Day 269 - Jules and Jim

Jules and Jim (1962) directed by Francois Truffaut

This film should actually be called Jules, Jim and Catherine as it tells the story of a decades long love triangle involving two best friends and the woman that they both love yet neither can have. It is a a roller coaster of a film that has moments of pure joy and passion mixed with restless dissatisfaction and tragedy.

Jules is an Austrian visiting Paris in 1912 where he meets a fellow kindred spirit in Jim, a native Parisian. They instantly hit it off and become inseparable best friends. This is told in a rapid fire narration and accompanying montage that sets the tone and story for the rest of the film which spans over two decades seamlessly in under two hours. They soon meet the enigmatic free spirited woman Catherine and are both immediately drawn to her. They spend much time together and these early scenes together are filled with unbridled beauty and joy. My favorite scene is from the picture above where they race across a bridge. There is a certain joy one senses not just from the characters but by Truffaut as well. Throughout the film we are treated to the director's cinematic flair and style. This is what the French New Wave was all about.

It is eventually Jules that wins over Catherine and the two marry. However, almost immediately Jules and Jim must go off to fight in WWI on opposing sides. Their greatest fear is having to kill each other in battle, but luckily this does not happen. Years pass and we discover Jules and Catherine living in the countryside with a five year old daughter. Jules invites Jim to visit and the two friends are reunited and all seems like it once was. However, Jules confesses to Jim that the marriage is crumbling with Catherine becoming increasingly harder to keep happy. She has had several lovers and even disappeared for six months before eventually returning.

The central figure in this story is of course Catherine who is impossible to please or to figure out. It would seem what she desires most is her freedom, yet demands the undivided attention of the men (in this case Jules) that she cannot herself reciprocate. As Mumford and Sons sing in Blank White Pages: "You desire my attention, but deny me my affections." In a revealing scene, Catherine poignantly tells Jim, "I don't want to be understood." To understand her is to own a piece of her which she clearly cannot stand. We spend the majority of the film trying to figure out what's going in her head and we sort of get the idea, but most importantly we can sense the unrest growing inside of her.

Jim is even more enamored by Catherine than ever and the two start an affair with Jules's blessing. Jules is so desperate to keep Catherine in his life that he encourages the two to marry. At least this way he knows she will be in good hands with his best friend. At this point, I'm thinking, "Oh poor Jules," and also how incredibly messed up this whole situation is! But such is the nature of a love triangle I suppose. The three live together seemingly happy until once again Catherine goes off her rocker.

Years pass as we circle the on and off again relationships between Jules and Catherine and Jim and Catherine. These are rather somber moments as we realized none of these characters can truly be happy. They all seek to recapture the joy they once shared in their youths, but are only hanging on to fading memories. But what made me happy was that despite the looming presence of a psychotic woman in their lives, Jules's and Jim's friendship remains pure and unadulterated. Of course the film doesn't end with this happy sentiment but it is the lasting impression I wish to take from this strangely wonderful film.

Grade: A-

Day 268 - The Odd Couple

The Odd Couple (1968) directed by Gene Saks

Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau make the perfect comedic duo. They have this wonderful chemistry where they play off of each other's personalities so well. In The Odd Couple, like Grumpy Old Men decades later, they play two diametrically opposed figures that are stuck together for better or worse. Each character has his own quirk that makes him appealing, but it is when they are together that they are truly special. We watch them bicker and banter throughout the film followed by the inevitable realization they actually need each other.

Jack Lemmon plays Felix who is in the process of getting a divorce and is depressed out of his mind. When we first see him, he would like to commit suicide except that he throws out his back trying to open the window to jump out of. His friends fear for Felix's sanity. He is taken in by his friend Oscar, played by Walter Matthau, who allows Felix to stay with him until he gets back on his feet. As it turns out Felix is a little more than Oscar bargained for. I am reminded of that Friends episode where Ross needs a place to stay and Joey and Chandler take him in, only to find out they can't stand living with him.

The Odd Couple is a fun light hearted comedy about a difficult but worthwhile friendship. For as much as they annoy and bother each other, where would they be without each other? I thought the film was quite funny and well acted with the memorable paring of Lemmon and Matthau, who rank right up there with peanut butter and jelly.

Grade: A-

Day 267 - Pickpocket

Pickpocket (1959) directed Robert Bresson

The life of crime is dangerous and short lived, not to mention immoral and illegal, and it makes you wonder the mindset of a criminal. What compels them to steal? What makes them think they can get away with it? Do they ever feel bad? One thing I never considered is that criminals think they are better than normal people and thus are entitled to do what they want.

That is the mindset of Michel who pickpockets his way through Paris. He argues that it is okay for an extraordinary man to commit a crime. Of course he is just justifying his actions, but does he truly think he is better than everyone else? His friend asks rhetorically, "What man doesn't think he is special?" Apparently Pickpocket draws comparisons to Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment which is also about a criminal with the same mindset. Unfortunately I haven't read it so much of the literary analysis of the film is lost upon me. For such a short and simple film you can probably write a book on its themes and morality.

My favorite parts of the film were the pickpocketing scenes. It almost plays like an instructional video. There is a certain art to it and the scenes are presented as gracefully as a ballet; the nimble fingers and delicate touch contrasted with the tension and the thrill of the moment. When Michel is working with a team on a crowded train it is like watching magic as they relieve victim after victim of their belongings.

There is also a certain level of intimacy involved in pickpocketing. You have to stand right next to the target but not quite touch as if teasing a lover, delicately maneuver your fingers across the body and reach in. This is the type of intimacy that Michel cannot achieve in his own life with Jeanne, the virtuous woman, another archetype from Crime and Punishment. It is only when Michel is stripped of everything, his freedom, his ego, and ultimately his life of crime that she can redeem him.

Overall I enjoyed the film, particularly the scenes of thievery. However it is difficult to say that I had any type of attachment to it. I think it is meant to be more thought provoking than to be a powerful or moving experience.

Grade: B

Day 266 - My Man Godfrey

My Man Godfrey (1936) directed by Gregory La Cava

They don't really make movies like My Man Godfrey anymore. It's a kind of zany and absurd situational comedy (hire a homeless man off the street to be your butler) yet it is smartly written with whimsical charm. The beginning of the film sort of reminds me of the recent Dinner With Schmucks where rich socialites host a dinner to make fun of rather unfortunate people. Here they begin with a scavenger hunt to find a "forgotten man." The whole point of course is to show that these rich snobs are out of touch by contrasting them with the humanity of their "entertainment." This film was made in the middle of the Great Depression where the difference between the rich and the poor could not have been more pronounced.

Godfrey is a proud and noble bum who is hired off the street by Irene Bullock to become the family's butler. The potential romance between the two is obvious from the outset but how it develops is as much of a surprise to the viewer as it is to Godfrey. Irene seems like a genuine kind hearted person (and she is) who just wants to help Godfrey, but in an instant she surprises him with a kiss declaring her love for him. What might have been a budding romance turns into a zany girl chases boy comedy. It doesn't take long for Godfrey to realize that Irene (and her family) is a little crazy.

I really enjoyed this film for its light hearted comedy and wickedly funny dialogue. In one scene, the love stricken Irene says, "I'd like to sew his buttons on sometimes, when they come off." In another, she laments, "Some people do just as they like with other people's lives, and it doesn't seem to make any difference... to some people," as she casts a mournful look towards Godfrey. Godfrey, for his part, cannot help but gulp uncomfortably. The interplay between William Powell and Carole Lombard as Godfrey and Irene is wonderful. It is no surprise they have great chemistry as they were once married.

It always baffles me when people say they don't like older movies; to me finding a really good one is like finding buried treasure. As the years go by these titles will become more and more obscure. Ironically in some ways this will actually make these movies new again as fewer people will have ever seen these movies. What's the difference what year the movie was made in if it's all new to you?

Grade: A-

Day 265 - The Grapes of Wrath

The Grapes of Wrath (1940) directed by John Ford

Harrison Ford once famously said to George Lucas when reading the script of Star Wars, "This looks nice on paper, but you can't say this shit out loud." And this is the hardest part of adapting a book into a movie. Some things sound good when you read it, but nobody talks like that in real life. One of my minor complaints of The Grapes of Wrath is the unnatural dialogue that makes it feel like a book rather than a movie. This is something that I've noticed in a lot of older films, a lot of monologues and preachy moments to get points across rather than letting the dialogue and story flow naturally.

