Original and extra crispy

There are many instances where the copy is better than the original. Jimi Hendrix's cover of the Bob Dylan (lifted?) tune All Along the Watchtower is more famous and filled with a fury that makes the original sound like a demo. While many will disagree with me on this, I would contend that Sorcerer is more exciting than Wages of Fear. But, there are also "spiritual" remakes, of sorts. Is The Man with No Name trilogy really a remake of Yojimbo and Sanjuro? Legally, probably not. However, the similarities are too hard to ignore and many people feel like Leone did ape Kurosawa's films almost to a shameful level.

This weekend I was able to watch two movies that in so many ways trace their roots to specific films. In 1977, Woody Allen made what many consider to be his first masterpiece, Annie Hall. (Note, I enjoy Annie Hall, but I prefer much more Hannah and Her Sisters and the crime thriller Crimes and Misdemeanors). I know a lot of people who hate Annie Hall because it beat Star Wars for Best Picture, but that's a silly rationale to have; Dances With Wolves is a great film even though it beat Goodfellas and so on. Regardless, the happy romantic movie ends on a sour note with Woody Allen not getting the girl.

This all gets fixed in Rob Reiner's movie When Harry Met Sally. Both have a neurotic Jew chasing a girl out of his league with funny dialogue and hip friends. There's also moments with "real" couples inter-spliced during the film talking about their love lives. They speak directly into the camera and appear to be somewhat documentary in their feel. Remember how Annie Hall begins and ends? Woody Allen is talking directly into the camera in a sort of confessional. When Harry Met Sally is Annie Hall if Woody Allen and Diane Keaton got together at the end.

But, Woody Allen is not without his emulation. Throughout his career, Woody Allen has openly confessed his admiration for Ingmar Bergman. Love and Death ends with the dancing at the end of The Seventh Seal. The unsettling scene in Cries and Whispers where two characters talk with their mouths intersecting is also used to comic effect in a Woody Allen film. But, the one that bothers me most is Husbands and Wives. The movie is really trying to be like my favorite Bergman film (miniseries) Scenes from a Marriage. Maybe it is because that is my favorite Bergman movie and one of my favorite movies of all time, but Allen is trying too hard in Husband and Wives that it falls flat and false. There are no quiet moments. And the worst scene takes place in a taxi cab where the young (barely legal) women confesses her ulterior motives in a type of dime store Freudian interpretation, except it isn't played for laughs.

Many other examples can be made, and perhaps these are tenuous connections, but fresh in my mind are these two movies. Heck, I'm sure you could say Che is a spiritual brother to The Battle for Algiers. If you enjoyed When Harry Met Sally or Husbands and Wives, seek out their originals - not that I want to be preachy in recommendations.

And then there's Brothers. I was lucky enough to see the original Danish version back in 2003 when the Iraq War was in its infancy. It was also before I seriously started to study film. However, I have vivid memories of the movie to this day. I write this portion as the credits roll for the new English version in 2009. While my memory from 2003 is sparse, I can recall the ending with great clarity. However, the 2009 English version isn't as good, despite being fresh. I think this is part of the issue with remakes/re-imaginations. The story to Brothers is very good, and I'm glad the idea for it can reach new audiences with the star names of Natalie Portman et all, but while I can't name a single person from the original Dutch version off the top of my head, I have more memories of it than I do of the version I just watched. Sometimes, it is better to seek out the originals. We should just be thankful that other versions can call attention to the original works.

Why I watch, part 2

Perhaps there is something cathartic about virtually conquering our fears. In one respect, this is something film can do quite easily for the timid. Afraid of heights? Sit comfortably on the couch and watch Vertigo. Then again, I doubt watching Jaws will help someone with a fear of water. The healing process for everyone is different.

I long resisted watching Requiem for a Dream because of its subject matter. I don't like movies about drugs. I no longer have a good, close friend because of the self-absorbed nature of addiction. Couple this topic with sex and I'll freak out. So, much to my surprise, finally sitting down to watch the film wasn't that much of an ordeal. Had enough time passed to allow me to watch the film and not be worried? Regardless, the film is a triumph in paranoia and self-destruction. The immediate gratification from the fix is achieved through the fast cutting and subjective camera work. The only thing that troubles as well as befuddles me is the adoration drug addicts and misfits worship this film rather than fear it. It's like a fat man scolding a smoker. It makes no sense. Drugstore Cowboy broke me into these types of movies, and with Requiem under my belt, perhaps I'm ready for Kids? Ha!

"There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone." I still can't write much about this movie because of how personally it hit me. When a few days before you're drunk on a balcony chewing on a steak with your hands, and then see it on a giant screen with an audience laughing inappropriately, the gut hurts. The heart hurts. People use the word "everyone" and exclude some people, such as a wife or friends or family. When Plainview says it, when I hear it and feel it, I mean everyone - and that's hard for some people to understand, some close to you.

If you think too much you can't be happy. This seems to be the dilemna of Woody Allen and Bergman. To ponder our mortality and place in the universe is a form of mental masturbation. It is impossible to conclude with certainty and is a waste of time. Yet, we as a people do this. There is gratifaction in the search for something more than us, but when we reach the end of that thought, we are still alone in the world with no higher power. And man can be content with being evil. Crimes and Misdemeanors ponders morality, ends in bleakness, and is sprinkled with humor. Man is alone, or God does not care about evil - and thus cannot exist. Sometimes, evil goes unpunished, the blameless become blind, and life goes on when it wants to.

Time is on our side

Great movies don't need to be long.

The new Transformers movie is well over 2 hours long, and feels it. Zodiac, despite being my second favorite movie of 2008, approached 3 hours in length. A Hollywood "epic" basically requires a 3 hour running time (LotR, King Kong, etc) and a biography, from Lawrence of Arabia to Ray, all run overlong.

But, this perception that quality and length go hand in hand is fabricated. A plethora of good movies exist that are under 2 hours, and many approach 90 minutes.

This was perhaps more common decades ago. Paths of Glory, the first Kubrick masterpiece and a filmmaker who had generally long movies, is only 87 minutes. If it was made today, the movie would probably be an extra 40 minutes long, complete with an extended court scene and more graphic battles.

The great Disney movies from yesteryear also were relatively short. Dumbo, Bambi, Snow White, Pinocchio, and several others did not exceed an hour and a half. Yet, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and even Cars near 2 hours.

Each part of the Godfather trilogy run for 3 hours, yet every part in the Three Colours Trilogy by Kieslowski is under 2 hours and very near 90 minutes. Perhaps this is because most foreign films are shorter, but let's not forget the incredible length of Seven Samurai and Black Book (though the director of Robocop can do whatever he pleases). Why is one movie about Jesus 2 hours long (The Gospel According to St. Matthew) while another is nearly four (The Greatest Story Ever Told)? Does a Gandhi movie really need to be over three hours?

Woody Allen once declared that most movies do not need to be more than 90 minutes, but all of his movies in the last 15 years have broken that rule. It's rare for a movie today to be close to 90 minutes, but it isn't impossible. Steve McQueen's Hunger is only 96 minutes.