Best products from r/flicks

BASIL DEARDEN ROUND 2

Over the last six months I have been watching all the Basil Dearden movies I could find, and I have now seen 29 of his 43 films. Almost all of them are good, and some of them are great, although he lacks that one well-known classic that puts him on the same great filmmaker map as his contemporaries. Criterion did a smashing job of picking out his best films for their Basil Dearden's London Underground box set, which highlights films that offer more social commentary (Pool of London should be added to this set). It's a great place to start with Dearden, although another approach would be his four excellent films with Dirk Bogarde.

In surveying his career the first thing that stands out his how well he handles a large ensemble of actors. Many of the films don't even identify a central character until late in the story, if they have one at all. The films are generally very pro-British; many set in London with an emphasis on institutions and occupations - particularly the police.  There's often a fine balance of drama and comedy, and he seems adept at any genre, although he favors crime stories with the occasional trip into sci-fi or the supernatural. The directorial emphasis is generally on the acting with major British stars, although with some very assured camera movements and well-crafted storytelling, particularly during his mid-career peak in the 1950s. If there's one thing he couldn't do well it's special effects, which are uniformly abominable throughout his career.

Along with Basil Dearden I also have to recognize his frequent producer Michael Relph, who also wrote a few of the scripts (marked here with an asterisk). He also sometimes served as production designer, and even co-directed I Believe in You. It was a terrific lifelong creative partnership, and I plan to read more about them someday in this book.

The Goose Steps Out  (1942) ***

A German spy is arrested and his bumbling look-alike returns to Germany in his place. Dearden's third film is purely a comedy vehicle for Will Hay, and there's lots of fun anti-Nazi humor, particularly at the "School for Spies."

My Learned Friend (1943) ****

Wily ex-convict Mervyn Johns vows to murder the people that put him away. Another Will Hay vehicle (his final film) with a clever plot, breathlessly paced dialogue, a delightful villain, and a Harold Lloyd-styled climax atop Big Ben. It is pretty amusing.

Halfway House (1944) ****

A great little "film blanc" fantasy with an ensemble cast meeting at a mysterious country inn on the anniversary of its destruction, where all their individual problems are magically resolved. It could be a prototype for the Twilight Zone, and I'm madly in love with Glynis Johns and her helium voice.

They Came to a City (1944) ****

Nine people in a state of limbo encounter a utopian paradise. Taking the Halfway House concept to its extreme, this is one of the strangest  films I've ever seen. Dearden adapted the script from a play by J.B. Priestly, and it's very stagey - nothing but dialogue set in an abstract, minimal castle with an obvious act break. A pipe smoking Priestly plays the storyteller, offering his wisdom to a worried young couple on an English hillside. It's basically a philosophical think piece about what the world might be like after the war - high brow stuff for the common man. Although there's nothing specific about the utopian city (we never even see it) it sort of anticipates the 60s cultural revolution's ideals of love and peace and harmony, and it's not a place for everyone. A very avant garde film for the 1940s, and I'm surprised I'd never heard of it. 

Dead of Night (1945) *****

This celebrated horror anthology has Basil Dearden directing the connecting story, which is more substantial than in most films of this type, and he also handles the first flashback tale, which is short and sweet. The other segment directors are Charles Crichton (A Fish Called Wanda), Robert Hamer (Kind Hearts & Coronets), and Alberto Cavalcanti. It's not too far removed from Dearden's Halfway House from a year before. This is classic spooky movie fun, and while sections are a little stilted, it's highlighted by an excellent performance by Michael Redgrave as a ventriloquist, but it's during the climax where the film kicks into high gear and earns true classic status. I highly recommend it as a Halloween treat. Apparently it's the Ealing Studio's only horror film.

The Captive Heart (1946) ****

One of the first World War II POW movies connects the monotonous lives of British soldiers with the women they left back home. Filmed in an actual liberated German prison camp, it contains many of the cliches the sub-genre would become known for, although subsequent films depict POW life much more cruelly. The women at home scenes are kept as brief as possible, which is a good thing, and it's a solid and authentic-seeming war film despite the completely bungled maudlin ending of the story's provocative central dilemma, no doubt heavily scrutinized by the censors.

The Blue Lamp (1950) ****

One of Dearden's more well known films is about the everyday lives of beat cops patrolling the streets of London, with an attention-getting Dirk Bogarde as a criminal thug to hang a story on. It's smartly done with a large ensemble, some good humor and heart - something Sidney Lumet might have made if he were British in the 1940s.

The Gentle Gunman (1952) ****

A solid noir drama about IRA bombers during WWII, with an enlightened John Mills trying to convince his Irish brethren of their folly, including Dirk Bogarde. Of course, being a British film, it's very anti-IRA - perhaps in reaction to Carol Reed's more sympathetic Odd Man Out.

I Believe in You* (1952) ****

The touching story of the lowly parole officer and the troubled youth that he tries to help with all good intentions. It's an ensemble driven film with fine performances and a lot of heart that demonstrates the need to listen to and respect other people - esp. those you think might not have anything to offer. Perhaps it's overly sentimental, but I found it involving and moving and arguably the most heartfelt of all Dearden's films (along with Pool of London).

The Rainbow Jacket (1954) ****

A thirteen-year-old becomes a racing jockey with the help of a charming but less than scrupulous mentor. This movie really digs into the nitty-gritty of the horse racing business, but I was never lost or confused about what was happening; in fact I think I understand the whole thing a lot better. A solid film with good performances and a standard sports story, although some of the green screen scenes are terrible.

The Green Man (1956) ***

This is the directorial debut of cinematographer Robert Day, and Dearden apparently supervised and mentored the production. It's an Ealing styled black comedy with delightful performances, particularly Alistair Sim, but you can really tell it's based on a stageplay (the playwrights are the film's producers). Mildly amusing, but that's all.

continued...

I haven't seen all of Wes Anderson's films but he's definitely not insubstantial.

I loved The Grand Budapest Hotel last year and just finished reading Matt Zoller Seitz' fantastic 250-page book pretty much all about that film. An insubstantial film can not be written about for 250 pages.

There's loads to this film. Inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig, it can be read as an allegory (as /u/UrNotAMachine says) or just about how History can invade and destroy all of our "normal" lives. And about how stories are passed down and become stories (the framing devices accentuate this). About how we tell stories - some of what would be important plot points in normal films are glossed over because of who is telling the story and in what context.

I mean, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a really dark story... if you just think about it or read a synopsis this is obvious. I think it's incredible on it's own how light and chirpy the film can seem despite the seriousness of it's content.

The film can be seen about the end of illusion... Seitz quotes Sweig here:

>There's a wonderful quote from The World of Yesterday, Zweig's memoir, which he completed and mailed to his editor in 1942, two days before he and his wife took their own lives in Brazil: "The generation of my parents and my grandparents were better off, they lived their lives from one end to the other quietly, in a straight line. All the same, I do not know whether I envy them. For they drowsed their lives away removed from all true bitterness, from malice and the force of destiny... We... for whom comfort has become and old legend, and security a childish dream, have felt tension from pole to pole of our being, the terror of something always new in every fiber. Every hour of our years was linked to the fate of the world. In sorrow and in joy we have lived through time and history far beyond our small lives, while they knew nothing beyond themselves.... Every one of us, therefore, even the least of the human race, knows a thousand times more about reality today than even the wisest of our forebears. But nothing was given to use freely; we paid the price in full".
Anderson has taken the dark sorrow of Stefan Zweig and joined it to his own sly melancholies to make a film that moves us because it is infinitely capable of disarming before it wounds us. In creating an imaginary world to speak about the end of illusion, Anderson court s a kind of literary double jeopardy. As with the best fables, however, his unreality is more emotionally vibrant than the truth.

Long quote, but I think it effectively shows the brilliance of Wes Anderson's vision.

The book also contains pretty in-depth interviews with many members of the cast... it's clear lots of thought was put into every aspect of the film - by Ralph Fiennes in how to portray Gustave H, a character inspired by a mutual friend of Wes Anderson and Hugo Guiness (and visually based on Stefan Zweig himself, to an extent, as also the young and old author is); by Adam Stockhausen in scouting for suitable locations and designing the elaborate sets; by Alexandre Desplat in composing suitable music which effectively gives a European vibe - and so on for everyone who worked on the film.

Honestly I think it's incredibly the amount of shtick Wes Anderson gets simply because of the way he films. He films in a pretty damn unique way, and manages to work around all the limitations of it - developing his own, unique, but highly effective (and highly funny) filming style.

Understanding film beneath the surface level is what I would suggest. There are a lot of books for that type of thing. I'd recommend the new Talking Pictures: How To Read Movies, it's very easy to read in comparison to the more Film Studies textbooks. But beyond becoming more knowledgeable in Film in general, working on your writing will help convey your thoughts and feelings into words as best as possible. Resources at your school (English teacher) could be of great value. As far as things you can do on your own, I find Naked, Drunk, and Writing to be great for this kind of thing. Or any books focusing on writing skill pertaining to reviews/essays and the like. Both books are easy enough for someone your age to understand. Good luck!!

Great! Let me know what you think of it. The other responses were also good. You should ease your way into some foreign films eventually. My favourites are the French and Italian greats. Also, a link was posted by another respondent to 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die on IMDb. That list is taken from a book that I highly recommend. It's a great book because it provides a short blurb on each title explaining what is historically and artistically significant about each title. You can glance inside it on amazon. It's a great way to get an excellent overview of the breadth of film history.

http://www.amazon.com/1001-Movies-You-Must-Before/dp/0764167901/ref=sr_1_1

I just started reading Writing Movies for Fun and Profit and it is really interesting. I have 0 interest in making movies, but it gives a lot of insights to the inner mechanisms that drive so many movies today.

Also, on how to make movies for no profit, All I Need To Know About FILMMAKING I Learned From The Toxic Avenger is also a lot of fun and is interesting. I was was co-written by Llyod Kaufman and James Gunn back when he was pretty involved with Troma. A lot of interesting stuff on how indie films usually to carve out different markets through the past 4 decades.

> However I do think superheroes in film have had essentially no evolution the way other genres have, and they've stagnated massively. Essentially every Marvel film is identical, and for some reason the few unique ones all choose for the ultra edgy grimdark path. At least with Westerns, a similarly long-beloved genre, new ones are expected to innovate. Not so with superheroes.

I think thats a combination of the superhero genre only becoming really big recently and the monopolization of the films under the Marvel/DC label. Marvels had success with making their films light so theyve become hesitant to step outside their wheelhouse with regards to film (TV is completley different however) and DC seems to think that darkness is the only way to react to the "fun" of Marvel. My hope is we'll see more interesting films play with the concept as the "superhero age" drags on someone will take on the melancholy Soon I will be Invincible or the bleak realism of Worm and succeed outside of the Marvel/DC wheelhouse and hopefully impact the genre for the better

Yep, that's a pilot episode he shot for Amazon's "pilot season" project. Amazon shoots a half dozen or so pilots and lets Prime members vote on which ones they should greenlight. The Tick, I Love Dick, and Jean Claude Van Johnson are the most recent series to come from this.

I watched Budding Prospects when it was online and it's a lot of fun. Definitely feels like a Zwigoff project. Hopefully Amazon will order it to series.

EDIT: You can watch the episode here.

Roger Ebert's The Great Movies

Funny, passionate, accessible. You don't need to know anything historical or technical or have read or seen anything else. Just a well-spoken man who loves movies talking about the movies he loves.

Here is a link to the Woody Allen one. I'm a real fan of his work so found it particularly interesting. I definitely recommend it, or maybe one of the others if there is a particular director's work you admire. I think I'm going to check out the Scorsese one soon

I dunno about sites/blogs, but the best single book I've ever read about film is Story by Robert McKee. I'd recommend it to every fan of film and every would-be writer of any type.

Yeah, you are great to talk to, do you have a list of favourite films or something related to that? I know it seems cliched but I only know one person aside from you and myself who loves Frances Ha so much they brought this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Frances-Ha-Noah-Baumbach-Picture/dp/3869307315/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1454017716&sr=8-8&keywords=frances+ha)!

> Bartleby the Scrivener

Speaking of interesting adaptations, I thought Bartleby was a good expansion of the basic plot of Melville's original story. It takes it into the modern era and gives the characters more motivations, but still keeps the basic premise and theme.

There's an older adaptation that is very faithful to the story, available on Amazon streaming for a few bucks. Both films are worth watching although the 2001 film has Crispin Glover, who is always compelling.

I don't know if this is in the direction you're looking, but I really enjoyed "On Directing Film" from David Mamet. It's a pretty quick read, too.

Kurosawa's book (http://www.amazon.com/Something-Like-Autobiography-Akira-Kurosawa/dp/0394714393) is pretty good. Scorsese by Ebert (http://www.amazon.com/Scorsese-Ebert-Roger/dp/0226182037) is pretty damn good.

It's a workprint. Essentially, Fincher washed his hands of Alien3 during editing, and the theatrical cut is a studio cut. Later, some of Fincher's people put together a rough cut of the film as Fincher wanted it. There are some unfinished special effects, and the sound is poor in a couple of scenes, but it's a better movie, with better fleshed out characters. It's available in certain issues of the DVD, e.g. the quadrilogy set.

That said, it's still not a great movie, at least by comparison with the first two Aliens. Fincher's hands were tied throughout filming. For example, the sets he had to film on were created for an earlier version of the script.

I'm into older television as well. Before ratings systems allowed TV executives to paint by market research numbers, television moved more slowly and carefully. It could tell stories because it wasn't restricted by the need to keep pacing as quick as possible. Stories were told without being full of gimmicks.

Was Promised Land worth $40 to you?