For instance, Tom Joad's conversation with his mother before he leaves is filled with eloquent lines not befitting a simple Okie. He closes with this line: "I'll be around in the dark - I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Whenever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too." Just because you say the lines with an accent, it doesn't make it any more believable. Does he realize he's saying his last words to his dear mother and not making a rally speech?

The Grapes of Wrath is a sweeping melodrama about the hardships of the Great Depression, the plight of the little man, and union organizing. I think it gets caught up too much in its message rather than trying to tell a story and if you're not up for getting preached to, it can grow a little tiring. However I cannot deny this is a well put together film and a faithful adaptation of one of the most heralded novels of all time. I could understand why this is considered a great and important film but I just couldn't connect with it. I think the expression is "falling on deaf ears." One of the tests I use to determine the greatness of a movie is to see how I feel immediately after it is over and to be honest, I didn't feel anything other than I just finished a movie and now I have to write about it. I know it seems like I'm hating on the film, but I'm really not. I'm glad I watched it and already admitted that it is a solid film, but that's where it stops.

Grade: B

Day 264 - Young and Innocent

Young and Innocent (1938) directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Young and Innocent is an early and pleasing entry into Alfred Hitchcock's filmography. It tells the story of a man who stumbles upon a dead woman and is accused of murdering her. Determined to prove his innocence, he flees from custody to find the real murderer with the help of a woman he meets. It is part chase thriller and part romance and mostly entertaining showcasing some of the promise of Hitchcock's later works.

The beginning parts of the movie are a little slow as I found the romance angle a little formulaic, but I understand why it is there. The thriller element starts off a little slow too but picks up steam nicely. There are a couple sequences that I really liked. In one scene there is a an impressive set piece inside of a mine that looks like a scene straight out of an Indiana Jones movie. In the most Hitchcockian moment, the protagonists enter a ballroom looking for the killer. It begins with a wide shot overseeing the entire room and zooms into a close-up of the killer who is the drummer of the band. It zooms all the way to his twitching eyes, the only clue to identifying him. A really well done shot that is classic Hitchcock.

Overall Young and Innocent is a solid thriller with some really nice moments. It isn't Hitchcock's best work but I'll gladly take one of Hitchcock's middling works over most people's bests.

Grade: B

Day 263 - My Left Foot

My Left Foot (1989) directed by Jim Sheridan

Christy Brown struggled his entire life to be taken seriously as a human being and to not be looked upon as a helpless cripple. Born with cerebral palsy, he had no control over his body except for his left foot which he used to paint and write his way into prominence. It would be easy to assume that My Left Foot is a feel good inspirational movie and for the most part it is. But it is also a look at a troubled man who struggled with alcoholism, depression and rejection, themes common in many people's lives, except that he does it in a wheelchair. The film does not try to paint him as a saint, but simply a man. Somewhere in the middle of the film, the curator of an art gallery tells the crowd, "Some people say Christy Brown is a great crippled artist, but that would be an insult to him. Christy Brown is a great artist, period." It would also be insulting to him then to look at him with pity because of his condition. I don't think any crippled person really desires that kind of attention; they only wish to be treated as real people.

The film chronicles Christy's life from childhood into adulthood and does the standard biopic stuff you would expect. It is inspiring to see his story unfold but the scenes that were most interesting to me weren't the highs but rather the lows. He longed for love and affection, which is tough for any adolescent let alone for someone with cerebral palsy. He is rejected and it breaks his heart. You can see the growing frustration and loneliness build up inside until it spills over in violent fashion. As with any great artist or genius, he was not an easy man to be around.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Christy Brown in this award winning role. What makes this a good performance isn't merely his imitation of someone with cerebral palsy but in showing the internal struggle that builds up inside of the character. While we are on the subject, I love Daniel Day-Lewis. I think he's one of the best actors of my lifetime. If only he would make more films!

I thought this was a pretty good film that was realistic and honest. It would have been so easy to paint Christy as a saintly archetype rather than a complicated individual and I appreciated that it wasn't pandering as so many of these kind of films can be. While we are allowed to feel sorry for him because of his condition, we are also allowed to dislike him for being an ass sometimes, just like any other fully functional normal person.

Grade: B+