The "...And Scene!" Blogathon

Sister Celluloid is hosting a blogathon where the objective is "your chance to go into excruciating detail about your favorite classic film scene (or one of them, anyway—I’d never be so cruel as to ask you to narrow it down any further)." Having seen my fair share of classic films, I wanted to choose something different. No "We'll always have Paris" or Gene Kelly splashing around in puddles, I wanted to talk about a scene from a movie that not enough people are talking about. In the end, I settled for this:

(1966, dir. John Frankenheimer)

(Spoilers ahead!)

The SEX! (now that I have your attention) Blogathon

Steve of Movie Movie Blog Blog has conjured up a clever idea for a blogathon where the rules are as followed:

1. You need to write about an entire movie that you find sexy, not just a single scene. The upside-down kiss in the 2001 Spider-Man movie was undeniably sexy, but unless you can make a case for the entire movie being a turn-on, please don’t write about it. 

2. The movie you choose can be from any era (even silent), but it needs to be a movie that subtly suggests sex. No writhing, naked bodies, and no explicit dialogue about how much one person wants to go to bed with another. 

That’s not to say that your choice can’t be a modern movie with adult dialogue. If you can make a solid case for something like, say, Body Heat (which was a modern homage to 1940’s-style movie sex), I’ll accept it. 

3. Explain why you think the movie is sexy. Your explanation does not have to be lurid or explicit, just a simple description of why the movie “does something” for you.

Sounds simple enough. So what did I choose for this?

(1958, dir. Martin Ritt) 

I'll See You in My Dreams

Hollywood has garnered a notoriety for its ageism towards actresses. The minute an actress starts showing the faintest hint of aging, studios lose interest in hiring them. (Yet if the actress hails from the United Kingdom, no hindrance of their career whatsoever.) Thankfully in recent years, there have been several women-led films starring actresses over fifty and not named Meryl Streep.

One such film is Brett Haley's I'll See You in My Dreams. It's a quiet film, certainly, but it's also a nice change of pace from the other options at the cineplex. (You can only stand so much CGI.)

Starring in I'll See You in My Dreams is Blythe Danner, who's more known nowadays for being the mother of Gwyneth Paltrow than for her own career. Thankfully this film proves that Danner is just as good of an actress (if not better) than her daughter. She's in a role that's been given to many actors in their later years but not to actresses. (Is it honestly that hard to write a role for a woman?)

But what is I'll See You in My Dreams about? To put it simply, it's about reclaiming youth in old age, experiencing romance after so many years, and gaining a new lease on life. Or to put it in another way, it's a film about life.

Though not without its flaws, I'll See You in My Dreams is a very charming film. It proves that there are roles available for women of an older age. All it takes is a good writer to provide them.

My Rating: ****

Saint Laurent

With so many films being released every year, it's always a challenge to have each one of them to be successful. And with a wide array of genres to choose from, it gives the viewer more options of what to see. But even then there's more pressure for a film to do well.

One genre that's frequently hit and miss is the biopic. Often a controversial one if the subject is still very much alive, it's hard for filmmakers to deliver if expectations are high. So where does Bertrand Bonello's Saint Laurent rank? To be honest, not very highly.

If you couldn't tell by the title, the film focuses on the life of French fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent (played here by a fairly decent Gaspard Ulliel) from the years 1967 to 1976, the peak of his career. With a subject like him, it's hard to mess up, right? Well, Bonello managed to do that.

Fittingly, Saint Laurent is a film that has more style than substance. Many of the designs for the sets and costumes are stunning and deeply reminiscent of the era the film's set in. That said, that's the only good thing Bonello has going for him with this.

It's clear that Saint Laurent has a lot of ambitions behind it. Unfortunately many of those ambitions go unrealized due to the film's disoriented nature. Had it been more organized and about forty-five minutes shorter, then maybe better things could be said about it.

My Rating: ***

BOOK VS MOVIE: Far from the Madding Crowd

For years, fiction has depicted those of the fairer sex as always having romance and marriage on the mind. (Looking at you, Jane Austen.) Granted, in recent years, that's been rectified to an extent (read: making female characters have more than one dimension) but we've still got a way to go.

However, there have been early exceptions of proper female depictions before women's rights even entered everyday lexicon. Take Far from the Madding Crowd for instance. It revolves around an independent woman trying to survive in a man's world as well as fighting off the romantic pursuits of three men. A familiar premise, perhaps, but a good one if done properly.

Thomas Hardy's novel is a deeply lush piece of literature, ranging from the descriptions of the vast English countryside to the emotions felt between the characters. With its numerous Biblical references (two of the main characters have their fitting names derived from the Good Book), the novel shows how emotions can overtake one's better judgment.

Thomas Vinterberg's film keeps several elements of Hardy's novel alive (Charlotte Bruus Christensen's cinematography captures the rolling hills of southern England Hardy so vividly described) but as is the case with most adaptations, the does deviate from the original source. Several scenes (some of which slightly crucial) are either altered or removed entirely, and the general mood has been changed as well. Oh, Hollywood, always romanticizing things that shouldn't be.

It's pretty clear which of the two comes out on top, don't you think? Yes, both have their own individual qualities but there's one thing worth pointing out: actors can only do so much with what the writer originally intended.

What's worth checking out?: The book.

The Immigrant

In past years, James Gray was noted for his contemporary films such as The Yards, We Own the Night and Two Lovers. His most recent film The Immigrant is his first to be set in a bygone era, one where those living in it struggled to survive.

Much like Gray's previous films, The Immigrant focuses on the behavior of people. Everyone behaves in different ways in certain situations, and Gray shows that to the fullest. (Sometimes the devil is in the details.)

Speaking of which, much like how The Yards had elements similar to those in The Godfather, The Immigrant has elements that heavily parallel the story of Vito Corleone in The Godfather Part II. Specifically Darius Khondji's cinematography deeply resembles Gordon Willis' work, how each shots likens to an aged photograph from the era. It also adds to the film's overall mood.

Starring in The Immigrant are Marion Cotillard, Joaquin Phoenix and Jeremy Renner, all of whom have thankfully been recognized by AMPAS several times over the last decade or so. Here, the trio (especially Cotillard) prove that they're some of the best actors working today. It won't be long before they win an Academy Award. (Or in Cotillard's case, another one.)

The Immigrant is a quiet film but also a stunning one. The many details of the film make for an amazing combination. And much has been said about the final shot. It doesn't take much to see why.

My Rating: ****1/2