clairegm13

SPOILERS The Divorcee takes a hard look at the double standard. This is one of my personal favorite films of the Pre-Code Era because it's exactly the kind of film that the Code guarded against. Norma Shearer's character is extremely strong-willed and essentially proposes to her boyfriend at the beginning of the film. Later on she finds out her husband has cheated on her, and she does the only thing she could think of to do: she "balances their accounts." Ted cannot handle being cheated on himself and when she states plainly what she has done he asks her for divorce. Throughout the rest of the film though they both regret not being together, it is Ted who dips the lowest, becoming too drunk to even go to work. Jerry is still strong (sad that it had to end the way it did, but strong) and has many exploits with various men, but she knows she still loves Ted. In the end it is Ted who needs Jerry the most, and they end up back together on New Year's. The moral of this story is not that the married couple gets back together where it should be-- the moral of this story is that no double standard should ever exist. A woman is not going to sit idly by while her man cheats on her, nor should she. A man has to realize that he cannot ask for forgiveness if he is not willing to forgive the same act. That is why this film defines Pre-Code in my mind-- Jerry states at the beginning that they'll have a go at it only if they are equals. She finds out that she is not his equal-- she is the better man. This movie would not only never have been made after the Code was enforced (due to the adultery, allusions to sex, and the strong female protagonist)-- I don't think it would be made now. What a great female protagonist-- Shearer is magnificent (as she usually is). Chester Morris is great and Robert Montgomery is the fun-loving best friend, who acts as an organ- grinder's monkey at one point-- just delightful! Needless to say I recommend this movie to anyone and everyone!

This 1971 children's film is a classic. It's funny, fun, mysterious, and even a little scary. The performances are wonderful, the music is timeless, and it is quite a good rendition of the classic book by Roald Dahl, granted Mr. Dahl wrote the screenplay. Now a re-make of the classic film is slated to be shot. I find this hard to believe-- just like re-making Psycho-- what is the point? Re-making films in the era of video and DVD seems silly. In the earlier days of films, the older versions were not readily available for the public, so it seemed fine to re- introduce the world to the stories, but now I just don't understand the point in re- making films that are classics. The new one may be a fine rendition-- I have faith that Johnny Depp is fully capable of playing a wonderful Willy Wonka, but it's a role that I think was already extremely well portrayed by Gene Wilder. What a magical movie this is, what a wonderful story-- every child should see Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the original, the classic...

Raging Bull was somewhat of an original approach at depicting the boxing genre, although it still remains my favorite Scorsese film, I have recently discovered what an influence Body and Soul must have been on Scorsese's masterpiece. The way both Scorsese and Rossen use blood, sweat, the white lights above, and a shaky camera (very documentary-like) when shooting the fights is very similar. The slow motion is not present in Body and Soul, but other than that the two approaches are quite similar.

The idea of anti-hero is also somewhat present in both: the two characters aren't nearly the greatest guys in the world-- they are greedy, selfish, clueless, and violent . John Garfield's character manages to redeem himself at the end, whereas the Jake LaMotta character never really changes in the end except to bathe in self-pity. There are several buddy squabbles in Body and Soul (both ending in tragic deaths) as well as lusting after more than one girl (much like Raging Bull). John Garfield's Charley you can only pity until he gets wise to his actions after his trainer dies and he ceases to be the dumb fool; however, Jake LaMotta is always the fool: unaware of what the consequences to his actions are. Neither character sees how anything that he does affects those around him--Jake is in it for the glory and the money and Charley is only in it for the money--but we watch, relate to, and root for the protagonists of these films. A huge part of that, I daresay, is how great the acting is in both. DeNiro is incredible and John Garfield is an actor way ahead of his time. Garfield is great in everything he did, although he wasn't given much variety in the roles they let him play. Here he plays the boxer from youth until middle age and the portrayal is believable every step of the way. There is a sweet intensity to Garfield and his acting is much more subtle than many actors of his time. He plays the part beautifully. All in all, what a great film. If you have seen neither Raging Bull nor Body and Soul watch this one first and see how Scorsese is influenced by it, yet then takes the genre to a new artistic level.