I usually do 5 films in a set, but this time it will be 6, just because I have 2 sets of 3 films joined together by common threads, all directed by the great Italian director Roberto Rossellini. First up is a trio of films taking place during World War II. The first is Rome, Open City (Italian: Roma città aperta), which came out in 1945 and takes place in Rome during Nazi occupation in 1944. It follows the underground resistance movement, and does an amazing job of portraying the group of men and their wives and children as all walk the precipice of a knife’s edge, in constant danger of being found and incarcerated. The leaders of the movement are constantly changing their names, getting new forged papers, and moving from house to house to stay one step ahead of the gestapo. When one leader is finally found, due to a spurned girlfriend giving him up to the Germans, he is tortured violently, but refuses to give information. A tremendously tense and realistic film, from a director known for the realism in his films.

Rossellini followed with Paisan (Italian: Paisà) in 1946, which took a neorealistic “behind the curtain” view of relations between American soldiers and Italian countryman at the end of the war. It is made up of 6 small vignettes, each written by a different writer (including famous names such as Pagliero and Fellini), with many of the actors being non-professionals, as was Rossellini’s style. The episodes include an army troop liberating a village right behind the retreating Germans; a black soldier discovering how poor the young, homeless Italians are living; a drunken soldier returning to Rome to hunt a girl he met previously but not recognizing who she’s become in his absence; a girl sneaking in to occupied Florence to find a lost love, but finding he’d been killed earlier in the day; three American chaplains finding peace in an Italian monastery; and a small American group working with Italian freedom fighters against the larger German force. The first few stories were better than the latter ones, but overall still a tremendous film that I really liked. We know Italy was on Germany’s side, but the film shows that many Italians were not in same mind with their leaders, and they often had a love/hate relationship with their American “saviors.” The film feels very real and doesn’t take sides; at various times, both Americans and Italians are painted as heroes and villains.

The weakest of the three was the last, Germany, Year Zero (Italian: Germania anno zero). It follows a German family living under the rules and rations of the allied occupation just after the war, in bombed out Berlin. Just 13 years old, Edmund is the man of the house. His father is sick and unable to work, and his older brother has refused to register for rations or work, because he is afraid of prosecution by the Americans since he fought for Germany right up to the end of the war. Edmund goes out every day to lie and cheat to scrape together money for food and necessities. Along the way he bumps up against prostitutes not much older than himself, hoodlums and ne’er-do-wells, and pedophiles, but despite everything he tries, nothing helps his family’s situation. This film is a whole lot of nothing. I think I get what Rossellini was trying to say, but it’s just not very good. Way too melodramatic for a neorealist director.

The next trio of films star acclaimed actress Ingrid Bergman. After being moved by some of Rossellini’s pictures, she wrote him a letter asking to be in his films, and so started a relationship that was a huge scandal in the USA (she gave birth to Rossellini’s son before divorcing her previous husband in 1950). (*Quick note: I watched the English language versions of these films. Stromboli and Europe ’51 were released in both English and Italian. Stromboli in particular was shot completely front to back twice, so that producer Howard Hughes could own a negative for release in the USA, and Rossellini could own a negative for release in Italy.) The first film is Stromboli, which came out in 1950. It is about a Lithuanian refugee stuck in an internment camp after the war, and her only way out is to marry an Italian and go with him to his home on the small volcanic island of Stromboli. She finds the island harsh and its inhabitants harsher. She doesn’t know the language and knows less about their customs and beliefs, and she seems unable or unwilling to acclimate. I never found attachment to Bergman’s character. As an actress, she seems out-of-sorts in this kind of film. Coming from a traditional Hollywood background where directors tell her where to stand and how to deliver lines, the neorealist Rossellini would use his scripts as only a guide, allowing his (often) non-professional actors to improvise and go-with-the-flow. You can tell by watching, this is not Bergman’s forte. Still, the camera loves her, as it always did. A fairly average film for my tastes.

Europe ’51 is much more of a traditional film than Stromboli, and it makes for a better experience. Irene Gerard is a wealthy, bourgeois American living in Rome. Though they have every physical need met, her son seems depressed and eventually kills himself. Seeking answers to what would lead him to this, Irene is influenced by her communist friend Andrea to start volunteering to help poor families in the area. This leads to Irene working, to the consternation of her husband and wealthy friends. Full of lines like, “I’m only happy when I’m working to support my fellow man” and “It’s not fair that I have everything I could need and people out there have nothing” and “We must free the exploited worker and bring an awakening,” it starts to feel like pure propaganda. However, Irene, who has all ready rebuffed her capitalist friends, rejects communism now too, and only finds personal joy in helping people for its sake alone, in an almost religious manner (the final scene in fact casts her as a saint). A good film, even if at times I felt I was watching Rossellini’s pompous ideas being spoonfed to me.

In Journey to Italy, Alex and his wife Katherine travel to Naples to sell a villa they’ve inherited from Katherine’s recently dead uncle Homer. Realizing early in the film that they no longer love each other but have stayed together all these years for convenience, they grow increasingly more spiteful to each other as the film progresses. Katherine is strong and independent, preferring to go by herself to see museums and the countryside. Alex seems to like to have someone depend on him, and begins an affair with a young woman who walks with a cane. As the film goes along though, the estranged couple start to miss each other, but whether their marriage can be saved is left up to the big reveal in the end. A very enjoyable film, and well acted by Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders in the leads.

Rocketman is the recent, highly rated biopic about the life of Elton John. It follows his rise to stardom but doesn’t shy away from his shortcomings, even if it does try to place the blame for all of them on his terrible parents. Taron Egerton is fantastic as the man himself, and will probably get an Oscar nomination for the work. He portrays Elton as a boisterous public figure with a shy and unconfident private life. The film plays out as a biography/musical, with many of his big hits making appearances, even if in just short piano form here and there. Elton John’s fans will certainly find plenty to love, but even the casual moviegoer will root for John to find success in his personal life to match that of his professional career by the end. Brilliantly acted and directed, with colorful music and scenes, it’s a great flick.

Birds of Passage is one of those deep, emotionally involved films that I’d probably really dig on another day, but for whatever reason, I couldn’t appreciate it much on this first viewing. It follows a Wayuu (Native American ethnic group) village in northern Colombia from the 60’s until the early 80’s, as they become involved in the drug trade. Rapayet initially just gets into it as a way to make money quickly to pay the dowry for a woman he wants to marry, but when Rapayet’s friends and family fall in love with the inflow of cash, greed becomes more powerful than family ties. The filmmakers used professional actors in the leads, but filled out the families with real Wayuu people and the film has a life-like, documentary kind of feel to it. This is a film I’ll probably visit again in the future, when I’m in the mood for deeper contemplation and true art as film.

Dragged Across Concrete, from writer/director S Craig Zahler (whose other credits include films I love including Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99), is a quietly intense crime thriller. Two cops (Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn) play loosely with the rules and are suspended for roughing up a suspect. To pay the bills, they hatch a plan to rob the crooks, so to speak. Following a tip, they trail a team who are obviously planning something, but no one knows what. When that something becomes a bank robbery, and one that goes south with dead bodies, the disgraced cops end up in a shoot out with the robbers, with the winners taking home the stolen gold. Like Bone Tomahawk, this is a slow burn and some of the “action” almost seems like an afterthought to the story of the film. It takes great actors to pull off a movie like that, and Gibson, Vaughn, and the others here are up to the task. I really enjoyed this one.

The Kid Who Would Be King is a modern re-telling of the classic sword in the stone tale. Alexander is a chubby, picked-on, 11 year old when he finds Excalibur buried in stone on a construction sight. He pulls it and, aided by a quirky teenager Merlin the wizard, makes knights of his classmates, to face a coming evil intent on taking over the world. The film is very well done and has humor and action a-plenty, however the story has been done a time too many and felt stale. It is geared towards kids, but I’m not even sure a younger generation would appreciate this one. Not a bad film, and I enjoyed putting the story in modern times, but overall just a little too ho-hum for me, even if the final, glorious battle is certainly exhilarating.

Finishing out this set with the Disney re-imagining of Aladdin. I went it to this one expecting what I got from the live version of Beauty and the Beast, which was I thought a good movie, but not quite as good as the cartoon that was one of my childhood favorites. I was pleasantly surprised by the new Aladdin. While it doesn’t have the spectacular Robin Williams, is still a thoroughly enjoyable film. The story is much the same, though it does have a modern twist with Jasmine not seeking a man to be her sultan, but instead wishes to go against the rules and lead as a female sultan. The sets and costumes are as colorful as their cartoon origins, the songs are equally as fun, and Will Smith as the genie brings his own style of humor which is good enough. The role of Naomi Scott in particular as Jasmine is perfect. A fun family film which, while not replacing the original, acts as a worthy companion piece.

My next read on the list was one of my mom’s favorite books of all time, Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind. I love the movie, have seen all four hours of it multiple times, but had never read the book before. The movie is wonderful, but as is so often the case, the book is even better.

If the movie is long at 4 hours, the book is longer, at over 1000 pages. It’s far too long for even an abbreviated synopsis, but basically it follows Scarlett O’Hara, the belle of Atlanta and surrounding areas, and her marriages and friends just before, during, and after the Civil War, a war which sees the the South and all of its glory destroyed. Throughout the book, we see Scarlett as a willful woman who, while not entirely bright, is still very shrewd. She knows what she wants (or at least, thinks she does) and more often that not, she gets it, sometimes through shear willpower alone.

Most of the major plot elements of the book are present in the film, sometimes with mild changes, sometimes lifted word-for-word, but the book is much more detailed overall. We can see what is going on inside Scarlett’s and Melanie’s heads (though Rhett’s is often, by design, kept a secret). Some characters in the book are omitted from the film for space’s sake, such as Will (who runs Tara in the second half and ends up marrying Suellen to save her from public outcry for her part in getting Gerald O’Hara killed, a set of events entirely changed in the film), Archie (the old, gruff convict who drives Scarlett around in Atlanta until she hires convicts at her mill), and Scarlett’s children from her first two marriages, Wade and Ella. More than anything, every action and emotion are more developed in the novel. As much life as Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable bring to Scarlett and Rhett, Mitchell’s novel allows them to evolve and grow exponentially more. And minor characters like Belle Watling, the Meades and Merriwethers, the various families around Tara, and some of the O’Hara slaves are all given more space to become real people in the book.

