Week 49; Film 101 - Rain Man [1988]

Wheeling and dealing salesman Charlie Babbitt learns that his estranged father has passed and bequeathed his three million dollar estate to an unnamed trustee. Enraged, Charlie pries and discovers the money is routed to a mental institution. There, Charlie learns he has an until-then-unknown-to-him brother, Raymond, who has savant syndrome and autism. Charlie kidnaps Raymond under the guise of family reunification and attempts to gain custody of his brother to get control of the money. Charlie find Raymond to be infuriatingly grating but gradually begins to understand Raymond’s routines and their shared past. Charlie begins to feel affection for Raymond and casts aside his selfish aims in an effort to have a relationship with his brother.

I really enjoyed this story. It was a really unique mis-matched, buddy, road trip movie (incidentally just like “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles” the week before). I think that Tom Cruise brilliantly portrayed a hate-able prick who we learn to love (as the character grows) and there's no denying that Dustin Hoffman’s performance is committed and iconic. I was also caught off guard by the music—both in that I immediately recognized it but never attributed it and that it’s a pretty causal, easily digestible Hans Zimmer score.

I read that the Autism-community has a complicated relationship with this film. This is because the film both heavily contributed to public awareness and acceptance of Autism spectrum disorders and yet established an inaccurate media stereotype of those on the spectrum. While this portrayal and story premise may feel outdated, I think that “Rain Man” still holds up as a heartfelt story about two brothers.

Week 48; Film 100 - Planes, Trains and Automobiles [1987]

Happy 100th film everybody!

______

When you google “Thanksgiving movies”, not a whole lot comes up. But I was determined to try something new for the season, so here we are…

“Planes, Trains and Automobiles” is about Neal Page, a stuffy businessman trying to get home to his family for Thanksgiving, and his encounters Del Griffith, a bombastic but cuddly salesman. Fate brings these two together on a plane as a storm reroutes them from their Chicago-destination to Kansas. With few options and bad weather, the two team up to claw their way back to Chicago by Thanksgiving, managing a patchwork itinerary of…well…planes, trains, and automobiles.

This story is fantastic and Steve Martin and John Candy are fantastic…er! I think I was destined to feel this way; as a genre “wacky comedy with heart” is right down my alley. And while this film pushes the boundaries of a grounded narrative with F-bomb laden outbursts and car explosions, it manages to tell a very real, heartfelt story about family, friendship, and reluctant cooperation. This film is still funny, still insightful, and still a great watch.

Week 47; Film 99 - Bicycle Thieves [1948]

In post-World War II Italy, a family sells their bedsheets to pawn for a bicycle. Head of the family Antonio Ricci needs this bike for a new job that is expected to provide for the family and reverse their fortune. On Antonio’s first day of work the bike is stolen and he takes off after the thief, losing the crook in the bustle of Rome. Antonio, and son Bruno, spend the rest of the film in search for the missing bike as frustration, hopelessness, and self-pity drives Antonio to recklessness.

Italian charm, a loving family, and the mystique of old Rome couldn’t save this film from its stark, undressed portrayal of a bad day. Like an old-Italian “Breaking Bad”, this film is all character-devolution with none of the audience satisfaction. And yet, the more I sat on this one, the more I felt endeared to it. I’m sure there’s some background tale about coping with misplaced trust and hope in the wake of post-Mussolini Italy. But the foreground tale of a father who is trying his damndest to not look the fool in front of his son and wife and is failing miserably—it crushed me. But that’s art and that’s life.

Week 46; Film 98 - Predator [1987]

What do you get when you take your typical science fiction-action film, set it to the formula of a voyeuristic slasher, mix in the style of a Vietnam War movie, add a dash of Bond-like catchphrases, the thematic framework of “The Most Dangerous Game”, and one reluctant Austrian hero? A bloody mess that shouldn’t work but ends up being a campy joy all the way through. “Predator” follows an elite mercenary rescue team, led by Schwarzenegger's Alan "Dutch" Schaefer, as they attempt to extract hostages in the Central American jungle. Once on the ground, they soon realize that the mission isn’t what they signed up for. The crew must endure a cat-and-mouse game of survival with an unseen, alien combatant who actively hunts the group for the sport of it.

Schwarzenegger films are kind of a guilty pleasure of mine and I am embarrassed to have missed this one, this far. I mean, it’s sort of THE Schwarzenegger film—chock full of his most famous Schwarzeneggerisms (“Do it…do it nooooaaaooowww!”, “Bullshit!”, “Mack!”, and of course, “Get to da choppaaaaaa!”). And yet, while humorous, the film manages to play for real (the characters winked in-universe rather than winking at the camera). As someone who buys into the genre, “Predator” remains a completely unique, watchable, still riveting tale of wit, trust, and survival. (I’m serious!)

Week 45; Film 97 - Caddyshack [1980]

The directorial debut of Harold Ramis and catalyst for Rodney Dangerfield’s acting career, “Caddyshack” is considered by some to be the best sports movie of all time. I wasn’t so sure, but I liked it enough. The film follows Danny Noonan, a caddie at the Bushwood Country Club, who is working to raise cash for college. There, he follows the advice of Ty Webb (Chevy Chase) and chases the wallets of Judge Smails and Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield). Jokes, hijinks, and silly premises carry the character story from scene to scene, including a running gag where groundskeeper Carl Spackler (Bill Murray) fights to outsmart a gopher on the golf course.

I can’t fully recall how “Caddyshack” ended up on my screening list. I suppose I knew I would need a palate cleanse after the Halloween season and sifted down “best comedies” lists until I could find one I hadn’t seen. Regardless, I liked it. Behind its silly facade, Caddyshack is a rather spot-on story about old money, new money, and a teenager’s quest to find purpose and direction in life. On one hand, Danny represents the first generation to face an unlimited, daunting, and expensive transition to adulthood since before the Vietnam War generation. On the other hand, poop jokes are just funny. So that’s the mixed bag that was “Caddyshack”!

Week 44; Film 96 - Friday the 13th [1980]

Camp Crystal Lake is reopening twentyish years after a series of murders, fires, and poisonings had shuttered the facility. A new wave of counselors are prepping the camp for visitors when bad weather halts their progress and divides them. As the dark and rainy night continues, we see that one by one, these counselors are brutally murdered by a menacing figure. Counselor Alice Hardy begins to realize what’s happening and eventually must face down the killer herself.

I love the experience of going into a 40 year old film with a massive twist (that everyone probably knows) and being totally caught off guard by it! I want to shout the spoiler to the world and yet everyone’s like, “We know!!!”. Despite the formulaic nature of this slasher film, I honestly liked it. The big bad was cartoonish and yet had a strangely compelling motivation. And the isolation of the camp setting, the weather, the “ki ki ki, ma ma ma” music—it all came together to serve as the perfect Halloween week film!

Week 43; Film 95 - A Nightmare on Elm Street [1984]

Sexually-promiscuous teenagers are being attacked in their dreams by a disfigured madman, causing them to be brutally murdered in the physical world. Realizing this is happening, teenager Nancy Thompson fights to stay awake and sets up “Home Alone”-styled booby traps to fight the bladed-glove wielding nightmare. Insert surface-level character building here.

It’s kind of hard to organize my thoughts right now because it’s been 7 weeks since I watched this one and I honestly felt a bit ambivalent towards it. I thought the film was genuinely creepy and I dug many of the special effects (especially the ones that played with gravity). But ultimately, I felt like the film was all fluff. The parents were all bad people, the kids weren’t great people, and Freddie was a cartoon of a villain. As is risked in any story about dreams and ‘challenging the audience to analyze what’s real and what’s fantasy’, I left this one wondering if any part of it actually mattered.

Week 42; Film 94 - The Thing [1982]

“The Thing” is the John Carpenter remake of a similarly titled 1951 movie. The film follows a group of Antarctic explorers who discover an invasive alien species capable of imitating other living organisms, including humans. Initially confused and skeptical, the team descends into paranoia as the explorers begin to doubt and distrust one another, each assuming their peers to be extraterrestrial replicas. The film depicts a community’s erosion of trust with a narrative-expertise apt for 2019.

I actually really liked this film. I love how the flick opens with a helicopter pursuit across the antarctic tundra. I love the film’s methodical build and I loved the practical effects that still hold up in their own way. And I loved the tremendous suspense! The “blood test” scene was probably my favorite in the movie and I totally dug the resigned, uncertain finale of the film. As expressed on Wikipedia (strangely editorial and without a source): “The theme remains timely because the subject of paranoia adapts to the age.” Isn’t that the truth!

Week 41; Film 93 - Rosemary’s Baby [1968]

A young couple, Rosemary and Guy, move into a new apartment building and befriend the old couple down the hall. Guy and Rosemary are trying to conceive and after a weird ‘rape dream/vision’, Rosemary becomes pregnant. They tell the old couple and Rosemary quickly finds them commandeering every facet of her pregnancy, from her diet, to visits from friends, to which doctor she sees. Add to that, her pregnancy seems excessively excruciating and agonizing. Rosemary descends into pain and paranoia as she struggles to decide who to trust and what’s best for her and her unborn child―who may be more than he seems . #spoilers

With themes on rape, the parasitic nature of pregnancy, societal expectations of pregnant women, faith and trust amidst uncertainty, a mother’s invasion of privacy during pregnancy, an ultimately a mother’s unwavering love, the film is a cut deeper than most of the horror I watched this year. As someone who had a front-row seat to a pregnancy last year, the film played as a convincing and chilling interpretation. If it were shot and released today, I’m positive it would hold up and be hailed as a “sociological thriller” for feminism, the way “Get Out” was for racism. I really enjoyed this one.

Week 40; Film 92 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers [1956]

“Invasion of the Body Snatchers” is a not-so-subtle allegory for the dangers of conformity, capitalizing on the post-war fear of communism OR McCarthyism (take your pick). The film follows the seemingly deranged Dr. Miles Bennell who realized that aliens from another world are cloning themselves into replicas of townsfolk, taking over the population, unnoticed. By the time he pieces the evidence and mechanics of this plan together, the central Californian town of Santa Mira is so far infiltrated that he has nowhere to turn—his only hope is to flee and share his cautionary tale with the world.

Critics and historians have interpreted this film as being critical of the far right or the far left. For me, it felt pretty obviously a criticism of the Soviet Union and communism but I suppose we can meet in the middle at “authoritarianism bad”. Either way, with its “good ole’ American boy” patriotism and over reliance on a heavily aged metaphor, the film didn’t really play as scary by my standards. I thought it would make for a pretty ok episode of “The Twilight Zone” but it hardly carried its 80 minute runtime. Still, it was neat to get a glimpse into 1950’s Los Angeles and the minds of Americans in the ‘50s.

Week 39; Film 91 - Dracula [1931]

Alas—scary movie season! Keeping in tradition with last year, I began watching horror for the -5̶- 6 weeks leading up to Halloween, starting with the tame past and working my way forward. This year’s classic movie monster was none other than the sultry sucker himself, “Dracula”.

“Dracula” was really the first time American audiences were introduced to a full-length horror film. Bela Lugosi’s vampire was brooding, sexual, and scary and I imagine Transylvania must have seemed as exotic and remote as Tatooine did in 1977. But while the character lives on as the OG vampire, I didn’t find this particular version all that remarkable. I’m filing this film in the “undoubtedly influential, but uninteresting” category. Compared to “Frankenstein”, which came out later in 1931 and served as a commentary on society and mass panic, “Dracula” just plays as a “maybe the magic bad guys do exist” tale—a true and singularly dimensioned monster story.

Still worth a watch for the history. 🧛🏻‍♂️

Week 38; Film 90 - Sixteen Candles [1984]

So—due to a family film project, Westley’s first birthday, and a career change, I fell off the film-review circuit for months. Thankfully, I’ve still been viewing one film a week and have burned through 9 new-to-me films in the last two months.

I’d like to get back to sharing what I’ve watched but probably don’t have my normal, long posts in me (probably a win, for many of you!). So, for the next 9-12 films, I’m going to simplify things with a brief rundown of my impressions.

Hope this works!…

_____

After berating “The Breakfast Club” last year for being a self-important, trope-y take on shitty parents and teenage identity, I found myself really liking “Sixteen Candles”. This modern fairy tale/comedy is Molly Ringwald at her most endearing and a far more fun way to hit on the same themes. And despite the inclusion of the same cliché teenage characters, including the super-racist “Long Duk Dong”, I found myself rooting for each character.

Looks like I’ll give another Brat Pack film a shot, after all—next year.

Week 37; Film 89 - Casino [1995]

“Casino” is the “based on a true story” telling of how the Mafia lost control of Las Vegas—a real American story. The tale is told through the lens of casino manager Sam Rothenstein (Robert De Niro), Sam’s hustler wife Ginger Mckenna (Sharon Stone), and “mob enforcer” Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci). Things start out pretty smooth for all of them— Rothenstein runs the Tangiers casino with hawkish efficiency, Nicky handles dirty work like a professional, and Ginger marries Sam, increasing her stature and financial situations. But no matter how good things are for them, bad decisions (spawned by personal feelings) knock over the dominoes that will prove to be each of their—and mobsters across the nation—undoing.

The film is fascinating story of decline and disintegration; the tale that a well oiled, efficient organization will (always..?) fall apart when greed weighs on every breath and people make bad choices. The story is told cleverly with multiple narrators, though I did find that it meandered more than I liked. I also spent whole chunks of the flick annoyed with the characters for their poor choices (but I guess that’s sort of the point). That is, except for Sam. Of all Scorcese-De Niro characters, I think I’m most endeared to Sam because he’s an ‘operator’ and a romantic example of the type of guy that doesn’t exist anymore—the type that gets things done.

It’s kind of impossible to separate this film from “Goodfellas”, released just five years earlier; Scorcese clearly has a ‘type’. Regardless, I liked both films a lot. I think I walked away from “Goodfellas” immediately loving it whereas I this film was a slower burn.

If it didn't already exist, I don’t think Las Vegas would have been built today. The city in a desert just doesn’t make sense and corporations are too risk averse. I think Vegas needed the Mob to get going and I think the Mob was destined to lose Vegas. But then again, so often that’s the story in America—creatives, crooks, innovators, and the immoral get something going long enough to be successful. And then comes the corporations and the government. “Casino” is an American story, after all.

Week 36; Film 88 - Rebecca [1940]

If you were to ask me who my favorite “classic Hollywood” director is, I'd probably answer Alfred Hitchcock. Truthfully though, I’m probably more enamored by the idea of Alfred Hitchcock as I haven’t explored his body of work with enough fullness to make a statement like that. Last year was a big leap forward for me, with “North by Northwest”, “Rear Window”, and “Vertigo” adorning my film list. But sadly, this year only had room for one picture—Academy Award winning “Rebecca”.

“Rebecca” introduces us to a young, unnamed woman and an aristocratic widower named Maxim de Winter. The two fall in love (in a wooden, 1940’s kind of way), are wed, and depart for Mr. de Winter’s estate. Upon their arrival, the new Mrs. de Winter begins to learn details about the first Mrs. de Winter, Rebecca and her untimely death at sea. She seems unable to live up to the expectations Rebecca established with those around Maxim and she grows paranoid and jealous. Without spoiling anything, in the third act we learn that details of Rebecca’s passing weren’t as straightforward as originally revealed in a “how DARE you!”—“No, how dare YOU!” extra-dramatic finale.

To start, I found myself confused by and bored with the aristocratic air that hung over the story, from Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper’s arrogant frivolity to the Downton Abbey-esque house staff drama. I get that the film came out at the tail end of the depression feel like I was meant to be razzle-dazzled by a glimpse into this world, by I found myself distracted by how stupid it all was. Add to it the soft-lighting/focus common in movies from this time and it all felt very flat.

But still, I suppose I liked “Rebecca” just fine. Though uninteresting, the vanilla first act sort of added to the intrigue when things started getting weird at Mr. de Winter’s Manderley estate. From the domineering Mrs. Danvers, straight out of the “American Gothic” painting, to Rebecca’s effects on display in pristine condition—as if she were to walk in at any moment—there was a creepy air the loomed over the middle of the film. And while the film’s resolution felt a little like a murder-mystery dinner party, I found myself digging the twists and turns. “Rebecca” is probably my least favorite Hitchcock film, but the fact that it’s still passable is good news for the Hitchcock fan in me.

Week 35; Film 87 - The Searchers [1956]

One mistake I keep making is around expecting a film to land a certain way for me. Sometimes I expect a dud and end up loving it, like “The Exorcist”. Sometimes I expect nothing of the film and finish delighted to have taken the time, like “North by Northwest”. But the most tragic of all are the films I expect to eat up and conclude unamused. Fueled by high praise and the scores of filmmakers that consider the film a key influence, I expected “The Searchers” to sit high on my shelf of favorite western-films. But alas, I’d be glad to not waste my time again.

Former Confederate soldier Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) returns home and accompanies a batch of Texas Rangers as they investigate cattle stolen by Indians. Upon realizing the theft is a diversion, the men rush home and find that the Indians have killed all of Ethan’s blood relatives, save two nieces. Ethan sets out on a five year quest to find the girls and reluctantly allows his part-Indian adopted nephew Martin to join him. Ethan begins to devolve after learning that one niece was raped/murdered and the other niece, Debbie, was indoctrinated into the Indian tribe. He only continues the pursuit out of his pure hatred for Indians. In a final showdown, the Rangers fight the Indians and Ethan must decide what to do with Debbie.

This film was long and for me, boring. It was full of stunning vistas and colorful characters, but that’s completely expected in a Western. To compliment it for a second, I personally liked Martin’s B-Plot on-again-off-again romance with Laurie Jorgensen and silly characters like Captain Clayton and Charlie McCorry. But in the driver’s seat was John Wayne’s wooden performance and a dreary revenge plot stretched out for so long that I lost interest.

And then there’s the racism. Now this is pretty complicated as many commentators state that the inclusion of harsh racism was a purposeful story choice to explain motivations of Edwards. But I’m unconvinced that this explanation covers the entire weighty aura of manifest-destiny/white man’s burden racism that hung over this whole film. Maybe that says more about me and how I interpret things than a film so widely acclaimed. I know my comfort should not be a barometer of art but I can't shake the feeling of unmet expectations.

Week 34; Film 86 - Patton [1970]

It feels semi-redundant to recap a film so steadfastly biographical, but it’s sort of what I do—so here I go!

General George S. Patton is assigned to the North Africa campaign in WWII where he whips undisciplined troops into shape and drives a key victory. From there, his army is deployed to Sicily where they again fight to victory, this time at a high cost. It is in Sicily that Patton ridicules and slaps a soldier with battle fatigue (PTSD); the story makes national headlines and Patton is pulled from the frontlines for the unsavory act. After being used as an unengaged decoy during the D-Day launches, Patton is finally put back in command. He pledges good behavior and drives unreal and history-making progress—gains that would eventually win the war. Back in good favor, he again runs his mouth and loses command once and for all.

The first half of the film was pretty vanilla for me. The opening speech is iconic and the perfect introduction to Patton (and George C. Scott’s brilliant performance). But I politely endured through the next few sequences where we see how brash and one-dimensional Patton can be. And while it was fun to see him ready the troops and win at tank-roulette against Rommel, I was privately wondering where the film was going. That is, until ‘the slap’.

