The Culture Enthusiast: Movies

Funniest comedy one liners

lists 9:00 AM

After all those horror movie marathons you went through during Halloween it's time for a couple of laughs. Total Film is having a pool about the greatest comedy one liners. Naturally, I had to make a list of my own.

While I was reading the list I realized many of the lines didn't sound so funny because I hadn't seen the movie. Funny how comedy depends on context. Anyway, here are some of the lines that make me crack up:

"If someone has been murdered here, please let it be Clouseau." from A Shot in the Dark

Just like all Pink Panther movies, A Shot in the Dark relies a lot on Peter Seller's hilarious performance and physical comedy, but Clouseau's dead serious lines and Commissioner Dreyfus' despair at Clouseau's incompetence are just to funny not to be mentioned.

"Look at me now, LOOK AT ME NOW! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!" - from The Producers

I've already talked about how much I love the 1965 version of The Producers. It has tons of hilarious one liners. They are even funnier because of the amazing performances.

"I want to see what love looks like when it's triumphant. I haven't had a good laugh in a week." from It happened one night

This 1934 comedy starring Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert is all about funny dialogues between the two protagonists. I literally cried when I watched this scene for the first time.

"A big fat lummox like you hiring an airplane to write: "Hildy, don't be hasty. Remember my dimple. Walter." Delayed our divorce 20 minutes while the judge went out and watched it." from His girl Friday

Even though most people prefer Arsenic and Old Lace I think Cary Grant does a much better job in His girl Friday where he plays a cunning newspaper editor trying to win back his ex-wife. This movie has really fast dialogues and a lot of veiled, and not so veiled, insults exchanged between the divorced couple.

"We may be small but our hearts are large... metaphorically speaking." from Night at the Museum

Maybe this is more of a kid's movie than a comedy, but I just laugh so much at Steve Coogan as a Roman general and Owen Wilson as a cowboy. You can tell I'm all about wholesome fun.

What are you favorite comedy lines?

PS: Most of these movies are available on Netflix.

Share |

The Iron Lady

Movies 3:11 PM

Since we were talking about guilty pleasures the other day I feel obliged to disclose my YouTube guilty pleasure: European Parliament videos. I could watch them for hours, they are just too exciting.

That's why I was bound to love The Iron Lady and include Margaret Thatcher videos on my Youtube playlist. The latter definitely happen, the first is... uncertain.

I mean, how would liberal Hollywood portray one of the most conservative politicians of the 20th century? You kind of expect some biased portrayal there.

Amazingly, there wasn't much in the movie that seemed directed at damaging Margaret Thatcher. The Iron Lady did focus too much on her later years, dedicating a lot of time to her dementia and hallucinations. It is a pity her years as Prime Minister weren't covered more extensively, but that is not criticizing or degrading her.

I also liked Meryl Streep's performance which is excellent as always. Notice the movie mentions that Thatcher practiced improving her voice and Meryl's voice in does change accordingly.

And there are so many excellent lines in it that we become more and more interested in her. Hallucinations aside, the way she - in her old age - talks to her doctor is impressive.

But there's one thing I can’t let it slide. The "die washing up a tea cup" scene.

In this particular scene, she loses an election and later receives a marriage proposal. Below is part of the dialogue and, no worries, there are no spoilers:

Young Margaret Thatcher: I love you so much but, I will never be one of those women, Dennis. Who stays silent and pretty on the arm of her husband. Or remote and alone in the kitchen - doing the washing up, for that matter.

Young Denis Thatcher: [Interrupts] We'll get help for that...

Young Margaret Thatcher: No. One's life must matter, Dennis. Beyond all the cooking and the cleaning and the children. One's life must mean more than that. I cannot die washing up a teacup! I mean it, Dennis. Say you understand.

Basically, before accepting her marriage proposal, Thatcher dismiss being a mother and a housewife as doing things that don't matter. This bothered me a lot.

Firstly, there's the veracity issue. We don't know for sure if she said something like that or held such views. However, it is highly unlikely that she did. She was a conservative with a family of her own. Plus, she once said: "The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison." I doubt she would say something that insulting to many women.

Secondly, even if we put the issue of whether she said that or not aside, we have the fact that the movie said it. It is preposterous to not simply insinuate but clearly state that the work of housewives and mothers "doesn't mean" much. The viewers, specially women that think their life choices deserve respect, should not accept this.

As if Thatcher's ambitious career and incredible achievements were a product of some sort of feminist liberation ideal she had and not her courageous sense of duty.

Not to mention that regardless of the feminist issue, the "die washing a tea cup line" in the context of this movie is extremely nihilistic. Most of the movie is about Thatcher's dementia and decline, so it's as if regardless of how ambitious you are or how much you accomplish, you will end up in a miserable situation in the end of your life.

It seems that since the movie wasn't openly critical of her politically, they inserted some political correctness into her personal life.

Overall, I really enjoyed watching the movie (I know it doesn't look that way) which proves that even a movie with some faults can't help but showing what an interesting character she was.

What do you think of "The Iron Lady"? Any favorite lines? Mine is "Watch your character for it becomes your destiny"

Share |

Top 5 movies from 1986

lists 10:24 AM

Share |

Paintings from an Espionage insider

Art 10:15 AM

Share |

Are historical inaccuracies harmless?

Movies 9:41 AM

I rarely talk about movies that I don't like, but I really hated The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas.

The movie is about Bruno, an 8 year-old boy whose father is a Nazi officer in charge of a concentration camp. One day, Bruno discovers the camp and becomes friends with Shmuel, a Jewish boy his age who is a prisoner at the camp.

Now, I know most movies that focus on a past age end up having some historical inaccuracies. They are, after all, fictionalized accounts and not documentaries.

But still, where do we draw the line between historical inaccuracies and blatant lies? Can a movie with several historical inaccuracies still be good? In the case of The boy in the stripped pajamas my answer is no.

Certain essential facts in the story are not simply small, unimportant, historical mistakes. For example, children were not taken to concentration camps to work alongside adults. Another movie that deals with the Holocaust, Life is beautiful, has a child in a camp, but he was hiding from the Nazis all the time and not working there.

It even crossed my mind that Shmuel might not be real, that he was Bruno’s imaginary friend. If this was the case, I think the story would have been much more interesting.

Here's something else that bothered me: Bruno was gone for hours every day and nobody noticed. There was an armed guard with a dog in the front entrance, but there wasn't so much as a lock in the back door that led to the camp. And the most appalling of all: if an 8 year-old managed to crawl under the fence in minutes, how come nobody else in the camp did it?

All this may seem irrelevant and maybe I’m being picky. But some of these mistakes, like saying even children could escape the camp, are actually insulting. These mistakes also create two problems.

For one, they make the story seem too implausible in itself. The way the movie portrays the camps makes it difficult to believe that a prisoner would manage to talk to an outsider for several days or that a child would manage to enter the camp at will.

Secondly, the movie is about WWII. All these details create confusion about the real events that occurred. The prisoners didn't escape because the fences were electrified in real camps, which isn't shown in the movie.

To make matters worse, the movie and the book in which it was based are aimed at teenagers. Young readers don't have enough historical background to spot these inconsistencies and might take everything in the movie as real.

But don't take it from me, because I'm no expert in WWII. A Rabbi wrote a review of this movie and he says he lent the book to one of his friends who is an Auschwitz survivor. According to the Rabbi, his friend "wept, and begged me tell everyone that this book is not just a lie and not just a fairytale, but a profanation."

Remember the other day we were talking about The Producers? Many people consider this comedy to be insulting, because the Holocaust is not a subject that should be dealt lightly. I understand this but I believe movies like The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas are the ones that deal with the Holocaust lightly.

The initial concept of the movie is indeed very original and promising: to tell the story of the Holocaust as seen through the naive eyes of an 8 year-old boy. But the movie's merits stop there.

Is "The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas" still good, despite its inconsistencies?

UPDATE: While I was checking some college information for my sister, I found an article in an educational website talking about movies that can help students learn. One of the movies was The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas and the article says that this movie "helps discuss the concept of eugenics and exemplifies Nazi concentration camps." (Source in Portuguese)

Share |

How to be creative without being original: the case of Batman movies

Analysis 10:34 AM

One of the problems with contemporary culture is the importance placed on originality. Many writers and artists strive to create something deemed original and when they can’t they take the easy way out, the pessimistic: “there’s nothing left to create, everything has been done already”.

Now, of course there’s nothing new to create. But that shouldn’t be an excuse for lame art, should it?

Take Batman Forever for example.

I never noticed this before but there’s a scene in Batman Forever which is incredibly similar to one in The Dark Knight. The general outline of both scenes is this: the villain wants to destroy Batman by playing with his real identity. The villain takes the woman Bruce Wayne loves and the man Batman depends on and puts them in mortal danger. One of them will die, it's up to Batman (or Bruce Wayne) to decide who to save.

Now, look at the different results achieved but Joel Schumacher and Christopher Nolan.

Click on the image to view to scene or click here. You'll go to Youtube, but I'll be here waiting ;)

The initial predicament is practically the same and yet the two scenes are completely different. For one, the tone is much different.

The Riddler wears a shiny body suit and acts as if he’s a game show host, offering some comic relief to a tense moment. The scene is also made lighter by the fact that Batman doesn't lose his temper and doesn't threat the villains physically, he actually defeats the Riddler in his own game: with a riddle.

Plus, I love the little joke about Jim Carrey when The Riddler says “Was that over the top? I can never tell.”

The Joker's scene, on the other hand, is much more serious and realistic. The setting is a police station and the witnesses are detectives and not other weird villains. The Joker doesn't use surreal traps like those cylindrical cages, he pragmatically puts the victims on "250 52nd street and Avenue X at Cicero".

The scene is much more tense: not only Batman gets really angry and violent but that doesn't seem to have any effect on the Joker, who says his strength won't get him anywhere. What can he do, then?

But there's an interesting similarity. In both cases it is said that Batman is a "freak".

We could debate over which scene is better but I would say both of them are incredibly successful in the sense they achieved what they set out to do. Moreover, these are my two favorite Batman movies and I could never choose between them.

The thing is: the story is more or less the same but the results are different. The solutions didn't involve a parody or ironic references.

Movies like these tell me that it is still possible to be creative without necessarily being original. The throwing of the towel that is “there are no more stories to tell” might be just an excuse for bad movies. The scope of human experience may be limited but our ability to explore it is not.

How important is originality? Are both scenes are well made or is Batman Forever over the top?

Image via Tumblr

Share |

The Fall

Movies 9:11 AM

An epic tale of love and revenge

Why do we watch movies? I mean, isn't it amazing that we pay to go in a dark room filled with strangers to watch representations of made up stories? A while ago we were talking about the importance of literature and, if you think about it, people have been telling stories since the beginning of time. Why? Is it escapism, a past-time, or something more?

Last week I was looking for a movie to watch. I wanted something good, I was sick of watching lame movies that I couldn't talk about here. So I looked for a recommendation in IMDB’s users' "best movies" lists. The Fall appeared in many of those lists. I hadn't heard of this movie before, but the trailer sold it to me.

As you can gather from the trailer, a man and a little girl are both in a hospital. She has a big imagination and he is depressed – a dangerous combination. He starts telling her this incredible story and she is hooked. But he’ll only continue telling her the story if she steals morphine for him.

The Fall makes you feel like a child again and few movies can do that - even among kids' movies. Suddenly you're on the edge of your seat because you want to know what's going to happen next. And there will come a point where you have no idea what's going to happen next. That's exactly what kids (and I) want: a story to care about.

Plus, the movie answers those questions above. In two different ways, actually. First off, we like stories (whether they're movies, books or the ones we tell ourselves using our imagination), because they are better than reality. And by better, I mean more attractive, more exciting and more stimulating.

Just by the trailer you get a sense of how beautiful the movie is. Every shot is as perfect as a painting. I cannot even imagine what it must have been like seeing The Fall in the movies and not from my small notebook screen. Everything from the costumes, to the soundtrack, to the locations, to the names, to the characters' back stories is... grandiose.

Alexandria and Roy would rather be on an exciting quest in a desert island than in a hospital ward with people coughing, crying and dying all around you.

However, it's not like they are involved in the story just to escape their lives. The Bandit's story isn't all fiction. Roy’s story works like a dream, it's almost as if he's daydreaming. In the same way that happens in dreams, every character in his story is a part of his own self. And of Alexandria’s self too, because she sneaks into the story.

They come up with the story using elements of their real lives, nothing is made up from nowhere. Every character is represented by a person they now. Aspects of their experiences are part of the fictional story (the licking of the ice, for example).

This is where the line between reality and fiction gets blurry. Their being absorbed in the story is not totally escapism. Through their stories they are figuring out their own lives and feelings. In the story, they re-enact previous (real) experiences, invent the ones they wished happened in real life, and ultimately define their future. Remember I said that the story is better than reality? It's also because Roy has total control of the story whereas he only has some control over his reality.

It’s even funny how incoherent the story can get, because it changes all the time to adapt their particular psychological needs of the moment. In a very funny dialogue, the Masked Bandit swears to destroy Governor Odious and "every Spanish thing". Alexandria asks: "Wasn't he Spanish?". Roy, momentarily confused, answers: "Noooo. He was French". And the story goes on as if nothing had happened. There's no mistakes in the story. He calls the shots. Depending on what he needs, the story changes and this is why it goes from revenge, to love, to sadness.

The ending is truly brilliant and I won’t even say anything so you can have a big surprise when you watch it. See how the movie is compelling towards storytelling? It’s even making me writing a review without spoilers

Have you seen The Fall? What did you like the most about it?

Share |

The Truman Show

Analysis 9:00 AM

Major spoiler alert, kay?

Many movies criticize Tv and modern culture. Take Idiocracy for example. I love this movie, but it gets a little too painful (and gross) to watch. Other movies are more reflexive and dramatic such as Network. And then there's the Truman Show.

Truman Show is one of my favorite movies: it is entertaining and talks about serious things, it criticizes parts of modern life and it has some symbolism to pleases geeks like me. Plus, I'm a big Jim Carey fan, but don't hold that against me.

