Jul. 29th, 2011

shinydan: (Default)
There are quite a few things about Charlie Chaplin's “Modern Times” that make it difficult to love. His faith in communism drives the entire work, and some viewers may find the morals underlying the film very hard to swallow. Being a free-loading Brit, this wasn't a major issue for me, but there were several gags that either fell flat or felt deeply uncomfortable. When you see large metal bolts get dropped on to a plate, it becomes painfully obvious where they are going to end up. When Chaplin's character – the Tramp, naturally – suffers a nervous breakdown and flees his workplace, armed with two large spanners, and sees a woman in a dress with large buttons in exactly the wrong place, then it's clear we're into the always amusing trope of threatened sexual violence. Being stuck in a police wagon and accidentally – three times – sitting on the lap of the buxom black lady stuck in there with him wasn't funny either, especially when she was the only non-white face in the whole thing. Times, thankfully, have changed.

But not all the changes have been for the better, at least as far as Hollywood is concerned. Quite apart from the socialism, and the elements of capitalism-gone-mad, there are parts of this film that would be simply unfilmable today. There's cocaine use in prison which gets played for laughs, a socialist central character who isn't immediately unlikeable, and the constant background idea that the United States isn't the greatest country in the world, and could in fact be much better. In a comedy. It would be completely impossible to get a film with even one of those elements funded today, unless it was a cartoon which also made fun of Canadians.

A couple of other things are jarring, most of which are down to the passing of time. It's in black and white, for one thing, and the pace of the film is slow. In addition, some of the things Chaplin clearly thinks are appallingly busy and awful now look nice and quiet. Seeing workers piling into a factory to clock in on time may have shocked in the 1930s, but considering the road they're crossing only has two cars on it, at least they would have been able to breathe clearly. The Tramp's relationship to his female sidekick, The Gamine – played by Paulette Goddard, who was (probably) his wife at the time - is also quite disturbing, not least given Chaplin's own taste for young women.

Some of the choices are meant to be jarring, though. This was the last mainstream silent film, and Chaplin definitely made it in order to stick two fingers up at that mainstream who were rushing towards the modernity that “talkies” represented. There are talking elements in it, but they manage to be unconventional in a genre which hadn't existed long enough to have many conventions. Chaplin's Tramp even sings – although it's total gibberish, and the meaning of the song is conveyed by Chaplin's movements and gestures, which appears to be the point.

And none of these issues, problems or quibbles take away from the basic greatness of this film. Yes, it's 75 years old, and it's slapstick, but it's absolutely fantastic to watch. Chaplin's physical presence and genius for mime drives the film, and he's matched scene for scene by Goddard. I actually had a tear in my eye once or twice, and given that you don't actually hear them saying anything, that's quite a feat of acting. And in places it's hysterically funny, especially in the fantasy scene in the Perfect House.

I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying it's instantly my favourite film of all time. But I am saying that it's definitely worth watching, even if you have to skip past the unpleasant bits. Because it's good, it's funny, it's poignant, and it still has important things to say about the relationship between the worker and the employee, especially when – as they are currently – times are hard.
shinydan: (Default)
So you go to a concert, and you listen to the warm-up act who you've never heard of. And they pull countless rabbits out of their hats, inventing new genres as they go, and they leave to rapturous applause. Then the main act comes on, the people you really paid to see. And somehow, despite all the talent on stage, despite the clever guitar work and the precision saxophone strikes, despite all the virtuosity, all you want to do is go to the bar. That's precisely how "Lost In Translation" left me feeling.

Scarlett Johansson and her arse co-star, both giving very pleasing, rounded performances. She hits all of her marks, emotes exactly as required, and earns her pay very satisfactorily. The problem I have is with the character she's asked to play. Her marriage seems to be dead in the water after two years, and her Hollywood photographer husband shouldn't have married her in the first place. But she's just letting it happen because she's, you know, finding herself man.

Bill Murray, puts in his usual turn as himself - full of sardonic, self-mocking wit who never quite falls into actual self-loathing. I love watching this routine, so does everyone else, and now he's grown into his face a bit and can add a slight melancholy to his acting, he's able to take on roles like this one and, from what I've heard, "The Life Aquatic". But all you have to do is scratch his surface and he reverts to playing the same damn character he played in "Ghostbusters", just like he has so many times, and he was given several opportunities to do it here.

The western members of the supporting cast are, without exception, teeth-grindingly irritating - as if Sofia Coppola had directed them to just be as Californian as possible. I think I was supposed to find Johansson and Murray sympathetic by comparison, but that didn't work because these were the people they were already, by choice, surrounded by back in America. The Eastern supporting cast were equally stereotypical - precise when being professional, and beyond embarrassment while relaxing in karaoke and titty bars. Watching the leads and their Japanese friends murder various classic songs was one of the few points of warmth in the entire film.

While I'm on stereotypes, I must mention that the Japanese portrayed here are, with very few exceptions, completely unable to understand English - presumably drawing a parallel between the language gap and the gender and age gaps which the film is looking at. Except that's all it does - look at them. Again, the scene in the titty bar made the point that women are treated badly in Japan, but did so in something of a vacuum.

The cinematography is universally gorgeous. I happily concede that I have a special place in my heart for Tokyo as a whole, which meant that I got a major kick out of the travelogue sequences, and there's a golf shot with Mount Fuji in it which is sheer landscape pornography. But none of that made up for the aching gap in the centre of the piece. It was simply soulless.

The director, Sofia Coppola, doesn't want to engage with anyone in her film, and somehow I never really cared about any of them either. The May to December romance between the leads ended up feeling more like a father/daughter relationship with a tiny sexual frisson, and that killed my interest stone dead. I did enjoy the film, but there was the sense that it could have been so much more than simply good, and given the talents involved that isn't really excusable.

A version of this review originally appeared at livejournal.myopedia.com
shinydan: (Default)
Here's codes for five people, please comment if you use one.

1) TY3B4NC4KFTS8AAAC9BQ

2) GTP7E6QC66WEBAAAD2L2

3) SMFGHQ4MNVSAQAAAKGP2

4) YQKQHEEJK8F9MAAAKGP3

5) SMB6HCX9HZ8FYAAAKGP4

Profile

shinydan: (Default)
shinydan

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9 1011 12131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 14th, 2025 05:59 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios