Mona Lisa

While Neil Jordan's Mona Lisa treads on familiar ground and the ending is a bit too pat (what happened between what occurred in that room, to George’s happy state at the end?) Overall, "the great" overshadows any nitpicks. And I'm not alone in my affection for it, author Dennis Lehane called it his favorite movie of the eighties, and comedian Bill Hader included it in his Criterion Top 10, as did filmmaker Jeremiah Zagar. So, good company there.

Particularly great is Bob Hoskins, who gives a touching performance, arguably his best ever (one that is rather Marty-like, but with an edge.)

Hoskins plays a low-level criminal named George, fresh out of prison, who is given a job chauffeuring for a call girl. At first, they are like oil and water, but soon George starts to care about this woman, and aids her when she asks for his help in locating an underage hooker that she fears is in danger.

While there is crime, and Jordan gives a sense of a city's tragic seedy underbelly (as well defined as the one Scorsese drew in Taxi Driver). The strength of the picture is its character study, and that it takes its time and allows us to get to know these people. George is a guy who is discovering that the game has changed. He's out of his element, slow on the upswing, not sophisticated in the least. But he's got the heart of a white knight. He feels concern and stands up for the women he encounters – whether for the daughter he's trying to get reacquainted with, or the streetwalker he rescues, or the hooker he falls for. 

It's sad seeing this poor lug convince himself that the tramp is a lady (and Bob's acting near the end when he finally ‘gets it’, was heartbreaking). Not that she's a terrible human being – there seems to be some genuine affection there, but she wants something from George, and she'll do whatever it takes to get it.

Hoskins isn't the only acting ace. Michael Caine plays George's snake in the grass boss, the great Robby Coltrane is his crime novel loving best friend -- and Cathy Tyson is so good in her début, playing the elegant prostitute Simone, that I'm stunned that she hasn't done more feature film work.

While there are great moments throughout - the character interaction and acting, direction and script come together in one scene that left a lasting impression. It's in the final act, when Simone -looking for understanding- asks an upset George, "You ever need someone?" and he responds with a tiny crack in his voice, "All the time." Man, that stole the breath from my lungs. And the movie is sprinkled with small, beautiful touches like that one.

Back to 1986

Viridiana

Viridiana is Luis Buñuel's scathing look at religion and humiliation... which he saw as going hand in hand. He also looks at Saintly trials and sacrifices as sought after –not for want of holiness- but for love of suffering. Bathed in sociopolitical symbolism (a little girl deliberately spilling her milk on a cow's head. A crucifix that opens to reveal a knife), Viridiana is complex, cruel, darkly funny and endlessly thought-provoking.

Writer Hal Erickson's synopsis... "After 25 years' exile, Luis Buñuel was invited to his native Spain to direct Viridiana -- only to have the Spanish government suppress the film on the grounds of blasphemy and obscenity. Regarded by many as Buñuel's crowning achievement, the film centers on an idealistic young nun named Viridiana (Silvia Pinal). Just before taking her final vows, Viridiana is forced by her mother superior to visit her wealthy uncle Don Jaime (Fernando Rey), who has "selflessly" provided for the girl over the years. She has always considered Don Jaime an unspeakable beast, so she is surprised when he graciously welcomes her into his home. Just as graciously, he sets about to corrupt Viridiana beyond redemption -- all because the girl resembles his late wife. It is always hard to select the most outrageous scene in any Buñuel film; our candidate in Viridiana is the devastating Last Supper tableau consisting of beggars, thieves, and degenerates. As joltingly brilliant today as on its first release, Viridiana won the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival."

