North by Northwest [AppleTV]

One of Alfred Hitchcock's later films, this 1959 adventure-caper could have been the progenitor of the James Bond spy-thrillers (first film Dr No was in 1962) and Ethan Hunt's TV and movie Mission: Impossible franchises. It had spies, mistaken identity, a femme fatale, an evil international mastermind, menacing henchmen, a romance, some comedy, multiple (exotic) locales - Mt Rushmore! In a train!- and, most importantly, a dashing hero! All it needed was a wise-cracking sidekick and some gadgets! 

From a modern POV, the plot was rather predictable. However, back in the 50s this was likely to have been rather exciting and new to the audience. And, again, Hitchcock was great at milking the tension and tightening the suspense. The train sequence was well-done and the Mt Rushmore climax was tremendously exciting. Equally riveting was the rapid-fire dialogue by screenwriter Ernest Lehman, it calls to mind Amy Sherman-Palladino's and Aaron Sorkin's highly patterned, ping-pong dialogue style.

Cary Grant was a great leading man for a spy thriller. He was ruggedly handsome, utterly charismatic and looked damn fine in a suit. Although the tendency to cast a not-so-age-appropriate actress as the love interest seemed to already be a thing in Hollywood. Eva Marie Saint looked like she could have been Grant's daughter. Regardless, Saint was a great counter to Grant and they had good chemistry together. Pity, eventually she still had to fulfill the role of damsel-in-distress.

The music was by Bernard Herrmann, who also scored a few other Hitchcock films. The score was appropriately exciting and definitely helped to raise the tension. Although, unfortunately, it was not very memorable. However, the cinematography by Robert Burks looked amazing. The shots out in the desert and the plane crash was beautiful, as was the entire last act up in Mt Rushmore at night.

North by Northwest was a great watch. It was entertaining and exciting, albeit predictable to modern eyes. Nonetheless, Grant had a great screen presence, and Hitchcock really knew how to hook in his audience. Now, can somebody please explain the title? 

Ordinary People

This 1981 Best Picture/Best Director winner was the directorial debut of Robert Redford and his background as an actor-turned-director really showed here. He gave the actors time to develop a scene and allowed them to shine and produce full, complex characters. 

The plot was relatively straightforward, and perhaps with the lens of the 21st century it seemed rather pedestrian. However, it was because of this simplicity that forced the actors to be front and center and carry the weight of the film. And the actors - Timothy Hutton (Best Supporting Actor winner), Mary Tyler Moore (Best Actress nominee), Donald Sutherland (robbed of a nomination!) and Judd Hirsch (Best Supporting Actor nominee) - were definitely up to the task, elevating this film to an actor's showcase.

Redford deserved kudos, especially as a first time director, for being able to wrangle such intense portrayals from his cast. 

Moore did an amazing, nuanced and measured performance, contrary to her usual The Mary Tyler Moore Show persona, and Sutherland, who was given the more showy role, had great moments and a truly, genuine and heartfelt catharsis at the end. 

Hutton, in his first film role, was a revelation. His performance contained multiple layers and the peeling of those defences to the true vulnerability and eventually to acceptance was believable and felt authentic, barring some histrionics during the therapy scenes, but mostly he did come across as a truly struggling teenager. Although Hutton may have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, he was, in my opinion, truly the lead and main focus of the film. 

Therein laid the biggest issue of this film. It could have benefited more if Redford and Oscar-winning writer Alvin Sargent had decided clearly who were the film's main focus. Is the film going to be about Hutton's teenage character suffering from PTSD and survivor's guilt, and finding his way out, or will it be more abut Moore and Sutherland's disintegrating marriage as they navigate the aftermath of a family tragedy (or two). 

Redford as a first time director made some rather cliched choices especially in terms of music (it's Pachebel's Canon in D again...and again...and again), costume choices (all the beige!) and cinematography (lots of wide-angled shots followed by a zoom-in), but in all, his effectiveness in getting great performances from his cast trumped all that. 

Ordinary People still held up almost 40 years later, however, its portrayal of mental health illnesses and male-centric storytelling may have to be brushed up a bit.

Amadeus (Director's Cut)

Directed by Miloš Forman who also brought us One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, this film was not what I was expecting from a Best Picture (1984) winner, regardless that the Director's Cut was 20 minutes longer than the theatrical release. This was a film that was technically impressive and lavishly produced, the directing, cinematography, production design, editing, hair, make-up and costume design, music (and dance!) were top notched, but the acting and the cast was inconsistent, and the story - adapted by Peter Shaffer from his own Broadway production - was challenging to say the least.  Amadeus was, surprisingly, a rather broad comedy, light on the histrionics and overt dramatics, and more fictionally dramatised than biographically factual. Nonetheless, even at 3 hours long, this film never felt long or boring. Forman's directing was superb and the storytelling - for all its challenges - was intriguing and engaging. 

Lead actors F Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce were at two opposite ends of the spectrum of greatness Abraham was great from the moment he was introduced and held it together as the tortured maestro who felt that God had betrayed him as he lied and schemed to ensure Mozart's failure. On the other hand, Hulce's performance deepened as the film progressed. His infantile portrayal of Mozart started off grating but as the story unfolded and Mozart's fortune reversed, Hulce gained depth and dimension. Mozart's final moments were extraordinary.

However, the rest of the cast with their broad American accents - especially female lead Elizabeth Berridege as Constanze Mozart - was intrusive and weirdly disjointed. Also, why did some then speak with horribly bad Italian/German accents?

Mozart's music was phenomenal and arresting, and one would expect nothing less from a film about his life. Cinematography was by Forman's fellow Czech, Miroslav Ondříček, and was beautiful especially the interior, candle-lit shots. Twyla Tharp choreographed the dance/ballet/opera sequences and they were equally beautiful.

Amadeus was a fascinating, albeit more fictionalised than factual, look into Mozart's life and music. It definitely made Mozart a more intriguing character than what most lay person would assumed, and gave a resurgence to Antonio Salieri that he - allegedly - so desperately craved when he was alive.

Rear Window

What a masterpiece! A phenomenal masterclass in tension and suspense and directing. Through 112 minutes, the story telling was simple but the tension was unrelentless. Truly, you never knew who to trust, who to believe and who is telling the truth until the final few moments. And even then, who will survive? Who will make it out?

Simply, masterful!

Also ironically, this was the perfect self-quarantine, lock-down, shelter-at-home, circuit-breaker movie. Stuck at home, with nowhere to go? Have your lobster thermidor delivered, your daily nursing care coming in to give you a massage and your telephoto-lens and/or binoculars handy for some neighbourly spying.

And of course, make sure you have the gorgeous, stunning, absolutely lovely Grace Kelly coming to visit you daily, dressed to the nines (thank you Costume Designer Edith Head!). Has she ever been more beautiful in a film?

Plot-wise, Rear Window was deceptively simple, but looking deeper, John Michael Hayes' screenplay also examined the concepts of stereotypes and inherent biasness, the evolution of relationships, emotional dependency, herd mentality, truth vs fiction, the voyeurism of film, and to put a modern spin, toxic-masculinity and liberal feminism. This film was truly fascinating. It has aged well and worked incredibly on so many levels.

However, the real gem was Hitchcock's masterful direction. No blood, no violence yet a violent crime has been (or has it?) been committed. We see what James Stewart's crippled, home-bound, photographer / photojournalist sees and our information is as limited as his and our view point as shaped as what Hitchcock wanted us to know. Every other speaking-character was the perfect foil for Stewart's conspiracy theory, throwing in doubts and providing reasonable counter-arguments...that is until they too were convinced by the circumstantial evidence and the story told by Stewart. It was like a lawyer weaving the best story of the evidence available to convince the jury of their case. Simple but so effective.

Stewart was a great everyday man to be put in this scenario. He had that sensibility that allowed him to be highly relatable, yet just a hint of danger to be make every man want to be him. Of course, having Kelly has his paramour definitely helped his allure. But Kelly was more than just a pretty face here - and that poise!!! - and like most Hitchcockian leading ladies, she also served to propel the narrative and incite character development in the leading man. Notwithstanding, she was also shown to be smart, brave and resourceful, but as the times had it, also dependent on the man.

Music was by Franz Waxman, who also did Sunset Boulevard, and it really helped to enliven the lived-in feeling of being in a NYC neighbourhood and tightened the screw of suspense and melancholy.

Rear Window was utterly riveting and unbelievably tensed. Hitchcock achieved so much with seemingly so little. Brilliant!