Adaptation

Nicolas Cage plays dual roles in "Adaptation." Photo: http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2002/adaptation.php .

Every actor seems to go through a slump. Such has been the case lately for Nicolas Cage. That's a real shame, because he is one of the most versatile actors in Hollywood. You wouldn't know that by looking at his recent movie choices, such as the laughable remake of "The Wicker Man." But a few years ago he gave one of his best performances in "Adaptation" playing twin brothers, one of whom is attempting to adapt a book called "The Orchid Thief" into a screenplay. Making the performance all the more impressive is the twins (Charles and Donald Kaufman) look exactly alike, so Cage really has his work cut out for him, and he pulls it off.

"The Orchid Thief" that Charlie Kaufman is attempting to adapt for a movie is a book that was an expanded version of an article in "The New Yorker" by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep." The article (and the book) concerns a man named John Laroche (Chris Cooper) who collects endangered orchids in Florida. The problem is that he does this on state-owned land, which is illegal. But he gets around it by hiring Seminoles to get the orchids for him, which is their legal right because the orchids are on their ancestral lands. By that summary this sounds like it would be a pretty boring movie. It's not. The movie is endlessly inventive thanks to a brilliant screenplay and an amazing cast, including Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper.

As impressive as Cage is playing the twin screenwriters, Streep and Cooper are equally excellent. Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper prove themselves in this movie to both be extremely skilled chameleons. To this day I have never seen a movie where Streep has given a bad performance. If a movie is bad it is certainly no fault of hers. Unless you are living under a rock, you know all about Meryl Streep. I'm guessing not the same can be said for the vastly underrated Chris Cooper. You probably would know him if you saw him. He played the dad in "October Sky," the trainer in "Seabiscuit," and a few years ago he gave a powerful performance in "Breach." Cooper makes his orchid thief such an believable eccentric that it was easy to see why Susan Orlean fell in love with him.

Also worth noting is the people behind this movie created the equally imaginative "Being John Malkovich." If you appreciate this movie you owe it to yourself to see that one as well. The first time I saw "Adaptation" I must confess I liked it but didn't love it the way I loved "Being John Malkovich." Upon second viewing I feel totally different. With so many sequels and retreads out there today, it's refreshing to see a movie so original and fun. It's also a fascinating look at a the screenwriting process. "Adaptation" definitely meets my great movie criteria!

Ace in the Hole

Photo courtesy of: http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/1205/396_box_348x490.jpg .


Rarely is the press portrayed in a positive light in movies. There are rare exceptions, such as "All the President's Men," but more often the press is portrayed as a business and not a service (see: "Network"). The press has largely brought this on itself. You need look no further than today's 24/7 cable news channels or the people grabbing "People Magazine" at the gym. Lest you think this is a recent phenomenon, think again. A case and point: "Ace in the Hole."

The movie revolves around a reporter named Chuck Tatum (Kirk Douglas), a man who has been fired from basically every major newspaper market. One day his car breaks down in Albuquerque, and he weasels his way onto a local paper. A year passes and he is still stuck there and feels his career is going nowhere. He gets sent to small town to cover a rattlesnake competition and along the way stops off in a small desert town. Why? The owner of the local trading post is trapped in a silver mine. Not only that, the mine is an Indian burial ground. Tatum then concocts a story about a mummy's curse. This is just one of many examples of sensational journalism portrayed in this movie. Tatum makes sure Leo Mendosa, the man trapped in the mine, is rescued in a way that will take several days rather than the way that will take a few days. After all, he wants his fifteen minutes of fame. He manages to control the sheriff, access to the story, and access to the trapped man's wife. In fact, he slaps her when she tells him she plans to take a bus out of town. The juicy story needs a grieving widow too.

The whole movie is a portrait of what has become the sensational tabloid journalism that pollutes the airwaves today. Director Billy Wilder was way ahead of his time with "Ace in the Hole." It came on the heels of "Sunset Boulevard," and yet it flopped when it was released in 1951. While a well-made and well-acted movie (Kirk Douglas is wonderfully fierce in the lead role) I somehow felt the movie was lacking something. The commentary on modern media is compelling, but the movie drags in places and I wished there had been more character development, especially of the sheriff and Mendosa's widow. It has some good lines of dialogue, but the overall screenplay is not as sharp as some of Wilder's other great movies ("Sunset Boulevard," "Double Indemnity," etc.). "Ace in the Hole" is worth seeing mostly because of Kirk Douglas and its sharp social commentary, but it doesn't meet my criteria for a "great movie." Fortunately there will be many other Billy Wilder movies to watch in this exercise and I have no doubt more than one will meet my standards.

12 Angry Men

The first Great Movie on the list was "12 Angry Men." It was released in 1957 and directed by Sidney Lumet. This is the third time I have seen the whole movie. We watched it in my middle school English class after reading the play. Back then I didn't think much of it. All I knew was I had to study it in school so it couldn't be that good. Years later I DVRed it on TCM to give it a second look. My attitude completely changed. A large part of my change in attitude came from the fact that I was more knowledgeable about film and had really come to appreciate it as an art form. Is the movie a "great movie?" Absolutely! There are several reasons.

First, it manages to be very effective despite confined to mostly one set. The whole movie is an exercise in claustrophobia exacerbated by extreme personalities. How would you feel being cooped up in a room with eleven other people on a scorching day with no air conditioning? The minimal number of sets becomes a whole character in the movie. That sense of closeness makes the personalities of the characters more believable. After being in a confined space with someone for an extended period of time your true colors would really begin to show, especially in a pressure situation like jury duty.

Second, the characters are some of the most well-developed I have seen in any movie. Period. Nowadays most characters in movies, if they are not the stars, come and go without you ever having to think about them again. Here every single character matters. We learn things about each and every person and for good reason. A case and point comes toward the end of the movie when Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), who has been voting guilty the entire movie, reveals something about his past that has lead him to be so obstinate about the case before him.

Third, and perhaps most important, the movie is one of the very few to deal with a part of the court system in a realistic way. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) has a great line where he talks about how important the job of jury is and how important the court system is. The movie drives home the point without being preachy and waving the flag.

"12 Angry Men" is one of Sidney Lumet's many successes. Later he would go on to make "Network," "Serpico," and many others. This is a movie with no fancy camera tricks or special effects. It's completely driven by the personalities of the jurors and the tenseness of the situation. It makes for great entertainment and it is certainly a worthy "Great Movie."

Introduction

Many years ago I started watching "Siskel & Ebert." I was fascinated by the depth of discussion the two of them had about movies of all things. My life was forever changed. Gradually over the past ten years or so I have gone from movie fan to full-out film geek. I watch film TV shows and continue to read Roger Ebert's reviews religiously. I've always wondered what the essential films everyone should see are. I looked for lists or books in every place I could think of. None of them grabbed me. Then I realized, what about Roger Ebert's Great Movies? I have decided to see every single movie, including the ones I have already seen, and do a blog entry about each. Before I was looking at these movies as a casual fan, but now I will be looking at them with a critical eye and honing my writing skills that I hope will someday turn me into a professional film critic. I look forward to the movies, the writing, and hopefully feedback from some readers. Tonight I will be screening the first movie on the list "12 Angry Men." Stay tuned!