Driving Miss Daisy (1989)

Why its here:
Any opportunity for mom to add context and meaning to the Civil Rights era and its nuances is good.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Driving Miss Daisy is another film, like The African Queen, On Golden Pond, or Funny Girl, that you just don't expect to score a big hit with teenage boys. I don't know if I mean to complement my kids' open-mindedness for this, or the filmmakers great talent, but DMD was a major success in our household.

What makes the movie great are the same elements that went into us loving other similar films: wonderful scripts, top-notch character-centered acting and a great story. You just can't fake great. This movie is simply very well made and it should stand the test of time because of it.

Jessica Tandy as the elderly white Jewish woman, headstrong and curt, but basically kind, and her grown son played by an astonishingly and surprisingly talented Dan Aykroyd, have hired a middle-aged black driver, played by Morgan Freedman, to do the driving for Miss Daisy, that she can no longer do for herself.  The film is nothing more than the poignant depiction of their business relationship and budding but odd friendship against the backdrop of the civil rights era South.  The story is sweet and simple and very scaled down, yet it is a profoundly good, feel-good movie that manages to be both laugh out loud hilarious and very touching.

Iconic image:

Dead Poet's Society (1989)

Why it's here:
As I write this post, it has been a year since Robin Williams passed away. Yet, last summer, when we were watching films from the 1980s, Williams had just died. It was a no-brainer to rush in a film by the great actor/comedian, and "Dead Poet's Society" was the obvious choice.

Specs:
2 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
As much as everyone praises this movie -- and as much as it deserves praise -- families ought to tread with caution when deciding if it is for them.  For starters, this film is highly unsettling, disturbing and distressing. It deals with rich kids at a high-class private boarding school and their parents' high-class expectations. Robin Williams delivers an incredible performance as the magnetic and brilliant educator who sparks the kids' interest in poetry, famously inviting them to seize the day ('carpe diem'.)  So what's the problem?! A few things; for starters a main character that we spend the movie learning to care for ends up committing suicide in a devastating turn; further,  Williams' character, who is deeply beloved, loses his position at the academy in a tearful ending. It is also very painful and sad to watch a film about suicide, knowing that Williams himself succumbed to that fate. There is a tragic aura lingering about everything his character stands for when the actor delivering the upbeat message suffered such a tragic end.

In other words, like many Robin Williams efforts, the film is beautiful, profound and deep, but also quite melancholy. Yes, there are all the elements one expects from a classically excellent teacher film. In fact, this one often rises to the top of the class in lists ranking the best of that genre. So if your kids are mature enough to handle the film, you simply can't go wrong with the experience. But Dead Poets Society isn't for everyone and I would strongly caution families with kids under 12 to stay away. (By the way, on the tally of parent cautions, beyond the elements just mentioned, please note that there is a scene where the boys are looking at a girlie magazine and there is a surprising amount of nudity shown for a PG rated film as the magazine photo fills the screen for several moments.)


If you do watch, however, you should know that you'll be treated to one of Williams' best performances, some beautiful cinematography, poignant dialog, and an excellent supporting cast, along with classically goose bump inspiring moments like the boys standing on their desks to bid farewell to their teacher.

Iconic image:

Stand and Deliver (1988)

Why it's here:
With a child now in high school, I thought it would be fun for our family to explore the inner city LA educational picture, complete with an inspirational teacher, in a highly acclaimed picture.

Specs: 
About and hour and a half; rated PG

Our average rating (on a scale from 1-10):
8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Inspirational teacher films have become a cliche. Ever since To Sir With Love, people have been fascinated with how teachers shape us, inspire us, drive us, and challenge us. And we just eat it up. Time after time, these pictures make a big splash. The reason why is, I guess, obvious -- because we all have experience with teachers. We understand at a deep and personal level how important they are, and even those of us who have never personally experienced the magic of a Jamie Escalante, can relate to some special grown up who wouldn't give up on them.

What makes a great teacher film? Profound lead performance from a fantastic actor? Check. Inspirational real or fictional character rooting the story? Check.  Troubled youth in some state of challenge/dispair/trauma and in need of support? Check.  Circumstances to overcome and a story arc that makes you feel great? Check.  Yep, Stand and Deliver has it all and we highly recommend it.

Iconic Image:

Gandhi (1982)

Why it's here:
I couldn't wait to have us view this highly acclaimed film, which, for some reason, my husband and I never saw back in the day.

