Monthly Archives: January 2011

by

Patton (1970) A Great Actor in an Excellent Biopic

Patton is a fascinating, surprising movie and totally not what I had expected. Especially not after the first ten minutes in which we see George C. Scott perform the so-called Blood and Guts Speech. Quite off-putting, to be honest. As much as I like transparent and open communication, this wasn’t promising. What I sensed at the beginning is exactly what the movie has been reproached of doing, namely not taking an anti-war position. 1970 was not exactly a time in which people were in favour of a movie that seems to glorify warriors. Well, that is not what it’s a l about as I discovered when I watched the rest. No, this is an excellent biopic with an absolutely amazing main actor. A portrait of a character with numerous dazzling facets.

The movie follows Patton’s WWII years, starting in Africa, continuing in Europe, until the moment when he comes to rescue the by now famous 101st Airborne at Bastogne.

Patton is mentioned in many a war movie but we do not see him so often. We know that there was a lot of competition between him and the British General Montgomery and ultimately also between him and Feldmarschall Rommel. Rommel seemed to have had a lot of respect regarding Patton’s skills, whereas Montgomery was too full of himself to register anyone else (what a peacock).

Patton is an epic character, a larger than life figure but what puzzled me most is his belief in reincarnation. This isn’t what I had expected and it was the element of the movie that fascinated me the most. He was convinced to be the reincarnation of an ancient warrior, he even remembered some battle fields from former lives. On the other hand he was a believing Christian. Truly a man of many contradictions or rather complex aspects. He wrote poetry but despised cowardice which led to an unlucky event – the unfair slapping of a shell-shocked soldier – that cost him his position.

Precisely this event surprised me even more than his belief in reincarnation. I’m not saying people should be slapped, no matter what for, but that this led to his removal from command seems very surprising, humiliating and also unfair. I rather assume that Washington didn’t approve of his being to outspoken. Plus he was absolutely not Russian friendly and didn’t make a secret of it.

All in all I think this is truly one of the most spellbinding biopics or character studies I have ever seen. Such a fascinating personality and what a splendid actor. 5/5

by

The All-star Cast that I Would Like to See in a War Movie

Jean Reno

Especially combat movies have large casts and very often the director and producers see this as a good opportunity to make it an all-star cast. I have said in another post which is my favourite existing all-star cast. But what if I could choose the cast? I would choose actors who are not already in many war movies but some that I like in general and therefore should be in it. Some of you are going to argue that Russel Crowe and Mads Mikkelsen are in war movies, yes, but I am talking modern-day warfare (I’m cheating, I known and,  yes, Sean Bean has to be in it.). Anyhow, I like my cast  but somehow I have a feeling I picked a few too many with super large egos… There might be potential for a lot of  behind the scenes warfare…

Russell Crowe

Edward Norton

Robert Downey Jr.

Denzel Washington

Sean Bean

Philip Glenister

Vincent Cassel

Djimon Hounsou

Mads Mikkelsen

I do see another problem… I have not a lot of private material… I should choose at least one younger actor.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

What about you, what would your dream cast look like?

by

Candlelight in Algeria (1944) A Forgotten British War Time Classic

Candlelight In Algeria is one of the forgotten classics from the Golden Age of British Cinema. Just like Tomorrow We Live or First of the Few.

Candlelight in Algeria is a short, fun movie, mixing facts and fiction. James Mason plays a British spy who is chased by the Germans and helped by a very feisty American girl. They form a very funny duo and flavour this spy story with elements of the screwball comedy. She is an endearing heroine, really, and in stark contrast to the British spy. She never reacts the way he would expect a woman to react. She is courageous and foolhardy at the same time and pretty much living every moment to the fullest. I don’t think she cares too much about politics. She gets involved with Mason’s character because she loves adventures.

The location, Algeria, makes for some interesting decor, the black and white works well but don’t expect a Casablanca like movie. It is totally different. You won’t find heartache, sorrow, betrayal or an alcoholic brooding silently.

The protagonists meet in Algiers, when the agent Alan Thurston (James Mason) hides in the house of friends of Susan Foster (Carla Lehmann). He is looking for a camera which contains photos that will reveal the exact location where the Allies rehearse the invasion of North Africa. Susan is fascinated by Mason and probably also fancies him from the start and spontaneously decides to help him. The unlikely couple will try to get the camera back and in doing so are constantly  hunted by Dr. Muller, an evil Nazi sympathiser. Dangerous and comical moments alternate.

Maybe it isn’t the greatest achievement of British cinema history but it is very likable and I often enjoy the contrasting of British and American characters in movies of the 40s. I found it particularly fascinating as I had just watched Patton before that begins at the very same moment in history which is at the heart of Candlelight in Algeria. This movie is occasionally also mentioned in lists of forgotten noir movies.

by

Under Fire (1983) War and Journalism or Whose Side Are You On?

