31st Hall of Fame

Sons of the Desert has Laurel and Hardy go through many familiar scenarios together - the latter still caught out by his slippery, clumsy friend and the former pale and skittery. Their main modus operandi is still the unlikely lie - Hardy the schemer and formulator, Laurel always one small step away from confession and need for forgiveness. "Another fine mess you've gotten us into" - always said by Hardy who, with a bit more introspection, would realise that he's really the one who has led them down the garden path, into disaster. The extreme measures he takes in propping up the lie, and not swallowing his pride, is unfathomable enough to conclude his narcissism is equal to Laurel's simpleminded mishandling of facts, and misreading of situations. They were the perfect comedy team, because one simply couldn't exist any more without the other - and because Hardy wasn't being mean, but instead was exasperated that his schemes were always undone by his more honest and simple friend.

I like the story of Stan Laurel (Arthur Stanley Jefferson) and Oliver Norvell Hardy. One British, the other American. Theirs is one of the great stories of friendship and success.

So - in Sons of the Desert Oliver Hardy needs to convince his wife (and Stan's) that he's desperately ill, and needs to travel by steamship to Honolulu to soothe his nerves. Instead, the pair are headed to Chicago to take part in a club meeting - their membership in "The Sons of the Desert" and the oath they've taken to attend means they're needed there - but really it's the pursuit partying and adolescent games. When the ship they're meant to be on sinks, and the pair are caught by their wives by being recorded on camera in a newsreel, they both take refuge in their own attic - terrified of the retribution due their way. The wives wear the pants, and are pretty much over the immature tomfoolery - Oliver had promised Lottie (Mae Busch) that he'd go to the mountains with her, and Stan's wife Betty (Dorothy Christy) has made a wager that she married the honest one. It's not long before the two men have retreated further, to the roof, and are soaking in their pajamas - in desperate flight and need of an explanation.

When it comes to the films featuring Stan Laurel (Arthur Stanley Jefferson) and Oliver Hardy (Oliver Hardy) you can either say "they don't make 'em like they used to" or "we've come a long way since then." Unfortunately, for me, it's the latter. I feel bad about that, because over time I've come to like these two actors a great deal, and have an affection for the friendship they developed and continued until Hardy's death in 1957. I have a certain disconnect when it comes to the older style of physical comedy that you'll commonly see with the Three Stooges, Jerry Lewis or Laurel and Hardy - and when I try to discern why I can only say that I think it's because of repetition. In Sons of the Desert I suddenly laughed out loud when Oliver's onscreen wife breaks crockery over his head, quite unexpectedly. It just felt different. I laughed out loud when the above quote was spoken. I'd never heard that one before. But when it's something I've seen before - many times before - it doesn't strike me as funny, even if it's endearing.

When it comes to the comedy that featured in film's early years, it seems that repetition provided a kind of key to success. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and all of Hal Roach's numerous stars would churn out short after short which featured famous characters getting up to the same kind of stuff in scenario after scenario - nothing was left unexplored. One team-up who particularly got my notice was when Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle introduced Buster Keaton to film - Keaton a very experienced vaudevillian (much like Chaplin and Stan Laurel) who took to it like a duck to water, and someone who just appeared to be on Arbuckle's wavelength. It just seemed like nobody was writing screenplays, or even doing much planning - instead improvised set-ups and on-the-spot invention would lead to many quick shots and a barnstorming approach to comedy. By the time we get to Sons of the Desert there appears to be more of a story outline - but still a sense of improv and immediacy with the physical comedy.

I don't think I really have much more to say about this film. It's most famous for having a title that has since been adopted by the "Appreciation Society" kind of club that has spread around the world, where members get together to watch Laurel and Hardy films and remember the popular duo. "Sons of the Desert is devoted to keeping the lives and works of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy before the public, and to have a good time while doing it." It was this film then that seems to be the tentpole that most represents them - and possibly their finest. I really enjoyed 2018 film Stan & Ollie - John C. Reilly seems to have been born to play Oliver Hardy (his voice) and Steve Coogan seems to have been born to play Stan Laurel (his facial features). There's a tele-play you can find on YouTube which is centered around an old Stan Laurel visiting his great friend Oliver after the latter has had a stroke and can no longer speak - it's both touching and funny, and a very recommended watch. It's called Stan.

I liked Sons of the Desert, and I envy those who get a lot of laughter from it. The laughs were few and far between for me - and that's just down to the style of physical comedy and the many jokes I'd seen recycled many times in other films and shows. I think great comedy has been refined and perfected over the years - and it's always the kind of thing I've never seen before, or the new approach, that gets me going. That's not me saying there's anything wrong with this though - I even feel like a bit of a jerk at not finding it really funny. It's another nice mess I've gotten myself into.

__________________

59/81 reviews are in. Just 22 left cumulatively!

So I just got this email from my library because I've been pestering them about orders so I guess I'm going to start and see if I end with Days of Heaven. But know that I have tried to judge the film fairly in the best possible light it's just looking like it's not going to happen.

If you can't get the movies from your library I'm sure we can help find good free links.

Some of these films I have to watch on a computer screen I would much rather not watch a film where 90% of it's value is the cinematography.

I can understand that, it's always nice to have a quality DVD or Bluray.

I can extend the deadline a tad. I don't feel like extending too much though but a week or two is doable.

Interiors -

This is a pleasantly introspective and well-acted drama about the limitations of the "art life." In addition to getting to take in three strong performances in Diane Keaton, Mary Beth Hurt and Kristin Griffith's sisters, I like how each of them demonstrates a different affliction of such an upbringing. The highly critical and death-obsessed Renata is the most interesting one to me, especially for how her behavior saps her author partner more than it inspires him. There's also the apt decision to make matriarch Eve an interior designer, which besides the obvious in the gilded cage, ivory tower, etc. her chosen medium created for her family, it provides lots of potential for tasty metaphors. Her preferences for washed out colors and empty pitchers is inspired, as is the choice to make the favorite color of dad's new suitor Pearl not just red, but very red. Speaking of, as much as I like Keaton's performance, Stapleton's as Pearl may be my favorite for how she exudes life lived while also seeming like a real person instead of a manic pixie dream girl. It ends up being a very satisfying drama for how it proves that art may help you understand life, but it won't always come in handy when you have to experience it.

All done! A strong Hall of Fame. It was hard to rank them since they're pretty consistent in quality. Herod's Law sort of qualifies as one, but I do miss there being an "out there," wild card entry (Themroc, My Dog Skip, etc.)
I sent my ballot.

Gone Baby Gone ( 2007)
*spoilers*

Amy Ryan rocked her role! She flat out was my favorite in this movie and I wish she had more scenes. Kudos to Casey Affleck who's one of my favorite currently working actors...he was perfectly cast here. While I'm praising the cast, a big shout out to Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris too. The only misstep in casting was Michelle Monaghan. Maybe it's not her fault as her character was basically tacked on and she wasn't really utilized until the end scene were Patrick (Casey Affleck) has a choice to be made.

I liked that idea of the choice between doing what might seem right even though it's against the law...or following the law because it is what's ethically right. I liked the way the film wrapped with Patrick choosing to follow the law which causes his girlfriend to leave him. It seemed like an appropriate choice for a young person to make with his strong belief in ethics. But being older I can relate to Morgan Freeman's idea of the letter of the law isn't always the way to achieve the most fairest results. I liked the conundrum the movie presented.

I loved the use of the urban settings in Boston and what appeared to me to be real people from the streets of Boston. Or maybe they were actors who just looked authentic. Either way the film had a nice, real vibe to it. I liked that.

Congrats to @Torgo for being the fifth to finish!

