Classic Film Review: Sunset Blvd.

Sunset Blvd. (1950)
Directed By: Billy Wilder
Starring: William Holden, Gloria Swanson and Erich von Stroheim

With the recent resurgence in my quest to watch all the major Hollywood film classics, I purchased Sunset Blvd. on a whim last year knowing very little about the movie itself other than the infamous line uttered by Gloria Swanson; "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

Struggling screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) is down on his luck in Hollywood, having run out of original ideas for a new film to present to various major studios. He owes money to creditors and, while running from them in his expensive and shiny white car, a flat tire leads him to make the quick decision to park his car in the garage of a forboding mansion on the outskirts of town. Once inside the oppressive building Joe meets Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), the aging former silent screen star and her solumn German butler, Max von Mayerling (Erich von Stroheim). Together, actress and butler, the two live a life of almost complete isolation, surrounded only by the relics of Norma's celebrity past. Norma shows Joe a script she has written based on the story of Salome, which she plans as her "return" to the silver screen. Despite the tedious script, Joe agrees to edit it for a fee, which would help him with the creditors. Norma goes above and beyond, showering Joe with jewellery, expensive suits and cigarette cases made of solid gold. What unfolds is a drama about a young struggling writer and the sudden riches he aquires from the older, emotionally unstable and lovestruck Norma who wishes for nothing more than to be a cinema icon once again.

Stylistically, the film is flawless. I haven't seen enough of Billy Wilder's work to compare it against, but it's easy to see why he is considered one of the cinematic greats. This is film noir to perfection, complete with a witty, all-knowing narrator. The script remains clever and fresh, despite the familiarity of the story and the passage of time. It includes references to Gone With the Wind ("Who wants to see a Civil War picture?" asks one producer), Charlie Chaplin, Rudy Valentino and features cameos by Buster Keaton and Cecil B. De Mille, as themselves. With Paramount Studios, as an entity, acting as a co-star in the film one can't help but feel the authenticity of Old Hollywood within the film. As a result, Wilder's film feels like a genuine glimpse into the lives of the Hollywood elite and those former talents long forgotten by their audiences.

Although Wilder originally wanted to cast Mae West and Marlon Brando in the leads, his choices are quite remarkable when one considers the back story of each cast member. At the time of production Gloria Swanson had been absent from the silver screen for several years, much like her alter ego. It marked her "return," just as Salome should have been the breakthrough for her on screen alter ego, Norma Desmond. William Holden's career mirrored that of Joe Gillis as, after a successful start in film, his career was struggling when Wilder approached him. Nancy Olson, who plays Betty Schaefer, the object of Joe's affection, was just stating out in Hollywood, much like the ambitious young screenwriter she portrays in the film. Then, of course, there is Erich von Stroheim who, playing the butler and former director Max, was formerly a silent film director in real life. He made "Queen Kelly" back in 1929 with his future co-star, Gloria Swanson. In fact, the film Swanson's Norma screens for Joe in Sunset Blvd. is an actual clip from "Queen Kelly." This is inspired casting, on all counts, and each actor is remarkable and memorable in their respective roles.

I love when a classic film lives up to all the hype that surrounds it. Sunset Blvd. manages to still be original, crisp and a facinating look at Hollywood life, despite the passage of time. I plan on watching it again soon so that I can catch all the little details and character nuances I may have missed upon my first viewing.

FINAL GRADE: A+

Movie Review: A Single Man

Directed By: Tom Ford
Starring: Colin Firth, Matthew Goode, Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult

It's November 30th, 1962. Set in Los Angeles, the film tracks a day in the life of a British university professor struggling to return to a sense of normalcy after the sudden death of his lover eight months earlier. The audience follows George (Colin Firth) as he gives a lecture on Aldous Huxley to his students, interacts with his neighbours, bonds intellectually with a student named Kenny (Nicholas Hoult) and visits his longtime friend Charley (Julianne Moore), all the while thinking of Jim (Matthew Goode) and contemplating suicide.

Above all else, this film is a meditation on love and loss. Anyone who has lost someone close to them can emphasize with George's disconnection with his surroundings. What few can relate to is the manner in which George is forced to grieve for his lover: in private, lest someone discover he is a homosexual.

Because this is a Tom Ford film, one can expect plenty of beautiful men in beautiful suits, however, behind every perfectly manicured front lawn or well-cut suit or stylish living room furniture, lies hidden secrets and unhappiness. While aesthetically pleasing to behold, the characters are walking dead and masking their interior pain.

This is one of the few films that actually captures the "gay experience." Usually the focus is on a crisis of sexual identity and confusion (Brokeback Mountain) or being openly gay in a repressive society (Milk). A Single Man, on the other hand, is about love, lust and longing as a gay man. Despite being forced to keep his sexual orientation private, George notices beautiful men in public, desires physical and emotional comfort from men and yearns for an overall deeper connection with men. George knows who he is and what he wants, he just must carry on in private.

Invisibility as a theme comes up on occasion throughout the film. George lives in a glass house, completely vulnerable to prying eyes. He lived there with Jim, openly. However, his neighbours never said a word about their living arrangements, nor did anyone treat him any differently after Jim's death. If they were aware of George's homosexuality they never said it in public. Even in a glass house George and Jim were invisible. They didn't exist as a couple in the eyes of society. When George reluctantly goes skinny-dipping with Kenny late at night, Kenny points out that no will notice because they are invisible. Even when learning of Jim's death in a phone call from Jim's cousin, George is not invited to the funeral, despite the fact that he and Jim had been together for fifteen years. George was invisible to his lover's own family.

Colin Firth, known for being typecast as the droll yet charming Englishman in romantic comedies, gives his finest performance in A Single Man. He instills George with a sense of quiet grief, which lingers just below the surface, as though he could snap at any moment. His narration verbally illustrates the loss and isolation he feels by Jim's death, however, no words are actually needed. Firth manages to convey every minute of George's heartbreak in even the simplest of his daily tasks, whether he is observing his seemingly happy neighbours through a window while sitting on the toilet or discovering an intimate photo he once took of Jim. Firth's performance is not only one of the best of his career, but one of the best of 2009.

Julianne Moore, as George's British friend, Charley, is wonderful in a secondary role. Charley is aware that she is an aging, divorced woman with little contact with her children, yet she dresses and acts as though she were twenty years younger, living in happier times. She loves George and, despite the fact that she is aware that he's a "poof," she resents the fact that she couldn't have him all to herself. Charley and George are both aware of the fact that they will never be with their true loves again and their shared sadness is evident.The rest of the supporting players, specifically Matthew Goode and Nicholas Hoult, are well cast and give strong performances in smaller roles.

The film is visually stunning, once you get over the fact that Tom Ford has the tendency to make some scenes play more like a perfume ad than a film. The costumes and sets perfectly capture and contextualize the 1960s. The pace is leisurely, but always intriguing. It's a wonderful film which places its emphasis on human loss and suffering as seen through the eyes of one man.

Grade: A

Book Review: Gone with the Wind

Margaret Mitchell's 1934 masterpiece is the epitome of the sweeping epic.

Set in Atlanta during the American Civil War and subsequent Reconstruction, Mitchell chronicles the successes and struggles of Scarlett O'Hara, the daughter of an Irish immigrant plantation owner. Scarlett watches her beloved house, Tara, fall into disrepair as her household disbands upon the outbreak of war. Making the occasional appearance at both the most convenient and most inopportune moments is Rhett Butler, the dashing, albeit socially ostracized, gentleman who, if nothing else, lusts after Scarlett like no other.

I've always been a fan of the 1939 David O. Selznick film version, in all its technicolour glory. However, when reading the novel, I was struck by how much the novel is an actual history lesson. I was going on the assumption that the novel was more of a romance, as the film suggests, yet it's much more powerful and shouldn't be brushed off as such.

Scarlett O'Hara is the most complex female character I've ever encountered in a novel. Vivien Leigh is beautiful and charming, however, the film didn't do complete justice to this vibrant character. While reading the novel I couldn't believe how much of an anti-heroine Scarlett really is in Mitchell's writing. She speaks her mind, regardless of its consequences, openly loathes Melanie Wilkes, a woman so kind she practically has a halo around her head, and will use any man at the drop of a hat should she need money to provide for herself and her beloved Tara.

Even when I didn't agree with something Scarlett was doing, saying or thinking, I loved her to pieces. It astounded me that this vibrant, controversial character was created in the 1930s. I found myself rooting for her, even when her actions called for her to be taken down a notch. Unlike her youngest sisters, when the O'Hara riches began to disappear Scarlett fought tooth and nail to scrounge what she could, regardless of its cost to others. Scarlett O'Hara is a complete original. Perhaps when Charles Darwin wrote his theory on the "survival of the fittest" he had a woman like Scarlett in mind.

Rhett and Scarlett were made for each other, however, they were both equally too stubborn to really embrace the concept. Even though Rhett was the one who more openly adored Scarlett in the relationship, he had his moments where he almost threw his love for her to the wind. Scarlett was too oblivious and wrapped up in her own individual struggles to realize the looks Rhett gave her were looks of love and respect. I love open-ended finales and I admire any author who can leave their audience hanging and wanting more without giving everything away and leaving nothing to the imagination. We have no idea whether or not Rhett ever came back to Scarlett. I like my fiction with a dose of realism so I kind of like the unsatisfactory idea that Rhett never returned. What Scarlett said to him was the final straw and Scarlett was left trying to fill a void in her life that no amount of money could fill.

Ashley Wilkes was much more compelling in Mitchell's writing. He's a bit of a drip in the film; scrawny and not particularly worthy of Scarlett's unwavering devotion. However, in the novel, he was much more of a stud and I found that I understood his character a lot better. He was a man broken by war and what he witnessed and his pride prevented his ever feeling comfortable with Scarlett's generosity towards him and Melanie. He had his masculine pride and, like all men in the novel besides Rhett, he felt threatened by the obvious success of Scarlett, a woman. In the film I always thought Ashley truly did love Scarlett. After reading the novel I realized that he was "in lust" with her the entire time. He didn't love her temper, her savvy money skills, her brashness, her opinions or her mind the way Rhett did. He (and its sad in its own way) married a woman he didn't love simply out of an obligation to family tradition.

It made me realize Scarlett and Rhett were so ahead of their time, in their personalities and belief systems. They threw caution to the wind and dared to be themselves in a time still steeped in old traditions and separate and distinct gender roles. I love that Scarlett had no desire for motherhood. It completely casts aside the notion that every woman desires to become a parent one day to a large brood of children. Scarlett would have fit in well with today's career-oriented, independent world.

I never knew much about the American Civil War, however, Mitchell's novel gave me a great history lesson in and of itself. Her novel is jam-packed with vivid details on war trails, crushing battle fronts, famous generals and intricate societal expectations. She displayed admirable attention to detail in describing the fashion of the time, the destruction of towns, the freedom of black slaves and the subsequent creation of the Ku Klux Klan, among other issues.

The descriptions of the tragedies of war and the desolation of its aftermath were compelling and profoundly moving.

I read this giant, epic, 1200 + page tome in about a month. I was swept up in the tragedy, the romance and the overall greatness of Margaret Mitchell's stunning novel. It's one of the few novels you will read in your lifetime that you can credit as being absolutely flawless in every regard.

A++

Method Men: Marlon Brando and Jimmy Dean

About six years ago I caught Rebel Without A Cause on t.v. late one night. I was exhausted that day. I had planned to go to bed but I was struck by the image of James Dean, lying on the ground with a wind-up toy monkey, in the opening credit sequence for the film. I recognized the iconic red jacket. It was around this time that my obsession with classic film was just starting to really peak and take off so I decided, despite my exhaustion, to watch this much-beloved teen classic. I hadn't counted on actually being able to stay wide-awake into the wee morning hours.

The film itself is significant to 1950s film history. While parts of it may not have aged very well it still deserves its place amongst the Hollywood elite. This, in large part, is thanks to the performance of Dean. I was intrigued by his performance. He had reminded me so much of a young Marlon Brando.

Around this time I'd only recently become enamoured with Marlon Brando (the previous year I'd watched The Godfather for the first time and fell in love with Brando's talent). Dean reminded me of Brando, despite their differences in acting style. Dean clearly idolized and tried to mimic Brando, yet he managed to make all three of his film performances unique. From the inspiration he got from Brando he came up with his own style and helped revolutionize acting in film in the 1950s. Drawing from real life experiences and tragedies, Dean utilized these emotions when creating a character so that the audience could relate and sympathize with someone like Cal Trask in East of Eden, my favourite Dean film and performance.

Brando and Dean were both amongst the first to use the Method Approach in film acting. It originally started out as a theatre movement in the 1930s in which actors attempt to seek out the emotional "truth" of the character they are portraying. In order to effectively present these emotions and psychological torment, actors were often forced to look to themselves and their personal lives for inspiration. Brando was famous for remaining in character on set, even going so far as to remain in the character of Terry from On the Waterfront for the duration of filming, both on and off set.

Rarely do I watch a film only to walk away from it absolutely fascinated and in awe of the talent before me. Young actors today rarely go out of their way to bring something fresh and original to their performances, which is why they (hopefully) won't have the enduring cult power of Jimmy Dean. Or have millions of loyalists who declare Brando as the greatest actor of all time.

Marlon Brando and Jimmy Dean embodied the charisma, beauty and talent that most actors can only dream of achieving for themselves. They were the epitome of masculine-cool. Both were ahead of the game in the way they portrayed conflicted young rebels. They helped make it okay for male characters to cry in film. Gone were the days of the alpha-male, like John Wayne; all blazing guns and snarls. Dean and, especially, Brando helped usher in a new generation of young, Method actors who saw performance as an art form worthy of sweat and tears. With trailblazers like Brando and Dean, would we have had the likes of Daniel Day-Lewis and Viggo Mortensen today?

It's been fifty-four years since Dean's death in a car accident, yet time has not diminished his star. To some people he may be a product, just another young dead celebrity face on a poster or a purse, but to his real fans he was a first-class movie star.

They don't make celebrities like Marlon and Jimmy anymore.

~Laura~