Obviously limiting myself to a single post for a film is rather restrictive. But not always. Some films have had many books written about them, and whilst I don’t intend to do anything like that, sometimes I’ve felt that a couple of hundred characters simply weren’t enough. So I’ll be using the occasional entry on here to talk a little more about those that I’ve seen in the course of the “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” book. Many films of course don’t deserve even a sentence. They won’t be appearing here.

I realised fairly quickly that this book is a list of IMPORTANT films. Not GOOD. So some films are in here because they were very influential. Or controversial. Or had real world consequences. Not necessarily watchable. And just as with music, opinion is incredibly subjective. Many so called “classics” I found unwatchable. Yet there were many more deserving films I felt should have been in the book but weren’t.

It was interesting to see how the real world development of cinema is reflected in the nationalities of the entries. We start with a lot of French films as they invented the process, then moved into German because German Expressionism was incredibly influential. Then when war broke out a lot of American films started appearing because their industry was less affected…and then once the Hays Code started wearing thin the Europeans came back in as they were producing more edgy and controversial films which the United States weren’t allowed to make.

Le Voyage Dans La Lune (A Trip to the Moon)

I made a reference to “Hugo” and that is a great film in and of itself even though it doesn’t come anywhere near the book. Scorsese made a film suitable for children that was actually good? Who’d have thought it?

But anyway. It was inevitable that this one would appear in the book as it was one of the first widespread films to actually have a through-narrative and that wasn’t actually just random scenes of people living their lives. “Hugo” made me realise that every single frame in this production was manually painted. That’s a level of dedication I just can’t relate to. It also gave us a certain amount of film “language” that we take for granted now. The director wasn’t afraid to use techniques such as jump cuts, forced perspective and double-exposures to create an experience that simply couldn’t be seen in live theatre. For that’s what many early films were. Point the camera at a group of people and have them act. It seemed a novelty when the first one actually had a MOVING camera. It took a long time to learn how to do things that only film could do.

The plot is very H.G. Wells / Jules Verne and was clearly inspired by “From the Earth to the Moon”. Even now the image of the man in the moon with the rocket in his eye is instantly recognisable, although most people couldn’t tell you where it came from.

Film had to start somewhere, and whilst this wasn’t the first it was certainly the first worthy of everybody’s attention, even if they’re not interested in films.

Birth of a Nation

I wish people would just let this film die. The main excuse seems to be “Oh, well it’s important academically”. Yeah, well, so is Mein Kampf but I don’t see you eager to read that. (Don’t bother. It’s tedious.)

It is technically creative in places, but I really don’t think that is justification for watching it. It really is abhorrent. And despite what people seem to think, it was controversial AT THE TIME. I mean, damn. If he can make a film so racist that even in 1915 people are saying “Yikes. That’s a bit much” it must be pretty awful. The director was so offended by people’s reaction, he made “Intolerance” shortly afterwards. Which is like saying “No, YOU’RE the real racists for being upset with me!”. Fuck D. W. Griffith and fuck his shitty movies. Let them rot.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

If “A Trip to the Moon” was one of the very first films to develop film language and explore the possibilities that can’t be done on stage, then this was the first to run with that and push film to it’s very limits. Everything in this film from the warped backgrounds, sloping landscapes and off-kilter characters looks like it came from a fever dream, and so many things happen you’re not sure if you imagined them or not. Even the inter-titles have a distinctive, jagged font.

It’s perhaps rather slow moving by modern standards, but I think it’s all about the aesthetic and tone. This must have been so bizarre for the times, compared to all the other “Filmed stage plays” that were around. Even if you’re not fond of silent films at least please watch this one.

Our Hospitality / Sherlock Jr. / The General / Steamboat Bill, Jr.

I didn’t know a whole lot about Buster Keaton until I started this list, although I had seen the bit from “The General” where he rides on the train coupling rod. And I saw him in “Sunset Blvd.” even though he doesn’t have any speaking lines. In hindsight this films should be more controversial than they are, given Keaton’s character is almost always on the side of the Confederates when the topic comes up. Though I suppose he’s so inept and ineffectual it’s hard to take seriously.

I’ve grouped these together because most of his films are all about the individual set-pieces rather than any overarching plot. Let’s face it. Nobody watches Mr Bean for the plot. I bet many could recognise certain “bits” from Keaton films, but have no idea which ones they came from. Because it doesn’t matter. The only one that comes close to that is Sherlock Jr as it’s so short and tight it’s practically the length of a TV episode.

I certainly respect the guy for putting himself in such danger, though I wonder how many people would have realised at the time? Probably most now that I think about it. The notion of faking stunts and using doubles, miniatures and multiple exposures would have been rather a novelty so people probably just assumed he was doing it for real anyway.

Sadly I can’t see any way this kind of humour would survive into the talkie age. The lack of dialogue would turn people off, and the addition of speech would add nothing but mess up the timing and tone of the films. Shame. At least we have them to remember.

Der letzte Mann (The Last Man)

Incredibly brave to do a silent film with no title cards (except a single one before the Studio-enforced happy ending). It may have been novel, but don’t forget that the earliest films like Voyage to the Moon didn’t have title cards either. I liked the lead actor, though it’s a shame he…uh…got involved with the Nazis which pretty much killed his career after the war. No matter how much you repent, you ain’t getting away from that stain…. It’s a shame because he’s very good at emoting without dialogue.

I especially liked his dream sequence where he lifts all the bags single-handedly like they’re made of cardboard.

The Thief of Bagdad

If the film solely relied on the size of it’s cast to justify it’s “epic” nature as so many later films did then it wouldn’t be as fondly remembered. Thankfully there’s a lot more going on. When you don’t have dialogue you have to give us something interesting to look at, and the action sequences here are far beyond anything you might see in a stage production. The sword-fights, the swinging from the rafters…it’s all so slickly done they must have spent months and months in rehearsals perfecting it.

The Phantom of the Opera

Not the Claude Rains version from the 40s which tends to overshadow it, the 1925 one with Lon Chaney. I’ll just come out and say it. The make-up is genuinely shocking and I actually jumped when his face was first revealed. Despite being a hundred years old it holds up. But it’s not just that one scene. The pacing is meticulous and I was never bored.

The Gold Rush

I suppose if you’re going to put a Charlie Chaplin feature in then this is a good one to go with. The plot is threadbare compared to his later works and it doesn’t have his most memorable stunts, but it’s a good solid feature and when you think all the effects were done in-camera and largely for real, it’s a triumph.

Metropolis / M

Metropolis is one of the greatest science-fiction works of all time and I never get tired of watching it. Even the Giorgio Moroder version with Queen and Pat Benatar on the soundtrack. The anime of the same name (which is apparently based solely on the POSTER for the original film and not the plot itself) it also worth a look – really interesting blend of CGI and traditional animation.

Dr Mabuse didn’t do much for me which I was disappointed by. Perhaps I was expecting some sort of “Pact with the devil” style story rather than just an unpleasant person. But “M”….wow. Genuinely unsettling and I can’t imagine how much it shocked people upon it’s initial release. Not just the subject matter, but because the story actually makes a token effort at sympathizing with the child killer!

Scarface: The Shame of a Nation

This is a rare case where (to me) the original black and white film is actually more uncomfortable than the violent 80s remake. Sure, I like the Al Pacino version as I think a lot of people do. But the violence and gore in that one are so over the top it’s hard to take seriously and eventually they just wash over you and stop having any effect. The murders and violence in this are actually more shocking because they’re used sparingly and thus are more effective. Perhaps less is indeed more.

Sons of the Desert

I’d never seen a Laurel and Hardy film before this, though I knew OF them and I’ve seen Stan & Ollie with Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly which was excellent.

This…was a let down. It’s the only Laurel and Hardy film in the book and if this really is the best they could come up with…then I fail to see the appeal in them. No wonder they were seen as washed up and old fashioned by the 50s. Their act is clearly better served by live stage performances rather than plot-driven feature length films.

Perhaps that’s the same reason why neither of the Mr. Bean films were massive successes…not only is this style of humour better in small doses but it doesn’t lend itself to a narrative – they can’t help but end up being side-kicks in their own feature.

Plus of course their real life story is far more interesting than anything they wrote.

It Happened One Night

I’m still not entirely sure what a “Screwball Comedy” is given how different this is from other films grouped into the same genre like “His Girl Friday”. Is it “Wacky hijinks”?

The script is fascinating as it was made just before the Hayes Code came into effect, which means in theory they were unrestricted in what they could do. But they were obviously still constrained by the morales of the day, so they chose to use metaphor and subtext because of the culture, rather than because they legally had to. That gives it a very peculiar tone – it’s comparatively racy for the time yet still tame by modern standards. Plus the dialogue is tight as hell – very quotable and funny with almost no dead air. The leads have fantastic chemistry even though apparently they didn’t get on so well during filming. Whether this means you can fake it (in which case what excuse do people have besides being terrible actors?) or their relationship thawed as they went on, who can say? I’d like to think it’s the latter given that happens in-universe too.

The 39 Steps

I’m going to be smug and say I read the book first. I’ve also seen many, many adaptations of this one, including an audio play and the 1959 British film version. They’re all good. The beauty of this story is it’s quite episodic and so as long as you don’t mind a bit of deviation from the source, each version is free to go it’s own way as long as it all comes together in the end. So here we have Hitchcock having a go. Like I said in my post, the similarities between this and “North by Northwest” are obvious, and it’s enjoyable seeing Hitchcock make something which wasn’t the suspense thrillers he became known for later on. It’s a shame because whilst his suspense films are excellent, this showed he could turn his hand to other genres just as easily.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

It’s a rather cliched “Simple country man goes to the big city and charms everybody with his ‘aw shucks’ ways and brings them around to his way of thinking” story but it’s so well told it’s hard not to be suckered in. Apparently Jimmy Stewart wasn’t even considered at the time, perhaps because he was ‘owned’ by a rival studio, though he does appear in the “not-sequel” Mr Smith Goes to Washington.

Apparently there was a remake staring Adam Sandler called simply “Mr Deeds”. No thanks.

My Man Godfrey

I’ve been finding so-called “Screwball comedies” a little frustrating. I know they were much loved at the time but to me a lot of them are just very noisy and corny…lots and lots of shouting, slapstick and contrived misunderstandings. But this one works really well. Perhaps because of the wealth of talent on display. It’s also beautifully shot, with lots of high contrast really making the most of a black-and-white feature. One which Technicolour wouldn’t have improved.