2015 Blindspot series: The Ten Commandments (1956)

Along with Planet of the Apes and Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments features arguably Charton Heston’s most iconic performance. Cecil B. DeMille is known for making epics, and this is generally considered his best work. In this extravagant big budget retelling, Heston plays Moses from he is a young man and his journey to help his people. At the time of its release in 1956, it was the most expensive film made.
I knew the mythical story but had forgotten how it all fits together, so it was a reminder of The Book of Exodus. They take liberties with the original text for the sake of pacing and coherence. Yul Brynner has second billing as Rameses, and was convincing in the role. Anne Baxter does solid work as the love interest Nefretiri, she is given plenty of screen time and is perhaps the most ambiguous of the main characters, having interests on both sides.

In the introduction, we are told:
“The theme of this picture is whether man should be ruled by Gods law or by the whims of a dictator like Rameses. Are men the property of the state or are they free souls under God. This same battle continues throughout the world today”  

Nowadays, the Moses story can be viewed as allegory rather than fact. It has strong messages about self-sacrifice for the purpose of change, how you should never give up in the face of adversity, and that oppression of slaves is wrong. Another lesson is you shouldn’t try and be above the Gods, because there are forces bigger than man.
What I’m less enthusiastic about, is how the Old Testament showcases God’s violence to achieve peace, and intolerance to those who oppose God’s will, for example when the earth opens up and the sinful fall away, while the men who follow God’s Commandments survive. This aspect feels dated, that God is disapproving and you were punished if you were an atheist or had another God. “Those who will not live by the law, shall die by the law!” The Commandments should be guidelines, and God ought to allow man to follow his own path and learn from his own mistakes.
I prefer the teachings in The New Testament, with the tale of Jesus, who can withstand anything, even death, and who is a symbol of love, no matter what. To forgive instead of to condemn.
It’s interesting whether the Moses story is predetermined or if the characters have free will. Perhaps God is so powerful that he already knows every twist and turn.
In the film, the miracles display Gods power, although the voice of God is unintentionally funny, and much of the dialogue in the film is quite pretentious and a product of its time. In most films this type of grandiose dialogue would fall flat but here it feels justified because of the biblical proportions. I was entertained, the special effects are impressive for the 1950s, so overall I think DeMille's vision holds up well as blockbuster filmmaking and as spectacle. It’s long at 3 hours 40 min, with an intermission.

Won an Oscar for Best Effects, Special Effects. Was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Sound, and Best Film Editing.

2015 Blindspot series: Patton (1970)

A WW2 epic which won 7 Oscars. The opening is what the film is best remembered for, with General Patton walking onto a stage with a huge American flag behind him, delivering a quotable speech to the (hidden) soldiers in the audience. At this early point, it’s already clear Patton is passionate about making a difference in World War II, and wants to empower others to do their best. We are made to feel like we are the soldiers he is addressing, which adds to the power of the scene.

George C Scott gives an Oscar worthy performance as General George S. Patton Jr, he spreads fear wherever he goes, among his group of soldiers, and as a tactician in the battle with the Germans. The film follows Patton during his North African and European campaigns from 1943-1945, celebrating the army as a war machine, yet justifying controversial independent thinking. We witness realistic battle scenes in Tunisia and Sicily. Apparently the film is fairly accurate as to what really happened.

General Patton perceives himself as a poet, war historian, and reincarnated soldier and is man essentially born in the wrong century. Patton says he’s nothing and “in the dog house“ if he’s not part of the war effort. He lives for the excitement of war. Unfortunately he also has a big mouth and has an old-fashioned tendency to strike out at shell shocked soldiers who he considers cowards, which gets Patton into trouble with his superiors. Yet you could also look at his instilling discipline as motivating the soldiers to rise above their condition. At times, Patton cares more about personal glory than the fate of his soldiers, which causes friction. In a memorable supporting role, Karl Malden plays Patton’s second-hand man, he is both a friend and an advisor. The story is not only told from the allied side, the Germans are also attempting to get one step ahead and figure out Patton’s strategy, so part of the film is subtitled.

I will say the film is a little overlong and while George C Scott does his best with the material he’s given, the screenplay is slightly heavy-handed in some places, spelling out Patton’s strengths and weaknesses. Even so, I like that the filmmakers don’t simply praise Patton as a war hero, which a lesser war film might have done.
Questions what is right and wrong for those in high ranks during a war. Should you push your men to the extreme in order to gain an advantage over the enemy, or is the well-being and survival of the soldiers most important? Many would agree with the latter, yet if it’s the difference between winning or losing a war, it’s a tough decision. In some ways, the battles themselves are secondary to the character study of Patton.

Also worth noting is the award-winning screenplay co-written by an up-and-coming Francis Ford Coppola, as well as Jerry Goldsmith’s impressive war appropriate score. The Main Theme gives you a taste of the soundtrack.

Won 7 Academy Awards, Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Writing, Best Art Direction, Best Sound and Best Film Editing.

In 1986, George C Scott reprised his role in a made-for-TV sequel, The Last Days of Patton. The movie was based on Patton's final weeks after being mortally injured in a car accident, with flashbacks of Patton's life.


Agree or disagree? Have you seen Patton (1970)? As always, comments are welcome 

2015 Blindspot series: Nashville (1975)

My contribution to Ryan McNeil's 2015 blindspot series blogathon where I watch a film each month that I have never seen before.

When you think that my blog is both music and films, then it was only a matter of time before I reviewed Nashville (1975). Robert Altman’s take on the country music capital of the world and considered one of the director’s best. A very American movie, we follow a group of singers hopeful of making a name for themselves. There are many characters, yet Altman manages to juggle the elements into an entertaining whole. Ensemble casts ultimately became his identifiable trademark as a filmmaker and this film is a great example of his craft.
Particularly memorable is the young waitress Sueleen (Gwen Welles), who appears at the all-male Walker fundraiser, but is booed off the stage when she sings poorly. Her refusal to recognize her lack of singing talent and the ulterior motives of those she encounters gets her in trouble.
The other sequence that stood out for me is the ending, which surprises with its violence and career making platform for aspiring singer-songwriter Winifred (Barbara Harris). Music at the right time and place can have a profound impact.
The movie is not perfect, the dialogue is often difficult to decipher so watching with subtitles was the only way I could understand what was said a lot of the time.
Perhaps if I loved the soundtrack and country music, I would be a bigger fan. I like it, but it isn’t among my top 3 Altman movies. To be fair, the story isn’t strictly about country, it’s about people, the American dream, and what that entails.
There’s also a fierce political campaign going on that is a character in itself and, like the country music, holds the film together. The politicians and reporters are aspiring to make it big as well. The film is dated in some respects, yet the aspirational aspects are still fresh.
A long film, so watching in one sitting can feel exhausting, so I would recommend not starting if you are feeling sleepy.
The performances are generally good by most of the cast, especially considering the actors are not seasoned musicians. I’m not saying the songs are classics, but they are performed competently at least. A couple of nice songs, but I wouldn't listen to the soundtrack as a stand-alone album.

In the interview book Altman on Altman, the director talks about the making and how he went about it. Surprisingly, Altman had never been to Nashville, so he asked a screenwriter friend to do research. The following are excerpts from the book:

"I said to her. Ok, Joan get on a plane and go to Nashville, and just keep a diary of what happens to you. And from that we’ll write some Nashville movie… She arrived at the airport, got in a hired car, and there was a traffic jam caused by a boat falling off a pick-up truck, so she was stuck on the freeway for three hours. That made a great scene to introduce many of the characters. And everything that was in the eventual script was like that, something that had occurred to her.

