Pygmalion - 1983 - Alan Cooke

OK, it's  a TV movie, but I liked it. Margot Kidder and Peter O'Toole star in George Bernard Shaw's thought-experiment: can you socially elevate someone just through various external trappings like improving one's grammar, clothing and attitude? Is it worth it to even do this? Is there some more meaningful transformation that might be possible?

Well, this brings to mind the case of "Clark Rockefeller" to me. There was once a German guy who had no real formal education and who had overstayed his visa in the USA. He began calling himself Clark Rockefeller and telling folks he was from the famous Rockefeller family. He perfected his English by imitating a character from an American TV series and he began reading widely so as to be able to convince folks he had a Ivy education.

It worked. Soon he was married to a highly-educated woman of wealth who supported him and his friends included the rich and famous, including many American power-brokers.

You can read about him here: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2009/01/fake_rockefeller200901

The Bravados - Henry King (Starring Gregory Peck) - 1958

Henry King did some truly amazing movies with Gregory Peck, including Twelve O'clock High and The Gunfighter.

The Bravados is really a pretty complex western, especially when you compare it to some of the stuff Budd Boetticher did with Randolph Scott. In fact, up until the middle of The Bravados you might even think you are watching a typical Boetticher/Scott revenge/journey film.

King would never, however, be so linear, nor would Gregory Peck. I love Randolph Scott, but, let's be honest, Peck was in the stratosphere and could only be expected to be in unpredictable and non-linear work.

So the film starts off as a revenge quest. Then you begin to sense that something might be very wrong. Then you are hit with a big surprise. This is definitely a film worth watching, and a truly neglected western classic.

You can see the film at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L93ve656YP0

Joni Mitchell Both Sides Now - Live at the Isle of Wight Festival 1970 - Murray Lerner

So the whole point of the documentary seems to be that rock and roll was/is a business that sells an ideology of peace, equality and non-commercial values, but...when people begin to take this ideology seriously and expect the performers to do so as well, there can only be a conflict due to the hypocrisy created by commercializing ideology.

Rock and roll is the business of selling ideology and those who help sell it get to live comfortable lives pretending to be something they are not.

So the rock performer starts off among the people and criticizes the status quo. If he/she is really good and successful he/she gets to join the middle or upper class of the society he/she criticized. So instead of the music being used as a tool to change things, it becomes a tool of upward social mobility for the performer.

The performer in this film is seething with elitism and arrogance. She relates a story of how she was at a Hopi snake festival and thought everyone else there was a tourist. My goodness, I didn't know that Joni Mitchell was a Hopi Indian.

She often refers to the crowd as a beast. To me they looked like young human beings looking for inspiration and poetry and they reacted negatively to seeing a huge fence that had been created to exclude people so that rich performers could become richer. These young people could sense that something was wrong.

This performance is about someone who is in complicity with the whole shady business of rock and roll, is forced to face that temporarily, but who recedes back into denial as she woos and quells 'the beast' with her musical excellence so that they, themselves, no longer care to think about what is really going on.

You can see this highly ironic film right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7IYpfPr7ow

To Live - Zhang Yimou - 1994 - Starring Li Gong, You Ge

There have been many accolades for this film, and you can watch it and judge for yourself, but I think this film is too heavy-handed, melodramatic and argumentative. It beats you over the head with lessons it wants to teach you (historical and moral) and it is a highly political film fostering one viewpoint.

It is also filled with totally improbable and far-fetched situations in order to manipulate your emotions in the most obvious and mawkish manner. The ending, for instance, where Red Guard doctors allow a woman to bleed to death, is farcical and not tragic.

The film uses the horrific abuses of the Cultural Revolution to attack and mock the dedication of many of China's poor to Mao, without appreciating that there was a sincere devotion to Mao at that time. Without Mao the Peoples Liberation Army would not have defeated Chiang Kai Chek's Kuomintang Army, and there can be no doubt about the corruption and cruelty which followed Chiang and his army around.

Please remember 1927, in Shanghai, when Chiang betrayed his Communist allies in the war against Chinese warlords, and slaughtered thousands of innocent people.

So if you want to see a badly flawed film that the Western critics loved (for some reason) click below. The film was a financial and critical flop among audiences.   

 

Sansho the Bailiff - Mizoguchi Kenji - 1954

This is an epic film based on a Japanese folk tale. It is a gut-wrenching film, much hopeless suffering, a difficult film to watch at times due to the emotional intensity.

It is a film that deals with some themes that have been present in Japanese films from the silent era, especially the theme of the honest and honorable person who suffers unjustly and has little recourse. It is also a film about the difficulties of maintaining one's humanity in adverse situations and the struggle to live up to the highest ideals when the world around you has abandoned all sense of ethics or morality and lapses into barbarism.

They Shoot Horses Don't They? - Sydney Pollack - 1969

Here's an interesting film based on, of all things, a dance marathon during the Great Depression. On a 'social realism' level, it's a film about how easily the most financially vulnerable can be exploited to make money for callous, heartless others. The dance marathon can stand in for any number of social phenomena involving the exploitation of the weaker by the stronger.

The film asks the question: To what extent are the exploited complicit in their exploitation? Are they completely innocent victims or are the exploiters merely utilizing some disgenuine motivation in the exploited? Is there always a possibility to say "No!" and, somehow, survive and fight back? Can some folks who are being used even say "No!" or are they driven by demons as strong as those of their exploiters? 

Please view the movie via this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWcc4PptU44&t=278s

A Midsummer Night's Dream - 1968 - Peter Hall

Yes, the guy from Sam Peckinpah's 'Straw Dogs' plays Lysander in this version. And he's not the only surprise - Mrs. Peel from the Avengers - Diana Rigg - plays Helena. You also have a nearly naked Judi Dench (covered only in body paint) and a very young Helen Mirren playing Hermia.

The film was directed by Peter Hall - founder of the Royal Shakespeare Company.

This film version got mixed reviews, but I like it because of the director's quirkiness. The acting is also quite good and I think kudos should be given to Paul Rogers for his portrayal of Bottom. I think Bottom has been a sorely neglected character in this play - Shakespeare put him in this play for a reason, however.

He is the guy everybody mocks, but when you really look at him, his character, his integrity and conscientiousness, he's probably the best person in the play. We are encouraged to laugh at him because of his 'lowly' social and economic stature, but I think Shakespeare wanted us to become aware of how easy it is to mock the innocent and sincere.

Let's be honest - movies from the late 60s were amazing. Please sit back and take in some Shakespeare.