Has it really been almost thirty years since mother Voorhees went mad and slaughtered sex-crazed counselors at Camp Crystal Lake? Nothing tells you how old you’re getting than when film makers start remaking the films of your youth. Not that I was ever a true Friday fan. The original was a derivative cash-in on Halloween and, to a lesser extent, Psycho. The low-budget of the first Friday gave it a certain grittiness that future installments lacked. But these films were never about anything other than gruesomely murdering young people. And the target audience ate them up.
So it comes as no surprise that, after financially successful remakes of 1970s fare such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, The Hills Have Eyes, and Dawn of the Dead, that Hollywood now moves on to the 1980s. Knowing that Jason Voorhees is the true star of the Friday the 13th series, the makers of this update have taken elements of the original first three Fridays and mixed them with their own scenario that doesn’t even involve camp counselors. In two post-title sequences we see mother Voorhees beheaded; Jason witness her death; Jason become a legend to be spoken of around campfires; and Jason fiercely protecting his home turf from invaders. This Jason is a bit more active in plotting his massacres though. He has set up bear traps, created an underground lair, and somehow managed to pay the utility bills so he can keep his surrounds well lit if need be. The plot proper has Jason go after some young folk using a nearby vacation spot that belongs to the rich kid’s dad. Meanwhile a scruffy outsider shows up looking for his missing sister, supposedly a victim in one of the earlier-seen attacks. His investigation puts him on Jason’s trail, which also means he becomes Jason target. Everyone else we meet is just around to be added to Jason’s ever-growing list of kills.
As a slasher film, this Friday the 13th is thoroughly average. There is the requisite drinking, pot smoking, and sexual dalliances we’ve come to expect from ‘80s fare. People are burned, punctured, skewered, and impaled. It’s all handled with a fair amount of intensity. The film never approaches the carnage with a winking eye, and the one-liners are kept to a minimum. This is a serious-minded slasher film.
The problem though is that it is not a good Friday the 13th film because Jason doesn’t seem like Jason. Unless I missed it, there is no mention that Jason’s birthday was June 13, which gave the series its initial hook. The title itself is practically meaningless. In the original, Jason’s murder spree was motivated by sundry camp counselors letting him drown and killing his mother. But there are no counselors here, so Jason just kills those who come too close to his home. But then why does he kill the local guy who works the wood chipper? Because he stole the marijuana that someone’s growing near Campy Crystal Lake? Is Jason growing and selling the pot? That would explain how he can pay for electricity, but who would he use for a distributor? Jason’s identity and motivations are never clearly established in this update, and we’re left with the feeling that Jason was more of an afterthought instead of the main focus of the story.
Will this really matter to people though? Is it enough to call this guy Jason, put a hockey mask on him, and let him loose? Does it matter this Jason could just as easily be Madman Marz from Madman (1981) or Victor Crowley from Hatchet (2006) with little impact on the outcome? The record-breaking opening weekend suggests there’s and audience still out there for an R-rated, gruesome horror flick. But whether or not this film is ultimately viewed as a worthy kick-start to the Friday the 13th series may take some time to determine.
Next up on the remake list is A Nightmare on Elm Street, the other big horror franchise born during the 1980s. It will most likely have a great opening weekend too. In the meantime those who still have a soft spot for 1980s-inspired horror will likely be somewhat amused by this update. But I can see a sequel where Jason goes after the movie execs who brought in an impostor for this remake.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
At the Cineplex: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
A remake of a well-regarded 1981 slasher entry, this holiday horror comes early since February 13, 2009 will see the release of the remake of Friday the 13th. Ten years ago Tom Hanniger (Jensen Ackles) almost became a victim of deranged miner Harry Warden (Rich Walters), who went on a murder spree after nearly dying in a mining accident Tom caused. Now, due to his father’s death, Tom is back to sell the mine. Unwelcome in town, he finds his former flame Sarah (Jaime King) now married to Sheriff Axel Palmer (Kerr Smith). But when someone dressed in miner’s garb starts brutally murdering Tom’s old friends, he lands atop the list of suspects. Is Tom guilty? Is Harry Warden still alive? Or is someone else trying to frame Tom?
