Cool Off With The Classics Blog-a-thon

For the month of August, Marc at Go, See, Talk invited film bloggers to pick their Top 10 classic black & white films that will makes us stay indoors on a hot summer’s day.

I will begin with a mini-Hitchcock film festival. Whenever Turner Classic Movies has one especially on a weekend, I am not moving from my bed.

1) Notorious (1946)



This is the first film I remember watching on Turner Classic Movies and forever sealed my love for Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, and Ingrid Bergman. Alfred Hitchcock’s direction is pitch perfect particularly the crane shot into the close-up of the wine cellar key in Alicia’s hand. Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman as T.R Devlin and Alicia Huberman have the perfect chemistry whether they are bantering about her mission to woo a Nazi sympathizer or stealing a few moments of being in love. Their kissing scene is one of the sexiest ones on black & white film and they are fully clothed and nibbling at each other.

2) Spellbound (1945)



Ingrid Bergman is seriously one of the luckiest actress ever because she works with the handsomest men in Hollywood. In this film, she plays opposite Gregory Peck as a psychiatrist who tries to help an amnesiac man. Having a psychology degree, I think this film does a good job at portraying how psychiatrists used Freud’s dream analysis at that time. My favorite sequence is the famous Salvador Dali-designed dream sequence.

3) Suspicion (1941)



This film is the first of four Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock collaborations. I love the dark undertones that Hitchcock brought out of Grant as Johnnie in this film. Never has a glass has looked so menacing to me than when Johnnie carried it on a tray. Whenever I watch this film, I am never quite sure of Johnnie’s intentions toward Lina (Joan Fontaine). Even the ending still makes me wonder.

4) Rebecca (1940)



I do not know why I enjoy watching Joan Fontaine play a tortured heroine, but she does it so well. The source of her torment is the specter of the beloved Rebecca, the first wife of Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier). Judith Anderson gives an amazing performance as Mrs. Danvers, Rebecca’s extremely loyal maid, who quickly reminds the second Mrs. de Winter that she cannot compare to Rebecca. I think I enjoy this film more for the acting than Hitchcock’s direction.

5) Strangers on a Train (1951)



Robert Walker’s performance as Bruno Anthony is mesmerizing as he shifts from charming to threatening. I can see how Farley Granger’s Guy Haines could be easily charmed by Bruno that he does not realize that he has agreed to commit a murder. Being a tennis fan, my favorite sequence is the tennis sequence when everyone else follows the ball except for Bruno whose focus is on Guy.

And now for my non-Hitchcock choices:

6) All This and Heaven Too (1940)



This is the only Bette Davis film that I have seen where she gives a subtle and contained performance. As a governess who falls in love with her employer, Duc de Praslin (Charles Boyer), and his children, Davis uses her eyes beautifully to convey the emotions that Henriette cannot express. Boyer shines in the few stolen romantic moments that the Duc de Praslin and Henriette share.

7) Love in the Afternoon (1957)



I love the chemistry between Gary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn. I will be bold in saying that I like Hepburn better in this film than in Roman Holiday. My favorite scene is when Ariane gives a report of all of her lovers into Frank’s Dictaphone trying to prove that she is just as sophisticated as Frank.

8) Portrait of Jennie (1948)



Jennifer Jones gives a mesmerizing performance as Jennie. She “ages” from a young girl to a woman through vocal performance and body language. I can see why Eben (Joseph Cotten) is so taken with her. Although the film might be known for the few moments in color such as the completed portrait, it does have great black & white cinematography.

9) Holiday Affair (1949)



What’s more cooling than thoughts of Christmas? Or how about Robert Mitchum simply being adorable? I know that Mitchum and adorable do not go together for most people, but they do for me especially in this film. Mitchum plays Steve Mason who tries to win the affections of Connie Ennis (Janet Leigh) and her son. There is just something about Mitchum in moments where his characters falls in love with a woman that gets to me.

10) The Story of Esther Costello (1957)



Frankly, I am including this film because I just saw it on Joan Crawford day on TCM’s Summer Under the Stars. I started in the middle of it and I watched it till the end. But I was captivated by Crawford’s performance as a lonely woman who takes a blind girl under her wing. Also, I thought the scene where Esther gets her sight back was well done. I would like to see it again just to get the total film experience.

Since Marc stated that we had to stay in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, I could not include Love with a Proper Stranger (1963) although it is in black and white. But I wanted to mention it because I would want to watch it in my black & white film festival because Natalie Wood is so adorably neurotic in it as she tries to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. My favorite scene is when Angela invites Rocky (Steve McQueen) over to her new apartment and rants about her feelings toward him.



Sigh. If only I could win a chance to be a guest programmer on TCM, then I can truly make this black & white festival a reality.

Commenting on Commentary

As a film fan, after I watch a film, I listen to the audio commentary if it is available to enhance my viewing of the film. When I watched Chloe (2009) and Charade (1963) last week with the commentary, I notice that I tend to evaluate the commentary as well as the film. When I see that the writer/director/producer/actor will comment, I expect to learn about the process of making the film. My main criterion in evaluating the quality of the writer/director/producer/actor commentary is the balance between anecdotes and the technical and creative aspects of making the film. When there is more than one person doing the commentary, I want to listen to a good conversation with minimal crosstalk.

With Chloe, Amanda Seyfried, who plays the titular character, barely contributes to the commentary while director Atom Egoyan and screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson discuss their process in adapting Nathalie (2003), the French film that Chloe is based on. Usually an actor’s commentary involves what his or her process was in creating the role. However, I feel that Chloe is an ambiguous character that we are not supposed to know. Therefore, Seyfried should have been left out of the commentary completely. Egoyan and Wilson have a pleasant rapport with each other that reminds me of two friends discussing their favorite film in a café. I enjoy listening to Wilson explaining how she had to choose words and phrases that will turn everyone on as well as Egoyan explaining his use of mirrors. The one thing I learned in the commentary that slightly sours my viewing experience is Egoyan’s explanation for deleting the scenes where we learn why Michael is so angry at his mother Catherine. According to Egoyan, those scenes made the film too heavy and dragged it down. However, in watching the deleted scenes, Michael’s anger is justified. In the film itself, his anger seems too over the top for teenage boy angst.

Unlike Chloe, I had already seen Charade multiple times before. So I just decided to watch with the commentary. Oddly, Charade is my first experience with a Criterion Collection DVD that contains commentary from the writer and director as opposed to a film scholar. So for me, listening to commentary that did not involve some form of academic insight that I have come to know from watching a Criterion Collection DVD is a strange experience even though I am used to listening to writer and director commentary in contemporary films. Listening to screenwriter Peter Stone and director Stanley Donen is like listening to two guys at a bar reminiscing about a particular moment in their lives. Although there was some information that I already knew (i.e. Cary Grant insisting that Audrey Hepburn’s character pursue his character), I enjoy learning about Charade’s origins as a screenplay, then a novel, and back to a screenplay. Although I appreciate the academic essay, I would have appreciated another track of commentary from a film scholar to understand why Charade deserves the Criterion treatment.

While I am having trouble deciding which film has the best commentary, I can tell you that my most miserable commentary listening experience comes from Ric Meyers, Jeff Rovin, and Frank Djeng commenting on Perhaps Love (2005). This trio of film scholars constantly complains about the flaws they find in the film and repeats their ignorance on the production of the film giving them no credibility in my eyes. I am sure that there are other film scholars who specialize in Asian films that would have jumped at the chance at sharing their professional yet enthusiastic thoughts on this film. If you ever watch this film, just watch the film and skip the commentary.

Do you listen to the audio commentary? Do you find that it enhances your viewing experience or hinders it? Do you find yourself judging the quality of the commentary? If so, how do you define good commentary? Do you prefer commentary from a film scholar or writer/director/producer/actor commentary? Or both? Share your thoughts in the comment section.

Split I Screen

In X-Men: First Class, the typical rookie training montage has an added stylistic element: the spilt screen. Normally, the montage is used to condense the weeks of training in “real” time into minutes in film time. While a montage alone can be used to show multiple characters training at the same time, the split screen depicts this more effectively. So we see Beast trying to outrun Professor X on one side of the screen while we see Banshee trying to use his supersonic voice to propel himself to fly on the other side of the screen. Not only does the split screen effect gives the training montage a fresh visual perspective but also gives a nod to the comic book layout.

Other films have used split screens to give the audience the experience of viewing simultaneous events. Here are my favorite uses of the split screen:

Pillow Talk

The split screens used in this film visually depict Brad Allen (Rock Hudson) and Jan Morrow (Doris Day) sharing their telephone line. Jan hates the fact that she has to share a telephone line with a womanizer like Brad. In this still image, she interrupts one of the many calls that Brad makes to one of his many lovers. Note that Jan Morrow is at the center of the frame placing her in the dominant position as the main female protagonist as well as Brad Allen’s main love interest.

(For the Da Vinci Code fans out there, notice that Jan’s section is in the shape of the chalice which further suggests that she is the dominant female in the film.)

Down With Love

This film is a tribute to the Doris Day/Rock Hudson sex comedies. However, the film puts a modern-day twist by making the sexual innuendos more overt. Here the split screen takes two innocuous activities, Catcher (Ewan McGregor) drying himself with a towel and Barbara (Renee Zellweger) cleaning her sunglasses, and puts them together to make it look like she is giving him a blow job while they are discussing their date plans.

(500) Days of Summer

This film uses the split screen effect towards the end of the film. The left side of the screen shows what Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) expects to happen when he arrives at Summer’s (Zooey Deschanel) apartment while the right side shows what actually happens. Sometimes the expectations and the reality are the same but other times they differ. In the still image, we see Tom expecting that he and Summer will blissfully reunite and we see him alone in reality. Then reality literally wipes away the fantasy when Tom discovers that Summer is now engaged.

At first I was confused by the placement of the expectation side. I remembered that the left side of the brain is the logical side while the right side is the creative side, so I would think that Tom would be creating the expectations. However, upon further reflection, in Tom’s mind, the expectations follow a linear logic that is associated with the left side of the brain. He feels that he and Summer reignited a spark at Millie’s wedding. When Summer invites him to her place for a party, Tom logically expects that Summer is single and feels that spark as well.

Run Lola Run

The split screen reminds us that Lola is racing against the clock as she tries to get the money in order to save her boyfriend, Manny. When I studied this film in film theory class, I learned to think of it as a video game in which Lola learns from her previous experiences what she has to do in order to rescue Manny. Most video games have a timer somewhere on the screen. Also, most video games show multiple characters doing different things simultaneously on the same screen. This split screen show that Lola and Manny will not be defeated by time with the clock at the bottom of the frame.

These are my favorite uses of the split screen effect in films. Are there other films that use the split screen that you like? If so, feel free to share in the comments section. Also, check out Split Screen: a weblog dedicated to the art of the split screen and multi-layered visuals to see more media that uses the split screen.

Is Bridesmaids really "The Hangover for Women"

Bridesmaids: “The Hangover for Women.” That is the description used mostly by mainstream media to market the film. But why? As a woman, I like The Hangover and not because I fondly remember fantasizing about Bradley Cooper’s Will Tippin from Alias. I enjoy it for the same reason men enjoy it: watching three ridiculous guys go through ridiculous obstacles to get the groom to his wedding. Is it to reassure people that Bridesmaids will be so funny that they will be glad to fork over $12 to see it? Released at the beginning of wedding season, the film has a built-in audience with the female population who has dealt with the craziness of being in a wedding at some point in her life. Plus, there are women who will drag their boyfriends/husbands to see it as entertainment blackmail for making them sit through the NBA playoffs/NHL playoffs/MLB game/French Open matches. Then there are the Saturday Night Live fans who either love Kristen Wiig or just curious to see her play another character other than her annoying socially-inept, goofy-voiced characters.

If Bridesmaids is truly meant to be “The Hangover for Women,” then the film should have focused on the bachelorette party to prove that women can party just as hard if not harder than the guys. After all, the bachelorette party in Bridesmaids is supposed to take place in Las Vegas just like in The Hangover. However, the women never make it to the bachelorette party thanks to Annie (Kristen Wiig). Due to her fear of flying, she gets drunk after taking a sedative which causes her to panic and to throw a tantrum getting the bridesmaids thrown off the plane. No losing the bride. No Mike Tyson cameo. No mad dash to get ransom money. No quickie Vegas marriage for anyone. Perhaps a moment of toilet humor in a bridal boutique and a brief girl-on-girl kiss will appeal to the male audience but that does not make Bridesmaids comparable to The Hangover.

What Bridesmaids has in common with The Hangover is that it humorously reflects the wedding party experience with the pre-wedding parties. These pre-wedding parties have a way of bringing people together who may know the bride or the groom but may not know each other. The groomsmen plan the bachelor party while the bridesmaids plan the wedding shower and the bachelorette party. The male version of party planning is drinking beer and deciding between a sports bar or a strip club as the perfect location to get the groom to an amnestic level of drunk. The bachelor party is the sole reason why men are willing to sit through a wedding in a tuxedo. Even though the groom is absent for most of the film, the bachelor party experience strengthens the bond between Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis). No matter what happens they accept that they are stuck together and try to help each other out. The film shows male bonding before the wedding at its finest.

However, Bridesmaids shows female bonding before the wedding at its most awkward. In this film, the awkwardness comes from Lillian (Maya Rudolph) bringing together her childhood friend Annie and her fiancé’s boss’s wife Helen (Rose Byrne). When they meet, Annie and Helen size each other up in a passive-aggressive manner speaking clipped tones under the guise of politeness. The engagement party devolves into a game of “Who knows Lillian best.” When they try to bond while playing tennis, they “accidently” hurt each other while trying to prove they’re Lillian’s best friend.

The other awkwardly funny moments come when one of them tries to control the party planning. Wedding showers are notoriously difficult to plan even with the most laid-back bride because you have to decide on a theme, party favors, and games. Any woman who has had the responsibility of planning the wedding shower has at least one member of the bridal party who bombards you with well-meaning suggestions with that tone of “I can do this better than you. Why the hell did the bride ask you to do this?” which makes you automatically defensive constantly justifying your choices. In the film, Annie suggests having a Paris theme for the wedding shower which Helen rejects initially undermining Annie’s position as the maid of honor. However, when Helen takes over the wedding shower planning, not only does she use Annie’s suggestion but also she goes over the top with it (i.e. puppies as party favors) which causes Annie to freak out. Lillian tells Annie not to come to the wedding. The film shows how easily two well-meaning bridesmaids lose sight of what the bride wants.

Based on story alone, Bridesmaids is not “The Hangover for Women.” While Annie does act ridiculous throughout the film, her ridiculousness is a reaction based on insecurity. The guys act ridiculous as reaction to the ridiculous circumstances. The only way that Bridesmaids can be called “The Hangover for Women” is through making us laugh as we relate to the pre-wedding bonding experience.

(Note to aspiring female producers/directors/screenwriters: If you’re looking for ideas, how about a film featuring a bachelorette party that focuses on the bonding between women making it a true “The Hangover for Women”? Please do not make it about finding the right man.)

A Semi-Objective Film Review of Jane Eyre (2011)

Directed by Cary Fukunaga, Jane Eyre (2011) tells the story of a young governess who overcomes her circumstances and falls in love with her mysterious employer. Along with Fukunaga’s direction, the gloomy cinematography conveys the Gothic element of this classic tale particularly in the opening sequence when Jane wanders around the vast landscape leaving us wondering where she is. One minor exception to the Gothic element is the red room which Jane is supposed to believe that her dead Uncle Reed haunts. The red room looks like a tacky sitting room with the sun shining too brightly for a room that is supposed to be a place of punishment.

In my previous post, I note the specific issues that I had with the screenplay. However, I do appreciate the clever use of the flashback structure to compress the novel’s first act (Jane’s childhood) and the third act (Jane’s first few months with the Rivers family). The second act (Jane’s time at Thornfield) remains mostly uninterrupted focusing on the romance between Jane and Mr. Rochester. However, the ending is simply too abrupt to satisfy even those who are not familiar with the novel and simply watching a period romance.

With the version that they are given, Mia Wasikowska does an excellent job in portraying Jane’s strength of conviction and intelligence as well as her shyness and awkwardness. Michael Fassbender does not portray the enigmatic teasing aspect of Rochester’s character especially in the first intellectual discussion scene and in the scene after Bertha attacks her brother. He telegraphs Rochester’s interest in Jane too much in those scenes. However, in the aftermath of the fire, a scene where Rochester should show an attraction for Jane, Fassbender provides the right amount of seduction.



Also, Jamie Bell gives me a new appreciation of the character of St. John Rivers, a character that I do not normally care for in the book and generally despise when watching Jane Eyre. Bell does not play the character as condescending as other actors have done but still maintains the character’s self-righteousness.

If I am in the mood for a highlight reel of Jane Eyre, I will watch this version. But if I want to indulge my novel purist side, I will watch the 1983 BBC miniseries version instead.

Jane Eyre film links:

Official Website

The Enthusiast’s Guide to Jane Eyre Adaptations

Up in the Eyre: Why are there so many movie adaptations of Jane Eyre, and which one is the best?

The Novel Purist Review of Jane Eyre (2011)

I tried. Honest. I told myself that the film is two hours long and that some scenes and lines will be cut and I should accept it as a highlight reel of Jane Eyre. But I couldn’t stop myself from mentally complaining about the omitted lines and scenes. I was extremely critical during my favorite chapters:

Chapter 14 – Jane and Mr. Rochester’s first intellectual discussion

The dialogue began well with Rochester (Michael Fassbender) being intimidating and enigmatic at the part when he asks Jane (Mia Wasikowska) if she finds him handsome and she sharply replies “No sir.” Although they kept the discussion of Rochester’s claim to superiority based on Jane being his paid subordinate, the discussion on how Rochester made use of his time and experience was dwindled down to a few lines thus cutting out intellectual bond that Rochester and Jane form during this conversation. Instead, Fassbender decides that Rochester wants Jane to know that he is interested in her by saying “Possibly: yet why should I, if I can get sweet, fresh pleasure? And I may get it as sweet and fresh as the wild honey the bee gathers on the moor” and “I see at intervals the glance of a curious sort of bird through the close-set bars of a cage: a vivid, restless, resolute captive is there; were it but free, it would soar cloud-high.” in a overtly seductive manner instead of in a enigmatically teasing manner. Rochester does not show Jane that he likes her just as a person at this point.

Chapter 23 – the proposal scene

My first thought when I saw that this scene was coming: ”Why is it daytime?! Am I not remembering this correctly because I could’ve sworn this scene happens at night?” So, when I reread the chapter, I did remember that the scene correctly. Why can’t this scene ever be done right? I feel that this scene takes place at night because there’s an underlying darkness to the proposal: Rochester is already married in the eyes of the law. Perhaps the filmmakers felt that shooting the scene in the day will lend a sense of irony. Then there’s the omission of Rochester finding her a situation in Ireland. That piece of information is the key to Jane’s emotional breakdown because the possibility of her leaving Rochester became real. Without it, the scene lacked the emotional highs and lows that it should have.

Chapter 27 – after the reveal of Rochester’s wife

Wasikowska and Fassbender did a good job at portraying Jane’s sense of pity along with her strength of conviction to leave Rochester and Rochester’s desperation to make Jane stay with him especially when he said, “A mere reed she feels in my hand! I could bend her with my finger and thumb. Whatever I do with its cage, I cannot get at it--the savage, beautiful creature! And it is you, spirit--with will and energy, and virtue and purity--that I want: not alone your brittle frame.” However, the scene would have more passion if the screenwriter had included these lines:

"Jane, you understand what I want of you? Just this promise--'I will be yours, Mr. Rochester.'"
"Mr. Rochester, I will NOT be yours."
Another long silence.
"Jane!" recommenced he, with a gentleness that broke me down with grief, and turned me stone-cold with ominous terror--for this still voice was the pant of a lion rising--"Jane, do you mean to go one way in the world, and to let me go another?"
"I do."
"Jane" (bending towards and embracing me), "do you mean it now?"
"I do."
"And now?" softly kissing my forehead and cheek.
"I do," extricating myself from restraint rapidly and completely.
"Oh, Jane, this is bitter! This--this is wicked. It would not be wicked to love me."
"It would to obey you."

While I had a laser-like focus on my favorite chapters, there were other lines that I wished the film had included:

When Jane leaves the party after Rochester asks her if she’s depressed and she denies it. Rochester says:

“But I affirm that you are: so much depressed that a few more words would bring tears to your eyes--indeed, they are there now, shining and swimming; and a bead has slipped from the lash and fallen on to the flag. If I had time, and was not in mortal dread of some prating prig of a servant passing, I would know what all this means. Well, to-night I excuse you; but understand that so long as my visitors stay, I expect you to appear in the drawing-room every evening; it is my wish; don't neglect it. Now go, and send Sophie for Adele. Good-night, my--" He stopped, bit his lip, and abruptly left me.

In the film, a servant announces Richard Mason’s arrival. In the book, Mason arrives a few days after this scene.

When Jane leaves for Gateshead:

“Then you and I must bid good-bye for a little while?" [Rochester says.]
"I suppose so, sir."
"And how do people perform that ceremony of parting, Jane? Teach me; I'm not quite up to it."
"They say, Farewell, or any other form they prefer."
"Then say it."
"Farewell, Mr. Rochester, for the present."
"What must I say?"
"The same, if you like, sir."
"Farewell, Miss Eyre, for the present; is that all?"
"Yes?"
"It seems stingy, to my notions, and dry, and unfriendly. I should like something else: a little addition to the rite. If one shook hands, for instance; but no--that would not content me either. So you'll do no more than say Farewell, Jane?"
"It is enough, sir: as much good-will may be conveyed in one hearty word as in many."
"Very likely; but it is blank and cool--'Farewell.'"

This is one of their major bonding moments and it should have not been left out.

The plot point that I cannot believe that they changed was the fact that Jane discovers that the Rivers are her blood relatives thus giving Jane the family she always wanted. In the film, Jane suggests to St. John that he treats her like a sister. While I can guess that the filmmakers decided on this change to make the St. John’s proposal more acceptable to a modern audience, I find it insulting to the audience. Most viewers try to understand that different time periods had different standards for who people can marry. I think that they could have understood that cousins married each other during that time.

My next post will be a more objective film review of Jane Eyre (2011). But I felt it was my duty as a Jane Eyre fan to warn other Jane Eyre fans about the missing lines and scenes. And to say to any aspiring screenwriter/director/producer: STOP MAKING JANE EYRE FEATURE FILM ADAPTATIONS! THE NOVEL ONLY WORKS AS A MINISERIES!

My first Flixist post

Check out my pick for Flixist's Monthly Musings on sound:

Of sound mind: Romeo + Juliet