Don Siegel, The Shootist (1976)

The Shootist will be forever remembered for one thing - it was John Wayne's last film. Admittedly, it contains a lot of cliches from the Western film genre - an aging gunslinger looking to find some inner peace, the host of villains who want to see him dead, a Wild West town where the sheriff is weak and the outlaws run the show. The Shootist has all these elements and the trailer (see it here), seems to be marketing all these cliches as the reason why you would want to see this film.

Beneath all the schlock, there are some really great moments of this film which make it worthwhile. First, the cast – Hollywood knew that John Wayne had health issues and that this might be his last film, so the stars just piled on to participate- James Stewart, Lauren Bacall, Ron Howard, David Carradine all took salary decrements to joined the cast.

Secondly, this film’s value resides in those personal scenes where John Wayne’s character, John Bernard Books, struggles with his mortality: his conversation with Lauren Bacall on a horse-drawn carriage ride, his words of wisdom to Ron Howard while teaching him how to shoot, his discussion with James Stewart (the doctor) who tells John Wayne that his cancer is terminal. Ironically, John Wayne, who did not have cancer during this film, would die of cancer two years after making this film. And of course, Don Siegel's final shoot-‘em-up scene, shot with creative staging using mirrors of the barroom, allows John Wayne to exit from the silver screen for the final time in a blaze of glory.

Finally, the scene before the final gunfight is better than any other scene in the film and on its own makes teh film a classic. Books is preparing to leave the house, off to his final gun battle and Lauren Bacall meets him at the door. Everyone knows what’s going to happen- the audience knows it, John Wayne knows it and Lauren Bacall has already promised the night before not to question Books decision or try to stop him. Instead, their eyes meet and she talks about the weather- how it feels like “false spring” – a warmth that will not last. I read the scene as Hollywood’s on-screen coup de grace for John Wayne- a simple tribute, inexorably sad but without any open mourning for the Duke. Probably exactly what John Wayne wanted.

Unfortunately, I could not find this clip on the internet, so you’ll just have to watch it for yourself. You won’t likely be disappointed.

Arthur Penn, Night Moves (1975)

Night Moves is a big budget, mainstream film from 1975 with the requisite ingredients of its genre: a star director (Arthur Penn), a star male lead (Gene Hackman) and more than a few attractive female characters (Susan Clark, Jennifer Warren and a young Melanie Griffith). There are a few laugh-out-loud pages of dialogue which have not aged well over the past three decades. One example of high unintentional comedy involved a long discussion between Hackman and Jennifer Warren reminiscing about the erect nipples of youth.

However, for the most part what I realized watching Night Moves is just how dumbed down most mainstream films are today. The "mystery" uncovered by Gene Hackman's private eye (an homage to the airplane scene in North by Northwest) is interesting, but the real value in NM resides in its subtext. The film's title is revealed as a double entendre in a scene where Hackman describes to Warren about the knight moves in a chess match by two great masters. Hackman describes how the chess champion lost the match and regretted his whole life that he missed the opening in the match for checkmate in three simple moves of the knight. This dialogue is juxtaposed against the chess match of plot movements, as the mystery unfolds and Harry Moseby slowly determines who's lying and who's telling the truth. Admittedly, its completely unbelievable that Jennifer Warren's character (a drifter living in the Florida Keys) would understand the elegance of a series of chess moves from a match which occured a decade earlier, but it does, however, work as a neo-noir metaphor for the intricate plot of the film.

Finally, the other cool thing about this film is that the Harry Moesby character is essentially a pre-cursor for Hackman's Coach Norman Dale character from Hoosiers: at one point he shakes a booklet while yelling at James Woods character, he gives a couple of speeches which felt like you were transported to the Hickory High locker room. In the end, it not a film that will change your life, but it is certainly engaging throughout.

Roman Polanski, Chinatown (1974)

Chinatown (1974), Roman Polanski's noir classic about the corrupt underbelly of Los Angeles, won all the awards of its day and is cited as the mold for crime thrillers for many years to come. Rotten Tomatoes does not have a negative review of the film and Spike Lee says its his favorite. But watching it from today's perspective, does it truly meet the high standard of these accolades?

For me the answer is: "yes, for the most part". First, its amazing how many recent films have ripped off many of the elements of this film. In fact, L.A. Confidential (1998) won more Oscars than Chinatown did and completely copied its "how L.A. once was" style, its noirish tone and its musical score (compare here and here). If film plagiarism was a crime, Confidential's director Curtis Hanson and screenwriter Brian Helgeland would still be in jail today. And surprisingly, Matt Damon was not the first person to utter the famous line "How 'bout them apples" in Good Will Hunting (1997); Jack Nicolson's character, J.J. Gittes, uttered the line a quarter century before him! Finally, Chinatown truly sets the standard for suspense- long slow pacing is interrupted abruptly by tense music followed usually by a burst of action and often violence.

But is it perfect? No. At times the pacing of the film is too slow for my tastes (L.A. Confidential suffered the same malady). Polanski needs the slow pacing to keep the audience guessing as Gittes slowly unravels a complex mystery. And this is really a small quibble, especially given the backdrop of today's rock em', sock 'em non-stop action overkill film industry. In the end, if you thought the revelation that Luke's father is Dark Vader, then you will enjoy the fabulous familial plot twist that Chinatown throws out near the end of the film.

Ernst Lubitsch, Trouble in Paradise (1932)

There's something clearly ahead-of-its-time modern about Ernst Lubitsch's Trouble in Paradise. In watching old films from the 1920s, 30s and 40s, I find that dramas such as Renoir's The Rules of the Game (1939) and Lang's Metropolis (1929) tend to be much more watchable today than comedies from these decades. Perhaps there is something in the nature of humor and comedy that is era-centric. What is biting and witty to one generation becomes cliche and kitsch to the next generation.

Trouble is one of the exceptions to this rule. Filled with biting sarcasm and double entendres, Trouble plays like a Shakesperian comedy and keeps the viewer engaged and laughing throughout. The so-called "Lubitsch touch" as it pertains to this film is a directorial pacing which keeps the story moving at a fun and light pace as well as visual witticisms such as the opening of the film which shows the words "Trouble in" and shows an empty bed for two, followed seconds later by the word "Paradise" (check it out at the 40 second mark of this link).

This attention to detail and subtle directorial style causes Trouble to remain one of the great comedies even today.