FILM REVIEWS, COLLECTION UPDATES, COMMENTS ON CINEMATIC CULTURE

Monday, June 17, 2024

Notes From the Movie Room June 17, 2024

 

🎬 Imagine, if you will, the sheer horror of loading a beloved DVD into your Blu-ray player, a DVD that you've watched and enjoyed multiple times for years and discovering that it no longer plays. Imagine the sadness, the overwhelming feeling of deprivation, the near hysteria that can overtake a movie freak at such a moment. This happened to me recently when I tried to play my copy of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962), the classic Bette Davis/Joan Crawford thriller. 

The 2-disc DVD is part of the Bette Davis Collection: Volume 2 from Warner Home Video. This was the first time it refused to play. Weirdly enough, the second disc, which has the extra features, still plays with no problem. At least, for now. I keep hearing people in the Youtube physical media collectors' community talking about similar problems with Warner DVD releases. The only previous problem I had was with one of the double feature discs in one of the Film Noir box sets, where the second feature wouldn't play. I own all the Film Noir box sets and so many other Warner releases. It's been a while since I played most of these classic films, so I may have other unpleasant surprises waiting for me.


Replacing BABY JANE on a Blu-ray was a no brainer for me. One can only suffer from Davis/Crawford withdrawal for a short while until medical and/or psychological intervention becomes necessary. So, I picked up a copy from Oldies.com. All the extra features are on this release. I'm hoping this is an isolated experience that won't be repeated, but I have a sinking feeling that won't be the case. I'm not even sure how many of these classics, including all the Noirs, have been released on Blu-ray. I doubt seriously that most of the early, more obscure Bette Davis and Joan Crawford films will be remastered for Blu-ray. But that may happen eventually.



  🎬 I'm arriving very late to the party regarding the 1990-91 TV series TWIN PEAKS. I picked up this box set a few years ago, started watching it, and only made it through the first disc. It was enjoyable, but I just got distracted. So, I recently decided to start again from the beginning, and have completed the first four discs. Binging TWIN PEAKS can be an unsettling experience. But I'm enjoying its weirdness and want to see all of the mysteries get solved. I've been a David Lynch fan ever since I saw ERASERHEAD at a midnight movie in a local theater back around 1979. I even picked up the 2017 sequel when it was on sale at Barnes & Noble. This will take a while to get through, because binging, for me, can get old really fast.


This series first played thirty-four years ago, and yet I think of it as "modern" television. That's because my connection with whatever may-or-may-not be on TV has been severed for a very long time. I don't say that to sound like an elitist. It's really just a matter of practicality. I worked what's known as "second shift" most of my life. That means, usually, 3 PM-11 PM, or, for much of my working life, 3:30 PM-Midnight. This goes all the way back into the 1970s before the advent of home video. As someone who spent a lot of happy hours watching TV while growing up, probably way too many hours, I found myself cut off from the world of Prime Time. And I can't remember missing it all that much, to be honest. When the VHS era started, I was able to record occasional shows, but, still, that continuity with sitting and watching TV night after night was broken. Even on my nights off, I rarely watched anything. One major exception was SEINFELD. I discovered it one night when I had an unexpected night off and totally fell in love with that insane show, and now own the entire series. But that's about it. Even after nine years of retirement, I never even think about sitting down to watch an evening of television shows, network or otherwise. That's not to say that I haven't seen anything. But on those rare occasions when I find myself channel surfing, I haven't found much that captures my interest. I remember my dad talking about THE X-FILES, and he kept telling me I should start recording it. Eventually, I did start watching and collecting that show, after it had gone off the air. I still haven't watched many of the episodes. My evenings at home usually consist of relaxing in the movie room and watching old favorite movies from the collection or new titles, many of which are first watches. And I also watch old TV favorites that I remember from my lost youth, not to mention a lot of shows from the old days that I never got to see. For the most part, I continue to live in the cultural past, and I'm very happy to be there. But TWIN PEAKS, that "new" and much-discussed show, has entered into my radar. I am intrigued.



















Sunday, June 2, 2024

JACKIE 2016

 

Natalie Portman deserves a lot of credit, and, some would say, an Academy Award, for the hard work she put into doing an imitation of Jacqueline Kennedy during the time of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, funeral, and the immediate aftermath. Miss Portman has the hair, makeup and early 1960s Jackie-esque fashion style down pat. She even strives, with somewhat mixed results, to imitate Mrs. Kennedy's soft, breathy speaking voice. As she is in nearly every scene in the film, her acceptance by audiences is crucial. 

The film begins shortly after the death and burial of JFK with the former First Lady giving an interview in which she attempts to either tell the truth, or fabricate a version, of the events of the assassination and give a summation of her husband's legacy. Her verbal sparring with the journalist (Billy Crudup) is interspersed with her memories of what happened on November 22, 1963, and the terrible days that followed.

Like many contemporary films that deal with historical figures and events, JACKIE does not tell its story in a linear pattern. Director Pablo Larrain jumps back and forth in time, almost scene by scene, showing various events during the years of the Kennedy presidency. One event that is carefully recreated is the tour of the White House conducted in 1961 by Mrs. Kennedy for television. The grainy black & white imagery looks very authentic, and for those of us who remember seeing the actual broadcast, the effort is indeed impressive. I would take issue, however, with the way the film portrays Mrs. Kennedy as somewhat awkward and unsure of herself. That is not how I remember it, and I have a copy of the broadcast that shows her being very gracious and dignified.

The depiction of this televised tour is one example of why I have problems with this film. Many of the characterizations don't ring true for me. My memories get in the way. When JFK was killed, I was twelve years old. Like so many in my generation, the events of that terrible week are ingrained forever in my mind and in my heart. John and Jackie have become almost mythical figures to me. No actors, no matter how talented, could ever convincingly portray them and cause me to care and respond as I still do to the authentic news coverage of those days. When it comes to President Kennedy and his First Lady, I have no objectivity. The sum total of what I believe about them, and what I wish to continue to believe, is contained in the reality TV footage from that historical era.

Jacqueline Kennedy was already a celebrity in her own right while she was in the White House, appearing on the covers of magazines, including movie magazines. As the years went on, and she reinvented herself as Jackie Onassis, her fame was stronger than ever. To me, however, she became less important. It was always nice to see pictures of her and hear the latest gossip, but her relevance was minimal. But when she died so unexpectedly at the age of sixty-four, my feelings about her changed. Suddenly, it was as though Jackie O had never existed. The beautiful lady who had passed away was Jacqueline Kennedy. I remembered how important she had been to my country, and I mourned for her. The rush of sadness I felt for losing her surprised and overwhelmed me.

I went to see JACKIE hoping to be moved by the familiar story and the performance of the leading actress, but I was not. Natalie Portman spends much of her time wandering through beautiful rooms, arrayed in gorgeous clothes, a dazed look on her face. The film does have its moments, however. The recreation of the shooting is very well realized. And there is an extended conversation between Jackie and brother-in-law Robert Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard), where the two disagree about plans for the funeral, that comes across with excellent effect. 

The film has many good actors. Beth Grant, always a welcome presence in a movie, is perfectly cast as Lady Bird Johnson, but not much is seen of her. John Hurt is very good as a Catholic priest whom Jackie confides in before her husband's funeral. And Billy Crudup makes the most of his screen time as the journalist. Pablo Larrain is also responsible for directing the 2021 film SPENCER, a decidedly bizarre meditation on the life and trials of Princess Diana.

Many people who see JACKIE will no doubt find it poignant and realistic. And most people will love Natalie Portman's work. As for me, I choose to keep my memories as they are. Truth be told, I can't help it.