Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

Amazing...this old Soviet era, silent film is outright amazing. I couldn't believe how innovative the cinematography was. I mean this 94 year old film put to shame many a modern CG block buster. The director Sergei Eisenstein was a genius. He did something I've hardly ever seen in a movie scene, and that's shooting the POV, from the different points of view.

Take the famous Odessa staircase sequence. We see the townsfolk in their initial joyous unification, flooding into the port area to see the heroic sailors of the Potemkin...And they flood in droves! Then we see from their POV the approaching troops with guns drawn and bayonets fixed...And then we're treated (if that's the right word) to what it would look like if we were in the shoes of the approaching military. We then see down those same stairs at the people below are being shoot in cold blood....Then of course, there's the famous third POV of the baby in the carriage as it helplessly rolls down those long stairs. Impressive stuff!


Visually the film is so impressive I had a real hard time just settling on one image (so I didn't!)...There's so many stunning shots in this film. I loved the use of extreme close-ups on the faces of the Russian people and what a story those weathered faces told. The director really packs emotions into those close-ups.


I'm sure some will complain that this is heavy handed propaganda. But that's what makes the film so special. It's a window back into an important period of human history. This 1925 film tells of the 1905 mutiny aboard the Czar's naval ship. But in a much broader scope it glorifies the efforts of Russian serfs, who were throwing off their yokes of servitude. The people are embracing a revolution that promised to free mankind once and for all, by delivery equality. And in 1925 the promise that Soviet communism brought to the downtrodden masses was still heady with optimism. Later under the brutal dictatorship of Joseph Stalin that dream would turn into yet another form of horrendous servitude and tyranny. And yet I can't help but feel the optimism of the Russian people in 1925 as they dreamed of a better life for themselves and their children.

I found the DVD in the $5 bin at Walmart a few years ago. I don't know if it's still available, but if not, you might be able to find it cheap on eBay.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

I rather liked this one, it's very different, especially for a silent film. At times it uses art house style scene inserts, with images of a clown zealously spinning a globe which serves as a commentary of sorts. I loved the opening scene that has a globe of the world. Then we see miniature clowns setting on the ring around the globe. Finally the globe becomes the circus ring and we are transported into the circus big top. I guess that's saying, 'all the world's indeed a stage'. Very art house and nicely done too!

Lon Chaney's clown, named 'HE', is a unique blend of nihilistic and sad clown tropes. He revivals in self sadism and practices a form of flagellation as he's slapped, bashed and tossed about the circus ring like a rag doll. All that abuse is done for the entertainment of the crowd who laugh with gusto as they watch the poor broken clownbeing abused.It's a rather strange concept, but it works.

Laugh, Clown, Laugh (1928) is very similar to another silent film with Lon Chaney as a clown in He Who Gets Slapped (1924), but He Who Gets Slapped is a much better film with stronger themes, more impressive sets and more of a pay off at the end.

+

I didn't buy the book as it was way too pricey. But I did find a set of Clara Bow's films on DVD, on ebay, for cheap. They had to be boot leg as the quality was poor, but it was cool having access to so many of her films. There's some good ones too, but It is my favorite. That's the film that made Clara into a huge star. Unfortunately like a lot of silent screen stars she didn't do much in the sound era, but she did make a few talkies.

It, what a fun film! I had a smile on my face through the entire movie. And unlike some silents that seem to drag and drag, the time flew by. Maybe that's because the film felt so modern. I really like silent films but they can be somewhat inaccessible as they seem so far removed from our time. But not It, both the film's pacing and Miss Bow's performance seemed much more like a modern movie.

I was impressed with how enpowered Clara Bow's charterer was. She's a modern woman who stands up for herself and is a fully formed character, with a strong sense of who she is. That's refreshing as a lot of older movies treated women as arm-hangers who's only role was to look pretty. Yes Clara has It!

Not much to say about this one. It was fine I guess, but it didn't really do much for me. I watched it in two parts on consecutive nights, not always the best way to see a film. The first night I watched half of the movie and found it to be sweet and sentimental, though a bit cloying. The father-daughter relationship was nicely done. Though not much else happened, except the clown kept crying and the Count was affected with constant laughing. His laughing was supposedly from his over indulgent life style. I know many of these movies are told as parables, but the laughing/crying just didn't make much sense to me and certainly wasn't interesting.

OK so the next night I watch the second half of the movie and it revealed that Tito aka Flik the clown (Lon Chaney) is in love with his adopted daughter (Loretta Young). His daughter loves him too and will marry him. Now, that sounds like a basis for a strong statement movie...But unless I missed something, the film never makes use of that Woody Allen type relationship. The only aspect that comes into question is that Lon Chaney's character feels he's too old to marry his adopted daughter.

Did I miss a scene? I was tired so who knows maybe I nodded off and missed reading an important title card? I don't think so, but it felt like the movie needed some scene or title card to comment on the strange relationship.

-

There must be a lot of lonely people in the world for this movie to have an 8.0 rating at IMDB. That's a high rating for such a simple film. At a time when silent films were breaking new grounds, Lonesome felt pretty simple in it's camera work and yet it's effective because I was engaged and rooting for the lonely couple to find love through out the film. I was glad when they met and started falling in love. I can relate to how the two individuals felt isolated in a crowd at the beginning of the film. And I can also relate to their thrill of meeting that right person. I think most of us can relate to these two people. All of that then works wonders for when the tragic separation happens. As they lose sight of each other in that crowd, we feel their loss. Crowds play a big part of this film, so does the desire to escape loneliness...and that's a human equation.

For me one of the highlights of the film was seeing Coney Island amusement park way back in 1928. They sure had some crazy carnival rides! And the crowds were as dense as ever.

Wow, this was one demented film! And I liked it, but it was sure strange. It reminded me of an old Monty Python skit. The little kid was hilarious, especially when he had the hots for the doll and then after kissing it, kisses the doll maker's wife just so that there's no complaints, ha! Then he kept trying to drink paint, what a weird little dude!

And the girl who played the doll was real good at being whacked too. Loved her doll dance and the stuff she did with her hands, kind of robotic. The color tinting was a nice choice and it was cool seeing a young Ernst Lubitsch at the beginning of the movie introducing his film.

I watched this on Youtube and I chose the one with a unconventional music score, which to me sounded even more demented than the movie!... which I thought sounded great and worked perfectly.

No denying that this film is powerful! I mean just look at that close-up now that's emotion personified. Scene after scene the forlorn, doomed Joan of Arc's face fills the screen with her misery...we can't escape it!
It's uncomfortable watching her in such close detail as she's tormented by her over zealot Catholic persecutors. The dementedly gleeful faces of the Catholic inquisitors are just as potent. They reek of hypocrisy as they set in self serving judgement of Joan who's being persecuted for heresy. We know what horror awaits Joan at the end of the film and that makes her suffering all the worse.

A very uncomfortable watch and that's as I'm sure the director intended it to be. Because as uncomfortable as we might be, that's mere piddleness compared to Joan's torment which ends with this young girl being burnt alive by pious men. The Passion of Joan of Arc is one film once seen you soon won't forget.

Maybe one of the greatest films that never was. Greed had a hard time making it to the silver screen. Director Erich von Stroheim shot 85 hours of film and spent 2 hours filming in Death Valley for what would end up being only a 20 minute segment. Stroheim spent a year editing the film down to an epic 8 hour length and that was a year of his life he wasn't paid for as his contract stipulate he wouldn't be paid for post production work.

Only 12 people on the planet ever saw the completed 8 hour epic that was once Greed. Several of those 12 called Greed the greatest film ever made. And that's where Greed's story turns sour as the studio hacked and hacked the film down until it was only a couple hours long. All of that editing was against the wishes of Stroheim. In the beginning of the version of Greed I just watched there's a quote from Stroheim who laments the misery he suffered as other's cut his opus down to size.

