lee8301

This movie is really about a young and inexperienced person doing a very tough job. It's about hard work. It's about finding fulfillment in working up to the demands of an extraordinary task-master, who works just as hard, if not harder, as everyone else who works for her. The boss lady, Miranda, sacrifices just about every relationship in her own life to run her fashion magazine her way, which is to make it the very best it can possibly be. This is her choice and she expects it to be the choice of anyone who works for her. It someone wants to work at a lesser level, then go work for someone else. It's New York. The young assistant, Andrea, finds herself in a job that's both beneath her career expectations and yet, way over her head. Early on she is not competent at her job, but she gets there. She begins to understand her job and understand her own capacities. She grows enormously under some very tough teachers. Her friends, on the other hand, and this is particularly true of her pretty boyfriend, don't like this change in her. Actually, they can't keep up. They are terribly judgmental and offer her very little understanding. Her girl-friend loves the fine and expensive accessories that come to her through Andrea's job, but is quick to condemn the changes she thinks she sees in Andrea and viciously attacks her verbally. These friends, who are very quick to condemn their friend because she is committed to doing a good job, remain ambitious for themselves. If they worked for a task-master such as Andrea's boss, would their own work reach a higher level? Or, would they sacrifice their own careers just to remain the same chummy pals they've been? As I said, this movie is about hard work and the fulfillment one can receive from working at the top of one's form. Hurray for Miranda, and for the growth we see in Andrea.

This visually beautiful film is filled with humor, romance, quirkiness and surprise. But, make no mistake about it, this young man Stephane is going insane. In the early part of the film, we see these colorful "adventures" taking place during what seems to be Stephane's sleeping time. He awakens from this sleep, leaves his bed, dresses and goes through what is a boring and mechanical work day. He thinks he wants one girl, but then becomes obsessed with her friend, who is his neighbor. Her creativity puts them on the same level. But then, his dreams come upon him constantly without warning and while we have those clues of color and light which the director gives his audience, signaling Stephane's dreaming, Stephane loses track of what is actual and what is imagining. He sees no boundaries between what is actually happening around him and what he thinks is happening. This lovely young woman cannot understand why he is doing these things to her. She believes he is erratic, but he is helplessly slipping into madness. The film's last scene is beautiful, but we are seeing the vision of an insane man.

These two beautiful and sexy ladies can remind you of why some equally beautiful and sexy women in revolutionary France had their heads cut off. They seem totally useless! However, we all make it possible for them to thrive. We watch them so we can feel better and more valuable to society. But, these ladies must have their uses, or else why would they be able to live such a high and pampered lifestyle? Why would we otherwise watch them? They've been "famous" for more than 15 minutes. In a recent episode, mother and daughter flew down to Miami in a large private jet to celebrate daughter Brittny's birthday. Who paid for the airplane? A whole group of Brittny's friend came down. So did the mother's personal makeup artist. Who paid for him? The two ladies had to make an appearance at some restaurant/club so that all of Brittny's friends could stay for free. Would the rest of us be charged extra to cover the costs to the hotel? They are very entertaining, but certainly not on purpose. The gorgeous daughter has the attention span of a flea Except for a strong desire to wiggle herself and show her terrific figure, and her insatiable desire for her boyfriend, she has absolutely no interest in anything but clothes, makeup and parties. The strongest feature of her otherwise bland personality is her strong sense of personal entitlement. She expects everything and wants to pay nothing. How can you not just love a person like that? And as for Mama, she keeps the people in the beauty business fully employed. Whoever pays for that stuff, it does keep the economy moving! No one ever says a kind word about them on camera. All their employees constantly slam them. No one has the slightest respect for them. Can they possibly be watching their own show? So, why do we?

This film is just pure delight. If you want a serious flick on the world's problems, this isn't one of them. Half of it doesn't even make sense, which is a great part of its easy charm. Is this really Arizona in 1939, or did the director even bother checking out the place? It really doesn't matter. If Frank Morgan was half as nice a man in real life as he is in this picture, then I wish I had known him. Young Virginia Weidler is a delight. Morgan's comedic timing ought to be studied in film schools. He can move from yes to no and back to yes on a dime. The first scenes in the film when, as an out of work actor, he's offered a vaudeville job as the target of a drunken sharpshooter, is a masterpiece of fast dialog and twisting body language. Nobody ever dithered like Frank Morgan. Thanks to TCM for showing it and don't miss it the next time.

More murders take place in Britsh films and television than have ever occurred in reality. Moreover, the best of these crime stories are set in beautiful, almost idyllic surroundings, so that it becomes true that 'every prospect pleases, and only man is vile'. And, the people in this village are vile indeed. They are so mean-spirited, filled with gossip, selfish and conniving, and purposefully hurtful, that one feels sympathy for the murderer and wishes that he not only get away with his crime, but that he gets rid of the whole lot of his neighbors, too. The vicar is a schemer, revelling in local gossip, without a charitable thought in his body. His wife tells him that he has absolutely no knowledge of human nature, which is the reason he's a clergyman. His fat daughter is a block off the old chip. The elderly spinster sisters have not had a kind or decent thought in their heads since puberty and are certainly long overdue in meeting their Maker. The young women with whom the murderer has consorted are extremely beautiful and embarrassingly stupid. The young men in the village are even less intelligent, simply meaner. The locale, on the other hand, is exquisite. The furnishings and costumes are wonderfully evocative of rural England between the wars. The art direction, therefore, is typically marvelous. The English do it better than anybody. The script is intelligent and crisp. The story moves swiftly. The sex is moderately discreet but the hot-blood frequently surges. It's a pleasure to watch. What this village needs, however, is one of those old "Cobalt Bombs", the kind that destroys all the living creatures, but leaves the buildings and vegetation intact. They hardly will be missed, they hardly will be missed, I have a little list.

It's surprising that none of the comments about "The Field" make reference to one of the most popular films of all time, John Ford's "The Quiet Man". The stories are almost identical. An American of Irish descent returns to buy land wanted by a local farmer. Both Irish farmers are brutish and readily prone to violence. Both inspire fear in their neighbors. In "The Field", the farmer murders the American, but in "The Quiet Man", the American is John Wayne, so you know who will prevail. John Ford's movie is one of remarkably beautiful scenery, of charming folk and peaches and cream complexions. Except for the land-owning farmer, there doesn't seem to be a calloused hand in the cast. Hardly anyone works and drinking seems to be everyone's way of spending the day. Movie fans have spoken of seeing "The Quiet Man" dozens of times, as I have. It's a feel good movie. But "The Field" shows the true harshness of rural life in Ireland and how it brutalizes those poor who struggle for their daily existence. It's an uncomfortable movie but a truthful one which gives the lie to "The Quiet Man's" sentimental view of 'the old country'. It also shows the foolishness inherent in rosy nostalgia. Millions of Irish left their homes for good reason. Unlike John Ford's nostalgia, "The Field" helps you understand why they left.

The movies have a long tradition of falsifying history in order to present a dramatic story. But the true story of the Battle of the Bulge doesn't need any falsifications to increase its drama. What is worse about this movie is its totally false premise which makes the confrontations between the Americans and Germans simply one between driven Nazis and heroic Americans, with one American in particular saving the day. Another egregious lie attributes the German defeat primarily to their lack of gasoline for their tanks. Therefore, when the Nazi fanatic is killed, the rest of the disconsolate but 'good' Germans just walked back home.

The German attack on the very stretched American lines in the Ardennes in 1945 was a highly calculated effort to split the British and American forces not unlike Hitler's drive, in 1940, between the British and French which led to the Dunkirk evacuation. In 1945, the German plan needed precise coordination and timing with particular units achieving specific goals at specific times. They didn't achieve this because of the actions of innumerable small groups of Americans who held river crossings, road junctions, passes and small hills against overwhelming concentrated forces.

The German plan broke down because just as a unit swept aside a small group of American infantry at one crossing, they were stopped by another. The battlefield was filled with small groups of bodies of American men who had been killed manning these blockades. The German plan broke down because their armies could not coordinate their advances in the face of tenacious and unpredicted resistance by small units.

By the time the skies cleared, and Allied air power could be brought into play, the Germans were stretched all across the Ardennes. In addition, Patton's Third Army was able to wheel around 90 degrees to concentrate its power on the flanks of the large German forces.

