FilmJerk Favorites

A group of unique directors and the essential works that you've got to see.

||| Buster Keaton |||
Buster Keaton

If you like Chaplin you will absolutely love Keaton, who is widely acknowledged for being one of the greatest directors of all time, a great screen legend and one of our finest actors, as well as one of the three top comedians in silent era Hollywood, and a true pioneer for the independent filmmaker; producing, controlling and owning his films.

Offered as one of three films in the Buster Keaton Collection, The Cameraman is Buster at his deadpan funniest. After becoming infatuated with a pretty office worker for a Newsreel company, Buster picks up a movie camera and sets out to impress the girl, which makes for some very interesting, visually groundbreaking and cleaver footage, capturing the essence of what it was like to be an innovative cameraman.

Based on a true incident, “The General” is a classic of silent screen comedy. Keaton is a Southern engineer whose train is hijacked by Union forces, which leads to a classic locomotive chase and some truly impressive and hilarious stunts, some of which could only be produced by CGI today.

Sherlock Jr is one of the comic's most inventive efforts (introducing a concept oft repeated) depicting a movie projectionist entering the film he's running in order to solve a jewelry theft. Known for doing his own stunts as well as filling in for his costars, Keaton actually fractures his neck on screen as the water from a basin flows from a tube and washes him onto the track.

Recommended by CarrieSpecht

Advertisement

Across the Universe

By EdwardHavens

September 14th, 2007

Julie Taymor may be one of the most visually exciting filmmakers in modern cinema, and there is no doubt her latest, "Across the Universe," is a resplendent feast for the eyes. Just don't expect anything resembling a coherent storyline.

Across the Universe

As you may be aware, “Universe” is an attempt to create, as Taymor has been quoted, “an original musical using only Beatles songs.” For that alone, she deserves some respect, as well as mad props for finding someone willing to finance such a risky venture, especially when the latest stab at a songbook movie musical, Baz Luhrman’s “Moulin Rouge,” found a loyal fan base but barely made back its extravagant budget. I mention “Moulin” as, on the surface, it would seem to be the perfect comparison to “Universe,” but it would also be very wrong. “Moulin” flows somewhat naturally from scene to scene, the filmmakers freely changing and rewriting the pop songs used to fit their story, while “Universe” trundles along, treating the music of Lennon/McCartney with massive reverence, unwilling to make the songs their own. In fact, a better comparison would be “Forrest Gump,” as both Gump and Jude, our hero here, keep finding themselves interacting through major events of their respective time, with a nostalgic soundtrack which can be used as an emotional kick in the pants when the story finds itself unable to.

In a nutshell, “Universe” tells the love story between Jude (Jim Sturgess), a young lad from Liverpool who comes to America to find the father he has never known, and Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood), the sister of Max (Joe Anderson), whom Jude befriends at the college campus where he has tracked his dad to. Being the story takes place during the 1960s, the decade the Beatles were active, the trio all make their way to bohemian New York City, finding a communal flat run by Sadie (Dana Fuchs), a Janis Joplin-esque blues singer, which also houses such characters as Jo-Jo (Martin Luther McCoy), who shares more than a passing resemblance to Jimi Hendrix, and Prudence (T.V. Carpio), a cheerleader from Ohio who has escaped to the Big Apple to explore her sexual confusion.

As I hinted at before, the mere fact that “Across the Universe” got made at all is amazing. The film works best if you have a more than passing knowledge not only of the Beatles music but of the 1960s, and many of the instances and characters in the film will likely be lost on the teens and twentysomethings who need to embrace the film for it to be a financial success. While the thought of U2 lead singer Bono singing “I Am the Walrus” in a drug-induced haze is positively giddy for a Gen-Xer like myself, will someone half my age understand his Dr. Robert is a caricature of Beat writer Neal Cassaday, that the bus trip he and the major characters go on during the song is inspired by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters, and that their journey ends with an attempt to meet a Timothy Leary-like guru? Will someone whose musical history begins with Nirvana and Pearl Jam get the numerous sly references to the Beatles and their music as well as the specific nods to Joplin and Hendrix invoked by their doppelgängers? Will they “get” the cameo that makes the “Come Together” section of the film one of the best pure movie moments of the decade? This sounds like a minor quibble, but these were thoughts I was having during the screening I attended, which included several younger people who were silent while us older folks were laughing or nodding in acknowledgement of something familiar.

It would be very hard to screw up a film like this, considering the talent involved. Songs by the greatest rock band of all time. Screenplay by the writers of “The Commitments” and the vastly underappreciated “Still Crazy.” Cinematography by the genius behind “Amélie” and “A Very Long Engagement.” A great mix of up-and-coming actors (including Joe Anderson, who is someone everyone should keep an eye out for in the future), veterans (Eddie Izzard, Dylan Baker, Harry Lennix) and the breathtaking Evan Rachel Wood. And, of course, the undeniable style of Ms. Taymor, who made “Titus” and “Frida” come alive with her visual flamboyance and elaborate, colorful sets and costumes. Yet while cinema should rely on its images more than words or sounds, too much eye candy and not enough nourishment for the brain can make for a tired exercise. Which is not to say I regret seeing the film for even a second. “Across the Universe” does exactly what a film should do, tell its story visually. It’s just that the story part is in short supply. The chances of making a coherent storyline out of a series of disjointed, unconnected songs probably never had the chance to succeed in the first place.

This isn’t “Tommy,” and that’s both a good and bad thing.

My rating: B-