To Be or Not to Be

Ernst Lubitsch's "To Be or not to Be" is one of the most serious comedies ever made, which makes it all the more hilarious. It is one of those movies that remind you how important it is to laugh at something utterly serious because the reality behind it can be utterly devastating. It is an unapologetic comedy about a group of Polish actors who thwart a Nazi plot to exterminate the underground resistance. It was made in 1942 right in the middle of the second world war as a bitter indictment on the atrocities of the Third Reich, but it's also hilarious.

The film stars Jack Benny as a famous actor Joseph Tura, he's is vein, egotistical, and a great ham. Joseph, along with his wife Maria Tura (Carol Lumbard in her final film) are two of Poland's most famous actors. They love each other, yet they bicker constantly mostly about who's name should come first on the marquee. Also despite their love, that doesn't stop Maria from carrying on a rendevous romance with a young admirer of hers named Stanislav Sobinski (Robert Stack) a young Navi flyer. Each night, Stanislov goes to meet Maria in her dressing room while her husband is on stage playing Hamlet. The cue for Stanislov to meet Maria is once Joseph goes into his "To be or not to be...." speech during the play. Each night at the same time, Stanislov gets up from the audience and leaves to meet Maria in her dressing room, all the while Joseph is under the impression that this is just a regular audience member who is walking out on his performance, something that completely horrifies him.

But pretty soon, this love triangle is interrupted by the very real life occurrence of Germany invading Poland; soon the city of Warsaw is bombed, the theatre is closed, markets and shops are destroyed, and some members of the acting company are seen shoveling snow. Stanislav goes off to fight in the war, but he soon finds out about a double agent for the Nazi's by the name of Professor Siletsky (Stanley Ridges)who has acquired the names of people in the Polish underground movement. Stanislav's is to apprehend Siletsky before he meets the Nazis, but it all goes wrong, and pretty soon it falls on Maria, Joseph, and their troupe of actors to save the day.

The movie has a very straight forward comedic plot which is as hilarious as it is suspenseful. There are some real tense moments such as Maria being stuck in Professor Siletsky's hotel room which is crowded and run by Nazis. There's also a moment where Joseph is disguised as Siletsky to fool the Nazis but he is then put in a room which contains the very real, and very dead person he is impersonating. Yet we forget that we are watching a comedy, and the solutions to these tense moments relieve us with hearty laughter.

Much of the fun of "To Be or Not to Be" has to do with the life and ego of actors. The role of Joseph Tura was specifically written with Jack Benny in mind, and he has never made a more memorable part in the movies. Benny revels in Tura's vanity, and also his insecurity. During the film's moments when Tura is disguised as Siletsky, he often asks the people he's with if he has heard of "that great actor Joseph Tura" to which the reply is mostly a no; however in one of the film's most notorious lines, one of the main officers, Col Ehrhardt (Sig Ruman) replies that he has heard of Tura and saw him performing "Hamlet" once. He goes on to say that "What he did to Shakespeare, we are now doing to Poland". That line, among others is the reason the film was considered bad taste when it was first released.

Indeed the film did not receive a warm reception in its initial release which was due to the scathing satirical take on the Nazi war machine. No doubt it was sensitive material at the time it was made, however I felt watching it that there was a certain immediacy to it that perhaps took the audience off guard. The film takes a brave approach in its portrayal of the Nazis and their political message which, to Lubitsch was absurd. The main fool of the film comes from Ruman's character Col. Earhardt, a bafoonish military officer who is seen on the phone ordering people shot without investigating them, then there is a running joke of him putting blame on his underling everytime he is wrong about something. Earhardt is a rather broad representation of the sense Hitler's Third Reich made to the sane individual.

But the main aim of ridicule here is Hitler, who know doubt was a fearful conqueror to the Polish people at the time, and who's threats were probably seen as no laughing matter. But the idea the film does take is to deflate Hitler's importance, and it does this by laughing at him and his mindless policies which caused the deaths of millions. This is an angry film but with a lot of heart to it.

Ernst Lubitsch was the director of this film, who, in all of the photographs I've seen him in, he's never without a cigar, and is usually carrying a mischievous grin on his face. He was known for his comedies, he thrived in the silent era beginning in Germany, then became greatly known in Hollywood for his sophisticated style in films like "Trouble in Paradise" and "Design for Living". At some point his films were described as having that "Lubitsch Touch" something that has never been explained quite fully. The reason it's never been explained is because "The Lubitsch Touch" means something different to everyone else, yet it all adds up to a signature that is no doubt belongs to him. When it comes to "To Be or Not to Be", I believe his touch has something to do with tact. I don't think Lubitsch ever became explicit, which is why I'm amazed that this film was considered, or could ever be thought of as tasteless. Lubitsch doesn't need to be crass or derogatory to get his point across, he always took the high road with the targets he aimed at. That comes out in the very brief but righteous scenes the film takes, none more so than when one of the troupe of actors played by Lubitsch regular Felix Bressart must be a distraction during a drastic moment at an Opera Hall. This actor has always wanted to play Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice", and when he is captured by the Nazis, he is given his chance to say that character's famous monologue, "If you prick us, do we not bleed..."here Lubitsch sums up the sentiment of the film, a protest against the madness that Hitler stood for. These moments are scattered tactfully by Lubitsch throughout the film to give it weight; a way to stand up against dehumanization by throwing in an ounce of humanity.

Of all types of films that are lost from Hollywood's golden age, it's the Lubitsch ones I think I miss the most. To spend the evening with a Lubitsch film is like spending one with people who always know what the right thing to say is in any situation. With "To Be or Not to Be", Lubitsch is commenting that there are serious, and evil things going on in the world, but sometimes the best way to deal with those things is to laugh at it, he knew that comedy, when done right, could be the source of great courage.

The Exterminating Angel

"The Exterminating Angel" begins with the preparation for a dinner party; yet one of the first things we see are the cooks and servants leaving for some unexplained reason, the only one that's left is the waiter who dutifully stays for the duration. The guests arrive after attending the opera, they then arrive again in the exact same way. I must admit, when I first saw this film, and watching the scene when the guests arrive, I felt I was suffering from deja vu, but when I watched it again, I realized this was on purpose and my mind wasn't playing tricks on me; it was rather a subtle surreal moment that fits into the tapestry with the rest of the movie.

The dinner begins, but the hostess is upset that her servants are leaving with no good excuse, it's almost as if they know something no one else knows. The dinner is served without much annoyance, and it is a success; the guests soon adjourn to the living room. We observe the people in their surroundings as they talk to each other, most of it stays rather superficial and unimportant, it remains very high brow and pleasant. However, once might notice that throughout this polite conversation, there are slight underlining moments of cruelty in it all. There is mention of a woman who is dying of cancer, and pretty soon she will go bald, another guest says what a shame it is since she had such a nice set of hair.

Pretty soon the night is winding down and it comes time for everyone to leave, but they all seem to find reasons to stay in the room. Pretty soon, they end up spending the night, with some onlookers noticing how rude and presumptuous some people are by taking off their jackets and lying down on sofas. In the morning, the hostess feels inconvenienced, realizing she must now serve breakfast for her now unwanted guests, but by now it has become obvious; everyone is incapable of leaving, they are stuck behind some unseen barrier within the living room. What they really are is at the mercy of director Luis Bunuel who seems to have sprung a trap for them.

"The Exterminating Angel" is many things at once, it's a scathing satire on the social upper class, a survival story, a supernatural mystery, and a study on the decline of a civilized society. Luis Bunuel directed this film, and he always had a firm handle on biting satire and surreal moments, both of which are figured in perfectly with this film. Here Bunuel is at his sinister best playing with these people as if they were rats in a cage, but what he's actually doing is exposing them for who they truly are and stripping away the confines of their class.

As the film moves along, the mood suddenly changes to desperation and fear. Outside the mansion, a vigil is being kept, police are brought in to investigate, yet no one seems to be able to enter the home; whatever is keeping the guests in is also keeping the rest of the people out.

It's uncertain as to the time lapse the people spend in the living room, but we assume that the days turn to weeks as they get more and more agitated and paranoid. An axe is used to chop through the wall at one point in order for them to get to the water pipes, the older and weaker ones are starting to die off, a pair of lovers end up killing themselves in private, while others are turning to madness. There is an inventive dream hallucination sequence where a woman sees a dismembered hand coming out from a closet and attacks her; she tries to stab it, only to wake up realizing it's the hand of another woman. Pretty soon things turn to anarchy and mob rule as they plot to kill the host who they believe is responsible for everything.

There are a lot of films like this one in the sense that they show a once civilized class decline into such a primal nature, but Bunuel has much more sinister ideas in mind, he's not only exposing the social hypocrisy with the ruling class, but he's also attacking their way of life. The social etiquette which plays such an important ritualistic role in their every day world is the key behind the whole mystery, and the reveal when you think about it is such a darkly comic punchline.

But Bunuel does not let these people off the hook, probably because he's having too much fun at these their expense. Once the guests are freed from one trap, they inevitably fall into another one caused by their reliance on their own class rules. There seems to be a glee from Bunuel in showing this kind of hypocrisy where people follow a certain set of moral rules or obligations, yet when they are stripped away from them, they are shown with very little morality.

Luis Bunuel was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, he started off with controversy with his first film "Un Chien Andelou", and also his follow-up "L'Age Dore". Both films he collaborated with celebrated surrealist Salvadore Dali, but both were also about this wanting to break free and embrace your own inhibitions. "L'Age Dore" in particular showed this type of discontent with everyday rules with a devilish sense of humour. "The Exterminating Angel" was at the height of Bunuel's powers, he was in his sixties, but he was never more popular or prolific.

I myself have only seen a handful of Bunuel's films, but I would argue those I have seen are all great some ranking among my favorites. I take great joy in a filmmaker such as Bunuel, who seems to expose life's phoniness and that freedom from these types of class structures can be liberating. You can't help but laugh gleefully at the end of "The Exterminating Angel", once the mystery is solved, the curse is broken, and all is revealed, it's one big joke, but it's such a satisfactory punchline.

Early Summer

The films of Yasujiro Ozu are films I feel compelled to come back to again and again. They had a deep effect on me when I first viewed them in my early twenties, I was just out of college and had spent my life obsessed with movies thinking I had seen every type of film imaginable, but then I learned of Ozu. Ozu opened up a whole new world for me and not only influenced the way I look at films, but also the way I look at life. Over the years since I've discovered him, Ozu has become more and more relevant in the film world, and has even become a bigger part of the mainstream than ever before. His films were largely unavailable to western audiences until the 1970s, and since then his reputation has grown. Just recently his masterpiece "Tokyo Story" was picked number one in the Sight and Sound directors list of the greatest films of all time, and number three in the critics list right behind "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane". I mention this only as a pleasure to know that Ozu's films continue to grow in stature and popularity, and as a fan of his, it's good to see his films are reaching out to further audiences than ever before.

Like all of my favorite directors, it is probably impossible for me to pick a favorite of Ozu's films, I see them mostly as a full body of work, that depict universal, and profound themes of family, marriage, loneliness, old age, and dying. Ozu in particular has created a form of composition that remained consistent throughout his films, as if he's dealing with the same motifs over and over again. This probably accounts for the one criticism brought up about him most often, that his films are all the same.

However Ozu, who's imagery remained subtle and delicate told a wide variety of different stories, but he usually revisited the same theme. Such is the theme of marriage, which Ozu came back to very often, and is at the core of his film "Early Summer". "Early Summer" came soon after another famous film about marriage by Ozu entitled "Late Spring"; that film dealt with the relationship between a daughter and her widowed father. In "Late Spring", the idea of marriage is brought up as a way to tear the father and daughter apart, neither wants to leave the other, yet the father knows if she is not married by a certain age, she will end up alone, and he is closer to the end of his life than the beginning.

"Early Summer" covers much of the same territory, the daughter is played by the same woman from "Late Spring", Setsuko Hara, who was Ozu's favorite actress, and in fact both characters have the same name Noriko. As in "Late Spring", Noriko is seen as getting on in years, and it is in her best interest that she get married soon. Yet, "Early Summer" is a far more ambitious film than "Late Spring" was as far as canvas goes. The family depicted in this film is a large extended one involving Noriko, her older brother, sister in-law, their two kids, and a mother and father. The film begins with every one living under the same roof, and there is the feeling of a real fully functional family going on. The plot element of Noriko getting married isn't even brought up until very much later in the film.

It's the family unit that gets the most attention, as we see how everyone is placed within it. The brother is a doctor, Noriko herself works in an office building, the wife looks after the kids, and the parents seem to be a pleasant retired couple. Everything happens organically, with what seems to be Ozu effortlessly keeping the story moving without ever pushing for something to happen. There is occasional chit chat of Noriko getting married, but not much is made out of it until half way through the film when the story takes that direction.

Noriko is then persuaded by her family to consider marrying a prospective bachelor, and even though there is a big age difference, (He is said to be 42 while she is 28) they think it's the best arrangement for her. However, we are never told of Noriko's own intentions, she is seen as a bit passive about this arrangement, nothing is said if she wants to go along with it, or if she doesn't, but then out of the blue she makes her own decision. Despite her families wishes, she decides to marry an old childhood friend, who has since become widowed and lives with his young child and mother. When the family hears about this, there is a deep resentment towards Noriko, they do not understand why she would choose a widower with a child, which would be deemed a lesser choice, to make matters worse, he has just been transferred out of town, which would mean Noriko would leave her family to be with him. Even Noriko's choice of this man is left ambiguous to the audience, we are left to wonder why she chose him and in such an impulsive manner. Unlike the loyal daughter in "Late Spring" who would never dream of leaving her father's side, this one seems to be making the radical choice for herself. But we aren't totally sure about Noriko's true feelings for this man she has picked for herself, there is talk of an admiration for him, and a genuine trust, but we are left unsure if there is a love there. Part of the reason she picked him might be because of the man's mother, who Noriko feels for and wants to keep company, and she above anyone else in the film is probably most excited to see them married.

But the fact that we don't get these questions answered is Ozu's own way of avoiding melodrama, he never goes for scenes of that matter, what he gets instead is pathos and a deeper understanding of how life works, and the little tragedies that sometimes come with it. Like "Late Spring", we never see the actual marriage of Noriko, instead, we see a bridal procession walk by her parents window which remind them of her. That is a perfect Ozu moment of subtlety, and minimalism, we don't have to see the event to know it's happened, it's not necessary.

Ozu has a way of developing his themes cinematically, and they are usually within his compositions which are always compelling to look at as if it were a real painting or photograph. Take one such scene in "Early Summer" where Noriko's family is upset with her for marrying someone they do not approve. In the scene, Noriko has not entered yet, the family is seen together in the living room; Noriko announces she is home, suddenly everyone takes their leave from the room, there is no contact with her whatsoever. Noriko notices this, she says nothing, she moves to the kitchen where she eats by herself, she is filmed from far away with Ozu showing the empty room and her isolation. A wide shot to show someone alone is commonly used in film to illustrate their isolation, yet Ozu is always able to take it a step further. I think it has something to do with the fact that we know why Noriko is alone, we have seen the reason why she is by herself at that very moment, and perhaps we are a little surprised that it has come to this, and it always seems inevitable that it would, it also helps when a scene such as this was expertly photographed, as if you are looking at the essence of loneliness.

To think of it, you might examine an Ozu film as very anti-mainstream, but I was surprised to learn that his films were widely popular to Japanese audiences. Ozu, like his contemporaries, Kurosawa, and Mizoguchi worked in there own Hollywood version of a studio system, which meant they were able to work with the biggest stars, and make their own sets on back lots. Yet the difference being that unlike Hollywood which was more Producer-centric, Japan was more director-centric, which meant a person like Ozu had more freedom creatively, he was able to take these themes and play with them, and he was able to create a full body of work because of it.

I've summed up my feelings about Yasujiro Ozu on this blog before, I treasure his films probably more than any other, there is something inherently calming about them. I wanted to add a quote about Ozu by Roger Ebert who died recently but who was the man who first introduced me to Ozu through his essays about him. In his review of Ozu's film "Floating Weeds", Ebert says "When you see his films, you feel in the arms of a serenely confident and caring master. In his stories about people who live far away, you recognize, in one way or another, everyone you know.

RIP Roger Ebert

It was kind of a surreal experience when I learned of the death of Roger Ebert. I was having lunch today and reading the newspaper, there was an article about Roger Ebert and how he was going to take some time off from his work as a film critic because his cancer had come back. When I came back to work moments later, I learned that he had passed away.

The last piece I read that Roger Ebert published, was his "Leave of Presence" entry in his blog, which I read on his website. In it, he mentions the return of his cancer, but also that he was going to do what he dreamed of doing which was only review movies that he wants to review.

It's somewhat fitting that the last film I watched before learning of Roger Ebert's passing was Yasujiro Ozu's "Early Summer". I was actually planning on the film to be my next entry for this blog, and since it was somewhat of a slow day at work today, I found myself jotting down notes about what I thought of the film. It was actually through Roger Ebert I first heard of Yasujiro Ozu and his films, and he has since become my favorite filmmaker. Ebert had written about Ozu's masterpiece "Tokyo Story" as part of his ongoing "Great Movies" series, and I was intrigued about how Ebert described Ozu's technique where he placed the camera three feet off the ground and barely moved it. I had not seen a film quite like it, and it started an ongoing love for Ozu's films.

I must admit, Roger Ebert was the main reason I started writing in this blog, it was through his "Great Movies" series I found a love of reading about movies we love and how they effect us. It inspired me to share my own thoughts about my favorites and through it I've found what I like and what I don't like about certain films. I also dug deeper than I ever did about certain filmmakers who I've always loved, it's like my own ongoing film school.

But Roger Ebert didn't stop there, before he lost his voice from cancer, he provided audio commentaries to some classic films. If you have a DVD or Blu Ray of "Citizen Kane", listen to Ebert's commentary on that and you'll understand even more why it's such a great movie. He also does commentary on "Casablanca" and Ozu's own "Floating Weeds" which Ebert has said was his favorite film from him.

Roger Ebert is the kind of person who cannot be replaced, I've been reading outpouring of condolences from other critics I read and admire and how they are all in indebted to Ebert for his contribution to film criticism. Above all else, Roger Ebert was a writer, he wrote all the time, it was a daily routine of me to check his website to see if he had a new blog entry or just a new film entry available. He's taught me that there's always something worth writing about, which is what I try to do every day. Even when I feel I don't have anything to write, I can always write about movies, and I don't see that slowing down any time soon. Thank you Roger Ebert for making me realize that.

Rosemary's Baby

"Rosemary's Baby" is a knockout of a thriller, a perfect example of visual storytelling, it keeps you on edge, you're not quite sure what is happening when it's happening, you know something is up, something is not right, but you just aren't sure what that something is. Could it be as exactly horrific as what Rosemary and we think it is, or is it something much worse? For those of you who know the ending, you know, it's worse. That's usually the way things play out in a film directed by Roman Polanski, a man who has lived through real horrors in his life, someone who would have perfect reason to be suspicious and not trust the people around him.

"Rosemary's Baby" was the first American film directed by Polanski after European success with films like "Knife in the Water", and "Repulsion". The film was originally set to be directed by William Castle, who was mostly known for schlocky b-movie tactics like in "The Tingler" where he implanted shockers in a movie theatre to make people jump up every time something scary happened. The studio, lead by a young producer named Robert Evans rejected Castle as director, but he stayed on to produce the movie. Evans instead wooed Polanski to Hollywood after being impressed with his early films. Polanski was a young auteur, with a personal vision, and the film lent itself to his sensibilities.

The film based on a novel by Ira Levine, tells of a young married couple Rosemary (Mia Farrow) and Guy Woodhouse (John Cassavetes), who rent an old Gothic apartment in New York called The Bramford. The Bramford has a bit of a haunted history we learn from the couple's friend Hutch (Maurice Evans), but Rosemary and Guy think of it merely as old stories or folktales, but soon enough tragedy does strike the building. A young woman who Rosemary briefly meets, commits suicide outside the apartments. She was being taken care of by the Woodhouses' next door neighbours, an odd elderly couple Minnie and Roman Castavetes (played by Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer). We know the Castavetes lived right next door, because Rosemary and Guy could hear them through their thin bedroom wall, which is a device Polanski would incorporate throughout the film.

