To compliment our screening of Alfred Hitchcock’s horror classic Psycho (1960) last Wednesday the 7th, the Philadelphia Film Society will be screening his 1943 thriller Shadow of a Doubt (1943) next Wednesday, April 21st, at 7:30 P.M. at the Prince Music Theater. Shadow is special among Hitchcock’s catalog of work in that it was purportedly his favorite film that he made. Some have even said it was his best American film (although this writer and fan of Rear Window (1954) would beg to differ). Indeed, it’s one of Hitchcock’s six films (along with Vertigo (1958), Rear Window, North by Northwest (1959), Notorious (1946), and Psycho) to be selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

The film centers around a young girl named Charlie (Teresa Wright) and the uncle she was named after, Charles Oakley (Joseph Cotton). As the film begins, Uncle Charlie is on his way to visit Charlie and her oddball suburban family. Charlie is quite enamored with her uncle, but his visit seems to coincide with a police hunt for a notorious serial killer. The younger Charlie begins to grow suspicious as her uncle exhibits some strange behavior during his visit, and she is questioned by police investigators who are curious about her uncle’s nature.

The film deals with the duality of good and evil in obvious and not so obvious ways that exemplify Hitchcock’s attention to detail. In watching the film, look out for pairs or doubles. For example, the two Charlies, the two detectives, the two train scenes, and the two dinner-table scenes, are a few among the many hints at dualism. Also take note of Dimitri Tiomkin’s score (his first for a Hitchcock film, to be followed by Strangers on a Train (1951), I Confess (1953)and Dial M for Murder(1954)) which integrates the “Merry Widow Waltz” by Franz Lehár that opens the film. The waltz is warped and distorted and meshed with other score in a number of ways and becomes a sort of theme — appropriately so, as the serial killer in the film is named the “Merry Widow Murderer.” For those of you looking for the trademark Hitchcock cameo, keep a lookout about 15 minutes into the film, when Uncle Charlie is on the train headed to Santa Rosa.

For those who haven’t seen the film, what excites you about seeing it? For those who have, what about the film makes it deserving of the label “classic?” Sound off in the comments below!

The Philadelphia Film Society finish off their two-week Shakespeare-in-Film showcase with Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V (1989) at the Prince Music Theater at 7:30 P.M. next Wednesday. Following the screening, Dr. Matt Kozusko, associate professor of English and an editor of Borrowers & Lenders: the Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation will moderate discussion on the film.

It is only appropriate when talking about film adaptations of Shakespeare’s works to mention Kenneth Branagh. After all, Branagh is best known for his films in which he directs and stars in Shakespeare plays adapted for the screen. To date, Branagh has directed and starred in five adaptations: Henry V ,  Much Ado About Nothing (1993), Hamlet (1996), Love’s Labour’s Lost (2000) and As You Like It (2006). He also played the part of Iago in Othello (1995), but Oliver Parker directed that adaptation, not Branagh. Branagh’s name is almost synonymous with adaptations of Shakespeare. Which is why the filmadelphiaClassis is featuring one of his works in the Shakespeare-in-Film showcase.

Specifically his directorial debut, Henry V. Before first tackling a film adaptation of a Shakespeare play, Branagh had had quite a bit of experience both acting in and directing Shakespeare’s works on the stage. It only seemed natural to cut his film directing teeth on an Shakespeare adaptation. Indeed this first filmmaking effort led to two of Branagh’s four Academy Award nominations, for directing and for lead actor.

The film (which was shot entirely in sequence) also featured many other firsts. It marked the first film two-time Academy Award-nominated Patrick Doyle served as music composer on, and also as the first film collaboration he had with Branagh (he has scored almost every film Branagh has directed). Branagh had brought him on board having worked with him two years earlier on a stage production of Twelfth Night, which Doyle had written an original score for. Henry V was also the first of nine films Branagh directed and acted in with actor Richard Briers. It was also the first film he directed Emma Thompson in — his future ex-wife.

