Operation: Conquer the Netflix Queue: Best Worst Movie

So, it's been a while since I posted one of these.  But, in my defense, July has been crazy.

Troll 2 is, by all accounts, a bad movie.  The acting is bad.  The story is bad.  The effects are bad, even for the eighties.  And people absolutely love it. Best Worst Movie (2009) is a documentary about the making of Troll 2, and how, twenty years after it was made, it found a following and became a cult classic.  It was made by Michael Stephenson, who played the child lead in Troll 2.  He conducts interviews with the cast, director, writer and fans of Troll 2.

Overall, I think Best Worst Movie is pretty decent.  Not the best documentary I've ever seen, but not the worst either.  And it does have some really interesting elements.  The parts I found most interesting were the interviews with the people involved who didn't realize that they were making a bad movie.  For example, there's this woman:

That's Margo Prey, who played Diana Waits, the mother, in Troll 2.  In that same interview, she goes on to compare Troll 2 to Casablanca.  For reference, she's comparing this movie:

to this movie:

Call me crazy, but I don't see the similarity.  

And then there's the director of Troll 2, Claudio Fragrasso, who still believes Troll 2 was a good movie, and doesn't seem to understand its cult value.  To his credit, he also doesn't care that people call it the worst movie ever made.  Another interesting character is Don Packard, the actor who played the creepy Nilbog Drugstore owner in Troll 2.  Here's his interview in the film:

  

Another thing I liked about it was watching the fans' reactions to Troll 2.  People go crazy for it: they share it with their friends, they throw viewing parties, they flock to theaters for midnight showings, they make t-shirts and masks.  It's great.  It really demonstrates, and celebrates, how a film, even a bad one, can have a lasting impact of people's lives.   

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series: North by Northwest and Strangers on a Train

The final installment of Hitchcock week at the Paramount was the pairing of North by Northwest and Strangers on a Train.  This was a fun pair of films to see together.  North by Northwest (1959) screened first.  In the film, Cary Grant plays Roger O. Thornhill, a New York advertising executive.  One day, he is kidnapped by foreign spies who have mistaken him for a man named George Kaplan.  They take him to a mansion, presumably owned by one of the spies.  Thornhill insists that he is not George Kaplan and does not have any of the information the spies are looking for.  For his insolence, they force him to drink entirely too much whiskey and then put him behind the wheel of a car.  He survives the drive down a mountain (barely), but is taken into police custody for drunk driving.  Due to his drunken state, the police do not believe his story about the kidnappers.  So, Thornhill decides to take matters into his own hands and find Kaplan himself.  His quest takes him to various locales across the country, including Chicago, Indiana, and Mount Rushmore.  Thornhill eventually learns that there is no George Kaplan and that he has found himself in the midst of a complex government operation.

Cary Grant's portrayal of Roger Thornhill is great.  He's a selfish, superficial, and he drinks too much, but Grant still manages to make him likable enough that we care what happens to him when he gets kidnapped, and does so in the first few minutes of the film.  His character changes drastically in the course of the film.  For more on that, here's an excerpt from a paper I wrote on this movie for my graduate film studies class.

With the introduction of Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint), Thornhill’s character begins to change.  Initially, she seems to be exactly the right woman for Thornhill, in that she is a superficial and noncommittal as he.  The two bond instantaneously and there seems to be a real affection between them. Based on what has been established about Thornhill, it would seem out of character for him to become attached to a woman.  Yet he has, heightening his, and the audience’s, sense of surprise and betrayal at her involvement in the attempt on his life.  The introduction of Eve Kendall functions to help Roger Thornhill mature, and his allowing himself to genuinely feel for her is the first sign of this maturation in the film.  We continue to see him grow as he (and we) learn more about her and their relationship changes.  For example, after he discovers that she was involved in the attempt on his life, he has difficulty trusting her.  When he sees her again in her hotel room, she runs to him, relieved that he is still alive, and his hands encircle her head, in the same way as they did earlier on the train.  Only this time, he stops short of touching her, indicating that the trust formed when they initially met is gone.  Thornhill has learned from his experiences in a way that someone who lives as superficially as the opening of the film suggests he does would be unlikely to do.  The change in Thornhill’s character culminates with his placing himself at risk for the woman he loves and ultimately marrying her.  Again, these are actions that the Thornhill of the beginning of the film is unlikely to take.  The man who once shied away from commitment (it is revealed early in the film that Thornhill has been married, and divorced, twice) is now willing to fully commit himself to another person, even to the point of potentially losing his own life.  Watching these changes in Thornhill evokes a sense of joy in the viewer; we are glad that he has survived his ordeal, that he has at last found true love, and that he has grown enough as a person to recognize and accept love rather than run away from it.

Bernard Hermann's score is fantastic as well.  Here's another excerpt from the paper about how sound functions in the film.

The opening theme is fast-paced, setting an appropriate tone for the big city setting of the film’s opening scene.  Hermann used shifting rhythms in the theme to suggest the chaos which is going to ensue as the film progresses.  The opening theme is repeated several times, providing an aural backdrop for several of the most exciting scenes in the film.  In the kidnapping scene, ominous music which echoes the opening theme alerts the viewer that a threat has been introduced; the mood of the music makes the audience feel threatened and uncomfortable.  During the chase scene, when Thornhill drunkenly takes the wheel of the car, the repetition of the opening theme builds tension and excitement, helping to keep viewers on the edge of their seats.  It plays again in the cafe scene at Mount Rushmore, as Thornhill waits for Eve and VanDamm to arrive.  This time, however, it has been slowed down, making it sound more ominous and creating a sense of dread as the viewer waits to find out what will happen next.


As often happens with movies from this time period, I love the costumes too.  I mean, how cute are these?

We follow up with Strangers on a Train (1951).  Farley Granger (who was also in Rope) plays Guy Haines, a well known tennis player who is soon to be engaged to Anne Morton (Ruth Roman), as soon as he gets his wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers) to sign the divorce papers.  On a train ride to see Anne and her family, he meets Bruno Antony (Robert Walker), a seemingly friendly tennis fan.  During their conversation, Antony casually reveals his plan for the perfect murder: two strangers each agree to kill someone the other one wants to be rid of.  As an example, he suggests that he can kill Haines' wife, if Haines will kill his father.  Haines dismisses the idea, thinking that surely this man cannot be serious.  But, Antony is quite serious, and thinking that he has found a partner in crime, murders Miriam.  He then begins to harass Haines about fulfilling his end of the bargain.  When it becomes clear that Haines is not going to kill his father, Antony threatens to plant evidence at the scene of Miriam's murder implicating Haines' guilt.  With the police already treating him as a suspect, Haines must race to prevent Antony from planting the evidence and clear his name.  


I had never seen this movie before, and I thought it was fantastic.  Robert Walker plays creepy really well.  He's got the crazy down.  It's in the eyes.  And in how committed he is to his plan.  He really believes that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  It's scary how believable he is.  In a particularly good scene, he is at a party with Guy, Anne, and her family and friends.  He has found another opportunity to talk about his perfect murder scheme, this time with two older women at the party.  To demonstrate how easy it is to kill someone, he places his hands around one of their necks and starts to strangle her, staring intently at Anne's younger sister, Barbara (Patricia Hitchcock).  He forgets himself and almost actually strangles the woman, frightening everyone present, especially Barbara.  Farley Granger puts in a great performance as Guy Haines.  His character is exactly the opposite of Bruno Antony, and it's engaging to watch them interact onscreen.    


Hitchcock's editing is really good in this film too.  In the scene where Haines has chased Antony to the scene of his wife's murder, which happens to be a carnival, the two men end up on an out-of-control carousel as Haines tries to get the piece of evidence away from Antony.  Hitchcock keeps viewers on the edge of their seats by cutting between wide shots of the carousel spinning out of control and close ups of Haines and Antony struggling at the edge of the carousel floor.  Shots of a little boy who is stuck on the carousel and of the carousel horses are thrown in there too.  The shots of the little boy, who, at first, is having the time of his life, are suspenseful because the audience knows that he is in danger, even though he doesn't.  The carousel horses are shot at a low angle and are lit in such a way as to make them look menacing.  

And, again, I love the costumes.

And that's all I have for this one.  I'm off to try and get the image of Robert Walker being creepy out of my head.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series: Rope and The Birds

The Paramount has a different theme for each week of their summer classic film series, and a couple of weeks ago, it was Hitchcock week.  Which I was very excited about.  In particular, I was excited to get to see Rope (1948) on the big screen.

They are Farley Granger, Jimmy Stewart, and John Dall (left to right), the stars of the film.  The film opens with a man being strangled to death in a living room.  It's shot in close up, so it's hard to tell exactly what is happening at first.  When the camera zooms out, we learn that the murderers are Brandon (Dall) and Philip (Granger), and that the victim is David, a former classmate of theirs whom they view as inferior and therefore unworthy of living any longer.  The job done, they hide the body inside a chest until they can dispose of it.  First, though, they are throwing a dinner party ostensibly to celebrate Philip being recognized for his piano playing.  Really, it's part of their "perfect murder."  Brandon and Philip are so confident that they will get away with the crime that they planned to throw this party immediately following the murder, with the body right under their guests' noses.  Their guests include David's father, aunt, and fiancé, another friend from school, and their former professor, Rupert Cadell (Stewart).  To top it off, they decide to serve dinner from the chest in which they have hidden the body.  

Philip soon begins to feel guilty about the murder, causing him to act strangely during the party.  Brandon's confidence never wavers.  In fact, he gets bolder as the night wears on, even going so far as to discuss the philosophy that inspired the murder with his guests.  It's a twisted version of a philosophy they learned from Cadell back in school which has gave Brandon a God complex that he took too far.  Philip's odd behavior combined with Brandon's brazenness make Rupert begin to suspect something amiss.  By the end of the party, he has figured them out.  