This novel is fantastic. Very rarely do I finish a book and immediately want to go back to page 1 and do it again. Gone With the Wind is so well written, that you cry with the characters’ hardships and cheer aloud at their good fortunes. And Mitchell writes so wonderfully that the glorious conclusion leaves us wondering if Scarlett has truly learned her lessons, has matured, or if she is still the same old Scarlett. I’ll be visiting this one again one day, and I hope that the emotions hit me as hard on the second time through as they did the first.

Up today is a set of films from one of Japan’s greatest directors, Akira Kurosawa. In fact, it is his first five films as director. First was Sanshiro Sugata, released in 1943. After opening with some title cards explaining that 1800 feet of film have been lost to time, the movie commences. It follows Sanshiro, a young man who has come to the city to learn jujitsu. After finding a good judo teacher, he advances quickly, eventually finding himself in a match to the death with a rival from another school, someone who shares an attraction with the girl Sanshiro has set his eyes on. I found the film to be a bit ponderous, but it does have some highlights including the ultimate matches in the final 20 minutes of the film. A decent enough film about enlightenment and self discovery.

The Most Beautiful follows women factory workers who are under pressure to increase production during World War II. Made in 1944, it skirts the edge of propaganda but still creates a heart warming tale. The woman make lenses for rifles and whatnot, and when told the men will be increasing production 100%, they volunteer to go up 66% to do their part. However, they almost immediately begin to struggle to meat those lofty goals. Some get sick but continue to work, others are legitimately hurt and sent home, increasing the strain on the remaining girls. The underlying subtext throughout is love of country and the desire to do your part in the war. A nice, quiet film.

If The Most Beautiful was a step forward for Kurosawa, Sanshiro Sugata Part Two is a step back. A sequel to his first film, this one is really just over-the-top war propaganda, with the thinnest of plots, and really goes nowhere fast. Set two years after the first film and released in 1945, Sanshiro is an established judo expert and feared among his detractors. He holds on to his honor though, defending fellow Japanese citizens when they are targeted by Americans, and refusing to engage in American boxing matches for sport or money. When he is challenged to a duel by the brothers of his defeated rival from the first film, Sanshiro must decide if he will set aside his honor for personal glory or stay to the path his teacher has laid out for him. Unfortunately not a very good film, it just bounces around too much and nothing of import ever really develops.

The Men Who Tread on the Tiger’s Tail is a short film, less than an hour, and nearly entirely dialogue driven. It follows the deposed leader of a powerful shogun family in 12th century Japan, who is on the run from his power-hungry brother. Backed by only 6 loyal samurai, they are heading cross country to cross the border into safer lands. They are disguised as monks and are being guided by a single porter, who at first does not know their true identities, and who also provides the comic relief for the viewer. I thought it was OK, nothing special, but not a bad way to spend an hour. It has most been ignored, even by Kurosawa fans, but it isn’t terrible. There are some tense moments when the group needs to cross a check point at the border, but there really aren’t any surprises. The film was banned by Japan’s film governing body when it was finished, who disapproved of such a comic figure as the porter in a film depicting a famous incident in Japan’s history, thinking it made light of the event. Because they failed to recognize it, the occupying American forces thought it was an illegal production and banned it, but it was ultimately released years later, in 1952.

No Regrets for Our Youth was the first film Kurosawa made after the end of World War II, and in my eyes, his first great film, though it doesn’t get the attention of his later movies. A film about a trio of young people dealing with the effects of increasing fascism in Japan heading up to the war, the central figure is Yuki, the attractive daughter of a professor in Kyoto. Yuki has two suitors: Itokawa, a level headed young man and Noge, a far leftist who opposes the military buildup. Yuki seems unable to choose between the two before the government clamps down on socialist views, and when the film fast forwards five years, Itokawa has become a public prosecutor and Noge has spent four years in jail for his beliefs. Finally able to decide what she wants, Yuki goes to Tokyo to be with Noge, but it isn’t long until he is arrested again, and ultimately he dies in jail. Yuki goes to his surviving parents, who are poor rice farmers, to try to convince them that their son was a good man, putting the lessons Noge taught of hard work and eternal belief in a cause to good use. A powerful and emotional film, it clearly shows Kurosawa’s views of a country reeling from the effects of what was, in his mind, a terrible, ill-guided, and ill-fated war.

It Happened One Night, considered one of the greatest romantic comedies of all time, came out in 1934. Starring a young Clark Gable and the arresting Claudette Colbert, it is about a young rich girl, Ellie, who has recently eloped with a pilot only interested in her for her money. Ellen’s father wants the marriage annulled and is keeping her captive on his yacht, but she escapes and attempts to flee to her husband in New York. On the bus ride there, she crosses paths with a down-on-his-luck reporter named Peter. Peter sees an opportunity to write a story about Ellie’s road adventures to New York and agrees to get her there, but of course fate has the two fall in love along the way. Delightful and funny, this film has it all. One of the last pre-code films, it has some great lines that would disappear from Hollywood for a couple decades, such as, “Remember me? I’m the fellow you slept on last night,” as well as salacious scenes of Gable and Colbert undressing in the same room (albeit with a screen separating the unmarried couple). This film was the first (and one of only 3 to date) to sweep the “Big 5” Oscars: picture, director, screenplay, actress, and actor, Gable’s only best actor win despite his illustrious career.

My Man Godfrey is a comedy featuring an ensemble cast including William Powell as the eponymous Godfrey. He is homeless and living in the dump by the river when he is scooped up by a rich family and brought home to be their butler. Here, we see the rich socialites are bananas, and Godfrey is submitted to a crazy household where the characters act unbelievably crazy and no one calls them out on it due to their wealth. It isn’t long before the youngest daughter falls in love with him, and we learn that Godfrey is keeping a secret about his past. The film is laugh-out-loud funny and serves as a biting criticism on the gap between the wealth classes in 1936 (and today). The acting and dialogue are better than the film as a whole, but still very enjoyable.

“The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain.” Yes, that’s a famous line from the musical My Fair Lady, but it originates from the film Pygmalion, itself based on a play by George Bernard Shaw. Released in 1938, it stars Leslie Howard (a year before his famous turn as Ashley Wilkes in Gone With the Wind) as a speech instructor who takes a common girl (Wendy Hiller) under his wing, betting his friend that he can turn her into a lady in time to fool the dignitaries at an embassy ball in 6 months. Howard is perfect as the smart but uncaring gentlemen (he received his second Oscar nomination for the role) and Hiller (also nominated) is equal to him on screen; together they are fantastic. Extremely entertaining and funny movie. Howard also co-directed (along with the great Anthony Asquith) and the film was edited by future master director David Lean.

Young Mr Lincoln, directed by John Ford in 1939, stars Henry Fonda as honest Abe. Directed by one of the great directors about a great American portrayed by a great actor, I was ready for a tremendous film and was not let down. (Very) loosely based on a trial in Springfield, IL, two young men are accused of murder and Lincoln is their lawyer, arguing in their defense. Lincoln combines his “aw shucks” personality with a smart, almost manipulative guile to get what he wants through the trial and life. In the film, his political adversary, Stephen Douglas, hints that Lincoln keeps his cards close to his chest, and that most definitely seems true. Still, there is no outward showing of Abe being anything more than honest, forthcoming, and caring to his fellow man. The film is fantastic. Ford’s scenes play out powerfully with seemingly no movement or pause in speech not carefully considered, and Fonda’s portrayal of a man on a course with destiny is sublime. Fonda’s Lincoln oozes charisma and commands the room when he walks in, and it is easy to think this was much the way Lincoln moved and spoke.

Only Angels Have Wings is a fantastic old film directed by Howard Hawks. It is about a group of pilots working for a mail service in South America and the perils they face flying through the mountains in harsh conditions. Their leader is Jeff Carter (the dashing Cary Grant), who never asks his men to make flights when the conditions are at their worst, instead taking those risks himself. Bonnie (Jean Arthur) arrives and instantly is smitten by Jeff, but he can’t get attached to women due to a bad past relationship. The other pilots on the team are Jeff’s friends, including his best friend “Kid” Dabb (Thomas Mitchell, famous as Gerald O’Hara in Gone With the Wind and Uncle Billy in It’s a Wonderful Life). Kid is a great, but aging pilot who seems to like everyone except one man, a pilot who once bailed out of plane in harsh weather leaving his copilot to due, the copilot being Kid’s little brother. When that cowardly pilot shows up in Jeff’s team, with Jeff’s former girl on his arm no less (Rita Hayworth in her breakout role), everyone has to put their animosity aside to get the job done. A very emotional film that has it all: love, heartache, and triumph. The camera work of the little 2 seater planes flying through the mountains is harrowing today, much less in 1939 when the film came out.

It’s funny, I don’t like pets, but I do like animals. As such, I always seem to enjoy the Disneynature films, and the latest, Penguins is no exception. Narrated by Ed Helms and showing a year in the life of an Adélie penguin named Steve, it is a touching film with tremendous cinematography showing the deadly, but beautiful, Antarctica landscape. Steve is 5 years old and will be taking his first mate. Steve is always late everywhere he goes: he’s late to the mating area, late to preparing a nest, late to finding a girl, and later, late to start catching fish to feed the growing family. It is a cute and endearing film, and it always amazes me the instinct animals have to survive in such a harsh environment. Steve and his fellow penguins travel hundreds of miles to know how to be in the right place at the right time to survive, and while Steve and his “wife” split up at the end of the summer to go off to northern waters for warmth, they know to come back to the exact same spot the next season, since they mate for life. Fun little film.

