Posted in Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2016 by cdascher

my_fair_lady_posterToday’s Red Carpet Roulette is brought to you by the letter ‘H’.

A night in London, some time after the introduction of automobiles and electric lighting. Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn), an unrefined flower girl with a pronounced cockney accent, notices a someone surreptitiously recording her words. It is linguistic professor Henry Higgins, making notes on her pronunciation, which draws the attention of Colonel Pickering (Wilfrid Hyde-White), himself an expert on languages of the Indian subcontinent. Snobbish Higgins decries what he sees as the degradation of English. After Eliza requests instruction in refining her speech, Higgins wagers Pickering he can pass her as a lady, and begins a grueling crash course to purge her street-level mannerisms.

This story is loosely based on the Greek myth Pygmalion, as many of you probably know. Pygmalion tells the story of a man who falls in love with a sculpture he has made, which then comes to life. In My Fair Lady, Higgins similarly takes on the task of “sculpting” Eliza – molding her in the image of a woman of high society, retraining her speech and even dressing her. He takes on a bet that he can eventually pass her off as such high society and that her history will not be detected. Throughout the course of his “training” of her he is often arrogant, dismissive and downright rude – though from time to time, in large part due to her unbreakable spirit, they manage to have a little fun along the way. As Eliza progresses and can sense her own achievements, particularly as concerns formal English, a rapport grows between the two of them.

OK, so it seems that My Fair Lady is a film adaptation of the wildly successful stage musical, that was itself an adaptation of a 1938 film, which was in turn an adaptation of Shaw’s Pygmalion.  I haven’t been this confused by a film’s lineage since Chicago. Continue reading


Posted in Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on September 3, 2016 by cdascher

mutiny_on_the_bounty_xlgFrom the second we drew this film, I just kept singing the Beastie Boys’ lyric – can you blame me? Had that sweet drum beat in my head too – isn’t that the Zeppelin sample? I digress.

Clark Gable plays Fletcher Christian, Acting Lieutenant on the Royal Navy vessel the HMS Bounty under captain Lieutenant William Bligh. The ship is sent on a mission to the South Pacific to retrieve breadfruit trees to take to the West Indies to serve as food for slaves there. The film depicts a hostile, abusive Captain in Bligh – who I grew to despise within minutes. He orders flogging for the sailors left and right, and one man early on is beaten to death. As the story progresses and the ship nears its destination of Tahiti, Christian’s disgust at his superior continues to grow.

I myself did notice an almost total lack of rhymin’ and stealin’. Had Netflix sent us the wrong disc? No, this is it; 1935’s highly romanticized retelling of a real incident in the Royal Navy.

The first half of the movie is a study in contrasts between Bligh, who exercises cruelty on the crew seemingly as an end in itself, and the compassionate and upstanding Christian, until the latter reaches his inevitable breaking point. On the moral fulcrum sits Midshipman Roger Byam, a protege of Christian who is compelled by duty to oppose the mutiny and is stung by the personal estrangement it brings about with his friend and mentor. The other character I found interesting is the character of Hithiti, leader of the Tahitians, who functions largely as a foil for the odious Bligh. Hithiti, based on the archetype (or perhaps stereotype) of the noble savage, personifies the welcoming atmosphere of Tahiti and is everything that the English captain is not. He is generous, kind and fatherly. Whereas Bligh deprives his crew of basic necessities in order to pad his own expense reports, Hithiti is unburdened by even the knowledge of money.
Continue reading


Posted in Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 18, 2016 by cdascher

From_Here_to_Eternity_film_posterDid you ever watch a movie and think to yourself “I wonder if severed horseheads played any role in casting decisions?” Probably not, unless the movie in question is 1953’s From Here to Eternity.

From Here to Eternity is the story of several career soldiers in an infantry company stationed in Hawaii during the last days before American involvement in World War II. There is tough First Sergeant Warren (Lancaster), Private Prewitt (Clift), a bugler and former boxer, and his friend Private Maggio (Sinatra). As the company’s commanding officer Captain Holmes has little interest in the company other than as his personal boxing stable for inter-regimental matches; Warren is the person actually running the unit. Noticing that Holmes likewise neglects his wife Karen (Kerr), the first sergeant takes over in that department, too. Meanwhile, Prewitt – a middleweight boxer of some renown – has transferred into the company. Holmes is disappointed when Prewitt states his refusal to box – having blinded a friend in a sparring accident – leading the captain to push the company NCOs to harass him into boxing again. Between punishments, he falls for Lorene (Reed), whom the movie doesn’t specifically identify as a prostitute, but let’s not be stupid.

