Frankly, My Dear, Search This Blog

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Funny Lady | The Evolution of Lucy Ricardo



The very lovely Movies, Silently blog is holding a Funny Lady Blogathon - how awesome of an idea is that? - and I of course signed up to write about my favorite lady of them all, Lucille Ball.

Okay, but what can I really tell you about Lucy and her comic genius that hasn't already been said countless times before? She is considered, more often than not, to truly be the funniest woman in the history of the entertainment business. And I'm sure few would dispute her position as being the First Lady of Comedy, opening the doors for nearly all the comediennes who followed in the path she blazed: Mary Tyler Moore, Valerie Harper, Carol Burnett, Tina Fey, Kristen Whig, Mindy Kaling - just to name a few. Just about everyone has seen the clip of her drunkly pimping Vitameatavegamin or the one of her furiously stuffing chocolates down her blouse, in her hat, and into her mouth at the candy factory.

For this post, I felt as if writing about I Love Lucy would be pointless, because I wouldn't be able to provide any new or groundbreaking information. I couldn't write something about her performance on the show that would be news to anybody. Instead, I thought I would write about how her talent as a comedienne grew over time - from the conviction in a little girl from upstate New York to make people laugh to October 15th, 1951, when I Love Lucy debuted on air. You could call it the evolution of Lucy Ricardo.

It's fairly well known that Lucille Ball was quite different than Lucy Ricardo. Lucy's real life humor was like that of, as her daughter Lucie once described it, "the fast talking broad of the 30s." In fact, real life Lucy was far more serious and adult than the childlike illusion she portrayed in Lucy Ricardo and extended to all of her long running television characters - Lucy Carmichael (The Lucy Show) and Lucy Carter (Here's Lucy).

But, despite this, Lucy always had an interest in comedy - long before television existed. As a young girl, her grandpa would take her brother and her to vaudeville shows, and Lucy was intrigued with the way the clowns could make the audience laugh. This sparked in her her first desire to act out, recalling later, "All I knew is that I wanted to make people laugh - I certainly didn't want to make them cry." She went out to Hollywood in 1933 as one of Samuel Goldwyn's Girls. When lined up for inspection by Eddie Cantor, Lucy applied little pieces of red felt to her face, so it would look as if she had chicken pox. Cantor laughed and enjoyed her little prank. She increasingly became known as the only girl willing to sacrifice glamour to take a pie in the face or preform any other physical pratfall to get a laugh. She christened herself and friend Eve Arden as "the drop gag girls." Pandro Berman told studio executives that she was "a really funny kid, great at parties" - but never thought that this talent would amount to anything. In a 1940 letter to then boyfriend Desi Arnaz, she wrote of a guest part on a radio show she was going to do because it seemed like "a funny role." Even in the home movies of she and Desi from the forties, she can be seen clowning for the camera and blacking out her teeth for costume parties.

Many of Lucy's earliest leading film roles - in the late thirties - are comedic, though studios widened her range in the forties and she appeared in comedies, dramas, musicals, even a Western. Her earliest significant role would probably be in Stage Door (1937); Gregory La Cava's highly acclaimed blockbuster about a handful of young girls trying to make in the business. The ensemble cast, headlined by Ginger Rogers and Katharine Hepburn, is easily impressive, also containing supporting roles filled by Ann Miller, Eve Arden, Gail Patrick, and Andrea Leads. Lucy doesn't preform any physical comedy in Stage Door but manages to hold her own, rolling her eyes melodramatically and delivering wisecracks with nonchalance. In one scene, Lucy is asked, "If it's not food, it's men. Can't you talking about anything else?" To which she replies, "What else is there?"

Stage Door boosted her career, giving way to supporting roles in A pictures for stars like Ginger Rogers (Having Wonderful Time, '38, in which one can also spot a young Henry Fonda) and Irene Dunne (Joy of Living). It also bolstered her to the role of a leading lady in B films, fastening her as a fixture in comedies with low budget actors like Joe Penner and Jack Oakie. One comedy from this era in her career is Go Chase Yourself (1938); like I Love Lucy in reverse, Lucy plays a irritated wife having to clean up the messes her scatterbrained husband, Penner, is always getting into. The film is a madcap screwball comedy lacking the necessary charm, and Lucy is, as usual, confined to quips and sarcasm, but she makes the most of it.

