Showing posts with label Shelf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shelf. Show all posts

Monday, 10 January 2011

Shelf Life: The Apartment


For entertainment journalists who don't pore over Oscar prospects, the beginning of the year is always difficult because there's not a whole lot of interesting news, and not a lot of movies (good ones, anyway) to review or cover. And this week, even the new DVD and Blu-ray releases are pretty underwhelming. But as we explored at the end of 2010, the end of the year and the beginning of a new one has served as the subject – or at least the time frame - of many movies.

And after my girlfriend and I made an impromptu decision to watch 'The Apartment,' an iconic drama which happens to focus on three people finding their way through complicated relationships over the holiday season, Billy Wilder's film seemed perfect for 2011's inaugural edition of "Shelf Life."

The Facts: Released in 1960, Billy Wilder's 'The Apartment' was a follow-up to his spectacularly successful comedy 'Some Like It Hot,' and despite its decidedly darker tone, the film was an immediate box office success, earning $25 million against its $3 million budget. Meanwhile, the film was nominated for ten Academy Awards and won five, including Best Picture, Best Director for Wilder, Best Adapted Screenplay for Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, Best Art Direction, and Best Editing. Although 'Schindler's List' was primarily in black and white, 'The Apartment' was the last completely b&w film to win Best Picture in Oscar history.

Additionally, the film won acting awards for Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine at the BAFTAs and the Golden Globes, as well as both of those organizations' Best Picture awards. In 1994, the film was inducted into the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress, and in 2007 ranked at #80 on AFI's Top 100 Films list. 'The Apartment' currently enjoys a 91 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

What Still Works: As a portrait of corporate culture in the late 1950s and '60s, 'The Apartment' takes a somewhat relentless and unflinching look at the ambition and casual manipulation of employees by management which seems to have become standard practice among most major companies, for decades to come. Lemmon's character, C.C. Baxter, is to some extent a social climber indulging his bosses' inconvenient whims, but he's also a cog in a giant wheel, and even his bosses to some extent are themselves only slightly larger cogs. And Fred MacMurray, who sits at the top of this food chain, is emblematic of the decadent privilege of corporate empowerment, in terms of his ability (much less impulse) to promote a worker like Lemmon simply because the employee helps him (personally), but as well in the general disregard and lack of consideration he shows both for Lemmon as a person and for MacLaine's character, who is little more than a conquest.

In terms of the relationships, I think the film does a fairly brilliant job creating vivid and authentic personality types, particularly with MacLaine's character, a young woman engaged in a fling with a man she loves too much to make the more prudent decision not to be involved with him since he's married. But Lemmon's well-meaning, put-upon nebbish seems exactly like the kind of person who could find himself caught between a cad of a manager and his spunky, proto- manic pixie dream girl mistress, and of course fall in love with the girl despite (or maybe because of) exactly that feckless love for the wrong man. But overall the film does an incredibly good job creating a believable and relatable world where these characters' relationships are rendered in three dimensions, and not reduced to stereotypes or clichés for the purpose of simplistic melodrama or worse, comedy.

What Doesn't Work:

'The Apartment' brings up an interesting question about movie characters, specifically in terms of how much we are meant or need to idientify with them, and maybe more importantly, how much the film intends us to do so. Although there are certainly more obvious choices in films like, say, 'American Psycho' or 'There Will Be Blood,' Lemmon's character is not flatteringly rendered, and I wonder how much the movie wants us to be purely sympathetic to him, when much of his behavior inspires exasperation. Indeed, almost all of the characters in the film are really unlikeable people who, despite their self-awareness (which is certainly a good thing), do nothing to change their behavior, at least until the very end of the film.

For example, I am inclined to believe that Lemmon's character thinks that he agrees to let the executives at his company use his apartment so that he can move up the corporate ladder and get a better job, but his explanation for how it all began ("I couldn't say no to one if I said yes to another") speaks to a much deeper and more revealing character flaw – namely, that he can't say no to anyone. Not only does he live his life around the schedule of a number of philandering executives, but he basically deflects any and all of his needs for other people without reclaiming or getting anything in return. This in fact may be intentional on the part of Wilder, but no matter how effectively that is rendered, it doesn't make me like him, and it certainly doesn't make me want to watch him. At a certain point, his attempts to be ingratiating just become grating, and you lose sympathy for him because he quite frankly subjects himself to the indignities he suffers far more than others do.

Meanwhile, there's MacLaine's character, who is the most interesting and complex of the main three in the film. I think that she is really, really beautifully created, and MacLaine plays her perfectly. But ultimately, she uses Lemmon's character just as much as MacMurray or any of the other characters, and moreover, her evolving interest in him seems to be born of his niceness and his willingness to take care of her more than actual affection. (The fact that she never corrects her brother-in-law especially before but also after he decks Lemmon is a dealbreaker to me, quite frankly, since he was the one who cared for her and absorbed all of her "other woman" humiliation.) And the film's final line, "shut up and deal," seems to speak to the fact that she clearly does not share Lemmon's shameless puppy-dog love, but simply would rather be around a guy who worships her than one who takes her for granted, neither of which seems like an appealing or legitimate romantic option for an otherwise independent and empowered young woman.

And ultimately, all of these qualities/ interpretations may have been intentional on the part of the filmmakers, in which case they aren't shortcomings but components of a decidedly more complicated and dark portrayal of these characters and their lives. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily sympathetic or maybe more accurately, that I would want to watch them fumble towards the appearance of affection out of loneliness and despair.

What's The Verdict: 'The Apartment' holds up as a sort of breakthrough for romantic comedies at a time when they were generally fun, frivolous and unsophisticated – a historical benchmark for sure – but as a film that is immediately relevant and resonant to contemporary audiences, it doesn't quite have the same impact that it used to. In other words, it feels like a film to be admired but not loved, mostly because the characters are not especially lovable, and the story is so dark and cynical and unredeeming in so many ways. It actually reminded me of another, more recent and decidedly less appreciated film, 'The Last American Virgin,' but that film has a sort of sucker-punch ending that really seems to reinforce the weaknesses of the characters rather than simply provide them with relief from them. As such, 'The Apartment' is definitely worth renting, but you wouldn't want to live there.


View the original article here

Shelf Life: Tron


You knew this was coming, didn't you?

Suffice to say that in the past two years I've made no secret of my affection for either 'Tron: Legacy' or its predecessor, 'Tron.' But the thing about a movie or franchise that begins during one's childhood or some impressionable stage of one's moviegoing life is that often nostalgia overwhelms any sense of objectivity, such as is possible, regarding its merits. At the same time, a generational divide emerges between viewers who loved it when it was first released, and who didn't see it until their older counterparts assured them emphatically that the damn thing was nothing short of a masterpiece. And the question is: who's right?

The answer is both and neither. It's as impossible to relinquish that subconscious attachment to a text or film as it is to ignore the expectations one gets from hearing something's good. (This is also why I recommend that anyone interested in 'Tron: Legacy' ignore Twitter, Facebook, or other social media until the film comes out so that they can judge the film for themselves.) But all of that's also why 'Tron' seems like one of the most worthy candidates for a "Shelf Life" column – namely, because its pedigree remains as controversial today as when it was first released.

The Facts: 'Tron' was first released on July 9, 1982, during what has subsequently been described as one of the darkest times in the history of Walt Disney Studios, both in terms of the subject matter it was exploring, and the resultant commercial success that came from such an exploration. Costing $17 million to make, the film eventually went on to become a box office success, earning $33 million in receipts during its theatrical run, and received two Academy Award nominations, for Best Costume Design and Best Sound. Meanwhile, the film hovers at 70 percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer.

