From Darkness to Light (2024)

 

"From Darkness to Light" is a documentary which examines another movie, "The Day the Clown Cried," the lost Jerry Lewis movie that has now become legend because of the subject matter and because no one has seen it.

"The Day the Clown Cried" is a comedy that takes place in the holocaust - Jerry Lewis plays a clown who entertains children in a concentration camp, and at the end he leads them to a gas chamber.

I've been curious to see "The Day the Clown Cried" ever since I heard about it. This documentary is the closest I'm ever going to get to that (according to the documentary). It rightfully shows large portions of the actual movie in between interviews and narration. The documentary, astonishingly, also was able to get Jerry Lewis himself to open up and talk about it shortly before he died in 2017. It is a surprising development; when Lewis was in a press conference about when the movie would be viewable he replied "None of your goddamn business!"

And so "From Darkness to Light" is worth watching if you're interested in the subject. There are two aspects about it which I find perplexing. The movie goes through the motions of explaining that a comedy about the holocaust is a crazy concept and should never be done. They've apparently forgotten about "Jacob the Liar" (1974), "Jakob the Liar" (1999) and "Life is Beautiful" (1997). That is, until the end of the documentary when these things are revealed as a "twist" that is not a twist at all. "Life is Beautiful" won an Oscar, we remember. 

The other problem is that they imply that some people, including Harry Shearer, through access to a film vault, have seen a rough cut of the movie. So then the implication that the movie will never be seen is confusing - a copy exists out there, did something happen to it? We're just assuming a leak is impossible? Why?

Yacht Rock: A Dockumentary

 

When making a "dockumentary" about Yacht Rock, there are beset on both sides by two ditches - you can embrace the parody webseries origin of the genre (and treat it as a joke) or you can ignore the origins and define the genre as the general public has since defined it (Jimmy Buffett, The Eagles, nautical themes, sailor hats, etc.) "Yacht Rock" veers off into neither ditch. In fact, I was surprised at how serious a music documentary it is. This is "The History of Rock 'n' Roll" for 2024.

And, at the same time, they also give proper weight and deference to the group of guys who invented the term.

Highly recommended if you want to see an excellent music documentary.

One of the through-lines that goes between MST3K and "Best of the Worst" and shows like that they're mocking films but they're often doing so while appreciating any traces of good art, even at the service of really bad movies. It's an admirable trait to still find the good within the bad, especially as it's a trait I don't have, or at least, haven't developed. One of the things that struck me as poignant, reflecting on the re-emergence of the Yacht Rock genre is this idea that there are these dusty records that no one wants because they're old and out of fashion and someone listens to them and points out that there's something great there and we should all re-think our biases. Let's face it, Yacht Rock - and Easy Listening moreso - was playing when I was a kid and going to the dentist or shopping for clothes; I have, even subconsciously, dismissed huge swaths of music. I admire anyone who shakes off preconceived notions, paying no service to form or fashion and examines the thing objectively for what it is.

Thoughts on Saving Private Ryan

Went to see "Saving Private Ryan" in the theater tonight and here are some thoughts.

One thing I've usually done in these posts is identify visual elements on the sides of the screen or usually out of focus that are clearer in a large screen presentation. I only have one thing for that - "Saving Private Ryan" is pretty plain in its visuals, pretty much "what you see is what you get." But when Mrs. Ryan is about to be informed of the death of her sons, she opens the door and to the right of the door is a photograph of all 4 boys together. It's plain enough that I'm not sure this even counts but it stuck out, watching tonight.

But I also want to note an element of the audio. As the final battle approaches, we hear the low rumble of the German tanks grow louder and louder. A special theater experience is that eventually the roar becomes so loud that it shakes everything inside you. It's a great touch.

One moment that stuck out especially, to me, is the scene early on when the movie becomes quiet for the first time and Giovanni Ribisi (Medic Wade) has a quiet monologue. He tells the story from his childhood, how he would try to stay up late at night to speak to his mom when she came home. He loved talking to his mother except sometimes she wouldn't get to talk to him because he would pretend to be asleep. He wonders why he would do that.

Film 101 tells you that this memory must have some higher meaning, some greater significance to the plot but I have never found it. My best guess is that it's a subversion - the memory is just a typical memory that all of us have. If you have any theories, let me know. But notice this: this meaningful memory is all about his mother which connects later to him bleeding out and dyeing - his last words are a call to his mother. These were men but these were kids.

As he's telling the story, the company who had been joking around up until now, becomes completely silent and still. There is a sense in which his memories from home are hallowed and holy, no one dares encroach on them. This is a motif that reappears throughout the film - talk of the life before, talk of home stops everyone, freezes everyone. In one of these moments Captain Miller opines, "I just know that every man I kill the farther away from home I feel." If each kill is a further descent into Hell, then could it be that everything about their life before the war becomes sacred? And it is perhaps significant that when Ribisi delivers his monologue, the setting is a church.

In the penultimate scene, there is another repetition of the motif. A memory too sacred to even be uttered.

Private Ryan: Tell me about your wife and those rosebushes?

Captain Miller: No, no that one I save just for me.

Popcorn in Bed - Vertigo

 Another classic. Another Hitchcock classic.

If you haven't seen the movie, this will all be spoilers.

One of my favorite observations about "Vertigo" is from a Roger Ebert article that is hard to find and not very well known:

Let's close by returning to "Vertigo." Every time I've gone through any film a shot at a time over several days, someone in the audience has noticed something amazing. When I was at the University of Virginia, we got to the point when Scottie (James Stewart) rescues the unconscious Madeleine/Judy (Kim Novak) from San Francisco Bay and takes her unconscious back to his apartment. He gently undresses her and puts her into bed.

"His action is incredible," I said. "He's changing an unconscious stranger."

"She's not unconscious," said a voice in the dark.

"What?"

"She's pretending. That wasn't Madeleine attempting suicide, but Judy playing Madeleine. She's pretending to be unconscious."

And Scotty saved her, did not ravish her, treated her gently, and tucked her in. That may help explain why the next time we see her, coming into the living room and joining Scottie, she has a glow in her eyes. Madeleine went into the bedroom, and Judy came out. It's then she starts to love and pity him. Oh, this is an even deeper film than it seems.    

And here is Roger Ebert's analysis of the color palette of "Vertigo" and what each means: link.

Read Roger Ebert's full review: here.

And here's a video "How Hitchcock Blocks a Scene" where the scene, of course, is from "Vertigo:"

One Week of Paul Blart

 

I have never seen "Paul Blart Mall Cop" and no nearly nothing about it. Have I made a mistake? Further, is it so good as to warrant 7 viewings? We shall see.

It Happened One Christmas (1977)

 

In Season 3, Episode 21 of "Mystery Science Theater 3000," the crew are forced to watch "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" and are understandably depressed. To help recover, Joel announces that he's gotten a hold of some good Christmas movies. When he proclaims they'll be able to watch "It's a Wonderful Life," the bots are ecstatic... But then he adds, "Don't get too excited, it's the lame Marlo Thomas version." Another version? Yes, the "lame Marlo Thomas version" is a made-for-tv movie entitled "It Happened One Christmas."

In this version, Marlo Thomas (who is a woman) plays the George Bailey character (basically) only they've swapped sexes so the main character is Mary Bailey. She saves her brother from the ice, she has big plans to see the world but gives them up to run her father's Savings and Loan, she keeps her head during the Great Depression and later, facing ruin, she wants to die until her guardian angel Clara saves her.

The film only partially fails in execution but completely fails in concept. People complain that the sequels and reboots of classic movies have gotten out of hand (and they have), but why would ANYONE think they could remake "It's a Wonderful Life"?! It begs belief. It's insanity, it's an insult to film lovers everywhere. And why would you? The original fell out of copyright, it's cheap to broadcast, why spend lots of money to make it again?

Aside from the problem that, you know, the entire concept of the movie is wrong, it isn't a fun disaster - the movie is competently made in every aspect. The film even boasts some great actors. Most notable is Orson Welles as Old Man Potter. How did they get Orson wrapped up in this? His performance is emblematic of the entire problem of the movie. His Potter is smoother and more subtle, more thoughtful, than Lionel Barrymore's but it's to no effect - Barrymore's performance is definitive. Clara, the guardian angel, is played by one of my favorites Cloris Leachman. Her performance in "The Last Picture Show," is one of the all-time greats. In this movie, she's okay. And Mary's brother is played by Christopher Guest, another forgettable performance. In this version, the old man who loses the S&L's money is played by Barney Martin (the dad from "Seinfeld").

Whether this movie should be true to the original or make its own path is a no-win situation. In this case, they chose to be pretty faithful to the original and lost. This exposes the main weakness of the movie: the lead, Marlo Thomas. She's going through all the same actions and making all the same impassioned speeches as Jimmy Stewart did and she has none of the punch, none of the power. I'm not very familiar with Marlo Thomas' body of work but she appears to be a competent actress, she just doesn't compare to Jimmy Stewart. Likewise, a great deal of the movie hinges on the romance between her and her husband, Wayne Rogers, and these two appear to me to have no chemistry. None. It's pretty amazing. Compare that to Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed - one of the most iconic onscreen couples of all-time. 

This movie is the very definition of a mistake, though it is an interesting experience in one way. Watching the emotionally hollow scenes, I was constantly reminded of the parallel scenes from the original movie and how I feel watching those. It's a rather rare phenomenon to watch a movie that's boring, that's dull, that's flat and which is also, nonetheless, emotionally affecting. This is such an experience.

The Munster's Revenge (1981)

 

There is not one, but TWO Munsters movies.

As the movie begins, the Munsters are visiting a wax museum and admiring their own statues. Immediately we're presented with two mysteries. First off, why do they have wax statues in a museum? In the Munsters Universe, they are not famous, as far as I remember. The movie doesn't explain. Secondly, their little boy Eddie who was about 12 in 1966, is still 12 in 1981. I don't get it, are they the same people? Are they not aging? Time travel? The 1966 movie created controversy by replacing the actress who Marilyn in the show and now both Marilyn and Eddie are both different.

So anyways, these wax figures exist but it turns out they're not just wax figures, they're actually robits. The owner of the museum (played by Sid Caesar, who the kids know from nothing) is using science to make the robots go out and commit crime. When witnesses describe the assailants, the police go after the Munsters. Now the family has to prove that they're innocent by convincing the police that it wasn't them, it was evil robot Munsterses.

I don't know the extent, but the premise sounds somewhat similar to "Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park" which came out in 1978.

The difference between this movie and the last Munsters movie is immediately obvious. Though the canned laughter is still missing, the absence isn't noticeable. This movie has better jokes, more jokes, funnier situations and snappier dialogue. It is still dumb, make no mistake, but it's dumb in the best way possible - it's The Munsters, what do you expect? If you see only one Munsters movie this holiday season, make sure it's "The Munster's Revenge!"

And special recognition to Fred Gwynne's performance as Herman Munster and the character in general. Watching the hulking mass act with naivety and gentleness is a pleasure to watch. He is the quintessential gentle giant. Gwynne was such an enjoyable, talented actor; it was unfortunate that he was typecast, though it's understandable in the sense that he was so good in this role. Either way, I'm glad "My Cousin Vinny" was as big a hit as it was, at least we got that.

Munster, Go Home! (1966)

 

I really liked "The Munsters" when I was a kid. I liked it so much, I even watched the disastrous 80s reboot. But would you believe that up until a few days ago, I didn't even know there was a Munsters movie? In fact there are two.

"Munster, Go Home!" was made just a few years after the show was cancelled with almost all of the original cast. In it, Herman finds that a distant relative has died and he has inherited a large English estate and become a Lord. The Munsters go to England to be fish-out-of-water because, you know, they're not British. Other relatives who missed out of their inheritance conspire to get rid of the Munsters by scaring them off. Scare tactics obviously don't work, as the Munsters like that sort of thing. There is also a scheme to counterfeit money and the entire plot comes to a head at a hot rod race for reasons I didn't understand.

My first notable observation from this movie was the difference created by the absence of canned laughter. The TV show was the golden age of fake audience laughter, it was so intertwined in the fabric of the show you can't imagine The Munsters existing without it. And yet, in this movie, jokes and gags are followed by silence and it's almost disturbing, the stark contrast. I hate to say it, but the result made me think, "Is The Munsters actually not funny?"

One thing I did find funny that I really never registered when I was a kid was the running gag where Marilyn, the beautiful normal person in the family, is seen by the others as homely. Amongst the slapstick and gags, this is a nice, subtle, wry element.

The other thing I noticed, only now is the acting of the actress who plays Lily, Yvonne De Carlo. Even within a very "big" show like The Munsters, she is the most animated, the most exagerated. Everyone else is in a talkie, Yvonne is in a silent film... an extreme silent film. The thing is though, when I tried to find an example online to prove this assertion, I find all available clips are from the TV show and her acting suits the TV show perfectly. What makes the movie different? Well, if you ever watch "Munster, Go Home!" take a look.