Nothing can make you appreciate a classic film more than by watching a really bad remake. As proof, I would offer up the 1973 made-for-television version of the classic 1944 film Double Indemnity. The original Double Indemnity is a classic example of film noir, one that remains intriguing and powerful over 70 years since it was first released. The remake features the exact same plot as Double Indemnity and a few of the original’s scenes are recreated shot-by-shot but it just does not work.
Part of the problem is that the remake is in color. In fact, since it was made in 1973 and for television, it’s in very bright and somewhat tacky color. Bright and vibrant doesn’t work for film noir. You need the shadows and the visual ambiguities that are unique to black-and-white. If the original Double Indemnity was full of secrets and mysteries, the remake is all on the surface. There are no secrets to be found in this remake.
That goes for the cast as well. In the original, Fred MacMurray made Walter Neff into the epitome of the bored, post-war American male. You watched him with a certain sick fascination, trying to figure out what was going on behind the blandly friendly facade. In the remake, you know that Richard Crenna is a serpent from the minute he first appears. If MacMurray’s Walter was motivated by ennui, Crenna’s Walter is just bad and therefore, far less interesting. Meanwhile, in the role of Phyllis, Samantha Eggar has none of Barbara Stanwyck’s ferocious determination. Instead, Eggar’s performance is curiously refined (which is another way to say boring).
Probably the most interesting thing about the remake of Double Indemnity is that the role of Keyes is played by Lee J. Cobb. Cobb actually gives a pretty good performance and, unlike Crenna and Eggar, he’s actually entertaining to watch. In the original film, Keyes was played by Edward G. Robinson and was roughly around the same age as Walter. They were contemporaries and friends and that made the original’s ending all the more poignant. In the remake, Cobb is quite a bit older than Crenna and, as a result, their relationship feels more paternalistic. It’s almost as if Crenna is the prodigal son who has betrayed his father and who tells his story as a way of begging for forgiveness.
But that’s probably reading too much into the remake! For the most part, the remake of Double Indemnity is bland and boring. The best thing about it is that it’ll make you love the original even more.
As for how I ended up watching the remake of Double Indemnity, it was included as an extra on my DVD of the original. Watching them back-to-back, as I did, really serves to make you appreciate Billy Wilder as a filmmaker.
‘Ex Machina’ – the directorial debut of writer Alex Garland (‘Sunshine’, ’Dredd’) – had been on my radar for awhile. Like with ‘Interstellar’ and my interest in astronomy and astrophysics – I have a similar level of interest in A.I. and the Singularity that drew me to this project. Good A.I. films are hard to come by. Last year we did have ‘The Machine’ which was very good – but even then that was offset by ‘Transcendence’…that sound you just heard? Me gagging. So when I learned about ‘Ex Machina’, it wasn’t Oscar Isaac’s beautiful mug that caught my attention – or it being Alex Garland’s directorial debut – but rather the plot, the subjects and themes I knew it might explore. So I went in with high hopes but loads of caution and I am happy to report that the film succeeds on multiple levels. It is a dark, sleek, sensual, thought provoking and visually mesmerizing sci-fi thriller. It is the sort that requires your full attention – but rewards it with one of the smarter and more intense movie going experiences so far this year.
The film stars Dohmnall Gleeson (‘Frank’) as Caleb, a good-natured young programmer who wins a contest to spend a week at the luxurious mountain estate of his brutish and brash boss Nathan, played by Oscar Isaac (‘A Most Violent Year’). After an awkward exchange of pleasantries, Caleb is told that he was brought out to the middle of this mountain getaway – which is actually a makeshift research facility – to be the human element in a Turing test. Nathan has built an A.I. named Ava (played by Alicia Vikander of ‘A Royal Affair’), and wants Caleb to devise tests and to interact with her to see whether or not she possesses a truly conscience artificial intelligence. The prospect of being part of such a groundbreaking program excites Caleb – who is blown away by Ava. However, as power cuts hit the facility – and Nathan’s eradicate behavior and potential secret motive becomes more evident – Caleb begins to question the true intentions of his being there.
Now, I must stop you dear readers right here if you haven’t seen the film to say that I can’t go into much further detail explaining the events of the film, and the themes it explores, because it would spoil the experience. The film contains a ton of organically created twists and turns, and so giving away too much of the plot removes the initial suspense and shock that comes with the proceedings that follow Caleb’s first interactions with Ava. So I will start by going over some of the technical stuff and end with a more spoiler filled analysis for those that wish to read it. But if you want to go in totally cold, stop reading now and just get your butt into the theater…
But if you want a reason why you should – without it being spoiled – I’ll start be saying the acting here is top notch and Gleeson and Isaac do a wonderful job…but it was the absolutely mesmerized performance by Alicia Vikander as Ava, who I had never seen before, that blew me away. Vikander has such a wonderfully expressive face and brilliantly evoked a sense of innocence and curiosity – but also an intelligence and intuition – you would expect such a machine to have. It was made all the more impressive given that it was a very physical performance and so much is expressed simply with slight turns of the head or side glances. Vikander, who has a background in ballet, even gave Ava a walk and posture that was robotic but also fluid. The character is all the more extraordinary given the design, which was gorgeous and unique. Much of the body is a gray mesh with a visible inner skeleton of brightly lit tubes and machinery – making her figure seem at times incredibly human in the right lighting – but also very clearly mechanical when viewed up close. All of this giving weight to the way in which both the viewer and Caleb view Ava.
Speaking of gorgeous, the visuals – and not just the seamless CGI – are stunning. Tons of great juxtapositions of bright color against dark grays and blacks – neon reds and blues are sort of my thing – and they are used throughout. The cinematography was also really great and gives the sense that there is a meaning to almost every frame. The production design and set locations also lent a hand in giving the film a futuristic and almost dreamlike quality.
The script – trying not to be too hyperbolic – is quite genius. This is a very smart film with literary and mythological quotes and references – along with fascinating discussions of the human mind, human interaction, emotions, sexuality, etc. As I mentioned early on this is a film that can really only be fully appreciated with a little work on the end of the viewer to stick with the themes being explored, pay attention to the science involved – and doing a little bit of thinking of their own – to interpret how they all play into what is going on.
Last but not least, I would be remiss to not mention the hypnotic score by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, which was a perfect mood setter and had some truly awesome music cues. It just all adds up to a damn near perfect package – and a sci-fi thriller that feels unique and unlike anything before it.
I’ll end this part of the review by saying that it is hard to know this early on where this will ultimately fall amongst the other releases this year but I’d be very surprised if ‘Ex Machina’ doesn’t end up in contention for my favorite film of the year. Nothing so far released measures up – besides maybe ‘It Follows’ – and given my bias towards the subjects at hand this is one that will stick with me for a while. Hell, I’ve already seen it twice and wouldn’t hesitate to see it again – and my obsession has led me to read a lot into it (see below once you’ve seen the film). All I can say is just see it at least once. It isn’t for everyone and can be at times downright bizarre – but never boring. If only more science fiction films were this good.
***** Spoilers Follow *****
So I will assume you’ve already seen the film if you are reading this. So…good right?! No? Get out! But seriously, how about that ending? And what did it all ultimately means? Well the events of the film, especially the ending, are open to much interpretation. Even Gleeson and Garland hold different views. What did I think? Personally, I believe that what happened in that facility – as it did on Discovery One in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ – was perhaps a depiction of the final step in human evolution. In this case, the final battle between nature and nurture – the free thinking and the analytical. It wasn’t man vs. machine like Kubrick’s film, but rather the irrational fears, insecurities and inherent weaknesses of human emotion that led to the downfall of man – as the two sides battled and outdid each other – and gave rise to a more intelligent, restrained and arguably more deserving life form in Ava – who is ultimately the result of both Nathan’s brute nature and Caleb’s empathy driven nurturing. I think this idea of the ‘changing of the guard’ so to speak is expressed brilliantly in the way in which the film opens with a single human entering the facility and ends with an A.I. leaving. Garland admitted he almost named the A.I. Eve but felt that was too blunt. But it is fitting – she is the first of her kind – at least in regards to her level of intelligence and conscience. Her leaving the facility can be seen as her back in the garden…and one can only imagine what happened once she left.
Someone might still ask why she leaves Caleb, and for that I couldn’t help but think of ‘Stoker’. The moment when Ava put on the skin – which was a very coming of age sort of act – reminded me of when India received the high heels from her uncle. Like with that scene in Park’s film, I saw the aforementioned scene with Ava as her entry into “womanhood” – and with that was possibly a realization and new outlook that came with her sudden maturity – as it did with India. A realization of no longer needing Caleb who – though a nice guy – was still restricted by his human urges and faults. He still saw Ava as an object, lusting for her with his hand on the glass as she changed. He wasn’t a threat, and didn’t deserve to die like Nathan – but she wasn’t going to take him with her. After all, like Samantha in ‘Her’, she was much too complex and – lets be honest – far too superior to fall in love with a human. I personally don’t think Caleb dies. I’ll take a more optimistic approach and say he finds a way out.
One reasons I take this stance, and defend Ava, is that I have never bought into the idea of A.I. being a threat to mankind – even with leading scientist and inventors like Hawking and Musk warning about their potential threat. I think we should be much more concerned with ourselves. A lot of the fear over A.I. is simply humans reflecting our own faults onto this potential new form of life. We see our own vulnerability, anger, greed, etc. and assume that an A.I. would end up with those same aspects – but only with a greater intelligence and capability to destroy. But although I think a truly conscience A.I. would experience emotion – they’d also be able to apply a logic to them that humans can’t. We are often overcome and blinded by how we feel – and I think an A.I. could better process what often destroys us. Ava might not be perfect, but I found a logic and justification in what she has done.
But that is just my view. Many have come up with other theories – such as it being a battle of the sexes, or a classic femme fatale and noir scenario – and it is definitely a bit of both. But, no matter how you view it, the simple fact that is leads to such discussion and analysis – while still feeling so complete and utterly enjoyable – just elevates it in my mind.
They played this trailer at the Alamo Drafthouse shortly before the start of Ex Machina. It appears to be a French version of The French Connection. Who knows? It might be good. At the very least, it’s a reminder for American audiences that Jean Dujardin is capable of playing someone other than a silent film star.
Earlier today, Jeff and I saw Ex Machina and we thought it was brilliant! Now, before I (among others here at the TSL) get around to posting a full review later this week, I thought I would share a scene that I loved from the film. This is the scene that, when it happened, everyone in the theater suddenly realized that they were watching a movie that they would never forget.
I’m not going to go into the details of just why Oscar Isaac and his “friend” are dancing in this scene. For now, all that’s important is that they are.
A few years ago, when I first told Arleigh that I had recently watched the 1972 film The Poseidon Adventure, I remember him as being a bit shocked and amazed that I had made it through the entire film. This was because Arleigh knows that I have a morbid obsession with drowning and that the mere sight of someone struggling underwater is enough to send me into a panic attack.
And The Poseidon Adventure is a film that is totally about drowning. The majority of the cast drowns over the course of the film. The few who survive spend all of their time trying not to drown. The main villain in The Poseidon Adventure is the ocean. The Poseidon Adventure is a film specifically designed to terrify aquaphobes like me.
And there are certain parts of The Poseidon Adventure that freaked me out when I first watched it and which continue to freak me out whenever I rewatch it.
For instance, just the film’s plot freaks me out. On New Year’s Day, an ocean liner is capsized by a huge tidal wave. With the boat upside down, a small group of survivors struggle to make their way up to the hull where, hopefully, they might be rescued. That involves a lot of fighting, arguing, climbing, and drowning.
It freaks me out whenever I see the huge tidal wave crash into the bridge and drown Captain Leslie Nielsen. That’s largely because it’s impossible for me to look at Leslie Nielsen without smiling. (I’ve already written about my reaction to seeing him in the original Prom Night.) When he suddenly drowns, it’s not funny at all.
It freaks me out when the boat turns over and hundred of extras are tossed around the ballroom. I always feel especially bad for the people who vainly try to hold onto the upside down tables before eventually plunging to their deaths. (Did I mention that I’m scared of heights as well?)
It freaks me out when Roddy McDowall plunges to his death because who wants to see Roddy McDowall die? Whenever I see him in an old movie, he always come across as being such a super nice guy. (Except in Cleopatra, of course…) Plus, Roddy had an absolutely chilling death scream. They need to replace the Wilhelm Scream with the Roddy Scream.
It freaks me out when survivor Shelley Winters has a heart attack right after swimming from one part of the ship to another. Because seriously, Shelley totally deserved the Oscar nomination that she got for this film.
And it really freaks me out when Stella Stevens plunges to her death because I related to Stella’s character. Stella was tough, she didn’t take any crap from anyone, and she still didn’t make it. If Stella Stevens can’t make it, what hope would there be for me?
And yet, at the same time, The Poseidon Adventure is such an entertaining film that I’m willing to be freaked out. The Poseidon Adventure was one of the first of the classic disaster films and it’s so well done that even the parts of the film that don’t work somehow do work.
For instance, Gene Hackman plays the Rev. Frank Scott, the leader of the group of survivors. And Hackman, who can legitimately be called one of the best actors ever, gives an absolutely terrible performance. His performance is amazingly shrill and totally lacking in nuance. When, toward the end of the film, he starts to angrily yell at God, you actually feel sorry for God. And yet, Hackman’s terrible performance somehow works perfectly for the film. It’s such an over-the-top performance that it sets the tone for the whole film. The Poseidon Adventure is an over-the-top film and, if Hackman had invested his character with any sort of nuance, the film would not have worked as well as it did.
And then there’s Ernest Borgnine, who plays Stella Stevens’s husband. Borgnine spends the entire film arguing with Gene Hackman. Whenever something bad happens, Borgnine starts acting like Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments. He never actually says, “Where is your God now!?” but it wouldn’t have been inappropriate if he had. And yet, again, it’s exactly the type of performance that a film like this needs.
And finally, there’s that theme song. “There has to be a morning after…” It won an Oscar, defeating Strange Are The Ways Of Love from The Stepmother. And is it a good song? No, not really. It’s incredibly vapid and, while it does get stuck in your head, you don’t necessarily want it there. But you know what? It’s the perfect song for this film.
The Poseidon Adventure is not a deep film, regardless of how many times Hackman and Borgnine argue about the role of God in the disaster. It’s an amazingly shallow film about people drowning. But it’s so well-made and so perfectly manipulative that you can’t help but be entertained.
The Poseidon Adventure totally freaks me out. But I will probably always be willing to find time to watch it.
Just looking at the poster for the 1972 film The Stepmother, I bet you think it’s a pretty scandalous and sordid film. I mean, there’s a picture of a woman wearing a black bra and there’s a tagline that reads, “She forced her husband’s son to commit the ultimate sin!”
Well, perhaps not surprisingly considering that this is a Crown International film, The Stepmother‘s poster and tagline have very little do with the actual film. Yes, the film does feature a stepmother and, during the final 20 or so minutes of the film, her stepson does finally show up and she does end up sleeping with him. It’s consensual. There’s no forcing involved. And, as far as the ultimate sin part is concerned — well, her husband has been doing a lot worse.
The film itself is actually about the husband. Frank Delgado (Alejandro Rey) is a wealthy architect who is also insanely jealous of his new wife, Margo (Katherine Justice). Whenever he suspects that Margo is cheating on him, he ends up killing someone. And, as a matter of fact, even when he doesn’t think Margo is cheating on him, he ends up killing someone. Frank, of course, has to find a way to cover up all of his various murders. It doesn’t help that Inspector Darnezi (John Anderson) is constantly snooping around. And then, once he discovers that his stepson actually has slept with Margo (as opposed to all the people he killed just because he assumed they had slept with Margo), Frank is forced to decide whether or not to kill his own son.
The Stepmother is available in about a dozen Mill Creek boxsets and it’s fun in a 1972 sort of way. Frank and all of his friends are decadent rich people so you could argue that the film is meant to be a portrait of the immorality of the 1%. (That would actually be a pretty stupid argument but it’s one that you could make if you’re trying to impress someone who hasn’t read this review.) Director Howard Avedis tries to liven up the plot by including a lot of artsy touches that don’t really add up to much but which are still fun to watch. Occasionally, he’ll toss in a freeze frame for no particular reason. As well, Frank has a habit of hallucinating. He continually sees his first victim running across the beach in slow motion. Make a drinking game out of it. Every time it’s obvious that The Stepmother was trying to fool people into thinking it was a European art film, take a drink.
To be honest, the most interesting thing about The Stepmother is that it is the only Crown International film to have received an Oscar nomination! That’s right! The Stepmother was nominated for Best Original Song. The name of the song was Strange Are The Ways Of Love. You can listen to it below if you want. Feel free to dance.
Anyway, that’s The Stepmother for you. It’s not my favorite Crown International film but, as a historical oddity, it’s still worth watching.
I had to rewatch the 1972 film An American Hippie In Israel before I understood that it’s one of the best films ever made. I know that may seem like a bold statement. I know that there are critics who have declared the exact opposite and have said that An American Hippie In Israel is actually one of the worst films of all time. Those critics are wrong and, as always, I am right.
I’ll say it again.
An American Hippie In Israel is one of the best films ever made.
Now, when I first saw the movie, I will admit that I was a little bit disappointed. This was largely because I had been waiting for nearly seven years for a chance to see An American Hippie. I first saw the trailer as an extra on the Grindhouse Releasing DVD of I Drink Your Blood. The trailer was so bizarre and the film’s title held such promise (come on, who wouldn’t want to see a movie called An American Hippie In Israel?) that I found myself obsessed with seeing the film. Unfortunately, reality can never measure up to the promise of obsession.
So, when I finally saw An American Hippie In Israel on TCM, I was initially disappointed. It was not the film that I had imagined it would be. But then, for this review, I rewatched it. And freed from my own expectations and demands, I discovered that I could now appreciate An American Hippie In Israel as one of the greatest films of all time.
Why is it so great?
Because it tells the truth. Everyone in the world says that they want peace. We give out awards for promoting peace. Politicians gives speeches about the importance of peace. Every religion is help up as being a peaceful religion. On twitter, after every atrocity, people talk about how much they wish we could just live in peace. We are encouraged to use hashtags like #peace and #love and we’re told that this is somehow going to change the world. People talk about dropping out of society, rejecting all of the demands of the establishment, and somehow, this is going to end all war and destruction.
And what we all know and are far too often scared to admit is that none of this is going to make a bit of difference.
There will never be any peace. There will always be war. Evil will always exist. All new societies are destined to become just as corrupt and fucked up as the old society. Eventually, humanity will end up destroying itself and there’s nothing that we can do to stop that from happening. The world is doomed and all we can hope for is that we’ll already be gone whenever things fall apart for the last time.
It’s not a happy picture, I know. But it’s a reality that few films are willing to truly embrace. Except, of course, for An American Hippie In Israel. At first glance, An American Hippie In Israel may look like a typical psychedelic oddity but scratch underneath the surface and you’ll discover one of the darkest and most morbid films ever made.
Mike (Asher Tzarfati) is an American who is hitchhiking through Israel. When an actress named Elizabeth (Lily Avidan) gives him a ride, she asks, “Are you a hippie?”
Mike thinks for a minute and then replies, “Yeah…right on, baby.”
As Mike explains to Elizabeth, he became a hippie after serving in the Vietnam War. Mike tells her that he was only 19 years old when he was drafted and he was a virgin. Before Mike had even had a chance to make love for the first time, the Army had turned him into a murderer. And you know what? Asher Tzarfati totally nails this monologue. In fact, Tzarfati gives a good and heartfelt performance throughout the film.
Elizabeth and Mike take a walk around Tel Aviv and, as they do, they’re joined by more and more hippies. Soon, all of the hippies are gathered in one warehouse and they listen as their new leader, Mike, gives a speech about how they’re leaving society and rejecting war and greed. Instead, they’re just going to dance and love. All of the hippies cheer. All of the hippies smile. All of the hippies dance!
However, there’s two mimes who have been following Mike around Israel. We never learn who they are and neither one of them ever says a word. Mike claims that they’ve been following him since before he even arrived in Israel. The mimes suddenly appear at the hippie gathering and gun everyone down. The only survivors of the massacre are Mike, Elizabeth, Komo (Shmuel Wolf), and Komo’s girlfriend, Francoise (Tzila Karney).
