"Rashamon" for the Video Age -- "Vantage Point" Review

The family and I sat down with the DVD for Vantage Point the other night. It's always nice to be pleasantly surprised by a movie, and VP did the job for me. Start with a simple thriller story, add a boffo car chase and a few surprise twists and you've got the makings of the standard Hollywood fare. But here's what makes “Vantage Point” stand out -- as in the classic Kurakawa film, Rashomon, you see the action that occurs in the movie numerous times, but from a different perspective each time.

No spoilers from me, but the action, involving the assassination of an American President, is shown and reshown from 8 different perspectives, with as many subplots as there are characters and viewpoints. Starring prominently are several video cameras, which serve as a convenient way to replay the action for the characters and the viewers. Our vantage points run the gamut -- from an American tourist to a compromised Spanish cop, to a gang of terrorists, to a twitchy Secret Service agent, and even to the President himself.

Performances are solid throughout. Dennis Quaid brings nervous energy and a “never give up” attitude to his role as a Secret Service agent, Forest Whittaker (The Last King of Scotland) is vulnerable yet resilient in his role as the tourist, and William Hurt puts in a good turn as the President.

Vantage Point will keep you guessing to the end, but thanks to first-time director's Pete Travis’ able work, you're intrigued and surprised, not frustrated, by the numerous plot twists. As you'd expect, all the loose ends wrap up into a tidy bundle by the end, but that's just fine. It's an enjoyable ride, and one you won't mind taking.

Put it on your Netflix queue. Ken's rating: 3-1/2 out of 5.

Ken

All Through the Night - a forgotten classic

Hooray for Netflix! Thanks to their deep catalog I revisited a movie this weekend that I hadn't seen since I was twelve -- and it was even better than I remembered.

"All Though the Night" (1941) casts Humphrey Bogart as "Gloves" Donahue, a dapper sports promoter/gambler that would be quite at home in a Damon Runyon story. His affable gang includes a young Jackie Gleason, Frank McHugh and a dour-faced William Demarest (Uncle Charlie on "My Three Sons") as Sunshine. And there's additional comedic help from Phil Silvers, Edward Brophy, and Wallace Ford.

There's a raft of other well-know character actors as well. Conrad Veidt and Peter Lorrie play the bad guys, along with ice queen Judith Anderson. Barton MacLane barks his way through another film, along with Edward Brophy. The redoubtable Jane Darwell (from "The Grapes of Wrath") plays Donahue's mother.

On the surface, it's a breezy little thriller where gangsters cross paths with Nazi spies. A good example of the comedic flavor occurs when Gloves Donahue and Sunshine assume the identities of two spies to infiltrate a Fifth Column meeting and discover their plans. It turns out the identities they stole belonged to the two out-of-town munitions experts who now must make a report. They stall for time with some classic 1940's double talk.

But the movie has a serious side, too. The spy ring forces an expatriate, Leda Hamilton (Kaaren Verne), to work for them by holding her father at Dachau. Gloves, who begins the movie not caring at all what happens on the front page of the paper, eventually finds out what Dachau is, and what the Nazis are all about. The film follows an American moving from apathy about world events to an understanding that what happens abroad impacts his daily life -- and even his way of life.

An interesting turning point comes when the urbane master spy Franz Ebbing is confronted by Donahue. From Ebbing's point of view, they should be allies. And at the beginning of the film Donahue might have agreed. But not after learning about what Ebbing stands for.

The past is often filtered through the experience of the present, and I wonder how others might interpret that scene. I can see some people identifying the current administration in Ebbing's words.

"It's a great pity, Mr. Donahue, that you and I should oppose each other. We have so much in common. You are a man of action. You take what you want and so do we. You have no respect for democracy. Neither do we. It's clear we should be allies."

While others might point to this dialogue to demonstrate the danger of disunity in the face of terrorism (our latter-day Fifth Columnists).

"Do you ever see the faces of these Americans as they read the headlines? Already we have split them into angry little groups flying at each other, unconscious that they are doing our work. You'll see. In a year, perhaps less than a year, they will all be taking their orders from us."

Of course the original message was a lot simpler -- be a patriot, and do your part.

I saw this aired on WTTG 5 in Washington way back in the 1960's when they did Sunday movies. I only saw it once, but always remembered it fondly -- especially Bogart's rapid-fire banter.

I've never met anyone who's seen this film, and that's too bad. If you only know Bogart through "The Maltese Falcon," or "Casablanca," give "All Through The Night" a try. It's an evening's entertainment for sure.

- Ralph

Living a Netflix Life in a Blockbuster Home

I was reading an interesting post yesterday by of the "Top Ten Lies Blockbuster Video Tells Their Customers." written by an ex-employee. In the midst of this behind-the-scenes polemic was an observation about the typical Blockbuster customer.

"the vast majority of those who frequent the shelves of Blockbuster Video... harbor no true love for cinema, no desire to probe deep questions about life, and no ability to enjoy something that might require the slightest bit of effort. In one respect, I can understand this: these people have worked hard during their day jobs – why shouldn’t be allowed to relax and escape with some harmless Hollywood entertainment?

The problem arises in what they watch. Relax and escape, yeah, but at the very least adopt some goddamned standards. If you’re looking for a comedy, don’t rent Phat Girlz. If you want a drama, don’t get anything with Ben Affleck. And for the love of God, do not rent something just because it is new.

I literally cannot tell you how many people come to Blockbuster on a daily basis, just so they can rent the new releases. Not because they’re interested in them. Not because they look good. Simply because they are new.

And while they spend their time and money on dreck like Behind Enemy Lines II and The Break-Up, these people literally refuse to anything that:

-Was made before 1995

-Comes from a different country, even an English-speaking one

-Might be mentally or emotionally disturbing

-Has subtitles

-Has voice-over narration.

Then it hit me. I live in a Blockbuster house. I've written before about my family's disinterest in silent films, but I have to say the rest of this list applies, too. Before we got Netflix I had to endure the latest blockbuster that was rented simply because it was new. Once at the beach one of our college-age children rented "Kill Bill." Everyone was surprised that I was actually looking forward to watching a movie someone else had brought home, but as it turned out, I was the only one who had even the faintest idea of what it was about (or even who Quentin Tarantino is). They only watched the first seven minutes before they took it out the player and returned it.

So why did they rent a movie they knew nothing about? Because it was new.

Now to be fair, my wife and I want very different things in a film. She wants something to entertain her while she quilts. So naturally films that require any kind of reading are counter-productive, such as silent movies and foreign films with sub-titles. She also wants a movie we can watch together.

And so I've seen "Runaway Bride," "Mona Lisa Smile," and other such fare. And so, yes -- one might consider her a Blockbuster customer.

As for me, I want everything a film has to offer. The story, the way its told, the music, the sound, the sets --everything. I want to figure out the context of the film -- how it stacks up with other films of its time, other films in the genre, the history of cinema, and so on.

And don't think I only watch the classics. I have a fine appreciation for cult films and, well, bad cinema in general. Some movies are so awful they're great fun to watch.

So I'm glad there's Netflix where I can roam far and wide through the ouvre of cinema and explore to my heart's content.

Is there hope for us?

Oh yes. My wife usually leaves when I'm watching one of the "those" movies (an episode of "Mystery Science Theatre" seems especially effective room-clearer). Recently, though, she stayed for a Harold Lloyd film -- and laughed. We've also enjoyed a "Thin Man" movie together as well.

Does the Blockbuster employee's description fit someone you know? Just keep watching -- it can get better.

- Ralph

Learning about Lloyd

I received another DVD of Harold Lloyd movies the other day, and discovered how much I still don't know. "The Kid Brother" is acknowledged as one of Lloyd's best films -- but I didn't know that when I sat down to watch it. All I knew was that it was an utterly charming comedy with some absolutely brilliant camerawork and some of the best sight gags I've seen.

It was only after I had enjoyed the movie that I found out how highly it was esteemed. I recommended it to a friend, and he happened to research it online -- and there that's when we found the critical reviews that all basically agreed on the quality of the film (which was also in line with my viewing experience).

Who knows what I'll learn next?

- Ralph

Investigating an Icon

At left is a very famous image -- a still from the Harold Lloyd movie, "Safety Last." In fact, it's become an icon. It's often used as a visual shorthand for Lloyd's career, and for silent movie comedians as a group.

When I investigated this icon, I discovered a world of entertainment hidden behind this frozen image.

I received the first three discs of the Harold Lloyd collection from Netflix, and started off with "Safety Last."

First discovery -- the tower-climbing sequence is hysterical, but there's another scene where Lloyd's desperately trying to get to work on time, hopping from one vehicle to another that's equally funny. And there are a number of smaller stunts and bits of physical humor that are almost as brilliant. This is an incredibly funny film, and it's a crime that so few people have seen it, compared to Keaton's "The General," or Chaplin's "Gold Rush."

Second discovery -- "Safety Last" wasn't a fluke. While Lloyd tends to play the same basic character, the stories and situations varied greatly from film to film, and I was amazed that sheer invention of the physical humor. "Girl Shy" and "Hot Water" might not be as great as "Safety Last," but they'll deliver an evening's worth of chuckles for sure.

Third discovery -- Lloyd comedic genius wasn't limited to physical comedy. Also included in the set were some of his movies from the 1930's. Lloyd's deadpan delivery is somewhat reminicent of Bob Hope and while physical humor is still present, its been supplemented by breezy, witty dialog and word play.

Fourth discovery -- Una Merkel. She co-starred with Lloyd in "Cat's Paw." I had seen her before in "42nd Street," but here she really gets to carry the picture. If you can imagine Eve Arden delivery and timing with a thick Kentucky accent, you'll have a good idea of what Merkel brings to the screen. I'll be looking for more films by her.

Is the point of this post to encourage you to start watching Harold Lloyd? No, but if you did, you wouldn't be sorry. The point is this -- none of these four discoveries were apparent just from looking at the icon. I had to get behind the image.

For the curious, there are many rewards for investigating icons -- this is just a post about one of them.

- Ralph

Seek the source, confirm the context

I viewed and thoroughly enjoyed Fritz Lang's 1928 silent film "Spies" this weekend. But this post isn't about my viewing habits –- it's about what happened next.

Long-time readers know that I greatly admire Lang's "Metropolis," although it's something of a narrative mess.

I'd read reviews about how "Metropolis" fit into Lang's ouvre, but I wanted to see his work for myself, rather than rely on the judgement of others. And seeking the source came with rewards. I found "Woman in the Moon" and "Spies" compelling viewing, and well worth the time investment.

And after watching "Spies," I could begin to appreciate Lang's story-telling ability. All three movies mentioned above shared many similarities. Although all had an original running time of over two hours, the narratives seldom flagged and the subplots had time to fully develop and help support the main story.

I now have a context in which to place "Metropolis," and can see how the ruthlessly edited version that survives only hints at the power of the original.

And that's the point. Regardless of what the subject is, going back to the source materials can bring additional insights. And only by placing something in context can it be fully appreciated.

Yesterday the DVD was mailed back to Netflix, but I'm still processing what I saw and reevaluating what I know about Lang's work.

What's on my list

OK, Ken (and you, too, gentle reader). Here's what sitting in my Netflix cue as of February 23, 2007.

1. Little Miss Sunshine – When the movie first came out, the reviews suggested it might appeal to my skewed sense of humor. A recommendation from my daughter who shares a similar outlook clinched the deal.

2. Woman in the Moon – I was reading an article about Fritz Lang, and saw a citation for this film. That's all I needed to explore further. Woman in the Moon (1929) is Lang's other science fiction movie, and by most accounts has a story that's surprisingly sophisticated for the time.

3. Lawrence of Arabia – Incredibly, I've never seen this film all the way through. I've only seen clips in various documentaries about movies, and viewed parts of it while channel surfing. Just filling another gap in my knowledge (and looking forward to a great viewing experience).

4. The Navigator – I've always admired Buster Keaton. I haven't seen this film, but I have watched his more famous pictures such as Steamboat Bill, Jr. I admire his inventiveness and his ability to perform astounding physical comedy seemingly without effort -- I also seem to be one of the few that like his work in the 60's beach movies.

5. Garden State – I'm a big fan of Scrubs, so I was automatically interested in Zack Braff's first film outing. Friends whose opinions I respect also recommend the film, so into the cue it went.

Looking at the lists side by side, it looks like Ken's trumps mine in variety and depth.

Ken – what say we revisit this topic in a month or so and see how the lineups change?

- Ralph

What's on your list?

With the Academy Awards on the way, everybody's talking movies. It seems only right that Ralph and I should stick our oar in as well.

A lot of writers like to take this time of year to roundly berate the Academy for it's lack of judgment in past Oscar awards. It's an easy exercise -- just pick your favorite movies that didn't win "Best Picture" and contrast them with the undeserving winner. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Here's a good example.

For a more interesting exercise in movie criticism, I'm going to let you take a look at my Netflix queue's top 5 movies -- what I picked, and why it's on the list. So, for February 22, 2007, here it is:

1. The Lavender Hill Mob -- I've had a taste for classic comedies lately. I really enjoyed Preston Sturges' Sullivan's Travels and Billy Wilder's One, Two, Three. I thought I'd give this old favorite a spin. And anything with Alec Guinness can't be bad.

2. The Battle of Algiers -- OK, I've had this sitting by the DVD player for weeks now. I know it's an important film, with prescient insights into our country's current Middle Eastern mess, but it looks like a real downer. I'm just not in the mood for it...

3. The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes -- Three episodes from the classic Granada TV adaptations of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Purely comfort food.

4. Casino Royale -- I'm a Sean Connery 007 guy all the way, but I've heard good things about this...

5. Children of Men -- This hasn't been released on DVD yet, but I'm anxiously awaiting it. I'm always game for a well-done vision of an apocalyptic near future.

That's what's on my list -- your turn, Ralph.

Ken

The Netflix Stream

As most have probably heard, Netflix will begin offering streaming movies and TV programs shortly to subscriber's computers. The key words here are "streaming" and "computers." As Ralph pointed out recently, the promise of "convergence" -- computers and home entertainment working in tandem -- is being prodded along by the introduction of Apple TV.

Yet the promise of online movie delivery is being held back by commercial and tech obstacles. Movie studios don't want to give up their distribution businesses, and fear even more prevalent and piracy and file-sharing if users can download movies.

By streaming the movies exclusively to user's PCs, Netflix does an end-around these problems, and gives customers another reason to choose their service. You don't have to pay anything extra for the service -- you just get a set amount of time you can stream movies every month, based on your Netflix subscription level. Initial reports and reviews are encouraging, and there may be a good market for this, particularly for those on the go, like business travelers who can link into WiFi networks.

At any rate, time will tell, and it's nice to see Netflix make a creative move in this direction.

Ken

Dust-catching DVDs

Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Wal-Mart -- all of them prominently feature DVDs in their consumer electronics fliers. So now the time has come to tie together our threads on collecting and shopping together.

How many DVDs do you really need to own? Personal question, true, but one not everyone asks. Some of my friends want to own every movie they see. Even after several years, they're still in the accumulation phase of collecting. Sure, they've got hundreds of movies, but how many get viewed more than once or twice?

These are collections that are stuck in the accumulation phase, with a list of titles that's wide but shallow. Do you really need to own Steve Martin's "Pink Panther" or Jim Carrey's "Fun with Dick and Jane?" Sure, they're both on sale now at Target but, really, how many times to you expect to revisit these gems?

While there are some DVDs I consider important to own, it’s a fairly small list. For a title to enter my collection, it has to be something I know I'll want to view in whole or in parts at least ten times or more. It should also be something that's not readily available. For everything else, there's Netflix.

And that's where collecting and gift buying come together. Unless you know your intended gift recipient is really burning for a copy of "Geisha," (another title on sale in said Target flier), a gift subscription to Netflix might be a better choice. As we move more towards Web 2.0 (more on that another post), the tradeoff between owning something of marginal interest and being able to access it when needed will continue to grow in importance when considering a purchase.

I'm glad I own the Kino release of "Metropolis." I've revisit it with some frequency, and I continue to find new insights with each viewing. "Pirates of the Caribbean?"

I can wait three days for the Netflix envelope to arrive.
- Ralph