Life Lessons from 12 Angry Men

We finally got back to watching another movie on our list . This time with another Henry Fonda classic from the '50's, 12 Angry Men.



I found this movie to be really, well, I was going to say "smart". But I think it was more that they didn't play their viewers as "dumb". I really find it insulting when imagination and thought are taken out of art so that it is "dumbed-down" for those enjoying it. It is insulting in poetry, music, art, movies and tv... I don't know about dance, I don't understand that!



The only thing black and white in the movie was the celuloid it was first imprinted on. I found that its touching portrayal of human nature, of prejudice and of misconceptions was very modern. It touches on prejudice, justice, social pressure, selfishness, hatred, anger and meaning in life. How can it go wrong. The logic of the arguing and why the jury seems to be arguing out what you'd think would have been all determined in the courtroom doesn't really matter, what you're seeing is twelve interesting people (Fonda's character is the only one who doesn't really develop) all showing remarkable parts of humanity. You'll see yourself and others you have known. And hopefully, you'll think and not get angry.

Raging Bull

The story of Jake LaMotta. Jake seems to be obsessed with being the best boxer. He also becomes obsessed with Vicki, a young girl from his neighbourhood. Jake is married, though badly, and in spite of that he pursues Vicki, eventually marrying her. Even married, he remains obsessed. He must control her, he must know what she is doing, even when he’s not around. LaMotta follows these two obsessions through the movie.

Fittingly, he quotes from “On the Waterfront” in the closing moments, with a flat interpretation of Brando’s famous “I coulda been someone, I coulda been a contender” lines. This reminds us of the way LaMotta could have turned out if he had been willing to both work within the parameters of the boxing world, and also not thrown fights for his own personal gain.

I wasn’t sure when the movie was over what I was supposed to feel. There is never an attempt to make LaMotta likeable or honourable. Tough perhaps, but worthy of respect, no. I only felt bad that LaMotta turned out like he did, a washed up, almost was who is more famous for being depicted in this movie than for anything he actually accomplished in his life. Sadly, since this is based on his autobiography, (though some important details were changed for the movie) this is not just a movie but someone’s life. Perhaps that is what made it arrive on AFI’s top 100 list. As a work of fiction it wouldn’t work, as a biography, it makes it more dramatic.

This movie is way too gritty for my tastes. The language is over the top in its presentation of the 1940’s. Of course, the boxing world may have been that raw, but personally I felt the language made this movie painful to watch, not just gritty and honest.

This movie makes me now want to finish watching “On the Waterfront”. We own it, but the DVD has a flaw in it that makes it quit working about 2/3 of the way through. I want to see how that film plays out Brando’s comeback from a has-been boxer to life on the docks battling union corruption. That movie at least had some redemption available for the character.

Rear Window

In “Rear Window”, we have another matching of Jimmy Stewart with Alfred Hitchcock. They did four or five together. ( I just finished reading Jimmy Stewart’s biography last week and I don’t remember if there was a fifth one…Vertigo, Rope, Anatomy of a Murder, Rear Window and ? Someone feel free to remind me! Comments are always welcome.)

With Rear Window we have an interesting shooting style. The whole movie takes place through Stewart’s window, give or take a few clips when he goes out that same window at the end of the movie, or within his small apartment. Hitchcock gives an interview in the edition of the dvd we watched and he says that the idea was to basically look at Jimmy Stewart, then show what he is looking at, then shoot his reaction to that sight.

Without giving away plot details, the movie itself plays as a very modern tale. We’ve got people peering into the lives of others with very little intention of getting involved. One neighbour even cries out, in the middle of the movie, that the people living around their courtyard are not neighbours, because neighbours care about each other. It strikes me as having a lot to do with a tremendous book I read last summer called, “The Safest Place on Earth“, by Larry Crabb.(Larry Crabb wrote the book who’s title I borrowed for this blog.) In that book, Crabb describes our typical church life as being a bunch of people sitting so they can’t really interact with each other…at least he picks on that aspect of a traditional service as an example. From that position he says that we need to circle up, turn our chairs toward one another, find people who we can connect with and form spiritual bonds with each other. Risk, become vulnerable, be real, and enjoy other people’s humanness and God at work through them as well.

Suffice it to say, when Stewart and his friends in “Rear Window” attempt to interact, they do find real hurt, real pain, real humanness, and solve a crime in the mean time. When you do the same in your spiritual life, you find all of those things too, give or take the crime. You also find real joy, real community, real love, real honesty, real Christianity.

Vertigo

First off, its the movie, not the disease...

At first, I couldn’t understand why this movie was on the top 100 list, especially since it made number 9 on the updated, 2007 list. Of course, this is Alfred Hitchcock so it is definitely a psychological thriller, but the strange behaviour of Madeline definitely made this a classic. The title even, "Vertigo", is barely central to the plot, then suddenly it appears. The nature of mental illness and love and acute melancholia and a guilty conscience are at the heart of this amazingly gripping movie. The deeper in you go, the more it makes you say, “What is going on?” Then you remember that it is Alfred Hitchcock and you wonder why you didn’t see it coming.

It is said that a majority of people in mental institutes are in because of guilt. Without fully thinking that thought through as it applies to this movie, I believe this is related. I’ve only seen a couple of other Hitchcock movies, but in those the plots were similar to each other. In “The Birds”, “Psycho”, and “North by Northwest”, the plot revolves around a strange occurrence which seems plausible, but involved something stalking someone else. In Vertigo, the scenario seems implausible, but you soon believe that it is real.

After a while, as the facets of the diamond are polished up, the reality appears, this is a great movie!

The most startling thing about this movie is the way that Scotty begins to obsess over his lost love and works to replace her by dressing up a passer-by to look like her. You feel a queasiness, being fully aware that this man is not well. What is even more shocking than his requests of his new love is that, though she knows it is not healthy, and that he is pursuing a love from the past, she goes along with it to be with him. She plays a character and falls for him, while he falls for the character, not her.

So what do we do with this? “It’s just a movie,” we say, and trudge on. I wonder though. Do I expect my wife to turn into what I want her to be? Do I love her for who she is? Can we say we truly love if we want them to change? As years go by in any relationship, new secret rooms are opened up to us, either revealed or discovered. How we handle these revelations speaks loudly to the depth and commitment of our love. Will we grow and continue to love or will we expect things to change in our partner?

The Godfather

So we finally watched The Godfather a couple of nights ago. What a fun, great movie... well, disturbing might be another word to add to that description, but we both really enjoyed it.
Probably the acting was what made it so good. That and feeling like I knew the culture slightly.
What really struck me was how like the church this could be. People can look after one another. Don't say anything about your family, family comes first. Look out for one another. Don't be surprised when you are asked for a favour. Respect and expect respect.
Of course there is also fear, murder and unfaithfulness, and, though I've just finished reading "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown about 20 minutes ago, that should not be what the church looks like and I know it, so don't shoot me... Wait, maybe a bad use of the language there. At any rate, I'd say if your tolerance for blood and gangster movies is pretty good (remember this movie was made in 1972, a pretty strong point in American film making, but a gritty time too), then you should love this movie. I know its alway number one or two on most "Best of" lists, its number three on ours down this page somewhere. Not too bloody, language is pretty good, all in all a great classic

Shaaaaaaaaaark!

JAWS
(see #48 below)

Does this movie ring true? I’m not talking about giant sharks eating whole fishing boats. I’m talking human decisions. I thought the giant mechanical sharks were quite believable except for one moment when the thing jumps on the boat. Otherwise it was really terrific for 1975.

The issue for me is more about whether the actions of the characters are true. Would a politician and a physician intentionally stand silent? Would a police officer allow themselves to be quieted into no action? Would a parent let their child go to swimming knowing what they know?

I found that all in all, the politician’s stance was believable. His job was at stake. If the beaches were empty, then his job would be gone. He could easily convince himself that there was no shark, or that it was a freak, once in a lifetime event.

As far as the medical examiner was concerned, I didn’t see how he could be silenced into changing his report, and the movie doesn’t even try to convince us. He just does, it’s implied that there is intimidation or something, but we’re never really let in on it.

The policeman I found the hardest to believe of all. He has so little to lose, especially as a parent. Why he allows the events to be worked out the way they do is bizarre. I appreciate his efforts to bring down the shark later, but even then, his aversion to water is ignored and he just heads out to sea.

Why does this movie stand up so well as a classic then? I guess it’s the music. Duh-duh, duh-duh, duh-duh, duh-duh. I mean you still hear that familiar theme today to imply impending disaster. I think the randomness of the attack is fairly well designed too. With so many potential victims, except for the boat captain, you can’t really anticipate who is going to be next. I also think the first time you see the unbelievable shark glide by underwater you realize that it is a bigger problem being faced than you ever expected.

Fun movie, I suppose. I think I still prefer "The Birds".

The American Film Institute top 100 list

Sabrina and I decided a couple of years back to see if we could round up and watch the top 100 movies as voted on by the American Film Institute(1997 list). Oh, American films only on the list... Its a great list. We're avoiding a few of them, well, Sabrina is avoiding them, but since we have to see them together...our rules, (individually we've seen some of these not checked off, but we want to see them together.) After watching the first 20 or so, I decided that I wanted to make something of it, not just sit through them, so that's where some of these blogs come from and hence, why I'm suddenly writing about a thirty or eighty year old movie.

update...now we've seen 41/100 as of July 1, 2008
another update, I think we're at 49 as of August 20th
a third update...51 as of Oct 10, though I think I've miscounted at some point...
a fourth update... 55 as of April 6, 2009
a fifth update... 59 as of October 18th, 2009
1.CITIZEN KANE (1941) √
2.CASABLANCA (1942) √
3.GODFATHER, THE (1972)√
4.GONE WITH THE WIND (1939) √
5.LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962) √
6.WIZARD OF OZ, THE (1939) √
7.GRADUATE, THE (1967) √
8.ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) √
9.SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
10.SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952) √
11.IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) √
12.SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950) √
13.BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, THE (1957) √
14.SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959) √
15.STAR WARS (1977) √
16.ALL ABOUT EVE (1950) √
17.AFRICAN QUEEN, THE (1951) √
18.PSYCHO (1960)
19.CHINATOWN (1974) √
20.ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)√
21.GRAPES OF WRATH, THE (1940) √
22.2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
23.MALTESE FALCON, THE (1941)
24.RAGING BULL (1980) √
25.E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982) √
26.DR. STRANGELOVE (1964) √
27.BONNIE & CLYDE (1967)
28.APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) √
29.MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939) √
30.TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948)
31.ANNIE HALL (1977) √
32.GODFATHER PART II, THE (1974)√
33.HIGH NOON (1952)
34.TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962) √
35.IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)
36.MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969)
37.BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THE (1946)
38.DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
39.DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965) √
40.NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) √
41.WEST SIDE STORY (1961)
42.REAR WINDOW (1954) √
43.KING KONG (1933) √
44.BIRTH OF A NATION, THE (1915)
45.STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, A (1951)
46.CLOCKWORK ORANGE, A (1971)
47.TAXI DRIVER (1976)
48.JAWS (1975)√
49.SNOW WHITE & THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937) √
50.BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)
51.PHILADELPHIA STORY, THE(1940) √
52.FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953)
53.AMADEUS (1984) √
54.ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930)
55.SOUND OF MUSIC, THE (1965) √
56.M*A*S*H(1970) √
57.THIRD MAN, THE (1949)
58.FANTASIA (1940) √
59.REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955) √
60.RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981) √
61.VERTIGO (1958) √
62.TOOTSIE (1982)
63.STAGECOACH (1939)
64.CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977)
65.SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, THE (1991)
66.NETWORK (1976)
67.MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, THE (1962)
68.AMERICAN IN PARIS, AN (1951) √
69.SHANE (1953)
70.FRENCH CONNECTION, THE (1971)
71.FORREST GUMP (1994) √
72.BEN-HUR (1959) √
73.WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939) √
74.GOLD RUSH, THE (1925)
75.DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990)
76.CITY LIGHTS (1931) √
77.AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973)
78.ROCKY (1976) √
79.DEER HUNTER, THE (1978) √
80.WILD BUNCH, THE (1969)
81.MODERN TIMES (1936)
82.GIANT (1956)
83.PLATOON (1986)
84.FARGO (1996) √
85.DUCK SOUP (1933)
86.MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1935)
87.FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
88.EASY RIDER (1969)
89.PATTON (1970) √
90.JAZZ SINGER, THE (1927)
91.MY FAIR LADY (1964) √
92.PLACE IN THE SUN, A(1951)
93.APARTMENT, THE (1960)
94.GOODFELLAS (1990) √
95.PULP FICTION (1994)
96.SEARCHERS, THE (1956) √
97.BRINGING UP BABY (1938) √
98.UNFORGIVEN (1992) √
99.GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER (1967) √
100. YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942)

Annie Hall says WHAT???

First off, I know this review is 30 years late. Sadly however, the movie is still relevant to today’s pop culture. What we have here is basically a view of the world that says love is good, but how we go about it doesn’t necessarily have goodness to it. Woody Allen, a name that today means “laughingstock”, at the time meant “relevant”. No body is laughing at the message of Annie Hall, even though the delivery may have been humourous. This is black comedy though. Laughing because it hurts, its better than crying perhaps…

What seems to be missing in this movie is the Midwest. New York is portrayed as hard working, serious, sad even. California is portrayed as partying, laid back and foolish. Into these two settings we have our main characters trying to establish their relationship. The only real mention of any middle ground is to mock Annie’s Wisconsin upbringing, that things neat and peachy are outdated. From this we get the idea that ideal relationships, happy endings, and improving conditions between spouses and lovers is not really something modern Americans should think is possible. Either live morosely, expecting the worst, or live uncaringly with whatever the outcome is.

I want something more. I’m living something more. Is there foolishness and sadness? Yes. But is there hope and progress and joy and real love? Absolutely. Annie Hall, there is a better way.

Life Lessons from Unforgiven

Unforgiven was an Oscar winning movie when it came out 15 years ago or so. I finally saw it this weekend and found it quite thought provoking.

Among its issues were forgiveness (obviously), guns, duty and valour, law and the beauty of living in a world governed by it.

I don't like movies like this, in general, I mean, too much violence, too much senselessness, but... at the same time, there is a lot to be said for what is being presented here.

It was an interesting weekend, I sat in on a riding meeting for a certain political party. One of the issues raised was guns and the "right" to bare arms. To me it was as disturbing to hear the conversation go on (unargued, might I add) as it was to think of what would happen if they were wrong. I don't see the American system of gun ownership being particularly great, and yet here were people openly advocating that we go that way. Perhaps it is the joy of living in rural Ontario, as opposed to a little closer to Jane and Finch, (notorious gang hot spot in Toronto) as my school is.

The gun culture of Unforgiven makes a stark comparison. The only guy we see who is not carrying a weapon is often displayed as mercenary and weak. Those who carry guns though end up dead, all but two, and even then they claim to be either dead or dying.

Sanctity of human life was brought up at the political meeting. I sat wondering what that meant to them. Does that mean that human life is important, sacred even (whatever that means)? Or does it mean that God gives it and takes it on His terms? If its the last, I'm with them. Yet, at the same time, adopting a gun culture in which you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon or at least have one for self-defense does not extend the idea that human life is sacred. It simply says that my life is sacred, and the life of someone threatening me or my property is not. The idea that guns cure anything is pretty risky. I know guns don't kill people, people kill people. I know that the government has no right to ______ (fill in the blank yourself). Do we really know what we're asking for though?

Watch Unforgiven if you dare, and think carefully.

Feel free to comment below. I'd be interested in hearing a dissenting view.

Life Lessons from It’s a Wonderful Movie… oops, I mean , Life.

Does a life of sacrifice matter?

Can you give up your dreams and still have a wonderful life?

Is there more to life than pursuing your own desires?

This is one heart-wrenching, awe-inspiring movie. You can’t help but cheer for George Bailey. You can’t help but want something to go his way once along the way. But it doesn’t. He never wins. He never gets what he wants. He just barely gets the girl, okay, so in this case he really does win. He loves and loses all the way and in the end, he’s standing tall as the biggest winner you could imagine. In fact, and I just went and looked this up… “It’s a Wonderful Life” just last year won the award from the American Film Institute for the most inspiring American movie of all time. I thought “To Kill a Mockingbird” was it, but thankfully, this is number one, and I love “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Not bad for a movie that came out way back in 1946.

This movie has everything good about movies, but, most importantly it has an amazing lead character (have I ever mentioned here that I love James Stewart as an actor, I think when we’re done going through all of AFI’s top whatever list, I’m going to try to convince Sabrina that a James Stewart marathon would be a valuable thing!) When George heads home screaming to the Bedford Falls sign, the car, the savings and loan, and anyone in ear shot, chills run down my spine. One part Jimmy Stewart, one part great moment.

My only complaint with the movie is that the old banker, Potter, never does get his comeuppance. Not officially. When George tells him off, you certainly see him acting out the way you feel watching the movie.

The pain of watching George lose it at home is really sad and hard to take. You have to feel for the whole family who are now suffering the consequences of their husband and father living his life for others. This does not justify the man of the house going off on his own children, but to see such an honourable man turn so, well, I think the only word is “insane”, is painful and sad. It gives me pause as a George Bailey wanna-be.

I’ve also been looking for parallels in the life of George Bailey and the life of Jesus. I’m seeing two people living their lives for others, one a capitalist, the other, the Son of God. Both though, doing things for the poor, those the upper crust of society are ignoring or taking advantage of. They both come to a crisis; George faces death on the bridge, Jesus at the cross, both wondering if there is some other way. Jesus cry for Jerusalem reminds me of poor George heading home from the bank after 8000 dollars goes missing. Likely the one word that stands out to most people who have watched this movie would be the word, “sacrifice”. Sacrifice. Sacrifice. Giving up yourself for another. Sacrifice. Greater love has no man than this! In this, George Bailey is the poor shadow of the rich original in Jesus.

A toast to my big brother George: The richest man in town.