secondtake
Joined Apr 2009
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings1.7K
secondtake's rating
Reviews1.7K
secondtake's rating
West Side Story (2021)
We can't forget that "West Side Story" is a musical. It's a fantasy, a Shakespearean vehicle for sparkling song and dance. The first movie version, from 1961, knew that and emphasized that. The theater of the so-called tough characters is made lyrical and anti-realistic right from the first scene, snapping their fingers, going around the chalk drawing, moving with fluidity down the street. In the newer version, there is still dance (and snapping of fingers, briefly), but the mis-en-scene is about late 1950s reality.
Reality? That ends up being the raison-etre for the remake, actually. I had to laugh when I read that the war zone appearance of the opening scenes was to make the film about gentrification. So director Spielberg and writer Kushner want to give a more accurate snapshot of post-war New York City, and Puerto Rican migration? In a musical?
So for all the great effort here, and some truly inspired performances, there is a steady undermining of the real core of the film, the fantasy world of a musical set in a semi-rough neighborhood in mid-century Manhattan. A quick way to see the difference in how the films feel is to see the first one as a Broadway play adapted to a Technicolor screen, and the second one as a Broadway script worked into a new kind of movie. Spielberg's version is trying, very hard, to do something different. For me the whole effort is burdened by Kushner's politicizing, but it does have a more authentic handling of the cast, Maria most of all. And the inclusion of Spanish without subtitles is great, though the constant on-screen reminders to speak "in English" feels like a tired device.
What about the photography? There is a lot of exciting moving camera. It's a complex filming plan, heavily edited but with precision. The choice of lighting is fitting for their larger goals-leaning into realistic kinds of light and color, often subdued (though never dull), unlike the deeply rich and truly gorgeous (and not so realistic) palette of the 1961 movie. The cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, chose to follow recent trends in emphasizing, and even introducing, excessive lens flare (including those anamorphic horizontal blue lines), and once you notice it (which is right away for me) it becomes obstructive. This kind of New Hollywood thinking (remember, Spielberg is New Hollywood, coming out of the late 1960s) is often about showing the flaws so that the scenes feel more real.
But again, this isn't a realistic story. Sure, a flare in the lens now and then is part of our cinematic language, but here it becomes a stylistic watermark, showing up everywhere like unexpected stains on a color photograph. The 1961 version is just barely pre-New Hollywood, and the visual feeling is polished and perfect, a look that isn't much in favor now, but which truly suited that production.
We can't forget that "West Side Story" is a musical. It's a fantasy, a Shakespearean vehicle for sparkling song and dance. The first movie version, from 1961, knew that and emphasized that. The theater of the so-called tough characters is made lyrical and anti-realistic right from the first scene, snapping their fingers, going around the chalk drawing, moving with fluidity down the street. In the newer version, there is still dance (and snapping of fingers, briefly), but the mis-en-scene is about late 1950s reality.
Reality? That ends up being the raison-etre for the remake, actually. I had to laugh when I read that the war zone appearance of the opening scenes was to make the film about gentrification. So director Spielberg and writer Kushner want to give a more accurate snapshot of post-war New York City, and Puerto Rican migration? In a musical?
So for all the great effort here, and some truly inspired performances, there is a steady undermining of the real core of the film, the fantasy world of a musical set in a semi-rough neighborhood in mid-century Manhattan. A quick way to see the difference in how the films feel is to see the first one as a Broadway play adapted to a Technicolor screen, and the second one as a Broadway script worked into a new kind of movie. Spielberg's version is trying, very hard, to do something different. For me the whole effort is burdened by Kushner's politicizing, but it does have a more authentic handling of the cast, Maria most of all. And the inclusion of Spanish without subtitles is great, though the constant on-screen reminders to speak "in English" feels like a tired device.
What about the photography? There is a lot of exciting moving camera. It's a complex filming plan, heavily edited but with precision. The choice of lighting is fitting for their larger goals-leaning into realistic kinds of light and color, often subdued (though never dull), unlike the deeply rich and truly gorgeous (and not so realistic) palette of the 1961 movie. The cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, chose to follow recent trends in emphasizing, and even introducing, excessive lens flare (including those anamorphic horizontal blue lines), and once you notice it (which is right away for me) it becomes obstructive. This kind of New Hollywood thinking (remember, Spielberg is New Hollywood, coming out of the late 1960s) is often about showing the flaws so that the scenes feel more real.
But again, this isn't a realistic story. Sure, a flare in the lens now and then is part of our cinematic language, but here it becomes a stylistic watermark, showing up everywhere like unexpected stains on a color photograph. The 1961 version is just barely pre-New Hollywood, and the visual feeling is polished and perfect, a look that isn't much in favor now, but which truly suited that production.
Aladdin (2019)
A live-action remake with remarkable fidelity to the famous animated version (starring Robin Williams). It's fun, it has lots of effects, and it depends to a remarkable and surprising degree on the earlier version for its structure, song, plot, and even attitude. It has to be said from the start: the first 1991 version is better in every way.
Every way except one, that is. This 2019 update makes a really good attempt to be politically and socially astute. So the actors are largely more "authentic" than the earlier version, which got slammed in some quarters for insensitivity. But to be clear, the leading characters are still completely "Western" at their root. The genie is Will Smith (from Philadelphia). The title character is Egyptian (raised in Canada) and the love-interest princess is Indian (raised in England). But this begins to correct some of the criticisms of the Robin Williams version (which has moments of real, rare genius, and this newer one does not).
Will Smith does what he can to be the charming, outrageous, funny genie that became the Robin Williams hallmark. But the bar is high, and though he does a credible job, he's hampered by some larger decisions about how to present him-special effects are especially capricious, not always lifting the performance.
The crushing problem in the film is that it's not actually very well "made" in the simple sense of direction and cinematography. So there is a stiffness to scenes that are clearly expensive with many characters and a mis-en-scene extravagance. The camerawork is especially constricting-it tends to be serviceable, but this kind of movie requires something aesthetic, inventive, or just simply dramatic...and I mean the photography has to be dramatic, not just the subject. Why they handed this big big job to the inexperienced Alan Stewart is a mystery.
The director, Guy Ritchie, who has a couple of strong movies under his belt ("Snatch" is a favorite and he's done the recent Sherlock movies), doesn't seem to feel the material. Except, importantly, for the two leads in their more normal moments. Aladdin and Jasmine are both made to be real, sympathetic, and with good chemistry (as far as that is taken). They really make the movie, and must be the reason for its huge commercial success.
A live-action remake with remarkable fidelity to the famous animated version (starring Robin Williams). It's fun, it has lots of effects, and it depends to a remarkable and surprising degree on the earlier version for its structure, song, plot, and even attitude. It has to be said from the start: the first 1991 version is better in every way.
Every way except one, that is. This 2019 update makes a really good attempt to be politically and socially astute. So the actors are largely more "authentic" than the earlier version, which got slammed in some quarters for insensitivity. But to be clear, the leading characters are still completely "Western" at their root. The genie is Will Smith (from Philadelphia). The title character is Egyptian (raised in Canada) and the love-interest princess is Indian (raised in England). But this begins to correct some of the criticisms of the Robin Williams version (which has moments of real, rare genius, and this newer one does not).
Will Smith does what he can to be the charming, outrageous, funny genie that became the Robin Williams hallmark. But the bar is high, and though he does a credible job, he's hampered by some larger decisions about how to present him-special effects are especially capricious, not always lifting the performance.
The crushing problem in the film is that it's not actually very well "made" in the simple sense of direction and cinematography. So there is a stiffness to scenes that are clearly expensive with many characters and a mis-en-scene extravagance. The camerawork is especially constricting-it tends to be serviceable, but this kind of movie requires something aesthetic, inventive, or just simply dramatic...and I mean the photography has to be dramatic, not just the subject. Why they handed this big big job to the inexperienced Alan Stewart is a mystery.
The director, Guy Ritchie, who has a couple of strong movies under his belt ("Snatch" is a favorite and he's done the recent Sherlock movies), doesn't seem to feel the material. Except, importantly, for the two leads in their more normal moments. Aladdin and Jasmine are both made to be real, sympathetic, and with good chemistry (as far as that is taken). They really make the movie, and must be the reason for its huge commercial success.
To Be or Not to Be (1942)
This is a powerful and yet peculiar and flawed movie. The best of it is the satire of the Nazi regime and Hitler himself. You have to remember this is during the war, and so it was aimed at the enemy.
Carole Lombard is clearly the lynchpin here, acting with aplomb-both humor and, oddly, gravitas at times. Jack Benny is all over the map-both humor (of course) and sometimes the serious actor they needed from him. But he's sometimes off pitch, hitting chords that are out of step (for me) with the script. One example would be the overextended use of Hamlet, which is meant to add another layer both deep and comic, but it runs dry fast.
Of course, behind this all is the strong direction by Lubitsch, who was trying for an elevated mix of humor and irony. Sometimes it's spot on, as when the dramatic comedy is interrupted by a bombing raid and the leading actors are in a shelter. Briefly.
Most of the time there is a mix of actors pretending to be Nazi types and usually getting away with it, with the laughs you'd expect. But underneath it all is the dreadful truth, which the audience felt all too deeply, and which you can still sense today.
I see the movie is highly rated, and I'd say the best of it is sublime. But not every scene or every character rises to this level, and the larger result is a mixed experience. One worth seeing, however.
This is a powerful and yet peculiar and flawed movie. The best of it is the satire of the Nazi regime and Hitler himself. You have to remember this is during the war, and so it was aimed at the enemy.
Carole Lombard is clearly the lynchpin here, acting with aplomb-both humor and, oddly, gravitas at times. Jack Benny is all over the map-both humor (of course) and sometimes the serious actor they needed from him. But he's sometimes off pitch, hitting chords that are out of step (for me) with the script. One example would be the overextended use of Hamlet, which is meant to add another layer both deep and comic, but it runs dry fast.
Of course, behind this all is the strong direction by Lubitsch, who was trying for an elevated mix of humor and irony. Sometimes it's spot on, as when the dramatic comedy is interrupted by a bombing raid and the leading actors are in a shelter. Briefly.
Most of the time there is a mix of actors pretending to be Nazi types and usually getting away with it, with the laughs you'd expect. But underneath it all is the dreadful truth, which the audience felt all too deeply, and which you can still sense today.
I see the movie is highly rated, and I'd say the best of it is sublime. But not every scene or every character rises to this level, and the larger result is a mixed experience. One worth seeing, however.