BMFI's Director of Education, Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., recently had a review of Christopher Nolan's feature film debut, Following, published in Film International. Here he takes a look at another famous director's first film, David Mamet's House of Games.
David Mamet's House of Games (1987) By Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., Director of Education, BMFI
If David Mamet had never taken a turn in the director’s chair, he could still lay claim to a successful career as a screenwriter and be content that he was one of the most influential and acclaimed playwrights of the last quarter of the 20th century. After all, before he made his debut as a film director with House of Games in 1987, Mamet had already written the screenplays for The Verdict (Sidney Lumet, 1982) and The Untouchables (Brian De Palma, 1987), and would go on to write (or co-write) Hoffa (Danny DeVito, 1992), Wag the Dog (Barry Levinson, 1997), and Hannibal (Ridley Scott, 2001). Oh, I almost forgot to mention that in 1984 he won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama for his play Glengarry Glen Ross, and also wrote the screenplay for the 1992 film based on it. In addition, he’s been nominated for two Tony Awards and two Oscars.
But back to House of Games, which, if you haven’t seen it, is most definitely worth checking out. (The terrific Criterion Collection DVD is a great way to do so.) It tells the story of a psychiatrist (Lindsay Crouse, married to Mamet at the time) who encounters a gambler and con man (Joe Mantegna, a longtime Mamet collaborator) and is fascinated by his world. In pursuit of her interest—partly professional, partly personal—she ends up getting far more than she bargained for. Also along for the ride are some Mamet regulars whom you’ll recognize making some early film appearances, including William H. Macy, J.T. Walsh (check IMDB.com—I bet you’ve seen him in at least five movies), and magician, card sharp, and raconteur Ricky Jay (Boogie Nights).
The key ingredient, though, is Mamet, and specifically, his direction. Originally, this screenplay was going to be a big-budget film with a name director and major stars, but when the plans changed and Mamet was able to direct it—and cast his troupe—it became something more than just another above-average thriller. For the first time on screen, Mamet is able to shape the performances of the characters he’s created, hone the articulation of the dialogue he’s carefully crafted, and guide viewers through the story’s machinations with the precise amount of help they need, and not a drop more. As a fan, I greatly enjoy hearing Mamet’s dialogue in a film like The Untouchables, but I’m transfixed when I get a window into an entire world that Mamet has created in a film he’s written and directed, like House of Games.
And I’m not alone. In his review of the film Vincent Canby, of The New York Times, agrees that “Mr. Mamet, poker player and Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, makes a fine, completely self-assured debut directing his original screenplay.” Canby adds: “It’s clear that Mr. Mamet not only knows exactly how he wants his work to sound, but also how it should look . . . (the film) is the first true Mamet work to reach the screen, and the direction illuminates it at every turn.” Roger Ebert, in his review, wrote: “House of Games never steps wrong from beginning to end, and it is one of this year’s best films.” Please take their words for it, if not mine, and see House of Games. It is the first film directed by one of our country’s most gifted, incisive, and engaging storytellers.
Dr. Andrew J. Douglas received his Ph.D. from the Department of Radio/Television/Film at Northwestern University. He will be moderating Bryn Mawr Film Institute's Film History Discussion Series: 1945-Present, which begins on January 27.
Our annual Summer Classics series of repertory favorites from Hollywood and beyond begins next week, Tuesday, June 4, with the original King Kong. All summer long, we’ll be featuring vintage and recent classics on the big screen, with film series celebrating iconic filmmakers Alfred Hitchcock and David Lean, three new sing-alongs, the new 90th anniversary DCP restoration of Harold Lloyd’s silent comedy Safety Last!, and one night Summer Classic Seminars on Back to the Future and Brief Encounter. In addition, for the first time we’re featuring family films on Saturday mornings all summer long, including a month of the Marx Brothers!
We asked some of our staff to tell us what they're most looking forward to seeing at BMFI this summer. Do you agree? What are you excited to see?
I don't know about you, but I make it a habit to sing along with every musical I know, every time I watch them. And what's more fun than a campy musical about carnivorous alien plants? Answer: watching campy musicals about carnivorous alien plants on a big screen...and singing along with everyone in the theater. It sounds like it's gonna be a blast.
Sing along with Rick Moranis, who plays Seymour, the caretaker to the floral menace known as Audrey II in Little Shop of Horrors.
Safety Last! – Tuesday, June 25, 7:00 pm Chosen by Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., Director of Education
I’m very much looking forward to Safety Last! (1923) because though it’s Harold Lloyd’s most famous film, it really hasn’t been seen by a large segment of the contemporary audience, and this style of daring, physical comedy—similarly performed by Lloyd’s (even) more famous peers, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle—is a lost art that needs to be preserved, and enjoyed, through theatrical screenings like this one. Also, I think, not unlike “Rosebud,” far more people know the image of a man dangling from a clock, (apparently) high above a city street, than have actually seen the film from which it originates, and I like that people who come to see the film will be reminded of that connection—or make it for the first time.
Harold Lloyd hangs precariously from the clock of a New York skyscraper in Safety Last!
Back to the Future - Tuesday, July 2 Film at 7:00 pm Summer Classics Seminar at 6:30 pm Chosen by Valerie Temple, Programming Manager
I'm teaching a Summer Classics Seminar on Back to the Future, but that's only part of the reason I'm looking forward to seeing the time travelling adventure on the big screen. Even though I've seen this particular film approximately 192 times (at least), I've never had the pleasure of seeing it on the big screen. Finally, I'll get to see that souped up DeLorean zooming across a screen larger than my TV! I am worried that I'll disturb the other patrons as I know the dialogue by heart and can't help but quote along with the movie. So, if you come to the screening and I'm making too much of a ruckus, don't hesitate to tell me to "make like a tree and get out of there!"
Great Scott! Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox are perfectly cast in Back to the Future.
Brief Encounter - Tuesday, August 13 Film at 7:00 pm Summer Classics Seminar at 6:30 pm Chosen by Pat Wesley, Director of Development and Communications
I am not sure which pairing is less likely: two thirty-something, properly married (to others) war-time Brits or David Lean and Noël Coward. I do know the result is a wistful, tender Brief Encounter and I can’t wait to get lost again in the foggy heartbreak of it all.
Celia Johnson, boarding a train, shares a poignant look with Trevor Howard in Brief Encounter.
Heavyweights – Saturday, August 17, 11:00 am Chosen by Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., Director of Education
I’ve never seen Heavyweights, but I’m very much looking forward to completing the trilogy of Ben Stiller-as-extremely-fit-but-dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers-guy films that also includes Zoolander (2001) and Dodgeball (2004). Given the Disney branding and family-friendly elements of this film, I’m not expecting for the hilarity to be quite as ribald as it was in those films, but on the other hand, with co-writer/executive producer Judd Apatow (The 40-Year-Old Virgin) behind the scenes, and comic talents like Paul Feig (director of Bridesmaids), Kenan Thompson (Saturday Night Live), Jeffrey Tambor (Arrested Development), and comedy duo Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara on screen, I don’t think I’ll be disappointed.
Ben Stiller stars in Heavyweights as the insane (and insanely strict) fitness coach at Camp Hope.
For my part, although many of these films are personal favorites, I am particularly excited to bring a recent delight back to BMFI: Magic Camp, which we'll be showing on Monday, July 15 at 1:15 pm. If you missed our Pennsylvania Premiere of the film in December, this is your chance to see this charming documentary about Tannen's Magic Camp on the big screen again, with the added bonus of a Q&A with director Judd Ehrlich and performances by professional magicians who are instructors at the camp. Plus, it was filmed a few blocks away at Bryn Mawr College, where the camp meets!
Meet Magic Camp filmmaker Judd Ehrlich and campers and instructors from Tannen's Magic Camp at BMFI's encore of this fun documentary.
You can explore all of our films and upcoming events, watch trailers, and buy tickets at BrynMawrFilm.org, or look at the latest issue of Projections, our program guide.
Devin Wachs is the Public Relations Manager for Bryn Mawr Film Institute. She joined BMFI in 2005, following her graduation from Bryn Mawr College. If you send BMFI a message on Facebook or Twitter or are interested in onscreen sponsorships, she's the one who'll be in touch!
Every year prior to the beginning of the Sundance Film Festival, staff and board members of art house theaters, film societies, and film festivals from across the country join together with distributors and film industry professionals in Utah to discuss the role of art house theaters in their communities and communicate concerns and solutions for the problems we face as independent exhibitors. Now in its sixth year, the Convergence is a wonderful way for far-flung organizations to come together and exchange resources and insight into how to improve our programming, fundraising, and outreach in order to better serve our diverse communities.
(Left to right) Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., Devin Wachs, Juliet Goodfriend, and Samuel R. Scott represented BMFI at the 2013 Art House Convergence conference in Utah.
