of it and scale is on much lower side. It makes it much easier to get into this movie. I was pleasantly surprised by how much modern it looked in its presentation.

Last and certainly most important thing is Boris Karloff and his monster. Though it is considered an iconic horror film, it can hardly be scary after more than 80 years. We have seen far too much now to be scared of it. But mere presence of Karloff with that equally iconic makeup is still quite enough to send some shivers down your spine. However what makes this performance worth mentioning here is this isn’t just one-dimensional monster. Even if we look at that one encounter with Maria, it manages to make him look somewhat human in his own way with that. It ends with disastrous results for both Maria and the monster but showing him being able to connect is definitely worth praise.

After having seen it, do I agree with its 'essential' status? And why?

Not only because this is one of the most iconic horror movies but also because of the various motifs it manages to touch upon I think this classic story, which has managed to stay in the discussion for well over a century, certainly deserves the label essential. From very early stage of our existence, our desire, our need to push our own boundaries, explore new grounds has brought us where we are. However right now, when our lives are more than ever governed by the technology, is the need for us to know where to stop. With the monster’s encounter with Maria that I alluded to earlier, it also brings forth the question of whether it was our incompetence in understanding him, nurturing him into our own civilization is what brings out his monstrosities; another warning against conquering the unknowns.

Frankenstein is an ideal example of man crossing his boundaries to be someone he doesn’t fully grasp and obviously to most dire results. Henry Frankenstein is obsessed with being God and his desire to create life is what brings this calamity on him as well as others. Over the years, we have had fair share of movies warning us about it but this could be one of the pioneers. Also, It must have taken some guts to take such an acclaimed piece of literature and put his own spin on that, hopefully without loosing the gist of original. James Whale not only dared to do that but did it well and the fact that it holds so well after so many years and is still so true is a real testament to its timelessness.

Does it open few new doors for me? Does this inspire to watch any other movies?

I have only seen The Phantom of the Opera(1925) and Nosferatu(1922) of all the classic monster horror movies I alluded to earlier. If these three films are any indication, I will like to try my hand at some more of that genre. Maybe The Mummy(1932) for more Boris Karloff or Dracula(1931), another equally iconic movie with equally iconic monster Bela Lugosi as well a classic piece of literature and maybe even The Wolf Man(1941). Being black and white horror movies, I don’t know when will I really get to them but I certainly would like to try some of them. Hopefully soon, at least before next Halloween.

City Lights or How Chaplin made me Cry!

The first time ever I put a Top 100 list on this blog was sometime in March 2012, little less than a month after I got into LAMB. Since the start of this year, I have been meaning to update that list and I finally found an opportune time for it on the second anniversary of this blog in June 2013. A lot changed over the year. Countless many films jumped up or down in the list, many I saw last year made into it for the first time and as a result, some of the earlier entries had to make way for them. However the one that made the biggest lip was Chaplin’s City Lights(1931) which I only saw for the first time last year. It found its way straight into my Top 10 films of all time. I had not added an entry to my ‘Favourites’ feature since I updated the list and so when I thought about doing so, it only felt right talking about one that the biggest splash in that update.

Like all his other films, City Lights is about Chaplin’s tramp and two more people in his life – a wealthy man who tries to kill himself in his drunken stupor but tramp somehow manages to save him and a sweet but blind flower selling girl that mistakenly takes him as a wealthy man. After getting to know her a bit, he comes to know that an operation can save bring her eyesight back. The catch is if she gets her eyes back, she would know that he is not a wealthy man she thinks he is and that may change her feelings for him but on the other hand, she will remain blind. But off course, he sets out to get that money she will need for it and in a typical Chaplin fashion, his path is filled with many gigs. On the other hand, wealthy man he saves feels quite indebted to him for saving his life but seems to forget everything as he gets sober. His butler also seems very suspicious of tramp and his motives and keeps on trying to get him out of the house. This on-and-off nature of their relationship makes for some hilarious moments.

Starting from the very first scene of tramp sleeping on the statue to be publicly inaugurated in the city square to one of the most well-known endings in the history of cinema, City Lights is full of iconic moments that even those who haven’t seen the film might know about. I am sure we all also remember the boxing fight he gets himself into to get the money for girl’s operation or the restaurant scene during one of the drunken spells of his wealthy friend. Scenes like these are filled with many small gigs that he does to perfection and almost certainly, to hilarious results.

I have grown up watching Chaplin; though most of them were shorts or I only saw parts of them, so it felt like shorts. I only got to his feature length films in 2011 but unlike many other of his contemporary comedians, I was at least introduced to him and his work very early in my life. Laurel-Hardy are the only others I can say the same about. I still haven’t seen anything of Harold Lloyd’s or Jacques Tati’s work though films like Safety Last(1923) or Playtime(1967) and Mr. Hulot’s Holiday(1953) are pretty high up on my watch-list. And although I inducted myself to Keaton and Marx Brothers right around the time I got into Chaplin films, I didn’t even know about them until I started this blog. So as much as I love Keaton and others, Chaplin will always hold a dear place in my heart and the more of his films I watch, the more he cements that position.

Chaplin, even though relies heavily on the physical comedy aspect of his films, transcends further than that. There is always something more, something deeper in his films than the obvious comedy we see on the screen. In Modern Times(1936), he comments on the human life getting more and more dependent on machines which is even more relevant now than it was then. In The Great Dictator(1940), while making fun of Hitler and Nazism, he also gives a message about humanity. In The Kid(1921), there is this beautiful father-son relationship at its center. In City Lights, it is unadulterated and undemanding Love.

His tramp, even though almost always at the lowest pedestal of the food chain, is always about hope, about giving, about being more humane. I don’t think it is more apparent anywhere else than it is in City Lights where he gives pretty much everything he can; he gets into the boxing ring, he gets a job in garage, he even goes to jail; just to help out this blind, flower-seller that he loves but who doesn’t even recognize him when he stands in front of her after all this. And this is the prefect segway for me to break into something I love the most about this film.

I rarely cry at the movies. I don’t even remember the last time I did. I don’t mean to brag or flaunt my 'Man' Card but it assures that when I do, the film leaves its impression on me. Bicycle Thieves(1948) did and so did Grave of the Fireflies(1988). Result? Both are very high up in my Top 100. City Lights did too and it also makes the list but there is something even more beautiful about it which makes it even more special. I have always been sucker for the moments that can make you laugh and cry at the same time and this film offers one such moment.

There are moments that warm your heart but what makes some of them extra special is when one sneaky tear slips from the corner of your eye and rolls onto your chick. There is danger in them either being too cheesy or falling flat but when someone gets it right, it works wonders like that last scene when the dejected tramp slowly walks away from the girl. It gets everything Just right. But then she finally recognizes her benefactor and that tear manages to break off the boundaries and roll down. I have seen this film 3 times and it happened every. single. time. Even writing about this right now makes me go “Awwww”. That scene is everything good, nice, pure and innocent about this world personified in one moment. It could very well be my favourite onscreen moment ever. It will never, ever get old for me.

Until Vertigo(1958) took the top seed in the last year's Sight and Sound list displacing Citizen Kane(1941), City Lights was the only movie ever to top that list besides Kane. Over the years, it has gone down up to #50 but is till one of the best films made ever. Personally, with so many iconic scenes and favourite moments, it is not only my favourite Chaplin but also favourite silent film of all time.

Rating(out of 5):

Past Favorites:

Notorious(1946)

Rashomon(1950) 

City of God(2002)

12 Angry Men(1957)

Bicycle Thieves(1948)
Wall-E(2008)

January Blind Spot: Snow White and Seven Dwarfs(1937)

One of the reasons why I wanted to take part in Blind Spot series this year, off course besides filling up those damn blanks in my film viewings, was I wanted to get a little out of my comfort zone and write about different types of movies. This was a good way of forcing this onto myself. But these aren't just any movies that I selected on whim. All of them are to be considered essential viewing for any serious movie-buff. Since special occasions demand special treatment, I also decided to go with something different than usual plain review. So, now I had 12 movies chosen, special format in the form of Q&A drawn out. All I needed to do was actually watch a movie and write. Believe me, nothing is that simple. Being the very first movie in this series, I wanted to choose it carefully and make it something that almost nobody will have any question calling it a classic, an essential. I went up and down my list, trying to finalize the one. At one point, I thought none of them seems like a right fit while at another, they all looked like indisputable classics. However after some deliberation, I was convinced there wouldn't be a better place to start then Snow White and Seven Dwarfs(1937).
 