Whereas she played a housewife in the latter film, she was elevated to a more glamorous role in her next movie, The Affairs of Annabel (1938), in which she plays a movie star, Annabel Allison, a victim of the harebrained schemes contrived by her publicity agent, Oakie, to advance her career. Once more, the screwball is not her but the male character, however, Annabel did fairly well at the box office, and even spurned a sequel, Annabel Takes a Tour, in the same year. It gave Lucy a bigger helping of physical comedy than her prior films, and was likely the largest role she had to date. The New York Post commented, "The gal should go places."

Her next movie was Room Service (1938), with the Marx Brothers. In later years, many would draw correlations between the antics of Lucy Ricardo and the wild comedic group of the thirties, but at the time, Lucy's experiences with them were nowhere near life changing. The farce failed at the box office and was distinctively less pleasant and more sober than their earlier box office hits. As expected, each schtcik was handed off to the brothers, giving Lucy and co-star and friend Ann Miller not much more to do than run in and out of scenes, looking beautiful but frazzled. Lucy didn't particularly like any of the Marx brothers other than Harpo, who treated her the best of all, and was later given a guest starring spot on I Love Lucy (the famous and brilliant pantomime routine in the Hollywood episodes). Whereas she might have, still, been appreciative of their comedic talent, Groucho Marx didn't think much of hers: "Lucille Ball," he said, "Is not funny without a script."

In Next Time I Marry (1938), she played one of the famous ditzy heiresses of the thirties. It paired her with James Ellison for the first of two times, and had some decently funny moments, but over all was a mediocre comedy. Reviewers, however, took notice of her, calling her a "lanky and glass eyed comedienne" (The New York Times) and "as screwy and spoiled as any of Hollywood's poor little rich gals" (The New York Post) in the role.

What was particular about her next film was that it was a comedy-drama; Beauty for the Asking (1939) has several moments that gave way to her capability as a dramatic actress, which audiences had not really seen yet. New York Daily News wrote, "Miss Ball rises high enough above her material" - which she would continue to do so over the next decade of less than quality scripts -"to remind us that she is the stuff that stars are made of."

In You Can't Fool Your Wife (1940), Lucy was given a dual role as a housewife and as a Spanish seductress. She fakes an accent and dons dark hair, which is especially ironic when it would be later that year in which she met and married Desi Arnaz. She tackled the roles with ease and though the film is not particularly spectacular, it allowed for a slight expansion of her range. Critics continually praised her and sought a future for her that apparently, her RKO bosses did not see; at the time, even Orson Welles was interested in casting her as the lead in one of his projects that never came to be.

The rest of her run at RKO, resulted in her being cast in an array of different roles, from burlesque queen to ingenue to heroine of the western front. None particularly showcased her ability as a comedienne, and, in fact, her best performance at RKO was likely her turn as the paralyzed, unforgivably bitchy but beautiful Gloria Lyons in The Big Street (1942). Interestingly, this dramatic role was the one she was most proud of over the years, and critics were enthralled as well, writing that RKO should've wrangled her an Oscar nomination for the role - which never, of course, materialized.

RKO couldn't make a star, but maybe MGM could - that was, in fact, her hope when she arrived at the studio in 1943. (Lucy wouldn't return to RKO until 1957, when she and Desi bought it). She was now thirty-two, and she had been in Hollywood for ten years, and though she had made her fair share of B pictures, she hadn't yet achieved star status. If anyone was going to do it, it was MGM, who had the biggest corral of actors or as they put it, "more stars than the heavens." Her debut role was DuBarry Was a Lady (1943), a musical in which she worked alongside friends Gene Kelly and Red Skelton, but it only notable for her change to her famous red hair. It gave her little chance for comedy, but did offer her an opportunity to show off her new tresses - she looks breathtakingly beautiful in the closeups of her leaned up against the piano while Gene Kelly professes his love to her in song.

Her next, most pronounced comedic role came three years later with Easy to Wed, MGM's remake of the popular Libeled Lady. She was given the Jean Harlow role, and it was easily her best chance to shine as a comedienne to date. Esther Williams took Myrna Loy's character, and Van Johnson William Powell's. Though the film falls completely flat next to the stunning original, Lucy stole every scene, doing justice to the character (one that had switched from a bottle blonde to a hennaed redhead) that the late Harlow had made so famous. She is given the opportunity to play totally drunk, a foreshadowing of Lucy Ricardo getting smashed on Vitameatavegamin, the bit easily the most entertaining and vivid in the whole film. She looked the part of the beautiful clown, her red hair and blue eyes making her a knockout in the Technicolor print. "Miss Ball all proves herself a superb farceuse. She snaps her lines over the heads of other characters and in pantomime manages to be as scatterbrained and indignant as a wet hen," wrote The New York Herald-Tribune. "Very special honors go to Lucille Ball for her topnotch comedy scenes which highlight the film," said Film Daily, and The Los Angeles Times agreed, citing her comedy as "the most compensating feature of this production - she is her super best."

But Louis B. Mayer's philosophy was that "funny women don't sell tickets, beautiful women do." She made one more picture for MGM, a film noir, before being released from her contract. Certain that her career was over, she soldiered on, free lancing for a period with the help of her agent Kurt Frings. She did a series of dramas and her next light fare was not until Her Husband's Affairs (1947). Reminiscent of Go Chase Yourself from nearly a decade earlier, as well as a backwards version of I Love Lucy, Lucy plays a wife constantly saving her husband, Franchot Tone,  from his own self in this less than perfect film . "Lucille Ball, an able an comedienne," said The New York Times of her performance.

In the years just before I Love Lucy's 1951 debut, she would play a mixture of roles, but some stand out as being as close to Lucy Ricardo as she would ever come pre-Lucy. Miss Grant Takes Richmond (1949) is a prime example. She plays an empty headed secretary hired by William Holden (six years before the infamous pie in the face) who unknowingly becomes a prop to front for Holden's "business"; he is in actuality is a bookie. Her absentmindedness sets off a string of calamities. The movie gave Lucy the liberty to do a great deal of physical comedy. Early on in the film, she struggles with her typewriter ribbon to a comedic hilt, nearly destroying the machine, wasting practically a stack of paper, and covering herself in ink. Like Lucy Ricardo, her character, Ellen is lovable - Holden can't help but fall for her - and has good intentions, but is naturally inclined to cause trouble wherever she goes.

In 1950, she made Fancy Pants alongside her best pal, Bob Hope, a movie that reached all heights of absurdity and prompted Cue to call her, "one of the finest comediennes in Hollywood." That same year, in a true precursor to the physical comedy she would execute on I Love Lucy, she made The Fuller Brush Girl. Her character plays a door to door saleswoman (think Avon Girl), and much like Lucy Ricardo unwittingly attracts trouble when she witnesses a murder. The results are disastrous, and she and her husband end up in a string of ruses to avoid being blamed for a crime they did not commit, including hanging precariously from a clothing line, a slapstick striptease number she is forced to preform and a wild goose chase on a ship. Lucy proved that she was fearless when it came to physical comedy, preforming all of her stunts with wild abandon, as she would do on her television shows for years to come. The repercussions were harmful. She reflected, "I sprained both wrists and displaced six vertebrae, then irritated my sciatic nerve...I also suffered a two day paralysis of the eyeball when talcum power was accidentally blown into my eye by a wind machine. A three day dunking in a wine vat gave me a severe cold, and I was also bruised by several tons of coffee beans." But the reviews for her comedy, written by critics who unknowingly were watching Lucy Ricardo form before their eyes, were excellent. "Miss Ball carries the ball for comedy touchdown," wrote The Los Angeles Times. "Lucille Ball, with her wide eyed beauty and buoyant charm, puts over her comedy with perfect timing, and just the right amount of pathos and bewilderment to arouse the film goer's sympathy while she keeps them laughing," praised The Hollywood Reporter, a description equally fit for Lucy Ricardo.

Lucy made one more movie, a strange Arabian nights sort of farce for Columbia, before going on air in October 1951 in I Love Lucy. Needless to say, the show took off like gangbusters and Lucille Ball, who had struggled in B roles and mediocre films for nearly the past twenty years in Hollywood, her comedic talent ignored by studio moguls but noted by reviewers - shot to stardom.

Starting in 1948, Lucy had been molding Lucy Ricardo on radio as well. She was the star of My Favorite Husband, a program about Mr. and Mrs. Cooper and all the jams Mrs. Cooper got Mr. Cooper into - if that sounds familiar, it's because the show became the basis for I Love Lucy. Originally, the Coopers were the Cugats and Liz Cugat was more of a socialite than a middle class housewife. But that was before Jess Oppenheimer, a veteran of Fanny Brice's program, was brought to work on the show - he and writers Bob Carroll and Madelyn Davis worked to make the character of Liz Cooper more wacky and screwball, much like the character Baby Snooks. All three went on to make I Love Lucy the success it was.

Her work on My Favorite Husband widened her comedic range more than any of her prior film roles - and this is clearly evident in the three comedies she made during the run of the program, discussed above. Not only was she funny with just her voice, but she learned how to play to the live audience the program was recorded in front of - it also gave birth to her famous "spider face." Lucy learned to love the audience, and they in return adored her. Over the years, this bond only grew stronger, intensely symbolic of America's affection for her, a relationship that lasted on her sound stages for three decades. By the point of Here's Lucy, Lucy got rousing applause from the audience only for walking onto the set - their laughter for even the most neutral of lines, one observer later noted, was their way of telling her, "We love you."

Though Lucille Ball was not much like Lucy Ricardo, a part of the famous character was being conceived in her from the very start - in the little girl who just wanted to make people laugh. In her screwball film roles of the late thirties and the forties, one can see as her ability as a comedienne grows, the progression of Lucy Ricardo seems to lie under the surface, climaxing in the late forties thanks to funnier film roles and her radio show, and finally resulting in what we all know as I Love Lucy.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

What Katharine Hepburn taught me


"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun."

The first Old Hollywood star that I actually adored was Katharine Hepburn. When she appeared on the screen in Holiday (1938), I thought she was absolutely gorgeous. That was really my initial impression of her. And it's ironic, because Katharine Hepburn has never been considered the conventional beauty, but that was my first thought. I was nine years old, and to me she was perfect looking: the high cheekbones, red hair, and the slim waist. 

But I think the moment where I really fell in love with her was in Bringing up Baby (1938). It's the scene where she sits at the bar, wearing a gown made entirely of satin and a ridiculous veiled headpiece over her face. As innocent and naive as a child, she watches intently as the bartender teaches her a trick to be played with olives - to throw one in the air and catch it on the top of your hand. When she gives it a try for herself, the olive lands on the floor and who but Cary Grant would being rushing by, only to slip on it. There's something so endearing about this scene - I can't really explain it, but it made me love her.

Whether you love her or hate her, I don't think you can really deny that Kate was her own person. This is the quality I admire about her the most, the I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks air about her. She was never afraid to be herself, and she never apologized for being herself. (Remember when Barbara Walters asked her if she owned a skirt? "I have one. I'll wear it to your funeral.") She was so comfortable in her own skin. This is not denying that there was an innate sensitivity within her, which I feel we saw every time she talked about Spence, looked at Spence... but on the outside was this confidence that I only wish I could have. 

I think that's why her confidence is my favorite quality of hers is it because it's something that I myself lack a lot of the time. My whole life I've been shy and because of it, I've always had trouble making friends or fitting into a group of people, and have been even the slightest bit socially anxious from time to time. I feel like that has all stemmed from my caring too much about what other people think. I've always tried to blend in. I know this sounds like a total cliche, but in the way that Kate lived her life, I've learned that that approach to life is a wayward one. Kate's courage and her confidence are contagious; they inspire you, infect you, and you can't help but want to be the same. So, in this way especially, Kate is a role model to me. To a somewhat insecure teenager, she has taught me a lot about life simply by the way she lived hers. "Life is to be lived," she said, and you cannot truly live if you are constantly afraid of what others may think of you. That fear is irrational, and I'm gradually beginning to accept that. Each step of the way, Kate has been - and will continue to be -  a guiding hand. 

So, happy birthday, Kate. And thank you for being you.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Forget it, Jake.




Drowned was the husband of Evelyn Mulwray
J.J. Gittes thoroughly suspected foul play
Alas, his nose was the victim of his snooping around
Forget it, Jake, it's only Chinatown
And, in the end, he had no option but to walk away.

CHINATOWN (1974)

Just a little limerick to let ya know I'm still alive. :) 

Monday, February 4, 2013

Film in 2013 | January

Anyone remember me?

I tried, like, five times to write a wrap post for all the movies I watched in 2012 (the button for that list is still in the bar if anyone cares to look; I'll be changing it to the new list soon). But overall, anything I tried to write just became too lengthy & laborious and I ultimately gave up, which is a shame, as I participated in (and failed) the 250 films challenge last year. It seems kinda stupid and useless that I never wrote about it. This year, I won't be doing a numbered challenge but I will continue to record each and every movie that I watch. However, rather than making the mistake of waiting until the end of the year to discuss the movies, I've decided to do an update at the end of the month. These updates may even include new films (but I don't watch them that often) if I find them noteworthy.

