Historical Epic Spectacles That Will Be Remembered... because they cost so much to make

In American Cinema History, the first epic was undoubtedly The Birth of a Nation. It was directed by DW Griffith and released in 1915. Now this film was a huge success, but also was surrounded by controversy. I have never seen the film but know of its obvious racism. 

The film takes place during the American Civil War, and mainly focuses on a Northern family that has moved to the South, and a Southern family who are their neighbors. When the War begins, each male joins their geographical side. However, their is some romance buried in here. The southern boys love the northern sisters and vice versa. 

Now for the juicy stuff, there is  a mulatto... slave, I guess. Is in love with one of the other southern sisters. Big scandal. He's lynched. In The Birth of a Nation, all the blacks are portrayed as having the hots for white women, and they want to rape them as well. Also all the blacks portrayed in this film are played by whites in blackface. And the Ku Klux Klan is portrayed in a heroic way. That's a big problem.

The film cost $112,000 ($2.2 million with inflation). That's a big sum for any movie released back then. Think how much would be added if there was sound. Also because of the big sum, tickets to see the movie cost $2 ($40 with inflation). Unbelievable! But no matter, it was one of the most successful movies until Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs beat its record. 

Gone with the Wind is the biggest box office hit in the history of film. In 1939, it made $198,676,459 and with inflation the total is $1,430,476,000! Even if someone has not seen this film, they've heard of it. That's how much of an impact it has caused. 

It was a popular novel turned into an even more popular movie. It starred Hollywood's #1 hottie, Clark Gable, and newcomer Vivien Leigh. The character of Scarlett O'Hara was the most coveted role in Hollywood. And a Brit beat out probably thousands of American girls to play the Southern Belle. Including Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, and Katharine Hepburn. 

Also the film went through two directors. It began with George Cukor ("the woman's director") and ended with Victor Flemming. Cukor was dismissed by David Selznick... I don't know why either. 

It's funny because both this film and The Birth of a Nation focus on the Civil War. Both movies are very different, however. But they do share some racist qualities. The Black slaves in this film are shown to be dimwitted and cowardly. Except for Hattie McDaniel, who won an Oscar for best Supporting Actress. The first African American to do so. 

One funny bit of trivia: Selznick was fined $5,000 by the Hay's Office for using the word "damn" in Rhett Butler's famous ending line. 

Also I have to admit the marketers and advertisers at MGM were brilliant when they decided on this poster. Clark Gable's shirt is open and Vivien Leigh's dress seems to be slipping off, while there's a fire around them. Very sexy!
1963's Cleopatra was the third movie based on the Egyptian Queen's life. This film is also infamous for its going over budget and nearly bankrupting 20th Century Fox. It's original budget was $2 million and ended up being $44 million. That's more than $300 million with inflation. Also the scandalous adulteress relationship between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton helped get this movie mentioned in a lot of magazines and newspapers. 

Elizabeth Taylor was the first actress to reach the $1 million salary mark. (They all make way too much money). 

Personally, I think the movie wasn't that great. It's long and slow, and Elizabeth Taylor's hair in no way looked like those Ancient Egyptian wigs. Also she needed a tan, she's too pale to pull off an Egyptian look. The film is a bit gaudy and campy in some parts, also the sets are too elaborate and ridiculous. But it did earn money, $475,658,900 (w/ inflation). 

Doctor Zhivago was directed by David Lean, hot off the success of Lawrence of Arabia. It starred Omar Sharif as Yuri Zhivago and Julie Christie as Lara Antipova. It displays life during the Russian Revolution and romance. Mostly it does prominently feature Zhivago and Lara's tragic relationship. 

Like anything Russian, the movie does have its depressing moments. I think the film did capture the heartache of their relationship and the life they had to face during the new Communist country. Lean did a great job showing who each character was, keeping with the novel. Points for that. 

I did like the movie even though it was a little long, but I loved Sharif and Christie together. They are Yuri and Lara. 

The most recent of these Historical Epics, Titanic. This would be the biggest box office smash if you didn't include inflation. Right now its adjusted gross in the United States is $908,688,900. I remember when this came out, everyone went to see it (except me). The country was suffering from Leo-fever after Romeo + Juliet. Also the Celine Dion song was being played everywhere. 

I don't think I saw this movie until two years after its release. It was on HBO, I think, and it was already half over. Me and my mom watched it and were sobbing by the end. I didn't see the whole thing until I was about 15/16. It's one of my favorite movies now. I know, I'm a sap. 

All these movies are Historically Epic films and share some of the same characteristics. The most important is that there is always a star-crossed romance in it. Jack and Rose, Rhett and Scarlett, Yuri and Lara. Also these films are produced on large scales and even larger budgets. However, they only stick within the same time frame in history. They need to work on that a little, instead of those stupid comedies they've been producing lately. 

Laddie, the Peek-a-boo Girl and the Fickleness of Hollywood

I rewatched this film noir last night, and remembered why I liked it in the first place. This Gun for Hire has a simple plot that's both easy to follow and riveting. 

Raven (Alan Ladd) is a cold-blooded professional killer who's been double-crossed by his client. Ellen (Veronica Lake) is a beautiful nightclub singer who's spying on her corrupt boss. Lt. Michael Crane (Robert Preston) is a dedicated cop who wants Ellen's love and Raven's capture. The tension mounts and before the case is wrapped, someone will pay with his life.

The film's so short, I guess they had to made it simple. However, there is still something powerful about it. This was probably one of the few film noirs that showed a non-remorseful killer that came off as sympathetic to the audience. Raven continually threatens people with a gun to do what he wants, and kills them if they don't. And we still feel sorry for him! Maybe because he like cats?

Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake publicity photo for the film

This role made Alan Ladd a star and he played it very well. Most of the time he doesn't show emotion, but when he does, Wham! Veronica Lake typically plays her monotone self. She was the only character to show some sympathy towards Raven, ultimately, helping him escape from the cops when they are being held up in a train yard. 

This was the first of four pairings between Ladd and Lake. The funny story behind this is, Paramount had a difficult time casting actresses opposite the 5'6" Ladd. Lucky for them, Lake was just under 5ft. So the pairing stuck, however, Ladd didn't care for Lake much, but he also didn't make the same mistake Frederic March made.

Frederic March and Veronica Lake is a promotional still from I Married a Witch

March and Lake starred in I Married a Witch (the blueprints for Bewitched). And Lake was known as difficult to work with. On set, March referred to her as, "a brainless little blonde sexpot, void of any acting ability." She found out and retaliated by calling him a "Pompous poseur." It was war from then on since Veronica played practical jokes on him. Never get a Brooklyn girl angry...

One instance was hiding a forty pound weight in her dress, when the scene called for March to carry her. They had several takes of the scene, ouch. Another was a scene where March stands directly behind a chair. Lake was required, I guess to cling to him, and while she was she brought her foot up into his groin. March renamed the film, "I Married a Bitch," understandably. But it's still really funny to read about.

One of the best moments in This Gun for Hire is when Raven and Ellen are trapped a small hut by the train tracks. Raven tells Ellen about a dream he keeps having, believing if he tells someone he'll stop having it. As long as she doesn't laugh that is. Raven's parents died when he was very young and he was taken in by his aunt, who would severely beat him. When he was fourteen he picked up a knife and stabbed her in the neck, killing her. He was sent to reform school and also beat him there. Raven was not born the way he was, he was made that why by the people who were supposed to care about him. The emotion building in Ladd's face showed how this whole ordeal affected him. 

So while Ladd's career flourished for about 10 more years, Lake's career began floundering after 1942. Making way for the decade's leading "love goddess" and most photographed woman in the world, Rita Hayworth, another lady who's trademark was her hair. Put it this way, Rita was the Angelina Jolie of the 1940s, while Veronica Lake was the Rachel McAdams (who was an "It Girl" for two years then disappeared). 

Hollywood's a fickle creature and it will remain so. And we will continue obsessing over it in awe.

"She's neurotic and pathetic and only interested in herself."

So, how did they ever make a movie of Lolita? 

Adaptations of Vladimir Nabokov's controversial novel have been attempted twice. The first in 1962 and the second in 1997. Now I'm shocked that Adrian Lyne attempted to remake a classic, especially one that stirred up so much commotion with the censors, the Catholic League of Decency, and the American public. 

What I love about Kubrick's version is that he didn't try to adapt the novel, he transformed it into a movie. I can appreciate this because when books are made into movies, I understand and accept that they will not be like the book. It's a pet peeve of mine when I hear people gripe about what wasn't or what was in the book. Get over it! You cannot possibly fit an entire book into a 2 hour time period. And you cannot keep some of the original story line because it will not transfer to film well. 

In the novel, Lolita was 12 and homely. Now, I don't think an audience can truly accept a middle-aged man and a 12-year-old in a sexual relationship. So her age was bumped up 2 years. Also they made Lolita pretty, making her more sexually desirable. I think if they made Lolita homely, as Nabokov described, the audience would not understand Humbert's obsession and attraction. 

The acting was great in this film with Peter Sellers leading the pack. His Quilty was so neurotic and strange and eccentric and marvelous! James Mason was articulate and subtly obsessed with the titular nymphet. I like how Mason wasn't so dramatic, he didn't chew scenery, he knew what was enough for the scene. 

Sue Lyon was interesting, in being in the 1960s, you didn't think of 14-year-olds being sexually knowledgeable. And Sue Lyon embodied it. Her acting style is definitely more natural than Mason who seems more self-possessed in his performance. But Lyon's natural and unrefined style makes her more like a real teenager. 

Suggestion is a powerful tool when used properly. Kubrick used it very well, because the censors would not allow basically anything described in the novel. However, Lyne's version had no suggestion. It was the '90s, and things changed. No longer do we have to postulate the relationship between Humbert and Lolita. Now we see it!

I had several problems with Lyne's adaptation. One, I feel he was trying too hard. It's an enormous pressure trying to make a movie that's on par with a Stanley Kubrick film. Two, Jeremy Irons was a drama queen as Humbert. Also he was easy to walk over. Lyne made him out to be the victim instead of Lolita. 

The new Lolita focuses more on the obsession instead of the love. In the original, Humbert was obsessed but it was more downplayed. Lyne also has a habit of using slow motion and dramatic, sappy elevator music to convey a mood. He tried to make his shots complex, I guess he wanted it to look artistic. But it wasn't. Sometimes, simple is just better. 

Now, let's compare the two Lolita interpretations. Personally, I like Sue Lyon better than Dominique Swain. Swain's Lolita is vulgar and obnoxious and immature. She acts younger than 14. Lyon's Lolita is more like a savvy teen. She's cool and manipulative, but she still shows signs of a young girl. Especially when they show her eating. She completely disregards table manners and chews her gum with her mouth open. Lyon is the reason we call certain teen girls "Lolitas." 

Swain is more innocent-looking, but not completely virginal either. You kinda don't know what to expect from her. She was quite annoying at times, and it's hard to like her because you can't help but see the ridiculousness in a grown man fawning over her. That's why Kubrick made Lolita more sexy. But in the innocence corrupted department, Swain wins.

First impressions must also leave lasting impressions. A character's entrance is important in orchestrating how a character should be established and interpreted by the audience. Lyon's was more overt and suggestive. Humbert comes upon her sitting in the backyard in a bikini reading a magazine and playing the radio. Swain's is not completely innocent. She laying on the ground, reading, while a sprinkler is spraying her with water. It's like a wet t-shirt contest, only nothing is shown. Kubrick's Lolita wins this round. 

