Film Review: Manhattan

 "Manhattan"

*** 1/2 (out of ****)

"Chapter One" the voice says in a narration over a montage of New York City while Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" plays over the images. The voice belongs to Woody  Allen. At this point we don't know  Allen's character's name. The voice describes what New York means to him. Who's talking - Allen or his character?

By the time "Manhattan" (1979) was released Allen had been directing feature-length films for a decade. "Manhattan" was his eight film. This is to say nothing of his years as a stand-up comic and appearances in other people's films - "What's New Pussycat?" (1965) - which he wrote - and "Casino Royale" (1967). So firmly had the Allen persona been ingrained in us that we can't tell the difference between Allen and his characters. Are the lines between art and reality being blurred? So again I ask, who is telling us how much they love New York? 

We quickly learn the voice belongs to Isaac Davis, a comedy writer working on his novel. The narration we are hearing are his notes for his book and how it should begin. Isaac keeps editing himself. His description of New York and his monolog are at times either "too preachy", "too angry" or "too corny" he says. Is this Allen's way of saying a city can be many things to different people? Our interpretation of a city is dependent upon who we are? New York is all of the things described by Isaac. It merely depends on his mood at any given moment.

Could this narration however be hitting on something else? A commentary on how a city defines us and by extension how a city defines society? At one point in Isaac's narration he says New York is "a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture". He goes on to add "how hard it was to exist in a society desensitized by drugs, loud music, television, crime, garbage". That is what I think "Manhattan" is about. 

There is a tendency to describe "Manhattan" as romantic. The black & white cinematography by Gordon Willis and the musical score consisting of Gershwin songs further adds to the perception of romance. And yet, listen to the characters, examine their problems, is there anything romantic about it? Allen hasn't created a love story in the typical sense concluding with lovers kissing while the screen fades to black. In fact by the time "Manhattan" ends we aren't even sure one pair of lovers will be together.

The trick to "Manhattan" is it gives us a romanticize view of a world filled with cynicism and fleeting values. In one scene Isaac describes his girlfriend as being "God's answer to Job". I interpret this as saying there is beauty to be found in a world full of misery and pain. But what comfort is that when, like Job, we lose our possessions, health and children? On the other hand, what else is there to comfort us with in this world? All we have are beautiful city landscapes to admire and songs about the joys of love. In a later scene when Isaac makes a list of "what makes life worth living" he can only list art - Groucho Marx, Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra, paintings by Cezanne. But nothing about his interaction with people, God or family. Nothing about the goodness of man.

"Manhattan" is often compared to "Annie Hall" (1977), which was released two years earlier. "Annie Hall" is also a cynical film but more hopeful - "we need the eggs". That is the film where Allen seems to be communicating on the social, cultural and emotional hang-ups of a generation. Allen was representative of the "common man", speaking on their behalf. It also gave us the quintessential "Woody Allen persona". In "Manhattan" Allen isn't the common man anymore. Yes, he makes fun of intellectuals (a la the Mary character) but Isaac can't be a "common man" when he is championing the cinema of Ingmar Bergman and declares love for films like Jean Renoir's "La Grande Illusion" (1937). That is high brow, sophisticated taste. Not the taste of John Doe everyman. What "Manhattan" is, is a more aesthetically pleasing film.

Isaac is a 42 year old man, twice divorced. He is dating Tracy (Mariel Hemingway), a 17 year old high school student. She says she loves Isaac but Isaac keeps telling her not to fall in love with him. She is too young for love and has many years of romances ahead of her. Meanwhile Isaac's friend, Yale (Michael Murphy) is a married man cheating on his wife, Emily (Anne Byrne) with Mary (Diane Keaton). Yale says he doesn't know what to do. He doesn't want to hurt Emily and Mary doesn't want Yale to leave his wife.

The real problem with these characters and the point "Manhattan" is making is none of these characters are honest about their feelings. We live in a society where we cannot have honest conversations. Our feelings must be masked. We must not allow others to see us vulnerable. We must not allow society to see us as we are. Of course Mary wants Yale to leave his wife! She just doesn't want to speak the words. If she didn't want him to leave his wife, what is the point of their relationship? Why is she sleeping with a married man? Yale says he doesn't know what to do but by continuing to see Mary, it is rather obvious he knows what he wants - to keep seeing Mary and not get caught! Isaac tells Tracy don't fall in love with me but that is because he doesn't love her. That is an old cop out. You tell someone, look, I told you not to fall in love with me as if the other person is able to control their feelings. That doesn't let someone off the hook. It merely implies the other person had no feelings to control. You can't stop people from having feelings!

The only character in "Manhattan" willing to be honest about who they are is Tracy. Pay attention to two break-up scenes. One between Yale and Mary and the other between Isaac and Tracy. After Yale breaks up with Mary, she feels rejected and her defense mechanisms kicks in. She goes on the offensive. She doesn't need Yale! She can sleep with any man she wants. She then gets up and leaves. Tracy on the other hand hears the bad news from Isaac and sits there and cries. She is sad and heartbroken. Only she is willing to allow herself to be seen as vulnerable. Only she is willing to sit there and deal with her emotions rather than run away. It is one of the things Isaac tells Tracy he likes about her. Her sweetness. She has not been jaded by the world yet. 

One of Isaac's ex-wives, Jill (Meryl Streep) is going to write a tell-all about about their marriage and break-up. Since her marriage to Isaac, which resulted in the birth of their son, Jill has become a lesbian. The first question I had is, why does she need to write this book? It is never explained what she does for a living but how conceited to believe people would actually give a damn about her failed marriage. She defends her actions to Isaac stating "it is an honest account". So what! Is she trying to capitalize off of his name? Isaac is the known comedy writer. At the beginning of the film, Yale says "gossip is the new pornography". Does the tell-all book qualify as "gossip"?

Throughout "Manhattan" this theme arises - what is "art"? How does it relate to morality and decaying values in society. Isaac quits his job as a comedy writer and on grounds the show is objectionable. He complains about the use of a laugh track and talks about a television audience that has had their standards systematically lowered. Has society and our culture gotten dumber?

One thing I have always admired about Allen is his confidence the audience is intelligent. I stated his character Isaac isn't a "common man" because of his taste in movies but what other filmmaker name drops cultural figures like Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Noel Coward, August Strindberg, Norman Mailer and Veronica Lake? I understand the movie was released in 1979 and maybe times were different but how many people today, especially from Gen Z, would recognize these names? Yes, you can criticize Allen for the name dropping as a sign of pretentiousness but I see it as playing up to the audience. Who would be the cultural figures today that we could all recognize - Spider-Man?

Not one to necessarily consider himself a political filmmaker, Allen has admitted to labeling himself a left-wing intellectual but is not above critiquing them. Notice the relationship between Isaac ("the common man") and Mary (left-wing intellectual) and how they clash upon first meeting. Or when they begin dating and she takes him to see Alexander Dovzhenko's "Earth" (1930), which Isaac doesn't like. Or when they meet at a Women's Lib benefit and Isaac mentions he has read there are Nazis in New Jersey. He suggest some of them go down there with baseball bats. However, he is informed not to worry, there was a "devastating" satirical piece in the Times about it. As if that will solve anything. But that is the left-wing mentality even today. It might not be a "devastating" piece in the Times they talk about but maybe a "devastating" commentary on MSNBC. As if the other side is going to hear it and be shamed.

With all of this, "Manhattan" is going out of its way to show us a world of ineffectiveness. There is a breakdown in our ability to love and have meaningful relationships. We can't communicate with one another honestly. Morality and values are fleeting. Even politics is a dead end. And yet the screenplay by Allen and Marshall Brickman can't leave us in such a depressing state. And so "Manhattan" tries to tell us love can be the answer as Isaac comes to a conclusion about Tracy at the end of the picture. Maybe I'm too cynical but I don't believe Isaac and his sudden realization about an opportunity he has let slip by. I think Isaac is merely lonely and himself crushed by the actions of Mary and Yale. "Manhattan" wants to present Isaac as our moral center. Yale shouts out at Isaac in one scene, "you think you're God" to which Isaac retorts, "I've gotta model myself after someone". But is Isaac a good person? He doesn't treat Tracy right. Is he having a sincere revelation? I question his motives.

This is not to suggest there aren't beautiful, romantic moments in "Manhattan". The famous image of Isaac and Mary sitting by the bridge is wonderful. I also love a scene between Isaac and Tracy as they go for a horse carriage ride as the Gershwin music swells in the background. And yes, the famous ending sequence, which some have compared to Chaplin's "City Lights" (1931). It is a romantic gesture on Isaac's part with the implication now Isaac is finally in a vulnerable position just as Tracy was earlier.

When I was a teenager and first saw "Manhattan" I loved it and I probably understood it less than I do now! I loved the black and white cinematography and the Gershwin score. Most of all I thought it was funny and presented us with the classic, neurotic, nebbish Woody Allen persona, which I came to love. Though as I look at it now - I watched it twice before writing this - I wasn't as struck by it. It left me slightly cold. I wasn't emotionally involved. Yes, I still laughed at Allen's jokes but there was more of a sadness permeating in the film that I wasn't expecting. 

"Manhattan" may be on a short list of movies that I will always struggle with. My reaction to it will change as I grow older and experience life more.  As I sit here today this is a bittersweet movie about love, life, morals and the struggle to do the right thing. It is about people unable to express themselves, perhaps afraid of exposing themselves and not being able to confront who they really are. Perhaps it is apt Allen used a Gershwin score. I am reminded of a lyric to one of my favorite Gershwin songs, "He Loves & She Loves". Depending on who sings it it can be flirtatious or a desperate plea with its last lyric, "won't you love me as I love you"? That's the story of "Manhattan".

Film Review: The Cat's Meow

  "The Cat's Meow"

 *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Hooray for Hollywood? 

It's possible to watch Peter Bogdanovich's  "The Cat's Meow" (2002) and only notice what is on the surface - a tale of old Hollywood and a murder mystery. But "The Cat's Meow" may be the most political and hard hitting film Bogdanovich had ever made.

Peter Bogdanovich was one of the last purveyor's of Golden Age Hollywood lure. What other filmmaker tossed out names like Orson Welles, John Ford, Howard Hawks, Leo McCarey and Alfred Hitchcock? Sometimes Bogdanovich was criticized for his name dropping but what other filmmaker respected and honored old Hollywood? That might lead some to believe "The Cat's Meow" is nothing more than a lovely valentine to a bygone era. One more tribute to the Hollywood Bogdanovich spent a career preserving and admiring.

But Bogdanovich and screenwriter Steven Peros - adapting his own stage play - have a lot to say about Hollywood and its mythology, morality, mass media, values and the public's consumption of it all!

It is November 1924 and media mogul William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann) has invited a small group of celebrities and journalists aboard his yacht to celebrate the birthday of filmmaker Thomas Ince (Cary Elwes). Ince, once credited as the "Father of the Western", has fallen on hard times. At his peak he was making as many as 40 movies a year. Now he is lucky to make one. Ince hopes to use this occasion to fulfill his ulterior motive, which is to propose joining forces with Hearst. He suggests serving as a supervisor on all of actress Marion Davies' (Kirsten Dunst) film projects. Davies was Hearst's not-so-secret mistress and has been in the gossip columns lately. Her name is being linked to Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard) creating whispers the two are sleeping together. To complicate matters Chaplin will also be aboard the yacht. In an attempt to try and capitalize on Hearst's jealousy, Ince repeatedly plants seeds of doubt in Hearst's head regarding Davies faithfulness and suggests he could keep an eye on her behavior as well.

Bogdanovich, much like his one-time mentor, Orson Welles in "Citizen Kane" (1941), creates an unsympathetic caricature of Hearst as a man that demanded obedience and used his position and power to silence critics. It lead me to wonder, who created "Hollywood" as we know it and celebrate it today? Was it the early pioneering filmmakers like Edwin S. Porter and D.W. Griffith as presented in Bogdanovich's own romanticized version of events in "Nickelodeon" (1976)? Or was it men like Hearst, who through their control of media, could manipulate the public's view of celebrities?

Throughout much of "The Cat's Meow" we hear about scandals and fear of the public's reaction to them. About controlling your reputation in the public. Hearst for example doesn't want Davies to appear in comedies so the public can laugh at her. Great movies, and great art in general, must be dramatic. And so, Davies acts in stuffy period pieces. It's all about controlling the perception. Chaplin on the other hand is coming off the box-office failure of "A Woman of Paris" (1923) and is worried about a potential scandal breaking out concerning himself and Lita Grey, a 15 year old carrying his baby. How could the lovable "Little Tramp" do such a thing? How will this hurt his reputation in the eyes of the public? 

And what on earth will the public say when they find out Thomas Ince has died on Hearst's yacht? And how did he die? The latter question is the one "The Cat's Meow" is most interested in. Based on "the whisper told most often" concerning the events of the day. "The whisper" was a rumor that had been spoken about in Hollywood for years. Film critic Roger Ebert said Bogdanovich himself told him the story in 1998. Bogdanovich heard the story from Welles, who had alluded to the incident in Bogdanovich's book, This Is Orson Welles. Welles thought about filming a sequence based on the incident for "Citizen Kane".

According to the whisper, Hearst, overcome with jealousy, shot Ince in the back of the head, mistaking him for Charlie Chaplin. Hearst made arrangements for Ince to be returned to his Los Angeles home via a private ambulance. The rest of the guests aboard the yacht were never given a straight answer about what had occurred. The Hearst newspapers didn't cover the story and none of the guests, except for a doctor, were ever questioned by police. To this day no one can accurately describe what happened.

Through these events Bogdanovich is not romanticizing the past and this Golden Age. He is indicting the press and the men that control it. Those "movers and shakers" that get to decide what the public should and shouldn't know. Our perception of the world, even Hollywood, is based upon how they want us to view things. In "The Cat's Meow" we see an adoring crowd and paparazzi call out to celebrities for autographs and photos. These individuals are beloved but what does the public really know about them? A public loves Chaplin but would they continue to love him once his private life is revealed? Hollywood wants to be considered a bastion of good values but what about all the seediness that goes on behind the scenes? On Hearst's yacht alone we see people drinking alcohol - which was against the law at the time - taking drugs, committing adultery and engaging in premarital sex. Are these the real values they espouse?

Was Bogdanovich trying to draw a comparison between Hollywood of the 1920s and the early 2000s? Between society of the 1920s and its relationship with mass media and that of the early 2000s? Things have only gotten worse in the proceeding years with the public's distrust of the media, in particular mainstream media. What role does social media, which wasn't quite as powerful in 2002 as it is now, play in all of this? How much power and influence do the media moguls of today have in being able to control information?

"The Cat's Meow" even has scenes where Hearst is seen spying on his guests, staring through peepholes and listening in on conversations. Ironically it was in the same year this movie takes place that J. Edgar Hoover - a man notoriously known for abusing his power by spying on U.S. citizens - became head of the FBI.

Two of the more interesting characters in the film are novelist Elinor Glyn (Joanna Lumley) and movie columnist - for one of Hearst's newspapers - Louella Parsons (Jennifer Tilly). While both represent the flip side of each other, to me they are the heart of the film. Elinor, as the expression goes, says the quiet part out loud. She's the narrator of the film and seems to be the one character with enough self-consciousness to recognize the absurdity of Hollywood and the celebrity lifestyle. In one devastating scene, which leads to great awkwardness, Elinor speaks of a "disease" that infects those in Hollywood. It ultimately leads one to "forget whatever principles they once held dear". It nearly brings down the room.

Meanwhile Louella is a social climber. She is the outsider, like the audience, seeking acceptance into this club. She doesn't seem to recognize the flawed nature of the individuals. She only sees the chance to find success. By the end of the film I feel she has grown the most. Not in a good way but she is the one character that goes through an arc from naïve young woman to a more harden person. She learns the "Hollywood game".

If there are flaws with "The Cat's  Meow" it is that I wish it had a bit more bite and really skewer these characters and Hollywood in such a way that it drew a stronger comparison to modern day culture. The movie was also made on a modest budget. This is evident in the ways Bogdanovich has to keep his characters confined to single locations. Also notice the lack of exterior shots because of the budgetary issues. In a certain way the film doesn't quite shake off a theatrical staginess. 

Bogdanovich, as already mentioned, was a filmmaker that had great respect for the Golden Age of Hollywood. During the 1970s he was one of the premier voices of "new Hollywood". After a string of early hits his career took a slide. "The Cat's Meow" was being regarded by some as a "comeback" film. A lot was hanging on the box-office success of the film. Despite some critical acclaim the public stood away. Bogdanovich wasn't given another shot at a "comeback". That was unfortunate.

"The Cat's Meow" in one way fits into the cannon of Bogdanovich's films with its look at the past but in some ways it is a darker film than Bogdanovich may be usually associated with. This may be his most cynical look at the Hollywood he loved. Certainly from his own life he knew of the corrupt, vicious nature of the Hollywood system. Perhaps that's what attracted him to this story.

p.s. - I haven't come across a single review that mentioned this but one error Bogdanovich makes, that really irked me, was playing Al Jolson recordings from the 1940s over the beginning and end credits. Couldn't Bogdanovich or someone from his staff find the original 1920s recordings of these songs? It is chronologically out of place! 

Film Review: The Devil's Brother - 90th Anniversary

 "The Devil's Brother"

**** (out of ****)

As the Laurel & Hardy comedy "The Devil's Brother" (1933) celebrates its 90th anniversary it is interesting to behold how this film adaptation of Daniel Auber's 1830 opera, Fra Diavolo not only relates to 1930s America but is a comedy that still holds up today.

"The Devil's Brother" - a pre-Code comedy - makes subtle commentaries on class, deception, greed and wealth. All at a time when Americans were suffering through the Great Depression. I've said it before and I suppose it bears repeating, great comedies hold a mirror to society and exaggerate our fears and dreams. At their best they make us laugh at ourselves. "The Devil's Brother" is such a comedy. It's no wonder than that this film was one of Laurel & Hardy's most successful comedies at the box-office.

In its own way "The Devil's Brother" is the comedic version of the sentiment found in popular gangster movies of the 1930s - "Little Caesar" (1931) and "Scarface" (1932) - which could also be interpreted as reflecting a mindset of a Great Depression era audience. All of these movies suggest a life of crime paying off by providing an "easy" way to make a living for poor and desperate people. It takes too long to become rich when playing by the rules. Great wealth can be amassed quickly when breaking a few laws. 

Unfortunately, modern day popular public opinion suggest "The Devil's Brother" is a "lesser" Laurel & Hardy comedy due to its mixture of comedy and opera. Many fans of the boys don't like to see them in period pieces. Comedy producer Hal Roach did place the boys in other comedies based on operatic material - "The Bohemian Girl" (1936) and "March of the Wooden Soldiers" (1934). Personally, I think all three of them are enjoyable but "The Devil's Brother" is my favorite. Not just my favorite of the opera comedies but probably my favorite of all the Laurel & Hardy comedies with only "Way Out West" (1937) as another contender. 

What is so pleasurable about "The Devil's Brother" is how much it reminds me of an Ernst Lubitsch comedy. This is probably the most sophisticated and stylish comedy the boys ever appeared in. It has a sly, adult playfulness found in Lubitsch comedies like "Trouble in Paradise" (1932) or "One Hour With You" (1932). That may lead some to say but that's not what one expects from a Laurel & Hardy comedy. But, if those elements are in "The Devil's Brother" why shouldn't I enjoy them and embrace them?

Of course "The Devil's Brother" is no "The Merry Widow" (1934) or "The Love Parade" (1929) and director Hal Roach is no Ernst Lubitsch. Lubitsch's musical comedies relied on sharp wit and sexual innuendos. In fact Lubitsch made the greatest Hollywood movies about sex because of their playful nature - he provided an adult quality to the movie musical that it has never been able to duplicate. In "The Devil's Brother" no one ever says the word sex but it is heavily implied. This being a pre-Code movie, it flirts with the idea of adultery and never makes a strong moral judgement. This is yet again something the movie has in common with Lubitsch's films - an air of loose morals with Casanova-like males always on the prowl and fair maidens unable to resist their charms. But Roach ultimately can't juggle all of this as masterfully as Lubitsch.

The other big difference between Lubitsch and "The Devil's Brother" is the ways in which it finds comedy. There isn't great wit to the dialogue, with its screenplay adaptation by Jeanie Macpherson, instead the movie engages in the physical comedy Laurel & Hardy were well known for. The operatic material and the comedy can create a contrast in styles however. In the New York Times original review of the movie for example, critic Mordaunt Hall wrote the movie could have used more singing from Dennis King and less of Laurel & Hardy's antics (!). 

For me though the movie does find a way to blend everything together while staying somewhat faithful to its source material. Practically everything not involving Laurel & Hardy was in the opera. "The Devil's Brother" picks and chooses the proper moments to allow Laurel & Hardy to do their comedy. Despite whatever Mr. Hall may write, the boys have some of the best moments in the film. Bring on the antics!

The movie makes the most use of the team at the beginning of the film, helping to establish the plot. Thereafter they are primarily seen only to provide comic relief and not participate in driving the plot forward necessarily. This has become a criticism of fans of various comedy teams. Huge portions of  movies from the 1930s and 40s would involve a romantic sub-plot with lots of singing and sporadically have comedy routines performed by the Marx Brothers, Abbott & Costello or even Laurel & Hardy. I still contend however there are enough comedy sequences incorporated into the film that fans should be able to appreciate it. It also doesn't feel like the comedy is breaking the flow of the movie, making it seem like we have two movies in one.

Laurel & Hardy play Stanlio and Ollio - don't those names just make you smile? They are a couple of hapless working class stiffs that after great turmoil - sometimes even going hungry - have managed to amass a hefty life savings. Finally they can live off the fat of the land. But as usually happened, the Gods laugh at our two friends and their fortune is taken away from them at the hands of bandits. Now they will have to start at the bottom all over again. Why at the bottom though Stanlio wonders? Can't they start at the top? What if they became bandits! It's the old "get rich quick scheme" that delighted Depression era audiences, allowing for a bit of wishful fulfillment. 

This "introductory sequence" of the boys also provides audiences with a chance to understand the relationship between the characters. Although by 1933 audiences had seen enough to know already! In this sequence we can determine it is Ollio that is the "leader" of the team. However, it is usually because of his "leadership" the duo often find themselves in trouble. The robbery only occurs after Ollio - pulling his weight around - demands Stanlio hand him their life savings. It will be safer in Ollio's hands. It is at that very moment they are held-up. Stanlio is the scapegoat for Ollio's continuous failure. If Ollio has limited intelligence, Stanlio is even more gullible for himself believing Ollio is the "brains" of the team. And yet, it is Stanlio that will occasionally come up with a bright idea, for which Ollio will take credit for. This usually culminated with Hardy's character exasperating "here's another nice mess you've gotten me into", which suspiciously is absent in this movie.  

And so the boys head out across the Italian countryside to pursue their new life as bandits. This results in a very funny sequence I wouldn't dream of spoiling here. The two soon discover the name of a bandit terrorizing the region known as Fra Diavolo (Dennis King). Diavolo leads a due existence. In order to mingle with the wealthy he masquerades as the Marquis de San Marco. It is said great men have lost their fortunes to him and great ladies have lost their hearts.

None of this however phases the boys. Despite some initial concerns from Stanlio about what should happen to them if they ever crossed paths with Diavolo, Ollio assures him they have nothing to worry about. Naturally the boys do encounter Diavolo which almost results in the boys meeting their end. Diavolo realizes however he may have some use for these dimwits - er I mean gentlemen. The boys can masquerade as servants of the Marquis when he travels to an inn, where he hopes to steal the fortune of Lord Rocburg (James Finlayson) and flirt with his wife, Lady Pamela (Thelma Todd) who seems more than willing to engage in an affair with the Marquis.

At the inn we learn of the innkeeper's daughter (Lucile Browne) who is in love with a poor soldier (Arthur Pierson). However it has been arranged by the father for the daughter to marry a wealthy man (Matt McHugh). While this subplot was very typical of the era - should a woman marry for love or money - it isn't give enough screen time to develop. Usually both men compete for the woman's affection. In "The Devil's Brother" the wealthy man makes one brief appearance. But the soldier has been hot on the trail of Fra Diavolo. He hopes if he can capture Diavolo the reward money will be enough for him to ask for the daughter's hand in marriage.

Amazingly, as the film celebrates its 90th anniversary, none of the themes and humor here feels terribly dated. That is remarkable for a film nearly a century old. How many movies made today do you think we will be able to say that about 100 years from now? It is a testament to the work and comedy of Laurel & Hardy. While none of their comedy routines here are as iconic as seeing them fight a gorilla on a bridge, or do a soft shoe dance, or carry a piano up a flight of stairs, the boys do make me laugh. They were much better actors than perhaps even fans give them credit for. Pay attention to their gestures and the sound of their voices. There is a subtly to their actions. That makes me laugh. Can you imagine if this was remade today? It would be a vulgar, lowest common denominator mess! That's one reason why I can't understand the criticism for this film. We should treasure movies like this because if "The Devil's Brother" and the comedy of Laurel & Hardy isn't sadly completely forgotten by now, it very soon will be. Do you think society is going to watch movies that are 100, 120, 130 years old? We live in a world where people think movies made 10 years ago are old!

As I had previously mentioned "The Devil's Brother" may be the most stylish film the boys ever appeared in. The production and costume designs look first rate. The cinematography for the most part is quite good. Oddly though, sometimes the camera seems to miss the punchline to a visual gag. The musical score is pleasant enough and King had a decent voice for the era. King and Todd have good chemistry between them with both seeming to understand the humor of their situation. Neither plays their lovemaking scenes for romance and drama. Todd in particular gives a performance that suggest a bit of a wink to the audience.

"The Devil's Brother" is an enjoyable, very well made Laurel & Hardy comedy. It may touch upon elements and themes that aren't usually associated with them but that should be celebrated not criticized. For me, this is one of their best!

Film Review: Amadeus

 "Amadeus"  

**** (out of ****)

Watching Milos Forman's "Amadeus" (1984) - a fictional look at the life of composer Wolfgang  Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce) and a rivalry with fellow composer, Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) - I thought how sad it is we don't see movies that celebrate art and artists in the joyous way this masterpiece does.

Unfortunately, society is absorbed in conversations that mar the value of art by having political opportunists and activists question and define what is art and what should be its objective? And, what should we do with art from the past that doesn't meet the (pretend) morals of modern day society? 

It also doesn't help that we no longer have strong voices in the film critic community. Voices that would defend art's importance and place value on film history. Who is the "new"  Pauline Kael, Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, Andrew Sarris or Molly Haskell? These individuals and society spoke differently about film. They gave voice to the film community of the 1970s. Is it any wonder than that the 1970s was the last great decade of American cinema? Today's "movie critics" (sheep) are in alignment and/or afraid of the activists! No one wants to face the wrath of an angry Twitter mob.

Although made in that most horrendous of movie decades - the 1980s - "Amadeus" has the spirit of great films of the 1970s. Here is a movie that thoughtfully comments on and examines art's role in society, its relationship to politics and the different ways it is interpreted between the classes. As well as exploring the artist's desire to challenge convention and the tragic consequences of that, resulting in a society that doesn't fully appreciate the great artists of its time. It has become a cliché but here is a movie that couldn't be made today with the same level of wit and artistic merit. 

Notice how our movie begins with Salieri - now in the September of his years - crying out the name of Mozart. Mozart, he pleads, forgive me! He is confessing to Mozart's murder. What is interesting about this sequence and the one that follows is the subtle way director Milos Forman is establishing the theme of art and morality. As Salieri seeks forgiveness notice he does not ask for God's forgiveness, only Mozart's. In the following sequence a Priest (Richard Frank) has been called to listen to Salieri's story - who is now in a Psychiatric Institute after an attempted suicide. The Priest hopes to cleanse Salieri's soul and listen to a confession but Salieri has no interest in redeeming his soul in a religious sense. Remember, he calls out for Mozart's forgiveness. And so notice the mise-en-scene of the sequence. A man (Salieri) sits at a piano and across from him is a priest - art (the piano) and religion / morality (the priest). While Salieri offers a "confession" - an explanation of events - it is not a confession between man and God but rather artist to artist. Forman has taken the familiar setting of a religious confessional and transformed it into something else.

I'm often asked why do I dislike modern day films, here is a prime example why. An individual could have conceivably watched these two sequences in "Amadeus" and not notice the themes at play. While it is stunningly transparent to me, it could be subtle to another viewer. And that is one thing that is missing from today's Hollywood "message movies". Today the "artist" must beat us over the head with their message, especially in today's social / political environment. No one has time for nuance. Hollywood movies appear to lack the confidence that an audience will be able to understand its meaning. The "message movies" of today seem more preoccupied with the political messaging than the art of filmmaking. Movies today aren't a form of artistic expression, they have become a tool for political outreach - notice the rise in popularity of documentaries!

As the "confession" sequence continues pay attention to what Salieri tells the Priest. His love of music was not appreciated or encouraged by his father and so one day, while in church, a young Salieri prays and offers to make a pact with God. He asks God to make him a great composer by using him as a vessel to spread God's word. Now art has taken on another quality. Can art redeem us and provide salvation? Salieri's prayer and hope is that he be famous and immortal through his music. In exchange for this Salieri offers his chastity. 

Milos Forman, who left his home of  (the former) Czechoslovakia, while it was under Communist rule, is no stranger to the relationship between politics and art. It was George Orwell who famously said, "all art is propaganda". It has been an unfortunate marriage that has stained the history of film. Of course today it is the government and political activists influencing and controlling art but in the time of Mozart however it was Emperor Joseph II (Jeffrey Jones) who declared what was in "good taste" and morally appropriate. 

Some of the more interesting sequences in "Amadeus" involve court politics and everyone jockeying for favor with the Emperor. From the moment we are introduced to the Emperor we see politics at play. Mozart's praises are being sung to the Emperor in an attempt to make him an offer to be employed at their court. In an effort to lure him the Emperor suggests Mozart be allowed to write an Opera in German - they are in Vienna after all - but the others in the Emperor's council (all Italian) look down upon this idea. Opera should be in Italian they believe. But how do you tell the Emperor this without insulting the German language? Only Salieri is skillful enough to give an answer that satisfies the Emperor while completely avoiding the question of should an Opera be in German.

This relationship between politics and art is further magnified when Mozart describes a German libretto he would like to add music to but meets fierce objection since the story would take place in a harem (I don't believe the title of the Opera is ever mentioned but it might be "The Abduction from the Seraglio") which is far too controversial a setting for a "respectable" Opera. Later Mozart tackles another controversial subject, "The Marriage of Figaro", which the Emperor had banned. While the theme of art and politics is firmly presented here, Forman is now making a commentary on another issue - the artist's desire to sometimes challenge societal conventions. The great Roger Ebert, in his Chicago Sun-Times review, suggested as much by writing "Mozart's wigs do not look like everybody else's. They have just the slightest suggestion of punk, just the smallest shading of pink. Mozart seems more a child of the 1960s than of any other age".

This has of course been the history of art and artists - be it Mozart, Jean-Luc Godard, Jackson Pollock, Lenny Bruce, heck even Michael Moore. These men tried to challenge the form of their artistic medium and faced an old guard ready to stand in their way. For as many artists as there have been in the world there have been just as many critics prepared to question and define, "what is art"? Artists have always yearned for the freedom to be able to express themselves. 

And while the question of what constitutes art is asked, the answer, depending upon social status, may be different. When Mozart writes an Opera its success is dependent upon the Emperor, whom simply with a yawn can cease all future productions of a show. There is a scene however when Mozart, along with his family, watches one of his Operas performed for the common folk. We now see a different interpretation of what passes for entertainment. The working man's entertainment is a bit more vulgar and yet Mozart is told the people love his work. Here is the difference between high art and mainstream.

One of the final themes Forman presents for us in "Amadeus" is the relationship between fathers & sons. As a child Mozart and his father would travel, allowing the father to show off his son's God given talents. Initially this is what Salieri resents about Mozart - his relationship with this father. To Salieri's eyes, here is a man who is encouraging his son's passion for music. This, as previously mentioned, is the polar opposite to Salieri's relationship with his father. But, where Salieri may perceive the father's acts as love and encouragement towards his son Mozart, one could make the case the father is exploiting his son's gifts for his own financial gain. Regardless, Mozart is always chasing after the unicorn of his father's approval. A father that does not approve of Mozart's marriage, his lifestyle or his decision to remain in Vienna. 

The glue holding all of this together is F. Murray Abraham's performance, perhaps the greatest of his career. As presented here Salieri is a tragic figure. He has been blessed to have the ability to recognize greatness but cursed to know he will never be able to achieve it. How sad to go through life desperate to express your feelings but not having a means in which to express them. It makes the character far more interesting for me to study and watch than Hulce's performance as Mozart. The character is operating on so many levels calling for a great range of emotions to be played - anger, jealousy, hatred, resentment, vulnerability, and cunningness. The list goes on and on. And Abraham never seems to miss a note (that wasn't a pun). Pay attention to his mannerisms. I love a moment when he is filled with rage describing Mozart to the Priest and seems to suddenly become a aware of himself and his ungentlemanly behavior. After saying vile things he gently and gracefully smiles. The two sides of mankind - good and bad. Gentleness and destruction.

It isn't fair of me to say Tom Hulce doesn't give an equally interesting performance as Mozart. Hulce makes the audience forget we are watching a wild interpretation of Mozart. We accept him as a wild and arrogant man-child who has no humility. He matter-of-factly states his greatness right to the face of Salieri and describes one of his Operas as the greatest written. Completely unaware or phased how another composer may react to such a statement.  

"Amadeus" nicely fits into the cannon of Milos Forman's work as it explores some of his favorite themes. Forman's work has often been about defying conventions and breaking lose from institutions (both physically and metaphorically). His other films include "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975), "Valmont" (1989), his adaptation of "Dangerous Liaisons" and "The People vs. Larry Flynt" (1996). He was one of the eminent filmmakers of the Czech New Wave of the 1960s. I implore you, please see his film, "The Firemen's Ball" (1967), my favorite of his Czech movies. It is a political satire which the Communist government banned.

In total "Amadeus" was nominated for 11 Academy  Awards and won 8 including "Best Picture", "Best Director", "Best Supporting Actor" (Abraham) and "Best Adapted Screenplay". It won in the same categories at the Golden Globes as well. Siskel and Ebert both declared it one of the year's best movies with Ebert placing it in the number 1 spot.

Here is a complete view of an artist, looking at art from all perspectives. It is rare to see a movie as entertaining and thought provoking as "Amadeus". This is a truly significant work of art. One of Milos Forman's best.

Film Review: To Be Or Not To Be - 40th Anniversary

 "To Be Or Not To Be"

*** (out of ****)

"I'm the only Jew who ever made a buck off Hitler!"

- Mel Brooks

If it wasn't based on pre-existing material, it wouldn't be hard to believe the plot of "To Be Or Not To Be" (1983) was devised in the mind of comedy madman / maestro Mel Brooks.

However, who else but Brooks would have the chutzpah to remake an American classic comedy directed by the great Ernst Lubitsch and slip into a role originated by comedy legend Jack Benny?! 

On the other hand it may have been a step too far even for Brooks, who did not direct or write the movie's screenplay. Instead serving as the movie's producer and co-star with his wife, Anne Bancroft. 

Coming from the man that made his directorial debut with "The Producers" (1968), "To Be Or Not To Be" hits on many of the same comedy targets taking aim at WW2, Hitler jokes and the backstage musical. There's also a slight commentary on the separation between art and politics and the contribution an artist can make to society.

Brooks plays the world famous (in Poland) Polish actor, Frederick Bronski, who runs the Bronski Theater with his wife, Anna (Anne Bancroft) in Warsaw. It is 1939 and Nazi troops are on the Polish border. War can break out at any moment but as a narrator tells us, people come to the Bronski Theater to forget their troubles and be entertained. Unfortunately, their entertainment includes Frederick playing Hamlet, after one of the comedy routines - a musical satire involving Nazis - is banned from the show for being too controversial. More infuriating than the censorship to Frederick is an audience member that leaves every time Frederick finishes his line "To be or not to be" when playing Hamlet.

What Frederick doesn't know is the person leaving is a RAF pilot named Andrei Sobinski (Tim Matheson) who sneaks backstage to steal a few moments with Anna while Frederick is on stage. Andrei has a celebrity crush on Anna and has been sending her flowers every day. This causes Anna to not only be flattered but curious as to who this young man is. It creates a delicate line between friendship and adultery. What exactly were Anna's intentions with the young man? And what exactly are his? It is a line even the original had trouble finding the correct balance for, especially given the time period.

This potential love triangle becomes all the more complicated after war has broken out and Nazi troops invade Poland, stripping the Bronski's of their home and business. Meanwhile Andrei uncovers a Nazi spy within the ranks of the RAF, Professor Siletski (Jose Ferrer). He has collected the names and addresses of members of the Polish underground and plans to deliver these names to the Gestapo, all but ensuring their death. With the aid of Frederick and Anna, Andrei plans to stop Siletski from delivering the letters to SS Colonel Erhardt (Charles Durning).

Their plan involves at various points for Frederick to impersonate either Siletski or Colonel Erhardt in order to retrieve and destroy the letter. But can ham actor Frederick actually pull off the performance of a lifetime?

Perhaps the best thing about watching "To Be Or Not To Be" is to witness the chemistry between Brooks and Bancroft in their only screen roles opposite each other - minus a cameo appearance Bancroft makes in Brooks' "Silent Movie" (1976). Watching them together makes us wish Brooks had written roles for her in his films.

Bancroft, who won an Academy Award for her performance in "The Miracle Worker" (1962), needn't prove to anyone her acting credentials but who knew Brooks could act? Screen comedy acting seems to be a thankless endeavor. Audiences usually don't recognize all that goes into playing comedy. Brooks doesn't help the situation with his broad, zany and vulgar style of comedy. Brooks almost makes his acting look spontaneous. In "To Be Or Not To Be" the comedy and Brooks' performance are a bit more polished. 

Pay attention to all the wonderfulness happening in the movie's opening sequence between Frederick and Anna singing on-stage, in Polish, to "Sweet Georgia Brown" - Brooks once joked they danced in Polish too! The sequence helps establish the tone of the movie, the characters and their relationship. We immediately learn Frederick is a ham, Anna is beloved and Frederick is kind of jealous of her. More importantly though, pay attention to their body language. Without speaking words we can sense the tension between them.

The main reason for the restrained nature of the comedy would have to be because of Alan Johnson's directing. Johnson was a chorographer who worked with Brooks on "The Producers", "Blazing Saddles" (1974) and "History of the World: Part 1" (1981). "To Be Or Not To Be" was Johnson's directorial debut. He would only go on to direct one other movie. However Johnson doesn't have Brooks' visual eye for comedy. I don't know if a personality like Brooks really let Johnson direct the movie - Tim Matheson on the late Gilbert Gottfried's podcast hinted Brooks was very much involved - but there is a noticeable difference between this movie and ones where Brooks is credited as the director. In his Chicago Sun-Times review, movie critic Roger Ebert describes the situation as "To Be or Not To Be" works as well as a story as any Brooks film since "Young Frankenstein".

Released in 1942 the original "To Be Or Not To Be" was a timely story with war being fought in Europe. The movie reflected the time period in ways this remake obviously couldn't. And although I am not one for remakes, Brooks and Company do their best to separate themselves from the original even though many lines are repeated verbatim. It was odd however for Brooks to want to remake this movie and play the Jack Benny role. If a younger person is reading this (which I seriously doubt), Jack Benny was a great comedian. He was best known for his radio and television show. He was never able to successfully translate on the big screen though he did regard "To Be Or Not To Be" as his best movie. Affectionately, there is a reference to Benny in this movie with the name of a street called Kubelsky. Kubelsky was Benny's real surname.

Benny and Brooks created comedy in different ways. Benny was a master of gestures and timing. He wasn't afraid of taking long pauses. To modern eyes his comedy moves slow. Brooks by contrast is a maniac with an almost demonic energy. He's not afraid to chew the scenery and keep the spotlight on himself at all times. Benny didn't mind playing second fiddle and allowing someone else to get the laugh. I think it was a much harder assignment for Brooks to make this role his own than for Bancroft to separate herself from Carole Lombard - who was also a wonderful actress.

Some of the supporting performances equal Brooks' maniac level. Christopher Lloyd takes a nothing character with no dimension and has a lot of fun with it creating something memorable - a timid and confused yes man. Charles Durning - who was not only a terrific character actor was also a WW2 vet and decorated solider - has fun playing a dimwitted Nazi. For his trouble he was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, earning the movie's sole Oscar nomination. He lost that year to Jack Nicholson for "Terms of Endearment" (1983).

"To Be Or Not To Be" fits nicely into the Mel Brooks cannon of movies even though he is not the official director. He and Bancroft are a joy to watch on-screen and some of the songs written by Brooks and frequent collaborator Ronny Graham are funny. I especially like a song called "A Little Peace", which I embarrassingly still sing to myself on occasion. Each Brooks comedy can't be "Blazing Saddles" but "To Be Or Not To Be" is an entertaining diversion.

Film Review: The Man With Two Brains - 40th Anniversary

 "The Man With Two Brains"

*** (out of ****)

Funnymen Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks first met in the 1950s while working in the writers room for comedian Sid Caesar. Reiner would repeatedly refer to Brooks as one of the funniest men he ever met. The two would go on to create their own comedy magic in the 1960s releasing the comedy album, "The 2,000 Year Old Man". The routine would allow the men to frequently appear on various talk shows and variety shows throughout the decade. Eventually each man went out on their own to make feature length comedies.

Many decades ago I saw a television special that aired on PBS - during one of their pledge drives - called "Caesar's Writers". It was hosted by Billy Crystal and featured Sid Caesar and his many writers through the years, including Carl Reiner, Mel Brooks, Neil and Danny Simon, Larry Gelbart and Aaron Ruben talking about their time together working on Caesar's TV shows in the 1950s - "Your Show of Shows" and "Caesar's Hour". The shows and these men helped solidify "Jewish humor" as "America's humor". During the show Neil Simon admits after working together everyone became members of each other's fan club, following their careers.

This is all a long way of getting around to say, "The Man With Two Brains" (1983) is Carl Reiner's answer to Mel Brooks and "Young Frankenstein" (1974). I would never suggest anything as nefarious as deep rooted jealousy between the two men but clearly Reiner was somewhat influenced by "Young Frankenstein". Otherwise I have no real way of explaining the existence of the movie. Both movies are tributes to the cinema of yesterday. Brooks spoofed the horror genre - more specifically the first three "Frankenstein" movies - and Reiner pokes fun at science fiction and "mad scientist" movies, which "Frankenstein" (1931) qualifies as one of.

"The Man With Two Brains" was Carl Reiner and Steve Martin's third collaboration (of four) coming after "The Jerk" (1979) and "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" (1981), which was itself another homage to the Hollywood of the past - a satire of film noir. The experience of that movie, which inserted classic movie clips into a modern day story - long before "Forrest Gump" (1994) - may have served as an inspiration for "The Man With Two Brains". Unfortunately, unlike "Dead Men" and "Young Frankenstein" this isn't as lovely a tribute to the genre it is spoofing. Both "Dead Men" and "Young Frankenstein" were shot in black & white to capture the visual representation of the time period. Both movies had musical scores that paid homage to the spirit of the genres being spoofed. And most importantly, both movies were parodies of movies and genres that I believe are far more ingrained into the pop culture than anything "Two Brains" is targeting.

For whatever reason - most likely cost - Reiner wasn't able to duplicate the technical artistry of "Dead Men" which had incredible cinematography, production and costume designs and music. I'm sure a studio executive told Reiner you CAN'T make two black & white movies back-to-back in the 1980s! We have color now! Brooks coincidentally was told the same thing after "Young Frankenstein" when he pitched his next movie, "Silent Movie" (1976). "Two Brains" was coming to us in a changing comedy landscape. Audiences had been subjected to not only the outlandish nature of Brooks' comedies but "Airplane!" (1980) and Steve Martin's "wild and crazy guy" stand-up. "Two Brains" is competing with the zany "Airplane!" style of humor as much as it is "Young Frankenstein".

All four of the Reiner / Martin collaborations served the purpose of being showcases for Martin's humor, trying to adapt his stand-up style to the big screen. During this time period and using this criteria as the standard, nothing comes close to matching "The Jerk". "Dead Men", while technically a superior movie, stunts Martin's style. "Two Brains" seems to be an equal balance between Reiner's and Martin's comedic sensibilities. Depending upon where you stand on the issue this may explain why "Two Brains" didn't enjoy the same success culturally, financially and popularity as "The Jerk".  

In "The Man With Two Brains" Martin plays a renowned brain surgeon Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr, an obvious nod to the goofy character names given to Groucho Marx and W.C. Fields. The pronunciation of the name is one of the movie's long running gags, with the doctor helpfully informing others the name is pronounced as it is spelled (!). Dr. Hfuhruhurr has created a new method for performing brain surgery. He calls it the "cranial screw-top" where he is able to simply screw the top portion of a cranium off. Luckily the movie offers no explanation on how this is accomplished. We simply see Dr. Hfuhruhrr twisting away and repeatedly demanding someone get the damn cats out of the operating room (another running gag).

Dr. Hfuhruhurr is also still grieving the loss of his wife Rebecca, just like in the Hitchcock movie. While giving an interview in his car, he accidentally hits a woman running in the street, Dolores (Kathleen Turner). Immediately drawn to her beauty, the doctor is desperate to save her life by performing his screw top brain surgery. Everything is a success and during Dolores' recovery, Dr. Hfuhruhurr falls in love with her and the two get married. An incredibly funny scene involves the doctor speaking to a portrait of his deceased wife, asking her to show him a sign if she objects.

What Dr. Hfuhruhurr doesn't know however is Dolores was responsible for the death of her ex-husband and possibly other men as well, whom she simply marries for their money. Will Dr. Hfuhruhurr be her next victim? Will he discover Dolores secret? Before anything can happen, Dr. Hfuhruhurr meets another doctor in Vienna who is also engaging in experimental brain surgery methods. Dr. Necessiter (David Warner) is able to keep the brain of dead corpuses alive but only if they have died a certain way. They must have died while being injected with glass cleaning solution. This presents an amazing coincidence since a serial killer is going around murdering people in elevators by using glass cleaning solution! 

Through the miracle of movie science, one of the brains is able to telepathically communicate with Dr. Hfuhruhurr and no one else. Dr. Hfuhruhurr begins to fall in love with the brain while his wife Dolores begins to feel neglected. The doctor is truly a man caught between two brains.

With the goofy title alone it is clear what "The Man With Two Brains" is aiming for - spoofing 1950s and 60s science fiction movies with equally goofy titles like "The Brain That Wouldn't Die" (1962), "Donovan's Brain" (1953) - which is directly referenced, and older titles like "The Man Who Changed His Mind" (1936). It is also hitting on similar themes presented in those movies which had strong anti-science messages, revolving around men playing God and/or showing a complete lack of respect for tradition and culture. The true motivating factor behind Dr. Hfuhruhurr's work is to achieve fame and fortune and eventually love but not to make the world a better place.

The nature of the movie allows more freedom for Martin and to be his wild and crazy self. And as simply a showcase for that, "The Man With Two Brains" succeeds though I never personally felt the movie reaches the level of greatness that I would reserve for zany comedies of the 1930s and 40s starring the Marx Brothers, Wheeler and Woolsey in "Diplomaniacs" (1933), Olsen & Johnson in "Hellzapoppin'" (1941) or W.C. Fields in "Million Dollar Legs" (1932).

Still I must admit I do admire the movie's spirit and cornball jokes. I love when Dr. Hfuhruhurr enters a man's condo building, he finds the inside of his unit to be an old mansion. I love that the walls in the condo are so paper thin that they are actually made of paper. Or that a next door neighbor had a battering ram immediately available to be borrowed. The screw-top method of brain surgery is inspired as is the gag about the scientist's laboratory equipment being coin operated.

And yet part of me wishes the vulgarity of the movie would have been toned down. This I attribute to Martin. I wouldn't consider myself a prude but how much better would "The Man With Two Brains" have been if it relied more on wit than flat out sex jokes? The contrast of 1940s sensibility and Martin's modern humor was meant to serve as the center piece in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" though the un-evenness of style didn't always work. Unfortunately, I suspect that may have been why "The Man With Two Brains" didn't try to truly capture the period of the movies being satirized. It restricts Martin too much. The Martin / Reiner collaborations rank among Reiner's best films but not necessarily among Martin's - with the exception of "The Jerk". It is difficult to find the right balance between the two men's comedy. Notice how Martin would eventually tone down the vulgarity after this period with Reiner and those movies would become either critical successes and/or fan favorites - "Three Amigos" (1986), "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" (1987), "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" (1988) and "Father of the Bride" (1991). 

For Carl Reiner's part we can see why the film's satire of classic Hollywood would appeal to him and most likely were his contributions to the collaboration with Martin. Sid Caesar's TV shows were known for their movie spoofs which Reiner not only wrote the sketches for but acted in as well. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that Reiner considered "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" his best movie. Whether or not Steve Martin would admit it, Carl Reiner helped refine Martin's humor and give it structure. "The Man With Two Brains" also ever so slightly hits on one of Reiner's favorite themes - men looking to achieve fame. 

"The Man With Two Brains" isn't a great comedy but it is occasionally funny and sometimes truly inspired. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel like the same care was given to this topic as had been with "Dead Men" but again there's no denying the movie is funny.