See Scout and Pina

Scout and Atticus

A couple weeks ago, before the rains came, I opened the windows one last time on a warm night. When I heard the dry leaves skittering on the sidewalk outside, my mind went to To Kill a Mockingbird. This movie, as you’ll recall, ends on Halloween, evoking the nostalgia and the scariness of childhood.

Seeing To Kill a Mockingbird in a theater is a no-brainer (Friday, November 9, at 7:00 pm). You can relish the understated black-and-white cinematography, the indelible performances, and the beautiful music and sound. This week’s screening at the Cinematheque also offers, of course, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to meet and greet Mary Badham, Oscar-nominated for the role of Scout (beaten by Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker), who will be on hand to answer questions. When will you get another chance in your life to see this movie on a big screen and also meet Scout? (Here’s Ms. Badham’s website.)

Much as I love both the book and the movie, I have some quibbles with each of them. I’ll write about that later in the week. For right now, I urge everyone to get your tickets ($20 for non-members) via www.brownpapertickets.com. The 600-seat Cinematheque probably won’t sell out, but one never knows.

I also enthusiastically recommend Pina, a documentary about the choreographer Pina Bausch by her friend, the great German director Wim Wenders, showing Saturday at 9:40 and Sunday at 6:30. I’ve heard from some people who claim they don’t even like dance who liked this film. Bausch’s pieces are odd, memorable, beautiful, and sometimes funny. The poignant commentary from Wenders and others who knew her (she died before the film was completed) round out the movie.

Posted in Books, Movies | Leave a comment

Never Sorry Folly?

I’m recommending Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry and Almayer’s Folly, both showing at the Cinematheque this weekend. Unlike past weeks, I haven’t seen either one.

Ai Weiwei

The documentary about Chinese artist Ai Weiwei has earned a 97% at the website Rotten Tomatoes, which aggregates critics’ reviews. Weiwei is an iconoclast who’s fought Chinese government censorship of his work and courageously protested human rights abuses. For this, he’s been beaten and imprisoned, but remains unbowed. This film should be interesting and inspiring. It shows Thursday, November 1, at 8:40 pm, and Friday, November 2, at 7:45 pm.

Among the five fiction films this weekend, I pick Almayer’s Folly (Sunday, November 4, at 3:45). I’m intrigued by the 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes and the high rating at John’s website of choice, Metacritic.com. I’m also interested in trying to read the Joseph Conrad novel it’s based on before the weekend, but who knows if that will happen? Chantal Ackerman is a 60ish pioneering Belgian feminist director. Be forewarned that this film is supposed to be moody and atmospheric–not so much character or plot-driven–with a heart-of-darkness theme.

Speaking of darkness, I usually pass on the violent films, and Killer Joe certainly fits that criterion. I’m slightly intrigued by Matthew McConaughy’s well-reviewed performance, and the other actors are supposed to be great as well. I just don’t enjoy seeing people get killed that much, so I’m skipping the spaghetti Western The Great Silence, too.               

I might be tempted, though, by Alps (Thursday at 6:45, and Sunday at 8:40), should I have the urge to feel disturbed and unsettled.

(Heads up on the following weekend: Mary Badham, who played Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird [1962] appears in person at the Cinematheque and answers questions after the screening.)

Posted in Books, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ozu’s “Tokyo Story”

Hara and Ryu

Yasujiro Ozu’s 1953 Tokyo Story is a quiet, moving film about an essential theme of life: change. It’s not to be missed.

Chishu Ryu, Ozu’s iconic actor, plays an elderly father who travels from the countryside to Tokyo with his wife to visit their grown children. Chishu Ryu should serve as an example in acting classes–he conveys benevolence and humanity with mere nods, with grunted assents, with barely perceptible smiles. The beautiful and gracious Setsuko Hara plays his daughter. Ozu’s actors subtly express a range of human emotion without the crude mugging we often see in American acting.

Often the emotions are sad. The Roman poet Vergil used an expression I like: lacrimae rerum, or the tears of things. The phrase expresses the melancholy of life, the grief of loss, the disappointment we encounter in small things. Ozu is a master at conveying lacrimae rerum. Because we can identify so closely with these sorrows, and they are conveyed in such a humane and compassionate way, and the film itself is so gentle and beautiful, it’s not depressing, but poignant and real.

As John keeps pointing out, filmmakers in a recent poll chose Tokyo Story as Number One, the best film ever made. You don’t want to miss the best film ever made, showing at the Cleveland Institute of Art Cinematheque at 6:55 pm on Saturday, October 27, and 3:30 pm on Sunday, the 28th.

In addition, the AIDS documentary We Were Here looks powerful. This film, shown in conjunction with Ensemble Theater’s production of Larry Kramer’s play The Normal Heart, chronicles the beginning of the epidemic as seen through the eyes of gay men in San Francisco. (Shows Thursday, October 25, at 6:45 pm, and Friday, October 26, at 7:30 pm.)

As in weeks past, I recommend the Miyazaki film, the last of this series. If you’ve never seen a film by this director, you’re missing out. Princess Mononoke deals with ecological themes within a mythological story. (Saturday at 9:30 pm, and Sunday at 6:30 pm.)

Posted in Movies, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

To See, or Not to See?

Mr. Kumare

Documentaries are often tempting, because their subject matter is usually inherently interesting: some unique, strange, or heartwarming story that inspired the filmmakers to begin with. In Kumare, this weekend’s Museum selection, the filmmaker, Vikram Gandhi (at left) conned people into believing he was a spiritual guru and then recorded the results. Presumably, he’s making fun of people’s gullibility and exposing how easily a charlatan can gull naive folk. But then, the Museum desription implies a surprise ending: “the upshot of his story is truly transformative.”

I’m uncertain about recommending Kumare, because I haven’t seen it, and the reviews are ambivalent. And I don’t want to read the reviews too closely, because I don’t want the movie ruined. If you check out Rotten Tomatoes, which (like Metacritic) summarizes critical reaction, the conclusion is “no consensus yet.” It rates about 68% at this point–certainly above average, but not a rave.

I’m intrigued enough to give it a try, though I can’t go tonight and am not sure about Sunday. I want to see what that transformation thing is about, and I’m interested in spirituality and belief. If you see it, or have seen it in another city, I’d love to hear what you think.

Kumare plays at the Cleveland Museum of Art, 7:00 pm Friday and 1:30 pm on Sunday.

Posted in Movies | Leave a comment

A Clown, but Not “Klown”

Maybe I’ll always be recommending a classic film, here, in my weekly musings on my husband John’s film programs. If so, I may get boring, but I gotta be me.

I generally want people to read classic books and see classic movies, because they’re usually great.  A year or two ago, my book group, who usually chooses recent books, decided to read a Jane Austen novel. When I learned that quite a few members had never read any Jane Austen, I pushed hard for Pride and Prejudice. Another member, I learned later, thought this was a predictable and kind of embarrassing choice. She would have opted for a more obscure novel. My rationale was that if you haven’t read any Jane Austen, you should start with Pride and Prejudice. That serves as a template to which you can compare her other books and gives you a little cultural literacy boost. In life, you’re going to run across more allusions to Pride and Prejudice than Mansfield Park.

I realize this attitude represents my teacher self. As it turned out, everyone loved Pride and Prejudice (everyone who came to the discussion, anyway), and even the recalcitrant friend acknowledged that it was well worth rereading.

Les cubicles

With that apologia, I encourage you to see Playtime (Saturday, October 20, at 5:00), a 1967 satiric comedy by Jacques Tati. Not because it’s a classic that you “should” see, but because it’s brilliant and funny. Like a character in a Kafka story, Tati’s character Monsieur Hulot can’t find his way to an appointment; he keeps running into sharp corners and uncooperative bureaucrats and unmarked offices. There’s little dialogue or plot, but hundreds of sight gags and stark, beautiful visuals. (Here’s a scene.) Tati spent a fortune (and never recovered financially) designing and building the film’s elaborate sets. François Truffaut wrote that Playtime was “a film that comes from another planet, where they make films differently.” 

 I guess I’d rank the other films in this order: Kiki’s Delivery Service, The Well-Digger’s Daughter, and David Lynch’s Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. Regarding the last-place choice, I’m not cool enough for Lynch, but if you’re into surreal and weird movies, you should go for it. Kiki’s is another in the Cinematheque series by the great Hayao Miyazaki, all of which are worth seeing.

The Well-Digger’s Daughter looks to be pretty pedestrian to me, a kind of French Masterpiece Theater offering.  I liked Daniel Autueil, the director, when he starred in Jean de Florette in the ‘80’s and other films. This looks like an old-fashioned, straightforward retelling of a novel (by Maurice Pagnol). It did get good reviews, but they frequently use words like “traditional” and even “sentimental.”

Naked hijinks from "Klown"

Tuesday night, the Cinematheque shows  Klown, “the funniest film of the year,” at the Capitol Theatre (7:00 pm). I’m going to skip it, warned away by words in John’s flyer like raunchy, taboo, debauchery, and sex-crazed. Maybe you’ll see Klown and laugh a lot. If so, leave your comments here. And let me know what you think of Playtime.

Posted in Movies, Uncategorized | 4 Comments

A Collection of Choosers

I discussed the electoral college with my Latin students today, apropos of the Presidential election, of course, and described its Roman historical and etymological roots. As a break from our essential but enervating grammar explanations, such a lesson passes as “fun” in my class.

The Roman Republic divided its voting citizens into groups of 100, called centuries. The Senate submitted proposals to the Centurial Assembly, and each century got one vote. This was, then, an electoral college.The Roman aristocracy was fearful of the rabble, as were our Founding Fathers, who borrowed and adapted this indirect system. It gave our Founders a way to choose the President more or less democratically, without relying too, too much on fickle and possibly unwashed citizens.

This system is convoluted enough, but many Americans are probably confused by the term itself. Why are these electors part of a college? Do they hang out on a campus, sharing a keg while they choose the President? A look at the word’s Latin roots clears up the confusion. College comes from the Latin verb colligo, which means gather together or collect. (One of the verb’s principal parts is in fact collectum.) Colleague, collegial¸and collection are related English words. So the electoral college, or really any college, is fundamentally a collection or gathering.

Electoral derives from eligo, which means choose or select. Electors are people who do some choosing. So the electoral college is a gathering of people who choose.  Both the concept and the words themselves come to us from the Romans.

To digress, while perusing the internet for extra information, I ran across a blog by a certain Steve with a couple of amusing idioms smack in the first sentence. In a post dating from 2000, Steve addressed the alleged weaknesses of the electoral college vis a vis the  “brew ha ha” then in the news. You remember it, don’t you? That brew ha-ha regarding hanging chads (see photo) and Florida and good old Katherine Harris? That was one nightmarish brew ha ha. Maybe that one was a kegger.

Then, Steve comments, “I have whittled away my hours,” researching the topic. Maybe that’s an actual expression I’m just not familiar with. I always thought we while away the hours.  Maybe it’s writer being creative. Or maybe it’s just Steve being Steve.

Steve, by the way, is a big fan of the electoral college, fearing that popular election of the President would lead to socialism. Share your thoughts on the electoral college here.

Posted in Teaching, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Reflecting on the 47%

By now everybody knows what Republican candidate Mitt Romney said about 47% of Americans. It goes something like this. People will vote for President Obama because they are dependent on government and believe they are victims. These 47%  pay no income tax and think the government must take care of them. They believe they’re entitled to health care, food, and housing. Mr. Romney said, “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” When the secret videotape was revealed, Romney did not apologize. Now, weeks later, he has. The original remarks must reflect his feelings and those of the people in the audience, right? No one objected at the time.

I’ve been trying to figure out exactly whom he was talking about, reflecting on the people I know who fit into that 47%. Many of my students at Cleveland State University, for example, work at low-wage jobs and rely on student loans to help pay for their education. For these two reasons, then, they may not pay any income tax.

They work, often full time, at restaurants, nursing homes, and other businesses. A great many of them are also raising families while they attend college full-time. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes, but, at this stage of their lives, no income taxes.

I wish I could introduce Mr. Romney to these young Americans. I’ve had students who come directly to an 8:30 am class from their night-shift jobs, who contact me from the hospital in order to keep up with their work, and who return to class after a death in the family, determined to finish the semester. These students do not believe they are victims, and they do not feel entitled. Interestingly, Mr. Romney didn’t even get their political persuasion right. I think many of these students will vote for Mitt Romney.

A second category of people among the 47% are the elderly. I have two older friends, for example, who probably no longer pay income tax. They now collect Social Security and benefit from Medicare. Both women worked outside the home throughout their marriages, as did their hard-working husbands. They maintained a middle-class lifestyle and sacrificed to send their kids to college. They continue to pay sales taxes and other taxes.

They, too, are not victims and have never behaved in an “entitled” way. These two particular friends are in the 47% who will vote for President Obama, but clearly not for the reasons Mr. Romney thinks. Of course, other elderly people on Social Security and Medicare, including some of my relatives, will be voting for Mr. Romney. The 47% is, in other words, a garbled mess.

The last category I’ve been thinking about are my GED students at the Thea Bowman Center in Cleveland’s Mount Pleasant neighborhood, where I volunteer as a tutor. Like my CSU students, some of them are working and also raising a family. Some of them have learning disabilities. Most of them have had to contend with other problems–violence, drug addiction, broken schools–that I can barely imagine.

They made a mistake and dropped out of high school. Now they are trying to rectify that mistake. They want to help their kids with their homework and get better jobs. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes, but not, at this stage of their lives, income taxes. Most of them, as far as I can tell, are planning to vote. Most of them, I imagine, are voting for President Obama.

Many of them receive government aid, but if they feel “entitled” and if they feel like “victims,” why are they attending GED classes four days a week in order to re-learn the branches of government and division of fractions? I would like to ask Mitt Romney, in what way are these dedicated GED students, college students, and elderly people not taking responsibility for their lives? Did he really expect his listeners to believe that nearly half of all Americans, the half who will vote for President Obama, are slackers and moochers?

My husband and I belong to the 47% who are voting for President Obama. Like many of our like-minded friends and family, we are not in that entitled and irresponsible half who pay no income tax. Though our income is a tiny fraction of Mitt Romney’s, we pay an annual income tax at about the same rate.

What about you? Which 47% (out of many) are you in?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Good Docs

Two documentaries at the Cleveland Museum of Art sound interesting this weekend. Booker’s Place: A Mississippi Story revisits a 1965 NBC interview, in which an African-American waiter named Booker Wright spoke openly to TV reporters and later paid the price. The son of the original filmmaker returns to Mississippi in this film to examine the effects of that original story. Here’s a trailer.

That’s on Friday evening at 7:00 pm. On Sunday at 1:30 you can see Portrait of Wally, which examines the struggle between museums and the Jewish families whose art was stolen by the Nazis. The docs John brings to the art museum almost always sound intriguing to me.

Tanner, ’88 plays out on two more Wednesdays at the Museum at 6:45. Robert Altman and Garry Trudeau, an impressive duo, created this HBO political mini-series almost twenty-five years ago. It’s a send-up of political campaigning, following Michael Murphy around as Jack Tanner, a liberal entering the Democratic primaries.

John was telling me how funny the first episodes were last week. I watched a little on dvd and was amused but as much as John. Although the political themes are certainly relevant, it mostly seemed mannered and too familiar. It does provide a witty and ironic antidote to this dreary political campaign season.

Posted in Movies | Leave a comment

Hands Down, It’s “Madame de…”

No zombies or giant man-eating sandworms for me this weekend. I’ll pass over Juan of the Dead (Cuba’s first zombie movie) and Dune, David Lynch’s version of the Frank Herbert science-fiction novel, for Max Ophuls’s exquisite 1953 gem, The Earrings of Madame De… at the Cleveland Cinematheque.

Thinking this movie was based on a Guy de Maupassant story, I just reread “The Necklace,” which you, like me, may have read in junior high–a surprise-ending, O. Henry kind of story (only more elegant) about a couple who go bankrupt trying to pay the debt for a lost necklace. It has the same witty tone as Madame de…, but (zut alors!) this is a red herring! With a little research, I find instead that Madame de… is based on a novel by Marie Louise Lévêque de Vilmorin, who, interestingly and irrelevantly, was once engaged to Antoine de Saint-Exupery, author of The Little Prince.

OK, I’m getting a little off track.

Madame de…is entertaining, suspenseful, clever, elegant, and touching. Danielle Darrieux is one of the most beautiful, graceful, subtle actresses you’ll ever see. Charles Boyer deftly plays her wise and sophisticated husband. The great Italian director Vittorio de Sica is a baron obsessed with honor. These three performances alone make this movie worth seeing.

There’s also the direction. When we were dating, John used to educate me about movies on our long drives from our hometown Canton to Cleveland, and that’s how I learned to associate the phrase “moving camera” with Max Ophuls. In this film, the camera glides through hallways and gardens, follows dancers at a ball, and glances over the characters’ revealing expressions. Seeing this movie helps you understand what “direction” is all  about. The New Yorker’s Pauline Kael began her review, “Perfection.”

These screenings honor the eminent film critic Andrew Sarris, who died this summer and who, having seen most of the movies every made, called Madame de… his favorite film. Cleveland Institute of Art President Grafton Nunes, who knew Sarris, will introduce the film on Friday night at 7:00. It also shows Saturday, 10/13, at 5:15.

Another French film this weekend, Unforgivable, tempts me a little bit, because it looks intriguing and suspenseful and starts Carole Bouquet, another stunning French actress I remember from That Obscure Object of Desire and other films. But it looks a little too thrilling for my delicate sensibilities.

I can enthusiastically recommend Hayao Miyazaki’s Spirited Away, also showing this weekend. If you haven’t seen any films in this series, get to at least one. Take your kids and your grandkids if you have them. But you don’t need kids to enjoy Miyazaki.

Posted in Movies | 7 Comments

La Grande Illusion

Jean Gabin in "La Grande Illusion"

It happened again tonight. As I was tearing up watching Jean Renoir’s great 1937 anti-war film La Grande Illusion at the Cinematheque, I was thinking that I should have told everyone I know to come and see it. John didn’t need my help–the crowd was big enough. I just felt sad that some people who may have loved this classic and moving film were missing it. You have one more chance: Sunday, October 7th, at 4:00 pm.

From now on, I’m going to let people know. I’m going to devote my blog, every Monday or Tuesday, to a look ahead at movies coming both to the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Cleveland Institute of Art Cinematheque to offer my reflections and recommendations. This will serve a bunch of purposes, most of them selfish. First, it will force me to look ahead at John’s schedules; like lots of other people, I forget to check out what he’s showing and sometimes miss good movies. Of course, he often tells me what he’s showing. I’m just not always listening. And, yes, I also get the weekly emails. Sue me.

If I’m writing about the movies, I’ll have to plan ahead. And maybe John’s audience will be increased by a small increment.

Second, I’ll be sharing my recommendations with friends and acquaintances. Lest this seem egotistical, it happens that some people appreciate my take on John’s movies. My tastes are more mainstream, and I’m less, let us say, expansively enthusiastic about his selections than he is. For the record, I rarely cozy up to truly avant-garde films and usually avoid violent ones. Science fiction doesn’t thrill me; neither does anime, though I make exceptions. I’ll feel very happy if some people, because of my advice, see some good movies they would otherwise have missed.

Lastly, there’s the pleasure and the practical purpose of writing the blog, which I always enjoy but often neglect. The discipline of a weekly deadline may be motivating. And the underlying purpose of the blog is blatantly promotional, i.e., for me, not John’s movies. Writers have blogs to promote their writing. Accumulating readers is the goal. Feel free to spread the link around. Comment at the blog itself, if you choose to, whether you liked or hated a movie.

And if you borrow a film I recommend from Netflix instead of seeing it at the Museum or Cinematheque, I hope you enjoy it, but you don’t need to let me know.

Posted in Movies | 1 Comment