Because I watched only eight films this month, I'm going to talk about all of them: the good, the bad, the ugly, etc. And don't forget to leave comments letting me know what you watched this month!

JANUARY 2013 



MODERN TIMES (1936) | Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard ★★
[Summary

I don't think I've mentioned it on here yet, but in the past month, I've become a total Charlie Chaplin junkie. I've finally opened myself up to silents (more on that to come later), and it's all because of Chaplin. I watched City Lights (1931) in December and fell in love. He truly was hilarious, and every performance of his I've seen has resulted in my laughing until my sides were splitting. So, the basic point: I love Charlie Chaplin to bits and pieces. That being said, Modern Times is probably my favorite Chaplin to date. The thing I love about Chaplin is his movies, whilst being ridiculously funny, also have this underlying tone of beauty. The Tramp is imperfection at its greatest perfection; sure, he's a goofball, but there's a childlike humanity to him that creates a lovely morality in each movie. Modern Times is a perfect example: yes, an incredibly hilarious film but also a very moving one. I don't think that the final scene of Modern Times (AND City Lights, while we're on the subject) could fail to make anyone sentimental. I can't say much about this movie that hasn't already been said, but I'll put it to you this way: it truly is all kinds of wonderful, and if you haven't seen it yet, don't be stupid and wait as long as I did. Go watch it now! (If you couldn't tell by the enthusiastic rating - it's definitely a new favorite.)


THE GOLD RUSH (1925) Charlie Chaplin, Georgia Hale ★★
[Summary

Though not as flawless or memorable as Modern Times, The Gold Rush is also a really cute, funny movie. It contains the usual format for Chaplin movies, except this time it's set in Alaska and The Tramp has the hearts for Georgia Hale. Hale didn't have much of a movie career (though I'd say getting to work with Chaplin is an accomplishment to brag about), but like all of Chaplin's leading ladies, is quite beautiful (I feel like silent actresses had the most adorable faces). Anyways, this was a really enjoyable film and if you like Chaplin you'll love this one. A great watch.


ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS (1939) Cary Grant, Jean Arthur, Rita Hayworth ★★

A star studded cast led at the helm by Howard Hawks; not much can really go wrong with this film. The foggy South American setting lends a thrilling environment to the film, and much of the action takes place up in the sky, which gives the movie a tone laden with adventure. All of the major players give great performances; Cary and Jean have wonderful chemistry and Rita, who wasn't yet a star, is enjoyable in her costarring role. 


NO MAN OF HER OWN (1932) Clark Gable, Carole Lombard ★★
[Summary

My main reason for watching this movie was because it is the lone collaboration of Gable & Lombard - which is kind of ironic. They were the premiere couple of Golden Age Hollywood, and you would have thought that that studio moguls would've been eager to have them paired up again at some point, especially after getting married. Perhaps if Carole hadn't passed so prematurely. (And Clark was at MGM when Carole wasn't, so I guess it all makes sense.) Anyways, it was on the set of this movie that they met for the first time; but they didn't pull a Lucy-Desi and fall madly in love on the spot. It wasn't until a few years later that they met at a party and the sparks flew. Despite that, their chemistry in this is electric and even more fun because we know what's to come in years later. There is a cute library scene (pictured), where Carole climbs on a ladder to retrieve a book for Clark, and well... the look on his face says it all. (Who doesn't love pre code Hollywood??!!) This is a pretty average film otherwise, and the plot starts to drag towards the end. But it's enjoyable to watch just to see Clark and Carole in their only turn playing across each other, if only for that reason alone.


THE MAGIC CARPET (1951) Lucille Ball, James Agar ★★

For Christmas, I received several of Lucy's movies on DVD (because, no matter how bad they are, I want to see them all.) This was one of them. This movie can be noted as the final B movie Lucy made before catapulting to television fame, and there's a interesting story behind it. This was the last film she was obliged to make under contract to Columbia. She was unhappy with Harry Cohn because he had refused to loan her out to Paramount for a role she was being offered in Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth. He decided to punish her by sticking her with this 'E class' film by the infamous Sam Katzman, expecting her to turn it down. She startled him by agreeing to do the picture.  At the time, she was already pregnant with Lucie Arnaz. The picture was filmed in six days and she collected 85 grand for the film, concluding her contract at Columbia. She made certain that Cohn was not aware of her pregnancy (which would have abruptly ended the contract) until after the movie was completed, in which she called him up on the phone and basically said, "Mr. Cohn, I want you to be the first to know that Desi and I are expecting a baby." Then he called her a bitch. At this point, she had to drop the DeMille film as well, because of her pregnancy. DeMille made a comment to Desi that had all of Hollywood laughing, save the embarrassed Harry Cohn: "Congratulations, Desi. You are the only person in the world to screw Harry Cohn, Columbia Pictures, Paramount, Cecil B. DeMille, and your wife, all at the same time."


