Film Review: Bugsy

 "Bugsy"

**** (out ****)

Barry Levinson's "Bugsy" (1991) is part gangster movie, part bio-pic, and part Hollywood romance. Who would have ever thought such a thing when telling the story of one of the world's most famous gangsters, Bugsy Siegel?

"Bugsy" almost seems more interested in mythology than facts. That makes it difficult to believe anything is factual in James Toback's screenplay adaptation of Dean Jennings' book We Only Kill Each Other. But when a film is directed this expertly and is this finely acted, what difference does it make? "Bugsy" is one of the great unappreciated gems of the 1990s. Because of that I wanted to include it as part of this year's Was I Right? theme, my year long re-examination of previous top ten choices to determine if I was right to choose them. "Bugsy" was my pick as the best film of 1991.

When "Bugsy" was originally released much critical acclaim was being thrown Warren Beatty's way with the critical consensus being only Beatty could have played the role. Or as the great New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote it in her review, Beatty "found the role of his career in this sly, evasive schemer with the manipulative instincts of a born ladies' man." For his performance Beatty received his fourth - and so far final - Academy Award nomination as best actor.

What "Bugsy" also became known for was Beatty and co-star Annette Bening's romantic relationship off set, which has led to a (so far) 32 year marriage. However this may have been responsible for why the romance is the strongest element of the film. As a gangster film and a bio, it fails, not matching that "insider" feel we get from something like Scorsese's "GoodFellas" (1990). This also isn't a birth to grave story of the man either. "Bugsy" seems to primarily view itself as a love story. Look at the film's poster with the two characters embracing.

And that romance is key to accepting this movie. It's immaterial that Beatty's character is Bugsy Siegel. It could be John Doe and the integral parts of the story wouldn't change. With its art deco production design, the film plays like film noir where a woman, mixed with a man's jealousy, may lead to his downfall. "Bugsy" is about two damaged people finding each other and the not-so-positive effects they have on one another. In prophetic fashion the woman warns the man of the consequences their love may have.

The woman is Virginia Hill played by of course Bening. The two meet in Hollywood, a place Bugsy is instantly attracted to, as he visits an acting friend George (Joe Mantegna) - whom we can assume is based on George Raft - on the set of the movie "Manpower" (1941). She is a movie extra but she catches Bugsy's eye, despite the fact that he's a married man with two daughters, and she's dating an "associate".

Virginia possesses some of the same qualities as Bugsy. Both can be quite charming and at times demanding, with each commanding respect. She may not be like the other women he has known. She certainly is much different than his wife Esta (Wendy Phillips). Is that what makes Virginia so alluring to Bugsy? Does he love a challenge?

In typical noir style Virginia is a woman Bugsy can't control. She can see through his suave demeanor and has no problem walking away from him. This leads to Bugsy's jealousy and perhaps inevitable demise. He can never tell what she is thinking. Does she love him? Is she using him? Can he trust her? Whenever he receives contradictory information about Virginia he chooses to pretend like he doesn't believe it, only to confront her in private. Because more than anything else Bugsy doesn't want to be made a fool of in front of people. These moments nearly rise the material to the level of a psychological thriller. 

In Warren Beatty's hands, Bugsy is a street smart guy that seems to have all of the angles figured out. He exudes charm and confidence and yet there are moments when Bugsy shows vulnerability when he is in private. The vulnerability usually revolves around his feelings for Virginia and Esta. Virginia demands Bugsy divorce his wife if they are going to be together. He says he will and yet I suspected a reluctance on his part. He seems to revere his wife but I thought felt pressure to leave her in order to prove his love to Virginia. And while Bugsy may love Virginia, he also loves himself. He's a dreamer. He doesn't just dream of building a city in a desert, he also sees himself as a movie star and as a man that could possibly assassinate Mussolini.

Toback's screenplay draws a lot of parallels between Hollywood and Bugsy's aspirations of fame and his life as a gangster. Not only is Virginia a wannabe starlet but Bugsy even gets a chance at a screen test, which he watches in his home on a projection screen. And notice how director Levinson shoots Bugsy and Virginia's first kiss, where the viewer only sees their shadows behind the screen. It creates the illusion they are being projected onto a movie screen.

A lot of their romance however doesn't have the glitz and glamour of a Hollywood story. Take for example a scene I once believed was out of place in the film but watching it again I focused on Virginia's reaction and positioning in the sequence. The scene is meant to represent a power struggle. Bugsy has discovered Jack (Richard Sarafian) has been stealing money. In order to exert his dominance over Jack, Bugsy makes the man grovel, barking like a dog. This "conversation" can be heard by Virginia in another room. While it looks as if fear has taken over her face, after Jack leaves, Virginia and Bugsy begin to have dinner. Bugsy acts as if nothing unusual has happened. Virginia begins to kiss him. Is she attracted to his power? Or is she fearful of it? With Beatty in the role this dynamic between the two characters makes us naturally think of "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) where robbing banks served as a kind of foreplay.

Soon Bugsy's obsessions grow beyond Virginia as he juggles his attention between her and building a hotel in the desert, The Flamingo, supposedly named after a nickname for Virginia's legs. But Bugsy has a difficult time trying to convince others to share in his dream. Men like Meyer Lansky (Ben Kingsley) and "Lucky" Luciano (Bill Graham) are more interested in the cost of the project. Here is where Bugsy and Virginia's relationship will be tested as well as the limits of Bugsy's charm. Bugsy and Lansky were childhood friends but Lansky can only do so much to protect Bugsy. This relationship is meant to mirror one between Bugsy and Harry Greenberg (Elliott Gould) ending in similar ways.

During the Flamingo scenes we see the power balance between Bugsy and Virginia begin to tilt. Virginia ends up taking a more active role in the building of the hotel, morphing herself into Bugsy, imitating his speech. Just like Bugsy previously imitated being a movie star. Bugsy puts Virginia in charge of finances for the hotel, a move those closest to him question. Is it a test or a true act of faith? 

In the end unfortunately it doesn't matter. Bugsy Siegel was murdered - in a case that still remains unsolved - before Siegel's vision for the Flamingo became a success and Las Vegas became the city he imagined it could be. In critic Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review he describes Bugsy as "if he were not a gangster might have been honored on a postage stamp by now, as the Father of Las Vegas." It all suggest amazing potential and unfulfilled dreams.

Director Barry Levinson, who was coming off great acclaim for films such as the best picture Oscar winner "Rain Man" (1988) and "Avalon" (1990), treats this material as if it is his version of The Great Gatsby. In its own way "Bugsy" is the story of the American Dream. Like "Avalon", Levinson is also able to make Jewishness a fixture within this story. As has been mentioned by several critics, unlike most other mob stories the characters here are primarily Jewish - Lansky, Greenberg, and Mickey Cohen (Harvey Keitel) - and not Italians.

That may be Levinson's most significant personal imprint on the film. I haven't spent much time discussing his work over the last 16 years of this blog but Levinson is a talented filmmaker - twice nominated for a Best Director Oscar - that has sadly been ignored by the Hollywood system for some time now. Some of his last couple of films were made for TV - "The Wizard of Lies" (2017), "Paterno" (2018), and "You Don't Know Jack" (2010), which made my runner's up list as one of the best films of the year. Unfortunately, a couple of critical and financial misses - "Toys" (1992), "Sphere" (1998), "Envy" (2004), and "Man of the Year" (2006) - have made "Bugsy" perhaps the last truly meaningful film he was behind.

To answer my own question of was I right to place this on my list as one of the best films of 1991, I'd say yes. "Bugsy" holds up after multiple viewings and I believe is one of those films you pick up on something new each time you watch it. Should I have positioned it in the number one spot? Too many years have passed for me to fully remember the quality of all the films released that year to reasonably say.

Still it is hard to believe the film has dropped out of the public's conscious. Here is a film that received 10 Academy Award nominations, more than any other film that year. It was nominated for eight Golden Globes, winning best picture. It received "two thumbs up" from Siskel & Ebert. And yet it takes a backseat to "Silence of the Lambs" (1991) which went on to win the top major categories at the Academy Awards that year. To me "Bugsy" is a far superior film. As the cliché goes, this is the kind of movie they make Oscars for. I suppose like the Bugsy in this film, the movie didn't live up to its potential success. Of all those Oscar nominations, it walked away with two wins - Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction-Set Decoration. It only won one of its eight Globe nominations and never became the box-office hit some hoped it would have been.

Could it be because it isn't recognized by movie fans as a true gangster movie? In the 1990s alone you had titles like "GoodFellas", "A Bronx Tale" (1993), "Casino" (1995), "Carlito's Way" (1993) and "Donnie Brasco" (1997) to name a few. Those movies seem better remembered. They still play on TV. Doing a quick on-line search you can't find "Bugsy" on Blu-ray and the original theatrical version on DVD - which is what I own - seems to have fallen out of print. Only used copies are available. There is an Extended Cut which is easily available however.

There is probably an element of truth to that. "Bugsy" may not be the best screen version on the life of Bugsy Siegel. It's not steep in Mafia lore. This is a character study of a man in constant conflict within himself and his public image. Violence and glamour. Virginia and Esta. Movie stars and the Mob. This is most likely what attracted Warren Beatty to the project in the first place. The character seen here, whether it is the real Bugsy or not, is a rich, fascinating character because of these conflicts. There is a lot for an actor to grab hold of.

"Bugsy" is a strong film filled with terrific performances. The chemistry between Bening and Beatty is practically palpable. It is a career highlight for Beatty in particular and Barry Levinson may not have directed a better film since this. "Bugsy" truly is one of the best films of 1991 and was deserving to be on my list as one of the best films of the 1990s. 

Film Review: Supergirl - 40th Anniversary

"Supergirl"

** (out of ****)

She's a (super) girl in a man's world in "Supergirl" (1984), celebrating its 40th anniversary. 

The superhero genre wasn't what it is today back in 1984. There wasn't a multi-billion dollar enterprise consisting of a "Marvel Universe" or a "DC Universe". There were of course big screen adaptions of comic book superheroes going back to the movie serials of the 1940s and 1950s. Which is how characters like the Green Hornet, Batman, and Superman made their screen debuts. By the 1980s the most popular superhero movies were the "Superman" movies starring Christopher Reeves in the title role. The overwhelming majority of characters in this genre were male, with the exception of the television show "Wonder Woman" in the 1970s. Was there more room to add a little estrogen in this male dominated universe?

That had to be some of the thinking and appeal of creating a female led superhero movie. So after three "Superman" movies, now was the time to introduce the world to his cousin, Kara Zor-El - AKA Supergirl. The timing seemed to be right in 1984. "Girl Power" was having a moment. Forty years ago it was also an election year and for the first time ever a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, was going to be on a "major party" ticket. Within this political environment movies like "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle" (1984) and "Supergirl" - the first two female superhero movies - made sense.

Unfortunately, "Supergirl" wasn't the triumph some may have expected it to be. After failing at the box-office, the movie garnered a reputation as one of the worst movies ever made, let alone one of the worst superhero movies made. Is that fair though? I'm not really the person to answer such a question since I'm of the opinion practically all of these movies are inferior. But what makes "Supergirl" stand out? I had more or less an equally bad time watching any number of other superhero movies such as "X-Men" (1999), "Daredevil" (2003), and "Hulk" (2003).

As I began watching "Supergirl" it felt as if the producers and director wanted to do everything they could to invoke the memory of the "Superman" movies from the musical score and overall look of the movie, to name dropping character names like Clark Kent and Superman, Lois Lane, and Jimmy Olsen. Perhaps to tease us that they might make an appearance. We are given an early tip off though that Superman won't appear because we hear on a radio news report that he is in another galaxy on a peacekeeping mission. What this does however is create a kind of Earth 2.0 where we don't have Superman but we have Supergirl. We don't have Lois Lane but we have her kid sister, Lucy (Maureen Teefy). And somehow Jimmy Olsen (Marc McClure) is in both worlds. He has a crush on Lucy.

The movie begins in Argo city, which we learn has been created by Zaltar (Peter O' Toole) he is something of an artist and likes to create things that can be found on Earth, like trees and horses. Although from what we can gather from the movie's dialogue, he has never visited Earth. Nevertheless young Kara (Helen Slater) is fascinated by Zaltar's words and creations. He tells her he will be leaving the city and their planet soon. Perhaps he will go to Earth or Saturn or even Venus. He says he wants to know what is beyond the walls of Argo, which this movie makes look like a 1960s hippie commune. For some reason I didn't believe him. The way O'Toole plays the character I kept thinking he is hiding something. He is almost like a con-man whose fraud as been found out and now the authorities are after him. What we do know however is that he has stolen the omegahedron, a power source for the city. With it, it can give the illusion of creating life.

After Kara creates a dragon fly like creature that cracks their dome-like bubble it allows the omegahedron to escape. Understanding the dire consequences - the city can only last a few days without it - Zaltar plans to go after it, Kara however beats him to the punch, making her way towards Earth.

This origin story shares some similarity with Superman's story. Kara's city may be destroyed, like Superman's planet was, and she is separated from her family. She is a teenager however whereas Superman was a baby. But her story doesn't feel as sacrificial as Superman's. She isn't a "gift" to Earth. 

The movie does try to make much of her age and to me this minimizes the story a bit and speaks to society's view and expectations of women. "Supergirl" isn't just a superhero movie, it also wants to be a coming of age story. Written on the back of the DVD I own it states "Adventure. Danger. A first kiss. What's a Supergirl to do?" Is this how they thought they would get young girls to see the movie? Male superheroes fight to save the world while Supergirl gets feelings from having her first kiss. There is actually a scene where she tries to recreate the moment by kissing her reflection in a mirror!

Kara keeps her identity a secret going by the name Linda Lee. Why she couldn't call herself Kara Lee is another story. She will be disguised as a prep-school student and share a dorm room with Lucy. What a coincidence! She will behave like any other teenager and student by going to her math class and playing sports. While at the same time trying to find the omegahedron.

The omegahedron has fallen into the hands of Selena (Faye Dunaway) a wanna-be witch and her roommate Bianca (Brenda Vaccaro, an Oscar nominated actress who more importantly was Gilbert Gottfried's last guest on his podcast before his death). They have been studying under Nigel (Peter Cook) who claims to know much about black magic. After finding the omegahedron however Selena immediately realizes the potential of its power and decides she doesn't need Nigel any longer. Selena, like any super-villain has her sights set on world domination. How exactly she plans on doing this is not revealed.  

While I do believe Faye Dunaway is a wonderful actress, her part in the plot is one of the aspects that hurts the movie most. Her scenes are played for cheap laughs and come across as camp. The first time we see Bianca she complains to Selena about the high cost of their water bill. How will they pay their utilities living in an abandon amusement park, in what looks like a haunted fun-house ride. Bianca and Selena's banter is reminiscent of 1930s depression era comedy a la Thelma Todd and Patsy Kelly. This shouldn't be in a superhero movie! This leads her to be an unimpressive villain for a superhero. She doesn't pose a real threat. There's no suspense Supergirl won't be able to stop her.

On the other hand Helen Slater's approach is the opposite of Dunaway. Where Dunaway is worldly, Slater's Supergirl is young and naive. She has the innocence of a child. Which would make sense since she is from another planet. She would have a wide-eye fascination for all things around her. And where Dunaway's performance can be campy, Slater doesn't wink at the audience. She plays the material as straight as she could.

Since this is a female superhero movie it is interesting everything is supposed to be female centered and the males are the secondary characters. However the movie diminishes this by having Selena and Supergirl fight over a boy. Selena creates a love potion that will make Ethan (Hart Bochner) fall in love with the first person he sees. After he drinks the potion, Ethan escapes the fun-house and lays his eyes upon Supergirl, as she is dressed as Linda Lee, and falls in love with her. She is unaware of the potion but turns into the school girl that she is and becomes flattered by his expressions of love. At one moment when she is about to fight Selena, Ethan appears with flowers and candy and wouldn't you know it, it distracts her as she becomes giddy over the flowers. This transforms the story into a high school comedy with the mean girl (Selena) fighting with the nerd (Supergirl) over the captain of the football team (Ethan). The story of world domination takes a back seat.

And that's what ultimately is wrong with "Supergirl". It sees its characters as stereotype girls instead of superheroes and villains. This could be because it was written by a man, David Odell. It also explains a level of sexuality in this material. Notice how short Supergirl's skirt is. And how do you explain an uncomfortable scene between Supergirl and two male truckers who make a very aggressive pass at her. At one point she asks one of the men why are you doing this, to which he replies it's just the way we are. What message does this send?

Whatever the message it sends, it isn't one that impowers women and creates a sense of "Girl Power". Yes, it is somewhat cute in its role reversal with the female as the superhero and the male as the damsel in distress but it uses that for laughs not equality. Even putting aside a social message on gender the movie still doesn't believe enough in its story to tell it seriously. In movie critic Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times  review he made a similar point writing "it trivializes itself with an almost suicidal glee." He goes on to end his review stating, "We do not go to "Superman" and "Supergirl" movies to laugh condescendingly at the characters. We go to recapture some of the lost innocence of the whole notion of superheroes."

"Supergirl" was made in a different era when comic book movies weren't perceived to be great art but instead escapist popcorn entertainment. I'm fine with taking that approach with this material and I could have enjoyed "Supergirl" as a light and exciting action movie but it becomes a bit boring and goes on way too long. The version I own is the "European" one which runs a little over two hours. The original U.S. theatrical version was one hour forty-five minutes. This story can't sustain a two hour running time.

Directed by Jeannot Szwarc it's easy to see how "Supergirl" created the path for other female superhero movies that have followed over the past 40 years such as "Catwoman" (2004), "Elektra" (2005), "Wonder Woman" (2017) and "Captain Marvel" (2019). The "Supergirl" origins have been introduced to a new generation thanks to the television show which aired from 2015 - 2021. It's conceivable there are more people that are familiar with the modern version of "Supergirl" than from this 1984 movie.

While the overall reputation of "Supergirl" is negative, there were those that did offer lukewarm praise. In Janet Maslin's New York Times review she accurately points out "Supergirl" "is more or less up to the series standards." The "series" being the previous three "Superman" movies and she continues to muse, "If "Superman" fans liked all these things the first three times around, why shouldn't they like them now?" And even though Ebert didn't like the movie, he did like Slater writing of her she "has the kind of freshness, good health, high spirits, and pluck that would be just right for the character."

A part of me understands how "Supergirl" could have worked. It could have been comparable to the superhero movie serials of the past with a child like innocence, a level of camp, amateur acting, cheap special effects, and a stoic hero which could be interpreted as "wooden acting". Lets face it, that's exactly what movie serials like "Buck Rogers" (1939) and "Flash Gordon" (1936) were. But then you have to commit yourself to that. "Supergirl" walks a line between campy and big Hollywood production. The combination of the two doesn't work for me although I do prefer this movie over the 1980 adaptation of "Flash Gordon", which for some reason lives on as a cult classic, and does blend campy with Hollywood production.   

Could it simply be a case of men not knowing how to properly create a female superhero? Was the movie ahead of its time? It seems a lot of things fell apart in the early production stage after Christopher Reeves decided not to participate in the movie. That hurt the movie's chances of capturing a bigger audience and setting up "Supergirl" as a legitimate and worthy successor to "Superman". However I wonder if "Supergirl" was released today, and not a single frame of it was change, if it would gross more than the $14 million it did in 1984. I think it would. Even the lackluster "The Marvels" (2023), which featured a trio of female superheroes, grossed more than $200 million despite being universally panned and leading some to wonder if the genre as a whole was doomed.

Not being a fan of superhero movies, I sincerely don't see what makes this worst than any other superhero movie. I do however see how Hollywood learned from "Supergirl" and its failure. Hollywood treats the new female heroes as more than novelties. Modern female superheroes fight just as aggressively as the male ones. They have widened the scope of these movies. "Supergirl" feels small. The existence of Earth isn't on the line. A lot of characters don't interact with "Supergirl". She doesn't become a hero on the same level with "Superman" in the movie's world. Today that isn't the case. It is still interesting to watch "Supergirl" all these years later as a curiosity piece even though it doesn't work.

Film Review: Blazing Saddles - 50th Anniversary

 "Blazing Saddles"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

Mel Brooks' lampoon of the American western, "Blazing Saddles" (1974) is probably best remembered as an outrageous, vulgar, low-brow, controversial comedy. Perhaps to some it is even the epitome of bad taste and insensitivity. And yet somehow  I find it to be almost innocent by today's movie standards. That says a lot about how  American comedy has changed since the release of Brooks' classic, fifty years ago.

Despite however "Blazing Saddles" influenced the future its comedy is very much rooted in the past, following in the anarchist tradition of the Ritz Brothers, Olsen & Johnson, and the Marx Brothers. The movie is a blizzard of puns, sexual innuendos, wise-cracks, visual gags, and political satire. It's approach to comedy is reminiscent of silent film comedy producer Mack Sennett and his Keystone Kops with its go for broke style. Luckily in Mel Brooks' autobiography, All About Me! - My Remarkable Life in Show Business he bears me out - "there was never a subject I thought was off-limits or untouchable. If we thought of something, if it even entered our minds, no matter how bizarre or how crazy or dirty or wild or savage or not socially acceptable...we would still do it." Of course the difference between the older comedies and Brooks' was its usage - no make that heavy usage - of four letter words and the "N" word.

"Blazing Saddles" was Brooks' third film as a director, coming after "The Producers" (1968) and "The Twelve Chairs" (1970). "The Producers" was an original concept created by Brooks based on a television producer he worked with in the 1950s, while writing for comedian Sid Caesar. "The Twelve Chairs" was based on a Russian novel of the same title written by Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov which Brooks adapted by himself. But "Blazing Saddles" would be different. Brooks wasn't involved with "Saddles" initial development, which was a script written by Andrew Bergman called Tex X. Brooks was asked to read the script as a potential director for the project. Believing the material showed great promise, Brooks wanted to rework the script with Bergman's input and bring on three additional writers, Norman Steinberg, Alan Uger, and stand-up comedian Richard Pryor.

The very first scene in "Blazing Saddles" immediately sets the tone for the rest of the movie and establishes where the humor will stem from and how it will deal with race and racism. The railroad workers - comprised of minorities - are laying track in the hot sun. The white cowboys ride in to supervise their progress and start to needle the black characters. How 'bout singing a good ol' n#gger work song one of them declares. From there the black characters respond by singing a few lyrics of Cole Porter's I Get A Kick Out of You. Completely dismayed, the white characters demonstrate the kind of song they were hoping to hear and start singing the Camptown Races.

Within this scene we see a large part of the movie's humor will be anachronistic, juxtaposing the old west against "modern" times. Porter's tune wasn't exactly modern to 1970s audiences, being written in 1934, the movie will however use more modern day slang and fashion. This technique harkens back to Bob Hope comedies such as "Monsieur Beaucaire" (1946) and "Alias Jesse James" (1959), itself a comedy / western as well. The way the movie will find humor in its racial dynamic between the characters will be by flipping stereotypes with the black characters consistently outsmarting the dim-witted white characters.

This first scene also introduces us to the central motivating plot, the presence of quicksand is going to change plans for construction of the railroad. It is now going to have to travel through the town of Rock Ridge. The Attorney General, Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman) sees a huge financial opportunity. The land will become very valuable with the incoming train. If Lamarr could get the land cheap, it would bring in quite a profit. One way to make this happen would be to drive the townspeople out.

What Lamarr ultimately settles on doing is have Governor William J. Lepetomane (Brooks) appoint the first ever black sheriff to the town of Rock Ridge, after Lamarr's henchmen tried to scare the people away by brute force. Once the people see they have a black sheriff they will leave the town in protest. In order to get the governor to sign on, Lamarr has to stroke his ego with whispers of greatness instore. The governor will go down in history for this action. It may even lead him to one day become President.

Already in Brooks' tale we see a story of racism, greed, and government corruption. In "Blazing Saddles" this just isn't a story of the old west but of  America too. Brooks has taken the most  American of genres, the western - with its themes of individualism and freedom - and uses it as a commentary on modern day society race relations. Remember it had been less than 10 years that both the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) were passed. In Brooks' autobiography he addresses this by writing, "If you want a comedy to last, there's a secret you must follow: You have to have an engine driving it. In Blazing Saddles, there's a very serious backstory. Racial prejudice is the engine that really drives the film and helps to make it work."

This however makes it sound as if "Blazing Saddles" has a serious streak to it. It doesn't! This is the same movie where a guy punches a horse - supposedly inspired by a real life incident involving Sid Caesar. Where an entire town has the same last name, Johnson. Where two men beat up a little old lady. Where a group of cowboys sit by a campfire eating beans and, well lets just say, let it rip. And where Count Basie and his orchestra play April in Paris in the middle of the desert. In his Chicago Sun-Times review Roger Ebert described the movie as, "a crazed grabbag of a movie that does everything to keep us laughing except hit us over the head with a rubber chicken." 

The rest of the plot in "Blazing Saddles" involves a drunkard named the Wacko Kid (Gene Wilder). He had the fastest hands in the west until one day a kid caught him off guard and shot him in the ass! He's hidden in a whiskey bottle ever since. Being a social outcast he becomes friends with the sheriff, named Bart (Cleavon Little) serving as an unofficial deputy. Together the two try to thwart further plans by Lamarr to vacate the town. One challenge involves stopping a murderous menace named Mongo (Alex Karras). With a little looney tunes ingenuity, they are able to. Another of Lamarr's plans involves trying to seduce the sheriff with a Marlene Dietrich temptress named Lilly Von Shtupp (Madeline Kahn). In addition to the Dietrich reference the joke is the last name, which if spelled with one "p", is the slang word for sex.

Of course the Dietrich reference brings us to one of Brooks' specialties, parody. Brooks doesn't just go after obvious western movie clichés, he takes aim at everything. Lilly Von Shtupp is a direct shot at one of Dietrich's most iconic characters, Lola Lola from Josef von Sternberg's classic German film, "The Blue Angel" (1930). But Brooks doesn't just stop at a visual reference, he goes even further. In an attempt to obliterate one of that film's most iconic moments - Dietrich singing  Falling in Love Again - Brooks wrote a song for the Von Shtupp character to sing, a song called  I'm Tired. All I can tell you is, I've never looked at Dietrich the same way since. 

And Brooks and his gang of writers throw out all sorts of references to western actors like Richard Dix, Randolph Scott, and Gabby Hayes to mention of Laurel & Hardy and Olsen & Johnson. "Blazing Saddles" invokes "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" (1948) - "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" Naturally the risk Brooks runs with all of this is, who is going to catch it? I'm the youngest person alive at 41 who knows this stuff. Brooks feels he has the answer when he wrote in his book, "Making a satiric comedy serves two audiences equally and simultaneously: the audience that gets every film reference and all of the subtext, and the other audience that has never seen or heard of any related film." He goes on to state "I try to lace my movies with cultural references, but I've always been careful that they're not weighed down by anything too arcane or inaccessible." It sounds good in theory but I wonder, given the lack of interest Gen Z shows in film history, will there come a time when what is in "Blazing Saddles" will be lost on an audience? I've left a lot out, barely scraping the surface.

For all the insanity shown on-screen in the movie most of the actors try to play this material straight. After recently watching the movie again, I believer no one plays it straighter than Gene Wilder. He may very well deliver the movie's best performance. He's required to say and do a lot of craziness but his face never lets on he is in on the joke. I can't quite say the same about Cleavon Little. He seems to be winking at the audience at times. With a comedy as outlandish as this, it doesn't hurt the movie but you see a contrast in style between Wilder and Little. The second best performance, in its commitment to madness is probably Kahn. She has a harder role than Wilder and Little because it is such a caricature. She could easily walk a fine line and fall on either side. I see Kahn playing the character as straight as she possibly could. Watch her I'm Tired performance. That could have been very broad.

By the time "Blazing Saddles" ends, it escalates into something I've never seen before, a complete and utter destruction of the fourth wall. I've seen comedies poke fun at being self-referential but not at this scale. Oliver Hardy and Edward Kennedy would give a slow burn in front of the camera. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby would talk to the audience sometimes. In Olsen & Johnson's "Hellzapoppin'" (1941) a projectionist (played by Shemp Howard) messes up a reel of the movie but in "Blazing Saddles" they expose they are on the Warner Brothers studio lot! There's a chase scene via car! Characters go into a movie theater and watch "Blazing Saddles"! There is even a great pie fight in the studio's commissary. 

Fifty years after the release of "Blazing Saddles" it's easy to see how the movie and Mel Brooks influenced the comedy landscape. Some would say Brooks contributed to the popularity of the movie parody genre with everyone's favorite example, "Airplane!" (1980). And there are those that may say movies like "Blazing Saddles" raised the ante, making it responsible for the eventual gross out bathroom humor of today.

But Brooks' movie is smarter than any gross out comedy made today. Despite all the controversy that has followed the movie - even back in 1974 - "Blazing Saddles" has a lot of heart. Its humor feels playfully innocent and not malicious. It has the audacity to have ideas and find humor in life and not simply play it safe and tow a political line. It dares us to laugh at ourselves. It is bold in that way. It proves humor can be found in any subject, even one as ugly as racism.

Still the movie is not for everyone. In Vincent Canby's New York Times review he mused "one remembers along with the good gags the film's desperate, bone-crushing efforts to be funny. One remembers exhaustion, perhaps because you kept wanting it to be funnier." My best response to that would be a few years ago I attended a screening of "Blazing Saddles" at the Chicago Theater with Mel Brooks in attendance. The theater was packed and the roar of laughter could be heard throughout the theater. In more recent times there was the chatter about the movie needing a trigger warning on HBO Max. That's politics and not a reflection of everyday John and Jane Doe. That decision was made in reaction to activists that had created a hostile environment against the arts.

Movie year 1974 was the year of Mel Brooks. Not only did Brooks score his first mainstream success but Brooks directed two of the top three highest grossing movies of the year! His "Blazing Saddles" was the second highest grossing movie of the year and his "Young Frankenstein" (1974) was the third! "Blazing Saddles" scored three Academy Award nominations with the most prominent of those nominations being Kahn's for best supporting actress. One of the other nominations was for Brooks in the best song category for the movie's title song, which is sung over the credits by Frankie Laine.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "Blazing Saddles" is my favorite Brooks comedy but it is one of the funniest American comedies of all-time. It has a daring, unabashed spirit peppered with several memorable gags and quips. It is fast moving and unrelenting. If I were a movie critic back in 1974, it would have made my list as one of the best movies of the year!

Film Review: Prince of the City

"Prince of the City"

**** (out of ****) 

At nearly three hours long Sidney Lumet's "Prince of the City" (1981) is an absorbing, complex moral examination of a man seeking to redeem his soul not through religious conviction but by trying to live up to his own moral code of conduct.

The fact that the subject matter of the film is a New York police officer, Danny Ciello (Treat Williams) leads some to not only compare it to one of  Lumet's previous films, "Serpico" (1973) but also strictly view it as a film about police corruption. On the surface, yes, that's what "Prince of the City" is about but that's not the most compelling aspect of the film. What is most compelling about the film is to witness the disintegration of a man. Never have I seen a film present and take the the viewer down such a labyrinthine path of morality.  

"Prince of the City" centers on an investigation involving corrupt undercover narcotics cops and the police officer that exposed everything. However it isn't such a simple black and white case. Danny won't rat on his partners. That's not to say his partners are innocent but the moral code for cops is your partners are the only people you can rely on. They are the people that have your back in life and death situations. You have earned each others trust. And yet is it Danny that volunteers to come forward and become an informant. He is driven by a sense a duty. No one joins the force to become corrupt he says. 

That search for justice is what makes "Prince of the City" such a uniquely Sidney Lumet film. Lumet spent a career - he died at age 86 in 2011 - creating films revolving around the theme of justice - "12 Angry Men" (1957), "Serpico", and "The Verdict" (1982) among others. But those same films were also about moral responsibility, making Danny the stereotypical Lumet hero. Pauline Kael, the "movie critic" for the New Yorker once, ignorantly, characterized this aspect of Lumet's work as "the chronicles of agonized morality".

Despite its subject matter I could argue that Lumet's film has more in common with not "Serpico" but Martin Scorsese's much later film, "GoodFellas" (1990). First both films are based on real men. Both films are about loyalty. They are about "mad men". For Scorsese they are called "goodfellas", for Lumet they are referred to as "princes of the city". Both men fall from the grace of those around them and both men are consumed by moments of paranoia. The difference is where Henry Hill strikes a plea deal for his cooperation, we never really hear such terms defined for Danny. In one scene, after two years of of undercover work, some of the same men Danny worked with plead their case to a judge for why charges should be brought forth against him. Danny may have aided them but he also broke the law. What difference does his motivation make. The law is the law. 

This sets up the most interesting dilemma for Danny. The men he is working against treat him like family. In many dicey situations Danny finds himself in, they are there to save him. While the "good guys" who he is cooperating with often fail him over and over again. In one suspenseful scene his back up doesn't know their way around the streets of New York and nearly lose him in a moment when his life is in danger. And he's helping these people? They don't treat him as one of their own. He will never be one of them.

So why does Danny ultimately do what he does? Lumet and "Prince of the City" present a dichotomy within Danny. On one hand he is a good cop and yet he is not above bending and working around the law to get answers and keep his sources happy. When a heroine drug addict calls Danny late at night because he is 'sick', Danny races to come to his street informant's rescue to score him his fix . But since it is against the law to buy drugs from a dealer, Danny just pins down another addict walking out of a drug house and hands the informant what he finds. Danny however feels bad about the shake down and drives the addict, whom he also knows, home.

And this is why Danny is initially upset and insulted by the investigation into cops. Danny gives a rousing and damning speech complaining how it is easier to go after the cops but what about the lawyers and judges and D.A. that take their bribes? They all sit in judgement of the police officers but the entire system, from top to bottom is corrupt and broken. People don't understand the officer's position and what it takes to get the job done. This may make the material sound rather right wing in its view, a la Dirty Harry. In Lumet's hands he finds the moral complexity and doesn't make harsh judgements. Never at any moment did I feel Danny and his partners were bad men. Of course it helps that Lumet never really shows us the cops breaking the law.

One of the best things Lumet's film does is show us how these officers - Gus (Jerry Orbach), Joe (Richard Foronjy), Bill (Don Billett), and Gino (Ccarmine Caridi) are like family. They spend time together when off duty. Their wives know each and are friendly. When Danny's own wife, Carla (Lindsay Crouse) hears about Danny's intentions, she can't believe it. He is going against his friends.

Given the film's running time it takes on the scope of something important, going to great detail to paint a portrait of these men and the seedy characters they encounter. In Janet Maslin's New York Times review she described it this way, "Mr. Lumet's film offers such a sharply detailed landscape, such a rich and crowded portrait , that his characters reveal themselves fully by the ways they move, eat, speak, listen, and lie."

With this type of film whether it will either succeed or fail falls on the acting and Treat Williams performance in "Prince of the City" may have been the best of his career. The role calls for Williams to display power, sensitivity, fear, paranoia, the entire array of emotions and at every turn William's delivers. He fleshes this character out, making his moral dilemma relatable. How could he have been ignored for an Academy Award nomination? And the fact Lumet was ignored as well for his directing and the film for best picture is a slap in the face. I suppose as amends the Academy would shower Lumet's next picture, "The Verdict" with multiple nominations.

As relatable as Danny's dilemma is, Lumet also wants to challenge the audience, leaving us in suspended disbelief. Is Danny telling the truth and nothing but the truth? He confesses to taking bribes three times in his 11 year career dealing with drugs. But, given his loyalty to his partners is he omitting anything? When this case is called to trial, if Danny is found committing perjury, the book will be thrown at him. William's performance is able to walk a fine line where we can't tell if he is having a breakdown from the stress or if he is a man whose lies are catching up to him. Does Danny even recognize the truth anymore?

In one of the few moments of seriousness on Gilbert Gottfried's podcast - I miss not being able to listen to new episodes - Treat Williams was a guest and said the way Lumet explained the character to him was, "once you turn, you can't turn back". And that is what is at the heart of William's performance, a loss of control. He vows to himself he won't rat on his friends but events escalate beyond anything Danny could have imagined, contributing to how "movie critic" for the Chicago Reader, Jonathan Rosenbaum described the film as "this film swims freely in moral ambiguities".

The blurry lines between right and wrong is actually what Chicago Tribune movie critic Gene Siskel thought hurt the movie at the box-office, suggesting audiences prefer to see movies with clearly defined "good guys" and "bad guys". Of course that blurriness is one of the most interesting aspects of the film. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review he summed up Danny's situation as  "a film about how difficult it is to go straight in a crooked world without hurting people you love." 

Ebert's line becomes something that Danny will continuously have to struggle with as it becomes apparent in the film's final scene. The line will be drawn with police officers on both sides judging if what Danny did was fair or not. Did he break the code of silence among cops? Or did he expose an injustice?

Some will find the film's story relevant in today's world. Police culture has and hasn't changed compared to when this film takes place. There is still a code of silence among officers but there has been a slow thaw beginning with some officers willing to testify against others. We have even had criminal convictions set against some. But if "Prince of the City" tells us anything it is that corruption is cyclical.

If you follow my blog - I know you just hang on my every word - you'll recall last year, during "the year of me" - last year's theme celebrating my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog - I reviewed Lumet's "Daniel" (1983) for its 40th anniversary. I shocked myself when I realized in the past 15 years I had never reviewed a Lumet film previously, despite the fact I believe he was a truly gifted filmmaker. I made a vow to discuss his films more often. I had several choices to choose from but "Prince of the City" was the one I was most eager to dive into. I feel thematically it is typical of Lumet's output and I wanted to help shine a light on it.

More importantly this year marked Sidney Lumet's centennial birthday. In Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center there was a retrospective program dedicated to him as a celebration. This also attributed to Lumet and his films being on my mind. I worry today Lumet may be a forgotten figure. I don't often hear people talk about him and his films anymore and I don't come across them playing on television. If I do it is thanks to Turner Classic Movies showing something like "Network" (1976). And I didn't come across any articles written about Lumet's impact this year in honor of his birthday.

Lumet was a very important filmmaker. Although he wasn't part of the "New Hollywood" - like Robert Altman his career dates back to the 1950s - some of his best known films may have been made in the 1970s  - "Network", "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975), "Murder on the Orient Express" (1974) and "Serpico". Unlike so many other distinguished directors, his output in the 1980s had several high spots, proving he was just as creative and productive in the decade with the release of films such as "Prince of the City", "The Verdict", "Daniel", and "Running on Empty" (1988). Though some of these films weren't as influential as those from the prior decade. He remained active in the 90s and got to end his career on a high note with his final film, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (2007), one of his best.

As I say "Prince of the City" has been neglected by the public and was a failure at the box-office. It did receive good reviews from Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. Siskel declared it as one of the best films of 1981 and Ebert awarded it four stars. The legendary critic Andrew Sarris also named it one of the best films of 1981 as well. It also earned one Academy Award nomination for screenwriters Jay Presson Allen and Lumet in the adapted screenplay category. As well as earning three Golden Globe nominations - best picture (in a drama), Lumet for his directing and finally one for Williams' performance.

"Prince of the City" is one of Sidney Lumet's best films and one of the great films of the 1980s, featuring an excellent performance by Treat Williams with a supporting cast that gives the film a lot of color. This is a thought-provoking film exposing the sinner and saint in all of us and comes to no easy conclusions.

Film Review: To Live - 30th Anniversary

 "To  Live"

**** (out of ****)

The last line in "To Live" (1994) is life will get better and better. The man making the statement has seemed to have lost all that was important in his life. The line isn't meant as sarcasm but to imply humans require hope. Without hope what is the point of going on?

The film was directed by Zhang Yimou, perhaps the most prominent of China's Fifth Generation filmmakers and a wonderful showcase of the kind of humanist films Yimou was making before shifting gears and finding commercial success as a martial arts filmmaker, behind such titles as "Hero" (2004) and "House of Flying Daggers" (2004).

As the film celebrates the 30th anniversary of its U.S. release, I also wanted to include it as part of my Was I Right?  series - a year long theme involving me looking back at films I have placed on various year-end top ten lists to determine if I was right to choose them. "To Live" was my choice for the best film of 1994.

"To Live", which was based on a novel Lifetimes by Hua Yu, is an epic telling of a country's history spanning nearing three decades, taking place from the 1940s to the 1970s. We focus on one particular family, experiencing the course of history through their eyes and witness the effects it has on their family. The plot device isn't new but in the talented hands on Zhang Yimou the story feels fresh and captivating. We care about this family and believe we have been given a complete view of their lives. So that by the time we hear the man say that last line it has a poignancy to it and we fear is a line that will be repeated as part of the continuous vicious cycle we call life. 

At the beginning of the film we follow Fugui (You Ge), a man described by his own father as a degenerate gambler. It is not an entirely incorrect assessment of Fugui as he has amassed such a significant debt playing dice that he has lost the family home, leaving himself, his parents, and wife and child homeless. The embarrassment of the situation combined with the sheer hatred the father feels towards his son, causes him to instantly have a heart attack. His wife, Jiazhen (Gong Li) who is also expecting their second child, sees no future with him if he doesn't stop gambling and leaves him with their daughter that same night. It is such an extreme series of circumstances that in the wrong hands the material could get unintended laughs. Yimou however is able to find the right tone and create a delicate balance telling a story where joy and sadness walk hand in hand.

Before you let your imagination get the best of you, Yimou's story isn't one of triumphant redemption concerning a man's struggle to win back his house and family. Although the couple is reunited after it becomes known Fungui has stopped gambling and drinking, the film has a more jaded and cynical worldview suggesting the only way to survive in this world is to go along to get along. 

That message caused quite a bit of controversy for Yimou in his homeland, where the government banned him and Gong Li - his than lover - from making films for two years. As the film was interpreted as being too critical of the Communist party and its policies.

At issue is the fact that Fugui is not shown to be a dedicated party man as he goes through such moments in history as the Chinese Civil War, the Great Leap Forward, and finally the Cultural Revolution. During the Civil War Fugui, at the drop of a hat, simply switches sides from the Nationalist to the Liberation Army when captured. He has no strong political belief. He simply wants to go along to get along.

Fugui was able to endure the war by performing plays with shadow puppets - which he was given by the same man responsible for taking his home, as a means to pick himself up - for the soldiers. It is a definite commentary on the role of art during oppressive political regimes. In one scene the cagey Fungui tells a party official he has been thinking about some propaganda plays he might be able to perform with the puppets. But in the end he must eventually destroy the puppets as they are a symbol of different political times.

Jiazhen is not shown to be a believer in the cause either nor are their children. Jiazhen has only ever had one request of life, to be able to live a quiet life together with her husband. That is ultimately the request we all have of life and it is the most difficult to achieve. In "To Live" Yimou argues politics is the biggest obstacle to attain such bliss.

