Kat’s Film and Book Reviews

image courtesy of www.moviedownfree.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m a big fan of Hitchcock. I love how he can be scary, quirky, philosophical, sexy, and funny all in the same scene. I have always thought that he brings out the best in his actors and his crews. Every Hitchcock film is a masterpiece of lighting, sound, editing and unparalleled performances from some of the best actors of the age. He even drove writers and producers to new heights of their crafts.

So, what happened with North By Northwest? I mean, all the elements are there. Hitchcock, of course. Cary Grant in the male lead, looking older but dashing with his character lines and salt-and-pepper hair. A young and beautiful Eva Marie Saint as the duplicitous but beautiful spy (or is she?). James Mason and Martin Landau are excellently creepy bad guys. And to top it off, it was written by Ernest Lehman, who wrote things like Sabrina (both the 1954 and 1995 versions), West Side Story, The King and I, and Hello Dolly.

For some reason, the elements just don’t come together in North By Northwest. The plot involves advertising exec Roger Thornhill, played by Cary Grant, who for reasons never made clear is mistaken for a spy. He gets caught up in a rivalry between some CIA-like government agency and some KGB-like enemy agency. He forms a strong attraction to Eve Kendall, who turns out to be…something. I was never quite clear on this, either. An enemy agent? A double agent? As much a victim as Roger is? Whatever she is, he’s really into her, and he can’t just leave her behind, even when it would be safer for him to do so, and even when it seems like she’s betrayed him. 

Somehow this movie got an Oscar nomination for Lehman for Best Screenplay. But how good can the writing be if an intelligent viewer, who already expects to like the movie, finds herself not knowing what’s going on, and worse, just not caring? I only stuck with it for the whole 131 minutes because I believed so strongly in Alfred Hitchcock that I was sure he was goint to pull it out, to make it all worth it. He didn’t.

There are a few iconic scenes in this that were interesting to see, and gave us glimpses of Hitchcock’s usual unique touch. Near the beginning, when Thornhill is kidnapped, force-fed liquor, and sent off behind the wheel of a car, we see the journey down a winding mountain road through his bleary, unfocused eyes. I don’t like POV-cam much—it makes me dizzy—but this was some of the best, earliest use of that technique, and it’s pretty scary to watch. I found myself leaning away from the turns as he attempted them.

About halfway through the film, we get the most famous shot–the one everyone knows even if they’ve ever seen the movie.  Cary Grant is in the middle of nowhere waiting for someone he thinks can give him some information, and he gets chased by a cropduster.  That is a great action scene, made all the most powerful because it’s presented with no music  Just silence, panting, and gunshots. 

Then, at the end, when Roger and Eve consummate their love, the train they’re on enters into a tunnel—get it? It’s a blatant Freudian symbol, but all the more entertaining for its utter disregard for subtlety.

Those touches are fun, but don’t salvage the movie. Almost any other Hitchcock movie would be a better use of your time.

Image courtesy of www.danheller.com

Actor David Carradine, part of the legendary Carradine acting dynasty, was found dead in his hotel room in Bangkok, Thailand, early this morning.  Carradine was in Thailand filming a movie, and did not show up for dinner with the crew yeasterday evening.  Nobody was alarmed at the time, but then a chambermaid found his body still in his hotel room this morning.  The coroner said he had been dead for about 12 hours at that time.

Sources say that Carradine was found hanged with the hotel room’s curtain cords and is believed to have committed suicide.  There is no indication of foul play.  However, this isn’t confirmed, and his agent is insisting that David died of natural causes. 

Carradine made over a hundred films, working with some of the best directors in Hollywood.  Most recently his work in Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill series won him critical and popular acclaim.  But for most people of a certain age, he will always be affectionately remembered for the 70’s series Kung Fu, where he played traveling Old West Shaolin priest Kwai Chang Caine (famously called “Grasshopper” by his spiritual master).

Carradine was known to be somewhat eccentric, but I’d never heard that he was unstable or suffering from this kind of pain or depression.  I am sorry for his death, and I hope that wherever he is now,  he’s found the peace he was looking for.

Rest in peace, Grasshopper.

Meet the Robinsons

2007

Rated G

Directed by Stephen Anderson

I was first introduced to this film through the Rob Thomas song, “Little Wonders,” which was on the soundtrack.  The song is a poignant tribute to the small things that make up a good life, the “little wonders” that take place in the “small hours.”  The things that make up a family and the memories that form it. 

This movie is about family, but it’s also about taking responsibility for your life.  The two themes are connected; it’s only when you are true to your gifts and take responsibility for your failures that you even become capable of cherishing those little wonders and small hours. 

The film begins with a flashback 12 years, to when a furtive, cloaked woman leaves a baby on the doorstep of an orphanage.  Twelve years later, that baby, named Lewis, is on his 124^th adoption interview, but none of his prospective parents have understood his passion for science and inventing.  He complains about his apparent unwantedness—even his mother didn’t want him—to the orphanage director, who gently reminds him that perhaps his mother couldn’t take care of him, not that she didn’t want him.

Fueled by that thought, he attempts to invent a brain-scanner, so that he can scan his own infant memories and get the information he needs to find his mother.  This desire motivates him throughout the film, as he learns about the bonds of love that make a family.

He gets a visitor from a young man from the future, who claims to be a time cop, but is in fact his future son, Wilbur.  The rest of the film has Lewis and Wilbur trying to repair a mistake that Wilbur made, while avoiding a cartoonish enemy, the man in the bowler hat.  They zip back and forth in time machines, present to future to past to present, encountering the memorable Robinson family and a few other interesting people.

The film is an interesting and brightly colored combination of You Can’t Take It With You and Back to the Future.  Some reviewers have claimed that the back-and-forth of the time travel is hard to follow, but most kids don’t find it so.  The villain isn’t scary so much as a nuisance, but provides comedic relief in several places. 

Lewis is able to let go of his desire to illuminate the past, to find his mother; a struggle that mirrors director Stephen Anderson’s experience as an adoptee who has not felt a desire to search for his birthparents.  It’s possible that some adoptees will not relate to how easily Lewis is able to turn his back on his past in order to “keep moving forward,” as the film’s motto suggests, but as an adoptive parent, I was gratified by Lewis’ realization that in the love of his new family, he has everything he needs.

The pay-off of the film, of course, is watching young Lewis find his place in a family as unique as he is.  No matter how many times we see it, there’s something deeply satisfying about watching the misfit find where he belongs.  Since we all feel that way sometimes, it gives us hope that we will find and claim our own rightful place.