HOUR OF THE WOLF (1968) Max Von Sydow, Liv Ullmann ★★

It's probably a sin in the film world to criticize the efforts of Ingmar Bergman (God knows that no critic would dare do it), but I'll admit all the while I have yet to become a fan. That being said, it's probably too early in the game for this judgement: I've only seen three of his movies. But all three (Autumn Sonata and Persona are the other two) have been similar in their overly pretentious nature. If you want you can say maybe I'm too 'young' to 'get it', and that's okay with me. If it's any consolation, I don't plan to stop watching Bergman anytime soon (The Seventh Seal, Cries and Whispers, The Wild Strawberries here we come!). Because I have never failed to find one of movies entertaining. Hour of the Wolf is no different from his other escapist dramas, except this one is categorized as a "horror film." Basically, Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow talk a lot about the meaning of life in the necessary Bergman setting of a lonely cabin on a Swedish island. Liv reads his diary and is visited by a 176 year old women; Max fantasizes about similar old women (some of whom pull their faces off) men who walk on ceilings, and a naked Ingrid Thulin. Liv Ullmann is a pretty good actress and it's a shame so much of her career was spent making Bergman's pompous propaganda. 


RAINTREE COUNTY (1957) Elizabeth Taylor, Montgomery Clift, Eva Marie Saint ★★

Yet another Gone With the Wind wannabe film, but what drove me to watch it was the excellent cast; besides those pictured above, the cast is joined by the supporting talents of Lee Marvin, Rod Taylor, and Agnes Moorehead. Like any Civil War epic, this movie is also overly long at a three hour time length (Netflix sent it to us on two DVDs). A mostly forgettable film that drags far past its welcome. Something notable about the production is during this filming, Montgomery Clift had his famous car accident while driving home from a party at Elizabeth's house. Elizabeth, her husband at the time, and Rock Hudson traveled to the scene of the accident. She crawled inside the car's back door and relieved Monty of the two front teeth that threatened to choke him. Rock pulled his body from the car and they shielded him from photographers until the ambulance arrived. Most of the film is Monty as he looked after the accident, but there some scenes taken before the incident.


GAME CHANGE (2012) Julianne Moore, Ed Harris ★★

This movie basically capitalizes on the Republican Party’s choice of choosing Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 election. During the critical sixty days between that pick and Election Night, it demonstrates their original motives that drove their decision (the desire to shake up the campaign; to close the gender gap; bring a fresh face to the ticket so to draw away some of Obama’s attention, etc.) and the preliminary pleasure with their choice which ultimately spirals downward into a string of regrets. (So much so, that the campaign manager, Steve Schmitt, who is among those primarily responsible for picking her, apologizes to McCain on election night: “I’m sorry we chose her.”) Would it be harder for Republicans to like this movie? Okay, yes. But this TV film excellently emphasizes the fact at hand here is that, regardless of party, the compromising of popularity over experience came around to be a decision they regretted, McCain himself admitting that it turned into a campaign he wasn't proud of. Julianne Moore, who has won several awards for this performance, is so effective as Palin - I can't even begin to describe it. It feels as if you are watching Palin herself. Sure, this movie sends Palin into an unflattering light several times (in one scene, she even chucks her Blackberry across the room and in another she has to be explained to that the Queen of England is not the head of state), but Moore plays her so excellently to the extent where there are times where you do sympathize with her. You get the feeling that she is an average person who has placed herself in an extraordinary situation. And even the most ardent Democrat would feel sympathetic for Steve Schmitt and his colleagues who have to prep her for her interviews and the VP debate ("Senator O'Biden?!"). Regardless of your political party, if you concentrate on the overall message of this film, I would encourage you to watch this well produced TV movie. Julianne Moore's performance is near flawless and every detail is intense and entertaining. Definitely one of my favorites of the month. 

Favorite movie of the month | Modern Times (1936)
Favorite performance | Julianne Moore, Game Change (2012)

Sunday, December 30, 2012

"It was never uncomplicated... but it was lovely."