This year, Bryn Mawr Film Institute was well represented, sending four delegates to the convergence. Juliet Goodfriend, our President, was accompanied by first-time attendees Samuel R. Scott, Chairman of the Board; Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., our Director of Education; and myself, Devin Wachs, Public Relations Manager. I am proud to say that the three of them were featured speakers and panelists, sharing the results of BMFI’s annual survey of art house theaters, and their knowledge of the non-profit art house theater model and creating educational initiatives.
We all took away different things from the conference, far more than we can put in a single post, but here are a few impressions that my colleagues and I would like to share with you.
Juliet Goodfriend, BMFI’s President:
What did I learn from my fifth Art House Convergence? That there is an endless amount to learn about running a mission-driven, community-based, independent art house. I keep typing “heart” house. Hey, that’s more than a typo. That’s what it takes to run an art house: heart. And management. And creativity. And stamina. Every year I delight in getting together with other executive directors and staffs, and, this year, board members, to talk about the challenges and successes that keep us going. This year’s goodies? Here’s one: Package a small film that cannot muster a full run with a major film that can. It would get more edgy, important, but not widely popular films shown. Now to get the distributors to agree!
Samuel R. Scott, BMFI’s Chairman of the Board:
As a first-time BMFI board person attending the conference (one of only a handful among all theaters represented), I came away with a sense of passion amongst all those attending, for good films, for operating the best theaters and organizations they possibly can, but most of all for playing an active role in the communities they serve. Needless to say, I came away with many fresh ideas. Likewise, it was extremely rewarding to confirm the ‘high place’ in which our peers regard both Juliet and BMFI.
Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., BMFI Director of Education:
One big take-away that I have from AHC was discussed in two sessions. Neither used this term, but I would refer to it as “organizational self-awareness”. The two presenters—on the topics of strategic planning and fundraising—made it clear that to be consistently successful in the long run, an organization has to know what it is, and what it isn’t; what it can do (well), and what it can’t; and what it does that no other organization (in its area) can. It has to incorporate this awareness into its mission, articulate it at every opportunity, let it inform every endeavor, and be one of the yardsticks by which it decides whether or not to undertake or pursue a new venture. It was largely this approach that drastically improved the fortunes of two prominent—and now thriving and sustainable—theaters, the State Theatre and the Paramount Theatre in Austin, TX. This is somewhat intuitive, though easier said than done, and I was surprised by the efficacy of disciplined adherence to it.
For my part, my first Art House Convergence was extremely informative, but the word that reverberates most in my mind is “community”. Steve Apkon from Jacob Burns Film Center in Pleasantville, NY gave a wonderful talk specifically about community, but the concept permeated the conference. It’s not just a buzzword; our commitment to serving our communities is what differentiates us from commercial cinema chains. We at BMFI are lucky to have such a strong, supportive membership base, but it’s not enough to say that we are a member-supported organization. We all must work to articulate our belief that we are here to serve the community through our programming, outreach, partnerships, and everything we do. On a similar note, the personality of the venue and its representatives is ultimately more important than the titles that are shown onscreen. As film scholar David Bordwell quoted in his keynote address, Marcus Loew once said, “We sell tickets to theatres, not to movies.” I want you to think of Bryn Mawr Film Institute as truly your community theater and your home away from home, and that is the environment that I work to create.
Devin Wachs is the Public
Relations Manager for Bryn Mawr Film Institute. She joined BMFI in 2005,
following her graduation from Bryn Mawr College. If you send BMFI a message on
Facebook or Twitter or
are interested in onscreen sponsorships, she's the one who'll be in
touch!
Happy holidays from all of us at Bryn Mawr Film Institute! Have you trimmed the tree and baked the cookies, but are still looking for the perfect gifts? Here are some of our favorite film-related gifts to give and receive.
The Lord of the Rings Trivial Pursuit game challenges your
memory of characters, places, elvish languages, and plot points of the great
J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy PLUS your knowledge of Peter Jackson’s film adaptations.
Surviving a round of this game is the litmus test for prospective suitors in
our family.
A League of Their Own is one of my favorite movies. The All American Girls Professional Baseball League has some great merchandise for the female sports fan, including some fun callbacks to the film, like this t-shirt. Plus, the proceeds support the non-profit AAGPBL Players Association.
This book is a wonderful gift for any serious Hitchcock fan, and especially for those who enjoy his Bay Area-set films: Shadow of a Doubt (1943), Vertigo (1958), and The Birds (1963). In addition to wonderful then-and-now photographs, behind-the-scenes dirt, location maps, and an introduction by Hitch’s daughter, Patricia, this book is a great help when planning a Northern California itinerary. Just ask my wife, who saw far more of Bodega Bay (setting of The Birds) than she bargained for during our trip to San Francisco.
Fans of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining are sure to appreciate this funky knit hat, the pattern of which is meant to emulate the garish carpeting of the Overlook Hotel--the creepy manor featured in the film. The bold print may not be everyone's cup of tea but this distinctive piece is sure to bring some much-needed color to the bleak winter months. Remember: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy!"
I'm fan of Joss Whedon's work, especially his show Firefly and subsequent film, Serenity. I gave a similar apron as a gift last year to another fan so that they could cook with abandon and show their loyalty to the "browncoat" cause. I think Mal's example might have even encouraged them to take more risks in the kitchen!
PS. Of course, Bryn Mawr Film Institute has gift cards, gift memberships, tickets for a night out on the town at The Best Exotic Oscar Party, and raffle tickets to win a seven-night stay in Rome. To assist you with your last-minute gift purchases, the Box Office is open early every day this week.
Devin Wachs is the Public
Relations Manager for Bryn Mawr Film Institute. She joined BMFI in 2005,
following her graduation from Bryn Mawr College. If you send BMFI a message on
Facebook or Twitter or
are interested in onscreen sponsorships, she's the one who'll be in
touch!
Bryn Mawr Film Institute concludes its "Hitchcock: The Early Years" film series with a screening of Spellbound on Tuesday, July 31 at 7:00 pm. The film will be introduced by our Director of Education, Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D. Check out the seven reasons why he thinks you should see this Hitchcock masterpiece.
Andrew J. Douglas: Seven Reasons to See Spellbound By Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., Director of Education, BMFI
You’re not likely to find Spellbound on anyone’s list of the best Hitchcock films, though it was very popular and lauded by critics and the Academy upon its release. You can decide for yourself, of course, but here are seven reasons I think it’s most definitely worth seeing:
1. SpellboundIS an Alfred Hitchcock film. Like pizza (and one or two other things), even Hitchcock movies that aren’t the best are still pretty darn good.
2. Spellbound stars Ingrid Bergman. Even though she spends much of the film looking like a cross between a Victorian schoolmarm and a researcher at Heidelberg University—with the rigid personality to match—her natural radiance still manages to shine through. This is the first of three films she made with Hitchcock (Notorious, the following year, and Under Capricorn, 1949, being the others), and across them she demonstrates her range and talent as an actress.
Ingrid Bergman plays a psychiatrist who falls in love with her amnesiac patient (Gregory Peck).
3. Spellbound stars Gregory Peck. This doesn’t do anything for me, personally, but I understand there are those out there for whom this would be a particular selling point. Enjoy.
4. Salvador Dalí designed the dream sequence. It was originally longer and more elaborate than what is in the finished film, and Hitchcock had also hoped the surrealist painter would be able to create more than one segment for the film. Nevertheless, it is fascinating to see this combination of mainstream Hollywood entertainment and European fine art.
5. Spellbound was an early and influential example of Hollywood delving into the world of psychoanalysis. Folks in Hollywood, such as the film’s producer, David O. Selznick, had been “on the couch” for years, but the field itself was just beginning to make its way into mainstream culture. It obviously influenced future Hitchcock films, such as Vertigo (1958) and Marnie (1964), but some credit Spellbound with giving rise to a series of psychological films in the late 1940s: Shock (1946), with Vincent Price; Otto Preminger’s Whirlpool (1949), featuring Gene Tierney as a kleptomaniac (and also co-written by Spellbound co-screenwriter Ben Hecht); and Max Ophüls’s Caught (1949), starring James Mason.
6. Spellbound marks the first use of the theremin in a Hollywood film. Miklós Rózsa, who had received an Academy Award nomination for scoring Double Indemnity (1944), incorporated the unconventional instrument into his only collaboration with Alfred Hitchcock. Though he earned three Oscar nominations for his work in 1945—for this film, Billy Wilder’s The Lost Weekend, and Charles Vidor’s A Song to Remember—it was Spellbound that got him the statue.
After an incident in an operating room, Gregory Peck admits to Dr. Peterson (Bergman) that he doesn't think he really is the Dr. Edwardes that he claims to be.
7. Liverwurst. I’ve never eaten it, and I’m not even sure what it looks like, but the way it figures into the flirtation between Bergman’s character and Peck’s, it must make for one heck of a sandwich.
Dr. Douglas received his Ph.D. from the Department of Radio/Television/Film at Northwestern University. He will introduce BMFI's 35 mm screening of Spellbound on Tuesday, July 31 at 7:00 pm and is also teaching the four-week class Alfred Hitchcock: The Early Years.
