The Remains of the Day (1993)

THE REMAINS OF THE DAY
DIRECTED BY: JAMES IVORY
WRITTEN BY: RUTH PRAWER JHABVALA
NOVEL BY: KAZUO ISHIGURO
OVERALL SCORE: 8.50/10

Seemingly cold, and emotionless, butler Stevens (Anthony Hopkins) reflects upon his years with Housekeeper Ms. Keaton (Emma Thompson), and their master, Lord Darlington (James Fox) a German sympathizer in the days leading up to World War II.

"a man cannot call himself well-contented until he has done all he can to be of service to his employer. Of course, this assumes that one's employer is a superior person, not only in rank, or wealth, but in moral stature."

Quiet to the greatest degree of almost void, The Remains of the Day is a sincere look at the traditional Butler, and the element of stoicism they must portray. The emotion conveyed behind each of Hopkins stares, but always repressed, hits right at the viewer through each passing scene. His efforts at opening up hit at the iron wall built by years of neglected intimacy, always opting to battle immediate feelings in favor of cool thought.

Hopkins handles this portrayal not only with great subtlety to the finer characteristics of his character, but also with a depth of sincerity one may find striking. The kind of performance that grasps at you for all that is repressed, and never shown.

Thompson supports Hopkins with a emotionally sound, mentally strong, opposition to the main Mr. Stevens. Her Ms. Keaton delivers the right balance of heart, without seemingly too counter to the lead. She's the emotional crutch, and often represents the feelings he so greatly represses. The unrequited love that develops between them, through emotional barriers, gives the film an alluring element of heart.

Supporting roles by James Fox and Christopher Reeve (yes, that one) add the final touches to Ivory's beautiful film. Never bothering to stand out, and try to make us go wow with fancy costumes, The Remains of the Day is an old school English drama about the characters. The scenery, in this case Darlington Hall, reflects the final time in which Lords paved the way of the future, and those of lower class held no say.

The last thing to mention ought to be the writing, including both Ishiguro's novel and Jhabvala's screenplay. To say the writing is great would be an understatement. The writing gives life to all Ivory, Hopkins, and company deliver. Witty, with an element of charm, and enough sense to know when it needs to lighten up, and when it needs to get serious. I dare say it's a movie I'd watch again if for no other reason than the many wonderful conversations, and hidden allegories, sprinkled throughout each new scene. The final notch to one of the better movies I've seen in quite some time.

Though it may lack action, Remains of the Day makes up for it in careful attention to character. Memorable for their unspoken depth, that seeps through the screen with each subtle facial twitch. Remains of the Day is a crowning character study film, the likes of which few shall replicate with as much attention to detail. Let alone as much heart, and care, for the weaknesses of its characters.

Gone with the Wind (1939)

GONE WITH THE WIND

DIRECTED BY: VICTORY FLEMING
WRITTEN BY: SIDNEY HOWARD
NOVEL BY: MARGARET MITCHELL
REVIEWED FOR: 1001 MOVIE CLUB
TOP 100 FILMS: #17
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10

Southern beauty Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) must deal with Civil War, passing family, weakening estate, and a turbulent romance with the ever smooth Rhett Butler (Clark Gable).

"If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again."

An interesting thing happened during the dawn of feature length cinema. Despite loosing the war, the South managed to gain a great deal of cinematic prestige. From the 1915 Birth of a Nation to 1927's The General, Gone with the Win is the ultimate culmination of the Civil War from the perspective of the south. Epic, and yet simple. Tragic, and yet sublime. Gone With the Wind is a tale that escapes all bounds, by simply being a work of cinematic art.

A work that can be far too easily lambasted for being racist, and for its idealistic portrayal of Confederate superiority. All the while overlooking the fact that it is a tale from the perspective of slave owning, Confederate supporting, white female character. So while I do not agree with how it portrays these factions in a positive light, I do not criticize it for doing so given our limited point of view.

What is perhaps most striking about the film is how it portrays its two central characters. Scarlett is manipulative, conceited, and selfish. While Butler is in many respects a war profiteer, selfish, and manipulative himself. The two well compliment each other, and their romance (if one dares really call it that) gives Gone With the Wind a certain sentiment of tragic nostalgia. Never able to truly be in sync with one another, they find themselves often seeking what the other had.

You see, for all its negative traits Gone With the Wind is about facing change. Throughout the film Scarlett must match her will to live with the ever changing world around her. Her struggles with loneliness, and the ultimate consequences of her vibrant lifestyle. The final scene, a testament to all that these characters have had to endure.

As well, one can not appropriately mention this film without discussing Hatti McDaniel as Mammy. Despite her character being the ever typecasted "happy slave," McDaniel brings a great deal of presence, and character to the stage. The moral, and emotional, center to Scarlett's wavering ways. A subtly progressive character, whose importance in cinema can never be understated (in many respects both positively and negatively).

Importance in cinema. It's hard to describe Gone with the Wind any other way. For all its negatives, it's a movie that helped make cinema what it is today. And when you can be both important, and captivating, you have a visual treat for all to share.

One of the most epic films in history holds the test of time with striking visuals, memorable lines, and dynamic characters. Serving now as an example to what cinema can truly be with such prevailing talent behind it.

Kagemusha (1980)

KAGEMUSHA

DIRECTED BY: AKIRA KUROSAWA
WRITTEN BY: AKIRA KUROSAWA & MASATO IDE
OVERALL SCORE: 7.75/10

After the death of their lord, a group of upper officials recruit a petty thief (Tatsuya Nakadai) to impersonate their lord, while they attempt to rid their country of civil war.

"The shadow of a man can never stand up and walk on its own."

Based on historical accounts, Kurosawa's Kagemusha is one of the more interesting entries into his list of works. Often written off as little more than a "dress rehearsal" for Ran (Kurosawa's own words even), I've found throughout the years I have a rather large soft spot for Kagemusha. It's story is strong, but not great. It's directing is superb, but for time purposes much was left on the cutting room floor. It's also riddled with subtle jabs at the pointlessness of war. Yet these calls never feel perfectly developed... ultimately leaving Kagemusha as a premium example of when a film has everything that's just good, but never great.

Tatsuya Nakadai's performance may in fact be the perfect standpoint for this film. It's a good performance, and he handles the material well, but it's never a great one. He never takes that extra step to suck the audience in to this dynamic character. He's ultimately playing someone who looks like himself with a couple of added character quirks. The reason his performance is so important is that with the exception of a handful of scenes the entire film is situated on him. Even during the huge battles that take place, Kurosawa opts to ignore the fighting and instead concentrate heavily on Kagemusha's reaction to them. How he grows through the war, and ultimately gains respect for the man he criticizes, and interprets. The real glue for the film though lay in the supporting cast. Each with a strong enough presence and deliver to help carry the film through its conversation pieces. This is by no means the longest Kurosawa film ever, but being so conversation and stage dependent, you will be well aware it is not speedily paced.

Though if you're worried about pace, don't be. The tale of Kagemusha, if even for its historical significance alone, is a rather intriguing one. A man perfectly impersonating a lord for well over a year, especially during a time of war. It's a captivating story, and add to that Kurosawa's love of a man coming to realize something grander than himself, and you got something worth talking about. Still, there's always a feeling that it could have been more. Amazing shots and moments, stuck in the background of first time efforts, leaves it always feeling a bit underwhelming. It works because you grow to care, but it never achieves that level of pure amazement it so rightly should have.

While it's riddled with depth, and intriguing characters, Kurosawa's Kagemusha is a perfect example of a movie that always feels good, but never achieves greatness.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Perspectives:

"Though I may be far off the mark, it felt to me as though Kurosawa himself were the thief, living in the shadow of the man he used to be." - Japan Cinema

"When, however, the elements click, Kagemusha can be as impressive as anything else in the master's canon." - Not Just Movies

Ran (1985)

RAN

DIRECTED BY: AKIRA KUROSAWA
WRITTEN BY: HIDEO OGUNI, AKIRA KUROSAWA, & MASATO IDE
BASED ON THE PLAY 'KING LEAR' BY: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
OVERALL SCORE: 9.00/10

After retiring Lord Hidetora Ichimonji (Tatsuya Nakadai) falls into despair when two of his three sons turn against him, and each other, trying to take over the kingdom he built.

Hidetoroa: "I am lost...."
Kyoami: "Such is the human condition."

Widely considered to be the final masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa, Ran is as true of a work of art as any film I've seen. Its beautiful scenery, and shot composition, is near unmatched, and the costume designs and period setups are absolutely breathtaking. Add to that the combined narrative genius of Shakespeare and Kurosawa and you've got one heck of an amazing film, right? Well, almost.

Throughout Kurosawa's career, from time to time, he moved into a brand of performance I can only describe as extensively theatrical. Here Kurosawa would fixate the camera, and his actors, to take their emotional presence to the nth degree of exaggeration. Another prime example of this can be found in Rahomon, but more on that when we get there. In Ran it's both a blessing and a curse. For those who love the exaggerated expressions of early film actors, and those of the Olivier sort, it'll be a welcomed addition. While those who prefer their acting more mundane, down to earth, and simplistic, it may very well be a crack separating you from the film's depth.

For me, it was a little bit of both. In most cases I found Kurosawa's Ran to be a bit exaggerated, but amazingly well shot. It's safe to say the 10 years Kurosawa spent breaking this film down shot by shot, painting the film with his mind (literally). Complimented well by Kyoami (Peter - stage name, not real one :P) as both the comic relief, moral center, and only loyal servant, Kurosawa has pieced together Samurai lore and Shakespearean tragedy to create something quite marvelous. It's visual feast is only matched by its depth, and while it is a tad long, it's impeccably well paced, and an absolute must see for any Kurosawa fan.

While I don't think it's absolutely Kurosawa's masterpiece, and it's acting did leave me feeling a bit iffy, Ran is a movie that only gets better with repeat viewings. An absolute visual masterpiece.


-----------------------------------------------
Alternate Perspectives:

"It is an immense feeling and that is definitely the mark of a great film, when it can evoke emotion from you without you feeling like it is trying at all to force the issue but rather embeds it into the story." - Gmanreviews

"If his previous work could shock because the audience felt like participants and thus learned the truth only when the characters did, Ran unsettles and disturbs because we know how this will turn out long before its characters do." - Not Just Movies

"Ran is a visual treat in its entirety as is its subdued but effective musical score. Not on the highest caliber of his career but still worth a view." - Japan Cinema

Bright Star (2009)

BRIGHT STAR

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: JANE CAMPION
OVERALL SCORE: 6.75/10

Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) and John Keats (Ben Whishaw) share an up and down romance over three years before Keats death at the age of 25.

As the credits rolled on this much praised 2009 film, I found myself torn between two extremes. On the one end, Bright Star is easily one of the most beautiful films I have seen in some time. While on the other, the writing and story fail to even come close to that beauty. Spending nearly 1/3rd of its time on pre-romance, Bright Star is a slow evolving tale, that capitalizes on the beauty of those involved, but fails to capitalize on the beauty of their story. Over simplifying, and struggling to really delve in to their relationship, I was struck by how little time, on screen at least, our lovers spend together.

Often separated, only communicating through various writings, Campion seems unsure of how to develop their strong romantic connection. Ultimately Campion settles on a moments approach. Instead of developing, Campion opts to visit a collection of key moments in their romance, show them, and move to the next one. Perhaps it is uncertainty with how to compile 3 years of information, but this approach gives us all of the heart, with none of the context. Which is a shame, as this movie should be far more moving than it truly is. Instead the viewer is left to find the romance in the subtle gestures, and a collection of heartfelt moments that so defined their love. It's there, and romantics will definitely be able to evolve it to full form, but it's never grounded enough to truly hit those emotional cords.

Of course Campion's effort are backed by astounding performances from Abbie Cornish and Paul Schneider, as Keats work friend . Ben Whishaw is great, but is not given nearly enough to really work off, except for a handful of quiet moments. Yet their performances lay the ground work for the emotion that the viewer is to feel. As such we can feel the chemistry being developed, which allows us to buy into the romance, even on the most minute level. This allows Bright Star's runtime to float by, as we go on this journey with the characters, and see how their lives unfolded. Make no mistake about it, this is not a John Keats movie, this is a Fanny Brawne movie.

As beautiful as this film is to watch, it's really a shame the story fails to live up and compare, otherwise this could have been legendary.

The Young Victoria (2009)

THE YOUNG VICTORIA

DIRECTED BY: JEAN-MARC VALLEE
WRITTEN BY: JULIAN FELLOWES
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

With an overbearing and controlling stepmother (Miranda Richardson) and caretaker (Mark Strong), both seeking to control her future queenship, Victoria (Emily Blunt) finds unlikely allies in Prime Minister Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) and suitor Prince Albert (Rupert Fiend).

I've often felt that period films get a bad rap as existing solely to attack the best costume design, and appeal to the whimsical fascinations of young women. Yet more often than not there's a lot of depth, and insight, into the struggles of a growing women, and in that respect The Young Victoria is no different. As life's go Queen Victoria's was unarguably a very difficult one, often kept from knowledge of those around her all of whom are seeking something, she had to learn how to be Queen in spite of her relatives. Thus the task of her formative years lay in the hands of Fellowes and Vallee, both of whom must find a way to cram a inordinate amount of information into such a short running time.

For the viewer this is great in that it gives great depth to the decisions that shaped Victoria (extra points for strong accuracy in narrative). The Young Victoria retains its romantic heart, especially towards the latter half, but only in so far as the events help to shape Victoria the person, and Victoria the Queen. As such the film is riddled with political talk, important historical characters, and a good look at how Victoria deals with life's different challenges. The film does dramatize certain events, but never to the point of excess, and as such we get a rather good portrait of the early life of Victoria. For that I feel I must commend the film, especially since it would be far easier to simply remove so much for runtime.

Unfortunately though I can't help but feel as if the film's runtime is its greatest flaw. Clocking in at 1 hour and 40 minutes, Young Victoria is one of the few instances where I would say the film needed to be about 20 minutes longer, if not more. Vallee's eye for beauty, characters, and the romance, is caught behind flawed transitions, forced to jump years at a time in order to reach key events. As well certain characters come and go in almost the blink of an eye, and yet are meant to maintain a strong sense of importance upon us. Jim Broadbent's King William amounts to two scenes, but his impact in the film is of grand importance to the shaping of Victoria. As such when his character appears and then suddenly leaves we're left with a sense of disappointment.

Though it always helps when you have a strong cast to carry the film. Blunt is perfectly suited for the leading role, showing the perfect combination of strength, social awkwardness, and emotion you'd expect. While Rupert Fiend breaks through molds as the distant lover, forced to be apart by tradition, while hoping the women he loves feels the same. Of course the film's real unsung heroes may lie in the seasoned skills of Paul Bettany, Mark Strong, and Miranda Richardson. Few actors play the modern villain as well as Mark Strong, and while it may not lead to long term success, he perfectly captures the oppressive John Conroy. While Richardson is in a sense the torn mother, caught between family obligation, desire for the thrown, and the want for a good life for her daughter, something we don't get to grasp until the final act. Then of course there is Bettany who must play the seasoned politician, one seeking to use, love, and gain from his relationship with Victoria. Bettany's stead fast character is a great counter to the romantic Fiend, and emotional Blunt, all of whom are trying to work their way through a series of political webs cast upon them.

A political web with which the director, the writer, the characters, and the audience must all travel through in this films runtime. This is where Fellowes' persistence at accuracy comes right in handy. Never clogging down the plot with unnecessary details, or pushing upon the viewer less than they need to know, we're really given a treat and sharp insight. A notion of which is often lost on many period films.
Don't be so quick to judge this period film as nothing more than a romance, as it is a sharp look into the early life of Victoria, that while packed in, works as a solid character study.