The Best Movies I've Never Seen Before: Miracle in Milan (1951)

Miracle in Milan (1951) *** ½
Directed by: Vittorio De Sica.
Written by: Cesare Zavattini & Vittorio De Sica & Suso Cecchi d'Amico & Mario Chiari & Adolfo Franci based on the novel by Zavattini.
Starring: Francesco Golisano (Totò), Emma Gramatica (La vecchia Lolotta), aolo Stoppa (Rappi), Guglielmo Barnabò (Mobbi), Brunella Bovo (Edvige), Anna Carena (Marta, la signora altezzosa), Arturo Bragaglia (Alfredo), Erminio Spalla (Gaetano).

Vittorio De Sica was one of the pioneers of the neo-realist movement in Italy following WWII. He had actually started with the style a little earlier than that, with films like The Children Are Watching Us (1943). But his most well known films followed the war – in particular The Bicycle Thief (1948), about a father trying to support his family after the war, and my personal favorite Umberto D. (1952) about an old civil servant, who can no longer support himself, or his lovable dog, on the measly pension he receives. These films used non-professional actors, were shot on the actual locations, and represented life in Italy how it really was – hard and stricken with poverty. In many ways, Miracle in Milan (1951), which he made between his two neo-realist masterpieces, is very similar to the other two films. It certainly has the same basic concern – about poverty amongst Italians, and how no one around them seems to care. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. But while Miracle in Milan is part neo-realist film, it is also part fantasy film. The two styles, which logically should be polar opposites and not mesh together at all, works surprisingly well for most of the films running time.

The film is about Toto (Francesco Golisano), who we first meet as a baby, abandoned in an old woman’s garden. She takes him in, and raises her as her own – until she dies, and he is shipped off to the orphanage. But none of this seems to affect Toto that much – he spends the entire movie smiling, and helping people. When he is released for the orphanage, he even has his bag full of his possessions stolen. He walks after the thief, and tells him there must be some sort of misunderstanding, because that is his bag. The thief turns out to be a fairly nice guy – just down on his luck. He gives Toto his bag back, and then invites him to stay at his place – which is just a shanty in the middle of field, where many others have built shanty homes as well. Toto decides to take the lead on this, and soon they are building an entire shanty village in that field – and the downtrodden from all over show up, and Toto finds a place for them. Things seem to be going well, until the owner of the property shows up. He wants to sell it to another rich man. The two comically negotiate, with the potential buyer eventually backing out. But when oil is discovered on the property not longer after, he does buy it – and determines to kick the inhabits out. And that is when the fantasy starts.

While The Bicycle Thief and Umberto D. are clearly dramatic films – tragedies really – Miracle in Milan tells a similar story almost as a comedy. We didn’t really see the rich in either of those other two films – the existed as people far removed from the poor – but here they are in the film, and De Sica portrays them as buffoons. The comic negotiation between the two rich people reaches absurdly hilarious heights, and they continue to shout numbers at each other, that seem to have little relation to reality. Later, when the rich man has sent his goon squad to throw the inhabits of the shanty town out, Toto and other leaders in the community go and see him. He allows them in, but doesn’t really listen to him – he keeps picking up the phone and screaming “Buy” into it. He humors them by listening to their song, and tells them everything will be fine – only to call the police in for an inept raid (that he will also run). The rich here are completely divorced from the reality of the situation being faced by these poor men, women and children – and they don’t much care either.

I really liked the first hour of Miracle in Milan. It is here where the satire is at its best, and it’s hard not to like the ever cheerful Toto as a hero. De Sica is essentially making the same point he made in The Bicycle Thief and Umberto D. about the poor and displaced, and how the government and the rich simply do not seem to care. The last half hour of the film was slightly more troubling to me though. When things are at their bleakest, and it looks like they will be run out of their homes, Toto’s long departed mother shows up as a ghost and gives him a magical dove – that will allow him to wish for whatever he wants. It starts off amusing – and Toto wishes for all sorts of wild things, nothing for himself mind you, but for everyone else. But I think De Sica allows this segment to go on far too long. It gets repetitious, and to be honest rather dull at points, until he redeems the movie with the finale.

Overall, I quite enjoyed Miracle in Milan. I knew little of the film before watching it, and I assumed that it was going to be another of De Sica’s neo-realist movies. I was mistaken, but gladly in the first hour. De Sica would go onto to make other comedies in his career, so it shouldn’t have surprised me too much. I even think the switch to fantasy film in the final third works to a point. Had De Sica cut a little for this part, I think Miracle in Milan would probably be a masterwork. As it stands, it’s an excellent little comic film. One that deserves more of an audience.

