Sherlock Jr (1924)

Directed by: Buster Keaton

Written by: Jean C Havez, Joseph A Mitchell

Starring: Buster Keaton, Kathryn McGuire, Joe Keaton

Buster Keaton has quite the legacy. I know of his work because of my affection for the 80s Hong Kong films of Jackie Chan. Chan was not only influenced by the silent film star, but lifted or paid homage to many of Keaton's stunts throughout his work. Sherlock Jr is the first Buster Keaton film I've seen. I've seen clips before. Even from Sherlock Jr. The scene where Keaton is stuck on the roof and uses a crossing guard to lower himself into the backseat of a car I've seen before. Even so, this film was an absolute delight.

A couple of months back I watched Charlie Chaplin's "Easy Street". I wasn't able to get enough of my thoughts about the movie onto the page so I scrapped the writing. The one thing that struck me about the Chaplin film was how it was like watching a live action Bugs Bunny cartoon. Obviously the films of Chaplin, Keaton, and the Marx Brothers influenced Warner Brothers and their smart alec rabbit, but I couldn't ignore the parallels. Sherlock Jr uses cartoon logic.

What makes it all the more spectacular though is that we're not dealing with a cartoon. Something about seeing such flagrant disregard for the laws of our universe on screen is breathtaking. There's small gags like using the rain cover of a car in the water for a sail, but there are two logic defying acts that had me gobsmacked. Considering the film was released in 1924, these two scenes feel like actual cinema magic.

There's the sequence when Keaton as the projectionist starts dreaming. He walks into the cinema showing a film on screen. He then walks through the screen into the scene. From there we have a bunch of sight gags as the genre of film changes, usually resulting in a pratfall, but that initial walking into the frame really stuck with me. The second and more remarkable shot is when Keaton as Sherlock Jr is fleeing from the bad guys. He gets trapped in an alley with a salesman. The salesman has his suitcase open, his back against the brick wall. Sherlock Jr is trapped. He runs at the salesman, and dives through his suitcase, disappearing. The goons test the wall, which spins around trapping them on the other side. I'd have to go watch the scene again to see if any jump cuts are obvious, because otherwise I have no idea how Keaton pulled this stunt off. This is what I mean by cinema magic.

So much of the film had me smiling, and I even laughed out loud a few times. I marveled how effortlessly information was conveyed through the acting and the composition rather than relying on the text cards. Keaton is a magnetic screen presence, not only for his physical feats but how he carries himself. I was rooting for him to overcome the villain who framed him. What's interesting is that the villain never receives his comeuppance. In the projectionist's dream he is done in by an exploding billiard ball, but back in reality there is no punishment. Just the girl realising that the projectionist did not commit the crime he was framed for. The film ends with the two awkwardly kissing.

At 45 minutes, I recommend everyone check this out. The jokes land, you feel for the projectionist, and the stunts are still spectacular. The version I watched can be found here.

Personal enjoyment: ★★★★★

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

Directed by: Gore Verbinski

Written by: Justin Haythe

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Jason Isaacs, Mia Goth

Aside from the creepiness of the eels, the scariest thing in A Cure for Wellness is the idea of water that dehydrates you. That the life giving fluid I always have near by could be killing me in order to prolong the life of another. Late in the film Volmer, the director of the clinic, says that the cure for the human condition is disease, because at least disease brings with it the possibility of hope. This is a bit tongue-in-cheek as he long ago discovered the key to immortality. Considering his past and present actions, perhaps the cure for the human condition is not to be overly burdened by humanity in the first place.

This is one of the most visually rich films I've watched in a long time. The location of a health spa at the foot of the Swiss Alps lends itself to gorgeous shots of the chateau surrounded by mountains, the sun hitting the building in just the right way. The interiors, while less exquisite feature the same sense of masterful composition. There is more than one sequence where the actions of Lockhart, the protagonist, and Hannah, the young girl who has been at the spa her entire life, are inter-cut, both discovering a horrific and thematically similar truth. A lot of the popularity of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie is given to the script and Johnny Depp's portrayal of Jack Sparrow. After watching A Cure for Wellness, I wonder if Gore Verbinski's skill as a visual storyteller had more to do with it.

It's not just the visuals either, as the entirety of this two and a half hour film engaged me. From the first moment of the New York City financial district backed by that haunting chanting melody all the way to Lockhart's full toothed grin riding the bicycle away from the chateau, I was never waiting for things to wrap up. There were two points in the film, right after Volmer rescues both Lockhart and Hannah from the village bar, and when Lockhart willingly becomes a patient, where I asked "But where can the story go now?" When the film continued into the climax I was surprised. Lockhart is writing a similar letter to the one Pembroke wrote at the start of the film, the reason for the story in the first place. A lot of horror films would end this way. The viewer knows just enough about what is going on at the spa to be satisfied. The mysteries about the spa's history left embedded in the film, allowing theories to arise from piecing the puzzle together like Victoria Watkins and her crossword.

That's why I was shocked when suddenly a ritualistic wedding appeared on screen. Lockhart shakes out of his stupor and the truth about Volmer and Hannah is spelled out. Volmer is defeated in spectacular fashion as the chateau burns. Instead of lingering mysteries, we get a satisfying triumphant conclusion. The board of directors that sent Lockhart there are met at the gates. Lockhart ignores their outrage, riding off with Hannah. He has something to care about. His full smile suggesting that he is now using the same cure as Volmer.

I felt shell-shocked when the movie ended. I feel that there's more under the surface. Themes of ambition, the stresses of modern life, and how tranquility is simply killing us while we wear a smile on our face. Is that so bad though? The patients of the spa seemed happy and peaceful even though horrific things were happening to them. Early on in the film Lockhart's mother calls the nursing home she is living in a place where people get sent to die. The spa Lockhart travels to is the same. Although there is a cure for death that only is granted to those running the facility (and in the town below). The horror isn't that the patients are being killed having obtained a certain amount of peace, it's that others are profiting off of it. A critique of spirituality then?

Personal Enjoyment: ★★★★

Dr. Mabuse -- The Gambler (1922)

Written and directed by: Fritz Lang

Starring: Rudolf Klein-Rogge, Aud Egede-Nissen, Gertrude Weicker

Dr. Mabuse - The Gambler is two films released months from each other making up one story. I am writing this piece after seeing Part 1 and then finishing it after seeing Part 2.

At the end of Part 1 of Dr. Mabuse, I wonder if the doctor is meant to be the main character of the story. The opening act shows him manipulating European stocks through robbery and subterfuge, making large amounts of money, showing off his cunning and unscrupulousness. The rest of the movie focuses on his hypnotism in regards to gambling. How he disguises himself, visits secret casinos, and compels other players to part with their money against their will.

The reason I wonder this is that in a more traditional narrative, Edgar Hull would be the hero. He's a rich young sap who is set on by Mabuse. Not only causing him to lose vast sums of money, but having him fall in love with Cara Carozza, a dancer who loves Mabuse and is willingly part of his schemes. Hull moves the plot forward by getting State Prosecutor Von Wenk involved (well, Wenk gets himself involved after Hull has been set upon). Wenk is the actual hero of this story, using his own wits to hunt down Mabuse. Near the end of the film, Mabuse sets a trap for Hull. Wenk evades it, but Hull is murdered in the street, Carozza being arrested as an accomplice in the act.

Whether it's another disguise or his original profession, an early scene shows Mabuse lecturing on the topic of psychoanalysis and how it can cure a large number of nervous conditions. The work of Sigmund Freud would have been famous at this point in history, and this scene seems to explain why Mabuse has these strange hypnotic powers that can compel weak minds to obey him. In the final scenes of Part 1 he tells Countess Told that the only thing that matters in life is will to power (one of the popular philosophical ideas of Nietzsche), and then he proves his will by forcing the Countess' husband to be revealed as a cheater. In the confusion of this revelation, he takes the faint Countess back to his home, ending Part 1.

There is no doubt that Dr. Mabuse is the villain of this story. My question is if he's the main character. Is this a tragedy, where we're following a man whose downfall is ensured by the end of the tale? I'm cheering for Wenk to outsmart Mabuse and rescue the Countess. To avenge the death of Hull. I would be lying if I said that Mabuse wasn't the most captivating character of the movie. The film is named after him too. I have to wonder if he gets away with everything. There were two other films made starring him after all.

Having watched part 2, I think I have an answer to my question. Dr. Mabuse is the main character of the picture. The film could even have been titled "The Fall of Doctor Mabuse". Part 2 shows off the lengths the doctor will go to. When Countess Told doesn't comply with his advances, he sets upon her husband. He pretends to treat the Count for his illness, convincing him through his hypnotism to commit suicide. Thinking that Carozza will betray him, the doctor has a guard that works for him sneak poison into her cell. She willingly drinks it. A young man working for Mabuse is arrested and on his way to be interrogated by Wenk, Mabuse orchestrates a mob to waylay the transport, allowing a sniper to dispatch the prisoner.

Mabuse waits for Wenk and lets him know about Sandor Weltmann, a stage hypnotist who might be to blame. Of course Weltmann is Mabuse as well. One of the last sequences of the film is Wenk attending Weltmann's stage show. Feats of mass hypnosis and magic are displayed. The whole evening is a ruse to dispose of Wenk. During the hypnosis, Wenk realises that Weltmann is Mabuse, as well as the old man from the secret casino that failed to manipulate him. At this point though it is too late. Wenk is under Mabuse's spell and the only thing that saves him from crashing his car into the quarry are his aides who realise something is wrong and pull him out of the speeding car.

The finale is a shootout at Mabuse's house. The army is called in. Mabuse flees through a secret passage and is trapped in his counterfeiting house. He is not strong enough to unlock the steel door at the entrance or lift the trap door he came through. At this point madness and guilt start to creep in. He is haunted by the ghosts of those he has killed, and when Wenk and the police finally reach him, he is a quivering mess. The whole of Part 2 is Mabuse making bad decisions that lead to his downfall. His hubris gets in the way, or perhaps it's the idea that playing with the fates of other people will always lead down the path of destruction.

Considering all the people he had killed, I was quite surprised that Mabuse wasn't shot or beat up by Wenk. Of course I'm thinking in modern American cinema terms where a villain this diabolical, that caused this much pain and suffering needs to pay for their crimes on screen. The hero has to triumph. Mabuse being haunted by those he killed, losing his mind, all alone trapped in a room is likely punishment enough. He's been arrested and will face justice, although this is only implied. I'm also thinking that Fritz Lang the director might have loved the character of Mabuse so much that he needed to ensure it was possible to make another movie with him. There were two more Mabuse films made after this one.

This leads me back to the idea that Mabuse is the main character. I mentioned that the hero has to triumph. Wenk is most definitely the hero, but the hero doesn't have to be the main character. Mabuse's reach extended so far and his powers touched so many lives that there was always that wonder if he was going to get away with it in the end. Like Walter White in Breaking Bad, we don't have to agree with the main character of a story, we just have to find them compelling enough to follow their journey. I wanted Mabuse's downfall after Part 1, but seeing how many more bodies he was responsible for in Part 2, I wondered if a man this powerful could be taken down. Someone willing to go this far. Mabuse certainly flexed his will to power, but that same will destroyed him. He was too arrogant in dealing with Wenk, not careful enough. Wenk was competent, but not a true adversary. In the end, the one truly responsible for taking down Mabuse was Mabuse. A lesson for those in positions of great power.

Personal enjoyment: ★★★★ 

The Post (2017)

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: Liz Hannah & Josh Singer

Starring: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson

It feels obvious that The Post was made to parallel the current political climate in the US. One in which the press feels under attack by the President of the United States and sees it as their duty to inform the public when their government lies to them. There's a coy line near the end of the film after The Post has won their Supreme Court case that this decision and what they've been through will help for "next time". It was difficult not to roll my eyes. Then the film ends with a bizarre tonal shift. Nixon railing against The Post before a security guard discovers that the Democratic National Committee is being broken into at the Watergate Hotel. It wouldn't feel out of place to have an announcer exclaim "Next time on: Spielberg makes a movie about history - Watergate".

It took a while for me to get invested. The opening was rather dry and I didn't feel I had the proper context. The film kicked in once The New York Times ran their story about the Pentagon Papers. Then the film was off like a runaway train that didn't slow down until its closing moments. I think it was so effective because the stakes involved were so important. The freedom of the press being attacked by a White House administration when the truth shows that the White House has been lying to the American public about the Vietnam war for 3 administrations. That despite knowing the war was unwinnable very early on, they kept sending American troops to die based on a sense of pride, and to avoid humiliation by withdrawing and admitting defeat. I see parallels in US foreign policy in my lifetime, especially with Iraq and Afghanistan after 2001.

The character arc of the movie was Meryl Streep as Mrs. Graham learning to accept her role as owner of The Washington Post, and what she wants the paper to be. To stop listening to her advisers and learn to make a decision for herself. What I like about the final moment when she changes and decides to run the story is how quiet a moment it is. It has no triumphant musical swell. There's been a lot of arguing. She feels overwhelmed. She starts to make her decision. There's push back. She becomes assertive, decides her fate, and then goes to bed. The scene just ends. I found it refreshing for such a moment.

Another scene that stood out to me is earlier on when Tom Hanks' Ben Bradlee crashes a party Mrs. Graham is hosting, to tell her that he has the papers, and she needs to make a decision about whether she will allow The Post to publish them. There's discussion of how Ben was friends with the Kennedys and how when you have friendship with people in power, it affects how you cover their power when you work in journalism. How it's difficult if not impossible to be objective about friendship, especially when that friendship holds benefits such as White House dinners and presidential access.

It's a movie that's important for the time we live in. It examines the press' duty and relationship to the power it covers. It apparently came together very quickly, and perhaps that's why the opening is so dry and the last scene feels so campy. Everything else breezed by with captivating performances and a lot of the camera work that has become noticeable to me after watching that Every Frame a Painting episode on 'The Spielberg Oner'.

Personal enjoyment: ★★★