Diner - 1982 (dir. Barry Levinson)

Micky says....

This film is opens on Christmas night 1959 and ends on New Years Eve, which is exactly the holidays when we chose to watch it (except in 2009/10, obviously...). It has a pretty all-star cast, as you can see on the poster above, but at the time it was made these actors were all unknowns. And the acting is pretty great, which is probably a big reason why many of them went on to success.

The film is OK, more enjoyable than the recently viewed Bull Durham, but again not anything to get too excited about. A group of six 20 something guys in Baltimore hang out at a Diner a whole bunch, and one of their number is getting married on New Year's Eve - given that she passes a 'football quiz' given to her by her husband beforehand. The diner itself is awesome, and right now I have a big craving for chips with gravy, the meal of choice quite often for them. Seeing all those delicous gravy-doused chips makes you realise just how much more aware we are these days of the food we choose to eat. But I ask, why does it have to taste so good if it is so bad for you? So unfair.

There is pretty much a different plot going on for each of the characters, often focused on the ideas and anxieties associated with 'settling down', getting married or getting a steady job, though not all plots are fully resolved. Kevin Bacon's character Fenwick is at the start a bit of a cheeky roustabout, and I don't really remember much of a plot progression for him, though we see less of his antics as the film goes on. There are definitely some classic moments, such as Boogie's (Mickey Rourke) penis in a box of popcorn, and the whole idea of the football quiz that Eddie (Steve Guttenberg) forces upon his future wife and the fact that she must achieve at least 65 points for the marriage to go ahead. I got a bit lost sometimes with all the characters and their unique nuances, and I don't think many of the main characters are fully able to develop within the time available. I think the dominant character and therefore most fully rounded is Boogie, who has several interesting moments with several different women, as well as getting into trouble with a bookie, working as a hairdresser and studying to be a lawyer. None of the other characters have quite as much depth.

This is an OK to pretty good film, though perhaps not as deserving of the two page spread it has attained in '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die' as something else (most films receive only 1/2 or one full page in the book so when they get a two pager you hope it'll be a gooden!). However having now written about it, I do think it was worthwhile viewing, if only for the great diner, the swing dancing, and great performances.


Ads says...

Yo, Mickey Rourke - what happened to your face? I think I've realised why I didn't engage with this film quite as much as whoever chose to put it in '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die', and its because for me there were too many characters - although we were given glimpses into all of their lives, many of them just came off as archetypes in search of detail. Whilst the performances were uniformly good, some characters were more developed than others merely because they were given more screen time. You had the pretty boy/ladies man (Mickey Rourke), the rascally rapscallion (Kevin Bacon), the married guy who mourns his independence (Daniel Stern), the cocky young buck about to be wed - on his own terms (Steve Guttenberg in a surprisingly not shit performance), the guy who's moved away (Tim Daly) and the funny guy (Paul Riser).

Of all these characters, we only really get to know two or three particularly well. Rourke is undoubtedly the star of the film - he's the ladies man with two or three broads on the go at one time - and he's great in this, proving just how much charisma and ability he had as a young actor (before his face melted). His scenes with Ellen Barkin are fantastic - and she's great too. In fact, I think we get know her character better than a lot of the other dudes. Take Paul Riser for example - he's really just there to crack jokes. We learn nothing about him except for the splashes of intellect he displays when rattling off observational comedy bits or asking Daniel Stern for a lift by not asking him - actually he kind of just comes across as 'neurotic Jewish guy', which is a bit problematic and a waste. I also wanted more insight into Tim Daly's character - the guy who'd moved away but still had a girlfriend back home - but the other characters were all so obsessed about their own lives that he never had the opportunity to really tell us what was going on for him, so instead we get some awkward moments between him and his girlfriend talking "around" their problems and never really getting to the crux of what's going on. I guess that's meant to represent the fact that she just doesn't want a long-distance relationship anymore, but it was handled in a pretty obtuse manner that, although I get it, didn't quite work.

Having said all this, Diner certainly wasn't a bad film - there are some great performances and some good laughs to be had. The production design was interesting in that it didn't overstate the nostalgic elements of the whole "Hey there baby boomers - remember when we were young - back in the 50s!" vibe, and I guess by setting it in Baltimore you're given less iconic backdrops upon which the play up the nostalgic elements, which I actually appreciated - because it's set during the middle of winter and mostly at night it's actually quite a dark film visually. Overall though, I almost wish they'd either extended the running time to include more detail about each character, or trimmed a couple of them and focussed on a few.

Bull Durham - 1988 (dir. Ron Shelton)

Ads says...

Because I'm not really into sport I don't usually get too excited by sports movies. I think the genre can be done well (Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday is one I can think of off the top of my head), but generally sports culture bores me so I steer clear of films about it. But we were heading down to my parents place post-Christmas and wanted a few films we could watch with the family that weren't too arty or pretentious, so we thought we'd kill two birds with one stone and get some 1001 action in there. That was pretty much the reason for choosing to watch this film.

It was OK, and I mean just OK - I certainly don't think this film deserves to be listed as one of the 1001 movies you must see before you die - if you die before you see this film don't sweat it hey, cause it's really not that great. But I'll do my best at trying to describe what I did actually like about it. I guess first off would be Tim Robbins - he does a really good job of playing a naive, immature douche - he imbues the character of "Nuke" LaLoosh the cocky young pitcher with a sense of confused pathos, but at other times is really funny, and although the character is pretty much an ass, Robbins makes you like him. Also, although it is really naff and dated, the saxophone score that carries the last ten minutes of the film was pretty affecting in an 80s high-camp sort of way - there were shots of the town as Kevin Costner shuffles around listlessly, and for me - despite its dated aesthetic - it tapped into a kind of small-town nostalgia that rung true. Also, I really enjoyed Robert Wuhl as Larry, the fast-talking assistant coach - he had a great air of genuine enthusiasm both for the game and for the players on his team and he had a few great lines that he delivered with relish.

OK, here are the things I didn't like. First off I have to say that I pretty much despise Kevin Costner - he always plays the smug everyman with a tough exterior and a romantic heart beating triumphantly underneath, and I find him pretty obnoxious. His character here, "Crash" Davis is no exception, and he's got some absolutely preposterous lines that prove just how vain Costner was to consistently play smouldering, supposedly "deep" or "complex" tortured souls and think that audiences weren't catching on. The most ridiculous moment comes when Susan Sarandon's character Annie Savoy asks him what he believes in. This is what he says:

"Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

Fuck you, Kevin Costner. Which brings me to the dialogue in general. Aside from a few funny and perceptive lines, I found most of it pretty terrible. Here's a prime example, courtesy once again from Mr. Costner: "You got a gift. When you were a baby, the Gods reached down and turned your right arm into a thunderbolt. You got a Hall-of-Fame arm, but you're pissing it away." The film thinks its being profound whilst simultaneously pushing these corny lines down your throat, and it gets pretty tired after a while. Susan Sarandon was pretty good I guess, although I do get tired of her stock-in-trade wise Southern Belle with bedroom eyes , and her character Annie was a contradictory woman of culture and substance whilst also being a massive slut, which was problematic.

All up I didn't particularly enjoy Bull Durham - it offered me a few laughs but not a lot else.


Micky says...

The most memorable aspect of Bull Durham is what can only be described as 'hilarious doily sex scene', which, unfortunately it looks like you will have to watch the film to see because my google search has not produced any suitable pictures. Anyway it is near the end of the film so you could always rent it and fast foward to the end to see it if you're that keen. Accompanied by sleazy saxophone, as the supposed 'climax' of the film it is very laughable and very dated in a bad way (actually it is probably more likely the denoument but I just wanted to make a clever pun!). I don't think the scene is bad just be because it so unforgivingly 80s, because the sex scene on the train in Risky Business is pretty awesome, and I also remember the sex scene is St Elmo's Fire in the shower being good too, and they are both very 80s films. I feel a little bit mean for dissing out on Susan Sarandon's sex scene work, because surely this is when an actor is at their most vulnerable, but it's not really her fault. Production design, sound design, camerawork and direction are all to blame for the embarrasment that is this scene.

Ok, what else to say about this film? Hmmm...if you like baseball this is a good Rom Com option for you and your gal/guy. Because how many other baseball Rom Coms are there? However may I just point out something about this film. The character of Annie Savoy (Susan Sarandon) supposedly has an amazing ability for helping one Durham Bull's player to become successful by chosing him to be her boyfriend for the season. This is essentially the whole crux of the film. But almost everything we see of her 'helping' them is completely lame and not particularly effective. There are not enough strong moments for the character to demonstrate why she has this amazing ability, made worse by scenes of her instructing them how to swing a bat. It's just not convincing.

I suppose one of the messages this film is trying to get across when it's not just telling a story about trying to be a successful sportsman, is 'know when to give up'. This adds a bit of a downer element to the film as it nears its end, trying for a bit of a heartfelt ending. Enter the 'doily sex scene', and I was laughing too much too care about these characters feeling a little sorry for themselves.

I'm not convinced that this film is one of the 1001 movies I must see before I die, and since the book uses the 'sizzling sex scenes' as one of very few justifications for seeing it, I would be very surprised if Bull Durham has made it into the more recent rewrite of the book - if you have it please check and let me know! At the same time I also don't think the film deserves to disappear into relative obscurity, I'm not saying rush out and hire it now, but perhaps if you've already been wandering the eisles of your local video store for 45 minutes and Bull Durham is there for the bargain weekly price of $1, then why not give it a go! (Especially for the doily sex scene).

Days of Heaven - 1979 (dir. Terrence Malick)

Micky says...
This is a dreamy film because it has been a few days since we watched it, and I remember images from it like a dream. Golden wheat moving in the wind, close-ups of jangly-looking multi-coloured locusts, a big old estate house in the middle of miles and miles of wheat fields. When I lived in Canada (Regina, Saskatchewan to be exact), there was a popular joke that it's so flat there that you can see your dog running away for three days. The atmosphere created by this film is like that, plenty of dog-running-away room. You get a feel from this even from the image above. Four characters in the middle of miles and miles of space. (BTW, when Ads and I travelled through Canada in 2007 we overheard someone telling this joke - 15 years later the joke continues to live on!).

It is a film about love in it's many guises - but not in a stated, judgemental or assumptive way - and deliberately toys with similarities between filial and romantic love as Bill (Richard Gere) and Abby (Brooke Adams) pretend they are related, for reasons that are unclear. Especially through the character of Abby we are led to question humanity's need to define love and parcel it up into stated categories. For though she loves Bill, she is also definitely feeling something for the farmer (Sam Shepard). (I checked for his character name on IMDB because I have terrible memory for names - turns out he is just called 'The Farmer'!)

In general this is a film that just lets things happens and doesn't feel the need to force messages or meaning down it's viewers throat (or eyes/ears). The narrator Linda Manz (as Bill's younger sister Linda) mumbles through sentences that it seems Malick never intended us to actually hear. He doesn't see any need for spelling out what has happened or is happening. He assumes that it's viewer can make sense of it for themselves, and if not just to sit back and enjoy his beautiful images. The film is meandering and spacious but never dull, and in general it feels like something very unique and atmospheric.

As I am not as film literate as Ads, when he told me that this director also directed The Thin Red Line I could immediately see the similarities. If you liked that film you should see this and not be put off by the fact that Richard Gere is in it - in this he's young, says very little, and is in fact very very good (I personally don't have a problem with Richard Gere but apparently others do!). It won a bunch of awards and rightly so.


Ads says...
The seventies are often referred to as Hollywood's second golden age, when a number of emerging directors (Scorsese, Coppola etc.) were reinventing American cinema for a new audience. Terrence Malick directed two films in the seventies that easily earned him a place alongside those visionaries - Badlands from 1973, and this one.

This is one of the most visually stunning films I've ever seen. Seriously, every shot has clearly been laboured over, and there's a stylistic point and purpose to every shot - they're not just to convey what one character is saying to anonther - every shot means something in terms of mood and style. It;s one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, and I think when we were watching it Michelle got sick of me saying "Woah, that's a great shot!" From the early scenes in the slums of "Chicaga" as the characters refer to it, through their arrival on the farm with its golden fields of wheat, to the amazing sequence where a swarm of locusts invades the farm, there's something to marvel at in every shot. Another great aspect of the cinematography is the fact that I'd say around 70% of the film was shot during magic hour - that tome of day just before the sun goes down where everything looks golden and magical.

But the cinematography is not the only thing this film has going for it. It's very deliberately edited too, and each sequence has a very deliberate point. One scene for example, may incorporate several shots where no one says anything, and then right at the end of the scene someone say one line, so although that line progresses the plot, it's slotted into the film in a way that doesn't privelige the narrative, but the mood and atmosphere. The relationships between the characters is revealed in this particularly subtle manner. I was conscious of the editing during the slower stretches, but the film's stylistic elements and the performances ensured that I didn't mind that.

