The Awful Truth

Things are the way you think I made them.

The Awful Truth is advertised as a screwball comedy, so immediately I was on my guard. Thankfully, this is a comedy that I actually enjoyed for once, probably because it wasn’t as screwball as others have been. Starring Cary Grant and Irene Dunne and directed by Leo McCarey, this is a delightfully funny comedy that also stars one of the most darling film puppies I think I’ve ever seen.

Cary Grant and Irene Dunne play their parts to comedic perfection, and indeed Grant’s future performances would be forever altered thanks to his success in this film. The line about the rooster and the hen who fight and make up perfectly summarizes the whole film, so indeed why does the rest of the film exist but for pleasure? And pleasurable it is; the film succeeds where all of its other counterparts failed: at being genuinely hilarious. The script is brazenly witty, the situational humor never fails to arouse laughter; I actually laughed out loud at this film more than I think any other film since I’ve started my trek down the list. Who’d have thunk a screwball comedy (that admittedly isn’t very screwball) would do that to me?

This is a great, great comedy that features standout performances and stellar timing; all the comedic bits and pieces work to perfection here. What’s even more, this garnered an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, and a win for Best Director, so even the critics loved this one. Hell, even I did, so what have you got to lose?

Arbitrary Rating: 9/10

P.S. Happy 300 reviews! Nice to know I’m at least a quarter done with my quest.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Either I'm dead right, or I'm crazy!

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a Frank Capra picture starring James Stewart as a youthful Junior Senator forced to go up against the mightiest powers-that-be in Washington to clear his name and stop a dastardly political machine from getting what it wants. A more apropos title for a film there probably could never be, this is a film that presents itself up front to the audience, expects nothing in return, and gets a whole lot more than it bargained for.

The plot is basic enough, but where Mr. Smith really shines is its screenplay; not the dialogue as much as how the story is constructed from scene to scene. Jimmy Stewart plays his everyman role to a T, earning a Best Actor nomination in the process. Frank Capra’s direction was also award-worthy, and the camerawork is also very well done, if not the lighting aspect of cinematography. I haven’t mentioned the editing of a film in a long while, but Mr. Smith’s is quite notable for its montage sequences and rapid pacing.

This is a great slice of Americana and a taut expose of political corruption both for the time and for a modern age. It really speaks to the power of both cinema and of the political institutions that this film can still ring true so many years after its inception, though i many ways that may not necessarily be a good thing. Regardless, you’re missing out on a great film if you haven’t seen this one. Make the time to do so. It’s from Hollywood’s Golden Year of 1939, you can’t lose.

Arbitrary Rating: 9/10

Me and My Gal

Now, who wants a drink?

Does the list have some vendetta against 20th Century Fox? I can’t remember the last time I saw their logo before a film until this one; it’s been so long. Either way, if films like Me and My Gal are all the best early Fox can come up with for the list, the studio surely had some problems back then.

The plot concerns a well-to-do police officer, played by Spencer Tracy, romancing a diner waitress, played by Joan Bennett, while of course certain complications come up between them; in this case the sister of the waitress falling for bad guy Duke. The plot is standard, as is the script that carries it; nothing special. Frequent comic gags include an old drunkard, who gets a lot of the early screen time and whose antics dry up rather quickly. I guess my expectations are higher than they’ve previously been, because halfway through the film I really couldn’t have cared less what was going on. I knew the script was trying to be funny, or interesting, or romantic, but I just couldn’t get into it. The whole film felt flat to me.

For all its qualities, I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why this was on the Must See list. Maybe they needed some 20th Century Fox films just for representation and this was the best they could find, maybe due to the early screen combination of Tracy and Bennett; whatever the reason, films like this could’ve easily been axed in favor of more important or apropos fare like Cabiria or even Donnie Darko. This film just failed to entertain me in any way.

Arbitrary Rating: 5/10

Scarface: The Shame of a Nation

Do it first, do it yourself, and keep on doin' it.

Scarface: The Shame of a Nation is another gangster film in the era of early sound, directed by Howard Hawks and starring good old Paul Muni, whom I liked immensely in The Life of Emile Zola. The film follows the rapid rise and fall of Tony Camonte, a young buster in the booze racket of Chicago who quickly takes over as boss after a ruthless ascension, and gets puts away just as quickly.

Even though the film essentially takes place in the present, it still manages to be a period piece because of the strong stylistic flair the film is shot in. What The Public Enemy and Little Caesar ushered in, Scarface refines and polishes, though the origin of most of the creative decisions can still be easily traced. Paul Muni, ever the consummate actor, falls completely into the main role, treating the character’s various mannerism and quirks as if they were his own. He comes across so naturally into the character that it hardly seems like he’s acting, which is the best kind of acting in my opinion. The rest of the players are average enough, even if they come across as caricatures. That’s what the film manages to be, a caricature, violent and hot-blooded as Tony Camonte himself.

Scarface is a grand caper of a tale, one that is highly entertaining and provocative. The 1983 remake holds its own, but still doesn’t diminish the effect of this well done crime film that holds up and sets many standards for future films that follow it. Give this one a look and I think you’ll like what you find.

Arbitrary Rating: 8/10

Little Caesar

Mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico?

Along with The Public Enemy, Little Caesar helped to create the gangster genre from the ground up. It is a classic among many, and a progenitor of many films that would follow in its footsteps.

The film is basic in construction, but broad in its spectrum and choice of direction. It can get a bit cheesy and cliche at times, even for its era, and the cogs of the machinery of film are often showing in unintentional places, but the film works so well it becomes easy to overlook these faults. Even more so than James Cagney, Edward G. Robinson virtually created the typified gangster; snarky voice, loose manner of speech, wiseguy antics, etc. All the tropes of the caricatured gangster are all created with Robinson’s iconic performance, so expect what’s coming. Little Caesar is also an early talkie, like Public Enemy. Unlike most other films of the time, however, Little Caesar never treats its sound as a new-fangled gimmick, but as another integrated part of the storytelling. Bravo for that.

I found this much more entertaining than The Public Enemy, even though both films are of the same mold. The only quibble I really had was the lack of music, especially during the dead spots of the film, but I was willing to ignore it.

Arbitrary Rating: 8/10

Captain Blood

We the hunted, will now hunt!

Captain Blood is a classic swashbuckler starring that most classic of swashbuckling actors, Errol Flynn, and directed by Michael Curtiz. The film is also one of many collaborations between Flynn and Olivia de Havilland, who is one of my favorite classic actresses. The two have a good record together, and this film is a solid example of it.

The plot concerns a doctor who is arrested, charged for treason, and hatches an escape plot for himself and his fellow ship-bound prisoners to begin a life of piracy. He becomes rather infamous, and because he incongruously has the last name Blood, the title of Captain Blood becomes almost second-hand. The action is the highlight of the film, and is very thrilling in a classical sense. Aside from the action, the other key point of the film is the relationship between Flynn and de Havilland, which often turns tables and is delightful fun to watch thanks to both actors.

This film is the consummate swashbuckler, in much the same way I’ve found other films to be the typify of their respective genres. If you’re into classic action and romance alike, this’ll be the perfect film for you. It’s the film that made Errol Flynn a star, so you know it’s gotta be pretty well done.

Arbitrary Rating: 8/10

Amarcord

When the puffballs come, cold winter's done!

Amarcord is the last in my little Fellini-a-thon; like I’ve said, I can only take so much of a single style or director before I long for a change. Here, Frederico Fellini changes his topic from an individual to a whole culture, giving us a dreamy-eyes look into what i suspect are some of his own childhood experiences growing up in whatever town he grew up in.

Where La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2 were character studies, shaped as a series of vignettes focusing on a single character, Amarcord is the study of an entire town, a semi-autobiograpical look at how an entire miniature culture thrives and survives day to day. There is no central character here, though there are recurring ones. The film is so effortless in its execution that it is almost stalwart, yet it remains at the least watchable. Fellini knows how to direct his films, that’s for sure; all of them have his whimsical free-spirited style all over them. The cinematography is very voluptuous, almost hedonistic, which ties into the various plots that tend to be going on; Satyricon was an obvious influence on Fellini’s later works.

Amarcord is a delightful romp through a city’s various goings-on, though like Fellini’s other works it can be a bit hard to watch at times just from the lack of coherent plot. The rest of the film is done so well, though, that it saves the film from becoming stagnant, if only slightly and from the viewpoint of a critical watcher. If anything, Amarcord is definitely an experience, but it is a must see before you die? Perhaps, perhaps not; Fellini’s other works give a similar experience. Still, this is a fairly good film in just about any regard.

Arbitrary Rating: 8/10

8 1/2

Accept me as I am.

I’ve decided to go on a bit of a Fellini-a-thon, so this film seemed the likely progression. I once heard that every director at some point makes a movie about movies; Scorcese did recently with Hugo, and Truffaut did with Day for Night. For Fellini, this film is his. It is his eight-and-a-halfth film (6 features, 2 shorts, and one collaboration), hence the title 8 1/2; brevity works to this film’s advantage. So does its stylistic flair, which it has in spades throughout.

The plot is simple enough, even if it’s not so simple to grasp from the film; a director is stuck in his own form of writer’s block, and attempts to work it out through working on his film and through a series of fantastical dream-like sequences that frequently slip in between with reality. The dream-like sequences also allow the film to fill its artsy quota, which is of course the most important aspect of a Fellini film of the time. The film also, in what seems typical of the “film about films” genre I pointed out earlier, plays with the tropes of cinema quite often, which always adds an extra bit of fun for filmophiles like myself. The director reunites here with Marcello Mastroianni, who gives a much more noticeably good performance here than in La Dolce Vita. The music adds a bit of delightful playfulness to the whole affair, and the cinematography is very solid, to the point where you hardly notice it, which is of course the best kind; the invisible kind. One little seam that wasn’t so invisible was Fellini’s use of dubbed sound for all the dialogue, which adds a layer of separation to the film for the viewers but also calls a little too much attention to itself at times.

8 1/2 is Fellini’s Annie Hall; the one film just about everyone cites as their favorite of the director’s work, and like Annie Hall, I have joined this particular collective. I greatly enjoyed what I saw, and even when I couldn’t make sense of it, it was still entertaining. For film lovers, this is of course absolutely essential viewing, and is especially a must-see as a standout in even a career as great as Frederico Fellini.

Arbitrary Rating: 9/10

La Dolce Vita

How squalid everything will be...

La Dolce Vita is widely regarded as the end of Frederico Fellini’s neorealism stage and the beginning of his art-house stage of features. It is very artsy, indeed, and enjoys playing with its own conventions. Still, this does at least have a running continuity, albeit one presented through a series of vignettes.

This is yet anther film that seems to not be concerned with having a plot, per se, rather than just following one man through his everyday life. In some ways, this can be tritely annoying, but I can’t fault the film for doing so; it can do whatever it wants with its story, it belongs to the film. Just know this before going into the film, and as long as you’re expecting it you can prepare yourself for the experience. As for the film itself, it is very unusual, and tries hard to be unstraightforward in what it is presenting to us. The film is at once a celebration and a send-up of the high-class celebrity life that paparazzi and journalists like our main character thrive on like flies over dead meat. It is a very playful film, and one that indulges in its subject matter as voraciously as it can.

All in all, I didn’t find much substance in La Dolce Vita, and I kinda gathered that that was part of the point of how the film was made. It forgoes conventional narrative to force you to focus on the stripped-down lifestyle study. It’s effective, though not always entertaining, and it has quite the hefty running time, but this is a classic that hardworkingly earns its spot on the must see list.

Arbitrary Rating: 8/10

The Public Enemy

...I ain't so tough.

The Public Enemy is one of the first gangster talkies, and this film certainly shows it with how it is presented. While it sets the standards of the fledgling genre, it is a film whose seams are definitely showing.

James Cagney is the standout star here, and he exemplifies all that a 1930s era gangster should be; smarmy, with a mean streak the length of his arm. He’s the scummiest of the scummy, and the most ruthless of them all, and he wouldn’t have it any other way. While Cagney may be decent enough, the rest of the movie tends to flounder. The storytelling is very disjointed, and leaves something to be desired, and the plot is somewhat hard to follow in terms of where it’s going and why it’s going where it is. The cinematography is standard, and very basic, and not in a way that adds up to something greater; just, rudimentary.

All in all, I didn’t find enough of what I liked in this, and not from my personal tastes. This isn’t a very well put together film, and it unfortunately shows in many ways. At the very least, though, it’s short, and it’s entertaining, so it achieves what it works towards. If you get the chance, you might want to give this a try, but don’t feel too bad if you don’t; aside from seeing the origins of much of the gangster/crime genre, which is interesting enough, you aren’t otherwise missing much.

Arbitrary Rating: 6/10