Tuesday, June 5, 2012

What Makes a Movie a Classic?


You always hear about movies being “classics.” Casablanca, 12 Angry Men, or A Streetcar Named Desire may all seem like stuffy black and white films that were created a long time ago for vastly different audiences. And they are.
            But inside of each of them is an enduring brilliance, a perfection of filmmaking craft, and big-time performances by big-time actors. From the camera work to the directing and writing, these films exude excellence all around, from the opening shot to the final lines. 
            Last night I couldn’t get to sleep, so I went to Netflix online and watched Chinatown. Maybe you’ve heard of it, maybe you haven’t. It was on a list of classic movies I’m mowing down this summer, so I decided to check it out. I was blown away.
            This film, like many classics, features big-time actors giving big-time performances. The film’s lead, Jack Nicholson, is at his finest in Chinatown, with the way he takes on the personality of J.J. Gittes, a dark, witty and confident private detective who specializes in matrimonial affairs. His lines are effortless, his timing spot on, and his mastery over his character is clear. In Chinatown, he is on top of his game as a shrewd, well-dressed, smooth talking, cigarette smoking ex cop turned PI.
            Complementing him on the female side of the cast is Faye Dunaway, one of American Film’s greatest female stars. She broke out in Bonnie and Clyde alongside Warren Beatty, another good looking, smooth talking male lead. In Chinatown she plays the wealthy widow of Hollis Mulwray, the late Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles Water and Power Department. Dunaway’s acting is terrific and terrifying as an exceedingly nervous and neurotic chain-smoking femme fatale who is keeping secrets from Nicholson’s character. Their chemistry is electric and sexually charged, and it creates an entire drama outside of the film’s plot.
            If the acting wasn’t enough, the film is directed by Roman Polanski, one of film’s most accomplished and respected directors. He envisions scenes in the movies beautifully, with stunning cinematography of the L.A. river, countless shots that frame Dunaway and Nicholson against picturesque backgrounds, and crisp, refreshing sets.

            Finally, the writing of the film is outstanding. We the audience, follow Nicholson’s character as he uncovers lie after lie and digs deeper into what’s really going on behind the murder of Hollis Mulwray. There film keeps the audience entertained with obstacles that Nicholson must overcome, only to find more in his way. The dialogue is great, the writing is clever, and the use of props is excellent.
In one scene, Nicholson benignly picks up a business card from an L.A. waterworks department member’s desk, and then uses the same card to gain access into a private city reservoir. Once there, he finds the corpse of Hollis Mulwray, prompting more intrigue and wonder from the audience, and leading Nicholson to more detective work. These scenes were carefully designed, well thought out, and not at all by accident, with the way that props facilitate action and plot in the story. 
I’d really encourage you to watch this movie—and it’s free online if you have a Netflix account. Though made in 1974, it is still fun and entertaining to watch because of the excellence and craft in acting, directing, and writing.

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I think "stuffy black and white films" my mind automatically goes to Taxi Driver. No wonder, what with the porn theaters and prostitutes, the blood drenched finale and the fact that it's IN FUCKING COLOR.

    Your bone-headed inaccuracies aside, what irks me the most is your flippant and reverse-snobbish attitude about old movies. Self-consciously trying to distance yourself from 'old movie snobs' you make a brash claim about reputed classics. Very smart, because people are now going to admire you for your straight talk, your directness and your going-against-the-grain attitude. What this shows instead is arch pretension, the assumption that not only are you able to discern all the levels of a film's value but that you have the know-how and command over film history to write off an entire era! You have neither of these things, evidenced first and foremost by the fact that you think Taxi Driver is in color. This kind of "I'm going to assert my individuality by attacking anything of individuality and renown" thinking shows either dishonesty or unbelievable stupidity. I'm not sure which you have, or which is worse.

    On a side note, none of the films you mentioned are stuffy. The reason those films are famous is for their nuance and artistic daring. That's why they're remembered. But you wouldn't know that as judging by this review you have absolutely no ability to discern the deeper, more important levels of a film.

    So you've come out of the starting gate ass-backwards on a two-legged horse. Now let's see if you can get to the first turn without shooting yourself or your horse in the foot.

    "I went to Netflix online and watched Chinatown. Maybe you’ve heard of it, maybe you haven’t."

    Two steps into the race and your horse only has one working leg now. What happened to your everyman conceit? Evidently it's been replaced by the oh-so-cultured conceit.

    But the rest of your limp review fares no better. If your goal was to make classic film exciting for the contemporary viewer then this review is a total failure. You've done nothing to highlight what makes the film so much more intriguing than the rest; the only insights you have to offer are "DIS MOVEE IS GUD BECAUSE THE ACTING AND THE PROPS AND THE SCRIPT IS GUD." You don't talk about the film's complex relationship to its noir forebears, the use of storytelling devices to evoke the psychosexual undertones of character behavior, or the way in which the film depicts the problems of memory and the elusiveness of truth.

    These and other undercurrents of Chinatown are what give the film its lasting qualities. The experience of watching this film is made more powerful by the way in which style enhances the subtext to create one of the most memorable cinematic atmospheres. But none of this is in your review. Your review could have simply said "THERE IS ACTING IN THIS MOVIE. AND WRITING. AND CAMERA ANGLES" and been just as useful. Your review contributes nothing to the discussion of Chinatown and the viewer's understanding of it. Your inability to expose or mention the nuance is even detrimental for anyone who reads this and then watches the film.

    On a scale of bad to outstanding, worthless. An injustice to Polanski's vision and to classic film as a whole. You should be ashamed.

    But please, keep writing. I can't wait to see your review of a movie that demands critical thinking in order to have a basic understanding of it.

    ReplyDelete