Au Revoir les Enfants (Louis Malle, 1987)

One thing Roman Polanksi and Louis Malle have in common is World War II. Polanski, a survivor of the Holocaust used The Pianist to express his understanding, and experience, of the Holocaust. Malle, a French child of wealthy parents, saw the holocaust in a different light. Au Revoir les Enfants, set towards the end of World War II, is located within a small, private, boy’s monastery-come-school - and is partly-based on Malle's own life. “Priests and children” are all that reside within the walls of this old, cold building. They are isolated from the violence and fighting. They are hidden from the (at this point) secret concentration camps. It is no surprise that, as the anti-Semitic agenda of Hitler’s army reaches France, monks and priests use their peaceful locale to shelter Jewish children. Louis Malle’s poignant and arresting film doesn’t attempt to tackle the broad scale and vast history of the holocaust to make his point, opting instead to lead our attention through the eyes of a child. Privileged and Catholic, his semi-liberal parents made the wise decision to ensure his (and his elder brothers) safety by sending them off to this educational establishment.

Julien (Gaspard Manesse) is an ordinary boy. He’s not particularly different to the chatty children that run around the playground today. Though kicking each other with stilts would be a little risqué in this modern day and age. He joins the rabble in bullying the new kid, Jean Bonnet (as in “Easter Bunny!” *chortle, chortle*). But his passing comments and jibes soon turn into interest as the headmaster asks him to be kind to Bonnet (Raphaël Fejtö). His interest grows as, when the school is on high-alert, Jean is hidden away. In fact, a small group of boys are treated differently. At one point, Julien wakes up and witnesses Jean pray, with two small candles alongside his bed. The two boys bond together playing piano (and fancying the piano teacher). They read sordid tales of Arabian Nights and enjoy jars of homemade jam. Inevitably, the conflict closes in on the school and Jean’s true identity is revealed.

 Malle’s semi-autobiographical tale of growing up could be transferred to any age. The innocence that is lost when a child becomes an adult is ageless. Julien is a charming boy. Clearly he has friends, but he isn’t the gang-leader and so we can relate to him. He is curious about the world and is slowly forming his opinion as to what is right and wrong. But the time is fraught with unrest and this changes a generation. In a restaurant Julien, his family and Jean, witness two militia try to remove an older Jewish gentleman. The action of German soldiers (perhaps hoping to win the attention of the attractive mother) defending the man shape his conduct – as will the elder man’s proud silence. Additionally, it makes Julien aware of the dangers that lurk in the shadows against young Jean. Au Revoir les Enfants effortlessly depicts a climate whereby, outside the doors of the monastery, society is battling with itself. In the middle of war, the monk highlights the need to support one another, challenging the parents to use their money wisely to help those less fortunate. One Father walks out. The treatment of kitchen lackie Joseph too, will inevitably hold consequences. Julien simply soaks up these differing attitudes, and enjoys the company of his new found friend – but there is a dawning realisation that the world isn’t black and white.

Au Revoir les Enfants is an outstanding film, with a timelessness that justifies a renewed appreciation at the cinema. Marking the Holocaust Memorial Day, this is a reminder of the children who never had a chance to grow up. Those final moments, as a Gestapo officer (The inspiration for Christoph Waltz’s ‘Landa’ in Inglourious Basterds?) defines what a “proud German” is and we’re told the fate of the characters taken away, hits hard. And a brief narration sharply shifts into focus how close to our lifetime this happened. This is an important film, and without a single act of violence, manages to portray the brutality of war through the single tear of a young man.

150W: September

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

September (Dir. Woody Allen/1987)

“I’m not who I thought I was” notes Steffie (Dianne Wiest) in Woody Allen’s sober and sincere September. Loosely based on Chekhov play Uncle Vanya, Allen contains the drama within a single house. Friends and family are supporting clinically-depressed Lane (Mia Farrow) following a failed suicide attempt but everyone finds it difficult to cope. Lane loves her boyfriend Peter (Sam Waterston), but he has fallen for Steffie, a married woman going through a rough patch. Lane’s Mum, Diane (Elaine Stritch), a retired actress is desperate for Peter to write her biography frustrating Lane further. Suffice to say, no-one is, emotionally, who they think they are. Lacking the laughs, September provides a solemn approach to relationships. Allen takes a step towards seriousness as affairs are not flippant and suicide is real. A tender story, September lacks the pace and immediacy that drives a drama forward making this more miss than hit.