And the performances are all uniformly strong. Sam Shepard's great as a man torn, and though he doesn't say much, he ably conveys the complex emotions his character is going through as a farmer who had everything except someone to love, and then when he finds that it comes at a price. I also thought Richard Gere was pretty amazing too. I guess after Pretty Woman Richard Gere came to represent something a bit off-putting to a lot of people, and I must admit that I've never really admired him as an actor in anything I've seen him in, but he's really excellent in this, and I even found him a bit attractive too (*blush*). But the standout performance for me was Linda Manz. I've been a fan of hers ever since I saw her in Gummo, and although I didn't really know who she was, I thought she was great in that - raw, and tough and tender all at once. She has that magnetism here too - she seems so natural - almost as though she was in a documentary, and as Micky mentioned, her voice over is fantastic too.

I think everything that needs to be said about this film has been - there's not a lot of plot to speak of, so it's best not to reveal too much, and you can't really do the film's majestic visual style justice just by writing about it. I think this is a major piece of cinema - albeit an understated and particularly graceful one, and I would encourage everyone to see it, because it's beautiful, emotionally honest and dreamily mesmerising.

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie - 1972 (dir. Louis Bunuel)

Ads says...
I'd only ever seen one Louis Bunuel film before - his first one, which he co-wrote with Salvador Dali - Un Chien Andalou (the one where the woman gets her eyeball sliced open by a razor), which was made in 1928. 1928! And the dude was still making films in the seventies! What a trooper. So, I guess Un Chien Andalou did actually prepare me somewhat for this film. I didn't realise it, but surrealism is a structural element of all of Bunuel's films, or so I've read.

This film was OK. I didn't love it, but there were some pretty interesting situations and some quite arresting images. Once I was familiar with it I was able to fall into the dreamlike quality of the film, where you never know what to expect and scenes just kind of flow into one another when something random or slightly odd happens. It starts with two couples arriving at the home of another couple for a dinner party, only they've arrived on the wrong night and have to leave and go to a nearby restaurant. The restaurant's closed, but they go in anyway, start perusing the menu and loudly discussing what they're going to drink when they realise that the reason the place is closed is because the owner has died and his widow is mourning his corpse in the next room. I think this was the point where I realised that this film didn't adhere to standard narrative conventions and we weren't expected to be looking for meaning in the film in the same way we would ordinarily. Although over the course of the film there are all kinds of narrative digressions - unrelated stories played out, dreams related by peripheral characters, numerous sequences that just kind of laspe in and out of common sense, the whole thing is played pretty straight.

As for the film's comment on the bourgeoisie and their priveliged place within society, I didn't find it quite as scathing as I was expecting to - I guess their overly self-concerned actions, and the fact that they just kind of float through the film with all these completely random things happening to them without really getting particularly emotionally involved, was comment enough. I didn't feel as though Bunuel was roasting them, but they probably didn't need it. They almost felt like these ghosts that things happen around. I guess the fact that they're never able to actually sit down to a meal and eat is kind of a logical metaphor for their transparence.

The one thing that annoyed me about the film, and I guess it's possibly a symptom of surrealist filmmaking in general, is the fact that it kept relying on sequences being dreams as a narrative device. Once a situation had been pushed to its logical extreme, like a character dying or something completely climactic happening, another character would suddenly wake up, and it would be revelaed that what had happened in the previous sequence was a dream. Although it's arguably a necessary device for such a film, I found it a bit too convenient - "It was all a dream!"... Hmmm, yeah - OK, whatevs... Still, I found this film rewarding without being totally engaged in it.

Micky says...
I would agree that this film is a comedy, because it doesn't really fit under any other genre, but it's more absurdist humour rather than laugh-out-loud jokes. Then again I guess it depends on your sense of humour! Well I wasn't laughing out loud anyhow, but I still found this film engaging and I'm glad that I've seen it. It is a nice looking film though there is some unusual cinematography - such as a fade into a next scene by going out of focus and then coming back into focus for a new scene, and a zoom-in to someone's eyes that are kind of not doing anything. But the house where most of the action takes place, and all of the women's costumes, are just gorgeous.

Ads says I'm not allowed to talk about sleeping in this film but I really have to, because in a lot of ways this film is like a dream - random people pop into scenes (there is a real military presence in this film too, so most of these random people are soldiers), there is a repetitive image that doesn't actually get picked up as part of the narrative, and the characters themselves have dreams so there are several 'it was just a dream' moments.

I know this film is loaded with commentary on the middle class, but I can't quite put my finger on what Bunuel is trying to say - it's not immediately apparent to me. But perhaps what it is about is the lack of depth in the lives of the bourgeoisie, how important appearances are to them, how while they are continually focusing on something as petty as dinner, there is so much more going on in the world that isn't touching them. So instead of them discovering those important things for themselves, the important things come to them - interrupting their potential meals and forcing them to address something besides what's on the menu.