Herod’s Law

Luis Estrada, the director, was taking a risk when he made this film. He was openly criticizing the politics of his nation with Herod’s Law. A film about a honest man who himself becomes corrupt. He’s thrust into a situation where he is made Mayor of a small Mexican town called San Pedro de los Saguaros. *The previous mayor had been killed after trying to steal the towns money, which is depicted during the opening scene. **

Estrada fills the film out with enough wit and charm to make this work without seeming too damning. *It is, after all, ostensibly a comedy. One steeped in satire. *We are introduced to colorful characters populating the town, some a bit more sinister than others. *The newly “elected” Mayor tries his best to be very own these obstacles, but slowly gives into his…insanity perhaps? *Or is he perhaps drunk with power? *

Someone mentioned they felt the screen writers ran out of ideas for the ending. I disagree. The ending is the point. *The murders serve to show how easily the Mexican government was corrupted, and what happens when one becomes drunk with power. It’s very one the nose at times (Herod’s Law!), but it’s supposed to be!*

If you’re interested in his other films, I’ve heard good things about Inferno and I can vouch for The Perfect Dictatorship as another great film by the same director. *

Sunset Boulevard

“All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

One of the best ending lines ever, to a movie with one of the best opening scenes ever. A sublime film told in flashback after we are introduced to Gilles (Spelling?) already dead and floating in a pool. *There’s no need to go over the plot. *Everyone who’s a film buff has seen this film. It’s prosibly Wilder’s best, in a filmography that boasts such classics as Ace in the hole, The Apartment, and Some Like it Hot, among many others. *

Why makes the film work is the dialogue, and acting. *Holden and Swanson are amazing in this film, giving perhaps their best work, and considering THEIR respective filmography’s, that’s also saying something! *
There’s a criticism being levied by Wilder, it seems to me, about how Hollywood seems to abandon its stars when it’s convenient. *It’s also somewhat prescient. *Definitely one of the all time greats

Reading what others have to say about Asghar Farhadi's A Hero, I was really struck by how differently everyone interpreted events and saw every character. He seems to be a filmmaker who explores the grey areas that our interactive existence spends a lot of it's time in, with motives, moods, meaning, thought and actions open to a great deal of interpretation. From the film's very start, I personally felt an enormous amount of empathy for main character Rahim (played by Amir Jadidi in a real international breakthrough role for him.) It was very simply his kind smile that did it for me - there was something about it that made me feel like this was a man I could trust, as he seemed so humble and polite when dealing with other people. Later on, this will contrast a great deal with the taciturn frown of Bahram (Mohsen Tanabandeh) who will end up being the one person willing to destroy much of the good will and esteem Rahim wins by doing a good deed, and acting in good faith. It's a downfall that's hard to watch, but impossible to turn away from.

Events that are revealed in piecemeal fashion, and that we have to interpret for ourselves, have already occurred when A Hero starts. Rahim, who has kids with an ex-wife, is in prison due to an unpaid debt owing to his brother-in-law Bahram - but his new lover has stumbled upon a lost purse with gold coins inside. While out on a two-day leave he joins her and the two try to value the coins and contact Bahram to pay part of the debt, hoping that this and regular payments to him will prove enough to have him forgive Rahim and allow him his permanent freedom. Bahram angrily refuses, not trusting Rahim, and this is enough to prompt the latter to try and find the owner of the purse to return it - obviously it wasn't meant to be, and if it had of been a gift from God, it would have led to his being free. When the apparent purse's owner contacts Rahim in prison, the authorities learn about this good deed, and that in turns leads to Rahim becoming a minor celebrity - feted on television for what he's done, for which he not only receives a certificate from a charitable establishment, but a donation paying part of his debt. Bahram however, is not convinced that Rahim hasn't invented the story for his own benefit - and sets on a course that will destroy his reputation and ruin his redemption.