Rating: 5/10

150W: Radio Days

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Radio Days (Dir. Woody Allen/1987)

Though Woody narrates Radio Days, unconventionally, he doesn’t appear. The charm in Joe’s (Seth Green) family – comfortably married family members – defies Allen’s usual unfaithful couples who cannot help but stray and play-away. Flitting from this childhood, we see the rise in stardom of Sally White (Mia Farrow) - a waitress who, undergoing elocution lessons becomes a radio celebrity. Steeped in nostalgia, amid mahogany furniture and detailed, delicate lamps, is a thinly-disguised reflection on Allen’s childhood in the early 1940’s. Ending in 1944, the characters hope the war comes to an end. A family gathering around a radio to hear news of trapped child breaks your heart, while a sequence describing specific songs that are inextricably linked to his memory is relatable and personal. Rather than a clear, concise story, Radio Days is a warm series of romanticised vignettes harking back to an innocent time in America when ignorance was bliss.

Rating: 7/10

Fatal Attraction (Adrian Lyne, 1987)

"Well, what am I supposed to do? You won't answer my calls, you change your number. I mean, I'm not gonna be ignored, Dan!"

Introduction

According to Barry Norman, on BBC's Film '87, Fatal Attraction was "the most talked about movie of the year for all manner of reasons". Consequently, it sits within the 1001 Films to See Before You Die, usurping My Beautiful Laundrette and The Long Good Friday - two established films of the 1980's - as neither appear in the film-blogger bible. Indeed, whilst Fatal Attraction became a "talked about movie", it is clear that the set-up - of a man conducting a one-night stand (It's a weekend but ...) affair while his wife and child is out-of-town - will inevitably start tongues wagging. I would argue that the sexist-plot pretends to argue a feminist-opinion ... but upon closer inspection, it remains mysogynistic and ignorant and therein lies the discussion. Dialogue, written by James Dearden, spark up the highly-intelligent concept behind the story - but the narrative-by-numbers structure, ultimately stops the film from becoming anything more than a talking-point.

What A Woman...

As a viewer, we stick-close to Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas). Dan is a happily married man with a child, comfortably moving up his lawyer-career ladder before he meets Alex (Glenn Close) and the two seem to be content in agreeing to a one-weekend fling - as Dan's family (Anne Archer playing his wife) are away at the parents. But Alex wants more from Dan - she calls him at the office; at 2am at his home; she confronts him at his office. Dan desperately wants out - but she continues to seek him by meeting his wife by pretending to be interested in his house; she kidnaps his daughter and kills her pet rabbit. Dan reveals all to his wife, but Alex pursues him further - climaxing in a flailing knife-in-the-bathroom shocker, harking back to Hitchcock's Psycho.

Considering the perspective we witness the film from, unfortunately Alex - though a top, humanised performance from Glenn Close (owing to arduous research to ensure that she was not a "one-note evil witch") - is clearly, and definitively, insane. You could assume that, because of her lost sanity, filmmakers could portray Dan as a philandering hsuband - but instead, he seems to attempt the opposite. Jonathan Rosenbaum highlights how prior to Dan's affair, after walking the dog he returns home to find his daughter comfortably asleep with her mother. She had a bad dream and will therefore spend the night in her parents bed. Poor Dan can't be intimate with his wife and, as if to pre-plan his affair, it is almost a justification for his actions.

