skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Charade is so much more fun than I remember. I haven't watched it in my adult life before. I had completely forgotten about most of the comedy elements of this film, so watching it was a delight. As a kid, I must have thought it a much more serious movie, and yet I remember the shower-in-a-suit moment in perfect detail. I was so fascinated by all the parts I'd forgotten that I'm actually left with not much to say about it. Just wonderful.
I've found, when it comes to classic films, that I'm sometimes left wondering what it is about them that earned them that status. For example, Breakfast At Tiffany's didn't appeal to my tastes, and, other than the fashion, I do wonder a little at how it became as exalted as it is. I think I need to sit down with someone who loves it and listen to why they feel that way.
To me though, Charade is definitely a classic.
Final Thought: Nobody wears clothes as well as Hepburn and Grant. Nobody. I spent half the film wondering how Hepburn managed to look so good in what she was wearing.
Up Next: Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away (2012)
This was the first time I watched this film. And as I carry on with this project, I find that it's more difficult for me to write about films to which I have no emotional attachment. So despite this being hailed as one of the best films ever made, I don't actually have a great deal to say about it. It was interesting to finally get around to watching this, and it is, of course a very good film, but I think I'll need to watch it again for it to move me. On this initial viewing, I was merely trying to keep up with what was happening. The majority of the films I've seen from this era have been musicals, so it was an adjustment for me to need to keep up with a more complicated plot where the characters don't frequently break in to song. That is something I appreciate about older movies though - so often now movies seem to hold your hand and explain to you very slowly what is happening, rather than giving you enough credit to be able to figure it out yourself. It's more satisfying when it's not painstakingly spelled out to you, and it allows you to interpret things in a way that is meaningful to you, rather than being beaten over the head with what the maker's intention was. And isn't that what art should be? And isn't film a form of art?
Final Thought: You see so many images of Humphrey Bogart, but seeing him as a movie star is quite striking. It was bordering on alien for me to see a moving, speaking version of him. And as for the film itself, the lines from it are pretty much cliche now, so it's interesting to see them in context.
Up Next: The Cat From Outer Space (1978)
Watching Breakfast At Tiffany's makes me wish I had studied the novel at school. I know that the film changes certain plot elements, particularly the ending, but I would be curious to pick apart the book. The films leaves me feeling somewhat similar to how I did when I finished reading "The Catcher In The Rye", except that I loathed that book.
I bought this film because it's one of those classics that I thought I should have. Incidentally, that's the only reason I read "The Catcher In The Rye" at all, because it's labelled a classic and I thought I should. I guess I expected to be more moved by both. In the case of this film though, I didn't leave with a thorough dislike of it. (I really, REALLY don't like "The Catcher In The Rye"). I will admit though that I feel... indifferent. Perhaps it's partly because, gorgeous as Audrey Hepburn was, she does seem a tad miscast as Holly Golightly. The character is superficial and vague, which is hard to believe of Hepburn. I have trouble connecting with narratives where I can't see why I should care about the characters. I think that Breakfast At Tiffany's is a film that I need to watch repeatedly, in order to uncover Holly's substance.
Final Thought: Having grown up listening to Henry Mancini (as mentioned previously), I find the score to this film very familiar and comforting, so I did enjoy that.
Up Next: The Breakfast Club (1985)
Within in the first five minutes of this film, I was struck by how gentle it is. I can't think of a better word for it. This film is gentle. This feeling stays throughout, even in the dramatic moments, because the protagonist is a shy creature and it wouldn't suit his story to present it in another way.
This was yet another Disney movie that I didn't see while young. So many people say that they were shocked and devastated when Bambi's mother meets her fate, but I already knew of her demise before I saw the film for the first time. As a result, I almost feel like I'm missing an essential part of what it is to watch Bambi, because her death wasn't a shock to me. For such a thing to happen in what is mostly such a peaceful film was quite traumatic for many viewers, I believe.
Although I didn't watch the film as a child, I once again must have somehow got my hands on it's related picture book, because I sure did know that I liked Thumper. I was actually thrilled on watching the movie for the first time to discover that Thumper's character is even more charming than I'd imagined.
The presence of man as an ever present but never seen threat is disturbing, and apparently didn't sit well with audiences in the original theatrical release. We're shown the idyll of Bambi's world, and then pretty bluntly told that humans constantly threaten to destroy it. In the current age this is more acceptable, with more people environmentally aware, but back then it would have been pretty confronting. In fact it's now common for hunters to be portrayed as villains, whereas back then it was quite a commercial risk to make such a connection.
Final Thought: I really love when animators take care to accurately portray the movement of animals.
Up Next: The Bandwagon (1953)
