So I see on Coosa Creek Mambo Cinema that top ten lists are hitting the airwaves and I think to myself, "I never see enough new movies to do one of those but I enjoy reading them." Then I think, "Maybe each year around this time I could pick another decade exactly 40 or 60 years back like 1968 or 1948 and do a top ten from that year. And each year pick another decade so that next year I would do 1959 or 1929." Works for me. I think I'll do one this year but haven't picked a decade yet.
And speaking of 1959, for some reason the first movie that pops into my head from that year is Compulsion, starring Dean Stockwell, Bradford Dillman and Orson Welles, who chews the scenery so voraciously it's surprising there was a set left standing when the cameras stopped rolling. You know who directed Compulsion? Richard Fleischer. His birthday was this week, December 8th. He would have been 92 years old (he died on March 25, 2006). God I love 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (he directed that too). It's one of my favorite adventure movies of all time even considering it has Kirk Douglas singing Whale of a Tale which should have been enough to kill any movie but Fleischer did such a good job with it you didn't even notice. Well, almost didn't notice.
Fleischer was already in my mind the last couple of days anyway because he directed Tora, Tora, Tora which recounted the attack on Pearl Harbor whose anniversary was December 7. It's a movie that flopped badly with critics and audiences alike but for whatever reason I like it and I 'm not afraid to admit it. I think a lot of it has to do with the great models and miniatures used for the attack sequence at the end. I'm a sucker for old school special effects.
Which of course puts me in mind of new school special effects and CGI which I don't like. That made me think of Wall-E which, I 
probably don't need to tell you, I haven't seen. But I will see it soon. You see, as mentioned on this blog earlier, my wife and I have decided to revamp the DVD collection and we're currently purchasing old movies we want to see and renting the new ones, instead of wasting Netflix rentals on movies we want to own anyway. So I cleared my Netflix cache - yep, I cleared it - and started adding in nothing but movies from 2007 and 2008 that I hadn't seen yet in an effort to catch up with the present. Wall-E is one of those movies. I have absolutely no desire to see it, despite its good reviews, but when it shows up I'll give it a look anyway. At least it's Sci-Fi. I'm always game for Sci-Fi.
Speaking of Sci-Fi, one of my favorite cheesy effects Sci-Fi flicks from the seventies is Logan's Run. What's not to love? Filmed in a Dallas, TX mall it's got Farrah Fawcett, tunics and jumpsuits, soft porn, Roscoe Lee Browne providing the voice of Box (the slowest most awkwardly maneuvering robot imaginable and yet somehow it's killed dozens of runners), Jenny Agutter, hordes of cats at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. and lines like "Run runner!" Did you know they're remaking it and apparently are going to stick more closely to the book? And they've dropped the drop-dead age from 30 to 21. I'm sorry, but I had a hard enough time believing any society could properly function with only people aged 29 and under but 20 and under?!!?!?!? Sorry, but that place is going to be a wreck. I don't care how many computers are running it, I've got teens and I'm telling you that society will be a disaster on a minute by minute basis! I hate to judge a movie in advance but who else is with me on this assessment: Logan's Run the remake will totally suck. Big time.
Hey, that reminds me, Fox did a post on remakes recently and brought up Scarface. I didn't like that remake much but I did like the original and soon someone will be writing about it because it's an early Howard Hawks film and Ed Howard is doing the early Howard Hawks blogathon in January (details here). But here's the thing. I know as a bonafide classic Hollywood buff and a thirties movie lover I'm not supposed to say this but... I never really cared for Paul Muni much. I thought he was a good actor and I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is one of my favorites, and one of the best, of the early thirties dramas. It's just that Muni's performances seem very mannered to me. Around the same time Clark Gable and Gary Cooper and Spencer 
Tracy were breezing through their lines in movie after movie there was Muni, enunciating every syllable or adopting a thick accent that immediately signalled to the viewer, "I'm acting!" So I'm just not a big fan of him or his movies like I am with so many others of the thirties.
And speaking of thirties movies I love, I just recently purchased The Lady Vanishes to add to my collection. It's a favorite early Hitchcock of mine, one that has apparently been used for its plot devices in one way or another many times, including the recent Transiberian, which according to Arbogast did not live up to the standards of Hitchcock or even basic good-movieness (I just coined that word, use it if you like) so I guess I won't be seeing it on any top ten lists this year.
Which brings back to mind those top ten lists that started this spread of activation. I still don't know which 8th year I'm going to do this time, but 1938 is starting to sound like a good one. After all, I already have a movie to put on it, The Lady Vanishes. Thanks Arbo.
_______________________________________
*According to psychologists J.R. Anderson and P.L. Pirolli "Spread of activation refers to the cognitive process of retrieving memory. When one part of memory is activated, other parts that are associated with that memory are partly activated as well. "
74 comments:
This is a good idea for a post, when you don't know what to write. Wish I'd thought of it.
Thanks. I plan on making it a regular thing here, all titled "Spread of Activation" with a I, II, III and so on behind them. Basically it's not new at all, just a different way of providing links around the internet which so many bloggers already do. But I wanted it to also be about what I was thinking of with movies too. Don't you ever think of a million little things but nothing big enough for a post? I mean, I couldn't do a whole post on "Hey, ain't 20,000 Leagues great?" Well I guess I could, but that would be pretty weak.
I suppose I do, but then I forget them all when it's time to post. Or I shoot my wad on a particular topic in the comments section of some other blog. For instance, Crimes and Misdemeanors was on cable last night, and I watched it, and I though, "Boy, I should write about this. But after that big long conversation about it at Jonathan's place, I'm kinda talked out about it for a while. Oh well."
That's happened to me too. At first, I'll stop myself from commenting on something because I want to write about it and then I think, no that's stupid, just write about it now, in the comment section. It's not like I have a publisher paying me for this stuff. If I write about it here or in someone else's comment section it's still me writing about movies, which I like to do.
And in someone else's or your own comment section you're freer to just shoot ideas from the hip and not worry about editing and graphics and over-thinking the piece.
That's true. If I'd written an actual post about Crimes and Misdemeanors, the chances of me disappearing up my own ass would have greatly increased. Well, I'm going to write about something tonight, dammit.
Fleischer's been on my mind, by the way, and back on topic, for a long time because of what seems to be a critical reevaluation, spear-headed primarily, from what I can see, by Glenn Kenny and Dave Kehr (and also Dennis, come to think of it). I think I've only seen The Boston Strangler since this started happening, and I wasn't knocked out by it, but it was interesting. Curtis was great.
I like Fleischer and I noticed the critical re-evaluation tide starting to roll too but I don't honestly think it will last. Sometimes we all want to send a little too much praise to a director who has made some movies we like. I like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea quite a bit and I also like Compulsion, Fantastic Voyage and Soylent Green although it's not nearly as much fun as The Omega Man or Planet of the Apes. The thing is though, Fleischer also has mounds of crap to his credit too and even while I like the movies listed above I don't see much directorial flair or signature to those works. Tora, Tora, Tora for instance. Sure I like it but that has much more to do with my extremely forgiving nature with documentary like historical pics and the special effects of the attack than anything Fleischer does. Frankly, the pacing is dreadful and it turns out a lot of Fleischer's movies are pretty dreadfully paced. I think when he had a good script and good actors he could make it work but when he didn't his leaden touch showed through. A great director can make even a mediocre script and actors work but Fleischer, in my opinion, couldn't.
One of my big problems with The Boston Strangler is that it was stylized within an inch of its life, but that doesn't seem to have been a common failing with Fleischer. And yes, I would say pacing was an issue, too.
To be honest, though, I'm not really sure that I think that a lack of a signature style is much of a drawback for a director. Many of my favorite filmmakers do have one, but I think adapting to the material, and giving each film a style that suits it, is a very real, and unsung, talent. Generally speaking, anyway.
I wish I could do a stream of consciousness post, but my format is pretty well established, and I'm comfortable with it. I tend to stream in comments, and that's fine, too.
I haven't seen a lot of Paul Muni's film, but I have seen The Life of Emile Zola, and I absolutely adore it.
