Center Stage (2000)

 In the year 2000, Center Stage and Coyote Ugly were both released cinematically, and though neither were brilliant films, they captured the attention of my circle of friends.  We saw each of these movies at the cinema multiple times.  I couldn't even tell you why, to be honest, but we just kept going back.

 Center Stage, while showcasing some rather unimpressive acting, is admirable for casting actual dancers.  My two major peeves in cinema are musical instruments being played with blatantly wrong technique (see August Rush) and terrible dancing being portrayed as great dancing (see The Artist).  So in this instance, I am more than willing to forgive bad acting for the sake of seeing ballet danced properly.

Final Thought: Despite the multiple times I have seen this film, my memory of it pales in comparison to The Seamstress.  She can quote this word for word.

Up Next:  Champions (1992)

Billy Elliot (2000)

In my final years of high school, I had a great English teacher.  A teacher who made the syllabus interesting and who didn't expect you to fit in to a mold, but rather wanted you to find your own voice.  It was this teacher who one day insisted we go to the cinema and see Billy Elliot.  He also insisted that we go see Fight Club, but that will come later.

So I went to the cinema, not really knowing what to expect of this film, and within the first minute I loved it.  Billy is endearing before he even says anything.  Dancing is just something that he happens to find himself doing, though it is bewildering for everyone else in his life, and he is more than aware of that.

I think I like this film because it isn't self conscious.  It's just frank.  Yes, kids pick up on more about their parents than they realise.  Yes, you're more likely to get through to a kid if you talk to them as an equal.  And yes, dancing is pretty great.

Final Thought:  Just how many family issues could be solved by dancing it out?

Up Next:  Bottle Shock (2008)

The Bandwagon (1953)

I know this film back to front.  I have no idea how many times I've seen it.  It's not one of Fred Astaire's better known films, in fact it's toward the end of his career as a dancer.  For some reason though, of all the films that my father showed me from the Astaire catalogue, I watched this one more times than any other.  I love the behind-the-scenes nature of it, and the in-jokes (such as the digs about Charisse's height or Astaire's career).

Astaire was in his early 50s when this film was made, and as a result his dance numbers are more on the restrained side.  That's not to say that they're lacking in style or class, not by a long shot.  It's odd I guess that my favourite Astaire movie isn't one that really showcases what he's known for.

Whenever I watched this film with my father, he'd be in raptures over the "Dancing In The Dark" number.  And "Shiny Shoes" is a joy, and the closest in style to a young Astaire.  The shoe shiner in that number was apparently a real life shoe shiner, known for his rhythmical technique, and my father always wished to see more of him.  And I just can't take my eyes off Nanette Fabray.  To me, vaudeville trained performers were incredibly engaging, in a very particular way that you don't see much in modern films.  Their style wouldn't really suit modern film, to be fair, but there's something so refreshing about it that I wish it was more common today.


Final Thought:  At the time of writing this, The Bandwagon is available on DVD in Australia, but, despite my searching, I can't find ANY of the Astaire/Rogers catalogue.  They were released on VHS when I was a kid, but I don't understand why I can't get them anywhere today on DVD.  It's beyond frustrating.

Up Next:  Basil, The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

The Artist (2011)

The Artist is a gorgeous film.  A work of art.  I was excited enough by the trailer for this that I marked the date of cinema release in my diary.  It manages to embody much of what I love about pre-1960 films.  I do love this film. 


Honestly, if you think about, and you don't even have to think very hard... the plot is essentially the same as that of Singin' In The Rain.  But with less cheeriness, more angst and just as much grace.

I found the line about audiences being tired of actors "mugging for the camera" to be an interesting one in this context, because one of my favourite things about this movie is how expressive the performers are.  It seems these days that it takes skill to be expressive performer without resorting to mugging, and my preferred actors are those who are capable of it.

The actors in this film are spot on.  He is marvellously charismatic, in true screen idol style, and she is captivating.  Cromwell can break your heart while barely moving a muscle, and Goodman has such a recognisable voice that it's fascinating to see him working without it.

All that said, I do have a major issue with this film.
If your actors aren't dancers, please don't pretend that they are.  Please.  Don't give them a dance number.  It shatters the illusion for any dancer in the audience, because the lack of skill is blatantly obvious and we just won't be convinced.  Fred and Ginger they are not.  For a film set in the 1920s, the lack of a convincing charleston step is depressing.
I appreciate that they worked on that final dance number for 5 months, that's commendable.  But that's exactly how it looks; it looks like people who learned some dance steps for the first time in their lives 5 months ago.  It made such an elegant film end like someone clumsily tripping over their evening gown as they leave a party.


Final Thought:  Bring back the days of clever animal sidekicks!!

Up Next:  August Rush (2007)

An American In Paris (1951)

Growing up, I always preferred Fred Astaire to Gene Kelly.  Thinking about it tonight, I realised the oddness of that.  Kelly is a more obvious choice for a young girl to swoon over, whether the focus be on his looks or his dancing.  And, don't get me wrong, I was healthily obsessed with Kelly.  But I think my father introduced me to Astaire first, so he always took first place.  Plus, Astaire always seemed a bit more of a gentleman.  Apparently Cyd Charisse once said that her husband could always tell which of them she had been working with that day - if she was covered in bruises, it was Kelly, if not, then it was Astaire.

Despite growing up with substantial exposure to the golden age of MGM musicals, I didn't watch An American In Paris as a kid.  I didn't really feel the need to.  I have a VHS of the documentary That's Entertainment (coming up later), which includes an edited version of the final ballet from this film.  I'd heard that it was nearly 20 minutes long, and at that age I wasn't terribly interested in the whole thing.  Plus, from what I saw, Leslie Caron wasn't a patch on Charisse.  So why bother?

Consequently, I've only seen this film a couple of times.  I must admit, I agree with those who say it's a bit of an overrated vanity piece.  That's not to say that it isn't good, it's just not quite the masterpiece it seems to think it is.  Visually it's a work of art, but where's the spirit?

Watching it tonight, it turns out that my favourite part of the whole thing is our introduction to Kelly in his apartment.  His movements around the small space are so casually graceful, an elegant version of a morning routine, and I loved the subtlety of it.  I actually thought to myself that it would be a shame if my favourite dance sequence was in the first 10 minutes, but it turns out that that was the case.

I almost feel that I'm betraying my love for Kelly by saying the above!  He shines in this film, he always does.  There's few things as delightful as Gene Kelly when he's delighted.  He just seems to be taking himself a bit too seriously in this one.  And Caron, to me, lacks the fire that it's fun to see Kelly up against.

Final Thought:  There sure was a lot of vocal vibrato in the 1950s.

Up Next:  Anchorman (2004)