Alex is the sexualised, contract-hired (and therefore temporary) fantasy to men - her madness later on becoming a "moral" to the story. Alex is the fearsome predator, waiting to trap the married man in her web, to women - her madness later on becomes the evidence to support the distrust in her initally. The intelligence in the film is how audiences became so wrapped into this clear good-guy/bad-girl dichotomy, they failed to appreciate the psychological depths the film tapped into. Mark Kermode wrote how "audiences screaming 'kill the bitch!' at test screenings of Fatal Attraction ... persuaded the film-makers to shoot a new ending in which Glenn Close's character became the victim of a shooting rather than a suicide, thus destroying whatever internal logic the film may have had.". Audiences were so-much sold on the good-guy/bad-girl set-up, they couldn't appreciate the suicide (rooted in reality) closure that should've befelled our crazy-in-love seductress.

The complicated position we are in. We are angry with the protaganist as he has risked his entire marriage for satisfying his lustful urges - but we ignore the abuse and disposable-attitude Dan has towards this one-night-stand victim. Indeed, Alex is a human too - and such a disregard for another person cannot be ignored. How fascinating it is as Alex explains how she wishes he wasn't married - how brutally true she is as she reminds him that his actions were selfish and ignorant of her. Despite this - we cheer on Michael Douglas and support his reactions.

What a Man ...

Michael Douglas himself took the role as it was "closer to myself than any part I've played before" , and director Adrian Lyne support this "truth" as the film represents "every married man's nightmare - every married womans nightmare". Of course, the role does manage to portray a damning portrayal of men and the lust we all fall victim to - but, I would argue, that this is the tone (and perspective) of the entire film.

The wife, Beth, is a good wife who stays at home and prepares dinner for her man as he returns home. He is a lawyer (a respectable well-paid job) in an incredible apartment opposed to the low-rent apartment Alex lives within, whereby sex in the elevator is always on the cards.This framing of a man who is, not only happily married within a nuclear family (the family we see framed in the final shot...), but also financially successful within a close-nit friendship group, also dictates that we look up to him. He truly has it all.

A film containing a popular talking-point is always going to be a success at the box-office - but let's not kid ourselves. This is a man in a exist world of power and wealth - whereby his attitudes towards women are disposable (in terms of sex) and family-focussed (in terms of the health of his child). Fatal Attraction is a thoroughly enjoyable watch due to a strong concept and a high calibre of actors on show. The conflict of interests is clear in the decision to change the ending. A problematic compromise between intelligent-storytelling and mass-appeal lowest-common-denominator filmmaking is always a tough balance. But then, maybe the only reason the film became so successful 25 years later may be because of that compromise. If the film did not include the shock-ending, it may never have earnt such a large audience - and if it catered to such a broad audience throughout, it would simply sit alongside the erotic-thriller films of the 1980's. Instead, it remains an interesting snapshot of the time's attitude towards sex and marriage.

Originally written/published on Man, I Love Films on 9 May 2013

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (Sidney J. Furie, 1987)

"You know what I can do with a single strand of Superman's hair?"

Introduction

Cannon Films. The infamous production company that managed to squeeze out too-many Chuck Norris films and, somewhat randomly, an Academy Award winning film in The Assault, took ownership of the rights for Superman in the late 1980's. Superman III was a critical failure and Supergirl simply flopped at the box office so the Salkinds, four years later, assumed Superman had outstayed its welcome and sold the rights to Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan when Cannon Films were at their peak. Christopher Reeve was reluctant to don the red-pants and iconic 'S' again but agreed to re-emerge as the Man of Steel if Cannon Films would finance and support a film project of his own (the project was a film called Street Smart, an underrated film that netted Morgan Freeman a Best Supporting Actor nomination at the Academy Awards in 1988). Unfortunately, Cannon Films were spread too thinly across multiple projects and Superman IV was treated as any other - and crucially the budget was slashed from £30m+ to a mere $17m (Nb, Superman III was $39m). Such a small budget for such a big film was clearly a serious problem. But, Gene Hackman returned alongside Margot Kidder (in more than a cameo) so the future looked bright.

Where were we?