American Graffiti - 1973 (dir. George Lucas)

Ads says...
A supposed American classic that I had never seen, I'd kind of avoided American Graffiti in the past because I don't really enjoy period films all that much, and there just kind of seemed to be something self-satisfied about the nostalgia that films like this offer up. Although this is arguably the first film to do it, I never really appreciated the "trip down memory lane," to the pre-Vietnam, pre-Woodstock era that films like this try to offer, almost trying to convince the audience that it was a purer, sweeter, more innocent time. "Oh, we were so naieve back then - good days, good days..." It bores me. And I guess I was also wary of the fact that Ron Howard is in this film, almost playing a precursor to the Ritchie Cunningham character he played in Happy Days. With Happy Days, and other films like Porkys, Stand By Me (somewhat different but still a period nostalgia film) and a bunch of others I felt as though I'd already seen American Graffiti, and that I knew what to expect.

I was half right. Although it didn't necessarily surprise me in its tone or its plot, I did find this film entertaining in terms of the story arcs that each of its characters undertake over the course of one night. I'm also pretty fond of the late night soujourn film too, so I enjoyed the individual sub-stories of each of the characters in this film, and the random way that they all seemed to spill about, bumping into each other at times, and then detatching and going off for more of their own adventures. In a way this film reminded me structurally of a film of which I'm particularly keen, Richard Linklater's underrated (in my opinion) Suburbia, in that it's about the boredom that youths feel when they know they're on the cusp of finding themselves in the adult world, and yet they're pretty sure they don't really like what that adult world represents to them. They're simultaneously loathe of the small town that they're in, but they're also frightened to leave.

Richard Dreyfus was great in this - he's such a great actor, but I've only ever seen him play greying middle-aged men (perhaps apart from in Jaws), but here he's almost like what those greying middle-aged men are like before they get grey. I also really enjoyed Candy Clark as a party girl who sees the sweetness in the geeky guy, and Mackenzie Phillips as the adolescent girl that John Milner has to drive around with all night. Oh, and speaking of driving, watching this in an environmentally conscious era you're constantly reminded of how, once upon a time, massive gas guzzling road beasts were a sign of progress and man's domination over nature, science and industry. I imagine to younguns watching this film, it would no doubt represent a completely foreign world.

I think the element that I enjoyed most about this was its ensemble nature, the fact that although it had major characters and minor characters, everyone was kind of just there, and they all had something to do. And while I'm pretty over Hollywood's nostalgia for "an earlier, more innocent time", the film did manage, regardless of its setting, to tap into the emotional truth of youth and the desire for something new, something different, something else.

Micky says...

You are getting sleepy...very sleepy...
Well I certainly got sleepy in this film, and again not because it was boring or anything, but because I just find it a bit hard to keep my eyes open while watching a movie on a weeknight, it seems. And thus it seems I am turing into a nanna. Anyhow this is a good movie to get sleepy in because there are like five or six stories and they are not too hard to follow.

So as Ads mentions above this is a film format that we're very familiar with these days, the 'one night before we have to leave this all behind forever' scenario. The stories are interesting though, and often involve gorgeous cars and the drive-in diner. How cool is this diner! I reckon we should get one in Perth and it will be totally packed out all the time - rockabilly waiters on rollerskates could ride up to your old Holden, it'd be fab. But then again rolling up to one of those joints in your Excel or your Getz is just not quite as alluring....which is maybe why we don't have them anymore (plus it'd be quite an OH & S issue with those rollerskates). In general cars are really glamourised in this film and a lot of the plot centres around experiences in cars.

One cheesy thing about this film is at the end it explains to you what happended to each of the characters, and what happens to them is all pretty cliched. Perhaps this film started this convention (I have no idea could be totally wrong!), but it really made me notice that we don't have this in films much anymore, if at all. Basically now when the film ends, it ends. Scriptwriters don't feel the need anymore to tell you what the characters will be doing for the next twenty years of their lives. They (and we) are happy for the film to be a suspended chunk of the characters' lives.

So this film was not at all what I expected as it really is one of those coming of age stories, a teen flick really. I expected swing dancing to rock-around-the-clock, and though there was dancing, it wasn't this. They must have really tapped into the zeitgeist with this because I believe it is still in the top ten profit-making films of al time. And it was good to see it because you could really identify how this film has been a huge influence on filmmaking/scriptwriting trends ever since.

