Film Review: Taking Sides

 "Taking Sides"

**** (out of ****)

Istvan Szabo's "Taking Sides" (2003) is a tale about art, politics, history, national identity and loyalty as well as morality. The film's title immediately informs us we are going to have to make a decision. Which side of the argument are we going to land on?

The argument concerns the relationship between all of these things - art and politics, history and identity. Should distinctions be made? Are all of these things separate? What should we do about filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein? Riefenstahl was a German director best known for making propaganda documentaries such as "Triumph of the Will" (1935) and "Victory of Faith" (1933). She claims to have never been a member of the Nazi party and was unaware of the Holocaust. Eisenstein was a filmmaker known for Soviet propaganda films including "Battleship Potemkin" (1925) and "Strike!" (1925). Although he wasn't always beloved by the Soviet government. Should we discard their work? "Potemkin" has been heralded as one of the greatest films ever made. Charlie Chaplin once said it was his favorite film. To the extent there is such a thing as "good propaganda" many praise the techniques Riefenstahl used in her documentaries.

Or take for example the real-life situation presented in "Taking Sides". German conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler (Stellan Skarsgard) was widely regarded as one of the world's greatest. However, during the Nazi regime he stood in Germany. Why did he stay? Was he a member of the Nazi party? Was he a Nazi sympathizer? Is it possible to separate the art from the artist? Can "bad people" produce great works of art?

Adding another delicious layer to all of this is the background of the movie's director, the great Hungarian filmmaker Istvan Szabo. Szabo stood in his homeland after the Communist took control of it. Even after the events of 1956. Szabo himself admitted to working as a spy for the Communist party. The relationship between art and politics and personal responsibility has always been a running theme in Szabo's work. Take for a example his most acclaimed film, "Mephisto" (1981) - a Faustian tale of an actor who makes a bargain with the Devil (the Nazi party) in order to achieve fame. All the while the actor proclaims, what can he do? He's only an actor. Or what about Szabo's film "Hanussen" (1988) about a real-life Jewish clairvoyant who claimed to predict the rise of the Nazi party but stood in Germany, building a relationship with the party. Szabo even made a film, "Meeting Venus" (1991) meant to use the orchestra as a metaphor for politics and Europe. Surely, "Taking Sides" was a personal film for Szabo. 

"Taking Sides" is as much about morality as it is politics. What was the moral responsibility of German citizens, especially artists, during the Nazi regime? Should they have all left the country? Is the fact they remained an indictment against them as humans and a clear indication of their own politics? Those that knew Furtwangler understood he was opposed to Hitler and the Nazi regime. Furtwangler may have been Hitler's favorite conductor but he was not a member of the Nazi party. Some say he helped protect Jews even though he made Anti-Semitic public statements. How could Furtwangler know what the party was up to? How could he have foreseen what was to come after 1933? He was only a conductor. An artist that firmly believed in the separation between art and politics.

"Taking Sides" is set in post-WWII Germany as an American solider, Major Steve Arnold (Harvey Keitel) is ordered to lead an investigation into Furtwangler prior to a denazification hearing - hearings meant to rid Germany of any remaining Nazi ideology. The agenda of the Major's investigation is made clear to him - find Furtwangler guilty. The Major must find the evidence to support his verdict - guilty until proven innocent. 

Intended to add shades of  moral gray are two characters assisting the Major - secretary Emmaline Straube (Birgit Minichmayr) - the daughter of a Nazi official who later joined the resistance - and Lt. David Wills (Moritz Bleibtreau) - a German-Jew who left Germany as a child to live in America with an uncle. Their Germanic pride however allows them to have a much more sympathetic view of Furtwangler than the Major.

On the surface it appears Szabo is trying to keep the film neutral, presenting both sides of the issue. That was a criticism the late movie critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert, had with the film. I don't quite agree and believe the movie is taking positions and shows the hypocrisy of the situation. The Major, representing the American viewpoint, sees the world black & white. There is no room for nuance especially when you believe you are in a high moral position. Furtwangler should have left Germany and by staying exposed himself as a Nazi sympathizer. 

On a few occasions we see the Major watching American propaganda and we hear it in the background. The film the Major watches warns him to be suspicious of the German people and to remember all of these people were either Nazis or supporters. This leads the Major to carry himself with a smug over-confidence. He looks down on the German people. At one point he refers to Germans as degenerates. His questions ooze with moral superiority. 

The Major's black & white world view is contrasted by the Germans' he encounters, especially his two assistants, who see room for debate. However each time the Major is presented with alternative viewpoints he quickly dismisses them and then victoriously declares, "See? You can't answer the question!" That art and politics are separate? Poppycock! That Furtwangler thought he could do good by nurturing the soul of the German people with his art? Pish-posh! That Furtwangler simply wanted to show loyalty to his homeland? Why, Germany sucks! And when the Major asks Furtwangler why he did not have the courage to leave like other German artists, and Furtwangler explains those artists were Jewish and it was imperative for their survival to leave, that wasn't good enough for the Major.

Szabo and his film make us, the viewer, contemplate these serious questions about art that the Major is either unwilling or unable to. These questions are still relevant today. What does art mean in relation to a country's national identity? Does it contribute to a country's identity? Does art tell us something about a country's history? If it does, what are the consequences when we begin to ban things? The implication of the Major's actions could lead to Furtwangler never being able to conduct again. How much influence, if any, should politics have over art? If we believe politics should have influence over art, how is it any different than what Communist and Fascist governments did?

Everything in the film leads us in anticipation to a final confrontation between the Major and Furtwangler. When we do get to the sequence of the interrogation, I believe it carries undeniable power. Finally we can understand why men like Furtwangler did what they did. Why should they have left Germany? They had a life of comfort. The Nazis didn't bother Furtwangler. He wasn't even pressured to join the party. Yes, perhaps he had to make certain compromises - making Anti-Semitic public remarks, playing at Hitler's birthday party - but this was necessary in order to survive. Does that make Furtwangler a coward? Privileged? Indifferent? All of the above? Szabo hits hard at Furtwangler and deflates him. It leads Furtwangler to have an honest introspective moment. To truly question his motivations. 

The movie's screenplay - based on a stage play - written and adapted by the late Ronald Harwood throws subtle actions at us to try and determine Furtwangler's political stance. When the Major begins his investigation he questions the musicians Furtwangler conducted. As each of them is introduced to Emmaline, they take note of her last name and pay respects to her father, whom they regard with great affection. All of them that is except Furtwangler. When he hears her last name he has no response. None of the actors in this scene over play this. Szabo and his cinematographer, the great Lajos Koltai don't go for any close-ups of facial expressions. But the viewer notices Furtwangler's action on their own and how it contrasts to the other responses. That's the mark of a filmmaker having great confidence in the audience's ability to detect subtlety.