Yippee-ki-yay! Bryn Mawr Film Institute kicks off its Summer Classics series tonight with Die Hard at 7:00 pm! The film will be introduced by our Director of Education, Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., and our Programming Manager Valerie Temple, M.F.A. Keep reading for three reasons why Andrew loves the '80s action classic.
Three Reasons Why I Love Die Hard By Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., Director of Education, BMFI
There are lots of reasons to appreciate Die Hard. Its witty repartee, modest twist, soundtrack that incorporates both Beethoven and Run D.M.C., and initiation of the slick, eurotrash phase of Hollywood villainy all deserve mention, as do a few other, more analytical reasons that we’ll be discussing in the class I’m co-teaching with BMFI programmer Valerie Temple, M.F.A., Action Films as Art, beginning tonight—the very night BMFI is screening Die Hard on 35 mm. But for now, I’d like to focus on three other reasons this movie holds a special place in my heart.
1) ... THE GLORIOUS CAREERS OF Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, John McTiernan, and Reginald VelJohnson, who would not be where or who they are today without their work on Die Hard.
Bruce Willis, co-starring in Moonlighting (1985-89) with Cybill Shepherd, was a roguishly charming television actor (back when they didn’t jump to the movies all that often) who’d starred in two duds for waning comic genius Blake Edwards, Blind Date (1987) and Sunset (1988), in which he played a man on a very bad date with Kim Basinger (redundant?), and silent-era western star Tom Mix solving a mystery alongside James Garner’s Wyatt Earp, respectively.
The Lone Ranger: John McClane (Bruce Willis) on the look out for terrorists in Die Hard.
Alan Rickman spent the decade before Die Hard came along carving out a nice little career for himself on the British stage and small screen. But after Die Hard came his wonderfully dastardly turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), his romantic role in Sense and Sensibility (1995), a hilarious performance in Galaxy Quest (1999), and some work in a few movies about a child wizard that I never saw and have no interest in seeing. Why? That’s another blog post for another day.
Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) wants to know where his detonators are in Die Hard.
After graduating from the American Film Institute, John McTiernan wrote and directed the utterly forgettable Nomads (1986), and directed the ludicrously fun—and quite profitable—Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle, Predator (1987), before taking on Die Hard. After its success, McTiernan’s next film was The Hunt for Red October, which is, for my money, one of the best cinematic adaptations of a (dense, jargon-laden, at times dry) novel ever made in Hollywood. He would also go on to make the second best film in the series he began, Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), and the Pierce Brosnan-Rene Russo version of The Thomas Crown Affair (1999), which, while flawed, is highly entertaining. Of course, he also unnecessarily revisited Rollerball (2002), brought the sickly Medicine Man (1992, launcher of a thousand poor Sean Connery impressions, including my own) to the screen, and helmed Last Action Hero (1993). This last film, despite having a reputation as one of the biggest bombs ever, actually has some things to recommend it. But that’s another blog post for another day.
Director John McTiernan (right) preps actors Rickman (left) and Willis (center) for battle.
Reginald VelJohnson starred in the saccharine sitcom Family Matters (1989-98), which ran for eight seasons on ABC and one on CBS for a total of 215 episodes. It gave the world Urkel, and also is, at least according to Wikipedia, “the third-longest-running U.S. sitcom with a predominantly African American cast, behind The Jeffersons and Tyler Perry's House of Payne.” I find this piece of trivia troubling on a few levels, but that’s another blog post for another day (and probably another blog, as well).
The sequel to the original lives up to its unofficial subtitle by raising the stakes and painting on a bigger canvas. While this eliminates some of the tension and intimacy of the original, it allows for bigger action, grander set pieces, and more colorful characters, like Dennis Franz, the blowhard police chief of Dulles International Airport (where the bulk of the film is set) and Fred Dalton Thompson, the Foghorn Leghorn-like Chief of Operations at Dulles. There are also snowmobiles, exploding jetliners, John Amos, and William Sadler (Heywood in The Shawshank Redemption) doing martial arts while naked. Why is this worthy of praise? That’s another blog post for another day.