Pretty soon the Castevetes become very friendly to the Woodhouses', they invite them over to their home, and they enter their lives as surrogate parents even without really being asked. Pretty soon things start getting a little strange; suddenly Guy, a working actor gets a big break when he wins a major role after the original actor cast in it mysteriously goes blind. After feeling like he's been rejecting Rosemary, he suddenly wants to have a baby. Rosemary is elated by the news, but on the night they decide to conceive, she passes out, perhaps drugged by a chocolate dessert made by Minnie. She has a strange dream, and is awoken with mysterious scratches on her back. Guy admits, even though she was passed out, he didn't want to miss baby night, which suggests she was violated without her knowing.

But soon, the strange night is forgotten, as Rosemary gets the news that she is pregnant, she is delighted wover the fact that she is going to be a mommy, but the strange things have only just begun. Roman and Minnie take it upon themselves to help Rosemary with her pregnancy, even referring her to their own doctor (Ralph Bellamy). Minnie concocts a special drink for Rosmary with her own special herbs, something that was prescribed from the doctor. But she falls ill, soon Rosemary suspects the baby is in danger, and she thinks everyone around her isn't what they seem including her husband.

Rosemary's pregnancy turns into a story of paranoia between a mother who is only trying to protect her baby and everyone around her who she thinks his hurting her. Polanski puts us in Rosemary's shoes, we know as much as she knows, we can understand what she is feeling, pretty soon we are as paranoid as she is. Everyone seems to be playing a part, and Rosemary is the audience member, she seems to be caught in a world of make believe where nothing seems to be real.

What I loved about "Rosemary's Baby" is how every element brought into the world of the film is utilized, Polanski doesn't throw anything away once introduced, such as the hearing through the walls of the apartment. Through the walls, we hear half conversations between Minnie and Roman, not always everything but just enough to keep us interested in the mystery. It's used later when Guy leaves the apartment, then suddenly we hear a doorbell ring, indicating he's in cahoots with the strange couple.

There's also the use of the herbs Minnie gives Rosemary, she makes her wear a necklace which contains a smelly concoction known as tanus root, this was the same necklace that was given to the girl who committed suicide, and the root itself, Rosemary learns is directly linked to a coven of witches.

The film reminded me of Polanski's earlier thriller "Repulsion" where he introduced things like cracks on a sidewalk, and a razor blade that would play bigger parts in the film as it moved along. Polanski has that way of introducing something in a subtle way, planting it in our head almost subliminally without us knowing it will be used again in a bigger way.

The tone of "Rosemary's Baby" struck me as darkly comic, it starts off as a pleasant all-American young couple love story, but then it's tattered in a macabre tale of witches and Satan worshipers. The villains in the film are usually the ones who fill it with a dose of humor, this particularly comes from Ruth Gordon as Minnie who is the real nosy neighbor from hell, the film becomes somewhat a comedy of errors whenever she appears, and sometimes with her equally off balance friend Laura-Louise (Patsy Kelly). It should be noted that no matter how dark Polanski can get, he doesn't forget his sense of humor.

The ending of the film itself although devastating, is also grotesquely comic. We do find out what has become of Rosemary's Baby and all the usual suspects of the conspiracy are there in one room, the scene itself is so far from reality it becomes relatively absurd. The ending probably join "Psycho" as one of the most notorious twists in the horror genre, and probably one of the most well known, yet knowing how it all comes together does not diminish the real artistic vision of the piece.

"Rosemary's Baby" is such a fascinating piece of filmmaking, it works as a piece of artistry about layers, every bit is peeled away with precision, until we are left with the core of the mystery, it's horrifying, but we are delighted by what has been revealed to us.

Sergio Leone's Infield Fly Rule Quiz

1) The classic movie moment everyone loves except me is:I guess the scene on the beach with Burt Lancaster and Deberah Kerr in "From Here to Eternity". I found their love story much less interesting than what was going on with Monty Clift and Donna Reed.

2) Favorite line of dialogue from a film noir: Keyes in Double Indemnity: "Closer than that Walter."

3) Second favorite Hal Ashby film: For Now I'm gonna say "Bound for Glory". Favorite is "Harold and Maude".

4) Describe the moment when you first realized movies were directed as opposed to simply pieced together anonymously. * I think it was just growing up and seeing familiar names on films like Frank Capra, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, and Steven Spielberg and realizing that their was something similar about their movies, it wasn't instantaneous, I gradually realized it.

5) Favorite film book: Probably "Hitchcock" by Francois Truffaut.

6) Diana Sands or Vonetta McGee? I have never seen any of their movies I believe.

7) Most egregious gap in your viewing of films made in the past 10 years. Probably new foreign filmmakers.

8) Favorite line of dialogue from a comedy: I'm abstaining from my usual Marx Brothers pantheon and instead will go with Steve Martin's "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" when I believe Cary Grant asks him if he wants a cigarette and he says "No thanks I have Tuberculosis."

9) Second favorite Lloyd Bacon film: I suppose I'll go with "42nd Street" after looking up what he did, I've only seen that and "Golddiggers of 1937", so the former would be the better film.

10) Richard Burton or Roger Livesey? I don't think I've seen Roger Livesey in anything so I won't answer.

11) Is there a movie you staunchly refuse to consider seeing? If so, why? I can't think of one off the top of my head, I'm sure under certain circumstances I'd be apt to see almost anything.

12) Favorite filmmaker collaboration: I'll go with Spielberg and Kubrick for "A.I."

13) Most recently viewed movie on DVD/Blu-ray/theatrical? Blue-ray: "The Insider", Theatrically: "Oz The Great and Powerful".

14) Favorite line of dialogue from a horror movie: "Bride of Frankenstien" when the monster says "I love dead, hate living."

15) Second favorite Oliver Stone film: Probably "Platoon" although the only film of his I feel compelled to see more than once is "JFK" which remains my favorite.

16) Eva Mendes or Raquel Welch? Eva Mendes

17) Favorite religious satire: "Life of Brian" of course.

18) Best Internet movie argument? (question contributed by Tom Block) I think if Video Games can be considered art, which I first heard on the Internet.

19) Most pointless Internet movie argument? (question contributed by Tom Block) Probably do fan boys ruin movies for the rest of us.

20) Charles McGraw or Robert Ryan? I like Charles McGraw, but Robert Ryan to me is one of those quintessential noir actors who i get excited about when I see his name on the screen.

21) Favorite line of dialogue from a western: From "Unforgiven", Eastwood's line "It's a hell of a thing killing a man, you take away all he's got, and everything he's ever going to have."

22) Second favorite Roy Del Ruth film: Haven't seen any of his films.

23) Relatively unknown film or filmmaker you’d most eagerly proselytize for: He was relatively unknown to me, but I guess he is well known in the film world, but Olivier Assayas.

24) Ewan McGregor or Gerard Butler? Ewan McGregor is an actor I enjoy seeing, while Gerard Butler is someone I usually don't enjoy seeing.

25) Is there such a thing as a perfect movie? Probably not, but in my mind "Tokyo Story" comes the closest, I don't see a flaw in it, but I am perhaps blinded from them.

26) Favorite movie location you’ve most recently had the occasion to actually visit * Last year I was in Paris, so basically any movie that took place in Paris.

27) Second favorite Delmer Daves film: "3:10 to Yuma" my first would be "Dark Passage"

28) Name the one DVD commentary you wish you could hear that, for whatever reason, doesn't actually exist *I would love to hear critic Jim Emerson's commentary on "Miller's Crossing" or "Barton Fink", I think that would be interesting.

29) Gloria Grahame or Marie Windsor? Gloria Grahame of course.

30) Name a filmmaker who never really lived up to the potential suggested by their early acclaim or success. I'll go for the easy answer since he's the only guy I can think of but M. Night Shalamayn.

31) Is there a movie-based disagreement serious enough that it might cause you to reevaluate the basis of a romantic relationship or a friendship? * I don't think I've ever ended a relationship just based on that fact, but I showed a date "Casablanca" once where she thought it was corny, later I showed her "His Girl Friday" and she turned it off midway. I then took her to see The Coen Brothers "Burn after Reading" which was new in theatres, and she thought it was stupid. Needless to say it didn't work out.

In Bruges

You may not know that Bruges is an actual real place, before seeing "In Bruges", I never knew it existed, but as one character observes at the beginning of the film "it's in Belgium", who knew? In the film "In Bruges", this little city nobody has ever heard of is the place two hitmen must hideout after a job goes wrong. The hitmen in question are Ray a young impatient hothead (Colin Farrell) and his older more seasoned partner Ken (Brendan Gleeson). Ray has just finished his first hit by killing a priest, but in the process, he accidentally and tragically kills a little boy who was praying in the church.

While in Bruges, the two men are meant to lay low and wait for further instructions by their boss Harry (Ralph Feinnes). Ray grows impatient with Bruges, he's bored out of his mind, while Ken is fascinated by the history, culture, and old buildings, he wants to sight see.

"In Bruges" is a surprising dark comedy with many wonderful lines that are easily quotable, and contain some really human emotional moments by these violent but funny characters. The film was the first by writer/director Martin McDonagh, who was known for writing plays, and actually earned an Oscar for his short film "Six Shooter". He has made one other movie, 2012's "Seven Psychopaths", which was a film I was much impressed by with its very funny dialogue and unique characters.

McDonagh seems to really like his characters, and their relationships to eachother, he gives them time to breath. When Feinnes' Harry does appear in the final third of the film, there is so much build up about him, we know things won't end pretty, yet McDonagh doesn't make Harry into quite the monster he's depicted. In a surprising move, Harry is seen as a rational and moral guy who has time to have a pint with Ken before the inevitable blood and carnage has to begin. It's always refreshing to see men of action talking to eachother, and by the time the final gun battle goes down, there is more at stake, and more suspense and McDonagh doesn't welch on the action even if he plays with it tongue and cheek. During the final gun battle the pregnant motel owner Marie tells Harry and Ray to put their guns down, to which Harry replies "This is the shootout", as sort of a wink to the audience that this is what they expect in the action movie. At that moment, I kind of was reminded in "Seven Psychopaths" where the writer Marty (Also played by Farrell) is writing an action movie, but prefers just to have the people talk in the end, to which is friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) reminds him, you have to have a shootout.

There are also some truly funny moments in the film as well, ones that would rival any straight out comedy made today, it mostly comes from Ray's bizarre relationship with a dwarf (Jimmy Prentice). They also have fun with stereotyping rude American tourists. Ray actually punches out an man in a restaurant who he mistakes for being American, yet he feels bad afterwards when he in fact finds out he was Canadian, as a Canadian myself, I could appreciate that.

But despite all the comedy, "In Bruges" is really dealing about Ray's guilt about killing a kid, and whether or not he should be given the chance to redeem himself. Ken is actually instructed by Harry to kill Ray for his accident, but he has second thoughts, when he sees that Ray himself is actually suicidal over it. The film actually becomes more about forgiving oneself, and also getting that chance for redemption. In the end, it doesn't sentimentalize Ray's situation, and even then when he's put through the ringer, he isn't exactly off the hook, for him Bruges is somewhat of purgatory where he can't seem to escape. The ending of the film could change for you depending weather or not you're a glass is half empty, or glass is half full type of person, for me there is a sliver of hope for Ray.

When it was first release, "In Bruges" was often compared to "Pulp Fiction", I suppose in the way that both films depicted hitmen as regular folk who could talk about regular stuff. Yet Tarantino's film always worked on the grand scale, as it moved around in space and time, telling multiple stories, "In Bruges" is far more intimate, and feels more personal, that's simply an observation, I think both films are great, yet I feel a far better kinship with "In Bruges" as I grow to like Ray, Ken, and Harry, in a way I didn't with Tarantino's film.

I'm pointing this out not to call out "Pulp Fiction" being the lesser film, but more to mention that I think Martin McDonagh is an original voice and makes his own original movies. No doubt he was influenced by Tarantino, but it's only a surface level one, he's not going out of his way to be him.

"In Bruges" is one of the best movies to come out in the last ten years, the more I watch it, the more I really love the characters, and admire its screenplay. Right now, I suppose it could be considered as a cult movie, people I know who have seen it all say how much they love it, and how much they can quote from it. I suppose that's one way to know when a movie is great.