The Writer's Poke

I like the camera work. The camera will just sit there and capture the smokestacks, the powerlines, or children walking to school. Even in the home, if the mother is cleaning, the camera will just sit on the floor and watch her through a door or from down a hallway. At first I thought it was odd that the camera just sat on the ground, but that's also the way Japanese people sit -- on the floor -- so in a sense, it's the same view that a person would have if observing. The parents -- Shukichi (Chishû Ryû) and Tomi (Chieko Higashiyama) -- make the train trip to see their children. They're both in their 60s and it's been maybe years since they've seen their Tokyo kids, maybe meeting their grandchildren for the first time. A high level of politeness and ceremony when they arrive, but that doesn't extend to the grandchildren. They don't know their grandparents and one complains about having his desk moved for their visit. Where will he do his homework? It's o...

This is my first Lon Chaney film, and maybe I'll come back to this one after I've watched a few more... for the moment, though, I guess I'm not 100% mesmerized. I understand the film's idea, but I'm not sure I believe in the realism. If this film is a metaphor for life, sure, but as an actual representation of life, no. Paul (Lon Chaney) is a great scientist on the verge of announcing his major findings to the committee of scientists. That's a little odd, as this seems like his first meeting with other scientists, as though his first major discover is his introduction to the scientific community, as though he's been isolated and alone and never had a scientific mentor or any scientific peers. Or friends. I guess I had trouble getting passed that. Because as it happens, he does have a benefactor, who, as far as we know, is simply rich, not a scientist. He takes all of Paul's work and claims he's the one who did it all. Okay, then have him explain it. ...

Charles Laughton makes this film. His facial expressions. The small darting movements he makes with his eyes. Moreau is the prototypical mad scientist, and he seems quite calm and sane. The only way we see his insanity, other than his creations, is through Laughton's acting. Compare that to Bela Lugosi as the Law Giver. All he has to work with is his voice, and it's a great voice, but even when the camera closes in on his face, the mask he's wearing is so complete that it could be anyone underneath. In fact, although I like the close-up of the "things," and one point in the film, we go from a Lugosi closeup to an unknown actor closeup. Other than name value, it makes very little difference if Lugosi is in this film. It makes all the difference that Laughton is in the film. The plot is so simple, which makes me wonder how The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) messed it up so badly. Not that Island of Lost Souls is perfect, but it has atmosphere. It knows how to work with...

In Snow White, the evil stepmom/queen puts her daughter to sleep. In Sleeping Beauty (1959), Maleficent attempts to kill Aurora, but the three fairy godmothers step in and change the spell from death to sleep. It's no wonder I end up getting the two films confused, because in some ways, they use the same plot. Snow White is a cute movie, but like Sleeping Beauty, it leaves a lot left unexplained. Like, where is everyone? We have two kingdoms represented, and all we ever see is the Queen, the daughter, the Woodsman, and the Prince. Where are all the people? For that matter, what happened to the King? What happened to the first Queen? I understand that a lot will be left unexplained, but sometimes in Disney movies, the plot is an afterthought. They spend 10 minutes focused on Snow White cleaning the "dollhouse" the Dwarfs live in, but nothing on backstory, nothing on the PTSD that Snow White might be experiencing being forced to run for her life. Did she not know the Queen ...

The messaging of movies. It's not always something you think about, but sometimes it's easy to see when you watch older films. In this one, both the boyfriend and the father give the message: The way for women to be happy is to marry, have kids, and take care of the house. That's it. That's the secret to being content and to being truly happy. There are no alternatives. As the title suggests, the focus is on the girl, Jean (Elizabeth Taylor). She has a boyfriend who loves her and wants to marry her, Vance (Gig Court). He's rich and she's rich. They want for nothing, and yet, even though she loves him, she's worried about settling down. She wants to see what else life has to offer. That's funny to me. She's going to have servants, and she will have the money to do whatever she wants. That's never addressed in the film. There's nothing that marriage will limit her from experiencing, except other men. Does she want to sow her wild oats? It's...

Everyone likes Sam Elliott. He's the old guy with the voice and the mustache. But name three films he's been in. I can -- Tombstone, The Big Lebowski, and Frogs. Can you name a fourth? Ebert rated this movie 3.5/4 stars, but in his review, he acknowledged that this is the kind of film that will receive no buzz and will come and go without anyone noticing. Why? I'm not sure. If you like the New Mexico desert, you're going to like this film. Maybe that's a pretty obscure, select group of folks. I love the New Mexico desert, and when I see the Rio Grande, I think, cool... I know where that is. Is it a problem with the pacing? Maybe, because modern-day audiences are going to find it slow going. Most of the characters are quiet, and we aren't always sure what they're thinking, or how they ended up like they are... that's true to life, though, right? On the other hand, when I was watching the movie, the thought went through my head that this is one of those mo...

Alan Alda has written and directed a few films in his career, and this one might be the best known. Since I listen to his podcast and he had a rerun of the Carol Burnett episode recently, the film entered my radar, and I thought I'd give it a watch. During the podcast, Burnett mentioned that she tweaked her part to make it feel more "real" from a woman's perspective. I was looking for the scene, and I guess it was the one where Jack (Alda) calls Kate (Burnett) "perfect." That's surprising, though, because that's exactly what Jack would call Kate. Kate doesn't want to be called perfect, though, because that's burdensome and in some ways dehumanizes her. Basically, the film follows three friend couples through one year -- four seasons -- of their friendship. To work a little better, I think maybe instead of four back-to-back seasons, the movie should have followed them through four figurative seasons -- from friendship's beginning through t...