This film left me with a profound sense of sadness, but it's not a "Kleenex" film. Boys Don't Cry is about the horrors that people do to each other, as well as the struggle to figure out who we are in a world full of people who all have their own opinions about us. I love two things about it: the title, which is perfect, and Hilary Swank's Oscar-winning performance as Teena/Brandon. She is a drifter who, believing that she was supposed to be male, dreams of having sex-change surgery. As she waits, she dresses as a boy, dates women, gets into repeated trouble with the law, and moves in for a time with a small-town family that's almost as aimless as she is. She falls in love with a girl named Lana, which leads to trouble later on once people figure out who she really is. Swank's performance is deep and complex; she clearly shows the conflict between Teena/Brandon's desire to be a man and her reality of being a woman. Although I loved Annette Bening in American Beauty, I definitely think Swank deserved her Oscar. I think this film disturbed me even more because I knew it was largely based on a true story. It's an odd combination of sickening tragedy, beautiful emotion, and haunting ideas and images. The credits song, "The Bluest Eyes in Texas," still gives me chills when I think about it.
Reviews
4 Reviews
In Country
(1989)
Willis and ending make up for Emily Lloyd
28 May 2000
I liked two main things about the movie adaptation of In Country. One was Bruce Willis' performance. I'd read a bit about it beforehand, but I was quite impressed with the way he held his pain just under the surface for most of the film. We could almost see the wall he had put up for himself (and against himself). His meeting with Sam in the swamp fascinated me. I'm really interested in the gradual changes that occur in people, and in the swamp his wall finally breaks a bit and he lets Sam in. It's a very powerful scene by an underrated actor. I believe he won a Golden Globe nomination for this film, for what that's worth.
The other thing I really liked was the final sequence at the Vietnam Memorial. The director and screenwriter realized that they didn't need to spoil it with a lot of philosophical junk about the tragedy of war. They show us using the darkness and slow decent of the wall, the people's reactions, and the characters' reactions. As much as I disliked Sam, I nearly got teary when she climbed up the ladder and kissed her daddy's name. Emmitt's scene where he leaves his awards there with his friends is another great one-hardly any (possibly no) words, simply the act of giving part of his past to his friends who didn't make it back.
I noticed several changes in the movie, and the discussion afterwards showed me more. The most obvious was the structure; the movie is a straight, linear story while the book is a framed story. I don't think the frame wouldn't have worked too well as a film because I don't think most audiences want the bulk of a movie to be a flashback/look back type portrayal. I guess it seems too slow. One of the ones that bothered me the most was the change in Tom's character. In the book Tom has some kind of impotence or relationship problem because of the war. This prevents him from following his lust and taking Sam to bed. In the movie, it is implied that they do sleep together, and that Tom ends the relationship because he feels guilty or because of her age, not because of impotence or relationship issues. Many aspects of the book and storyline are understandably simplified to save time. Thankfully the Agent Orange obsession that Sam has in the book is largely absent in the movie. For example, Sam's two sets of grandparents are combined into her father's parents. She also spends less time with Dawn, and she goes directly from her grandparents' house to the swamp to read Dwayne's diary. We also don't see as much that she's out there to relate to the soldiers; instead she seems more like a little girl camping in her backyard.
This brings me to my final point. Emily Lloyd's performance was annoying. Everything about her-her voice, her accent, her appearance, her actions, the way she ran (especially the way she ran-no trained runner would ever run like that during a race)-was annoying. Sure, part of it was simply because her character is like that. She begs and begs everyone to tell her about Vietnam, but when Emmitt finally does a bit she can't handle it, and she decides (briefly) that she doesn't like her father anymore because of what he did in the war. What did she expect? She just seems naïve and annoying, and that's not a fun combination. However, I must admit, she did make some progress, and at the end of the movie (when she leaves the photo of herself at Dwayne's grave) she has gained an idea of what war was like and the effects it has on veterans.
If you like the movie, you might like the book even more. If you liked the book but haven't seen the movie, watch it simply to see Willis as Emmitt.
The other thing I really liked was the final sequence at the Vietnam Memorial. The director and screenwriter realized that they didn't need to spoil it with a lot of philosophical junk about the tragedy of war. They show us using the darkness and slow decent of the wall, the people's reactions, and the characters' reactions. As much as I disliked Sam, I nearly got teary when she climbed up the ladder and kissed her daddy's name. Emmitt's scene where he leaves his awards there with his friends is another great one-hardly any (possibly no) words, simply the act of giving part of his past to his friends who didn't make it back.
I noticed several changes in the movie, and the discussion afterwards showed me more. The most obvious was the structure; the movie is a straight, linear story while the book is a framed story. I don't think the frame wouldn't have worked too well as a film because I don't think most audiences want the bulk of a movie to be a flashback/look back type portrayal. I guess it seems too slow. One of the ones that bothered me the most was the change in Tom's character. In the book Tom has some kind of impotence or relationship problem because of the war. This prevents him from following his lust and taking Sam to bed. In the movie, it is implied that they do sleep together, and that Tom ends the relationship because he feels guilty or because of her age, not because of impotence or relationship issues. Many aspects of the book and storyline are understandably simplified to save time. Thankfully the Agent Orange obsession that Sam has in the book is largely absent in the movie. For example, Sam's two sets of grandparents are combined into her father's parents. She also spends less time with Dawn, and she goes directly from her grandparents' house to the swamp to read Dwayne's diary. We also don't see as much that she's out there to relate to the soldiers; instead she seems more like a little girl camping in her backyard.
This brings me to my final point. Emily Lloyd's performance was annoying. Everything about her-her voice, her accent, her appearance, her actions, the way she ran (especially the way she ran-no trained runner would ever run like that during a race)-was annoying. Sure, part of it was simply because her character is like that. She begs and begs everyone to tell her about Vietnam, but when Emmitt finally does a bit she can't handle it, and she decides (briefly) that she doesn't like her father anymore because of what he did in the war. What did she expect? She just seems naïve and annoying, and that's not a fun combination. However, I must admit, she did make some progress, and at the end of the movie (when she leaves the photo of herself at Dwayne's grave) she has gained an idea of what war was like and the effects it has on veterans.
If you like the movie, you might like the book even more. If you liked the book but haven't seen the movie, watch it simply to see Willis as Emmitt.
Rope
(1948)
Brilliant, unsettling, and underrated Hitchcock film
28 May 2000
According to the IMDB, this wasn't one of Hitchcock's favorite movies, and is considered by many (perhaps even himself) to be an `experiment that failed.' I must disagree. I think I liked this better than any other Hitchcock movie I've seen.
Where should I start? I guess the thing I loved the most was the long takes, but hey, I'm a sucker for long takes if they're done well. The thing I liked most about the recent film Snake Eyes was the opening shot that follows Nicholas Cage all over the place for the first 8-10 minutes or so. I love the beginning of The Player because it shows the busyness and interconnectedness of life at a Hollywood studio. I love the long takes here because they are largely responsible for the pervasive creepy tension and atmosphere of the film. We, the audience, are stuck in the apartment with the two murderers and the body for the entire movie. Since the location never changes, we learn the layout of the apartment, and come to know where everything is at all times, including the body. No matter where the shot takes us, we're always thinking about that body. We wonder whether someone will find it or not, who it will be, and even if the body is actually dead (perhaps I've seen too many horror flicks, but at times I wondered if the body would suddenly wake up and pop his head out of the chest/coffin).
We also wonder where Philip is and what he is doing. Is he acting normally like Brandon, or is he still having a conscience attack and making everyone uncomfortable (including us!)? The whole effect is very claustrophobic, and it really forces the audience to identify with the characters and many of the emotions they are feeling. Our obsession with the body is surely shared by the anxious Philip, who is terrified of getting caught. Our concerns about Philip's behavior are shared by Brandon, who is surely worried that Philip will do something stupid enough that someone figures out what happened.
A few parts really stand out in terms of effect. One is the part in which the maid is clearing off the chest after dinner. The camera shows her and the chest, but offscreen to the right the men are talking-either about David or something else, I can't remember. I think it's David. The tension created by this scene is incredible, for we know that once she finishes with the table, she might put the books back in and find the body. Another particularly effective part (I guess I can't say `scene,' can I?) is the very end. Hitchcock doesn't try to `enrich' it with dialogue; he simply lets the images and sounds speak for themselves.
I will admit that some of the cuts were quite contrived, but I guess that's unavoidable. In a movie with 7 cuts connecting 8 extremely long takes, the cuts are bound to be relatively noticeable simply because of their rarity and the fact that we are looking for them. OK, maybe some people aren't actively looking for them, but I was. Anyway, we're so used to films with dozens or even hundreds of cuts that a movie like this really stands out. I don't know if there is any way for Hitch to make the cuts any smoother (i.e. without zooming in on Brandon's back or the chest), but for me the cuts were a bit of a distraction. One of the only things I don't like about the film.
I wish more video stores carried Rope, because it is truly a fascinating movie that deserves study. 9/10
Where should I start? I guess the thing I loved the most was the long takes, but hey, I'm a sucker for long takes if they're done well. The thing I liked most about the recent film Snake Eyes was the opening shot that follows Nicholas Cage all over the place for the first 8-10 minutes or so. I love the beginning of The Player because it shows the busyness and interconnectedness of life at a Hollywood studio. I love the long takes here because they are largely responsible for the pervasive creepy tension and atmosphere of the film. We, the audience, are stuck in the apartment with the two murderers and the body for the entire movie. Since the location never changes, we learn the layout of the apartment, and come to know where everything is at all times, including the body. No matter where the shot takes us, we're always thinking about that body. We wonder whether someone will find it or not, who it will be, and even if the body is actually dead (perhaps I've seen too many horror flicks, but at times I wondered if the body would suddenly wake up and pop his head out of the chest/coffin).
We also wonder where Philip is and what he is doing. Is he acting normally like Brandon, or is he still having a conscience attack and making everyone uncomfortable (including us!)? The whole effect is very claustrophobic, and it really forces the audience to identify with the characters and many of the emotions they are feeling. Our obsession with the body is surely shared by the anxious Philip, who is terrified of getting caught. Our concerns about Philip's behavior are shared by Brandon, who is surely worried that Philip will do something stupid enough that someone figures out what happened.
A few parts really stand out in terms of effect. One is the part in which the maid is clearing off the chest after dinner. The camera shows her and the chest, but offscreen to the right the men are talking-either about David or something else, I can't remember. I think it's David. The tension created by this scene is incredible, for we know that once she finishes with the table, she might put the books back in and find the body. Another particularly effective part (I guess I can't say `scene,' can I?) is the very end. Hitchcock doesn't try to `enrich' it with dialogue; he simply lets the images and sounds speak for themselves.
I will admit that some of the cuts were quite contrived, but I guess that's unavoidable. In a movie with 7 cuts connecting 8 extremely long takes, the cuts are bound to be relatively noticeable simply because of their rarity and the fact that we are looking for them. OK, maybe some people aren't actively looking for them, but I was. Anyway, we're so used to films with dozens or even hundreds of cuts that a movie like this really stands out. I don't know if there is any way for Hitch to make the cuts any smoother (i.e. without zooming in on Brandon's back or the chest), but for me the cuts were a bit of a distraction. One of the only things I don't like about the film.
I wish more video stores carried Rope, because it is truly a fascinating movie that deserves study. 9/10
The General
(1926)
Keaton is amazing
28 May 2000
I've seen one other silent movie in my life, but it was Mel Brooks's The Silent Movie so I don't know if it really counts. I really enjoyed The General overall, more than I thought I would as someone who was born after The Godfather.
The main thing that surprised me was the fact that I couldn't look down to write very many notes; any time I took my eyes off the screen I ran a serious risk of missing something. It seems to me that the film, even though it was long (or seemed so), it was very dense in terms of action. I imagine that since the movie has no dialogue, the filmmakers must make up for it by making it as visually interesting and entertaining as possible. I am accustomed to more modern movies with snappy dialogue and special effects and such-movies in which you can look down at your popcorn or kiss your date and not miss too much because you can hear pretty much what's happening. This was a nice change for me.
Obviously, I've never seen a Buster Keaton film, and I'm not even sure if I'd heard of him before this class. But I can see why he is so appealing in his films. I loved his facial expressions, particularly the stoic-but-crestfallen look in his eyes on the train when something else goes wrong. He also has great control of his body, as we discussed in class, and a fine sense of comic timing.
I found the film surprisingly funny. Many modern films that I think are funny (e.g. Austin Powers, Toy Story, American Beauty) rely largely on witty or outrageous dialogue for their humor. As a silent film, The General must rely mainly on images for its humor-the slapstick images of Johnnie falling over constantly, the unusual image of Johnnie riding up and down on the crossbar between the train wheels, the stereotype exploitation in the scene when the girl sweeps out the locomotive. I'm sure that some of the things that I considered amusing might not have been considered funny by the original audience, such as the record-scratch lightning bolts.
I really liked some of the cinematic techniques and blocking that Keaton used. One of my favorite scenes in the entire film is when Johnnie is chopping wood on the train while the Southern army retreats in the opposite direction in the background. Even though the `real' army is pulling back, the one they didn't want is rushing into enemy territory. It's a nice integration of plot and character commentary. I also liked the way he kept cutting back and forth between the Yankees on their trains and Johnnie on his, at first the pursuer, then the pursuee. By continually showing us what both sides are doing, Keaton builds the tension between them, adds to the comic effect, and keeps the audience interested by always giving them something different to look at. This montage technique is used in nearly all action films and many comedy films today.