By 1995, the careers of both Bruce Willis and John McTiernan had cooled. Sure, Willis was acclaimed for his smaller turns in movies like Pulp Fiction and Nobody’s Fool, but he’d been starring in dreck like Striking Distance and North, and very few people had the refined taste needed to appreciate his so-called vanity project, Hudson Hawk. McTiernan had scored with The Hunt for Red October, but then proceeded to damage his reputation by directing Medicine Man and Last Action Hero. The (relative) career desperation that led this pair to re-team for Die Hard with a Vengeance was a blessing for fun-loving movie fans everywhere. While this second sequel raises the stakes yet again and uses an even larger canvas (Manhattan), it recaptures some of the magic of the original by:
pitting McClane against another euro-baddie, this time deliciously played by Jeremy Irons
combining the narrative duties of Al Powell and Holly into the alternately combative and supportive Zeus (a refreshing Samuel L. Jackson)
staging and shooting the action in a fresh and exciting way, which is one of the things McTiernan brought to the original and Renny Harlin couldn’t find (with a map and a flashlight) for the first sequel. If you don’t believe me, go back and look at the dynamic camera movement during the high-speed chase/shootout on the parkway, or the cab ride through Central Park, which also features one of the best-delivered mime jokes of all time. Why is disregard for mimes a touchstone that, in this case, is used to signal the working-class, everyman nature of John McClane? That’s another blog post for another day (and probably another blogger, as well).
Twelve years later, Willis would return as John McClane in Live Free or Die Hard, directed by the whiz kid behind the Underworld movies, Len Wiseman, whose real claim to fame is that he got Kate Beckinsale to marry him. (I don’t think the magnitude of this achievement requires another blog post or another day to establish or explain, at least not to anyone who’d be reading a very lengthy blog post on Die Hard.) The stakes don’t seem quite as high in this one (it’s about a cyber-attack on the U.S. infrastructure, which is only slightly more engaging than a trade embargo), and the canvas—the whole Northeastern U.S.—is too arguably too big, but there some things worth recognizing in this third sequel:
The family is brought back into the mix, in the form of McClane’s now college-aged daughter, after sitting out the 1995 installment. This is a key ingredient to the appeal of the series, and one that was almost entirely overlooked in the second sequel.
Kevin Smith has a small role as a geek who lives in his mother’s basement. This shockingly bold casting choice here is worthy of praise in and of itself.
Timothy Olyphant and Maggie Q, as the two main baddies, were surprising choices for these parts, and they add some class and grace to the proceedings.
It has one of the best titles possible for an action movie. Not only is it patriotic, and not only is it an ultimatum, it is also a state motto—New Hampshire’s motto, in fact. I think there should be more movies with titles derived from state mottos and nicknames (that AREN’T directed by Zach Braff), and I have some ideas on this front, but that’s another blog post for another day.
3) ... (IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER) SPEED,UNDER SIEGE, PASSENGER 57, THE ROCK, AIR FORCE ONE, TOY SOLDIERS, EXECUTIVE DECISION, while certainly having their share of flaws (and in some cases, more than their share—I’m looking at you, Passenger 57), are among the (variably) entertaining movies that are undeniably derived from Die Hard. What makes each of these movies entertaining to one degree or another? Once more, with feeling: “That’s another blog post for another day.”
Dr. Douglas received his Ph.D. from the Department of Radio/Television/Film at Northwestern University. He will introduce BMFI's 35 mm screening of Die Hard tonight at 7:00 pm and is also co-teaching the four-week class Action Films as Art (with Valerie Temple), which begins tonight.
By Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., Director of Education, Bryn Mawr Film Institute
BMFI’s third-grade visual literacy program, See • Hear • Feel • Film, is off to another great start for this school year. For the fifth year in a row, we are thrilled to have students from the Gotwals Elementary School in Norristown and the Haverford School participating. Returning for their fourth year are students from the Conshohocken Elementary School in the Colonial School District, and children from the Westtown School, as well. Also returning are girls from the Baldwin School, kids from the Gesu School in Philadelphia, and students from Whitehall Elementary School in Norristown.
See • Hear • Feel • Film, created by Anne Marie Santoro of the Jacob Burns Film Center, teaches third-grade students critical viewing skills and the cinematic techniques of storytelling. Using movies to spark their own creative expression, the children learn to write with clarity, confidence, and joy, and improve their own storytelling skills. The curriculum, designed to meet the Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, consists of viewing short movies from around the world and participating in writing exercises and creative collaboration.
Baldwin School students (above)
enjoyed the Unit I activities at BMFI
during a recent school visit.
Learning to think critically about visual media and understanding how filmmakers use the tools and techniques of their medium to communicate with viewers is an essential part of a 21st-century education and crucial to being an informed citizen in today’s culture. While the program focuses on cinema, the lessons gleaned from it are integral to more thoughtful engagement with other visual media, such as television and the web.
Personally, as a film educator, I can say that I wish I’d been exposed to a program like this when I was in grade school. Thinking of the potential for more and better engagement with film and other media this program gives its participants, it’s too bad I had to wait until high school or college to begin to learn the concepts it imparts. I’ll never know what the head start on my understanding of media that a program like this gives students could’ve meant for my education and even career.
