The House is Black (1963)

The House is Black is a short documentary about life inside an Iranian leper colony. Made by 28 year old poet Forugh Farrokhzad, it takes an unflinching look at these forgotten people. But instead on focusing on despair, which would be very easy to do, she looks at the humanity. The victims life is hard but there is still joy.

This short film is important because it is viewed as an important precursor of the Iranian new wave of cinema. This kind of thing might not be what inspires most readers of blogs like mine, but I watched The Story of Film: an Odyssey earlier this year and it brought my attention to such ideas. It's still on Netflix and I urge everyone to watch it. And don't whine about his accent. You get used to it!

Forugh would never make another film. She died five years later in a car accident. She was 32. Watch it on YouTube. It's a very good use of 21 minutes of your life. AMRU 4.

The Great Train Robbery (1903)

Bandits rob train. Posse chases bandits. Bandits are shot. Roll credits.

Here, at 11 minutes, is Hollywood's first western. And filmed in 1903, it depicts almost contemporary events. Other than that, not much to say about this one, other than the jaw-dropping scene at the end where a desperado fires his gun straight at the audience. That was Peter Jackson-type stuff back in the day. Other than that, short, linear, and public domain. AMRU 3.

 

Ghost Parade (1931)

The owners of an old mansion are eager to sell, but strange things are going on, noises from empty rooms and whatnot. Maybe the ghost of and uncle who died during the civil war?

Nope, it's the buyers trying to get the house cheap because they know there is oil on the property. There, I spoiled this crap hole of a movie. Now you won't have to see it!

Maybe that's not fair, but Mack Stennett (producer of over eleven hundred shorts, mostly silent) once lamented that the public was getting harder and harder to make laugh. That attitude of rising to the occasion can be seen in full force here. What could be funnier that someone walking down the stairs slowly realizing that someone in a costume was behind them, but being to stereo typically frightened to turn around and look ...

Over, and over, and over again!

Seriously, this sucker got tedious at 18 minutes! Nuff said about this stinker.

Mack Stennett was one of the founders of Keystone, producers of many early comedies featuring the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Fatty Arbuckle, and, of course, the Keystone Kops. Considered a fairly good actor, mostly by himself, he appeared in over 350 of his own shorts. Luckily few after 1916. For anyone unfamiliar with early comedy shorts, the production pace was unbelievable. Some years he would produce over forty shorts. This schedule left little time for such frivolities like script, rehearsals, and retakes. The end result? Well, lets just say audiences are becoming harder and harder to please.

Skip this one, shall we? What interested me is the haunted house theme. I am interested in when certain cliche's were first used. Nothing of interest here, however.

AMRU 2.0.

Algie, the Miner (1912)

Nice poster, eh?

Anyhow, Algie is a foppish dandy who, in order to earn the hand in marriage of his love, must prove himself a man inside of one year. So, sporting the seasons best in western wear, he joins a rugged mining crew to gain the respect of his prospective father-in-law.

What makes this ten minute silent film interesting isn't that Algie is some fish out of water. He completely embraces his life in the wilderness. It's that he is the G.A.Y. No, it's not spelled out, exactly, but seriously, did it have to? Getting off the train, he thanks a couple men who give him directions by kissing them. Algie, the Miner is considered the first gay movie character ever. Interestingly, it was directed by the first ever female movie director, Alice Guy. Uncredited, of course.

So, is it interesting? Funny? Exciting? Original? Except for the reasons sited above, not really. It is worth a look-see as the public domain version is in fairly good shape and it's rather short, but don't expect to be wowed.

Algie returns with his mining comrades and he claims his stake with his woman. So, what are we to think? Is homosexuality is a condition that can be cured? Or is sexual orientation and individual character not mutually exclusive? Discuss. AMRU 3.

A Trip to the Moon (1902)

Or, Le Voyage dans la Luna. Oh, la la!

Wizened old scientist proposes a trip to the moon to other wizened old scientists amidst fanfare and women with nice butts. One scientist disagrees but is convinced when he is pelted with books.

They visit the worksite where workers are building their space bullet and cause trouble. Later, the ship is ready for launch. The old men are loaded into the ship assisted by woman with decidedly less than nice butts. They wave to the camera.

A civil war general orders the launch and they are shot to the moon. The trip takes several seconds. The moon is not happy.

The scientists marvel at their surroundings and the sight of an Earthrise. They are narrowly missed by a meteor and decide to take a nap. The stars and planets and whatnot come out, and they awake when it begins to snow. They go underground and find moon mushrooms. They are confronted by exploding moon men and are captured, and taken them to their leader. They blow up said leader and make their escape.

They climb into their bullet craft, push it over a cliff, and land in the ocean. On Earth. A moon man comes along for the ride. They are welcomed as returning heroes and do a dance with the moon man. The end.

Georges Melies wrote, directed, produced, and starred in one of the earliest examples of science fiction. Melies, however, didn't make much money on it. Seems some bastard named Edison pirated his movie and showed it all over America.

The movie seems to be something of a farce. The scientists are comedic, foolish old men. The notion of going to the moon (67 years away, across unthinkable scientific advancement) was laughable back in aught 2. But the movie stands up. Not because of anything it predicted. Just about everything was wrong, not that he cared. The moon does not rotate with respect to the Earth, therefore there cannot be an Earthrise. Not the point, here. But because it was inventive, imaginative, and whimsical. It's a pleasure to watch. I've watched it about four times so far. AMRU 4.

Watch is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMBkDT_eG5g

The Red Balloon (1956)

It's an old story. Boy meets Balloon. Boy loses Balloon. Gang attacks Balloon and pops it's cherry-redness. Boy drowns his sorrows in the company of many anonymous balloons. We've heard it a thousand times before.

In a book I am reading (overdue) on film appreciation, it mentions that most American's have been introduced to french cinema with this movie when it was played in schools. Vaguely, I remember watching a film having something to do with balloons that had very little dialogue. I wondered what nostalgic memories it would evoke.

So, the story is thus (ignore that crap I wrote earlier): A boy walking to school finds an unusual red balloon. He can't bring it into school so he tells it to wait for him, and it does. The balloon becomes his friend and follows him where he goes. They have some adventures, but the balloon is threatened by a gang of kids.

What's really interesting about this is the control the director seemed to have over the balloon. Clearly it was rigged, and in one place you can see how, but mostly the effect was excellent. Also, the cinematography was stellar. The city (Paris, I'm guessing) was showcased expertly. Interestingly, it won the Academy Award for best original screenplay even though the entire script could fit on a post-it note.

Winning that, and the Cannes award for short subjects, didn't seem to totally launch career of the young Albert Lamorisse. He did a couple more shots, one feature film, then died in a helicopter crash in Iran. Eight years later, the film he was making was released. His legacy as a filmmaker may be overshadowed by another accomplishment: he invented the board game Risk.

The Red Balloon is charming, visually interesting, and brief (34 minutes). Had I seen it as a child I may be giving it a higher score, but apparently I didn't. AMRU 3.5.

Un Chien Andalou (1929)

Young film director Luis Bunuel and artist Salvador Dali collaborated to make a film guaranteed to provoke. Supposedly artist and director carried rocks in their pockets at the premier to defend themselves if the audience hated the movie. To their disappointment, they liked it.

The movie was inspired by two images: Brunel's dream of clouds slicing the image of the moon like a razor slicing an eye, and Dali's dream of ants crawling on a hand. Yummy. The razor-eye scene is over in the first two minutes and only confusing images remain for the balance of the film.

There is no narrative. Just jarring, dreamlike images that bare little context. I won't attempt to describe them. At 16 minutes and available on netflix and here, you can watch it yourself. You can't understand it unless you see it. And, in many cases, if you do see it.

In fact, that was part of the point. According to the director, the intent was to include "no idea or image that might lend itself to a rational explanation". On that mark, I believe they succeeded. An interesting side note: the two actors, Simone Mareuil and Pierre Batcheff both ended their own lives. I'm sure the film does not bear the blame.

So, what to rate it? Can I say that the movie enriched my life or furthered my film education? Nope. But it's nice and short and a quick way to knock off a fairly influential movie. I'll give it a luke warm 3.0 and let you decide for yourself.

By the way, the title translates to "An Andalusian Dog" so, take that for what it's worth. Also, the eye being cut with a razor is that of a dead calf's.

Frankenstein (1910)

Filmed back when people didn't bother much to hold on to film after the first run, Frankenstein was the first ever filmed treatment of the Mary Shelley story. Keeping somewhat to the story (in a very abbreviated format), we see 'oll Vic make a monster, be disgusted by it, run to his love, get tormented by said monster, then deal with it. End scene. All in about sixteen minutes. Or thirteen and a half.

One interesting thing is how the monster gets created. The stitching of body parts is all but de rigueur, but the book never says exactly how. Here, the creature is created in a very alchemical way. They filmed a effigy being burned then played it backwards to show it being spawned by fire. Not bad.

The movie was lost then rediscovered in the 1960's. The movie was filmed like a stage play. The actors are seen in center stage with no close ups. Somewhat crude, even by 1910 standards. IMdb lists the run time at 16 minutes, but the online version flashes before your eyes two and a half minutes short of that. It doesn't appear to be missing anything, except maybe an understandable ending.

What truly is missing is a complete restoration. The existing footage is thin and choppy, at best. That might be asking too much, as this version is little more than a novelty. There may be more worthy projects. AMRU 3.

Watch it here.

The Battle of Midway (1942)

Back in WWII, Director John Ford was just like any raw recruit who took to arms to defend his nation. That's right, just like any 50 year old recruit. His job: Shoot the enemy. That is to say, film the enemy shooting us. He got that opportunity during the famous battle of Midway. The result is an 18 minute documentary short.

In said documentary, Ford filmed service men, sea birds, enemy aircraft, more soldiers, while liberal Hollywood types like Henry Fonda narrate, pretending to be red-blooded real Americans. For this, Ford won the Oscar for Best Documentary.

Currently I'm at risk of spending more time typing this than I did watching it, so let me sum up like this: Ford was in the right place at the right time (maybe too right - he was wounded while filming) and this struck a nerve. Adding actor voices was an interesting technique. I wonder if the stories and names were accurate. Still, the Jingoistic hoopla was a little bit much. It came off tasting a bit of corn. I'll forgive the amateurish look because the technology of the day and the extreme difficulty of the circumstance. A little surprising that it won an Oscar, but an interesting piece none the less. AMRU 3.

Apparently Tojo is a reference to a Japanese soldier. I am told it's derogative, but who gives terms of endearment to enemy soldiers?