While My Bloody Valentine 3D has a serviceable enough horror whodunit plot, the reason to see the film is for the 3D gore effects. Various limbs, organs, and other body parts seemingly end up in the viewer’s lap, and there are plenty of chase sequences and brutal set pieces to keep things moving. But it all gets pretty old too quickly, and without much in the way of character development, this remake falls flat.
While My Bloody Valentine 3D has a serviceable enough horror whodunit plot, the reason to see the film is for the 3D gore effects. Various limbs, organs, and other body parts seemingly end up in the viewer’s lap, and there are plenty of chase sequences and brutal set pieces to keep things moving. But it all gets pretty old too quickly, and without much in the way of character development, this remake falls flat.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Best Picture Winner: 1983
Terms of Endearment (1983)
James L. Brooks should direct more movies. He’s helmed only five films over the last twenty five years. Three of them are excellent: Terms of Endearment, Broadcast News (1987), and As Good As It Gets (1997), and the remaining two (I’ll Do Anything and Spanglish) are enjoyable. He’s also had an impressive writing background in television including Taxi, Mary Tyler Moore, and The Simpsons. Brooks deftly juggles humor and drama in his efforts, and he seems to bring out the best in his casts. Terms of Endearment may be his best big-screen effort: a winning chronicle of a mother-daughter relationship that is as strong as it is tempestuous.
Aurora Greenway (Shirley MacLaine) cares deeply for her exuberant daughter Emma (Debra Winger). She does not, however, approve of Emma’s marriage to Flap Horton (Jeff Daniels), and boycotts the wedding. She’s also not thrilled when Emma later announces she’s pregnant, or when the Horton family move from their Texas home to Des Moines so Flap can accept an associate professorship. Aurora is curious about her neighbor Garrett Breedlove (Jack Nicholson), an astronaut who is quite the party animal and stud outside the rocket ship. The two form a decidedly offbeat relationship. Meanwhile Emma, now a mother of three, gets some disturbing news when she takes herself and middle child to get flu shots.
Terms of Endearment is a character driven, as opposed to plot driven, film whose episodic nature allows for the audience to become emotionally invested in the key players. Emma is a bit zany but adorable. Aurora is stern but caring. Garrett is over-confident and brash, but lovable. Flap can seem disinterested at times but is generally affable. We watch with unwavering interest these flawed but fascinating people deal with their various relationships. We become so attached to these people that the simple appearance of Garrett on some hotel stairs carries surprising poignancy. The excellent cast truly breathes life into these individuals, making us care about their fates.
Aurora never becomes the cliché overbearing mother thanks to clever little touches in the script, such as when it’s Aurora who wants to sleep in Emma’s bed, not the other way around. Aurora may express her opinions. But she never makes threats. She has her own views which may clash with those of her daughter, but the two quickly seem to forgive and forget. Emma is an eternally optimistic young lady, who, for example, takes great pleasure in the seemingly routine exercise of buying her husband a tie. She is shocked at the rather casual attitudes toward divorce and abortion that are expressed by some of her best friend Patsy’s (Lisa Hart Carroll) associates during a lunch. When Emma must confront some harsh realities as Terms of Endearment’s story unfolds, the impact on her is especially devastating.
The men in the story are also not allowed to become stereotypes. Flap may be a philanderer, but he still does love Emma. Garrett may be something of a sexist and a playboy, but he provides comfort and support to Aurora when she needs it. Aurora and Emma love the men in their lives in spite of the flaws – a truth, no doubt, in all relationships.
The result is a four-star tearjerker that earns its tears without feeling manipulative. Scripter/director Brooks and his cast bring charm and pathos to this story of a mother and daughter who have little in common except for their intense love for one another. Terms of Endearment is just as enjoyable today as it was more than twenty-five years ago.
James L. Brooks should direct more movies. He’s helmed only five films over the last twenty five years. Three of them are excellent: Terms of Endearment, Broadcast News (1987), and As Good As It Gets (1997), and the remaining two (I’ll Do Anything and Spanglish) are enjoyable. He’s also had an impressive writing background in television including Taxi, Mary Tyler Moore, and The Simpsons. Brooks deftly juggles humor and drama in his efforts, and he seems to bring out the best in his casts. Terms of Endearment may be his best big-screen effort: a winning chronicle of a mother-daughter relationship that is as strong as it is tempestuous.
Aurora Greenway (Shirley MacLaine) cares deeply for her exuberant daughter Emma (Debra Winger). She does not, however, approve of Emma’s marriage to Flap Horton (Jeff Daniels), and boycotts the wedding. She’s also not thrilled when Emma later announces she’s pregnant, or when the Horton family move from their Texas home to Des Moines so Flap can accept an associate professorship. Aurora is curious about her neighbor Garrett Breedlove (Jack Nicholson), an astronaut who is quite the party animal and stud outside the rocket ship. The two form a decidedly offbeat relationship. Meanwhile Emma, now a mother of three, gets some disturbing news when she takes herself and middle child to get flu shots.
Terms of Endearment is a character driven, as opposed to plot driven, film whose episodic nature allows for the audience to become emotionally invested in the key players. Emma is a bit zany but adorable. Aurora is stern but caring. Garrett is over-confident and brash, but lovable. Flap can seem disinterested at times but is generally affable. We watch with unwavering interest these flawed but fascinating people deal with their various relationships. We become so attached to these people that the simple appearance of Garrett on some hotel stairs carries surprising poignancy. The excellent cast truly breathes life into these individuals, making us care about their fates.
Aurora never becomes the cliché overbearing mother thanks to clever little touches in the script, such as when it’s Aurora who wants to sleep in Emma’s bed, not the other way around. Aurora may express her opinions. But she never makes threats. She has her own views which may clash with those of her daughter, but the two quickly seem to forgive and forget. Emma is an eternally optimistic young lady, who, for example, takes great pleasure in the seemingly routine exercise of buying her husband a tie. She is shocked at the rather casual attitudes toward divorce and abortion that are expressed by some of her best friend Patsy’s (Lisa Hart Carroll) associates during a lunch. When Emma must confront some harsh realities as Terms of Endearment’s story unfolds, the impact on her is especially devastating.
The men in the story are also not allowed to become stereotypes. Flap may be a philanderer, but he still does love Emma. Garrett may be something of a sexist and a playboy, but he provides comfort and support to Aurora when she needs it. Aurora and Emma love the men in their lives in spite of the flaws – a truth, no doubt, in all relationships.
The result is a four-star tearjerker that earns its tears without feeling manipulative. Scripter/director Brooks and his cast bring charm and pathos to this story of a mother and daughter who have little in common except for their intense love for one another. Terms of Endearment is just as enjoyable today as it was more than twenty-five years ago.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Best Picture Winner: 1982
Gandhi (1982)
This extraordinary film about an extraordinary man gives testament to the oft-said phrase, “One person can make a difference.” In 1893 Mohandas Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) is an Indian attorney traveling first class by train through South Africa. Because Indians are restricted to third class and Gandhi refuses to move, he is physically thrown off the train. Such unequal treatment must not be tolerated, and Gandhi begins a peaceful protest against South Africa’s treatment of Indians. His success results in his launching a campaign against British control of India. He wants India to be under self-rule. But all of this is to be accomplished peacefully, and Gandhi finds that his defiance of British law, while resulting in frequent arrests, has made him a hero around the world.
Visually Gandhi is breathtaking. Director Richard Attenborough populates the streets with numerous extras to create a realistic depiction of India. At one point Gandhi takes a train ride through India so he may come to know his country better, and the film shows how many in India live in poverty, partly the result of the British charging rent for the farm land. The most impressive moment may be the overhead shot that shows the procession at Gandhi’s funeral. There are literally hundreds of attendees who march solemnly as Gandhi is transported to his resting place. The funeral actually opens the film, and the following narrative shows why so many would want to honor this person.
Gandhi is quite convincing in detailing the events that made Gandhi a twentieth century hero. While a Hindu, Gandhi is very familiar with the Christian and Muslim religions, and believes all the faiths teach love of fellow man. Thus he is outraged at the discrimination he sees and experiences first hand. From his first public action of burning an identification pass, Gandhi will embrace defiance of unjust laws but will never advocate violence. He will suffer humiliations, imprisonment, and hunger strikes to send his message. And as he becomes an international figure of attention he becomes something of an untouchable, at least by proper governments. Gandhi is so effective at bringing peace, that those who want a war between Hindus and Muslims see Gandhi as a threat.
Ben Kingsley basically disappears into his character. He is so effective that we feel at times we’re watching documentary footage. Gandhi is a man of warmth and humor, but also steely determination and sadness. Kingsley captures all of these facets of Gandhi in convincing fashion. Most importantly Kingsley conveys Gandhi’s charisma, and any viewer can see how others would be taken by this man who had everything to lose in his pursuit of justice. The film makes it clear that even those who did not agree with Gandhi’s peaceful approach held a begrudging respect for the man. And this is very easy to understand.
After Gandhi’s assassination there was no one to take his place in pursuing peaceful protests. Violence would be the result. But during his lifetime Gandhi proved time and time again that revolution need not be bloody. One wonders how successful he would be today.
This extraordinary film about an extraordinary man gives testament to the oft-said phrase, “One person can make a difference.” In 1893 Mohandas Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) is an Indian attorney traveling first class by train through South Africa. Because Indians are restricted to third class and Gandhi refuses to move, he is physically thrown off the train. Such unequal treatment must not be tolerated, and Gandhi begins a peaceful protest against South Africa’s treatment of Indians. His success results in his launching a campaign against British control of India. He wants India to be under self-rule. But all of this is to be accomplished peacefully, and Gandhi finds that his defiance of British law, while resulting in frequent arrests, has made him a hero around the world.
Visually Gandhi is breathtaking. Director Richard Attenborough populates the streets with numerous extras to create a realistic depiction of India. At one point Gandhi takes a train ride through India so he may come to know his country better, and the film shows how many in India live in poverty, partly the result of the British charging rent for the farm land. The most impressive moment may be the overhead shot that shows the procession at Gandhi’s funeral. There are literally hundreds of attendees who march solemnly as Gandhi is transported to his resting place. The funeral actually opens the film, and the following narrative shows why so many would want to honor this person.
Gandhi is quite convincing in detailing the events that made Gandhi a twentieth century hero. While a Hindu, Gandhi is very familiar with the Christian and Muslim religions, and believes all the faiths teach love of fellow man. Thus he is outraged at the discrimination he sees and experiences first hand. From his first public action of burning an identification pass, Gandhi will embrace defiance of unjust laws but will never advocate violence. He will suffer humiliations, imprisonment, and hunger strikes to send his message. And as he becomes an international figure of attention he becomes something of an untouchable, at least by proper governments. Gandhi is so effective at bringing peace, that those who want a war between Hindus and Muslims see Gandhi as a threat.
Ben Kingsley basically disappears into his character. He is so effective that we feel at times we’re watching documentary footage. Gandhi is a man of warmth and humor, but also steely determination and sadness. Kingsley captures all of these facets of Gandhi in convincing fashion. Most importantly Kingsley conveys Gandhi’s charisma, and any viewer can see how others would be taken by this man who had everything to lose in his pursuit of justice. The film makes it clear that even those who did not agree with Gandhi’s peaceful approach held a begrudging respect for the man. And this is very easy to understand.
After Gandhi’s assassination there was no one to take his place in pursuing peaceful protests. Violence would be the result. But during his lifetime Gandhi proved time and time again that revolution need not be bloody. One wonders how successful he would be today.
