8/10 - A modern update on Pygmalion starring a hooker with a heart of gold, Mighty Aphrodite is an absolutely hysterical film by director Woody Allen. Blending social commentary with neurosis, Mighty Aphrodite is a play on the Greek tragedies and amended for Allen's style and wit. The end result is a film that references various Greek tragedies throughout and manages to subvert the expectations of its genre, in spite of repeated warnings from the chorus. Inventive, imaginative, quirky, and witty, Mighty Aphrodite is a film that is decidedly Woody Allen, but feels risky and far more adventurous than many of his other more modern films. With a classic turn from the oddball filmmaker and from Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite is an incredibly charming film.

The best part of this film is undoubtedly the chorus. Led by F. Murray Abraham, the chorus is a source of great comedy from interactions with Lenny Weinrib (Woody Allen) to calling Zeus and getting his answering machine, the chorus is hysterical. However, as with all Greek tragedies, they play a key role. They tell of events off-screen, alert us to issues the characters face, and intervene throughout. F. Murray Abraham pops up throughout the film to urge Lenny to not be an idiot or give him advice on how to handle a situation. But, above all, the chorus is there is warn characters about obsession and the path to avoid tragedy. They are incredibly doom and gloom and constantly expect the worst to come around every corner. However, Allen's film subverts this with a largely happy and sound landing. Things work out the way they are should with no miscommunication or other romantic comedy cliches. Instead, Allen takes the depressing endings of Greek tragedies and plays it more along the lines of a rom-com where everybody ends up satisfied. This feels like subversion, if only because of the chorus and Allen's repeated references to Greek plays.

One of the most prominent plays referenced in the film is Oedipus. With Jocasta (Olympia Dukakis) and Laius (David Ogden Stiers) in the film, Allen makes overt references, but also adds in Kevin (Michael Rapaport). On a date with with porn star and prostitute Linda Ash (Mira Sorvino), Kevin makes repeated references to how he wants a girl like his mother who takes care of the home and makes dinner, etc. Clearly Oedipal, this date is a precursor to the poor guy finding out Linda made porn films. Needless to say, he did not take kindly. The references continue with a fortune teller named Cassandra (Danielle Ferland) who nobody takes seriously as she warns Lenny about tracking down Linda, the mother of his adopted son, and - along with the chorus - warns him about the trap of obsession. Lenny ignores these warnings and goes behind his wife Amanda's (Helena Bonham Carter) back to find Linda to satisfy his own curiosity (the real killer of people, not that "bullshit about the ozone layer", as the chorus warns) regarding his brilliant son's roots. The film also introduces Tiresias (Jack Warden), the blind prophet. Warning Lenny as to his wife's potential unfaithfulness, Tiresias sees all and remarks that one would "have to be blind" to not see Amanda's positive response to her potential lover. Oh the dramatic irony.

Allen treks on with an ending fit for a Greek tragedy, even if it is not tragic and more in line with a romantic comedy. With Lenny having Linda's son and Linda giving birth to a daughter fathered by Lenny, the two meet again once more a few years after the events of the film. However, they both keep the lineage of their children a secret. They are pleased to see one another with both of them happily married to other people. A classic case of dramatic irony with the audience knowing the truth, but both characters ignorant of the truth, the film's ending is honestly perfect.

That said, the film does have some faults. After a hot start with a fast and light opening 20 minutes that leaves you in stitches, the next 40-50 minutes are a bit slower. The humor is more subtle as Allen dives into the plot with Linda. Jokes come, but not like the first 20 minutes, which was constant. Instead, some jokes fall a bit flatter or result in simple chuckles. This section is what separates it from Allen's best works, as the final half hour or so is terrific yet again. However, the second act just slacks a bit and fails to live up to great first and third acts of this film.

However, Mighty Aphrodite is still an incredibly funny film that is easy entertainment. With a neurotic and nervy turn from Woody Allen and a great bombastic performance from Mira Sorvino, the film is fun and light entertainment. Allen's films manages to always be a breeze to watch, but always truly mentally engaging at the same time with some philosophical thoughts. But, he instead dumps the philosophy here and goes to the source: Greek tragedies. Allen has a thing for the mind of the Greeks and that becomes all the more clear in this film.



9/10 - Often cited as one of the most accurate courtroom dramas put to film, Anatomy of a Murder is a tremendous film. With James Stewart and George C. Scott doing battle as opposing lawyers in a murder trial, there was truly no way this film would not be riveting and spectacular. With both turning in stellar performances in their respective roles, Anatomy of a Murder is a boxing match of the minds as the competing lawyers trade blows and jabs for nearly two hours. Prior to that, director Otto Preminger sets the scene and score. A murder trial in which a man, Frederick Mannion (Ben Gazzara) killed another because the deceased raped Mannion's wife, Paul Biegler (Stewart) is tasked with defending the man. Of course, Biegler was once the District Attorney and lost in the past election to the new man, Mitch Lodwick (Brooks West). Wary of the case, Lodwick brings along Assistant Attorney General Claude Dancer (George C. Scott) to help him try the case. Ultimately, it comes down to a battle of the legal minds between Biegler and Dancer with the two doing the tango in the courtroom.

Frequent outbursts, twists, and unexpected testimony keep the case swaying in the wind. Was Mannion legally insane because of the news of the rape? Did he have a history of jealousy? Was his wife, who had a history of infidelity with a past husband, cheat on him with the deceased and claim she was raped to stave off her violent husband? Did her bruises come from her abusive husband, who was known to knock her around? Confronting antiquated notions regarding rape and the degree to which a woman "asked for it" by dressing seductively, Anatomy of a Murder certainly seems like a film that would have been controversial at the time. Open about sex and rape, the film is backwards in its portrayal of sex as the film certainly supports the theory that Mrs. Mannion (Lee Remick) was asking for what she got to a degree. That said, that bit of nastiness aside, the film challenges the prudeness of society at the time and presents a deeply sexual case to the world.

Constantly unpredictable, the ending may seem obvious since it is a courtroom drama with James Stewart. That said, Preminger keeps you guessing in spite of that. Whether or not the verdict is the right one is one such thing as the prosecution pokes many holes that may not be adequately excused. In this way, the ending is incredibly inconclusive. It is clear this ending influenced Primal Fear, though that film may go in a different direction with in, as it makes it abundantly clear the verdict was wrong. Here, Preminger does not give his audience any such satisfaction. Instead, he hints at the possibility that everything did not come out in the trial, but never outwardly says anything and has the Mannion's split town before we truly know. It is a film built for discussion and debate with audience members able to present their own case based on what we know about the case or believe that we know. For this, Anatomy of a Murder is an incredibly engaging and thoroughly entertaining film to watch unfold.

Similar to Preminger's 1962 film Advise & Consent, Anatomy of a Murder is detailed and thorough. It takes nearly three hours to reach its end and it is because Preminger takes his time. He introduces us to our characters: classic lawman Paul Biegler. A good, honest man who knows the law forwards and back. Against him, we have Dancer, a hot shot from downstate in the big city of Lansing, Michigan. Combative, brilliant, and explosive in court, he is a man that also knows the law. From here, Preminger dives into the minutia of the law and gives the judge and jury a personality all their own. Everybody has a role to play here and Preminger recognizes this and makes it more a film about the process of trying a case, instead of the case itself. Each objection cares suspense. The testimony, cross-examinations, and redirections all brilliantly executed. The film brings to light the ability of a lawyer to say something they know will be overruled, but saying it still lets the jury think about that possibility. It is intricate, it is defined, and it never ceases to be fascinating. While many may believe this film to be boring, I found it to be positively riveting akin to Advise & Consent. Both sit down and tell a story about something, but it is more about the process that goes into it, rather than the story itself. Here, it is a murder. There, it was the Senate.

Featuring outstanding lead performances and a compelling court case, Anatomy of a Murder shows why it is such a landmark courtroom drama. Thoroughly riveting and always leaving you questioning, the film has you hanging on every word. The 160 minute runtime flies by and leaves you craving more from this world of law and the private practice of Paul Biegler. It is a film that would make somebody want to run out and become a lawyer for the way in which it portrays lawyer. Instead of boring legal minds, it positions them as boxers doing battle in a heavyweight bout. Constantly sizing up their opponent with little jabs throughout, the lawyers drill one another with heavy upper cuts and crushing blows from every which direction. However, it is a fight always doomed to come down to the jury. Will they find in your favor or no? Ultimately, as humans are prone to be, they are fallible. No matter how much the other guy is bleeding or how many more punches you got in, the jury may still be against you. It is this brilliance, this nuance, and this intricate detail that makes Anatomy of a Murder such a riveting and timeless classic of a film.



8/10 - Dark Passage is a pretty incredible film. Using a lot of point of view for the first 37 minutes of the film, the film is about a man who escaped from prison - Vincent Parry (Humphrey Bogart) - who changes his appearance to avoid the police. Convicted of murdering his wife, he receives help from Irene Jansen (Lauren Bacall), a cabbie, and a plastic surgeon, all of whom do not believe he is guilty. Taking 37 minutes to show Bogart's face at all, that shot is merely of him in bandages. Up to that point, much of the film is shot from the point of view of Vincent, in order to hide his initial appearance from the audience before he turns into Bogart. Slightly after the hour mark, we finally get to see him as a post-operation Humphrey Bogart and to say I was impressed with how long it took would be an understatement. This really hints at how the film takes its time. It never rushes and keeps you guessing throughout, which is really what a film noir should be able to do.

The film, however, is largely just another excuse to put together real life lovers Bogart and Bacall in a film and, well, as those are prone to be, it is quite good. Director Delmer Daves' risks with the camera and the initial point of view pay off in a thrilling and mysterious film noir. Constantly viewing the opening from Vincent's point of view allows the audience to feel the tension, the fear, and the confusion as he escapes jail and encounters people who may or may not help him. Similarly, when he is quite dazed and tries to get home from the plastic surgeon, the point of view occasionally used in this sequence really highlights the disorientation and haze that he is in post-surgery. The film finds great tension and mystery when post-surgery Vincent is still picked out as an oddball by a detective. The subtle detail and tension regarding whether or not he would be busted keeps you on edge, much like the rest of the film. Throughout, Daves takes the mystery from the beginning and keeps it going with a constantly unexpected film that keeps you wondering whether or not Vincent was guilty and whether or not he could get away from the detectives.

Yet, the film is not solely about whether or not Vincent gets away. As with all film noirs, there is a case resting beneath the surface of all this style and tension. If Vincent did not kill wife or his friend, who did kill them? The reveal is great, but also further defines his hopelessness and status between a rock and a hard place. There is great mystery here, even if I did figure it out. From the small details, subtle evidence collection, and the full reveal as to the motives and the truth behind the murders, the film really is captivating in these moments and reaches a fever pitch of its noir genre.

Pairing together Bogart and Bacall was always a tremendous idea, as they had great chemistry. The finale highlighted this with the look they give one another from across the room. In that look, their romance always feels authentic and real, mostly because it was. Thus, pairing them as lovers always makes sense and Dark Passage feeds off of this chemistry in the more romantic moments. Acting-wise, the duo are always very good and that is very much the case here. Bacall outdoes Bogart in this one though with a smart and controlled performance as the woman he was always convinced of his innocence.

Mysterious, thrilling, and bold in its approach to Bogart's character, Delmer Daves's Dark Passage is a top-notch film noir. Pairing together the classic duo of Bogart and Bacall, the film is always captivating and thoroughly riveting with its ability to leave wondering how everything will turn out for those involved. Never slacking or slowing down, the film is fantastic entertainment.


SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

7/10 - From the very first frame of this film, I felt inescapable dread. It became clear that things would only escalate, especially after Split quickly got through the setup in the trailer. With Kevin (James McAvoy) kidnapping the girls practically immediately into the film, Split allows itself to quickly get into the unknown. It got past the setup and now drops three young girls - Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy), Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), and Marcia (Jessica Sula) - into the lion's den and leave them no way of escaping. From there, M. Night Shyamalan is free to explore the possibilities of this unknown building and the incredible mind of Kevin, a man trapped inside his own body with 23 distinct personalities. Frequent warnings about "The Beast" only add to the tension and the end result is a film that leaves your stomach churning for nearly two hours.

That said, while the thrills and horror are top-notch and akin to films such as The Silence of the Lambs in that is not a film about viscera, but rather an exploration of the mind of a mentally ill man, Split is not explicitly a horror film. It is one that finds horror in the situation of the girls, but instead of focusing on them, the star here is Kevin's mind. The true thrill and insanity of Split is derived from his mind, rather than the situation the girls find themselves in. The latter is often quite derivative and predictable, with obvious implications regarding a gun and Casey learning to hunt proving far too overt to actually become effective. The plot itself is relatively straight forward as these girls simply are trying to get out. Once the film really hones in on Casey and her back story, it becomes equally clear that it will come down to a face-off between her and "The Beast" to escape. Thus, the more straight out thriller/horror elements really do not provide much to chew on. It feels merely superfluous to the real show: Kevin.

With 23 personalities trapped inside his mind, Kevin is a man with a lot of walls up. One personality, Dennis, is brutally evil and has OCD. He is also responsible for kidnapping the girls to sacrifice to "The Beast". Others make appearances throughout the film and some are entirely stable, some are diabetic, some are women, and some are even young children. He is a man that is thoroughly fractured and, unfortunately, the bad personalities are gained the "light" and preventing Kevin himself and the more adjusted personalities from being active. It is in this playground of personalities that Shyamalan truly as fun, as he creates great mystery as to who is actually in control of Kevin's body and what they may be capable of doing. While often quite scary, Shyamalan saves it at the end from being a film that demonizes the mentally ill. Upon saying Kevin's real name, Casey gets to interact with the real Kevin. Trapped in September 2014 within his own body, Kevin begs her to kill him before he loses control again. Tragic, heart wrenching, and entirely moving, this sequence shows that while Shyamalan finds fear in the illness suffered by the mentally ill, he does not demonize the mentally ill themselves. Rather, he paints Kevin as a sympathetic figure who desperately needs help and is trapped just like the girls kidnapped by Dennis.

The sympathetic portrayal continues in the explanation of Kevin's past. These personalities were created by his mind to help cope with the mental and physical abuse undertaken by Kevin's mother. In one terrifying scene, we get a point of view shot of Kevin hiding under the bed as his screaming and irate mother calls out his full name and closes in with a weapon to harm him. However, just as the calm and docile personalities are byproducts of Kevin's coping, the evil ones - Dennis, Patricia, and "the beast" - are all byproducts as well. Recognizing weakness, the mind has created these darker personalities out of pain. "The Beast", for example, originates from a train because his father left on a train and never returned. As such, all 23 personalities are coping mechanisms and methods by which the mind tries to protect Kevin from further mental strain and hardship. It is via this reveal that Split takes on a very depressing tone as though we see the damage he can cause when "fully evolved", it comes from a place of pain and agony. Though he must be stopped, it is hard not to shed a tear over the agony he still endures while trapped inside his own body and buried beneath coping mechanisms.

However, this portrayal does explain his approach to the girls. Claire and Marcia are the true targets. Having stalked them for weeks, he had decided upon them because they were impure and perfect for the Beast to consume. They were impure because they had never suffered pain. In his messed up post-traumatic state, Kevin's personalities have reasoned that to reach purity, one must suffer. Thus, he does not kill Casey since she bears the scars of either self-harm or her Uncle raping her to this very day. Thus, to "the Beast", she is pure and not worthy of being consumed. It is an interesting psychological twist here, as many would presume the opposite. Untouched and unharmed = pure, but for Kevin the opposite is true, which is merely an interesting touch by Shyamalan that demonstrates the way in which his mind has been altered in order to protect itself. Naturally, people wish to view themselves as pure. Thus, as part of his coping, he has begun to view those stereotypically viewed as impure, which would include himself, as pure and a higher being. He has tricked himself into accepting and embracing his own personality disorder.

The film could also be described by some as a demonic possession film. Ask many Christians and they will claim that some who suffer from mental illness are simply possessed by a demon. While I am unqualified to say whether or not this is true, Split could be interpreted as being a demonic possession film. With Kevin referring to the forthcoming 24th personality as "the Beast" and the collective of Patricia, Dennis, and "the Beast" being referred to as "the Horde" by the other personalities, it instills images of Satan and the Four Horseman. Essentially, it is his own judgment day in the film as he determines who has suffered enough to be spared and whose souls must be consumed for their impurity. These personalities have, via some demonic force, consumed his body and mind in order to execute the end of the world scenario via Revelations. First, the Horde arrives and begins to capture up those that will be killed and get the ball rolling with the end of the world. Finally, "the Beast" arrives and finally delivers the eternal punishment to be experienced by those with impure souls. Unfortunately for Claire and Marcia, they meet this standard and are made to suffer for their supposed impurity.

Furthermore, the film often parallels both Yvonne Tasker's theory on masculinity and Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema. First, in regards to Tasker, she argued that in action films, the male body was spectacle. Citing films such as Rambo or Die Hard, the male body is subject to torture and pain, which allow the man to cope and deal with his anxieties and weaknesses. His large muscles are merely to compensate for the purported inadequacies of himself. This is all very much the case in Split. As previously mentioned, the personalities arose out of pain. Once Kevin turns into "the Beast", repeated shots of Kevin's shirtless torso, muscles, and physical transformation into a ripped and toned man are scattered throughout the late second and third acts. Here, Shyamalan turns the male body into spectacle, just as defined by Tasker. The transformation of his body between personalities takes on a similar connotation with his muscles bulging and his arms twisting as his body chemistry is rapidly altered. Here, his body is tortured similarly to his mind. He is also shot by Casey and bleeds, further indicating the torture his body suffers. All of this torture can be seen as merely a physical representation of the very turmoil going on inside of his mind and, as such, his toned physique suffers as a result of his own mental torture. Additionally, Tasker also argued that the male action star was often on his own and against the system. Here, Kevin is very much against the system, not just legally, but within his own body. Kevin is trapped in his own mind and at the whim of his various identities. When the real Kevin reveals himself, he is shocked to learn of what has happened and is mournful, depressed, and sorrowful towards Casey. This reveals not only the sympathy his character should garner, but how he is even against his own body and mind. While his body's actions make him a man opposed by the system, Kevin himself is also an identity being beaten down, controlled, and opposed by the system of his body. Though Split is not an action film and Tasker's theory was in regards to male action heroes, Kevin does fit into the same image of masculinity defined by Tasker throughout.

Similarly, it would be a film that could have very well been written about by Laura Mulvey. Here, the three girls are captured from their father by a man. The girls are being punished and held down by the patriarchy and exist solely for men to be able to use them as they please. References are made to Dennis making girls dance naked for him, but he does not touch these girls aside from making Marcia dance with him. That said, they are still being used to feed "the Beast". Helpless damsels in distress, the women are being held captive by a man and are unable to free themselves. Claire and Marcia both die at the mouth of "the Beast". Casey manages to escape, but not because of her own actions. "The Beast" merely gives up on eating her since she is pure and then a zoo employee finds her in a cage. She is confined like an animal and is akin to the animals in the zoo here, further distancing her from equality and further objectifying her character. Ultimately, the women cannot rescue themselves and must rely on the mercy and assistance of men, even when it is men who have put them in the situation they are. The parallels continue with Casey only getting a gun at the end because Kevin, in an attempt to have his body killed, tells her where the gun is, in order for her to kill him. Casey is also taught all she knows about hunting by her father and is raped by her guardian and Uncle. In this film, women are constantly punished for merely being women and it certainly would have come under scrutiny by Mulvey, as there is no reason for women to be captured by Dennis. Instead, they are preyed upon due to their perceived weakness and the film, as a result, is a cinematic representation of the suffering endured by women in modern society at the hands of the patriarchy.

The women in Split are often objectified as well, further embodying Mulvey's theories on how women are portrayed in film. The girls here all represent to-be-looked-at-ness and are sexualized at every turn. The three girls are often forced to change their clothes because they got dirty, but the film stops this after a certain point. Instead, Claire is left in nothing but a bra and pants for the rest of the film. Marcia is left nothing but a crop top and panties. Casey is left with a see through and low cut shirt with many shots in the film emphasizing her cleavage. During the battle with "the Beast", our final girl has her shirt ripped, forcing her to tear it off and leave just a sort of bra to cover her up. Via these methods, the film embodies the male gaze and subconsciously aims to provide stimulation to male viewers via this scopophiia of its female stars. Given their situation in the film, this sexualization is often quite problematic as the girls are captives of a man. Yet, they are really captives of a camera that seeks to wring out every drop of sexuality from its stars.

Cinematically, Split also emphasizes how much Shyamalan has changed. In many ways, the camera here feels very similar to that in The Visit. It is very modern, but relies heavily upon the Kuleshov effect. Every scene has a reaction shot it seems with Shyamalan's camera constantly cutting from something crazy being done by Kevin and the stunned reactions of the girls. This becomes quite repetitive and predictable, but even worse, it becomes comical. While a thriller, many reaction shots garnered laughs from the audience and served to kill the mood and atmosphere conjured up by Shyamalan throughout the film. While the Kuleshov effect can be effective at times, it is heavily overused in the film and becomes far too relied upon by Shyamalan. On a similar note, James McAvoy dances to music and hypes up his love of Kanye West. Viewed in conjunction with the horrible rapping scene in The Visit, is Shyamalan trying to create a common awkward white person love of rap in all of his films now?

Acting-wise, the film is spectacular. Anya Taylor-Joy continues her hot streak after last year's The Witch and picks a strong role to continue her early career. The "final girl" of this psychological thriller, Taylor-Joy is emotionally reserved, raw, smart, and powerful throughout the film. While the camera sexualizes her, the writing shows her to one of the strongest characters in the film with how she copes with the constant torture and pain in her life. Somehow, she keeps getting up and takes the punches thrown her way. If that is not bravery, nothing truly is bravery. However, she is certainly upstaged by James McAvoy. And here I thought that Atonement would stand as the best performance of his career. While brilliant in that film, he is other worldly in Split. Playing 23-24 distinct identities, he masters each intricacy of the person. From the walk and speech of nine-year old Hedwig to the feminine turns and walks of Patricia, McAvoy is brilliant in every way. To the untrained eye, he is brilliant. When examining the subtle intricacies of his performance, he is similarly tremendous. This may seem like a classic gimmick performance, but that does not mean McAvoy does not fire on all cylinders. Each identity has a life all its own thanks to McAvoy and the way he brings each to life and make it appear wholly its own, even if it is in the same body.

Envisioned as a sequel to Unbreakable, the film tacks on a reference to Mr. Glass and brings back Bruce Willis' character in a cameo at the end. Honestly, this feels a little ineffective. The film as a sequel to Unbreakable does make sense as "the Beast" is essentially a supervillain to counter the superhero element present in Unbreakable. A theoretical sequel would likely bring the two together. That said, the way in which Willis is tacked on as a sublte nod to those who watched Unbreakable feels a bit too much and the film would have been better served adding that on a mid or post-credits scene to connect the film to Unbreakable. As it stands, as the final sequence in the film, the dialogue is clunky and does not help to improve this film at all.

Thrilling, atmospheric, and more, Split represents a return to form for Shyamalan. That said, heavy reliance on the Kuleshov effect turns comical and the portrayal of women and mental illness may be too problematic for some to look past. Fortunately, for those willing to look past those issues, the film has a lot to chew on and features, likely, a career-defining performance for star James McAvoy who will have to really turn in a powerhouse performance to top this role. Honestly, his turn as Kevin may rank among the best of the century. It is nice to have Shyamalan back directing good films again.



8/10 - A mishmash of various influences, most predominantly Phantom of the Opera, Brian De Palma's Phantom of the Paradise is exactly what one would expect from a De Palma horror comedy musical. It is insane. It is violent. It is Hitchcockian. It has split-screens. It has women in peril. It has obsession. This film is often insane, but does have great music and is thoroughly thrilling, while De Palma finds comedy in the insane exuberance of the show and Swan's (Paul Williams) vanity and quest for youth and power. With many of De Palma's usual traits, this tale of a songwriter who has his work stolen, is disfigured, and begins to sabotage the resultant musical is a classic all the same and De Palma's stylistic infusion only improves the foundation. A great horror comedy musical, the film is a lot of fun to watch unfold, but even more fun to analyze and pick out De Palma's touch on the film.

Firstly, the camera work is very De Palma, in particular the split-screens. There are a few here, none truly notable though. Instead, the major contribution in this arena is when Winslow/The Phantom (William Finley) views the tape of Swan selling his soul and then getting Phoenix (Jessica Harper) to do the same years later. Viewing this all on security footage, there are multiple screens. One shows Winslow himself, another the ongoing show, and another shows an assassin hired to kill Phoenix. As with all other times where De Palma shows the tension in this fashion (films such as Sisters or Passion), this sequence is incredibly tense. Will Winslow find the assassin in time or will his beloved Phoenix die because of her bond to Swan? The mystery as to where the assassin is and the tension with him closing in on pulling the trigger is fantastic, especially when De Palma uses a point of view iris to put us right inside the assassin's field of view as he focuses in his gun on Phoenix's head. The use of iris once again feels reminiscent to a particularly hypnotic usage of it in De Palma's Sisters, which came out one year prior to this work.

De Palma also shows off the Hitchcock influence in his work with a recreation of the Psycho shower scene as The Phantom closes in on Beef (Gerrit Graham), a terrible singer tasked with performing Winslow's cantata. Furious that such a bad singer would perform the role of Faust and steal the show away from Phoenix, he attacks Beef while in the shower with a knife. He does not kill him then, but certainly puts fear into his heart. This obsession is what drove him to kill and is akin to the obsession portrayed in Psycho in regards to Norman Bates and his relationship with his mother. For Winslow, nobody else can have Phoenix, even if he barely knows her. Those who harm her or prevent her from reaching stardom must be executed. His obsession continues through a use of split-screen as Winslow watches through a glass window as Swan and Phoenix become more intimate. Clearly featuring Hitchcock's trademark voyeurism in this sequence, more akin that found in Rear Window or De Palma's Body Double or Femme Fatale, Winslow keeps an eye on the proceedings through the window. But, Swan sees him and turns on a security camera to capture his actions. The resultant split-screen is a menacing twist on the voyeurism often deployed in his work.

De Palma's touch also comes via the obsession and Winslow's inherent need to protect Phoenix. His films often portray women in peril and these sequences often feel filled with fear for the dangers that face women in the world. Phoenix is exploited and the other female singers are objectified and forced to have sex with Swan to get a part in the show. They are used and tossed out. While De Palma is often criticized as a sexist, just as Hitchcock is and was, this is not done to sexualize the women. Instead, it is done to demonize men such as Swan who take the beauty of women and opt to pervert and destroy it for their own personal gain. It is a very paternal and forlorn take on objectification of women feels incredibly depressing in that fashion. While it is distressing due to the controlling and obsessed feeling it instills, I would hardly say it comes from malicious intent. Rather, it is concern and a warning about what the true and ugly face of show business truly is and could present for women that do not know any better.

Thematically, Phantom of the Paradise touches on a variety of topics. Of course, artistic integrity is at the forefront as Winslow fears his work being distorted by the hands of big business. Big business takes the bait and distorts his work, shutting out Winslow and forcing him to sell his soul to even write any of the work and get credit for that work. He is systematically controlled and silenced and, as such, the film feels as though it is a critique of the studio system and the way in which artists slave to create great art, but it is then misconstrued and distorted by those who do not understand that work and what makes it great. On a similar line of critique, the film often functions as a social critique of rock. With bands such as the Jelly Fruits shown as being unartistic hacks, Beef being celebrated, and dumb young rock fans celebrating his death and violent dismemberment of stage props, rock fans are shown as very animalistic morons. Though this is a rock musical, there is a clear contempt and admonishment placed towards the fans of the genre and the way they conduct themselves at shows. The crowd is raucous and frequently storm the stage, even when people are killed. Instead of assisting them in their time of need, the stupid fans just hoist up their bleeding corpse and celebrate them as the party rages on.

The film also takes on a heavy religious slant as Swan sells his soul and then convinces Winslow and Phoenix to also sell their soul. The parallel between Swan and Winslow's rock cantata on Faust, a man who sold his soul, is clear. Yet, the most interesting touch is the very end. Having had Winslow rewrite the musical, the ending is changed from Faust burning in hell to a wedding between Swan and Phoenix. Though Swan knows what his true fate is and that he cannot go back on his deal with the devil, he still wishes to escape this fate, while remaining young forever. This rewrite is quite clear in that matter as it shows his underlying desire to escape his deal and become a normal person again. Unfortunately, he is so vain, that is impossible as he could never sacrifice his beauty, even if it is for his soul.

A very well-written musical, Phantom of the Paradise balances very good music with De Palma's traits and some classic De Palma thematic explorations. Fun, comedic, musical, and horrifying, Phantom of the Paradise is a very good film that finds beauty in its absurdity and comedy in its over-the-top nature.



8/10 - Lolita suffers from the censorship that forces director Stanley Kubrick to side-step the nastiness inherent in the story of Lolita. For that reason, it would have been compelling for him to have made that 1997 remake instead of Adrian Lyne, even if Lyne is a great match for the perversion and scandal of the plot. That said, the greatest achievement of Lolita is Kubrick's ability to bury the lede. Whispering, double talk, creepy characters, and body language, are used as cues to the sexual relationship between Humbert (James Mason) and his underage stepdaughter Lolita (Sue Lyon). It is these subtleties that allow the film to rise above its perverse plot. I have not seen the more modern adaptation, but it seems that it was incredibly controversial and deemed indecent by many because of the relationship. This film was as well, of course, but that was in 1962. In 2017, the film seems relatively tame with sex only hinted. Thus, it allows the audience to look past the taboo and instead assess and absorb the characters on display in the film.

With strong lead performances from James Mason and Sue Lyon, Lolita is a story that rapidly accelerates to being one about obsession. Humbert, though just Lolita's stepfather and initially just a friend, is obsessed with her. He wishes to control her every move and restrict her from seeing anybody, even when her mother is still alive. Clearly infatuated with this young girl, Humbert is incapable of functioning without her and seeks to destroy her independence. While the sex is always implied, it is clear that he is suffocating her and that she is desperate to find a lover besides her stepfather. This is largely because she is a free-spirited young girl who wishes to experience life. She wants to experience life, but feels trapped the obsessive pedophile that lives vicariously through her youthful energy.

As with all Kubrick films, there is a heavy reliance upon the bathroom. Humbert escapes into the bathroom where he writers derogatory comments about his wife. Upon reading them, she is distressed and gets hit by a car and killed. While being consoled, he is the bathtub and surrounded by friends. Earlier in the film, he contemplates killing his wife while she is in the bathtub. As with all his films, these are important scenes that reveal the nature of the characters and drive the plot in the direction it spirals towards. More than anything, it confirms Humbert's lack of passion towards his wife and lack of feeling for her. He seems broken up, but he seems to want little to do with dealing with her estate, rather his concern for his future with Lolita. The very writings that disparage his wife also reveal his love and obsession with Lolita and his apathy towards the death of his wife reveal his true emotional state at the time.

The film also has some fun little tidbits along the way that provide great comedy within the black comedy genre. My personal favorite along these lines was the summer camp attended by Lolita, which is entitled "Camp Climax". With the subtle sexuality of the film, this seems overt, but somehow got past the censors. Other little bits, such as Peter Sellers as a German psychologist to help get closer to Lolita, who is equally obsessed with, is hilarious. It feels like a precursor to Dr. Strangelove in these sequence and is terrific fun to watch unfold. It is impeccable that Kubrick found comedy in this perverse subject matter, but he certainly did and the film is littered with decently funny lines and situations that have no business being that funny.

Overall, Lolita is a great film that may not be one of Kubrick's best, but it is hard to top his very best. It could be a bit overlong, but I enjoyed every second of this twisted little black comedy about perversion, obsession, and some 1960s gender roles ("go do it like a good little wife").



8/10 - Honestly, three-quarters into this movie, I had conceded that this one may just be a solid misfire from Alfred Hitchcock. It had suspense, but seemed to be taking too long to get to the point. Yes, Johnnie (Cary Grant) was creepy and a liar, but I needed a pay-off. My mind began to wander and it seemed like I had finally found a Hitchcock film that had missed the mark. However, even in this mixed state of mind, the film was admittedly incredibly suspenseful and filled with tension as you began to wonder, along with Lina (Joan Fontaine), if her husband Johnnie was really a dastardly murderer. What won me over was the third act. It is brilliant. Visceral, edge-of-your-seat entertainment, the third act must rank among the very best final acts of a film in Hitchcock's career. That said, in hindsight, the first and second acts are also often terrific in setting up the clues to the "case" and hinting at the truth.

Deceitful and untrustworthy, Johnnie falls quickly into love with the rich Lina. Unbeknownst to Lina, Johnnie is a gambler, heavily in debt, and broke. Hitchcock immediately sets up the film to make Lina and the audience suspicious, especially after her father dies and Johnnie loses his job for stealing, but fails to tell Lina. He is no good and a thief, but is he a murderer? Lina seems unsure, but her paranoia and suspicion continue to spiral out of control. As a result, though it was lost on me initially, the audience's instincts also spike out of control. Every clue, every move, every action is draped in tension in the final act of the film. Sick from nerves, Lina is bed ridden. Johnnie bringing her milk, after learning of an undetectable and pain free poison found in every home, is filled with suspense. Hitchcock is the "master of suspense" for good reason and he shows it here in this film. As she looks at the glass after Johnnie put it down, it makes the audience want to get up and scream, "Do not touch that milk, it is poisoned!" When films make the audience feel such emotions, you can always tell just how effective its thrills and suspense are.

Cary Grant truly lives up to the billing as well, as his every move and look instills trepidation and fear. He seems like a snake and acts like one throughout the film. When he tries to convince Lina that he loves her and would never hurt her, it never feels genuine. It is almost as if he is convincing himself as well as his wife. His slimy, grimy, and despicable behavior leads to the belief that he is untrustworthy and, even worse, his lack of wealth and seedy nature easily instills the belief that he would kill Lina to get her money. As such, the film is filled with dread and suspense as we wait to see the lengths that he will go to in order to get out of the financial hole. As his wife, Joan Fontaine is terrific. She defines paranoia and fear as she quickly puts together the pieces of the puzzle that merely reinforce her mistrust of her husband. From dead friends, lies, cover-ups, theft, and more, her evidence is piling up. Fontaine perfectly captures this petrified wife character who solemnly realizes that she does not know her husband as well as she thought, as she has no idea if he could kill her.

The terrific final act is truly the cherry on top of this film, however. While the first and second acts are a mix of portions that do not work and Hitchcock firing on all cylinders, the final act truly saves it all. As they drive on an open road by a cliff, the tension and suspense of the moment is honestly overwhelming and leaves you clutching the seat to see what will happen next. It is here where the film's billing as a psychological thriller really pays off as the mental build-up in conjunction with that finale is incredible. This is a film that really messes with your mind and is honestly inconclusive. Though the ending seems to paint one picture, an argument for the exact opposite could be equally true. Johnnie is not a man who is easy to pin down, so his true nature is eternally elusive, so whether he is capable of truly killing or not.

Laced with tension and suspense, Suspicion is a tremendous earlier work in Hitchcock's filmography. While its first and second act are not as effective in the moment, they become great thanks to a phenomenal finale that leaves you guessing. As is typical, constant references to murder and the word itself are littered throughout and it is always compelling to see how Hitchcock keeps you wondering even if it is so apparent that murder plays a key role in this story. But, for him, the build-up and the mystery is key, just as it is here in Suspicion.



5/10 - Waking up from anesthesia after giving birth, Rachel (Meryl Streep) rolls over and asks her husband Mark (Jack Nicholson), "Is that our baby?" This little line is really what drives at what makes the film not work, as I half expected Nicholson to take the baby, spike it like a football, and shout violently, "THAT WAS OUR BABY." He is simply too creepy. His eyebrow movements, tone of speaking, and everything else about his demeanor makes him far too creepy to make the romantic upswing truly work and, unfortunately, that is the best part of the film. That said, he and Streep sitting around eating pizza and singing songs with the word "baby" in them after discovering Rachel was pregnant really is the pinnacle of cinema. After the romantic upswing, the downswing of the relationship simply feels lifeless and flat in comparison.

Throughout, Nora Ephron injects authenticity, but Heartburn simply lacks that "it" touch. It is clearly an earlier written work by her, as it lacks the whip smart nature of When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless in Seattle. Heartburn has all the pieces in place, but never really knocks it out of the park. However, it does really peak in the first half hour to 45 minutes. Here, during the romantic upswing, Heartburn is irresistibly charming. Sweet, funny, and romantic, these scenes really pop. While Nicholson is a bad choice for a romantic comedy, he still does have good chemistry with Streep and scenes such as when they lie in bed as Mark tries to convince Rachel to marry him (during the wedding no less) ache with authenticity and the duo real pull it off. Unfortunately, after this period, the film begins to mirror the marriage it depicts. It becomes lifeless, flat, and lacks the compelling hook of before. In many ways, it feels like the film sort of just runs out of steam.

Of course, it is one of those odd situations. It does not feel like it is running out of steam throughout. It keeps showing authentic scene after authentic scene, but then it just sort of ends and gets to the point and it dawns on you that the past hour has been pretty bad. I have no idea how it happened, but director Mike Nichols simply loses focuses of the film in this portion. Scenes do not really add up to much, even if they largely work in a vacuum. This happens far too often and the second half is just amalgamation of various scenes that do not really flow or necessarily work too well with one another. This is a shame because, again, the writing is still incredibly authentic. It may lack that witty zip, which may have been a possible thread for these scenes if it were there, but never stops being achingly real and a painful look at the downswing of a marriage between an adulterer and a woman who loves him.

That said, what never wavers is the acting. Every movie should cast Meryl Streep and I still have no idea why they do not. She makes literally every movie better. As Rachel, she is a fireball of emotion and plays the scorned lover incredibly well. She disappears in the role and you often have to remind yourself that it is Streep, even if she is such a recognizable face. Nicholson is, again, an odd choice for the film. He hits some good romantic and comedic notes throughout, but his raspy deliver and crazy eye brows simply prevent me from buying him in a film of this sort. In his debut role, Kevin Spacey appears as a guy on a subway that robs Rachel and her self-help group. He is hysterical in this short role, so thank God he blew up within the next decade.

Lacking the comedic punch of Nora Ephron's best written work, Heartburn has a great turn from Streep and legendary comedy director Mike Nichols to its credit, but never works as it should. The first half hour or so is great with good wit, authenticity, and drama. But, afterwards, the film just gets caught up in itself and cannot find the light again.