Branagh has received much acclaim in his career, but many point back to Henry V as an example of his finest work; it having been the only adaptation of a Shakespeare work where he was nominated for an Academy Award in acting and directing. Hence the film’s selection as a screening in the Philadelphia Film Society’s filmadelphiaCLASSICS showcase featuring Shakespeare. But these screenings are about you the members! Do you enjoy another one of Branagh’s adaptations of Shakespeare more than Henry V? Is there another film or TV adaptation of Henry V you particularly like more than Branagh’s version? What is your favorite film based on a work of Shakespeare? Do you have a favorite film about Shakespeare the man? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

It seems apropos that just a few months ago the Philadelphia Film Society screened Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs (1992) as part of the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series, and is now screening Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing (1956), being that Tarantino considered Dogs to be his version of, and an homage to, The Killing. For those unfamiliar with either film, both are about a complicated heist that is told by cutting in and out of different points in time of the story (read the previous blog concerning Reservoir Dogs here). The Killing, which will be showing at the Prince Theater on Wednesday, December 16, at 7:30P.M. (tickets here), is truly unique as Kubrick’s breakout film, and one of his many genre films.

Like Tarantino with Reservoir Dogs, The Killing is what earned him attention as a director to be able to go on and make several of his other films, but the film’s production was very troublesome for Kubrick. Firstly, Kubrick was given a paltry budget from United Artists (estimated around $320,000 – $200,000), with the rest of it raised by his producer, producer James B. Harris. Because of the low budget and the hiring of Sterling Hayden as the star for $40,000 (which encouraged the studio to give Kubrick a little more financing), Kubrick deferred his fee as director. Also, since this was the first union film production Kubrick was working on, he could not serve as both director and cinematographer, so Lucien Ballard was hired, with whom Kubrick had constant arguments with about camera and lighting choices.

Despite these challenges, Kubrick managed to get the film in the can, but that was just the beginning of his problems. Initial test screenings indicated that audiences had a problem understanding it because of its nonlinear structure, so Kubrick was forced by United Artists to go back and edit the film in a linear structure. However, since the script was written and designed with this nonlinear structure in mind, the film became more confusing with certain elements of the linear story seemingly missing when in fact they had not been filmed, since the nonlinear telling of the story did not rely on them for it to make sense. The film was returned to its original structure, but with a narration added at the insistence of United Artists. Kubrick hated this device however, so he purposefully made the narrator unreliable, having him sometimes provide false information. Ultimately, United Artists didn’t believe in the film, and disappointingly released it as the second half of a double feature with Richard Fleischer’s Bandido as the preceding film.

Despite all of this, The Killing still managed to be a success for Kubrick, as it has gained more and more critical acclaim since the year it was released, and also got Kubrick his next jobs. Kirk Douglas and Marlon Brando were both impressed by the film and both sought Kubrick to work on projects of their own. Indeed, Kubrick’s next two films would be starring Douglas (Paths of Glory (1957) and Spartacus (1960) — which was the film that made Kubrick a household name. Eventually Kubrick work with Marlon Brando on Brando’s project, One-Eyed Jacks (1961). Kubrick and Brando reportedly had constant disagreements over casting, and Kubrick left the project, having acquired the rights to make a film adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s book, Lolita. Brando ended up directing One-Eyed Jacks himself.

What excites you most about the screening of Kubrick’s The Killing? Seeing one of Kubrick’s first films in its original form? Or perhaps experiencing the stark blacks and whites that only a film screening of a film noir can provide? Can you think of other pioneer films in nonlinear storytelling before Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs? Respond in the comments below!

Last Wednesday, December 2nd, the Philadelphia Film Society kicked their filmadelphiaCLASSICS series back into high gear with a 35mm screening of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. One of director Stanley Kubrick’s most highly regarded films, it was the perfect choice for one of two installments showcasing Kubrick’s work in the Classics series, the other being The Killing, which was Kubrick’s breakout film, and will be shown on Wednesday, December 16th at 7:30PM in the Prince Theater (tickets here).

