Watching Along with TCM: Stagecoach (1939) and The Searchers (1956)

TCM is airing 101 Westerns over the course of every Tuesday/Wednesday this month (they put a few On Demand each week). This Saturday was dreary so I sat and checked out two from Tuesday night's theme which was John Wayne/John Ford collaborations. Typed up some thoughts last night...

Stagecoach (1939)
This might have edged past The Searchers as my favorite. Mainly because there's a certain pulpy quality to it, like it was based on material from a dusty ten cent western novel (in actuality, the credits say it was based on a short story). I have to remind myself that not every classic western was a scenery sprawling epic because even though this film takes place between Arizona and New Mexico, there's a B-movie feeling of calling it "Stagecoach" and it being about strangers who are stuck in transit moving through dangerous Native American territory. Each of the characters aboard the stagecoach fall into a different type and each actor is distinguishable from the others; it's not like many a war film where by the end I'm still unsure of which soldier was which. And at 96 minutes boy does this move. It's just a lot of fun with great action, interaction and suspense but it's always in the favor of characterization. I was worried as the ending started to develop with Ringo seeking vengeance in the town, that it would feel tacked on. But once again it's all there to serve Ringo's relationship to characters like Dallas and Curly. I particular liked Thomas Mitchell's performance as Doc Boone and that's an example of the development that I'm talking about and that which the film makes work- a drunk doctor having to sober up, moving from comic relief to the conscience of the group.

The Searchers (1956)
As gorgeous as I remember it. I can see why it's regarded as a great and I can talk about all the things everyone loves to talk about, but I do have one nitpick and I'm sure someone here will find a way to contextualize it for me, but the thing that keeps this film from jumping above Stagecoach and maybe even The Grapes of Wrath if I were to re-watch it... the film's use of humor. The Searchers works best for me at least when it's moving through its darker elements. The unrequited love Ethan has for his sister-in-law that I believe is his motivation, the racial tensions that are best shown through Ethan's relationship with Martin, or the moment when Ethan is ready to kill his niece and he was going to- you could see it in Wayne's performance as he stands feet square asking his nephew to move aside and that this is set against a bright landscape of arid beauty makes it all the more effective. Then you have kooky Mose Harper, Martin's Native American wife chasing him, Charlie the letter deliveryman and later his fight at the wedding, that one lieutenant with the saber that the reverend is barking at... Sure it's moments of levity, but I'm sorry I just roll my eyes at it. I like the moments in Stagecoach when Doc is playing with the Peacock's cloth or when the men of The Wild Bunch are chucking water at each other in the bath... but here it just feels out of place. That's really a nitpick because everything else about the film works so wonderfully.

It's interesting to watch this and Stagecoach back to back- a director/actor collaboration separated by 17 years. Especially in how both films address race relations. In the context of their times, you have Stagecoach where the mere mention of Geronimo elicits fright and Peacock shouts "savage!" when he discovers that the Mexican gentleman who owns a way station has an Apache as his wife. In The Searchers, the natives are in part the villains, after all they participate in what Ethan calls "murder raids" leaving many dead behind. And yet in The Searchers, that racial tension is at least addressed head-on. The way Ethan looks at Martin during the first dinner scene or the scene in which Ethan moves from intentions of rescue to intentions of murder, but in the end, his mind changes as what's right wins out.

I've only seen three Ford films. I'm interested in his "calvary trilogy" especially Fort Apache to see Wayne/Fonda (I loved Fonda in Grapes of Wrath) together and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance with Wayne/Stewart is also on my list to see one day.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) and The Night Of (2016)

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005, Tim Burton)

Since I'm always excited and curious to see what Tim Burton is going to do next, I keep him listed as one of my favorite directors. Which is surprising considering when I look at his filmography, only a few are films that I really, really, really like- Ed Wood, Big Fish, Sweeney Todd. I just like that he comes to the material with a style and a viewpoint. It may not always be right and it may not always work, but when it does it certainly elevates the screenplay and the overall experience (as opposed to the stylings of say Michael Bay which only works on a few occasions). I had been meaning to watch his take on Roald Dahl's classic with Johnny Depp as more a curiosity. I was full of doubts that it could top the Gene Wilder version. This is true, but any changes that were made I didn't necessarily hate or even like; I just found them to be interesting. The way Charlie's grandpa tells of Wonka's origins and Wonka's flashbacks, the new Oompa Loompa songs in different genres, the ending where Wonka goes to see his father, the other golden ticket winners own quirks and shortcomings... All inspired choices that I feel don't hurt the story so much as just give it a Burton-inspired spin. And that's what I'm always surprised when I see Burton tackle these sorts of films- just how Tim Burton'ey they end up feeling. Every time I'm taken aback and then I think to myself, "well what was I expecting?" Johnny Depp's performance is a bit more robotic and stilted than Wilder's fun-loving Wonka (Depp's Wonka really hates children, that couldn't be more clear) and overall the film is more serious and mixes dreary London with a more mechanical and streamlined factory. It's still bright and fun at moments, but Burton doesn't give it the magic that Mel Stuart's version had... Just makes it all the more Tim Burton'ey.

Nerd Note: Whenever I got to New York Comic-Con, I see the actor who played Mike Teevee from the 1971 film charging $20 for any photograph/autograph at a random table somewhere on the floor. Hey, I get that's how celebrity works at these conventions, but that just feels very Mike Teevee of him.

The Night Of (2016, Steve Zaillian)

Technically an HBO miniseries, but the first of the eight installments clocks in at 80 minutes and premieres July 10 but is available now on HBO Go and HBO on demand. For those that aren't aware, I'll give a little bit of its production history of which I followed since 2013. Based on Peter Moffat's British series Criminal Justice, this entire series is written by Richard Price (Clockers) and directed by Steve Zaillian (Searching for Bobby Fischer, A Civil Action) except for one middle part directed by James Marsh (Man on Wire, The Theory of Everything). It was originally set to star James Gandolfini who filmed a pilot for it to be a regular series, but after it was picked up, he passed away. It then starred Robert De Niro who dropped out due to scheduling conflicts and replaced, finally, by John Turturro. The first episode that establishes the visual style of the show was shot by Robert Elswit and edited by Jay Cassidy. Now if the pedigree of the series has you interested, then probably stop reading this. I won't spoil anything, but I say that because the first part is pretty much the entire set-up/premise of the show. It's 80 minutes of a prologue and inciting event that looks like it's going to pay-off with the next seven hours.

The show is about Naz (short for Nasir) played by Riz Ahmed (Four Lions, Nightcrawler), a Pakistani college student who lives with his family in the suburbs and travels into the city one night in his father's cab to go to a party but gets sidetracked with a woman who ends up murdered and Naz having no memory of his time with her. The story stays with him for most of the time leading up to and after the murder. He quickly becomes the suspect because of how he reacts after he discovers the body. He has a meltdown and the moments/events all feel expected and yet watchable. Ahmed is entirely believable as a kind and gentle soul who then when in over his head, makes a human error of trying to run away from what he has become involved in. The interaction he has with the police and with just about everyone, feels 100% natural (I don't know if it's because I'm a New Yorker, the cops/witnesses dialogue doesn't feel "Law & Order" to me, everyone is speaking how I pretty much could imagine them). The detective who investigates the crime is played by Bill Camp in also a wholly believable character-actor-style of a performance. He's tired and seasoned, but he still knows how to connect with a suspect. By the end of the hour we meet John Turturro's world-weary lawyer. It's amazing how with only maybe the final 10-15 minutes of the show, Turturro makes an impression. In the dialogue, the way he moves, his interactions with Ahmed- a full character is formed, one that we may have questions about, but a living breathing person. 

And that's what has me attracted to this show- even Nas's family who warned him about going to a "black party" or the neighbor who makes a comment when he sees Nas about him "blowing stuff up". At a time here in the real-world in America with race again at the forefront of many discussions (for most, it probably has never gone away), a series like this feels all the more relevant. It's not attempting to make a point, but just present a conversation. I don't believe Nas's race factors into Detective Box's pursuit of him as the killer, but it's certainly an important part of the story and it remains to be seen how Price/Zaillian wish to add that to a crime drama tapestry.

Not just a highly-styled episode of Law and Order, but in line with The People vs. O.J. Simpson, American Crime and The Killing as a procedural with serialized elements. We see every little, itty-bitty detail that we could imagine as Nas is processed, interviewed, etc. One of my favorite joys about TV is also seeing actors who in films would be somewhat more sidelined in their careers to colorful supporting roles. It's in television now where a series is built around Steve Buscemi, Liev Schreiber, Michael Sheen, Paul Giamatti etc. And we get to discover unknowns like Taylor Schilling or Jon Hamm or see new sides of TV vets like Bryan Cranston or Julianna Margulies. Turturro and Ahmed are very much a part of that and it's a joy to watch them dig into these people.

Independence Day & Independence Day: Resurgence (1996-2016)

Watching the first film a day before seeing the second made me realize how I may have not actually seen Independence Day in full in a long time. It's on television frequently and it's such an easy movie to get into. It's an ensemble film that balances serious worldwide destruction with a few gags and memorable interactions that as a viewer you can jump into at any point and still enjoy it for what it is. What comes closest today is probably the Marvel movies, but in Emmerich's series, the characters feel much more human. The original is still about action set-ups and the script is certainly made to move you from one set piece to the other- it's made for the audience to not stop to think too much. It's fun and I would like to think that if released today with the right marketing it would reach a wider audience then a Marvel film (I'm shocked that children like the Marvel movies, maybe it's the imagery of Captain America running with a SWAT team to take down terrorists that makes me think it's too gritty for kids). Then again, in the post 9/11 world, images of buildings being crumbled and sent into the streets have a different meaning. It makes the first alien attack in the original film have an impact that makes me wonder if it was felt the same in 1996 as it would be today.

I'm genuinely surprised that a sequel wasn't made two years later. I wonder if it was because Emmerich and Dean Devlin had the most control/understanding of the property that they and the studio wanted to wait for Emmerich to finish Godzilla, The Patriot and then things change in Hollywood etc. etc. Now 20 years later, a few key players have returned for the sequel in front of the camera as well- Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Vivica A. Fox, Brent Spiner, Judd Hirsch and is that CGI Robert Loggia? This is a sequel that functions practically as a remake/update- aliens show up, worldwide destruction, humans try to fight but fail, humans think of plan, humans fight back again, humans win. The surprise is that it's just as entertaining. Like with the first film you have to leave a certain level of disbelief at the door and just accept the campy moments that are going to come. It's a very 90s style blockbuster but with the sleek look of today's films. The actors are having fun, it's fun to watch and there's very little to fuss about if you have a good memory of the first film. Yes it's cheesy, yes it's loud, but since there is so much connective tissue to the original (all new characters seem to have some sort of tie-in to someone from the previous installment) it feels like a natural extension of the first installment. If you liked that, you should like this.

Favorite Filmmakers: Great Expectations (1998)

With Favorite Filmmakers posts, I'm looking at the films I have yet to see or haven't seen in a long time from my favorite directors.

Great Expectations (1998, Alfonso Cuaron)

While promoting "Gravity" in a roundtable interview during the 2013 Oscars campaigning season, Alfonso Cuaron mentions (quite candidly) how Great Expectations was not a film he should've made.

He stated to the Hollywood Reporter- "You do your first films with a lot of enthusiasm. I was lucky that my second film was a blissful experience. And then I got a bit engaged in the machinery. I forgot that I used to do my own stuff, and I became this reader of screenplays that they were sending to me. And I started forgetting that I had a voice. It started to become more about the industry. And then I did a film that was a horrible experience, Great Expectations. That is a film that I should have not done. I passed many times, and then I ended up saying yes for the wrong reasons... It's one of those things. I did my first film, and it was well received. And then I was just traveling around, and I started running out of money, I needed to get a job and --... You know, the possibility of working with Robert De Niro… And then I lost my way."

You could say he talks about it as a failure of his. The film is lacking a certain energy that is noticeable in his later work. It should be noted that this film was not written by him but instead by Mitch Glazer (with voiceover written by an uncredited David Mamet). Without that connection to the material that Cuaron definitely had with A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Children of Men and Gravity, Great Expectations is full of style and emotion that is certainly displayed but never felt.

The film attempts to update Charles Dickens' Victorian London-set novel to 1990s Florida and New York. When updating classical material, there is a trend towards giving the adaptation a very vibrant and distinct visual work-over. Updates of Shakespeare plays are a great example. Like how Ralph Fiennes turned Coriolanus into a Hurt Locker-looking gritty wartime drama or Joss Whedon giving that indie-feel to Much Ado About Nothing. Cuaron doesn't go as far as say  Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet which kept the original dialogue and over-stylized and saturated the viewer with a distinctly modern style.

Instead, Cuaron settles for an almost middle-ground. The plot is transposed and characters are slightly different (Pip is now Fin). It's more like The Lion King-Hamlet comparison. Patrick Doyle has very loud and classical musical cues that feel out of place and Emmanuel Lubezewski lights like a classical painter as many of the best of cinematographers do. It's just that Cuaron's sense of magic and wizardry that came across in even the wanderlust feeling of Y Tu Mama Tambien, is not apparent in this earlier work. Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow feel dull where their longing and lovesickness feels overly melodramatic. Anne Bancroft and Chris Cooper in supporting roles are amusing, but after a certain point the film feels lost and wandering towards its end as the screenplay by Mitch Glazer seems content with hitting the story-beats of the adaptation without ever making the moments feel three-dimensional and resonant. 

Later in his career, Cuaron did find a connection to material he didn't have a hand in writing which would be Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. But that might be because in that same interview from above he states that his film prior to that, Y Tu Mama Tambien, was his rediscovery-as-a-director film- "What we talked about [with Y Tu Mama Tambien] was, let's do the film we would have done before we even went to film school. Let's start from scratch."