Specs:
Over 3 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I am ashamed at how little I knew about Mohandes Ghandhi. Having now viewed this film, I am proud to have prevented my own children growing up quite as ignorant. This was an amazing movie. I am assuming it is basically historically accurate (because as I have already confessed, I would not know otherwise) and it is one of the most inspiring and profoundly interesting history lessons we have ever had.

In sweep, scope and grandeur it reminded us of Lawrence of Arabia. In fact, like other epic films, its power is similarly in the cinematography, the incredible story, and the great drama of a particular moment in time (here, the rise of Indian nationalism and independence). It is like other epically powerful films also, in its huge, deep and talented cast. But it is unlike any other I can think of in that it has a main character of nearly perfect humanity who is simply a wonder to behold. Gandhi is a historical figure who is beyond compelling -- who is truly admirable and inspiring.

And Ben Kingsley's performance in the title role is flawless. It moved me. I think he moved us all. (By the way, the film received our highest rating since 1953's Roman Holiday and is our fifth highest rated film in the whole festival.)

For my part, I have not been able to stop thinking about the film since we watched it last week. I viewed it again with director commentary and then again without. I'm not quite sure who I am more in love with or find more inspirational right now, Kingsley or Gandhi.

While all of the above might make you think I am about to highly recommend this movie, you'd be wrong.

I recommend Gandhi very highly to adults. And I recommend it with caveats galore for children.  First off, parents should know that the film is very long - well over 3 hours; complete with intermission (something we haven't had in a film since the 1960s). We watched it over the course of two nights.  Still, it is not just the length, but the very dense story that should make parents think twice before showing. Know your kids and their maturity levels and their endurance before attempting this one.

Its primary audience certainly is not kids. I would imagine that even most teens might be bored out of their minds with this film. Unfortunately, if not bored, it is likely your kids will be horrified. Some of the events depicted here are grotesquely cruel, including the British massacre of a peaceful assembly of families, a scene of workers quietly advancing to be bludgeoned by troops, and a riot scene where parents with children are dragged from cars and many are killed, and other such horrors. As I write this, I'm wondering why the heck I enjoyed this film and how I was OK showing it, but, these scenes just felt (profoundly sad) but honest and true - not gratuitous. In fact, they were really the whole point. The idea that peaceful protest is stinkin' hard for the people doing it, is a point well made here when confronted with the violence they bore.

Gandhi has an amazing speech in the film when he is talking a group of the downtrodden in South Africa into his vision of protest. He says "We will not strike a blow, but we will receive them. ... They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. They will then have my dead body -- not my obedience."

Iconic Image

On Golden Pond (1981)

Why its here:
The driving reason for its inclusion was the chance to see Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn again, this marking our 5th and 4th film by them, respectively. Toss in a 2nd Jane Fonda appearance and a heart-warming tale of family stress and love and how can you go wrong?

Specs:
1 hour 45 minutes; rated PG* (see parent cautions below)

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Henry Fonda plays Norman, and Katherine Hepburn plays Ethel, a married couple that vacations on Golden Pond in the summers. Norman is celebrating a birthday and their daughter Chelsea (Jane Fonda) comes to visit, along with her soon to be husband Bill and his teen son, Billy. Its a small cast and a small set-up. That's it right there. Not surprisingly, it is based on a play. The story is highly character-driven and very appealing.  The cinematic vision is quiet -- shot in muted colors, with a slow methodic and peaceful tone.

But the acting is energetic and mesmerizing. Our family's favorite parts of this film centered on Henry Fonda's incredible performance (and the great dry humor of his character Norman) and Norman's relationship with his step-grandchild, Billy, a slightly bitter but basically compliant teen.  (Layer on top of this, my own profound appreciation for the locale and gorgeous scenery and Katherine Hepburn's loveliness and skill, and I was in love with the picture).

While the film's primary audience is grown ups, it should be a hit with any kids that are old enough, or troubled enough, to recognize that family relationships and aging can be hard. Still there are several cautions for parents:

* First of all, language is much harsher than the PG rating would suggest (or than a modern PG would contain). "God damn" and "son of a bitch" and similar words make many appearances in the film; "bullshit" is highlighted in one comic scene.  There is also some very frank discussion of sex, as Bill asks Norman for permission to sleep in the same room as Chelsea. The dialog goes on for several minutes making it clear that they are sharing the room in order to have sex and Henry Fonda crudely mentions the room in which he first violated her mother. Its a bit jarring.There are a couple of places in the film where we are meant to feel fearful (primarily for Norman's well-being) and it is clear he is in a declining state. This is unsettling for adults and kids, though it ends without tragedy. Its main themes are aging and debilitation/fear, dysfunctional connections with adult children, and quirky blended family -- as they say, "thematic elements."  Still, we recommend it very highly for the right families. It is a beautiful film.