As much as the Classics series is about seeing your favorite classic films projected in their original 35mm format, it is also about discussing those films with others and sharing your appreciation for them. As always, there was engaging discussion immediately following the screening, featuring a specific moderator. This screening’s moderator was Professor Gregory Wolmart, a professor in the film department at Drexel University. Wolmart began the discussion by providing some interesting background information on the development of Dr. Strangelove, such as the fact that Kubrick initially intended it to be a very serious adaptation of Red Alert, the thriller novel by Peter George who worked on the screenplay with Kubrick. When Kubrick came to realize the sheer ridiculousness of a nuclear doomsday, he approached the film as a black comedy, bringing on writer Terry Southern to give the script a more satirical tone. Additionally, Kubrick felt intimidated by another nuclear disaster film that was being made, Fail-Safe, which was serious in tone and had big talent attached and would have hurt (at least Kubrick thought) Strangelove’s box office, so he filed a lawsuit against the film, citing that it plagiarized Red Alert, which effectively delayed production.

Wolmart then opened it up to discussion, and those in attendance spoke on how the film seems to have a universal appeal despite being specific to the Cold War era; there are general humorous comments on how politicians and governments work, along with the relationship between men and weapons and violence, and how it closely ties into sexuality for them. Similarly, the film has a very specific humor pertaining to those that understand the context in which it was released. Which, shockingly enough, was at the height of tensions within the Cold War – making the fact that the film was a comedy even more astounding to both people today and people then.

Perhaps the most interesting discussion point touched upon was the sexuality present in the film. From the opening scenes of two planes seemingly mating in the sky to the tune of “Try a Little Tenderness,” to Dr. Strangelove’s last scene in which he suggests the male-centric fantasy of a ratio of ten women to each man in rebuilding society, to the naming of such characters such as Jack D. Ripper, Mandrake, Premier Kissov, President Merkin Muffley, and Buck Turgidson, the film is dense with sexual innuendo and suggestion. This largely makes the connection between men’s fascination with violence and war and how it almost serves as an aphrodisiac, especially in the case of Turgidson and Ripper.

What are your thoughts on Kubrick and Strangelove? Is there more  to the sexual wordplay and innuendo in the film then just humor? Do you think Strangelove has a general appeal or is more specific to an older generation that understand the context in which it was released? Continue the discussion in the comments section below!

On Wednesday, the Philadelphia Film Society will be screening Sunset Boulevard (as always, on 35mm) at the Ritz East (buy tickets here) as the final installment of this season’s filmadelphiaCLASSICS series before kicking into high gear with preparations for the 18 and 1/2 Philadelphia Film Festival (details here). Fitting perhaps, that the last “classic” film we show is one about classical Hollywood.

Like most of the films screened as part of the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series, Sunset Boulevard is almost always found among any list of the best films of all time — and usually in some of the higher ranking positions. But  what makes it unique among the other classics is that it openly comments on the industry and art of which it is a part. For anyone unfamiliar with the film, it tells the story of Joe Gillis, an out-of-work screenwriter who is hired by Norma Desmond, a faded star of the silent film era, to help her work on the screenplay that she thinks will allow her to make a comeback. Many have praised the film for its accurate portrayal of some of the more depressing aspects of the industry– its penchant for abandoning its own older talent to make way for new trends. Indeed, Gloria Swanson, who plays Norma Desmond, has a lot in common with the character she plays. Like Desmond, Swanson was a huge star of silent films, made popular in films by Cecille B. Demille, and quickly disappeared from the public eye with the advent of “talkies.” This added to the film’s realistic portrayal of Hollwood characters, by imitating the real lives of the actors playing similar characters in the fictional story. Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer puts it aptly when he describes Sunset Boulevard as “still the best Hollywood movie ever made about Hollywood.”

Films like Sunset Boulevard are interesting, in that they point out their own nature– they draw attention to the fact that you are watching a film, since they are constantly portraying filmmaking itself or filmmakers. Yet  Sunset seems to ascend this characteristic. In the hands of Billy Wilder, the story is told with such pitch-perfect delivery, the viewer finds him or herself totally involved in the plot and the characters, forgetting the medium, even as characters walk through Paramount’s studio (where naturally Sunset was partially filmed), or as Joe Gillis, a screenwriter, provides a very eloquent and very written voiceover. But because the story is so interesting, and the characters so compelling, we cannot help but be involved and ignore the signposts and the seams drawing attention to the art.

What are your favorite films that depict the film industry or Hollywood? Do you think them to be particularly accurate? Which films do you think are the most accurate? Would you count Sunset Boulevard among them? Why do you think Sunset Boulevard initially had a great deal of harsh critics within the industry? What are some other examples of actors playing character that reflected actual events in their own lives?

One of the key characteristics that makes Pulp Fiction (playing at the Ritz East on Wednesday at 7:30, tickets here) stick out in people’s minds is it’s nonlinear structure: the way the three main storylines are interwoven, connected, and intercut. The nonlinear narrative has been around forever, since stories have been told — Homer’s The Iliad being an early example. In literature, it became a popular method amidst the modernist movement. Films with nonlinear structures can be traced back as early as D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance (1916) or Buster Keaton’s Sherlock, Jr. (1924). However, one could say there was a renaissance of nonlinear films with the emergence of Quentin Tarantino into the film industry — his first two films (Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction) both being nonlinear.

It became something to replicate following the release of Pulp Fiction, when the popularity of the film was still in full swing. Filmmakers of the same era as Tarantino, such as David Lynch (Lost Highway (1997), Mulholland Dr. (2001), Inland Empire (2006)), Steven Soderbergh (Schizopolis (1996), Out of Sight (1998), The Limey (1999), Full Frontal (2002), Solaris (2002), Che (2008)) and Christopher Nolan (Following (1998), Memento (2001), The Prestige (2006)) have utilized the nonlinear structure for many of their films (all of the previous parenthesized films). Nolan’s Memento lends a purpose to this structure in that it tells the story of a man with anterograde amnesia (short-term amnesia), so the audience observes the story through his perspective – piecing together memories through pictures and notes writtent to himself.

Nonlinear structure can obviously be used to revealing and interesting effect in a film and in special cases such as Memento, create a way for an audience to experience the story in the same way the main character does. But occassionally it can be extremely gimmicky or serve as a crutch to  otherwise poor plotting. Some films have been also accused of imitating the style of Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction in their structure, although it would seem crime films are particularly targeted simply because their similarity in genre as well — whether or not their plot structure is very similar to Pulp Fiction or not in telling multiple interwoven stories. Boondock Saints (1999) is one film that has frequently been accused of being a Tarantino knock-off.

What nonlinear films do you find particularly compelling? Which films use nonlinear storytelling most advantageously? Are there certain films that you feel are definite Tarantino knock-offs / copy-cats? Which films use nonlinearity as a gimmick rather than a tool? What is it about nonlinear narratives do you think people find apppealing / unappealing?

On Wednesday, August 19th, at 7:30 P.M., the Philadelphia Film Society is showcasing its next film in the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series on 35mm, Pulp Fiction at the Ritz East (click here to purchase tickets). Pulp Fiction is arguably writer/director Quentin Tarantino’s most acclaimed and successful work to date. Despite being his second film, it was really the film that brought him into the public eye and managed to boost the popularity of his first, Reservoir Dogs. It also introduced people to what one might refer to as the Tarantino Aesthetic; that is, the style with which he makes most of his films. Unique, innovative (to a point), and always controversial, it has characterized his career thus far.

If you ask most people what they think characterizes Tarantino’s style, most will say a penchant towards violence, explicit language, stylish dialogue, pop culture references, and non-linear story-telling. All of these ring true. It’s obvious Tarantino is not afraid to stray away from violence or language, and likes to make his characters feel more real by writing dialogue that is interesting, but not necessarily forwarding to the plot. However, some film buffs may say his style is also characterized by constant homage or even plagiarism according to some.

Many people stand by this conviction. Tarantino himself has admitted that he’s a B-movie connoisseur, and has lifted certain elements of movies and placed them in his own. But he writes it off as homage. Meanwhile his critics point to it as an attempt to dupe his audiences into thinking he is much more original than he actually is– by using the best bits of material from films he knows few others have seen. However, the other argument goes that Tarantino makes it his own by compiling them and funneling them through his characters, his dialogue, and his style.

Looking at his body of work, it’s obvious that Tarantino is a lover of the cinema of the past though. Reservoir Dogs is a nod to heist movies, specifically of the 1950’s, and with similarities to Stanley Kubrick’s heist film, The Killing (1956) (with Tarantino’s strongest critics claiming it to be a direct ripoff of City on Fire (1987). Jackie Brown is a modern blaxploitation film starring Pam Grier, one of the stars of those films in the 70’s. Kill Bill is a direct homage to Hong Kong martial arts movies that tell stories of revenge. Death Proof, as part of the larger film, Grindhouse, was obviously a recreation of an old grindhouse exploitation film, which were also popular in the 70’s. His latest film, Inglourious Basterds, is akin to other elite group action films like The Dirty Dozen (1967) and The Green Berets (1968). And lastly, Pulp Fiction, while not directly related to a type of film other than the films generated from the literature upon which it pays homage to, calls back to the pulp magazine and hardboiled crime novels of the 50’s in it’s style and story (one could argue Reservoir Dogs is a call back to these stories as well).

What are your thoughts on the Tarantino Aesthetic? Is Tarantino someone with a unique vision? Or a filmmaker who copies and pastes his films together from other films? Or perhaps one who knows how to take something that didn’t work in one film and make it work in his? Are there things about his style that you particular like or dislike (violence, language, dialogue, non-linear stories)? What is your favorite Tarantino film and why?

To celebrate the release of his sixth film, Inglourious Basterds (opening August 21) August is Quentin Tarantino month for the Philadelphia Film Society, with 35mm screenings of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction on August 5 and August 19, respectively, at the Ritz East (buy tickets here). Leading off with Tarantino’s first film only seems appropriate — a way of showing where Tarantino’s film directing career began in contrast to where it is now.

Basterds reportedly had a production budget of over $70 million — a drastic difference to Reservoir’s paltry $1.2 million. In fact, before Harvey Keitel came aboard as a producer and star after reading the script, enabling Tarantino to raise more money, he had planned to shoot it with a budget of $30,000 on 16mm film, with producer Lawrence Bender playing Chris Penn’s role of “Nice Guy Eddie.” So essentially, Tarantino’s big break came the way most big breaks in Hollywood do, pure chance: the pure chance that a star like Keitel came across his script, saw something in it, and decided to invest in getting it made. Once it was made, it was released in a few theaters, then took critics by storm upon its screening at the Sundance Film Festival, announcing Quentin Tarantino’s entrance to the film directing scene.

Before the film’s release, Tarantino had merely been working in a video store in Los Angeles. By chance (again) he met aspiring producer Lawrence Bender at a party, who encouraged him to write a script of his own. Drawing heavily from Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing, and lesser known films Kansas City Confidential and City on Fire (which Tarantino has since been accused of plagiarizing, and to which he insists he was merely paying homage to). From there, the script got in the hands of Keitel, and took off towards production.

Even considering that the movie takes place mostly in one location and has a very limited cast, it is still amazing to this day what Tarantino was able to pull off on a budget under $2 million. And it still managed to make a profit, grossing close to $3 million in a mere 61 theaters (compared to the 3,000+ theaters the Kill Bill films were released in). In the years since its release,  it has become a key example of a successful independent film made for next to nothing, and has  inspired many other independent films. Empire Magazine has even gone as far to say that it is the “Greatest Independent Film ever made.”

What other directors and their first films do you think are particularly interesting or inspiring success stories? Do you count one of them among one of your favorite films? Why? Did Tarantino deserve the break he got? What do you think it is about his directorial style that makes him unique or attractive?

On Wednesday, July 8th, at the Ritz East, as part of our ongoing filmadelphiaCLASSICS series, the Philadelphia Film Society will be presenting Chinatown on 35mm (tickets can be purchased here). Chinatown is a prime example of a classic film held in high regard, making it befitting of the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series. However, it also appeals as one of the most cited examples of neo-noir.

Neo-noir is the classification given to films very similar in nature to film noir films (‘neo’ meaning ‘new,’ thus neo noir essentially being a new type of film noir), but with a few other characteristics different from original film noir. Neo-noir, although still utilizing  antiheroes, stories of desperation, and  low-key lighting like film noir, are also know to acknowledge the events and technology of the times they are set in, with stories involving actual historical events, or of identity crisis, or a complicated plot with social consequences that must be slowly unravelled. Looking at this criteria, it seems clear why Chinatown lends itself to exemplifying neo-noir, as anyone who has seen the film can attest t0.

Neo-noir and film noir definitely have a specific audience, but that audience becomes involved with the film intently. These films don’ have a lot of flash to keep audiences with short attention spans occupied, a reason perhaps as to why noir is less common in present day cinema. But to those interested in a good yarn that slowly unravels, for those willing to invest in a story and a character that may not be the best person to cheer for, noir offers a compelling experience. Besides their visual appeal, a lot of the payoff in noir comes down to the climax and resolution. But the journey to that climax is wholly involving and dramatic as any mystery or psychological drama.

Which is why a neo-noir like Chinatown is a perfect installation in the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series. It is a classic example of a genre that offers a different kind of viewing experience from other genres; a genre that film lovers can appreciate for its attention to story and and unwillingness to be all flash, preferring a certain level of finesse.

What is your favorite film noir or neo-noir film?  Why? As a viewer, what do you find appealing about noir? Are there certain elements that you love? That you grow tired of? Have their been any good examples of neo-noir in recent years? Bad examples? Do you think Chinatown deserves to be touted as a prime example of neo-noir?

Raging Bull is a significant film for many reasons, a few of which this blog has touched upon, including its use of black and white and being one of the top sports films of all time. Another element of significance however is the teaming of director Martin Scorsese and star Robert DeNiro, since Raging Bull is one of several films they worked on together, and that many would argue it was their best film together. In fact, Raging Bull would not have been made if not for the persistence of DeNiro urging Scorsese to make the film about boxer Jake LaMotta. Scorsese had all but quit making films, but DeNiro talked him into believing only the two of them could properly bring this story to the screen. And his words ended up ringing true.

Clearly, DeNiro had developed a rapport with Scorsese, to the point where the two were truly collaborators in bringing Raging Bull to the screen. The two obviously continued to work together out of a deep respect and admiration of the other’s talent, and the energy they fed one another in their director / actor relationship. It was a collaboration that brought us Raging Bull, along with Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas (among others).

The tendency of a director and actor working on several films together is not uncommon however (but few others have such a track record as DeNiro and Scorsese). Scorsese himself has moved on to another muse, Leonardo DiCaprio. Alfred Hitchcock worked with Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant on several films. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, John Huston and Humphrey Bogart, Jack Lemmon and Billy Wilder; the list goes on and on, but those are perhaps some of the most successful examples.

What is your favorite director / actor team? Which ones have made the best films together, and what films were they? What do you think makes a director and an actor work particularly well together? When a director gets fixated with casting the same people like Scorsese with DiCaprio and Woody Allen with Scarlet Johannson, is it necessarily a bad or good thing? Why do you think Scorsese and DeNiro work so well together?