Brad Bird's The Iron Giant (1999)

Essay unavailable at this time.

Ang Lee's The Wedding Banquet (1993)

Essay unavailable at this time.

Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Essay not available at this time.

Dave Fleischer's Mr. Bug Goes to Town (1941)

Essay not available at this time.

Josef von Sternberg's The Blue Angel (1930)

The Blue Angel, directed by Josef von Sternberg in 1930, is an adaptation of Heinrich Mann’s novel Professor Unrat. It stars the iconic Marlene Dietrich as Lola Lola, a cabaret singer, and Emil Jannings, as Immanuel Rath, a teacher at a boy’s Gymnasium.

This film is known for marking the start of the historical Dietrich-Sternberg collaboration, and also being one of the first German films to employ sound. But, this film provides more than just these two milestones.

Lola and Rath are two drastically different characters. Rath embodies austerity while Lola epitomizes liberation. The narration follows the authoritative Rath down his path of self-destruction. The film begins with Rath catching his students looking at risqué photos of Lola Lola, the headliner at the local cabaret The Blue Angel. Rath then goes to the club, in attempt to stop them in the act. Much to his demise, there he meets Lola, the infatuation begins, and his integrity crumbles.

Many look at this film as an allegory for the state of Germany before the first World War – Rath symbolizing Germany’s peremptory disposition and Lola representing the countering force. Rath’s downfall, then, would represent Germany’s ruin. Whether or not this was Sternberg’s intention, The Blue Angel captures the sentiment of the time and the downtroddeness that defeat yields.

Cinematically the dark shadows render a sinister effect, and the characters always seem at the edge of danger. Lola personifies this mood. She embodies a dark exoticism not seen in prior films, an unbridled sexuality not present prior in the cinematic world. Her sexuality, however, is not what makes Lola a compelling character; it is her inaccessibility. She possesses both masculine and feminine traits, passivity and muscle, and her fluctuation between these traits give her power and depth. This energy inspired the femme fatales of the later film noir movement.

Looming danger, sexuality, cultural revival, and the emancipation of women were prevalent in the Weimar Republic, and this film provides a window into the condition of the German state.

This film’s significance, however, does not solely lie in its historical context. It is also an examination of the human psyche. Stemberg uses the relationship between Rath and Lola, and their fluctuating dependence on themselves and society, to question man’s self-reliance. Ultimately he questions whether or not satisfaction can be derived from others, and from the self.

Although this film possesses many cinematographic conventions of the time it still holds poignancy. Stemberg’s use of imagery, jest, and character interplay provide a palpable gateway to the past and a connection to the current cinema

Ella Coon
Film Club Co-President

Jim Sharman's The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Essay unavailable at this time.

Sylvain Chomet's The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

Your Humble Commentator wants to talk about something fairly peripheral to tonight’s film, but the gist will be that you want to watch one of Sylvain Chomet’s films in a particular way, and it may be slightly different from how you expect to be watching The Triplets of Belleville. Let’s begin with a little story.

This summer I took daughter #3 to see Disney’s Tangled at the Riverview Theater. A impressive show, Tangled provides the usual well-drawn storybook characters – repressed but plucky heroine, roguish but vulnerable hero, cute animal sidekick (a chameleon), exasperated animal sidekick (Flynn’s horse), and a witchy villain. And the plot moves along with deftly handled comic and tragic turns. The laughs come easily and so do tears. Watching Tangled, one is reminded why Disney has been the best at providing animated features since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937; honorary Oscar for innovation in 1939). I walked out of the theater thinking, “it’s hard to make an animated feature more polished than that.”

And I drove home, dropped off daughter #3 and picked up daughter #1, and drove back to the Riverview to see Sylvain Chomet’s most recent animated feature, The Illusionist (2010). In it, a down-on-his-luck vaudeville prestidigitator travels around Europe performing in run-down theaters to nearly non-existent crowds. In one inn, he meets and befriends a waifish girl, who decides to travel with him to the big city where he is trying to survive on what engagements he can scare up. They live together, she explores the big city, dreams about a better life, finds it, and that’s about it. It may not seem like much, but it is an undeniably beautiful film. I found myself as impressed by what it didn’t do as by what it did. And I found myself comparing the two films, struck by how different they were, and how much that revealed about what our culture has come to expect of the animated feature film.

For one, where Tangled was polished, The Illusionist was rough. One feels free to follow where it leads, to peer into its nooks and crannies, to ponder its suggestions. Nathan Greno and Byron Howard’s film (the Disney film) leads you to clear, familiar places. It’s hard to watch Tangled and not see reflections of earlier Disney movies, subtly shifted to give the impression of newness. Likewise, the Disney film controls your emotions, giving you big laugh gags followed by tear-jerking melodrama (the hero dies! after sacrificing first his selfishness, then himself for the heroine! then – get another handkerchief – he comes back to life!). Chomet paints a more muted, bittersweet picture – you may chuckle but at moments that are slightly disturbing, and you may be disturbed at moments that are darkly funny. But what emerges from the Chomet experience is a sense that you’ve encountered a true portrait of what life is like. And that it has been presented to you with a simple charm, like a small gift hand-wrapped in yesterday’s giftwrap.

Yes, Disney’s Tangled is presenting a fairytale, not at all the same thing. We want romance, intrepid heroes overcoming adversity, and neat conclusions from those movies. And Disney gives that to us with panache and professionalism. That’s expected.

From Chomet, though, Your Humble Commentator wants you to relish the unexpected, the magic of depicting human life in all its quirkiness. The Triplets of Belleville has an awkward narrative, not easy to follow at first. But the story in not the priority. Watch the characters. Watch the magic. Watch the life.

R. Findlay
Film Club Adviser

Peter Weir's The Truman Show (1993)

The Truman Show is that rare triumph of family filmmaking that introduces its viewers to something bigger than children’s movies. It is made with perfect Hollywood ease, an easy-to-follow plot, and somewhat exaggerated acting. Still, that it pushes its viewer to think is undeniable.

I remember watching the film in elementary school and having a discussion about it afterward. Up until then, my movie-watching had consisted mostly of cartoons and musicals, repeated about ten times each thanks to the wonder of VHS. It was then that I discovered a movie that genuinely gripped and confused me, with a shocking twist two-thirds of the way through. Even more shocking than the twist of plotline was the presence of anything unpredictable at all in a storyline.

The initial appeal has faded, but I’ve watched Peter Weir’s The Truman Show several times since and I keep finding new questions. What does Truman tell us about human consciousness? How does the rubber idiot of Dumb and Dumber transform into a transfixing, thoughtful actor? (This is a question that comes up again in Jim Carrey’s best movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.) Is the movie responsible for those people who schizophrenically believed that they were in a television show – dubbed “Truman Syndrome” by the Institute of Psychiatry in London?

Still, the biggest question is: How did Weir know? Just a decade into the future, Americans are fascinated by televised private lives, from Octomom to Jersey Shore. Not since Network has a movie so accurately predicted the future of popular culture.

Noah Shavit-Lonstein
Film Club

The Evolution of Jim Carrey, Actor

It’s worth considering Noah’s question regarding Jim Carrey’s transformation from elastic clown to amiable naif in his career. He approaches his early movies, driven by a kind of manic hyperactivity, as if his goal were to become a Tex Avery cartoon character (which he pretty much does in Chuck Russell’s The Mask). But in The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which Film Club will screen in February), he’s more human, more a part of the film, more consistently someone to whom life-changing events happen, and, in the end, more watchable.

It’s also worth noting that Carrey is not the first late-night sketch comedian to make this transition. Watch Bill Murray mug and smirk his way through early films like Stripes, Ghostbusters, Meatballs, and Caddyshack, then note the mellower, wryer, more bittersweet characters that he plays in Rushmore or Lost in Translation. Will Ferrell, too, relied on his ironic clueless, self-absorbed jerk act through movies like Anchorman and Talladega Nights, but turned to a more serious, three-dimensional role in Stranger Than Fiction. Heck, even Adam Sandler, after a number of screechy steroidal arrested-adolescence films like Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison (and Little Nicky, which we’d rather scrub our eyeballs with cleanser on a wire toothbrush than have to watch again), tried to move from the look-at-me medium of feature length sketch comedy to true movie acting in Spanglish. Not successfully, mind you, but he tried.

What we learn, perhaps, is that while "Saturday Night Live" and "MADtv" and "In Living Color," post-prime time sketch comedy series, may boost an actor to popularity (especially if the opportunistic comedian comes up with a memorable catch-phrase), it’s still a long way to serious acting. In fact, said comedian may be hampered by the kind of characters one develops in those kind of shows – they tend to be one-dimensional, built on a idiosyncratic characteristic, and a bit improvisational. As you watch Truman, take note of Carrey’s ability to blend himself into the texture of the film and to use his usually plastic face more subtly, showing Truman’s struggle with confusion, alienation, and adversity. Compared to Fire Marshall Bill, he’s almost a different species.

R. Findlay
Film Club Adviser

Tony Bancroft and Barry Cook’s Mulan (1998)

Have you ever had a craving to watch a movie filled with adventure? A comedy? A musical? Mulan is all of these wrapped up in one glorious package! This adventure about a girl who runs away from home to replace her father in the military is one that I have enjoyed my whole life.

As a child, I begged for movie nights not because of the tacos or popcorn or a break in oh-so-stressful playdates, but because of Mulan. I would be truthful in saying that I watched this movie at least three times a week from age four to age seven, with some spurts and starts. After that age, I think I slowed down to a mere once a week, and am still continuing. That is about 1,040 views total. Yes, I am a little obsessed, but with good reason! It is an amazing film.

The characters are spectacular – a headstrong girl defying the male dominant military to save her father; a strong soldier (and attractive at that); an overenthusiastic lizard that thinks he is a dragon; a group of stereotypical male soldiers – and the family (including an eccentric grandmother) all bring an aspect that everyone can at least find one part to relate to. The characters are so filled with emotion and life that they can make everyone laugh and cry and everything in between. My favorite scenes are not only the funny ones, but the moments where the feeling of unhappiness and loss makes me want to reach out to the characters on the screen.

With all the emotion, this film could never be boring. Even though the movie is set in ancient China, it can still be related to present events. Families face losing members to war and death, like Mulan and her father. Families also have certain expectations children may or may not agree with. However old this movie gets, some part of it remains relevant to our modern life, and thus it never gets old. Women are forever fighting for equality. Mulan herself offers a strong role model for girls and represents the situations they face, like trying to fit in with the norm. Mulan is a princess story where the princess rescues the prince (not to mention all of China).

So, this movie is for everyone, and that does not mean just ‘family friendly,’ as in for ten years and under, but the whole scope. As a kid, I viewed Mulan as a hero. As a teenager I still do. And I can never sit through it without singing along. Adults can enjoy the catchy songs and emotion filled plot just as much as everyone else. My favorite character is Mushu, voiced by Eddie Murphy, who has most of the great lines and keeps the movie funny, a good balance between the harsh emotions of war and the tone of leaving family for the unknown. Mulan’s transformation from docile femininity to tough warrior is one that I have used as an example throughout my life, from dressing up in her clothes to singing her songs to the idea of being strong in the face of every situation. So enjoy Mulan, a powerful movie with strong ideas, beautiful imagery, enthusiastic songs, and incredible characters, definitely one of Disney’s strongest creations.

Charlotte Hughes
Film Club

Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960)

To fully analyze Psycho is equivalent to categorizing every species in the Amazon; it ain’t going to happen. Psycho is one of the most analyzed, critiqued, and studied movies of all time. It is acclaimed as the best horror film ever. But why is this so? You would think that as time progresses, with the advent of CGI, directors would be more able to scare us, right? Psycho goes toe to toe with all these movies and is just as scary. Movies like The Uninvited, or The Host seem to employ large amounts of special affects, but are they any more effective than Psycho is at scaring our pants off? I would argue no.

Psycho is a master example of a film operating at two distinct levels. First, it has the ability to evoke visceral reactions in the audience, the surface level of the scene. We understand the characters are in danger, and we feel scared. We see the bad guy in the mirror’s reflection, and we are surprised—all films seem to master this feat easily. What doesn’t come as easily to most directors is the ability to operate at the second level. Hitchcock controls the aesthetics of the movie, altering the viewer’s perception of the scene and overwhelming their senses. Psycho is rich in such cinematographic genius, something that raises Psycho above movies like The Ring or Friday the 13^th.

In Phoenix, Arizona, Janet Leigh plays Marion Crane, a secretary having an affair with a stud muffin named Sam Loomis (great name, Loomis). Crane wants more from her adulterous partner, but they never come to a conclusion about their future. Crane works in a real estate agency and on a whim steals 40 G’s that were meant to purchase a home. As she is driving to her home she sees her boss and she becomes panicked. Her paranoia sends her fleeing to California. Along the way she is pulled over by a police officer and being further rattled, she decides to switch cars at a used car lot and stay at the Bates Motel. Norman Bates, played by Anthony Perkins in one of the best performances in film, greets her warmly at the motel. And the rest is film criticism history.

In an era of The Blob and Invaders from Mars, Psycho shocked and disturbed audiences. I will admit that I love this movie and I am biased, but I can also admit it has lost some of its shock value. Psycho’s violent scenes have lost some of their power. The infamous shower scene and the scene in the basement of Bates’ home have lost some of their ability to scare as CGI and special affects sweep our theaters. But this is just the first level of the film. The surface has become dulled and lost its gleam, yet the smooth 1950’s body is still beneath over six decades of technological advancement. One of the most innovative twists in this movie is that (spoiler alert) the main character is killed midway through the movie. Hitchcock allows us to become comfortable with Crane, we want her to succeed, to make it to California, we become attached. This makes her death even more devastating to the audience. The nature of the scene is first person. As much as we identify with Crane, we identify with the danger she is in, in the shower scene. We feel the danger, and thus Hitchcock is successful.

Psycho sets the groundwork for generations of horror films. Psycho creates two things, the lead female in distress and the psychological thrasher. First, Crane defies the norm. She breaks the patriarchal status quo: stealing from her work, sleeping with a married man, evading the police, and being flirtatious with a lonely man. This movie created the sexy starlet in danger. Also Hitchcock creates the most successful psychological killer in a movie to date. Think Mike Meyers in Halloween, or Jason in Friday the 13^th, these killers are Norman Bates’ direct descendants. Hitchcock shows that Bates is a troubled killer, but he also shows the human condition in Bates. The killings are sexually based and thus they are random. He does not kill by choice, rather he is “forced” to kill based on his sexual desires. Hitchcock plays on our innate fears of those around us. Psycho, and Bates can only be looked at through a psychological lens, another feat the Hitchcock mastered, when others had just attempted it.

Psycho defies normalcy. The quiet 1950’s home and family is nowhere to be found. The main character is killed halfway through the movie, it is in black and white, and even the quick-witted detective is killed off early. Hitchcock defies normalcy, and thus creates this film with the abnormal power to still scare our pants off decades later.

Conor Dowdle
Film Club President

Federico Fellini’s 8 ½ (1963)

In Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2 fantasy and emotional stratum coalesce in a visceral story centered on the egotism that motivated Fellini. This iconic film accounts Guido Anselmi’s (Marcello Mastroianni) attempt to make another hit film. Ultimately an autobiographical confession, based on Fellini’s own self-doubt and emotional state, 8 1/2 delves into the realms of narrative obfuscation and internalized moral skirmish through the self-righteous protagonist, Guido.

Federico Fellini’s last film shot in black and white, 8 1/2 exhibits radical changes from his previous neorealist films. This film centers on the theme of egotism and introspection, which is arguably what Fellini’s earlier films focus on also, but 8 1/2 tackles the subject differently. Instead of the focusing on a brooding search for acceptance of oneself and the absurdities of life Fellini tackles the subject of failure and the artistic process.

He diverges from his connection with Guido towards the end of the film. Plagued by procrastination and the malady of idleness, Guido retreats into himself, he becomes his primary focus. This self-involvement however is not constructive. Guido fails to complete the film he is working on, unlike Fellini. Fellini narrates the difficulty of the artistic process through Guido, describing the sensations that accompany.

Copious with surrealist and absurdist imagery Fellini draws the audience into a world similar and dissimilar to reality. Connected to the emotional response invoked by these scenes the audience fixates on ambiance of the film and less on empiricism. It enraptures the audience bringing them closer to the actualities of life that most commonplace cinema possesses.

It is the application of surrealism that makes this film so celebrated. Interweaving fantasy, memory, realism, and absurdism it is considered to be Fellini’s most influential film. By describing the difficulties of film making he created a masterpiece. This intimate exposure is what makes the film special. Not circumventing self-criticism or immorality Fellini admits to fault in a spritely way.

Lauded, this film has received two Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Costume Design was nominated for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Art Direction. It has received praise from the New York Film Critics Circle, and received all seven prizes at the Italian Natioal Syndicate of Film Journalists.

Ella Coon
Film Club

Costa-Gravras’s Z (1969)

What is “Z”?

“Z” is a massive cross-breed. It’s in French, takes place in Algeria, and its director is Greek. More importantly, it combines two rarely crossed genres: politics and thrillers. Political films are often deeply grounded in the reality of a situation, looking at things in the simplest format. Thrillers often move far beyond logical motivation, showing only what will send the most adrenaline into our bloodstream. “Z” not only combines these genres, it makes them brilliant.

“Z” was shockingly relevant at the time of its release. It was not the average politically connected film that immortalized political situations fifty or five hundred years ago. “Z” looked at the death of the politician Grigoris Lambrakis under circumstances still being debated at the time. Its worldwide recognition, complete with a Cannes Palme D’Or, spread the word about Lambrakis.

“Z” is entertaining. Jean Louis Trintignant won awards for his performance as The Examinating Magistrate. Mikis Theodorakis’ score made him a household name (Mr. McVeety brought his vinyl copy of the soundtrack to school, referring to it as “a relic”), along with “Zorba the Greek.” It was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture, extremely rare for both foreign and experimental films.

“Z” is a landmark. Ty Burr, Boston-based film writer, notes its “slick cinematic urgency” and its “ease with genre filmmaking.” Most films that deal so poignantly with political themes do so with dull period piece work and Hollywood gloss. “Z” stands apart from all these films.

The title comes from a Greek word meaning “He is alive,” a protest phrase relating to Lambrakis’ death. Despite the fact that this film, too, is out of political relevance, as a work, it is still very much alive.

Noah Shavit-Lonstein
Film Club

Stéphane Aubier and Vincent Patar’s A Town Called Panic (2009)

As you walked in to the film tonight, you got a little plastic army man, common plaything of 1960s and ‘70s children, or as we here at Film Club Central are calling it: Your Stop-Action Animation Starter Kit^©. Because, really, this is all it takes. You find some small objects or clay, grab your camera and take a picture, move the object a little bit, take another picture, and repeat until you’re famous. Like Ray Harryhausen or Nick Park. You can do this with your Barbies (as Todd Haynes did with his famous bio-pic of Karen Carpenter, “Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story”) or GI Joes (if you go to www.gijoefest.com, you’ll find a whole film festival devoted to stop-action films starring the macho dolls) or simply random objects (post-its, rubber bands, Pixie Sticks, dice, a dollar bill, candy corn, Rubik’s Cubes as in “Western Spaghetti by PES” on YouTube).

Now the trick is obviously to get enough stuff moving that you can approximate life, humor, character, story, and all the other stuff that makes a good film. Stépahne Aubier and Vincent Patar have done that with Panic au Village or, as it is called in English, A Town Called Panic. Using a wide variety of small plastic toys, they’ve created an entire rural community where one’s shape, be it pig or horse or indian or cowboy or Atlantean, is not an impediment to one’s role in life or ability to behave in hilariously human ways. In fact, one might argue that it is not in spite of the actors being small plastic toys but because of their being small plastic toys that we’re able to explore more fully the comedy of human nature.

When the film opens, Cowboy and Indian are coming to realization that they’re unprepared for their roommate Horse’s birthday. What ensues, which involves an over-abundance of bricks, a robot penguin, a crushed house, piano lessons, stolen walls, tractors, kleptomaniac sea people, mad scientists with a snow-ball catapult, and more that we aren’t going to list here, is less panic than manic. The insanity of the plot stands in stark contrast to the warmer domestic comedies of Nick Park’s claymation Wallace and Gromit films or the alien jerkiness of Ray Harryhausen monsters in 1950s and ‘60s sci-fi films like Jason and the Argonauts. Aubier and Patar’s world has the same innocence, charm, and crazy non-sequitor rambling that one would expect if children really were just playing with these toys.

And that’s what there is to love about stop-action work. It has a D.I.Y. quality that means it never moves very far from your imagination. Yes, there’s a tremendous amount of craft, cleverness, and pain-staking work in Aubier and Patar’s film. But it looks like they simply made it in their bedroom one weekend.

Now, not everyone who watches a movie secretly wants to be a film-maker, but as movies become increasingly technical and expensive (Avatar, anyone?), they feel in some ways more alien, more distanced from our own imaginations. Certainly James Cameron or George Lucas would argue that computers are allowing us to expand our imaginations in ways we never could before, to create fantasies that look like reality. But you don’t sit in the theater saying, “I could do that.”

So right now pick up your army man. Walk him across your leg. Maybe you make him say “Hi there. Does this gun go with my outfit?” And maybe, if your friend is taking pictures, you could make it into a short film. And just like that, you’re a star.

R. Findlay
Film Club Adviser

Phil Tucker's Robot Monster in 3-D (1953) and National Geographic's Sea Monsters 3D (2007)

The Rubicon and SPA Film Club present
"3-D: Then and Now"

Then… Robot Monster

In 1953, the first major motion picture in 3-D (Man in the Dark) hit theaters. Patrons donned their anaglyph glasses, sat in stadium seats and watched as American cinema changed forever.

In that same year, 25-year old Phil Tucker directed and released Robot Monster, a science fiction movie shot and projected in dual-strip, polarized 3-D. The stereoscopic photography in the film is high quality for the time, impressive from a crew that had no experience with the previously unused camera rig. In spite of this accomplishment, Robot Monster is considered one of the worst films ever made.

So why would we choose it? Because it is SO bad, it’s good. Who can resist a character like the evil “Ro-man” who comes to earth in his bad gorilla suit and diving helmet to exterminate all the “hu-mans” remaining after the rocket explosions, lightning storms and giant lizard attacks? Or odd courting rituals like tying a woman up to show her deep, undying affection? And who can forget moments like Ro-Man’s impassioned line (think Hamlet’s “To Be or Not to Be” speech): “I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do ‘must’ and ‘cannot’ meet? Yet I must - but I cannot!” Try getting that one past an SPA English teacher in an essay. No, actually… please don’t.

This film is wonderfully terrible and an important 66 minutes of 3-dimensional history.

Now… Sea Monsters 3-D: A Prehistoric Adventure

The way monsters are depicted in National Geographic’s Sea Monsters is a stark contrast to the 3-D of the 1950s. While Robot Monster focuses on adding depth behind the screen, the Sea Monsters swim toward the viewer. In truth, both effects are created by playing with depth perception but that is not the point: truly, you will be carried away by the mysterious creatures in this animated documentary.

Sea Monsters shows what marine life looked like in prehistoric times, and you will see no gorilla suits, here: everything from the Dolichorhynchops family we follow through the film to the amazing Styxosaurus, a fish larger than an adult male, is connected to archeological discovery.

Not only is Sea Monsters 3-D, but it was shot in IMAX for the biggest of the big screens. National Geographic cut no corners making this film; they brought in big names like Tony Award-winning actor Liev Schreiber to narrate; Richard Evans, David Rhodes and Peter Gabriel collaborated on the score. Think of Cameron Crowe’s 1989 film Say Anything, John Cusak and boom box and you’ll recall how iconic Gabriel’s music can be in a film.

And speaking of the 1980s, when I was in elementary and middle school 3-D films made a comeback, especially with sequel thrillers. Jaws 3-D (1983) and Friday, the 13^th 3-D (1982) hit the screens and had me covering my eyes but peeking through my fingers. So when The Rubicon staff said, “Let’s do a 3-D issue,” I couldn’t help but think terrifying … and fun!

Today 3-D is more popular than it has ever been. With the invention of Real 3-D and 3-D televisions, the big screen magic 1953 film patrons experienced can be replicated in the comfort of your own family room… or in Bigelow Commons. Enjoy the shows!

Kathryn Campbell
The Rubicon Adviser

Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin (1925)

We entitle this accompaniment to our screenings “Why We Picked This Film,” but we really want to call this one “Why You Should Watch More Silent Films.” The reasons we hear not to watch silent films are legion and often non sequitor – they’re old (?), they’re boring, they didn’t know how to make “real” movies back then, they might be hard to understand because they don’t have words, etc.

But really there’s only one thing keeping people from seeing some really great films from the silent era – they’re different – and that’s not really a good reason to skip what might be a very fun experience. So here are three reasons why you should jump at the chance to see silent films, not that those chances materialize very often.

1. Silent films have retro cool potential. In an era when most of us are wearing ‘70s t-shirts, listening to early rock-and-roll music, and letting “Mad Men” return us to the style and sexism of the 1960s, there’s caché in exploring the style and stand-out examples of film-making dominant at the beginning of the form. Now, it’s not like folks are dipping into the silent era and stealing techniques, looks, or content for modern “retro” silent films. But “coolness” is a state of mind. If we are excitedly reliving the patriarchal oiliness and style-over-substance vibe of the ‘60s, why shouldn’t we celebrate the kooky human-as-clown comedies of Max Sennett or revel in our knowledge of the first filmed versions of vampire flicks (Nosferatu, 1922) or westerns (The Great Train Robbery, 1903) or animated cartoons (Humorous Phases of Funny Faces, 1906). If we don’t think of silent film as a archaic technology but more as a style of film-making, then, seeing Battleship Potemkin becomes a social interaction, the establishment of a certain kind of cultural cred, and you’re only “in” if you’ve seen a few.

2. Silent films are wacky. We won’t go into the history of the form, but very little in a silent film looks like movies today. There’s a certain goofiness – part technology, part style of the time, part viewer’s unfamiliarity – that comes off the screen. So in that sense, watching a silent film, from the comedies of Buster Keaton to the historic epics of D.W.Griffith, is not like going to the a movie but like going to a completely different visual experience, and because it is an unfamiliar one, it’s weird. But weird is often fun. Think about the strangest food you’ve ever eaten, or when you and your fiends jumped into a hole in the ice at Widji, or maybe the first time you heard a Tom Waits song, and you thought, “okay, that was weird ... but fun.” Weird + fun = wacky, really, and many of the things we do for the first time, if we’ve never thought about doing them before or they don’t conform to our conventional expectations, are wacky. That’s the silent film experience. So you get home from Battleship Potemkin, and your parents ask “what have you been doing?” You say, “I’ve been watching this wacky movie where people don’t speak out loud, so they do a lot acting with their faces and gesturing with their arms. It was pretty cool.”

3. Silent films are fun because they’re different; it’s all the other stuff that becomes boring. We suspect that this summer you are likely to watch only movies that are made only in 2011, and not only that but maybe only movies made in 2011 about male superheroes (Green Lantern, Thor, Captain America, X-Men: First Class). There’s a certain sameness to the American film-going experience. Then every once in a while a movie comes along that’s a lot different from what we’re used to seeing, something like Blair Witch Project, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, or anything written by Charlie Kaufman, and we celebrate its difference, its breath-of-fresh-air-ness. The fact that silent films are different, that they give us a moment to cleanse our palette and to rethink what it is that we get from the other films we go to, that they’re wacky, is their value to us. While people do like familiarity (the only reason MacDonald’s exists), failure to experience “the different” traps us in a culture of mediocrity. Difference is experience; difference is life. And life is better if you’re becoming more experienced, trying new things: ice hole baths, grasshopper tacos, muy Thai martial arts films, Tom Waits’ cover of “Heigh Ho,” Snakefinger, black lighting, hot dog eating contests, Tiny Tim and his ukelele ... well, you get the picture.

In some ways, Battleship Potemkin is neither that cool, nor that wacky, nor that different. It tells a simple story of a group of sailors, fed up at mistreatment, protesting their condition, and the resulting revolt against authoritarian rule. We hope, though, that viewers set aside any fear of the no-longer-conventional techniques and style and enjoy one of the best films ever made.

R. Findlay
Film Club Adviser