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:

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

Why it's here:
Actually we'd seen the Jackie Chan version and loved it. It made sense to view the original film from the 50s.

Specs:
Nearly 3 hours, color; available on dvd

Our family's average rating:
7.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
As I sit here writing this, the rest of my family is watching the Jackie Chan version (again). They wanted to compare the two. While both are star-studded with cameos and give a wonderful feel of world travel and adventure and contain roughly equivalent overall entertainment value, one thing's for sure: Chan's version is much more hilarious... and juvenile.

We all really liked them both. But the 1956 one, is much more like a grand adventure story, that is also funny, than the rip roaring silliness of the more recent one. The 1956 film takes on the story with a bit more intention and seriousness. Though still light and fun, it feels like "real" cinema. In fact, it feels very much like cinema for grown-ups: an impressive and lengthy production with incredible world travel and sweeping production values.

Shot on location all around the globe, the film usually inspires gushing about the wide screen format employed -- which seems to be the technological equivalent of The Hobbit's recent foray into superfast frames per second -- that is, on a nerdo-scale of excitability. But, since all the movies we watch just basically just fill up my tv set, the insanely-wide screen dimension had little effect on us. What we did love was the feeling of a book brought to life with great lushness and attention to detail.

The kids were thrilled and we were all surprise to see Buster Keaton pop up in a cameo as a train conductor. He was, as always, fabulous. There were so many celebrity cameos, its hard to know which to point out. Some of the more impressive (to me), besides Keaton, were Marlene Dietrich, Frank Sinatra, Red Skelton, and Peter Lorre, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

This was great fun - but families should be warned it is long and probably not the best choice for those who are new to classic cinema.

Iconic image:

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Why it's here:
To sample something by the great director Cecil B De Mille.

Specs:
Over 3 1/2 hours long! (we watched over two nights). Color and available on dvd.
Set in biblical times; at the time of Moses.

Our family's average rating:
8.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Wow. Just wow. This has so much enormity and spectacle value that it is breathtaking to watch.

I can see why Cecil B. DeMille was such an icon. He knew how to make a BIG movie. He so clearly understood what details are important. He has assembled a magnificent and deep cast. His special effects are excellent and, even by today's standards, don't look cheesy but seamless and impressive. His locations (some in Egypt, some in California) are gorgeous and evocative.

Everything feels sweeping, grand and important -- including his choice to film this story.  He follows the life of Moses from the time he was set upon the Nile in a basket, to his status as an Egyptian leader, to his calling from God to lead his people out of slavery. The story is an incredible one and this an amazingly solid adaptation of it that stands up well today.

Iconic image:

Mister Roberts (1955)

Why it's here:
Henry Fonda, William Powell, James Cagney (who we've seen and enjoyed separately) and a chance to introduce the kids to Jack Lemmon. What an impressive cast!

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

Our family's average rating:
8.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
My family's reaction to the film was that this wasn't exactly full-on comedy, nor was it really war drama, but it was a perfect mix of the two. We laughed a lot throughout, but the film is much deeper than it is silly. We gained incredible insight into the emotions and conditions of men on a boat in WWII.

The film resonated a good deal with us because the boys' grandfather had been at Pearl Harbor and must have lived the experiences of the navy in the era as portrayed in this film.

The performances by all the leads are incredible. As always, we adore William Powell. He is my favorite character here as a dignified, clever, but basically warm-hearted doctor. James Cagney is wonderful as the horrible (and still hilarious) captain Morton. Henry Fonda has to be at the very top of the list of all the actors we've seen during our festival in terms of sheer acting skill. We saw this film weeks ago, and as I sit writing this, I still feel attached to the man he played here. Fonda makes Mr. Roberts incredibly real.

Finally, this was our introduction to Jack Lemmon and a great one at that. Lemmon plays a slightly inept, but extremely energetic and randy young man.  A parent's note: a few of the scenes, especially those involving Lemmon's character, are a bit risque in theme. One scene in the beginning has the sailors using binoculars to watch when they discover that a nurses barracks and shower is viewable from where they are anchored. Although that scene may make the film objectionable for some families, the sexuality doesn't get any more involved than that. There is a fair amount of suggestive innuendo about Lemmon's pursuit of a particular nurse, but overall, this makes a small part of the film, is not too lascivious, and simply adds to the light humor.

The film is exceptionally well-made and does a magnificent job of setting a mood and creating memorable characters. We absolutely loved it.

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:

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: