Being There

Alright, the film was what I call annoying. I understood the message, I appreciated the intention to be humorous at some points, but still, the whole film remained so pointless and the main character unbearable that it managed to get to my never again list.

So many questions arose already in the beginning about the character of Chance and his past and it made me try to figure him out so badly, that I couldn’t really focus on the sense of the film, I was looking forward too much to get some information about him. Any information. I mean I know it did not matter who he was and where did he come from, in our ridiculous word his story can happen. If you know the right man no one will dare to ask you the hell you are, and they are even more likely to assume your past being ‘canceled’ by FBI than considering you being practically nobody. But who was Chance the gardener? Who were his parents and what made the old man bring him up as a family gardener? How did it come that nobody discovered him existing, and later his mental defect? 

One more thing that gave me a really hard time was the ending scene, when he walks on the water while Ben’s funeral is going on in the background and Ben’s friends are discussing who to support for presidency. I guess his water-walk is a kind of symbol that he is considered as a redeemer in the situation ¬– personally for Eve, in business for Ben’s association, and for the country as he was thought to help out the President. I understand the idea, but don’t like it. I know people are blind and ask no questions, but still don’t like the idea.

The only refreshing thing in the film was Shirley MacLaine, who was nice to see, even if the ‘love scene’ was pathetic.

The Graduate

God bless you dear Mrs. Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you will know…

I think everyone knows the song by Simon and Garfunkel, and even the most of Hungarians have heard about the ’Mrs. Robinson’ story, but I think mainly because of the erotic content. But the film itself is very famous as well, although some American history and social studies are needed to understand it.

The music is very determining in the film, and the most effective is ’The sound of silence’ which goes hand in hand with the symbol of water. I take the view that water equals silence in the film, which refers to the words unspoken and that the mainstream society in which Benjamin lives has strict rules what is to talk about and what is not to. And I believe Mrs. Robinson never wants to talk because she became the victim of these rules and kind of life, and prefers not to talk at all if it is impossible to talk about thing she wants, or once wanted before became’ the Mrs. Robinson’.

The music has a constant contrast with the visual content: the lyrics are thought-evoking and always have a deeper message while the story itself is about Benjamin (and Elaine) suffering in the lying environment and already prepared course of life.

The most interesting part is the ’happy end’, when Ben and Elaine escape from her wedding and Ben is forcing back the shouting crowd by a cross. That’s fun part, but when they get on the bus they don’t seem happy at all, but a little nervous, a little regretful, a little aimless. And then comes ’Hello darkness my old friend’ again, which kills the whole feeling of achievement and freedom. It might refer to that no matter they broke away from their families’ false expectations, they still have nobody close to them, and have no idea what is next.

It also seemed to me that the whole movie is building up only for this single ending scene, and it would explain some absurd scenes, like Elaine falling love with Ben only because the kiss and that Mrs. Robinson would tell Elaine everything herself if Benjamin met her daughter.

But it was a real experience to see the young Dustin Hoffman on screen. I totally believed him being so embarrassed.

Touch of Evil

Well, I try to recall the film in details… but only some dim impression wreathes in my memory about warmth, darkness, sweat, gangsters and Charlton Heston.
Orson Welles was barely recognizable, he was very different from his old alternative from Citizen Cane. He was loathsome and disgusting, no wonder I had the feeling he was going to be the bad guy. Well, he was not the only one. Welles’ performance was really believable, I think he created a stereotype of fat, nasty police officers, going after their intuitions, which is very ugly, but eventually proves to be right.

Charlton Heston looked nothing like a Mexican except he had a moustache and spoke some Spanish. He was expected to be the good guy, the defender of justice and American hypocrisy, but eventually he turned out not to be. You were right, Ted, nobody was the good guy.

The Blondie was fine, she didn’t have to act much and she was only the victim of the happenings. 
I think the characters are not the point in the film, or can become complete only in the environment they are portrayed: the dark borders of the US and Mexico, which I think refers to both political and underground machinations of people on the two sides of the border. This atmosphere covers every place and person. It might be because of the post-war disillusionment, but everyone lives for selfish purposes and honesty does not really count –of course except for the lovers, but I think that’s only because Hollywood wanted to make some profit out o the film.

I liked the scene when the Welles visited the gipsy woman. It made the viewer wonder what kind of people he used to be and what could have made him the person he was. He must have been on good terms with the woman, and in the final scene when he is shot by Vargas, the only person feeling sorry for him is the gipsy woman, and not because the person who died, but because the person who he used to be.

And the bug-scene was hilarious, when Heston was carrying around that heavy antenna.

Rear window

This was my first Hitchcock movie ever- and it was a positive disappointment. Koppány was suffering like hell beside me at the beginning of the movie, complaining how slow and pointless it was (just like usually), but personally, it was one of the things I liked most about it. The opening scene of slowly approaching the window and then giving an insight (or rather outsight) to the view and lives of neighbors was a great idea, and perfectly placed the spectator in the place of the narrator/ leading role. I didn’t mind either the first part being sustained and leisurely, it gave us time to catch up with the happenings around the flat: get to know the faces and habits, and sense if something is out of order. 

Another like was in the film Grace Kelly, of whom I’ve heard a lot, like she later became Princess of Monaco and died in a car accident, but I thought she must have been a second-rate actress married by the Prince only because of her charm. But according to my experience so-far, I was wrong. I felt that her character was out of place all the time: as she was like a dress-stand, always acting and speaking as an aristocrat, but still, she was essential to the atmosphere of the film. She made a sharp contrast with the protagonist on the outside, but testified such bravery that would leave any man in shame. I missed her a lot from the novel, just like I missed the other portrayed lives which can be seen on screen.

The story, compared to the film version, seemed very short and plain: I prefer the film adaptation because the action is more delayed: it was interesting that his friend, the detective didn’t believe him first, whereas in the story the detective keeps thinking abut the case even after opening the truck of the missed women. An other interesting thing was that in the story the man has only a black ‘servant’, Sam, while in the film there are two additional female characters: Lisa and the nurse.

The story was good, but I preferred the film this time: the tension was greatly sustained, and the ending was funny. (both legs broken)

Casablanca

The first time I heard about Casablanca was in 2004, when Sziget festival used the line „This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” as a slogan, and achieved a great success. Interestingly, none of my classmates knew where it came from, so I turned to my ultimate source of information, my Mom. (back then we didn’t have internet access at home). Next I met some allusions to it in the Serbian indie-movie, “Black cat, white cat”, and decided to watch the original one. Since then, I made a good acquaintance with the film, and know not only one line from it. (I also know “Look at you, kid”, and that in the original screenplay there was only “look at you”, and Humphrey Bogart added “kid”, which gave an absolutely new feature to the relationship between Ilsa and Rick.)

The film became a cult-movie, and beside the awesome acting of Bogart and Bergman, I can’t really figure out why. Naturally it has an anti-war atmosphere, and a good love story with self-sacrificing and action, but still, there is something more behind the plot.

The love triangle of Ilsa, Rick and Lazlo seems to be the main motif, but without some supporting character the film wouldn’t have been of the same success. The key supporting character is lieutenant Louis Renault, a comic figure who moves between the German commander representing power, and Rick, whom he like and share interests with. An other is Sam, who brings black music to Rick’s bar being an attraction, and brings old memories to Ilsa and Rick – he, like the song “Time goes by” is a particle of the summer in Paris and the lost love.
I’d like to mention that the Hungarian dubbing is great, which cannot be told in the case of every contemporary film. 

All in all it is a good film, I liked it.

Citizen Kane

Although I’m Hungarian, even I have heard a lot of Citizen Kane, and have always wanted to watch it, so actually I’m quite happy you chose this film.

I didn’t know the story, or its significance in film history, but still, it seemed familiar. All the shots, the speaking scenes, symbolically set situations, fade-ins and outs, all these can be found in almost every movie of quality since then. I didn’t know, and was surprised to find out that Citizen Kane is the father of these techniques. Thus, I can’t imagine how incredibly innovative it could be back in its time.

The idea to portrait a man’s life from 5 perspectives (the news, Mr. Thatcher, Mrs. Kane, the butler and Mr …….) was brilliant. On one side, it makes the story more enjoyable, as eventually it is the same story told five times, but still, not boring at all. On the other hand, it also evokes deeper thoughts in the audience whether we can get to know each other at all, and if yes, is there anything in life that remains after death but human relationships. I was wondering on these questions when in the closing scenes the “inheritance” of Mr. Kane was piled up in huge spaces, and an unknown, impersonal crew was valuating and categorizing the work of a life, even burning items seemingly of no value. Interestingly the sled named “Rosebud” was doomed to be burnt, although it could have been the most priceless possession of Mr. Kane, as being the only remained piece of his childhood, last family winter (snowball), and a question of what could have happened if things had worked out differently.

Mr. Kane could have everything he desired, and still, he lost everything, as he was getting rich, he was getting alienated. The process of losing relationships, in my opinion, was portrayed by the opening space in the film. First, he lives in a small office at the newspaper, then in a house with his first wife (moving further at table), the he shows up in as a candidate in a hall, then in a huge opera-house, and finally in Xanadu, where even private speech echoes. 

All in all, this film does worth its reputation.