You know, the film lays on pretty thick that Patton is a ‘man out of time’. We see that Patton believes in reincarnation. He has an encyclopedic awareness of military history, sure, but he actually believes that he was present in the battles of the past. But it wasn’t until ‘the slap’ that I understood this fully. Patton is a warrior. A soldier. A motivator. And at those things, he was one of the best. But in World War II (and in every war after), generals had to be more than that. They had to be logisticians. And politicians. And publicists. Patton was none of these things and you can see him struggling with the expectations of a modern general. And struggling with the leadership of those around him who understood this, including Karl Malden’s General Bradley (p.s. Karl Malden is the best!).

I found myself enamored by this conflict. That someone can be brilliant in achieving results but positively naive at playing the game to be put in the position to achieve results. Patton serves as a reminder of how much a crap-shoot history can be. By being one-dimensional, the character reminded me how many dimensions we’re operating in at one time.

Week 33; Film 85 - The Pink Panther [1963]

So far, the only exposure I’ve had to Inspector Clouseau and the Pink Panther franchise has been the semi-tacky Steve Martin version of the character (oh, and the cartoon!). But after adoring Peter Sellers’ performances in “Dr. Strangelove”, I knew I wanted to give his most famous comedy performance a shot.

In this first film, the “Pink Panther” actually refers to a large pink diamond with a discoloration that resembles a panther. The gem is in the possession of exiled Princess Dala of “Lugash”. The princess is vacationing at a ski resort in Italy where Inspector Jacques Clouseau is on assignment, looking for famed jewel thief “the Phantom”. Little does the clumsy inspector know, playboy Sir Charles Lytton *is* the Phantom and is present and actively flirting with Princess Dala in hopes of stealing the gem. Throw in Clouseau’s adulterous wife, Lytton’s cunning nephew, and the stunning Italian Alps and you have a heist-spy-royalty-detective-comedy film that runs around everywhere with the tiniest of legs.

Truth be told, if my recap sounds all over the place, it’s because the film was. The story felt equally torn between being a sexy (but tacky) high-stakes heist story and a wacky, slapstick comedy depending on who was in the scene. Allegedly, the story was meant to lean towards the former but Peter Sellers’ brilliant performance meant the film was cut more like the latter. It sounds like the sequels lean more heavily into his silly antics to great success but in this first outing, it felt out of balance.

That’s not to say the film is without merit. Sellers shined whenever he was in the frame and the ensemble around him put on a fantastic show, including a great performance by David Niven as the Phantom. And of course Henry Mancini’s theme is a classic—likely the most recognizable and celebrated score in a comedy (up there with that silly “Austin Powers” theme, for me). Still, I went into this film with tremendous hopes and left just liking it. One day, I’ll check out the sequels!

Week 32; Film 84 - First Blood [1982]

My first introduction to Rambo was probably back in the ‘90s, with the Rambo-parody in Weird Al’s UHF. You know—unreal, ripped arms firing a ridiculously massive machine gun with impeccable aim and supernatural invincibility. Truth be told, from the outside, the Rambo character has kind of become a caricature of himself. So when my friend Chris insisted that I give the first Rambo film a shot, I was pretty skeptical. But, I actually really liked it!

Vietnam War vet John Rambo wanders into the small town of Hope, Washington where he is pushed around and arrested by the local Sheriff for assumed vagrancy. Though initially docile, he is increasingly pushed to the edge until he breaks free in a PTSD-fueled skirmish. The deputies chase Rambo into the woods where his Green Beret training kicks in and keeps him one step ahead of the search party. There, he must trust his survival instincts and guerrilla warfare training to fend off the abusive cops.

This movie was awesome! It was kind of “John Wick” meets “The Deer Hunter”—the story of a killing machine who, wanting to be left alone, was pushed into a war he didn’t ask for. Damaged by capture and unwilling to fight, the character had far more depth than I imagined going in. Initially representative of Vietnam War vets' welcome home, his struggle in the film serves as a stand-in for the whole of the War (just back here in America), with damp forests replacing the humid jungles. That's some deep shit!

That’s not to say that this movie didn’t have the flair of an ‘80s action movie! The first time Rambo leapt 50 feet from a cliff onto a tree, I rolled my eyes a bit. And certainly, the final Battle of Hope sequence was both on the nose and over the top (acting included). Still, the film earns each of these moments through the balance it strikes with its clever characters and somewhat somber tone. I don’t know when I’ll get around to the silly sequels, but I’m kind of looking forward to them now!

Week 31; Film 83 - Battleship Potemkin [1925]

I don’t know if this is a film that a lot of you will know... You might if you’re into film history or are a big fan of communist art! This week’s film is called “Battleship Potemkin”, a Soviet silent film from the ‘20s. In five acts, the film depicts a disgruntled but spirited crew mutinying against their royal commanders, siding their allegiance with the distressed population of Russia. It is very much a propaganda piece and very much just—ok.

In Acts 1 and 2, sailors on the Potemkin protest against the maggot-infested meat they’re forced to eat. A batch of sailors are nearly executed for this grumble but an uprising breaks out and the officers are thrown overboard. In Act 3, protest-leader Vakulinchuk (who is killed in the uprising) is laid to rest on the shore in Odessa. The Odessans/Odessians(?) mourn V. and sail to the Potemkin with offerings and supplies. Then, in Act 4, the Russian Royal Army arrives and fires on these sympathetic citizens of Odessa, women and children included. Savage. The Potemkin returns fire and flees to sea where, in Act 5, they face down the entire Russian Navy.

Battleship Potemkin is frequently cited as one of the greatest films ever made. It is particularly lauded for Act 4, “The Odessa Steps”, in which the Russian army fires on citizens on the city’s main steps. I admit, it’s a fascinating and gripping sequence. It innovated editing, montage, and violence in film and has influenced filmmakers and artists alike.

But outside of that sequence, the film didn’t really land for me. I don’t know if it’s because I knew it was manufactured propaganda, or if it's because drama doesn’t carry as well in title-cards, or what. I could be limited in the lens I view films through (likely) or maybe people just think it’s cool/artsy to like stuff like this (possibly) as much as people profess to (once named the greatest film of all time and high up on many lists). Either way, I’m glad to have watched this film as a primary source of history and glad to not watch it again.

Week 30; Film 82 - Spartacus [1960]

All I really knew about “Spartacus” going into it was its iconic and oft-parodied “I am Spartacus” denouement. For this reason, I think I expected the flick to be campy, bloated, or overdramatic, like some of the other ancient-civilization films I’ve seen (I’m looking at you “Cleopatra”). But instead, I encountered a witty, complex, and well told story with believable characters and exciting moments. I know it’s probably sexier to chose one of his more iconic films but (other than Dr. Strangelove), this might be my favorite Stanley Kubrick film.

The movie picks up when Spartacus, a Thracian slave, is spared from execution and selected to be a gladiator. When forced to fight, the enslaved gladiators find a moment to escape and begin pillaging Roman villas. Spartacus is chosen to lead the group and they begin liberating slaves, seizing wealth, and searching for a path out of Italy. This whole time however, political infighting in Rome has allowed Marcus Crassus to seize the army and he attacks Spartacus’s group. Most of the former slaves are killed and the survivors, refusing to turn over Spartacus, are crucified. It’s a real pick-me-up film.

For being nearly 60 years old, this film had a ‘modern’ feel to it, like an episode of “Game of Thrones” (pre-season 8 #petty). While other epics have matched this one’s scale, “Spartacus” was shot with a depth of field (both narrative and cinematographic) that really brought the characters and expansive sets to life. I was impressed/shocked by the film’s use of violence, as well as its racy innuendo (snails v. oysters) and nudity (covered exquisitely with depth of field, of course).

But I think what impressed me most was the superior storytelling. A 3 hour, 10,000 cast member epic, shot on two continents is not easy to boil down to an interesting and coherent storyline. This film does just that while beautifully weaving in B, C, D, and E plots (likely more!) in an effective way. For example, contrasting Spartacus’s kindling love with Varinia against his training to kill, or his unifying leadership against Roman politicking, Kubrick and editor Robert Lawrence succeed at striking balances between sub-stories in a way that served the overall story. So well told, in fact, that the "I am Spartacus" scene still plays. Great flick.