Barren Lives (1963)

It’s crazy to go on. We’ll never get there.

“Barren Lives” is set in 1940's Brazil and shows a migrant family in the depths of poverty and what steps they take to survive.

I didn’t enjoy this movie. Every minute was agonizing and I just wanted it to be over. But I didn’t hate it because that was the point. The slow-moving plot, repressive heat, and the constant suffering of the family made for a tough watch. 

Director Nelson Pereira dos Santos makes you suffer alongside the family to the point of exhaustion.

Every aspect of the film has been calculated to create a depressive mood.  Shot in black and white, colour doesn’t exist in this world. Everything is dry like the creek bed  and deadly like the sun. The soundtrack is minimal and the viewer will notice the silence in many scenes where there’s no dialogue and only ambient sound.  What little music exists is mostly composed of a whining violin that persists like a hungry mosquito. Long shots of repetitive motion show the monotony of their lives and character flaws lead to tragic mistakes.

At every turn the family suffers. Whenever things go well, the situation soon sours. The father finds employment but his boss underpays him. They’re hired to look after cows but the drought starts to kill them. At times it seems the whole world including the environment is against them.

As well violence can be found throughout the film both visited upon and perpetrated by the family for survival and reveal the harshness of the world.

I can’t say I’d recommend this movie because it wasn’t a good watch. In fact, this review is meant to save you the 100 minutes I believe you’d waste watching this. It was both brutal and interesting but not something I would ever re-watch.

"City Lights" (1931)

This post was originally intended for the Film Preservation Blogathon but I managed to screw that up. Instead it is here, blatantly overdue, for your reading pleasure.

"Tomorrow the birds will sing."

The Little Tramp, played by Chaplin, encounters a blind flower girl in town and falls head over heels. He wants to help her regain her sight and tells her he's going to pay to get her eyes fixed. Through no fault of his own, she assumes he's wealthy, a fact he doesn't correct. He then proceeds to do everything in his power to make money, from getting a job, to boxing, to asking his rich "friend" for a loan. This rich friend happens to be a suicidal drunk who Chaplin befriends and looks after. The two go on adventures but the fun only lasts as long as the friend is drunk. When sober, he forgets Chaplin and kicks him to the curb. Somehow the Tramp must continue the façade he's created and make enough money to help the girl he loves.

The music at the beginning has a very Gershwiny sound. Very "Rhapsody in Blue" but it says that Chaplin composed the music. Was he copying or emulating Gershwin? "Rhapsody in Blue" came out in 1924 so it's possible.

The introduction of the Tramp is very cute. A Peace and Prosperity Monument is being given to the city and when its unveiled he's found to be sleeping on the uppermost statue's lap. I loved how he climbed down, getting his pants caught on the sword blade and while everyone's yelling at him, the American national anthem starts. Everyone stops out of respect and removes their hats; meanwhile poor Chaplin is just trying to stay on his feet. His fall looks effortless and organic. I didn't however, like the remainder of his descent from the statue. Sitting on the statue's face, hand and putting his foot on the knee felt forced. To me there was no need to draw out the gag, it accomplished its purpose, introducing the audience to the Tramp. Back in 1931 it may have been easier to get away with such stunts but to me it weakened the film and diminished the humour at the beginning of the scene.

At first I didn't like that Chaplin decided any dialogue would sound like adults in Charlie Brown. In 1931 sound was available for films. In fact, this very film has sound, just not anyone's recorded voice. It does work within the context of a Chaplin film though, as the viewer gets the gist of what the characters are saying and it adds humour to the visuals, utilizing sound without making the film a "talkie". Chaplin would go on to do something similar in "Modern Times"

We then meet the love interest, a blind girl selling flowers. She hears Chaplin climb out of a taxi cab and assuming he's a rich man, asks him to buy a flower. A car meant a certain amount of wealth at this point in history as the US was in the early throes of the Depression and things were only getting worse. Chaplin was smart here though as the film shows that he and the audience learn she's blind at the same time. After buying a flower with what are probably his last few pennies he stays to watch her, obviously smitten. I feel her story is a play for sympathy because not only is she blind and poor, she's also an orphan. Why not just give her a dog that gets run over too?

In terms of the technical aspect, it took Chaplin 342 takes to get the flower girl introduction the way he wanted it as he couldn't figure out how to show that she thinks the Tramp is wealthy. And when you consider that Chaplin wasn't on good terms with the woman playing the flower girl, Virginia Cherrill, I just cringe at the thought of that many takes. In fact, their relationship was so volatile that he fired her after she came back to the set late one day and intended to shoot the rest of the film with another actor, Georgia Hale. Cherrill knew that was impossible considering how much footage they'd already shot and said she would come back to shoot the rest of the movie at double her salary. Talk about taking advantage of a situation! All told it took Chaplin more than three years to complete "City Lights".

Later that same day we see Chaplin trying to settle down for the night on a bench. He then notices a man in a suit trying to kill himself in the river. The man is obviously drunk and as he puts a rope tied to a rock around his neck, Chaplin tries to stop him and they both end up in the drink. They climb over one another to get out of the river and I flash back to a very similar scene with Keaton in a change room in "The Cameraman" where Buster's trying to get into a bathing suit. Here though, Chaplin and the suit fall into the river a second time and at this point the gag feels stale. It would have been interesting to see how Keaton would have played this.

This event leads to some great gags in the next scene though as the suit, who is grateful to Chaplin, invites him home to celebrate their new friendship. Chaplin has a slew of very smart alcohol gags that we see on full display: the suit accidentally pours a whole bottle of booze down Chaplin's pants; Chaplin dabs a little alcohol on the back of his neck like perfume; Chaplin resorts to dumping an unwanted shot into his shirt pocket. The two friends decide to go head out on the town. There are several more gags at the restaurant there are several more gags, involving a cigar and a streamer. My problem was I could guess what was going to happen next. I'm sure at the time the movie came out these gags were fresh, but I've seen too many films with similar situations, including a very memorable "I Love Lucy" episode featuring Bill Holden and spaghetti. Chaplin's genius here appears to be his downfall as so many people have imitated him that the joke has become tired.

While his friendship with Suit is on again off again, depending on his sobriety, Chaplin continues his quest to make money to restore his girl's sight. He takes a job as a garbage man which he isn't very good at and then misplaces the soap and washes his face with cheese. Ew. When his garbage job doesn't pan out, he takes up a very short-lived career in boxing during which he tries to fix his match. Cheeky bugger! We also get an awesome scene of Chaplin dancing and dodging behind the referee to escape his opponent during a match. This was the best part of the movie, not only because of the lack of cuts but because of the humour and the choreography involved.

There's another scene at Suit's house involving cops and robbers. Fortunately Chaplin escapes to the flower girl's house and tells her to take his money for her operation. He thinks he'll never see her again and lies to her about it. It might sound weird but at this point I think Keaton's better at emoting with his face than Chaplin. The Tramp is caught and sentenced to jail, during which the flower girl has an operation, can see again and opens up her own flower shop with the money left over from her operation. Their situations now much reverse, the Tramp reappears, looking shabbier than ever and at one point gets angry, which I think he does better than when he's acting happy. The flower girl sees him and laughs, appearing to pity him but then she offers a flower and there's that wonderful moment where she realizes who he is. The ending is very touching though Chaplin's body language seems very childlike, biting a finger and smiling at her

Everyone seems to love this film and it's been lauded by critics for decades as one of the top films ever made. Orson Welles said it was his favourite film, Fellini praised the film and Kubrick rated it among his top ten films. James Agee ever said the final scene was the "greatest single piece of acting ever committed to celluloid". Some even quote this as Chaplin's best movie but I can honestly say that I don't feel the same way. I liked the movie but I believe "Modern Times" holds a far better claim to the title 'Best Chaplin Movie'.

My biggest problem was with some of the gags. Some were too predictable while at other times it felt like Chaplin was overplaying his hand with repetition. This speaks to how influential Chaplin and the invention of slapstick was to the movie industry and how the idea of humour evolves over time. I didn't mind that it was a relatively quiet film but at times it strayed into the saccharine and sentimental which I don't like. There is wiggle room considering this movie is over 80 years old but I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would, considering the hype.

Rating: Using my brand new rating system I would says that "This is worth checking out of the library but don't worry about buying a copy to keep."

"Amadeus" (1984)

"On the page it looked nothing. The beginning simple, almost comic. Just a pulse - bassoons and basset horns - like a rusty squeezebox. Then suddenly - high above it - an oboe, a single note, hanging there unwavering, till a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight! This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I'd never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing, it had me trembling. It seemed to me that I was hearing the very voice of God."

Composer Antonio Salieri is caught trying to kill himself and is sent to a mental institution, confessing to killing Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. A priest hears his confession and as Salieri speaks, we are taken back in time to when he was court composer to Emperor Joseph II. All his life, he had wanted to compose and all is going well until Mozart comes to town. Salieri imagines Mozart in his mind but is confronted by the real man, a vulgar, highly-sexed man-child with a strange laugh who speaks with the voice of God through his music. Salieri becomes bitter and jealous that God should choose to bestow such magnificent musical genius on an undeserving man while Salieri, a chaste and charitable man, finds his talent lacking. As his hatred grows he decides he must destroy God's chosen composer, through whatever means possible.

One of the best parts about this movie is the music. We both get to see and hear Mozart's music and at one point even go inside his head as he's composing. My favourite scene from the movie shows Salieri and Mozart working together on a piece of music. It's absolutely amazing to see Mozart at work and to watch Salieri's realization that he's unable to follow the man's ability.

We also see how different their childhoods were and their resulting musicianship. It's somewhat sad to see how unequal the talents are between the two. For example, Salieri composes a welcome march for Mozart when he visits the emperor. We actually see him working on it and Mozart, upon hearing it once, plays it back by ear and then improves upon it, seemingly with no effort at all. This accidental mocking eventually flowers into full blown purposeful degradation at a party, further driving a wedge of one-sided jealousy between the two.

Both men are interesting characters. Salieri has had a desire to create his entire life but only passing fair talent to pull it off. He went against his father's wishes and became a composer. He is seemingly adored by the Emperor and other men in his musical court but when Mozart appears, Salieri is instantly filled with hatred for this little man who makes masterpieces. Only Salieri can see the music for what it really is while everyone else finds Mozart an unorthodox upstart. He challenges current tradition and questions everyone's musical taste. Salieri, obsessed with his hatred for Mozart, attends every one of his musical performances while actively working to get them cancelled.

Mozart, shoved into the role of composer by his father, finds the job easy and his talent only thwarted by those who can't comprehend his abilities. He also has some serious daddy issues as his father seems to haunt his every step, judging and condemning. Mozart is also arrogant but still looks for approval and appears upset when no overwhelming praise is forthcoming, possibly an effect of his father's influence. Mozart is very childish and childlike. He laughs like a child, delights in the smallest of things and acts unprofessionally at times. He takes such joy in life that it makes me wonder if he didn't do all his living at the beginning of his life. As the film continues we see Mozart physically deteriorate, Salieri's influence made manifest. Mozart's demeanor, his hair and his clothing change as does his relationship with his wife and the appearance of his house. Every aspect of his life is tied into his music which Salieri is trying to drive into the ground. Mozart, unaware of this, continues to work and we see the toll it takes on him. At one point he tells his wife that the Requiem Mass he's writing is killing him.

Apart from the music the sets and the costumes are perfect. I'm a sucker for costumes films but this one gives you a real sense of the era. The ostentation practically overflows from the film. And the hats! Look out for the ridiculously big hats.

This movie also goes the extra mile when it comes to authenticity. When they show the opera Don Giovanni, the building they shot the scene in is where the actual opera was first performed. More than 200 years later that building is still standing. Also, the actor who played Mozart, Tom Hulce, practiced four hours a day to make it look like he was actually playing the piano.

