Fox and his Friends (Freedom’s Law of the Jungle) (Faustrecht der Freiheit) (1975)

LGBT Cinema are movies that either deal with LGBT topics or are concerned with the lives of people inside the LGBT community.   Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s, “Fox and his Friends”, is the latter of those two types of movies.    It is also one of the best of its kind.     Dealing with a melodramatic story of love and betrayal, the movie works more as a conflict between the class cultures in Germany than anything else.    By the time the movie ends, I was so caught up in the story, that the fact that it is set entirely within the German LGBT community in the 1970s, became an almost unnoticeable aspect of the film.    

“Fox and his Friends” is a tragedy that concerns the rise and fall of one Franz Bieberkopf (Fassbinder himself who proves that he was no slouch when it came to acting).   Franz works in a carnival under the synonym of, “Fox the talking head”, and the movie opens as the creator of this carnival act, who is also Franz’s lover, is arrested for tax evasion, leaving France unemployed.    France is a lottery addict who needs to consistently purchase lottery tickets each week and when his last bit of cash is stolen, he reverts to prostitution so that he can buy the current week’s ticket.    Due to time constraints, he still needs to steal money to buy his ticket and does that at a local florist.      Franz is introduced as Fox by his well to do trick Max (Karlheinz Bohm).     It turns out that the lottery ticket he purchased was the winning ticket with a 600,000 German Mark prize.      One of Max’s friends is Eugen (Peter Chatel) who, while initially showing his disgust at Franz’s lower-class sensibilities, changes his attitude once he realizes that France won the lottery.     By seducing France, Eugen uses deceit and dishonesty, and works to psychologically destroy Franz’s self-esteem, taking advantage of his kindness in attempting to slyly steal all his newfound wealth.  

Once France and Eugen are a couple, Eugen will slowly and with cold intent work to first make France feel like he is entering an equal world within Eugen’s own world of money and manners, while at the same time making him feel inept at every turn.   This emotional manipulation was very clear to me from the beginning, which made it equally sad to watch how Franz did not realize what was happening before it was too late.    Interestingly, when they initially meet, Franz is shown as a confident free soul, as if he is in control of the situation.  His slow sad transformation into a victim was utterly believable.   The fact that I saw it coming a mile away did not ruin the authenticity, as Franz’s lack of intelligence was never in question.   Within this relationship, Fassbinder gives an insightful critique of German society that differentiates people through class and money.   Love, which is the strongest of emotions, gets purchased here for money.    Franz has no qualms about prostituting himself when he is poor, which is a characteristic of his that Eugen takes full advantage of.  Franz is now more than willing to use his money to attain what he once thought was an unattainable love and lifestyle, while at the same time, it is Eugen who becomes the prostitute.   Love, social standing and money have never been more cynically interwoven than how they are portrayed in this movie.

It is quite interesting that, as a very liberal and freely showing LGBT film, “Fox and his friends”, is in a way a little conservative with its view on the German LGBT community in the early 70s, all the while retaining a universal story of love and betrayal.    There are depictions of bathroom sex, bath houses, and promiscuity, yet the story is so beautifully laid out and expressed, that the background of where it takes place becomes less significant.    

Similar to many of Fassbinder’s movies, “Fox and his Friends” revolves most of its drama within closed interiors that feel almost prison-like to its characters.    When Franz purchases a fancy apartment, he is made to feel immediately like an uninvited guest, through the personality of Eugen, who controls not only the living schedule of the flat, but also its complete design.   It would be made quite clear to Franz that his lower-class sensibilities would not allow him to make decisions in his new life.   He becomes a prisoner in the short-term luxury created by his sudden and unexpected wealth.   I remember being struck by stories of suddenly successful athletes who become extremely wealthy and just as quickly lose their wealth to others.   “Fox and his Friends” is a great example of this exact repeated social phenomenon.  

Other than Franz’s poor alcoholic sister and some boring spouses, who are married for money, all the characters in the movie belong to the LGBT community, making “Fox and his Friends” not only a terrific melodrama, but also a great example that, no matter who you are, we as human beings are pretty much all the same.      Not only is that a great message, but the movie it also comes from is an excellent slice of life from post-war Germany.  

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)

Milos Forman ran away from his home country, Czechoslovakia, after the Russian tanks put down the more liberal Czech government, and he was subsequently fired from the Czechoslovakia state-run movie studio.    His American movie that he most likely felt an affinity for was his cinematic interpretation of Ken Kesey’s brilliant exhibition of the totalitarian and Draconian way that mental institutes were run in the United States during the 60s.    Staying mostly true to the original source, Forman’s, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest”, leaves a strong message not only on mental health issues, but also on freedom of will.  

Sporting a fantastic cast, the movie tells the story of a convicted convict trying to fake insanity, so that he has an easier path to freedom.   The convict Patrick “RP” McMurphy (Jack Nickolson in his first Oscar winning role), as the only truly sane patient there, is also the only patient who is truly unpredictable.   He is charismatic, loud, opinionated and carries an intense need to be in control all the time.     He is what one would call a punk, and a punk in an insane asylum can have quite an effect on the asylum.   His nemesis is the seemingly mild, soft-spoken Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher in a terrifically understated performance).

The first two thirds of the movie are hilarious and entertaining as McMurphy wins the awe of his fellow inmates (or patients).  He converts their innocent card games into a game of Poker (for which he easily wins money from them), gets them to rise and demand change to their unending routine (they all suddenly want to watch the world series on TV), and does all this by basically listening to them and treating them like any another human being.    There is a large giant of a Native American that he converses and befriends, although he is told this man can’t hear or speak or understand.   Having been used to going through his rebellious life not adhering to authority, McMurphy finds that his attitude in the institute gives him the aura of being a leader.    This will grow into caring for the people that he is imprisoned with.    For the first time in his life, McMurphy realizes that he can become a leader and this newfound importance changes his attitude towards life.    This development causes great comedy and very endearing scenes that are a joy to watch.  One part of the movie that I have heard many people regard as unrealistic and unnecessary is when McMurphy escapes the hospital with all his new interned friends, not to escape, but to take them on a fishing trip on a stolen boat.   While I understand the way this plot element may seem disconnected to the main theme and story, I liked it and felt that it gave an understanding as to how McMurphy welcomed his newfound role of leadership.      

The last third of the movie is a much more serious depiction of the darker side of mental health care.  Even today, there is so much that our mental health doctors do not know and much of their treatment is based on experimentation.  In the 60’s it included lots of shock treatments and even soul-destroying lobotomies.    At the center of the movie is a battle of will between McMurphy and nurse Ratched.    She demands order and, while soft-spoken and gentle, will revert to viable threats, dishonesty, and a complete lack of empathy for her compulsion to retain that order.   During the first section of the movie, she is studying McMurphy, while building a deep hatred for him, and apparently vengeful action.  In the 2nd part, she exerts her power while he tries to exert his.     The thing is she has all the resources, and he only has himself.    It is not a very winnable situation for him, yet he tries to be defiant until the end.  

The performances in the movie are superb throughout.  It is not only Nickolson who shines as the over-the-top McMurphy, but his cast of patients in the hospital are each true to their characters.   I heard that the cast members were in an actual institute studying the various patients and that Forman gave each actor a patient to study for whom they would mimic for the film.    In watching each of these actors’ extravagant, quirky performances, I not only believed in the truism of the characters and their issues but was also struck as to how each one of them was so different from the other.    Whether it was the timid, sexually repressed Billy (Brad Dourif), the paranoid Mr. Harding (William Redfield), the bipolar Martini (Danny DeVito in his debut) or others, each character felt like a real-life victim of mental disorder.   In addition, their interaction with each other felt real and unforced.   These truly marvelous performances are one of the main treats to this movie.

As McMurphy, Nickolson put a stamp on the persona he had been building since Easy Rider.    In each subsequent role he was a loud, boisterous outsider.  In each of those roles he rebelled against the establishment.    In,” One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest”, his character places him in the one place most in need of a rebellion and Nickolson thrives in the role.    He knows that he is the most controlled person in the room and in knowing this he has fun working it.    It is one of those over-the-top performances that works.

The best performance out of so many good ones, in my opinion, must be that of Louise Fletcher, who also won a well-deserved Academy Award for the role of the evil Nurse Ratched.   The decision to play Ratched in a low-key, subdued manner was brilliant but required her to communicate her feelings in a silent manner.   As Ratched watches how McMurphy takes over her ward, I saw in her seemingly deadpan gaze her emotions varying from interest, to worry and eventually to hate.    It is a superb feat of acting that allowed subtlety to work in portraying evil intent.      Where I come from there is a saying that says, “still water digs deep inside”, when referring to eerily quiet people, and Nurse Ratched perfectly fits that interpretation.   The power of her performance has become legendary, and it is impossible to think of any other actress in the role.   Unfortunately, the precision of her acting caused her career to be pigeonholed into similar roles and her career never blossomed after this film.  

“One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” is an extremely entertaining and frequently funny movie, that contains a terrific ending that stresses its stirring drama and serious themes.   When the theme of the power that controlling elements have over the singular individual comes from a man who started his career working in an autocratic communist regime, it becomes a movie that serves as a warning against taking freedom for granted.    That is a great message, and this is a great and important movie.  

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Brussels (Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

Chantal Akerman’s, “Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles”, is considered by many as one of the greatest movies ever made.   When watching the movie, the worldwide acclaim weighed heavily on my mind.    By the end of the difficult 3 and half hours of viewing, I believe I understood what all the fuss was about.   Unfortunately, as hard as I tried, I did not find the film captivating or interesting enough to justify 3 and a half hours of my life.    So there, I can now be the brunt of the ridicule for many film snobs, just as I may have ridiculed other people for not truly appreciating highbrow movies that I love.    What goes around comes around, I guess.

Akerman’s film depicts three days in the life of one Jeanne Dielman (Delphine Seyrig), as she does typical routine chores, as well as working as a part-time prostitute who turns a trick once in each of those days.     She is a widow and has a 15-year-old son.   Due to her being a single parent with no family or social support, she turns to prostitution in order to make ends meet and has one client a day for this purpose.     The movie reflects on her and her life, which shows her to have serious OCD issues that eats at her psyche until she eventually goes over the edge at the end of the film.    

There are quite a lot of similarities between this movie and Polanski’s Repulsion.   In Akerman’s movie, however, there is no attempt at trying to hint at or explain why she is the way she is.  She is a serious, obsessive, compulsive, and clearly disturbed person.   It is quite amazing to see a movie about a person like this from the 70s as OCD was not a very well-known and accepted disorder at that time.    Akerman may have known a person like her title character in the movie and her portrayal of this condition is meticulous.     She herself was known to have suffered from depression, so I believe the cracked mind was an important theme for her.

In the movie, Jean Dielman does the same thing every day and mostly at the same time, except each day she either does it a little bit differently or we are given more detail about her actions.   I am not talking about anything very interesting, but rather mundane acts such as turning each light off like clockwork when leaving a room, polishing her sons’ shoes, and especially cooking a meal.     Yes, it is true that the precise way she goes about preparing what looks like quite appetizing meals foresaw the popularity of the reality cooking shows of today.  An interesting aspect of this are her actions as a prostitute.   On the first day, we see her client enter the bedroom and the door closes after she follows him inside.    Afterwords, she begins to finish the preparations of dinner for the arrival of her son.   The 2nd day, we still do not see what is happening in the bedroom, but we see her removing a blanket/sheet that she places over the bed for the act and her smoothing out of the bed so that it looks neat and unused.   On the last day, we see what is happening in the bedroom and this slow realization as to what she endures daily is a powerful setup to the movie’s conclusion.   

Another interesting viewpoint to Jeanne’s weak condition is when she needs to repair her son’s coat when she notices a button missing.  Instead of buying a bunch of buttons to replace all of them, she searches a number of stores anxiously looking for the exact same button to replace.     Here, as within the entire film, Akerman’s camera follows her relentlessly without any explanation or narration.   The whole movie is filmed like that, and I understand how many people may be impressed at a movie showing its audience the aspects of regular life that is never shown in a conventional film.   I still asked myself whether that was interesting enough to cover over three hours of viewing time.   