Having just read Native Son, I had the chance to watch the recent HBO film based on it. It brings Bigger Thomas into modern times, and while I enjoyed some aspects more than the book, but overall still not a great story for me. Whereas in the book, Bigger kills Mary, the daughter of his wealthy boss, on the first night of his job, in this film, the spend days or weeks hanging out and getting to know each other. The film does a better job of showing how completely out of touch from reality the rich Mary is, asking Bigger where he “summers,” and making racist comments like, “I always think about what black people think about that subject.” However, the film takes away Bigger’s complete mistrust and animosity towards white people in general, and once the murder goes down (less than halfway through the book but much closer to the end of the movie), it wraps it up pretty quickly. Great acting by Ashton Sanders (from the acclaimed Moonlight a few years ago) but not a tremendously powerful film, despite all efforts.

Becoming Astrid is a Swedish-Danish film about the early life of Astrid Lindgren, the famous author of many children’s books, including Pippi Longstocking. Astrid is raised on a potato farm in Sweden and excels in making up stories to amuse her siblings and friends. As a 16 year old girl, she gets a job as an intern to the editor of a local paper, and it isn’t long before she begins a love affair with the much older man. When his divorce is slow in coming and Astrid ends up pregnant, she flees to Stockholm to give birth, so as to not bring shame on her family, and later sends her baby to a foster mother in Copenhagen. What was supposed to be just a few months turns into years of waiting on her man to be free, and Astrid longs to reunite with her child. Unfortunately sort of a bland film, though Alba August is incredible as Astrid. The story just isn’t all that engaging, and her story-telling, the thing she is most famous for, is barely discussed. I will try to keep an eye out for August in future films though, very great work from her. And I learned from good old wikipedia that she is the daughter of none other than Pernilla August, a Swedish actress who worked with Ingmar Bergman in his later career (including in Fanny & Alexander), and was famously Shmi Skywalker in those Star Wars films.

The Happy Prince is one of those films where a great story, fantastic acting, and outstanding sets and costumes all add up to a fairly average movies. I’m not sure I can put my finger on why it doesn’t all come together, but it just never hit its stride. The film is a biography about the last years of Oscar Wilde, after he’s been convicted of homosexuality and served his time in jail, and he’s now living destitute in France. Wilde spends his time remembering better times when he was the toast of London, and struggling with his current situation and failing health. He has quarrels with his lovers, longs to reunite with his estranged wife, and hides from the ridiculing young English men who only know him because of his crimes. It sounds much more interesting that it is, I only wish I could say why. Sometimes greatness just doesn’t happen even when all the elements are there.

The Mule is an entertaining film, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood, about an old man who has lost his business and home and becomes a drug mule to earn it all back. He spent his life working as a florist, ignoring his family and their needs along the way, but the internet has now shut him down. Approaching 90 years old, he brags that he has never even gotten a speeding ticket, which, coupled with his old age, makes him the perfect, unsuspecting drug runner. The DEA, lead by Bradley Cooper, is on the case and trying to find this mystery driver bringing hundreds of kilos of cocaine into Chicago, but because Eastwood doesn’t follow a regular path, makes frequent stops to visit friends, helps stranded motorists, and stops to get his favorite sandwich from a roadside shack in the middle of nowhere, the cops are unable to pin him down, even with an informant inside the organization feeding them information. Very funny film, with most of the humor involving Eastwood’s age (he gets a burner cell phone on each trip with directions, but doesn’t even know how to text), but also a lesson in paying attention to the important things in life before they are gone.

Richard Wright’s Native Son is a book, published in 1940, dealing with the lack of power of African-Americans in our country, even over their own lives. Bigger Thomas is a young man who has no control over his life or his circumstances. He and his 2 siblings (younger brother and sister) and their mom all live in a single room apartment on the south side of Chicago, the area where most of the black people are allowed to live. With blocks full of crumbling, dilapidated apartment buildings, not in much better condition than the empty condemned ones they sit next to, the residents live off the scraps that the wealthy white class give them. Bigger is given an opportunity for change when he is hired as a chauffeur for the Dalton family, a family who has given millions in support of programs to help black people in the city. However, Bigger doesn’t like this situation any better than his previous one.

Whereas Mr Dalton thinks he is helping Bigger, and his daughter Mary and her boyfriend Jan (a communist who advocates for labor changes and the advancement of all races) seem to treat Bigger more equally than he is used to from other whites, he still despises them all, for a reason that he himself cannot put a finger on. On his second day of work, he brings a drunk Mary home, carries her up to her bedroom, and when her blind mother pokes her head in the room, Bigger suffocates Mary to keep her silent, for fear of being caught in the room with her. When the mother leaves, he carries Mary down to the furnace, cuts her head off to get her to fit, and shoves her in. Bigger hatches a plan to blame her disappearance on Jan, knowing the city’s distrust of communists, and later even pulls his girlfriend Bessie into a scheme to send a kidnapping note for ransom. However, when the bones turn up in the furnace, Bigger runs. When a fearful Bessie pushes back, Bigger kills her too, bludgeoning her with a brick after raping her. He is shortly thereafter captured, and goes to face trial with the mountain of evidence against him for both murders.

