Skip’s Quips: Why ‘Big’ Really Grows on You

Blog Sketch 082813The first time I saw the Penny Marshall film Big was in Los Angeles as part of a double feature. The other flick on the bill: Everybody’s All-American.

Needless to say, I appreciated the former movie a lot more after I saw both in one day.

Recently, I watched Big again, and I have to say it has aged well. It’s still charming, with wonderful dialogue, sharp cinematography and terrific performances – notably by Tom Hanks as the child who magically grows up overnight. Marshall has a light touch with the direction, and it never becomes plodding.

Why can’t more comedies today be like this? Big never seems to take the easy way out, and it wraps up everything nicely, even credibly, despite the fantastic aspect of the whole thing. It’s low-key, but I think it’s one of the best things Hanks has done.

It’s always the ones that fly under the radar, right?

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Just Say ‘Ewww’ to ‘The V.I.P.s’

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Normally, I don’t care for movies with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. So I wasn’t surprised to find that The V.I.P.s, their 1963 film under Anthony Asquith’s direction, was awful. And I mean awful.

Soapy, too. In a bad way, not in an I, Claudius fun way. This was soap without a lot of bubbles. Deadly dull, unperfumed, lather-free soap.

And trashy. The tale of a group of high-end passengers who get stuck in a London airport due to fog, The V.I.P.s went from one dreary relationship to another, from Burton and Taylor’s married-couple-on-the-outs to Rod Taylor’s nice-guy businessman whose secretary, played by Maggie Smith, has fallen in love with him. I didn’t find any of these situations credible, and they just got more tedious as the film rolled along. Plus, the cinematography didn’t help, either. Strange compositions seemed to include lamps or some kind of bizarre light fixture in many shots, leading them to be jarring. And the score by the normally reliable Miklós Rózsa was awfully syrupy. Not good, Miklós. Not good.

So what are the takeaways from this? Well, I still don’t like Burton-Taylor movies. I also don’t like bad movies. And I love I, Claudius.

If you can find meaning in that, you’re a better man (or woman) than I.

Skip’s Quips: Hey, There, ‘Georgy Girl’ Still Impresses

Blog Sketch 082813In watching Georgy Girl last night, I was struck by how adult the subject matter was … and how tastefully it was handled.

It’s not just a Swingin’ Sixties trifle. It’s a mature film,  with poignant, realistic situations and complex erotic problems. It’s also got terrific performances, including from Charlotte Rampling, who has an unusual, remarkably upsetting scene in which she rejects her newborn baby that’s one of the disturbing highlights of the film. This portion of the movie upset me greatly when I was younger; I couldn’t fathom how a woman could hate her own child. To this day, it bothers me, and seeing it once more yesterday evening reinforced my opinion.

I’ll tell ya one thing, however: I’m not itching to see Georgy Girl again. It has a great script and crisp cinematography, as well as a catchy theme song, but it’s a bit hard to watch. Perhaps that’s because it feels so realistic; there’s powerful stuff here, despite the movie’s glossy style. Still, I’m glad I watched it, as it’s something to revisit now and then.

So. On to the next picture.

Skip’s Quips: Losing No Sleep Over My Guilty Pleasures

Blog Sketch 082813Don’t hate me because I watched Major League II on TV. Hate me because I kinda enjoyed it.

Yep. Just like Peter O’Toole’s character in Lawrence of Arabia. Except without all of the scary sadistic connotations.

Maybe it’s a masochistic enjoyment of sorts. After all, Major League II can’t be said to be a great movie. It isn’t even good. Actually, it’s rather bad. The script is blah. The cinematography is unimaginative. The performances are along the lines of “what am I doing in this picture? I should’ve tried out for Forrest Gump.”

Yet there are some humorous lines here and there. And I’m a sucker for baseball movies. It’s definitely a guilty pleasure; I’ll admit that freely.

There’s no shame in that, right? Or in watching Marked for Death whenever it’s on? All right, maybe there’s a little shame in that. But nothing to lose sleep over.

Kurosawa observed it rightly: The Bad Sleep Well. Or in this case, those who watch junky films and enjoy them as guilty pleasures.

I know I’m not alone.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Revisiting ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ Is Still a Pleasure

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Some things stay fresh centuries after they’ve been created. I have a feeling Richard Lester’s A Hard Day’s Night will be one of them.

I caught it on TCM yesterday, and it was as good as it ever was – and possibly better. I marveled at the quick editing and snappy cinematography. I chuckled at the charming script and deadpan performances. And I tapped my feet to the sounds of The Beatles’ John, Paul, George and Ringo.

This never gets old, in my opinion. It’s a seminal rock film constructed like a music video with virtually no plot and one-liners zinging around. Everything has a “you are there” feel, which adds to the intimacy of the picture. And it retains an off-the-cuff feel, though it was scripted (well) by Alun Owen.

This is really the benchmark for all such rock ‘n’ roll pictures. In its genre, it bests Elvis and everything that came after it. It’s so good that it transcends its category, becoming a comedy to be placed with the likes of The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy and other comedy teams.

It’s true: Some things always stay fresh. Fifty years after it debuted, A Hard Day’s Night still rings true.

Skip’s Quips: ‘Sunshine’ Ain’t So Super, Man

Blog Sketch 082813Every so often when I see a movie, I get really, really disappointed that someone didn’t make it better.

That’s how I felt after viewing the Danny Boyle-directed Sunshine,  an ambitious sci-fi film that should’ve been excellent. It left me feeling dismayed at all the ticking clocks (the flick has something to do with a human space expedition to save our solar system’s dying sun, which seems to be capitulating at the very moment the picture is going on … a rather frustrating, action-movie-esque part of the plot), flashy cinematography and mumbled dialogue, despite the interesting story. We definitely need thoughtful, adventurous science-fiction films in our cinematic diet, so this one was especially problematic for me. A good idea that fell short.

I’m just wondering why director Boyle couldn’t have trusted the material more to avoid the pitfalls that race-against-time flicks often go through. There was a lot of breathlessness going ’round, and I would’ve preferred something more tranquil. Plus, the science seemed off … even to this completely unscientific movie critic. That’s an issue in science fiction, a genre in which a good movie achieves credibility however outlandish its foundations may be. In that regard, Sunshine left me cold.

Too bad. I wanted to like it. The flair, however, just wasn’t there.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Is ‘The 39 Steps’ Hitchcock’s Best Movie?

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I don’t know, but I sure like it a heckuva lot.

What I wanna know is: Why doesn’t The 39 Steps get old or creaky? It’s just as fast-paced and fun as ever, with crackling dialogue, amusing performances (especially from Robert Donat … what a talent) and brilliant cinematography, which provides a wonderful snapshot of the old British music-hall entertainments.

Frankly, I can’t get enough of this flick.

I realized Hitch honed his craft greatly following Steps, providing much slicker pictures, but there’s something about this 1935 charmer that keeps me watching the screen when it’s on. There was a time when I preferred The Lady Vanishes to it, but now I’m not so sure. And there’s a seminal quality to Steps as well … it’s one of the films that introduced Hitchcock’s whole “wrong man” oeuvre to audiences, and there’s something to be said for that.

I’ll tell you something: I’m walkin’ these steps for as long as they’re around.

Skip’s Quips: Why ’12 Years a Slave’ Should Be Shown in Schools

Blog Sketch 082813I usually look at period movies from a cinematic perspective — justifying and condemning celluloid decisions more with an eye toward aesthetics than accuracy. So it’s rare for me to recommend a film based on its historical content and the manner in which it’s conveyed.

I’m going to do just that, however, with Steve McQueen’s masterpiece 12 Years a Slave.

This picture — the story of Solomon Northrup, a free black man in 19th-century Saratoga, NY, who is kidnapped and sold into slavery — is up there with Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List as one of the great silver screen documents of human villainy … and therefore should be shown alongside the latter film in schools to give students an idea of what the extent of our species’ cruelty to each other was like. These movies would probably be most suitable for high school; I’m speaking from experience here, as I was given but a cursory education in those days regarding the lives of slaves in Northrup’s era, and my understanding wants as a result.

I hope students today will not go through the same experience that I did.

Central to 12 Years a Slave is the performance of the great Chiwetel Ejiofor as Northrup; he is absolutely brilliant and provides some of the most moving moments in the entire film, as does Lupita Nyong’o as the terribly abused slave Patsey, who is treated so horribly by slaveowner Edwin Epps (a superb portrayal by Michael Fassbender) that you’ll want to scream in anger at the screen. Editing and cinematography are expert, and there’s a simple, mournful score by Hans Zimmer that’s very effective. Of course, sharp direction that takes its time but never becomes plodding is crucial, and that’s provided by McQueen. It’s a major film, and there are many things to learn from it.

That’s why I suggest it be shown in schools as part of students’ history curricula. This is part of American history; it shouldn’t be glossed over, and it was in my education. Certainly, only a small part of the slavery experience was documented in the film, but when you see the torture inflicted upon Northrup — a harrowing scene in which he is left to hang from a tree for what seems like an eternity is one example of this — you’ll get an idea of the pain people went through … and why it should never happen again. Adding to the power of the film is the fact that it’s masterfully crafted, so there’s really no reason to avoid it.

We need to treat movies responsibly as parts of our culture. They should share accountability for their effects on viewers. And we should be accountable for not showing what’s necessary to people who need to see it.

12 Years a Slave is necessary.

Skip’s Quips: The Verdict on ‘Argo’ Is … Pretty Smooth Sailing

Blog Sketch 082813I somehow knew Argo was going to be good, yet for no apparent reason I’ve been avoiding it.

Until last night. Saw it for the first time. And you know what? It’s a more than decent suspenser. OK, as a friend noted, there were too many “ticking clocks.” But it was tense enough, with sharp direction from Ben Affleck, who also starred in the film. There were also good turns from Alan Arkin, who was a hoot as a cynical yet patriotic producer, John Goodman and Bryan Cranston. Cinematography and editing were solid; perhaps there was a bit too much herky-jerkiness with the camera. All in all, though, it was quite well done.

I’m not usually a big fan of Affleck’s work; as an actor, I find him rather mannered. But in this movie, he was relatively subdued, and it worked nicely. I hope his next opus will be just as strong.

Skip’s Quips, Part II: ‘Minister’-ing to Movie Wounds

Blog Sketch 082813Well, I saw Bertrand Tavernier’s The French Minister yesterday at Manhattan’s Walter Reade Theater.

Some amusing bits. But it didn’t feel cohesive. Undeveloped characters ran rampant in this tale, the based-on-a-true-graphic-novel-story of a young Parisian speechwriter’s encounters with his blustery foreign minister. Once-funny jokes were repeated all too often, including a running gag in which papers fly each time the public serviceman enters a room and slams the door. Yes, it was too much of a good thing. Then there was the protagonist’s love interest, who remained just that: a love interest. There wasn’t much conflict or development in their relationship as the film proceeded.

Cinematography was conservative, save a few dashing shots and screen slice-ups. And the film was overlong; much of the door-slamming could’ve been cut. Overall a decent film, but not a special one. More appetizing was the fact that Tavernier showed up and took questions afterward. A tall, white-haired gentleman, the veteran director seemed very personable and interested in talking about his film. Sadly, the movie isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s definitely different from the rest of the cinematic fare being shown on Broadway.

If only it were better.