What we have today is a film that's worth watching but will never have the full effect Stroheim intended. I watched the 1 hour 50 minute restored version and it reminded me of Orson Welle's The Lady From Shanghai, in that both films are vastly interesting, but the pacing is off with missing scenes and choppy editing...editing that broke both director's hearts.

I thoroughly enjoyed Show People! It's a cool, behind the scenes look at Hollywood movie making with a young actress trying to break into the flicks, circa late 1920s. Lovely Marion Davies stars, at the time of Show People she was one of the top stars in Hollywood. Now mostly forgotten, she's probably best known as the lifelong companion of millionaire William Randolph Hurst and the woman who was lampooned in Citizen Kane by Orson Welles....The real Marion Davies was actually very talented, especially at comedy. This is one of her best films, she's very natural and funny and she's a joy to watch.

Show People is a fast paced silent comedy that's only 1 hour 15 minutes long. The time flew by as I had so much fun with the movie, even more so was the fun in spotting big stars as they made cameos on the studio back lot. In one hilarious scene Marion Davies as Peggy Pepper a bit player in movies, meets herself Marion Davies the big star!

On a little Silent Movie kick this week are we, Rules?

Fat City

I don't like Melissa McCarthy, but I think Can You Ever Forgive Me? is the first of her movies that I ever wanted to see. It's been on my watchlist since I first heard about it.

An unethical political lobbyist does whatever it takes to sway Senator's votes on an upcoming gun control bill. CR

Director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love 1998) serves up an intriguing story premise in 2016's Miss Sloane, that unfortunately is saddled by contrived dialogue and feels more like a Showtime TV show than a hard hitting movie about the sleazy insider world of D.C. lobbyist.

While the lead Jessica Chastain is capable don't expect a performance like the one she gave in the riveting Molly's Game (2017). While both Miss Sloane and Molly's Game have similar themes about a hyper driven woman who will succeed by deceit, underhandedness and self control...Miss Sloane fails to deliver any heart felt emotions. The films pathos is austere as a stainless steel office and as cold as a D.C. winter.

I blame the coldness of the film on it's attempt at slickly written dialogue that's suppose to sound like insider lobbyist 'speak'. Maybe that sounded good in the early stages of production, but what appears on the screen is all style with little substance. I kept wishing the movie would shift gears and tell a compelling story like Spotlight (2015) had done, but nope as the film dragged on about the only thing of interest was Jessica Chastain's wardrobe. Sure Jessica looked great, but I can't say I though much of her 'goon squad.' Who in the hell thought it was a good idea to pack her high roller lobbyist team with a bunch of goofy rejects from TV's Friends. OK, they weren't really cast as extras on Friends, but they had enough inane quirkiness to have been extras on some TV sitcom.

Miss Sloane needed less 'clever'...aka...contrived written dialogue and much more story narrative. A healthy dose of character and world building would've helped lift Miss Sloane to something worthy of it's subject matter.

A bit long in the tooth. I did like the first 1/3rd of the film where we meet a young Freddie Mercury and learn of his family origins and of his chance encounter that brought him from airport luggage handler to lead singer of one of the biggest rock bands of all time. But I couldn't help but think that Rami Malek would have made a great Mick Jagger. In fact I kept seeing Mick in the early part of the film and not Freddie. But once the film progressed to where Mercury gets his trademark short hair and mustache look, he seemed more like the real deal.

IMO they overdid the prosthetic choppers. Yeah I know Freddie Mercury had an overbite but the prosthetic teeth looked fake to me and distracted me quite a bit. Even worse I started noticing that the actor had problems wearing them as in some scenes he would roll his upper lip down as if the fake teeth where bugging him. That didn't appear to be part of the acting either, but a naturalistic response by the actor to those huge choppers.

I have to say that I got bored in the middle of the film when it relied more on montage stage performances, than character/story building scenes. That felt like lazy film making. Though the Live Aid scenes that came at the end, did make up for some of the lackluster script...I got to believe the real Freddie Mercury had a BIG story to tell, sadly we only got a glimpse of that story here in what might be described as movie-making-by-the-numbers.