West Side Story (1961)

It was alright, lots of "west side" not so much "story". I think it's safe to say that the most important part of a "love story" is the relationship between the characters who are in love. In WSS, an appropriate amount of TIME is spent with these characters, but there is virtually no "relationship" to speak of.

Tony and Maria meet at a dance and fall in love literally "at first sight". Every scene that follows of the two of them together involves declaring their undying love for one another, or lamenting that they belong to rival "gangs". That is pretty much the extent of their personalities.

This type of iconic, archetypal relationship strikes me as something that would be much more easily forgiven in a stage performance - stage acting relies much more on  a live, interactive audience that will "fill in the blanks". With film I feel that the director is presenting a much more specific, and calculated vision to the audience - there is much less room for interpretation.

I think most audiences will still project personality onto Maria and Tony, but I see this as a failure of storytelling - The message of West Side Story is dependent entirely on the audience caring about Tony and Maria and the love they share, but the film makes no convincing argument for their personalities or their relationship.

Dr.Strangelove (1964)

Much more light-hearted than the last two Kubrick films I watched (A Clockwork Orange and 2001), Dr.Strangelove is still very complex - With all the different storylines I wasn't sure about who you would call the "Main Character" at first - I've settled on General Buck Turgidson, as he represents the point of view that is being challenged by the overall theme of the movie: He believes that military superiority is the best way to deal with the conflict with Russia.

General Jack D. Ripper is of the same opinion, but escalates the issue when he issues the command to execute "Wing Attack Plan R". Turgidson, upon hearing of the attack plan, is surprised but easily accepts the situation - he hinders the Presidents attempts to call off the attack, and appeals to him to reconsider - War is the only option.

General Turgidson: ". . . it is necessary now to make a choice . . . one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed."

As the events unfold, a new threat is brought into play - the doomsday machine. This threatens everyone, regardless of what side they are on, at this point even Turgidson is forced to reconsider his opinion . . . but he remains steadfast, and though he does not actively support the attack - through his inaction (and by proxy the inaction of all the military forces), he allows the world to be destroyed.

The message comes across loud and clear: Nobody wins an "Arms Race" - Given the extremely grim nature of a tragic ending like this, it's appropriate that the tone of the film is satirical, even ridiculous at times - this way we get to have fun and laugh a bit, while still absorbing the message of the film.

Annie Hall (1977)

Alvy Singer: "I feel that life is divided into the horrible and the miserable. . . So you should be thankful that you're miserable, because that's very lucky, to be miserable."

Annie Hall: "Alvy, you're incapable of enjoying life, you know that?" 

Two unique qualities of this film stand out right away: the non-linear story telling, and the surreal/sarcastic commentary toward camera throughout the movie.


PLOT:


The time jumps seem random at first, but looking closer they actually have a very specific pattern: starting at the present time/the end, we jump directly to the earliest point: Alvy's childhood, from there we alternate jumping forward and back in time, getting progressively closer to the pivotal event -


1. Present: Alvy speaks to the camera, he was in love with Annie; now they're broken up.
<-- jump back to:
2. Childhood: We see that Alvy's defining characteristics, a pessimistic outlook and a love of women, both began when he was 9.
-->jump forward to:
3. Alvy and Annie mid-relationship, troubled and arguing.
<-- jump back to:
4. Alvy's  first wife: we see how he met her, and their sex life was bad
-->jump forward to:
5. Alvy and Annie early relationship, happy and playful.
<-- jump back to:
6. Annie's first relationships, and Alvy's second wife
-->jump forward to: 
7. Alvy and Annie as they first meet . . .


We can even make a neat chart:

Alvy describes his situation in the opening lines of the movie, raising the obvious question: If he and Annie were in love, why did they break up? What went wrong?

Alvy Singer: "Annie and I broke up and I still can't get my mind around that. You know, I keep sifting the pieces of the relationship through my mind and examining my life and tryin' to figure out where did the screw-up come"

 Jumping back and forth through his memories, Alvy is trying to locate the exact point where all this began . . . he lands on his meeting with Annie - from this point the movie plays out in chronological order, jumping over some sections but no more flashbacks.

Breaking the Fourth Wall

At first I found this a bit annoying, it's jarring, and pulls you out of the story . . .  but I think that's the point. from the beginning Alvy tells you the end result, and it's very clear that we (the audience) are not meant to be experiencing these events "as they are happening", we are instead looking back into Alvy's mind and experiencing his memory of those events.

We are following Alvy's thought process, he's stepping through his whole relationship, trying to make sense of it - and so are we. The difference is that as an audience, we can take a more objective view of the story. By the end of their relationship, it's pretty clear that Alvy continues to sabotage his relationships; he is relentlessly pessimistic, he uses sarcasm to avoid responsibility and commitment, and is unwilling to change or try new things.
   
Alvy however, looking at these same events, comes to a different conclusion; Consistent with his pessimistic outlook, he's willing to believe that the situation is hopeless, he takes no responsibility for his own role in the failed relationship(s), and is still unwilling to believe that changing his behavior would improve his life. The ending is a sad one, as Alvy misses the point entirely and assumes that relationships are crazy, and that's just how life is. 

Alvy Singer:"Well, I guess that's pretty much how I feel about relationships, you know they're totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd and ... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us need the eggs."

My Fair Lady (1964)

Loved it. 

I think what really provides the "heart" of the story is the strong message about the value of a person, shown through the relationship between Eliza and Henry.

Eliza Doolittle

Eliza has only ever wanted to be acknowledged and respected for who she is. She knows she's a good person and just as worthwhile as anyone else, and isn't afraid to let people know. The gap in social status is simply a matter of bad luck; she just happens to not have any money.

Eliza: "I'm a good girl, I am!"

Henry Higgins

Henry Higgins, believes that a person's status and worth is determined by their behavior, in particular the way they speak. He sets out to prove his point by passing off Eliza as royalty, citing her as an ideal candidate.

Higgins: "She's so deliciously low, so horribly dirty. "

As they enter into their teaching arrangement Eliza believes, as Henry suggested, that if she can learn to act like a lady, people will see her for who she is. Henry believes by training her to act like a lady, he will have created a new and better person.
At first this isn't a problem, but once Eliza's training is complete the subtle difference in their beliefs comes to light.

Higgins: "By George, I really did it, I did it, I did it! I said I'd make a woman and indeed, I did."

Eliza: "what's to become of me? . . .  I sold flowers; I didn't sell myself. Now you've made a lady of me, I'm not fit to sell anything else. " 

As Eliza walks out on him, Higgins is baffled. He admits that he doesn't want her to leave, but can't understand why she won't just behave rationally - like a man. Eliza, with her new-found powers of articulation, explains things all too clearly:

Eliza: " . . . the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she is treated. I shall always be a common flower girl to Professor Higgins, because he always treats me like a common flower girl, and always will. But I know that I shall always be a lady to Colonel Pickering, because he always treats me like a lady, and always will."

This ties their argument into the overall theme and Higgins is forced to re-evaluate his position. Even though it's not directly presented in the film, I think the underlying message is clear:

Higgins learns that the problem is not that Eliza refuses to act like a respectable person, rather that he has refused to treat her like one.

Rear Window (1954)

Generally it's understood that the reason for having a "Main Character" in a film is to provide for the audience a window, as it were, into a story. 

In this case L.B. Jeffries fills this role literally; throughout the film everything that we see in the film is shot inside his apartment, or looking out his window - the only time this rule is broken is when Jeffries actually falls out his window.

What I actually find most interesting about this film though, is that oh-so-familiar dynamic of the main character's efforts being challenged by the antagonist: Lars Thorwald. I say it's familiar, but in this case the "Main Character" has a broken leg and is trapped in his apartment, and the "Antagonist" doesn't even know Jeffries is there!
    Looking at it like that I thought "That just doesn't make sense - the other characters are questioning Jeffries all  the time, surely one of them would better fill the role of antagonist..."


Lt.Thomas J. Doyle 

Doyle is an obvious choice, after all he tells Jeff he's wrong to his face, and insists that he stop, how much more challenging can you get?

Doyle: "Lars Thorwald... is no more a murderer than I am." 

Jeff: "You mean that you can explain everything strange that has been going on over there, and is still going on?" 

Doyle: "No, and neither can you. . ."

However, despite disagreeing with Jeff's conclusion, Doyle spends most of his time actually helping him; he looks into all aspects of the case, interviews potential witnesses, all the while mentioning how he really shouldn't be getting so involved without any actual evidence.
  It is also established that Jeff and Doyle are old army buddies, this cements their bond of friendship; Doyle is a good friend and thoroughly invested in helping Jeff realize the truth (that is, the truth the evidence leads to).

Doyle: "Get that idea out of your head. It will only lead you in the wrong direction." 

Nurse Stella

Stella is openly critical of Jeff right from the start, but it's more of a motherly, voice of reason type criticism; like his conscience. She obviously thinks well of Jeff and encourages him to make sensible decisions, and to consider other peoples feelings . . . she's also a bit of a busybody and ultimately takes very little convincing to believe that Thorwald is guilty.

Lisa Fremont

Lisa is a stalwart supporter of Jeff's position, even to a fault. She is faithful to Jeff in every way, even when he awkwardly reasons that their lifestyles are incompatible, she doesn't want to argue about it and agrees with him (albeit unhappily). When Jeff tells her about Thorwald she offers a token amount of disbelief, but once it becomes clear that this is something Jeff really believes in, she's completely on board.


So we're back to Thorwald.


Despite all of these characters providing different perspectives for Jeff to consider, the one confounding factor that keeps Jeff from proving his theory, is Thorwald's behavior. As long as Thorwald keeps acting normal, Jeff can never prove that he's guilty - this is the focus of everyone's deliberation. This passive resistance is so effective, that Jeff reaches a point of doubt - he's been running on 'belief' alone, and without any evidence, and with Thorwald continuing to create his own alibi, Jeff is left with a difficult choice . . . 

but with the killing of the dog, Jeff's convictions are bolstered and he decides to stay the course. Now, more convinced than ever, they take desperate measures and force Thorwald to show his hand.

Without being aware of it, Thorwald was hindering Jeff's progress by acting normal - eventually when cornered he tries to bribe Jeff, and ultimately tries to physically stop him via strangulation.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

     My first impression of this story was that both Butch and Sundance shared the role of "Main Character" . . . but as I consider their individual motivations it seems to not be the case. Even though they spend pretty well the entire movie together, doing the same things, Butch is the only one we get a chance to empathize with; we see the world through his eyes.
     The opening scenes of the movie show Butch confronted with the uncomfortable reality that times are changing, he watches a bank closing up for the day and takes note of their extensive security precautions.


Butch Cassidy: "What happened to the old bank? It was beautiful. "
Guard: "People kept robbing it."


 It seems to me that the defining characteristic of Butch's behavior, is that he avoids confrontation at any cost. When challenged for leadership of his gang, Butch defuses the situation without killing Harvey. Butch and his gang are known for their (relatively) non-violent robberies, and are even demonstrably polite when robbing the train.
   
Time and again Butch has been able to solve his problems by "Avoiding" them, i.e: running away from the law, hiding out, etc. Trouble starts when a mysterious "Super Posse" begins tracking him down. This is no ordinary posse, and the message they present is loud and clear - there's no running this time.


Sheriff Ray Bledsoe: " . . . you're still nothing but two-bit outlaws on the dodge. It's over, don't you get that? Your times is over and you're gonna die bloody, and all you can do is choose where."


This time the problem is "being a robber" - His solution? as always; Avoid. Butch laments his position and longs for another life, he speculates about joining the army, leaving the country, even 'going straight' and earning an honest living.
     
This is where Sundance comes in - Sundance is the "Brawn" to Butch's "Brains", and would be much happier to shoot first and ask questions never. Robbing banks is what he knows, and he wants to keep doing it. He urges Butch to face the problem head on, stand and fight.


Sundance: ". . . I wanna fight 'em"
Butch: "they'll kill us!"
Sundance: "Maybe . . . "
Butch:  "You wanna die?!"
Sundance: "Do you?"


Butch buys time by taking Sundance and Etta to Bolivia to hide out - but Sundance pushes to start robbing banks again. When the law begins catching up with them, Butch suggests laying low and getting honest jobs - but this backfires in an ironic twist of fate as they themselves are robbed. They confront the robbers to get the money back, in a scene that feels very much like a "point of no return" for Butch - 


Butch Cassidy: "Kid, there's something I ought to tell you. I never shot anybody before."
Sundance Kid: "One hell of a time to tell me! "


This moment effectively marks Butch's final acceptance of Sundance's point of view. Butch and Sundance make their last stand as the full weight of their lives of crime finally catch up with them. Despite the dire consequences of a lifetime of robbery, the emphasis of these last moments is on Butch's personal triumph - He's overcome his inner turmoil and embraces the life he has, and his great friendship with Sundance.


Butch took this long to finally accept it, but I think his choice was foreshadowed as an inevitability much earlier on . . . after a playful romp on the bicycle with Etta, imagining a life that could have been, he tosses the bicycle aside - knowing full well that there's no chance for that life now.


Butch Cassidy: "The future's all yours, you lousy bicycle."




  

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Well that was wierd . . . I forgot how unnerving this film is. 

The last time I saw this movie must have been almost 15 years ago - what I find interesting is that in that time, I'd forgotten almost everything about the movie, except for the 3rd section concerning HAL and Dave. Not so coincidentally, this the only part of the movie that feels like a typical "Story" - albeit a simple one.

HAL 9000 and Dr.David Bowman

Problems on "Discovery One" begin with HAL malfunctioning, both Dave and HAL believe the other should be deactivated. HAL attributes all problems to 'Human Error' and tries to save the mission by killing all the humans. Dave survives and manages to deactivate HAL.

Despite containing only the most basic elements of story structure, this conflict with HAL addresses the critical themes of the movie: Human Error and the Advancement of Technology

These themes are thoroughly introduced in the first 2 sections:

The Dawn of Man and TMA-1

The beginning of the movie shows us the dawn of man, and the discovery of tools. Immediately we jump to the future and see the "end result" of inventing tools, technology has reached it's pinnacle, humans travel through space and every aspect of life and communication is controlled, and compartmentalized - even food is rationed and organized. Everything is going as planned.

At this point Humanity is in complete control, every obstacle has been addressed and overcome with the advancement of science and technology. That is, except for one . . .

Human Error

HAL represents the ultimate in human achievement, a perfect machine - it can perform any task, and is incapable of error. HAL's assessment that it's malfunction is due to human error is basically correct, humans determined its programing and are therefore responsible for any malfunction.

With HAL threatening to remove humans from the equation, it represents the final obstacle humans will face as a species. It raises a very important, and dramatic, question:

Will our advanced technology, through human error, cause our own destruction?

Dave answers the question with a resounding "No". By deactivating HAL, he demonstrates that human ingenuity will triumph, and that resolving these errors, not preventing them, is what insures progress.

Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite

In this final segment, Dave (i.e. humanity), having overcome this final obstacle, is taken on a journey through the rest of his existence, and eventually returned to a fetal state - implying that life/existence is cyclical - juxtaposed with the image of earth, we are reminded that Dave's journey represents that of humanity itself.