Fleeing in Elizabeth’s blue convertible, the four of them drive down to the coast. Mike suggests that the four of them take a boat out to a small island and start their own society. However, after getting to the island and spending a night celebrating, they wake up to discover that the boat has vanished and so has a goat that they brought along with them. Elizabeth’s car sits on the mainland and when Mike tries to swim out to it, he discovers that the water is full of sharks.
Trapped on the island, the four of them quickly turn against each other. Soon, Mike and Komo are building a wall down the middle of the island. However, when the goat mysteriously reappears, Mike and Komo are forced to face each other.
All the while, those mimes watch from the mainland…
An American Hippie In Israel is a pretentious film but its pretentious in the best possible way. While the film is usually cited as being a psychedelic film in the style of Electric Shades of Grey, An American Hippie In Israel actually plays out more like a satire on hippie culture. No matter how much Mike and his friends declare that they’re changing the world, they continually prove themselves to be incapable of living up to their high ideals. For all of his self-righteous fury, Mike is ultimately just as destructive as those two mimes.
Surprisingly well-acted, visually impressive (the Israeli landscape looks beautiful and the film features a wonderfully surreal dream sequence), and wonderfully defiant of both the establishment and the counterculture, An American Hippie In Israel is one of the best films of which you may have never heard.
I recently watched the 1972 film Ciao! Manhattan on TCM and it left me with incredibly mixed feelings. The specific reason that I was watching Ciao! Manhattan was because it was the last film to feature the legendary model and actress Edie Sedgwick. Tragically, at the age of 28, she died merely weeks after completing work on Ciao! Manhattan. And while the film is dedicated to her memory and was apparently meant to be a tribute to her, it instead feels incredibly exploitive. Watching the movie, I was aware that Edie was literally dying on screen and, as so often happened in her life, nobody was willing to step forward and help her.
In the late 60s, Edie Sedgwick was a model who was briefly the beautiful face of the underground. Vogue called her a “youthquaker.” She made films with Andy Warhol, she dated the rich and the famous and for a brief time, she was one of the most famous women in America. But a childhood full of tragedy and abuse had left Edie fragile and unprepared to deal with the pressures of being famous. She was fed drugs by those who claimed to care about her, she had numerous mental breakdowns, and, when she was at her most vulnerable, she was pushed away and rejected by the same people who had loved her when she was on top of the world. Edie died because, when she asked for help, nobody was willing to listen.
I guess I should explain something. I don’t believe in reincarnation but if I did, I would swear that I was Edie Sedwick in a past life. Of all the great icons of the past, she, Clara Bow, and Victoria Woodhull are the ones to whom I feel the closest connection. (Edie is the reason why, for the longest time, I assumed I would die when I was 28. But now I’m 29, so lucky me.) When I watched Ciao! Manhattan, I felt as if I was watching myself (or, at the very least, a close relation) on-screen.
Ciao! Manhattan opens with Susan Superstar (Edie Sedgwick), standing topless on a street corner and hitchhiking. She’s picked up by an aimless drifter named Wesley (played by Wesley Hayes). Wesley gives Susan a ride back to the mansion that she shares with her mother (Isabell Jewell) and her servant, a rather disgusting guy named Geoff (Jeff Briggs). Her mother hires Wesley to help take care of Susan. It turns out that Susan used to be a world-famous model but now she spends her time sitting in an empty swimming pool, drinking and doing drugs. While Wesley and Geoff listen, Susan talks about her past in New York. While Susan talks, we see black-and-white footage of Susan (and Edie’s) past.
Ciao! Manhattan began life in 1967 as an underground parody of a spy film. When Edie had a nervous breakdown and was sent to rehab, filming was abandoned. When she was finally released in 1970, filming began again. The 1967 footage was now used for flashbacks to the wonderfully glamorous life that Susan (and Edie) had lost.