Jeanne’s son is one of the most annoying teenage characters I have ever seen.    He hardly every starts a conversation and when he does, it is about sex.    The fact that those conversations, slim as they are, occurred with his mother gives him a creepy perverted aura about him.   Most of the time, he does not even talk and, as Jeanne appears to not have any family or friends, he is the only real human companionship she has, further adding to her depressing, seemingly controlled life.   She behaves towards him more as if she is his servant or slave instead of as a mother.  Other than telling him not to read at the dinner table, she treats him like some master for whom she will polish his shoes, help him put his coat on, cook dinner for, set up the dinner table, as well as clearing the table at the end of the meal.  Love is lost within this cold family setting.     

If I was working for the Belgian tourist office, I would not want this film to be seen.  The Brussels I saw in this movie during the period Jeanne left her apartment to do errands, is gray, old and without any aesthetic beauty.    The buildings are mostly square unimaginative blocks and the people when they are seen outside seem to be all running away from any human contact.    The movie feels like an indictment on Belgium as a cold, heartless society.  

“Jean Dielman, 23, quai du commerce, 1080 Bruxelles”, is a three-and-a-half-hour film the takes its time showing the viewer regular mundane and boring acts of life that has as its protagonist a mentally disturbed woman who is controlled within herself, keeping all her emotions inside with an ending that shows the terrible consequences of this forced emotional reservation.    While I can understand the fascination with this difficult film, I still have a hard time getting over the fact of how boring the movie actually is.   

Celine and Julie Go Boating (Celine et Julie von ten bateau) (1974)

In 1971, French New Wave director Jacques Rivette produced a 12-hour slow-moving film about French conspirators living in Paris, so when his next film, “Celine and Julie Go Boating”, came in at 3 hours and 19 minutes, it was considered short by his standards.   By any other standard, it was long and tested the concentration capabilities of its viewers.    Those who stick it out until the end may find themselves mesmerized by one of the most influential surrealistic movies made anywhere in the world.  It is a film a little bit about female friendship, or love, told through what can either be the psychedelic effects of potent drugs, or a fantasy immersion into another dimension.   I kid you not.  

The movie begins with the conservative-looking librarian Julie (Dominique Labourier) sitting in a small Parisian Park, reading a book about magic.    She watches as a Bohemian-looking Celine (Juliet Berto) runs past her, dropping pieces of extravagant clothing along the way.  On the pretense of meeting her, Celine picks up the dropped apparel and rushes after her.  This is a similar intro as in Lewis Carol’s, “Alice in Wonderland”, with Celine playing the part of the running Hare, and Julie acting as Alice.  The fact that Celine is also a cabaret act magician, just adds to the Alice in Wonderland reference.   That the movie will then move its story outside the realm of reality and into some sort of dream world closes the reference.   Especially since the fantasy world that will be depicted, as in the Lewis Carol story, contains death and danger.     After Julie meets up with Celine, it is Celine who then decides to follow Julie.  In fact, one of the prevailing themes throughout the movie is the role-changing themes, as both women keep interchanging their roles and actions throughout the film.    Once their friendship gets solidified and the two women decide to live together in Marie’s flat in the historic Parisian neighborhood of Montmartre, their fantasy hallucinogenic experience at the pink house begins.  The pink house is an upper-class mansion built with pink bricks where Celine initially explains to Julie she worked as a nanny but has no memory of the experience.    Both women try to enter the house again, are forced in and later kicked out without a memory of what occurred.      However, when they are kicked out, they find themselves having in their possession a magic candy that can, through the sucking of the candy, return them as the nanny to the house.    In the house there is a Chekhovian drama taking place involving two jealous sisters, a widower (whose dead wife, it seems, was a third sister) and his sickly daughter.     Each time they taste the candy, they return to the house, both in the same role, sometimes interchangeable throughout a singular scene and eventually together as two nannies.    They decide that their duty is to rescue the sick girl from their monstrous family.   Each time they return, they repeat many scenes with only small, nuanced differences separating the visits to the house.   

This is a movie with a complex surrealistic dream-like plot that has been a major influence on major works by David Lynch and others.   I asked myself whether the Victorian-like drama happening in the pink house was shown as a window into another dimension or just a drug-induced dream invented by the two protagonists.  All the characters in the house behave like actors in a stage play, with Celine and Julie behaving as the writers and directors of the play.   Each time they return to the house they change the story just a little bit.   The story revolves around the two sisters’ jealous interaction aimed at the interest of the widower, who himself is enamored by his Nanny, who is either Celine or Julie and sometimes both at the same time.     For example, as the Nanny, Celine is seen walking down the house staircase and then shown as being Julie once she descends.   In this way, Rivette was showing me how these two friends enveloped each other’s personality.       The pink house was the movie’s version of wonderland.  On many instances while watching the things going on in the house, Rivette would make a drastic cut to Celine and Julie in their apartment, watching the drama as if it was on TV.  For this reason, I was never sure as to what I was watching on the screen.    Still, this was easily the element of the movie that best held my interest.  

As Celine and Julie, Berto and Labourier give splendid performances.    Their interactions together are delightful and humorous.   I understand that they were actual best friends in real life, and it comes through in the movie.   While, as the Nanny, both are objects of the Widower’s desire, they show no reciprocal feelings towards him, which gave me the feeling that there was more to their relationship then friendship.  Their behavior towards each other was more akin to that of two young lovers.

While the surrealistic elements happening in the pink house held my attention with fascination, this is a movie that is over 3 hours long, due to Revette’s penchant for taking a very long time to get into all the different elements of the movie.   It was a real chore for me to stay awake until the pink house action piqued my interest.   Revette enjoys long takes in most of the scenes, making for some tedious viewing.    Some people may think that this method was important for the viewer to be immersed in the world of the two women before being able to accept the fantasy world of the pink house.  I for one, think the movie would have been greatly improved if it was cut by almost half, taking out most of the long extended (and silent) first section that involved the girls following each other around the Montmartre neighborhood of Paris.    This film could be described as fascinating and boring at the same time due to its excessive length.

As a great influence on the modern surrealistic filmmakers of today, “Celine and Julie Go Boating” is an interesting work of art.   However, at 3 hours and 19 minutes, I would only recommend it to serious film buffs and not as something a person needs to sit and watch for over 3 hours.

A Woman Under the Influence (1974)

Movies about insanity are as varied and different as movies about love, yet it is rare that a story or film dwells on what it is like to be in love with someone suffering from mental illness.  Is it not true that the people who suffer the most from mental illness are those innocent bystanders who care about the mentally ill?   John Cassavetes deals directly with this truism in his hard-hitting drama, “A Woman Under the Influence”.

Boasting one of the greatest performances by an actress ever seen, Cassavetes’ movie is set within a seemingly regular working-class family in Los Angeles.   The film opens with a normal looking scene of a homemaker named Mabel (Gena Rowlands in that aforementioned performance), sending off her three small children to an overnight stay with her mother.    The children seem very well-behaved and the grandmother very caring.     Mabel also appears in this opening scene as pretty normal, as she worries about details and demands to be informed about any irregularities that may occur during her children’s absence.      In this opening scene, Mabel still seems a bit neurotic, which is a hint as to what and who she truly is.    The children are sent away because Mabel and her husband Nick (Peter Falk in a role that fits him like a glove) want to have a romantic evening together.    Nick, who is a foreman for a construction team, is forced that night to work due to a water leak at the construction site, causing their plans to fall through.    This, it seems, is a trigger for another (it appears that there were many in the past) psychotic lapse for Mabel, who ends up picking a man up at a bar that evening.  Yet this is not a story of infidelity.  For Nick, if only it was that simple.   Mable’s descent into madness quickly ascends within the next day and night until Nick is forced to commit her to an institution.    This is the first half of the movie.  The 2nd half concerns her return from the institution six months later as the very same person she was when she went in.

 

Mabel has a hard time controlling her thoughts, and an even harder time understanding them.   She is OK when alone but is so petrified about not knowing how to behave, that she becomes unglued when accompanied by many people.     If this is true, then why does her husband Nick, who loves her deeply, keep inviting large amounts of people to the house?   My guess is that he is afraid of being alone with her and is constantly looking for support for his difficulties, which are quite substantial.    

The people who suffer the most from mental illness are the immediate family who live through the irrationality that is the insane.    Of all those who suffer from Mabel, it is only Nick who chose this life.    The others, being Mabel’s parents, Nick’s parents and the three children were thrust into the predicament through fate.      By choosing to fall in love with Mabel, Nick chose to suffer through their lives together.   Only love can be a strong enough motivator to make anyone chose this type of life.    For all her irrationalities, Mabel has something that is sweet and tender and one of the successes of the film is its ability to allow me to see this.   To care for not only all the immediate family suffering but also for Mabel.   

One of the fascinating aspects of all of Cassavetes’ films, is the feeling that you are watching a reality show with real people going through issues.  I never felt while watching the movie that I was watching a play.   Cassavetes wrote the script for the movie, while allowing his actors the freedom to enhance and act on the script as they felt.    While not true improvisation, this style becomes a hybrid of the acted written word and free-flowing dialogue.  When added to stunning performances all around, this method results in a powerful viewing experience.   I was riveted to my seat throughout the movie, but I also had a feeling of hopelessness to the unchangeable situation, which is the mostly incurable disease that is mental illness.    When Mabel returns from the institution, we are told that she went through intolerable ignorant treatments, such as shock treatments and mind-numbing medication.    The fact that she returns from her six months absence the same person with the same illness is illuminating.

Gena Rowlands, who is the real Mrs. Cassavetes gives an unforgettable performance as Mabel.  She moves from calm to blusterous at a moment’s notice and by the film’s end I felt I knew what she was feeling.    This is a woman who wants nothing more than to be good and accepted, yet her sickness does not allow this and, on realizing this, she is constantly in a state of fright.     As a mother, she treats her kids like her friends and, in so doing, leaves them at dangerous unprotected levels of dependency.    Her love for them is not less than any other loving mother’s love for her children, but the expression of this love veers from care to fear to despair.   Rowlands will sometimes, in one scene, show all these emotions, and she does not do this by over-the-top showboating that another lesser actor would revert to.  It is all done through her facial expressions and physical body language.   At one point, she looks adorably gorgeous, while, in others, ugly and deranged.    None of these transformations occur through make-up or lighting, rather through pure acting.   Cassavetes films her like a documentarian using handheld kinetic camera styles and his camera follows her in a free-form manner that adds insight to her erratic actions.    

 

Peter Falk, who at the time of the making of the movie was a major TV star as the disheveled detective Columbo, shows his true range in the role of Nick.     His Nick is not stupid, and he truly understands who his wife is.  He also deeply loves her, and I was not sure if he would love her if she was sane.  Part of her attraction to him is her off-kilter, erratic behavior.     Nick is also a bit neurotic, and I believe he needs her cracked behavior to justify his own off-the-cuff energy.   We know, and he knows that Mabel has no self-control when surrounded by people, yet he invited his entire work crew to eat a spaghetti breakfast at his home, after his romantic evening with her was canceled.      Surely, he did not expect her to behave in an acceptable manner.    In another scene, after committing their mother, he takes his kids out of school to spend a forced fun day on the beach during the late fall or winter, and then feeds them beer on the way home.   At that point, I felt that the only thing keeping Nick from himself going over the edge was his love and protective need of Mabel.

The supporting characters in the movie are no less relevant with both set of parents showing two different viewpoints towards Mabel and her actions.   Her parents are petrified of her, and too scared to respond in any way other than sadness and acquiescence.  Nick’s parents, or more specifically his mother, are angry at Mabel and blame her for ruining her son’s life.     These are both two very insightful and realistic depictions of people in their situation.   Their inclusion into the story adds depth and meaning to the film.

The movie ends with a quiet functional view on how the couple work together within their unorthodox lifestyle and perfectly enhanced for me those themes inherent throughout the film.   Love is a strong emotion that pulls humans through everything.    I did not feel sorry for either Nick or Mabel by the film’s end.   I admired their love and their love gave me a bit more meaning as to what constitutes life.   For a movie to have this effect on me shows how great a motion picture it truly is.    

Dersu Uzala (1975)

The great Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa, only made one movie outside of Japan.   That movie was the Russian-Soviet and Japanese co-produced cinematic translation of Vladimir Arsenyev’s beloved memoir, “Dersu Uzala”, named after the native trapper who aided Arsenyev in his countless exploratory trips into the Siberian wilderness of the Russian Far East.   Kurosawa’s film adaption concentrates on the unbreakable friendship that was built between Arsenyev and his trapper friend Dersu.     In doing so, he created one of cinema’s great testament to human bonding and friendship.  

Set at the beginning of the 20th century, Arsenyev (Yury Solomin), is a captain in the Russian army, sent to lead a troop of soldiers to the Shkotovo region of Siberia on a mission to map out the region for eventual settlement.   The region is a hard, wild, and unforgiving area that is alien to the soldiers.   One night, a Goldi (native people of the region) trapper arrives at their camp sites, seeking some food and refuge.   His name is Dersu Uzala (Maxim Munzuk in a powerhouse performance).  Dersu immediately impresses Arsenyev with his wilderness skills and agrees to Arsenyev’s offer to work as their guide during the mission.    The movie is divided into two sperate sections, with the first section dealing with this first initial expedition led by Arsenyev.   During the trip, Dersu will be critical in protecting the group, and on one occasion save Arsenyev’s life.    Arsenyev and Dersu will also build a bond of respect and friendship that grows into brotherly love.    

The 2nd section of the movie moves forward five years where, during an additional expedition led by Arsenyev, the group meets Dersu again, who once more agrees to work as their guide.    In this second section we learn about bandits who roam the area and the local militia who hunt them down.    Dersu will once again save Arsenyev’s life in this section.  The pivotal 2nd section also revolves around Dersu slowly going blind, and Arsenyev’s attempt to give him refuge at his home in the city.    

There are two prevalent themes in the movie.  The first being the theme of humanity’s need for humanity and the stirring and strong friendship that is built between Arsenyev and Dersu.   Two people from two different and polar opposite worlds.    The aspect of Dersu that strikes Arsenyev the hardest, is the latter’s concern and deep empathy not only for the nature that makes up his world but to all people who wonder about it.      When the group finds a deserted hut, Dersu makes sure to fix its roof before they depart, so that others wondering in the wilderness can make use of the hut to save themselves from the elements.  Arsenyev was impressed as to how this man could care about people that he not only never met but would never meet.  

 Dersu’s love of the mountain wilderness that he calls home is what allows him to fully respect its beauty as well as its dangers.   He knows that the cold and wind are dangerous and can end life very quickly.  My favorite part of the movie is when Arsenyev and Dersu find themselves lost and alone on a frozen lake whose night brings wind and deadly cold.    Dersu commands them both to build an artificial shelter and the scene of their hectic and wild gathering of bushes that is used to build the shelter had me transfixed to the screen, never realizing what the result would be until it happened.    This was also the pivotal occurrence that cemented the gratitude built within the respect and love that Arsenyev now has for his guide.

The 2nd theme deals with the clashing of cultures and the ability of one culture to adapt to the other.   In the wilderness, Arsenyev needs Dersu to survive, and he can only adapt through the help of his new friend.   During the closing section of the film’s second part, Dersu needs help to adapt and survive in the city, but Arsenyev is clueless about how to help him.     He tries to instill a sense of family in the older man through his own family.   Unfortunately for a man who lived most of his life alone and in the wild, this sense of family is not only alien to him, but also impotent in its ability to help Dersu adapt to western civilization.    The movie gives a very clear and strong message as to the major differences between eastern or native cultures and the so-called western civilized cultures.    Surviving the wilderness required knowledge and the ability to be led by a leader.   Learning to survive within urban societies requires a change in mentality that is sometimes impossible to obtain from someone who has lived their whole lives in the wilderness.    Think the timeless tales of Tarzan or Pocahontas as an example of this.    

The cast of “Dersu Uzala” boasts good performances all around, but a special mention must be made to the performance of Maxim Munzuk as Dersu.    Firstly, as an ethnic Turkish-Russian, Munzuk had the look.  In addition to the look his range of emotions and surprising physicality makes his Dersu an unforgettable character.   He speaks in a broken native dialect when speaking in Russian, making his clipped speech short and to the point.   When Dersu speaks, it is never for no reason.      Munzuk relays the fear, sadness and happiness invoked by this fascinating true-life character, honest and believable throughout.  His small stature belies his physical and emotional stamina and Munzuk, with this performance, had me yearning to be his friend.   It is a performance that transcends the sometimes melancholy nature of the story.  

“Dersu Uzala” is a movie that boasts many beautiful and spectacular scenes.      For example, the two main character’s walks along a frozen lake against white cloudy skies and descending red sunsets are breathtaking.   Kurosawa filmed the movie on location at the same region that the movie is set in. The movie encompasses’ numerous wide shots of an unwelcoming wilderness that are stunning to behold.  

Akira Kurosawa was one of cinema’s true masters, and it’s a real pleasure seeing him take full control of such a non-Japanese story.   He succeeds in beautifully conveying a true life adventure of human companionship with historical significance, making “Dersu Uzala”, an extraordinary film.   

The Towering Inferno (1974)

The only thing good about 1970’s tepid, boring disaster film, “Airport”, was that it was chock-full of great satirical material that eventually created one of the great movie comedies.     It also has the infamy of having started the disaster film genre that was so popular in the 70s. 1973’s, “The Towering Inferno”, was that genre’s “pièce de résistance”, with its gargantuan budget and all-star cast.   That does not make it a good movie.  In fact, it is not even my favorite disaster movie from this period (that dubious honor goes to “The Poseidon Adventure”).

The movie has a very simple premise to its plot.   Architect Doug Roberts (Paul Newman) and building developer James Duncan (William Holden), are preparing for the dedication of their newly built “Glass Tower”.   A 515-meter tall, 138 story skyscraper.   The villain in the movie is Duncan’s electrical engineer son-in-law Roger Simmons (Richard Chamberlain), who cut corners on electrical safety specifications required by Doug’s plans, to save money and receive kickbacks.   This resulted in a fire igniting on the 81st floor while a large celebratory dedication party is in full swing on the 135th floor.    The fire department arrives in the seemingly heroic and capable hands of Chief Michael O’Halloran (Steve McQueen).    The fire went out of control, trapping everyone above the 81st floor.     Many sub-characters played by other recognizable actors, burn or fall to their death, or, as in most cases, both.     Doug rescues a couple of cute kids who can’t act, and Chief O’Halloran risks his life a couple of times to save a few lives.   Am I the only one who thinks that the heroic Chief failed miserably in controlling the fire once he arrived?  I will not go into any more details of the plot, because they are not that important.   Of course, we have a villain in Simmons, whose fate is as clear as water from the beginning.   

The “Towering Inferno” boasts an A-list Hollywood cast, and the best special effects money could buy at the time.   In addition to Newman, McQueen, Holden, and Chamberlain, we are given Fay Dunaway as Duncan’s daughter, as well as Doug’s girlfriend, Fred Astaire as a conman trying to con a rich old lady, Robert Wagner as a public relations officer, whose only purpose in the movie is to be burned alive, OJ Simpson as the token black guy, playing a security officer and many more recognizable Hollywood faces.   It is completely impossible for any movie with that large of a cast to include any inkling of depth in its characters.   Even a movie that is 3 hours long.    So, all we get are basic introductions that allow us to witness said characters’ death or heroism.   

The movie was produced by the disaster film Tzar Irwin Allen and directed by the untalented John Guillermin. The result is an expensive looking TV movie that takes most of its premise from the plot of the 1932 classic, “Grand Hotel”. I guess they could have called the movie, “Grand Hotel on Fire”. At least in the 1932 film, the characters were allowed to expand into something that we could identify with. Here, their determination to either die or survive does not give them that opportunity. A great example of this is the character played by Wagner, who, because he is having an affair with his secretary, gets trapped with her in the inferno. There is absolutely no purpose for him or her except to maybe be a cautionary warning against sexual misconduct in the workplace. I wish that was what was on the producer’s minds. Instead, I just think they wanted to kill two attractive people in a horrible and what they felt was a cool way.

While watching the “Towering Inferno”, I could not help but gasp at the many scenes of people falling to their deaths, as these scenes are eerily like the real-life pictures displayed all over the world on 9/11.    If anything positive can be said about the movie, it is this prophetic warning about how dangerous it is to be living on the highest levels of giant skyscrapers.

  A perfect disaster movie needs to suck its viewer into a nightmarish situation, while caring about the people going through the horror, and include great tension and suspense before giving a satisfactory conclusion.  “The Towering Inferno” fails miserably in all those elements.