I don’t take sides, I take pictures (Nick Nolte as Russel Price in Under Fire)

The least you can say about Under Fire is that is an extremely interesting movie with four fascinating character portraits played by four outstanding actors.

Under Fire belongs to the war movie subgenre of War and Journalism. There are quite a lot of movies in this sub-genre and a great many are from the 80s. The Year of Living Dangerously, Circle of Deceit, The Killing Fields, Salvador, Missing and later movies like Welcome to Sarajevo (see my post).

The movie opens in Tchad. The photographer Russel Price (Nick Nolte) and the mercenary Oates (Ed Harris) meet and discuss their work. Oates points out that Price isn’t much better. He is profiting as much from every war there is as Oates is. None of them is more interested in politics than the other. When they part we know that they will meet again.

Before Price departs to the latest war zone, Nicaragua, we are introduced to two other journalists, Claire (Joanna Cassidy) and Alex Gazier (Gene Hackman). Claire and Alex are a couple but she breaks up with him before leaving to Nicaragua and we already sense she will be romantically involved with Russell.

At first when arriving in Nicaragua, Price isn’t interested in background information. He wants to know if the beer is good and what the food is like. Fortunately the movie nevertheless fills us in on the basics. We hear that the revolutionaries, headed by a guy named Rafael, fight the government of president Somoza who is supported by the US and a few other details. Claire and Price meet the French agent Jazy (Jean-Louis Trintignant), a dubious character, that seems to be in favour of the rebels, they also meet the president and his press officer.

While they are in Nicaragua – falling in love, getting to know the country – something happens to Price. He meets Oates again and sees him kill one of the revolutionaries in cold blood. This makes Price understand his own actions and how cynical they are.  He becomes aware that he cannot stay out of this anymore. It bdawns on him, that the Sandinistas are right, that the government is corrupt and supported by the US who are afraid of a communist Nicaragua. In order to support the revolution, he takes a fake picture. He serves the rebels but triggers a flood of violence during which Alex is killed by the president’s soldiers (this is based on a true story). He takes a picture of this as well and triggers a reaction in the US…

What I really liked about this movie is how subtle it portrays the different people. Nolte, Hackman and Harris are very convincing, each takes another position, stays for another point of view. The cynic mercenary Oates is probably the most stringent character, the one who will make you the most uneasy, although Jazy isn’t a bad example of double standards either. Claire was the least convincing character, she rather served as a enhancer for the others.

Apparently the movie has been considered to be problematic in the US because it openly takes position for the Nicaraguan revolution. I think this is great and daring. It is an ugly chapter in US politics and many efforts have been made to forget about it as soon as possible (Noam Chomsky has written quite eloquently about this).

The movie is visually extremely convincing. John Alcott, Kubrick’s cameraman, has filmed it documentary-style.

The topic of War and Journalism always makes me uneasy. I think we should be informed but I cannot understand how people can take pictures like vultures of dying and dead people and stay uninvolved. Maybe it is not so much journalism as photo journalism that I find problematic. I am really glad for movies like Under Fire. They are valuable and important and illustrate how everything is linked, how one deed leads to another.

There is a trailer on iMDB.

Here is just a video with scenes from the movie and the original soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith.

by

The Gathering Storm (2002) HBO’s Excellent Churchill Biopic

When Gretchen Rubin started to work on her biography on Winston Churchill, she first read extensively everything that was available. Every biographer would do the same, especially when the person he wants to write about is already dead and the possibility for an interview non-existent.

This isn’t really remarkable as such, remarkable is what she came up with after having read so much about Churchill. She realized she couldn’t write the type of biography you would normally write and decided to call her book 4o Ways to Look at Winston Churchill: A Brief Account of  a Long Life instead. In her book she names 40 elements of Churchill’s life and has a look at them. She also shows contradictions in naming Churchill’s positive aspects in one chapter followed by the negative ones in the next. For every character trait one biographer came up with, another one named the exact opposite. If you want to really understand Churchill and the range of his complexity you have to take into account all the contradictions as well. Rubin doesn’t say her approach is a definite one (although she used the same approach again in her biography of Kennedy) but it is certainly clever and thought-provoking.

The Biopic The Gathering Storm goes a completely different way. It shows Churchill just before WWII, during a very difficult period in his life and focuses on his depression and his marriage. We see a very private Churchill, one that not many got to see. I enjoyed The Gathering Storm a lot but I know it isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. The two actors Vanessa Redgrave and Albert Finney are fantastic. The title of the movie is taken from Churchill’s book  on WWII called The Gathering Storm.

If you like great acting, are interested in the private side of one of history’s most important men, enjoy character portraits and biopics and a beautifully filmed movie, then you shouldn’t miss this.

Unfortunately I couldn’t find a trailer so I posted part one of the movie here. You will notice that Ridley Scott was one of the executive producers.