Funny Girl (1968)

Why it's here:
For the chance to see and hear Barbara Streisand, who shouldn't be overlooked as a major film star. She won an Oscar for her role for Funny Girl - which was also her first screen role.

Specs:
2 1/2 hours; color
Set in the 1920s

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.0. In fact, every one of us rated it an "8."

More about the film and our reaction to it:
You expect teen and preteen boys to enjoy certain kinds of movies. Abbot and Costello pictures, the On the Road series, the Maltese Falcon....  But, when they love a movie like Funny Girl -- detailing the life of stage star Fanny Brice -- that simply speaks volumes to the QUALITY of a motion picture. It has to be a great film if it won over people who are so far out of its target demographic. And it was. [In fact, my husband, who was working in his study and had not planned to watch, came in to see it; it hooked him from the next room].

Barbara Streisand and her incredible voice and performance are the undisputed anchor for this movie. She is so watchable. Everything else -- from the plot, to supporting performances, cinematography -- is  a support to her charm, comedy and talent. We also enjoyed seeing Omar Sherif again, this time in a very different role from where we saw him last (Lawrence of Arabia).

The film is long, but, again, it speaks to how well made and solid it is that we didn't mind. We watched it over two nights and were all anxious to sit back down and enjoy the second half.

It is clear that we are now deep into the modern-era 60s! We've seen, in this festival, many films dealing with marriage and divorce, but this one felt like a first, in that the marriage ended (sorry spoilers!) for reasons that are distinctly depressing: people who love each other, where neither is at fault, cannot make a go of it for reasons of pride and introspection. Though set in the 20s, the film is stewed in its (present) time; It feels like a 60s flick. Parents should be aware of some very sexy bikini style costumes on full display in an early musical number! Those costumes were certainly not period appropriate.

Iconic image:

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: