Showing posts with label 1951. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1951. Show all posts

July 15, 2009

The Idiot (1951)

2/5

Akira Kurosawa's adaptation of Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot follows an epileptic named Kameda who is a "positively good man" that gets crushed by society. After being falsely accused of murder, he is sent behind a firing squad and is rescued just seconds before his death. He loses his mind as a result of that event, and all that seems to be left is the good inside of him. It is his inability to understand society and his ability to speak only what's in his heart that makes two women fall in love with him, each with their own separate suitors. He too must come to terms with how he feels about each woman.

Cut by the studio from its original running time of 265 minutes down to 165 minutes, the movie is unsurprisingly jumbled and disconnected (and surprisingly bad given the big names behind it). There are a lot of scenes that don't make sense or feel out of place. The parts that are left in have been paced for a four and a half hour film, so they feel really slow in the shorter two and three quarters hour film. There is a lot of silence (like pregnant pauses that simply end instead of give birth to something meaningful) and a lot of overacting and a lot of melodrama. There is little subtlety and little left to your imagination, except trying to figure out what parts of the movie were cut by the studio. On the upside, the cinematography is excellent as always, with flawless blocking and camera movements. And I love his use of reflections. On the whole, I simply cannot recommend that anyone see this movie. However, perhaps if you've read the book and you like Kurosawa, you can fill in the blanks yourself and maybe make the film amount to something meaningful for you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043614/

January 02, 2008

Ace in the Hole (1951)

4/5

Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole is a strikingly unique film noir from the master himself. All of Wilder's noirs play off the typical detective crime story in unexpected ways that have never since been copied. Here we have Kirk Douglas flawlessly depict the flawed Chuck Tatum, a big city newspaper man who finds himself in Albuquerque after being fired from just about every major newspaper in the US. After a year working for a small-town paper, he stumbles upon the biggest story of his career: a local man trapped in a cave. He becomes involved in the rescue operation, manipulating it to last longer than it needs to so he can keep the story going for as long as possible. Over the course of the movie, we gradually understand the power held by the media, public opinion, and capitalistic desires by seeing each and every one of them abused.

As a film, it holds up admirably well even by today's standards. The editing is fast-paced and lean. The story unfolds effortlessly and believably. The movie holds us in its grip until the shocking finale. The dialogue is violent and vicious, with unscrupulously brutal characters to match: the hateful wife who wants to run out on him while he's trapped, the sheriff who uses the incident to get re-elected, and of course Tatum himself. But it's not that simple. By the end of the movie, we realize with alarming clarity Tatum's multidimensionality, his humanity, and his feelings of responsibility and guilt. The delirious final shot is uncompromising, a perfect image to end the movie on.

And yet, for some reason, I just wasn't as captivated by this movie as I was by Wilder's others. I don't know what it was. I was unimpressed with the cinematography (except for that final shot) and dismissed the rather forgettable music. But still, something inarticulable just separated me from this movie. This is not a flaw of the film, but rather of myself as a viewer. All in all, however, this is an incredible movie and well worth seeing for anyone interested.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0043338/

November 05, 2006

Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

2/5

I say this with absolute frankness; this movie is pretty boring. It tells the story of a priest coming to a parish in the countryside and being treated with animosity by the villagers. Its almost ascetic filmmaking and "purified" images didn't do anything for me. The dialogue and message could be interesting at times, but for the most part it just dragged on and tried too hard to get a message across while still being subtle about what the message was. I prefer Bergman for my dose of filmic religion and philosophy; also his shot compositions are far superior to those in this movie. So what does this movie really have to offer? I would probably not recommend this movie to anyone.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0042619/