I knew basically nothing about Mozart before this film, apart from he was supposed to be some musical genius. While the film isn't an entirely accurate portrayal of his life, his music plays throughout which is what interested me. I'm far more intrigued by the man and his music now and plan to make a concerted effort to pick up a biography or at least listen to a variety of his works.

Rating: You own this film and rewatch it often, it's that good. Yes it contains classical music and is a biopic but the story is amazing. The film runs long at three hours but the time is needed to create that one-sided rivalry and introduce us to these men and their music. It's no wonder that this film won Best Picture in 1984.

"The Birth of a Nation" (1915)

This film, directed by D W Griffith, is based on the novel, "The Clansman" by Thomas Dixon, that portrays the Klu Klux Klan in a heroic light.

You can't imagine how difficult it was to watch this movie. The blantant racism was difficult to stomach as well as the running time. At over three hours I needed to watch this in two installments.

It tells the story of the Civil War, the fight between North and South and what's called Reconstrution. I suppose the reason this film is on the 1001 Movies to watch Before you Die list is the technical innovations pioneered in its creation. And it was also very popular. It was the most lucrative film in history, making $10 million, until Snow White came along.

The film was as boring as "Wings", the first film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture. As well, this film reinterprets history in a way I've never seen before. If students were forced to watch this and take it as historical fact, they might grow up with a twisted idea of the Civil War.

The film has the South at the mercy of freed African Americans who won't let whites vote and subsequently vote in their own people. Legislators are then shown eating chicken and taking their shoes off in session. They then pass a law making it legal to marry white women (why this would be a goal I have no idea). Also, most of the African American actors are played by white men, as it was supposedly Hollywood custom that any male actor coming into contact with a white actress had to be played by a white male.

I once read a quote that sums this 'custom' up perfectly. It says, "the past is like a foreign country, they do things differently there." For the life of me I can't imagine why that would be a custom. I do undertand that racism was still rampant back then. The Civil War was only 50 years old. And while I know that racism still exists today, I can't imagine how much worse it would have been back then.

I don't think I would recommend the movie other than to see and understand how propoganda can affect people. This movie was apparently responsible for reviving the Klu Klux Klan.

Rating: 1.5/5

"The Great Train Robbery" (1903)

At twelve minutes this is a short movie. It was somewhat of a benchmark at the time as it used techniques like cross-cutting, camera movement, on location shooting and double exposure composite ending. Sounds technical right?

Cross-cutting is an editing technique where the camera cuts away from one action to another. It helps to weave two scenes together. It's also known as intercutting. Camera movement and on location shooting is pretty self-explanatory.

A double exposure composite ending is, well that one eluded me. But a double exposure is overlaying two images on the same piece of film though I don't think that's what I saw at the end of the movie. If there's anyone who can help me out with this it would be much appreciated.

As you might guess from the title this film is about a Train Robbery. While it may seem short and silly to us, this was filmed over 100 years ago. Whenever I watch old movies I try to see them in the spirit of the times they were created in.

The Good: This film is known for its ending, which was sometimes placed at the beginning of the film. Personally I think the piece works better at the end. Apparently, when it was first shown various people screamed and fainted. Why these people couldn't remember they were watching a film I don't know. But you'll have to watch it to see what I'm talking about.

The Bad: It's hard to know what's going on at times because this is a silent movie. I actually had to look up a summary for this movie to understand the beginning. Most likly though, the movie would have had live accompaniment with an organ or piano played by a theatre employee.

The Ugly The wild flailing actions of the actors is hilarious. I understand the exaggeration was to communicate to the audience but honestly, watching the messenger and the man who breaks away from the crowd was like wathing a five year old play Hamlet with extreme gusto. And why would you have the train car's door open when you're trying to protect a safe? Most likely it was to show the audience that this scene was taking place on a train but come on, stop being lazy and cut a darn window for us to see that.

There was an actual Great Train Robbery that took place in 1963 where 2.6 million pounds were stolen. There was also a movie "The First Great Train Robbery" made in 1979 with Sean Connery and directed by Michael Crichton. I haven't seen it so I can't do a comparison.

But as for the 1903 version, it's an okay movie and for silent films I personally like adding my own dialogue to spice things up. I'd recommend watching it just for the laughs and the end scene.

Rating: 2/5

"Phantom of the Opera" (1925)

This movie was originally a book by Gaston Leroux in about 1911 and if you don't know the story then here's Roger Ebert's summary of the piece. "Lovesick masked psycho meets girl, girl unmasks psycho, psycho goes on rampage story with everyone living happily ever after, except the people who die grisly deaths."

The highlights for me involved gunpowder, a random shoe scene, an ugly waterfowl bed, the Phantom unmasked, the horse and the 'Easy Bake Oven of Death'.

Lon Chaney Sr. plays the Phantom/Erik; Mary Philbin plays Christine Daae and Norman Kerry plays Vicomte Raoul de Chagney. You might be thinking, what the heck is a Vicomte? Well it's a nobleman next in rank below an earl. The dictionary truly is a many-splendoured thing.

The story starts with two managers taking over the Paris Opera House. It takes these two new numskulls a while to figure out that the opera ghost (Erik) is the one who really runs the opera house. This ghost is also in love with and training a chorus girl, Christine. But Christine's sweetheart is Raoul, the Vicomte.And so, a love triangle is born, kicking and screaming.

What's really exciting is you can actually see colour in this movie, fourteen years before The Wizard of Oz debuted on the silver screen. But it's really the play of light and shadow that gets your attention in this film. The unmasking of the Phantom was actually a little frightening and the director, faces Chaney out towards the audience so they're the first ones to see his true face. The scene apparently made the audience scream and faint. The makeup is really what gives the Phantom his gruesomeness and it was all designed and done by Chaney and apparently very painful to wear.

For all that it's a milestone it also has some parts that I could have done without. As a silent movie it had some slow sections and then some ridiculous sections. Coming from my point in history, some parts seemed silly or overdone, especially near the end Raoul. He looks exactly like a Muppet and his cape is going like no one's business. Overall though, it was entertaining.

Rating: 3.5/5

"A Trip to the Moon" (1902)

This is the first in a 1012 part series about the movies you should watch before you kick the bucket.

This is a black and white film otherwise known as "Le Voyage dans la lune" is a French film based on two novels of the time, one by Jules Verne "From the Earth to the Moon" and one by H.G. Wells "The First Men on the Moon".

It was directed and written by Georges Melies. It's quite short at around 14 minutes and is actually the very first science fiction film. You might know the famous scene where the rocket crashes into the moon's eye.

The president of an astronomer's group proposes a trip to the Moon. Eventually, six of the astronomers end up going. Keep in mind that these are astronomers and not astronauts. They build a spaceship in the shape of a bullet and use a cannon to laungh themselves into space. That's right folks, a cannon.

When they land you can see that apparently the moon has a breathable atmostphere. It also starts to snow and the group runs into a cavern full of mushrooms. Things get even weirder when one of the astronomers pulls out an umbrella.

My favourite part of the movie thought was when the group was attacked by the alien inhabitants called Selenites. When they get hit they explode, an early example of special effects. But the Selenites end up being too much for the group and they're taken to the Selenite king.

The film originally featured a final scene with a parade in honour of the astronomers. For almost a hundred year this scene was believed to be lost but a complete cut of the film was found in a French barn of all places in 2002. It's actually the most complete cut of the film and it was also hand-coloured. The full screening of the film happened in 2003 at the Pordenone Silent Film Festival.

Melies had planned to release the film in the US to make some money but Thomas Edison's film technicians illegally made copies of the film and distributed it around the country and made money off of it. Yet another reason to think poorly of Edison. What a complete jerk. This may be the first recorded case of what could be deemed illegal downloading. Poor Melies never made money from the piece and eventually went broke.