Film Review: The Player

"The Player"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

Robert Altman proves he is a Hollywood mover and shaker in "The Player" (1992)

"The Player" was seen as something of a "comeback" for a filmmaker that never went away. You can make the argument the 1970s in American cinema belonged to Robert Altman after the release of "M*A*S*H*" (1970), "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" (1971), "Nashville" (1975) and "3 Women" (1977). The 1980s on the other hand were not as kind to Altman. Altman did release some triumphs; "Health" (1980) and "Secret Honor" (1984) but the decade was one that saw Altman drop out of favor with the public and lose critical acclaim.

"The Player" changed all that. A lot of people interpret "The Player" as a Hollywood satire. In some ways it is but I find Altman's movie works on more than one level and to describe it merely as a Hollywood satire or a Hollywood in-joke is to miss out on a lot of what the movie says.

The movie does center itself in the world of movies as we follow studio executive Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins). Mill is assigned the task of hearing movie pitches, weeding out the good from the bad, and pushing for those stories to be greenlit. Naturally with a job like that Griffin will make enemies (upset movie stars and young struggling writers). One of those writers have been sending Griffin postcards with threats written on them implying he will kill him. Apparently Griffin heard this writer's pitch and told him he would call him back. That was five months ago. Griffin may have annoyed the wrong person.

Griffin believes he has discovered who the irritated writer is - David Kahane (Vincent D' Onofrio). One day Griffin follows David to a movie theatre, hoping they get into an agreement but after a physical altercation, Griffin kills David. Griffin tries to trace his steps and remove all evidence of him being there but will the police find out what really happen?

This aspect of the movie may remind some of Woody Allen's "Crimes & Misdemeanors" (1989) where a character dares to suggest there is no moral guilt associated with murder. "The Player" seems to be operating on this same level. If the police aren't able to pin the murder on Griffin, Griffin should be able to live with himself. This also suggest, we really do live in two different worlds, one for the rich and one for everyone else. The rich and powerful really can get away with murder. "The Player" would seem to be making a social commentary instead of taking a jab at Hollywood. In the wonderful book "Altman on Altman" by David Thompson, Altman would seem to be confirming my interpretation, describing the subject of "The Player" as "it's all about greed, really, the biggest malady of our civilization, and it was Hollywood as a metaphor for society."

Altman and "The Player" are still able to make a commentary on Hollywood, poking fun at uncompromising artist that want to make "real" movies, "Hollywood endings", the influence of money in Hollywood and the back stabbing nature of the business. Altman however says his portrait of Hollywood isn't accurate stating "Hollywood is much crueler and uglier and more calculating" though does admit to lifting a few rocks of the business.

One funny moment occurs at the beginning of the movie. The opening sequence is done in one long take with the camera on a crane. We are seeing a movie studio and are briefly being introduced to some of the characters. Two characters are having a discussion about movies and one of them mentions Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" (1958), which is known for its own one take opening sequence. "The Player" has a lot of this kind of self referential humor.

The self referential humor is also seen whenever old movie posters are seen in Griffin's office. The posters are usually of noir films or mysteries and reflect or foreshadow were we are in the story.

There are also a large amount of cameo appearances made by a list of Altman regulars and other major stars which are humorous because they blur the line of fact and fiction. You can't initially tell when an actor is playing him or her self or a character. Appearances are made by Jack Lemmon, Burt Reynolds, Harry Belafonte, Steve Allen, Angelica Huston, John Cusack, Elliot Gould, Cher, Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis and Whoopi Goldberg among many, many others.

Despite the nature of the character, Griffin doesn't come across exactly as a bad guy. That may have something to do with Tim Robbins and / or Robert Altman. At first we sympathize with Griffin because he is being threatened. Yes he is rich and successful and seems pampered but audiences still don't want to see harm come to him. After he kills someone that should turn audiences against him but his actions seem to be justified as self defense. You may not even hate Griffin after he starts to date Kahane's girlfriend, June (Greta Scacchi). If such a thing is possible to create a neutral character Robbins and Altman have done it.

In some ways only Robert Altman could have directed a movie like this. Altman had always been seen as an outsider. He never really belonged to the Hollywood studio system. His movies defied genres. He had a sarcastic sense of humor and a bit of a subversive streak in him. Yet he was nominated for best director at the Academy Awards for his work on this film.