Best Picture Winner: 1981
Chariots of Fire (1981)
Two talented runners, both of whom are harassed to varying degrees due to their religious beliefs, overcome obstacles to participate in the 1924 Olympic Games. Chariots of Fire explores the motivations behind what made these two men pursue their dream of competing.
Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) arrives at Cambridge with a chip on his should. Being Jewish he is very sensitive to the prejudices that exist against his people. His sometimes abrasive nature is offset by his fierce loyalty, and he wins the admiration of his peers by his speed on the race course. Meanwhile Scottish missionary Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson), who has returned home after spending time in the orient, is gaining notoriety for his abilities as a competitive runner. His sister feels his devotion to running is in danger of distracting him from his religious calling. Liddell thinks he can race without it affecting his commitment to Christ. The two men learn about each other and find themselves competing on the same side of the 1924 Olympics. Can they both prevail in the ultimate test of their gifts?
Chariots of Fire is a handsomely produced period film which believably captures the look and feel of 1920s Europe. The film is documentary-like at times. And there is something naturally compelling about stories that features characters being told they shouldn’t be doing things they should be. While the film has no difficulty in making us cheer for the Liddell character, it simultaneously refuses to make Abrahams warm and fuzzy. His pride and arrogance threaten at any moment to leave the audience not caring about what happens to him. He will do anything to win. But when he enlists the help of an Italian coach (Ian Holm) and is chastised for it by members of the Cambridge hierarchy, we feel the same sense of indignation. Suddenly we’re on his side too.
While based on true events, however, Chariots of Fire runs into some dramatic problems as the film progresses. Tension actually seems to dissipate instead of build as we near the final contests. There isn’t much suspense in the races themselves, which are shot ineffectively in slow motion. The overall feeling of Chariots of Fire is an impressive build up to a rather obvious conclusion. We don’t feel the emotions we should be feeling in the climatic races.
The result is a film that is easy to admire but not fully embrace. That it won Best Picture over Raiders of the Lost Ark, one of the truly great cinematic experiences of the 1980s, indicates a hesitation on the Academy’s part to recognize greatness regardless of genre as opposed to which picture was actually best. Chariots of Fire is a noble effort and worth seeing. But it ranks as one of the weaker Best Picture winners.
Two talented runners, both of whom are harassed to varying degrees due to their religious beliefs, overcome obstacles to participate in the 1924 Olympic Games. Chariots of Fire explores the motivations behind what made these two men pursue their dream of competing.
Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) arrives at Cambridge with a chip on his should. Being Jewish he is very sensitive to the prejudices that exist against his people. His sometimes abrasive nature is offset by his fierce loyalty, and he wins the admiration of his peers by his speed on the race course. Meanwhile Scottish missionary Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson), who has returned home after spending time in the orient, is gaining notoriety for his abilities as a competitive runner. His sister feels his devotion to running is in danger of distracting him from his religious calling. Liddell thinks he can race without it affecting his commitment to Christ. The two men learn about each other and find themselves competing on the same side of the 1924 Olympics. Can they both prevail in the ultimate test of their gifts?
Chariots of Fire is a handsomely produced period film which believably captures the look and feel of 1920s Europe. The film is documentary-like at times. And there is something naturally compelling about stories that features characters being told they shouldn’t be doing things they should be. While the film has no difficulty in making us cheer for the Liddell character, it simultaneously refuses to make Abrahams warm and fuzzy. His pride and arrogance threaten at any moment to leave the audience not caring about what happens to him. He will do anything to win. But when he enlists the help of an Italian coach (Ian Holm) and is chastised for it by members of the Cambridge hierarchy, we feel the same sense of indignation. Suddenly we’re on his side too.
While based on true events, however, Chariots of Fire runs into some dramatic problems as the film progresses. Tension actually seems to dissipate instead of build as we near the final contests. There isn’t much suspense in the races themselves, which are shot ineffectively in slow motion. The overall feeling of Chariots of Fire is an impressive build up to a rather obvious conclusion. We don’t feel the emotions we should be feeling in the climatic races.
The result is a film that is easy to admire but not fully embrace. That it won Best Picture over Raiders of the Lost Ark, one of the truly great cinematic experiences of the 1980s, indicates a hesitation on the Academy’s part to recognize greatness regardless of genre as opposed to which picture was actually best. Chariots of Fire is a noble effort and worth seeing. But it ranks as one of the weaker Best Picture winners.
Saturday Night at the Frights: January 31, 2009
You’ll Find Out (1940)
Kay Kyser and his band are hired to provide entertainment for Janis Bellacrest's 21st birthday party. But there’s a plot afoot to murder her and Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, and Peter Lorre are all involved. While this film was no doubt designed as a Kyser and company vehicle, the idea of the trio of terror uniting at arguably the peak of their powers is most exciting. The film doesn’t really deliver, but when the scream team are on screen they are fun to watch, and the film does have some laughs. You’ll Find Out is pleasant enough but not anywhere near making the list of best horror comedies.
Storm Warning (2007)
An affluent couple find themselves stranded on an Australia island during a downpour. Seeking shelter from the storm they stumble upon a depraved father and his two sons who are growing marijuana at their farm. The family psychologically tortures the couple before locking them in the barn. Can the lovebirds escape before the real horrors begin? A cash-in on the revival of backwoods horror flicks that flourished during the 1970s, this Australian entry is slickly produced but hardly groundbreaking. There’s no character development to speak of and the gruesome demises of the villains have little impact. It does have its gruesome moments, however.
Kay Kyser and his band are hired to provide entertainment for Janis Bellacrest's 21st birthday party. But there’s a plot afoot to murder her and Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, and Peter Lorre are all involved. While this film was no doubt designed as a Kyser and company vehicle, the idea of the trio of terror uniting at arguably the peak of their powers is most exciting. The film doesn’t really deliver, but when the scream team are on screen they are fun to watch, and the film does have some laughs. You’ll Find Out is pleasant enough but not anywhere near making the list of best horror comedies.
Storm Warning (2007)
An affluent couple find themselves stranded on an Australia island during a downpour. Seeking shelter from the storm they stumble upon a depraved father and his two sons who are growing marijuana at their farm. The family psychologically tortures the couple before locking them in the barn. Can the lovebirds escape before the real horrors begin? A cash-in on the revival of backwoods horror flicks that flourished during the 1970s, this Australian entry is slickly produced but hardly groundbreaking. There’s no character development to speak of and the gruesome demises of the villains have little impact. It does have its gruesome moments, however.
Best Picture Winner: 1980
Ordinary People (1980)
The Jarrett family – father Calvin (Donald Sutherland), mother Beth (Mary Tyler Moore), and son Conrad (Timothy Hutton) – would at first seem to have the ideal life, living in a beautiful home in an affluent neighborhood, able to take vacations at will. But they have experienced great suffering, as elder son Buck was killed in a boating accident. Even worse, Conrad attempted suicide due to his own guilt over the tragedy. Now Conrad is meeting with a psychiatrist (Judd Hirsch) and struggling to relate to his parents, especially his mother, whose distance has led Conrad to believe she hates him.
This somber look on how the death of a family member affects those left behind served as actor Robert Redford’s directing debut. His no-fuss approach lets the actors take center stage and makes for a compelling character study. Timothy Hutton is the real star here, as he must navigate emotional waters to find a safe port. Conrad’s father is over eager to help while his mother refuses to become touchy-feely. It is his doctor, and later friend, who is able to help Conrad understand his conflicting feelings of anger and guilt. Hutton, who won the Supporting Actor Oscar, is riveting as the troubled Conrad, trying desperately to find happiness in his life. No longer finding joy in participating on the high school swim team, he seems lost and alone. Watching him trying to connect with his mother is especially heartbreaking, as she seems rather disinterested in him.
Those having watched Mary Tyler Moore in her self-titled hit sitcom and the classic Dick Van Dyke Show are in for a shock. Her character is outwardly pleasant but inwardly cold. She has stopped trying to feel, perhaps in response to Buck’s death, and the result is someone whose husband and younger son may be slipping away. Her unwillingness to compromise or make sacrifices for the sake of her surviving child makes her an off-putting character to say the least. Thus her husband eventually finds he must choose between his wife and son as the spouses have totally opposing views on how to handle Conrad.
Opting for as realistic an approach as possible director Redford does not employ an original score. Occasionally a piece of classical music will be heard but much of the movie plays without background music. By not providing musical clues as to how scenes will play out Redford allows sudden emotional bombs to be dropped on us without warning, such as the fate of one of Conrad’s friends. Redford effectively contrasts the world of properly cared for lawns and dinner parties against the disorganized and fragile mental state of Conrad.
The film’s ultimate point appears to be that families will sometimes need to venture outside their comfort zone to remain comfortable. Private pain must be made public if it is to be adequately explored and coped with. Not doing so only makes matter worse. And since, as the title implies, this story could apply to all of us at some point, we should head its warning. Pain can be a great divider but also serve as a great unifier. Ordinary People suggests we should strive for the latter.
The Jarrett family – father Calvin (Donald Sutherland), mother Beth (Mary Tyler Moore), and son Conrad (Timothy Hutton) – would at first seem to have the ideal life, living in a beautiful home in an affluent neighborhood, able to take vacations at will. But they have experienced great suffering, as elder son Buck was killed in a boating accident. Even worse, Conrad attempted suicide due to his own guilt over the tragedy. Now Conrad is meeting with a psychiatrist (Judd Hirsch) and struggling to relate to his parents, especially his mother, whose distance has led Conrad to believe she hates him.
This somber look on how the death of a family member affects those left behind served as actor Robert Redford’s directing debut. His no-fuss approach lets the actors take center stage and makes for a compelling character study. Timothy Hutton is the real star here, as he must navigate emotional waters to find a safe port. Conrad’s father is over eager to help while his mother refuses to become touchy-feely. It is his doctor, and later friend, who is able to help Conrad understand his conflicting feelings of anger and guilt. Hutton, who won the Supporting Actor Oscar, is riveting as the troubled Conrad, trying desperately to find happiness in his life. No longer finding joy in participating on the high school swim team, he seems lost and alone. Watching him trying to connect with his mother is especially heartbreaking, as she seems rather disinterested in him.
Those having watched Mary Tyler Moore in her self-titled hit sitcom and the classic Dick Van Dyke Show are in for a shock. Her character is outwardly pleasant but inwardly cold. She has stopped trying to feel, perhaps in response to Buck’s death, and the result is someone whose husband and younger son may be slipping away. Her unwillingness to compromise or make sacrifices for the sake of her surviving child makes her an off-putting character to say the least. Thus her husband eventually finds he must choose between his wife and son as the spouses have totally opposing views on how to handle Conrad.
Opting for as realistic an approach as possible director Redford does not employ an original score. Occasionally a piece of classical music will be heard but much of the movie plays without background music. By not providing musical clues as to how scenes will play out Redford allows sudden emotional bombs to be dropped on us without warning, such as the fate of one of Conrad’s friends. Redford effectively contrasts the world of properly cared for lawns and dinner parties against the disorganized and fragile mental state of Conrad.
The film’s ultimate point appears to be that families will sometimes need to venture outside their comfort zone to remain comfortable. Private pain must be made public if it is to be adequately explored and coped with. Not doing so only makes matter worse. And since, as the title implies, this story could apply to all of us at some point, we should head its warning. Pain can be a great divider but also serve as a great unifier. Ordinary People suggests we should strive for the latter.
Best Picture Winner: 1979
Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is an ad man whose star is rising. But he arrives home one night to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) has packed a suitcase, ready to leave him and their six year old son, Billy (Justin Henry). Over a year later, as Ted struggles with the demands of his career and single parenthood, Joanna shows up and tells him she wants Billy back. The Kramers prepare to fight for custody.
Kramer vs. Kramer is a heartfelt look at divorce and its impact on all involved. Neither parent is painted as the villain. Joanna was truly unhappy and Ted comes to accept his share of the blame for the unsuccessful marriage. The true victim here is Billy, as he watches confused and anxious as his father struggles with his new role only to potentially lose it. Ted has come to love being a parent, even if it threatens his job. No better scene illustrates this than when Ted, asked by his attorney to list the pros and cons of keeping Billy, cannot come up with anything to list on the pro side. Director Robert Benton then cuts to Ted lovingly embracing his son who is in bed asleep.
Except perhaps for a playground accident that sends Ted Kramer dashing to the emergency room, the tearful moments in Kramer vs. Kramer feel genuine, not manipulative. But there is much humor to offset the sad tone that threatens to make the film too depressing. For example, Ted and Billy have their breakfast routine worked out so that, without a word to each other, they awake, use the bathroom, and approach the kitchen table. Ted serves the doughnuts, and the two dine while Ted reads his newspaper and Billy reads his comic book. And what parent won’t laugh with recognition when Ted, after having told his son to finish his dinner, watches Billy openly defy him and help himself to some ice cream. Kramer vs. Kramer feels utterly realistic in its depiction of the parent-child relationship.
Because we do not get to know Joanna very well, our sympathies are more with Ted. But it is easy for us to understand that Joanna wants what Ted has in terms of the relationship with Billy. The film shows the Kramers as parents who want to care for their child, not as two people using a custody fight to hurt the other. Someone will have to lose the battle, of course, and that the film still manages to pull off a satisfactory ending is a testament to the talent involved.
Kramer vs. Kramer takes a topical theme for its time (divorce rates started growing dramatically during the 1970s) and presents it realistically. The story touches us because, perhaps even more so now than then, we can relate to everyone involved. The film never looks away from the challenges or the pain involved. But it also manages to find the moments of joy. These moments are what make the struggles worthwhile.
Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is an ad man whose star is rising. But he arrives home one night to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) has packed a suitcase, ready to leave him and their six year old son, Billy (Justin Henry). Over a year later, as Ted struggles with the demands of his career and single parenthood, Joanna shows up and tells him she wants Billy back. The Kramers prepare to fight for custody.
Kramer vs. Kramer is a heartfelt look at divorce and its impact on all involved. Neither parent is painted as the villain. Joanna was truly unhappy and Ted comes to accept his share of the blame for the unsuccessful marriage. The true victim here is Billy, as he watches confused and anxious as his father struggles with his new role only to potentially lose it. Ted has come to love being a parent, even if it threatens his job. No better scene illustrates this than when Ted, asked by his attorney to list the pros and cons of keeping Billy, cannot come up with anything to list on the pro side. Director Robert Benton then cuts to Ted lovingly embracing his son who is in bed asleep.
Except perhaps for a playground accident that sends Ted Kramer dashing to the emergency room, the tearful moments in Kramer vs. Kramer feel genuine, not manipulative. But there is much humor to offset the sad tone that threatens to make the film too depressing. For example, Ted and Billy have their breakfast routine worked out so that, without a word to each other, they awake, use the bathroom, and approach the kitchen table. Ted serves the doughnuts, and the two dine while Ted reads his newspaper and Billy reads his comic book. And what parent won’t laugh with recognition when Ted, after having told his son to finish his dinner, watches Billy openly defy him and help himself to some ice cream. Kramer vs. Kramer feels utterly realistic in its depiction of the parent-child relationship.
Because we do not get to know Joanna very well, our sympathies are more with Ted. But it is easy for us to understand that Joanna wants what Ted has in terms of the relationship with Billy. The film shows the Kramers as parents who want to care for their child, not as two people using a custody fight to hurt the other. Someone will have to lose the battle, of course, and that the film still manages to pull off a satisfactory ending is a testament to the talent involved.
Kramer vs. Kramer takes a topical theme for its time (divorce rates started growing dramatically during the 1970s) and presents it realistically. The story touches us because, perhaps even more so now than then, we can relate to everyone involved. The film never looks away from the challenges or the pain involved. But it also manages to find the moments of joy. These moments are what make the struggles worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
