Will Adams Blog

I’m blogging through the AFI top 100. You can read more here.

The Birth of a Nation is a awful reminder of the world that was, and perhaps the world that still is to some degree. It’s a ficticious account of the Civil War and life following. It’s the oldest film on this list, having been produced in 1915. At over 100 years old the piece is remarkable for a number of reasons: its racism, its length (the first 12-reel/3 hour film), and its unique position as the first film to be screened at the white house.

I’m aware that there was a remake that was intended as a sort of correction to the numerous faults of the original. I haven’t had a chance to view it yet, however.

I don’t have much good to say about this film. Any three hour long silent film is going to strain to keep the attention of any human born after 1910. It is dreadfully boring and would be difficult to watch even with a less objectionable subject manner. But seeing as this film was used as a recruitment tool for the revitalized KKK in the earlier part of the last century, I don’t have to explain why I’m shocked that it was chosen for the AFI top 100. There is no doubt that it was the most historically important film of 1915, but any number of films over the 100 years were a higher quality and more truthful.

Much of the first half of the film could be seen as a relatively acceptable fictional account of the Civil War. The main objectionable part of this is the large number of roles played by white men in black face. The second half of the film really goes off the rails when it begins to depict a fabricated version of the antebellum south that is besieged by an uncivilized and tyrannical black political majority. The film then shows the creation of the Ku Klux Klan who rides in and saves the day. The film has quite rightly been the subject of a great deal of criticism for its inaccuracies and general racist tone. The one thing I’ll say about it is that the fact that this film is still in the modern vernacular at all is an indication that censorship has not won out. The film was an early victory against film censorship. While I’m very much for free speech, and I’m glad it wasn’t censored (for the president censorship sets, mind you, not because I do not find the matter abhorrent.) I wish censorship could’ve been tested on something that was less objectionable.

I’m blogging through the AFI top 100. You can read more here.

Lawrence of Arabia is a phenomenal epic. As I watched this sprawling film I wondered if it had been made today how it would be different.

As with many of the movies on this list Lawrence of Arabia enjoys a massive run time. Of the six cuts of the film the shortest is over three hours and the longest adds more than half an hour. It’s likely that if it were released today it wouldn’t have been allowed this considerable length. Viewed through the eyes of a modern day film fan, Lawrence of Arabia appears to have poor film economy as shots that would often be cut from today are allowed to play out. Sequences that would be shortened via times shifts in the edit are shown in full length so as to give the viewer the feelings of tedium, scale, and fatigue which the characters are experience.

The film has an all-male cast of characters. If it were made today there would be some great fictionalizing to assure that there were equal representation of the sexes. Likely the reporter who covered Lawrence would be made into woman. Though not a love interest, because if it were made today then then rumors of Lawrence’s sexual orientation would’ve made them play up that supposed aspect of his life.

Also most of the film’s violence is rather muted. With a few notable (and there fore more impacting) exceptions, very little blood is seen and never do we see a person getting shot or stabbed up close and in many cases we don’t see it at all. If this film were made today there is no doubt that it would’ve been a hard R with realistic violence. I would actually point to this film as an argument for making war movies less violent while still making them great.

The film was also made during a time when wide shots were a sign of production value. Small budget movies can’t afford to shoot on location, pay crowds of extras, or build large set pieces, but today many large budget films still choose to focus on the performance rather than scenery by using long lenses to focus on the actors. This was no the case for Lawrence of Arabia; even many moments that were more intimate were shot in medium shot, while shots that would be shot in medium today are shot in wide, and shots that might require wide today are ultra wide in this film.

Not every change would be negative. If it were shot today they would likely actually shoot the night scenes at night. In the 60s, even in large budget pictures they would shoot day for night whenever they could and it’s painfully obvious in this movie – which is otherwise a gorgeous film. It’s obvious that they’ve simply filtered the camera lens because of the shadows – the shadows wouldn’t be so harsh after sunset in reality.

Also if it were shot today all (or at least most) the parts would played by people of the appropriate race. In the film as it sits the majority of the Arab people depicted were played by well-known British and American actors wearing makeup. While Hollywood still gets accused of “white washing” it’s usually done in fiction where the character’s race is changed for the sake of casting – in films based on true events it is increasingly rare to see any race depicted by a person who isn’t of that race.

The film is beautiful and compelling. Perhaps most interesting is to read the many historical discrepancies that made the film controversial at the time. Though at the very least it is interesting to consider that at a time when the west was still largely considered the great, white hope this film dared to depict the west as largely treacherous; as they scheme to take control of the Arab empire after using their armies to conquer the Turks. Though, admittedly the hero is a white dude, though in this case it seems that has the benefit of being true.

I’m blogging through the AFI top 100. You can read more here.

There’s no accounting for taste. That’s all I can say regarding the inclusion of “Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” in AFI’s top 100. I perhaps could think of 100 movies that were not on the list that I believe to be better than this film.

It’s one of the few comedies that made the list, so naturally I expected it to be humorous. While I found some remnants of wit that were not lost on me, much of the film was just odd rather than funny. It seems a combination of realism with odd interjections of the heightened reality that I normally associate with satire, but with a duller uptake than most similar movies. In moments it comes off as mildly humorous, other moments it comes off as over-the-top-goofy, other moments it comes off as odd, and still other moments the film appears to take itself seriously. It’s this indecision about what genre it is in that makes it difficult to watch.

The whole film feels much like a shaggy dog story – one of those jokes where everyone acts as if it’s the funniest joke they ever heard, but when they get to the end of it, there’s no joke. This is the first film I’ve watched on the AFI top 100 that I truly don’t get. I’m sure those who love it – and I know there are many who do – will flay me for saying so, but I really believe it is highly overrated and perhaps only so because it was directed by Stanly Kubrick who famously directed dark, cynical dramas. I think much like the first time a comedic actor does a drama, people were shocked at how seemingly adequate a comedy director he was and that was more the cause of the interest in the film.

One thing I will note about this film that is a curiosity: it is the fourth I’ve watched on this list that was shot using black and white long after color film had become the norm. I’m reminded of young Frankenstein which received the same treatment and is far more deserving of a place on this list than this film. I suppose the most I can say about it is this: perhaps contextually, during the cold war, this film had great value. And perhaps its addressing the cold war with a wink and a nod (if a cynical one) was more important that I realize. The Berlin wall came down shortly after my 4th birthday, so admittedly I was only so aware of the threat of nuclear war and how much people really wanted to see an offbeat comedy based around it.

I’m blogging through the AFI 100. You can read more here.

For those who aren’t familiar Taxi Driver is about an mentally unstable veteran who deals with his insomnia and general dissosiative feelings toward the world. He has an unsuccessful relationship with a woman who is disgusted by his choice in dirty movies. After a run-in with a pre-teen prostitute and tries to liberate her from her lifestyle. He purchases several unregistered guns and teeters between assassinating the presidential candidate that his would-be girlfriend is campaigning for, and killing the man that pimps out 12-year-old Iris.

Taxi Driver is an odd movie. Aside from the fact that it feels like multiple plots surrounding the same character, it manages to meander while also having a speed uncharacteristic of it’s genre. It’s dark, somewhat twisty, yet notably faster paced than most of the dramas on the AFI top 100. It’s a well-acted film with plenty of intrigue and drama, but it also is heavily stamped by it’s era. Not because of the clothing styles but because of the filming style and score. I say this because many of the movies on this list have a quality that makes them feel timeless, but this one feels more dated.

When the film comes to it’s conclusion I didn’t find myself as certain about what the worldview of the filmmakers is, which I think is a good thing. This film didn’t have any preachy positive view for sure, but nor did it have a totally cynical, angry view that I expected.

It’s odd to watch this movie with a 33-year-old Robert DiNero who hadn’t yet become the caricature we’ve come to know today. 14 year-old Jodie Foster, who was already a well-known face, was having her break-out cinematic performance. Both of course are fantastic and it’s easy to see why this one made the list. I found it surprising that considering how dark the film gets, it ends on an up note.