REVIEW: “Mildred Pierce” (1945)

January 31, 2014 by Keith Garlington

Joan Crawford had an interesting career to say the least. In 1937 she was called “The Queen of the Movies” by Life magazine but she would be called “Box Office Poison” only one year later. A few moderate successes would follow before her 18 year run with MGM studios was ended. Hungry for a new start, Crawford signed with Warner Brothers. One of her first pictures with her new studio was “Mildred Pierce”. The film was a huge success and Crawford would go on to win the Best Actress Oscar. Her performance was rightly recognized and her career was revived.

“Mildred Pierce” was directed by Michael Curtiz. The acclaimed director didn’t want Crawford as his lead but after his first choices bowed out (Bette Davis, Barabara Stanwyck, Olivia de Havilland), she got the job. The film was adapted from James Cain’s edgy 1941 hardboiled novel. Several plot lines from the book couldn’t be included in the picture due to the movie content code restrictions of the time. This allowed for the film’s introduction of the murder angle and several other creative differences.

Speaking of that, the movie opens with a murder. In a wonderful opening scene dripping with noir flavor, a man is shot several times by an unseen assailant who then flees the scene. The police bring in a successful restauranteur named Mildred Pierce (Crawford) for questioning. The murder victim turns out to be Mildred’s second husband Monte Beragon (Zachary Scott) and the cops believe they know who did it. The main plot structure is built around her interrogation. Through flashbacks we are introduced to the main players and we follow Mildred’s rise from a hard working single mother to an owner of multiple restaurants in the Southern California area.

But we are also introduced to a darker side of Mildred’s life. It’s a side featuring two failed marriages, an unthinkable tragedy, and a bitter, contentious relationship with her oldest daughter Veda. It’s Veda who may be Mildred’s biggest failing. We watch her become a selfish and materialistic young girl who is actually a product of Mildred’s own making. Her desire to shower upon her daughter the most lavish things creates a scheming young girl who looks down with great haughtiness on the ‘have-nots’. Ann Blyth plays Veda and she is sublime. Blyth was actually on loan from Universal Studios at the time. Her performance garnered well-deserved praise which culminated in a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination. Blyth would make several more films but none as memorable as “Mildred Pierce”. She was only 17 at the time but this performance showed an astuteness and attention usually associated with the greats.

There is an assortment of other great side characters that help tell Mildred’s story. Bruce Bennett plays her first husband Bert who subverts any good intentions he may have with his carousing and disrespect. Yet you end up wondering if he knows more about Mildred than we first do. Then there is Bert’s real estate partner Wally (Jack Carson) who is never beyond an occasional flirt or a shady business deal. He’s a rather slimy fellow who also has self-centered intentions. Eve Arden gets some wonderful lines as Mildred’s friend and restaurant manager. And Butterfly McQueen has some good moments as Mildred’s maid.

While the film revolves around the murder of Beragon, the life of Mildred Pierce is the centerpiece. Much of the movie’s brilliance is shown in its storytelling style and in the clever ways it depicts Mildred’s changes. She’s an entirely different person by the film’s end. She becomes a woman enslaved by the poisonous relationship she has with her daughter. Things become darker and more twisted as the film moves along which gives “Mildred Pierce” a unique sense. It slices up and mixes portions of film noir, mystery, and romance to form a sordid yet thoroughly compelling whole.

I’m a big fan of “Mildred Pierce” and it’s easily one of my favorite Joan Crawford pictures. She is exceptional here as is her supporting cast, particularly young Ann Blyth. Ranald MacDougall’s adaptation is smart and crafty and it works seamlessly with Michael Curtiz’s style of direction. The film takes a few unavoidable diversions from the novel but they nicely translate cinematically. It all resulted in a spirited film that showcased a still relevant Crawford. It’s also a true classic that still packs a hefty punch today.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Much Ado About Nothing”

October 17, 2013 by Keith Garlington

I wouldn’t say I fall into the group of Joss Whedon super fans, but movies like “Much Ado About Nothing” can certainly do a lot to change that. Talk about an unexpected treat. Coming off the heels of his mega-blockbuster “The Avengers”, Whedon writes, produces, and directs this modest reimagining of William Shakespeare’s play. It’s stylish, creative, and energetic. It’s also a shining example of how a romantic comedy should be done.

Filming took place at Whedon’s Santa Monica, California home and took only twelve days to wrap up. Whedon put together a cast pulled straight from his personal universe of movies and television. He also made the unique decision to shoot in black-and-white. In yet another stylish choice, Whedon chose to use the actual language from Shakespeare’s pen. This may require an adjustment for some viewers but soon the classic vernacular will feel right at home in the film’s modern setting.

Most impressive is the way these words fluidly flow from the ensemble cast. The lovely Amy Acker plays the spunky and cynical Beatrice. She’s such an interesting character – headstrong but also a bit klutzy. She has soured on love mainly because of a past relationship with Benedick (played wonderfully by Alexis Denisof). He too mocks the idea of love and marriage instead choosing to beat his chest and tout his standing as a successful bachelor. Acker and Denisof have a fantastic chemistry and both have a real knack for both comedy and drama. Acker was the real star for me. She gives what I believe to be one of the best performances of the year.

You also have Hero (Jillian Morgese) who is to marry Claudio (Fran Kranz). There is her father, Governor Leonato (Clark Gregg), and Claudio’s father Prince Don Pedro (Reed Diamond). There’s also Don Pedro’s scheming and deceitful son Don John (Sean Maher) who would love to see the entire happy occasion ruined. We also get a host of great smaller roles from Nathan Fillion, Ashley Johnson, and Spencer Treat Clark among others. It’s a fabulous cast of Whedon favorites.

It’s hard to put my finger on what I like best about “Much Ado”. Its playful and energetic melodrama is a blast. The humor, which really kicks in around the middle of the film, had me laughing out loud and thinking back to the classic screwball comedies of old. The romance builds up and works beautifully. It does get a tad self-indulgent at times, but it’s also bold and original – two qualities I greatly appreciate in this movie age of cliché and formula. And of course there are the great performances especially from Amy Acker. I would love to see her name recognized come awards season.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying “Much Ado About Nothing” has saved the romantic comedy genre. But it absolutely shows just how much fun the genre can be. My expectations weren’t that high for this movie but Whedon really impressed me. This is his film from the direction down to the musical score and I give him all the credit in the world. This is a project that could have fallen flat on its face. Instead it’s a ton of fun and one of the better movies of 2013.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Man of Steel”

June 18, 2013 by Keith Garlington

Man of Steel Poster

Perhaps no 2013 movie has been more hyped or more scrutinized prior to its release than “Man of Steel”. Maybe it’s the talent that’s been assembled both in front of and behind the camera. Maybe it’s the heartfelt desire of fanboys like me for a good quality Superman movie during this current age of superhero cinema. Whatever it is, “Man of Steel” seems destined to disappoint on some levels for some. Well it’s finally arrived and for me it didn’t disappoint even though its a film that I needed to digest first.

This is certainly a different Superman movie than any of the others that we’ve seen which means it will definitely have to dodge its share of criticisms. Some will surely have issues with the different tone of this film and others will struggle with the creative liberties that do strip the picture of some of the things that the other Superman movies leaned heavily on. But when looked at as a clearly distinct Superman picture I feel it holds up quite strongly on its on. I certainly don’t want to discount the problems others may have with the film, but I think it’s a movie that offers a unique vision laced with fun summer action while also showing a level of respect for the source material.

David Goyer and Christopher Nolan put together the story and the directing reigns were handed to Zack Snyder. Their Superman universe starts by placing us into a crumbling planet Krypton. It’s a vision of the planet unlike any we’ve seen before and we get some interesting doses of their society, political structure, and more importantly the danger they’re facing. Due to some ill-advised planetary resourcing, Krypton is on the verge of destruction. Understanding his planet’s fate, Jor-El (wonderfully played by Russell Crowe) and wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) shoot their infant son Kal off the planet destined for Earth. With him is a codex which will ensure the survival of the Kryptonian race. We also meet the megalomaniacal rebel General Zod (Michael Shannon), an old friend of Jor-El’s whose more violent solutions for survival seriously clash with the society.

man of steel 3

From there the movie jumps ahead 30 Earth years or so. Kal-El (Henry Cavill) now named Clark, is a wanderer who works as everything from a crab fisherman to a truck stop waiter. Along the way he has left behind numerous stories of his superhuman heroism. Now the tale of his arrival on Earth is familiar enough and the film doesn’t waste a lot of time going back over it. As a baby he’s found by Ma and Pa Kent (Diane Lane and Kevin Costner) and raised on their farm in Kansas. We see glimpses of his childhood through a series of very effect flashbacks. I have to say I loved this approach and each jump back into Clark’s past offered an interesting look at the different struggles and hardships he faced. Costner and Lane both give fabulous performances and inject some real emotion into the story.

As you probably guessed Zod and his followers track Kal to Earth and seek him out hoping to regain the codex and restore Krypton in their own genocidal way. It’s here that Clark must either embrace the destiny set before him and protect his new home or watch the human race be destroyed at the hands of his fellow Kryptonians. Through this we get a lot of mulling and conversation about whether or not the human race is ready to accept a super alien species. That’s soon tested after Clark saves the life of the spunky Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who insists on finding out more about her hero.

This Lois Lane is quite different than the versions we’ve come to know and this leads to one issue that I know some will have with the film. There’s a wild inversion of events that takes place in “Man of Steel” than definitely effects the relationship between Lois and Clark. For me, their romance has always been a crucial function that makes his whole story work. Because of the chronological tinkering, I found their romance to be lacking. But it isn’t completely ineffective. Adams gives a nice performance. It’s just that her Lois feels so different than others. She’s also much more out of the element that we’re used to seeing her in. Overall it didn’t seriously bother me but it didn’t always feel right.

la_ca_0416_man_of_steel

While the Lois character may have raised questions, I had none when it came to Michael Shannon’s Zod. From his first moments on screen he comes across as unstable and menacing. Shannon goes after it and I never doubted him for a second. I also really liked Antje Traue as Faora, Zod’s loyal second in command. She’s dry and super serious and she perfectly compliments Shannon’s performance. In movies like this it’s crucial to have a strong villain and Shannon brings that. Many of my favorite scenes feature him and none are better than when he makes his first appearance on Earth.

I’ve mentioned many of the performances but the real question mark for me was Henry Cavill. Could he capture the man of steel in a convincing way? The answer is yes. I liked Cavill here. I do think he’s helped by the screenplay which rarely asks him to do too much. But during the small scenes where he’s needed to exhibit some range he succeeds. This was a big deal because a poor performance from him could have derailed the entire production. Cavill has the look, the physicality, and the commitment to sell the character.

There’s no denying that “Man of Steel” sports a much more serious tone and it lacks the lighthearted playfulness of the other movies. This has proven to be a hurdle that some just can’t get over. In many ways I welcome it. “Man of Steel” gives us a much more serious Superman story but it’s not without its share of funny moments. It just chooses to spend its time delving into some things we’ve rarely seen in the other films. I appreciated that and it’s one of the key things that keeps this from feeling exactly like every other Superman movie we’ve been given.

Man of Steel 1

And of course you can’t talk about “Man of Steel” without getting into the action sequences and special effects. This is where Zack Snyder’s fingerprints really show up. The film looks fantastic and it features some really fun science fiction. Everything including the space ships, Zod and his crew’s wicked armor and air mask apparatus, the destruction of buildings and vehicles, it all is beautifully crafted and realized by Snyder’s keen stylistic eye. And we see that eye at work a lot in this film. There is a ton of action here but most of it is pulled off to great effect. Snyder shows off his effects with skill except for in the big finale. It’s here that about 5 minutes of crumbling buildings alone could have been left on the cutting room floor and the movie would have been better for it.

So how do I summarize all of this? Amid “Man of Steel’s” booming action sequences and sky-high expectations lies a very good Superman reboot that I think shines in its uniqueness. Yes, a few of its directional choices don’t work as well as I would have liked and the final action sequence can be a bit numbing. But this has all the ingredients of being a franchise I can latch onto. I also appreciate that it steered the material away from cartoony and ventured to give us a more stern and grounded story. And I like that it brings the character back from the waste that Bryan Singer left him in. “Man of Steel” gives us someone bound by morals and committed to truth and justice. In other words, “Man of Steel” gives us Superman. All if this led to an experience that I found most satisfying and I’m anxious to see what lies ahead for this franchise.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Moulin Rouge!”

May 29, 2013 by Keith Garlington

MOILIN ROUGE POSTER On the surface there’s nothing about the 2001 romantic musical “Moulin Rouge!” that would draw me to it. I’m overly picky and less enthusiastic about musicals than any other movie genre. Baz Luhrmann’s schizophrenic style of filmmaking isn’t something I naturally gravitate towards. Also Nicole Kidman is an actress that I appreciate but who has never really blown me away. So I sat out during the movie’s release and eventual Oscar run. “Moulin Rouge!” would go on to earn 8 Oscar nominations including a Best Actress nod for Kidman. It would win two for Costume Design and Art Direction.

It’s been over 10 years since the release of “Moulin Rouge!” and I’ve finally caught up with it. It’s funny, it wasn’t the music or the popularity or the Oscar recognition that finally got me to sit down and give this film a shot. It was my very real and deep-seated affection for the city of Paris. This proves to be fairly misplaced motivation. The beauty and essence of Paris is never explored or injected into the story and my overall “Moulin Rouge!” experience danced between stimulation and tedium.

I won’t deny that “Moulin Rouge!” has its moments. There’s a visual flare that Luhrmann has that’s undeniable. Here he presents a kaleidoscope of hyperactive visual pageantry. The colors and the pizazz leap off the screen as he moves from one shot to the next at break-neck speed. The problem is he milks it for all its worth, especially in the first half of the film. There’s an almost sensory overload as he bombards us with wild, raucous dance sequences, painted faces, and swirling dresses in a relentless parade of musical debauchery that had me ready to leave Montmartre and head to the more pensive and subdued Latin Quarter.

Moilin 1

Yet, just as I was ready to check out, there would be some little nugget that kept me there. Whenever Luhrmann would dial things back the movie would take a better turn and I could latch on. These are the moments where we get into the actual story. It’s set in 1899 Paris. A young writer named Christian (Ewen McGregor) moves to Montmartre with hopes of experiencing the true Bohemian life of the area. Christian is a wide-eyed idealist who has a special boyish obsession with love, something he has never truly experienced before.

Luhrmann instantly begins to lay out his unusual world. His depiction of Bohemian life opens up on a frantic sugar rush. He quickly baptizes Christian into this weird world through a wacky assortment of characters. He runs into an eccentric group of artists and performers who acquire his help in finishing their musical production. Their ultimate goal is to sell their show to Mr. Zidler (Jim Broadbent), the proprietor of the wild and rowdy Moulin Rouge. The biggest attraction of the Moulin Rouge is the beautiful Satine (Nicole Kidman) and Christian is instantly smitten with her. But Zidler has other plans for his most prized property especially after she catches the eye of a wealthy Duke and potential financier (Richard Roxburgh). If Christian is going to win her love he’s going to have to fight for it.

Listening to that setup of the plot you would think there was a pretty strong story in place but it’s actually a bit anemic. There is an interesting romance in there but it ends up being swallowed up by the injections of peculiar song numbers that feel terribly out of place at times. We get big show versions of everything from Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” to Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit”. Clearly these wild song choices worked for many people but for me they got in the way of something much more interesting – the complicated romance between Christian and Satine. Luhrmann does allow the romance more breathing room in the final act but by that time I felt worn down by the relentless pomp and spectacle. Luhrmann hasn’t an ounce of subtlety and here he flexes his hyper-stylized muscle whenever he can.

moulin 2

Even though the more interesting story is smothered for much of the movie, it still manages to stay interesting thanks to the fantastic performances of the two leads. Ewen McGregor is great and watching his character move from innocent naivity to someone who has the harsh realities of the world revealed to him is great fun. But for me it was Kidman’s performance that not only stole the show but kept the movie going. She was a key reason I wanted to sit through the patented teeth-grinding Luhrmann scenes. Kidman is the one performer who has a lot to do and I found her work to be fascinating. Broadbent was okay but his character was so wacky and it was hard for me to get passed that. John Leguizamo has a fairly nice sized role as Henri Toulouse-Lautrec. Toulouse-Lautrec was a noted French artist but in this film his scenes mirror what I would imagine an acid trip to be like. He’s all over the place and comes off as a clown. Now considering the difficult life Toulouse-Lautrec had, from his childhood struggles to his crippling health problems which resulted in his death at age 36, this portrayal of him could be construed as an insult. Either way it didn’t work for me.

Unfortunately that also sums up my overall reaction to “Moulin Rouge!”. It just didn’t work for me. It’s a shame really because under the heavy coating of Baz Luhrmann’s mind-numbing stylistic excess lies a romantic tale that actually has heart. It’s a romance that’s made all the more interesting by two deeply commited lead performances. But sadly that doesn’t erase the countless times I was rolling my eyes or checking the time. I know “Moulin Rouge!” has a following and if you can connect to this type of schizophrenic storytelling you’ll probably find a lot to like here. But for me it was a case of too much visual insanity, too many poor choices for songs, and not enough of the central romance. That’s enough to keep “Moulin Rouge!” off my rewatch list for quite some time.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Mud”

April 28, 2013 by Keith Garlington

MUD poster After just two feature films Jeff Nichols has become a director whose name instantly attracts my attention. His first film “Shotgun Stories” was a real and gritty look at rural southern life. His next movie “Take Shelter” was a powerful and potent look at mental illness and its effects on a working class family. It was pure brilliance and one of the best films of the last decade. Now he’s back with another slice of southern gothic storytelling. This time he teams up with some marquee stars and a slightly larger budget to give us “Mud”. But does a little more cash and bigger names equal success or does it take away from the down-to-earth filmmaking that Nichols is known for?

Let me get this out of the way, “Mud” is a scintillating piece of cinema. It’s a coming-of-age story. It’s a thriller. It’s a skewed romance. It’s a film that dabbles in several areas yet it all comes together in a gripping story full of life and grit. Nichols takes us to a world that I was mesmerized by and lost in – a world that many people don’t know exists today. He also gives us characters that interest us and that we care about. He raises the stakes and wraps them up in a mystery that we can sink our teeth into. In other words he gives us the experience that is at the heart of why we go to the movies.

Jeff Nichols started writing the story for “Mud” around 2000 and it’s clearly a personal project for him. Many critics have called this film a modern-day “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and for good reason. Nichols was particularly influenced by the Mark Twain classics. But what makes this movie stand out is the familiarity that Nichols has for the locations and the people he is depicting. The reason we buy into the story is because of the sharp reality that we see through his constantly moving camera. Like me, Nichols is an Arkansas native and the stunning detail and unashamed portrayal of a vanishing river subculture and small town life was as honest of a depiction as I’ve ever seen on screen.

It’s here in the south Arkansas delta, that 14-year-old Ellis (Tye Sheridan) calls home. His family is part of a low income river community that works the waterways as a source of income. He and his best friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are adventurous sorts. One day they take their boat out to an island and discover a bigger boat left in the trees after a recent flood. They claim it as their own but there’s one problem. Someone has beaten them to it, namely a mysterious stranger who goes by the name of Mud (Matthew McConaughey). Ellis and the more cautious Neckbone develop a friendship with Mud but soon find out he’s a man of many secrets.

Sheridan, Lofland, & McConaughey

The movie builds itself around the mystery of Mud. Who is he, where did he come from, and why is he hiding on the island? Is he harmless? Is he dangerous? McConaughey and Nichols combine to create a fascinating character and I was thoroughly intrigued by him as they peeled back layer after layer. McConaughey seems to have reinvented himself over the past two years and his career has taken a better turn. But despite his recent good work, nothing he has done matches the phenomenal performance he gives here. For my money this is his very best work and I found myself always anxious for his next scene.

Just as impressive is young Tye Sheridan as the sensitive, tough, and vulnerable Ellis. I loved watching Sheridan navigate his scenes of discovery, revelation, and heartbreak like a seasoned professional. There was never a moment in the film that seemed too big for him and he felt right at home in his character’s shoes. This is really his story and the movie wouldn’t have worked without his amazing performance.

Nichols also puts together an incredible supporting cast loaded with personal favorites of mine. Reese Witherspoon plays a beautiful stranger who arrives in town and who may have deeper connections to Mud. She’s very good here and her name adds some pop to the cast but it’s a fairly small role. Sam Shepard is great as a surly old river hermit who prefers to be left alone. A Jeff Nichols favorite, Michael Shannon also appears in a small but well acted role as Neckbone’s uncle and guardian. But I want to single out a terrific supporting performance by the underrated character actor Ray McKinnon. He plays Ellis’s father and it’s a much more layered role that you might at first think. This is a character that’s right in McKinnon’s comfort zone and he shines particularly in what I thought were two of the movie’s more stirring and emotional scenes.

Matthew McConaughey as Mud

While “Mud” is a deep south thriller filled with mystery and intrigue I was surprised to find a deeper reoccurring theme that penetrates the entire story. It’s really a movie about love. Throughout the film we see the ravaged emotions, fractured relationships, and heartbroken cynicism left in the wake of failed love. A big part of the film focuses on Ellis’s confusion over what he believes love to be and the harsher reality that he witnesses all around him. It’s sad to watch him innocently cling to his idyllic perception of love. In fact, every character in the film has some dealings with the painful side of love. The way Nichols weaves this throughout his narrative is simply genius.

There are only a couple of things which keep me from calling this the perfect movie. One centers around the Neckbone character. Young Jacob Lofland delivers a nice performance especially considering he had no acting experience. My problem with his character isn’t in his work but surprisingly in Nichols’s writing. Neckbone is a potty mouth and Nichols uses that as a source of humor. But he constantly goes back to it over and over through the entire movie. First of all I don’t particularly find a cursing kid that funny, but beating the same drum over and over was a drag. There’s also a big sequence at the end that is actually satisfying although it’s a bit jarring. It delivers in the end but it did feel a little out of place with the rest of the movie.

That said, it’s clear to me that “Mud” once again verifies that Jeff Nichols is a master craftsman who uses his southern roots and appreciation for classic filmmaking to tell stories rich with vigor and authenticity. “Mud” is an atmospheric and evocative film that takes a southern fried look at adolescence. It’s nestled in the reality of trot lines, cottonmouths, Piggly Wigglys, and Big Banjos while never coming across as clichéd or condescending. It’s a part of the world not far from where I live which makes the movie’s treatment all the more satisfying. “Mud” was my most anticipated movie of 2013 and my expectations were through the roof. Thanks to Jeff Nichols for exceeding those expectations with what will surely be one of the year’s best films.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Mr. Hulot’s Holiday”

February 1, 2013 by Keith Garlington

HULOT My recent time spent looking at the movies of French filmmaker Jacques Tati has been a true delight. As I’ve made my way through his small but brilliant catalog of films I’ve grown more and more impressed with the ingenious craft at the heart of them. “Mr. Hulot’s Holiday” was the first film featuring Tati’s lovable Monsieur Hulot character and it’s arguably the greatest display of his physical comedic abilities. Tati both starred in and directed this picture and his meticulous approach to filmmaking is seen in every frame from his carefully conceived sight gags to his beautiful work with the camera.

There’s no strict and focused narrative in “Mr. Hulot’s Holiday”. It simply follows Hulot’s vacation at a small French beachside resort. Much like other Tati films, there is a great focus on community here. We’re introduced to a number of fellow vacationers each with their own unique personalities and quirks. There’s no real effort towards character development. Instead they simply become familiar faces who we grow to know through their reappearances. This is one of the characteristics of Tati’s films that I enjoy the most. I love how he develops a community of characters all built around their individual interactions with Mr. Hulot.

Hulot is the picture of gentleness and happiness. With his pipe in mouth and striped socks showing he certainly stands out in the crowd. But it’s his fidgety demeanor and overall clumsiness that makes him so physically awkward, something only rivaled by his social awkwardness which he seems totally unaware of. He simply goes on enjoying life completely impervious to the inconveniences he may be accidentally causing. He annoys several of his fellow vacationers which provides some great laughs for the audience.

HULOT2

For me the true treat was just watching him interact with this wonderful assortment of people. For example there’s the grumpy and mopey waiter who doesn’t crack a smile for the entire movie. There’s the pretty blonde who gets the attention of nearly every young man at the resort yet she lives in her own uninterested little world. There’s the older couple who just stroll around observing everyone and taking everything in. We get the mischievous children and a handful of animals, both of which Tati loves to incorporate into his films. There are several other great characters and we never really get to know any of them yet they become very familiar to us. They all share the resort, the dining area, and the beach with Mr. Hulot which results in some hysterical moments.

First and foremost Jacques Tati is a physical comedian, a skill that dates back to his early years as a mime. His films often reflect back on the days of Chaplin, Lloyd, and Keeton when the stories were told through the amazing vehicles of expressions, gestures, postures, and athleticism. That’s certainly the case here. The dialogue is scarce and the speaking we do hear from people is mostly unintelligible. Instead the story is made for our eyes and mainly told through the lens of Tati’s camera. His skill is incredible and you can’t take your eyes off what he’s doing on screen. It’s unlike anything we see today.

In many ways “Mr. Hulot’s Holiday” resembles a classic silent film yet there is a steady emphasis on sound. There’s the aforementioned chatter from the characters. Most of the time we have no idea what they’re saying yet they are a delightful ingredient. The spitting and sputtering of Mr. Hulot’s funky automobile almost makes it a character itself. Then there are the little things such as the swinging door to the dining room. Every time someone walks through, it makes this peculiar “fwoom” sound. Tati removes the music and places a heavy emphasis on that unusual sound. It may not sound like much but in the flow of the film it fits perfectly.

HULOT1

Tati is also a director of timing. So many of his hilarious gags are dependent on precise timing and I can imagine even some of the smallest scenes taking a lot of time and expertise to get right. Take one scene where Hulot is fixing his broken down jalopy on the side of the road. He is underneath his car but with his legs laying out in the road. Another car comes flying through and at just the right time Hulot pulls in his legs as the car barely misses them. He never moves his legs to miss the oncoming car but to just shift positions yet the timing is perfect. Now there could very well be some camera trickery involved but it’s just one example of the many great gags revolving around perfectly timed people or objects.

“Mr. Hulot’s Holiday” was a huge success upon its release and it remains a cherished movie for many today. It’s a perfect display of Jacques Tati’s artistry as both a filmmaker and a comedic actor. It’s a celebration of silent comedy as well as its own unique brand of filmmaking. It also gives us our first introduction to one of the most lovable characters in cinema chock full of his deadpan humor. Just a couple of days ago as I sat in a theater watching a series of comedy trailers that looked neither interesting or funny I thought of this film. I thought of how lazy and formulaic the one-trick-pony comedies of today are. Then I thought of Tati’s creativity, his style, his skill with the camera, his poetic grace. All of these things and more are beautifully wrapped up in “Mr. Hulot’s Holiday”. I sat in that dark theater thinking the same thing I’m thinking now – “Man I wish they still made comedies like this today”!