Schindler's List [1993]

This 1993 multiple awards winning classic is rightfully considered a masterpiece. If the mention of 7 Oscars, including Best Picture, Screenplay and Cinematography, don't give you a clue that you are dealing with a fantastic movie, then maybe the cast or the story will. Set during the second world war, it speaks about the unfair and truly awful destiny the Jews had to face during Hitler's tyrannic era. 

It's a story about Oskar Schindler(Liam Neeson), a wealthy, smart man who decides to take advantage of the troubled times that the world was facing and make money out of it. He sets up a factory in Krakow, together with a quiet, smart Jew accountant(Ben Kingsley) by accepting and therefore helping the people living in the ghetto. Stern, the faithful right man, started the initiative, giving a hand to the ones in need, but after a while, Oskar sees his efforts and decides to continue his work, by rescuing as many men and women as he can, all ending into a touching, yet unbelievable situation where he has to buy more than 1100 people from Amon, the ruthless German commandant, in order to save them from Auschwitz and the terrible fate it waited for them. For that, he was always remembered as a hero and saviour, and the next generations of the people who he managed to get out the concentration camps are now more than the survivors of the remaining Jews in Poland after 44. 

The story, therefore the screenplay, written by Steven Zaillian, after a Thomas Keneally book, was memorable, intense at points, with fantastic scenes from time to time, but it did felt a little too much. I think it's probably the only thing I would have to comment about this film- 3 hours is a bit too much, although I perfectly understand why they did it. Other than that, Steven Zaillian managed to tell a heartbreaking, tragic story in a script worthy  of its accolades, although from what I've later heard, it wasn't entirely accurate. I set out with a clear opinion and feel of mister Schindler, but  a discussion with a friend changed my mind. He said he read the book and that in it, Oskar didn't actually care about the people- his only interest was having a good, cheap workforce. This little detail was clearly modified in the script, and it disturbed me and somehow downgraded, even if just for a tiny bit,the film. They didn't tell the story like it happened, but then again, it is a film and I guess Spielberg and Zaillian have the right to somehow make the situation a little sweater and more cinematic, right?

Continuing the praises for this feature, I must mention Steven Spielberg who did a stunning job. I loved  the direction and I felt it perfectly suited the atmosphere and the tone of it, not to mention that it helped portray the characters in the best way possible, even if they happened to be a ruthless killer or a silent housekeeper.  The sudden killing spree in the ghetto on March 13 was just amazing- the whole production and the way it was shot was  sensational, memorable and chilling. The red coat detail was well placed and added more drama to the already tragic situation. 

The cinematography was definitely a high point of the film, as Janusz Kaminski used Black and White in such a beautiful, artistic and visually attracting way. The sets and costumes perfectly coordinated with the image and tone of the story, and the score, mostly orchestral, but with melancholic American hits sprinkled between,highlighted the essentials and made everything feel real. 

As expected, the perfect cast delivered in a superb way, adding even more layers to already complex characters, and somehow fitting it into that era and its customs and way of being. I know everyone remembers and deeply appreciates Ralph Fiennes for his unbelievable rendition of Amon Goeth, and I do that,too, I cannot not notice the character or its delivery, but my personal favorites were Sir Ben Kingsley and Liam Neeson. They worked together seemingly effortless and maybe I liked them more because their parts were more approachable and real. While Neeson does his best to showcase the true side of Schindler, with charisma and intelligence, Kingsley, with his natural talent and poise, stands out for me, although his part is much more quiet and reserved. 

Maybe I am overreacting about Schindler's list, but honestly, for me at least, it's one of those movies that is almost flawless, it's the type of film that perfectly blends the story with the visual and audio, creating a different, almost real word inside a frame, a film that moves you, all while featuring wonderful performances that cannot be missed. 

Schindler's List is a must see feature for everyone. 

Brief encounter [1945]

Directed by David Lean, Brief Encounter tells the story of a man and woman who fall in love with each other after they meet in a train station. Celia Johnson plays the delicate, quiet Laura Jensen, mother of two and happily married to Fred, and Trevor Howard is Alec Harvey, a courteous young doctor whose wife and kids at home don't stop him from pursuing Laura.

The first scene captures your attention, as you can easily see the hidden messages and feelings that are transmitted between the two lovers in the refreshment room at the Milford Junction, only using the eyes and stares. They are not touching or talking, but you can sense something is going on. Well, the viewer can, because the rude acquaintance of Laura certainly doesn't, as she interrupts them and starts talking and talking, without caring about the people around her. This is where we get a glimpse of the sad woman's thoughts, as he hear her inner voice telling us "I wish she would stop talking". This way of narrating the story continues at home, as she decides to tell Fred, her husband, about the love story between her and Alec, but only manages to do it mentally. The storyline is pretty simple and straight forward and I liked the fact that their romance started rather normal, from acquaintances to friends, then lovers, as miss Jensen starts explaining to her husband how they met and why she is feeling so terrible now.

I love the 1940s, 1950s movies for many different reason. First of all, I am always impressed with the lighting in black and white films- I notice it much more here than in color and it always looks amazing. Second of all, and most importantly, I like this decades in cinematography because, back then, the focus wasn't on visual effects, or action, or sets, even costumes- no, the main attraction in a black&white film or any other kind, was the actor, the character and the story it wanted to showcase. In that time, people knew how to express themselves just through their eyes- I could feel and understand what Laura was experiencing just by looking at her face or noticing little gestures that gave her away. It was true acting and it was much more interesting and effective than what we get today (don't get me wrong, there are plenty of wonderful actors today, too, but with different styles). Celia Johnson not only was a beautiful woman, but a very sophisticated and elegant one, as well; her voice was smooth and I loved her accent, although one thing I don't particularly care for in these types of movies is the need to over dramatize everything, by easily crying or getting emotional at every little obstacle. I can't say too much of Trevor Howard, as I feel he wasn't properly showcased, but he did his job wonderfully.

Overall, Brief Encounter was a classic bittersweet noir film, with lovely characters and a sad story that moved me, in some way or another. You should put it on your To See list, although it isn't highly recommended- maybe it's perfect for when you're tired and looking for a short, easy film to take your mind off things.

Raging Bull [1980]

After seeing Taxi Driver, I couldn't resist the temptation of yet another Scorsese-de Niro collaboration and of course, Raging Bull was next in line. Directed by Martin Scorsese, and written for screen by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin, the story follows the self-destructive life of Jake La Motta. I must say that overall, I wasn't that impressed with it and I won't see it again, but there are wonderful things to be said about it.

The opening sequence, in true Scorsese style and proving, yet again, his genius nature, is a fantastic mixture of orchestral music and slow motion shots of the boxer. Actually, the whole movie was perfectly directed- if on Taxi Driver, Marty used a lot of close-ups, this time around he went for the slow motion and it worked perfectly. I especially loved the scene in which Jake watches Vickie at the first dance, but also the seduction part- he sure knows how to show sexuality and sensuality and the women he chooses are just right for it. Another favorite is the final round of his last game with Sugar Ray- the shots of the two in slow motion and the lighting/framing/music/etc was beautiful.

From a film-making point of view, as usual, almost everything was great. The music score, the cinematography, the costumes, the use of Black&White and more. The thing that bugged me, although it wasn't very important, was the continuity problem in some of the scenes- there were some errors, some radical changes of De Niro's face and blood spatter in certain scenes, plus the fights were obviously choreographed and in some points you could see they weren't actually touching. Maybe it was just me, but it bother me in some points. As for the pace of the movie, I felt it was rather robotic and went from one scene to another another in a very straight forward way- it didn't create a pleasant or appealing transition between scenes, which is weird, since it did win an Oscar. [again, maybe it is just me]

Acting wise, you really can't go wrong with Joe Pesci and Robert de Niro. The first one was quite a revelation, as he portrayed the younger, more caring and protective brother of Jake La Motta, and earned mine and, probably most of the viewers, sympathy and admiration. De Niro's character, on the other hand, was insufferable. If I were to compare him to Travis Bickle, the taxi driver would win hands down in every category. Whilst Travis was wild, dangerous, intense, even deranged, Jake was just a hard headed, insecure asshole (pardon the expression). Maybe that's why I much prefer his 1976 performance to this one, although I agree with Robert's Oscar win for Raging Bull just for the "Why" scene in prison, which has to be one of the most painful moments I have ever seen. I also have to mention the transformation after the last Sugar Ray Robinson match- I almost didn't recognize him.

Raging Bull deserves his title of classic, but it isn't as good as Taxi Driver. I, for one, am not interested in seeing it again anytime soon and I will probably forget most of it in a month!

12 angry men[1957]

12 angry men is a 1957 classic about a jury in deliberation of a murder case.

You have 12 men, no names, one room and 1h and 36 minutes to kill. What do you do?The best men to ask are Reginald Rose, who wrote the screenplay and Sidney Lumet, who directed it. They both did a wonderful job in capturing not only the essence of the story and the morality of it, but also the emotions and characters of the 12 men.

Juror number 1 is the president and tries his best to manage the chaos in the room. 2 is a simple, quiet, guy, who doesn't dare to speak, but believes in the greater good in mankind. 3 is a real pain in the ass and doesn't go down without a fight and 4 is a very hard man to convince who, surprisingly, doesn't sweat. 5 and 6 are pretty normal guys, but 7 is a piece of art- he just can't wait to go to this stupid baseball match. 8 is the real star, the man who questions everything and the kind of juror the defense autorney wants to have. 9 is a sweet old man who's happy to be there and help, but you just dislike number 10, he is so grumpy. 11 always fights for his point of view, but 12 doesn't pay attention that much, unless it has something to do with him- the advertising agency sindrom, it was quite common those days.

There were some great moments there: the close-ups of the jurors, the scene were each one stands up and gets away from the non-sense, angry juror 10, and every scene where they figure out that something is not right! Henry Fonda, as juror 8, is, of course, amazing and that applies to almost everyone in that room!

A true classic that you should see if you haven't already!

Fridays are the best: A streetcar named Desire

Today, you will read a very interesting review: it is the first one I wrote, the one that inspired this blog and my passion to discover and see as many movies I can! It is my first attempt, so bare with me!I hope you like it!

A streetcar named Desire, a clasic movie, a fantastic one that was rightly named one of the best in the history of cinematography. 

I can whole-heartly say that it changed me. It was the movie that made open my laptop and write about it....and then find other movies just like this one. I was blown away by everything: the story, the lighting (I now understand the importance of it- well, mostly), the setting, the way the camera moved, the music, and most definately, by the characters.  

How can I explain it? The film, the story pushed the characters forward, made you pay interest only to them, to their reactions, to their body language. It made you, well, actually, it made me realize and understand their story, their motivations.

Stanley, played by an amazingly good-looking and great actor- Marlon Brando, was the surprise. He has the whole package- tall, hot, sexy, smart, with an attitude- a real man that you can hardly find in Hollywood these days. As I said before, attitude is everything and he nailed the part of Stanley, Stella’s husband and the reason of Blanche’s breakdown; he eventually pushes her over the limit, by being honest, something she is not used to.

                                                               Bonus just for the ladies 

Blanche is a very complex character. At the beginning, she gives you the impression of a „whiny bitch” and I, for one, was quite irritated by her. She overreacted everything, although I know it is a common trade for that time. I guess she is hiding her sorrow behind that over dramatized class. Although the annoince continues through out the film, it becomes intriguing...what has she done, who is she?  After we do find out more about her background, we start to understand the way she acts, her story. I loved the scene with the young man collecting money, who reminds Blanche of her late husband, and especially the amazing acting, gestures, ease of interpreting and my favorite, the easiest transition at Mitch’s arrival! The second half of the movie, especially the last 15 minutes are fantastic, and Vivien Leigh doesn’t dissapoint at all; the two memorable scenes- first with Mitch („Yes, I have had many meetings with strangers”, showing, for the first time, her true self and her face), the second, with Stanley (in which Marlon Brando’s character demascs Blanche) are amazing and show the true art of acting from these fine artists.

I was impressed by Vivien Leigh’s acting, but I just read that she was suffering from bipolar disease in real life, so maybe that changes just a bit the situation.

Stella is the supporting character that holds together the whole film, but doesn’t stand out, for me anyway, most of the time. I do remember the end scene, where she runs up the stairs with the child, saying she won’t talk to Stanley again, but knowing she will, because she has no choice and because she loves him.

It is one the greatest movies I have ever seen and I really hope you will see it soon!

P.S. Interesting note: One particular thing i observed and it got me thinking was the smoking. First of all, smoking in the 50s is like texting  of our days(maybe it is a bad example, but you get my point). Everyone does it with such ease, that it looks so natural and pleasant.  Second of all, I now know why women were so succesfull back then: the line „ Do you have a light?”, followed by a quick, sultry gaze got a man on his knees....too bad it doesn’t work nowadays!

Bicycle Thieves[1948]

Director: Vittorio De Sica

Writers: Luigi Bartolini (novel), Cesare Zavattini  and  more

Stars: Lamberto Maggiorani, Enzo Staiola and Lianella Carell

In my quest to expand my cinema knowledge, I decided to watch a couple of classic Italian movies, and the first one was The Bicycle Thieves by Vittorio di Sica.

Taking into consideration that it was the first in this genre that I saw, I can say I liked it, but wasn’t blown away by it. Maybe it was the fact that film never really got my attention until the last 5 minutes- it never made up forget everything around me and concentrate on the story!

But let’s start with the beginning. The two main characters, the father and son, are both fantastic and interpret their part in wonderful way. It doesn’t even feel like a performance, because it is so real. I especially loved Bruno, the sweet, but strong kid who follows his father in the hunt for the bicycle. The hunt actually turned out to be a journey they both took; one that made them bond, but didn’t go the way they planned.

One thing that I noticed and loved about the film: the story, the place, the characters, the dialogue, everything is real; you know it is a normal situation that you can find anytime, anywhere. The beauty of it lies in the interpretation and the little details (the sets, the music). Rome reminded me a little of Bucharest, especially the Buzesti/North Station part, I don’t know why. (Yes, I am originally from Romania)

For me, the best part was the ending. The last 10 minutes were crucial and really brought out the importance and the development of the characters. The decision scene is very well executed in every way(direction, acting, music etc) and I guess you can call the walk that two take back home, The Walk of Shame, as the father realises not only that he didn’t get the bicycle back, but also that he let his son and his family down, in every way.

Sometimes, the ending changes my whole perspective on a movie. That’s what happened here! I can say that it is a beautiful classic and you should see it!