Having said that it is rather ironic than that Altman initially was not interested in directing "The Player" instead he was focusing on what would become his next film, "Short Cuts" (1993). Altman thought the script for "The Player" was dreadful. The script was written by Michael Tolkin, based on his novel, also called "The Player". Altman said he and Tolkin were constantly rewriting the script as they were shooting the movie. It wasn't until they were halfway through shooting that the two came up with the ending. In the end the screenplay was nominated for an Academy Award.

No one would say the 1990s equal Altman's success of the 1970s but "The Player" rejuvenated the than 67 year old Altman's career. Practically every film he made afterwards was great in my opinion; "Shorts Cuts", "The Gingerbread Man" (1998), "Cookie's Fortune" (1999), "Gosford Park" (2001) and his final film "A Prairie Home Companion" (2006).

"The Player" is a slick cynical look at not only Hollywood but life in general. The world isn't fair. Terrible things happen. People die and their murderers aren't caught. And worst of all, Hollywood makes bad movies.

Film Review: The Voice of the Moon

"The Voice of the Moon"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

A character says he prefers to remember than to be living. I have a feeling that was a sentiment shared by the movie's director, the great Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini.

Nostalgia is not the main theme of Fellini's "The Voice of the Moon" (1990) however nostalgia has always been prominent in the films of Fellini. Remember this is a man that directed a movie called "Amarcord" (1973) which is translated into English as meaning "I remember". At the time Fellini directed "The Voice of the Moon" the master was nearing the end of his distinguished career. It wasn't uncommon for Fellini to make movies looking backwards. There was "Ginger and Fred" (1986) and what I feel was Fellini's last masterpiece, "Intervista" (1987, though released in American in 1993).

"The Voice of the Moon" could be interpreted as being directed by a different Fellini. It lacks some of the joy found in "Amarcord", "Juliet of the Spirits" (1965) and "The White Sheik" (1952). That's because this Fellini wasn't in a joyful mood. He had a darker message for audiences in "The Voice of the Moon" based upon what he saw happening in his beloved Italy.

Fellini seems to be concerned about culture and society in "The Voice of the Moon". The movie senses Italian culture is changing, perhaps being overwhelmed by American culture. Tradition is disappearing. The "good old days" are memories. There is a rather lengthy sequence with characters in a nightclub as young Italians dance to Michael Jackson's "The Way You Make Me Feel". An older male character watches on in disgust. He tells them if they heard the sound of a violin they would know what they are doing in not dancing. He compares the nightclub, the music and the "dancing" to an orgy. He and his wife then proceed to dance a waltz. 

There is another scene between a former prefect, Gonnella (Paolo Villaggio) and a young man, Ivo Salvini (Roberto Benigni). Gonnella is delusional, suffering from among other things, paranoia. He explains to Salvini his theory about the people around him. They are all well trained spies. They look exactly like the people they are impersonating. But, Gonnella continues, they are all merely giving a performance, playing a part. Naturally this scene brought to my mind the words written by Shakespeare, "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players". What does that say about our society. Have we been brainwashed? Has the media and advertising conditioned us to play a part? Are we all giving a performance, trying to live up to the character we would like to become?

While these scenes may be good and it is fun interpreting them unfortunately it saddens me to say Fellini's "The Voice of the Moon" is not a very good movie and slightly disappointed me.

Although "Intervista" was the last movie Fellini directed to be released in America, in the year of his death, "The Voice of the Moon" was the actual final feature length movie the great master directed. It did not however find American distribution and was never properly released in this country. Because of the anticipation of waiting to see this movie, expectations grew in my mind. I may have set myself up for disappointment.

Regardless, thanks to distributor Arrow Academy, which released a Blu-ray / DVD combo set last year, audiences can now see this elusive Fellini movie for themselves. That should have been cause for a celebration however I found out about the release of this movie on my own. Where were the distinguished movie critics (sheep) bringing attention to this movie, writing reviews?

I may not be a fan of this movie but the great filmmakers should not be ignored and their films should not be forgotten. In that sense I share Fellini's sentiments. I like the message found in the movie but it simply goes on too long. It often feels as if it is lingers. The movie may be too subtle. Perhaps "too Italian". It doesn't forcefully hit home its themes. There is no character for us to sympathizes with and no character development to speak of. The plot feels structureless. It took a while before I started to catch on to the social commentary.

Salvini is the lead character. A man who spent time in a mental hospital. He hears voices. Is it the moon? Maybe the voice is coming from a well. It is the first image presented in the movie. Salvini hears someone calling out his name in the middle of an empty field. He walks up to a well and listens for his name to be said again.

From this point on Salvini meets a variety of people - a musician that believes music should be forbidden by law. Spirits would visit the musician whenever he played a particular series of notes on his oboe. The prefect, visited by similar spirits, fears old age is upon him. And a man who married the woman of his dreams only to lose everything but takes solace in sitting on rooftops.

Were all these men in the same mental hospital? Do they all hear the same voice Salvini does? What is that voice and where is in coming from? Could it be our inner voice? It may explain a final line in the movie as Salvini says if there was more silence, if we were all quieter, maybe we could understand. Understand what? How to hear our own inner voice?

And that is about it. There isn't much plot to discuss. The movie almost plays as a series of vignettes. Some are good, some not so much. The common factor is some very good cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli, who gives the movie a dreamlike quality. He was a great talent that worked with some of the giants of cinema including Pier Paolo Pasolini, Roman Polanski and Louis Malle.

Audiences that see "The Voice of the Moon" will come to it after seeing Benigni in "Life is Beautiful" (1998), which won three Academy Awards, including one for Benigni's performance. Keep in mind however, "The Voice of the Moon" is not a zany comedy. Benigni is more reserved. If he was renowned for his slapstick comedy, you will not find it here. This is not "Johnny Stecchino" (1992).

Federico Fellini may have been the best known Italian filmmaker in America. Seven of his movies were nominated for Academy Awards. Three won awards for best foreign language film. He influenced American filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen. Movie lovers should see his movies. Some are considered among the greatest ever made. "The Voice of the Moon" may have its defenders however I would strongly suggest seeing this after you have seen Fellini's better known movies. "The Voice of the Moon" strikes me as a movie for devoted fans. Still, I'm glad we now have the opportunity to see this movie at all.

Film Review: One, Two, Three

"One, Two, Three"
**** (out of ****)

The year is 1961. It is the height of the Cold War. John F. Kennedy has been sworn in as President. The Berlin Wall has been built. The Soviets have sent the first human in space during the Space Race. In the middle of all this filmmaker Billy Wilder released one of his best movies and one of the all-time great comedies, "One, Two, Three" (1961).

As the story goes Billy Wilder saw the makings of a comedy dealing with the arms race between America and the U.S.S.R. In fact Wilder envisioned it as a Marx Brothers comedy. The film was to be called "The Marx Brothers at the U.N." The brothers would play bank robbers who are mistaken for delegates of Latvia. It is said Groucho loved the idea but due to health reasons (Harpo suffered a heart attack) plans for the film were terminated.

Despite these unfortunate events, Wilder still liked the idea of a Cold War comedy and would now base his film on a Hungarian play written by Ferenc Molnar called "One, Two, Three" ("Egy, ketto, harom" in Hungarian). Wilder and his frequent collaborator I.A.L. Diamond would modernized the 1929 play and create what biographer Maurice Zolotow called "the best Cold-War comedy, and the only interesting film about communism versus capitalism since Ninotchka" in his book Billy Wilder in Hollywood. "Ninotchka" (1939) was a comedy directed by Ernst Lubitsch and co-written by Wilder. Both movies tell us political ideology is no match for sex.

The film would star James Cagney as C.R. MacNamara (Although the spelling is different the Secretary of Defense at the time was Robert McNamara. That couldn't be a coincidence, could it?) an American Coca-Cola executive in charge of operations in West Berlin.

MacNamara would like to get out of West Berlin and land in job in London as head of Western Europe operations. He may get a chance to make a good impression when his boss' daughter, Scarlett (Pamela Tiffin), visits West Berlin and he is asked to watch her for a couple of weeks until the boss and his wife visit West Berlin to pick her up.

On the day before his boss is to pick up Scarlett, MacNamara discovers not only has Scarlett married a communist, Otto (Horst Buchholz) but is pregnant with his child. Initially wanting to wipe out all records of the marriage MacNamara must turn Otto into a respectable capitalist before Scarlett's parents arrive. Causing another battle between east versus west in Berlin.

That essentially explains the humor in the movie. A battle between capitalism and communism. In "One, Two, Three" the communist aren't dedicated soldiers. They flounder. A pretty woman could tempt them to change their politics. They will accept a 6 pack of coca-cola as a bribe. Whereas MacNamara, the American, is unchangeable. If anything Americans are presented as wanting to bring their way of life to other countries. Why else could a corporation like Coca-Cola want to sell its product to communist countries? And doesn't this happen in the real world as well?

Also adding to the humor is domestic life. MacNamara is married to Phyllis (Arlene Francis). Phyllis is a wise-cracking wife that sarcastically calls her husband "mein fuhrer" and desperately wants to leave West Berlin and head back to America. I couldn't help but think this is a role Eve Arden could have also played and her probably could have delivered these lines funnier. However, Francis is perfectly fine in the role.

The success of "One, Two, Three" lies in the script by Wilder and Diamond and the performance given by Cagney. What is most memorable (and most challenging) about Cagney's performance is the speed with which he delivers his lines. It is like the rapid fire of a machine gun. This was actually the way the original play was written by Molnar. Molnar is quoted as having said of the lead character's dialogue, "he must accomplish everything he does with the almost superhuman celerity of a magician, without, however, any lack of poise, presence of mind or precision". Wilder and Diamond put their own spin on this and suggested the dialogue be said at a speed they called "molto furioso".

In Kevin Lally's book Wilder Times: The Life of Billy Wilder  he writes the exact instructions for the dialogue was for it to be said at "100 miles an hour - on the curves - 140 miles an hour on the straightaway".

Cagney, who was 61 at the time of shooting, was Wilder's first and only choice for the lead. Despite Wilder's eagerness  to work with Cagney, rumor has it the two men did not get along. Cagney found the production too stressful. In fact, things were so bad between the two Cagney retired from films for 20 years until his role in "Ragtime" (1981). One of the sources of the problem? You guess it. The dialogue. Wilder would repeatedly tell Cagney to say his lines faster causing Cagney at one point to tell one of his co-stars " I don't want to make another film with this man (Wilder). He makes me speak too fast."

Oh, but that dialogue! Read this exchange:

Woman # 1 - Have you ever made love to a revolutionary?

Woman # 2 - No, but I once necked with a Stevenson Democrat.

Is that not great?

The dialogue also serves to make political statements as when Cagney delivers a voice-over explaining who his character is and the location of the story. He says of West Berlin it "enjoyed all the blessings of democracy". As this line is said, at the moment the word "democracy" is spoken, we see a Coca-Cola billboard. What a powerful commentary that is. "Democracy" equals consumerism. I'm reminded of a routine comedian George Carlin had on the freedom of democracy which he called an illusion of choice. That's your freedom. Consumerism. You can buy Pepsi or Coca-Cola. Those are your choices. That's what you have a say in but not government policy.

I also like how Cagney plays with his screen image and makes references to past Cagney roles. At one point in the movie MacNamara says "Mother of mercy! Is this the end of Little Rico?" This is a reference to the gangster character Edward G. Robinson played in "Little Caesar" (1931). While Cagney didn't star in that movie, he and Robinson were known for their roles playing gangsters. MacNamara has a cuckoo clock that plays "Yankee Doodle Dandy" on the hour. Cagney starred in the movie "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942). Also, Red Buttons has a small role and at one point does a Cagney impression in front of Cagney.

Wilder's sharp commentary on the Cold War proved to be a bit too much for audiences and movie critics (sheep) at the time. Some critics, like Pauline Kael, felt the movie treated a serious subject too lightly. As an example, when one character is asked to describe his feelings on the international situation he says, "it's hopeless but not serious". Kael even called Wilder a sellout. She even made similar complaints about Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" (1964). "One, Two, Three" also did poorly at the box-office. It seems Kael wasn't the only one not ready for a comedy about the Cold War.

However, the ultimate judge of any movie is time. "One, Two, Three" doesn't sting audiences the way it may have in 1961. The political satire presented seems playful not threatening. But, I'm reluctant to say the movie is widely accepted as one of Wilder's best. I get the impression it is lost in the shuffle compared to "Some Like It Hot" (1959), "Double Indemnity" (1944), "Sunset Boulevard" (1950) or "The Apartment" (1960). As far as I am concerned though the movie is a knock-out.

That's what makes the great movies great. They hold a mirror up to society. The great comedies exaggerate our behavior and make us laugh at ourselves and the world around us. "One, Two, Three" does that. A movie like this also demonstrates the versatility of Billy Wilder's talent. For this movie he was criticized for treating a topic too lightly yet Wilder was also praised for making one of the most realistic films ever about alcoholism, "The Lost Weekend" (1945). That suggest Wilder's great talent and the greatness of "One, Two, Three". Different movies need different tones to get their point across. Wilder seems to have always found the right tone for the right story.

Film Review: Pan's Labyrinth

"Pan's Labyrinth"
**** (out of ****)

It's a cruel world the mother tells the daughter. That is essentially what Guillermo del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006) is about.

When "Pan's Labyrinth" was initially released in theatres it was an critical success and an audience favorite, for those with an appetite for foreign language films. It appeared on my own list of the best films of 2006 and I even called it one of the best films of the last decade. It was nominated for six Academy Awards and won three.

I had not seen "Pan's Labyrinth" since seeing it in a movie theatre 12 years ago. I remembered certain visual aspects of the movie and could recall the movie's plot. Seeing the movie again however I noticed things I hadn't before.

The movie takes place in Spain in 1944. The Spanish Civil War is over and fascist dictator Francisco Franco has been in power since 1939. However this has not stopped Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez) from hunting down leftist as it is believed they are forming an underground resistance.

Capt. Vidal has married Carmen (Ariadna Gil) the widow of a tailor and mother of 11-year old Ofelia (Ivana Baquero). Vidal and Carmen are expecting their first baby. As the movie begins Carmen and Ofelia travel to Vidal's estate, where Carmen will deliver the baby. It is quickly established Ofelia does not like Vidal and even though her mother would like her to call Vidal "father" Ofelia refuses. Instead Ofelia likes to live in the world of books especially fairy tales, which the adults around her say is filling her head with nonsense.

This could have been enough to make an interesting movie. A young girl must adjust to a new life living under the rule of an authoritarian figure, mirroring the circumstances the rest of the country is enduring. This would reinforce the mother's statement to Ofelia that it is a cruel world. But del Toro has something else up his sleeve and turns this story into a very dark fantasy where the lines between reality and fiction become blurred.

Ofelia discovers an underground world where a Faun (played by Doug Jones and voiced by Pablo Adan) informs her she is really Princess Moanna reincarnated. In order to prove she has not been human too long, she must undergo a series of test. If she passes, she can take her rightful place on the throne.

Many interpret "Pan's Labyrinth" as a fairy tale. To an extent it is. What I noticed on a second viewing was this may be a fairy tale but it is a very dark fairy tale. When you hear a story is fairy tale you may think of a bright story, full of good cheer with colorful images and a happy ending. "Pan's Labyrinth" is the opposite. If the real world is a cruel place where terrible things happen and there is "ugliness" all around us, the "fairy tale" in "Pan's Labyrinth" is "ugly" as well. Ofelia faces great danger in this underground world and confronts disturbing images.

I interpret this as saying two things. First, living in a cruel world, one filled with violence, we must find an escape. We escape within our dreams. Our imagination will distract us and make us forget the cruel, miserable world we live in. However, the dark nature of the fairy tale I believe reflects the idea, when we live in a dark, cruel world it tends to influence our dreams and so we dream of disturbing things.

Some have suggested both stories take place in reality. The fairy tale is not Ofelia's escape from the real world. It is really happening. We have two stories going on at once. If that is the case than "Pan's Labyrinth" may be about a constant battle between "innocence" and violence in our world. Personally I tend to view the fairy tale as the act of Ofelia's imagination.

However to focus too much on the delicious, mesmerizing visuals del Toro has offered us is to short change this film's accomplishments. Visually it is stunning but emotionally it is rewarding as well. The cinematography, which won an Academy Award, deserves our praise but so does the performances given by Ivana Baquero and Sergi Lopez. Baquero, who was herself 11 years old at the time, is more than just a child in peril. She is able to combine a child's innocence (there's that word again) with a heroine's sensibilities and makes very mature, adult decisions.

Sergi Lopez, whom prior to this movie appeared in the wonderful "An Affair of Love" (2000) and the Hitchcockian "With A Friend Like Harry..." (2001), hadn't given a performance that would prepare us for the one given here. The only thing I can think of to compare it to for American audiences would be one of those great movie villains found in World War II stories. He truly embodies the "shoot first ask questions later" mentality as perfectly illustrated in one scene. He lacks a shred of empathy which makes him all the more frightening. Perhaps even equal to the creature Ofelia encounters in the underworld. But in Lopez's hand the character isn't a caricature. It is firmly based in reality. 

One could also say the previous work of del Toro hadn't prepared audiences he was capable of a film with this depth. His prior credits included "Hellboy" (2004) and "The Devil's Backbone" (2001), which many have compared "Pan's Labyrinth" to, including del Toro. Even with the acclaim del Toro is now receiving with "The Shape of Water" (2017), "Pan's Labyrinth" for me remains his masterpiece.

The movie was also responsible for opening the eyes of American movie fans to the world of Mexican cinema. Along with del Toro two of his contemporaries released movies in the same year, Alfonso Cuaron with "Children of Men" (2006) and Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu who had released "Babel" (2006). All three movies were considered among the year's best. 

"Pan's Labyrinth" is a mature film made by a director with a unique vision. Whether or not the movie is "real" or not is immaterial to the human emotional drama we are confronted with in the story. It is not a horror movie in the conventional sense ut the movie does show us the horror of war and the horror of what people are capable of in the name of a political ideology. This "fairy tale" is really a nightmare, a disturbing reminder of the evil that surrounds us. This is a movie that deserves multiple viewings, each offering a new discovery. Guillermo del Toro has outdone himself with this masterpiece.

Film Review: Noah's Ark

"Noah's Ark"
*** (out of ****)

The biggest problem with "Noah's Ark" (1928) is its deceptive. When you hear a movie is called "Noah's Ark" you may think it will be based on the biblical story from the Book of Genesis about a man named Noah who builds an ark in preparation of a great flood after he is instructed to by God. This movie however is about World War 1.

"Noah's Ark", like Cecil B. DeMille's "Manslaughter" (1922) and D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" (1916). is a morality tale attempting to parallel a historical / biblical moment in history with a modern day story, warning us of history repeating itself.

In this movie's case the story of Noah's Ark is combined with a story about World War 1. Just as the biblical flood caused great destruction so too will the war to end all wars. The problem with the movie is it is really over reaching and heavy handed. Can you really compare the two events? Do they lend themselves easily to comparison?

The story of Noah's Ark by itself would have been enough to make a good movie. An anti-war story about World War 1 would have been entertaining on its own. But "Noah's Ark" doesn't evenly split its story and focuses the majority of its running time on the modern day story. With a running time of one hour and 47 minutes (including a seven minute overture and exit music), after setting up the two parallel stories, the movie spends one hour on the modern story before it switches to the biblical story. This prevents audiences from fully understanding the connection between the two stories. Where's D.W. Griffith when you need him?

"Noah's Ark" isn't a great movie because structurally it is clumsy trying to combine two unrelated events but also tries to bridge the gap between silent films and "talkies". Portions of "Noah's Ark" has sound and dialogue while much of it is silent. Clearly this was intended to be a silent movie with sound thrown in to capitalize on the movie's new ability to talk.

To further cause public interest to a modern day audience, the movie was directed by Michael Curtiz, the Hungarian born director of such American classics as "Casablanca" (1943), "Mildred Pierce" (1945) and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942). "Noah's Ark" was one of his early American movies while working at Warner Brothers. The story was by Darryl F. Zanuck, who would go on to be the studio head of what we now know as 20th Century Fox.

Finally there is the Great Flood sequence which has become part of Hollywood lore. It has been suggested the filming of this sequence, with 600,000 gallons of water used, actually resulted in casualties due to extras drowning and some being injured. Whether or not that is true, the sequence is extraordinary. It is the kind of thing one would find in a Cecil B. DeMille movie. This sequence alone may be enough to make audiences sit through the movie.

In the modern portion of the movie we follow Travis (George O' Brien) and Al (Guinn Williams), two American friends first seen on board the Orient Express near the French border where Travis first notices a beautiful German actress, Marie (Dolores Costello). She has declined the advances of a Russian soldier Nickoloff (Noah Berry) but seems to like Travis. Al on the other hand ends up with multiple flirtations including an inn keeper, Hilda (Louise Fazenda). With Travis love stricken the men decide to stay in France.

America declares war while the men are in France. The U.S. will enter World War 1. With that same sense of false idyllic pride found in King Vidor's "The Big Parade" (1925) the men believe they must enlist. Though Travis and Marie have married and he is worried about her, since she is German, his overwhelming feeling of duty to his country comes first.

The biblical portion of the story is somewhat lacking. It doesn't create the full characters seen in the modern story. In an almost matter of fact manner it tells us the story of Noah (Paul McAllister) and his family that has remain faithful to the Lord Jehovah despite King Nephilim's (Noah Berry) wishes. God instructs Noah, with words on fire on a giant stone tablet, to build an ark and to bring his family and animals aboard it.

Outside of the heavy handed moral preaching "Noah's Ark" also tries to connect the stories by having the actors play dual roles, one for each time period and by having similar events happen in each story. Both stories have a romance, both have outside forces separate the lovers and both feature violence. The performances in the modern story are more effective than the biblical story and draw the viewer in. I am reluctant however to say either George O' Brien (best known for his role in "Sunrise" (1927) by F.W. Murnau) or Dolores Costello (known for being the grandmother of Drew Barrymore) give great performances. You almost get the impression they aren't comfortable filming with sound equipment. Or maybe they just aren't comfortable saying the lousy dialogue that was written for them.

Watching the movie with 20/20 vision the movie's anti-war message becomes unintentionally melancholy. While characters may hope the war and the sacrifice of all those that died may prevent another war like it from ever happening again, a modern audience knows better. Roughly 10 years after this movie's release, Europe would be at war again.

"Noah's Ark" was originally released with a running time of two hours and 15 minutes. Some of the sound sequences in the movie were removed and now we have the one hour 47 minute version. The movie also credits Myrna Loy in the credits. She can be seen and heard in scene dealing with the modern times story.

By default the World War 1 story is more interesting, more time is spent on this story and more character development. This makes it more enjoyable to watch. For this portion of the story I recommend the movie. For the spectacle of the great flood sequence, I also recommend the movie. The over reaching heavy handed message and comparison between the deluge of water in Noah's story and the deluge of blood during the war, is a bit too much for me. The best examples of comparing biblical times to modern times happens at the beginning of the movie when we see the golden calf and people adoring it fade into Wall Street, suggesting greed and love of money are our new gods.

Not quite the strong anti-war film "The Big Parade" is or "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) still "Noah's Ark" has its moment. Of course, for a movie called "Noah's Ark" it really should have been more about Noah and less about 1914 and World War 1. Its heavy handed, over reaching message may be off putting to some and down right silly to others. If you want to see the story of Noah and his ark, you may have to watch "Noah" (2014) with Russell Crowe. This half silent / half "talkie" version is worth watching for its flood sequence and can also serve as an example of what made Cecil B. DeMille such a good director. "Noah's Ark" is for serious silent film fans not casual viewers.

Film Review: America

"America"
*** (out of ****)

D.W. Griffith shows us the birth of a nation in "America" (1924).

I find the career of filmmaker D.W. Griffith to be rather sad. He was never able to redeem himself for the "sin" of making "The Birth of A Nation" (1915). It is widely accepted Griffith spent the rest of his career trying to respond to his critics that he was not a racist with film after film.

Normally I hate to bring up the controversial nature of "The Birth of A Nation" and usually shy away from calling films of this era racist however it is really difficult not to see "America" as anything but a reaction to Griffith's notorious prior film.

"America", based on the Robert W. Chambers novel "The Reckoning", is a romanticized version of the story of America and the Revolutionary War. Rather suspiciously "America" isn't discussed as often as other Griffith films are like "The Birth of A Nation", "Intolerance" (1916) or "Broken Blossoms" (1919). It is suspicious because "America" isn't a bad movie. That it lacks recognition is surprising. However I would not refer to it as one of Griffith's masterpieces.

As the story goes Griffith had high hopes for "America" as he was in need of a box-office success to turn a large profit. While Griffith was popular in his day and some of his movies did have commercial appeal the extraordinary budgets of his movies prevented them from turning much of a profit. It is clear "America" was meant to be a sprawling epic and a real "feel good" patriotic movie. It is also true "America" and "The Birth of A Nation" have much in common in terms of historical scope, grand cinematic ambition and well staged battle scenes. The characters are similar in that we follow characters on opposite sides of the war. Griffith most likely thought "America" had a "safe" story that would avoid controversy but give him the opportunity to make another large scale epic and repeat elements which made "The Birth of A Nation" such a box-office success.

In the end however "America" doesn't give you a strong patriotic feel. It suffers from weak acting and weak character development and an unnecessary running time (two hours and 19 minutes). Technically, it is worth watching. The work of D.W. Griffith should not be avoided. Emotionally however it is not involving and never quite hits its ambitious target.

Griffith reduces the Revolutionary War to a romance between two characters; Nathan Holden (Neil Hamilton, undoubtedly best known as TV's Commissioner Gordon in "Batman") and Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster). With a difference in social status, that becomes the least of their problems, Nancy's family are also Tories, Americans that sympathize with the British and believe America should remain under British rule. Nathan however is a rebel fighting for an independent America. Can their love endure while they are on opposing sides during the war? Would Nancy's father ever allow the two to marry? This is supposed to be the stuff of great drama. If "America" were about 40 minutes shorter and actually followed these two characters a bit more, it may have made the movie more engaging.

The love story rarely, if ever, earns our sympathy or creates dramatic tension. Griffith never fleshes out these two characters to make us believe in their romance. The movie seems too busy trying to show us recreations of historical moments to focus on the romance. We see the midnight ride of Paul Revere, the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Presidential Inauguration of George Washington. By the time Griffith does show us the romance and wants to "milk" scenes for dramatic effect and pull on our heartstrings, the movie hasn't done enough to make us care about these characters.

If you admire "America" it will be because of its filmmaking techniques and not because it is an emotionally rewarding film with a thoroughly compelling story-line. Young film students and movie buffs would be doing themselves a great favor watching this movie and studying Griffith's techniques. Rightly or wrongly Griffith is often credited by film historians as the father of American cinema and is credited with creating a cinematic language. Griffith's camera is fluid and although this movie was made in 1924 its techniques will feel modern. You may complain the acting is wooden or overly dramatic (pay attention to death scenes) but you will see close-ups, cross-cutting and flashbacks. Nearly all of Griffith's silent feature films are worth studying.

That might make "America" sound like an academic experience and not entertainment. "America" has entertainment value but its running time will be off-putting to those new to silent cinema, especially if you are used to watching one or two reeler comedies. Even those that love silent cinema may admit the movie could have been trimmed.

What is most interesting about "America" is what it doesn't show. For a movie called America, it doesn't focus on the Founding Fathers. While there are scenes with George Washington (Arthur Dewey) the movie doesn't follow him as a general. Instead the movie depicts him as a mythical figure. In the first scene with the character, his back remains toward the camera as he is referred to as Colonel Washington. Griffith recreates a lot of famous moments but oddly not Washington crossing the Delaware. Though we do see Washington at Valley Forge. Griffith also leaves out Benedict Arnold. Could there have been a better choice for a movie villain?

To be fair to Griffith and "America" however we are given a wonderful villain character, Captain Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore), an American British loyalist who has great ambition and secretly wants to betray the King and become a ruler himself. Not only is this the best character in the movie (there was a real Capt. Butler) but Barrymore gives the movie's best performance.

"America" focuses a lot on the activities of Capt. Butler and in particular the Cherry Valley Massacre, where Butler orders the death of women and children. What is interesting about this decision is Griffith makes Butler the main antagonist in the story and does not present the British as the villains.

While Barrymore gives the movie's best performance unfortunately the worst belongs to Carol Dempster. Dempster became Griffith's mistress for a period of time and as a result starred in a number of his movies "replacing" Lillian Gish as his leading lady. It is hard to say how well Gish may have been able to play this particular character but Gish was an actress with a much more expressive face and a greater emotional range than Dempster.

Unfortunately it seems what most modern viewers like to discuss when reviewing the work of Griffith is race and tones of racism found in "The Birth of A Nation". I have read some criticize "America" on racial grounds as well. The movie admittedly is not kind in its depiction of Native Americans, presenting them as savages and often having white actors play the characters, although some of that is explained in the plot of the movie.

When I say "unfortunate" I mean to imply viewers can never watch a D.W. Griffith movie and debate it on its artistic merits. The name D.W. Griffith has become cinematic poison. Griffith's critics will say that was Griffith's own doing because of what he depicted in his movies. And so the conversation tends to veer into a racial discussion and not a film analysis.

D.W. Griffith is an important figure in the history of cinema and as such movie lovers should watch his movies. I understand Griffith's work may be offensive to some but it also seems to me many criticize the man's work without ever actually seeing one of his movies. "America" is not great D.W. Griffith but it is not bad either. Watch it and debate it and debate Griffith's position in movie history but remember, first you have to watch the movies.