The first time I watched A Hero I didn't fully appreciate the last few scenes as much as I should have, even though I'd already given the film the highest possible rating I could. There's something there that Rahim learns about truly being a hero, and that's something that left me feeling a lot more positive about where this film finishes in it's narrative and emotional senses. If you're really tuned in to his body language and expression, you can also see that the pain he's been in for much of the latter half of the film has lifted as well, because he fully understands the lesson he's learned, and it's import. Despite what he's gone through (a similar spiritual journey to Antonio Ricci in Bicycle Thieves) he's actually content, though there's still that element of sadness considering he must still remain imprisoned and separated from his children, family and lover. How often do we see people considered heroes, and ponder to ourselves what truly makes one a hero? Many of the times I do, I consider that most of the greatest heroes out there are invisible, doing good but not expecting rewards, attention or congratulation. Many make concerted efforts to avoid attention, and many a great hero will do what they do at great personal cost to themselves.

It's no surprise anymore to learn that Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi makes great cinematic treasures. He won 9 various international film awards (not counting those the film won for itself) for A Hero, and the film found itself on the shortlist for foreign language features to be nominated for an Oscar, falling at the last hurdle. His 2011 masterpiece, A Separation, ended up winning a Best Foreign Film Oscar, and Farhadi was nominated personally for Best Screenplay. I also love The Salesman and Everybody Knows, both of which (along with A Hero) were nominated for the Palme d'Or at Cannes. His award-winning editor, Hayedeh Safiyari, whom he has made all of his best films with, did great work on this and deserves recognition. Cinematographers Ali Ghazi and Arash Ramezani, relative newcomers to the industry and Farhadi, did good work on A Hero. My love for the film however, is due to the acting ability of Amir Jadidi, Mohsen Tanabandeh and a great child performance from Saleh Karimaei as Rahim's stammering son - along with Farhadi's amazing imagination and direction.

I love the way A Hero only reveals what's important, and leaves the rest a tantalizing mystery. We know Rahim borrowed from a loan shark to start some kind of business, and that his brother-in-law ended up footing the bill - but we don't know exactly what happened. We don't know how foolhardy Rahim's actions were, although it's never a good idea to borrow in that way when there's risk involved - and it seems that the business venture failed, and Rahim's partner fled. We don't know why Bahram is so distrustful of Rahim, to the point of exasperation and constant suspicion - telling anyone who'll listen that Rahim has constantly let him down, and failed any and all obligation he's had to his brother-in-law in the past. Rahim doesn't seem sneaky, but he does seem somewhat naïve, trusting and a little weak-willed and faint-hearted. What fractured his marriage? It seems his wife might have left him, for Bahram suspects that he's trying to win her over again despite that obviously not being true. They're on very friendly terms, so it would be interesting to know what split them up in a society that frowns on divorce.

Another interesting aspect to the film is the way it shows how some people are good at navigating our modern world and some aren't as adept. Bahram and his daughter weaponize their phones by recording the fight he gets into with Rahim, and exploits the online world by releasing it at an inopportune moment. Rahim had done the opposite - he'd done nothing to record the details of the woman who came and collected the coins - probably under false pretenses. The situation always seems to be turning against him, but he's a victim of not having much forethought and sense about him. He's not media savvy, and is subject to the whims and fickle opinion of people who would manipulate his image - first in a grossly positive way, and then in a darkly negative one. When he agrees to appear on television after "returning" those coins, my first though is always "I sure wouldn't do that." His praising of the prison authorities, done with good intentions, set his fellow inmates against him - and the parts of his story he makes up to keep the fact he has a lover quiet end up making him seem quite dishonest.

A Hero held me in a tight grip the first time I saw it, and I was expecting it to feel a little less immediate the second time around, but to my surprise I was just as shaken and emotionally involved with the story and characters. Rahim's son struggling to communicate, his connection with his girlfriend, his puppy dog eyes and willingness to please and the way he seems to be so sensitive really touches me, especially considering that this is someone in prison. The way he gets swept up in the congratulations he receives for doing a good deed, and the way he gets broken down and deflated after being put on a pedestal really rock me when I see it onscreen. He really shouldn't have just accepted the accolades and media attention, and tried to reason with himself about what a real hero is, and how they behave, but the fact that he learns really squared this film up and made it satisfying to me. It's a recent watch that I immediately fell in love with, and it's been fascinating to discover that every other person that sees it sees something completely unique and different in the same characters. That's Asghar Farhadi for you - giving us much to interpret in our own way, and many different ways to read his films. This goes down as one of my absolute favourites from 2021.

Congrats to Phoenix! The sixth person to finish!

I don't think I've ever finished this slow before

It's all good brother, you are almost there!

Yeah I know I'm just watching a tank full of war films!

A Hero (2021)

Farhadi's films always seem to be like a mixture of Ozu manners with Ibsen's morality. Which isn't really a bad thing just a tough watch. This was the third foreign film I watched tonight so my eyes have gotten a little blurry but as I start this marathon I figured I would start with a blind watch.

A Hero tells the story of a man in debtors prison who is let out to I guess work and try and earn the money he owes his creditor. He's a down on his luck schlub type guy, a hangdog as his creditor liked to call him. Upon finding a bag filled with gold coins he first tries to pay off his debts but as the coins don't match the amount owed he instead returns the bag...or does he.

This is a two hour film and it's mostly just talking heads and fights. The ethical basis for the film is interesting but Farhadi just strips the film of any sort of tension. It's just talking and arguing and people speaking about what everything means to them.

The film is at it's best when it breaks from the tedium of the arguing and we see this picture of modern Iran. You have this juxtaposition between adult and the familial ties where brothers and sisters live together and grown daughters are stuck with fathers because he can't pay for a dowry. You wish you would see more of that over what is a fairly long run to a predictable conclusion.

And while it might sound like I dislike this film..I don't it's fine just not my taste. I don't see myself remembering this film 10 years from now. It's good but it's just kinda there.

B

Interiors (1978)

Inspiration and execution are two things that are at the heart of this film. Interiors is Allen's first film from his shock Oscar win the year before and he shall we say lifts heavily from Robert Altman and Ingmar Bergman. When you borrow from contemporaries can a film like this elevate itself from it's influences or does it just remind one of the better works of others.

The film is focused on ennui of intellectuals in the mid/late 70s. The marriage between a wealthy father and his mentally unstable wife is the center of the film as well as the trauma and drama centered around the three daughters. Geraldine Page had five Oscar nominations at the point of making this film and she received a sixth for a lead performance. The irony ofcourse is that 78 was the year legitimate genre classics that were snubbed for the more high minded artistic works that have aged poorly in comparison. Grease, Halloween, and Superman all becoming timeless classics yet the academy glossed over for a film that feels more like a tribute than a complete work.

The film is good enough at certain things...it doesn't have the visual impact of a Bergman film, and Page is a periphery character choosing the generational trauma to be more subtle...or as subtle as it could get. Getting into spoilers the film builds up to a rape(that should have been handled better) and a suicide (that was much better shot in The Long Goodbye). Allen is so in love with telling and not showing us the audience the plot points that it left me somewhat disappointment and frankly frustration.

We know this is his first real step into dramatic work and he get's better at it. Which is once again another part of the problem...we know this is the lesser version of his dramas. We know he's going to get better visually and hit those notes better in the coming years. The knowledge of Allen's capabilities in subsequent years is like an albatross on this particular work. It's what makes prolific film-making so difficult.

Keaton and Griffith play two of the sisters who at the start seem like they are on even footing with Hart. But through the introduction of Pearl (the new woman in the fathers life) and the build towards the climax both actresses and characters end up feeling like alsorans..almost unnecessary. This is something you would see in an Altman film but a Bergman film would have developed Frederick and Joey's relationship as the focus with the juxtaposition of the parents failing marriage. Because...that's the point generational trauma.

And while their were things that I really didn't care for I did like bits and pieces of the work. It wasn't bad it was actually good but it could have been great and that's what makes me depressed about this work.

B-