Back to 1961

Shadow of a Doubt

Psychological and character driven, watch it for Joseph Cotten, who was note perfect as the suave but diabolical Uncle Charlie. I love how the train he rides into town on, billows out thick black smoke from its stack, as if it's bringing something evil. But the opening sequence overall is a masterclass in choreographing scenes, in world building, in the importance of setting the table. For example - The credits roll as couples dance (a sound and visual motif that pops up here and there), which takes us not to a thriving city, but to the places where the homeless dwell -- That will later contrast to the perfect, idealized American town, with a smiling cop directing traffic. From a cheery, chattering wholesome family, to Uncle Charlie sitting alone in a dark room, his mind a little scattered... but sharp enough - and from the start we are shown that he's a parasite, he gets everyone to cater to him, nurse him on the train, carry his bags afterwards... and it's all accompanied by this Dimitri Tiomkin score that could fit right in with any old Andy Hardy flick.... which continues throughout, a bit overcooked and soap opera-ish in spots - so far removed from Bernard Herrmann's surreal, haunting compositions that suited Hitchcock best, but so right for what the director was serving up here. It's chiaroscuro in all phases, score to photography to tone. (Teresa Wrights the perfect contrast to Cotten, sweet to his sour - but when it all comes crashing down, and the ugly world intrudes on her ordinary life - then it becomes a face-off, and here she shows some steel)

While the character of the detective was a bit weak - there is so much to admire and enjoy. Critic Dave Kehr said summed it up nicely when he wrote… “Hitchcock's discovery of darkness within the heart of small-town America remains one of his most harrowing films, a peek behind the facade of security that reveals loneliness, despair, and death. Thornton Wilder collaborated on the script; it's Our Town turned inside out.”

And along with that, Alfred throws in splashes of black humor throughout.

Memorable Scenes: The Charlies, one at the top of the stairs, with concern on his face, looking down at the other, framed by the door, looking cool as a cucumber and unaware of what's going on in that sick mind of his - The camera zeroes in on the ring - The train bringing Uncle Charlie to town billows out thick black smoke - Joseph Cotten speaks of his hatred for rich single women, his niece Charlie argues that they are people like everyone else. Cotten turns, looks directly into the camera and replies chillingly... "Are they?"

Memorable Quote: "Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you rip off the fronts of houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it? Wake up, Charlie. Use your wits. Learn something." - Joseph Cotten as Uncle Charlie

Hitchcock Cameo: 14 minutes into the film he can be seen on the train playing bridge with a man and a woman.

Of Note: Playwright David Mamet calls it Hitchcock's finest. Alfred sometimes told interviewers that it was his personal favorite among his American films.

Back to 1943

Psycho

The progenitor of the modern slasher film is as effective today and IMHO reigns as the best of the genre because it tells its chilling story with class and style - every angle, every shadow, every sound embodies the Hitchcockian ideal, and he achieves this on a modest budget using his television crew. While North by Northwest saw Hitch going bigger and brighter, Psycho is a more intimate, smaller scale production, steeped in dread.

The shower scene remains as horrifying as ever—the transition from the swirling drain to the victim's eye is among the most striking images in Hitchcock's oeuvre, or any film for that matter. The later sequence in the dark, foreboding house, where Vera Miles seeks to question Mother, features a storytelling tool we are by now familiar with, that regardless, works wonderfully; as each step of her search uncovers aspects of Norman's character, from his "little boys" bedroom to the shocking revelation in the cellar.

While the segment with Simon Oakland towards the end is overly expository -these parts should have been pared down to the essentials or removed entirely (writer Joseph Stefano pushed to have this scene included, but it violates Hitch's rule of the MacGuffin and forces the audience to examine the mechanics of the story too closely). Thankfully it rebounds with that final eerie scene, with Norman enveloped in shadow, hearing mother's voice in his mind. (Hitch used 3 women to voice dear old mom. And while we consciously might not be aware of this, we do notice that something’s not quite right. It's another beautiful touch that again, highlights the directors command of image and sound).

It's true that we are too familiar with the story these days - it doesn’t surprise us the way it did theatergoers in the 60s (my mother spoke of the lingering effects of the picture, and how it continually set you back on your heels). Nevertheless, it remains essential Hitchcock viewing, distinguished by Anthony Perkin’s sympathetic/disturbing performance and Bernard Herrmann’s iconic score.

Memorable Scenes: The shower - Mother revealed - The final shots of Norman with Mothers face quickly superimposed over his.

Memorable Quote: "You know what I think? I think that we're all in our private traps, clamped in them, and none of us can ever get out. We scratch and we claw, but only at the air, only at each other, and for all of it, we never budge an inch." - Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates

Hitchcock Cameo: 7 minutes in he can be seen through a window, wearing a Stetson hat, standing outside Marion Crane's office

Of Note: Hitch had to finance the film himself because Paramount didn’t want to make it and was expecting him to direct "No Bail for the Judge", with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn instead.

Back to 1961

Rear Window

Thrill as a man in a wheelchair stares out the window all day and night! Yup, that's what's he does, but that's not all this is - Here we have the best of Hitchcock's "confined spaces" stories - which is a gripping murder mystery married to a clever study of human nature (I love that it's the all-American good guy Jimmy Stewart, peeping on his neighbors, this probably tickled Alfred to no end).

Based on Cornell Woolrich's It Had to Be Murder (published in Dime Detective, February 1942), which was itself based on H.G. Wells' short story Through a Window - The Oscar nominated script, the inventive idea of it all is brought to life by the superb cast and a stellar directorial hand - he with his wicked manipulations (I enjoy the twist of how Raymond Burr as the baddie, Thorwald, comes off kind of sympathetic. It's like, "poor bastard being harassed by this nosy neighbor" - then you realize that this poor bastard has chopped up his wife in little pieces!)

While the director was renowned for carefully mapping out his movies with storyboards and miniatures, and was hailed as a visionary for his development of an auteur language (via the camera), it's a shame that cinematographer Robert Burks is often the forgotten man in these pictures. For Hitch, the movie was already completed in his mind, but it was Burks who had to translate it onto film. Let's give him his due, because despite the limited spaces, this picture moves.

From the outset you're guided by his wandering camera, which leads you out of a room to explore the surrounding apartment complex. It pauses briefly to snoop in on the lives of the residents, before returning to our protagonist, where we are supplied with his backstory - who he is, what he does, and how he came to be in this state he's in. All of that is furnished without a word of exposition being spoken.

It's so damned clever that I always get a charge watching it unfold - see for yourself what I mean.

Whenever I watch this movie I think of a maestro conducting his orchestra, highlighting all the players, and manipulating them, manipulating us, without any of us protesting that he's doing so - in fact, were happy to go along with him - just take us wherever you want, lead us to Thorwald's apartment and sneak around a bit, going from one room to the next and back - it makes us tense, anxious, don't let him see us, don't let her be caught! Gah, I'm biting my nails at the memory of it.

Memorable Scenes: James Stewart looks through his camera lens and catches Raymond Burr staring right at him. Stewart realizes that the killer now knows who and where he is.

Memorable Quote: "We've become a race of Peeping Toms. What people ought to do is get outside their own house and look in for a change." - Stella

Hitchcock Cameo: He is seen in the songwriter's apartment, winding a clock

Other Thoughts: Critic Roger Ebert: "The film develops such a clean, uncluttered line from beginning to end that we're drawn through it (and into it) effortlessly. The experience is not so much like watching a movie, as like ... well, like spying on your neighbors. Hitchcock traps us right from the first....And because Hitchcock makes us accomplices in Stewart's voyeurism, we're along for the ride. When an enraged man comes bursting through the door to kill Stewart, we can't detach ourselves, because we looked too, and so we share the guilt and in a way we deserve what's coming to him."

Back to 1954

Rebecca

Hitchcock’s first US production was a Gothic romance, tinged with madness, which earned 11 nominations and won the Best Picture Oscar (Hitch lost the best director award to John Ford for the “Grapes of Wrath”. Ford would win 4 directorial Oscars; Hitch never got a one).

The performances? Olivier as Mr. de Winter is both cooly suave and distant & troubled. Joan Fontaine does very well with the mousy stuff. She really does seem uncomfortable and uncertain, just as Hitch wants her to be. The supporting actors shine, the great George Sanders is suitably slimy, and Judith Anderson is perfectly batshit insane as the icy and cruel Mrs. Danvers (who really has it bad for the former lady of the house, which has some critics speculating that the two had a sexual liaison at some point).

Rebecca is Hitch at his most Hollywood slick and he does a great job of casting Rebecca's formidable shadow upon the whole film. While it loses some of its elegance when it slips into blackmail schemes and courtrooms, mostly it stays in its gothic lane with dreamy photography (it won an Oscar for best B&W Cinematography) and dreamy music from Franz Waxman who created a "ghost orchestra" by using a Hammond organ and two Hammond Novachords - a Novachord was a complex, expensive, polyphonic electronic keyboard, the first of its kind and in limited production, it provided the spooky vibratos you hear from time to time to represent Rebecca's haunting spirit.

Memorable Scenes: Joan Fontaine looks out a window as Mrs. Danvers speaks to her of suicide - Danvers engulfed by flame in the finale - The chilling opening sequence, with the camera moving through Manderley in ruins, is genius.

Memorable Quote: "You thought you could be Mrs. de Winter, live in her house, walk in her steps, take the things that were hers! But she's too strong for you. You can't fight her - no one ever got the better of her. Never, never. She was beaten in the end, but it wasn't a man, it wasn't a woman. It was the sea!" - Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers

Hitchcock Cameo: This one takes place near the end, he's seen outside the phone booth while Jack makes a call.

Of Note: Hitch’s first film for Selznick for the US of A, was reportedly going to be a movie about the Titanic

This was the second Daphne du Maurier adaptation for the director, and much more successful than the first (though I have an affection for Jamaica Inn, there's something weirdly intriguing about that one, surreal and nightmarish with an off-his nut performance from Charles Laughton). Alfred would later cover The Birds... and I wish he'd have done My Cousin Rachel, as IMHO, no one has quite nailed that story, I wonder if Hitch would have?

Return to 1940

Juror #2

This conversation near the end of the film was one of the more dispiriting moments for me - see spoiler for the whys

Summary: While serving as a juror in a murder trial, Justin Kemp finds himself facing a moral dilemma, if he does the right thing, he could lose everything he holds dear.

Having followed Clint since the '60s, I was eager to see his next production, rumored to be his last, on the big screen. Thus, Warner's decision to limit its release to fewer than 50 theaters across the US, was disheartening to say the least. Moreover, Guillermo del Toro's enthusiastic tweet, praising the courtroom drama while urging viewers to see it at their local cineplex, made it sting all the more.

Then the email came... Juror #2 was coming to one theater in town for Thanksgiving week - what, really! If I wasn't a man in my 60s, I might have done backflips. Hell, I might risk one regardless after having seen it, because Juror certainly met expectations.

del Toro described the direction as "unfussy", which aptly characterizes Eastwood's style - you get a few eye-catching shots, but nothing overly show-offy, the production values, set design, edits and such are smartly, professionally done. This is simply a solid, well-made picture by a master craftsman and his crew.

The moral complexities that have been a signature throughout his career are present, he's always been willing to explore those murky gray areas. It also takes the stance that, while flawed, this system is the best option we have to see justice done. But when you meet the people who hold this person's fate in their hands, it makes you question that. From a guy who refuses to budge an inch, to a woman who just wants to go home, to two younger folk who seem totally disinterested - and while they're countered by one who is intensely interested, it's based on her love of TV crime shows. Then we come to the man who knows the truth, and yet... I think about this in my own life; remembering co-workers who were all trained professionals, but not equally as competent or diligent. Just who are we trusting when we get our car repaired, or need surgery, or in this particular situation, when relying on a jury of your peers? It's not like they received a diploma for the task.

While there are a few hiccups in Jonathan Abrams script (lapses in logic, contrivances), they're minor and not worth emphasizing in a film of this caliber - a film that's thought provoking and yes, refreshingly made for grownups!

It does take its time, pacing wise, but doesn't feel draggy or overlong. I never got fidgety or felt the need to check the time, for me, it's exactly how, and what it should be.

Performances are first rate, Toni Collette and J.K. Simmons are standouts, but it's Nicholas Hoult who carries the film, playing a man who's struggling to hold it together and trying desperately to find a way to do the right thing, without destroying his own life. It's the best work he's ever done to my mind, layered, and worthy of consideration come awards season.

In closing - seeing the words, "Malpaso Productions" at the beginning made my heart skip a beat - made me smile from all the memories associated with it; and if this is indeed the actor/director's final bow, he went out with a winner. 

SPOILER! Why is the scene pictured up top dispiriting?

Because for a while I was in Justin's corner, I wanted him to save this person and save himself in the process, I thought, despite the lies and such, he was basically a decent guy, but what he says to the DA rips away that facade... While I get his reasons (this is self-preservation), the way he acts, his words and manner - yeah, he's just another mess of a human being, and far from the flawed hero.

Return to 2024