Week 7: Grand Illusion (1937)

Before Viewing

 As you can probably tell by now, I enjoy watching foreign films. I love the different points of view and perspectives that I get introduced to when I watch films from different nations. I prefer them in their original languages, as subtitles don’t bother me at all. My favorites have been the Italians, but I’ve also seen some great French films. One of the most well-known early French directors is Jean Renior, son of the legendary Impressionist painter Auguste Renior. He’s been acclaimed as one of the best early French filmmakers, and his movies have been studied the world over. I’ve already seen ‘The Rules of the Game’, which is also one of his most acclaimed films. I’ll touch on that later.

I’m looking forward to ‘Grand Illusion’ because of its reputation and because it stars Erich von Stroheim.

My Thoughts After Viewing

First, the movie itself.

I enjoyed the film, especially when you consider that it’s the forefather of the ‘great escape’ genre. I liked the early sequences where the French soldiers were working on their tunnel underneath the German prison camp. There were some stock characters (the comic relief guy, the suave aristcrat guy, the homesick/lovesick guy, and so on), and they all played their roles effectively. Jean Gabin’s Lt. Maréchal was your typical gritty, rugged handsome hero, and he did fine (I liked the scenes with him in solitary). The movie set the mode for the escape formula, and it didn’t disappoint in that regard.

Having said that, I though the film actually slowed down a bit after Lt. Maréchal and Rosenthal escaped. While I didn’t mind the segment with Dita Parlo and the little girl, I didn’t enjoy it as much as I did the scenes in the prison camp. I get the meaning behind the scene, and it was effective in relation to the overall themes of loneliness and class struggle, but it just wasn’t as powerful as some of the other scenes.

When I say that, I was most impressed by the scenes involving the two aristocrats, played by von Stroheim and Pierre Fresnay. Their scenes were my favorites, because they represented an age that did end after World War I (I did a lot of research on World War I as a kid, and so I have an affinity for the time period. WWI was a war conceived and fought by gentlemen- too bad it was the masses that did the dying!). This exchange between the two was one of my favorites, because it proved to be true:

Capt. de Boeldieu: I think we can do nothing to stop the march of time.
Capt. von Rauffenstein: Believe me, I don’t know who is going to win this war the end, whatever it is will be the end of the Rauffensteins and the Boeldieus.

World War I led to the end of  many family dynasties, and the film deals with that reality. I also enjoy classic films on World War I (’The Big Parade’, ‘Wings’, ‘Hell’s Angels’, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’), and this one is good from a historical standpoint.

My favorite part was the job done by Erich von Stroheim as the German officer von Raffenstein. Of course, his performance would launch at least a thousand future monacled German officers in film, and he does it well. He’s a gentleman who treats his enemy with honor because of a code that he knows is going by the wayside. Even though he’s the enemy, he’s a noble one. I’ve always been fascinated by von Stroheim as an actor and director. I loved him in ‘Sunset Boulevard’, and the stories I’ve read about him during the filming of ‘Greed’ only add to his legend (the thought of him imploring his actors to fight using the hatred and rage they felt for him as the director is wonderful). He didn’t disappoint.

Having said all that I have, I do have to say that I feel a little guilty because, well, the film didn’t overwhelm me. I think I expected more from such an acclaimed film (maybe it’s just Renoir- I felt the same exact way after seeing ‘The Rules of the Game’). I mean, I liked it… but maybe I thought I should have felt overwhelmed. I wasn’t underwhelmed. Maybe I was just… whelmed. I do plan to see this film and ‘Rules’ again, because they were good enough that they warrant another viewing. Maybe now that I know what I expect, I can watch them again with a different mindset.

The Final Say

 I would suggest you see it if you get a chance. It’s enjoyable, especially if you like ‘Great Escape’ films.

Week 6: Annie Hall (1977)

NOTE: Don’t call it a comeback, I been here for years. Well, months. And I’ve back in. Enjoy my reviews, and check out the ones listed below.

Before Viewing

 When I was a kid, it seems like Woody Allen was in his cinematic heyday. Years before Soon-Yi and his trips to Europe, he was THE American Filmmaker. New York was his setting, and he knew it well. I was aware of Woody Allen at a young age, but at the time my interests were films about space and robots, not neurotic thirtysomethings. Needless to say, I had virtually no exposure to his films as a youth. In fact, I didn’t see my first Woody Allen film until last year, when I finally saw ‘Manhattan’. It was a great film, beautifully shot in black and white. I loved it. I’m looking forward to seeing many more of his films. First on the list is the film many people consider to be his best, the one that beat my beloved ‘Star Wars’ out for Best Picture of 1977- ‘Annie Hall’. I’ve read all about it plays with structure and the fourth wall as well as how much it was influenced by Bergman, so I’m looking forware to a funny and creative experience. 

My Thoughts After Viewing

 Watching this film was truly an enjoyable experience. I will say this about Woody Allen- his films are so creative and fun that you can’t help but like them. The one thing that amazes me is how effortless they seem to be- that is, they have such a documentary-like feel to them that that just comes across as spontaneous and unscripted. I enjoyed the way he played with structure on this film. It jumped around, but not in a confusing way. It was clear what was going on, and it was done in a way that keep me interested. I know that Woody Allen sometimes gets criticized because people say all he can seem to play is a middle-aged neurotic Jewish man, but if he does it well, why would it be an issue?

Again, the thing I enjoyed most was the structure of the film. The way he used flashbacks and the way he broke the fourth wall was very clever. You can see how this film influenced many TV shows today that tend to do the same thing (and honestly, not as well). If you have seen a lot of Bergman and Fellini, you can also see the influence those filmmakers had on Allen. What appeals to me about Woody Allen is that he seems to take advantage of the medium. Rather than just plop the camera down in front of the actors and recording what they’re doing, in a lot of ways he makes the camera (and, by extension, the audience) active participants in the scene. Scorsese does that as well in certain key scenes, but not to the extent Allen does in Annie Hall. The way he mixed real life with fantasy was probably groundbreaking back in the late 70s, and it really makes me wish I was around in the heyday of his filmmaking (well, I WAS around, but I was only 4 when this film came out). 

The acting was great, but if you look at the cast, that’s to be expected (side note: Shelley Duvall in the 70s made a career out of playing the ugliest hot girl out there- but to me she’ll always be Olive Oil). It’s fun to see a  young Christopher Walken (playing what else- a psycho) and a very balding Paul Simon, along withg some of the other actors. I’ve seen Diane Keaton in other films, of course, but I really liked this character. I thought she’d be like her character in Manhattan, but she really wasn’t. It’s a credit to her.

It’s a funny movie that made me laugh out loud, mainly because the humor and comedy were drawn from real life.

The Final Say

 OK, it beat Star Wars fair and square. Go see it. I also plan to see more of his films.

Others doing the 52-in-52 thing this week:

• Jeremy reviews Jeremiah Johnson
• Jamie reviews Modern Times