We all have films we love here at BMFI, and next Tuesday we're showing Jaws. Our Director of Education gives you three reasons why he loves this Spielberg blockbuster.Check back for additional posts by other BMFI staff and community members that explore the movies we love.
Three Reasons Why I LoveJaws By Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., BMFI Director of Education
Jaws (1975) is impressive, like its antagonist, because it is efficient, it never stops moving, and it forever changed the way we look at its kind. But I love it for all the movies it made possible over the last thirty-six years.
How much should fans of mainstream cinematic entertainment love Jaws? Let me count the ways: 1. While it wasn’t Steven Spielberg’s first theatrical film, the success of Jaws made the director’s subsequent career possible. This means, if you’re among the multitudes who love Close Encounters of the Third Kind, any of the Indiana Jones movies, E.T., Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, or War of the Worlds, you owe a debt of gratitude to Jaws. But it’s not that simple, because even though they’re smaller films, if Spielberg hadn’t made these blockbusters, he wouldn’t have had the clout to make The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Schindler’s List, Amistad, or Munich. Furthermore, without this success, his name/role as producer wouldn’t have been sufficient to “greenlight” Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Men in Black, Transformers, or Super 8. So, if you like any of these films, thank Mr. Spielberg, and his mechanical shark that couldn’t.*
2. Summer used to be the last time of year a studio would release a big budget movie. Theconventional wisdom used to be to open big pictures around holidays and/or on a few screens,so critical acclaim and word of mouth could build a potential audience. Jaws changed all thisby opening on hundreds of screens at once, and not relying on/hoping for support from critics,and the result completely altered the industry’s perception of the potential profit for such afilm. While this move to increasingly expensive, wide-release, (summer) tent-pole productionshas certainly produced some negative results [e.g. Godzilla (1998), Transformers 2], without it,audiences would have been denied such thoughtful crowd-pleasers as The Dark Knight, suchbold financial gambles as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and such technologically ambitious worksas Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Avatar.
Roy Scheider as Chief Brody and Robert Shaw as Quint team up with a shark specialist (played by Richard Dreyfuss) to track down the giant great white shark terrorizing Amity Island in Jaws.
3. Jaws was one of the earliest and most successful examples of a high-concept film. Essentially, such a movie is one that is extremely saleable because of the simplicity of its premise and the potency of its imagery. So, without the success of Jaws (massive killer shark terrorizes summer beach town), we might never have had such entertaining films as:
a. Beverly Hills Cop (A wiseacre Detroit cop goes to Beverly Hills.)
b. Jurassic Park (We can clone dinosaurs. Let’s open an amusement park.)
c. Ghostbusters (Wiseacre “scientists” fight ghosts. Hilarity ensues.)
d. The Sixth Sense (A precocious child sees dead people.)
e. Armageddon (An asteroid is hurtling towards earth, and we’ve just got to blow it up.)
f. Top Gun (Tom Cruise is a fighter pilot who plays by his own rules.)
g. The Firm (Tom Cruise is a Harvard-educated lawyer who plays by his own rules.)**
h. A Few Good Men (Tom Cruise is another Harvard-educated lawyer who plays by his own rules.)**
* The mechanical shark, nicknamed “Bruce” (after Spielberg’s attorney at the time, Bruce Ramer), was notorious for its frequent breakdowns and very sporadic performance. These challenges necessitated (or facilitated) Spielberg making the film much more suspenseful than horrific—a quality that many people consider to be at the core of the film’s appeal and success.
**I’m sort of joking with these last two, but you get the idea.
Dr. Douglas received his Ph.D. from the Department of Radio/Television/Film at Northwestern University. He will introduce BMFI's 35mm screening of Jaws on Tuesday, August 16 at 7:00pm. If you want to learn more about the film, he's also teaching a Summer Classics Seminar about Jaws, starting at 6:30pm.
BMFI's Director of Education, Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., contributes this second entry in a series of blog posts about how the movies showing at BMFI have inspired our staff and volunteers. We hope you love them as much as we do.
Why I LoveNotorious By Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., BMFI Director of Education
Notorious (1946) isn’t one of Alfred Hitchcock’s flashiest films, even though it has two of the most glamorous stars he ever worked with—Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman.Notorious doesn’t have nearly the most memorable narrative or surprising plot twist of any Hitchcock film, though its story provides such a potent conflict, it’s been lifted for a number of novels, television episodes, and films—perhaps most famously by screenwriter Robert Towne for Mission: Impossible 2.Neither does Notorious have one of the director’s most visually arresting scenes—think of Psycho or North by Northwest—but it does have the single most clever and meaningful use of a coffee cup in the history of cinema.