First and foremost, what makes this a Blind Spot movie? In other words, why did I think of this film as essential?
If this is not to be considered an essential, I don't know what is. This was the FIRST and probably the most memorable full-length animated feature made by Disney Studios. Period. What more reason does anyone who has ever seen an animated movie need? This movie gave a different genre all together to the film industry. Being such a legendary movie that has carved out quite a niche for itself, I was more than eager to scratch this off my list and hopefully like it as well. And it was Adolf Hitler's favourite movie. So, there is that too.
 

So, what is the story about?
Now that is a redundant question, isn't it? Who doesn't know Snow White's story? Funny thing is, one of the thing that made this interesting for me is over the last year or so, we have seen so many different versions of this same story. Some on big screen, some on TV, some spin-offs and what not. I wanted to see what is the actual normal version of it, the Fairy tale version because after having seen all the different versions, I was starting to doubt what the original story was myself. At least I got that here. Simple and straight forward story of charming little princess saved by the seven little dwarves from the evil deeds of her step-mother. Now their execution of story, with the occasional singing and dancing etc., felt very play-like. I have never actually seen it myself but this is exactly how I imagine a Broadway play will be like.

What did I think of it? What did I like the most about it and what didn't I like?
I was thoroughly impressed by the way it looked because it was absolutely gorgeous. I guess, I wasn't expecting first ever movie made to be that beautiful. I had so many screen caps taken, I had very hard time deciding which ones to choose for this post and which ones to discard. It is a fairy tale story and with all the goofiness of the dwarves and woodland creatures involved, it is obvious that it was very much made for kids. It does get darker in parts but then again, keeping their target audience in mind, we never see any violence on the screen. It is mostly implied that something bad just happened. I believe targeting for the kid's market would've allowed them to keep the story straight forward and concentrate more on making animations much more detail-oriented and hence real as well which should have been point of emphasis more than anything else. But I guess you can look at it from either way. It also makes it, well, very straight forward and hence kinda bland. 

But then again, I am discounting the fact that this is Snow White. So, it isn't like anyone who watches it wouldn't know what is going to happen next. So, I guess, my point is Walt Disney and Co. must have deliberately chosen the well-known story so that they can concentrate on making animations rather than writing a story to animate. It might have helped him from marketing point of view but I think the idea of letting the animations take the front seat to everything else was an admirable thing to do.

After having seen it, do I agree with it's 'essential' status? and why?
Not only do I just agree with the 'Essential' label, I really believe that it will remain so for many many more years to come as a reminder that this is how it all started. Given the fact that this was first attempt at making an animated feature film, there was no hint of that anywhere in the movie. In fact their attention to the detail was something that really impressed me e.g. first time when Snow White peeks through the window into the dwarves' house, you can see the tiny dot her nose would make on that glass. Apparently, there was a little concern over if animators can make these characters look human since no one had much of a practice with that before and was one of the reasons why Prince's characters is used bare minimum in the movie. To make that point, Disney and his animators made sure that all the human characters in the story i.e Snow White, The Queen and even Prince and Huntsman for whatever little time they are on screen, will have the dramatic bearing  as that of an actor in live action movie. To add to this dramatic response, Huntsman was particularly made ferocious, dwarves were made to look dismal carrying Snow white - something that the cartoons that time were not known to be capable of.

If we are talking about the quality animation, even 75 years after its release and with all the advances in the technology now a days, I think Snow White still holds up really great. Me falling in love with the look of this movie also reiterated the fact that I love 2D animations way more than 3D. 3D animations may look more clear, crisp, there is something in those hand drawn animations that make them look much more personal, much more relatable. One of the main reasons, why I always prefer Studio Ghibli over Pixar.

Does it open few new doors for me? Does this inspire to watch any other movies?
I am sure there are many people who will not believe that I had never seen such a classic. I am sure they will wonder, what did I do as a kid? Don't worry, I off course knew the story. I just never got around to this movie. But what I am about to say might astonish everyone even more. Not only that I JUST saw Snow White and Seven Dwarfs, I think this was my first Disney classic. I am pretty sure I have not seen any of them, I am not even sure what movies exactly constitute as Disney classics. Now with the success of this, I think that door is open for me. I am even looking for suggestions, if you have any.