Richard Fleischer - yup, he's the flavor of the month. My review of The Narrow Margin got a lot of play on Greencine Daily and a lot of hits. That's a really fine film. I think he'll be second-tier important - something about him has that cool factor for new cinephiles. It will be like Jacques Tourneur. Facets has The Giant of Marathon in its collection SOLELY because he directed it (maybe because Bava is also connected with it, but I doubt it) because frankly, it's just a cheesy bit of fluff.
Personally, I'd like to see Robert Wise become cool. He's done a million types of films and done them all very well. He really is a cinematic jack of all trades.
Hey, Jacques Tourneur deserves his status. I've only seen one film of his (War Gods of the Deep) that made me shrug.
Robert Wise betrayed both Welles AND Val Lewton, so to heck with him! But he made some damn good movies, too, so I guess you're right...
Bill - I agree that a director adapting is good thing, and one of my favorites is William Wellman who is not very big among cinephiles. But still, with each film the pacing and basic camera styles remain consistent. And they do with Fleischer too whether his newfound fans want to admit it or not. And that style is pretty flat quite frankly. Flat lighting, static camera, scenes played out beyond their stay.
The Boston Strangler has the multiple frames work that so many sixties and early seventies movies of the time had (Thomas Crown Affair, Woodstock, hell, even The Longest Yard) so it's not Fleischer being stylized so much as simply copying what was popular at the moment.
Marilyn, I like The Life of Emile Zola too, but I don't adore it as you do. Muni was a fine actor, I just think he was probably better suited for the stage. In Scarface for instance, that Eye-Talian accent of his takes me out of the movie throughout.
Richard Fleischer - yup, he's the flavor of the month... I think he'll be second-tier important - something about him has that cool factor for new cinephiles.
Exactly! I don't know why, but I have noticed in my time blogging that cinephiles like to prove themselves (and I'm not accusing anyone here directly of anything that I haven't been guilty of myself) by championing a director or actor of questionable merit because critics and film historians have long derided them. Frankly I have had to stay out of a lot of commenting on some posts because I just couldn't bring myself to agree that Director X, who was a talentless hack, was really an undiscovered genius. And then everyone jumps on the bandwagon and the Flavor of the month begins. But I agree, it's only temporary. Hawks and Welles and Hitchcock and Fellini and Kurosawa have their reputations for a reason and no matter how much we try, we're just not going to convince the world that Fleischer belongs with them.
one of my favorites is William Wellman who is not very big among cinephiles.
I'm not quite sure what his reputation is, it seems to wax and wane. I'm not a huge fan, but he definitely has a "man's man" reputation that is attractive to some cinephiles. His reputation seems to be all over the place, some (perhaps most at the moment) dismissing him, and then others praising him as one of the greatest directors of the classic Hollywood era.
cinephiles like to prove themselves...by championing a director or actor of questionable merit because critics and film historians have long derided them.
I can certainly be guilty of this, and I have the bad habit of ascribing genius to far too many films at first. There are some directors who I believe have been truly unfairly forgotten or semi-forgotten directors (I think I've shared my love of Mervyn Leroy here before)but I see a tendency to wild contrarianism everywhere these days. I suppose that validating Hitchcock was considered contrarian in the day, but it's not like every director of poverty row mysteries was some kind of unsung genius that was a victim of the Hollywood system?
By the way, do you know who's stock seems to have been rising recently? Mitchell Leisen. I've been seeing a lot more articles and appraisals of him the past six months than I have for the past 3 years.
Have you seen Armored Car Robbery - that's cracking Fleischer.
If you really did punch Rick in the face, would it even hurt him? Or you? Or would it be like punching a panda? What does Bill look like? We know what Marilyn looks like because she has a profile picture.
What is up with my cell phone battery?
Hawks and Welles and Hitchcock and Fellini and Kurosawa have their reputations for a reason and no matter how much we try, we're just not going to convince the world that Fleischer belongs with them.
I don't think anyone's trying to do that, exactly. They're just trying to raise him out of the "talentless hack" school.
I look like Morey Amsterdam.
I wrote about Fleischer, a couple of his films and is autobiography last July. He doesn't talk about all of his films, but he does have a few choice things to say about working with Kirk Douglas.