Harwood, a brilliant writer, may have been best known for his Academy Award winning screenplay for Roman Polanski's masterpiece, "The Pianist" (2002). "Taking Sides" seemed like a perfect subject matter for a writer that liked to examine these kind of morally complex issues. He also wrote the screenplay for Norman Jewison's excellent - and final film - "The Statement" (2003) starring Michael Caine as a Nazi trying to hide his past. 

I have watched "Taking Sides" a few times and each time I do I come away feeling Harvey Keitel wasn't exactly correct for the role. I would imagine the character representing a kind of American everyman. The character should have been relatable but naïve. Keitel is a great actor but is missing a certain charm required for the character. Keitel is at his best when the script demands he exhibit a toughness, as in the interrogation sequences. Keitel is more than able to project that. It is in gentler moments that Keitel never comes off as believable. Picture a 20 years younger Michael Keaton or Alec Baldwin in the role. 

Stellan Skarsgard on the other hand is much more effective. Furtwangler is presented as a proud man. Despite his current situation he still demands respect and doesn't appreciate when the Major keeps him waiting. But he also looks tired, and during the interrogation scenes looks defeated. The Major's mind games may be getting to him. This makes the character more sympathetic than the Major. Some "critics" (sheep) have complained that this is a flaw of the film, that it should have been Keitel that was the sympathetic character. But this I believe would counter one of Szabo's messages - when you resort to the tactics of your enemy do you still have the moral high ground?

One of Szabo's other messages revolves around culture clash in the American vs the European view of art and politics, which the Major is never able to comprehend. Notice how Emmaline and David, despite all their families have been through, still want to defend Furtwangler. It isn't because they are all "good little Nazis, just following orders" but because of cultural identity. It is about having respect for a great artist and understanding how art contributes to a nation's identity and history. David tells Furtwangler he remembers being a child listening to him conduct Beethoven's 5th and from that moment he fell in love with music. Emmaline nearly stops working for the Major in response to his treatment of Furtwangler. Who is this American to come along and belittle our country, degrade our great artists?

Perhaps there is something culturally, instinctively different in the ways Americans and Central & Eastern Europeans view art and politics. Art is so ingrained into the European culture. Think of how filmmakers like Istvan Szabo (Hungary), Andrzej Wajda (Poland), Nicolae Margineanu (Romania) and Jiri Menzel (the old Czechoslovakia) helped establish their countries on the cinematic map. For them, telling the story of the history of their country was important. It was almost the responsibility of the artists to do so. These men took art seriously. I believe "Taking Sides" is hinting at this concept.

Of course in today's world everything has become politicized. In America we struggle with the idea of the separation between art and politics and distinguishing between the art and artists. Political activists on both sides of the political spectrum are full of hypocrisy as each side accuses the other of trying to eliminate and erase art, history and pop culture deemed inappropriate. Some want to alter it to meet the "values" of today. Examples of this are too many to recite but look at the recent controversy surrounding editing the language in Roald Dahl's books to make them more "inclusive".

While some people don't care about any of this because it matches their political viewpoint, they are unfortunately missing the larger point. Our pop culture history tells a story of who we were as a people. You can't whitewash our history. And what further concerns me, especially in this digitalized age, is how easy it is to remove things from the public sphere. 

What should be done to controversial artists and their work? Personally, I believe nothing should be done. If you are quick to censor, I would suggest you are a political person motivated by a political agenda. I would even question your appreciation of art and would doubt you see it as making any meaningful contribution to society other than it being an effective tool for political outreach. Politics, you'd probably believe, should influence art. Just like the Communist and Fascist governments thought! It would probably be best to look at the situations of these artists on a case by case basis. 

Unfortunately, outside of a few film festival awards "Taking Sides" wasn't a contender for any major award consideration. Why wouldn't this film earn any Golden Globe or Academy Award nominations? There has been a disturbing pattern the past few years of not recognizing Szabo's work for major America awards and not distributing his films. Personally, I am unaware of any attempts by activists to "cancel" Szabo but his films - "Rokonok" (2006), "The Door" (2012) and "Final Report" (2020) - have not found distribution. "The Door" is available to watch on some streaming sites but it has not been released on DVD or Blu-ray. The other mentioned films were never given a theatrical release. Though I did see "Rokonok" at the Chicago International Film Festival back in 2006 and I do own a Hungarian DVD copy of the film.

"Taking Sides" is a thought-provoking, extremely well-made film that asks questions about the separation between art and politics. And how art contributes to a nation's identity and history. Intelligently written and powerfully acted it remains one of Istvan Szabo's best films.

Film Review: The Ten Commandments (1923) - 100th Anniversary

 "The Ten Commandments"

**** (out of ****)

I had mentioned in my post celebrating the 15th anniversary of my blog how I would spend the year periodically looking back on films released in the year I was born - 1983 - and celebrate their 40th anniversary. I thought another interesting idea would be to look back on films celebrating their 100th anniversary, as the subject of film history is one that fascinates me.

Which films could I possibly look back on to celebrate? According to the Library of Congress, they estimate 70% of American silent films made between 1912 - 1930 are gone. Of course this figure doesn't give an accurate assessment of how dour the situation is. As indicated this figure only accounts for American films and has a starting point of 1912. Cinema, according to most historians, was invented in 1895. Many of those works have not been preserved. And, for the purposes of this blog, how many films do you think exist that were made specifically in 1923? Sometimes however there is good news and "lost" films are being discovered like the 1923 film, "The First Degree".

For my purposes however, the first film that came into my mind was Cecil B. DeMille's silent biblical epic, "The Ten Commandments" (1923). Over the last 15 years I haven't spent much time discussing DeMille's work. I have only reviewed three other films directed by him - the best picture Oscar winner, "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952), one of his other religious epics, "King of Kings" (1927) and his moralist drama, "The Cheat" (1915). While that is not a lot of films it is probably the most DeMille films referenced in a single paragraph in all of 2023!

DeMille was a controversial figure but an important one in Hollywood's early history. In Peter Bogdanovich's wonderful book, Who The Devil Made It - a series of interviews with some of Hollywood's most distinguished filmmakers - Howard Hawks says of DeMille, "He was by far the most popular director that ever lived - he pleased more people. I think a lot of us would have liked to have made stuff that made that kind of money. He was quite the a character." DeMille's critics would say he was a hypocritical showman. A so-called religious man who filled his movies with sex and violence. He wasn't a great filmmaker, just a spectacle maker. In modern terms, think Steven Spielberg. DeMille, they say, was a pop culture phenomenon but not an artist. In fact, for a "religious man", his movies were a significant reason why a Motion Picture Production Code - a list of moral guidelines films had to adhere to - came to be strictly enforced, beginning in 1934. Some religious groups were upset with what they viewed as immoral behavior in Hollywood - funny how some things never change. 

