JayDee's Movie Musings

Maybe you should keep away from The Thing

__________________

I found it, Sweetness. Thanks.

I liked Misery quite a bit, though unfortunately reminders of that damn Family Guy parody softened it up a little in the scariness stakes. I don't know if that's a completely separate thing or a critique of my experience with film for not being immersive enough.

lol... I think I was 10 or 11 when I first saw The Thing. That's an HK 100 film and it's never been scary, though it's masterful at creating an atmosphere.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Me too but I did watch it again this year I own it and thought I shouldn't leave it on the shelf with only one outing

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I have it on VHS, so it's there when I get around to it... Like the rest of my collection.

This review is going to be a touch different from the norm. As I'm sure the more observant amongst you will have noticed I have not included the customary rating for this review of Schindler's List. The reason being that I have no real clue how to rate it. As I've said on a number of occasions previously, my ratings are generally brought around by a combination of how much I enjoyed the film and how good I felt it was technically, though it mostly leans towards the former. And there's really no way I could say that I 'liked' Schindler's List. Though in general I don't suppose that many people like or enjoy the film in the traditional manner of the words. What I did do however was greatly admire the film. But seeing as I usually rate on entertainment to try and come up with a number to define this film felt a bit tacky and inappropriate. Therefore I'm not giving one just now. I'm just going to write out a few thoughts and let them stand for themselves.

Steven Spielberg is one of the most popular and celebrated directors in the history of cinema. He has received numerous accolades and acclaim over his five decade career. One thing he has never really been accredited with however is a sense of subtlety or a reserved nature when it comes to his film output. If anything its the opposite which is more likely to be true. He is renowned and sometimes criticised for making large, blockbusting 'event' movies; movies which frequently arrive with a great deal of emotion and sentimentality; emotions that arise from the trite writing, manipulative direction and frequently overblown scores. If you listen to his critics that is. Here however he displays a restraint and a dignity that many people would not associate him with, or perhaps even believe he was capable of. Indeed if you watched this film without the knowledge that he was its director I imagine you may have a tough time deciphering that fact. When you compare it with much of his other work his direction here seems very unshowy, almost capturing a near documentary look for the film. A look which is just heightened by Janusz Kamiński's gorgeous, sharp black and white photography. The documentary feel is particularly true in the moments where the camera focuses close up on the faces of the Jewish people either waiting in line or when they're on the trains.

The only really 'cinematic' touches that Spielberg utilises occur when he adds glimpses of colour into this predominantly black and white movie. The most obvious is of course the girl in the red coat. It his her demise more than anything that really seems to have an effect on Schindler and prompts the change in him. The red highlights her importance to the character and story, while also making it easier for us to identify her. The only other option to make it clear would have been a close-up, likely accompanied by very dramatic music. This proves to be a much more subtle and touching choice by Spielberg. The other touch of colour can be found in candles both at the start and end of the film. Schinlder's List opens with a Jewish family observing Shabbat; the scene and in particular the candle present appears in colour. As we focus on the candle however the colour begins to drain from the screen as we go back to the dark times of the people, where smoke was more identified with the burning of bodies. Only towards the end when Schindler allows his workers to once again observe Shabbat do we get a glimmer of light in the flame, highlighting a little glint of hope.

Now I mentioned Spielberg's predilection for sentimentality and I'm sure there are some people who perhaps feel that he falls back to such a level with the film's ending; finding it too trite and happy an ending for such a story. However I think it's a very touching moment that is representative of how the people must have felt. Yes their life may still be a tough road ahead but after everything they've been through it must feel like a great release for the war to be over; a really freeing experience. And personally after sitting through three hours of near unrelenting bleakness and horror I think the audience needs a little moment of relief and hope. Now free, we see the large swath of Jews walk from the darkness and into the light, from black and white into colour as a stirring Jewish song accompanies the scene. And then I thought the closing images of the real people that Schindler helped visiting his grave was a very moving and appropriate close; allowing us to see all of the people who were still alive thanks to his efforts, and all of the descendants who would otherwise never have existed. In fact that is something I've always thought about. During the second World War its estimated that somewhere between 50 and 70 million lives were lost, but it's not just those lives that were wiped out but all of the future lives which never came to fruition. So many more millions of people who were destined to be born but weren't. Who knows what people we lost out on, what they might have contributed to the world. Perhaps somewhere in there was the person who would already have cured cancer but they were lost just to the darkness of humanity.

The film is certainly a pretty grim and bleak experience, and it has to be. Any attempt at tackling such a story in any other manner would be disrespectful and ring false. Particularly disturbing instances include the numerous occasions where jewish individuals are shot in such a casual and matter of fact fashion, the piles of bodies strewn around, the scene where Goeth nonchalantly picks off unsuspecting jews from his villa and the harrowing sequence which details the burning of the dead bodies. Alongside those more obvious examples, Spielberg also conducts a series of more subtle moments and images which really heighten the sense of harrowing horror. Moments such as the unpacking and sorting of the luggage which the Jews mistakenly believe will be going with them; the Jewish women pricking themselves for blood to use for blusher to make themselves look healthier and the dehumanising health checks that followed; the 'snow' which isn't really snow; the little girl screaming “goodbye Jews!” with such hatred in her voice; the contrast of new housing between Schindler and the rehomed Jewish people; a child desperately searching for a hiding place from the Nazi officers; the naivety of the camp inhabitants over the fact they don't believe they will be gassed because the Nazis would not do that to their workforce; and the scene where Goeth tries to execute one of Schindler's workers over a hinge but it continually fails is almost unbearable to watch. And with Spielberg frequently framing hundreds of extras in his shots he is able to go some way to capturing the scale of inhumanity that occurred in those dark days. And while some may see it as an inadvisable move the film does contain the odd bit of rare humour. I think it works both as a touch of relief for the audience but also at representing the fact that if you're ever to make it through something like this you have to try and retain a bit of humour, a bit of humanity.

Spielberg also deserves great credit for the individuals he cast and the performances he was able to elicit from them. Liam Neeson gives an extraordinary showing as the eponymous Oscar Schindler, a very intriguing and complex character. Initially presented as a man taking advantage of the Jewish people and profiting from the misery of war, he eventually transforms into a rather heroic figure. Neeson plays him with a great charisma and arrogance to begin with before revealing his humanity and tortured soul. The scene where Schindler breaks down at the end over the feeling that he didn't save enough lives was a terrific piece of acting, and one I found to be very moving. As much as I love Tom Hanks, and I think his performance in Philadelphia was truly excellent, I think that Neeson perhaps should have taken the Best Actor Oscar for this performance, although it's insanely close. As Schindler's conscience you have Itzhak Stern, his accountant and business partner, played to very touching effect by Ben Kingsely. While Ralph Fiennes is genuinely scary as the psychotic sociopath that is camp commandant Amon Goeth. Many of his scenes are truly chilling. Just a few days previous to this I had watched him in Quiz Show as the charming, foppish Charles van Doren. I was just about in complete denial that this could possibly be the same man.

If I'm honest I never particularly wanted to see Schindler's List, I just felt it was a film that I should watch. And I still think that is the case. I think it's a film that everyone should watch, both as a technical achievement and as a document of an extremely dark time in history. And if I'm honest, at this moment I'm struggling to envisage a day in the future when I will sit down and think to myself “you know what I feel like watching again, Schindler's List.” Perhaps I'm wrong but I think it might be one of those one-watch films for me. That said I am very glad that I did finally get round to tackling it. Spielberg delivered a quite incredible accomplishment, taking just about the most difficult of subjects and treating it in a laudable and reverent manner.

__________________

Excellent review JayDee... well put.

No Popcorn rating though?

A great review JayDee and I agree with what you have said, I think, you see it's been an age since I watch it and have similar thoughts to you. When I watch a movie now I want to feel like I've spent the 2 hours (or whatever) watching the most enjoyable film I could have in that time, and now that I've seen Schindler's List, I am not in a real rush to watch it again, although I will. Undoubtedly a great film though.

__________________

JayDee that was an incredibly moving review. It is hard not to be genuinely touched by the movie. And I understand the absence of the popcorn rating. What more can I say other then well done sir.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Ahem! The first paragraph -

I'm curious how you can call it an excellent review when you apparently didn't read it!!!

It's a great review, JD and, like you, it's not really a film I feel I'll watch again. I've seen it twice and that'll probably do me.

Arg! I did read it, the bit about no Popcorns just didn't register.

I'm a weirdo (like you didn't know) since I've seen Schindler's List seven or eight times.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Fan of Spielberg?

I like Schindler's List a lot but it's not so devastating for me as I notice it is for others.Just a great sad history drama.

Plot - Andrew Beckett (Hanks) is a highly skilled lawyer and a senior associate at the biggest corporate law firm in Philadelphia. He has kept the fact that he is a homosexual private from the senior partners, but his secret comes out when he contracts AIDS. Shortly afterwards he is fired from the firm; and while he is given the excuse that it was for professional reasons he is convinced he was let go as a result of his disease. When he decides to sue his former employers, Andrew hires showy and homophobic lawyer, Joe Miller (Washington). During the ensuing court case Joe begins to see Andrew for what he is, a human being no different from anyone else. Andrew's degrading health however may mean that he does not make it to the case's conclusion.

I've got to say that I was rather surprised at just how run of the mill Philadelphia was in some ways. It takes a pretty standard structure that we've seen in numerous guises and just gives us the gay/AIDS version of that story. You could take the characters that Hanks and Washington played, change them around ever so slightly, plug them back in and you'd have a different film. If one was female and the other was a bit of a chauvinist you have a movie about sexism. If one was black and the other a racist, it's a race movie. If one was Christian and the other Muslin...well you get the idea.

As such, when viewed today, Philadelphia may appear a touch tame and uncontentious in how it addresses its subject; you may even accuse it of attempting to sidestep any controversy, but I think you have to look at it in context. Back in 1993 when the film was released AIDS was still a very controversial topic and a great fear for many people, largely out of ignorance about the disease and the ways in which it could be transmitted. Philadelphia was the first major Hollywood film on the subject, and if it had set out to present a truly hard-hitting look at gay relationships and how AIDS impacted both the individual and those around them, it may have been commended but it would probably have been seen by about 12 people; not exactly the outcome the studio would be looking for to their risk. So to make it more appealing to mainstream audiences we get a more traditional, easier to swallow narrative. The topic of AIDS is instead told through the structure of a classic courtroom drama, an old favourite for audiences and a much safer bet for the higher-ups at the studio. It also makes it a lot easier to guarantee audience support for Hanks' character. So we are not just supposed to be backing a gay man suffering from AIDS, but that old tale of the little man taking on the big heartless corporation; something that is always easy to support no matter what form the little man takes. And this approach certainly proved to be a smart move on the part of the studio as the film was not only a big hit at the awards ceremonies, but it went on to gross over $200 million worldwide at the box office.

Philadelphia does have the tendency to have a little bit of a TV movie feel to it, except for when it comes to the performances which are quite clearly a cut above what you would likely find there. This is particularly true of the film's two central roles. In his Oscar-winning turn, Hanks gives an excellent and truly heartbreaking performance as Andrew Beckett, the lawyer stuck down by AIDS. He portrays the character both with a great courage and strength in the face of his condition, but also with the inevitable fragility and weakness that the condition will unavoidably bring upon him. It is a spectacularly touching and affecting performance. In particular I absolutely loved his work in the opera scene but we'll come to that later. And the physical changes that he goes through are really quite distressing to witness, especially to such a recognisable and much-loved face as his. And it wasn't just the make-up that brought about such a transformation; Hanks himself lost almost 30 pounds in order to give Andrew his especially gaunt appearance towards the end. This is just one of the many tremendous performances that Hank has gifted to us, and while I may have slightly edged towards Liam Neeson for the Best Actor Oscar (though I'm really not sure) Hanks was certainly very deserving of the win.

Film Trivia Snippets - Working titles for the film included "People Like Us", "At Risk" and "Probable Cause". /// It may have proved to be one of the defining roles of Hanks' career but the role of Andrew Beckett was offered to Daniel Day Lewis, Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia ahead of him. /// I just mentioned above how Hanks had to lose almost 30 pounds for the film. In contrast Washington was actually asked to put on a few pounds. Hanks had to almost starve himself to lose the weight and on set Washington would wind him up by frequently eating chocolate bars in front of him. /// During the trial we are shown a number of protesters standing outside the courthouse holding signs with anti-gay slogans on them. These individuals were based on the members of the disgustingly anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, which is led by “Reverend” Fred Phelps. Phelps has described this as “one of my favourite comedies.” The sick, pathetic b*stard!

Opposite him Washington also gives a strong showing as the rather complex Joe Miller. Sadly like the large majority of people he treats Andrew and his condition with a sense of fear and outright disgust; the character even admits straight-up to his wife that he is homophobic, as is seen by a violent confrontation he gets involved in when he is talked up by a man who believes Miller is gay. Quite the showman, the only reason he seems to take on the case is for the money and the amount of media exposure it will earn him. I actually found his character to be really frustrating in terms of his treatment towards Andrew and other gay people suffering from AIDS. You would think that if anyone would sympathise with individuals being judged on their appearance, and people not wanting to touch them for fear of being infected, it would be an African American man who had lived through the 60s. Despite my frustration with the character, I had nothing but admiration for how Washington played the character. In large part it may be a two-hander but there is also some commendable work to be found amongst the supporting cast with Robards and Steenburgen particularly impressing. And despite the relatively small size of her role, Joanne Woodward really delivers in a couple of the film's strongest and most pivotal moments.

As I alluded to earlier there is a wonderful scene about two-thirds of the way through the film involving opera; it's an excellent scene which proves a vital point of the story and also shows the talents of Hanks and Washington at their absolute finest. Following a party Andrew and Joe are left alone in Andrew's apartment. While Joe is attempting to prepare Andrew for his deposition all Andrew wants to do is get to know each other a little better. A piece of opera begins to play in the background and Andrew is taken over by it. The heartbreaking aria is one that Andrew can identify with in his dying condition. He stands up and begins to explain what is being said and Joe, initially appearing rather bemused, gets caught up in it and finally 'sees' Andrew for the first time. He doesn't seem him purely as a gay man with AIDS but as a human being pure and simple, one with a love for life and a desire not to die. Afterwards Joe goes home, kisses his sleeping daughter and wife as he realises how lucky he is, and then just stares in contemplation. Hanks is exceptional in this sequence, so tragic and agonising to watch as he pours so much passion into it. In contrast Washington doesn't actually utter a single word during the sequence. He just watches on, but Washington is able to convey his characters emotions and his change in outlook merely through his eyes. We see that something in him changes. The way that the scene is presented by Demme is also an important factor in creating the sheer power of it. The film briefly abandons its sense of reality as Andrew and his apartment are bathed in a dark red, operatic light while Demme employs high and tight camera angles to really immerse you in the moment and Andrew's suffering. It's a wonderful moment concerning the power of art and is just a truly wonderful piece of cinema. And such a more powerful scene than what you may typically find, some big moment of back and forth dialogue which reveals Joe's transition for example.

By presenting the story in the form that we are given we do know pretty much exactly where it is going. We know that at some point Washington's character is going to go through a revelatory experience which will force him to shed his prejudices towards gay people. We know the likely outcome of the case long before it has been decided by the jury. However the performances and the way that Demme handles the film ensures that it remains a very engaging, and occasionally enthralling film throughout. Even if some of the story and its messages are a bit obvious and on the nose; particularly guilty I felt was the ending which featured home movies of Andrew as a young boy, that just felt a little bit too manipulative. Oh and I was a touch disappointed in the fact that Beckett's relationship with Miguel (played by Antonio Banderas) wasn't really given much exposure; it felt like it was rather glossed over.

Conclusion - Philadelphia may not have been quite as powerful or confrontational as it could have been but I'd say that it marked an important step in portraying gay characters and issues with more depth and respect in major Hollywood films. And it does remain a very affecting and moving experience, largely down to two excellent lead performances, especially Hanks' exceptional turn as Andrew Beckett.

Philadelphia got what it did because it was the first big Hollywood AIDS film. That's it. It's good, decent, as you say, with a couple of great performances but that's it. Or, at least, that's how I remember it.

This is a movie that was needed for the time. Early 90's, the first AIDS movie and what not. As such, I feel that while it is a good movie, the potential for a really powerful movie is there, but given the subject matter, the movies does not age. I agree with many of your points, particularly the opera scene and the relationship between Hanks and Banderas' character.

Liked your review of this film, one of my favorites from the 70's. I particularly liked what you said about Redford and Hoffman not receiving Oscar nods, but if that's true, why did Jason Robards win an Oscar for his Ben Bradlee? Did he not contribute to the experience t he same way Redford and Hoffman did?

You masochist you! I know it's one of your favourites (top 20 I think) so I hope you enjoyed my review of it.

Well that just wasn't good enough Rodent! You used to be exceptionally reliable, always repping and often commenting within minutes of me posting. You're slippng man! Sort it out!

Thanks for your input and thoughts 45. Although you forgot your customary comment. I realise you may not always have the time to write it out so I've made this for you to quickly post after a new review -