"Know" More Culture - The Way ‘The Day the Clown Cried’ Died

Jerry Lewis in 'The Day the Clown Cried' (1972;
src: notrecinema.com)

It was the 1970’s.  One-time A-lister Jerry Lewis was working in various capacities in Hollywood but really wanted to leave his mark, and the tone and style of film was changing rapidly, more or less leaving him behind.  Screenwriters Joan O’Brien and Charles Denton finished their script for the Day the Clown Cried and Lewis was approached to play the lead.  He was apprehensive to say the least.  Mostly known for screwball humor, Lewis feared he just wasn’t the right person for this sort of role.  Yet, ultimately, he came to the conclusion that it is an opportunity to star in something truly meaningful, and took up the reins as the lead character, the doomed clown named “Karl Schmidt”.

The film’s story is pretty straightforward.  Set during the start of the Holocaust, a clown who was once a top performer at a major circus falls hard after a career slump.  One day after being arrested by the Gestapo for mocking Hitler, he finds himself in a work camp.  At the lowest point in his life, during a chance encounter with some child prisoners, he realizes that he may still be able to at least bring joy to these young kids.  Performing the best he can, the broken man is heartened by the reactions of his young audience.  However, the Nazi leaders at the camp are not too thrilled by his bringing of joy and force him to be separated.  Ultimately, after he continues to defy their orders, he is commanded by pain of death to rally and escort the children to a train headed to the notorious death camp Auschwitz, but after a mistake finds he, himself, trapped in one of the cars, he is forced to accept fate.  Ultimately he is tasked with leading the children into the “showers”, and the film ends with him entertaining the children one last time before fading out.  Their fate was sealed.  

Doesn’t that sound like fun?!  No.  This was the reaction of just about everyone who saw the film during its limited screenings in 1972.  The film was described in the nicest terms as “misguided” and “confused” and at worst “a catastrophe”.  The question is, what really happened?  Well, Lewis himself had always been rather secretive about the project, but other sources indicate that during filming and post, he took over as director and began making a plethora of changes to the script to make the lead character more sympathetic.  The clown was meant to have a redemption arc, but instead he was written as a man who was simply broken and needed that last moment of inspiration to feel redeemed, as opposed to being a complete dirtbag at the start.  On top of that, Lewis attempted to inject more of his personality into the character.  He renamed the protagonist to Helmut Doork and added several moments of schtick to the screenplay.  The days leading up the film’s initial screenings led Lewis to believe he was making something important, and his notorious arrogance shined through, not only during the production but during the pitches and press bytes.  The movie showed, and his time as a leading man was marked as “over”.  Sure, Lewis continued performing, but this movie was a demarcation point in his career.  To this day, with all of his legacy aside, The Day the Clown Cried is the single piece of ephemera that has boundlessly captivated film historians, students and fans.

Becoming something of a legend these days, The Day the Clown Cried has been the subject of discussions in terms of remakes, documentaries and just plain fascination in Hollywood for over twenty years.  A number of performers, including Robin Williams, have been considered for a remake, adapting the film’s original screenplay, but nothing ever came about.  This movie has such a legendary stigma to it that it has become somewhat untouchable, while at the same time remaining a holy grail among cinema fanatics.  It’s very, very difficult to find footage of the movie and very few people have actually seen it in its entirety, in its original cut.  Every few years or so, footage of the film will leak onto the Internet but will often be removed.  This is largely due to the fact that the only official print of the movie is in Lewis’ own possession, as he continues to demand the film never be released or seen by anyone.  It has also been tied up in litigation for decades, with various involved parties fighting over control of the finished product, but the stalwart Lewis has never stopped fighting to prevent it from coming to light.  

By all accounts, the lore and history behind the Day the Clown Cried is far more captivating than the film itself.  I’ve only seen glimpses of the finished product, getting the rest of my knowledge of the plot from various sources online.  From what I saw, it’s a dreary and honestly kind of ugly film visually, with very low-lighting and lots of walls and backdrops that are dirty or aged.  The scenes I’ve seen that are a little brighter looking are overshadowed by the film’s tone.  It doesn’t help going in knowing what the movie is actually about.  All of the fluff at the start seems that much more meaningless.  

I have always wondered what the ultimate intention was for The Day the Clown Cried.  I am of the mind that any story can be told, and any story told well, no matter what the subject, can be appreciated.  However, from all I’ve heard, this is one big hot mess.  Any time footage leaks onto the Internet, there is a brief period of buzz followed by a sudden silence.  Almost as though everyone who was ever excited about seeing it actually really regrets their decision afterward. 

"Know" More Pop-Culture- The Grindhouse

Just before the market crash of 1929 known now as Black Tuesday, movie theatres were opening like mad to accommodate the massive demand for a growing pop culture phenomenon dubbed the motion picture.  Films were being churned out in numbers that are inconceivable by today’s standards, but shorter silent films were often inexpensive to produce and required little in terms of quality.  So, the result was a pretty wide range of film ideas, some good and some… not so good.  A not-so-well-known fact about the early days of cinema is “nudie” films were extremely common.  Even in the 19th Century nickelodeons, a short film featuring a topless dancer was far more common than one might imagine.  As films took to the big screen, and the Hays Code took over in the 1930’s, most of these sorts of films were driven out.  Given their reputation and poor storage, most of these movies have suffered the tragic fate shared by so many films of the early 20th Century: degradation through disintegration.  This was a consequence of the celluloid used for years to print film media.  Since it was now “illegal” to show nudity and other banned content in theatres, an underground was formed.

42nd Street Grindhouses (Source: Soundonsight.org)

42nd St. in Manhattan is arguably the most famous theatre district in the world (not discounting Los Angeles’ famous Beverly Cinema), and many of the joints on this stretch of road were not ready to give up the profitability of sexuality.  There was just one problem: That damn Hays Production Code!  So, many theatres repurposed their floors to become burlesque theatres, performance theatres typically featuring women dancing seductively and singing songs riddled with innuendo.  Some of these clubs also became associated with New York’s Red Light District, though most were nothing more than very tame strip clubs.

(Source: listal.com)

As the decades rolled on, the theatres that continued to show movies often bought reels to cheap movies of poor quality, showing them several times throughout the day, as opposed to the one or two showings-per-film common at that time.  The rates would increase during the day, capping off around 6pm.  This set the tradition of the Matinee Price so common in theatres.  This trend continued through until the 70’s, when things began to change dramatically.  This process of repeated showings became known as “grinding” and became the namesake of the theatres that practiced this new profitable idea.  The existence of these “grindhouses” actually spurred a new market for cheap, quickly-produced films that in many ways were built to violate the already weakening Hays Code, featuring copious amounts of sex, graphic violence and other material that was, in that period, very controversial and some films are still shocking by today’s standards.

While these same grindhouses were showing films that would or could not be shown in other major theatres, they also did show many major releases, as well as a number of films that are widely regarded as modern classics.  Another fact is some entire genres owe their very existence to these theatres.  In-particular, slasher, spaghetti westerns, martial arts and blaxploitation films would likely have never caught on without help from the grindhouse districts.  However, as the 80’s came around,  the market for these films in theatres shrunk rapidly due to the proliferation of home video.  Within a few years, the theatre market would collapse all around; a consequence of the rapidly-growing video market and the advent of megaplexes, which were competing to be bigger-budget attempts to monopolize local theatre markets by offering more and more movies and showings at a time in a single location.

The exploitation genre continues on, though it’s subgenres have split off, with newer films being mostly inspired by the 70’s classics rather than trying to craft any real identity of their own.  However, in spite of the cinema collapse, the legacy of the grindhouse persists to this day directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are highly inspired by the films of the 70’s grindhouses and many modern action and horror movies draw a lot of inspiration from the grindhouses.  Also, many films from the grindhouses’ heyday have found a new market thanks to home video and digital distribution, garnering a new cult following and have themselves crafted a dedicated and unified fan culture.

The question is: Were the grindhouses disreputable garbage heaps throwing out nothing but gore and pornography?  Or, rather, were they inspirational and daring cultural hubs that would leave a lasting impression on future audiences?  I would say they are a little of both.  If they weren’t just a little controversial and didn’t do things differently from the norm, it is likely they would not even be talked about to this day.  It left quite an impression by defying the standards and refusing to accept the rules set by a paranoid and aggressive censorship bureau, instead embracing the strange and opening the gates to a new idea of film that was not only unknown to most, but was outwardly banned by major theatres.  The grindhouses paved the way for a new era of independent filmmakers and broke down barriers to artistic expression.  Modern film would likely not even exist in its current form if it weren’t for this film culture.  So, next time you scoff at an Italian sexsploitation flick, consider that many films you love may not have even been made if it weren’t for the theatre owners brave enough to show it in the first place.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 1 - The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

The Shawshank Redemption (1994;
Castle Rock Entertainment)

Director: Frank Darabont

Writers: Frank Darabont screenplay adapted from the short story by Stephen King

Starring: Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton, Clancy Brown

Here it is.  After all this time, all the delays, everything… I’m here.  The Shawshank Redemption is my favorite film of all time.  I have a few reasons for this.  First, this movie came out when I was still pretty young, and I saw it for the first time at thirteen (I think).  It changed the way I saw movies forever.  It was the first real drama that I ever fell in love with, and after seeing it I needed to see more.  I was inspired to seek out all the movies I had heard about but never saw because they weren’t action or comedy movies, and it opened up an entirely new world for me.  Aside from the very personal influence this had on me as a film fan, it is objectively a great, great movie.  It was nominated for numerous Oscars but did not take home any statuettes, but then again, it was the 1995 Academy Awards, where it was up against the likes of Forrest Gump, Quiz Show and Pulp Fiction.  That is some stiff, STIFF competition.

The film follows a banker named Andy Dufresne who is convicted of murdering his wife and her supposed lover and sentenced to life within the dreary stone walls of Shawshank Prison.  There he befriends a slick smuggler named Red who begins to guide him and help him adjust to the reality that faces him.  However, Andy refuses to embrace his fate, taking every opportunity to remind his fellow inmates that there is hope beyond the prison’s walls.  He enters the corrupt prison and changes the lives of everyone there by simply refusing to let go of hope.

The Shawshank Redemption is not slogged down by a lot of the typical cliches of modern dramas.  There is no forced romance, no comic relief, no big tense dramatic moments (at least not until the very, very end of the film) and no forced melodrama.  The movie is told over several years of Andy’s sentence until his ultimate and impossible escape.  He leaves behind hope to his friends and retribution to those who abused their power.

One can come up with any number of allegories that may fit the story of Shawshank, but I like it as a simple story of a man who changes everything.  I know deeper meaning can be found, but I prefer to see this film today the same as I did in my young age.  It means something to me.  It was a demarcation point in my life as a kid growing up in a period of excess, where I began to seek out something different than what was being sold to me.  It has had a tremendous impact on me because, to this day, I remember how this movie changed me, and I am always willing to find the next movie to forever alter the way I perceive popular culture.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 2 - Schindler's List (1993)

Schindler's List (1993; Universal Pictures)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Writers: Thomas Keneally (novel); Steven Zaillian (Screenplay)

Starring: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes

This is the film a lot of hardcore film fans probably expected to be #1.  It currently ranks #7 on the IMDB top 100, it’s #8 on the American Film Institute’s, and it won an impressive seven Oscars including best picture.  It’s probably as close to “perfect” as a film can get.  The only reason it is number 2 on my list is because the number one slot is reserved for my favorite film of all time.  It’s a personal choice, and does in no way mean I think less of this movie.  That said…

Schindler’s List tells the story of industrialist Oskar Schindler (Neeson), a shrewd businessman who operates in the employ of the Third Reich for the war effort while turning a profit, but in the end, he is faced with a choice: greed, or the right thing.  The film is told in two parts: the first focuses on the Nazi’s advance in power and their segregation of Jews into the ghettos, the second centers on the Final Solution, where the remaining few were shipped to camps and a systematic genocide began.  Meanwhile, Schindler himself is hiring a number of Jewish workers for his factory and as he is essential to the Reich’s success at the time, he becomes an obstacle of sorts for the cruel Nazi Lieutenant Amon Goeth (Fiennes).  Schindler’s right-hand man Mr. Stern (Kingsley) begs him to help, but at first Schindler is reluctant until a fateful encounter at a Nazi train depot almost finds Stern in Birkenau until Schindler cames to his rescue.  After this near loss of his colleague and friend he is inspired to do all he can to save as many lives as possible by signing them on as recruits for his factories to protect them from the trains to the concentration camps.  Of course, there is a lot more to this film than that, but for a core synopsis, that’s the best I can word it.

Schindler’s List forces the audience into a hard position.  If you were Oskar Schindler, how far would you go to save these otherwise-doomed souls from the hands of the evil Third Reich?  Because, his stand against Hitler’s forces could have not only cost him his enterprise, but his very life.  Yet, the revelation that he can use his influence to help people, even if it is just a few in the grand scheme, makes his actions all that more meaningful.  This is a story of one man doing all he can to save only a few lives at the risk of losing his freedom.

The film is shot in beautiful black and white, having a deep contrast creating a very crisp look.  Every shot is astounding, too.  There are beautiful scenes juxtaposed against a rightfully-mournful tone.  Likely the most striking and memorable visual moment shows a young girl in a bright red dress against the entirely black and white scene.  This one piece of symbolism has become the defining image of the film from an artistic standpoint.

The performances by all involved are just excellent, too.  Ralph Fiennes in-particular gives a grim and harrowing Oscar-nominated performance as the Nazi officer.  Every scene with him is just chilling.  Unlike a cartoonish villain lacking humanity, we see that in him because we know what he is, but his performance is quite understated despite a few shocking moments.  Liam Neeson gives the best performance of his career here and shows a hint of just how much of an essential performer he could have continued to be if it weren’t for the dreadful Phantom Menace grinding his career to a screeching halt for nearly a decade.

I railed against the Oscars a few times during this list but the Academy got it right in 1994, because in-spite of not ONE actor from this film winning an Oscar, the movie as a whole was recognized for the artistic achievement it was.  There are very, very few films that really depict the Holocaust in any capacity for a few reasons.  First, it isn’t the sort of subject one associates with “entertainment” and secondly, if you mess things up, you are through.  Nobody will respect you as a filmmaker again.  This goes all the way back to the notorious Italian Nazi exploitation flicks of the 70’s which have gone down in legend as some of the most deplorable pieces of cinema ever filmed.  So, it’s understandably-rare to see a quality, successful film tackle this subject, especially as masterfully as Schindler’s List does.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 3 - Pulp Fiction (1994)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Pulp Fiction (1994; Miramax)

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Bruce Willis, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer

I want to be clear here, and I do not think this is hyperbole: 1994 is one of the greatest years in the history of film.  SEVEN of my top 40 movies of the 90’s are just from 1994.  The American Film Institute released their updated list of 100 Greatest Movies in 2005, a list spanning a century of film, and there were four movies on their list from 1994.  In fact, Pulp Fiction isn’t even the last film on THIS list from that year!

Pulp Fiction is a series of interwoven stories of violence and debauchery and it is absolutely glorious.  There is no one scene that isn’t captivating.  It is a powerhouse of cool direction, a distinct and fresh look and tone, and most of all a stunning screenplay.  So, naturally, it didn’t win the Oscar in 1995, but I’ve already gone over how worthless the Academy Awards are so I won’t bother you with that again.  Instead, let’s talk about one of the greatest films of all time.

Before directing Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino made a couple other genre films including the previously-reviewed Reservoir Dogs.  Tarantino draws heavy inspiration from the classic 42nd St. Grindhouses of the 60’s and 70’s.  These theaters were known for their release of unvetted indie films, often branding the exploitation label, that for the most part remained unrated and rarely saw any release outside of these theatres until the mid-to-late 80’s.  These are the theatres that brought us the great Blaxploitation classics like Shaft and Superfly, the two of which were rare examples of great movies leaving the Grindhouse and getting a wide release (largely thanks to their hit theme songs).  We also saw a lot of graphic horror from Italian directors like Lucio Fulci and Bruno Mattei who rarely saw any form of wide distribution, even in the video market, their films mostly remaining cult classics looming in the underground horror scene.

So, what does this have to do with Pulp Fiction?  Well, this is a movie that amalgamates ideas from the various genres of the time.  The title refers to “Pulp” a largely pejorative word used to describe entertainment that is considered low-quality but is widely popular.  The movie uses directorial styles, fashions and concepts that were common in the Grindhouses, but were rarely embraced by the mainstream film industry.  This is part of what makes Pulp Fiction such an amazing film, it is a beloved, winning classic that employs and draws its inspiration from films that were almost entirely marginalized.  It’s very acclaim and success is itself a commentary on the manufactured idea of “mainstream” entertainment.

Pulp Fiction’s plot is actually a series of interconnected storylines all wrapped around a handful of jobs and the daily lives of two hitmen, Julius and Vincent (Jackson and Travolta).  They exchange memorable banter as they travel around Los Angeles, from cleaning out an apartment of misguided college kids, to taking a local crime lord’s wife (Thurmond) out for a night on the town.  Between these wrapper plot lines, we get other stories revolving around a boxer on a rough deal and a couple of crazed robbers, and that really does only scratch the surface.

The fascinating thing about the film is how everything really comes together.  We see plotlines that are, at first, complete non sequiturs, but as the film goes on, harkening back to these scenes reveals a beautifully-woven series of smaller stories forming a greater whole.  In fact, I believe (and this is speculation) a large part of why this film is so beloved is how it uses these stories to paint an involving picture that encourages audiences to see how it all comes together, creating a sort of active viewing experience.  You mind is processing the stories individually, and when it all comes together it is like an ecstatic revelation.  

There isn’t a bad performance in this movie.  Not one.  This is very rare as even the best movies have a few throwaway acting choices, but Tarantino's meticulousness pays off here.  The cast is huge and everyone has a reason to be there.  This is all supported by the screenplay and, to be honest, if this were a top 40 based on writing alone, Pulp Fiction would be number one.  This is hands down one of the greatest screenplays of all time.  It’s fast, witty and the dialogue, even from the simplest scenes, is superb.  It’s funny and has a charm and character you just don’t see in most movies, this especially goes for Oscar movies, which actually trend on the boring side (and I say this as a film snob).

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 4 - Goodfellas (1990)

Goodfellas (1990; Warner Bros.)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Nicholas Peleggi

Starring: Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci, Robert De Niro

Scorsese returns for his final film on my list.  Goodfellas is the astoundingly-told odyssee of a man’s rise through the ranks of a local crime family, and his ultimate fall.  Henry Hill (Liotta) grew up admiring the local gangs.  The mob guys were the ones with the fancy clothes, nice cars and most of all, the respect.  As he grew up, his ties to a local heavy-hitter named Jim Conway (De Niro) and his association with the violent and unpredictable Tommy (Pesci), drove him to climb the ranks in the Family, at his peak becoming a successful and respected leader.  All seems well, but as a shaky marriage crumbles, and addiction consumes his life, Hill’s legacy becomes a faded memory barely filling an otherwise hollow shell.

As I said in my article on Casino, Scorsese knows how to tell an epic character study that spans many years.  Goodfellas’ narrative is told from the perspective of a man who always loved what he had become, until finally we see what he becomes by the end of the story.  It seems like it may have even been glorifying the life of a gangster, until we see what happens to those who are deep inside.  It’s a hard-edge look at the lives of a few powerful guys and how everything can all so easily fall apart.

Liotta gives a career-defining performance here.  I’ve always liked him as an actor, but I have yet seen him recreate the excellence he showed here.  Scorsese can often bring the best out of his performers and Liotta seems like he was just right for this role.  Good looking, smart, fast, a strong commanding voice… everything he needed was there and he didn’t just take it and run, he owned it.  Every scene he is in is highlighted by a subtle acting style that reflects mood and tone so well that you feel sucked in.  Joe Pesci gives his most famous (and Oscar-winning) role here, notably in the classic “Am I funny to you?!” scene.  Lastly, De Niro gives one of his more understated performances here, never going too far into the extreme, rather finding a nice soft balance.  His emotional scenes are so good, and he has just enough presence to not be overshadowed while never feeling like he’s trying to steal the show, as De Niro is occasionally want to do.  

Goodfellas has gone down as one of the greatest films of all time, and like many movies that share this title, it was heavily snubbed by the tone-deaf Academy.  It received a number of nominations, but Liotta was snubbed his nomination shot, and the film lost the Best Picture nod to the absolutely dull Dances With Wolves, a film that only has a legacy of being the movie Avatar rips off.  1991’s awards have somewhat become notorious, and deservingly-so.  Have YOU heard of most of those movies?  Probably not.  Dances with Wolves, sure.  Awakenings was a good movie, yes.  However, Goodfellas’ Oscar-snub is just another mark on an already messy and unreliable record for The Academy Awards, with most of the more winning films going down as forgotten or mediocre pieces, while the movies that got the finger tend to be highly praised… I’m talking to YOU How Green Was My Valley?! (If you don’t know, look it up)

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 5- Reservior Dogs (1992)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Chris Penn

Reservior Dogs (1992;  Miramax Pictures)

The heist film is a classic genre with a long proud tradition of quality films.  Going all the way back to the silent era, the crime caper has been seminal in the action/thriller genres.  In 1992, Quentin Tarantino brought us Reservoir Dogs, a heist movie where the heist is only part of the story.  The core of the movie involves the interactions between a group of thieves hired to work a job for a local boss.  In an empty warehouse, the tough crew awaits their chance to meet up with their contractor, and finally split to leave this botch-job behind them, but nothing is that simple.  The entire job is a mess from the start, and while all of the hired men claim to be professionals, these guys do not work well together for the most part.  It all culminates in a series of disasters, betrayals and surprises that just make this a fun sit.  

The quality of this film comes down to a few key points.  First off, you have Tarantino’s trademark fast, witty banter and it is top-notch here.  The often funny dialogue and perfectly distinct personalities of the characters makes this film flow smoothly.  For a flick that takes place almost entirely in a mostly-empty warehouse with only a few interactions at a time, Dogs really never feels slow or flat.  It comes down to the dialogue and execution.  Second is the way violence is used in the movie.  While all of Tarantino's films are violent, unlike Kill Bill, which revels in it's 70's exploitation ways, Reservior Dogs' bloodier scenes are disturbing and really nail home the personalities of the characters involved.

There are a few notably memorable scenes, too, arguably the most famous of which involves Madsen, duct tape, a straight razor and Stealer’s Wheel.  If you know the scene you know this movie.  If you haven’t seen this famous movie moment, do not just go watch the one scene.  Instead, seek out Reservior Dogs in full and watch it through.  It isn’t a long movie, but it is a fun quotable, delightfully-exploitative and gritty picture full of everything Tarantino does best, all presented with a snappy screenplay and a spot-on cast of great actors in their prime.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 6: The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

The Silence of the Lambs (1991; Orion Pictures)

Director: Jonathan Demme

Writer: Ted Nally adapted from the novel by Thomas Harris

Starring: Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Ted Levine

I gave a nod to one of Demme’s other great 90’s classics Philadelphia previously on this list.  While Philadelphia was an excellent film with a career-changing performance for its star Tom Hanks, it did lack one thing, a really good villain.  For that matter....  Why don’t we just have two?!

The Silence of the Lambs is the story of a young FBI academy member named Clarice Starling who finds herself entangled in an investigation into the disappearance of a girl.  Believed to be the work of a serial killer who calls himself “Buffalo Bill”, the very desperate federal agency forces the nervous yet bright young Starling to interview yet another, far worse, killer: the cannibalistic psychopath Hannibal Lecter.  The hope of which being she would be able to appeal to him for a profile to aid in the apprehension of Bill, and the rescue of the missing girl.  

In hindsight it’s easy to miss, but The Silence of the Lambs was a very important demarcation point in procedural filmmaking.  Most commonly, the perspectives in these sorts of movies were fixed.  We would see events from one character, or at least from one side of an investigation.  This is in the vein of the classics of Agatha Christie, who crafted her tales in such a way to keep the reader guessing and involved in the mystery.  The Silence of the Lambs takes things in a different direction.  Instead of being trapped on one side of the struggle, or even being a fly on the wall, the story is told from a rather omnipotent perspective.  We see Clarice being called in to work on the case, we see the creepy and famous scene of her walking to the end of the "dungeon" to find an unsettling image of Lecter waiting stiffly for her arrival, but then we see a girl trapped in a well, we see an insane man dressing in drag and dancing almost comically in front of a mirror, and we even get some perspective from Bill’s dog!  The goal here is to craft a story from all of the facts simultaneously, dropping them all in at once, and all the audience can do is hope and wait.  It answers the question of whether or not you would WANT to know what happened, even if everything did not turn out alright.  

This is a film built entirely on the performance of Hopkins as Lecter.  Aside from the standard serial killer plot that wraps the film, this character is the image and identity of this movie.  Even those who have never seen Silence of the Lambs, any of the other Hannibal Lecter movies (not recommended) or the recent TV show, likely knew who Lecter was by reputation.  He has become the standard by which movie villain performances are measured, and for good reason.  Hopkins’ Oscar-winning performance sold this movie.  The plot is actually quite ludacris, Buffalo Bill is insane in a rather comical way and much of the cinematography is flat, except for a few notable scenes.  No.  This is about Lecter.  Hopkins’ performance is so good in this movie, that not only is he the lynchpin here, but his portrayal of the mad doctor makes it nearly impossible to really enjoy any other cracks at the character from other performers, and for me this includes Mads Mikkelsen, who is good, but nowhere near this good. 

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 7: Casino (1995)

Casino (1995; Universal Pictures)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Nicholas Pileggi

Starring: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone

For anyone noticing a distressing lack of Scorsese on my list, here you go.  As the modern master of these long character epics, Scorsese has built his career on telling the tales of the underbelly of urban America.  Casino, his stab at Vegas greed and mob influence, is by far one of his best films.  I say this for a number of reasons, but most of all it comes down to how he reveals these characters to us.

Casino’s plot is somewhat hard to narrow down as it covers the lives of these characters over a time span measured in years.  It centers on powerful Casino boss ‘Ace’ Rothstein (De Niro), who, along with his partner Nicky Santoro (Pesci) manage a successful Vegas enterprise while dealing with conflict and facing down scammers and hand-shaking high rollers.  As the story goes on, Rothstein’s own past and ways, as well has his greed, slowly begins to catch up with him.

Casino isn’t as quotable as Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, but what it lacks in those films’ sharpness, it makes up for with a complex and layered plot that never seems to go too far off the rails, hanging on just enough to remain entertaining without becoming convoluted.  The film goes into technical and business aspects of a Vegas casino as well, some of which are creepy and some are just plain amazing.  Scorsese's’ direction is spot-on, too.  

Directorially, scenes flow together in a near-seamless fashion despite being often separated by months or years.  The narrative sort of moves in rhythm to the flow of the scenes, overlapping then resolving in a somewhat unconventional way.  Over time we see the disintegration of these characters, proving once-and-for-all that gambling is a dirty business, so who better to show us its dark side than the man who does it best?

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 8 - Jackie Brown (1997)

Jackie Brown (1997; Miramax)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino based on the novel by Elmore Leonard

Starring: Pam Grier, Robert Forster, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert De Niro,

Tarantino is a master at crafting complex stories with a large cast of characters and interweaving stories and in 1997, he would direct one of his best films.  Jackie Brown is both a throwback to 70’s Blaxploitation and the complex filmmaking styles of classic directors like Akira Kurosawa and Fritz Lang.

The interweaving plot follows a flight attendant named Jackie Brown who is drawn into a smuggling scam by a local weapons dealer and is then turned by a cop who becomes oddly enamoured with her.  Throughout the film, Jackie is constantly playing both sides (ala Yojimbo).  On one end, you have a tired, veteran cop who is sick of always doing the right thing.  Then, on the opposite side you have a disturbed arms dealer (Jackson) who is working out a sale to a sleazy thug (De Niro), whom Jackie is running money for by smuggling it through her flights.  Ultimately, the film focuses on a plan executed masterfully by the titular heroine to break out of the cycle in which she has found herself trapped.

Our lead character’s plan is reminiscent of Yojimbo, and the final act of Jackie Brown is a call back to another Kurosawa classic: Rashomon.  The scene is played out multiple times, once for each character’s perspective, until we have seen the big scam unfold from all angles.  Somehow, Tarantino reveals this over and over yet each time we see it we learn something new about what is happening.  This film is worth seeing just for the third act, which is a captivatingly-complex series of events.

Jackie Brown is a darkly comical and deeply intricate story filled with references to exploitation and b-cinema.  The film’s very title is a throwback to the 1974 film Foxy Brown, which also starred a lovely Pam Grier.  The mood, atmosphere and sudden moments of shocking violence seemingly out of the blue are distinctly “Tarantino” and this movie has one trait that is astonishingly rare: There is almost no exposition… at all.  Outside of the occasional reference to an association or what someone does, nothing is spelled out for the audience.  Rather, we see a very self-contained story play out as a visual narrative.  It is a great accomplishment in storytelling through film.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 9 - Quiz Show (1994)

Quiz Show (1994; Hollywood Pictures)

Director: Robert Redford

Writer: Paul Attanasio based the book by Richard N. Goodwin

Starring: John Turturro, Ralph Fiennes, Rob Morrow, David Paymer, Hank Azaria

In November of 1959, wealthy heir and university professor Charles Van Doren approached a House Committee in Congress and confessed to his complicity in a series of deceptive acts involving the super-hit NBC trivia game show “Twenty-One”.  It was a long-brewing and highly televised controversy that brought to light the deception of Hollywood and the way the entertainment industry is more than willing to deceive millions for ratings, a fact we simply take for granted these days.  The controversy began when a former superstar contestant, Herb Stempel, confessed to investigators at the House Committee on Legislative Oversight that he was asked by the popular show’s producers to lose to Van Doren.  In retaliation, he began to pursue aggressive legal action and took steps to expose the deception, not necessarily out of the desire to bring the show’s practices to light, rather it was to do harm to those he felt wronged him, Van Doren in-particular.  Envy and bitterness consumed him.

All of this actually happened, and has gone down as one of the most infamous controversies in Hollywood history, and it was all chronicled masterfully in Richard N. Goodwin’s captivating examination.  In spite of the book’s success at the time, by 1994, most of America had forgotten about the events surrounding Twenty-One, with nearly forty years of powerful events separating and drowning out this seemingly-”trivial” (pardon the pun) federal case.  Leave it to The Sundance Kid and an unknown screenwriter to bring the events to life for a whole new generation in the most fascinating form imaginable.  

Quiz Show is a masterwork of procedural storytelling.  As the events play out, it all feels too real.  The performances are outstanding, bringing these long-forgotten individuals back to life.  John Turturro, still in his prime, and Ralph Fiennes masterfully recreate the show’s embattled contestants, B-list actor Rob Morrow’s performance as a House Investigator ties the story together, and Paymer and Azaria’s sleezy producers are detestable to the extent that you can’t look away.  There is not a boring moment in this movie.  In spite of a seemingly-dull premise, Quiz Show is a gripping portal into the lives and mentalities of a few TV semi-celebrities whose legacies would be forever tainted by their decisions to embrace greed and fame over their own intellectual integrity.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 10 - Clerks (1994)

Clerks (1994; Miramax)

Director: Kevin Smith

Writer: Kevin Smith

Starring: Brian O’Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Marilyn Ghigliotti, Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith

In the early months of 1994, a young independent filmmaker named Kevin Smith would release Clerks, a massively influential black and white Generation-X film centering on the employees of neighboring convenience and video stores.  The worn-down and entirely passive Dante struggles with his boss, his personal life, his distrust of just about everyone and a slew of bizarre and unstable customers.  Jay, on the other hand, is cynical, bitter and entirely disinterested in just about everything, especially his customers.

Clerks is a portrait of the early 90’s.  It captures the cynicism, the uncertainty and the narcissism of the young working class while reflecting a period in time where the music was great, the attitudes were bad and the film industry essentially abandoned the idea of a good comedy.  Keep in mind that, just months after the release of this excellent low-budget movie, Hollywood would release a $40-million disaster called North.  This film is one of my all-time most hated movies and it tanked; I mean, it bombed bad.  Clerks, with around a $350k budget, grossed just over $3 million (while never getting a wide release; only being shown on just over 50 screens) but not only was it better, but most people forgot about North before its home video release (everyone except me it seems) while Clerks spawned a massive cult following, an excellent animated series and a list of other films from the writing talent of Kevin Smith including the excellent Chasing Amy and the lesser (but still hilarious) Mallrats.  

Pinning down an overall plot for Clerks is hard.  The film is told in vignettes separated by title cards with simple titles reflecting the tone or theme of the preceding scene.  While the overarching but simple story of the day in the life of an employee forced to work on his day off plays out, there are a lot of subplots and character moments that range from the slightly eccentric to the absurdly mad.  Outside the Quick Stop are two more working men, dealers Jay and Silent Bob, creations of Smith who would become omnipresent supporting characters in almost all of his films.  Bob stands coolly while Jay dances hits on female pedestrians, and acts boorish to the point of being rather likable.  

There is not one scene in Clerks that isn’t funny.  What’s better is Clerks is not tied down by many of the tropes that so often handicap the comedy genre…  Smith was saving a lot of those for Clerks II.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 11 - The Sixth Sense (1999)

The Sixth Sense (1999; Hollywood Pictures)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Writer: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring: Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment, Toni Collette

I just do not get Shyamalan.  He had a great start.  Wide Awake was corny and sort of Hallmark-Channel-Original-ly, but it had a childlike outlook on ideas of religion, skepticism and mortality that was simultaneously tragic and charming.  After Wide Awake (which wasn’t his first film project, but still…), he created what rates high on most film fans’ list of the greatest films of the 90’s.  The Sixth Sense was an astounding accomplishment in filmmaking.  Forgetting the “trademark” Shyamalan Twist for a moment it was just a great film all around.  Osment left a huge impression on the audience here, with a performance so good that the audience’s fear reflected his own.  To add to that he was entirely sympathetic.  For many years, the tale of the child with supernatural connections has been handled with the kid either being enigmatic or creepy, or was simply sage like and wiser than just about any other character.  In a few cases, they were also “okay” with the presence of the supernatural, never understanding what the big deal is.  Cole (Osment) is terrified of just about everything, and it shows.  It permeates every scene.  He is always pensive entering a room, always looks down to avoid seeing anything scary, and almost never makes eye contact.  It’s subtle characterization you rarely see in modern movies.

The very simple story revolves around a child psychologist named Malcom Crowe (Willis) troubled by a case that went horribly wrong who meets his new patient Cole Sear.  Everything seems to be falling apart in Crowe’s life.  His wife is distant and nobody seems to care that he’s there, nobody except Cole, that is, who suffers from the baleful ability to see ghosts.  There is a strange connection between the two characters that is sudden and, at first, inexplicable.  As the story moves along, Cole is helped by Crowe to overcome his fear and begins to find meaning in what he once considered his curse.

There aren’t many movies like The Sixth Sense, at least not anything of quality released after 1980.  It is a straightforward story with few characters told well through great performances.  It has no villain, no pointless subplots, no focus on any characters except the two leads and their interactions with those around them and no freaking comic relief.  We have a story that reveals itself quickly but steadily, with almost no exposition, with all emotions conveyed through the actor’s faces.  There are actually scenes with little to no dialogue at all, where we just experience the world as Cole does.  It’s truly astonishing how well this tale is told.

So what happened?  Shyamalan has shown a steady decline in quality over the last decade and a half.  The subtlety and sincerity of The Sixth Sense is all but gone, with actors forcing emotion, over-or-underacting or being just plain silly.  It’s the curse of the great filmmaker, really.  If you release your Magnum Opus too soon, you will never be able to make another “good movie” again because all of the other films you release will be compared to the one that made your career.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 13 - Being John Malkovich (1999)

Being John Malkovich; 1999, Gramercy Pictures

Director: Spike Jonze

Writers: Charlie Kaufman

Starring: John Malkovich, John Cusack, Cameron Diaz

I adore the occasional quirky, energetic and strangely eccentric film, and therefore I love Being John Malkovich.  It is directed by one of my favorite directors of the last twenty years, written by one of my favorite screenwriters of the last twenty years and co-stars John Malkovich, one of my favorite actors, period.  It’s a perfect collection of amazing performances, a strange and funny premise and a directorial style that fits perfectly.

The premise follows a lowly puppeteer named Craig (Cusack) who stumbles upon a hidden door in a strange office building that leads into the mind of another person.  He can see through their eyes and can even obtain a certain influence.  After a short time he discovers he is occupying the mind of none other than actor John Malkovich (as himself).  He introduces his wife to the experiment and they both become obsessed and rather rejuvenated by the power.

This movie is NOT for everybody.  It is very offbeat, written with that trademark “Kaufman” style and features the soft-spoken charm that is often associated with Jonze’s direction.  Many film fans like myself have been following Jonze very closely for years, and while many have HEARD of his movies, I don’t think he has really began capturing a mainstream audience until his recent film, the awesome Her, which he also wrote.  However, if you like strange, funny and somewhat twisted movies, this is an awesome find if you haven’t seen it.  

If I had to pick a favorite scene, those who saw it would remember the moment when Malkovich finds out that people are actually entering his mind (I will not disclose the explanation for this) and decides to take action.  The results are both hilarious and somewhat terrifying, especially if you put yourself in Malkovich’s shoes.  Check this one out as it really is a brilliantly-clever, albeit bizarre film creation.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 14 - Forrest Gump (1994)

Forrest Gump (1994; Paramount Pictures)

Director: Robert Zemeckis

Writers: Eric Roth (Screenplay); Winston Groom (Novel)

Starring: Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Sally Field

Winston Groom’s tale of a mentally-disabled man who directly experienced almost every world-changing event in the later half of the 20th Century is a truly charming and heartfelt examination of spirit and love.  Widely considered one of the greatest films of all time, ranking #14 on IMDB’s top 250 at the time of this post, number 76 on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 greatest American films of all time, and cleaning up in the 1995 Academy Awards with an astounding six wins, Forrest Gump is one of the essentials.  There are a few movies that I would recommend everyone see, and this is definitely one of them.

Tom Hanks plays Forrest Gump, a chatty man who patiently waits at a Savannah, GA bus stop just casually talking with his various benchmates.  He tells them tales of the things he’s done, the people he has met and the places he has been not knowing just how much of an impact he had on the lives of so many people.  Cutting back and forth from the story’s present time and flashbacks to various key moments in Forrest’s life, we see him meet presidents, fight in Vietnam, chat up John Lennon at a Black Panther Party meeting, and ultimately start a hugely-successful business, and he did all of this never knowing how great his achievements really were.

Along the way, as we explore Gump’s life, we meet a few people who will shape him.  His mother (Field) helps to ensure he lives as normal a life as possible and we watch as his childhood friend Jenny (Robin Wright) goes from a pretty tomboy to a broken and abused soul.  Gump’s lieutenant during his tour in Vietnam, Dan Taylor, leaves the war a crippled and angry man, embittered towards the so-called American dream.  We see Lieutenant Dan befriend the devoted Gump, despite occasional periods of frustration.  Then there is Bubba, a fellow recruit who is also slow, who becomes the titular protagonist’s best friend during his time in the Army, ultimately planting the seed of starting a hugely-successful shrimping business.  

Tom Hanks deservedly netted an Oscar for his performance of the kindhearted Gump.  Filled with shining moments of greatness, his performance is famously endearing.  The performances from the supporting cast including greats like Sally Field and Gary Sinise are stunning as well, and act as a great contrast to the unwitting Gump, reflecting the grievances and the disenfranchisement of the late 60’s and early 70’s.  Mykelti Williamson plays Bubba Blue with famous wit and a warmth that nearly matches Hank’s own Oscar-winning role, and every moment with the two on screen is either very funny, or extremely emotional.

Forrest Gump literally has everything.  It is a comedy, a drama, a war story, a romance, a period piece and a smart examination of the ideals and the passions that erupted during the Vietnam War era.  Despite literally trying to be everything, the film never misses a beat, always hitting just the right notes and crafting a very big, but cohesive story.  Ever since Citizen Kane there have been countless movies that have tried to weave a complex and intricate story around a single character through the years, but few have done it better than Forrest Gump.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 16 - Apollo 13 (1995)

Apollo 13 (1995; Universal Pictures)

Director: Ron Howard

Writers: Bill Broyles, Jr. and Al Reinert (adapted screenplay); Jim Lovell and Jeff Kluger (novel)

Starring: Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris

The Apollo missions were the culmination of centuries of science and mathematics evolving over generations, ending with a few chosen men walking on the dusty terrain of Earth’s Moon.  It is a story that has been told time and time again.  However, the flight of Apollo 11 was not the last of the NASA’s lunar excursions.  The Apollo 13 mission was intended to send a few astronauts to the Moon for further study but this objective was cut short due to a sudden and shocking tragedy.

The story of how Jim Lovell (Hanks), Fred Haise (Paxton) and Jack Swigert (Bacon) survive a crippling explosion aboard their ill-fated vessel is a gripping and captivating tale of strength and ingenuity.  A fuel leak leads to an explosion that rocks the ship and severely damages several essential systems, most dangerously were the climate control unit and the oxygen and air filtration system.  With certain death looming just around the corner, these three men fight to stay alive and escape the cold and deadly throws of space.  To make it back, the heroic explorers require the help of a dedicated team of technicians in Houston and one astronaut named Ken Mattingly (Sinise) who, after testing positive for measles, was forced to stay grounded.  The lengths that the headstrong NASA workers go to keep their men alive are the stuff of legend, and make for some fascinating dramatic tension.

Through the 90’s, Ron Howard had proven himself to be one of the most talented and consistent directors in Hollywood.  The former child actor and Happy Days star shocked everyone by becoming a super-talent behind the camera, taking on challenging projects that use tension and drama to keep their audiences frozen to their screens.  His work on Apollo 13 is astounding, and though the film did not sweep the Oscars (being up against the titan that was Braveheart), it deserved the awards it was nominated for.  In my honest opinion, Apollo 13 ranks alongside some of the most idiotic Oscar snubs in history, close to the likes of Citizen Kane losing Best Picture to How Green Was My Valley in 1942.

Apollo 13 is a blend of beautiful cinematography, superb performances from everyone involved, an engaging and true story and a very intelligent screenplay.  There is not a boring or pointless scene in this movie.  Everything counts, from the time the astronauts spend on Earth preparing for their missions, to the scenes that cut back to their families.  There is no filler.  The film paints a vivid picture of how everyone connected to this shocking event felt upon hearing the news.  Tom Hanks, Ed Harris and Gary Sinise (a personal favorite performer of mine) all give some of the best performances of their excellent careers in this enthralling and tense drama.