I also don't resent Robert Wise for The Magnificent Ambersons. He was an RKO employee who did the best he couple in a bad situation. I'm basing this on Simon Callow's biography of Welles.
As for lists of best films of the year, I'm finding it harder to do because I don't see too many films theatrically. Also, the way films are seen is changed so that some films do not get theatrical release, or or not seen theatrically unless you live in certain cities. Getting to see some films at the Denver Film Festival helped keep me a bit more current so that I've already seen Slumdog Millionaire.
KH - Well, I like Wellman and I think he was a fine director. And I'd like to see Michael Curtiz, who I think was goddamn master of pacing, get more credit. The funny thing is with Curtiz is that he has an amazing array of legendary films under his belt and so I think there is a tendency for people to think, "Oh well, he just got consistently good scripts and actors." Yeah, well, I can tell you that The Kennel Case Murders isn't particularly well written or acted (except for William Powell) and that damn thing is entertaining to watch and races along with quick editing and a fluid camera. By the way, I have it on DVD and was going to use it for a NAME THAT MOVIE but not now I guess.
Another reason cinephile bloggers are drawn to re-evaluations is because they are necessary in so many cases. It took years for Howard Hawks to achieve the reputation he now has.
So we cinephiles try them all and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe a movie I feel has been neglected, like The Luck of Ginger Coffey or Loach's Kes or Crichton's Floods of Fear will become standard accepted classics one day (Kes I think is already halfway there) or maybe not but I'm happy to have given them some meager exposure here on my blog because I think all three are definitely worth watching, especially Ginger Coffey.
Arbo, slow down on the coffee.
I haven't seen Armored Car Robbery.
I did see The Jazz Singer though. I still have nightmares.
I don't think anyone's trying to do that, exactly. They're just trying to raise him out of the "talentless hack" school.
You're right, I shouldn't have written it like that. I was just trying to say that certain directors are noted for a reason and others, like Fleischer, who may be good in many areas, aren't revered for a reason too. Not because he was a talentless hack, which he wasn't, but just because someone is good at what they do doesn't mean they should be exalted.
Not to derail things too much, but, Jonathan, have you ever read Brian Moore? He's the guy who wrote the novel The Luck of Ginger Coffey (I have neither seen film nor read book), and he gets a lot of play at a book forum I frequent. He also wrote the novels for which the films The Statement, The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearn and Black Robe were based on. He was diverse.
Speaking of Neflix, I am now able to take advantage of their streaming video for Macs. I have been able to take a couple of films off my queue and also see a couple of films not on DVD. My first discovery was seeing Roger Corman's Gunslinger with Beverly Garland. I also saw Cry of the Banshee starring Vincent Price, with an opening credit sequence that was hilarious and unusually arty, created by the then unknown Terry Gilliam.
I'd like to see Michael Curtiz, who I think was goddamn master of pacing, get more credit.
The more I see from Curtiz the more I like him. Although Casablanca is deservedly a classic, I've come to like Mildred Pierce and Angels With Dirty Faces even more. Besides his beautiful pacing as you mentioned his lighting is always immaculate, especially his late '30's-40's films. I know that Dave Kehr sings his praises, but the sheer cultural force of Casablanca seems to have ironically kept him from being discovered to a larger extent.
Peter - Slumdog Millionaire is at the AFI here right now. That might be my next new movie viewing this weekend.
I liked your piece on Fleischer, it was a serious look at him that kept a reasoned distance.
And I think Robert Wise felt pretty bad about the Ambersons editing didn't he? I thought I saw an interview where he talked about being totally against it but it was his job and an editor doesn't carry enough clout to get fired from one studio and be picked up by the next. Let's face it, in the studio system, no one is going to hire an editor who was fired because he refused to go against the director's wishes. Wise would have been out of the movies forever.
Thanks for the link Jonathan.
As for Paul Muni, I think his performance in Scarface skirts the edges of badness, but is such a visceral, messy force of nature that it's hard to resist anyway. His accent is awful, just a few steps removed from "that's a spicy meat-a-ball," and he's hammy in the extreme. It's perfect for the part, which requires a very big, very blunt hammer rather than a scalpel, but I wouldn't say it qualifies as actual "good" acting, whatever that is.
Bill - No I haven't. He sounds like he might be a Pierre Boulle type (Bridge on the River Kwai, Planet of the Apes), a write who skips around from genre to genre. I'd like to read Ginger Coffey though. I'd be interested to see how the book handles the ending. It's a grim and gritty ending, definitely not happy but not entirely depressing either. Somewhat akin to the ending of The Crowd. I'll see if any of the libraries around here have it. The movie isn't on DVD, which is why I wrote it up, but it's excellent and Robert Shaw is superb in the lead role.
I'll just say that I love Paul Muni, less for scarface, but for stuff like I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang which is just an amazing film all around, and Life of Emile Zola which I actually didn't like that much (sorry Marilyn) but Muni is truly amazing in it.
Peter, I didn't know they had it for Macs yet. I have both Macs and PC's in the house and have only ever used it on the PC's because it always said it wouldn't work on Macs. That's great! Now the whole family can shut itself off from each other as we each grab a laptop and watch movies in sullen solitude.
I know that Dave Kehr sings his praises, but the sheer cultural force of Casablanca seems to have ironically kept him from being discovered to a larger extent.
That's how I feel. I think Casablanca is so big and other movies he has directed so popular and entertaining (Adventures of Robin Hood, Captain Blood, Mystery of the Wax Museum, Doctor X) that it somehow works against him. People can't believe one director could be that good so he must have been lucky. But I'm telling you, watch his lesser works, the ones with poor scripts and for the most part, in my experience, they're still good! They're entertaining, they're watchable, they're not slow or dull. It was him, it wasn't luck. Hell, I think he makes King Creole a lot better than it should have been.
His accent is awful, just a few steps removed from "that's a spicy meat-a-ball,"
Ed, that's classic - and dead on right. I can see him saying, "Hey, what's a matter you? You no like Bocce Ball?"
Or feeding spaghetti to Lady and the Tramp outside of his restaurant.
I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang which is just an amazing film all around
KH - That's one of those movies I thought was terrific the first time I saw it and then years later was pleased to discover it was no false memory. I watched it again just last year and it was every bit incredible as I had remembered it.
Another thing that Casablanca holds against him is that unlike, say, Citizen Kane or Vertigo people don't look at it through a directorial context. The things that are praised in Casablanca tend to be things like the wonderful acting and chemistry and the script. People go into it for Bogart and Bergman and look at it as the ultimate example of Old Hollywood. Curtiz gets pushed aside as simply a cog in this great wheel.
KH - It's true, that's what does happen with it. For some reason, Curtiz doesn't exist with that movie. Somehow Casablanca just happened. Everyone woke up one day and started acting in front of cameras and this movie appeared. No director involved whatsoever.
The Adventures of Robin Hood is a big, beloved movie. Frankly, I love it more than Casablanca, and I'm not alone. Any cinephile with have a brain (not to mention a whole brain) can see how skillfully executed it is and how the director got the most out of his players.
Wonderfully entertaining movies don't just happen. I don't like much of Steven Spielberg's work, but I will always say what a gifted storyteller he is, what a great eye he has, and though I don't care for his point of view, what integrity he has in putting it forward.
I typed that with the half a brain that isn't working.
Marilyn, not at all, I got all of that. And it reminds me of what Bill and I were talking about earlier, about planning to post something and then it comes up in the comments. I have a Spielberg post about how I don't like him much or his movies but I understand he has many gifts. But I really will save that one for my upcoming post.
And The Adventures of Robin Hood (also 1938 so there's another on my top ten list) is one of my all time favorites. It's got adventure, comedy, romance - everything. And it's all so skillfully executed. Not only that but it figures in prominently in a montage I'm currently working on which I'm very excited about.
Penny Marshall is great.
That's quite a valuable critical assessment Fox. You've given me a lot to think about. The way you break down her career and her films and really get to the heart of it so we can all understand your point of view.
Oh no wait, you just wrote "Penny Marshall is great."
Explain.
She's just great... y'know? You watch A League of Their Own and it's just like... y'know?
I'd contribute more but I'm hammering away at my monograph on Betty Thomas.