A hand reaches out to help in the form of Max, a Jewish lawyer and communist. Max argues that Bigger only did what society made him do, that a man with no hope of ever achieving anything in life is left with the need to control some aspect of his life, and for Bigger, this was hate towards white people. Max even argues that families like the Daltons, while seeming to help black people, really still enjoy the distinct lines that keep the colors separated. Max pleads for leniency, for life in prison rather than the death penalty, but the judge ultimately sides with the angry mob and sentences Bigger to death. The last scene has Max and Bigger talking, and Bigger, for the first time in the book, is able to put into words what he has been feeling throughout. Max was on the right path, but didn’t go far enough. Whereas Max was hoping to show the world that there is hope and possible redemption for people like Bigger for whom white society has wronged, Bigger is finally able to explain that he is beyond hope, beyond saving, and he is damaged beyond help.

At various points in this book, I loved it and despised it. I never could get behind seeing Bigger as a tragic hero. In my book, anyone who kills, except in defense, is deserving of justice, and I’m all for the death penalty for brutal crimes like Bigger’s. I think what Write was trying to get across is that Bigger’s murders were in defense, a defense against a white society that he was too small to fight against, so he fought it the only way he could. But I don’t buy it. Granted, I’m coming at this from the background of a privileged white person who grew up 50 years after this book’s writing, and I hope things have changed a lot. I do not argue that it is eye opening to get into a person’s eyes and see the world in a way much darker and more hopeless than I ever could. I’m sure there are plenty in the inner city who still feel this way, and I’m equally sure this is what drives much of the crime the same way it did Bigger. But murder is murder, and for that alone, I could never get behind Bigger or Max’s arguments. A fine read, but a flawed one for me personally.

Up today is some films by the Danish filmmaker Carl Theodore Dreyer. Dreyer’s career spanned the silent film era and into the talkies. The only film I’ve seen of his previously was unarguably his most famous, The Passion of Joan of Arc. I’ll look at one more of his silent pieces, and then some sound films he made later.

Master of the House, from 1925, was very ahead of its time, for a couple reasons. First, whereas the vast majority of silent films were, by nature, melodramatic pieces where actors had to convey what is going on by “hamming it up” to an extent, this film is much more subtle. A drama with a good amount of comedy in it too, it is about a man who mistreats his wife to the point that her mother whisks her away for a time to separate them. The man’s childhood nanny moves in to keep the house in the wife’s absence, and while there, she makes sure to let the man know what he has been doing all these years, and puts him in his place. Secondly, the film obviously focuses on women’s issues at home, years (decades?) before Hollywood started making movies about similar subjects. A funny yet very endearing film.

Vampyr was Dreyer’s first sound film, in 1932. It follows a man, Allan Gray, as he arrives at a countryside inn at night. Upon checking in, he finds the place has some dark things going on. He is visited during the night by an old man who leaves a package with a note, “not to open until his death,” and then starts seeing shadows on the wall moving around. He follows the shadows to an old castle, where he sees an old woman, a person who we learn later is a vampire. He then ends up at a large manor, owned by his previous visitor, a household being brought down by the vampire. The film goes along, explaining the powers vampire hold over the living, and Allan Gray’s fight against them. A haunting movie, and probably pretty chilling when it came out, but on the surface, there isn’t a lot of substance there. More than anything, I think it is an allegory on life, death, and life after death, helped along by dream-like sequences. One such great one is Gray dreaming about his own death and burial, where he views the walk to the graveyard from inside his own casket, unable to move.

Day of Wrath was released in 1943 under Nazi occupation, in fact, Dreyer fled Denmark for Sweden upon its completion for fear that the political undertones of the film would land him in trouble. The film follows a small Danish village in the 17th century, at a time when women are being accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake. One such older woman, Marte, is so accused and she flees for help to Anne. Anne is the much younger wife to the town’s pastor, Absalon. Previously, and unbeknownst to Anne, her mother had been accused of witchcraft but Absalon spoke up for her, preventing her death and in so doing, getting her to agree to let him marry her daughter Anne. Marte knows this secret and tries to blackmail Absalon, but he does not give in. Before she burns, Marte curses Absalom and Anne. After that blows over, Anne starts to fall in love with Absalon’s son Martin, and, beginning to believe she has magic within her, she casts a spell to make him return her love. I was enthralled with this film from the opening scenes, really loved the high contrast filming showing the stark contrast in black and white, and watching Anne turn from sweet natured girl to evil villain was a blast.

Ordet came 12 years later in 1955. This film follows a working class farm family in 1920’s Denmark, patriarch Morten and his 3 adult sons, Mikkel, Johannes, and Anders. Morten is a traditional God-fearing man but his kids all have little idiosyncrasies. Mikkel is agnostic (much to the chagrin of his wife Inger and Morten), Johannes seems to have lost his mind and believes his is Jesus Christ, and Anders has fallen in love with the daughter of the town tailor, who is also Christian, but of a different sect that does not approve of Morten’s beliefs (mostly stemming from an argument between their families years ago). The overarching theme of the film is faith, leading to an astounding climax which, while you see it coming, is no less profound when it happens. For much of the movie, this is a tough film to watch. There are a couple moments that grab your attention and hold it, but to say this film moves slow is like saying race cars go fast. This movie doesn’t move at a snail’s pace, it moves at a snail’s pace put in slow motion. The actors move ponderously across the stage, and their dialogue is full of long, drawn-out pauses. It will test the mightiest of patiences, but ultimately the film is rewarding for those that can make it to the end.

