outlinesleadmovie

Known for his creative direction and controversial story choices, Kazan was not only a great proponent of ?method acting? and one of the founders of the Actors' Studio, but he used the style to its greatest effect, working with actors to capture unforgettable moments that bore his unique signature.

Under Kazan's potent direction Andy Griffith gives a stunning portrayal of a Southern itinerant singer catapulted to fame, with dehumanizing effects, in this early look at the power and corruptibility of television celebrity.

Gregory Peck is a humble and idealistic magazine writer who researches an article on anti-Semitism and learns first-hand about prejudice when he poses as a Jew. The film is unique in its ability to be quietly strong and subtly powerful while remaining constantly engaging.

Winner of eight Academy Awards, this powerful and brilliantly performed saga focuses on the dreams, despair and corruption of New York City longshoremen, Marlon Brando as he struggles over the choices of right and wrong and what that means to his brother, corrupt union officials, his priest, and his girlfriend.

Intolerance

April 19th, 2005

Hey, we all know intolerance is bad. Do we really need a three hour sermon on the subject? Maybe not, but it sure is a treat to watch. One of the biggest movie epics of its time (or any time, arguably), D.W. Griffith?s silent classic is a masterfully edited film, weaving four different stories together to show how much suffering the intolerance we show our fellow human beings causes.

The first story takes place in present day (back in 1916, anyway) and deals with the overzealous social reformers, who often inflicted pain and suffering through their ?uplifting.? The second story deals with the massacre on St. Bartholomew?s eve, in France, and the clash between the Catholics and the Huguenots. The third story has Jesus. Of course it has Jesus. How can a film about intolerance NOT have Jesus? (More on that later.) And last, the last days of Babylon, where the people are torn between worshipping two different gods.

This last story, of Babylon, is a real triumph to watch. It could make a great movie itself, without all the other stories. Why? Two words, yo. Mountain Girl. That?s right. Most of the characters don?t have names, and she?s one of them. A wild girl, who doesn?t want to get married, she ends up getting put up on a marriage auction by her brother who doesn?t want to deal with her anymore. She objects (to put it lightly) and is rewarded by the King (passing by) with his sign that she can choose to marry or not marry if she wants. That?s not the best part about Mountain Girl. She?s a Slayer! That?s right! She may not be fighting demons or vampires, but that girl is damned tough. When faced with insurmountable odds and imminent doom, she laughs and keeps firing more arrows at the enemy in defiance. Damn she was great. Joss Whedon would be proud of her.

Also, the Babylon sets are breathtaking. Sure, you?ve seen big sets and lots of people in scenes before. But you gotta remember, Griffith didn?t have CG and computers. All that you see on the screen in Babylon ? it?s all real (for the most part). Thousands of extras, the walls of Babylon themselves, the battle scenes; he didn?t have the option to point and click his way through it.

The Jesus stuff was okay. It was kinda funny though. The way it was presented, all you see is Jesus giving this newlywed couple some free booze. Yeah! I could fall in line with a guy like that! And then they want to kill him because he gave away free booze. This could also encourage young adults to get into Jesus. Think about it. At a big kegger at the frat house, all the drunks could cheer ?This one?s for Jesus!?

The Huguenots vs. Catholics bit was the weakest part of the film. Very little time is spent on this story, except to show that the King of France was a wimpy little dumbass who let his mommy railroad him into slaughtering a lot of people.

The ?present day? story was also good. It showed how a group of women go after everything they deem bad, in order to ?uplift? society. Griffith is very pointed here, saying that the only reason they do this is because they?re ugly bitches and no men like them (they show immense satisfaction when they have a lot of pretty young hookers arrested). But the stars of this story are the Dear One, a sweet young girl and The Boy, a boy. Because of the meddling of the ?uplifters,? they lose their jobs, have to move to a crappy apartment, The Boy joins a gang (only to be saved and redeemed by the sweetness of the Dear One), they get married, he gets sent to jail, she has a baby, the ?uplifters? take the baby away, and all sorts of grime happens.

I should also note that Griffith staple Lillian Gish is also in here, in between scenes, just rocking a cradle. No lines, you never see her, and nothing ever happens. That?s the kind of job I could do. ?Lily, darlin?, all you have to do is come down for an hour, and rock a cradle.?

Now, to be serious for a moment, I get intolerance sucks. It?s bad, and it?s mean, and it?s low down and dirty. But did Griffith have to waste three of the stories on religious intolerance? Yeah, it?s killed a lot of people and caused a hell of a lot of problems in this world, (which is one of the reasons why I?m against any form of organized religion) but the film could have been a lot better if he cut out the Huguenots and put in something else. If someone were to remake it today, I think they could use a lot of what the Bush administration has done to us (and the world) as the plots to a few of the stories. Love each other, folks. It?s the only way to overcome intolerance. Just my two cents. And while it?s a little preachy, it?s definitely something you should see once.

My rating: B+