It is worth reminding ourselves of the gap between films as this fourth installment is four years later. The necessary cast return but, in a misjudged use of character, the romance between Lois Lane and Superman becomes second rate - instead, introducing a new romance for Clark Kent in Lacy (played by Mariel Hemingway - all grown-up since Woody Allen's Manhattan). Lane is nowhere near as underused as in Superman III but the strange dynamic as Lois 'warns' Lacy off Kent is out-of-place. To make matters worse, there is a strange rekindling of the Lois/Superman relationship too - whereby Lois tells us she "remembers everything" (Since Superman II?), before he plants another super-kiss on her, wiping her memory again. Poor girl; these huge gaps in memory can't be good for your health.

This romance also leads us to a fatal-flaw in the film - Lois and Superman, flying, look awful. When the special effects aren't as good  as the first film in the series (now 8 years prior), it is clear that a deeper production-based issue has, once again, destroyed a Superman film. Each film seemed to begin with such strong, honourable intentions, but the productions on every film were flawed from the outset.

Anti-Consumerism

Ironically, the flawed production of an attempted blockbuster seems to be the type of situation Clark Kent would be proud to witness. The beginning of the film awkwardly establishes an anti-consumerist message as Kent refuses to sell the house in Smallville. He explains that the house and land needs to be used for farming - and not turned into real-estate or a shopping mall. This message is then reiterated when the Daily Planet itself is bought by David Warfield (Sam Wanamaker), a global businessman who intends to turn the Daily Planet into a top-selling tabloid. It is this situation that squeezes Lacy into the equation as Clark Kent's romantic interest is Warfield's daughter. Did the filmmakers not even realise that they were 'selling-out' on the film by "reaching a broader market" by including a young love interest for teenage boys to appreciate?

This message is a small-story against the main event pitting Superman against Lex Luthor again. As previously noted, Luthor seems to represent the greed and capitalist attitudes of America against the heroic, moral sense-of-duty America that Superman symbolises. But this time Luthor is not alone and, of his own creation, he breeds a new villain - a 'Nuclear Man' - born of the sun (Mark Pillow). Luthor again abuses the power he has created - but has become a powerful man through controlling energy. Simply by cutting out the sunlight, Nuclear man switches off and kneels before him. The assumption that Luthor is now a man who has taken control of a natural human requirement - energy. Now compare this to energy suppliers and water providers - companies who have benefited by financially dominating a market that humans cannot live without. In addition to this super-human, Luthor additionally has his nephew Lenny (Jon Cryer) to provide comic-relief. A dated-character with one-liners that often bomb, he may provide the subtext with a nepotist edge as this type of foolish person will surely inherit Luthors power. Or maybe Superman V would have shown us Lenny in true arch-rival mode...

"I don't belong to a particular country"

Despite this potential social-message, another political theme is weaved into the story. Rather than standing for "truth, justice and the American way", Superman now doesn't "belong to a particular country" and opens the film saving Russian astronauts. Rather than sell this brand primarily to the American market, I am positive there was a conscious effort to recreate the hero to represent the world as a whole. His speech at the UN is a testament to that. Furthermore, Cannon Films may have seen the similarities in the previous films and were keen to establish routines. A Superman-saving opening sequence, a new-romance and a new 'villain' in Nuclear Man. Simply adjust and replace - and surely set the film in different locations now that Superman doesn't belong to a particular country. Very James-Bondian.

Unfortunately, consistency has not been a feature in the Superman series and within this single film it is clear that Cannon Films jumped-the-gun. Indeed, if we don't believe in this world - we can't invest in the film personally. Starting the film with astronauts fully-clothed in spacesuits gives the impression that space is a dangerous place without such attire ... but this is not true, as Nuclear Man manages to carry Lacy far out into space without a change in atmosphere, pressure or even a change in clothes. Clearly Nuclear Man isn't aware of the necessary requirements of humans. The possible subtexts and interesting comments on a global-world barely registers and is completely ignored in the final act - instead, ending on an exceptionally long fight between Nuclear Man and Superman (he is turned off when in a building, but behind craters and in the deepest bowels of space he flies effortlessly?) as they fight on the moon and throw iconic landmarks at each other. Freedom is ... a weapon? Any potential thought-provoking elements are lost out to a wham-bang finale.

The End of the Christopher Reeve Era

Christopher Reeve is the greatest Superman we never had. Every film he portrayed the iconic role within was beset with problems and issues that often began at the very foundations of screenwriting. The first two films, if the Salkinds simply trusted the director, could have been more than merely memorable comic-book films. At the very least, they would have had a cliffhanger-ending that would rival Planet of the Apes.

The one scene in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace that manages to highlight how strong Christopher Reeve was, is a sequence whereby Clark Kent and Superman attempt a double-date with both Lois Lane and Lacy. In this single scene you can see how finely-tuned Reeve's mannerisms are and how his characters can completely change the dynamic in a situation. A clever sequence requires a justification - and we question why Superman would even put himself into such a comical and ludicrous position. I blame the screen writers.

The film ends on the note that "we" need to make the difference. Of course we do - why would anyone think anything different. Might as well have sold the house in Smallville, while telling Wal-Mart that they need to make the difference. Nothing really matters in such a sentiment and 'The Quest for Peace' seems to ignore the intriguing set-up in the first act - and settle for a 'catch-all' message that is easily understood by children. (Even Perry White manages to simply buy back the Daily Planet. Those powerful conglomerates are easy enough to simply buy-out). Maybe the producers needed to make a difference - rather than churn out scripts that simply didn't acknowledge the weight of such an important role. Christopher Reeve deserved better and this was an opportunity to right-the-wrongs of the Salkinds. If only someone decided to ignore the bad bits and keep the good bits ... and try again ... what would that look like?

[Cue John Williams score... cue the wink at the end]

Full Metal Jacket (Stanley Kubrick, 1987)

"These are great days we're living, bros. We are jolly green giants, walking the Earth with guns. These people we wasted here today are the finest human beings we will ever know."

Introduction

As many can see from my choice of films, the films I choose to watch is more for their importance in film history than for the current trend of zeuitgeist. Perhaps I am watching the back catalogue of a highly influential director (Speilberg, Hitchcock, Lean), perhaps it is an international-inspiration (French New-Wave, Italian Neo-Realism, Contemporary Latin-America) or it is simply one of those 'must see' films. Full Metal Jacket, and most of Kubricks work is in the latter category. Fact is, though I choose to watch these films, in some cases it is a bit of an effort (a family member asked recently "How on earth can you watch a film in the morning? films are for the evening!" Answer, it is the love of film and focus of understanding film that drives me...). So, sometimes, I put one of these films on and realise that it is actually, from the get go, something that I am hooked on. In these cases, I will often pause the film and save it to watch it with Sarah... or Sarah will promise to watch it on a later date. Suffice to say, this is one of those films that became one of my favourite films almost instantly - and within a week, my passion for the film inspired Sarah to watch it on her own.

The Duality of Man

On his head is a symbol or peace and, next to it, the words "born to kill". This complete conflict, two polar-opposite attitudes to war, is what roots itself in the themes of this film  - these two stances are what makes men so conflicting in their stance towards war and violence. They can make a man go mad.

Set during the Vietnam war, the first 40-minutes of the film is exclusively set in the boot camp, on American soil, as the new privates are grilled through their paces by Hartman (Lee Emery). Hartmans attitude is aggressive and violent - everything that war is - beginning the soldiers career in a completely controlled and inhuman environment. We specifically follow Prvate 'Pile' - an overweight, gun-obsessed soldier - who Hartman takes great pleasure degrading and insulting. This culminates in Private Pile killing himself - after having killed Hartman. A complete shift in the film as we now move to follow Joker (Modine) as he is deployed to fight in the war.

Pop-War

The sondtrack is rooted in pop-music, making the whole film that much more surreal: Rolling Stones and Nancy Sinatra playing over hyper-masculine men training and flirting with prostitutes. The small sections of score used is composed by Abigail Mead.

The complete contrast between the unified, clean and controlled environment in the boot camp completely contrasts with destroyed, burnt out buildings of an uncontrolled war. When we move into war territory, the camera becomes more disorientating - handheld and rough, almost like documentary footage as we see stark silhouettes across the war-torn landscape

A Real Finale

It ends it horror as a woman is revealed to be a sniper - can Joker, Mr "Born to Kill", kill this female sniper? The world is a different place - the environment is different. Soldiers choose to fight, they choose to defend, the choose to have the constant conflict of 'peace' against 'brute force'. This woman clearly does not choose - her hand has been pushed to protect herself and her family.

Having watched this a few years ago, and only revisiting it now through this review, it makes me desperate to get stuck in again. The entire film you wait to see the 'war' within the film genre it resides - but we see the madness of war and the madness of training men for war.

Near Dark (Kathryn Bigelow, 1987)

"I asked you to listen to the night, now listen to me"

Introduction

Ever since The Hurt Locker, so many film-friends always follow up the conversation with "yeah, but have you seen Point Break or Near Dark, because they are great films too!". Unfortunatly, prior to watching Near Dark I had not seen any Kathyrn Bigelow films, except The Hurt Locker. I know this was vampires and I could tell it was very eighties, but - it turns out - as the cult-favourite that it is, it actually has alot more interesting depth to it than the tag "eighties vampire film" leads you to believe ...

A New Take on a Specific Genre ...

As a vampire film, you could easily assume certain specific features: Gothic fairytale, vampires that turn into bats, Transylvania, etc. Clearly, Bigelow and Eric Red simply threw out the rule book and took the one timeless facet to the vampire genre - they live forever and they feed off the blood of others. These two simple aspects to the vampire genre have multiple layers - the literal feeding-off from society, the

Wall Street (Oliver Stone, 1987)

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

Introduction

Now I only bought this as it was a bargain price - £3 - from the hallowed halls of HMV. The sequel is coming out soon, its one of those 'classic' movies about the materialistic eighties and, following watching Natural Born Killers a few months back and, thus, beginning to appreciate Oliver Stone, I thought this would be a good movie to watch. The infamous Gordan Gekko (Douglas) and the incredibly eighties not-so-hot-ness of Daryl Hannah wet my appetite ... so, I whacked it in and though it had its good points, there were some problems I found and maybe that is due to my lackof knowledge of stocks and shares...

Opinion

Based in New York - take a guess which street - Wall Street follows Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), an incredible name for a white-collar worker who is the son of blue-collar worker, union representative Carl (Martin Sheen). The 'elephant' that Fox wants to catch is Gordan Gekko (Douglas) a HUGE client who will spend alot of money which will bump up his earnings. He meets Gekko, Gekko see's how pathetic he is but - following Fox giving some information on his Fathers 'blue star' airline - Gekko see's that he may have a financial-incentive with hiring Fox as an insider-trader (a man who illegally finds out problems with a company while people like Gekko take stocks from the company only to sell them off for profit following the companies closure making Gekko a profit but ruining the company itself). So Gekko and Fox are buddies - both feeling they have some parrallel as Gekko himself claims he was born from blue-collar worker parents but he wasn't going to settle for the low-pay that blue-collar workers get. The plot continues to show incredible speeches on greed by Gekko and Daryl Hannah as an awful love interest for Fox and Gekko. Gekko then nearly ruins the 'blue star' airlines Bud Fox's father works for and that leads to the finale whereby Fox needs to do everything he can to save 'blue star'...

Gordan Gekko (Douglas) is an incredible chararacter - and if I'm honest - he is the only reason a sequel made. Gekko in a different situation is something that will make fascinating viewing. He has some fantastic lines: "rip out their throats" etc. Then also has a brilliant speech on greed - ultimately specifying the allure of greed and how, in the eighties, it was predominant. It makes me want to watch The Corporation a documentary I haven't seen - but apparently paints the picture that the perfect capitalist business would be psychologically profiled as a mentally unstable murderer ... Gordan Gekko is that representative. Though he doesn't directly kill anyone, the closure of 'blue star' does consequently affect Bud's dad who then has a heart attack. Nevertheless, Gekko's statistics on the US of A are shocking: "The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars" and "Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market" - and the big one as quoted above. Kudos to Oliver Stone and Stanley Weiser (who, interestingly wrote a script for another sneaky motherf*****: Bush in W.).

Then there is the love interest: Darian (Daryl Hannah). Oh. My. God. What could be - and should be - an interesting, complex character (she sleeps with both Gekko and Fox... but we are unsure if she really falls for Fox and the history between her and Gekko) turns into a wooden robot who delivers lines with the intensity of a flea. Once you realise how bad she is - following her speech on interior design and artistic taste - every scene she appears in is soured b her prescence. And Daryl Hannah isn't a bad actress - see Kill Bill and Splash - just in Wall Street she is incredibly bad. Evcen winning a Razzie for her performance.

I found it incredibly difficult to enjoy passionately. I don't work in stocks and shares and don't know any bankers either so the life that is shown completely perplexes me - I know nothing. The subtext as Bud Fox has to adopt the role of a cleaner to gain inside information shows how, to succeed, this role asks someone to be something they are not and - if you can do it successfully - you actually come out the other end on top. But you have to have that killer instinct. So, that idea of screwing others over for your own success is something which happens in every workplace and I can relate to knowing people like that. But I felt that Charlie Sheen was a bit too clean cut. Apparently Tom Cruise was considered for the role and, when you think of Cruise's incredible performance in Jerry Maguire you can see how that business, money-making character can be played incredibly well by Tom Cruise ... Charlie Sheen is a cheaper version I feel.

To close - only a brief overview - it is a great film for Gekko but, other than that, beware. The protagonist isn't as interesting as he could be, the love interest is incredibly weak and finally the context is difficult to fully understand. These problems outweigh the plus-point-that-is Gekko. But it is a fascinating example of capitalism ... but I reckon' there is a better example out there...

[Nb: The poster above looks very similar to the poster for Goodfellas]

Bad (Martin Scorsese, 1987)

"But they say the skys the limit/And to me thats really true/And my friends you have seen nothin/Just wait til I get through . . ."

Introduction

This is a really serious video. Personally, my lack of knowledge when I was younger led me to believe that the kids dancing in Moonwalker to Bad was in fact the video to Bad. Of course, its not. So this is the final music-video analysis on the blog 'in memory' of Michael Jackson. We had David Fincher and Spike Lee. We could have had John 'Boyz in the Hood' Singleton's Remember The Time, or John 'American Werewolf in...' Landis Thriller or even the short introduction to the Dangerous film directed by David 'Twin Peaks' Lynch. I am sure we could go back to these if we get a chance. Nevertheless, Bad has a full version of the video spanning 14 minutes and is directed by Martin Scorsese Pre-Goodfellas (he must have been discussing it though with Nic Pillegi at this point) but Post-Mean Streets, Raging Bull and his most recent film at this point was The Color of Money so he was hardly an unknown or director-in-need-of-attention. He was well established and, to top if off, for the writer of the music video (obviously not the song itself - that was Michael Jackson, but for the script that precedes the video) was no other than the writer of Sea of Love Richard Price. Price also managed to write many episodes alongside a man called David Simon recently, in a TV series called The Wire. Thats Sarcasm. I am a huge Wire fan.





What I reckon ...

You know Scorsese was hardly going to be able to bring the amount of depth and meaning to a Michael Jackson music video as he does in his own films - so you are not going to get any religious symbolism and Catholic iconography here - but you do get a little masculine-identity issues and some technicial correlations that could be discussed. First and foremost the sequence the precedes and follows is shot in black and white, similar to Raging Bull, I assume - if we were going to look 'deep' into the video, because the dream-like sequence shot in full colour with the dancing and completely-different 'bad' look of Jacksons is not what actually happens. Black and white is the real world, while the colour is - possibly mentally - what Jackson wants to express but until the last act, does not manage to explain.

Its an incredibly dark video too - we have references to theft, vandalism, drug dealing - and taking - and the constant problem of breaking free from poverty. Justified, we get no idea as to how 'Darryl' (Jackson) broke free from the 'dodgy' end of NYC, simply that his mother (Roberta Flack interestingly enough) clearly works exceptionally hard to support him (so she is not home when he gets back for the summer) and that he acknowledges this. He has begun to appreciate his life. He's not racist towards his classmates in the private school he attends, while they clearly are not racist towards him (then again, his skin by this point was so bleached maybe this is a difficult issue to discuss when talking about race and MJ...). They are proud of him, and accept his friendship - as we see on the train, while the shifty guy on the train who appears to be someone to fear, in fact only asks him about his pride - something that, I assume, can be detroyed in any area of society and, yet both agree in the sentiment: "Be the man". The question is, what is it to 'be the man'?

Its so upsetting to imagine how only a year - possibly within a year - after this was made, Jackson makes Moonwalker. Such a shame. Nevertheless, its not long before we meet friends of Darryl who clearly - without stating it directly - has issues about Darryls circumstances. He's in private education - there is no indication these men have even gone to school ("no school tomorrow? ha ha ha") and so you can see the conflict. Darryl is more intelligent, he has morals - he has a caring family who will do whatever they can to get him out of poverty - while his friends, including a young Wesley Snipes, clearly have very little of anything. They refer to him as 'joe-college', making sexual references, mocking his school friends and manipulating him when he makes any comment that implies his intelligence. You can feel how awkward it is. This is when it gets even more sinister as we see a drug deal - the four guys attempt to threaten the dealer who carries his own protection. We pan across their faces and Darryl despises what he is doing - but we see the other guys expressions too. While Darryl is out of his element, they are clearly in their element.

In leads to the obvious confrontation - Snipes reacts. All his friends turn on him - the pressure is physically and emotionally claustrophobic as the guys grab and challenge him, knocking down everything he and his family have worked for: "Are you bad? hm? or is that what they teach you up in that little sissy school of yours? How to forget who your friends are?". Darryl knows them, he cares - and he caves. Building himself up for one last 'bad' act. He plans to mug a civilian - but as soon as he see's that the civilian doesnt understand him at all, that this man is completely innocent, alarm bells ring. This whole sequence reminds me of The Godfather the pressure mounting parrallel with the train sounds getting louder - except instead of Michael Corleone shooting Solozzo, Darryl can't do it letting the man go. Snipes and co. get angry - Darryl tells him his thoughts: "If I ain't bad, you ain't nothin' - you ain't nothin!"

The music video itself is what it is - flawless dancing and choreography, dancers from a diverse background representing the range of cultures that are affected by poverty and, inevitably, crime. It is interesting to note that, as soon as this finishes, Snipes and Co. decide to back down on Darryl and as the camera pans back, he is alone again in his usual clothes. Clearly, Snipes' gang don't change their ways themselves - there is no indication that they even agree with Darryl as they walk away. Darryl is just on his own and they respect him for taking the opportunity he was given - fact is, Snipes' gang have not been given that opportunity and they clearly cannot stay friends with Darryl, hence their decision to walk away. Darryl is not 'one of them' anymore.

It is great that such dark themes are brought to the forefront, Jackson never shy's away from these society and worldwide issues, utilising his fame and influence to highlight them to the mass market. So many people claim MJ as inspirational - and people in horrendous domestic circumstances state how Jackson specifically is what got them out of crime and depression - seriously this is true. I would not be suprised that it was videos like this, like Man in the Mirror, like Stranger in Moscow and other inspirational videos that created such a personal link with fans. As fans we can look at his stories and understand - at a very young age - what opportunity is, what 'to-dream' is and how, ultimately, it is down to us (and not down to our parents or our circumstances) to dictate what to achieve.

Interesting info - If you listen to the lyric of the song, you can imagine it as a duet - apparently that was the original intention, whereby Jackson was to duet with Prince! How would that have sounded?