Gertrude was Dreyer’s last film, in 1964. If you think Ordet is slow, this one is downright sedated. The whole plot can be summed up thus: a married woman leaves her husband for a younger lover, who spurns her once he has her to himself, and she is then courted by a previous lover who wants to back with her. That really is the entirety of the 2 hour film, nothing else happens. I know a plot alone does not make up a film, and Gertrud does feature wonderful cinematography with long takes, but man is this a tough film to get through. The actors speak of love and emotion, but in a stone-faced, unemotional manner. They never look at each other’s eyes, but stare off into space as if they are reading lines, even as they address each other. Everything crawls by at an incredibly deliberate pace. Watching the film, I felt like I was at a museum looking at art, and taking my sweet ass time moving from piece to piece. Maybe I’m just not smart enough to enjoy a film like this.

Going to look at some films by the classic French director and screenwriter, Jean-Pierre Melville. The only film of his I’ve seen before was Army of Shadows, which was a slow burn but ultimately satisfying. Going to start with some of his earlier films, and then some later ones made after he found success.

Le silence de la mer (“The Silence of the Sea”) was Melville’s first film, released in 1949. It is an anti-war film based on the underground book of the same name, which was popular among the French Resistance. It takes place in 1941, when a German officer is quartered in the home of an older French man and his adult niece. The officer is not a warmonger at all, and was a music composer before the war. Every evening the officer comes into the sitting room of his hosts, and talks of music, art, humanity, and his dream of France and Germany coming together and blending their wonderful history of culture into a great society. His talks are met with silence, the old man and woman never speak a word, and don’t even look at him. They cannot openly show their hatred for him and the Germans, so their only viable protest is total silence. The German’s expectations of a brighter future are shattered when he goes to meet with his fellow officers one day and their talk isn’t of unification, but of the total dominion over France and the crushing of her spirit. He returns to the family to bid them goodbye; since he cannot live without hope for a better future, he is transferring himself to the front lines. The film is choppy at times, and you can tell it was made by an inexperienced filmmaker, but all directors should hope for such a profound and wonderful first picture. There are wonderful moments of quiet tension, love, hope, and ultimately deflation, often with only sparse narration to guide the viewer. Beautiful film.

After renowned artist/playwright/poet/designer/everything Jean Cocteau saw Melville’s first film, he contacted him about doing a film version of his book Les enfants terribles. The film came out in 1950, and honestly, this was a tough one for me. The title means literally “the terrible children,” and these spoiled young adults are impossible to root for. Paul is a sickly young man who is cared for by his older sister Elisabeth. Elisabeth has an unhealthy amount of love for her brother, if you know what I mean. In juvenile fashion, she masks her adoration with scorn, and Elisabeth and Paul in return ridicule each other relentlessly. When Paul does fall in love with a girl, Elisabeth thwarts the relationship. I did like the climactic ending, but for most of the film, Elisabeth is such a terrible person that I couldn’t enjoy the movie at all. She goes through life only caring for herself. She marries for money, and doesn’t mourn her rich husband when he dies in a car accident, though she does spend a lot of time making sure her black veil is becoming on her in the mirror. Her and Paul hardly even mourn the death of their mother. Also unbalancing the film is the constant narration (provided by Cocteau himself) telling us what we are seeing on screen. A dud for me.

Melville saved some grace with Bob le flambeur (“Bob the gambler”). It’s a great French film noir piece and is often called a precursor to the French New Wave which was about to take the world by storm (this film was released in 1956, just a couple years before Truffault’s The 400 Blows and Godard’s Breathless). Bob is an aging, down-on-his-luck gambler who laments the current state of the mob, saying they are no better than swine. He hangs with other former hoods and even has a local cop he can call a friend, because he saved the cop’s life many years ago (or did he save his friend from doing life for killing a cop? Even the cop doesn’t know for sure). Bob is about to lose his last dollar when he hatches a plan to rob a casino on the day of the Grand Prix, when the safe is apt to have more than 800 million francs in it. Part gangster film, part Oceans 11 (a few years before there ever was an Oceans 11!), this is a fantastic film with grit, suspense, and yes, some humor too. Everything you want in a classic heist film.

Léon Morin, Priest is one of those films where I choose to view it in a way the director did not intend, and because of that, I enjoyed it a lot more. Played by French New Wave icon Jean-Paul Belmondo, Morin is a young, good looking priest in a town in France during the occupation of World War II. Most of the men in the town are either off to war, in camps, or underground fighting for the resistance, leaving a lot of sexually deprived women at home. Barny (Emmanuelle Riva) is one such woman. She doesn’t believe in God but stumbles into church one day to goad a priest during confession. Morin doesn’t bite, but does invite her to his room in the evening. She goes to seduce him, but over the course of the film, she comes to know God and becomes very devout by the end. The viewer thinks at any time the priest will give in and the couple will have sex, but it never happens, though he does seem to enjoy lording his good looks over Barny and the other attractive young women he invites to his residence. Melville, himself a Jewish atheist, has said in interviews that he intended to show that Barny only converted to get laid, but I saw a film that showed a priest who never strayed from his faith, who brought a woman and her children to God, and while he did not have all the answers for the questions this new believer had for him, he did always direct to God and never wavered. A deeply religious film in my experience, even if Melville didn’t intend it so.

Le Doulos (literally “the hat,” but police slang for “informant”) again stars Jean-Paul Belmondo as Silien, a man whose two best friends are Maurice, a hood, and Salignari, a cop. Maurice is recently out of jail and is visiting an old crook friend of his, Gilbert, who is going over some jewels recently stolen. Though the 2 are friends, Gilbert had killed Maurice’s girl while he was in jail, so she wouldn’t talk to the cops, and in retaliation, Maurice kills him. So sets of a chain of events in glorious mobster fashion. There are double crosses, gun fights, robberies, and in the end, loyalty to your fellow crooks (as long as they haven’t wronged you). Really entertaining neo-noir, a genre that Melville would probably become most famous for in future films.

Like thousands of people this weekend all around the world, I went and saw the climactic Avengers Endgame, the final film in the first series of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a colossal series that started way back in 2008, 22 films and 11 television series ago. Don’t worry, no spoilers here, I’m not even going to talk about the film in case you haven’t seen it (although who hasn’t? looks like it is going to smash every known record at the box office). All I’ll say is it met all my expectations and I’m thrilled to have enjoyed the ride. I’m just going to wax on how much I’ve enjoyed this series so far and write up, for the uninitiated, where this series has been and where it seems to be going. Endgame definitely feels like an ending, and for how things have lined up for parent company Disney, it comes at a great time to retool and set up the future of this shared universe. For those that see the movies and maybe watch a few shows on Netflix, you might be unaware of the history of the universe and what its future is. As a fanboy, I’ve been following pretty closely.

When Marvel Studios announced grand plans to have a shared universe that would span several films, sharing continuity, people scoffed. It is a big idea to be sure, and while there have been superhero films before, there had been no lasting success if your subject didn’t involve a Bat or a man from Krypton. To keep a years-spanning series going was unheard of, especially for Marvel, who didn’t have a big parent company to financially back them up. So Marvel Studios approached Paramount to distribute their films. Paramount distributed Iron Man and its sequel, and the first Thor and Captain America films (Universal distributed The Incredible Hulk, as they own the distribution rights for that character and still do…. long story). And the films made money, enough to attract the attention of big boy Disney. Disney bought up Marvel Entertainment, and became the distributor for all future films starting with the first Avengers films in 2012.

Since Disney owned ABC, they now had a new outlet to release television shows too. So started a shared universe across entertainment mediums, with Marvel Studios making theatrical films and a new division, Marvel Television, making shows. ABC launched with Agents of SHIELD in 2013, and followed with Agent Carter shortly after, using actors from the films to share continuity. To make grittier, R rated shows, Marvel Television inked a deal with Netflix to make shows for Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist. But a funny thing happened along the way. Though on paper these shows shared the same world as the theatrical films, and made subtle references to events from the films from time to time, they started to grow apart. Marvel Studios was by now making a ton of money, setting records at the box office, giving that arm of Disney a lot of clout. Marvel Television, while often critically acclaimed, couldn’t say the same, so the shows increasingly became more “stand alone.” Even shows that Disney had more control over, such as Runaways (on Hulu) and Cloak & Dagger (on Freeform) barely mentioned the larger Marvel Universe going on around them. And then Disney announced their own streaming service.

Disney+ will finally launch later this year. Since Netflix doesn’t want to promote shows based on characters they don’t own, characters which not-so-subtly promote a competing streaming service, all those Netflix shows have been canceled (the final season of Jessica Jones will air soon). Agents of SHIELD is still limping along on ABC. It is a great show, but no one watches it, though it has been renewed for 2 more (shorter) seasons so far. Disney+ will be launching their own shows now, and to tie more closely to their films, they are using A list actors directly from the movies (Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany as Scarlet Witch and Vision, etc). These shows are made by Marvel Studios and not the Television division. I’m excited for these new shows, but definitely sad to see the Netflix characters fade away, some without proper goodbyes (Luke Cage was canceled on a somewhat cliffhanger). Rumor has it that Netflix contracts prevent Disney from developing any shows on these characters for 2 years, so it is doubtful we’ll see them revived on Disney’s streaming service, or if they do, they’ll be with new actors which will ignore the previous content.

So, Disney+ bringing new shows, a few holdovers on ABC/Hulu/Freeform, and a new beginning for the theatrical films. My hunch is we’ll have a few stand-alone movies before Marvel wants to go all-in on a new “team up” run of films. And don’t forget, Disney recently bought Fox, so expect some of those famous X-Men to finally start appearing in films over the next few years. It’s been a wildly fun run of 11 years, and here’s hoping the next chapter is as fulfilling as this one was.