Jim Carey is Truman Burbank - the first baby legally adopted by a corporation - and he is the star of a reality show. He is also the only person who is unaware of it. The show is a big hit, with product placement pouring over checks to the network. The creator of the show, Cristof, seems to think Truman likes his reality. He says Truman could leave any time he wants and could find out the truth if he wanted to.

Things start getting tricky when Truman gets clues he is being watched, that the whole world revolves around him, that everything is fake.

An interesting question to me is: do we like watching the movie "The Truman Show" or do we like watching the reality show "The Truman Show"? Or both?

There a lot of different people who obsessively watch Truman in his reality show: people in a bar, old ladies, a guy in a tub, valets in a parking lot, a Japanese couple. But do we really identify ourselves with them? I am all for the "turn off the Tv, read a book" but does the movie really get the message across, like Idiocracy and Network?

I'd say yes, but not totally. We focus more on Truman and his predicament and less on the people that are addicted to the show. After all, we also want to know what will happen to Truman.

If criticism on Tv is secondary*, what do we get from Truman's personal story? Here's the part I prefer not to think about too much.

Some people say that it is an agnostic movie. Truman needs to break free from this entity who watches and controls him all the time. The knowledge that he is being watched is actually despairing and his highest goal should be to achieve independence and freedom.

Not only the names Truman and Cristof support this, but there's also the fact that in the script there was another character involved in the production of the show named Moses (!).

Truman's ship has the number 139 in the sail which is a recognized reference to Psalm 139 ("whither shall I go from thy spirit?")

But there's another possible opposite interpretation. Cristof could represent the devil. He created a fake world, mimicking the real world and forcing Truman to believe his make-believe world, which is devoid of truth etc.

Now, I can't seem to decide which interpretation fits best but all this really bugs me, because if I had to take a guess I'd say the 1st interpretation is more accurate. And going down this road makes me a bit paranoid in the sense that you always feel movies are trying to sell you something you're against without you knowing it.

I'd love to discover that deep down the 2nd interpretation is the most accurate but still, I think The Truman Show makes a good point when it comes to Tv and our addiction to it, even if that's not the main focus.

What is your interpretation of The Truman Show? Do you like Jim Carey on more dramatic roles?

* There actually exists a medical condition called "The Truman Show Delusion": a person believes his life is a reality show.

Share |

The Producers (1968)

Movies 11:50 AM

Simply put: The Producers is one of my favorite comedies ever. Mel Brooks in its best and it’s not even a parody. The Producers is about a bankrupt producer (Zero Mostel) who comes across an idea to make money (a lot of it) through a Broadway flop. The idea was given to him by his neurotic and naïve accountant Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder), who is now a part of the scheme as well.

It’s amazing how Brooks, a Jew himself, manages to pull off something that involves a musical called “Springtime for Hitler.” Ridendo castigat moris all over it.

Dealing with Nazism with humor and yet never making the subject trivial or unimportant is quite a feat. Brooks makes us ridicule Nazism and see it as an absurd twice: first in the movie itself The Producers and then in the play Springtime for Hitler inside the movie.

For example, in the movie there's the character of the Nazi playwright. He sounds stupid and dumb and that makes him laughable. But it's a fact that some Nazi officers escaped trial fleeing to other countries. Not to mention that it was that type of blind acceptance of the regime that got Hitler in power and kept him there for so long.

Then, there’s the play. The actor who plays Hitler is called LSD and he's a groovy hippie. It's funny but at the same time reminds us that the hippie's attitude of peace and love is the opposite of Hitler's war and hate. Goebbels is also portrayed like a cool jazz-dancing guy. He is happy and enjoying himself.

We know they weren't like that, but portraying them as such makes us laugh at them. It makes it easier to talk about them.

This is probably what Brooks wanted. It was very difficult for him to release this movie, specially because in the beginning the movie was called "Springtime for Hitler". It was also banned in Germany.

But he didn't want to the movie to be disrespectful. He probably wanted what all Jewish people want: never forget. The thing is, people do forget.

And I think Brooks understood that Nazism was becoming this taboo, a subject so terrible no one even talked about.

The Producers just goes ahead and says it's ok to talk about it, it's even ok to make fun of Nazis. Actually, the core of what is being said about Nazis is real, like when Hitler and Goebbles are talking and the latter says very satisfied: “I just laid the morning propaganda program on the people."

This mixture of comedy and criticism so neatly balanced makes the movie timeless.

What do you think of The Producers - critical or offensive? What’s your favorite line? (There are so many! I love “That’s it baby, when you’ve got it flaunt it, flaunt it!)

(If you want a taste of it, and specially if you've only seen the 2005 remake, try watching the first scene, which lasts almost 13 minutes and took 14 days to shoot, featuring mostly Nero and Gene and try not to be blown away).

Share |