Kubrick's is definitely superior, especially since they couldn't get away with a lot. It got every point across just with suggestion. Remember Humbert and Lolita never kissed once. I think too much is shown in movies today. It's kinda insulting, really. Film makers think we're too stupid to understand things, and think we have to see everything to put things together. 

Just because I am a part of the visual generation, doesn't mean I watch movies like some of them.

"A Story of Flame and Fury, Faith and Fear, Love and Adventure"

I just finished watching John Ford's last film, 7 Women. I hate the term woman's film. It's sexist. But this is what this movie is. 

The film deals with repressed lesbianism, religion vs. medicine, and feminism. 

It takes place in 1935 China in a Christian mission. The head of the mission, Agatha Andrews (Margaret Leighton) is a tyrant who is a devout Christian, however, she obviously harbors thoughts for the young and pretty Emma Clark (Sue Lyon). Yes, Lolita...

Mrs. Florrie Plether (Betty Field) is 42 and pregnant (sounds like a Lifetime TV movie). Her husband, Charles (Eddie Albert) is a minister wannabe who is the only man at the mission. A doctor is called to take care of Florrie. They are all surprised and weary when Dr. Cartwright (Anne Bancroft) turns up.

  Florrie: You're a woman!

Cartwright: Unless a lot of men have been kidding 

    me.

The only person in the mission who has any faith in the doctor is Emma, creating a sorta triangle. Ms Andrews becomes jealous. To make a long story short, the melodrama goes throug

h a cholera epidemic and also is taken over by Mongolian terrorists. 

Cartwright, in the beginning, is the 1960s stereotype of a feminist. She wears pants, has short hair, and speaks her mind. But Anne Bancroft is so cool and she grows as a character. She's constantly challenging the religious fanatic, Ms. Andrews. 

When the mission is under threat, Ms. Andrews obviously wants to be a martyr. Then when it is taken over, Charles is killed when he tries to save the Chinese women who are being raped by Tunga Khan and his merry men. 

Now most of the women at the mission are older than 40, except Emma. So, I was kinda surprised that they didn't rape her. They didn't even look at her twice. Not that I'm advocating rape. I just found that to be a little strange that they would ignore a pretty blonde. 

Sue Lyon is infamous for her role in Kubrick's Lolita. When I saw her name in the cast list, I thought this had to be a miscast. But Lyon was actually good and convincing. She no longer looked like Lolita, which definitely helped the convincing part. Yet, her hair happened to be perfect when she was a hostage, when the others' hair was disheveled. 

All in all, I found the movie to be interesting, but not an enthusiastically great film. I am usually totally against remaking films, but I think I would like to see Hollywood remake this movie. When this was made, there was too much censorship, so they really couldn't get too much across. Even though it did a good job with trashing religion. However, I think if they did it would end up being a flop. And also, come to think of it, Hollywood really does not like using all female casts. They have to be severely talked into it, and maybe bribed.

The best part of the movie was Anne Bancroft. She's just brilliant. And she had the best lines and saved the day, sacrificing herself. That's the ironic part of the movie. She was not at all religious and was not planning to be a martyr. It was Ms. Andrews who wanted to be a martyr, and started out like one, then she lost it when they were captive. I think that they should have killed Andrews, and used her for food. She just got really annoying. 

Then Florrie, the old, pregnant woman, had the most annoying voice and personality, but you warmed up to her in the end. Only because she had her baby and was too weak to complain about anything. 

The movie was never too politically correct...

Cartwright: Ching! Chang! What ever the 

              hell your name is!

And also I was very surprised that they were so obvious with the lesbian references with Ms. Andrews. She would always look longingly at Emma, and try to touch her whenever she could; her hair, her hand, arm, anything.

So, not the best movie in the world, but worth watching just to see Bancroft's marvelous performance.

"It's All Make Believe, Isn't It?"

She was born Norma Jeane Mortenson, and she became the most remembered sex symbol of all time, Marilyn Monroe. Really she is remembered because of her tragic and sudden death. But there was more to Marilyn. She was overtly sexual and vulnerable, and smart and dumb. 

Judy Holliday once said, "You have to be smart to play a dumb blonde over and over and keep the audience's attention without extraordinary physical equipment."

Marilyn was not as dumb as people thought. Everyone thought that she plays dumb blondes so well, she must be playing herself. That's not true; it's harder to play yourself. That's why actors choose roles that are the exact opposite of themselves. 

Just look at some of her famous witticisms:

"I've been on a calendar, but never on time."

"The trouble with censors is they worry if a girl has cleavage. They ought to worry if she hasn't any."

"What do I wear to bed? Chanel No. 5, of course."

She wanted to grow as an actress, but her bosses didn't support her. After all, she made them money by playing a sexy ditz. Why would they want her to change? So without their blessings, Marilyn went to Lee Strasberg's The Actor's Studio in New York. 

That was extremely brave of her. Someone not famous for their acting and already had a career in Hollywood drops everything and comes to new York. Think of the whispering and criticism she had to endure. 
She has one of the ultimate Cinderella/Hollywood stories. Technically an orphaned girl, who grew up in orphanages and foster homes. Was a model who crossed over to pictures. She was also molested and raped as a child, and had a family history of psychological problems. Now, she is one of the most interesting major figures in history, and one of the most researched. 

I know because when it was time to do senior research papers, all the teachers gave out a sheet of paper that listed the most popular topics. Marilyn was very close to the top. My generation seems a little fascinated by her. She's the only movie star they seem to know about. I wish they knew about others. I find it quite annoying at times. 
I remember when I first saw Marilyn Monroe in a movie, I was unimpressed. The movie was Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, and when I saw her Lorelei Lee, I said to myself, "what a dumb blonde!" I also did see her sex appeal. I thought she was too overt. 

But somehow, my opinion changed and I've seen a majority of her movies. But it's not her films that interest me, but her as a person. She is so misunderstood. And I hate the biopics they produce about her. Because they either make her out to be a slut and bimbo, or they make her to be insane. In reality, Marilyn was manic depressive (bi-polar).

There are too many layers to Marilyn. I don't think anyone will (or should) truly understand her. She is an enigma, even if people think she was vapid. 
R.I.P. Marilyn Monroe 1926-1962

Monroe Films You Should See:

- Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

- Niagra

- River of No Return

- Some Like It Hot

- Bus Stop

- The Seven Year Itch

Graphic Novels & Comic Books: What's the Difference?

Personally, I think there is no physical difference between them...

Some of the most successful movies today are based on either a graphic novel or a comic book. Usually the ones based on graphic novels are more critically and commercially successful, while comic books are only commercially successful.

So it seems, there is a difference in appeal and story. The stories of graphic novels are meant to make one think, to focus on something completely different from real life. More of an alternate universe, where we can identify with characters from a different world, because they are more human than freak.

Comic books are merely to entertain, no one can really put themselves into a comic's characters' shoes because they aren't like us. They're superheroes with superpowers. I'm sorry but I don't think I can truly identify with someone who can fly.

Later this year, another adaptation is going to be released. The Spirit is based on a newspaper comic strip from the 1940s, however, I think the film makers may be juicing it up, making it not as innocent as it probably was. It is directed by Frank Miller, who is responsible for the graphic novels Sin City and 300. The man playing "the Spirit" is really not a household name, but others who are (Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jaime King, and Eva Mendes) will be starring. Here's the official website. Take a look at the trailer....

Now another movie based on a graphic novel will be released on March 6, 2009, and is one of the most anticipated films of next year. Watchmen is based on arguably the best graphic novel of all time, according to critics and fans. The film stars people who are not well-known to the public, but well-known to the critics.

The story is an interesting one. Imagine superheroes who are not super and have the same problems as you or me, and also have some psychological damage going on. The heroes names are: Nite Owl, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Silk Spectre and Dr. Manhattan. It sounds similar to 1999's Mystery Men, but without the comedy and with a better story.


The official website. The trailer....

I always feel that Hollywood is so unoriginal and all they do is use other peoples' stories. In this case, it's kinda a good idea. They seem to make better movies when they are based on graphic novels. When based on comic books, they take too many liberties. But then again, directors filming graphic novels-turned-movies, they are fans and want to make it as faithful as possible, while most directors making comic book movies are usually not fans at first but turn into fans thus changing and tweaking the story here and there.

But that's show business.

"For Who Could Ever Learn to Love a Beast?"

So I recently have been listening to The Little Mermaid Broadway soundtrack (I have no idea what brought this on). I've been feeling really nostalgic lately, probably cuz I'm going to be leaving for college in August, so I've been focusing all my energy on my childhood love of animated Disney movies. My favorite is Beauty and the Beast, with The Little Mermaid as a close second. However, I think I have seen The Little Mermaid more times than Beauty and the Beast cuz I rented it so much as a child.

I've always liked Belle better than the other Disney princesses. She's so different from them. 1.) She's not blonde or blue-eyed. 2.) She thinks for herself and doesn't let anyone tell her what to do. I used to humor myself when I was in kindergarten, thinking I looked like Belle. Not really. But I did wear my hair in a ponytail a lot, so maybe that had something to do with it.

Another thing I like about Beauty and the Beast is its dark atmosphere. Really, if you think about it, fairy tales are kind of dark and gothic. I've always liked the darkness of some movies. It works with Batman and it works with this. It is kinda intense, as well. it doesn't exactly deal with things light-heartedly. The climactic ending with the fight between Gaston and the Beast is like a live action fight scene, and it does not hold back. The whole movie is shot like a live action film. The transitions and angles are great examples. There are smash cuts and crane shots. It reveals everything through camera shots and scenes, and not all at once like in some animated features.

Beauty and the Beast is a different fairy tale. It shows that a prince is not always good-looking and perfect. The Beast is kinda an anti-hero. He has a bad temper and is selfish (in the beginning). He doesn't have a name in the movie either, but I did just find out that it is Adam. (What kind of name is Adam for a Prince???) Anyway, it's a good lesson for young kids that beauty is skin deep, and being attractive doesn't automatically make you a good person.

Take Gaston, for instance. He was evil (hopefully, every villain is). Though his manly vainness did add some funny comic relief. Also Belle proves that the beautiful people can be smart too. I don't know of too many, however...

This movie has something for everyone. It's one of those rare films that pleases and satisfies both children and adults because is can be seen at two levels. Also Disney wanted to promote it that way by distributing two posters. One to appeal to adults; the other, children. (Top of page: adult poster; Below: kids).
The film satisfies the older crowd with something they love and miss from their childhood because this film reminds them of this. It's entertaining and emotional, and it embraces a more classic Hollywood approach on romance than is done today. Forget sex scenes and embrace genuine romance. For children, it's pure entertainment. For young children, they will not grasp the romance aspect but it involves singing/dancing, talking objects and magic.

There's also a really funny line ad-libbed by David Ogden Stiers aka Cogsworth, when the Beast is asking him and Lumiere what he should give Belle.

Beast: I want to do something for her. But what?
Cogsworth: Well, there's the usual things: flowers, chocolates, promises you don't intend to keep.

I thought it was funny.

Beauty and the Beast strikes a cord for some, myself included. I watched this the other night (I haven't watched it in years and I should have been trying to sleep, I had work the next day) and I became engrossed in the movie like I did when I was young, but this time I watched it with a more mature eye. I admit I am a sucker for romance and cried at the end. Shut up, I admitted it!

This is the first animated movie to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. A cartoon being nominated for the most prestigious awards a film can get? That never happens, but it does go to show that this film is not just a kid's movie. It's a movie, period.