I love everything about this movie.  I've seen it twice, and I could probably watch it a hundred more times and be just as entertained as the first time.  It seems to me like kind of movie that will always have some surprise for me, something new to discover, even if I can quote every line of it along with the actors.  The cast is fantastic.  I talked in my last post about how good Jimmy Stewart is, and this is another example of that.  Dall and Granger are great too.  Dall does an expert job of playing opposites in his character; the nonchalant, pleasant host with a subtle crazy peeking out from just below the surface.  As a person with some acting training, I know how difficult that can be to pull off, and how important it is to find those opposites.  Granger does a good job of being quietly terrified and conflicted between wanting to blurt out a confession and not wanting to be caught and sent to prison.  

The editing is brilliant.  Hitchcock shot the entire movie as one long take.  No cuts, except where he had to replace his film.  A film reel back then could shoot for about 12-15 minutes before it got full and had to be changed out.  Even those necessary cuts are edited so seamlessly, they go unnoticed when watching the film.  For me, it helped build the tension in the film because it places the viewer in the room with the characters, seeing what they see, when they see it.  That tension takes hold from the very beginning and doesn't let up, making it fun and fascinating to watch.  

Side note: I'd love to get a hold of the play it's based on.  How much fun would that be?   

Next up was The Birds (1963).  Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren), a young socialite,  is shopping in a pet store when Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) happens to come in looking for a lovebird to give his younger sister, Cathy (Veronica Cartwright) for her birthday.  She doesn't know him, but he recognizes her from the papers, and decides to play a little joke on her.  This catches her attention, so she purchases a lovebird and takes it to Mitch.  He isn't home when she comes by, and she learns from a neighbor that he has gone to spend the weekend at his mother's (Jessica Tandy) house in Bodega Bay, about an hour north of where she lives in San Francisco.  She decides to take the bird up to Bodega Bay and leave it at Mitch's mother's house.  When he catches her there, says she has come to visit her friend, Annie Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette), whom she has actually just met.  When Melanie decides to stay the night in Bodega Bay, she rents a room from Annie, and the two do actually become friends.  

It has all the makings of a romantic comedy, until the birds of Bodega Bay suddenly begin to attack the people.  It begins with a gull flying down and pecking at Melanie's head while she is driving a boat across the bay after leaving her lovebird at Mitch's mother's house.  The residents of Bodega Bay regard the attack as an isolated incident.  But then, it happens again.  And again.  Each attack is more violent than the last.  Several birds attack at once.  Eventually, people are hurt, even killed, by the bird attacks. 

I like this movie a lot too.  I always have a lot of fun watching it.  The characters are likable, and played well by the actors.  Jessica Tandy does a particularly good job in her role as Mitch's mother, just over bearing enough to be right at home in a Hitchcock movie, but more subtle about it than other Hitchcock mothers, and still a loving mother to her children.       

Alfred Hitchcock explained the difference between surprise and suspense with "the bomb example."  To paraphrase: if two people are having a perfectly normal conversation in a scene and a bomb suddenly goes off, that's surprise.  But if two people are having a perfectly normal conversation in between cuts of the bomb under the table and a clock showing how much longer they have until the bomb goes off, that's suspense.  Hitchcock puts this theory to use a great deal in his films (he wasn't called "The Master of Suspense for nothing), and there is an excellent example of it in the birds.  During one of the more violent bird attacks, some gasoline is spilled.  Melanie watches from across the street as the spilled gasoline flows toward a car and a man lights a cigarette, igniting the gasoline.  We don't just suddenly see a fire.  We see Melanie looking at something, fear-stricken.  Then we see the gasoline making it's way across the street.  Then we see a shot of the birds.  Back to the gas.  Back to Melanie.  The gas again.  Melanie again.  The gas again.  Melanie.  The man pulling his cigarette and matches from his pocket.  Melanie.  The strike of the match.  Fire.  And that's suspense.  It's just a matter of time before that fire starts.  We can see it coming.  It's how that time is filled that makes it interesting.  And it's things like that that make Hitchcock's movies so entertaining.  The bird sound effects are great too.  They're really loud and screechy; it sounds like real birds, just exaggerated a bit.  That cacophony of screeches adds to the chaotic feel of the bird attacks.  Plus, it adds surprise when a bird's screeching interrupts a quiet scene. 

Another thing I like about it is that Hitchcock doesn't leave the audience with a sense of relief at the end, even after Melanie, Mitch, his mother, and Cathy manage to escape from the island.  After they drive away, the camera pans back to the island behind them, which is covered with birds.  They sit on every available surface, still, as if they are watching the car driving away, waiting for their moment to attack.  And then it's over.  So, as much as you might want to believe they got away, you can't really be sure.         

Watch out.  They're coming for you.