Rebel without a cause (1955)

We saw this as an afternoon screening at my favourite cinema, the Gardent Cinema.

Just like the poster highlights, the strong red colour of Jim Stark's jacket makes it iconic, and it's the one thing I associate with the film more than any other visual element.  I was suprised to see the colour mirrored in Judy's coat and the very grown-up red lipstick she wears at the police station - because she was picked up for walking the streets at an unsocial hour (I couldn't tell if they took her to the police station because they thought she might be a working girl, or if they realised how young she was and that she should be home safe with her family). 

There is also the single red sock that Plato wears, together with the mismatched blue sock. And I think the toy lying in the street is also red - we first see Jim lying down next to it when he is drunk and fooling around with it: spreading a bit of material over it as if he was putting a child to bed.  Then he must have gotten arrested because he also ends up at the police station, just like Judy and Plato have (Plato's real name is John, so this makes an alliteration of the three main characters).

I was quite shocked to find that Plato was there because he shot puppies, that seems to hint at mental instability and a not very nice nature - while later in the story, Plato comes off as a nice young kid who was unfairly abandoned by his parents.

Everyone seems to have daddy issues in this film. Jim because his father is just a sap, Plato because his abandoned him and only sends a check for 'support of son' instead of being there for him, and Judy has big issues with her father because she seems to believe that he doesn't love her.  She does however try to kiss him on the lips which I found very odd.  He strenuously objects to that, almost too much.  Is she a little girl who doesn't want to grow up but remain Daddy's girl and is now upset that he won't pay her as much attention as he pays her little brother?  Or is she growing up and trying to find her way in how to interact with the male gender and attempts to practice on her dad?  I am very interested to hear what others think of this.

This article describes a lot of plot and even includes big chunks of dialogue. 

Plato had been trying to make Jim his substitute father (despite their scant difference in age), and the three played at being a family in the abandoned mansion.  At the end of the film, Jim and Judy feel a lot like Plato's parents - the ones he should have had and didn't get.

I remembered very little from when I first saw this film on TV decades ago, but what I liked back then and also now is that Jim and Judy are growing up and end the film more mature. You can glimpse the adults that they might become.  Poor Plato will not.

 

This article talk about the symbolism of some items and colours.  This one is one of the most interesting articles I came across, also talking about colours but also about relationships of power, very interesting indeed. I don't know if I picked up on the high and low camera angles used, let alone over the shoulder shots in the police station.

 

Let me know what impressons you took away with you about the film. 

About cinema - What does it need to do to stay relevant?

Can cinema compete with TV and Streaming? How can cinema still be relevant today?

Why The Movies Will Never Feel The Same Again

"Hollywood faces the largest crisis it's seen since 1950. This is the story of the shifting role cinema plays in our culture and what it needs to do to stay relevant."

(c) Thomas Flight

Very interesting video essay on YouTube by someone called Thomas Flight. I hadn't heard of him before (but that doesn't mean anything, he has over 1.2m YT subscribers. About.  Link to the video in purple font above).

He describes the various ways in which the movies, radio, television, streaming, distribution systems, etc competed with each other historically.  He speaks about the dopamine from using smartphones. And various other aspects.

I feel that he says that immersion is the strength of movies. In contrast to video clips on YouTube, Instagram, TicToc, etc, and particularly their short forms, - movies are the medium that forces you to sit and experience this one unbroken block. No adverts in the middle, no shift of your focus onto other things, just the one movie.

I thought of the other way that cinema can be relevant and important - the presenter spoke about this too  towards the end of the video: the communal experience, going to the movies with others. 

In contrast to streaming by yourself at home, you don't have to hope that your friends, colleagues and family members managed to watch the same series and the same episode the night before so you can discuss it - a film watched in a cinema by a group, allows you to talk about that immersive experience, compare notes about your impressions and perhaps gain more from hearing from others - I do think that that's cinema's super power.

What did you think of this essay? Do you agree with him, would you add anything? What is Going to the Cinema like for you? 

Something not mentioned yet.  There may be something about the venue of cinema that can also be appealing and exciting. The social aspect of mingling with others who are not part of your group. There is that intangible (je ne said quoi) something about seeing a film on the big screen.  What does that mean to you, how do you feel about it?

Mona Lisa (1986)

Very interesting film, it didn't turn out quite as we wondered or expected. A number of us who went to see this film at the Garden Cinema recently. It was really great to chat to all of you about it afterwards!  Love their new Atrium Bar.

I got stuck on Why on earth would the Bob Hoskins character bring a white rabbit into this story? The plates of spaghetti and green-lit Jesus statues were also plenty weird.  Turns out that someone had a brilliant thought about precisely that specific plot element! (Here is the link) And I've got to put that some place that offers the opportunity for others to add their take, make it more of a discussion. The functionality on the group's event page isn't ideal for that.

So I came up with the idea of starting a blog. Hey presto, here we go...!

I added the link to this post (above) to do this justice. I thought this idea is rather thought-provoking. It is about the apperances of the white rabbit bookending a story in a story. And here is the spoiler: the writer's take is that Simone's story is a made up, that it never happened. I find the seven supporting bullet points he comes up with pretty persuasive. Like that scenes with his daughter never intersect wtih the characters from Simone's story (except Thomas, the mechanic best friend seems to stradle both: as the real friend at beginning and end, and the procurer of weird novelty products in the middle.). And the sheer fact that George walking into a petshop to buy a 'long eared white rabbit' is utterly weird. Funny that the answer was no, but that a short-eared white rabbit is available.  What do you think of that idea, that this part of the film isn't real?

When looking at what others are saying about the film and the role of the rabbit, 'Alice in Wonderland' often gets mentioned.  "Going down the rabbit hole" comes to mind.  The term 'rabbit' could also mean to talk.

 

Much interesting stuff has been written about this movie, here's more reviews:

About Mona Lisa and link to fairy tales (link here) 

The RogerEbert.com review featuring a terrific photo from the film! (link here)

Body Heat (1981)

 

After watching the film, we were standing outside the cinema to discuss the twist and turns of this film. It was quite funny actually, we started to chat as we left the screen, and it felt like they shut off the lights behind us, bit by bit, as we gradually moved to the exit. You would think they wanted to close!

There were four of us and I think we all really enjoyed this film with Kathleen Turner and William Hurt. Great twist at the end.

One of you mentioned a plot aspect of blackmail. I didn't pick up on this while watching, that's very intriguing!  I'd love to explore that bit more, who remembers who said or thought of this?

I think it was by the original, actual Matty?  Please tell me more!

 

I want to add more below (blog post to be edited), but wanted to post a placeholder to keep it chronological.

Watch this space.