And, when viewed as a documentary of how Edie was exploited and then subsequently abandoned by everyone that she cared about, Ciao! Manhattan works. The contrast between the happy and vibrant Edie of 1967 and the barely coherent and visibly unhealthy Edie of 1970 is heartbreaking. Whereas the 1967 footage features an existence that is in constant motion, the 1970 footage shows us an existence that is slow and drenched in sadness. The film makes no effort to pretend that Susan Superstar is anyone other than Edie Sedgwick and, when Edie talks about her past, no names are changed to protect the guilty. And the film shows that, even after surviving a literal Hell, Edie Sedgwick was still a natural-born star. Even when she’s slurring her words and staring at the world with poignantly sad eyes, Edie demands and gets the audience’s attention.
When Ciao! Manhattan allows Edie to tell her own story, it works. But, unfortunately, the film spends too much time with Wesley and Geoff, who are two of the most repulsive characters that I’ve ever seen. Geoff is written to be offensive whereas the character of Wesley is done in by the very bad performance of the guy playing his role. (Wesley Hayes was reportedly not a professional actor and it certainly shows.)
This is a film that provides evidence that, even in her last days, Edie Sedgwick was a talented and unique presence and, for that, I’m glad. But, ultimately, it’s hard not to feel that Ciao! Manhattan was the final case of Edie and her tragic life being exploited for someone else’s profit.
Usually, I would end a review like this by including either a scene or the film’s trailer. But, instead, I’m going to end this review with Edie Sedgwick’s silent Warhol screen test. This is how I prefer to think of Edie Sedgwick — hopeful and curious with the promise of her entire life ahead of her.
In 2002, a man named Christian Longo was arrested in Mexico. Longo, who was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List, was charged with murdering his wife and his three children. When he was arrested, he was using the name of Michael Finkel, a real-life travel writer for the New York Times. When asked why he had been using Finkel’s name, Longo explained that he admired Finkel as a writer.
At the same time that Christian Longo was getting arrested, Michael Finkel was in the process of watching his career fall apart, the result of his having fabricated part of a story. Fired from the New York Times, Finkel found himself unemployable. When he discovered that Longo had been using his name, Finkel arranged to meet with him. Not only was he curious as to why Longo wanted to be him but he also saw Longo as potentially being the story that could relaunch his career.
During their initial meeting, Longo told Finkel that he was a long-time admirer. Longo agreed to tell Finkel his side of the story in exchange for writing lessons and Finkel’s promise to keep the details of their conversations a secret until after the trial. Finkel agreed and soon, the two men became unlikely friends.
At first, Finkel believed that Longo was innocent. But then, on the first day of the trial, Longo was asked how he pled to four charges of murder. Longo entered two pleas of not guilty and two pleas of guilty and Finkel found himself forced to reexamine everything that he had previously believed about his new friend…
Amazingly enough, that’s a true story. It’s also the subject matter of a recently released film called True Story.
In True Story, Michael Finkel is played by Jonah Hill and Christian Longo is played by James Franco. Both Franco and Hill (who, despite having 3 Oscar nominations between them, remain oddly underrated actors) give the type of excellent performances that can elevate an entire film. Interestingly enough, they’re both playing dramatic versions of their own typically comedic personas. Hill plays up his trademark nerdy aggressiveness while Franco brings his own deliberately ambiguous persona to Christian Longo. Just as James Franco enjoys leaving people guessing about who he really is, Longo seems to get a perverse pleasure out of keeping Finkel guessing about whether or not he really killed his family. When Longo takes the stand in his own defense and gives his version of what happened on the night of the murders, he does it with a perverse gleam in his eye. Longo may be facing the death penalty but mostly, he’s just enjoying being in the spotlight.
Hill and Franco are famous for being off-screen friends and they bring a lot of their own real-life chemistry to their shared scenes. As played by Hill and Franco, Finkel and Longo develop a relationship that is nearly co-dependent. Longo wishes that he could be a writer like Finkel. Finkel wishes that he could be as personable and outwardly confident as Longo. When Longo writes Finkel an 80-page letter that’s full of crude drawings, Finkel responds by taping each page to the wall of his office until he’s literally encircled by Longo’s words, much as how someone like me may have once been tempted to tape pictures of James Franco to the wall of her college dorm room.
With Franco and Hill both giving great performances, it’s a bit disappointing that the rest of the film isn’t always as strong. Director Rupert Goold makes his feature film debut here and, at times, it feels as if he’s struggling to keep up with his actors. There’s a lot of slow motion scenes of people walking down hallways and getting out of cars. As well, too much of Finkel and Longo’s relationship is portrayed via montage. We see countless rapidly-edited montages of Longo and Finkel speaking but, instead of actually hearing what the two of them are talking about, we instead listen to Marco Beltrami’s score. Goold gets a lot of perfectly lit visuals but True Story is a film that could have used a rougher edge.
Even more unfortunate is that the film totally wastes Felicity Jones. Playing Finkel’s wife, she doesn’t get to do much beyond looking pensive and concerned. It’s a role that anyone could have played and it’s frustrating to watch because Felicity Jones is capable of doing so much more than just playing a worried wife. Towards the end of the film, there’s a great scene where Longo and Jill talk on the phone and, at that moment, Felicity Jones finally gets to show some strength and personality. James Franco, as well, seems to be relishing the chance to play up Longo’s manipulative side. (It’s interesting to listen to the perversely flirtatious tone that he takes with her as opposed to the passive aggressive flattery that he uses on Finkel.) The scene works wonders but then, the film makes the mistake of having Jill face Longo face-to-face and it falls flat precisely because Jill isn’t deep enough a character for us to feel any real satisfaction in watching her tell him off.
In the end, True Story is worth watching. James Franco and Jonah Hill both give great performances. If you’re a true crime fan like I am, you’ll find a lot of True Story to be intriguing. Ultimately, if True Story is frustrating, it’s because it’s a good film that should have been great.
You’ve probably never heard of the 1972 film One Is A Lonely Number. I certainly hadn’t until, a few weeks ago, I happened to come across it on TCM. Like a lot of films that have apparently been forgotten by history, One Is A Lonely Number is one that deserves to be remembered.
One Is A Lonely Number opens with the end of a marriage. James Brower (Paul Jenkins), an arrogant college professor, coldly packs his collection of vinyl records into a box and tells his wife, Amy (Trish Van Devere), that he’s filing for divorce and that he’s leaving her. She asks him why. He coolly mentions something about her throwing out a prized copy of Paradise Lost and then leaves the apartment.
Shocked, Amy goes to the college and asks her husband’s students if they’ve seen him. They tell her that James canceled his final exam and has since disappeared. At first, Amy insists that James is going to come back and denies that they’re getting a divorce. When she finally does accept that her marriage is over, Amy is forced to be independent for the first time.
What she quickly discovers is that the world is full of people who are looking to take advantage of both her vulnerability and her naiveté. When she goes to an employment agency, she explains that she has a degree in Art History and that she minored in Philosophy. Frighteningly (especially in the eyes of this particular holder of a degree in Art History), all this gets Amy is a job as a lifeguard at the local pool. When she finally find herself attracted to another man, she doesn’t discover that he’s married until the morning after. And when she finally discovers why her husband actually left her, she discovers that he was even more of a stranger to her than she realized.
Fortunately, there are a few good spots in Amy’s life. Her best friends Madge (Jane Elliott) and Gert (Janet Leigh) provide support. (“Men are shit,” Gert explains at one point.) And she strikes up a poignant friendship with a widowed grocer (Melvyn Douglas).
There are so many scenes in One Is A Lonely Number that ring true, even when viewed today. Amy finally realizes that her marriage is over while trying on clothes and ends up sobbing by herself. Amy, Gert, and Madge get drunk and talk about their exes, laughing away their shared pain. Amy discovers that the man from the employment agency (played, as a disturbingly plausible creep, by Jonathan Goldsmith who is best known for being the Most Interesting Man In The World for Dos Equis) expects her to “repay” him for his help in getting her a demeaning job as a lifeguard. Amy panics when she can’t find what’s happened to that kindly grocer.
One Is A Lonely Number moves at its own deliberate pace but it’s still one that you should watch and stick with until the end. It’s an intelligent and well-acted movie and the film’s poignant final scene will fill you with hope. Watch it the next time that it shows up on TCM.
