|
Breathless
Directed by Godard
GRADE:
M=4; F=3
Godard’s French New Wave classic is a film I had heard about
in film school, but we never actually watched it there. Imagine my utter surprise
and joy to learn that it would be playing at the Enzian as part of the Sundance film series.
Finally, here was my chance to watch it and to see it in an actual theatre instead of on a modest screen in a dungy
portable on the fringe of a college campus. Score!
Pre-show: I did not think
I could find any takers for this film. My roommate was performing improv that
night (and I, bastard friend that I am, forsook him for a movie), and most of my other friends were out of town, going to
bed early, or just plain not interested. Fortunately, one dear friend accompanied
me to the theatre. My printer at home refused to print a receipt for me, but
ironically enough, the printer at the theatre refused to print our tickets as well.
As it was a relatively empty house (something I did not expect), she kindly waived us in but informed us we could not
be entered in the raffle because there were no stubs to put in. Rats! Still, we found a loveseat in the well of the theatre (the area is warmer and has more headrest room),
ordered some hummus, and giddily chit chatted. No previews this time, so let
us get right down to the down and dirty.
Movie: First, a bit of background
on the film. Shot in 1960, this was Godard’s first film. Previously he had been a film critic, but eventually, his need to create got the better of him and this
was its first result. From the start, it is fairly obviously the work of a novice. Yet, at the same time, there is a wiseness to the editing and camera work. It has the feel of a student film, jerky and rambling a bit at times, but it also has a fierceness and
joy to it that are simply magical.
The film starts off with an introduction to the main character, a hood who seems to care as little about traffic laws
as he does about murder. In today’s culture of “Me first!,”
this character is eerily modern, if not more extreme in that he feels no rage with his entitlement, just more a sense of “well,
why not?” He wants what he wants, and he will step on anyone to get what
he wants, but at the same time, he is not enraged or frantic. The character is
always cool and collected, no matter the circumstance. His female counterpart,
Patricia, a transplanted New Yorker, exhibits much of the same character flaws. Her
self preservation is paramount and it is only if she wants something is she willing to protect it. For a viewer in today’s society, it is maddening to watch.
This is particularly true when the characters are so charming and entertaining in spite of their actions. This charm is not just from the actors but from the script, direction, and editing. Godard clearly knew his stuff, and despite the evidence of amateur filmmaking at times, he clearly understood
more about the affect of film on an audience and how to maximize his influence on them.
On a personal level, I was impressed that a film with so little plot is so well regarded. I rarely write for plot purposes and instead prefer to stick to character development. It is a dangerous and niche way to approach screenplays, but I just do not know any other way. The dialogue is what I hear because that tells whatever story needs to be told. People are of interest to me, and not so much their stories. Godard
to some extent must have felt the same way, even if he was making a greater statement about society and its apathy. If that was what he was trying to convey. For me, that was
the best aspect to this film because on one level you have a nice, fun piece about a thief who cares little for anything except
himself, but underneath, there are some really nice layers for the audience to explore.
That does not mean the viewer has to do that, but Godard provides that option.
As I have said before, this is quality that is rare in most filmmakers both today and in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The influence of any film that dares to add layers to itself is inevitable because
that is the power of any artistic medium, and that is the essential ingredient to make a film a classic. “Breathless” is a classic, and it is a fun one at that.
|
 |
|
 |
|
The Kid
Directed by Charles Chaplin
Grade: M=5; F=4
For years I have longed to go to the only movie theatre in the
country dedicated to silent movies. Now that I live in L.A., it was no longer
such an out of the way trip to see a movie there. In fact, it is only four blocks
away. As if just going to the theatre was not treat enough, there was the added
bonus of seeing Charlie Chaplin’s “The Kid” in honor of Father’s Day.
For once I can say that a classic movie was not over hyped. It actually
is that good. Why it took me this long to actually see it would be a great mystery
if I was not so sure that I missed it previously in order to see it yesterday.
Pre-show: I am not one of
those people who shy away from going to the movies alone. Well sometimes I do
if there are zombies are involved. And sometimes I insist on it if it is a really,
really embarrassing choice. Not that I am admitting anything. But when it is the last showing of a Chaplin film, I would go by myself if a zombie was the usher and he
was once Ralph Macchio. Again, not admitting anything. Fortunately, I had the pleasure of enjoying this wonderful evening with a new friend instead of alone.
I am still adjusting to the L.A. movie prices, but for once I feel like I got $15 worth of entertainment. In honor of the occasion, I bought a small popcorn. It was
heavenly. We soon bought a second batch.
Like crack that popcorn is. We “settled” into our hardbacked
seats. These seats are a lot like the uncomfortable ones at the Mary Pickford
Theatre in D.C., only these have pillows for you to sit on. It makes the seat
a more bearable place to sit for a couple hours. Trust me. I have been to little league baseball games with more comfortable bleachers than the seats from classic
movie theatres like these. C’est la vie.
It is the price of staying true to the theatre’s roots. (As is the
one person bathroom servicing all the female patronage.)
The owner of the theatre, a chatty little songwriter fellow by the name of Charlie.
Proprietor Charlie is very personable and charming, and his intro song is perhaps the best pre-show cell phone reminder
in the world. His intro was followed by the performance of Janet Klein, who performs
old musical tunes on her ukulele. The songs were a hoot, and a nice way to pass
the time.
Next up was what turned out to be the highlight of the night for me: a Felix the cat cartoon. I love Felix. I own Felix clothing. I have odd toys of Felix. But this cartoon was a brilliant
little bit I had not seen before. In honor of Father’s Day, the cartoon
was Felix, proud poppa, taking his three kittens to the movies. The levels of
commentary and humor are numerous. And hysterical. I hate to even describe it for fear of ruining it for you all when you get to see it. And you will. Because I highly recommend you seek this cartoon
out. No, I require it. Go now. You can pick up on this review when you get back.
Following the cartoon, we saw “coming attractions” for First National’s stable of stars. A tad outdated, but it was neat to get a peek at the studio system of old trying to sell itself. Anyone in the audience who edits trailers probably got a kick out of it.
It was long, stilted, and devoid of real showmanship. It kind of played
like a list of features on a car. Or a SNL parody of an infomercial. “But that’s not all!” Regardless, it was
still a hoot to take a look at.
Next up was another treat I was not expecting. It came in the form of
a Buster Keaton two-reeler, “The Boat.” Keaton, according to Proprietor
Charlie, is the biggest draw at the theatre. Anyone who has ever watched Keaton
knows why. It is like when people say, “What’s so great about Marilyn
Monroe?” and then they actually see her in something. You just get it. Keaton is taking his family out in the new boat he has built for them. Hijinx ensues, but in a good way, and was a real crowd pleaser. Sufficiently
warmed up, the crowd dispersed for an intermission, which included hot chocolate and cookies, as well as a free for all for
the single women’s room bathroom stall. Though the two things were not
related. The intermission concluded with trivia, while the rest of the audience
struggled to get back to their seats.
Movie: “The Kid”
is one of those movies that you hear about from a young age. Well, if you are
around people who love movies you do. I have seen several Chaplin films, but
as I said before, had somehow managed to see more than a scant few clips of this one.
Funny and heartbreaking, you tend to forgive anything over the top in either direction.
Some films employ contrivance, which causes nothing but bitterness from an invested audience. But somehow, maybe it is because movies of that age were often contrived, it works. You want that happy ending. You want the impossible to happen. You want everything to turn out all right. When
it does, there is only satisfaction. Even the inclusion of an almost out of place
dream sequence does not take away from the magic of the film. Mostly because
it is comic gold.
I am not sure why movies like this are not made today. In some ways, I
doubt there is an audience for it. We are jaded to happy endings, and I think
many movie goers are turned off by happy endings because they often feel forced. Often
that is definitely true. What “The Kid” has going for it is a strong,
loving heart. It tugs at the heartstrings just enough to garner a reaction, but
not so much as to cause cynicism and eye rolling. The subtlety of some of Chaplin’s
gestures is amazing to watch. He also does very broad things as well, but switches
between the two so easily; I think it is easy to miss a lot of the nuances of his work.
Keaton may have bested Chaplin as a comedian, but Chaplin has an intriguing darkness to his work that always adds a
sadness and depth to his films. It is a true marvel to know that this was Chaplin’s
first feature film, but I suppose one could and one does says the same about Welles’ “Citizen Kane.” However, it is not often that a first time feature director knocks one out of the
park and into the car window of a classic. There are more examples of course,
but when you witness these classics for the first time, and on a movie screen no less, well, it is a bit of a religious experience.
Well, except for one minor incident.
As
it is a small venue, crying babies tend to reverberate. There was a 15 month old at the back who kept burbling and making
noises. Normally this with would be annoying, and even this time, I couldn't help but wonder why the parent would not
just leave the room. The funny thing was, I also kind of understood. This was the last showing of "The Kid."
I wouldn't want to miss it either. Not for any kid. Even funnier, the baby was crying during the scenes where
Chaplin is caring for a crying baby. If anything, it was just an incredible and unexpected sound effect. One the
organ could not replicate. So I was aware of the baby crying, but I wasn't upset for once. However, others were
and immediately piped up to voice their displeasure. Loudly too. "Why don't you leave the theatre?" "You're
ruining it for everyone." Yipes. AWK-WARD. The parent eventually left. Funny how people got up in
arms about the baby that fit the soundtrack, but no one had anything to say about the guy who laughed louder and more obnoxiously
than DeNiro in "Cape Fear." Even better, the laugher was one of the people loudly voicing his displeasure of the baby.
Well, I found it amusing. And it just solidified the whole experience in my brain as one that could never be replicated
or improved upon. It was an evening as special as the film.
I for one will never forget the beauty of the film or the theatre. Under
new ownership, there will be a lot more movies and films playing there soon. So
if you are in L.A., do yourself a huge favor and check out the theatre. You won’t
regret it. Especially if you get the big tub of popcorn.
|
 |
|
|
|