The Best Movies I've Never Seen Before: Brief Encounter (1945)

Brief Encounter (1945) ****
Directed by: David Lean.
Written by: David Lean & Ronald Neame & Anthony Havelock-Allan based on the play by Noel Coward.
Starring: Celia Johnson (Laura Jesson), Trevor Howard (Dr. Alec Harvey), Stanley Holloway (Albert Godby), Joyce Carey (Myrtle Bagot), Cyril Raymond (Fred Jesson), Everley Gregg (Dolly Messiter), Marjorie Mars (Mary Norton), Margaret Barton (Beryl Walters).

Why is it that the greatest screen romances always seem to have the lovers separated at the end? Think Casablanca (1943) with Rick urging Ilsa to get on that plane and leave him behind, or Gone with the Wind (1939) with Rhett telling Scarlett he doesn’t give a damn (and as any guy will tell you, despite the sequel written years later, Rhett ain’t coming back). David Lean’s Brief Encounter (1945) deserves comparisons to both of those films – it ranks among the greatest screen romances in history, and once again, ends with the lovers apart (before you complain about spoilers, just remember the movie is called Brief Encounter – had they ended up together, it wouldn’t have been brief).

Every Thursday, Laura Jesson (Celia Johnson) takes the train from her small English town into the city to do some shopping, grab lunch and catch a matinee before heading home. It is a good way to break up her domestic routine. One evening, while waiting for the train home, she gets something in her eye – and cannot seem to get it out. The handsome Dr. Alec Harvey (Trevor Howard) offers her assistance. He helps her, they take their separate trains’ home, and don’t think twice about it. The following Thursday, they run into each other at a restaurant – it is packed, he has nowhere to sit, so they have lunch together. He tells her that like her, he is happily married with two kids, and that on Thursdays, he comes into town to work at the hospital. It’s a good way to break up his calm GP practice he has the rest of the week. That day, he decides to play hooky, and come with her to the movies. After that, they are powerless to stop the attraction between them.

Brief Encounter is really a story about repressed love. Laura and Alec love each other – that is clear from that first afternoon onwards. But that doesn’t mean they don’t love their respective spouses. Since the movie is told from Laura’s point of view, we never meet Alec’s wife or kids. But with Laura, we see the kind of calm, cool affection happily married couples have with each other between her and her husband Fred (Cyril Raymond). It isn’t an exciting life, but it is a happy one. They have a marriage built on love and trust – and until Alec comes along, Laura doesn’t even know she’s missing anything. She is content.

But Alec changes that. Perhaps its nothing more than infatuation and lust – a lust that after all is never really consummated in the movie. Relationships have different stages to them – and to some, nothing beats that first little while in a relationship, where you cannot stop thinking about the other person, and want to spend all their time together. Perhaps that’s why Brief Encounter works so well – and why we get the sense that neither Laura or Alec are ever going to forget their brief time together, and may even consider each other the “love of their lives”. There is none of the messiness, the arguments that come along with real relationships – just happiness. And then when its over, it’s devastating.

David Lean was a great director, who for most people will forever be remembered for his epics. The final five films of his career - The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Doctor Zhivago (1965), Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984) – were all sweeping historical epics of at least three hours in running time. Here though, in his first real solo success, he proves that he was a director just as good on a small, intimate scale. Brief Encounter runs only 85 minutes, but Lean’s direction of it is just about perfect. There is something about black and white movies that is simply more romantic than color ones – and Lean uses this to his advantage. He finds the romance in everyday locations like the spacious movie theater, the little restaurant, and especially the smoky train station. He switches to soft focus for their trip to the country, giving it the feeling of a dream. Lean, who was comfortable using a large canvas, proves he is equally comfortable on a smaller scale.

They don’t really make movies like Brief Encounter anymore. Inarguably, modern audiences may find a film like this – with no sex – to be quaint and old fashioned. And in some ways, that is true. But for me, Brief Encounter is cinematic romance at its finest.

NHL Playoff Predictions - Round 2

Western Conference Round 2

In the first round, I went 2 and 2 on my predictions - right on Vancouver and Nashville going on, wrong on Detroit and San Jose (there was some wishful thinking on my part on that one). It was a great round 1, and Round 2 should be great as well.

1. Vancouver vs. 5. Nashville
The real question in this series is what Roberto Luongo will show up. The one who was a Vezina nominee this year, and played so good in the first three games in the Chicago series, and was excellent in Game 7, or the one who couldn’t stop a beach ball for three games. If he plays well, than the Canucks should beat Nashville in round 2. Their forwards completely outmatch those of the Predators, and their defense is essentially a wash. The Sedins certainly need to step up as well, and Kesler needs to score against the much less experienced Predators, who have never been in Round 2 before. What the Predators have going for them is the best goalie in the Western conference in Pekka Rinne - who unlike Luongo is always great. On defense, they are led by Shea Weber - who was undoubtedly the best defensemen in the Western conference this season. Their forwards are workmanlike - led by Mike Fisher, who has fit in well here, and Martin Erat. In my mind, The Preds are the best coached team in the NHL - they should never make the playoffs, but always do because Barry Trotz knows how to get the most from his players. People in Vancouver probably think this is going to be a cakewalk - but they best not take Nashville lightly. This will be closer than many think.
Prediction: Vancouver in 7.

2. San Jose vs. 3. Detroit
A rematch of last year’s second round series, that the Sharks won surprisingly easily. The difference this year is that the Red Wings are not coming off of a long battle in round 1, as the swept the Coyotes, while the Sharks had to battle long and hard against the Kings. Like in the other Western series, I think this one hinges on the performance of a goalie - Annti Niemi. There were times where he downright sucked against the Kings - and that was without a legit sniper firing on him. How will be fare against Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Lidstrom, et al. These teams match up well against each other - weak on defense, question marks in net, and a group of amazing forwards. If I worry about the Sharks a little, its because even against the Kings, their fourth line couldn’t do anything right - and they had to ride their top three lines hard - and as always, there were times when Thronton, Marleau and Heatley (now a separate line as the other two) disappered. Still, I think that the Sharks are once again just too much for the Red Wings. This will be a battle though.
Prediction: San Jose in 6.

Eastern Conference Playoff Predictions
Like in the West, I was 2 and 2 in my first round predictions (proving once again why I spend more time writing about movies than hockey) - predicting Washington and Boston going on, failing on Philly and Tampa. It was a great first round out East as well, so let’s hope they keep it up in round 2.

1. Washington vs. 5. Tampa Bay
Bruce Bodreau’s transfer from all offense to a more balanced game for the Caps paid dividends in the first round, fairly easily deposing of the Rangers. This team can still out score you, but now they are also comfortable playing in close games as well. And if there is any player in the league who wants to win more than Ovechkin, I don’t know who it is. Green should be healthy, and Neuvirth has answered a questions about Washington’s goaltending. For Tampa’s part, they never said die, came back from 3-1 behind to beat the Pens. Surprisingly, Tampa was able to do it even with Stamkos underperforming. Guy Boucher has this team playing tremendously well right now, and the ageless Dwayne Roloson still has something left in the tank in net. Still however, I think it’s asking too much of Tampa, who have just won their first series since winning the cup, and has struggled mightily since then to beat the Caps, a deeper, more experienced team, in the first year of their resurgence.
Prediction: Washington in 6.

2. Philidelphia vs. 3. Boston
The round two series these two teams played last year will be forever remembered, as we saw the nearly impossible when Philly came back from 3-0 down in the series and in game 7. But make no mistake about it, this Boston team is not the same as the one that blew it last year. The biggest difference will be in net, where Tim Thomas has been the best goalie in the league this year. Yes, they fought hard in 7 games against Montreal, but then again, Philly had to fight to seven against Buffalo. The question mark for Philly is whether ANY of their goalies can find some consistency. With Pronger back, and big time playoff performers like Richards, Giroux, Lieno and Briere, you know they’ll be strong outside the crease, but I wonder just how far their goaltending will get them. Out of all the round 2 series’ this is the one that I have the hardest time picking.
Prediction: Philidelphia in 7.

LA Kings Season Recap and Looking Ahead

So another season in officially over for my beloved LA Kings, who lost in 6 games in round 1 against the San Jose Sharks. It was a good series. No one gave the Kings a chance to win it, and they gave San Jose all they could handle. In fact, I think the Kings should have won the series. Had they not blown game 3, when they had a 4-0 lead, and could have pulled off one of three overtime games, they would have. So now it’s time to look forward to next year, and what I think the Kings need to do in order to improve.

Terry Murray

When Terry Murray was hired as the Kings head coach three seasons, he was undoubtedly the right coach at the right time. The Kings had missed the playoffs five straight seasons, and while they missed again in Murray’s first year, there was definite improvement. The Kings have made the playoffs the last two seasons, in large part due to Murray, who has provided this young team with structure and discipline. He is very good with young players, and we have definitely seen improvement from Kopitar, Doughty, Johnson, Brown, Simmonds, Quick, Clifford, Lewis, Martinez, Bernier and even Kevin Westgarth in that time. The argument for keeping Murray around is that next year, you are going to have at least one significant rookie in your line-up – Lotkinov or Schenn – and a year under Murray would help either player (or both) become more complete players. Under Murray, the Kings have become one of the best defensive teams in the league (ranked 5th in overall goals against) and penalty killing (ranked 4th, although no one allowed fewer PP goals this season, because the Kings were disciplined). In Quick, they seemed to have a found one of the best goalies in the league. If Championships are built on defense and goaltending, the Kings have that, and Murray can continue.

On the other hand (and this is the part people who know me have been waiting for, since I have been very hard on Murray all year long), you also need to score to win. The reason why the Kings finished 7th in the Conference, despite their impressive defense, is because their offense this year was at times non-existent. 24th in the league on the Powerplay, 25th in the league in overall Goals For. The reason for this is simple – Terry Murray was too conservative all year long. He was conservative when he had to choose between three rookie centers – Schenn, Lotkinov and Lewis, and picked the defensive specialist over the offensive guys. He was conservative later when they had to recall Lotkinov, and he was producing offense, but was weaker on defense, and demoted him again (where he promptly got hurt, meaning when Kopitar went down with his injury, the Kings had no offensive center to replace him). His powerplay was stagnate and didn’t move the puck well enough – and he stubbornly refused to change it. His mantra to the forwards seemed to be step up, but don’t screw up – essentially sending conflicting messages to the team by wanting them to make offensive plays, but criticizing – or benching or demoting – forwards who tried and failed to score. This in part led to the disappointing seasons by Ponikarovsky and Penner (ultimately both players should have been better, but Murray didn’t help). It seemed to me that Poni was scared all season of screwing up – so every time he had the puck he made the safe play – which is why this former 20 goal scorer only netted 5 this year. For his part, Penner simply looked confused for much of his time with the Kings since coming over at the trade deadline. He shows signs of life in the final two games of the Sharks series, but that was about it.

In the playoffs, the Kings lost however not because of the lack of offense, but because their structure fell apart. It fell apart in Games 3, 4 and 6 at times – the three at home – and that is why the Kings lost those games. The Kings were once again an inconsistent team all season – at times one of the best teams in the league (the first 15 games, the stretch from the All Star break to Kopitar’s injury) and at times one of the worst teams (November, January and after Kopitar got hurt until the end of the season). A coach’s main job, in my mind anyway, is to get consistent play out of their players. And to me, Murray failed to do this at times this season.

So ultimately, I am of two minds on Murray. On one hand, had they Kopitar in the series against the Sharks, they very easily could have won, pushed on to the second round and who knows what else. Hell, had they had Kopitar, they may have been able to get the one additional win they needed in their final 7 games to get to 4th instead of 7th. On the other hand, Murray failed to get his team to play offensively and he failed to get them to play consistently, and that ultimately is why the Kings were in 7th in the first place, and why they lost to the Sharks. If it were up to me, I’d fire Murray and bring in someone else – Ken Hitchcock and Peter DeBoer are the names that leap to mind. But when all is said and done, if Murray is back next year, I will not be too upset. But please Terry, keep one of Lotkinov or Schenn next year, and not go with four centers of Kopitar-Stoll-Richardson-Lewis. That would be a disaster.

Free Agents

The past few years, the Kings have been one of those teams with tons of Cap Space. That will not be the case next year – with the players they have added, and the Restricted Free Agents they have to sign, they will be right up against the cap next year. This is a one year thing, as after next season Penner, Smyth, Stoll and Mitchell are all UFA, and will free up a ton of cap space.

What does it mean for next season though? It means goodbye Peter Harrold (who didn’t player since January anyway), Alexi Ponikarovsky (who was a disappointment) and Michael Handzus (who is beloved in LA, but is slowing down and who they do not have the room to sign). All are UFA this year, and so, will have to be let go.