The idea of looking back on a film made 100 years ago wasn't such an audacious move for me. I enjoy silent cinema and take great pleasure in watching the great clowns of the era like Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Some of their comedies are more than 100 years old. But to take a moment and actually ponder the idea that some movies are 100 years old did make me wonder what does this mean for film culture? It wasn't a question of would the movies hold up but rather would there be an audience for these movies ever again? Getting a young, modern thinking person to watch any silent movie can be a monumental task and in a world of streaming would there be room for silent films? Many silent films have not even been put on DVD or Blu-ray - King Vidor's "The Crowd" (1928) and Erich Von Stroheim's "Greed" (1924) are prime examples. These are two of the greatest films ever made! I can only imagine legal matters have prevented this from happening. Would young people care if they didn't have access to these movies? Most likely they haven't heard of them to begin with so their absence wouldn't even be known. 

I don't know if younger viewers watching "The Ten Commandments" would do much to turn any of this around but the film is truly a spectacle. Clearly indebted to D.W. Griffith - who DeMille once referred to as "the teacher of us all" - and his epic "Intolerance" (1916), DeMille too gives us a film divided between a biblical story and a modern times parallel. Unlike Griffith however, DeMille is only working with two stories and not four. Many consider "The Ten Commandments" to be the only silent film closest to matching the ambition of "Intolerance". For me, as a viewing experience, it surpasses it.

If you've never seen a DeMille film before, "The Ten Commandments" is quintessential of what you will find in his work. The film begins with a preachy intertitles opening essentially stating society has turned away from religion and now-a-days views the ten commandments as old-fashion. However, after the devastation of World War I perhaps now society will be able to understand the ten commandments are not laws we must obey as if it is a favor to God. But rather the ten commandments are the law! The first image we see is suppose to be Egypt with impressive statues of the pharaohs while the Israelites are gruesomely mistreated.

DeMille takes this mistreatment to extreme measures as the Egyptians brutally and constantly whip the already beaten and bruised Israelites pulling the Pharaoh Rameses' sedan (as seen in the photo above). One of the men can hardly stand and when he falls, the Pharaoh (Charles de Rochefort) orders the other men to continue onward as a giant stone wheel crushes the poor fallen man! Talk about excessive melodrama.

Then there is Miriam (Estelle Taylor), the sister of Moses - who has the most glum facial expression this side of Lillian Gish in Griffith's "Broken Blossoms" (1919) - that's the movie where her character has lead such a miserable life, she doesn't know how to smile. After witnessing this horrific event Miriam asks God when will he hear their (Israelites) cry. Little does she know that it will be her brother,  Moses (Theodore Roberts) that will lead them out of Egypt.

If I had to guess I would suspect the most famous image from the entire movie and DeMille's talking remake "The Ten Commandments" (1956) - his final film - would be of Moses parting the Red Sea. It may not fill audiences with wonderment anymore and the remake may have had better special effects but this is still sight to behold especially considering the time period. It is one of the many sequences that makes this film stand out and establishes it as a true cinematic spectacle.

After leading the Israelites away from the Pharaoh, Moses waits on Mount Sinai for 40 days until God reveals the ten commandments to him. While this is going on however the Israelites both afraid Moses will not return and impatient create a Golden Calf to worship. Here DeMille can get in a fair amount of sex appeal into the movie. The two sequences are cross-cut with each other in a visual display of the battle between good vs evil.

DeMille ends the biblical portion of the film at this point and begins his modern day story of a mother (Edythe Chapman) and her two sons. One a believer (Richard Dix) and the other a non-believer (Rod La Rocque). Dan, the non-believer, says he will break every one of the ten commandments and will still achieve great success because there is no God to punish him. And at first things seem to go his way. He marries a beautiful woman Mary (Leatrice Joy) and becomes one of the most wealthy contractors in the city. Meanwhile his brother, John hasn't moved up in the world and has remained a carpenter who is secretly in love with Mary.

When initially released most critics praised the visuals in the biblical portion of the film and criticized the modern day story as old-fashion. While I admit this portion of the movie is terribly predictable, I actually enjoyed it. I found the connection between the biblical story and the modern story intertwine much better than say Michael Curtiz's "Noah's Ark" (1928) - a heavy-handed story that tries to draw a comparison between the story of Noah's Ark and World War I. The characters were also enjoyable to watch and turned in fine performances.

To the extent any of the actors are well known today, Richard Dix might be the most recognized cast member. I personally will forever associate him with the Oscar winning western "Cimarron" (1931) - the fourth best picture Oscar winner and my least favorite of all the best picture winners - here he is suppose to play a kind of "every man" in his approach to religion. If his mother is too strict - she asks Dan to leave her home due to his blasphemy - John is a believer but a kind of loose interpreter of the bible. It doesn't bother him for example when Dan and Mary are listening to music dancing even though it is the Sabbath. The mother on the other hand is outraged they are not keeping the Sabbath day holy.

Rod La Rocque on the other hand gives a very broad, smarmy performance that is delightful to watch and creates a perfect contrast to Dix's performance that is, for the era, more grounded and naturalistic. Leatrice Joy is at first presented to us as an essentially good person who when desperate is capable of bad things. When we first see her she is hungry and steals food. She is placed in the middle of these two men and kind of represents a good and bad within us. Her path in life will be determined by which man she chooses.

I would imagine for modern audiences the one character DeMille and writer Jeanie Macpherson - who adapted the Laurel & Hardy comedy "The Devil's Brother" (1933) - create that they would find offensive is a half-French, half-Asian woman named Sally Lung (Nita Naldi). She may be the woman to lead Dan astray and make him break another commandment. She fits into an old stereotype of the dangerous exotic foreigner. We saw a similar character in DeMille's "The Cheat".

The story reaches a climax when Dan is preparing to build a church. In order to save (and pocket) money Dan decides to cut back on the amount of cement used in the concrete. Dan brings in his brother to be head carpenter on the project. John discovers what Dan is up to and demands work cease on the project. Unfortunately tragedy strikes. I wonder if this massive building is meant to make us think of the fall of the tower of Babel.

In perhaps a misstep DeMille keeps his story going on a bit too long after this sequence and tries to end everything perfectly with a bow on top. It leaves us with a message about the importance of love - in our interpretation of religion and between one another. 

Some consider this the first of a religious trilogy DeMille would make with "King of Kings" and "Sign of the Cross" (1932) completing it. I'm unaware if this was actually DeMille's intention or not. I will say however "The Ten Commandments" feels like the film DeMille got everything right. He had made other moralistic dramas commenting on the downfall of society - "Manslaughter" (1922) - which claimed like the Roman Emperor America would fall unless the youth turned away from the evils of jazz and alcohol (!). But here he finds the proper story to express his ideas and the visuals to match it.

For a film 100 years old I would argue "The Ten Commandments" holds up very well. Modern audiences would probably laugh at the acting style in the biblical portion of the story but some may find the film entertaining. It is a true testament to DeMille's vision that his work can live on all these years later and still get a rise out of audiences with its spectacular images. This is epic filmmaking that deserves to be cherished. 

Film Review: Chinatown

 "Chinatown"

**** (out of ****)

Dames. What can we do about them? You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em. Am I right fellas? In the world of film noir it is always the dames that lead to the man's downfall. Are they more trouble than they are worth?

The very first image we see in director Roman Polanski's masterpiece, "Chinatown" (1974) is a photo of a man and woman in a field making love. The person holding the photo however is the husband (Burt Young) of the woman (Elizabeth Harding) in the photo. And that man in the photo is not her husband!

"Chinatown" is about many things. One of those things is women and their affect on men. Women can serve as redemptive figures for men. Traditionally, a man's job is to protect his woman. And if he isn't able to, it haunts him. Look at the poster for "Chinatown". The smoke from Jack Nicholson's cigarette seems to transform into a woman's face. To me the woman's face looks like a distant memory. A memory that hangs over Nicholson. Was she a woman that needed to be saved and protected? Did Nicholson meet his obligation as a man?

We come to discover Nicholson is Jakes Gittes, a former L.A. police officer turned private eye. He's the one that took those photos and the husband was his client. Jake spends a lot of time spying on people. He's usually hired by those that suspects their spouses are being unfaithful. Is that why Jake seems a bit disillusioned? Nothing in this world seems to phase Jake anymore. Jake is a secretive man though. He doesn't like talking about his past. But we know something bad happened. Something bad in Chinatown. It involved a woman. A woman he couldn't protect.

"Chinatown" was released in the same year as Francis Ford Coppola's "The Conversation" (1974). Ironically both movies involve men that spy for a living. Both movies are also about guilt and redemption. Both men may have been responsible for the death a woman. Both men are lonely and incapable of allowing someone to get too close because of that experience.

Polanski's film is often thought of to be "neo-noir" - a revival of the film noir genre popularized in the 1940s. When "Chinatown" was initially released a lot of critics wanted to compare Nicholson to Humphrey Bogart. While Bogart was known for his role as gangsters, he also played private eyes - "The Big Sleep" (1946) and "The Maltese Falcon" (1941) - helping to solidify the archetype of the world-weary, hard-boiled detective. There was however a sensitivity to Bogart's characters. Sometimes it was suggested war changed him, other times it was because of a woman. Sometimes it was both. He tried to mask his vulnerability in cloak of cynicism. Think of his character Rick in "Casablanca" (1942). It's not entirely unlike Jake in "Chinatown". A woman may be his downfall and salvation - "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em".

I too thought of Bogart and "The Maltese Falcon" watching "Chinatown" - its kind of difficult not to when that movie's director, John Huston, has an acting part here. But it wasn't because of the acting style or characters I made the comparison. It was because of the famous ending line in this movie, "forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown". As I heard that line I thought of the line Humphrey Bogart delivered in "The Maltese Falcon" (1941), "the stuff dreams are made of". Could there be a connection? The "Chinatown" line to me means, you can't stop bad things from happening. It's the way of world. "The stuff dreams are made of" I interpret as an explanation for why bad things happen - given the events of the film. To me, both lines provide a justification for the eventual violence man will unleash on his fellow man.

Is  "Chinatown" really a morality play using the noir genre as a guise? I don't think "Chinatown" is so much interested in solving a murder mystery, as film noir often does, but rather in exposing corruption and man's determination to right the wrongs committed. That's what gives the "Chinatown" line such poignancy - the cycle of violence continues and there's nothing you can do about it Jake. You can't right the wrongs. You can't acquire the redemption your soul seeks, Jake.

Jake is hired by Evelyn Mulray (Diane Ladd) to trail her husband, Hollis (Darrell Zwerling) whom she suspects is cheating on her. Jakes recognizes the man's name as the chief engineer at the Los  Angeles Department of Water and Power. He doesn't want to initially take her case. He advises her to simply go home and accept the fact that her husband loves her. It may be best if she doesn't know the truth. This is the complete opposite of the movie's first sequence. Is there an element of sexism involved? A man should know of his wife's infidelities but a woman should accept a husband's? Maybe. But it demonstrates Jake's sense of ethics and morality. He won't accept the married man's last dollar and allows him time to pay for the job. And by refusing a job from Evelyn, he loses an opportunity to make money. Why resist taking the case? "It's Chinatown" - it's the way of world. The married woman can't right the wrongs of her marriage. If she suspects her husband is cheating, he probably is. Jake seems completely unphased when Evelyn reveals her predicament. Eventually however Jake accepts the job.

The job turns out to be more than Jake bargained for. "Chinatown" slowly begins to weave its web of intrigue as things aren't what they seem to be. After Jake takes photos of Hollis with a young blonde, it ends up on the front paper of the newspaper. A scene in a barbershop makes Jake confront his ethics and morality when another customer questions how Jake makes a living - invading people's privacy and ruining lives. When Jake asks the man what does he do for a living, he finds out the man works at a bank. Foreclose on any families lately Jake asks. Who has the moral high ground? 

Now Jake finds himself being sued by the real Evelyn Mulray (Faye Dunaway). Why was Jake set-up? Who was the woman pretending to be Mrs. Mulray? Was she working for someone? It becomes clear Jake was a small part of a big cover-up. The plot thickens when Hollis turns up dead. Being a man of ethics, Jake could walk away from all of this. He was paid after all by someone for a job that he completed. But wanting to clear his name, Jake wants answers to a lot of questions. Like are Hollis and a one-time partner, Noah Cross (John Huston) part of a giant scheme causing a drought to the people of Los Angeles by having the water irrigated elsewhere?

The way the film is structured it sets audiences up to expect something will happen between Jake and Evelyn. Both have secrets from their past. Each wants to find out the others. Is Evelyn the redemption Jake was seeking? Will Evelyn make up for whatever happened in Chinatown?

When you look at "Chinatown" from this perspective it isn't a mystery why Roman Polanski would have directed this material. Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate was infamously murdered in her home by the Mason Family. Polanski was in Europe making a film and wasn't around to protect his wife and their unborn child. Polanski couldn't right the wrong. This incident in Polanski's life would seem to be the motivating force behind so many of his directorial efforts.

The world Polanski creates in "Chinatown" is like the world he created in so many of his other films.  A world where no one can be trusted. Who could Rosemary turn to in "Rosemary's Baby" (1968)? Would someone turn Wladyslaw Szpilman in "The Pianist" (2002)? Is Trelkovsky paranoid or going insane in "The Tenant" (1976)? Practically everyone in "Chinatown" is suspect. Who is the victim and who is the victimizer? No one seems to be on the level with Jake. Because of that we never know if what we are hearing or for that matter even seeing is the truth. Information is slowly and meticulously revealed to us.

What I haven't mentioned about "Chinatown" is the film is supposed to take place in the 1930s. Does that tell us anything? Was Polanski and screenwriter Robert Towne using the 1930s tough guy image to contrast with the '70s sensitive male? Prior to "Chinatown" Nicholson was appearing in movies about masculinity in this new decade (the '70s). He started the decade off with "Five Easy Pieces" (1970). "Chinatown" like "Pieces" and "The Conversation" is a character study about men searching and struggling. About living with the choices we have made and being confronted by them.

There is a moment in "Chinatown", a quiet one, near the end of the movie. Jake arrives at a house and a woman opens the door. The woman has a black eye. A man approaches the door. It is the husband from the opening sequence. The woman was the wife in the photo. Here is another woman Jake didn't save. Sure he was doing a job taking photos but those photos created consequences. In that moment we can sense regret on Jake's face. The sequence however is about something else entirely but that moment was thrown in. Being confronted with the choices we have made. Think back to the sequence in the barbershop when again Jake was confronted about his actions.

"Chinatown" was nominated for 11 Academy Awards including best picture, director, actor, actress and best original screenplay, for which it did win. It was Polanski's first of three best director nominations. He would eventually win for "The Pianist". "Chinatown" is a very '70s movie. The kind of movie we don't get much of anymore. Slow and deliberate, multi-layered character studies. Today we like movies fast, direct and to the point. We don't want to think for ourselves. We want the answers given to us. That's too bad. In 1974 alone we got "The Godfather Part 2", "The Conversation", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", "Lenny" and "A Woman Under the Influence". Each one a masterpiece. Each one a story about people. It's why the '70s was the last great decade for American cinema. And "Chinatown" is right up there with them.

Fifteenth Anniversary!

It was 15 years ago this month - February 14th to be exact - I decided to start a movie blog. I had finished my last semester at Columbia College of Chicago where I had studied both journalism and film studies (aka film theory). My grand idea was I would become a movie critic. The New York Times seemed like a good place to work. Unfortunately, they weren't returning my phone calls. How would I get my first job as a critic?

This blog was a partial answer to that question. My other motivation was I wanted to create a blog that would celebrate the history of cinema so younger generations could learn about classic cinema - both from Hollywood and international.

As a film student in college I quickly became aware so many of my classmates were clueless about the history of cinema. The names of iconic filmmakers and their films were foreign to them. They were completely unaware of the great actors and actresses of cinema's past. Initially I was very discouraged by this. This was the next generation of artists? How could someone love cinema and know so little about it? I'm sure this side had a way to explain that but I wasn't interested in hearing it. Then one day I had a sudden change of heart. How could I blame younger generations for not knowing about classic cinema? Where could they turn to learn about it? Clearly their friends didn't know about these things either. A person isn't born knowing about the films of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Alfred Hitchcock, Luchino Visconti or Orson Welles. Someone has to bring these things to your attention. I didn't consider the fact my grandparents introduced me to classic Hollywood cinema at a very young age - before I was old enough to attend school. If I didn't live with my grandparents, would I know who Laurel & Hardy were? Would I have seen Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dance together? Would I know Groucho Marx woke up one morning and shot an elephant in his pajamas? Probably not. So, I took it upon myself to create an outlet where hopefully college age film students could learn about the history of cinema.

I hate to brag but after 15 years I believe I have made good on that goal. If someone had been following my blog these past 15 years they would have a pretty good knowledge about cinema's past. They would know the names of the great filmmakers and their most celebrated films. They would know the names of the great film actors and actresses. I have written about a wide range of cinema from the silent era to modern day films like the latest superhero movie. And most importantly I have always tried to show the link between these things. To point out how the films of today were inspired by the films of yesterday. That is why I believe it is so important to understand cinema's past. The more you know and understand the history of cinema the richer your own creative process can be. You can make better movies or write better reviews. A rich knowledge of cinema's history can even help put societal history in perspective.

Writing this blog also opened the door for me to achieve that other goal - becoming a published writer. This blog lead me to connect with editors of various newspapers and websites. And I will forever be grateful to those editors for taking a chance and publishing a complete unknown. Over the years I have been published by the Toledo Free Press - unfortunately, it is no longer in existence - the Milwaukee Shepherd Express, the website 3rd Coast Review, The Budapest Times - a great honor given that I'm Hungarian - the website The Big Picture, a U.K. based on-line film magazine - and the magazine Nostalgia Digest - a great fit for me since it is dedicated to the Golden Age of film and radio. I even reached my ultimate goal and became a movie critic of a weekly Chicago newspaper, Chicago News.

As the years went on however a new motivation for continuing this blog emerged. My grandparents - the ones that introduced me to the cinema of their youth and infected me with their love of movies - died. First my grandmother in 2011 and then my grandfather in 2012. Now I had no one to talk to about movies that I truly love. There wasn't anyone whose brains I could pick that could continue to introduce me to movies I hadn't heard of. I was all alone. Or at least it felt that way. I continued the blog so at least I could pretend I was having a conversation with someone. Yes, it was a one-sided conversation but maybe someone would reach out to me and tell me they enjoyed reading my reviews. I had introduced them to new films. Maybe I could continue to have those conversations I had with my grandparents.

And then the last few years have made me question the continuation of the blog. Which may explain why I haven't been as active on here as I once was. Politics - unfortunately, from the left - made me question does a blog like this even serve a purpose anymore? When activists and various other movers and shakers began to condemn films from cinema's past for not matching the today's values, it seemed like younger people had no interest in learning about classic cinema. They would merely dismiss those movies and maybe even some of the artists behind them as racists or misogynist. If this would continue to be the way the political winds would blow would it make sense for me to keep writing about Charlie Chaplin or Billy Wilder? If the objective was to reach college age students to help inform them about cinema, it seemed to me they were saying, no thanks. Lets just erase those movies. And so I stopped writing for a while. My passion and motivation was drained.

I also became more and more disillusioned with modern cinema. When I would create my lists for the best movies of the year I would repeatedly write about the struggle to name 10 movies I thought were the best. I have steadily been rewarding fewer and fewer movies with four stars. I didn't even create a top ten list for 2018 and I won't create one for 2022. One of the problems, as I saw it, was young "artists" were inspired by trash. I  used to listen to a movie podcast called Switchblade Sisters hosted by former critic turned screenwriter, April Wolfe. It is designed around the female perspective on movies with only female artists invited each week to discuss a movie of the guest's choosing. I first started listening to the podcast to hear a different perspective but I quickly became aghast at the movies selected. Almost every movie discussed was made in the 1980s onward. If you wondered why bad movies are being made this was a prime example - look at what is inspiring artists! Movies discussed on the podcast included "Adventures in Babysitting" (1987), "Beetlejuice" (1988), "Earth Girls Are Easy" (1988), "Gremlins" (1984), "Willow" (1988), "Sexy Beast" (2001), "Kill Bill" (2003) and "Addams Family Values" (1993). Astonishingly, "Psycho" (1960) and "Bunny Lake Is Missing" (1965) made it into discussion. Today's filmmakers may have never seen such classics as "The Big Parade" (1925), "Greed" (1924), "The Crowd" (1928), "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930), Fritz Lang's "Fury" (1936) or "The Little Foxes" (1941). The main inspiration for "artists" of today is nostalgia.

Then there was political and social messaging in movies. There have always been "message movies", movies which held a mirror to society and showed us our flaws. It made us confront the world we live in and inspire us to change. Today however as political activists put more and more pressure on artists, "message movies" now show us the world they want us to live in and present it as reality. That is a huge difference. The politicization of art and movies in particular have also drained me of my passion for films. I simply hate the way society "talks" about art and politics. We are completely incapable of having honest conversations because no one is willing to admit their true motivating influences. And this seeps into art. How can anything be honest when it comes from a false narrative?

But I still love movies. I still have a deep appreciation for the arts. I have mentioned in the past, my father is a musician. I come from a family that celebrated the arts. When I told my family I wanted to become either a filmmaker or a writer they didn't think I was throwing my life away, chasing after a pipe dream. They encouraged me. Art was important. It had true value. It was more important than politics because art was supposed to be honest. Remember what I just wrote about the "message movies" of the past? Politicians were known liars. Society jokes about them. But art. That was special.

As I struggled to create a top ten list for the best movies of 2022, I thought to myself, why am I doing this? Why am I banging my head against the wall to create a list? For that matter, why am I bothering to write about modern movies and follow modern day Hollywood. Why bother to keep track of the trends. I have a notebook with every single movie released in Chicago dating back to 2014. I may have another one dating back further but I would have to search for it. I have tried to keep myself informed about what is going on in Hollywood so that when I wrote about it, it would be an informed opinion. Whether or not you agreed with me, I still wanted to keep myself atop of the trends and be knowledgeable about the business side of Hollywood. Now, I don't care.

Since the beginning of the new year you may have noticed a difference in this blog. First, no top ten list. But no modern movie reviews either. I'm done. I'm not keeping track anymore of what is being released. If this blog is going to continue, I am going to write about what I want to write about. That probably means this blog won't be of any interest to a lot of people. That's okay. This year I celebrate a milestone birthday. If you have noticed I have been reviewing movies celebrating their 40th anniversary. That is how old I will be. Throughout the year I will sprinkle a 40th anniversary review here and there. I have also dubbed this year, "the summer of me". I will be reviewing things that are important to me. Already this year I have written about Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Carl Reiner, Peter Bogdanovich, Laurel & Hardy and Milos Foreman. I will review movies that were important to me growing up. It is the first time in a long time that I am excited about this blog.

It has been an emotional journey for me writing this blog. A lot of life has happened during this time. It will be interesting to see where the next 15 years will lead me. I hope you will join me!

Film Review: Batman Forever

"Batman Forever"

*** (out of ****)

The title "Batman Forever" (1995) isn't a declarative statement. An imposing threat to the villains of Gotham City - Batman will be here forever! Be warned! Instead it is a question. Remember because of the appearance of the Riddler character some of the movie's marketing placed a question mark behind the batman logo. We can interpret this as asking the question, will Batman last forever? Will Bruce Wayne continue to lead his dual life as Batman? Exactly how much longer can he go on and be willing to sacrifice leading a "normal life"?

It is an interesting question and is at the heart of what makes Batman/Bruce Wayne tick? Who is Bruce Wayne? Has he completely lost his identity to his own creation? Is Batman the dominate personality? Why does Bruce Wayne continue to go on as Batman, fighting crime, putting himself in danger? What is the end game? That even leads to a question of morality. Would it be the right thing for Bruce Wayne to step down as a defender of Gotham?

These are all important questions that, in theory, "Batman Forever" contemplates. Unfortunately, I feel these ideas were never well executed. Some readers will think I am a looney tune for saying this but a Batman movie that did a better job of addressing these conflicts was the animated movie, "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" (1993). I understand some adults reading this may be shocked that I could suggest a children's animated movie could in any way surpass a live-action movie but first of all, "Batman Forever" kind of wants to be a live-action cartoon. Secondly, animation doesn't have to be limited and restricted to the confines of kiddie entertainment. Animation is one of many tools a filmmaker can utilize to tell a story. See the stunning "Waltz with Bashir" (2008) and "Grave of the Fireflies" (1988) as examples. "Mask of the Phantasm" hit at the heart of Bruce Wayne's inner conflict and the guilt he would feel for not fulfilling a promise he made to honor his parents. That alone is deeper than anything we see on the surface in "Batman Forever". 

"Batman Forever" of course marked the beginning of a new direction for the Batman franchise. Some say this was because of the "dark" nature of "Batman Returns" (1992) and news stories of parents complaining their children were scared. Warner Brothers wanted to lighten things up. As a result Tim Burton would not return as the director - Burton says at the indirect request of the studio - and was replaced by Joel Schumacher. Burton would instead serve as a producer. Michael Keaton would not return either. Val Kilmer would now don the cape. Forgive my language but this is all a lot of horseradish! People that want to go on and on about the "serious" nature of Burton's Batman movies need to rewatch them. There was a playful tone in "Batman Returns". The Penguin travels by a giant rubber ducky in the sewers of Gotham.

Both Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer got a lot of comedic mileage out of their interpretations of the Penguin and Catwoman. There was an inappropriate amount of sexual double entendres however. Think of all the "pussy" references that were made because of the name "Catwoman". The Batman franchise was already headed in a kid friendly direction. I've said it before and I will say it again, "Batman Returns" was not a serious, dramatic movie. If children were having nightmares from the movie, God help them. The world would only become a much more scarier place for them. I was nine years old when I saw "Batman Returns" in a movie theater with my father. I hated the movie but not because it scared me. I thought it was "too dark". Not dark in content. Dark in terms of lighting. I could barely see the images on-screen. For me, as a child, the best thing about "Batman Returns" was the trading cards I collected (I still have them).

Still whatever qualms Warner Brothers may have had about the direction of the franchise, "Batman Forever" should have alleviated them. The movie was a massive box-office hit that outgrossed "Batman Returns". Personally, I was 12 when the movie hit theaters and it was the first Batman movie I saw that I liked. I even saw it twice in a movie theater. I went crazy over the movie. I had a poster hanging on my wall, bought the video game for my Sega, collected the trading cards and bought the movie on VHS (all of which I still have)! I even dressed up as The Riddler that Halloween! If Warner Brothers wanted to get kids enthused about Batman it most certainly worked on me.

Over the years some have re-evaluated "Batman Forever" and claim the movie is better than the reputation that proceeds it. Many believe Joel Schumacher took the franchise away from the "serious tone" of the Burton movies and turned the movies into over-the-top kid friendly cartoons. I would agree with that assessment when discussing "Batman & Robin" (1997) however "Batman Forever" does retain some praise worthy qualities. The best of these qualities may be the visuals. For Burton's first Batman movie I wrote Burton was creating a visual representation of the disturbed mind of its two lead characters in the way Gotham was presented. In "Batman Forever" Gotham is much brighter but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Check out the opening sequence and a circus sequence. Schumacher's Gotham features a lot of neon lights but still has a futuristic quality a la "Metropolis" (1927) that Burton's film also had. Also look out for a visual motif involving eyes. We see this when a helicopter crashes into a billboard sign of an eye, the circus ring looks like an eye when shot from above and the movie fades in and out of close-ups of character's eyes. Sight and vision are important to the story.

While the movie's reputation suggests the performance are "too broad", I found I enjoyed Tommy Lee Jones' performance as Two-Face/ Harvey Dent - replacing Billy Dee Williams who played Dent in the first two movies. Yes it is an exaggerated performance indicative of the comical direction the franchise was headed in, I see as as Jones being committed to the character. He goes all out in his performance. Did I come away with any real understanding of the character on an emotional level? No. But as a visual presentation Jones hits it out of the park and has a lot of fun with the character. Jim Carrey on the other hand as The Riddler/Edward Nygma is just a bit too extreme by comparison. If someone believes Jones is working at a "10", Carrey hits an "11". For me Carrey's best moments are when he is playing Edward. This is a complete contrast to my feelings at 12. This was the first movie that made me like Carrey. We also see more of a story arc for this character than Two-Face. Maybe because Carrey was much more popular with a younger demographic than Jones.

As with the other Batman movies there is a female lead character meant to represent a possible path to a normal life for Bruce Wayne. A woman he could love, start a family with and put away the cape for. But the females are always placed in the middle with their competing affections being torn between Bruce Wayne and Batman, usually with Batman being the more interesting object of interest for them. Two of the women - Vickie Vale in the first movie and Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman) here use their work as their own mask to justify their obsession. Vale was a photographer and Chase is a psychologist that sees Batman as an interesting case study. But makes very direct passes at the Cape Crusader. As much as I enjoy Nicole Kidman as an actress - I believe she is one of our finest working today - she isn't given enough in "Batman Forever" and comes across as the weakest character especially when compared to the other larger-than-life characters comprising the rest of the movie, competing for our attention. Chase comes across as more of a symbol than a character.

I've come across some internet comments stating "Batman Forever" has an erotic quality to it because of the relationship between Chase and Batman. Even former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert seemed fixated on this notion. While it most definitely is present it takes up such a small portion of the movie. It is not the dominate theme of the movie. "Batman Forever" wants to explore the issues of duality, which is always a central concept to any Batman story. Duality also expands to the villains as well. This is perfectly illustrated with the Two-Face character and an inner conflict between good vs evil. There is the duality of the other characters too - The Riddler, Robin/Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell) and even Alfred (Michael Gough) who is more than merely a butler but also leads a secret life as Batman's assistant and confidant.

And yet I never felt the movie explores Bruce Wayne's duality in the most compelling, dramatic and thoughtful way it could have. Kilmer himself delivers a fine performance and was a suitable replacement for Michael Keaton. I suppose the best compliment I can pay Kilmer is to say, watching the movie I didn't once miss Keaton and think to myself, gee I wonder what Keaton could have added to this material. Kilmer makes the role his own but again I felt the material restricts him from truly being able to examine the dramatic components dealing with the character. He could have been more than capable of being a love interest to Chase as Bruce Wayne and deal with the struggles of letting go of the Batman identity. 

One interesting commentary the movie makes that is truly relevant today is a device Edward creates that has the ability to manipulate brain waves. It is simply called "the box" and seems to function the way a cable box does. It creates 3-D images, turning the viewer into a zombie like state as the brain waves somehow are transmitted to Edward. Social media and "smart" phones weren't created at the time but this is clearly a criticism of technology like cable and the internet. Edward even mentions he now has information like credit cards, social security numbers and even insights into people's sexual fantasies. And while "the box" can extract information from the brain it can also input ideas. Unfortunately, society has been all but determined to embrace and live up to the horrific future movies like this warned us we would become.

There was talk a few year ago of a #Schumachercut of "Batman Forever" much like the #Snydercut of "Justice League" (2017). This would have been a longer version - approximately 50 minutes - that according to Schumacher would have a more serious tone and explores Bruce Wayne/ Batman a bit more. Sadly there are no plans currently by Warner Brothers to release this version. Another version of "Batman Forever" that has floated around dealt with what might have been if Burton had stayed on as director. Billy Dee Williams would have continued to play Harvey Dent with the idea once turned into Two-Face he would be half black-half white - much like the animated version of the character. And Robin/Dick Grayson would have been played by Marlon Wayans. We kind of got to see this version in the comic book "Batman '89" series back in 2021 written by screenwriter Sam Hamm, which I have read. 

"Batman Forever" is not a great movie but it is not the disappointment so many sheep claim it is. As usual the general public really over does things and swings too far in one direction or another. The movie should have focused more on Bruce Wayne/Batman inner conflict, possibly eliminate one of the villains and given much more for the Chase character to do. Still this was a worthy follow-up to the Burton movies. It is a different style but that doesn't mean it is a weakness. Watch the animated Batman movie, "Mask of the Phantasm" as well.

Film Review: Octopussy - 40th Anniversary

 "Octopussy"

*** 1/2 (out of ****)

Does Roger Moore score an "all time high" in his sixth entry as James Bond in "Octopussy" (1983)?

As I continue to spend the year periodically looking back on films released in the year of my birth,1983 - to celebrate my own milestone birthday this year - it is time to take a look at one of my favorite action movie franchises, James Bond, which celebrated its 60th anniversary last year.

Upon its initial release, "Octopussy" was well received by critics - Vincent Canby over at the New York Times for example wrote the movie "is actually better than most" James Bond movies - and was one of the highest grossing movies of the year. Today however the modern day sheep ("movie critics") and internet trolls have revaluated the movie and surprisingly (that's sarcasm) have all come away with the same negative opinion stating the movie doesn't work and is a "lesser" Bond movie. I sincerely don't try to be contrarian but if I ever allowed the mainstream masses to dictate my interests, I would have to discard practically everything that is meaningful to me and trade it in for a love of super hero movies! I can't understand how any of those movies are better than "Octopussy" but that's mainstream taste for you. 

In another unpopular opinion of mine, I've always said Roger Moore was my favorite actor to play Bond. I understand the "correct" answer is Sean Connery -  "Dr. No" (1962) and "Goldfinger" (1963)  I would argue are two of the best Bond movies - but I enjoyed Moore's interpretation of Bond combining suave charm and light dashes of humor. It had a Cary Grant quality to it. Whether or not anyone wants to admit it, I think Moore's interpretation of Bond has seeped into the pop culture more so than Connery's. I say that because I think when you see a modern actor playing a secret agent - in a serious role or parody - they are channeling Moore's sensibilities and mannerisms. Austin Powers for example I think is more Moore than Connery.

"Octopussy" I would say was not only one of Moore's best - "The Spy Who Loved Me" (1977) is another contender - but also the best Bond movie of the 1980s! It marked Moore's second to last appearance as Bond - "A View To A Kill" (1985) was his final movie and gave him the distinction of playing the character in more movies than any other actor - and I must admit Moore does show his age after playing the character for a decade, beginning with "To Live and Let Die" (1973).

But there's no way to deny "Octopussy" is a roller coaster of a movie. It exist merely as a device to hang a series of exciting action sequences on. Even former Chicago Tribune movie critic Gene Siskel - who was very critical of Moore - had to admit how action packed this movie was and gave it a "thumbs up" on his TV show with fellow critic Roger Ebert.

Today though that is one of the criticisms the "sheep" have. Too much action they say and not enough character development. While there were some back in 1983 that expressed that sentiment (Gene Siskel for one) it was largely understood one doesn't go see a James Bond action movie searching for character development. And we were fine with that as long as the movie had entertainment value - i.e. exciting action sequences, memorable gadgets, fast cars, pretty women and good villains. Today's audiences - thanks to the disappointing Daniel Craig movies - are under the delusion these movies need to pierce into Bond's soul and help us understand what makes him tick. Modern day societal "morals" and politics have contributed to this as well. Bond was too chauvinistic in their view. The character's origins needed to be explained. How did he become this way? It wasn't the first time however the Bond movies tried to appease "modern day sensibilities". When the "sensitive male" was in fashion, so too did they try to make Bond more sensitive. He even cried in one movie - "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969).

With the Cold War seeming to begin to thaw - it would be four more years until President Reagan would declared "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!" - "Octopussy" kind of, sort of reflects this shift. In one scene the Soviets are discussing mutual disarmament talks with NATO as the head of the KGB (Walter Gotell) agrees the adoption of such a proposal does not compromise Soviet defense positions. When one of the movie's villains, a Soviet general, General Orlov (Steven Berkoff) tries to challenge this, his position is immediately shot down by the Chairmen (Paul Hardwick). The General believes his tank divisions situated along the border outnumber those of the Americans and West Germany. One unexpected attack would provide them, in his words, "total victory". A decade earlier, this would be enough for a Bond plot. The General's idea would be embraced.

In "Octopussy" however, this plot line is clumsily combined with another involving a MacGuffin concerning a Faberge egg and its possible sale on the black market. This leads Bond to travel to India where he confronts an Afghan prince, Kamal Khan (Louis Jourdan) and a jewel smuggler known as Octopussy (Maud Adams).

I can't pretend to fully understand all of the connections being drawn between these two storylines but I figured out enough to the point I sort of understood the relationship between all of the characters and understood who Bond must stop by the end of the movie. And that's all any viewer really needs to know. The action sequences are more than enough to serve as exciting and memorable distractions from any perceived weakness of the plot. I found myself caught in the suspense of the moment several times and I've watched this movie on a few occasions!

Despite whatever plot holes some viewers may say exist, I would still contend the screenplay by George MacDonald Fraser, Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson is effective if for no other reason than the wit of the dialogue and the effortless way the movie manages to incorporate humor into some of its action sequences. Credit for that should also be given to the movie's director, John Glen, an English filmmaker who was behind the previous Bond movie, "For Your Eyes Only" (1981) and the proceeding Bond movies with Timothy Dalton - "The Living Daylights" (1987) and "License to Kill" (1989).

Most would agree one of the elements that makes an effective Bond movie is having a good Bond villain. I really like Louis Jourdan's performance. He doesn't take things over the top. In Jourdan's hands Kamal Khan is a man we can tell enjoys the luxuries his life enables him to. He needn't yell and scream and tell Bond all of his future plans. He is soft spoken and deadly. Many younger viewers and "critics" dislike this character and the performance claiming the exact opposite of what I wrote. Can't you people agree with me about anything! Do you have to be so contrarian! No one can tell me Steven Berkoff gives a better performance than Jourdan. Berkoff's General Orlov is the kind of broadly played evil villain Bond is usually up against. The change of pace in the Khan character is a welcomed one.

The weakest link in the cast however may unfortunately be Maud Adams. Her character is one of the least effective and dare I say least sexy Bond girls. The name is kind of provocative recalling a character name like Pussy Galore from "Goldfinger" but that is probably the most interesting aspect of the character. Could it be at age 38 some delusional producer thought  Adams was too old to be sexy? There's no personality to the character. A physically more fitting Bond girl would have been the villain played by Kristina Wayborn.

Speaking of age, despite being around 56 at the release of the movie, Roger Moore gives the best performance in the movie and does everything the plot requires of him. It is sad at 56 some refer to Moore as" too old". As a man approaching 40 myself, I resent that! One day I hope to be 56 as well. What an ageist society we live in! I wouldn't say "Octopussy" gives us Moore's best performance as Bond but everything I love about his portrayal of the character is here. A certain adolescent quality mixed with sophistication and charm. As far as I'm concerned Moore did a splendid job balancing humor and action star. It was also perfectly believable he could get any woman he layed his eyes on.

Nineteen eighty-three marked the first and only time two James Bond movies were released in theaters. Besides "Octopussy" was the release of an "unofficial" Bond movie, "Never Say Never Again" (1983) which brought back Sean Connery to the role after a twelve year absence. In perhaps a sign of Moore's popularity and the public's acceptance of him as the character, "Octopussy" made more money at the box-office. Though both movies received positive reviews.

The movie also marked one of the few times the movie's title song didn't match the title of the movie. It is hard to come up with a rhyme for "Octopussy". Instead the title song was called "All Time High" and sung by Rita Coolidge. It is one of the better Bond songs played over the typical opening credits featuring silhouettes of naked women, James Bond and guns. I image today younger audiences would have an issue with this. 

"Octopussy" is one hell of a ride. A witty and exciting adventure featuring effective performances from Roger Moore and Louis Jourdan. It was one of Moore's best Bond movies and the best Bond movie of the 1980s. Forty years later the movie holds up very well and takes us back to a time when Bond was the way we loved Bond most.