Blog Award!

Nick, from the über awesome Cinematic Katzenjammer that everyone should be following right now, has awarded me with the Liebster Blog Award. I'm keeping it steady when it comes to these things, for I received a similar award last year, in August.

I must tell you 11 things about myself, answer 11 questions, tag 11 people, and give them 11 questions. In the previous one, we only had to award 5 bloggers who had less than 300 followers. One year later, I'm still comfortably in that category... damn. As before, none of you need to pass the award. I hesitated a bit myself, but since this kind of thing only comes once a year, I better not miss the opportunity.

The Great Recasting // Mr. Brooks (2007)

Rianna's blog Frankly, My Dear and Natalie's In The Mood have been part of my daily read for quite some time (if you love the classics you should definitely add them to yours!). So I immediately heard of this great blogathon they're both hosting, The Great Recasting. The idea is to choose a post-1965 film and recast it with actors (and a director) active prior than 1965. As soon as I started thinking about my entry it became clear to me that I wasn't picking a film - I had already chosen a classic actor and was trying to get him the role I always wanted to see him play. In a way, this blogathon turned out to be the opportunity to fulfil my classic hollywood dream. And I'm going to gladly share it with you. 

As with any good dream, this is will seem to good to be true. Weighting on this utopia is the fact that I don't know many supporting actors from that time, and I really didn't want to cast someone with whose work I'm not familiar with. So yes, there are quite a few A-list actors on this recast of mine. But you know what? It's my dream, with unlimited fundings and non-existent studio contracts, so I can do whatever I want. Shall we begin?

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

★★★★★

Directed by VICTOR FLEMING

Starring JUDY GARLAND, FRANK MORGAN and RAY BLOGER

THIS ARTICLE IS PART OF THE LIST OF SHAME PROJECT: 100 MOVIES THAT WILL SHATTER MY CREDIBILITY 

After admitting my ten deadly cinematic sins (which I'll be watching during the next ten days) on the Cinema Confessions blogathon, what most surprised some of my followers was that I had never seen The Wizard of Oz. No doubt it was already number 58 on my List of Shame (the order means nothing, really), but then I've only seen 39 of the 100 films I promised to watch, so no surprise Oz was on the winning side of that list.  Moreover, The Wizard of Oz was never appealing to me - also the case of others, like Lawrence of Arabia (boring desert), Oldboy (asian), The Sound of Music (my grandmother is very fond of it) and every single western on that list (something about the chaps) - the costumes seemed dated, the sets clearly fake, and overall just too silly. And Oz is, indeed, all of that, except it is not dated. And those are not flaws.

It's perfectly obvious that we're watching a bunch kids in costumes running around on a set, but that is why I love films like Jurassic Park. Sure, it has some digital help, but nothing like Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Those dinosaurs are fake, there's no doubt about that, but somehow that makes it even better. With CGI, you know that monster is just a green/blue screen - or worse, some guy with that white stuff all over him - but with animatronics, the actors are really touching it. And so it's like we can touch it too, it feels so much closer. Or maybe I'm just old fashioned. Either way, in The Wizard of Oz there are no special effects that overrule the actors, and that leaves room for something wonderful, my favorite thing about this film: everyone on that set looked like they were having so. much. fun. And we can't help but to be happy with them. More than anything else, this film is pure joy.

                                                                                ---- SPOILERS AHEAD ----

Even the evil witch is fun to watch. She's as loveable, in a way, as the sweet Glinda (Billie Burke). In fact, I'm in awe with Margaret Hamilton. I first saw her in People Will Talk, and somehow that performance stuck with me. So when I saw walk into Dorothy's house I was completely taken by surprise, and then having her play a witch? Delightful. 

There's also a very basic message of hope and love (yes, this review is about to get cheesy) that I can't help but feel it's been lacking from most animated films of the past few years. Dorothy embraces a brainless scarecrow, a heartless tin man, and a cowardly lion without hesitating. They all go on a journey searching for the Great Wizard (damn catchy song), hoping that his magic could help them. But in the end, the Wizard had no supernatural magic, instead he had what we can consider a human kind of magic; just like the scarecrow already had his own kind of brain, the tin man his own kind of heart, the lion his own kind of courage, and Dorothy the key to return home. They all had it in them, they just needed someone to help them see it. 