Perhaps I was stupid – I honestly didn’t assume she was a prostitute. I thought Lorene just kept the company of men, got paid to do so, and gave them the illusion of a relationship without much effort on their parts. Reflecting now, though, I imagine Mouse is right here. I had the criticism of this film that I do of most, especially from this era – the two main women characters were not fully realized or well developed. Karen seemed to have quite a backstory – the loss of a baby, ostensibly coinciding with a neglectful husband, a sexless marriage, and a prior extramartial lover. She seems to hold a sadness that is deep, but we don’t hear enough about what she thinks and feels for my liking. Continue reading


Posted in Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2016 by cdascher

A_Beautiful_Mind_PosterThis film was both wondrous and painful for me to watch. I was in tears for pretty much the second half of it. Some of it hit too close to history and to home for me. The film tells the story of John Nash, a Nobel Laureate in Economic, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and delusional episodes. I didn’t know anything about Nash, and the story of his life was fascinating to me. I have read some criticisms centered on a few key pieces left out, which were also interesting. What caught me so off guard about this film was the reveal. It took me quite a ways into the film to fully grasp that we had started the beginning of the movie seeing things as Nash himself would see them. The line between reality and the imagined was quite blurry, and Russell Crowe did an impeccable job portraying this character.

It is difficult for me to watch any film where someone struggles so much to fit in. Where someone is so different that even day to day life is a painful slog. In this story, Nash’s wife Alicia Larde (played by the brilliant Jennifer Connelly of Labyrinth fame) also shares in the struggle. Despite an enormous love between them, his afflictions are in a number of scenes more than she can grapple with – more than anyone could, truly. I found myself curious about some of the specifics of how Nash handled his illness. It is a striking notion to me that the very medication that would help him function in the world would also strip him of some of his most powerful gifts, and truly brought to mind a phrase I’ve held dear when thinking about these kinds of issues – the notion that Nash is “touched by fire.” This is a concept I encountered when I first learned of the great group The Icarus Project, a DIY, grassroots effort to reconceptualize mental illness. I would recommend checking it out here:

The main strength of A Beautiful Mind is it’s ability to portray mental illness from the perspective of the afflicted, a difficult task because it is based around beliefs and states of mind that by their very nature do not correspond to rational thought or logic. I understand that the exact nature of the hallucinations in the film don’t correspond to the symptoms experienced by the real Nash. I can grant this license in that the film achieves its goal, which is not being a psychiatric case study. Rather, it takes the viewer inside the mind of a delusional individual. While the cloak and dagger intrigue of rogue Soviet spies may clue the audience in that we are not watching an objective reality (especially for those of us who went in familiar with the movie’s premise), Nash’s relationship with Charles sets us up for the big revelation at the film’s midpoint. What has seemed entirely real to Nash – and to us – is devastatingly revealed to be illusory. We have to be brought along with Nash’s delusions one way or another. Continue reading

THE STING (1973)

Posted in Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 9, 2016 by cdascher

StingredfordnewmanThe first thing that comes to mind when thinking of the film we just watched for our blog (The Sting) is how fun it was. It was engaging and light in a way most of our other films haven’t been. Kind of had a whodunit feel. This was also my first time seeing a young Robert Redford and Paul Newman. The film won in 1973, and it basically tells the story of a young con man named Johnny Hooker (Redford) who sets out to grift a corrupt banker named Lonnegan to avenge the death of his longtime friend Luther. He partners with Henry Gondorff (Newman), renown con artist now wanted by the FBI, in order to pull this off.

Like Newman and Redford’s previous pairing, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting takes a lighthearted approach to the subject of career criminals. It does stick out among winners from its era with its absence of pessimism or morose worldview. The past reconstituted on screen here is not the blood-soaked, MacBethian underworld of Don Corleone. It’s something a little easier to digest.

And the filmmakers obviously did put considerable effort into recreating the Depression era city, with numerous street scenes and various settings. Still, the film left me with the impression of a stylized, fictional 1930s, one where the amazingly elaborate confidence scheme the characters create actually seems plausible and one where the twisty plot works well enough that I may be willing to overlook a plot hole or two. Continue reading

Best Picture 2015 Added

Posted in Uncategorized on March 1, 2016 by cdascher

Funny thing about awards shows, is that they seem like the most insular, venal affairs- until someone you like wins. So on that note, congrats to Ennio Morricone for his first competitive Academy Award. Well done, sir. And congrats also to Best Picture winner Spotlight, which I hear is a movie that came out this year. It’s been quite a year for your bloggers here at RCR, what with going through with a wedding and giving birth to a son (our other collaborative project), so we may have gotten a little out of touch. Speaking of getting married, we did get off to a little honeymoon in NYC. A short walk down Third Avenue from our hotel was this, filming location of previous subject The Lost Weekend.


And of course we have a new Best Picture to add to the Randomizer.


Thanks for reading and hope you all had a great year. What’s that? Sylvester Stallone lost? The Oscars are a bunch of crap.