Don't forget her Second City years, Arbo. Her crystalline facets flamed with fire of creativity.
I think these two sentences work well together:
I'm hammering away at my monograph on Betty Thomas. Her crystalline facets flamed with [the] fire[s] of creativity.
I think Marilyn and Arbo should consider some kind of duel writing assignment. They're poets!
Fox - No, I don't know.
I think Marilyn and Arbo should consider some kind of duel writing assignment. They're poets!
Like Sandler & Young!
Please! Do I look like a man to you? Don't answr that!
Nichols and May or nothing, you sniveling worm!
Ooh.
You two will always be Meara and Stiller to me. Just kidding, actually, I thought Nichols/May would be the best comparison too. Why if you two teamed up you could graduate from blogging and turn over a new leaf.
I got a million of 'em.
I've been singing "Spread of Activation" to the tune of "Wave of Mutilation" all day, but since you dudes are old and talking about Laurel & Hardy or some sh*t, you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.
Maybe we should see who we like better in general, Penny Marshall or Gary Marshall? And between those two, their most watchable films. My vote is for Penny and A League of their Own.
As for myself, I guess I better start cracking on that study of the films by Paul Michael Glaser. Bob Dylan must have needed the money badly to do the theme song for Band of the Hand. I did like that skating movie, though.
Peter asks a good question here...
Of the Marshall canon (don't forget Garry son Scott!) I would have to say that Penny has the edge. In all sincerity, I do enjoy A League of Their Own, but I might give the edge to Big. What about Renassaince Man? Will that get any love?
Fox, now I have that song stuck in my head. Does that make me a young dude?
No one should ever be too old for the Pixies anyway.
Ed-
It's makes you a cool dude!!
(Right now Lapper and Marilyn are on Wikipedia gathering Pixies info.)
Peter - Paul Michael Glaser. Is there a better director out there?
I'd do a stream of consciousness post if I had a consciousness to stream.
By the way, Jonathan, mosey on over to my place and leave a comment.
(Right now Lapper and Marilyn are on Wikipedia gathering Pixies info.)
Dude, the Pixies broke up before you were even born. You're acting like they're some new underground group or something. Who else do you consider "of-the-moment" cutting edge? Pavement.
And Ed, don't listen to Fox, you're cool whether you like them or not.
Who are the Pixies?
The Pixies label site is here.
Hey has anybody heard this hot new band Nirvana? I hear they're OK.
They're pretty good. How about this other new band I hear about, Jane's Addiction? They're all the talk at CBGB's!
Smashing Pumpkins!!!!!
I have to give the edge to Penny, too, for Big.
Please, I'm so au courant ... "Nine Inch Nails" and their spin-off group "Big Damn Hammer."
Har.
"Splinter" group, Rick. "Splinter" group.
They're not a television show.
I have not seen any Penny Marshall films so I would have to give it to her.
No wait, that's not true, I have seen Big so Big
KH - You're gonna give it to Penny? When?
Tuesday at 8
But check your local listings.
Immediately after don't miss a very special episode of Blossom.
Then join the zany cast of Night Court for hilarity that's never out of order.
KH - You're gonna give it to Penny? When?
DAMMIT! Lapper beat me to it!
Bud goo god!!... can you imagine giving it to Penny Marshall? It would be like porking a hairless anteater with police sirens for lungs.
I'd rather make love to Bill.
"Splinter" group, Rick. "Splinter" group.
Argghhh ...
I'd...make love to Bill.
And thus it comes out!
The first 30 comments or so of each of my posts usually deal with the topic at hand. Then after we've talked ourselves out on that we start joking. It occurred to me, if you took the 40th or so through the last comments of each one of my posts, most people would probably think this was some sort of deranged sex chat room.
Internet Surfer 1: "What are they talking about now?"
Internet Surfer 2: "Screwing Laverne. No wait, screwing Bill."
Internet Surfer 1: "Who's Bill?"
Internet Surfer 2: "I dunno. Probably some porn guy."
Wait, this isn't a deranged sex chat room? I always wondered why there was so much distracting talk about movies here.
That movie stuff does get in the way doesn't it?
Post a Comment