IMDB | TRAILER

The King's Speech (2010)

★★★★½

Directed by TOM HOOPER

Starring COLIN FIRTH, GEOFFREY RUSH and HELENA BONHAM CARTER

From the moment we see Colin Firth struggling to speak with seven tiny spheres in his mouth we know this is not your average british royalty film. He plays King George VI who, in order to surpass his stutter, works with unorthodox australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Helena Bonham Carter completes this bizarre trio, playing George's wife in the sort of role that reminds us of the serious actress she is - but with a hint of her own weirdness, too. 

With sporadic historical references and appearances of personalities like Churchill (instantly recognisable as played by Timothy Spall), George V (Michael Gambon, nothing short of his usual excellence) and Edward VII (a deliciously mean Guy Pearce), The King's Speech doesn't really bother too much with portraying those times. In fact it uses historical context only when necessary for understanding and developing the plot. The real portrait that director Tom Hooper aims to capture is the one of the unlikely friendship between a monarch and a common man, which is surprisingly entertaining.

It is visually prodigious, particularly the set design (those fabulous wallpapers) and all the immaculate costumes and royal accessories, all of which only increase the discomfort of a man who lived constantly terrified.  It's a wonderful and relatable story, not only about friendship but also about overcoming our fears, and it provides a refreshingly humane portrayal of a royal figure. That side of it is moving and saddening, but what makes The King's Speech and inspirational film it's an unexpected, clever and quite queer sense of humour, powered by a ridiculously talented cast, and the warm joy that comes from watching a story of triumph. 

IMDB | TRAILER

Video Editing // War Project

Something I made a couple of months ago for a philosophy project about war, terrorism, violence (you can see my approach to Law School, ha). Not exactly related to cinema, though there are some film scenes in there, that I'm sure you cinephiles will easily recognise. I'm sharing this with you because it's part of my video editing project. Which is basically just a boring name to link all the videos I edit. It's been a while since I edited, here's some of my other stuff. Obviously, I don't own anything, just having fun! 

Movie Confessions Blogathon

You all know what this is: a pretty amazing blogathon created by My Film Views that is particularly interesting because it lets out all the dirt we movie bloggers sometimes keep hidden. And in the end it's great because we realize we're all on the same boat, just learning about films, sharing what we find and unable to avoid a couple bumps along the way. And it's a relief to finally say some of the things you'll read bellow.

I had fun reading other entries, so you should definitely visit the website and check out some, too. I hope it's not too late for this, but I couldn't miss this opportunity. Plus, because I don't usually talk about myself, this is a chance to do it and add a little bit more of fun and casual feel to the blog. Alright, let's do this!

WHICH CLASSIC MOVIE DON'T YOU LIKE/CAN'T ENJOY (AND WHY)?

Giant (1956). When I first watched it I loved it. But, looking back, all I can remember is James Dean's performance. I've tried re-watching it, but I find myself fast forwarding all the scenes without him. I can't even remember the story, it just didn't do anything for me. So turns out, all the initial hype around it was only because of James Dean. 

Natalie Wood + Web Events Update

I was not planning on doing a birthday post for Natalie Wood since I already made one yesterday for Benedict Cumberbatch, and I don't like to overflow you with mindless graphics. But yesterday I re-watched Rebel Without a Cause, so I got in the Dean / Wood mood. Particularly in the Dean, but that's not the point. Plus, I promised to advertise a couple of evens that are going to take place around here soon, which is the least I can do for the creative people that come up with these fantastic things. 

What are these events you don't want to miss? Well, we got The Great Recasting, hosted by Frankly My Dear and In The Mood. Choose a film post-1965, and re-cast it with the dashing stars of Old Hollywood - you have until July 28th to go wild. Also, another instalment of the In Genres feature, created by Lesya at Eternity of Dream, this time focusing on the grand city of New York. I've already submitted my choice, you should do the same, and email her until July 31st. Lastly, the Speechless Blogathon, also hosted by Lesya, in appreciation for the art of silent film (August 16th-18th). So go get your fancy banners, spread the word on these events, and participate! 

Now, Natalie. I found those lovely pictures here. I'd also like to call your attention to this wonderful set of gifs, designed by Hayworths. On the picture above she is celebrating her 21st birthday (1959), at a surprise party thrown by Frank Sinatra, and in the company of her husband, Robert Wagner. Oh... I'm typing as fast as I can, but I won't make it before midnight! 