What Still Works: Looking at only a handful of exchanges in the film, it's obvious that creator Steven Lisberger conceived a visual and conceptual (not to mention spiritual) world that almost demands further exploration, and he does an admirable job introducing and establishing many of the ideas that give its story greater substance than "dude gets sucked into a computer." Along those lines, 'Tron' is cohesive and smart, providing at least a foundation (if admittedly not an entirely accurate lexicon) for the fantastic journey that Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) experiences. Rather than merely chronicling a guy's attempt to hack into a computer to retrieve the files that would vindicate his talent and creativity, Lisberger throws him into a universe of computer terminology and ideas and challenges him to fight his way out.


Visually, the film remains pretty stunning. Although some of the mattes are slightly uneven, or suffer because the black-lit photography occasionally reveals the backgrounds behind the characters, the conception of the landscape is truly beautiful, and artists Syd Mead and Jean "Moebius" Giraud do an amazing job translating the ideas of the time about computers and programming into multi-dimensional worlds, vehicles and characters. And even though some of that visual style remains anachronistic, in many ways it seems more faithful to the computer universe because it was created at a time in which computer artistry and technology was still restricted to geometric coding – at least to laypeople of that period.

In this regard, I also think that the special effects not only hold up but remain spectacularly groundbreaking. Contrary to some criticisms, the light cycles and vehicles and landscapes were never designed to be photorealistic, and as such they brilliantly represent our idea what these objects might look like if interpreted through the eye of a computer.

Finally, I think most of the performances are also great. Bridges' palpable joie de vivre permeates every scene in which he appears, and he seems to be having the time of his life shuffling from one oddball scenario to another; he really is this fascinating sort of free-spirit hippie programmer with more grandiose ideas than just the construction of a new or more efficient program. Meanwhile, Bruce Boxleitner is not only a study in polished, leading-man heroism as Tron, but he provides the right amount of naïve integrity to make that salvation program of Alan Bradley's an essential but somehow not central component of the story.

And watching Cindy Morgan, who is even bit as gorgeous in a day-glow bodysuit as she was in a tennis skirt in 'Caddyshack,' it's a real shame that she didn't have more success on the big screen. Although her work on TV was equally terrific, she communicates an incredibly attractive sense of empowerment and confidence (her voice is steady and calming, especially against Bridges' explosiveness and Boxleitner's stalwart heroism), and gives Yori a depth and presence that allows her to be more than the "love interest," both in the real and computer worlds.

What Doesn't Work: Well, mostly the fact that the movie isn't really about Tron, per se. As indicated above, he plays a pivotal role in the story, but ultimately the story is Flynn's, and to that end he serves primarily as a supporting character.

Beyond that, the film has some pacing issues, occasionally marveling at its own creativity a little bit more than it probably should, and allowing set pieces to go on longer than necessary. And also as highlighted above, the film's limited budget, along with its (admirably) ambitious visual breakthroughs sometimes produced images that seem incomplete or unfinished; several of the backgrounds literally drop off into blackness and don't match alternate angles of the same location, or the juxtaposition of black and white footage of the actors with these CG landscapes seems occasionally wonky or unclear.

What's The Verdict: Independent of my personal affection for the film, I think 'Tron' holds up remarkably well, although I understand why a lot of younger audiences may find it uninspiring or boring. Many films released since 1982 have covered at least vaguely similar territory, and of course refined storytelling rhythms and narrative momentum, and its effects, while indisputably groundbreaking, I'm sure seem primitive at best in comparison to the worlds and creatures created seemingly effortlessly today.

Overall, 'Tron' is an exciting kind of film, as much as it is entertaining on its own merits: it comes up with a great ideas, explores it in interesting ways, and leaves enough ideas on the table to arouse the curiosity and passion of its audience. And even if those shortcomings sometimes undermine its technical or conceptual achievements, Steven Lisberger's film will always be a source of inspiration and a technological landmark, earning it a deserved place in the pantheon of the industry's most memorable works.

[Editor's Note: 'Tron' is currently unavailable on DVD as Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment took it off the market several months ago. Although no official word has been announced about a potential Blu-ray or DVD re-release, you might be able to find the film at your local video store, or in major cities, being screened theatrically in anticipation of 'Tron: Legacy.']


View the original article here