The Kings have quite a few Restricted Free Agents – this even after resigning Jonathan Bernier and Jack Johnson during the course of the season. The most important one is inarguably Drew Doughty, who will eat up quite a bit of cap space, but Wayne Simmonds is also vitally important to get under contract. They will also want to get rookies Alec Martinez and Trevor Lewis to resign as well, and given his playoff performance, Brad Richardson looks to be someone else they will try and retain. The question mark is Oscar Moller, who I do not think will ever fit in as long as Terry Murray is the coach (he is too small to play Murray brand hockey), but who is a talented guy, so I think they resign him, even if he ends up in Manchester for most of next season. From the Manchester lineup, they’ll have some to resign as well – leading scorer Bud Holloway, Richard Clune, David Meckler, Andrew Campbell, Corey Elkins, Marc-Andre Cliché, Patrick Mullen and goaltender Jeff Zatkoff are all RFA this year, and John Zeiller is UFA. I admit I don’t know much about these players (only Zeiler played any games with the Kings this season), so it will be up to Lombardi to determine what he wants to do. One thing that is clear, barring any trades, none of these guys will be on the Kings next year.

As for the free agent market of NHL players not currently on the Kings that will become available July 1st, I wouldn’t hold your breath expecting ANY signings this year. The Kings simply do not have the cap space, so any one they sign, would mean a trade would had to be made to make room. I know a lot of people thought the Kings may have interest in Brad Richards this off season, but they have nowhere near the cap space to sign him.

Potential Rookies

Next season, the Kings – who have broken in quite a few rookies in the past few seasons – will likely have a few rookies in their lineup. With the likely departure of Michael Handzus, that means there is a spot open at center – and it will undoubtedly come down to a battle of the youngsters Brayden Schenn and Andrei Loktinov. Lotki has more NHL experience, but had they been allowed to keep Schenn in the AHL this year, that might have been different. In my mind, these two guys are going to battle for a permanent spot on next year’s roster in training camp. The winner gets it; the loser has to wait for an injury or for Stoll’s departure the following year. Undoubtedly, these are the number 2 and 3 of the Kings’ future.

The other roster spot – for a winger – is likely going to be between Scott Parse and Oscar Moller. Both of these guys have played in the NHL before, but neither for a full season (this was supposed to be Parse’s chance this year, but he got injured after four games, and didn’t play again until Game 5 of the playoffs). The smart money is on Parse, as Lombardi and Murray seem to be much higher on him than on Moller, who likely has to spend another year in Manchester, and in actuality, may never get a real chance with the Kings – who have too many forwards in their lineup now, and too many promising ones coming up, meaning Moller is stuck in between and may not get his chance.

The most interesting may be on defense. The Kings will likely return with the same six d-men as this year (Doughty, Mitchell, Johnson, Scuderi, Greene and Martinez) and Davis Drewiskie as the seventh man. However, if they were trade one of them, that would make space for AHL All Star Voinov or Jake Muzzin, who played with the Kings a little at the beginning of the year. Or former first round pick Thomas Hickey. All would be significantly cheaper, so if the Kings are in cap trouble, I think they could move one of their defenseman, and still be okay.

Potential Trades

The Kings could make a trade this off season, especially if they want to free up cap space. The obvious trade candidates include impending UFA’s like Jarrett Stoll and Ryan Smyth, or defenseman Matt Greene. Of those three, I think Greene is the most likely to be moved – he wasn’t good in the playoffs, and with the Kings depth in defensive prospects, all of whom are much cheaper than Greene, it could be done. Least likely is Ryan Smyth, who has a huge salary, so unless there is a team who wants veteran leadership, and is trying to get the cap floor (and who Smyth will agree to go to), he’s a King next year – and I’m fine with that. There has been a lot of talk about trading Stoll in order to free up spots for both Schenn and Lotkinov, and while that is an option, it would mean two rookie centers and a sophomore center in Lewis down the middle – and I don’t think that’s a good idea.

If the Kings want to make a blockbuster, they have the tools to do so as well. Make no mistake, sooner or later they will have to deal either Jonathan Quick or Jonathan Bernier, as neither wants to spend his career as a backup. Quick looks like the man right now and teams are high on Bernier because he’s young, got loads of potential and is cheap. I don’t think it happens this year, but it will at some point. Other young players like Wayne Simmonds, Dustin Brown or even Jack Johnson could be used as trade bait, but that doesn’t seem like Lombardi’s style. So overall, while the potential is there for a trade, I really don’t see it happening.

Projected 2011-2012 Lineup

So because I don’t think there is going to be any free agent signings or trades, this is who I think the Kings lineup looks next year.

Forwards
Penner-Kopitar-Williams
Smyth-Schenn OR Loktinov- Brown
Clifford-Stoll-Simmonds
Parse-Lewis-Richardson
Westgarth

Defense
Doughty-Mitchell
Johnson-Scuderi
Martinez-Greene
Drewiskie

Goalies
Quick
Bernier

In this lineup, Parse and Richardson are your “accordion” players, who can move up or down your lineup if need be. Westgarth you throw in when you want more toughness. Whoever doesn’t make the team – Schenn or Loktinov is your go to call up from Manchester on the forward lines. Drewiskie I doubt will play much – in the case of a serious injury, they recall someone from Manchester. The big IF here is if the Kings decide to move a contract this offseason, and not get much in return. If they do that, Moller is one the team as well – but if he’s sent down to Manchester, he will no longer be waiver exempt, meaning recalling him would be a risk.

Future Outlook

I said at the beginning of the year that I thought the Kings would win the Stanley Cup within Five Years. I still believe that. Did I believe this was their year? No, and the reason was simple – this season the Kings essentially played with one first line center (Kopitar) and two third line centers (Stoll, Handzus). They are moving towards playing with one first line center and two second line centers (Schenn, Loktinov) or, if Schenn turns out, eventually two first line type centers. This is a good thing. But it is also something that takes time. Perhaps Schenn or Loktinov come in next year and become a Logan Couture – a 30 goal scorer out of the gate – but probably not. They will need a few years to grow. The Kings are still heading in the right direction – even if that is so hard to admit right now, a day after another devastating playoff loss.

Movie Review: Water for Elephants

Water for Elephants ***
Directed by: Francis Lawrence.
Written by: Richard LaGravenese based on the novel by Sara Gruen.
Starring: Reese Witherspoon (Marlena), Robert Pattinson (Jacob), Christoph Waltz (August), Paul Schneider (Charlie), Jim Norton (Camel), Hal Holbrook (Old Jacob), Mark Povinelli (Kinko / Walter), Richard Brake (Grady), Stephen Taylor (Wade), Ken Foree (Earl), Scott MacDonald (Blackie).

I have been fairly hard on Robert Pattinson’s previous film work. Sure, he was okay in his installment of Harry Potter, but it was a fairly minor role. In the Twilight movies, and then last year’s dreadful Remember Me, Pattinson has so far been awful, and I long for the day when his 15 minutes are up, and I no longer have to see him in movies. But in his new film, Water for Elephants, Pattinson is actually fairly good – he plays his role the way it is meant to be played. He is the passive, fairly uninteresting center of a movie that it quite literally a circus. Pattinson may well be able to have a longer career if he plays these types of roles in the future – hell, it’s pretty much how Kevin Costner has survived as long as he has.

Water for Elephants is a nostalgic look back at the circus’ of yesteryear. It begins in the early 1930s, as the Depression is just starting to grip America in poverty. We first meet Jacob (Pattinson) as he is about to take his final exams at Cornell, and become a Vet, just like his Polish immigrant father. But then a car accident kills both his parents, and reveals unknown amounts of debt to Jacob. He has lost his only family and his means of support. He decides to ride the rails to get a job – and ends up jumping on a train for a travelling circus. The Ringmaster, August (Christoph Waltz), wants to throw Jacob off but when he learns he is an Ivy League trained vet, he decides to keep him on.

What follows that is a movie that is fairly hard to believe, and has heaping doses of melodrama and soap opera theatrics. Jacob falls in love with August’s wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) – the two bonding over their love of animals. August turns out to be cruel, and perhaps a little mentally deranged, as he beats the animals, red lights his men when he cannot afford to pay them (that is throwing them out of a moving train), and treats Jacob alternately like a friend, and a cruel abuser. All of this is set against the backdrop of the “Most Spectacular Show on Earth”, the Barzini brothers circus (don’t mention Ringling brothers – August hates Ringling brothers).

The film, based on the bestseller by Sara Gruen (of which it is surprisingly faithful, especially when you consider they dropped a major character – in the book, August was just in charge of the animals, not the whole show, but the Ringmaster is not here) is not a great film, but it is an involving one. It holds your interest from beginning to end. In a way, a movie like this needs a calm center, and that is what Pattinson’s Jacob provides the audience – a newbie to this world that acts as out conduit into it. Witherspoon is also quite good as Marlena – beautiful and charming, but really just a young woman (younger than Witherspoon is in real life), who has been caught over her head. It is Waltz that commands our attention – just like he did in Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds (although, this role is nowhere near that one – how could it be?). He has crazed eyes at times in this movie, but is also capable of being charming – at times even likable – which makes his cruelty all the more painful. And Rosie the Elephant adds a great deal to the proceedings as well.

Directed by Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend), Water for Elephants is not a great movie. It is too predictable for that, and a little too sudsy for my taste, but it is a movie that is involving and interesting throughout. Even though I knew the story beforehand (having read the book), the movie held my interest and entertained me. No, it’s not great. But it’s pretty darn good.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: The Pilgrim (1923)

The Pilgrim (1923) *** ½
Directed by: Charles Chaplin.
Written by: Charles Chaplin.
Starring: Charles Chaplin (The Pilgrim), Edna Purviance (Miss Brown), Kitty Bradbury (Mrs. Brown, Edna's Mother), Syd Chaplin (Eloper / Train Conductor / Little Boy's Father), Mack Swain (Deacon), Mai Wells (Little Boy's Mother), Dinky Riesner (Little Boy), Loyal Underwood (Elder), Charles Reisner (Howard Huntington, Crook), Tom Murray (Sheriff Bryan), Henry Bergman (Sheriff on Train / Man In Railroad Station).

Those of you who read my last entry in this series, about Buster Keaton’s Seven Chances (1925), know that in the never ending debate between silent movie fans about that is better – Keaton or Chaplin – that I fall firmly on the Keaton side of things. But saying that no way implies that Chaplin is somehow overrated or not very good. Despite my preference for Keaton, I have to admit that I don’t think he ever made a film quite as good as City Lights (1931), and of course while Keaton’s career fizzled in the sound era, Chaplin continued to produce great or near great films like The Great Dictator (1940), Monsieur Verdoux (1947) and Limelight (1952). Chaplin was smart enough to maintain his artistic independence, and because of it, was able to continue to make the types of films he wanted to for his entire career as a director.

His 1923 film, The Pilgrim, is one of Chaplin’s lesser known features. At only 55 minutes, it can barely be called a feature at all, which is why in the 1950s, Chaplin bundled it up with a couple of shorter films and reissued it as The Chaplin Revue (however since it wasn't The Chaplin Revue that made the They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They? Top 1000 list, but The Pilgrim, I’m reviewing it as a stand alone film).

In The Pilgrim, Chaplin surprisingly doesn’t pay his patented Little Tramp character that he made famous in his shorts, and continued on through films like The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times and The Great Dictator. The difference however is fairly unnoticeable. Chaplin plays an escaped convict, who steals a Pastor’s clothes, and bounds a train for Texas. When he gets off the train, he is mistaken by the local congregation as their new pastor (the real one has been delayed). Since it’s a Sunday, they drag poor Chaplin to church, and have him perform a service for them (complete with a hilarious sermon about David and Goliath), and then off to the house where he will be boarding, where, in the films best sequence, he clashes with a small boy. But Chaplin is recognized by an old cell mate, who threatens to foil his disguise – and steal the mortgage money the family has saved.

As I said, Chaplin isn’t technically the Little Tramp in The Pilgrim, but he might as well be. The Little Tramp was always a character who didn’t really like to work – he was somewhat lazy and shiftless, but so damn lovable, you couldn’t help but forgive him. And that pretty much describes Chaplin in this movie as well – we don’t know what Chaplin was in jail for, and it hardly matters. He is a nice guy, despite his criminal past. He willingly sacrifices himself at the end of the movie.

What surprised me about The Pilgrim is how it is devoid of many of the things we have come to expect from a movie. There is no sappy romance to clog up the procedures (there is a innocent flirtation between Chaplin and his long time co-star Edna Purviance, making her last appearance in a Chaplin film), but its hardly a romantic subplot. The film is also not as sentimental as many of Chaplin’s films are. I have never minded his romances, nor his sentimentality, but I know a lot of Chaplin’s detractors felt he laid these elements on too thickly in some of his movies. It is simply not the case here – he doesn’t even sentimentalize the kid, who is such a brat that when Chaplin kicks him, you cheer.

The Pilgrim is minor Chaplin – of that there is little doubt. It in no way can compare with his films like The Gold Rush, City Lights or Modern Times, his three silent feature masterpieces, and is perhaps even a notch or two below The Circus (1927) and The Kid (1921). Yet even minor Chaplin is better than most film comedies today. Chaplin packs more laughs into the brief sequences where he gives his sermon and when he fights with the kid, than most modern comedies do in their entire running times. Howard Hawks once said to make a great movie you needed to have three great scenes and no bad ones. Chaplin has no bad scenes in The Pilgrim, and two great scenes. I guess that means he made a near great film with The Pilgrim.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: Seven Chances (1925)

Seven Chances (1925) ****
Directed by: Buster Keaton
Written by: Clyde Bruckman and Jean C. Havez and Joseph A. Mitchell based on the play by Roi Cooper Megrue and David Belasco.
Starring: Buster Keaton (James 'Jimmie' Shannon), T. Roy Barnes (His partner Billy Meekin), Snitz Edwards (His lawyer), Ruth Dwyer (His girl Mary Jones), Frances Raymond (Her mother Mrs Jones), Erwin Connelly (The clergyman), Jules Cowles (The hired hand), Jean Arthur (Receptionist at Country Club).

Roger Ebert wrote that no filmmaker in history has had a better decade than Buster Keaton did in the 1920s. I can think of nothing better to support that claim than by saying that his 1925 film Seven Chances isn’t nearly as good as Our Hospitality (1923), The Navigator (1924), Sherlock Jr. (1924), The General (1927), Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928) or The Cameraman (1928) and is still is a comic masterpiece. Buster Keaton, the greatest of all silent film stars (yes, greater than Chaplin) was on a role in the 1920s, and could essentially do no wrong. Even when his producing partner bought the rights to a B grade Broadway play, Keaton found a way to make it into a magnificent, hilarious film.

Seven Chances stars Keaton as James Shannon, who along with his partner, was swindled in a business deal, and now needs to come up with money quickly, or face jail time. His luck seems to change when a lawyer shows up at his office, and after a series of hilarious gags where Keaton avoids him, informs him that he stands to inherit $7 million from his dead grandfather. The lone catch is to get the money, he needs to get married by 7 pm on his 27th birthday – which happens to be the same day. James has long been in love with Mary, and she with him, although he has been too shy to admit it. With the money on the line, he finally professes her love, and she agrees to marry him – until she finds out about the money. She doesn’t want to get married if it’s just for that, and throws James out. She quickly changes her mind however, but cannot track James down. He has been convinced by his partner to find someone else. There are moments of hilarity throughout the film (and one sequence, where Keaton blows off a Jew, a black woman and a female impersonator, which is in bad taste – but this was 1925, and you sometimes have to accept a little casual racism and anti-Semitism in movies from this period) but it all culminates in one of the greatest chase sequences in movie history. His partner has put an add in the paper asking for any woman who is willing to marry Keaton for his money to show up at a certain church at 5pm. Keaton is there, but when he discovers Mary will marry him, he takes off for her house – leaving hundreds of angry women in dresses furious at him – who then give chase. The stunt work and the physical comedy on display during this chase scene – which makes up about a third of the films 56 minute running time – is among the greatest sustained comic set pieces in cinema history.

Keaton was known as the great stone face of silent comedy, and he shows why in this movie. He always thought it was funnier if his character bared his many humiliations, will trying so hard to maintain his dignity. He is humiliated multiple times during the course of Seven Chances, but each time, he picks himself up and keeps going. Chaplin by contrast, worked hard to get the audience to love his character – and often added in sentimental subplots to achieve this goal. Keaton had no need to do either. His characters were always men who worked hard to try and get what they wanted, and wouldn’t give up until they had it.

Keaton’s career will go down in movie history as one of the best an actor/director ever had. He easily fits alongside the best that category has ever produced – Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, Warren Beatty, Clint Eastwood, Chaplin etc. In fact, he is better than most of them. Yet, it is also one of the tragedies of screen history that Keaton essentially shot himself in the foot when the sound era came along. He signed a long-term contract with MGM in 1928 – a mistake he regretted the rest of his life. He lost all creative control over his films, stopped directing entirely, and was forced to use a stunt double for his films – when during the silent years Keaton not only did his own stunts, but often the stunts for the other actors in his movies if they thought they were too dangerous. The films he made in the 1930s were popular, but have faded from memory. Aside from a wordless, but memorable cameo in Sunset Blvd (1950) and a great supporting performance in Chaplin’s Limelight (1952) (where Chaplin apparently cut Keaton’s part down when it appeared that he was stealing the movie from him), Keaton didn’t much great film work after the 1920s. The film he left behind from that era though still stand up as some of the greatest comedies ever made – and Seven Chances is one of them. But the world will always have to wonder what Keaton could have done in the sound era, had he not signed that damned contract.