Then Jerry Weintraub who was in the music business and was managing singers at the time, came to see me at my office, and said he wanted to get into the movie business, how could he do it? I said, well, here’s a script about Nashville and country-and-western music. Get me the money to make that and you can produce it and you’re in the business. He came back in a day or two and he said, I got Marty Starger at ABC interested. They came back over to my house and I played him two of the songs that Keith Carradine had done, I’m Easy and It Don’t Worry Me, and they said, OK

How would you describe the subject of the film?
It was about the incredible ambition of those guys getting off the bus with a guitar every day, and like in Hollywood, trying to make it. Nashville was where you went to make it in country-and-western music.

Chaplin’s Opal is the one character who interacts with all the others. Her slip of the tongue that she’s working for the British Broadcasting Company is the clue that she’s a complete fraud, though.
Opal was our tour guide, the connecting tissue. She was based on a lot of people I’ve met at the Cannes Film Festival, who you never know if they’re really who they say they are. I had to have some connection in my head why I was doing all these disparate scenes, so as a reporter with this ruse she was working for the BBC, she was able to go through this world and became the voice who could ask the questions the audience wanted answering. She was wonderful at improvising her scenes.

You got some criticism for letting your actors write and perform their songs.
Richard Baskin was the musical director, and he helped some of those people write their songs. He arranged all the music in the film, and it was all shot live. I thought, why should I go out and buy a lot of songs that were tried and tested? And also, this wasn’t about his songs; most of the songs were not meant to be hits. Actually one of them was a hit, I’m Easy, though Keith wrote that five years before we did the picture.
The country-and-western people in Nashville all said, Oh the music’s terrible, it’s no good, to which I would reply. Well, I don’t think your music is that good either. They felt I should have used their stuff. But I was satirizing them. Their stuff would have been too on the nose.

At the end, everyone just joins in singing It Don’t Worry Me!
Shit happens, and life goes on, I think that’s what happens. We don’t take any kind of lessons from these events. We accept whatever has occurred because it occurred"

(Altman on Altman, page 87-94)

2015 Blindspot series: Mary Poppins (1964)

My contribution to Ryan McNeil's 2015 blindspot series blogathon where I watch a film each month that I have never seen before.

Included in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and received 13 Oscar nominations, winning five Academy Awards for Best Actress, Editing, Visual Effects, Original Song and Original Score.

The fantasy elements can be interpreted as happening in the children’s imagination. Mary Poppins is the new nanny and encourages play, while the kid’s father is in favor of adult virtues such as purpose, discipline and learning about real life. I loved the scene when Mary pulls objects out of her magical bag of tricks, which any child would love, the film definitely leans towards play as important and inspiring.

Great special effects for the time it was made. Animation and live action is combined, the animated animals sing together with Mary Poppins and Bert. Although it was odd during the song and dance that Bert and Mary seem to forget about the children for a while. Even though Bert (Dick Van Dyke) was my least favorite character due to his annoying happy face, his dance with the penguins is a highlight of the movie and impressive from a technical standpoint.

The characters are exuberant the whole way, even when I began to tire during the middle part, involving the laughing uncle, bird lady, and visit to the bank. It’s a long film at two hours and 20 minutes, and maybe some of that middle section could have been cut. The story picks up again when they go up the chimney, and the smoke staircase is fun. The London rooftop scenes are spectacular, especially for the view over the capital.

A Disney musical, the reasons to watch are for the groundbreaking visuals, memorable sing-along music, and feel-good factor. Ideal to watch together with the family and children of your own. The iconic soundtrack contains classics such as Chim Chim Cher-ee, A Spoonful of Sugar, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, and Let's Go Fly a Kite.

With most of the film, the reasons for doing things remains unclear, about just having fun, and attempting to get the dad to see the world differently. The latter is a theme that will never get old.

I was surprised Julie Andrews’ character Mary is quite similar to her role in The Sound of Music (1965). I prefer the 1965 movie for the story, but both films have amazing soundtracks. If I had discovered Mary Poppins as a 7-year-old, I'm sure my enthusiasm for it would have been stronger. I wasn't really the right age group to see it for the first time.

I guess now I am able to watch the Tom Hanks film Saving Mr Banks (2013), which is about the making of Mary Poppins.

Will be interesting to see which direction the upcoming reboot goes in, word is Emily Blunt is rumored to play the lead in the new Mary Poppins. Wonder why it took so many years to make a follow-up?

Favorite quote: "I wouldn't stay in this house another minute, not if you heap me with all the jewels in Christendom!"

Rating 7/10


Agree or disagree? Have you watched Mary Poppins (1964) and what did you think? Which is your favorite film starring Julie Andrews? 

2015 Blind spot series: All That Jazz (1979)

My contribution to Ryan McNeil's 2015 blindspot series blogathon, where I watch a film each month that I have never seen before.

Based on director/writer Bob Fosse’s own life, and was inspired by his manic effort to edit his film Lenny while simultaneously staging the 1975 Broadway musical Chicago. The story is a semi-autobiographical account of workaholic Broadway director/choreographer Joe Gideon (Roy Scheider). He sleeps around with his dancers and his health is not good.

We repeatedly see him each morning, putting his cassette on with Vivaldi, using eye drops, medication, and taking a shower, followed by saying to himself in the mirror “It’s showtime folks”. The showtime sequence works well visually (and may have inspired Guy Richie's Snatch), but the story doesn’t grab me emotionally. Joe is a jerk towards his wife and daughter, and it’s tough for me to care what happens to any of them. A film I admire rather than love. The film is saved by the musical numbers and a superb ending sequence with a great cover of Bye Bye Love, originally by The Everly Brothers.
The opening scene is also a highlight, a brilliant mix of music, dance and editing, using George Benson’s catchy cover of On Broadway.  I have to admit I’ve never been to Broadway, so I can’t attest to whether it’s authentic. On the impressive opening, Bob Fosse is quoted as saying:

“Well, I tried to use a documentary style first of all, and it is what my life has been like since I was 25 years-old, it’s been those sort of auditions. And I’ve seen many film auditions of one kind or another, acted in a few films that had auditions, and they’ve been so unrealistic, that I tried very hard to show an audience exactly what happens. I did it in a very stylized way because you can’t spend that much time, it was paramount to show what Roy Scheider’s did, what his occupation was, and the way he handled people, and how many no’s he had to say, and the few yes’s he had, and how he was gentle with people“

In Bob Fosse's Cabaret (1972), the characters were easier to root for. All That Jazz is darker and more ambiguous. The sequences involving his discussions with an angel played by Jessica Lange are interesting, maybe Joe’s meditations with himself, dreams, or idea of heaven.

In the middle of the film, there’s a script reading scene when they laugh and he doesn’t appear to hear anything, as we watch people laughing out loud in silence. This is quite disturbing. Cinematically it’s very effective, he seems very alone in this moment, and to me it suggests he’s losing his grip on reality. You could interpret the whole story as a near death scenario. An artist who can’t stop creating, can’t stop working.

All That Jazz is a film that champions creativity, and also the invisible creativity going on in the mind we don’t see. Joe really had show business in his blood. Yet it also is a film about a workaholic who can't balance his personal life with his own ambitions.

Won 4 Oscars. Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Music. Was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Writing, and Best Cinematography. The film won the Palme d'Or at the 1980 Cannes Film Festival.

I'm not a huge musical fan. Even so, it's a technically masterful film I think any serious cinephile should watch at least once in their life. If you are a workaholic, you may relate to the main character.

Favorite quotes: “To be on the wire is life. The rest is waiting”

“No, nothing I ever do is good enough. Not beautiful enough, it's not funny enough, it's not deep enough, it's not anything enough. Now, when I see a rose, that's perfect. I mean, that's perfect. I want to look up to God and say, "How the hell did you do that? And why the hell can't I do that?"

Rating 8/10

Agree or disagree? Have you seen All That Jazz (1979) , and what did you think? Which is your favorite Bob Fosse film?

2015 Blindspot Series: The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976)

My contribution to Ryan McNeil's 2015 blindspot series blogathon, where I watch a film each month that I have never seen before.

John Cassavetes attempt at a gangster film noir is steeped in night-time darkness and red colored lighting. The clothes are very 1970s. The story is a simple one about a nightclub owner who gets into trouble when he loses a large amount of money during a poker game at a mob gambling club. Ben Gazzara delivers a great performance in the lead role as Cosmo Vittelli, he is virtually in every scene. The standout sequence is in the middle of the film when he goes to the Chinese guy’s apartment, which is quite thrilling and nail-biting. The meeting in the abandoned warehouse is also suspenseful. The film feels quite improvisational in the dialogie scenes, which director John Cassavetes is known for during that period.  I've read the dialogue and action was scripted but delivery was not.

I don’t have the same praise for the rest of the movie. It’s too slow paced and in need of an editor. I imagine the same story could have been told in 100 minutes rather than 135 minutes. Too much time is spent on the night club performers and their acts, which does give the movie a sense of place, but tends to meander. Apparently the director has subsequently made a shorter edit of the film running at 109 min.
Cosmo Vittelli is the only character we really care about, and it’s interesting how he goes ahead as usual despite everything, not wanting to face the facts. There are chinks in his armor, which those close to him are able to notice. Perhaps it’s about masculinity and the inability to show weakness in the face of adversity. The slow transformation of the main character is not that obvious. In the end, I see it as a character study rather than a crime story. I've read you can watch the film as an allegory for director John Cassavetes' own life, who in order to support his family had to compromise his morals by taking acting jobs in Hollywood.
Overall, I just wish the first hour was as strong as the last hour. It failed at the box office, but has since gained an appreciation on home release and is now part of the Criterion Collection.


Rating 7/10


Agree or diagree? Have you seen The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976)? What do you think of John Cassavetes as a filmmaker?

2015 blindspot series: A Face in The Crowd (1957)

My contribution to Ryan McNeil's 2015 blindspot series blogathon where I watch a film each month that I have never seen before.

This will just be a quick review. Directed by Elia Kazan, the story is about fame, power and the american dream, and in many ways was ahead of its time, foreshadowing the celebrity craze which we still see today. Andy Griffith is unforgettable in the lead role as charismatic, guitar-playing Larry 'Lonesome' Rhodes, who is discovered, becomes a radio sensation, and this changes his life. You should see the story unfold for yourself, I don't want to give too much away.

The story raises issues about the nature of fortune and fame, temptations, manipulation, jealousy and pitfalls. A film that comments on our society, and is still highly relevant.

I loved the performances, and the applause in the final scene felt iconic. That said, A Face in The Crowd does seem to drag and felt needlessly overlong. The film launched Griffith into stardom, but earned mixed reviews upon its original release. Later decades have seen reappraisals of the movie.

Rating 8/10

Agree or disagree? Have you watched A Face in The Crowd (1957), and what did you think? Which is your favorite film directed by Elia Kazan?

2015 Blind Spot Series: Andrei Rublev (1966)

My contribution to Ryan McNeil's 2015 blindspot series blogathon, where I watch a film each month that I have never seen before.

Andrei Rublev (1966) is set in medieval Russia, and loosely based on the life and times of the legendary 15th century Russian icon painter. The story takes place during a turbulent period of Russian history.

Considered a masterpiece of world cinema. My experience is writer/director Andrei Tarkovsky wanted to speak timeless wisdom through his characters. The dialogue does feel a bit pretentious and like a philosophical essay at times. The main characters tend to blend together talking the same way, especially in the first half of the film.

It’s not all dialogue. Visually the film is striking, particularly a scene where a man flies across the sky, and also several battle scenes of the Tartars raiding the Russians. Another memorable scene involves a jester the travelers meet while it’s raining. He entertains a gathering with jokes and physical comedy.

The second half of the film is easier to follow, relying less on dialogue and more on visual storytelling. About Rublev’s personal and religious crises which prevents him from painting. Also about a boy in charge of casting a copper bell for the Grand Prince. The boy explains he was given this knowledge by his deceased father. The bell has deep religious and cultural significance. If the film has a weakness it's that it points in many directions and can be disorientating to watch. A second viewing seems necessary.

Animals depicted such as horses and snakes appear to have a symbolic quality. It’s probable the struggles the characters are going through is a parallel to Russia in the 1960s, in that free spirits are oppressed by the authorities. There is something elusive about the meaning of the film, and much has been written. Perhaps director/writer Tarkovsky could identify with another artist (Andrei Rublev), who created art under a repressive regime. As it says in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, it's about man’s relationship to God, the artist’s relationship to the public, the artist and the art, and Russia as a physical and metaphysical place.

Among Tarkovsky’s deepest and technically most ambitious films. It’s tricky to label the genre. A combination of think piece, biopic and war film. The end scene gives us examples of Rublev's artwork.

Tarkovsky on Andrei Rublev: “In any case I knew it would certainly not be a historical or biographical work. I was interested in something else: I wanted to investigate the nature of the poetic genius of the great Russian painter. I wanted to use the example of Rublev to explore the question of the psychology of artistic creativity, and analyze the mentality and civic awareness of an artist who created spiritual treasures of timeless significance”  (Sculpting in Time, 1984)

Agree or disagree? Have you seen Andrei Rublev, and what did you think? Which is your favorite Tarkovsky film?

2015 Blind Spot Series: This is Spinal Tap (1984)

A high energy ”rockumentary”. Hailed as "one of England's loudest bands”, legendary British rock band, Spinal Tap, is followed by a documentary film-maker during their attempt at an American comeback tour.
If you didn’t know this is a fictional mockumentary you could be fooled into thinking it was an actual band. The band members behave in a natural way and the dialogue and songs are so realistic, that it’s authentic, but with enough comedy that the spoof works. While I didn’t love the music or think it was as funny as the poster indicates, I did enjoy the ”fake” interviews and backstage antics. Some people took this seriously when it first came out. You could accept Spinal Tap as a documentary about a real, deluded band that just isn’t that good at songwriting.

There are a huge number of quotable moments such as ”goes up to eleven”, ”miniature bread”, “Oh we’ve got a bigger dressing room than the puppets?!” “I’m sure I’d feel much worse if I weren’t under such heavy sedation” , and "It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None ... more black."

A groundbreaking film which is worth seeing, but maybe some of the satire about the music industry would only be funny to those familiar with music from the era. But you don’t have to be into rock music to find it entertaining and amusing, as it’s clear that some things never change such as groupies, band arguments, being spoilt, and the desire to be remain popular.
The band members are basically comedians and actors, Christopher Guest would go on to pen the comedy Best in Show (2000). Michael McKean has acted in many films besides Spinal Tap. The third prominent member of the band, Harry Shearer, is probably most famous for his voice-acting on The Simpsons.

So meticulously crafted that there is a legitimate Spinal Tap album and fake band discography. The soundtrack works because it mimics what it poked fun at. My favorite tracks are probably "Rock and Roll Creation" and "Stonehenge", which mock the music and image of mystical, allegedly demonic bands like Black Sabbath. "Big Bottom" and "Sex Farm" are two more highlights that needle the rampant misogyny, sexism, and machismo in the heavy metal subculture.


Rating 8/10

Thanks for reading! Have you seen This is Spinal Tap (1984)? Agree or disagree? As always, comments are welcome

2015 Blind Spot Series: The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

I was expecting more, considering it was written and directed by Orson Welles.  A family saga about unrequited love and a portrayal of an American dynasty in decline. Somewhat bland and forgettable, and only had me involved sporadically. Perhaps a film I need to see again to appreciate.

Based on a 1918 novel by Booth Tarkington which won the 1919 Pulitzer Prize. Welles lost control of the editing of The Magnificent Ambersons to RKO, and the final version released to audiences differed significantly from his rough cut of the film. More than an hour of footage was cut by the studio, which also shot and substituted a happier ending. Although Welles' extensive notes for how he wished the film to be cut have survived, the excised footage was destroyed.

Far from being as masterful as Citizen Kane (1941) or Touch of Evil (1958), The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) does benefit from strong dialogue, and is worth a look as a curiosity. But not as gripping as it should have been. It’s unfortunate we cannot see the director’s intended vision, which may well have been a masterpiece. Considered one of the worst instances of studio interference in cinema history.

There are certain things about the film I did like, such as the scene on the street when Eugene Morgan tells Isabel Amberson he's leaving, and she doesn't show any signs that she wants him to stay. That was one of the few sequences that had an emotional impact on me. The "endless" staircase was interesting both as a technical achievement as well as an allegory.

Rating 7/10


Thanks for reading! Agree or disagree? Have you seen The Magnificent Ambersons? As always, comments are welcome

2015 Blind Spot Series: Hoop Dreams (1994)

Premiered at the 1994 Sundance Film Festival where it won the Audience Award for Best Documentary. The film was ranked #1 on the International Documentary Association's Top 25 Documentaries list. Its exclusion from the Best Documentary category at the 1995 Academy Awards led to a restructuring of how the category was evaluated. Many felt Hoop Dreams was unfairly snubbed.

Originally intended by filmmakers Peter Gilbert, Steve James, and Frederick Marx to be a 30-minute short. The filmmakers followed the children back to their homes, and after several years, and with over 250 hours of raw footage, a 30-minute PBS special turned into a three-hour feature film.

The documentary follows two African-American high school students in Chicago, William Gates and Arthur Agee, during their high-school years, and their dream of becoming professional basketball players. We are given a sense of the world they live in.

I wouldn’t go so far and call it the best film of the 90s as Roger Ebert does, but still a highly watchable documentary. Despite not being a fan of basketball, and despite its lengthy three hour running time, the film kept me involved throughout.

A coach reckons Arthur has the talent, but not the confidence. It’s not enough to have the ability to play basketball, equally important is the tuition fees, which Agee’s family are not able to fulfill.

The only minor flaw for me is the filmmakers gloss over William Gates’ injury in the last act, as if he no longer had this physical problem.

It’s a documentary not just about basketball, because the goal is also to explore issues of race, class, and education in modern America. The expectations placed on talents from such an early age is quite frightening and revealing. You could substitute the basketball angle of this with any other sport or passion that young people foster. It's really about daily life amid urban poverty, people's dreams and struggles.

I don’t know if the documentary helped instigate change and make it easier for underprivileged kids to have a career as an athlete. The pressure put on them to perform comes from both sides, family and coaches, there are financial implications where the schools are given bonuses for winning. In some ways the kids are being used, even though they want to play.

A recent guardian article covered where the main figures are now, reading the piece feels a bit like what Michael Apted is doing with the Up series. Both William Gates and Arthur Agee were able to turn the film's success and their subsequent fame into a better life for themselves and their families, so some positives came of their participation. However the families have also faced adversity, which the article spotlights as well.

As Will Di Novi wrote in his article Game Changer, Hoop Dreams was a film that took the temperature of American culture in the 1990s, while also, in its own way, redefining it, demonstrating the economic potential of documentary filmmaking to distributors. The success has affected filmmakers around the world. Hoop Dreams was one of the first feature-length films shot entirely on video, establishing a new, cost-effective blueprint for the production of non-fiction cinema.

What I will take away from watching Hoop Dreams is the sheer joy on the faces of family members, applauding during the matches. It’s really a film about family. As another reviewer wrote, Hoop Dreams seems to encompass not just a few individuals' stories, but draw archetypes out of them to personify the larger world around them.

Rating 8.5/10

Thanks for reading! Agree or disagree? Have you seen Hoop Dreams? As always, comments are welcome

2015 Blind Spot series: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

My contribution to Ryan McNeil's 2015 blindspot series blogathon, where I watch a film each month that I have never seen before.

A family fantasy film based on the Brothers Grimm fairy tale. At the time of its release, Disney didn't make feature length animated films, so this was a first and a remarkable technical feat. Beautifully animated considering it was made in 1937. The castle and forest are believable, the characters have facial expressions and shadows, and I was able to care about the characters who are likable and memorable.

Heigh-Ho, Whistle While You Work, & The Silly Song are stand-outs from a wonderful soundtrack. Someday My Prince Will Come is considered a classic too, but isn't a favorite of mine. The wishing well song (from the opening scenes) is also quite original how the echo from the well becomes the backing vocal.

The film isn't perfect. The obviousness of the diamonds in the mine is pretty laughable, but you go along with it because it’s for kids. Unfortunately the prince character is never developed as a fully fleshed-out character, which is a minor weakness. He should have had more screen time.

I had a smile on my face for most of the movie, and would place it on my top ten favorite animated films list. Even if you don’t normally like Disney or musicals, you should do yourself a favor and watch this. Definitely a film I could rewatch, which still holds a real charm today. I love that the dwarfs all have a certain quirk and they are just very entertaining characters to follow. I had a really good time and I felt I was in the cabin as part of the group.

Contains spoilers:

The film has a warmth to it that the animals of the forest (and later the dwarfs) look after Snow White when she has no place to go. Although you could say the tables are turned and she is looking after the dwarfs, cooking them food, cleaning the house, reminding them to wash! She names them Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey. However I was a bit confused if they already called themselves by those names. I would imagine they did because you can see in the background those names are carved into the wood.
Some may find it odd that Snow White as a guest would treat the hosts in a slightly preachy manner (see image above). Yet that aspect of the story worked for me because of her charm and that they are all getting along well as friends. The dwarfs appear to enjoy a female in the house. Perhaps due to her shielded upbringing she simply doesn't know how to behave among regular people.
Steve Honeywell at 1001plus questioned in his review whether Snow White is a passive and submissive character with a pretty face waiting for her prince to rescue her, and I agree with that to a certain degree. Her role at the cabin consists mostly of chores and the work of a dutiful house wife, which again could be interpreted as sexist.
The dwarfs are a happy and welcoming group, and maybe the film's aim is for us to think of them as people not to be dismissed. Dopey reminded me of the Marx Brother Harpo, and I was okay laughing at a mentally slow person. I didn't find it condescending the way Dopey was represented.
The highlight of the film for me is probably during The Silly Song, with Dopey on the shoulders of another dwarf, thereby tall enough to dance with Snow White. Other sequences I like are when the dwarfs are sleeping which is fun to watch, and when they line up for a kiss. Now I have an idea why Walt Disney Pictures have that logo. 

Rating 9/10


Thanks for reading. Agree or disagree? Have you seen Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)? How do you rank it with the other Disney animated classics? As always, comments are welcome

Selections for 2015 Blind Spots Series

Hoop Dreams (1994) (Steve James)


I've decided to continue with Ryan McNeil's blindspot blogathon. Many other LAMB bloggers are also participating, so it should be fun. The idea is you select 12 films you've never seen before, and write about a film each month. I've compiled a list of films I definitely want to watch in 2015. Based on flickchart, these are the highest ranked films by each director that I haven’t seen. I also went with films that have a score of 8/10 on IMDb or close to it. So besides Hoop Dreams, which are the rest?



This is Spinal Tap (1984) (Rob Reiner)

Patton (1970) (Franklin J. Schaffner)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) (multiple directors)

The Ten Commandments (1956) (Cecil B. DeMille)

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976) (John Cassavetes)

Mary Poppins (1964) (Robert Stevenson)

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) (Orson Welles)

Andrei Rublev (1966) (Andrei Tarkovsky)

All That Jazz (1979) (Bob Fosse)

A Face in The Crowd (1957) (Elia Kazan)

Nashville (1975) (Robert Altman)

What do you think of my choices? Have you seen these films/documentaries?