Dancing Bread Rolls

UMW Bullet, Sept. 27

3:10 TO YUMA

I have a confession to make: I’ve never liked Westerns. It’s difficult to become emotionally attached to a genre that essentially consists of only one film. Poor miner/farmer/townsperson is terrorized by outlaw/neighbor/ruthless businessman. Insert crying wife/kids/saloon girls. Valiant but morally ambiguous stranger turns up just in time to save the day. Wife/kids/saloon girls stop crying and end credits are accompanied by joyful, feel-good music.

So you can understand my initial feeling, no doubt, that in seeing 3:10 to Yuma I was taking one for the team. But oh! Ah! Once trapped in the darkness of the local movie theater with my least favorite genre on screen, something changed. I found myself being seduced by a plot that was new, and actors who did more than simply drawling out their lines and spitting grumpily at each other’s glittering silver spurs.

Russell Crowe and Christian Bale drive this movie, which is startlingly new yet still manages to maintain the cantankerous spirit of one of the old Westerns. As “badass” is not generally considered to be a legitimate film description, I suppose I’ll have to provide you with a secondary, more helpful one. (And you thought helpfulness was not in my nature after last week’s review of Brazil!)

Rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) aids in the capture of notorious and impeccably dressed outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) only to end up as one of Wade’s armed escorts to the prison train to Yuma. There are adventures! There is violence, mind games and explosives! There are scantily-clad saloon girls! This film even satisfies your cowboy and Indian cravings with a few well-placed Apache warriors. But through all this bloodshed and bravery there remains one key question: will they make the 3:10 to Yuma?

Balancing gravity and levity, 3:10 to Yuma jumps from shoot-outs and clandestine plotting to hilarious lines like “even bad men love their mommas.” And more brownie points are awarded for painting the outlaw as a sympathetic character à la Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. This film starts out a little weak but builds steadily, arriving at a triumphant conclusion that should leave even the most fastidious filmgoers satiated.

SHANE

Shane is the kind of Western they just don’t make anymore, but probably should. Given its crystal clear lens of 1950’s optimism, it is unsurprising that this film is, very simply, about good and evil. When examined closely, however, Shane is anything but straightforward.

Joe Starrett, played by Van Heflin, and many of the neighboring farmers, are terrorized by local cattleman Ryker, who is trying to drive them off of their land. The situation is desperate, with Starrett readying himself to take on Ryker and all of his hired men, when a stranger rides onto Starrett’s farm. The man introduces himself as Shane, and remains with the family as a hired hand. They embrace him, despite various clues that hint at a mysterious and checkered past that he is clearly trying to leave behind. But when things heat up, Shane’s acceptance of his past may be the only thing that can save this family from destruction.

It is difficult to say whether this movie should be classified as adventure, drama, action, or even an elaborate exercise in character development. The cinematography is also a strong point, and this alone places it above many similar Westerns made in that era. But Shane’s main selling point has to be the dynamic characters. More than anything, this film is about relationships between people, both friendly and antagonistic, and inner conflict for these characters can be more real than even the most serious outer conflict.

Shane, played by film legend Alan Ladd, experiences this psychological turmoil as he battles with both past and present, all the while feeling emotional attachment to this new family that has been so accepting of him. In Shane, the protagonist is a real person, not just someone contrived to ‘save the day,’ as characters so often are. And that has to be worth something.

Ever obstinate, I still don’t like Westerns.

My new film column, from this week’s Bullet. (Original version)

STARDUST, OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE FAIRY TALE

Sick of the onslaught of new Harry Potter movies? Can’t watch Legolas flip his hair even one more time? Do you sometimes find yourself wondering what the world would be like if fantasy characters, instead of wasting wishes on true love, requested acting talent or better screenplays? In this age of inverse correlation between special effects and depth of plot, it’s refreshing to see at least one new movie that sacrifices neither.

Based on the book by wizard author Neil Gaiman, Stardust is a fairy tale in the most basic sense, though not at all predictable. And like many great stories, the trouble begins with the fatal combination of a girl and too much alcohol. Tristan Thorn (played by Charlie Cox) is so smitten with the beautiful Victoria (Sienna Miller) that, during an evening of wine and star-gazing, he vows to obtain a falling star in exchange for her love. Leaving home, he crosses the carefully guarded wall between his village and the fairy world. In a rather inconvenient plot development, Tristan discovers that the star he’s seeking is actually a girl, Yvaine (Claire Danes). Our hero, though taken aback, is not easily discouraged and sets out for home with Yvaine in tow. (“Nothing says romance like a kidnapped, injured woman!”) On the way they encounter evil witches, princes (both of the living and non-living variety), a unicorn, confused peasants, and one delightfully flamboyant pirate in the form of Robert DeNiro.

While Stardust has an occasionally inconsistent pace, a few missing scenes along with some invented ones, and even the occasional unexplained plot gap (challenging for those who haven’t read the book), it remains faithful to the basic story and spirit of Gaiman’s creation. Fantasy films aren’t taken seriously often enough and are generally relegated to the realm of childhood entertainment, but this film does a wonderful job of avoiding this trend of oversimplification. Most of all, Stardust is driven by its spectacular cast, which includes Ian McKellen, Michelle Pfeiffer, Peter O’Toole and Rupert Everett. In fact, there are very few good actors who aren’t in this movie.

But perhaps the most magical thing about Stardust lies not in its actors or plot, but in its unwillingness to conform to standards set by recent predecessors like Eragon and Ella Enchanted. It’s funny, thrilling, multi-dimensional and surprising. And after all, who can resist Robert DeNiro in drag?

*For extra kicks, be sure to catch the laughably horrible trailer for Beowulf.

BRAZIL: NOT YOUR USUAL DYSTOPIAN CINEMATIC SCENARIO

What can you say about Brazil? This masterpiece about love, escape from reality, and bureaucracy gone horribly wrong has been confusing audiences worldwide since 1985. Perhaps we should examine its origins with director/writer Terry Gilliam (of Monty Python fame), who spent months struggling with the head of Universal Studios, who wanted the entire film re-cut and given a more marketable ending. Thanks to Gilliam’s persistence, however, Brazil (in its original, unaltered form) will continue to mystify filmgoers for generations to come.

So what exactly is this movie, this paragon of befuddlement? Jonathan Pryce plays Sam Lowry, an office worker living in a nightmarish world of inefficient technology, miscommunication, paranoia, government conspiracies, and ducts. Lots of ducts. In a dazzling juxtaposition of fantasy and reality, his dreams seem to provide the only outlet for escape. Yes, there’s a girl. Yes, Robert DeNiro and Michael Palin also star in this film. And yes, one of Brazil’s IMDB plot keywords is “Breakfast Machine.” If you’re not intrigued yet, consider this: you don’t even need to fill out a 27B/6. What more could you ask for?

My friend just showed me this and I had to share

Enjoy!