By the way, this (below) was the moment that got me in the mood (quite obvious why), now with the typical and fabulous Old Hollywood typography and spot on statements: so sensitive... its performances with throb deep in your heart! TRUE. It was created by JamesDeanDaily, a tumblr I follow and highly recommend. 

what? white hidden text? sneaky design techniques...

Enchanting Couture // Rear Window

The first instalment of this feature has been a long time coming. I'm no fashion connoisseur, but I appreciate the art and am beginning to learn it, so this feature is a great tool. Also, fashion vocabulary is not something I'm familiar with, so bear with me!

Naturally, it could not begin without the work of Edith Head, a prominent name in costume design. She worked with some of the most famous actresses of Old Hollywood, many times at their special requests, like Ginger Rogers, Mae West, Elizabeth Taylor, Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood, Gloria Swanson, Sophia Loren, Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth, Katharine Hepburn... the list is endless, and breathtaking. So don't be surprised if future posts include the works of this unbelievably talented lady. 

All great deal of the costumes she created were the product of her constant work with no other than the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. For him (and at times with him), she dressed Ingrid Bergman in Notorious, Kim Novak in Vertigo, and Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief and Rear Window, just to name a few.

For the film in question, Head designed two dresses, one two-piece, one suit, and one negligee. From the five outfits, the black and white two-piece above is by far the most iconic, being copied many times afterwards. 

Benedict Cumberbatch

There is definitely something alien about Benedict Cumberbatch. This was exaggerated the first time we properly met. He arrived late, he often is, but with the flurry of apology that he means utterly, and sounds faintly bored of having to give so frequently. He was wearing his crash helmet and wet weather biker’s jacket. He is immediately intelligent. He’s on his front foot and yet asking questions. One instantly gets the impression there is no depth to any conversation he is not willing to plumb.

Over the long casting period we discussed with him many times, which of our four leads he could play. What makes him different from most of the actors we saw was of course that he can play so many different parts. Again it’s the hint of ‘shape-shifter’ that gilds his gifts. He is rare even amongst the acting breed. If the character description says handsome: he is.  If it says Nasty: he is. Older: he is… Younger: he is. For this reason I just can’t wait to see what he will become. MUG7

2011 | War Horse   //  Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy
2010 | BBC Sherlock  //  Third Star  //  Van Gogh: Painted with Words
2007 | Atonement
2004 | Hawking

The Rite (2011)

 ★★

Directed by MIKAEL HÅFSTRÖM

Starring COLIN O'DONOGHUE, ANTHONY HOPKINS, CIARÁN HINS

No, not really. Maybe exorcisms are a bit out of fashion - in movies, at least. In real life, who knows. They always end these films with enigmatic phrases like Father Smith performed 854 exorcises. On September 3rd 1997, he died. That's how The Rite ends, more or less, and it was the only time it made me cringe because there's nothing creepier than knowing such rituals are still in vogue. Other than that, it is everything you would expect from the genre. There are a couple of interesting details (like the call), but overall it's just not original. And that's the bottom line. No matter how many great performances you get from it - speaking of Hopkins and Marta Gastini - if you don't have a solid script, if you don't come up with a new point of view, then we're just wasting time here.

Mikael Håfström's thriller - you'd expect something scarier from a man with that name, but then, he did direct 1408 - is about a young american man, Michael Kovak, who is studying to become a priest, but is lacking faith. He's sent to the Vatican to study the practice of exorcisms. He will then accompany Father Lucas Trevant while the priest performs exorcisms in an unorthodox way; and the things Kovak will witness are bound to shake his non-beliefs. 

The key to The Rite's success could be in Kovak's skepticism, in the clash of mental disorders and demonic possession, of science and religion - even if in the end it came to the wise conclusion that there isn't necessarily a winner. And though the film does start that way, it doesn't have the guts to go through with it, so it remains vague and quite ordinary. 

IMDB |  TRAILER

I had posted a Cumberbatch post - then realised his birthday is tomorrow, so I'll repost it then!

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

★★★½
Directed by H.C. POTTER

Starring CARY GRANT, MYRNA LOY and MELVYN DOUGLAS

When too many people live in a space too small for too long they're bound to get sour, or as the Blandings's youngest says, to bicker, bicker, bicker. Potter's film opens with striking images of Manhattan - at first, exalting its greatness; then, becoming progressively ironic until the modern, bold, and promising city becomes an oppressive force on the individual not offering much space to live. Literally. The Blandings's apartment is excruciatingly tiny, and while Mrs. Blandings (Myrna Loy) still thinks about tearing down walls, Mr. Blandings (Cary Grant) and is not willing to spend a single penny on it, anymore. 

The Blandings's chapter begins with their morning routine, one of the best parts of the film. Without saying a word, husband and wife have a little fight over the alarm clock, in a way only a couple who has lived together for many years could, until he resignedly gets up. From here on Mr. Blandings will seriously struggle to shower, shave, get dressed, and have breakfast - his seemingly calm wife gets on the way, and so does his older daughter's tongue. Here we see Cary Grant excelling at physical comedy, one in which the character doesn't make a huge fuss about everything, but rather is quietly yet deeply vexed by all the minor annoyances that occur with every single move he makes. The charm of it all is in the slight trace of irritation in Grant's face and tone, and how he turns every line into a commercial tagline: I am not interested in discussing the grain and texture of Bill Cole's hair follicles before I've had my breakfast.

After spotting an ad for a peaceful house in the countryside, Mr. Blandings decides to move. He and his wife then embark on a journey to build their dream house, and soon they'll find there's much more to it than knowing what you want. There will be so much money talk, with actual numbers, that it will make you sick. And no better way to give the audience the same feeling of exasperation that the Blandings felt than making your head spin with bills to pay. It will make you wonder why they don't give up, get out while all is not lost. Maybe there are some things you should buy with your heart and not with your head. Maybe those are the things that really count.

The above mentioned Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas) is the lawyer who will help them with the legal procedures involved in the moving - or at least try. You see, one of Mr. Blandings many flaws is that he is easily persuasible - an interesting thing considering he works in advertising. He's also impulsive, foolish, and lacking of basic cultural knowledge. He's irritable, jealous and insecure. He's an original mad man. For once a Cary Grant character I wouldn't marry, I thought. And near the end of the film I wondered how Mrs. Blandings fell in love with such a man. In the end you'll have the answer. 

IMDB | TRAILER

unscripted: it's not as bad as it seems

So... I know what you're thinking: There she goes again, changing the whole blog look... But there's actually a very plausible explanation for all of this: you see, I'm thinking about taking the next step - registering the mark, getting my own domain. I started thinking about the logo, and it looked awfully like Cahier du Cinema's. So I thought, okay, let's just play around with it a bit. And the result was that sidebar image you see to your left. Then I realised that the logo didn't work on well as a header, so I figured I'd just get rid of it altogether, and make a top menu navbar. Check. But then the fonts were all wrong and... well, next thing I knew I was changing the whole thing. 

But not to worry, I'm not keeping this. It's too big a change, it doesn't look like Film Flare at all. I'll just have to figure something else out, a new logo that fits the original layout. So in some of hours or so (probably tomorrow) it should be back to normal. I had fun making this, though!

By the way, what do you think of this new soon-to-be-gone look? In general, not just specifically for Film Flare. 

UPDATE JULY 11 --- Now it's definitely not like Cahier's, and it fits the original style, yes?

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

★★★½
Directed by MARC WEBB

Starring ANDREW GARFIELD, EMMA STONE and RHYS IFANS

I was the girl who about a year ago said, it's too early for a new Spider-Man film - despite the fact that it has been five years since the last one, and ten since the first. I'll admit, I was even sceptical about Andrew Garfield playing Peter Parker - he's just so different from Tobey Maguire: taller, darker, more toned, less likely to cry. As far as the first three characteristics go, the new spidey is more faithful to the comics. And that is precisely one of the defining features of The Amazing Spider-Man. I certainly haven't read over a hundred issues of this comic but, like anyone else, I do my homework. However, the more I researched, the more I realised this is a rather complex one (with the whole different worlds, writers and reboots thing), so if you're a Spider-Man connoisseur and spot an error, I'd be happy to fix it. 

The film goes back to the beginning of this hero's story, when Peter Parker was a brilliant high-school student but a mess of a boy: he's shy, clumsy, and overall shaky; but his heart is in the right place, and one thing he is not is a coward. So his somewhat-misplaced-in-time* crush, Gwen Stacy, sees something in him that apparently no one else but his uncle and aunt see (he appears to have no friends, I just noticed that). This is the first big change: not just that Mary Jane doesn't exist yet but also that, unlike MJ, Gwen falls in love with Peter, not Spider-Man. This makes for a much more compelling story that will certainly please the fans, for it provides the opportunity to explore his human life.

Indeed Webb's reboot focuses more on Peter's daily life, personal issues and struggle with becoming Spider-Man: we're provided some insight into his parents death (though not too much, that will be left for the sequel) and how did radioactive spiders appear, which makes for a more believable, interesting and stronger story foundation; he is flawed, at times insecure, has an attitude and is somewhat irresponsible, just like every teenager; on top of that, there's a guilt complex that initially shakes his moral compass, and the sort of bold irreverence that makes him mock his opponents - a classic component that drives his enemies mad, and that is nicely depicted in the film. All of this makes for that wonderful cocktail of colourful with a touch of dark that any Spider-Man fan loves - so it is nice to see a slightly grimmer take on the story.

One Fine Day (1996)

★★★ 

Directed by MICHAEL HOFFMAN

Starring MICHELLE PFEIFFER and GEORGE CLOONEY

Nice romantic comedies are hard to come by, these days. Somewhere in the 2000s the charm and magic of romance was lost, and now all we got is a sea of Spreads and Giglis with the occasional Crazy Stupid Love to keep hope afloat. Perhaps the budget for crap is too high, or maybe filmmakers have become lazy (I gather it's a combination of both) but, the truth is, standards are no longer as high as they once were - almost anything can premiere nowadays. But I was glad to see that One Fine Day is nothing like the degenerate films mentioned above. And it's not surprising that this mid-90s romantic comedy manages to avoid clichés and stereotypes, for it shares its cinematic blood with the greats of Hanks and Ryan, and others from directors like the recently diseased Norah Ephron.

Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer) and Jack Taylor (George Clooney) are both divorcees with kids who meet by a twist of fate on a decisive day for their careers. By a series of misfortunes they end up having to take care of their children, and needing each other to so. Michael Hoffman deconstructs all expectations till there's nothing left but a man and a woman - simple, flawed, believable. The kids are okay, not annoying at all (this is something I always struggle with, you may have noticed from previous reviews), and Clooney and Pfeiffer look more than swell together - he with all his head turning and sneaky smiles, and she being stunning, energetic and loveable by both men and women. Both deliver honest performances, and better than that, they look, walk and talk just like regular people - something that is often missing today. Fast paced and with satisfying humour, One Fine Day is optimistic with a hint of charm and creativity, which is just what rom-coms need to be.

Best line? Oribe's receptionist to Jack: Don't bother with the cute face. I have 5 sons. You make eyes at me like that, I make you pot roast.

IMDB | TRAILER

The Tree of Life (2011)

★★★★★
Directed by TERRENCE MALICK

Starring BRAD PITT, JESSICA CHASTAIN and SEAN PENN 

THIS IS A LONG, LONG ANALYSIS - I'M AWARE - SO IT INEVITABLY CONTAINS SPOILERS. 

The first time I thought of writing this review I was floating in a pool of welcomingly cold water after taking a long run. I was staring at a cloudy sky, it was going to start raining very soon. When you're floating you feel a strange kind of lightness, you're barely making any physical effort, and when your ears submerge it's like you're isolated from everything around you: all you can hear is the guttural sound of your breathing and blood, pumping thickly through your heart. You become awkwardly aware of your own body, and how its physicality seems to contradict the infinitude of your consciousness. If you stay long enough, it can be both unsettling and soothing. Just like The Tree of Life.

The film starts with a excerpt of the Book of Job. In fact, there are many more biblical references that could be mentioned, if only I had the knowledge to spot them all. Not being acquainted with the piece, I did the necessary research, which shed some light on the matter and made the second viewing even more enthralling. It also revealed just how cultured Malick must be, and thus deepened my respect and admiration for his work - this movie isn't just sheer good taste, there's a depth to it that relies on knowledge, humbleness, and sensitivity. But back to the tale: Job was a righteous man who saw everything being taken from him.  Baffled and vexed with such injustice, he turns to God, asking how could He allow, even dictate, such evil to be done upon him, a blameless and upright man. To which He replies: where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? [...] While the morning stars sang together, and all the angels shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7.

Just like Job, Malick's characters will struggle to find reason in the tragedy that hit them: we learn that R.L., the O'Brien's middle child, died at 19, and witness his devastated mother asking God did You know, and who are we to You. Just like God did with Job, Malick takes us on a masterful ride that begins with the birth of the cosmos, forcing us to see the bigger picture, to put the loss in perspective - and Zbigniew Preisner's Lacrimosa was no innocent choice as background music, for it goes something like this: