Film Review--The Beast with Five Fingers

The Beast with Five Fingers
directed by Robert Florey
story by William Fryer Harvey
written by Curt Siodmak
starring Peter Lorre, Robert Alda, Andrea King, Victor Francen, J. Carrol Naish, Charles Dingle, John Alvin, David Hoffman



In a creepy old Italian castle, a retiring, nearly crippled pianist named Frances Ingram (Francen) whiles away his sad time playing Bach chaccone’s with his left hand and grimacing about the future. He is cared for by his lovely American nurse Julie (King) and attended to by his loyal secretary Hilary Cummins (Lorre) who spends most of his time in the enormous library attempting to learn how to tell the precise moment a person is going to die. After Ingram gathers everyone, including the shady “authentic” artifacts dealer Bruce Conrad (Alda) and the shifty-eyed lawyer Duprex (Hoffman), he announces that he wants them all to testify to his sanity so he can have his will authorized. After leaving everything to Julia for whom he has developed intense erotic feelings, he promptly crashes his wheelchair down the stairs and breaks his neck.

Upon the murder of Duprex, who was going to work for Ingram’s heirs Mr. Arlington (Dingle) and his son Don (Alvin) to overturn the will, it is discovered that Ingram’s hand has been severed which leads to a strange assertion that his hand has been somehow involved with the killing. The rest of the film works with this premise as the hand continues to haunt those who remain behind.
We see the hand crawling about, playing the same chaccone, and trying to choke the life out of Don. It’s a veritable mystery and this is where the film goes slightly off track. At first it is all about atmospherics and setting the mood for the rest of the film. It’s dark and gloomy and the Bach piece is haunting, heavy and mood-splitting. The tone is set for a legitimate thriller but unfortunately all that is left is a meek whodunnit story where the culprit gives his hand away too early for it to be any good at all.

Truly the greatest thing about this film is the character of Hilary as played by the great Peter Lorre. He’s at times demonic, pathetic, psychotic, and terribly strange. He slouches about, damaged, broken by something or someone. He obsessively studies his astrology books hoping to gain a secret he can later employ in his masterwork. The film just doesn’t work so well without him as the other characters cease to matter whenever Lorre is on the screen. His movements, his deeds alone make any difference in the end and the other characters do nothing of particular import throughout the film. They just exist to orbit around him and the agony of his intensity dominates every frame he is in. It’s clear that these are not the kind of actors who should be attempting to create a work of horror fiction. They should be in lighthearted fare where the boy gets the girl and everything works out on the farm. Instead, they are miscast in roles that are as throwaway as a girl’s dead lipstick container.

We are led to believe throughout the film that the hand is committing murder as well as playing the piano. Of course, this is not the sort of film that would allow that sort of thing to continue so a more pedestrian explanation is sought that drives the film to a halt. There should be more madness here, not less. There should be blood-curdling screams, sweaty palms, and more terrified locals babbling incoherently to their gods about demons and devils and such. Of course, this film wants to be a quiet murder mystery that just happens to star Peter Lorre. It fails to create a film around his character so he doesn’t stand out so much as the only thing worth watching. A better film would have given the other characters more interesting things to do but these louts do and say nothing that truly matters. They cannot die fast enough although it soon is made clear that the killer, hand or no, is limited in his vocation as far as killings are concerned. So, we are left with a drab cast who are given nothing to do save Peter Lorre and a script that doesn’t know how to play off of the fears that such a potentiality would engender. Because of the nature of the story, the film makers are limited to the kinds of things they might have tried in this film. For starters there can be no great seduction scene where the hand undresses and caresses the firm body of the luscious Miss Julie. That probably wouldn’t have gone over very well in 1946 but they still could have intimated that untoward behavior was taking place between Julie and the Hand.

Overall, this film works for as long as Peter Lorre is on the screen. He brings a chilling exactness to his character and introduces an element of magic to the film that it otherwise lacks. The story begins promisingly enough and takes its time revealing the key players and the gloomy confines of the mansion. However, once it is apparent that there is a murder to be solved, it devolves into a run of the mill, generic detective story that loses the impressive air of confusion and gloom that hangs over the early sections of the film. With anyone other than Lorre in the role of Hilary there wouldn’t be any suspense at all and no reason to care one way or another what happens in the end to “solve” the great mystery. Lorre delivers a sad, endearing portrait of a man who simply wants to be left with himself so he can continue to apply direct knowledge to his aims and intentions. Lorre plays him as a deeply sympathetic character who shuffles about back and forth between the library and his quarters. He’s utterly heartbreaking to watch and discover as the film moves along toward it’s compromised conclusion. This film is watchable only because the viewer cannot take their eyes off of Lorre for even a second.

Film Review--Mad Love (1935)

Mad Love
directed by Karl Freund
written by John L. Balderston, Guy Endore
starring Peter Lorre, Frances Drake, Colin Clive, Ted Healy, Sara Haden




Enjoining Grand Guignol “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” and Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion” , this film portrays a man’s impenetrable devotion to a singular ideal which leaves him but one choice in the end.

Creepy, lust-drenched Doctor Gogol (Lorre) is a talented surgeon with something of a mad scientist in him. He has a penchant for performing experimental surgeries that prove to successfully cure the difficulty at hand. He’s also utterly obsessed with Yvonne Orlac (Drake) , a performer with the Theatre des Horreurs who as the film opens is putting on her final show. Gogol is taken with the scenes where Yvonne’s character is put on a wheel and tortured because she won’t reveal the name of her lover.

The film uses expressionistic angles; chiorascu lighting; and hypnotic music to create a strange and beguiling world of confusion and death. Gogol has allowed himself to be totally sucked in by the personality and luxuriousness of Yvonne to the point of purchasing a wax statue of her that he dresses and coos lovingly to in his drawing room. He communicates with the statue with regularity and with conviction. She is everything he requires except unlike Pygmalion he cannot bring her to life.

The art direction by Cedric Gibbons demonstrates how clear lines and uncluttered spaces can create the feeling of isolation and coldness. Dr. Gogol’s rooms are large, open spaces minimally furnished and look like the sets for the Joy Division video that was never completed. With his bald dome and penchant for wearing fur coats, Gogol emerges like a rare bird or exotic plant; he keeps a Venus Fly Trap which his maid begrudgingly feeds. Every aspect of his character bespeaks of a man who has structured his existence in a strict manner that allows him to experience heightened sensations that send him into an intoxicating revery. He is a man subterfuged by beauty and all the horrors that are associated with it. His is a world of perpetual longing and excitation where he searches for the answers that remain entirely elusive, tantalizingly out of reach.

There is a tremendous sense of brutality in this film as many of the aspects come together to create a landscape of reprisals and discontent. Gogol is fond of attending every execution where the condemned man places his head on the chopping block as the cruel blade of the guillotine removes him from this world.

The story involves one of Dr. Gogol’s experiments that has unforseen consequences for the patient. It changes the complexity of the man’s life and nearly leads to his incarceration were it not for understanding officers who believe his outlandish story. The sense of terror is enhanced through close ups of Gogol whose eyes betray a terrible intention at every turn. He always seems on the verge of performing some foul deed which is belied by the absolute calmness, almost quaintness, of his demeanor. He moves languidly and elegantly through the film, projecting a sense of eery capability that comes through whether he is in the operating room or staring intently into the wax figure’s eyes hoping to finally be able to bring her to life.


Yvonne’s husband Stephan is a talented pianist and composer whose singular gift is stripped from him in a horrible train crash. He becomes the victim of one of Dr. Gogol’s experiments that has unforseen circumstances for the patient. Dr. Gogol is manic about the possibilities for this procedure and gleefully completes it without first considering what might come of it. Stephen is transformed in a most direct and unfortunate manner into a creature he hardly recognizes. He is susceptible to committing deeds that shock and horrify him into a near stupor. He longs to be released from the tyranny of the abomination but the alternative is too terrible to consider. He merely lives with it and is eventually apprehended and confesses to a crime he is certain he has committed.

This film is a window into a mysterious and dark world of the imagination. The sets are majestic, and the film employs grotesque special effects that add to the mercenary drama of the production. There is always the sense that something real and terrifying is about to unfold and this suspicion is happily realized in the final act. It follows a straightforward narrative structure as the tale is hypnotically woven and displayed in all it’s mesmeric glory. There is a strange sexual pulse to Dr. Gogol’s infatuation with the wax doll. He treats her like a woman and serenades her like her would a prospective partner. He longs for her and desperately wants to press her warm cheek up against his own but he cannot will it to happen and this greatly frustrates him.

Dr. Gogol is something of a Satanic figure who lives in strict accordance with his own desires. His only barrier is the limits of the human imagination and of science. He is a man transcendent who has risen to great heights because he has seen possibilities where other men have merely scoffed. Yet, his ultimate aim is thwarted by his inability to fully realize his desire to actualize the physical existence of his beloved. As hard as he wills he fails to complete this ultimate task but he retains the same robust spirit that drives him toward his final actions. He ultimately satisfies the edicts of his great and lasting desire and is brought into a necessary state that sends the film to a most scintillating conclusion.

Lust and death are explored in equal terms in this film as the carnal body is seen to be both severed and contained in a wax mold where it’s singular purpose is to elicit direct erotic feelings in the viewer. Dr. Gogol’s hard lust is actualized in projecting any fantasy onto the unforgiving, brutally unavailable texture of the doll’s form. She can be anything he longs for and he doesn’t have to suffer the pangs of rejection or the fear of failing to satisfy her sexually. She is like a dead thing where all his necromantic expectations can be fully realized in her cold embrace. He can also bring her to life by imagining that acts he is performing with her are done with or for the actual lust object who has so readily stirred his soul. He is free to act in whatever way he sees fit because the doll cannot respond and will not cause him to suffer the brunt of her criticism. She will remain merely still, forever silent and unable to reach out to him psychologically or emotionally.

This is a film that expresses a particular argument about the nature of sensory excitation. Dr. Gogol has refined his senses to the point where he is able to focus them directly upon a single form and slowly breathe life into it. He can use his sense of smell to imagine her perfume or the scent of her hair in the morning after a night of torrid lovemaking. He can slowly undress her to reveal the exquisite contours of her thighs or the crook of her neck depending how accurately the wax figure was created. He can taste her toes or the small of her back. He can hear her coo or moan as he performs various acts upon her person. There are no limits to the pleasure she might bring him through his senses and the manner in which he employs them.

Dr. Gogol possesses an intensity that is revealed in every frame. His mannerisms and gestures express the behavior of a man of means who is able to live a life of supreme decadence would he so choose to become dissolved in it. His sexuality has become frustrated and so he has found a substitute who is actually more attentive to his needs than any actual female might be. He bonds with his wax figurine in such a dramatic way because he is unencumbered in her presence. He is divorced from nervousness and is more able to affect his true self without suffering conflicts that compel him toward actions that his instincts do not accept as valid. He longs to be realized and his true lust object refuses his advances despite his earnestness and willingness to express the tenacity of his desire for her directly and without pretense. Her rejection does not daunt him and he is able to find pleasure where it was once denied him.

The performances in this film are all quite stirring. Peter Lorre possesses a vitality that comes through mostly in his eyes. His eyes are hypnotic and one is mercilessly drawn into their deep pools. His movements are slow and deliberate and his every gesture is graceful and elegant. He moves with certainty and a grave style that is enhanced by the architecture of the sets. Lorre is perfectly cast and it is impossible to imagine anyone else who could have fulfilled the promise of this role. Frances Drake maintains a natural intensity throughout the film. She more than ably stands up to Lorre and is not subsumed within his totemic presence. Her performance is nuanced and she conveys all of the confusions of her character without succumbing to sentimentality. Colin Clive maintains a haunted presence throughout the film. He routinely looks scared, a bit off, or outright terrified. There is a mania about his performance and he carries it forth in many scenes where the character seems to be on the verge of losing his mind. Ted Healy has a jangly comportment in this film that pushes him onward like a strained marionette. His character is always rushing about, searching for clues, hoping to find something vital to use in his investigation.

Overall, this is an exceedingly intoxicating foray into the cool confines of lust and death. Dr. Gogol is a man driven by lust and a passion that knows no boundaries. He casts his web on a specific target and slowly works to devour it. He is a man of cruel vision who works stringently to actualize his earthly aims without worrying about the triviality of consequences. The film employs various techniques that express a dark, turbulent world of shadows and deceit. It has a measured, deeply wounded atmosphere that is accentuated by its sets laid out with loving care by the art department. There are many scenes of abject horror that prove that simple techniques in editing and scene selection can prove to be effective methods of actualizing one’s intentions. Peter Lorre is damaging and systematically ruthless in this film. He radiates a demonic purity that is smartly presented with great clarity. He’s icy but approachable. One can identify with his longings and his desires to bring them to fruition.

Film Review--The Spy Who Loved Me

The Spy Who Loved Me
directed by Lewis Gilbert
written by Christopher Wood, Richard Maibaum
based on the novel by Ian Fleming
starring Roger Moore, Barbara Bach, Curd Jurgens, Richard Kiel, Caroline Munro, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Desmond Llewelyn, Geoffrey Keen, Walter Gotell



This Bond features a surly Russian super spy, the irrepressible Jaws, and some lovely underwater photography as it languidly unfolds its story about denying a madman the opportunity to gage a full-on nuclear war.

In this one Bond is sent to determine who is stealing UK and Russian subs with the intent on using the nuclear missiles housed within to wreak absolute havoc on the world. He encounters the cold and indifferent Major Anya Amasova (Bach), the Soviet Army hottie who is his equivalent on the Russian side and it takes them a while to see eye-to-eye. Eventually they do manage to get gooey eyed and the film takes a decided down turn as it was working quite well before Amasova finally capitulates and gives in to the hungry, almost ludicrously shallow lusts of James Bond.

The man behind the prospective assault on both Moscow and New York City is named Karl Stromberg (Jurgens) and he’s created quite a thrilling set up as he makes every effort to make good on his plans. He moves rather laxly, without any sense of urgency, because he’s got the plan for forcing man underwater where he will live in his gorgeous pad fashioned specifically to survive such a catastrophe. Stromberg is a cold hearted snake of a man who dumps a lovely female assistant to the sharks below because he’s convinced she’s turned on him. His plans for world annihilation are grand and total.

There isn’t really much sex in this one as Bond and Amasova prove to not be particularly charismatically compatible. They are an exceedingly odd pair of ducks and there scenes together seem rather forced. This might have something to do with Barbara Bach’s dodgy accent which makes her sound utterly lifeless an spiritless. Indeed, she almost sounds like a machine that somebody has programmed to handle her lines and Roger Moore does not seem to know how to combat it. The result is a rather drab affair at times and the only thing keeping the whole thing afloat are the appearances of Jaws which add a slight tremor of fear. Jaws is a fantastic character and he’s played to perfection by Richard Kiel. He doesn’t speak but if he gets close enough up to you he’s going to use those metal teeth to shred your neck. That’s what I want in my henchmen: someone who can literally kill a man or a woman with his bare hands (or teeth) and look so distinguished while doing it.

Maintaining the slight balance of order throughout the world is a top priority of all the major powers in this film. Subsequently, the Russians and English come together to defeat what proves to be a bigger threat to them than they are to each other. The prospect of total world chaos trumps the very real Cold War dynamic that has stalled talks between the two nations for decades. Their uniting is a giddy thing and takes the film into a heady realm beyond the timid machinations of rudimentary politics. Bond and Amasova represent the necessary commingling of two astute enemies literally jumping into bed with one another for a larger, more pressing cause.

The threat of world destruction is a divine threat that pushes the keepers of stasis into direct action. Man has created the tools of this destruction and in this film those tools have fallen into the hands of one man who would take them to their logical conclusion. The character of Stromberg is in the guise of every petty dictator with an eye for personal glory and hubristic gain. His aim is direct and pure in its logical insistence to obliterate the planet in a most dramatic deflowering of heated contempt for the will of life. Stromberg is a death agent of the most scintillating kind. He seeks his pleasures in mayhem and murder and like Dr. No and Blofield before him he seeks power through obliteration of everything the material world holds sacred. Yet he is a student of the sea and merely wants to experience it on his terms, whenever and however he so chooses. Of course he insists on being a tyrant and so one would imagine him using his superior knowledge to dominate in any way possible.

Like “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, this film has Bond impersonate various experts in order to ingratiate himself with his grand foil. It shows more of Bond’s impressive range of knowledge which is perhaps the most salient aspect of his personality. He is a learned man who just happens to possess a force of carnal intensity that women flock to like flies on rancid meat. In this film he impresses Stromberg by recognizing a curious, rare creature floating by in a massive tank. It’s yet another example of how Bond’s seemingly infinite scope of knowledge puts the enemy at ease and helps him further his investigation. It’s ultimately his greatest weapon and far outweighs the efficacy of the gadgets which merely purchase him a bit of time.

This film lacks a sense of urgency early on but it picks it up during the final sequences. At one point the film seems to develop into something more mysterious that it maintains throughout. The closer it gets to the climax, the more dangerous it becomes and this is played up by the character of Stromberg who becomes suddenly a lethal force of potentially great and terrible schemes that can actually destroy two major cities and beyond with a couple of simple detonations. He’s a legitimate arch-fiend with a clear vision and a dynamic plan to actualize it. He’s another of the calm, cool and stylish enemies who ingeniously seek out their pleasures in the facilitation of chaos on a grand scale. They want more out of life and are willing to go to great lengths to get it which in the end is impressive in and of itself.

The performances in this film are adequate for the story. Richard Kiel plays a classic strongman in this installment of the series. Jaws is massive, relentless and in the end rather charming if only one can get past the fact that he’s basically a killing machine and he will kill you if you give him the slightest chance. Other than that, he’s lovable and infectious. As mentioned Barbara Bach seems to be speaking through a machine of some sorts that turn all her syllables into a monotone, flat version of speech that grates on the nerves after a few minutes. Roger Moore is good and tight in this one although he doesn’t do anything particularly noteworthy. He fills the shoes of the character and does what he’s supposed to do but in the end there just isn’t enough meat here. Curd Jurgens plays sinister quite effectively. He captures the ease of movement and deep calm of his character and comes off as rather creepy in the end.

Overall, this film manages to entertain for the most part but doesn’t move beyond that simple barometer. It comes off as cold and less engaging than some of the previous films in the series. Still, it has top notched villains who bring a distinct level of terror to the film which comes across well. The interaction between the two spies lacks intensity considering how they are supposed to represent two forces hypothetically at war. There truly isn’t much between them at all and it doesn’t work when they finally give in and go for a screw. Ultimately, the film plays like a Bond exercise instead of an actual film. Yet, it’s charming in its way and possesses a vital spark in places where Stromberg lays out his diabolical plans for world domination and Jaws comes around for one more shot at Bond. These are two interesting villains and are easily the most compelling aspects of the film. They give it a sense of purpose that it otherwise lacks.

Film Review--Reservoir Dogs

Reservoir Dogs
written and directed by Quentin Tarantino
starring Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Steve Buscemi, Lawrence Tierney, Randy Brooks, Kirk Baltz, Edward Bunker, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Wright



Employing a deliberate pace, long shots, and unnerving violence, Quentin Tarantino has created a singular work of deeply affecting cinematic art.

The story involves a diamond heist that we never see. Things have gone horribly awry leaving several top men dead and another barely clinging to life. Much of the film takes place in a warehouse space which is supposed to be the meeting place and launching pad from which the endeavor is supposed to take off. Tarantino uses a non-linear narrative to provide background information on several of the men as well as events immediately following the heist attempt.

Mr. Orange (Roth) is seen immediately in the back seat of a car driven by Mr. White (Keitel). He is bleeding profusely from a bullet wound in the stomach and Mr. White is attempting to convince him that he’s not going to die. Mr. Orange is hysterical until he is led into the warehouse space and laid down until Mr. White can figure out what to do. Mr. Orange spends the entire film in that position. Much of the film features characters tearing into one another for various reasons including the failure of the job and the sudden appearance of a mad array of police officers at the scene.

Mr. Blonde (Madsen) is portrayed as a loose cannon who takes great pleasure in torturing people for fun. He is the extreme case of someone who does not feel anything whatsoever for his victims be they civilians or cops. He is the opposite of the spectrum from Mr. White who draws the line at killing what he perceives to be innocent victims. Mr. Blonde is frighteningly calm and his ease after killing is exceedingly alarming. He has a gentleness about him which belies his criminal intent and his penchant for getting off while administering tremendous pain and suffering on those who he proclaims deserve such treatment. He’s suave and cool until he is rattled upon which he becomes dangerous and a legitimate threat to whomever dares to get in his way. He is opportunistic and trigger happy.

The setting of the warehouse creates a tight space where the action is intensified and more systematic and brutal. It allows the viewer to become comfortable which makes the ensuing violence even more difficult to assess. One feels as if one’s home has been invaded by a number of creepy criminals with no qualms about ripping the place apart. Despite the essential static nature of these scenes there is a tremendous amount of energy that is carried through to the end of the film. The scenes in this space are vibrant, consumed with life, and intensely religious in how they are presented. It feels like a cathedral where the men have gathered to worship in their own way. They seek guidance and want desperately to make sense of the peril that has befallen them. They seem to have very few answers as to what went wrong and why some of them are dead after the whole thing collapsed at their feet.

The use of rock songs from the seventies give the film a loose, open quality that undercuts the severity of the violence which is contained and regulated. The voice of Steven Wright announcing various songs on his radio program “K-Billy’s Super Sounds of the Seventies” gives the film an anchor that grounds it in a specific place where the action can naturally occur. Tarantino only uses source music which enhances those moments when he kicks into a song that drives the film forward with great style and a genuine sense of excitement. Each song stands in for a particular moment of the film and allows the viewer to readily connect the music to the narrative. The music is buoyant and festival-like which causes the viewer to feel as if they were being taken on a journey through country roads while cranking the stereo to songs with which they have a deep, personal connection.

The sexiness of the film is pronounced. These men are all vibrant characters who are sleek, well-dressed, and arrogant to the point of hubris. They present a world of grave darkness that is nevertheless peppered with humorous asides that reflect their peculiar take on the world outside of their little clique of hombres trying to solve the big score. They zealously seek diamonds because they represent a singular truth which ends in easy cash and no time served. The sole ambition of these men is to operate as effectively as possible without being incarcerated. Death is preferred to a life behind bars and they take every precaution to avoid that sorry fate.

Much of the film’s strength comes from the authentic dialog which Tarantino has cobbled from a variety of source materials. It feels legitimate and has the whiz-bang crispness of classic film noir. There is a great love of the spoken word here and it’s on display at every turn. There isn’t much action as the characters merely spend much of the film getting into each other’s faces about various aspects of the catastrophe. They are all nervous and down-trodden despite their overarching sense of purpose and their sense that they are in the right despite the deaths of several cops and civilians. The code is kill or be killed in this brutal world where the gun speaks loudest over the shoddy din of gangsters whining and fretting about their predicament. They are hemmed in and the reality of the situation makes them nervous and chatty.

The performances in this film explode with color and intensity. Tim Roth plays the wounded man with a tenacity that is a beautiful thing indeed. He gasps and moans and hollers about his state with conviction and a sense of purpose. Steve Buscemi plays Mr. Pink with a nervous gusto that pings off the metal walls of the warehouse space. Pink is over excited and keeps the narrative flowing with his sharp, festering diatribes. Michael Madsen is simply terrifying in this role. He imbues Mr. Blonde with a deep sense of moral purpose that just happens to involve picking off innocent people because they act in a way that upsets the perfect balance with which he generally operates. Blonde has an explanation for everything he does and does not share the opinion that he is half-crazy. Harvey Keitel is solid in this film and his character seems to be the only one who understands the dire situation they have found themselves in. White is understanding and empathic to a degree as long as a person doesn’t try to do anything cute. Chris Penn possesses a goofy charm in this film as he represents the second generation of tough guys. Eddie is probably the most dangerous of the characters in this film because he seems to be the most likely to snap at any given time. Even Mr. Blonde seems capable of containing himself and not causing a riot.
Lawrence Tierney is the central figure in this drama. His character is hard, mean, and usually correct when it comes to making decisions. Tierney brings a strength and vitality to Joe that he projects at every turn.

Overall this film works on every level. It’s funny, dark, violent, and very smart. There are moments of abject horror but they are softened through humor and an overall ease of being. This is a languid film that gives the audience something firm to hold onto. It is well contained and properly ordered which allows the viewer to fully embrace the severity of the action. Basically, the warehouse setting enhances the violence which comes off as more vibrant and dangerous. There is a real and lasting threat inherent in this story and the characters all work together to create an insular world which the audience gleefully participates in. This doesn’t seem like a mere exercise in cinematic violence for its own sake. Instead we are given a film that questions the nature of bestial acts through the prism of an exceedingly dark world where honor and integrity originate from a distinct, howling perspective that is cold, decisive and mesmeric.

Film Review--Happy-Go-Lucky

Happy-Go-Lucky
written and directed by Mike Leigh
starring Sally Hawkins, Alexis Zegerman, Kate O’Flynn, Eddie Marsan, Katrina Fernandez, Samuel Roukin



The power of positive thinking. How to win friends and influence people. For the utterly infectious Poppy (Hawkins), it’s as easy as casting a smile in direction of everyone she encounters. It’s more than mere enthusiasm, it’s a startling personal code that drives her forward with seemingly effortless charm.

In this film we meet Poppy riding joyfully through the street on her bicycle. She stops at a bookstore which is tended by a standoffish man who refuses to engage her in conversation. She makes several attempts to chat him up but he remains cold to her advances. Never mind, she jauntily leaves the store bidding him to be happy. Even upon discovering that her bicycle has been stolen she simply resolves to start driving lessons. She is not enslaved by her emotions and regards every situation objectively and with a calm remove from conflict. She has a gift for putting everyone at ease and gaging every situation with a clear mind and an open heart. She’s truly a jewel and her story is intoxicating in its simplicity.

Poppy has fashioned a life for herself that is replete with activities that allow her to express herself in a variety of ways. She is fully engaged with life and finds many opportunities for fun that are a constant theme throughout the film. She simply wants nothing more than that everyone experience the joy that is within them and that they hopefully spread it around to whomever they might meet. She is an embassador for good times and lives strictly in accordance with her own rules. In this film she comes across people who do not share in her outlook and she treats them all with the same equanimity and takes nothing that they might do personally. That is the key to her happiness. She remains unaffected by how others act in her presence and takes no offense when they express feelings that might upset a less balanced person.

Poppy is the eldest of three sisters. There is Helen (Caroline Martin) who is high strung and nervous about her forthcoming baby. Helen is judgmental and chastises Polly because she has determined that Poppy couldn’t possibly be happy having not settled into a mortgage and what she deems to be a proper life. Suzy (O’Flynn) is something of an impetuous brat. She’s a bit wild and somewhat disdainful about her parents and much of what she encounters. Poppy refuses to judge her and simply allows her to live her life as she sees fit. Poppy’s best friend is Zoe (Zegerman) with whom she has lived for ten years. There is a indestructible bond between these two women and they guide each other and keep each other sane.

In the film Poppy is a primary school teacher. She is highly energetic and gives the kids an opportunity to express them selves in class projects that encourage their imaginations. She treats the children with respect and understanding and it is apparent that they respond to her in kind. She is the exact type of teacher that encourages kids to dream about becoming anything they can imagine. She faces a difficulty with one of the students and she reacts calmly again without judgment and leads the boy to explaining what is most likely the source of his anger. It is a reaction that will allow the child to fully understand the impetus of his actions and lead to a greater understanding than if Poppy had merely followed standard procedure and immediately punished the boy.

When Poppy begins driving lessons with Scott (Marsan) she is confronted with an exceedingly angry man who feels threatened at every turn. He discloses his fear of blacks and his disdain for multiculturalism. Poppy laughs these proclamations off although she is somewhat disturbed by his comments about the black guys riding by on their bicycles. Polly is a consistent source of calm whenever she is with Scott and he becomes progressively more irate until he finally loses control of the situation and breaks down entirely. Polly reacts with as much aggressiveness as she exhibits in the entire film. This proves emphatically that her outlook on life doesn’t preclude strong, controlled consternation when the situation calls for it.

There is a wonderfully impassioned scene with a Flamenco teacher (Fernandez) who is exceedingly passionate about the art form and considers Flamenco to be all about the misery and pain of the Gypsies. She is dynamic and prone to emotional outbursts and Poppy appears mostly to be amused by the teacher than anything else. Again, she simply observes the conduct of others without reacting. She remains neutral possibly because it is less taxing and far less odious to do so. It is something of a defense mechanism that protects her from sustaining psychological damage due to the misguided emotional entanglements of others. This is not to say that she doesn’t feel anything because there are many things that move her and bring her tremendous pleasure. It is because she doesn’t waste her karmic energy mucking about over trivial matters that she is able to fully embrace all the complexities of life.

As Poppy proceeds through the film one becomes aware of a hint of naivety in how she approaches other people. Perhaps she possesses an inner guard stick that allows her to judge situations and determine them safe. Regardless she has encounters that have the potential to turn ugly very quickly. She mentions that she’s taught all over Asia and it might be these experiences that have given her perspective and the ability to read people’s intentions. Still, there are moments in this film that are quite tense and it’s not clear if she is going to be able to avoid grave physical injury. Her general day-to-day outlook seems not to have been tested with threatening situations although this isn’t precisely noted in the film.

This is simply a film that celebrates life through the eyes of a woman who has extricated herself from the boring cycle of fear, shame and blame that plagues so many people’s lives. She is not trying to one-up her sisters or anyone for that matter. Her life is not determined by how others think about her and this is readily apparent very early on in the film. She dresses somewhat outrageously in bright, daring colors and possesses a fabulous pair of boots that she wears with just about everything. There is no indication in the film of her most constant passions. She does things but we don’t learn precisely what it is that truly gets her going. We merely observe her activities and we learn that she definitely can be a bit flighty. She doesn’t say anything that is particularly learned or profound. She doesn’t seem to have many opinions about the way the world works or her place in it. She simply is.

This is the story of a woman who has discovered methods of calming her mind down and not taking what the world gives her as an insult. She does occasionally come across as an air-head but that’s only because champagne bubbles are constantly popping off in her head and she can hardly contain herself. I can see how her demeanor might annoy the deeply cynical types who seem to find fault with anything that is too blatantly cheerful. There are going to be those groanies who will not embrace her because she refuses to give up her key intention to spread joy to everyone she meets. She refuses to give up on humanity and presses for its potential for creating an armistice against hate, fear, and suffering. It isn’t mentioned if she has formulated any thoughts about a Utopian society and how it might be organized yet she projects precisely the mind set that would entertain such an idea and its practicality. After spending a bit of time getting to know Poppy it would still be interesting to know what she thinks about when she’s not out being Poppy.

The performances in this film are all a delight to experience. Sally Hawkins is right up there with Audrey Hepburn, Audrey Tautou, and Mary Pickford in creating thoroughly engaging and fascinating characters who are genuinely free spirits. Polly is the rarest of gems and Hawkins makes her a beacon of light that she shines without fail upon the world as she encounters it. Polly is perfectly angelic and the we certainly need more of her type in cinema. Alexis Zegerman’s character has a bit more of a serious aspect to her personality. She provides a nice counterbalance to the almost manic energy displayed by Poppy. Zegerman works well with Hawkins in establishing just the right balance between the two characters. Eddie Marsan brings a gritty gusto to his role and definitively taps into the man’s fears and the anguish that torments his soul. His anger seeps through every frame and it’s brought home with his gestures and posture which articulate constriction and acute frustration.

Overall this is a charming film filled with believable characters who prove to be engaging from start to finish. The film isn’t particularly complicated yet there is great depth to the discovery of such a bona fide breath of fresh air. Poppy is a character that has all but disappeared from our midst. She is a throwback to a different age where woman were expected to remain cheerful no matter how many pies they had to bake. Her innocence is beguiling and a bit scary. Yet she learns something valuable over the course of the film. She comes away with an understanding that she did not possess before. We don’t learn what she thinks about the ordeal but we do get to see how it affects her mood. Ultimately this film should be seen and celebrated by as many people as possible. There needs to be more of this type of thing. There needs to be more films that present such unabashed goodness to a world choking on its own cynicism.

Film Review--High School Musical 3: Senior Year

High School Musical 3: Senior Year
written and directed by Peter Barsocchini
starring Zac Efron, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Tisdale, Lucas Grabeel, Corbin Bleu, Monique Coleman, Bart Johnson, Alyson Reed, Olesya Rulin, Jemma McKenzie-Brown



Alright, here we go again. We’re taking the same sex-drenched ride, careening through traffic and breakneck speed unawares of the dangers we face. Then some fat little kid on a tiny scooter crosses our path and we squish the little bastard beneath our rims. Then we go into the adjacent parking lot and do some hideous dance routine to the sounds of the worst boy band anyone has ever soaked their panties over. This is HSM3 in its essential form.

Whatever story exists in this thing is lost amidst all the dancing and the singing. At least the first two even bothered to tell a compelling story but this one fails to make even that much of an effort. Still, there is a tremendous amount of energy here and moments of breathtaking athleticism that make it worth watching for much of the show. The set pieces are all pretty and worth looking at and the costumes have a certain edgy chic that always leaves me gasping. Aside from that the only reason to keep watching is to see just what dance steps and lousy songs are about to be unleashed on the unwitting.

There’s nothing worse than a musical that contains forgettable songs whose appeal remains a mystery throughout. I cannot fathom who the target audience is for these songs but it can’t be for any teenager as I remember them. I hate to sound like an angry old man (which I am incidentally) but these are not the kinds of songs kids should be listening to. I’m from the school where this music would get you kicked in the head with a razor-adorned boot if anyone caught you listening to it. Pre-teens? God, I hope they have more of a discerning ear than this. That leaves toddlers and babies and no mother in her right mind should every subject the helpless wee things to this kind of torment. It’s cruel and unfair and I believe emphatically that the music one plays for the very young affects them forever. So, no, this music serves nobody in the end. Yet there is so much of it here that it cannot be avoided.

Not that these kids cannot sing. They can all carry a tune and they know how to wiggle their bits in such a way that the audience gets some kind of a thrill out of the whole mess. But, there is only so much of this that I can take. I’d rather be popping the boils off of the fat kid’s back in a run down mental institution filled with screetching rats and horny old men with perpetual erections than listen to this.

The story as it goes involves a huge production with their last gruelling, horrific months as the central theme. There are also four kids up for Julliard scholarships with only one opening. Then they graduate and that’s it for the plot. Oh, Troy (Efron) and Gabriella (Hudgens) have special moments where they get all gooey thinking about the future that beckons them like a greasy man luring kiddies to his car with Hello Kitty cards. Troy is tormented because he is one of the ones up for the scholarship and he has promised his dad Jack (Johnson) that he will attend the University of Albuquerque. Oh yeah, Gabriella has gotten into Stanford’s early start program so she’s going to leave him all alone with his feelings. That’s about it for the plot. Well, Sharpay (Tisdale) is still a royal bitch to everyone and throws fits which is precisely how we want her to act.

These kids are all eunuchs who seem utterly devoid of hormones that ought to drive them clean out of their minds. But this is some innocuous world where such grunting shall never be heard. It’s a sterilized universe replete with healthy kids who are all acrobats and who know how to drive the beat so hard it cries and falls flat on its face into the dirt. This would have been enjoyable if the songs were more meaty or intoxicating or both.

There is one bit in a junkyard where a group of boys dance to the tune of “The Boys are Back”. I couldn’t help but think of the Village People or Frankie Goes to Hollywood only the music sucked by comparison. I also thought of Truman Capote, designer footwear, feather boas, being fabulous, man-on-man discos, and Proposition 8. Seriously.

There are some actors in this thing that I am curious about. Will they transform themselves into the kind of actors who will be able to take on challenging roles that actually demand some acting from them? Will Zac Efron morph into Johnny Depp and establish himself as something far beyond the mere pretty boy who makes tweeners gasp and cry? Lucas Grabeel is is Gus Van Zant’s “Milk” which is a fine start. Olesya Rulin made a film called “Vampire Chicks with Chainsaws” so perhaps she’s on the right track as well. But she’s also in an upcoming film starring Billy Ray Cyrus and Heather Locklear so maybe the jury is still out on that one. The point is that there is real talent here and one can only hope that it leads to roles of complexity and depth.

The film seems like a mish-mash of a bunch of different dance styles and cinematic precedents. There’s a bit of Agnes de Mille, Busby Berkley, Saturday Night Fever, waltz, and whatever the hell else those street ragamuffins are shaking their moneymakers at. These kids can hustle, there is no doubt and their moves are fairly smooth and relatively enjoyable for what they are. They aren’t exactly scintillating or seductive although Ashley Tisdale does manage to titillate a bit with her daring costumes. Regardless, it is quite thrilling to watch the kind of athleticism on display here. It’s an opening, consumed with enthusiasm and a certainty about the future that drives this film forward. There is a sense that the future is crowding in too fast for at least Gabriella’s liking. Also, there is a clinging to the idea that nobody wants to let go of the experience of being in high school and all the memories it affords them as they prepare to move beyond it’s comforting and seemingly safe walls. This film is all about a sheer optimism for the future and everything that it might bring down the road. There is no place for true despair here. There are no depressed kids listening to Fields of the Nephilim records and drawing frighteningly accurate pictures of internal organs and airline disasters. There seem to be no dorks or spazzes or anyone who doesn’t fit in here. In many ways the school life depicted is a blatant lie and there is no room for loss, regret or shame. In this codified world life has become inculcated against anything remotely smacking of reality as it is experienced by many students nationwide. Of course the film would have to abandon its primary mission which is to entertain fluffily with little pink clouds and fuzzy slippers.

The performances in this film are all adequate for the material presented to the actors. Lucas Grabeel in particular stands out as it is clear that he is supremely talented both as a performer and as an actor. He is charismatic, energetic and there is clear indication that there is something else inside him waiting for its opportunity to be unleashed upon an unwitting world. I can see him playing a series of tortured roles in serious films somewhere down the line. He possesses everything a leading man needs to be successful and he should be able to make the move up the ladder and establish himself as a bona fide contender in the business. Ashley Tisdale hits the same exact notes as she did in the first two films. She pouts, purrs, and sort of vamps it up. There is something quite appealing about how she presents her character. Sharpay is a welcome addition to the long line of catty, manipulative female characters who charm mainly because of the tenacity of their naughtiness. Vanessa Hudgens plays it cute enough but doesn’t come across as a viable personality in this film. I thought she had more to work with in the first two films but in this one she sort of floats about unconnectedly in this chapter. Olesya Rulin possesses a diabolical cuteness that tends to obscure her performance. Her character is both the most talented and strangely introverted member of the class. She is the one who seems to have experienced the most self doubt and psychological torment but it’s only a guess because she’s as perky as a sprite in this thing.

Overall, there are moments in this film where everything seems to come together and it works after a fashion. The dancing grows on you and one is able to tune out the music and imagine scenes twenty years later when all those glorious hopes have been hopelessly dashed and all that is left is drinking and acute self-loathing. Then the music stops and it’s back to inane chatter and a threadbare plot. It’s also strange why there aren’t more fat kids in this school. There is one girl whose name I cannot recall who is chubby and has become a seriously bad-ass cheer leader in this one. I wanted more of her because she’s the next Nikki Blonsky, I swear. With those moves and confidence she’s going through the roof, man. She’s really the best thing in this film. I don’t think I’ve seen that kind of enthusiasm in a film before. It’s infectious, thrilling and utterly devoid of pretense. It towers over the rest of the forced gaiety in this film. Essentially, it rocks harder than the film ever could. That’s just the way it is.

Film Review--Changeling

Changling
directed by Clint Eastwood
written by J. Michael Straczynski
starring Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan, Amy Ryan, Michael Kelly, Gattlin Griffith, Riki Lindhome, Jason Butler Harner, Eddie Alderson, Geoffrey Pierson, Devon Conti, Colm Feore.



In Los Angeles, 1928, A mother’s relentless search for her missing son leads to the uncovering of filthy institutional secrets in this dynamic, deeply affective film that ought to be considered on several levels once Acadamy Award nominations are announced in January.

Christine Collins (Jolie) works as a manager for the phone company and takes care of her only son Walter (Griffith). One morning she leaves Walter at home alone promising to return before sundown. When she arrives back home Walter is missing leaving Christine naturally heartbroken and frantic. Several months later a boy is located and amidst tremendous fanfare designed strategically to provide a positive image for the LAPD, he is brought to her. The crowd is abuzz and everyone is satisfied now that the case has for all appearances been solved. The boy gives his name as Walter Collins but Christine does not recognize him. She informs the police who have gathered for the occasion but they insist that they have reunited her with her son and that he has changed in the five minutes he has been missing. Christine capitulates and allows herself to be photographed with the boy.

The film focuses its attention on the corruption of the police force and the draconian measures acted out by mental health facilities. Because she is such a thorn in the police’s side they have her locked away in a psychiatric ward where she is faced with a great number of women whose only crime was to confront or challenge the police.

Christine is contacted by a preacher named Gustav Briegleb whose mission in life is to reveal all the secrets that the police force would rather keep to themselves. He champions Christine ’s case with great zeal and broadcasts her story during his weekly radio address. Rev. Briegleb is presented as a vital, wise and deeply caring man who refuses to accept the police’s attempts to explain the Christine Collins case away. He is an agitator who serves as a watchdog against the grave injustices inherent in the system. His work in this film is presented as tremendously significant and responsible for a number of changes being adopted by the police. He points out the existence of Gun Squad who operate above the law and shoot down anyone who might be doing something they object to. It’s an image of the law that is frightening in its wholesale disregard for the basic tenets of the judicial system and the film examines just how far these powers reach. Christine and the other inmates are put away simply because they angered certain officers who at that time had the ability to lock anyone up who challenged their authority. One such woman named Carol Dexter (Ryan) was raped by a man she didn’t know was an officer. She reported him and was duly apprehended and placed in the hospital.

Everything in this film resonates with an almost messianic purity. The filming is economical and the cinematography by Tom Stern simply renders each image with an exquisite attention to detail. The film is a total experience with every component working together to create a work of lasting beauty. Clint Eastwood’s score is sparse and deeply melancholy and it underlines the visual poetry of his film with a spiritual essence that is as rare as it is haunting.

The story conveys just how easy it was at the time to be declared insane and otherwise unfit for society. The film presents a scenario where the more one attempts to exert their autonomy, the harsher the punishments administered to them. It’s a totalitarian approach to the psyche and just about any affectation is considered suspect and worthy of punishment. One particular examining nurse (Lindhome) approaches her work with disturbingly cold precision. The film captures her expression in several instances and they chill one to the bone. They seem to represent the absolute unfeeling approach to administering punishments and the startling disconnect between the staff and those women they are ordered to contain. It also suggests the fine line between the women on each side of the divide. The slightest infraction that draws the attention of the wrong authority leads straight into an incarceration that might last for weeks, months, years, or until the end of the inmate’s life. Christine is brought before Dr. John Montgomery (John Harrington Bland) who runs the hospital and there is nothing she can say to convince him she is well. He attempts to get her to sign a paper saying that the boy returned to her is her son but she refuses. She is rewarded by being led to a bid with straps that treat the illness with electric shocks.

The film shows two sides to the police. Captain J.J. Jones (Donovan) represents the mind set that refuses to acknowledge that the police can ever make a mistake and is particularly annoyed by Christine . It is he who has her committed and as the film progresses his core attitude is a blanket denial that anything untoward has ever been perpetrated by the police. He’s the face of institutionalized tyranny as he is part of the system that deprives citizens of their basic rights merely for bringing up concerns that every police forced is required to address openly and without attempting to instill the fear of reprisals. On the other hand is Detective Lester Ybarra (Kelly) who inadvertently uncovers the site of the grisly murders through the testimony of the killer’s accomplice, a boy named Sanford Clark (Alderson). He presents the expected, hardworking, and upstanding aspect of the police and it’s telling of the intention of Eastwood that he’s the exception that makes the rule.

There exists in this film a quiet urgency that is told through the editing. Image after image is juxtaposed in such a way that the languid pace of the film nevertheless is able to express the overall tense march toward justice which is taking place. Christine is a bundle of nerves throughout the film but she never loses sight on what is most important to her and in the end continues to fight for what she knows emphatically is right. The film captures her plight by focusing its attention on her reaction to various assaults on her psyche. She does get emotional at every turn and expresses frustration, rage, anguish, and fear openly and consistently throughout the film. These qualities in the film are presented, through society’s eyes, as weak, typically feminine, and something akin to mental illness if they are left to continue on unabated. Because she is one who expresses herself on strict emotional terms, Christine is seen as unstable. To be so publically distraught surely means that she ought to be locked away and administered to until she regains her senses. It is this attitude that is challenged by this film. It makes a point of saying clearly that mental illness is arbitrary and often related directly to the doctor’s interpretation of what it is. In this film mental illness means often what the police say it means and it’s all but impossible for the victim of such a circumstance to combat what is considered to be sacrosanct.


Gordon Northcott is the type of character who comes straight out of Philip Ridley’s “The Reflecting Skin” or a Flannery O’ Connor story. He’s disjointed, queer, and not altogether present at any given time. That he proves to be a serial murderer only adds to his mystique and allure. His presence adds a creepiness that the film cannot shake off. He trails slime over everything that he touches and this effect has everything to do with just how the actor, Jason Butler Harner, chooses to carry himself in terms of posture. He’s slouched over slightly, grinning madly on occasion, and projecting all the nervous energy of a man with a terrible secret. He’s born aloft by some mysterious agony that leads him on a particularly crooked path so that he becomes a specter with an insatiable desire to realize his aims in a most decisive and irreversible manner.

This film often feels like a blizzard of decay, a substantial message of daring primacy that hooks the flesh and tears it into ribbons. It’s heavy but never in a way that is gratuitous or overbearing; it rides through the night on a coach without a driver leaving devastation in its wake. There isn’t a whole lot of sun in this film and the incessantly dark mood brings it all into crisp focus. It is relentless in its telling of both a personal tale of anguish and an investigation into unjust practices that wholly subvert the expectations of the population at the time in which it is set.

The performances in this film are all natural and dutiful to the script. John Malkovich projects an intensity beneath the garb of a minister. He conveys an upstanding, careful dignity that grounds the film and provides it with a sanctity and a purity that propels it forward. Angelina Jolie is astonishingly good at expressing the myriad emotional states of her character. She sees the film through with a legitimate sense of self that she maintains throughout the film. The fact that we don’t learn much about Christine and this works in the film’s favor because too much knowledge about her would get in the way of the narrative. Jason Butler Harner plays a certifiable lunatic with conviction that comes through in every frame. He’s commanding, terrifying, and wholly believable in this role that demands that he be engaging and a bit dangerous. Jeffrey Donovan possesses a definitive menace for the duration of the film. In his role he’s just as scary and unforgiving as Gordon Northcott which is a testament to the hardline which Capt. Jones employs to defend the image of the force. Riki Lindhome is only in a few scenes but she leaves a lasting impression with the coldness of her manner and the almost sadistic glee emanating from her eyes. She conveys a brutality and a ribald joy in carrying out her orders against the women who have been brought into the hospital for “observation.” Geoffrey Pierson has a totemic presence in this film as the lawyer who forced the issue and challenged the order of systematic torment and deprivation.

Overall, this film paints a harsh picture of the machinations of the institutionalized assault on personal liberty and protection. Through the character of Christine Collins we become privy to a disturbing world where citizens are active fodder for the cruel whims of those in charge of caring for individuals deemed a threat to the perfect order fallaciously presented to the outside world. It’s also a gripping character study replete with boldly drawn characters who all add to the terrible mystery which is at the heart of this film. There is nothing amiss here. Every element works diligently to create a film of merit that effects the soul, mind and body. It is a total experience that leaves one gasping at the end and slightly scarred. What it suggests is a world of great injustice and wanton disregard for the autonomy of those who simply dare to question the legitimacy of various methods which the police employ to go about their business. Christine Collins is presented as an unwitting rabble rouser who galvanizes a city and leaves behind a legacy that in its small way afforded actual change.