Change Your Image
oneislandphotography
Reviews
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Two musicians on the run from the mob don drag and meet sweet Sugar
Some Like It Hot is a retelling of a West German tale titled Fanfaren der Liebe (1951) (Fanfares of Love) beautifully directed by Billy Wilder with an all-star cast including the eternal beauty of Marilyn Monroe, and comedy styling's of Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon. With a central prolific theme that has been told more than once and yet is just as prevalent today as it ever was or will be: What we want and what we need are often two separate things. However, under the expertise of Wilder, the pure star quality of cast and crew shine out all the more. The gags come thick and fast with almost every sequence either a set up for the next gag or a gag in the making. Some Like It Hot is a tale that begins with a bitterly cold February in Chicago 1929, which two musicians find themselves on the run from the mob, after witnessing the Saint Valentines Massacre. Our intrepid hero's Joe (Tony Curtis) and Jerry (Jack Lemmon) disguise themselves as female musicians Josephine (Curtis) and Daphne (Lemmon), and join an all-girl orchestra bound for Miami.
Leaving behind a bitter Chicago winter, they meet the intoxicating Sugar Kane Kowalczyk (Marilyn Monroe), which Jerry remarks "Look how she moves. Like Jell-O on springs. She must have some sort of built-in motor. I tell you, it's a whole different sex."(Jack Lemmon Some Like It Hot 1959) Henceforth comedy ensues with the gags coming thick and fast, lightening reflexes with the dialogue between Joe, Jack and Sugar and perfect comedic timing between them.
A testament to all that is womanhood, has yet to be a finer than Marilyn Monroe, seemingly poured into the gowns lovingly crafted by Australian costume designer Orry-Kelly, with neck lines and translucent qualities that would even have the censors of today raising eyebrows. With her classic solo of "I Wanna Be Loved by You." Albeit Marilyn does not have the best singing voice, which is superfluous when one considers the situation, a pretty girl standing in front of an orchestra and singing a song. Monroe and Wilder turn it into one of the most blatantly sexual scenes in the movies.
Monroe wears a clinging, see-through dress, gauze covering the upper slopes of her breasts, the neckline scooping to a censor's eyebrow north of trouble. Wilder places her in the centre of a round spotlight that does not simply illuminate her from the waist up, but toys with her like a secondary neckline, dipping and clinging as Monroe moves her body higher and lower in the light with teasing precision.
All the time Monroe seems oblivious to the effect of singing this song so innocently. To experience that scene is to affirm as to why no other actor since, male or female has more sexual chemistry with the camera.
Underneath all the frills, bold sexual symbolism, and gender bending, the movie is ultimately about Joe and Jerry (Curtis and Lemmon) with truly outstanding supporting characters like Osgood Fielding III (Joe E. Brown) and Spats Colombo (George Raft). While Joe (Curtis) when not in drag introduces himself as the Shell Oil heir and wickedly parodies Cary Grant's unmistakable accent in brilliant fashion, so much so that when Daphne/Jerry (Lemmon) says accusingly "And where did you get that phoney accent? Nobody talks like that!" Jerry (Lemmon) gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop taking the selfless route and entertains a real millionaire whose yacht is being used by Joe (Curtis) in an attempt to seduce Sugar (Monroe). Daphne (Lemmon) is so unlike a real woman in mannerism as much as appearance that when real millionaire Osgood (Joe E. Brown) attempts to wine and dine him, it is hilarious that he cannot see behind Jerry's (Lemmon) disguise. With Osgood seducing Jerry (Lemmon) on the dance floor and Joe (Curtis) seducing Sugar (Monroe) on the yacht is both romantic and wickedly funny at the same time. The payoff happens during the following morning, when Joe returns to their room to find Jerry now engaged to Osgood. Keep an eye Jack Lemmon (Jerry/Daphne) during this scene; he is so energetic, so full of life, almost to the point of hamming it up with his castanets. Jerry/Daphne (Lemmon) is exquisite in this sequence. He is deliriously happy at finding his soul mate. He is so hilariously convincing that even when asked by Joe (Curtis), "Why would a guy want to marry a guy?" that we completely buy it when he answers, "Security!" Even though the violence in this gem of the silver screen is neither satire nor comedy but visceral and grim, which adds to the overall feel that the Hero's (Joe and Jerry) very lives are in peril and we joyously buy every gag and punch line that Billy Wilder expertly delivers to us. I do not believe I am alone in the opinion that Wilder was one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century. Escaping Europe before World War II, Wilder set about commenting on the world around him with a sensibility and awareness seldom seen in cinema today. Yet he could create a film that, yes has a darker undertone of the mob's ruthlessness, but oh so wonderfully light hearted and romantic characters that once they realized what they wanted wasn't what they needed, and that they needed no pretence to attain what they desired. Simply put Some Like It Hot is one of those timeless classics that are just as relevant and amusing today as it was when it was released. It captured one of those great moments in movie-making, where a film no longer is a simple representative of its period, but has transcended itself to become something that is truly timeless. Osgood (Brown) delivers the best curtain line in the movies. If you have seen the movie, you know what it is, and if you have not, you deserve to hear it for the first time from him.
Catch-22 (1970)
In an insane world sanity is of little use.
The film is set during a campaign by the United States Army Air Corps, to oust the Nazi Germans from the then fascist Italy during World War II. Alan Arkin plays the main character Captain John Yossarian, in this surreal black comedy.
Catch-22 is undoubtedly one of those "Marmite" films, as in you will either love it or hate it and the reasons for loving or hating it will be just as complex as the storyline itself, outlining the decent into the insanity that is the war machine. Shot from the perspective of the anti- hero Captain John Yossarian (Arkin) a bombardier aboard a B-52 warplane. Has seen to much war and death in particular the death of a gunner, whom Yossarian barely had time to get to know. Seems to haunt Yossarian throughout the film with increasing gore and intensity that in my opinion is (by shear design of (Nichols) to show us the wounds that we associate with warfare all the while Yossarian is wrestling with wounds that cannot be seen.
With an all-star cast and wonderful cinematography from David Watkin whom was nominated for a British Academy of Film and Television Arts for this film. Wonderfully utilising the Panavision lenses to capture wide shots with beautiful precision with the copious number of long takes, this imparts upon the film a sense of realism that would certainly be lost with more edit/cut points. As anti-war propaganda goes this film is poignant in its overview of callous commanding officers who seem to care more about making it into newspaper articles than keeping up the morale of the men under their command not to mention how Catch-22 illustrates the corruption that war breeds in men.
Financial corruption highlighted by theft of US Army Air Corps property to sell for profit. When this film was released, the United States of America was fighting a Cold War with the United Soviet States of Russia, and a dubious conflict against farmers in Vietnam so far to say that war was at the forefront of US politics. Then along comes a film that satires the bureaucracy of war, add into the equation that post-traumatic stress was being researched in earnest, due to the mental states of the Vietnam Veterans returning to the US. A few sore spots and tender nerves have been commented upon in this film. However, with a non-liner story line this point is somewhat lost, so is an underlying theme of American Corporate greed, putting profits in front of the lives of soldiers which seems to ring true in the Theaters of War today.
Catch-22 is really a film of two parts, comedy for the first half of the film, refreshingly not typical American slapstick but dark and cerebral, and often sexually orientated. Not surprising there since the main stage for Catch- 22 is an Army Air Corps base where the only women are the nurses, there are only a handful there, and they know it. Throwing sexual tension into a mixture of insane orders, insufficient equipment due to it being sold for a profit, and egotistical commanding officers.
The second half of Catch-22 gets all serious pointing out in no uncertain terms the effects on the mental state of service men that are continually ordered to fight and kill, and watch their friends getting picked off. With inflexible commanding officers and a general (wonderfully played by Orson Wells) who just seems to just want to shoot his subordinates. Our intrepid anti-hero, Yossarian, cowardly he is in the respect that all he wants is, to get out of the war and go home and to get laid.
Yet Yossarian displays strength of character seldom seen when he refuses to bomb a town that seemingly has no strategic value to friend or foe. For so many atrocities in war have been followed by the excuse "I was only following orders", for an officer to disobey orders for not making logical sense, however, in some circumstances the reasons for some actions cannot be fathomed by the subordinates, as the lower ranks or public are not always given all information due to operational secrecy. However, Catch-22 is not a film about military law if that is what you are after then this I would suggest "A Few Good Men" or "G.I. Jane".
Having said all that, Catch-22 is a film of technical precision, with beautiful set pieces and a darker take on the heroic face of war, and how desperation can lead a rational person to commit seemingly insane things, even though the rational thing to do is the insane thing. If you are of the frame of mind that can fathom this film then you will thoroughly enjoy it. However, if not then this film will seem akin to The Emperors New Suit. For me personally it is interesting to watch such a film and the comments it makes.
Such comments could well be made today however, today's film makers seem to want to stay as far away from these issues as possible, and just show us giant robots that duke it out. In High Definition, Three Dimensional, Computer Generated Imagery, with about as much substance and depth as the images themselves or what the High Society was up to during the major conflicts that defined the past two hundred years.
The Hunger Games (2012)
A dystopian science fiction drama set in a future where teenagers must fight to the death to survive.
In a dystopian future that is neither so distant nor inconceivable, where marshal law is ever present within the confines of the "Districts" of Panem. Where the people are born in to casts and subjugated into slavery within the twelve "Districts". Subject to the laws laid down by the oppressive regime of The Capitol whom their ancestors of the "Districts" rebelled against a mere 74+ years ago.
With heavy influences from Richard Bachman's (Stephen King) The Running Man (1987) meets the surrealism of Mad Max mixed together with a similar eye candy of the Twilight fiasco and indeed of most films that are marketed towards the affluent tweens of today. Rather than a world burned by nuclear fire or natural catastrophe, as tends to be the setting for films of this type. One is treated to a vision that is both refreshing for this genre yet believable. Instead of a dark and oppressive mood the whole feel of the "Districts" is one of starkness and poverty of hopeless and helplessness, with an absence of colour or joy.
Scenes we can see now in this day and age if one looks close enough within our major cities. Although the length of time between the present day and when this film is set is never fully explained, I believe this is due to the fact that Panem is but a mere shadows width away. As it has been said that civilization is only two square meals away from barbarism. The most harrowing aspect of this movie is the fact that the general premise is one born not of fiction. Ancient Rome once held gladiatorial events just as deadly and just as applauded as The Hunger Games.
Is it a happy chance or purely deliberate of the author Suzanne Collins to name the Capitol of her universe Panem, deliciously acknowledging the Latin Panem et Circenses, (Bread and Circuses) which comes from the latter days of the Roman Empire, where Caesar would keep the masses subdued by providing violent and deadly entertainments within the great coliseum, which is rather fitting for the subject matter of the film. Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen) plays her part in this film with all due care and attention, captivating us with an emotional detachment and a will to survive that is somewhat lacking in the Heroines of today.
Central to the whole point of the film are The Hunger Games themselves that were brought about to remind the "Districts" just who is in command, and to satiate the masses of the decadent Capitol with "Quality reality television" where there is no second place.
The tributes are chosen via a name out of a hat style lottery, one girl and one boy between the ages of 12 & 18, from each of the districts. When Katniss's younger sister Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) is called as the first tribute of district twelve by the Capitol's Marketing Director Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), a bizarrely coloured and costumed character that believes wholeheartedly that what she is doing is right. Katniss then volunteers to take her sister's place as tribute, in a surprising turn beau Gale does not come forward as the male tribute. That honour is thrust upon Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson).
From the stark, barren, colourless wastelands of the districts we are hurtled, upon a high- speed hover-train towards the Capitol City of Panem. Where the general populace is more concerned with appearance than where their resources come from, which is what the districts supply.
The architecture of the Capitol is reminiscent of ancient Rome with vast open spaces and columns. However, for all it's splendour and decadency it does not take too long to see that this is just a sugar coating on a rotten core, a festering cancer that is joyously fed and worshiped by the baying hordes of cosmetically perfect swine. While the combatants are in training we are introduced to the surreal "Games" host Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), who reminds me of David Dickinson (Bargain Hunt) with that deep tan that is achieved for by long hard hours, working out doors and the rich spend millions attempting to emulate, and unnaturally white teeth. Once the games commence however, is really when one starts to question ones own moral fibre, to be thrust into a kill or be killed situation, also to be the spectator, if there is no audience then there is no show.
With the plethora of hidden cameras and other surveillance equipment within the arena that The Hunger Games take place in and is broadcast live 24hrs, and the people of the Capitol place bets on which one of the 24 candidates will survive or die. Essentially this film is a dark satire of the whole reality TV plague that is consuming the airwaves, stifling any and all original thought and creativity with weapons of mass distraction.
When one reads a news story about a man who was suicidal, threatening to jump off of a building, being encouraged to jump by the people watching at street level. It does not take to much imagination to wonder how long it will be until Takeshi's Castle start using real bullets, or when some one is voted off The X Factor they are executed live on air.
Gary Ross has done a wonderful job with this film, with such rich source material. I was concerned that the violent nature of the subject matter would be the driving force of the film and in so doing ruin the complicated structure that Suzanne Collins envisioned when she wrote the story.
With that said the violence is superbly choreographed, blood thirsty, and even heart wrenching at times. However, it is not the be all and end all of this story. This film will appeal to those that like a story with bloodshed instead of a story about bloodshed. Oh and keep an eye out for a spark of romance