But don’t lament Notorious for what it doesn’t have; love it for what it does. Beyond the great elements mentioned above, the movie also contains perhaps the single most romantic and suggestive on-screen kiss ever to come out of the studio system, one of Hitchcock’s most thoroughly malevolent “mothers”, and one of the best uses of the MacGuffin ever.
The coffee cup in question. Ingrid Bergman shines as a spy who infiltrates a ring of Nazis in Rio de Janeiro in Hitchcock's Notorious, showing Tuesday, August 2 at BMFI.
I love it for that coffee cup I first noticed when I saw the film as a college student.That petite mug put me on the path to learning and caring about mise-en-scene.It is true that sometimes a coffee cup is just a coffee cup... but Notorious taught me to never take it for granted.
Dr. Douglas will introduce BMFI's 35mm screening of Notorious on Tuesday, August 2. The film is being shown in conjunction with his four-week film class, Alfred Hitchcock: The Best of the Rest.
Dr. Douglas received his Ph.D. from the Department of Radio/Television/Film at Northwestern University. His next class at BMFI is a one-night Summer Classics Seminar focusing on Steven Spielberg's classic thriller, Jaws, on August 16.
Yesterday Philadelphia Inquirer film reviewer Carrie Rickey mentioned BMFI's own Director of Education, Andrew J. Douglas, Ph.D., in her blog, Flickgrrl.
On November 18, Andrew will debate Drexel professor Paula Marantz Cohen about the merits of Gene Kelly over Fred Astaire. But why wait? Enjoy Andrew and Carrie's cases for Kelly and Astaire below.
Here's an excerpt of Carrie's argument for Astaire:
Fred Astaire defies gravity; Gene Kelly is earthbound. Astaire is spirit; Kelly flesh. Astaire is the embodiment of grace, Kelly of athleticism. For Astaire, dance is the vertical expression of horizontal feelings for another; for Kelly, it is the expression of self. Astaire made dancing look easy; Kelly made it look like a workout. Astaire begot Michael Jackson; Kelly begot Patrick Swayze.
Flickgrrl stands firmly in the Astaire camp, while noting the paradox that though Astaire is the best screen dancer ever, Kelly's Singin' in the Rain is the best dance musical. Though she admires Kelly -- especially in An American in Paris, Singin', The Pirate and On the Town -- she cannot say that she likes him. Because however superb Kelly's choreography and artistry, his aggressive muscularity suggests that he thought there was something sissy about a man dancing.
And here's Andrew's rejoinder:
As usual, Carrie’s description of the two performers and her case for Astaire were eloquent and accurate, but I must take issue with two facets of her assessment, the first being the notion that Kelly gets docked because his physique implied he thought dancing was for sissies. If his physique was any kind of message at all, I think it's far more likely that Kelly thought that many American men of the mid-twentieth century thought dancing was less than masculine, and to give them pause long enough to take in one of his numbers (or better yet a whole musical), he emphasized his--and the art form's--athleticism. Think of him as a "big-tent" dancer.
I also object to the comparison to Patrick Swayze. While Swayze was a beloved actor and had far more dance talent than he displayed in Dirty Dancing (let alone in Ghost or Roadhouse), his skills, influence, and cinematic impact paled in comparison to Kelly's. I think a more appropriate heir to Kelly's place in the cinematic firmament is Jackie Chan. While he's an action star rather than a dancer, there is often impressive choreography, grace, and athleticism to his "numbers", he directs many (if not all) of his "performances", he (like Kelly) is involved in various aspects of the production of his films, and he's had a tremendous impact on the practitioners and audiences of his chosen form.
And I know what you're thinking: "Andrew, have you ever seen The Tuxedo?" That's a fair point, but over the course of a decades-long career, everyone is bound to have a few missteps. After all, Gene Kelly had Xanadu and Fred Astaire had The Amazing Dobermans. In any case, I suspect we won't be able to definitively settle this, but it sure is fun to debate.
The live debate takes place at International House (3701 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia) next Thursday, November 18 at 7:00pm as part of an evening celebrating the vanguard dancers sponsored by the Institute of Contemporary Art. Following the debate, screenings of Top Hat and An American in Paris will prove that no matter who's side you favor, both stars are winners.
Whose side do you favor?
Welcome to BMFI's blog. We're a non-profit art house movie theater and film education center in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Check here for the scoop on upcoming films, education courses, and information about the renovation of our 1926 theater.
