The filmmaker already known for films like “The Man Who Knew Too Much” and “Jamaica Inn” chose to release his first American film, “Rebecca” at a time when Charles Chaplin was actively promoting his “The Great Dictator,” John Ford was receiving accolades for his little movie “The Grapes of Wrath,” and “The Philadelphia Story” was already being discussed as one of the greatest romantic comedies of all time.

So, what was so special about Hitchcock’s adaptation of Daphne du Maurier’s novel by the same name? How was Hitchcock able to outshine Chaplin and Ford and why with a resume boasting of projects like “Dial M for Murder,” “Vertigo,” “North by Northwest,” “Psycho,” “The Birds,” “Lifeboat,” and “Rear Window” did the Academy see “Rebecca” as the only Hitchcock offering worthy of a Best Picture award? And finally, do we really need Netflix to remake this movie with Lily James and Armie Hammer?

The answer to that last question is absolutely not.

Let’s look at those first two questions and, as we always do on KSL Movie Classics, talk about the movie’s highlights.

The story

The Criterion Collection captures the mood of this Hollywood classic when it states, “Romance becomes psychodrama in the elegantly crafted ‘Rebecca’, Alfred Hitchcock’s first foray into Hollywood filmmaking.”

The off-kilter, moody, black-and-white backdrop sets the stage for a young Joan Fontaine as she begins her married life as the very wealthy Mrs. de Winter. What promises to be an ideal leap into marital bliss quickly turns to suspense when she learns of the mysterious disappearance of Mr. de Winter’s previous wife.

At every turn details of the former Mrs. de Winter haunt her, and no one is happier to remind the new bride of the unsettling circumstances than the head housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers.

When speaking to Peter Bogdanovich in a 1963 interview, Hitchcock said of “Rebecca:”
“‘Rebecca’ was a Brontë thing really, a romantic Victorian novel in modern dress. In a sense you could get annoyed with the Joan Fontaine character because she never stood up for herself, she let Mrs. Danvers override her. But after all that’s applying a modern point of view to what I say is a Victorian heroine.”

The history

“Rebecca” was the second story of du Maurier’s to net Hitchcock’s professional services – the third and final being “The Birds.”

As Little White Lies points out, “Smuggling thriller ‘Jamaica Inn’ was the first Du Maurier novel to be brought to the big screen. Actor Charles Laughton purchased the film rights and appointed Alfred Hitchcock as director.”

As the story goes, Hitchcock was reluctant to do the project because of the amount of creative control granted Laughton, and as Little White Lies continues, “Sure enough, Laughton dominated the film, his overblown performance described by Time magazine as ‘magnificent in the eye-rolling, head-cocking, lip-pursing, massively mincing Laughton style.’ Du Maurier hated the film and Hitchcock all but disowned it.

But “Rebecca” was absolutely Hitchcock’s project. In fact, even in the face of his now famous skirmishes with “Gone with the Wind” producer David O. Selznick, Hitchcock’s first American project was entirely his own. He even managed to sneak in themes that were at the time prohibited.

Les Fabian Brathwaite of IndieWire points out, “Hitchcock reportedly played up the lesbianism of Mrs. Danvers, who was more of a maternal figure in the novel on which it was based, by noted bisexual, Daphne du Maurier. Hitch was even warned about including these subtle references to Danvers’ lesbianism, but in the end, he had his way.”

Incidentally, while the Hays office didn’t seem to notice references to Mrs. Danvers’ sexuality, there was one significant event changed from the original text to appease the Hays office.

(The following is a major spoiler by the way, so if – and I hope you are – planning to experience Hitchcock’s Best Picture win sometime, just skip down to the next section. Still, I’ll try my best to keep this ambiguous.)

At the time of release, the Motion Picture Production Code stated that a movie could not have a murderer go unpunished. This made Hitchcock repurpose the final reveals of the film, leaving some cynics to label the climax unnecessarily clumsy. They’re wrong, though. The extra hoops Hitchcock had to jump through absolutely work and make the and-another-thing aspect of the finale more entertaining.

The impact

“Rebecca” was a commercial and critical success at the time, and still today boasts a 100% on RottenTomatoes. Even the more temperamental audience score sits at 92%.
But what “Rebecca” is remembered for most, and the reason we’re still discussing it 80 years later, is its social and technical contributions.

In an article about his favorite Hitchcock movie, Michael Hann of The Guardian makes a bold claim that feminists will flip the perception of the story’s heroes and villains. I have yet to revisit the film since reading his suggestion, but at the very least it feeds into the idea that Hitchcock was not afraid of controversial topics and juxtaposed with films like “Psycho” and “Marnie,” one might even suggest he actively sought out uncomfortable topics to further keep his audiences uncertain of what to expect next.

“Rebecca” is also noteworthy because of the tools Hitchcock didn’t use. In that same Bogdanovich interview Hitchcock was asked, “Wasn’t Rebecca the first film in which you experimented with a tracking camera as opposed to the use of montage?”

He replied, “Pretty well, yes. But only because we were going around a big house. I don’t think it was really right, because after all, the eye must look at the character. It must not be conscious of a camera dollying unless you are dollying or zooming in for a particular purpose.”

Should you watch it today?

Left to its own merits, “Rebecca” holds up especially well.

It is one of those movies that starts you off in a secure place before inflicting a slow unraveling of the world around you. Add to that, Fontaine’s sympathetic performance and your constantly changing perspective of Laurence Olivier’s Mr. de Winter, and you have a very entertaining classic movie for any stay-in date or ice-cream-and-me solo evening.

If you call yourself a Hitchcock fan and you haven’t seen this, then stop whatever you’re doing and remedy that immediately.

Knowing that Hitchcock was trying to keep his audience guessing while also theme-sneaking material past Selznick and the Hays Office makes for a pretty great hindsight experience. It’s also especially fun to watch a very confined Hitchcock who relies on a tracking camera to maintain his master-of-suspense status.

There are many great Best Picture winners worthy of a revisit before the 2020 Academy Awards on February 9, and this 80-year-old classic definitely enjoys a place on that list.
Next month, to honor the great nominations that don’t end up winning, we’ll chat about one of my favorite Best Picture nominees of all time that didn’t end up winning the award.

The post Revisiting Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Rebecca’ 80 years after it won best picture appeared first on Utah.Film.

Tupperware was hitting department store shelves, bikinis were invented, Donald Trump was born, and a box office disappointment titled “It’s a Wonderful Life” marked the return of then-two-time Academy Award winning director, Frank Capra.

There’s no question each of the above mentions deserves its own article, but seeing as I write about classic films here at KSL.com, I’ll go ahead and focus on that last bit about Capra’s seemingly lackluster return to filmmaking.

As Emily Todd VanDerWerff of Vox puts it, “if you were to tell Capra back in the late ’40s that his film would go on to become a perennial favorite, he might have scoffed at you. Upon release, ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ was greeted with weak box office earnings and reviews that amounted to, ‘It’s fine, but nothing special.'”

VanDerWerff goes onto point out the critical attention “It’s a Wonderful Life” enjoyed probably had more to do with Capra’s name than how the film was received at the time.

So, what happened?

How did a movie marked as forgettable holiday fodder go onto become the quintessential Christmas classic, and why did Capra’s name mean so much during a time of bikinis and plastic food containers?

As we do each month here with KSL’s Classic Movies, let’s talk about the highlights:

The history

In 1938, writer Author Philip Van Doren Stern had a dream which he eventually worked into a short story titled “The Greatest Gift.”

The story was collectively rejected by publishers, so in 1943, Van Doren Stern sent the 21-page story out as a holiday greeting and as the story goes, “The Greatest Gift” found its way to the desk of RKO Pictures producer David Hempstead who, fun fact, was born in Salt Lake City.

Hampstead liked the story so much he purchased the rights for $10,000 which is how it caught the eye of Capra, who at that time was considered by many to be America’s filmmaker.

Before transforming “The Greatest Gift” into “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Capra had already made one of my all-time favorite movies “It Happened One Night,” in addition to “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town,” “You Can’t Take It with You,” and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services noted of Capra, “In many ways, Capra, a naturalized Italian immigrant, made some of the most quintessentially ‘American’ movies of the era.”

But Capra was more than just a filmmaker living in America, Capra was a man who believed in American ideals. Just four days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Capra resigned as president of the Screen Director’s Guild and gave up his lucrative career as a filmmaker to become an enlisted man. He is quoted as saying of the decision:

“I had a guilty conscience. In my films I championed the cause of the gentle, the poor, the downtrodden. Yet I had begun to live like the Aga Khan. The curse of Hollywood is big money. It comes so fast it breeds and imposes its own mores, not of wealth, but of ostentation and phony status.”

Capra made “It’s a Wonderful Life” his first project after the war and said of the project, “I thought it was the greatest film I ever made. Better yet, I thought it was the greatest film anybody ever made.”

The influence

As the monthly KSL Classic Movies article goes, we discuss the history, the influence and the longevity of influential films. In this case, however, the beloved “It’s a Wonderful Life” has become a bit ubiquitous, hasn’t it?

As Donald Liebenson of Vanity Fair states, “It is perhaps the most cherished, quoted, and oft-seen American Christmas film.”

Every year the movie finds its way into new pop culture references and every year we see our personal favorite Christmas movie or television special protagonists take a minute to enjoy “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

Why? Because if you want to make a character relatable, you have that character enjoy a movie you know 100% of your audience has already been affected by.

So, instead of discussing an obvious point here about how everyone cherishes a movie made over 70 years ago, let’s just discuss how one scene affected one of America’s favorite actors.

Alexandra Pollard of The Independent tells the story of how, like Capra, James Stewart had also recently returned from the war. As Stewart delivered his lines from the now-famous prayer in a roadside bar, Pollard records, “with an almost unwatchable desperation, to a god he only half believes [Stewart prays] ‘I’m not a praying man,’ he says, ‘but if you’re up there and you can hear me, show me the way. I’m at the end of my rope. Show me the way, god…’ As he rubs a clenched, trembling hand against his mouth, he starts to cry. That moment, which actor Carol Burnett later described as ‘one of the finest pieces of acting anyone has ever done on the screen,’ wasn’t in the script.”

Stewart said of the scene, “I felt the loneliness, the hopelessness of people who had nowhere to turn, and my eyes filled with tears. I broke down sobbing. That was not planned at all.”

Does it hold up today

Obviously, the answer to the question of “Does this movie hold up today?” is a resounding “Yes!”

“It’s a Wonderful Life” is the perfect marriage of an author’s dream, a director’s deepest beliefs, and an actor who understood that George Bailey represents every person who feels lost or broken during the holidays. When one watches “It’s a Wonderful Life,” there is “nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see,” to borrow a phrase from Linus van Pelt.

So, whether you’re feeling the sadness that often sneaks into the holiday season, or you just want to be reminded of the potential we humans have to be on the right side of love, it’s not too late to block 135 minutes of your holiday to be reminded just one more time in 2019 that “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

The post Is it still a wonderful life appeared first on Utah.Film.

Sure, you can enjoy a few episodes of “The Twilight Zone” any time of the year, and cruising down some highway with a 1920s radio drama playing is heaps of fun even before Oct. 31. But for some reason, adding the anticipation of trick-or-treaters, a bowl of fun-size candy, and a few well-lit jack-o-lanterns turns hackneyed dialogue and hammy delivery into something melodious.

That’s why, for this month’s classic film article, we’re recommending one of the most gloriously melodramatic and rightfully influential horror movies of all time: James Whale’s “The Bride of Frankenstein.” As The Guardian declares, “Bride is a wild ride, even today. It flits between the classical and the gutter, the camp and the serious in a manner that’s hard to pin down.”

Here are some reasons why this classic is still relevant today.

The history

In 1935, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was beginning his third year in office, 20% of the American population was unemployed, and filmmakers were ushering in the beginning of what we now call “The Golden Age of Hollywood.”

Silent films were being replaced with “talkies,” color films were making a comeback and studios were, according to AMC’s film site, exploring genres such as “gangster films, musicals, newspaper-reporting films, historical biopics, social-realism films, lighthearted screwball comedies, westerns and horror to name a few.”

The year 1935 was teeming with hardship and creativity, and it was also the year an openly gay director released, as the Alamo Draft House puts it, “the first sequel in Hollywood history to be better than the original.

To this day few titles enjoy that honor, and of those less than a handful followed an opening chapter met with as much praise as the original “Frankenstein.” Much like Joe Dante and his “Gremlins” sequel, that success can be credited to Whale’s insistence on more control.

Stephen Brophy of MIT’s “The Tech” said, “He (Whale) resisted a sequel but eventually gave in, insisting that he be allowed to develop the project in his own way. The mordant humor of ‘Bride’ is the delicious result.”

“Bride” was met with both commercial and financial success for Universal Pictures, but with that success came Whale’s narrowing circle of projects he was willing to work on.

There is a lot of speculation concerning what ultimately ended Whale’s career as a director, but biographer James Curtis says, “Whale’s success was short-lived. With his troubled production of Remarque’s ‘The Road Back‘, he was pitted against ominous forces that didn’t want the film made. His career faltered and, being openly gay, he found work increasingly hard to get. He quit just ten years after the triumph of ‘Frankenstein’, and died a suicide only months before the film’s eventual release to television.”

The influence

As Senses of Cinema points out concerning Whale, “one can make a strong case that he was the greatest director of horror in the history of cinema, or at least the most influential.”

Long before Tim Burton was dazzling our darker sides with striped villains and spiraled mountains, Whale’s flair for emotionally disorienting set pieces and theatrical reflection was defining the genre. Part of Whale’s influence came from his love of German silent sci-fi films like “Metropolis” and “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,” while, again from Senses, “Whale was (also) a painter before he was a stage and film director, and his eye for design is part of what makes his films so memorable.”

Burton is perhaps the director who embraces Whale’s spirit most obviously, going as far as to create multiple versions of “Frankenweenie”— a love letter to both “Frankenstein” and “The Bride of Frankenstein” — but Lloyd Rose of The Washington Post notes several additional Hollywood juggernauts who are better off for Whale’s influence.

From Rose: “The mix of beauty, perversity, wit and fear in Whale’s monster pictures is the goal that every horror director worth his salt has aspired to since. His dark, horrid, funny work paved the way for Alfred Hitchcock‘s American career.” Rose goes onto include Brian De Palma’s “Carrie,” Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” and “Gordon Willis‘ moodily lit interiors in the ‘Godfather’ films” as examples of Whale’s influence.

But Whale wasn’t only a visual artist, as Gloria Stuart semi-famously details on the laserdisc commentary of “The Old Dark House.” (A tip-of-the-hat to anyone who knows what makes that commentary semi-famous.)

Stuart said of Whale (as recorded by Dennis Polkow in the Chicago Tribune), “He was a real actor’s director. I worked twice with John Ford and there was no comparison. Ford would just say, ‘Action,’ and left you on your own. With James, everything you were to do had been carefully thought through and worked out in the most minute detail. He was a ‘hands-on’ director in that he was into every aspect of the picture — makeup, costumes, scenery, lighting, props: everything. He was always meticulous, discerning and helpful.”

Does it hold up today?

There are so many reasons to watch “The Bride of Frankenstein” this Halloween season, the least of which is its place in history. There will always be time to discuss what modern audiences see in Whale’s dark tale, but “The Bride of Frankenstein” is still a mesmerizing stand-alone classic.

As Roger Ebert said of the film, “You don’t have to deconstruct it to enjoy it; it’s satirical, exciting, funny, and an influential masterpiece of art direction.”

“The Bride of Frankenstein” should be taken moment by moment, as entire sub-plots just disappear and conclusions come suddenly. As a result, some viewers may find a few of Whale’s decisions frustrating, but taken scene-by-scene, it’s everything right with monster movies.

If there is a classic film you’d like to know more about, leave us a note in the comments or email Travis directly at travis@utah.film.

The post Why ‘The Bride of Frankenstein’ is still the perfect Halloween movie appeared first on Utah.Film.

The post Why ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ is still relevant after 50 years appeared first on Utah.Film.

What would happen, he likely wondered, if you were to take a controversial novel, an obscene amount of money (roughly $110,000 in 1915), a boatload of resentment, and fold that into a single, aggressively marketed summer blockbuster titled “The Birth of a Nation?”

Would that be enough, he may have continued wondering, to be “perhaps, the most profitable film of all time” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica?

In Griffith’s case, the answer was “absolutely.” In fact, not only would Griffith’s idea go on to be obscenely profitable, but it would also cement itself into film history as one of the most influential and brilliantly directed movie masterpieces ever.

What Griffith probably didn’t anticipate was that in addition to wowing even modern audiences with his filmmaking techniques and revolutionary marketing strategies, his work would go on to be considered one of the most loathsome movies ever created.

Today, directors like Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino, Justin Simien and Nate Parker take swipes at “The Birth of a Nation,” highlighting both its horrifying message and lasting influence.

Tarantino was quoted by “The Root” as saying “You have to understand, I’m obsessed with ‘The Birth of a Nation’ and its making.” He then went onto explain, “Thomas Dixon Jr. and D.W. Griffith, if they were held by Nuremberg Laws, they would be guilty of war crimes for making that movie because of what they created there.”

Lee’s “BlacKkKlansman,” which was released a year ago this weekend, features a prominent scene where members of the KKK watch “The Birth of a Nation” and wildly cheer on its racist heroes. Those moments are intercut with a scene in which another character tells a horrifying true story of the lynching of a black man — which happened around the time of the 1915 release of “The Birth of a Nation,” according to Screencrush.

Here’s an overview of why this old-time silent movie was so influential, and why its message has been causing protests and riots since its original release.

The history

Technically perfect or groundbreaking cinema is just white noise if it doesn’t weave its way into the conversation of its time.

For Americans in 1915, parents and grandparents remembered where they were when President Abraham Lincoln was shot. For the South, homes, lives, economic stability, pride and in many ways southern culture were all casualties to both the Civil War and Southern Reconstruction.

These topics would have been especially sensitive to Griffith, who was the son of a Confederate States Army colonel. Growing up in the Griffith home likely included regular first-hand accounts of the war from an antagonistic perspective.

