Roman Holiday (1953)

Why it's here:
In order to see Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn, both new to our festival with this movie.

Specs:
2 hours, black and white

Our family's average rating:
8.88! Making it our second highest rated film so far! Just behind It Happened One Night.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We loved this film, which in so many ways is just simply flawless. It is a simple enough love story -- a fish out of water theme of a pampered young princess who longs to be unencumbered out in the world. She gets her wish, for a day, anyway. With an amazing escort like Gregory Peck, its a wonder she didn't run off forever.

I don't want to give too much of the plot away because I really want you to see this film. Trust me that the story, though simple, is executed perfectly, lightly, effortlessly and beautifully. It is charming in almost every way (including the dialog, action, humor, pacing and even the bittersweet ending.)

It is perfectly cast with Audrey Hepburn in the role that made her a star and Gregory Peck as a journalist who stumbles upon the princess (or rather, is stumbled upon by her) and makes an exciting, likable, understandable man who at first means to capitalize on his find, but ultimately makes a very different choice. Eddie Albert as the beatnik sidekick adds so much comic counterpoint and balances out any chance that the film be too sappy or sentimental.

The filming choices (on location in Rome and black and white rather than color) are inspired. At a time when it was highly unusual to film on location in another country, the fact the almost every shot is quite spectacularly Rome – adds so much depth and timelessness to this story. As to the choice of black and white, which seemed somewhat surprising given the gorgeous scenery and high-end feel of spectacle about the film, I've heard two explanations: (1) That because the filmmakers insisted on the Rome location, to compensate for the extra cost they went with a cheap unknown actress and B&W cinematography; or that (2) B&W was intentional so that the backgrounds and beauty of the city didn’t overshadow the story and its characters.  I don't know which, if either of these explanations, is accurate, but am just glad they did it.  Because going against the obvious with black and white added a layer of seriousness about the project. It told me right off the bat, this was not going to be just light visual fluff; that something better was going to be going on.

We highly recommend this film.

Iconic shot:

Limelight (1952)

Why its here:
Kismet. A few days ago, I learned that this was Chaplin's last American/major film and the only one in which he worked with Buster Keaton. As luck would have it, we happened to be watching films from 1952 just as I made that discovery, so we decided to add it!

Specs
Just over 2 hours; black and white. We had trouble finding this one. It was not available for rental on Amazon or iTunes and (unusually) our library did not have it. We watched on Youtube in a very low quality version.
Set in 1914-1917

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Just a note about the version we watched -- We had to resort to Youtube and unfortunately what I could find was pretty low resolution. Worse still, it was divided into 9 segments, so we had to keep loading and clicking to see it all. Then there's even more bad news: the first segment of the 9 had been removed from Youtube! So, we filled in the first 10 minutes or so with another version that had the dialog overdubbed in Russian, which, I got to tell you, was an odd thing indeed.

Even with these strikes against our viewing experience, we still found the film to be riveting. It grew on us the more we watched, as we became more comfortable with the style of story being told .... which, though Chaplin, is not comedic. An aging, washed-up clown who saves the life of a young very depressed ballet dancer creates a poignant, sometimes humorous, and mostly philosophical drama -- and an excellent one at that.

Chaplin and Clair Bloom were perfect in the lead roles. And the great bulk of the film relies on their skill. I've heard criticism that Bloom overacts in the part of the dancer. While there were a few moments that felt overdone, these seemed to me to be by director's choice to highlight her struggle and not ill-suited to this melodramatic person/story. Her acting suited the character and their relationship (as scared and scarred people who become pillars for each other) suited the film.

I really want to watch (and listen) again in some version of quality in order to take notes on the dialog. Especially in the beginning when Chaplin's character Calvero was giving life advice to Bloom's Thereza. There are spectacularly philosophical bits of advice that would make great sound bites -- worthy of greeting cards, and facebook, and whatnot : )  Calvero is a top-notch friend with an incredible ability to be helpful but not cloying, overdone, or self-important. It is no wonder that Thereza falls in love with him.

And, on that topic, for once, a Hollywood May-December romance is handled well. Probably 40 years separate these two in age, but the implications of this age difference are not ignored. They form a central tenant of the film. The nuanced and difficult relationship makes perfect sense, and the film explores the core meaning of what it is to love and to care and to be grateful. ... And where  all of that fits into the notion of romantic love. It is a beautiful theme and really well-handled.

I mentioned Keaton as part of the reason we watched, but his role here is very small. Still, it is the highlight of the film to see Keaton and Chaplin together - still very funny, still silent geniuses. The act they do together is almost entirely without words and is wonderful.

A side note on the time period. we were thrilled to see a movie set in this time that actually felt like the proper era. (Compared to Easter Parade and even Singin' in the Rain, this felt very authentic as a period piece). The apartment, the landlady, the cars, the theater, the relationships, the food -- everything -- seemed spot on. Which makes sense given that between 1914 and 1917 Chaplin was making films with backdrops such as these and clearly knew whats what.

The film is of further interest for the backstory regarding Chaplin. We've been talking with the kids about the Hollywood red scare and blacklisting that arose in response to our nation's fervor to rid the country of Communist influences. A sad and disturbing chapter in the festival is the way the film industry was subjected to the heavy hand of politics, via the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, as the spectacle of the cold war reared in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Some were blacklisted, and many frightened and/or silenced. Those with liberal-leaning views (regardless of whether they were actually communist), were affected. Chaplin became persona non grata at the time of this film. Although some say Chaplin was "deported", in fact, it seems that when he left the country to promote his film abroad, his reentry visa was denied -- amounting to much the same thing. In any case, Chaplin did not return to the States until many years later, in the mid 1970s, when he accepted a lifetime acheivement Oscar.

Iconic shot:

High Noon (1952)

Why it's here:
Lets see: Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, classic Western. Yep. That's plenty of reason.

Specs:
About an hour and a half, black and white. We watched on dvd
I'm not sure they ever make clear what the year is, but it's probably in the late 1800s

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
7.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film is not your typical Western. It is slow, thoughtful, introspective and psychological. For me, it seemed to follow the legacy of "Stagecoach" in that the whole film is tense on nothing more than the theory of waiting for something you know is going to happen. This film takes that drama to whole new planes. It is beautifully filmed. The camera seems to know just how to milk every shot for silence, tension, calm and stress. The basic selling point of the film is character. Who behaves how and why? And because the film is so well done, this is enough to make riveting cinema. The theme song "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darlin'" playing throughout the film, adds a haunting and emotional touch. Just thinking of the song now, evokes all the emotional tensions of this movie.

My husband was frustrated with it seeming to be a movie full of cliches. But the funny thing is, many of the cliche's were probably created by this movie itself. It is so iconic, so well-known, whether you know it or not. My son asked whether the whole idea of "the showdown at noon" preceded or followed this film? I truly have no idea.

The film is remarkable not just for the unusual slow and psychological approach but for the incredible female roles. Grace Kelly is so much more than eye candy. She is the moral center -- a Quaker who is absolutely opposed to violence. She makes several hard choices based on her own conscience and character. More amazing still, an Hispanic woman of strength and character, (a respected business woman no less) is played by a Mexican actress (Helen Ramirez) in a powerful performance. This just blows me away.

Beyond the movie's plot, you can also enjoy the film as allegory for what was going on in Hollywood at this time (blacklisting/Red scare politics). The issues of character -- of standing up and doing the right thing can be a great jumping off point for a chance to learn about these dark times in Hollywood.

All politics aside, we've now enjoyed seeing Gary Cooper at several stages in his career: as a very young actor in "Wings"; as a man at the height of his powers in "The Pride of the Yankees" and, here, as a mature man. Always an incredible screen presence.

Iconic shot:

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Why it's here:
I've been so excited to get to this film! First, I'd never even seen it myself and, second, it would be a perfect re-cap to our experience with the transition from silent to sound. This film consistently ranks at the very top of "all time best films" lists.

Specs:

Just over an hour and a half, color.
Set during the transition from silents to sound films, around 1927

Our family's average rating:
7.88

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film started out as pure perfection. As a perfect spoof of the silent era, filmed in a kindhearted, self-aware way, this movie hits the mark and is just golden. We knew enough of the silent era and the transition to talkies to give us great thrill of enjoyment when the film explored those themes. We delighted in the silly silent-film director and the over-the-top stars and parties. Any details that didn't ring quite true (and there were a few) were easy to forgive.

Had the film been able to stay in the mode it started in and be consistent throughout, it would have earned a '10' from me and maybe a notch or two higher from the rest of my family, but it didn't. It trailed off. It meandered into long dancy dream sequence territory that became self-important and started to fall for its own plot.

Nevertheless. It is still an amazing film.

I was expecting great things from Gene Kelly, but the true delight for us was Donald O'Connor who we didn't know. He was amazing - funny and a a talented dancer. His routine "Make Em Laugh" was a definite highlight for us all, as was the incredible "Moses Supposes". I guess it goes without saying that the song numbers are insanely good. I haven't even addressed the title number yet, which is priceless and, if anything, too short. We could have watched Gene Kelly dance forever. Debbie Reynolds (who, I got to tell the boys, is Princess Leia's mother) was also wonderful. Although Gene Kelly himself was apparently critical of her dancing skill, we found her to be a terrific addition to the cast.  Kelly may have been a bit of a tyrant, because, she supposedly said later that "making this movie and giving birth" were the two most difficult things she'd ever done! We're glad she did both.

Iconic shot:

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Why it's here:
Really wanted to include some science fiction. This story of an alien spaceship come down to earth to warn us to change our violent ways is a classic.

Specs:
An hour and a half, black and white.

Our family's average rating:
6.83

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a classic film and still a favorite among modern sci-fi fans. It is not a "B-movie"; it certainly had high end production values for its time as well as top notch talent. We are not huge fans of the sci-fi genre, but found a great deal to appreciate in this otherworldly tale.

It is an impressive film. And what makes it so is not the story, or even its technical feats, but its ability to use film as a storytelling medium. I guess that's an awkward complement, but I just mean that the film feels complete. The story unfolds at the right pace and in the right way. The music underscores the experience; as does the lighting and interesting shot compositions. The acting is excellent -- especially Patricia Neal as the concerned earthling mom and Michael Rennie as the lead alien. They manage to convey relevance and importance in the story, even though the overall affect will seem cheesy to modern folk.

Obviously, you have to suspend your more critical, scientific judgments in order to get the most out of an alien film from the 1950s. This one is steeped in the fears of its time and makes for interesting conversation on the cold war, the UN, and the atomic bomb.

Unfortunately, we watched the film while travelling and ended up seeing it in bits and pieces on three different evenings. This probably lead to it feeling more choppy and less impressive than it might otherwise have.

Iconic shot: