Network

Having had watched the fantastic stage play starring Bryan Cranston in Broadway last year, it was inevitable that comparisons would be made whilst watching this scarily prescient 1976 pitch-black satire. The biggest difference was that in Sidney Lumet's film, the three leads - Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch and William Holden - shared the screen almost equally with possibly Dunaway as the first lead. Whereas in the stage play, Cranston was ostensibly the lead with Tatiana Maslany and Tony Goldwyn (who has been aged down compared to Holden) as supporting characters. But what remained constant was the biting screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky which has hauntingly remained relevant now and chillingly foretold our current situation 40 years later. That was what made Network the play so relevant when it was staged.

Chayefsky's screenplay remained, to this day, a staggering tour de force. A bitingly funny satire not only about the newsroom, but also about how we consume culture and information. And the most piercing thing about it was that it was staggeringly relevant back in the 70s and still so bloody accurate in the new-20s! Our obsession with social media, the internet and fast culture simply replaced the 70s preoccupation with television and the burgeoning pop culture. So many great lines in the film and so many of them remained prescient and true till now.

Lumet's direction kept the film going at a brisk pace. The emotional entanglements never bogged down the satirical commentary and the supporting players like Robert Duvall (so very Duvall!), Ned Beatty and Marlene Warfield helped to keep the tempo going in their own scenes. Although Lumet did tend to veer towards the melodramatic at some points. 

Finch, a Best Actor Oscar winner for this role, was great in his role as Howard Beale who brought a different energy to Beale as compared to Cranston. Finch appeared to be more of a desperate, resigned revolutionary compared to Cranston's angry and ready-for-change prophet. Regardless, Finch was arresting and when he rants, he commanded the screen and everybody's attention.

Dunaway, also an Oscar winner for Best Actress, stole the show. For all of Finch's bluster and showboating, he was decidedly one-note. Dunaway, on the other hand, was a full blown concerto, a heady mixture of adjectives: brassy, uncompromising, brash, rash, sexual, smart, vulnerable, cynical. Here was a female character way ahead of her time and unapologetic for it. Kudos to Lumet, Chayefsky and Dunaway for giving life to this amazing character! Dunaway owned this film and very much deserved for Oscar for it. It was a pity they did not match her up against Finch. 

Holden, a fellow Best Actor nominee, had the quieter role. His Max Schumacher was more reserved and less showy, but was the emotional heart of the film. He represented the people of the older time who still cherished real emotional connect and not just the fleeting highs (and lows) offered by pop culture (and internet binges). His breakup scenes with Dunaway and Beatrice Straight (a Best Supporting Actress winner for an emotionally showy 5-minutes appearance) was an achingly honest bit of emotional vulnerability in a bleak tragicomedic satire.

Network was an utterly engaging and fascinating film to watch with a solid cast to match. A bleakly dark satire that delivered an emotional gut punch and (uncomfortable) laughs as it sent chills with its breathtakingly prescient insights.

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!

Casablanca

Casablanca is a film that stood the test of time. It gave us a pair of leading actors that sizzled with on-screen chemistry and a Romance for the ages. It also gifted us with two immortal lines that are still oft-quoted these days, some sixty years later, and an iconic love song/theme that still echoes a great love and the promise it held.

At a surprisingly brisk 102 minutes, Casablanca had a tightly paced story of love, intrigue, spy-games, politicking and patriotism. There was nary an ounce of fat on it, and sometimes that could be detrimental as we see in a few scenes where director Michael Curtiz fell prey to expositional dumping to move the plot along. Thankfully, these narrative hand-holdings were usually brief and the actors competent enough to deliver them without losing interest.

However, the opposite was true for Humphrey Bogart's Rick who, throughout the film, maintained a mysterious backstory that only served to make him an even more interesting character and his motivations less clear cut.

Similarly, the luminous and stunningly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, was also not the archetypal damsel-in-distress. She was a well-rounded character that had her own agency and had to made difficult choices. It was never clear until the final moment who she would choose, although some would argue, that the choice was made for her. But, she could have not gone along with it - we have seen her being headstrong.

Together, Bogart and Bergman were electrifying and their chemistry utterly palpable.

Also outstanding, was fellow Best Supporting Actor nominee Claude Rains who delivered a number of the funniest lines in the film.

Max Steiner's score for the film was sublime and the refrains and variations of As Time Goes By was so effective in conveying the emotional weight of the Llsa and Rick's varying relationship. And that scene of the dueling National Anthems, was equal beats rousing and emotionally resonant.

A 1942 Best Picture winner, Casablanca is a classic that remained very watchable now. Great Romances never go out of style. "Here's looking at your, kid! We will always Paris!"

Never Rarely Sometimes Always [VOD]

Superbly written and directed by Eliza Hittman (go watch Beach Rats on Netflix), with a star-making turn by Sidney Flanigan, supported by an equally impressive Talia Ryder, this Sundance Special Jury Prize winner and Berlin Silver Bear winner was a harrowing, highly affective and emotionally draining film. It will definitely not be for everyone for this was clearly a pro-choice, libber flag-waving film. But, boy, was this film powerful! This film should be watched by as many people as possible, but for all those who believe in a woman's choice over her own body and that termination of pregnancy is a healthcare right,  then this film should be essential. It made me feel so proud of the strong, powerful, proud women amongst us and so damn ashamed of my gender.

All the male characters in the film were of varying degree of nastiness, i.e. all men are creeps but some are more so and some are less so, but creeps nonetheless. That might turn some male viewers off, but is your male ego really that fragile? Although some brutal honesty might make you a more honest man. And, only a female-led creative team could have pushed this message out, so kudos to them!

Hittman's directing was riveting. Filmed in a 70s docu-like style, the honesty of the narrative was brutal. Quite frequently dialogue-free, the emotional and physical journey of Flanigan's character was brought out through her raw acting (her acting debut!) and Hittman's intimate yet tender and non-intrusive camera work. We were always with her and that emotional resonance and empathy was electrifying, yet also sometimes scarily suffocating.

Towards the end of Act Two, where the title of the movie gets repeated (and it all made so much sense...no spoiler here), Hittman and Flanigan absolutely knocked it out of the park in that one long take that was a roller coaster ride of emotions and catharsis. Absolutely brilliant.

Yes, there was a bit of meandering in the middle where the film got a bit less tight, especially the subplot with Ryder's character and a boy; and yes, there were times when you would just want to grab Flanigan through the screen and lead her to the right decision. But then that would be missing the film's point, that our lead character is a flawed character, however for all her flaws, it was not her fault that she ended up where she was. True, she made choices but similarly she should also be allowed to be all other choices. As the film's tagline goes, it is her journey and her choice.

Flanigan and Ryder will have exciting careers to come and definitely two young stars to look out for.

And with Beach Rats and Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Hittman is definitely on the brink of a big breakout. Both films, so different in subject matter, yet similar in approach, felt honest, authentic and sincere. Will she go the way of Lynne Ramsay or Katherine Bigelow? Hopefully, both.