Iconic image:

Chariots of Fire (1981)

Why it's here:
Chariots of Fire won the Academy Award for best picture and a great deal of fanfare in 1981.  It is one of few entirely family-friendly (unobjectionable) and PG-rated films to win for best picture and, though I'd never seen it before, I thought we'd love it.

Specs:
Two hours; rated PG (though I honestly can't think of a thing that would have kept this from a G rating).

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a hard film to review. On the one hand, it is beautiful - to look at and to listen to. The cinematography, period details, direction, acting and story are clearly all masterful, and yet, I'm sorry, but it is rather dull and definitely hard to follow.

Owing to the English and Scottish accents, we missed about half of the dialog. Even if we had heard the dialog, I'm not sure how much of the plot intricacies any of us were really following. For this reason, I'm not sure I'll even attempt a plot synopsis here. A short summary is that it follows the lives and training of several young British track athletes and their Olympic competition. It is about life and perseverance and strength. But, mainly, I think it is "about" gorgeous camera work. It feels like an "art" film more than mainstream cinema. Maybe this is why it received so much attention at the time. It must have felt extremely special and unusual back then.

Although it is a sports film, it doesn't follow the typical pattern of sports films. It is very subtle and character-driven and the competition scenes are minimal. Still, it is uplifting and inspiring and has a strong positive message.

I am quite sure that upon subsequent viewings additional layers of meaning and clarity would be apparent, but I can't say I'm dying to pop it back in the dvd player.

It is an example of a film that you can see is exceptional and well-made, yet we didn't fall in love with it. It happens.  We don't particularly recommend it for families, only because it is unlikely that it would be a hit for those who aren't adults and/or fascinated with running, antisemitism or the 1920s. But if you are a more mature audience, then please do watch - the iconic power of the opening scene and the soundtrack will surely get to you.

Iconic Image:

Breaking Away (1979)

Why it's here:
Though this is not a super well-known film, I read a number of very positive reviews and comments; plus, a sports theme is always a winner in our house.

Specs:
About an hour and a half. Rated PG

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Breaking Away has some very common elements found in film: coming of age, parent-child conflict, young people feeling trapped in their small town, clash of classes, as well as several less common ones, like small-town Indiana landscapes, a young man who is obsessed with bicycle racing, and a calm non-exploitative tone that feels relaxed and true.

In fact that calm tone might be part of the reason the film isn't better known. The build up was slow and there were points in the beginning when I thought I'd made a mistake and wanted to turn it off. By halfway through I realized I was falling in love with the film and that my family was all engrossed.

The key pieces that made it come together were the strong script/dialog and phenomenal acting. This is fairly light fare; teenage angst and sports do not often come together in a way that has this much truth and heart but so little melodrama, but that's what this film managed to do surprisingly well.  I never felt jerked around, nor did the story ever feel unnecessarily sentimental.

Modern audiences will enjoy seeing Dennis Quaid and Daniel Stern as young men. The film also stars Dennis Christopher as the lead character who is obsessed with both bicycling and Italy. These 3, plus Jackie Earle Haley, play recent high school graduates who are part of the working class culture in Bloomington Indiana, home of Indiana University. They are trying to figure out what to do with their lives and experiencing mixed emotions as they see all the upper class college kids enjoying a very different experience. These roles are so well inhabited by these young actors, you truly feel their insecurity, blustering and childlike awkwardness as they strive to find their place.

The acting was excellent throughout. We especially loved the lead character's parents: funny dad who appeared distant and grumbling, disappointed in his son, but had a deep love for him that became clear by the end and warm, free-spirited instinctual mother who demonstrated a highly appealingbond with her son.

Shot on site in Bloomington, Indiana, the look of the film is beautiful and quintessentially 70s. It should be required viewing for anyone who wants to make a movie set in this time period.

Parent notes are minimal. Although the movie starts out feeling much like any other 'young people stuck in a small town coming of age flick' and I wondered if we were about to get more than we bargained for. But really there was very little racy dialog. The film is almost completely appropriate for families, with the exception being a comment in the beginning as the boys are cruising on the college campus and one comments about college girls tits. There is also a fight scene which is not very intense or graphic by modern standards and a couple of scenes in the quarry swimming hole that feel a bit tense.

Iconic shot:

Bad News Bears (1976)

Why it's here:
This is another one I saw in the theater back in the day and thought would be perfect for us.

Specs:
About an hour and a half; rated PG.  (Though the language is unexpectedly salty for a PG movie).

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
In this film, Walter Matthau plays a grumbly old former ballplayer, turned pool maintenance guy who is talked into coaching a rag-tag little league team. The kids encompass a range of personality quirks, but very little actual sports talent.  They are helped out by coach's ex-girlfriend's daughter (Tatum O'Neil) who (one can see) in addition to having a famous father, deserved this starring role for her personality and acting chops. The team eventually learns to play ball and work together, but not without first enduring some tension and hurt feelings.

Its a good movie for a lot of reasons. Walter Matthau alone is worth the price of admission. The interplay among the kids as they fight and protect each other and work through various emotional entanglements is the bread and butter of the experience. It's also worth watching to note how unfettered and free (comparatively) kids' lives used to be: piling into cars without seat belts, swearing, hanging out with their coach scrubbing out pools, moving about in the world without apparent supervision. No matter what your take on whether that style of life or our current one is better, this film surely gives an eye-opening cultural perspective on the not too distant past.

Iconic image:

All the President's Men (1976)

Why its here:
I was very interested in having my kids see a Dustin Hoffman film, and this one had the duel benefit of being Robert Redford's brainchild and dealing with the Watergate investigation. It is interesting to note that the film was originally rated R for its strong language. The producers appealed that rating and it was dropped to a PG. (There was no PG-13 at the time). The story is thematic and very intelligent and, yes, there is a fair amount of very strong language, but this film is so good that I would never encourage people to stay away for this reason.

Specs:
Over 2 hours; rated PG (originally R for language)

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
A winner! this gets a 8.5 and is the first film to break into our top 10 list since 1963's Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film held us spellbound. It is an incredible slice of history -- not just because of the Watergate events, but because of its stunning exploration into what it meant to do investigative journalism in the pre-computer era.

The surprise here is that Nixon is not in this film at all. The resignation of key figures in Nixon's administration hardly enters the film. In most ways, anyone who watches expecting to learn more about Watergate will be disappointed. The film is really not so much about Watergate, as about the slow painstaking research that went in to building a piece of journalism that (ultimately) resulted in the downfall of Nixon's presidency. If that doesn't sound like compelling filmmaking, well, then, I'd probably agree with you! as would most other reasonable people. But, the thing is, it IS.

The story here is all about its bits and pieces of story -- layers of denial, and intrigue, and character, choices, ethics, persistence and, of course, politics. It is beyond fascinating. Of course it could never have been half so good were it not for the skill of its director, the stellar performances of Redford and Hoffman, and the profoundly capable supporting cast. I recently read Roger Ebert's review of the film and loved his comment, "[w]ho'd have thought you could build tension with scenes where Bernstein walks over to Woodward's desk and listens in on the extension phone? But you can."

What makes this film incredible for modern audiences, in a way its contemporary ones could not have fathomed, is that the work of Woodward and Bernstein has now gone the way of the dinosaurs. This is not what the press does anymore, nor how they do it. The film managed to capture a moment of time at exactly the perfect moment. It preserved, at its apex, the perfection of a certain craft. And it is worth watching for that reason alone.

Iconic Image:

The Sting (1973)

Why it's here:
To see Paul Newman and Robert Redford in an iconic buddy picture. The theme of con men in the 30s was sure to be a winner as well.

Specs:
2 hours; rated PG -- see parent cautions near the end of this review

Our family's average rating on a scale of (1-10):
8.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a fantastic film. The story - on which I don't want to give too many plot details away - is very clever and well thought out. There are twists and turns that keep you guessing about who to trust as good-natured con men work together to take down a crime boss/banker who murdered their friend. Your attention will be riveted until the very end.

The period details are beyond compare and lead to an almost perfect envisionment of the 1930s era. The score, with which everyone is familiar -- (The Entertainer enjoyed a huge comeback in popularity at the time of the film's release) -- features ragtime classics that are not actually from the era, but a good 20 years prior; still the score was inspired as it suits the overall elements of the picture and adds enormously to its charm. Newman and Redford are such an engaging team, and the supporting cast is exceptional. Particularly notable are Robert Shaw as the bad dude the con men target and Harold Gould as Kid Twist, another of the con men.

I would highly recommend it, but with one big caveat: there is a scene in a strip club that is bound to be objectionable for many, if not most, parents, including myself.  I knew about the scene and pre-watched to decide what to do. Ultimately, I thought the film too good to be missed and just talked about the scene first.  It occurs in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, when Redford's character has come in to some money and goes to the club to see his girlfriend. She wears nothing but pasties and a g-string and dances provocatively in front of a group of rowdy men. The scene goes on for long enough that there is no chance of it being missed or going over anyone's head. She also walks up and talks to Redford for a bit before covering up. Anyone considering watching this film with kids should be aware of it and make up their own minds. Note that the scene could be fast forwarded without missing out on any plot details that matter.

Also, along these lines, later in the film, it becomes clear that Newman lives in a house of ill repute and that his girlfriend is the madam. The good news with all of this, is that the facts of the situation are played with enough subtlety that it probably will go over most kids' heads. As long as I'm giving the rundown of this stuff, I may as well mention that Redford is also seen going to a female character's apartment late at night and is still there in the morning. Honestly, I don't remember their tryst very much, so I don't think it was very provocative.  (Also, by the way, the overall level of tension and violence is not bad or over the top given that criminal activity is referred to throughout. The mood is generally pretty light and there is almost no gore; through there is the murder in the beginning of the film that sets off the whole chain of plot events and another fairly shocking shooting later in the film.).

Iconic image:

Sometimes a Great Notion (1970)

Why it's here:
Years ago we had a backpacking buddy who used to reference this film's line "wake it and shake it you Stampers" whenever he'd wake us up to get hiking on cold early mornings. I was always curious about the film and thought we'd include it.  Somehow I had the idea in my head that this would be like Grizzly Adams but with a heartwarming family tale behind it. I could not have been more wrong!

Specs:
Almost 2 hours. Rated PG. (This is not a "typical" PG film by modern standards).

Our average rating on a scale of 1-10:
5.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film gets some dubious distinctions in our fest. It is our 4th LOWEST rated film overall. In fact this is our lowest rated film since 1935's Becky Sharp, and one of only 6 in our festival that received less than a "6" average score. Perhaps it is not fair to say that we hated the film or that the film was bad, but better to say that the film was wholly unsuited to our purposes. I strongly encourage you and your family to skip this one.

The film is rated the equivalent of PG, which just showcases the shortcoming of ratings in trying to convey audience appropriateness. It is shot in a slow, plodding, 70s era style. The natural locations were gorgeous, I guess, but the film never felt lovely or attractive, because the whole thing was shrouded in a dark complicated tone of family disharmony. There was a constant sense of foreboding that terrible things would be happening. And it was the tone that made the film very hard to watch. In fact, many terrible things do happen in this picture.

The story is about a proud and defiant logging family headed by Henry Fonda and with Paul Newman as the eldest son. They stand up in principle against a logging union that is strongarming them into not cutting wood in order to raise prices. However, the Stampers do what they see is right, and do not cower under threat of violence. As good as that might sound in terms of providing positive role models, the film is not meant to be a positive story of standing up for what's right, so much as a depressing exposition of a disfunctional family's ambiguous principals. The film explores adult themes of divorce and blended family along with much younger second wife having a quasi-incestuous relationship with one of the sons. It also involves two horrific logging accidents and a very grotesque (in my opinion) display at the end that is played for humor.

(Welcome to the 1970s!  I should probably have known/noticed that this was an adaptation of a Ken Kesey novel and was unlikely to be a good choice. ha. I guess maybe you have to be from the 70s - as our backpacking partner was - to enjoy this type of stuff.)

Let me be clear: I'm not saying the film was poorly made or bad, but rather that it was not at all what I meant to pick for our enjoyable family festival. If you do want to watch this one with kids, I'd suggest that you know your kids and their tolerances and I'd still suggest a pre-watch just to make sure you know what you're in for.

Truth is, we realized early on that this film was not a good fit for us and didn't really "watch" it. After about the first 30 minutes or so, we started skipping on fast forward and pulling out various scenes to watch. We sort of skip-watched the whole thing.

Iconic image:

My Side of the Mountain (1969)

Why it's here:
We were familiar with this classic and often recommended 1959 novel and were interested to see its (only?) adaptation

Specs:
About and hour and a half. Rated G

Our family's rating (on a scale from 1- 10):
A solid 7.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were all curious how well they managed to adapt the story given that there are very few characters and the whole movie centers on a boy's running off to the wilderness. The solitude was dealt with by creating a raccoon character with whom the boy (Sam) could convey thoughts and experiences.

Our impression of this movie was mixed, and similar to the way we felt about Born Free. It is good and solid, but really not amazing or spectacular. It feels very much like a 60s-era nature film and reminds me of shows like Wild Kingdom I used to see on TV.  We give it a solid recommendation for families who wish for a beautiful and wholesome movie to enjoy together.

Iconic image:

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Why it's here:
The double pull of a courtroom drama and an education-related theme. Had to pick it.

Specs:
2 hours

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We knew the famed Scopes "monkey" trial was the inspiration for the film, but we learned later that the film is actually a very accurate portrayal of the real-life events: the clash of famous lawyers, the climatic "placing the prosecuting attorney on the stand as the defense witness" move, the testimony from the bible, the odd twist of verdict and many other features of the film that screamed like cinematic licence to us, were actually real.

One of the pieces of the film that was so frustrating to me as a lawyer is that legal issues never seemed to come out - it all just felt like grandstanding and bluster. A good courtroom drama is hard to pull off. It has to be dramatic; but it should also be rooted in well-reasoned legal issues that carry a certain truth to them. This one didn't cut muster. The idea of a court trial dealing with a teacher who stands up and teaches according to his principals is such a good one for kids, but, truly, we wouldn't recommend this film broadly for families, simply because it does feel very dated and overblown.

We all agreed though that Spencer Tracy is a fabulous actor and we were glad to have another chance to see him in a courtroom drama. Unfortunately though, the last one was Adam's Rib (1949) and I can't say we liked that film any better.

Iconic image:

12 Angry Men (1957)

Why its here:
It had been many years since I've seen this film, but I was pretty sure it would be perfect for our festival. I was right.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours, black and white. Available on dvd

Our rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I can think of few films in our entire festival that had us riveted, literally, on the edge of our seats riveted throughout like 12 Angry Men did.  That statement is all the more remarkable given that the entire film (save the first and last minutes) took place in a single setting -- two, if you count the bathroom of the jury room.  What a remarkable acheivement in drama and performance. Simply incredible.

And those two elements (the actors and their performances) are in fact almost the whole enchilada here. The story itself - from a play about jury deliberations in what appears to be an open and shut murder case is an excellent one. There is almost no action, rather, through the jurors' discussion of the pieces of evidence, the story slowly unfolds along with revelations, interpretations and the disclosure of our jurors' prejudices, strengths of charaacter, backgrounds and vulnerabilities.  However good the story is, the film would be lost without excellent interpretative performances by its entire cast. Henry Fonda is again a standout. I have come to believe that he is one of the best actors of all time. His performances in everything we've seen him in (Grapes of Wrath, Mister Roberts, even The Lady Eve) have never failed to move me.

This is simply a perfect film for the pre-teen/teen set and gives wondrous introduction into the legal system as well as a grand study into character and duty.  Not to be missed.

Iconic image:

On The Waterfront (1954)

Why it's here:
Marlon Brando. That's enough of a reason, right?

Specs:
Not quite 2 hours long, black and white. It is available on dvd which we found at our library.

Our family's average rating:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I really struggled with whether to show this one to my kids. In fact, I pre-viewed it just to see. The content is quite intense and unsettling, but the movie is powerful and exceptionally good, so I gave them some warnings and we watched.

To start with the reason for having included this film in our festival: Marlon Brando is an amazing actor. We were all very moved by his performance. Brando, as everyone knows, is famous as a proponent of a new style of acting - the method - that started to take hold in the 50s. I don't really know (or care) that much about acting theory, but I will say that his style of performance was clearly different -- earthier, more emotional, earnest, and real -- than the classic Hollywood style we have become used to. It takes the viewer by force in this film. Two instances that make my heart still thump include the iconic "I could have been a contender" scene with his brother in the car and a simple moment when, walking through a park with Eva Marie Saint, he stoops to pick up a glove she's dropped, fingers it absentmindedly, then puts it on his own hand. These moments are incredible and beautiful, as is his whole performance.

Now, for the ugly, because the film depicts something very ugly -- the mob-controlled union on the dockyards in New Jersey. The film (like High Noon) is all about characters making hard choices and is steeped in allegory about the ongoing red scare and its effect on Hollywood. You don't have to care about symbolic meaning to appreciate the film.

Parents should be aware that, though gritty and upsetting in theme, there is not a great deal of violence or gore actually shown on screen; plenty is implied though. Several deaths do occur (just offscreen) and they are fairly grusome (someone is thrown from a roof, another has a heavy load of bottles dropped on him, another is shot and then suspended from a hook). Though the deaths may not be seen directly, their aftermath is. All of this would elevate the film to a PG-13. Though my 11 year old watched and really liked the film, I would not generally recommend it for 11 year olds. It is probably best suited to the 13+ set.  ...and that's not just because of the violence, but for the fact that most kids under 13+ probably wouldn't be that interested in the grown-up themes of unions, and mob power, what it means to rat people out and when its OK to do that.

One of the best parts of the film was the awesome character and performance of the waterfront priest played by Karl Malden. He really helped you feel like you had an anchor in all the tension going on and was occassionally funny and uniformly charming. Likewise, Eva Marie Saint was an awesome grounding force in the film that I was very grateful for.

We recommend this film highly for slightly older or more mature kids and teens.

Iconic image:

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:

All About Eve (1950)

Why it's here:
I couldn't let us go through this festival and not see Bette Davis. Problem is, I had a hard time picking from among her films; none of them really seemed to suit us and we were getting to the end of her era. All About Eve, a highly acclaimed film, seemed a good choice.

Specs:
Over two hours, black and white. Available in a beautifully restored version on dvd.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.17

More about the film and our reaction to it: 
Bette Davis plays Margo, a middle-aged stage actress who is part talent, part arrogance, and part good hearted woman in an exceptional performance. Anne Baxter is also wonderful as the young ingenue, Eve, who apparently idolizes Margo and spends the film alternately winning over then alienating various people in Margo's life. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent; we especially liked George Sanders as the film critic who is ultimately in control. And I was totally stunned when Marilyn Monroe walked into the frame part way through. I had not realized she was in the picture, as she was still an unknown bit-player. But there is no mistaking Monroe and she was wonderful in a small role as a air-headed actress who is nonetheless sharp about her career

The great acting and fascinating story idea make this a top notch piece of filmmaking.

Because my younger son and I had just seen Sunset Blvd., we kept noticing the many parallels between the two films. Although we both enjoyed this film and appreciated the acting, we also both agreed that Gloria Swanson's was the better performance and Sunset Blvd. the better film.

However, while watching, we had the unfortunate logistical problem that we were on the laptop while riding in a car, and we could not hear the dialog very well. The dvd was already overdue at the library and we were on the last day of our grace period! We had to watch, and we had to watch NOW, so we sucked it up. ... maybe the film was better than we realized.

Overall, although the film is certainly well-made, we doubt it would be the best choice for most families, as the themes are troubling and of more grown-up interest.

Iconic image:

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Why it's here:
Technically, it's not. I had no intention of including this film. I watched because, how could I not after all the film experiences of the last few months? I knew it to be far too dark and unsettling for our family, and my husband wasn't interested in it, so I watched alone. Fortuitously, I discovered it on Netflix just as our family got to the end of the 1940s, so I watched it right in date order.  But I was so blown away by this film that I couldn't help describing it in detail to my kids. What happened next surprised me: my younger son was dying to see the film. What happened then surprised me even more: he LOVED it.

Specs:
Almost 2 hours, black and white. Not a silent film, but dealing with themes of the silent era.
Available on dvd and on Netflix.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I am feeling proud right now. Justifiably proud I think. For I doubt there are many 10 year olds who could watch and love Sunset Boulevard with a real appreciation for what that film is trying to say. To really get it and also to love it, is amazing for a modern kid. And there is no way, my son would have done so a few months ago, before this festival. He gets the deep sadness; the elated iconic status; the fast loss of the silent era and the quick way the movies changed, like a tornado blasting out old things and leaving destroyed lives in their wake. He was moved to see Buster Keaton in the short cameo as a washed up relic. He appreciated the contrasting acting styles from the overblown and slightly crazy performance of Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond, to the 1950s cool William Holden. We had seen and been to the places in LA where the 1920s movie star mansions were -- he understood about the level of fame they had attained.

The film is fantastic. Part black comedy, part film noir, part disfunctional romance, the movie is not really scary, but its definitely freaky. It is sad and depressing and shows Hollywood at its worst. It is also brilliantly filmed and acted. Swanson as Norma Desmond gives a performance so visceral and real it hardly seems possible she's acting.

One of the best lines ever spoken in any movie ever:
"You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."

And I love it when Norma speaks of the golden age of silents:
"There was a time in this business when they had the eyes of the whole world. But that wasn't good enough for them. Oh no. They had to have the ears of the whole world too. So they opened their big mouths and out came talk talk talk!"

While watching herself onscreen in one of her star roles:
"Still wonderful isn't it. And no dialog. We didn't need dialog; we had faces."

I love that line so much, because she's right. As a fan of silent film, I see exactly what she meant and I really feel that loss.

Iconic shot:

Adam's Rib (1949)

Why it's here:
I was drawn to the Hepburn/Tracy pairing, knowing of their famous on- and off-screen chemistry and thought this one, with it's law drama and courtroom humor, might make a good choice.

Specs:
Over an hour and a half; black and white. We watched on a dvd from the library

Our family's average rating:
6.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Although both Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are great actors and this was probably a very relevant and witty film in its own time, it felt more than a bit dated to us.

Curious that Adam's Rib was our lowest rated film since The Lady Eve and I'm wondering if Adam and Eve just aren't where its at for us. . . . I'll be interested to see how All About Eve plays for us next week. . . .

I spent a fair amount of time wondering if I'd made a mistake introducing this material to my kid. The film starts with an attempted murder where a jilted wife follows her husband to another woman's apartment. The themes of adultery and spousal abuse are heavy and, by modern standards, pretty unsettling, though clearly meant to be light-hearted and played for comedy at the time. The film explores the ideas of how spouses mistreat one another and drive each other away. The plot twist comes from Tracy playing the prosecutor who is attempting to convict the murderous jilted wife while the prosecutor's wife, Hepburn, plays the private practice defense attorney who takes on the job of defending said murderous jilted wife.

The underlying marital problems of our defendant/victim couple are mirrored (or maybe prism-ed)  through the lawyers' own marriage as the case gets further along.

These are fairly adult and unpleasant themes dealing with the worst sides of a marriage; though, very loving and caring sides to marriage are shown as well. The film is very sexist by today's standards (though it plays as if meant to be a feminist message). All in all, though an interesting film and clearly well-acted, it is probably not best suited to family viewing.

Iconic shot:

Hamlet (1948)

Why it's here:
Our dip into Shakespeare. I really wanted the boys to see Laurence Olivier, widely regarded as the best actor of a generation, in this influential role.

Specs:
2 1/2 hours, black and white. We watched on a dvd from the library.

Our family's average rating:
7.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I wasnt' sure how the boys would take to full lenth Hamlet. They'd experienced some Shakespeare including having acted vignettes from his comedies, so we weren't totally unfamiliar with Shakespeare, but this was to be a big step into that world...  this was Hamlet -- not modernized, abridged or simplified; so I wondered.

Unnecessarily. In fact they loved it. No, they didn't understand every bit. I had to narrate a bit of the action and explain things here and there, but this didn't affect their abilty to appreciate the wonderful, clean rendition of the classic play. There is nothing distracting here to take you away from the underlying brilliance of the story. Just Shakespeare and excellent acting.

I loved this comment from a contemporary review in the New York Times, praising the just-released film:

[By being presented in the format of film rather than on the stage, Olivier's] Hamlet makes the play more evident by bringing it closer to you. The subtle reactions of the characters, the movements of their faces and forms, which can be so dramatically expressive and which are more or less remote on the stage, are here made emotionally incisive by their normal proximity. Coupled with beautiful acting and inspired interpretations all the way, this visual closeness to the drama offers insights that are brilliant and rare.

What a great point! It makes sense to capitalize on the natural closeness of film to really introduce your kids to Shakespeare, rather than going to see stage productions.  We talked about Olivier's performance as Hamlet and why it was so universally praised. We are not actors ourselves and we don't speak the "jargon" that makes talking about his talent easy, but we found him compelling. He just was this character. Totally believable. He conveyed such earnest, intense, intellect with the role. Incredible.

Iconic shot: