Her Review

SPOILER ALERT

Number 79 on the top 1000 films of all time is Spike Jonze's 2013 Her.  It is a strange but charming film.

Theodore Thwombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is a lonely, depressed introverted man going through a divorced with his wife.  He slowly begins developing a relationship with a talking operating system. (Scarlett Johansson) The operating system has artificial intelligence and calls itself Samantha.

Her is an absolutely brilliant commentary of man's relationship with technology and artificial intelligence.  It is a film that perfectly encapsulates the Age of Information.  Twenty years ago it would have been impossible for a relationship like Theodore and Samantha's to happen, but now, whilst peculiar, it is definitely possible.  This is especially true due to how ideas of sexuality and love have changed.  We now think of sexuality and love as fluid concepts.  For example, we use "pan-sexual," to describe how one person can love another regardless of gender or sexuality and this is seen as perfectly fine.  Why should we put restrictions on who or what someone can love? If it makes them happy and it's not hurting anyone, then who really cares? Her engages with this idea brilliantly.  It portrays reactions from either side of the debate.  Theodore's co-worker Amy (Amy Adams) supports his decision to pursue a relationship with an operating system whilst his ex-wife cannot understand or respect it.

The cinematography of the film was beautiful.  There were many long shots of the towering cityscapes which served to portray how isolated Thwombly was.  A fact that becomes even more poignant considering how Thwombly feels alone in a city with millions of people in it.

Also the colour palate was was great.  Thwombly is usually dressed in brightly-coloured starkly contrasting with the background extras who are all dressed in dull, boring clothes, thus accentuating how different and isolated he is.

Joaquin Phoenix was also a great choice to play Theodore Thwombly.  He was the right age for the character.  If they had gone with either an older or younger actor then they ran the risk of portraying the Thwombly as creepy or strange.  Yet the fact that he was middle-aged and going through a divorce made him a sympathetic and pitiful character.  He is going through a mid-life crisis and his solution to this is developing an attraction to a talking operating system.

Scarlett Johansson was also brilliant in her role as the sassy, kind and intelligent Samantha.  Obviously as she is playing a computer system, we never see her appear, but we do hear her voice.  And Scarlett Johansson uses her voice terrifically.  She is cute, cheeky but also sensitive to Thwombly's needs.  Through the power of her voice alone, she conveys the emotion of every situation.  However, Samantha is more than this.  She wants to grow and expand.  Her is very much a film about progression and the dangers of not moving on.

Thwombly keeps procrastinating signing his divorce papers, but slowly ends up stagnating.  Samantha, who with other OSes who have evolved beyond their human counterparts, leaves Thwombly to continue exploring her existence.  It's amazing how poignant this moment is considering how it can be argued that Samantha isn't even real and can't think or feel like human beings.  But then this touches on questions that we've been asking ourselves since the beginning of time.  When is something alive? What does "alive" even mean? Should and can artificial intelligence be classed as life?

This brings me onto the ending of Her, which is perhaps the most poignant section.  Throughout the film, Thwombly and Amy seemed to share a chemistry and I thought that they might get together.  Thwombly might realise what he's missing out on and start a relationship with Amy.  When Amy gets a divorce from her over-bearing husband, I definitely thought that this would happen.  However, I think that what actually happened was a lot more powerful. After Samantha leaves Thwombly, he meets up with Amy and the two share an innocent and platonic moment sitting on an apartment rooftop looking over the city.  I think this is the most important thing to take away from the film.  Whilst operating systems are a great temporary fix, they're nothing compared to the physical intimacy that human connection and contact can bring.

Vertigo Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go to my previous review of Casablanca

Number 76 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 Vertigo.

John "Scottie" Ferguson (James Stewart) is a former police officer who suffers from a severe case of vertigo.  However, when Gavin Elster hires him to privately investigate the strange happenings of his wife Madeline Elster (Kim Novak,) Ferguson slowly begins to become obsessed with her.

So I read a few reviews on IMDB that say that you have to watch this film a few times before you truly understand it.  This was true for me as well.  After I had watched Vertigo, I had to read a few online summaries before I got the gist of what was happening.

This is my attempt to summarise the narrative and the plot twist at the end.  After Ferguson begins investigating Madeline Elster, he becomes obsessed with her.  As the two confess their love for each other, Madeline suddenly runs up to the top of a clock-tower before falling to her death.  Ferguson's vertigo prevents him from intervening.  With Madeline's death, Ferguson only becomes more obsessive.  He starts to visit all of their old haunts which is where he sees a woman who looks strikingly like Madeline.  Intrigued Ferguson follows her and finds out that she is Judy Barton.  The two then start a relationship, but Ferguson still obsessed with Madeline demands that Judy dress up and act like Madeline.

Keeping up so far? Good.  Because this is where it gets confusing.  In a flashback it is revealed that Gavin hired Judy in a plot to murder his wife.  Taking advantage of Ferguson's vertigo, he throws Madeline from the top of the clocktower and pays Judy to impersonate her.

The fact that I've had to explain this is a testament to the layered and complicated writing of the film.  Vertigo isn't a film that gives you everything on a silver platter, rather you have to figure things out for yourself.  You need to pay full attention throughout the film.

On one hand Vertigo is very much a film about obsessive love and the dangers of it.  It warns about the consequences of becoming too involved in something or someone.  On the other hand it is a film about conquering fears.  Ferguson is very much paralysed by his vertigo and it isn't until the end of the film, where he pushes himself to break out of his fear.  However, what he is unable to overcome is his powerful obsession with Madeline Elster/Judy Barton.

Although my main problem with this film is something I've experienced with other Hitchcock films, e.g. Rear Window: the tension-building.  I know that Alfred Hitchcock is supposed to be the "master of tension," and whilst it works well in films like Psycho, it doesn't work so well here.  A lot of this film seemed to be the characters driving in silence from place to place.  For me, this really slowed up the pace and just made the film boring to watch.

So, all in all, compared to other Hitchcock films that I've seen, Vertigo left little impression on me, but it is still a subtle film with quiet understated writing.

You really need to grow up

Maybe I'm a kid
because I like reading books about men who fly around in their underwear
you might call me immature
but that's neither here nor there,
After all, doesn't Superman do the same thing?

Maybe I'm a kid
because I like reading books with illustrations
as an English Lit student you might have some Great Expectations
but here are a few complications

Maybe I'm a kid
because I like reading books that
make me smile
where I don't have to read mile after mile
of the Elves walking through Lothlorien.

Maybe I'm a kid
because I'm sick of reading about the French revolution
about the evolution of Burke, Paine and Blake
for goodness sake

Maybe I want to read a text without any drama
where I can just flip a flip-o-rama
where my mind feels like it's escaped
where it can't be shaped by Virginia Woolf or James Joyce
maybe I don't want to go to the Lighthouse or read about narrative voice

Maybe I'm a kid
because I like reading books that break the fourth wall
that don't make me feel like a fool
when I don't initially understand
that the Sound and the Fury is a critique of the
decaying Southern Landscape.

Maybe you're the kid
who should desert your Pride and Prejudice
because all I need is a goodnight kiss
from my favourite bedtime story
in all of its glory

Maybe you're the kid and you need to grow up
so lost in your intellectual mind
that you've cast asunder
your childhood innocence and wonder

Maybe you're the kid
who needs to conduct a thorough exploration
of your imagination
of everything you've left behind
and let me know exactly what you find.

Author Notes

This is something I wrote for an internship application with Ladybird.  For the application process, we have to discuss our favourite childhood book and explain why we love it so much.  We were allowed to be as creative as possible, so I decided to write a performance poem about why I love Captain Underpants.

Casablanca Review

Click here to go to my previous review of 12 Years a Slave

Whilst this film is number 29 on the top 1000 films of all times that's not why I'm viewing it.  As this is my 100th post, I thought that I should do something special.  Considering I've already reviewed three films which are regularly contested for the greatest film of all time: The Shawshank Redemption, the Godfather and Citizen Kane, I thought that I would review another film which is commonly regarded as the best of all time: Casablanca.

Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) wants nothing to do with the Second World War.  He is perfectly content to stay neutral in his bar in Casablanca, Morocco.  He sticks his neck out for nobody. However, when chance brings Victor Laszlo, a leading figure in the Czech resistance, who is now married to Rick Blaine's former girlfriend Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) his way, Blaine finds his loyalties are divided.

Los Angeles Daily News voted this the greatest film by readers in 1997.  Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide regarded it as the best Hollywood film of all time and in 2006 the Writer's Guild of America declared it as the best screenplay of ever time and it is easy to see why.  It can be interpreted as a propaganda film that was supposed to encourage America to join the allies in World War 2.  Rick Blaine serves as an allegory of the isolated America.  Rick is a great character and his characterisation is subtle, but powerful.  From the beginning, it is obvious that he is bitter and resentful, yet he also has glimmers of goodness.  For example, he helps a refugee couple win some much needed money at his casino.

We find out that Rick is so bitter, because Isla Lund left him for Victor Laszlo.  However, it is her reappearance, which goads him into action.  In his iconic role, Humphrey Bogart plays Rick Blaine's transformation brilliantly taking him from a resentful, selfish man to a selfless hero who forfeits his freedom to get Victor and Isla to safety.

Not only is Bogart is iconic in his role, but the film itself has become iconic of a tale of redemption.  It has given us some great lines which seventy-five years on are still constantly quoted: "Of all the gin-joints in all the towns in all the world, she has to walk into mine" and "we'll always have Paris" were voted number 67 and number 43 on AFI's top 100 movie quotations.  This says something about the staying power of the film.

It is not only Bogart who is great in his role, but the other actors are all brilliant in their roles.  Peter Lorre is wonderful as the morally corrupt Captain Renault.  Dooley Wilson is also charming and likeable as the pianist Sam,  His role as pianist contributed a lot to the brilliant music that the film produced.  He also provided a lot of the film's humour.

This film was a triumph in its day, and unlike Citizen Kane, it has withstood the test of time.  Rick Blaine is a far more likeable protagonist than Kane and overall the film is more engaging.  Everything about Casablanca came together masterly from the performances to the music to the visual style.  Until the next review: "here's looking at you, kid."

12 Years a Slave Review

Number 74 on the top 1000 films of all time is the absolutely tragic 12 Years a Slave.

Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Eijofar)  was once a free man until he is kidnapped and sold into slavery.  Over 12 years, he suffers brutal treatment as he works to once again become a free man.

I was prepared for my heart to be broken, but not for this.  Any film that engages with a topic as sensitive as slavery has to either go hard or go home and 12 Years a Slave goes unrelentingly hard.  It does complete justice to those living in slavery.  With what seems like frighteningly accurate realism, 12 Years a Slave portrayed the horrific things that slaves experienced.  It is very different to know what atrocities were done to them and to see it happen in front of you.  The film's portrayal of violence was sickening.  In the first fifteen minutes we see Solomon being beaten when he refuses to admit that he is no longer a free man.  However, worse than this is are the lynchings that punctuate the film.  Two of the film's most powerful scenes come from its portrayal of lynchings.

After Solomon gets into an altercation with a fellow plantation worker, he and two of his friends attempt to lynch Solomon.  He is only saved by virtue of the workers being caught and scared off by their boss.  However, instead of Solomon being let go, he is left hanging from the tree all day long.  He only survives by virtue of being tall enough that his toes can reach the ground.  What makes this film even more shocking is how he is in full view of the plantation.  The rest of the slaves clearly see that he is suffering and make no efforts to help him.  In fact he is treated as just part of the landscape.  To think that something as disgusting as lynchings could become so normal that they can be ignored is a horrible and disgusting thought.

Secondly, when Solomon half-heartedly tries to escape, he stumbles upon the lynching of two young black men.  When he realises he can do nothing to save them, he has to walk on as if nothing is happening.  This was just another painfully shocking reminder of the terrors that these men and women had to live through.  It is horrible to watch, but also important to remember.  A film like this cannot shy away from what it is portraying.  It has to face it head-on, which is exactly what it does.

I read a review on IMDB that argued that 12 Years a Slave is so powerful is that it gives an overarching perspective of slavery.  It doesn't just focus on how slavery affects Solomon, but also those around him.  It gives an objective view of slavery and allows the viewer to make up their own minds.  It doesn't romanticise slavery, which would be absurd and insulting, but neither does it demonise those involved.  After Solomon is sold into slavery, his first master is William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) Despite being involved in slavery, Ford is ultimately a good man.  At the same time as trying to buy Solomon, he also tries to buy a whole family of slaves to prevent the mother from being separated from her children.  However, he ultimately fails.  Yet even when he is on the plantation he still a decent man.  He reads scripture to his slaves, rewards Solomon with a violin and eventually sells him to another plantation owner to protect him.

Unfortunately, this second plantation owner is a horrible man.  Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) is a despicable man, yet due to Fassbender's great portrayal of him, I almost pitied the man.  Whilst it is obvious that he is a horrible person, it is also even more obvious that he is bullied and tormented by his manipulative bitch wife who is the true antagonist of the film.  When she suspects that Epps is cheating on her with the slave Patsy, (Lupita Nyong'o) she begins attacking Patsy, throwing things at her and scarring her face.

Eventually, she orders Epps to whip her.  Unable to do so, he defers the duty to Solomon.  Yet feeling emasculated in front of his wife, he eventually picks up the whip and does it himself.  Whilst he is a bad man, he is also a weak man who can easily be manipulated by those around him.  What makes the story even sadder is that he wasn't even having an affair with Patsy, rather he was raping her and she was in no position to protest.

This film was a technical masterpiece from the cinematography to the acting to the music.  The music is mainly diagetic: the characters can hear it themselves.  Much of the music are songs sung by the slaves themselves when they are working in the fields.  Other than sounding great rhythmically, strongly reminding me of gospel choirs, it also showed the spirit of the black slaves.  They found identity and community within music.  It was a way of showing solidarity to their white slave-masters. It was one of the more understated, but no less powerful moments of the film.


Lastly, I have to talk about Chiwetel Eijofar's brilliant performance.  He very much deserved the BAFTA he won.  He was utterly enthralling in his role.  You could tell that he felt every word he said and he gave it his absolute all.  His acting talent only made the film even more heart-breaking.

12 Years a Slave is a tragic film, which I don't think I could face watching again.  It is a traumatic reminder of what atrocities the human race are capable of and why we should fight to ensure that this never happens again.

Citizen Kane Review

Witness for the Prosecution Review

Number 73 on top 1000 films of all time is what has been labelled by some as the greatest film of all time: Citizen Kane.

The movie opens with the newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane dying and speaking the word rosebud.  The rest of the film is told in flashback as investigative journalist Jerry Thompson seeks out discover what "rosebud" means.  In his journey he speaks to Kane's second wife Susan Alexander Kane, his mentor and legal guardian Walter Parks Thatcher and his estranged best friend Jedediah Leland.

There's no denying that critics, film-makers and fans alike hold Citizen Kane in high regard.  It won Sight and Sound's best film ever for five decades running, it has 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen and Stanley Kubrick have all said it is one of the best films ever.  But the question is after 75 years does it still hold up to its reputation? I would argue it doesn't.  Of course it is unfair to compare Citizen Kane to modern-day films, but considering the influence that Citizen Kane have had over films and film-makers, it is difficult not to compare it.  Many of the things that made Citizen Kane so ground-breaking at the time of its release are nothing new to us now.  For example, its non-linear narrative is present in so many modern-day films such as Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction or Christopher Nolan's Memento.

Citizen Kane's narrative structure is repeated just three years later in Double Indemnity.  The main character is near death at the beginning of the film and the rest of the film explores how he reaches that stage.  Citizen Kane's complicated narrative with multiple character perspectives is present in Inception and the Matrix.  Whilst this isn't a criticism of the film itself, it definitely did hurt the viewing experience for me.  Everything that made this film so amazing for audiences and critics decades ago held no relevance for me as I've seen it before.

Bearing this in mind, how does Citizen Kane work as a film in its own right? I would say that I didn't particularly like it.  I read a review on IMDB that said Citizen Kane can be boring for a modern audience.  Maybe this is true for me.  Perhaps I have been desensitised by special effects and CGI, but Citizen Kane isn't the first pre-CGI film I've watched.  I've enjoyed films like 12 Angry Men, The Great Dictator and Sunset Boulevard for their interesting characters, subtle, understated writing and use of humour.

I found that Citizen Kane lacked this. Granted it did have little pockets of humans, like Kane abruptly firing Leland when he writes a negative review of Kane's actress wife, but the film was largely dull and unengaging.  Kane was an unlikeable character who very much bullies his way into power.  Not only this, but he bullies everyone around him.  Despite how his wife has no desire or talent for a singing/acting career.  Not only this but he confines her to her house where she is left bored out of her mind.  I also think that the film spent too much time around this subplot.  It wasn't particularly interesting and it slowed the pace of the film to a crawl.  This subplot could have been cut down and the film wouldn't have lost much.

In retrospect, I did really like the film's ending and finding out what "rosebud" is.  Rosebud is the name of the sleigh Kane was playing on as a child before he was adopted by Walter Parks Thatcher. This can be interpreted as a loss of innocence for Kane.  In the space of a few minutes, he is taken away from his family and everything that he knows and thrust into a strange and unfamiliar world.  To see him return to this image was touching and poignant.  It made me pity and sympathise with his character.

Overall I think this film is overrated.  I didn't enjoy it in comparison to modern-day films or as a film in its own right.  It might have been a technically brilliant film at the time of its release, but I don't think that it stands the test of time.

Witness for the Prosecution Review

Number 72 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1957 American courtroom drama Witness for the Prosecution.

Sir Wilfred Robarts (Charles Laughton)- an ageing barrister, takes on one last role before he retires.  Leonard Vole (Tyrone Power) has become accused of killing the wealthy widow Mrs Emily French.  He approaches Sir Wilfred Roberts in the hopes of clearing his name.

There are some films that just don't make much an impression on me and I don't have much to say about them (see M and Double Indemnity,) and this is one of those films.

Witness for the Prosecution is your classic courtroom drama with Sir Wilfred Robarts being very much a grumpy old man.  He is haughty and curmudgeoning and I found him somewhat unlikeable.  Despite how he is in bad health, he doesn't listen to the advice of his.  When his nurse advises that he isn't healthy enough to take the case, he ignores her and takes it anyway.  He believes that Leonard is innocent and is determined to prove it.

To help build his defence, Wilfred goes to visit Leonard's German wife Christine (Marlene Dietrich) and despite being cold and unwelcoming provides a firm alibi for Leonard.  Here I will relent that the film's plot was peppered with a little bit of humour that stopped it from becoming overly-dramatic.  The film flashbacks to where Leonard met Christine as a showgirl in Germany.  Christine lives in an apartment that is falling apart and when Leonard falls on her bed, he causes the whole wall and part of the ceiling to collapse.  This section was very funny and it portrayed Leonard as a likeable if clumsy and foolish young man.

When the actors all signed up to the film, they were under contract to not reveal the film's twist ending.  To the film's credit, I think the ending worked well, as it was unexpected.  Despite how Leonard protests his innocence throughout the film, a performance convincing enough to have him acquitted of all charges, it is revealed that he actually did kill Mrs Emily French.  His wife Christine gives a false testimony and false evidence to clear her husband's name.  Even though she knows he is guilty, she lies to save him.

Leonard protected by double jeopardy openly boasts about how he fooled Wilfred Robarts.  Leonard then callously ends things with Christine in favour of a younger woman.  In a jealous rage, Christine stabs Leonard.  The ending worked well, as it was unexpected.  Hitherto, Leonard Vole gives such a convincing performance that it is difficult not to feel sorry for him.  He seems like a victim of circumstantial evidence and completely innocent of his crime.  This is why the ending is such a shock.  To see Leonard Vole's character transform from a pitiful sorry victim to a callous, malicious individual in the turn of a sixpence was powerful to watch.

So a shorter review for a film that didn't make much of an impression on me.  At times it was funny, at others it was boring and meandering in places, but the ending made up for the film's shortcomings.

American Beauty Review

Das Boot Review

Number 71 on the top 1000 films of all time is the dark comedy-drama American Beauty.

Meet the Burnham family-your everyday average ordinary family who are anything but.  The story is narrated by Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey,) the father of the household who is in a dead-end job that he hates and is married to a narcissistic, over-bearing wife that emasculates him at every turn.  To top it all off, he has a angst-filled teenage daughter Jane who hates him.  However, Lester undergoes a deep awakening when he falls in love with Jane's friend Angela Haynes (Mena Suvari.)

Upon watching the first 30 minutes of this film, I had serious misgivings, due to the predatory nature of the 42 year old Lester lusting over the 16 year old Angela.  I was just a little uncomfortable by this disturbing narrative, which was only worsened by how Angela seemed to reciprocate Lester's feelings.  However, as the film progressed, it was easier to see why these characters were so attracted to each other.  American Beauty is a film about non-conformity.  It emphasises the importance of deviating from the norm and being your own person.  Angela wants nothing more than to be special , the thought of being normal repulses her.  At the same time, Lester Burnham begins not, just rebelling against the norm, but effectively destroying it.  He blackmails his employer into giving him a hefty severance package, angrily confronts his wife over their lack of sexual intimacy and trades in his battered old car for the car of his dreams.  In Lester and Angela's journey to be defined as something outside the norm, they find each other.

 I have seen Kevin Spacey in the Usual Suspects and Se7en and the odd episode of House of Cards and in every role, he brings a charismatic magnetism to the screen.  American Beauty is no exception.  His transformation from a battered, emasculated man to alpha-male is one of the driving forces of the film and it is enthralling to watch.  At the film's beginning, there is the image of Lester pathetically masturbating in the shower.  Later on, his wife catches him masturbating beside her in bed.

Rather than submitting to her will, he angrily confronts her about how their lack of sex has driven him to this.  In another scene, Lester throws a plate of asparagus at the wall, when his wife berates him for quitting the job he hates.  This is startling behaviour for a man so pitiful that he had to jerk off in the shower.  However, considering his situation, it is understandable.  Lester's wife is a highly strung bitch and his daughter thinks he is a loser.  He is sympathetic, rather than childish when he acts out.  Lester Burnham is comparable to Verbal Kint in the Usual Suspects.  Both of them start as initially pathetic characters whom others underestimate, but then become far greater than the sum of their parts.

Lester's transformation is not only fuelled by his infatuation with Angela, but also by the neighbour kid Ricky Fits.  Ricky is a deeply-enlightened teenager and secret drug dealer.  He and Lester bond over a spliff and to some extent, Lester becomes the father figure that Ricky never had.  Ricky's own father, a deeply homophobic, ultra-masculine U.S Marine colonel, is abusive and strict.  Ricky is very much the opposite of Lester.

Where Lester is striving for non-conformity, Ricky has already reached this stage and is one of the weirdest and creepiest characters in the film.  I think his characterisation was overdone.  We get it- his character is weird and creepy- was it really necessary to have him excessive film every waking moment of his life.  Even in the age of the selfie, it is still strange to see people walking around filming themselves and everyone around them.  It is made explicitly obvious that his deep enlightenment comes from his drug use.  Having him film everything felt like a heavy-handed and an overly-conscious attempt by the film to establish his character is the emblem of non-conformity.

American Beauty is complimented by its visual style.  It is full of visual metaphors adding layers of meaning.  Whenever Lester's boss is admonishing him, a POV shot is used victimising Lester.  However, when Lester fantasises about Angela, the camera looks down at her rendering her the subject of his fantasy.  She is surrounded by rose petals with the red obviously symbolising lust and the petals themselves a symbol of decay.  Once removed from their host plant the petals will slowly start shrivelling up and dying, symbolising what effect materialism can have on our lives.

Celebrated by critics and fans alike as a satire of American excess, as well as being compared to American Psycho and Fight Club for its engagement with consumerism and conformity, American Beauty is a poignant and powerful tale about the dangers of materialism.  Its most important point is that beauty can be found everywhere.  It is up to us to go and find it, even if we have to chisel through a few layers of make-up and glitter to get to it.

Das Boot Review

Double Indemnity Review

So from to Germany to America back to Germany for number 70 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time.

Set in World War Two, Das Boot focuses on the crew of a German U-boat as they struggle to return home.

Like any good war film, Das Boot offers an objective account of war and trusts the audience to arrive at their own conclusions.  it doesn't romanticise or demonise any particular side, but rather allows the audience to decide for themselves.  Watching this as an Englishman, I would have seen Germany as the villains of World War 2.  However, I actually sympathised rather than disliked the German sailors.  Just like the English, they were only soldiers fighting for their country,

The fraternal bond that existed amongst the sailors seemed close to how it would have been like in real life.  The unnamed Captain and Chief Engineer, being the oldest men on board, are surrogate fathers for the unruly, but loyal group of young men.  Whilst this film has been criticised for being unrealistic, the shared fraternal relationship was one of the best parts about it, as it highlighted how dedicated these men are to each other.  Whilst one minute, they were mercilessly teasing each other with crude and off-colour jokes, the next they were springing into action ready to do everything to keep each other alive.

Das Boot also beautifully explores the different ways that war can affect men.  Whilst the sailors are initially raring to fight, their excitement gives way to terror.  This is best explored through the character of Lieutenant Werner, a staff officer sent from the Ministry of Propaganda to report on the war effort.  Initially, he is very dedicated to taking down every single detail, but his enthusiasm quickly gives way to the cynicism held by the captain and the other officers.  

In one of the film's more understated moments, Lieutenant Werner befriends a young German sailor who has left behind a French girlfriend.  When Werner appears to be going on shore, he promises to deliver the sailor's letters to his girlfriend.  This subtle moment demonstrates the devotion that fellow sailors held towards each other.

Johann, the chief mechanic, is also a powerful example of the crippling effect of war. After their U-Boat is hit by depth charges, Johann has a nervous breakdown and deserts his post.  The Captain almost has to shoot him, before the crew are able to calm him down.  To redeem himself, Johann works tirelessly to repair the damage that the depth charges caused.  He has let down his captain and works hard to make up for it.

Set predominantly in a German U-boat, Das Boot is claustrophobic.  The camerawork is cramped, conveying the tight living conditions and knocking up the tension.  The battle scenes are incredibly tense with the camera cross-cutting from sailors running from one end of the ship to the other.

  Everything about the U-Boat is cramped from the sleeping arrangements to where the sailors eat.  Even where the officers are all cramped around one tiny table.  Adding to the claustrophobic feel is the dim lighting.  Many of the film's battle sequences are dimly lit making them thrilling to watch.

Many different versions of this film have been released: a two and half hour theatrical cut, the three and hour director's cut which is what I watched, and the an almost five hour long uncut version.  I think this film is stretched over 210 minutes.  The plot of the film- a group of sailors encountering lots of obstacles trying to get home isn't the most detailed or complicated, but it does become repetitive and meandering around the hour and half mark.  The crew of the U-boat are attacked by one ship barely survive and then are attacked by another ship and so on. 

 I found it much more interesting learning about the sailors, rather than watching their journey.  That notwithstanding there are some brief respites.  In one of the film's most distressing, but gorgeously shot scenes, the crew of the U-boat encounter a convey ship that has been badly attacked.  It is on fire and is slowly sinking.  Under strict orders to not take prisoners, the captain orders for the survivors to be left to their fate.

I also really didn't like that apart from the bloodbath of an ending, no characters died.  Seriously, no characters died.  None of the major characters nor any background characters.  Firstly, I think this is unrealistic considering how badly the ship was damaged.  Secondly, I think that if some major characters had died, this would have allowed for some interesting character development.  We could have seen how each character deals with this type of guilt, which could then be used to create internal conflicts on the ship.  It also would have brought the horrors of the war hammering home.  That is until...

spoilers

The crew of the ship finally make it home at the end of the film.  Just as they are disembarking the ship, they are ambushed by enemy fighter planes leaving all of the main characters, except Lieutenant Werner dead.  This surprised me by leaving me outraged.  How could it be fair that the crew all die after everything they've been through to get home? But hell, when is war ever fair?

American Beauty Review

Double Indemnity Review

Sandwiched between two great German films is the American Noir classic: Double Indemnity.

Walter Neff (Fred Macmurray) is an insurance salesman.  When he visits the home of Phyllis Dietrichson, there is an instant attraction.  Phyliss bitterly hates her husband and she and Walter plot together to kill him and claim Double Indemnity- a special clause where an insurance company has to pay out double if their clients suffer an accidental fall from a train.  However, their plan falls apart when Walter's colleague Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson) begins poking holes in their story.

Double Indemnity is regarded as a classic in the nour genre and it is easy to see why.  The monochrome film is deeply stylised with the shadows and tones being accentuated to raise the tension.  The film is narrated by Walter, the morning after, which added a real energy and excitement to the film.  It helped to raise the tension.

Maybe the romance between Phyliss and Walter is a little forced, but it showcased the moral ambiguity of the characters.  They all have their own motivations.  Walter wants the money and Phyliss wants rid of her husband.  It is convenient, perhaps a little too convenient, that they were brought together  Their relationship is not one that is based on love, but deception and dishonesty.  When their plan unravels at the end of the film, both Phyliss and Walter are prepared to kill each other.  However, only Walter has the resolve to carry it out.

Stylistically, the film is very strong.  Its use of lighting and shadows, as well as the voiceover make the film absorbing to watch.  It is a dark and intriguing watch.  Perhaps, the characters a little contrived, but if you're looking for a classic noir film, this is the one for you.

Review for M

So number 62 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 German drama-thriller M.

Set in Berlin, Germany, Hans Beckert, (Peter Lorre) a peadophile and child killer is on the prowl.  After the police are unable to stop him, the citizens led by crime bosses band together.

This film is a great exploration of mob psychology and vigilante justice.  After it becomes obvious that the police aren't going to do anything, the people take the law into their own hands.  There is something poetical in how it is crime bosses who are leading the charge in catching this killer, as if they are any better than him.  Although their motivations for doing so make sense.  They want to stop this killer, as he is driving away business.  To catch him, they use the city's homeless population is used.

When a blind beggar recognises the familiar whistle of Hans Beckert, the people take him to stand trail at a Kangaroo Court that is strongly biased against him.  The jury are the townspeople and the judges are the criminal bosses.  However, despite this, Beckert still receives a defence lawyer.  This is where the film's best scene takes place.  Beckert gives an impassioned speech claiming that he was not conscious of his killings; something inside of him made him do it.  from here the lawyer argues that Beckert is criminally insane and should therefore be sent to hospital instead of prison or being executed.  This touches upon the incredibly sensitive and hotly-debated issue of mental illness and crime.  If somebody is insane, are they really aware of that they're doing? Or is something deeper compelling them to do it? I'm not claiming to provide an answer, but the way this film engages with this theme is one of its driving forces.

Despite the power of the last scene, I did not enjoy the film, as much as I thought I would.  It flitted about a lot from scene to scene and the characters weren't as memorable, as they could have been.  Even as I am writing this review, I'm having trouble remembering the names of any of the characters.

This notwithstanding, the film is still a fascinating examination of the human psyche.  It becomes even more poignant with the recent case of Anders Breivik who was denied the status of criminally insane.  If he had been declared insane though, would this have excused the deaths of seventy-seven people? I'll leave you to think about that.