Is It Tsar or Czar?

Film: Nicholas and Alexandra
Format: DVD from Mokena Public Library through interlibrary loan on rockin’ flatscreen.

Epic films aren’t always my thing. There are, of course, epics that I really like and there are epics that I wonder why I’ve watched. With a stack of movies near or exceeding the three-hour mark on my current list, I figured it behooved me to go about my old strategy of trying to knock out a couple of the longest films on the list every month. With that in mind, I requested Nicholas and Alexandra from the library, and here we are.

As might be deduced from the title, this is the story of the end of the Romanov Dynasty in Russia. Put a different way, this is the story of how the Bolshevik revolution happened and Russia became a communist state. And, as befits the title, it is told from the point of view of the Romanovs themselves rather than from that of the revolutionaries or from a more general historical perspective. What that means for us is a lot of pomp and finery coupled with scenes of the revolutionaries plotting their overthrow and a lot of shots of the suffering peasants. That’s often the way this sort of thing works—juxtapose the rich people with the poor people, in part to show why the poor people revolted. Here, by focusing on the Romanovs, we get a chance to see why that revolt is supposed make us sad. Or something.

The Boys from Brazil

Film: The Boys from Brazil
Format: Streaming video from NetFlix on laptop.

Often, the strangest premise makes for the most interesting film. That’s certainly the case with The Boys from Brazil, which has a premise that jumps into the bizarre with both feet. I genuinely question how far I should go into spoiler territory here, but without an actual discussion of the plot, I’m not sure how much I can really say about it. The NetFlix summary comes close to spoiler territory, so I guess the best option is to simply assume that the rest of this should be considered under a spoiler tag, or at least everything beyond the jump.

When I suggest that The Boys from Brazil works from a bizarre starting point, the most non-spoiler way I can explain that is by saying “South American Nazis.” What makes this one special when compared to the more lurid films of this nature is the cast. Check the cast list of this on IMDB; the first three names you’ll see are Gregory Peck, Laurence Olivier, and James Mason. Granted, since this was from 1978, all three men are in the twilight of their careers, but that’s some significant star power. Toss in Denholm Elliott, Bruno Ganz, and Lilli Palmer, and bizarre story or not, this is a film to pay attention to.

I Fought the Law

Film: Papillon
Format: DVD from NetFlix on kick-ass portable DVD player.

It’s always interesting to go back to a movie you haven’t seen in awhile. It’s been years since I’ve seen Papillon, decades even. Yet there are things about this film that I recalled at least in part. I remember, for instance, the guy with the disturbing facial tattoos. I remember the scene in the leper colony. I remember Dustin Hoffman’s glasses, and Steve McQueen’s ruined teeth.

The film is the roughly autobiographical story of Henri “Papillon” Charriere (Steve McQueen), falsely (according to him) accused of killing a pimp and sent to the French penal colony of Guiana. Called “Papillon” because of the butterfly tattoo on his chest, he spends his time in the hellish, nightmare conditions of the colony attempting to escape by any means possible. His sentence was life, essentially giving him nothing to lose—although escaping and being caught three times means the guillotine.

On the long boat ride from France, Papillon befriends Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman), a renowned counterfeiter. Papillon wants some of Dega’s money, and suggests a mutually beneficial arrangement. Dega, figuring that money will be useful in Guiana, has swallowed or otherwise hidden money on his person. Every other prisoner on the ship would happily kill him for his money, so Papillon agrees to protect him in exchange for enough money to purchase a boat in Guiana.

Guiana proves to be as terrible as could be expected, and Papillon’s escape attempts are confounded at every turn, landing him in solitary for two years, and because of food smuggled to him, he spends a great deal of that time on half rations. This only fuels his desire to escape even more, and leads to one of the more interesting extended parts of the film, leading to the guy with the disturbing facial tattoos, the leper colony, and eventual recapture and five more years in solitary.

And still, he wants nothing more than to get away. He ends up on an island considered unescapable, reuniting with Dega, and still convinced that he can escape back to the South American mainland and desperate to get away.

There are any number of things I could suggest that this film is about. It may well be about the indomitable nature of the human spirit. Certainly this is a quality that Papillon exhibits throughout the film. When Dega smuggles him coconuts in solitary, Papillon holds out, never divulging the name of his friend, and survives for months on half rations, and for six months in an almost completely darkened cell.

It may also be about the strength of friendship shared between these two men and several other men—Julot (Don Gordon), Maturette (Robert Deman), and Clusiot (Woodrow Parfrey) in particular. These men frequently make sacrifices, sometimes dangerous sacrifices that may add years onto their sentences, for each other. There is a unique bond of suffering between these mean—they become drawn to each other because of their ordeal.

It’s also entirely possible that this film’s purpose is to act as something like an expose on the prison system and legal system abuse of this sort is far more common. Papillon is granted two years in solitary and six (presumably after using someone else’s fake id), and the conditions that he, Louis, and all of the other men sent to Guiana experience are as terrible and dehumanizing as any prison shown on film.

So which is it? I think it’s all three. Papillon is a big enough film to encompass all of these possibilities and more. McQueen gives a memorable ad the title character, always looking to cut a deal that will put him back on the way to the mainland and his freedom. Hoffman is equally good as Louis, who by the end o the film is is a mental and emotional cripple, a shadow of his former self.

I remember Papillon for the simple fact that it is worth remembering. It doesn’t hurt that Steve McQueen is one of the all-time great film stars and arguably the most relevant for the year in which this was filmed. The relationships between the two men is subtle and touching without getting sappy or maudlin. Despite all of this, Papillon is in many ways a tragedy. And it’s a damn good one.

Why to watch Papillon: A movie about the triumph of one man.
Why not to watch: There's a limit to how much one man can take.

The Forbidden Zone

Film: Planet of the Apes
Format: DVD from Rockford Public Library on kick-ass portable DVD player.

I love science fiction, and there are times when that feels like a guilty admission. Great science fiction exists, and great science fiction tends to ask questions that are almost impossible for other types of fiction to explore, namely the question of what it means to be human. But then there is the type of science fiction that is just sort of strange. Planet of the Apes is that kind of science fiction—the premise is so silly that it’s almost impossible to take seriously.

But, it has an incredible pedigree. The novel was written Pierre Boulle, who also wrote the novel Bridge on the River Kwai, and the screenplay was co-authored by no less a person than Rod Freakin’ Serling. Director Franklin J. Schaffner’s other films include Patton and Papillon. In short, there’s a lot going for this movie right off the bat.

But it is silly. A quartet of astronauts blast off into space and travel at relativistic speeds for 18 months, assuming that when they land it will be far into the future. Their ship lands in a lake and begins sinking, and one of them, the lone woman (Dianne Stanley), has experienced a problem with her containment unit and has thus died and aged. The ship starts sinking immediately and the three survivors—Taylor (Charlton Heston), Landon (Robert Gunner), and Dodge (Jeff Burton) make it to shore and start exploring.

What they discover is a world in which humans are a degraded species and (to quote Dr. Bobo from the later years of Mystery Science Theater 3000) apes rule the world. Humans on this world can’t even talk, and are essentially parasites in the ape world. Interestingly—and far beyond the realm of typical possibility—the apes speak English and seem to have early human technology except for the fact that they have relatively modern guns. Everything else, though, is primitive.

It’s Taylor who will be our main character. The apes round up a collection of humans who are raiding their crops, killing many, including Dodge. The rest are captured, and Taylor is wounded in the throat, preventing him from speaking. However, it’s soon evident to several of the apes that Taylor has genuine intelligence. Of primary importance here is Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter), who works with animals and specializes in humans. Zira calls Taylor “Bright Eyes” and is shocked to discover that he understands speech and can write.

Zira is engaged to Cornelius (Roddy McDowall), who is the simian equivalent of an anthropologist. He has a hypothesis that apes evolved from lower orders of animals, specifically from humans, but such talk is considered heresy, particularly from the chief ape scientist and spiritual leader, Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans). Of course, eventually Taylor regains his voice, and the fact that he is capable of actual speech and shows signs of real thought is problematic for the apes. So naturally Taylor escapes with the help of Zira and Cornelius as well as Zira’s nephew Lucius (Lou Wagner) with the apes in hot pursuit. There's a lot going on in a place called The Forbidden Zone, and there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that Zaius knows what's there, and that what's there is something like blasphemy.

As I said at the top, the premise is entirely silly. And yet, almost despite itself, it’s a premise that works. In large part, the film works because of how thoroughly the actors buy into it. Everyone, particularly Heston, buys into the premise of the film to really sell it. The film needed that, because without it, it would quickly devolve into camp, and not good camp.

And so, we have this strange thing. We have a movie with this incredible pedigree, with good actors performing good work, and all of it in service of a story that is silly on its face. There’s no good reason, for instance, that the apes would speak English when we are supposed to presume that the film is taking place on a planet in a different solar system. Language is far too complex for it to evolve in exactly similar ways on two distinct worlds. What this means is that the surprise ending—one of the most legendary in film—doesn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone who doesn’t completely buy into the premise.

Despite all of this, it’s an impossible film not to enjoy. Yes, the concept is silly and ridiculous, but it doesn’t matter because it’s also a great deal of fun. Additionally, the costuming is tremendous, and while the ape faces do look a bit fake and rubbery, they’re also surprisingly effective at allowing for facial movements, expressions, and speech.

After this first film, the Planet of the Apes did go the camp route, eventually becoming far campier than the first film could have ever been. The remake was ridiculously weak, starting from the same premise and substituting a huge budget for things like quality. I’ve heard a lot of good about the latest film, but haven’t seen it. I’m not sure I want to, really. I like the purity of this film, goofy premise and all, and I’m satisfied with that.

Why to watch Planet of the Apes: It is essential science fiction viewing.
Why not to watch: If you don’t buy the premise, the entire film is shot.

Shooting that Paper Hanging Son-of-a-Bitch

Film: Patton
Format: Streaming video from NetFlix on middlin’-sized living room television.

Is there anything more iconic than the first six minutes of Patton? Is there any pre-war speech short of the St. Crispin’s day speech from Henry V more prone to making a guy want to kick someone’s ass than Patton (George C. Scott) walking out onto that stage in front of that huge American flag and talking about murdering those “Hun bastards”? If there is, I haven’t come across it yet. Those six minutes set the stage for the next two hours and forty-five minutes of war, death, explosions, hell, and trouble. They also probably did more for Scott’s winning the Best Actor Oscar in 1970 than anything else in the film. It’s worth noting that most of what Scott says in that speech come from actual quotes said by Patton, and that many of them were watered down from what the man really said.

Patton, of course, is the story of General George S. Patton, one of the most successful and controversial personalities of World War II. The film does not cover his early life, his childhood, his education, or his early military career. Instead, it starts with Patton’s first command in northern Africa after the disastrous battle at Kasserine, following his battles through the war until its conclusion in Berlin.

In addition to being remembered as perhaps the greatest tank commander in American military history, Patton is best known for a couple of personality quirks. One is that he absolutely refused to retreat. His basic strategy was drive straight ahead at his opponent, grinding over them. He had no use for anyone he considered incompetent or a coward. He also firmly believed in reincarnation, and believed that he had lived many lifetimes previously, always as a soldier.

All of these aspects of Patton’s personality are brought out in the film. Most telling are his personality conflicts with British Field Marshal Montgomery (Michael Bates), who Patton considered a prima donna and less than competent. This comes to a head, at least initially, on Sicily in preparation for the invasion of Italy. Patton’s plan for a dual landing at Syracuse and Palermo was scrapped in favor of a plan that gave the potential for glory to Montgomery, leaving the American forces the bulk of the fighting.

Patton used the fact that Montgomery encountered stiff resistance to advance, cross the island, take Palermo anyway, and then rush along the coast to reach Messina before Montgomery. It was a huge personal victory for Patton, and the beginning of his personal war with Monty. It also caused friction between Patton and General Omar Bradley (Karl Malden). Bradley was forced to take his troops over mountain roads, and for Bradley, this tactic felt less about victory for the army and more about personal glory for Patton, an opinion further enhanced by Patton’s insistence on a risky amphibious landing to continue advancing.

The other iconic moment of Patton’s life and the movie is the slapping incident. While visiting a hospital during the battle on Sicily, Patton encounters a soldier suffering from what was called at the time shell shock. Unable to believe that combat fatigue/shell shock/PTSD was a real thing, Patton slapped the young soldier and called him a coward, and was forced to apologize for his actions. This happens right about at the mid-point of the film.

One thing I appreciate about this film is the fact that it doesn’t simply focus on Patton. We get both sides of the war here, frequently seeing briefings of the Afrikakorps. It is here that we get frequent insights into the nature and personality of Patton as well as those of Patton’s greatest historical enemy, Erwin Rommel (Karl Michael Vogler).

Patton is unquestionably a war film, and there’s a lot of war in it. If you don’t like watching tanks drive around artillery fire, there’s a lot of this film you won’t enjoy. However, as much as it is a film about war, it’s also a film about the man behind the Patton legend.

Assuming the film as relatively accurate in terms of Patton’s life and career, two things become evident in the watching. It is very easy to admire Patton the warrior and to look on him as something unique in the annals of warfare. It is also incredibly difficult to like the man. He’s a bastard, unrelenting and uncompromising. It’s far easier to like and respect a man like Bradley, who left personal glory aside and always had the best interests and lives of his men as his central focus.

Patton is a fascinating film with an equally fascinating history. I’m personally attracted to films on or about World War II mainly because I feel like it’s the last war we had a real reason to be in, the last one that felt entire justified on every possible level. Regardless of my personal convictions or your own, Patton is a tremendous film. While George C. Scott never claimed his Oscar, he earned it. Karl Malden earned one too, but wasn’t even nominated.

Why to watch Patton: They called Patton “Old Blood and Guts” for a reason.
Why not to watch: You’re a pacifist.