Last night I had a rewatching of The Way We Were (1973), and felt inclined to write about it. Even though the year of production is slightly newer than what I'm accustomed to writing about on here, it truly is one of my favorite films. [Warning: there are spoilers.]

The film's appearance on TCM was as one of their Saturday night Essential selections, as chosen by Robert Osborne and the current celebrity programmer, Drew Barrymore. And it really is just that: an essential film. At first glance, it's the kind of movie that may be dismissed as a chick flick or a tearjerker, but that's an unfair judgement, for this movie has more than that lurking under it's surface. It's a beautiful but blunt and sometimes brutal portrait of love; an education for the viewer on why love can't always be easy, or uncomplicated, or enough. The theory that "sometimes love isn't enough" is, in itself, shocking, because we live in a society that idealizes this emotion. Didn't the Beatles sing to us that "love is all you need"? Isn't Valentine's Day, to so many, the pinnacle holiday of the year? But sometimes real life experiences contradict this idea, and The Way We Were paints this contradiction, with the all the bitterness that comes from such a painful reality, perfectly.

It is the story of Hubbell Gardner, portrayed by Robert Redford, and Katie Morosky, played by Barbra Streisand. He is the carefree rich boy who never had to work hard for anything in his life; and she is the Marxist, self proclaimed loudmouth, Jew girl who is overly passionate. The movie begins when Katie runs into Hubbell at a New York affair, circa 1944. Seeing Hubbell having fallen asleep upright in a bar stool, the particular lock of blond hair having fallen across his face, brings back memories to Katie. In a series of flashbacks, we learn their history together, having attended the same college in the 1930s. Their romance never began but the mutual affection is born; despite their polarities and their entirely different crowds, he is attracted to her headstrong qualities and she to his boyish good looks and innate writing skills. When she awakens him in the bar, their relationship begins - they are now real adults, her hair is ironed, but the attractions are all the same - that quickly blossoms into a romance. The film then continues to depict their struggles to stay together that are driven by their opposite personalities and principles. When Hubbell gets a job as a screenwriter, they move to California, but Katie's political protests against the Hollywood blacklist & House of Unamerican Activities jeopardize his career and their marriage.

The movie may use the classic setup of "opposites attract," but it doesn't condone it. There is really no happy ending for Hubbell and Katie: they are too unalike. It is the very things that initially attracted them to each other that eventually drive them apart. The beginning of the movie shows a curly haired Katie, as president of the Young Communists League, making a desperate plea to the university crowd to hear her cause. They jeer her, but the closeups of Hubbell among his laughing friends reveal his admiration for her passion. Whether or not he agrees or cares about what she is saying, it is the way she is saying it, the fervent insistence in her tone, that draws him to her; but later in the movie, it is one of the things that tears them apart.   "You're unhappy unless you do something. Because of me, you're trying to lay out, but that's wrong... wrong for you. Commitment is part of you. Part of what makes you attractive, part of what attracted me to you," he tells her.

It is the same for Katie. The distinctions of his personality, that are so very different from hers, excite her: his easygoing attitude and boyish outlook on life. While she revels in these qualities he has to offer, it is equally frustrating to her. When he insists that she pushes too much, she basically replies by saying she pushes him because she knows how gifted he truly is - as a writer, as a person. His carefree traits create his charm for her, but all the while, she can't understand him. She is a loud person, and cannot agree with Hubbell's tendency to make a joke out of everything, his lack of seriousness; whereas he can't tolerate her expressiveness. In a scene in which they discuss political advocacy, he tells her, "I don't see how you can do it." To this, she, the natural troublemaker, says, "And I don't see how you can't."

It is unfair and complicated paradox: for the same reasons they love each other, they cannot live together. They are split personalities, oil and water, fire and ice. Both are too stubborn in their own personalities to change for the other. There is this idea that a person can change, but can a person really change? No matter how much one may love a person, there are some things that are inborn: they can be wonderful principles or entirely self destructive, but they are there, and it takes hell to change them. And, oftentimes, as this movie tells us, we don't want to change them.

 "Wouldn't it be lovely if we were old?" Katie muses at the end of the movie, when the not too happy ending is near. "We'd have survived all this. Everything would be easy and uncomplicated; the way it was when we were young." She is picturing them as an elderly couple, having weathered the worst of their obstacles, together and content in their old age. Hubbell reminds her that it was never uncomplicated, and to this she says, "It was never uncomplicated... but it was lovely." That's my favorite line of the movie, because to me it summarizes the movie's major theme. It's a bittersweet remembrance of how their relationship from the start was doomed due to their differences, but when they were happy, it was beautiful. This is what drives the whole movie: they strive so hard to be together because of how wonderful is when things are okay, when there aren't any obstacles in their way. 

In the second half of the film, the additional story line of their involvement in the Hollywood blacklist (and the repercussions this has on their marriage) adds another element of substance to this movie. Katie is now pregnant, but in the nine months leading up to the birth of their child, fueled by political angst, their marriage dissolves. "Could you do me a favor," she asks of him. "Could you stay with me until the baby is born?" They have a daughter, but in the hospital room, they are awkward and silent. Katie sits in the bed, tears welling up in her eyes, knowing that it really is the end. Because she is the determined one, the girl who never gives up unless she is forced to, you can see the pain that is being inflicted upon herself for having lost her fight. "Why can't we both win?" she begs at one point in the movie; but Hubbell states the truth when he says as long as they're with each other, they're both going to lose.

The last shot of the film is a few years later, in the 1950s. Katie is picketing in the New York streets for yet another one of her causes, and she spots Hubbell with his new girlfriend. They greet each other with a hug and she invites him over for a drink; Hubbell's girlfriend reminds him they'd better get going, so Katie rushes away. But he goes after her. She brushes the hair out of his face as she always did; he inquires about their daughter, asks her if her new husband is a good father. "Your girl is lovely," she says of his girlfriend. "Won't you bring her over for a drink when you come?" "I can't," he says, and she replies, "I know." They hug, once more, this time slowly, with deep sentiment and resentment of having to let go. They don't speak now, but the embrace is the perfect note to end the movie: it is clear they still love each other, the love is still there, but they have come to understand that they can't live with each other, and their relationship is best left as a memory; the way they were.

I'm a fan of both Redford & Streisand and loved both of their performances. It's not that Hubbell and Katie are always likable characters. In fact, much of the time, they aren't. Katie is over emotional, high strung and a drama queen - it is to her that the tearjerker lines are given. But Hubbell is sometimes so cardboard that you want to shake him by the shoulders. The negatives of these characters which are so, at the same time, reflective of their positives is another interesting aspect of their movies. They are opposites and opposites at extreme ends: they struggle to find stable ground and are eventually incompetent of finding it.

Besides the great performances of their own, respective characters, the chemistry between the two leads is palpable. If it wasn't there, the movie would have fallen apart: why root for this couple to make it when the love doesn't seem worth it? But it does seem genuine, the depth of feeling is there and it's tangible, therefore making it realistic and the major backbone of the movie. The moments of affection are sometimes simple but just as effectively demonstrative: him tying her shoe at an outdoor cafe during their college days (a few years before their romance really begins), or her constant habit of brushing his hair out of his face. 

This isn't to say that it's a perfect movie, because it isn't. The script, penned by Arthur Laurents, is strong throughout most of the film (though is not totally immune to falling into a couple patches of the typical, teary lines). The editing gets jerky and the last half of the movie leaves a bit to be desired at times, sometimes coming across as a hasty breakup of their marriage. But this can be overlooked, because it is just technical aspects that only leave a few snags in a movie that offers a greater overall picture, one that is in a sense, a little bit surreal because it refuses to offer us the ending we want. The performances, the chemistry, the beautiful backdrops of New York City & Los Angeles, all contribute to this effect. It is visually appealing, both in the cinematography and the star power it drips with. And last but certainly not least, there is that song, probably my all time favorite. It's a gorgeous song, one that completes the movie perfectly.

Overall, I love this movie because of the feeling it leaves me with after seeing it. It's not just the tears (because they're definitely there; who doesn't feel their heart breaking in that final scene?) but something a little bit greater than that. Most people wouldn't try to analyze a 1970s romance to death (and I envy those people, I've been sitting here for the past hour, trying to find the right words, lol), but I wanted to point out that there is substance to this movie. I love it partly because it's an honest to goodness tearjearker, but also because of the way it depicts this heartbreak, and the reasons that drive it. (And, hey, I may also go for it because the theme's main couple and major message remind me of these people, who I kinda happen to adore.)

Also: Happy New Year's! 

PS: I know, I actually can't believe I haven't been here for about a month. Excuses to come in the next post. I'll be doing my end of the year wrap up/what's in store for 2013 post within the next week, promise. Also, look at these two!