So when Griffith was given Thomas Dixon Jr.’s novel “The Clansman,” which is every bit as terrible as the title suggests, the very disturbing courtship of talent and hate was ignited.

Dixon Jr. created a story in which, as filmsite.org points out, the “KKK (are portrayed) as heroes and Southern blacks as villains and violent rapists and threats to the social order.” The finale of the film includes the KKK riding in on horses triumphantly to save the town from “black mobs” and Union soldiers.

The film was met with fierce controversy around the country, which fueled its profit margins but also caused riots and protests in multiple cities.

It was also used as a propaganda film for the KKK, and as History.com points out, “Until the movie’s debut, the Ku Klux Klan, founded in 1865 by Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee, was a regional organization in the South that was all but obliterated due to government suppression. But ‘The Birth of a Nation’s’ racially charged Jim Crow narrative, coupled with America’s heightened anti-immigrant climate, led the Klan to align itself with the movie’s success and use it as a recruiting tool.”

The movie also ignited censorship debates, which influenced Griffith’s next film, “Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Throughout the Ages.” According to Britannica, “Almost unanimously, critics have hailed ‘Intolerance’ as the finest achievement of the silent film.”

The influence

While “Intolerance” is praised as the finest silent film, filmsite.org points out “Film scholars agree… (“The Birth of a Nation”) is the single most important and key film of all time in American movie history.”

Charlie Chaplin is quoted as saying of Griffith, “He was the teacher of us all.”

So, what does that mean in quantifiable influence and contribution?

The list of techniques credited to Griffith is long and listed out in detail at Filmsite. It should be noted, however, that several of the specific claims have been contested over the years, so maybe it’s safe to just say his most important contribution is his influence on the moviegoing experience in general.

The next time you’re sitting in a darkened theater enjoying a long, cinematic story timed to glorious music with complex staging and interactions, that’s Griffith’s influence.

As the Hollywood Reporter notes, “he was the first American director to fluently integrate the language of cinema to create an entire ‘evening’s entertainment.”

That said, it’s probably important to note you’ll hear Griffith’s name, especially in relation to “The Birth of a Nation” attached to “moving, traveling or ‘panning’ camera tracking shots,” “the use of fade-outs and cameo-profiles,” “high-angle shots and the abundant use of panoramic long shots,” “the technique of the camera ‘iris’ effect, the definitive usage of the still-shot,” and many, many others, according to Filmsite.

Conclusion

The New Yorker film critic Richard Brody stated, “The worst thing about “Birth of a Nation” is how good it is.” That may be true, but it could also be said we’re better off because of the reminder it gives us.

Because “The Birth of a Nation” was so influential and shaped what cinema is today, we will never be allowed to sweep it under a rug. We will never be able to pretend racism isn’t a prominent and — in cases like “The Birth of a Nation” — incredibly lucrative part of our nation’s history.

In that way, “The Birth of a Nation” remains a relevant film, not only for its contributions in technical and commercial achievement but because it can shape the discussions we’re invested in: Can we separate an artist from his or her work? Should we celebrate artistic achievement in spite of its message? Should we as a society censor offensive or dangerously provocative material?

These are conversations we’re still having over 100 years after “The Birth of a Nation” was released, and I suspect on some level we’ll be enduring them 100 years from now.

With all this said, unless you’re a film student or especially interested in the controversy, “The Birth of a Nation” isn’t that classic movie you should project on your wall on a lazy evening.

A better use of your 3 hours and 15 minutes would include looking up some of the commentary from directors Lee and Tarantino. As far as viewing enjoyment goes, I’ll throw “The Birth of a Nation” in the category of “More interesting to talk about and research than actually watch.” 

The post Why the 1915 racist movie ‘The Birth of a Nation’ is still relevant today appeared first on Utah.Film.

The article focused on classic movies available on popular streaming services that in some way changed the filmmaking process or that maintain some significant place in Hollywood history. These are the movies that cinephiles see for the first time in a movie appreciation class or keep on their important-movies-to-see-before-I-die list.

However, because of the number of great films available among the three most popular streaming services (Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime), I limited the selection to just movies made before 1940.

In this article, we are following up with movies that meet the same criteria, but that were released between 1940 and 1979.

“Sunset Boulevard,” 1950

Netflix

I made the mistake of attending the Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical, “Sunset Boulevard,” before seeing the original 1950 movie. I say this is a mistake not because Lloyd Webber did a terrible job, but because he lifted the film’s dialogue for his lyrics, which meant I couldn’t listen to William Holden or Gloria Swanson deliver a line without anticipating familiar musical queues.

I tell you this as a warning, because you may very well enjoy both takes on the Hollywood story, but be careful of the order you take them in.

Why is this movie important?

Sunset Boulevard is the original Hollywood take on behind-the-scenes Hollywood. It constantly crosses the lines between fiction and reality, going so far as to cast an aging silent-film actress for the role of the movie’s aging silent-film actress, Norma Desmond.

“Sunset Boulevard” constantly references real actors, films, locations and shop-talk, and ultimately created the framework for every Hollywood love letter since. Next time you’re humming a tune from “Singing in the Rain” or “La La Land,” take a minute to think to yourself, “Thank you, ‘Sunset Boulevard.’”

“The African Queen,” 1951

Netflix

I know the world loves their “Casablanca,” and with good reason, but personally, if I’m going to reach for a Humphrey Bogart movie, it’s going to be “The African Queen.”

Bogart and Katharine Hepburn give fantastic performances against this World War I set adventure, and the chemistry between the two actors, as they drift down the then-Belgian Congo, generated enough magic to land Bogart his only Best Actor Academy Award.

Why is the movie important?

Not only was “The African Queen” the vehicle Bogart, Hepburn and director John Huston used to step into color filmmaking, but the movie is often listed as an example of what can happen when you cast the right two actors. Interestingly enough, while the world still considers Hepburn and Bogart a timeless onscreen couple, “The African Queen” was the only movie the pair did together.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still,” 1951

Netflix

“The Day the Earth Stood Still” was my first introduction to classic, black and white sci-fi, and it didn’t disappoint. Everything you would hope for in an iconic ’50s UFO movie is on display and ended with one of the most iconic movie speeches in film history.

Why is the movie important?

Well, besides the ending monologue, which even if you aren’t going to watch the movie you should YouTube just to know the reference, “The Day the Earth Stood Still” was a crowning achievement in special effects. This is Hollywood’s first sincere effort to use miniatures for flying saucers and enlist a giant robot as a central character. But history probably remembers “The Day the Earth Stood Still” more for what it didn’t achieve than what it did — an Academy Award nomination.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still” is a very famous Oscar snub and is often cited as an example of award shows not giving science fiction and fantasy projects the respect they deserve. It might also be remembered for having a gloriously terrible remake starring Keanu Reeves.

“On the Waterfront,” 1954

Hulu

I’m not going to lie to you. I own “On the Waterfront” because there was a time when the only way to see the movie was to buy yourself a copy, but I’ve never had a desire to give this film a second look.

People swear by “On the Waterfront,” and I’m told all the time, I’m crazy not to love it. But aside from noticing the obviously impressive Marlon Brando performance, this just wasn’t a movie that resonated with me.

So why is it on my list of movie recommendations?

Well, for one thing, it has the “I should’ve been a contender” speech, and every person who is trying to catch-up on their movie history needs to understand the context of the now-famous Brando delivery.

But more importantly, this was a very controversial movie for the time, and anyone interested in the history surrounding Joseph McCarthy will appreciate the similarities between director Elia Kazan’s admission before the House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC) and protagonist Terry Malloy’s testimony. If you’re a fan of stories that act as commentary for the times they live in, you should definitely give “On the Waterfront” a watch.

“Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” 1961

Amazon Prime

Can anyone say the title, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” without getting that ’90s Deep Blue Something song stuck in their head? It’s a shame really, since people should be thinking of “Moon River.”

Regardless, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is a regular on just about every “best 100 films of all times” compilations and is easily Audrey Hepburn’s most famous role.

Why is the movie important?

Well, for one, Mickey Rooney’s take on the character, I. Y. Yunioshi, has practically become the poster child for racism in Hollywood. That’s not a reason to watch “Tiffany’s,” but it’s a piece of history you’ll take away from your movie night. Outside of the controversy, “Tiffany’s” is a classic example of an actor defining a role they weren’t supposed to land. Truman Capote famously wanted Marilyn Monroe to play the part of Holly Golightly, and while there are people who still wonder how Monroe would’ve played the part, no one would argue that everything we love about “Tiffany’s” rests on the shoulders of the very talented Hepburn.

“Patton,” 1970

Amazon Prime

“Patton” is a film that displays everything a moviegoer could ask for. It’s a 70 mm war-set epic based on a controversial and larger-than-life historical figure. “Patton” has career defining performances and more awards than an oversized trophy case knows what to do with.

Why is the movie important?

Any time a film defines an actor’s career, it’s worth taking a look at. Yes, that goes for the bad films as well. But in George C. Scott’s case, he’d already enjoyed a respectable defining role in “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Yes, in some ways Patton is an extension of Gen. ‘Buck’ Turgidson, but Scott injected enough realism into Patton that the Academy crowned him Best Actor in 1971.

Outside of Scott’s contributions to the movie, director Franklin J. Schaffner created a biography that embraced an American hero’s rough edges and even sold them as virtues.

“Apocalypse Now,” 1979

Amazon Prime, Hulu

Still considered one of the best war movies ever made, “Apocalypse Now” enjoys just about every producer’s dream when it comes to cast and crew. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Laurence Fishburne, Harrison Ford, Dennis Hopper and Martin Sheen, “Apocalypse Now” probably would’ve surprised more people had it not done well.

Why is the movie important?

Coppola’s vision for his Vietnam-based story embraces surrealistic sequences exploring the madness of war. The film was plagued with about every obstacle you could throw at a production, including weather, illness and personal crisis, yet the product originally included over six hours of material Coppola was ready to use. The film is often compared to Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: a Space Odyssey,” which should already tell you this is a different kind of war movie, and eventually went on to be nominated for eight Academy Awards.

“Apocalypse Now” is rated R for disturbing violent images, language, sexual content and some drug use.

The post 7 more essential movies for film buffs streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime appeared first on Utah.Film.

The post 7 movies you missed in film class streaming now on Amazon and Netflix appeared first on Utah.Film.

When a Utah resident tells a stranger they’re from the Beehive State, said stranger usually replies, “Oh, I hear it’s beautiful there.” When someone asks that same Utah resident about their homeland, the local autopilot response is usually something like, “Well, it’s beautiful.”

These kinds of conversations happen all the time because, as it turns out, Utah is beautiful. But Utah is actually more than that. Utah is weird – in a good way.

From the San Rafael Swell to the Bonneville Salt Flats to Fantasy Canyon, Pando the Trembling Giant and the splendor that is Monument Valley, Utah is, as Ulysses Everett McGill says in “O Brother, Where Art Thou? ” “a geographical oddity.”

This is why filmmakers from around the world send location scouts to Utah when they’re looking for something different. When Gore Verbinski needs a place that looks like Davy Jones’ Locker, or Robert Zemeckis is sending Marty McFly back to the wild west, storytellers know those obscure places they see in their mind’s eye may just be hiding somewhere in Utah’s landscape.

So, this got us wondering – what stories are being told here now?

Thanks to the always wonderful people at the Utah Film Commission, this was a question we knew could be answered quickly. We’ll be reporting more on the great things the Utah Film Commission is up to in a soon-coming article. For now, here’s what the film commission’s Debra Vago had to say about five film and television projects currently being shot in the state of Utah.

The following text was taken verbatim, with permission, from a statement sent out by the Utah Film Commission.

Yellowstone

The anticipated TV series, “Yellowstone,” is now shooting in Utah, having been approved for a state film incentive this summer. Oscar-nominated filmmaker Taylor Sheridan, known for “Hell or High Water,” “Sicario” and the recent made-in-Utah “Wind River,” returns to Utah to direct the show. The series follows the Dutton family, controllers of the largest contiguous ranch in the country, which finds its borders under threat. Luke Grimes, Kelly Reilly and Cole Hauser will star alongside lead actor Kevin Costner.

Sheridan, winner of this year’s Festival de Cannes ‘Best Director’ award for “Wind River,” has cited Utah’s breathtaking scenery, accessibility, and reliable crew as just some of the reasons he chose to return to Utah. The show is expected to generate an economic impact of over $28 million and employ over 300 local cast and crew.

Andi Mack, Season Two

ANDI MACK – Production set. (Disney/ABC Television Group)
PRODUCTION SET

Disney Channel’s “Andi Mack” is currently filming its second season in Salt Lake City. The hit series follows the life of Andi (Peyton Elizabeth Lee) and her family and friends as she navigates the tricky terrain of early teen years. The show’s popularity to date is clear, with season one nearing 40 million views on seven digital platforms. All principal photography will take place this fall, with the production employing over 200 Utah cast and crew and spending approximately $15 million in the state.

Michelle Manning, executive producer of Disney Channel’s “Andi Mack,” said, “I have shot all over the world, but Utah is now my favorite place to film. This show has a special place in my heart and in season one, the cast and crew bond was like nothing I have ever experienced. It’s been a case of home away from home for us, and we’re eager to begin filming season two in and around Salt Lake City.”

Westworld, Season Two

After a successful first season (including 22 Emmy nominations), HBO’s hit western-sci-fi series, “Westworld,”returns to Utah this fall to shoot its second season, set to air in 2018. With an all-star cast and breathtaking southern Utah backdrop, “Westworld” garnered an average of 12 million viewers across all platforms and now ranks as the network’s most-watched first season ever.

The show’s iconic western setting has received much praise, and Jonathan Nolan, the show’s co-creator and executive producer, has spoken about being “drawn back” to southern Utah because of its “landscapes that don’t look like anywhere else on the face of the planet”.

Little Women

Louisa May Alcott’s much loved, coming-of-age tale of sisterhood is being reimagined, with production taking place here in Utah. The independent feature is due for release in 2018 to mark the 150th anniversary of the book’s publication.

Clare Niederpruem, who acted in the Utah-made film, “Once I Was a Beehive,” makes her directorial debut with this modern version of “Little Women.” Niederpruem also co-wrote the script with Kristi Shimek, who was editor on “Once I Was a Beehive”, among other films. The lovable Lea Thompson plays the family matriarch, Marmie, while “High School Musical’s” Lucas Grabeel returned to Utah to play Laurie. This is set to be the latest movie rendition of the classic story, which means a new set of March sisters to fall in love with.

Louisa May Alcott’s much loved, coming-of-age tale of sisterhood is being reimagined, with production taking place here in Utah. The independent feature is due for release in 2018 to mark the 150th anniversary of the book’s publication.

Clare Niederpruem, who acted in the Utah-made film, “Once I Was a Beehive,” makes her directorial debut with this modern version of “Little Women.” Niederpruem also co-wrote the script with Kristi Shimek, who was editor on “Once I Was a Beehive”, among other films. The lovable Lea Thompson plays the family matriarch, Marmie, while “High School Musical’s” Lucas Grabeel returned to Utah to play Laurie. This is set to be the latest movie rendition of the classic story, which means a new set of March sisters to fall in love with.

Behind You

Horror movie “Behind You” is now shooting in Utah County. The homegrown production received a state film incentive under the Community Film Incentive Program, a fund established to encourage up-and-coming, Utah-based talent to keep film projects in the state.

Co-written and co-directed by Andrew Mecham, producer of “Mythica: The Necromancer,” and YouTube Red Original, “A Trip to Unicorn Island,” as well as Matthew Whedon, brother of popular writer/director Joss Whedon. The feature tells the story of two sisters who find themselves in the home of their estranged Aunt and soon discover a dark presence who plans to use the girls to advance its evil purpose.

“We believe strongly in supporting and keeping film jobs in Utah. The majority of our team is local, including 100 percent of our crew. Although this film falls in the horror genre, it is projected to be PG-13, with a positive, uplifting message that love is more powerful than fear,” Mecham said.

The post 5 movies and television shows being filmed in Utah right now appeared first on Utah.Film.

I can’t remember exactly which title it was that I stared in the face and said, “I can’t do this any longer,” but I believe it was some sequel to some already terrible franchise.

I had been at this movie review thing for almost a decade and as one might expect, after a few years the excitement of it all slowly turned to drudgery. I knew the characters, the beats, the monologues. Occasionally some screenwriter or director would work in a surprise, but for the most part, all the storytelling formulas I’d learned about in college were spot-on. I could almost bake a cake based on the timing of a character’s introduction, or when a plotline would turn to crisis.

So, I gave it up. I had lost my love for it all and even worse, I had lost my love for movies.

It was months after I quit writing reviews before I purchased another movie ticket, and even longer before I found myself enjoying the experience.

But over time it did happen.

When I was allowed to turn my brain off and just submit to the spectacle of Hollywood’s magic, I started remembering why I was so interested in film in the first place.

In the interest of time, I’m going to jump ahead here because this is already a very long intro for the review of a film I have yet to mention. But to sum-up, when I did come back to movie reviews, I decided I’d only write about projects that actually caught my interest. No more hitting the press screenings for “The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature.” To give a movie its best chance at good publicity, I couldn’t walk into a darkened theater with a grumpy attitude.

Which brings us to “It” – a movie where I walked into the press screening with an unusually grumpy attitude.

My one rule was broken because of a long an uninteresting story. But, let’s just say, at the end of the day I have never enjoyed horror movies. I don’t find them scary, I can never suspend reality enough to care, and gore is gross. Sitting through 135 minutes of my least favorite genre was exactly what I swore off when I left the first time, yet there I was watching some killer clown torment children while I wondered how I was going to give “It” an honest review.

I’ve since given up on such a noble endeavor. Instead, I’m just going to call this what it is: a review of Stephen King’s ‘It’ by someone who really didn’t want to see it

The premise

Have you ever seen a horror movie? If so just move along. If you haven’t, fine, let’s just get through this.

There is a really scary clown monster. Said-scary clown monster feeds on fear, and as it turns out, kids are usually more afraid than grown-ups. Soon enough, children start disappearing and town residents do what any thinking individuals would do when kids go missing — they put up missing posters and forget about their sons and daughters.

That is until we meet our protagonists, who happen to be a group of kids brave enough to look for answers. As these brave kids peel back the layers of an unspoken mystery, they uncover a dark history, learn to face their fears, and ultimately confront the monster terrorizing their town.

No, I am not yawning and no, you have not seen this plot before with a different monster. The clown, you see, feeds on fear. That is abstract. The fear-monster-clown is entirely original and you’re a terrible person for thinking of 15 other movies with exactly the same plot. And no, Monster’s, Inc. doesn’t count because the fear is only captured to energize monster cities and in the end, they all find a way to get along.

The kids

I usually avoid rottentomatoes before putting out a review, but in this case, my curiosity concerning my bad attitude got the better of me.

As it turns out, when I started writing this review the movie was enjoying a 90% fresh score which means, 90% of my fellow-critics think I’m a moron.

This leaves me scratching my head a bit. And I get it, morons do that. But “It” is not a scary movie. It might flirt with creepy occasionally, and it does attempt to make audiences jump from time-to-time, but even the Coulrophobe sitting next to me later confessed he was rarely even nervous.

So, if I had to guess at why critics are swooning for this very, very generic horror movie, it’s because they connected with the kids.

Would you like to know if you will connect the with the kids from “It?” Did you like the kids from “Goonies,” “The Monster Squad,” “Stand by Me” and “Stranger Things” but all the while found yourself wishing these movies included Molly Ringwald? Then you too will love the kids from “It.”

The 80’s

I am kind of a product of the 80’s, though much more so the 90’s.

I do love me some nostalgia and am usually a sucker for anything that makes me think back on my childhood fondly.

Still, there’s a point where too much nostalgia becomes gimmicky and if you’re curious about that line, I suggest seeing “It” this weekend. Kids riding their bikes up a street with John Williamsy music playing behind them was super neat for a while, but the market for like-scenes is already oversaturated.

You know how every ten years vampires are cool? Some book like “Interview with a Vampire” or “Twilight” will come out and make a bajillion dollars and then hundreds of knock-offs try to ride the fad before audiences turn their noses up at sharp-toothed blood suckers?

If we apply those same rules to the 80’s, “Stranger Things” was “Interview” and “It” is like “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.”

The haunted house

Have you ever been to one of those haunted houses that pop up around Halloween time?

If you haven’t, they’re all basically a series of themed rooms with hiding places for costumed volunteers to jump out at you when you least expect it.

“It” is the longest haunted house you will ever endure.

The kids of the movie continually return to a house where each room has its own theme and director Andy Muschietti tries to find the perfect time to scare audiences. “It” is less effective than a traditional Halloween houses however, since as I just mentioned, it’s overly long. But even if it were a quick, action packed ride, the beats are so familiar there’s no surprise to be had.

If you love the seasonal attractions, you might find a soft place in your heart for “It,” but your money would probably be better spent on a brick and mortar experience.

Conclusion

I should note before I wrap this all up that I attended the press screening with three other critics. Of them, I was the only one who really disliked the movie. Was my bad attitude a factor? Almost definitely. But, that doesn’t change the fact that the 80’s theme is already overdone, “It” relies on totally recycled material, and this isn’t an especially scary movie.

Is there an audience for “It?” Sure. It’s Halloween time. People like to tell other people they’re afraid of clowns, and as far as horror movies go, this one had a bigger budget than most.

But if you’re that person who only says you hate clowns because everyone else says they hate clowns, or horror isn’t your number one all-time favorite genre, I doubt you’ll regret not paying theater prices for “It.”

If in the future however, you’ve planned an entire day of weeding only to find it’s raining that Saturday and “It” happens to be an option on a streaming service you’re already paying for, give it ten minutes. You might be like 90% of all critics or the Coulrophobe sitting next to me.

The post A review of Stephen King’s ‘It’ by someone who really didn’t want to see it appeared first on Utah.Film.

The legendary Batman foe has been making comic books, video games, television and feature films more interesting since the 1940s, and almost 70 years later we’re still talking about him.

In fact, just recently Warner Brothers and DC announced writer Scott Silver (8 Mile) will be penning a Joker origin movie set to be directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover) and produced by none other than Martin Scorsese (The Departed).

Who will play the clowned prince of crime you ask?

According to Variety, and a few other sources, Leonardo DiCaprio is the first name on a probably very short list of actors. This shouldn’t surprise anyone considering Scorsese’s involvement, but it’s still too early to know if DiCaprio would want to portray a character already defined by heavyweights like Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger.

If he says no, well there is still good news for WB and DC. As it turns out, John Clyde and I have been casually texting back and forth about who we think could step in should DiCaprio reject the project.

We’re fairly confident at least one of the following actors will be a great replacement. Here’s our list of 10 actors who could play the Joker should DiCaprio say no.

John Clyde’s List

Evan Peters

John: This may seem like an odd choice, but I really like Peters. You will likely recognize him as Quicksilver in the last couple of X-Men movies, but the kid has a solid resume. His sense of humor and comic timing are solid and that’s something that is vital to playing the Joker. Not only does his humor match, but you can just tell Peters has a maniac just waiting under the surface waiting to get out and cause some chaos.

Travis: I didn’t originally like John’s first pick, but the more I think about it, the more I believe a script currently being written with DiCaprio in mind would translate well to Peters. I’m not saying Peters is a younger DiCaprio or anything like that, only when I imagine DiCaprio’s interpretation of the Joker, it’s not all that different from how I imagine Peters approaching it. I’ll give John this one.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson

John: Yes, I may have picked both of the recent on-screen Quicksilvers, but I don’t care. Aaron Taylor-Johnson has made some bad movies, but who hasn’t? Taylor-Johnson was nothing short of phenomenal in “Nocturnal Animals,” and there is just something about him that feels just a touch off-center and unnerving that would make him a fantastic choice for Joker.

Travis: You go too far, Mr. Clyde. I don’t know if it’s the “Kick-Ass” connection or if you just want to see a Quicksilver from Marvel play one of DC’s most famous villains, but I reject at least one of your Quicksilvers. Of the two of them, I like Peters better, so Taylor-Johnson is fired by process of elimination.

Charlie Heaton

John: So Charlie Heaton is not a household name and he has the least amount of experience of anyone on the list, but what does that matter? Heaton played Jonathan Byers on “Stranger Things,” and the odd loner he portrayed had a vulnerability and accessibility that drew you in and sympathize with him even though he still made you uncomfortable. Based on that alone I believe Phillips and a solid script could get a fantastic performance as the Joker out of Heaton.

Travis: I don’t have a lot to go on concerning Heaton. I really liked him in “Stranger Things” and he has a look that could work for a younger, up-and-coming villain, but I don’t feel like his take on Jonathan Byers was enough for me to comment on regarding such a demanding role. I imagine John has had the chance to see more of Heaton’s resume than I have, so I’ll just go with it. If Clyde says he’s a ringer, I’ll put my faith in his faith.

Bill Skarsgård

John: So I am going on faith here, but Skarsgard comes from an acting family and he landed the coveted role of Pennywise the clown, and if there is any truth to the reviews he’s gaining now, there is no reason he couldn’t be the clowned prince of crime. This is a blind pick for me, but I’m confident in it none the less.

Travis: John and I both kind of cheated with our picks by making the obvious connection between Pennywise and Gotham’s agent of chaos. To be honest, were Tim Curry 30 years younger, he’d be on my list as well. That said, I’ll be playing the same card I did with Heaton. I’m not familiar enough with Skarsgard to really comment one way or another, and John and I won’t be seeing “It” until Wednesday night, at which point I’ll know better if I agree with the Skarsgard-for-Joker campaign.

Ben Foster

John: So Ben Foster is an incredibly talented actor that doesn’t really get the credit he deserves. If you don’t recognize his name, just know he’s that crazy guy you saw in that one movie. That’s what Foster does. The man plays crazy better than just about anyone, ever. Some examples include, “Hell or High Water,” “Hostage,” “3:10 to Yuma” and “Alpha Dog” to name a few. I honestly believe Foster is one of the most talented actors working today and I believe he could stand there with the likes of Nicholson and Ledger when it comes to The Joker.

Travis: Unlike lists past, I have to say I don’t hate any of John’s picks. Yes, we have to drop at least one Quicksilver, but at the end of the day, I see why Mr. Clyde would consider Taylor-Johnson and I even get why he’d go with someone like Foster. He’s probably the least obvious pick physically, and would probably get the Ben Affleck-Batman fan reaction were he to be announced, but on a whole, I’m going to give John a tip-of-the-hat on a list well considered.

Travis Poppleton’s list

Ansel Elgort

Photo by David X Prutting
CFDA Fashion Awards, Arrivals, New York, America – 06 Jun 2016

Travis: I am not the biggest Ansel Elgort fan. In fact, even though I really liked “The Fault in Our Stars” and “Baby Driver,” I think Elgort has a tendency to pose when he should be acting.

So, in some ways, I think the Joker can help Elgort out more than Elgort is the perfect fit to play the Joker. There’s a role in Elgort’s future that’s going to push him passed pretty-face status and this could be exactly the project to make that happen. If it is, then the Joker origin movie would be one of those examples where both the movie and the lead actor are better off for each other.

John: So, I really liked “Baby Driver.” Like, really liked. More than a friend even, but it wasn’t because of Elgort. He didn’t make the movie worse, but I also don’t think he did anything special. I don’t dislike the guy, probably a cool dude and he’s making a fine career for himself, but I’m not sold on this pick. Sorry, not sorry.

Nicholas Hoult

Travis: I agree with most movie fans who say Hoult’s take on Nux in “Mad Max: Fury Road” was a bit much. But, in all fairness, was there anything about “Fury Road” that wasn’t a bit much? Could his performance there be just as much George Miller as it was Hoult?

If Hoult can find that balance between vaudevillian crazy and the soft-spoken nerd he’s usually playing, I think there’s a Joker in there somewhere.

John: Apparently Travis and I both like picking superheroes from the X-Men universe. Personally, I’m a fan of this pick. I really like Hoult and I think he’s an incredibly versatile actor who would bring a unique perspective to such an iconic character.

Alfie Allen

Travis: I know, if I’m doing a “Game of Thrones” cast member it’s supposed to be Iwan Rheon. It’s been said before and it will be said again.

However, Rheon’s take on Ramsay Bolton already felt like a 14-episode audition for the Joker, and I don’t need to see any more of it. Alfie Allen, on the other hand, didn’t play his crazy card and was still able to pull off the most extreme character arc of the GoT series. He’s got the physical features and the potential range for the DC character.

John: I know this will ruin some of my street cred, but here it goes. I’ve never seen one episode of “Game of Thrones.” With that said I can’t say too much about Allen. I did see “John Wick,” which I really liked, but Allen was not the standout to me. I think he has the look and reminds me of my Charlie Heaton pick. I can get on board with this one.

Will Poulter

Travis: Had Will Poulter not been attached to “It,” he probably would’ve flown under my radar. But the leap from one crazy clown to another seems pretty obvious, and now that he’s choosing projects like “Detroit,” he’s beginning to become a more credible candidate – much more so than when “Narnia” and “We’re the Millers” were the best things on his resume.

John: Whenever Travis and I do these lists together one of usually texts immediately to call dibs on one specific actor and the other person is left cursing his phone for not texting first. That pick this time was Will Poulter. I have been a huge Poulter fan ever since I saw him in “Son of Rambow” as a 14-year-old kid and I’ve been watching him ever since. Poulter was originally cast as Pennywise in “It” before Skarsgard, but had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts. This would be a solid makeup. This may be my favorite pick on the list.

Ferdia Walsh-peelo

Travis: Yes, yes I did just choose Walsh-peelo because I like “Sing Street.” And, maybe because he wore makeup and played an outcast. But mostly because I like “Sing Street.”

John: I also like “Sing Street,” but I’m not sure that means he should be Joker, but then I also thought Ledger was a terrible choice to begin with, so I’ve obviously been wrong before.

The post 10 people who could play the Joker if Leonardo DiCaprio says no appeared first on Utah.Film.