I did not realize that the rain and fire sound effects were added in later. I think they are interesting, and I can see why someone put them in, but I think I would prefer that the film be left the way it was originally shown. Or at least they should take out the chirping birds. Some people complained about the repetitiveness of the music, but I found the music quaint and very much in the character of the movie. It was as if each person or group had its own theme music, perhaps to make up for the lack of dialogue. The use of the `Beautiful Dreamer' love theme reminds me of the `Dreamweaver' love theme in Wayne's World that plays when Garth sees the blonde woman.
Although the battle scene was interesting, I agreed with much of the class that the movie could have ended earlier. The movie seemed to change a bit once the entire army got involved and the focus left Johnnie for a time. Perhaps they could have ended the battle scene with the Southern army lying in wait for the enemy, and then cut to a later scene in which Johnnie receives an honorary enlistment so he can get the girl. But hey, then Keaton wouldn't have gotten to play with the bridge fire and the dam; maybe audiences then weren't so different from us, and would prefer an exciting ending for a movie like this over a more subdued one. But I still think it changed the character of the movie and should have been changed somehow.
Overall I give it a 9/10. If you've never seen a silent movie, this is a great one to start with.
The main thing that surprised me was the fact that I couldn't look down to write very many notes; any time I took my eyes off the screen I ran a serious risk of missing something. It seems to me that the film, even though it was long (or seemed so), it was very dense in terms of action. I imagine that since the movie has no dialogue, the filmmakers must make up for it by making it as visually interesting and entertaining as possible. I am accustomed to more modern movies with snappy dialogue and special effects and such-movies in which you can look down at your popcorn or kiss your date and not miss too much because you can hear pretty much what's happening. This was a nice change for me.
Obviously, I've never seen a Buster Keaton film, and I'm not even sure if I'd heard of him before this class. But I can see why he is so appealing in his films. I loved his facial expressions, particularly the stoic-but-crestfallen look in his eyes on the train when something else goes wrong. He also has great control of his body, as we discussed in class, and a fine sense of comic timing.
I found the film surprisingly funny. Many modern films that I think are funny (e.g. Austin Powers, Toy Story, American Beauty) rely largely on witty or outrageous dialogue for their humor. As a silent film, The General must rely mainly on images for its humor-the slapstick images of Johnnie falling over constantly, the unusual image of Johnnie riding up and down on the crossbar between the train wheels, the stereotype exploitation in the scene when the girl sweeps out the locomotive. I'm sure that some of the things that I considered amusing might not have been considered funny by the original audience, such as the record-scratch lightning bolts.
I really liked some of the cinematic techniques and blocking that Keaton used. One of my favorite scenes in the entire film is when Johnnie is chopping wood on the train while the Southern army retreats in the opposite direction in the background. Even though the `real' army is pulling back, the one they didn't want is rushing into enemy territory. It's a nice integration of plot and character commentary. I also liked the way he kept cutting back and forth between the Yankees on their trains and Johnnie on his, at first the pursuer, then the pursuee. By continually showing us what both sides are doing, Keaton builds the tension between them, adds to the comic effect, and keeps the audience interested by always giving them something different to look at. This montage technique is used in nearly all action films and many comedy films today.
I did not realize that the rain and fire sound effects were added in later. I think they are interesting, and I can see why someone put them in, but I think I would prefer that the film be left the way it was originally shown. Or at least they should take out the chirping birds. Some people complained about the repetitiveness of the music, but I found the music quaint and very much in the character of the movie. It was as if each person or group had its own theme music, perhaps to make up for the lack of dialogue. The use of the `Beautiful Dreamer' love theme reminds me of the `Dreamweaver' love theme in Wayne's World that plays when Garth sees the blonde woman.
Although the battle scene was interesting, I agreed with much of the class that the movie could have ended earlier. The movie seemed to change a bit once the entire army got involved and the focus left Johnnie for a time. Perhaps they could have ended the battle scene with the Southern army lying in wait for the enemy, and then cut to a later scene in which Johnnie receives an honorary enlistment so he can get the girl. But hey, then Keaton wouldn't have gotten to play with the bridge fire and the dam; maybe audiences then weren't so different from us, and would prefer an exciting ending for a movie like this over a more subdued one. But I still think it changed the character of the movie and should have been changed somehow.
Overall I give it a 9/10. If you've never seen a silent movie, this is a great one to start with.
Tell Your Friends