Looking at the trailing German retreat in this awful movie, you would not know that the Germans would continue fighting for another four months on a two front war. The Germans failed in the Bulge, not because they ran out of fuel, but because individual Americans held them back at great sacrifice until reinforcing arms could be brought into play. Despite large losses and a surprised and disjointed command, they held on and forced the Germans to move forward at greater than expected cost. The American generalship, once the scope of the attack was understood, responded quickly and correctly.

The large German forces brought into the Ardennes were not led by Nazi fanatics but by highly professional officers. They had surprise, weather, manpower, equipment, concentration and a well-thought out plan to their advantage, and they were defeated by the American officers and men in the field who won at great cost. This movie is an effort to distort history in order to accomodate the political notion that the 'good' Germans were just forced into this battle by Nazi fanatics, and that only the lack of supplies kept them from winning. It's an insulting lie.

For those who want to see a truthful film about the Battle of the Bulge, try "Battleground", which does get the story right.

Now that India has been independent of British rule for more than fifty years, and the movies have given us the great characterization of Ghandi, as the pacifist leader of India's liberation, it's useful to pay careful attention to the speech of the Guru, marvelously played by Eduardo Ciannelli.

The violence that the Guru advocates is directed toward the same ends that Ghandi sought, the removal of British control over a country not their own. He refers to some of the outrages that led to the Mutiny of 1857, native soldiers tied to cannons and blown apart. The film, 'Ghandi', portrayed the ambiguity of British thinking after the First World War, with General Dyer's massacre of helpless people at Amritsar set alongside the doubts of distinguished British judges. Yet this finely made 1939 film leaves few doubts: The British belong in India, and Gunga Din's devotion to an army which treats him as the lowest cur is natural and heroic.

This is an exciting and flamboyant film made in a style which no contemporary director seems able to achieve. Yet, attention should be paid to Ciannelli's speechs which are marvelously delivered. Although often portraying a criminal in films, he was a remarkably intelligent and mesmerizing actor. I would have liked to see him as Macbeth, or in his later years, as Lear.

Ms. Larranaga is a very striking woman, even with her clothes on. Whatever her reasons for taking on soft-porn roles, she may have a good deal of difficulty making the move to more traditional film parts. That would be a loss. With so many of the thin blond look-a-like actresses populating the TV and cineplex screens, it's very unusual to see someone like Catalina who seems dominate a scene just be standing quietly. She also seems to have acting training. I hope she gets a chance to get serious roles in which her clothes stay on. It will be soft-porn's loss, but I'd like to hear her speak some sensible dialogue for a change.

This is a film of technique and tricks, but without any serious human feeling. One watches almost dispassionately while these victims are brutally aware of their destruction. And, Hitchcock even makes jokes, as when one of the victims, whose bra is pulled down, discretely covers her nipple while she is being murdered, as if prudery takes precedence over her desire for life. We smirk while she dies. An essential element in any "Wrong Man" film is that there is sympathy for the man wrongly accused. On the contrary, this man is a whining, exploitating loser, whose imprisonment is no social loss. Nor is there any interest in the rapist himself. He's a smooth psychopath, but what complexities exist in his personality. Why does he do what he does? Why the same method? Why the same type of tie? This murder has none of the disgusting but fascinating deviances of Norman Bates. Except for the Anna Massey character, one feels no empathy for the victims. Hitchcock is just showing off. This is a technically brilliant film which seems primarily concerned with advertising its technique. As in his television series, with its self-referent introductions, Hitchcock is less an artist than an acclaim-seeker.

Although 'The Quiet Man' remains one of my favorites, there is a dark and angry underside in this beautiful fairytale. Like all of John Ford's movies, it's a study of manners. If you remember Ford's great film 'Fort Apache', with almost all of the major actors from 'The Quiet Man', it presents the tension between the Irish and the Anglo-aristocracy in the old army. Just watch the formality of the Post dance, or the confrontation between Henry Fonda and Ward Bond in the latter's house. If you watch Richard Harris's performance as Bull in 'The Field', you see Red Will's character in this film, but without any comic elements. What both films portray is greed for land, suspicion of outsiders, the appeal of self-destruction, and the resolution of conflict through violence. In 'The Quiet Man', the hero-stranger proves stronger than his local strong-man nemesis, and a happy ending is ordained. In 'The Field', the stranger is not stronger than the local land-owner, and is murdered. At the end, almost everyone is dead. I think 'The Field' is more honest in portraying those elements Greek tragedy which continue to underpin the realities of Irish life.