Shadows - 1959 (dir. John Cassavetes)

Micky says...

A bit of info about what we are doing. We are going to try and watch as many of the movies in this book (1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) as we can. Of course we have already seen a few of them, so we figure we'll revisit them if we actually see like 900 or something. There is no order to what we are watching, so we're just starting with what we're both interested in, and what we can rent from the video stores! And we're gonna write about it as we go.

So we watched 'Shadows' last night, well, attempted to. Of course I had trouble keeping my eyes open, so apart from the first 20 minutes and the 10 minutes after Adam said in a surprised tone: "was that the shadow of the camera?", I think for most of the film I was half asleep. I need to make a second attempt! When? is the question. It's due back at Planet on Sunday.

When I went to Planet to hire the DVD (Adam was preparing to DJ at the Velvet Lounge) I saw an old friend there who explained that his girlfriend worked there and he was waiting for her shift to end. He used to have a massive gelled-up-mountain of hair, like Astroboy but even higher. It would have been hard to maintain. I remember people often asked to touch his hair. He went by the nickname 'Turtle' back then, though I can't remember (or perhaps never knew in the first place) where this name came from. When I found 'Shadows' I took it up to the counter and was served by his girlfriend (I assumed) who had Rockabilly black plaits tied with red bows. They would make a cute couple.

For dinner Ads cooked (veggie) spaghetti bolognese and made a salad to go with it, and we also had a bit of Lindt milk chocolate. Yum.

Ads says...
I'd never seen any of John Cassavetes' films. He seemed like a filmmaker I should be across - the godfather of independent American cinema and all - so I must admit I was a little ashamed never to have dipped into his work. When we came up with the idea for this blog and were deciding where (in the 100+ years of cinema) to start, Cassaevetes came to me as someone who's work I'd always been interested in but had yet to encounter, which is kind of the point of this project.


I loved this film. It's kind of compared to and contemporised with the French New Wave, and in many ways what Cassavetes was attempting here - a frank depiction of young people, their lives and their relationships - is very much in line with what the French filmmakers of the time were doing as well. The editing is quickfire and haphazard, which makes for some completely stylised moments, whilst others are more naturalistic and have a verite realism to them. Of course its all about the performances, and (for the most part) they're so naturalistic that it's breathtaking. There are so many genuine and tender moments in this film that depict the indescribable nature of friendship and the close bond that siblings have. The three main characters Hugh, Ben and Lelia are all depicted in fantastic performances - Hugh is the older, more responsible one who has established himself and sees himself as protector of his younger siblings, Ben is a reckless, moody young guy, always at the whim of his emotions and his mates, and Lelia is on the outside a sophisticated and elegant (and extraordinarily beautiful) young woman who, underneath is really just a scared little girl. The way their individual foibles play out against the push and pull of dialogue is gorgeous, and the way race is treated not as a central plot point, but as an element of their lives with which they just have to deal is great - it doesn't push any heavy-handed themes in your face, it just shows you how these three cool cats live.


Which brings me to another point - this is just such a cool film. I mean, it's set in New York during the beat period - the constant jazz score is a vivid reminder of this setting, and although the dialogue is dated, it offers a great snapshot of the era, of just how cool hanging out in jazz bars in New York in the 50s must have been. This is a beautiful film, both for its vivid and natural enactment of its setting and for its impeccably intimate performances.

Micky says...

Yaaaayyy! So I managed to watch the whole film without falling asleep (the sleepiness isn't because of the film BTW, just me, sitting down for a while, under a cosy, warm...blanket....zzzzz...), and yes it is a very nice film. It is also 'cool' as Adam says, like when one of the brothers refer to having some 'cats' around, or the other ambles down the street in his black leather jacket and shades. The apartment and diner featured throughout is also cool. This film is a snapshot into the lives of these three siblings, and one thing Ads and I both enjoyed was the fact that the film doesn't feel the need to explain everything. I had lots of questions about this family but I also don't mind the fact that they weren't answered for me. I was free to dream away about how they can afford such a beautiful and interesting apartment when it seems that only one brother works (as a fairly unsuccessful singer), I wonder what did their parents do for a living, and where are they?

The character of Lelia is beautiful, but also a bit cheeky and rude! She is an engaging character nonetheless, and probably the most interesting of the three siblings (for me), even though her dialogue sometimes feels a bit 'rehearsed' (definitely not improvised as a note at the end of the film tries to suggest).

So I had to watch this film in three sittings - but definitely glad that I did!