And a fearful devotion to the party causes many set backs for the family, even causing death. The incidents could have been avoided if people were allowed to live their lives in peaceful quiet together. But when living under the Communist party one must always save face and not risk losing their good social standing in front of others. Going along to get along.

One major concern for Fungui and Jiazhen is their daughter, Fengxia (Tianchi Liu). A high fever as a child has caused the girl to grow up mute. Who will take care of her when mother and father are gone? What man will want to marry a mute girl? However it becomes a perfect symbol of obedience both to the party and a husband. She can never voice disapproval. Fortune seems to shine on the daughter when a party member friend tries to play matchmaker, believing he has found a suitable man, a high ranking member of the Red Army (Lian-Yi Li). He won't be too picky about finding a wife since he has a lame leg. Why these two things - muteness and a limp - are equated in the film is beyond me. Never-the-less the two hit it off with the parent's approval. Perhaps with such a high ranking official in the family it will provide some protection.

One of the most blistering attacks on the Communist party happens when the family visits a hospital. All of the older established doctors have been declared counter-revolutionaries therefore young, inexperienced nurses are attending to patients. They are good loyal members of the party. But political ideology is of little concern when you simply hope for the best medical treatment. Even a high ranking party member cares more about his family than the party. In the end their concerns become justified.

Other attacks against the party aren't so blatant as the hospital sequence. Fungui and Jiazhen learn of several people, even good standing party members, accused of being capitalist. We never find out exactly why these charges are brought forward. Is it a misunderstanding? Are they innocent? One man says everything will work out. The party will help find him innocent. Whether or not the character believes this in the moment he says it is irrelevant. The point is, you are whatever the party says you are.   

And so we go back to Fungui's last line and Jiazhen's simple request. Both sentiments are uplifting and sad at the same time for the exact same reasons. Uplifting for the hope they represent and sad for our knowledge that life probably will not get better. The oppression of the people will continue. And yet somehow as humans we must find the strength to continue to hope. Life will get better and better. 

The 1990s were the beginning of an interesting time in Chinese cinema. Many new films from filmmakers like Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige were finding distribution in the United States. Kaige's "Farewell My Concubine" (1993) won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, becoming the first Chinese language film to do so. In 1994, for the first time, American films would be shown in China. For a brief period of time Chinese cinema as all the rage among American film critics.

And "To Live" had its defenders. Receiving "two thumbs up" from movie critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, Siskel referred to it as "a great film" on their TV show and described it as an "epic story told at a very personal level". Ebert, in his Chicago Sun-Times review wrote, "it exists on the screen as a fascinating testament about ordinary human lives conducted under terrifying conditions". While Chicago Tribune movie critic, the great Michael Wilmington declared it "one of the most moving and important films of 1994" and continued in his review to state it "demonstrates that a truly innovative and revolutionary tale is sometimes best spun in gentle, reasonable tones." It appeared in the number six spot on Wilmington's year-end top ten list. Other critics such as Andrew Sarris at the New York Observer and Godfrey  Cheshire at the New York Press placed it on their annual year end lists as well. And finally, New York Times critic Janet Maslin also placed it among her list of the best films of the year writing, "this great storyteller displayed extraordinary gifts for distilling major political and cultural events into intimate human drama."

However the government censorship of "To Live" appears now in hindsight to have been the beginning of a shift in Yimou's films. Many of Yimou's most recent films have not found distribution in the U.S. His film "One Second" (2020) was twice denied entry into two different film festivals. It has not been shown in this country. His film "Cliff Walkers" (2021) was released here but has not been made available on DVD or blu-ray. It was the same story with this year's "Red Full River" (2024). Despite being given a theatrical release, it has not been made available for home viewing. This is contrary to the fact Yimou's current films can be described as Chinese propaganda. His "Hero" was very sympathetic to the government for example. "Cliff Walkers" was a story of political resistance and courage in favor of the Communist party. The political influence over art is most troubling. Released in the United States at the same time as "To Live" was director Zhuangzhuang Tian's "The Blue Kite" (1994) which dealt with a similar time period. Both are equally impressive but it too was banned by the Chinese government and its director was banned for 10 years from making films. Think of all the amazing stories these men have been denied telling.

There is no way to deny the power and emotional sweep of Yimou's "To Live". In answer to the question I have been asking all year, I was right to include this film among my choices for the best films of 1994. I can't determine yet if it was in fact the very best film of the year, as I believe 1994 was an amazing movie year with titles such as "Forrest Gump" (1994), "Bullets Over Broadway" (1994), Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Three Color Trilogy" and "The Shawshank Redemption" (1994) to name a few. I would need to go back and rewatch those films as well. What I can say with a bit more assurance is "To Live" does stand as one of Yimou's very best films and represents a style of storytelling I wish Yimou would go back to making. However at this point, I'd just like to be able to see his films period!

After 30 years "To Live" is an uplifting and sad film. A tale about political oppression and the power of the human spirit. It features emotional performances from Gong Li and You Ge. And follows in the great traditional of director Zhang Yimou's humanist films. It remains one of the best films of 1994.

Film Review: The Ice Storm

"The Ice Storm"

*** (out of ****)

"On the verge of saying something" speaks one of the characters in  Ang Lee's "chilly" tale about emotional thawing and suburban middle class morality, "The Ice Storm" (1997).

Regret is too weak a word for what I am feeling this year on the blog, thanks to my year long theme of re-examining films previously placed on my various annual "top ten" lists that I have dubbed Was I Right?

When I first saw "The Ice Storm" in 1997 it was a revelation for me. I honestly can't explain why but the film had a profound affect on me. I perceived it as not only the very best film of 1997 but also one of the best films of the 1990s. I believed the film was deeper and richer than "American Beauty" (1999), another film about suburban life, which garnered much more acclaim a couple of years later. Going as far as to win the Academy Award for best picture.

I looked forward to revisiting this film in the hopes it would transport me back in time to when I first saw it. Being much older perhaps now I would be able to articulate what was so powerful about the film. But I can't. I wasn't emotionally moved by the film. Intellectually I understand what Ang Lee is showing us here but for the overwhelming majority of the film, my sympathies were never aligned with any of the characters. 

Being on the verge of saying something is a key observation in Lee's film comprised of Connecticut suburbanites unable to express themselves emotionally or verbally. Set in the early 1970s, Thanksgiving 1973 to be exact, change is in the air. President Richard Nixon is less than a year away from resigning due to Watergate. There is a shift in sexual morals . Husbands take their wives to see pornographic films like "Deep Throat" (1972) and white middle-class couples think they are being hip by throwing swinger parties. What is the world coming to? The answer to that question isn't one that fills these people with excitement. They are numbed by gloom and despair instead. Every character is desperate to suppress their feelings with alcohol or marijuana. 

While on an individual level these characters flounder, another point director Lee is making is about the functionality and the strength of the family unit. Drawing comparisons, to of all things, the Fantastic Four comic books, "The Ice Storm" seems to suggest our survival and downfall all depends on our relationship with our family. Or as one character explains it in the movie, "the deeper you are drawn in, the more into the void you go."

Kevin Kline stars as Ben Hood, husband to Elena (Joan  Allen). They are having unexplained marital problems, which we can see is having a strain on their intimacy. Together they have two children, son Paul (Tobey Maguire) and daughter Wendy (Christina Ricci). Paul is attending an out-of-state college and will return home for Thanksgiving break. In college Paul is something of a pot-head with roommate Francis (David Krumholtz). He claims to be in love with Libbets (Katie Holmes), who he tries to impress with a knowledge of Dostoevsky. While Wendy is in her teenage angst phase, leading her to smoke cigarettes and kind of, sort of date one of her neighbors' sons, Mikey (Elijah Wood). In ever scene Mickey is in, he has a trance like look on his face and whenever asked a question by an adult his response is "I don't know." It's as if the world keeps catching him off guard.

The film splits its focus between the adults not being able to express themselves with each other and not being able to interact with their children. Sometimes even switching the dynamics as when Wendy asks her mother if she is okay. In one awkward scene Ben, after greeting Paul at the train station, explains on the drive home, why it isn't a good idea to masturbate while taking a shower. This is Ben's attempt at bonding with his son. While Mikey didn't even realize his own father, Jim (Jamey Sheridan) was out of town on a business trip. Than again, Jim doesn't realize his wife, Janey (Sigourney Weaver) is having an affair with Ben.

With Ben seemingly in a loveless marriage one could assume an affair with Janey would be filled with passion and lust. You'd be wrong. There is no joy when they are together either. After having sex Ben starts to complain about a co-worker, to which Janey states, "you're boring me." We also never come to find out what is wrong with Janey and Jim's marriage. It is as if these characters are simply on an endless search looking for kicks. There is no deep motivation for what they do.

And Janey has her hands full with her two sons. The youngest, Sandy (Adam Hann-Byrd) has a deeply troubling preoccupation with death and destruction. Sandy likes to occupy his time by taping explosives to his toys and watch them blow up. Even the kid's G.I. Joe pull string figure knows something is up. It has malfunctioned and repeats the same line, a call for help, "May day! May day!" 

For some readers this may sound like a bit too much. Who wants to watch a movie about so much pain. No wonder I didn't like it. However that isn't exactly what is wrong with "The Ice Storm". Great art inspires me even if its content is sad. It can still give me a high that can last for days. Just the sheer thrill of experiencing something that stirred my emotions. For a example, a movie that is about a lot more pain than what we see here is Ingmar Bergman's "Cries & Whispers" (1973). That film is a masterpiece because of the way it draws us into the character's lives. "The Ice Storm" can't transpose that pain from the screen and into our hearts. In Janet Maslin's New York Times review of the film she writes, "The Ice Storm" still elects to keep its characters and their emotions at a distance. They remain as hidden from the viewer as they are from one another, which is an essential part of the film's disturbing power." I must disagree, even though I normally thoroughly enjoy Maslin's insights. She is suggesting the withdrawn nature of the characters actually pulls us in. Their distance becomes compelling. It is a fundamental difference in viewing this material. For me their distance kept me at a distance. 

Perhaps the problem lies within screenwriter James Schamus adaption of Rick Moody's novel, which did win an award at the Cannes Film Festival, where the film was also nominated for the Palm d'Or. Having never read  Moody's work, maybe the script is too literal of an adaption. It seems much of this material is internal, centering on inner feelings of the characters. This can often be difficult for filmmakers to express visually.

For me the film's greatest strength lies in its ability to capture a feeling for the time period and the mood it creates. The music by Mychael Danna helps to capture the despair floating the air, with the sweet sounds of the flute. I also liked the sound design and the light touch of the crackling sounds of ice being heard. 

Earlier this year I took another look at the movie "The Contender" (2000), which also proved to be somewhat disappointing upon a second look. In that review I complained about Joan Allen's performance. It didn't feel like a real character with emotions. In "The Ice Storm" however I believe she gives the film's best performance. From the entire talented cast she is best at expressing the level of repression building in everyone. Some viewers might criticize performances like this as not doing anything. Somewhere along the way the public has convinced themselves acting has to be splashy. But watching Allen's performance I did want to know more about this character. It speaks to Maslin's observation about the withdrawn pulling us in. In Allen's case her facial expressions and body movements did accomplish that. It is interesting to note the following year Allen would continue to play a repressed character in the satirical "Pleasantville" (1998). Perhaps these characters are what drew her to the role in "The Contender" where her character would be viewed  much more as a sexual creature. Tellingly of these three performances it was for "The Contender" she received an Oscar nomination, her last one to date.

The performances I felt were the weakest, were the children, with the exception of Christina Ricci's Wendy. The only character of all the children that really felt developed. Elijah Wood's Mikey is almost a throw-a-way character with brother Sandy having a bit more substance. Adam Hann-Byrd is able to better express a fear of the unknown that comes along with growing up. Maguire starts off strong but unfortunately gets lost in the background, basically having his character serve as book ends to the story.

Janet Maslin brought up a good point in her review, that is echoed in my choices for the most effective performances in the film. The strongest characters are the female ones. As a critique of the 1970s it is observing the period through the eyes of women that the film can make its most compelling arguments regarding the shifting times. That is also to be found in "Pleasantville". The change in the social winds affect those that have the most to gain. Historically that would be minorities, in "The Ice Storm" it is suburban white women.

The aforementioned ice storm, at the end of movie, should pack more of an emotional wallop. As a metaphor for the emotional state of the characters, the eventual thawing of the ice and feelings, should have earned our tears and carry a great emotional heft with it. Unfortunately, all I was able to do was watch their pain, understand their pain, but never sympathize with their pain. Leading me to ultimately determine I wasn't right. "The Ice Storm" wasn't the best film of 1997 nor should it have been on my list of the top ten films of the year. That list will need to be updated. 

"The Ice Storm" was  Ang Lee's fifth feature-length film as a director, coming off two back-to-back critically acclaimed films, "Eat Drink Man Woman" (1994) and "Sense and Sensibility" (1995). "Sensibility" alone was nominated for seven Oscars, including best picture. Looking at those films and what Lee would go on to direct - "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (2000), "Lust, Caution" (2007), and "Brokeback Mountain" (2005) - it appears he like to tell stories about challenging social conventions. About specific time periods and their social demands. In that context "The Ice Storm" feels like a very fitting film for this Taiwanese director.

In addition to its Cannes win and nomination, the film was also nominated for two BAFTA awards, one of which Sigourney Weaver won for her performance in a supporting role. It received "two thumbs up" from movie critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, with Gene Siskel going as far as to name it the best film of 1997, writing "To watch this story unfold is to experience profound sadness at couples and families that don't connect with open hearts." That choice was quite a statement on Siskel's part defying an "obvious choice" in a year that was dominated by the eventual best picture Oscar winner, "Titanic" (1997). And while Ebert didn't place "The Ice Storm" among his choices of the year's best films, he did award it four stars.

When first released the film went a bit under the radar however it does seem to have managed to break through and find an audience, picking up attention when it first became available on VHS and even today is shown on television somewhat often. It currently is streaming on HBO Max.

It is truly unfortunate I am not able to sing the praises of "The Ice Storm" and stand by my initial judgement of it. This is not a bad movie. It does have its worthwhile attributes. Namely some strong performances and an ability to create a somber mood. It does make a social statement providing some artistic value. But like the ice in the title, it also has a chill that kept me from getting closer. More of an emotional connection to these characters would have made it something more powerful.