OVP: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

Film: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

Stars: Ellen Burstyn, Alfred Lutter, Kris Kristofferson, Harvey Keitel, Diane Ladd, Valerie Curtin, Jodie Foster

Director: Martin Scorsese

Oscar History: 3 nominations/1 win (Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn*, Supporting Actress-Diane Ladd, Original Screenplay)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2023 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the Golden Age western, and the stars who made it one of the most enduring legacies of Classical Hollywood.  This month, our focus is on Kris Kristofferson: click here to learn more about Mr. Kristofferson (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week we talked a little bit about Kris Kristofferson's very successful early career in music, but during the 1970's you'd be forgiven for thinking of him as a movie star in the same breath as thinking of him as a country music titan.  Kristofferson's career in movies is unusual because two of his biggest films of that era are movies that, while he got top-billing, he was totally overshadowed in terms of press coverage (and eventual recognition) in favor of his female costars.  That's certainly the case for today's movie, which is a pretty major crossover into the Oscar Viewing Project, as I watch my final (to date) Ellen Burstyn Oscar-nominated performance, and the only movie Burstyn ever won an Academy Award for.  The movie also happens to be the first studio movie that Martin Scorsese (who, like Burstyn, is still working) ever made, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is something of a road trip film, at least in the first half, with Alice (Burstyn) a former singer who has recently been widowed by her neglectful husband, taking her son Tommy (Lutter) across the country.  She wants to go to Monterey, her childhood home, where she dreams of picking up her singing career again, but along the way things get messy for her.  First, she meets a younger man named Ben (Keitel), who seems charming, but is actually an abusive married man whom she ends up fleeing town with after he threatens Alice.  At that point, in Tuscon, she gives up (temporarily) on her dream of becoming a singer for the more realistic life of a waitress in Mel's Diner, a local, fast-paced watering hole, where she befriends the outspoken Flo (Ladd), and starts romancing a regular named David (Kristofferson).  But her relationship with David is complicated by her increasingly unruly son, and eventually things come to a head when David physically disciplines Tommy.  The movie ends with them moving past this, and forming an unlikely family, with Alice giving up on her dream of being a singer, but finding a different kind of happiness with David instead.

I'll be totally honest-the ending of the movie doesn't work.  The movie's naturalism is its key asset, and that assists in a lot of the performances, but not in the ending.  The only logical reasons that David & Alice end up together are that it makes a cleaner ending than her pursuing a dream the audience knows won't happen, and that Kris Kristofferson circa 1974 is so hot you kind of look past the obvious, toxic masculinity flaws.  But it's not earned.  It's also hard to totally look at this from a modern lens without realizing that there is something seriously wrong with Tommy, who is a truly spoiled brat, and one who exhibits a lot of the same cruel tendencies that his father also exhibited at the beginning of the picture, which is going to be a problem for Alice in the years that follow (writing children in the 1970's was a nightmare unless you cast Tatum O'Neal or Jodie Foster, the latter of whom has a small role in this).

But the acting is good.  Burstyn brings a naturalism to her Alice, a modern woman who doesn't understand that it's not her gender, but her age, that will hold her back with the dreams she gave up to start a family.  There's an interesting commentary there about how the women's liberation movement came too late for a lot of women who now had the opening to make their dreams come true, but not the time.  Coupled with Ladd, who is superb in a side role as Alice's rival-turned-friend where she continually steals scenes, it's a great pairing and proof that Scorsese is capable of getting strong performances from women when he tries.  Kristofferson doesn't have a lot to do here but look pretty and then bounce off of Burstyn's monologues (this is very much an actress showcase film), but he does that well.

OVP: Isle of Dogs (2018)

Film: Isle of Dogs (2018)
Stars: Bryan Cranston, Koyu Rankin, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Kunichi Nomura, Greta Gerwig, Frances McDormand, Scarlett Johansson, Harvey Keitel, F. Murray Abraham, Tilda Swinton, Liev Schreiber
Director: Wes Anderson
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Animated Feature Film, Score)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Wes Anderson are an odd conundrum for me.  Usually, when it comes to a deeply-stylized director, an auteur, if you will, I have strong opinions.  They might be good, almost "stan-nish" (Malick, Scorsese, Bergman), or they might be loathed (Inarritu, Russell, McKay).  But Wes Anderson I am almost always ambivalent toward, despite the fact that his films are very specific, so you would think they would recall some sort of reaction from me, either for the good or the bad.  There are movies of his that I like, there are others of his that I disliked, but I've never felt absurdly strongly one way or the other with Anderson.  He just sort of is this weird tangent I sit through at the movie theater.  When he made Isle of Dogs I was smart enough to know that he'd get another Animated Feature nomination so I caught the film before the nominations announcement (it seems likely that he'll eventually win his Oscar in this category, but unlike another stylized director, George Miller, he's worked here long enough for this not to seem strange), but once again I leave the film with a sense of "ehh" neither particularly damning of it but not overwhelmed either.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film's plot is, admittedly ridiculous (though a lot of great movies have ridiculous plots, so don't assume this is an insult).  The mayor of Megasaki (Nomura) in Japan has banished all of the dogs of his city to an island made of trash in the middle of the sea, officially under the pretense that he's trying to rid the city of the animals in hopes of preventing "canine influenza" from spreading to his citizens, but really it's part of a bizarre 1000-year-old vendetta to destroy all of the dogs in Japan.  The mayor's nephew Atari (Rankin) goes to trash island trying to find his dog Spots (Schreiber).  He is led in this quest by Chief (Cranston), whom we learn to be Spots's brother, who hates humans but slowly warms to Atari, and takes on the role as his protector.  They find him while being chased by a series of robot dogs, and eventually we discover that Spots has moved on from Atari, raising his family with a female dog, and makes Chief officially the child's protector.  Together, along with a student reporter named Tracy (Gerwig), they foil the mayor's plan, and eventually Atari becomes the mayor with Tracy dating him, and Chief becomes his protector, with his enigmatic girlfriend Nutmeg (Johansson) by his side.

The movie is beautiful, let's just say that first.  The films of Wes Anderson have a distinctive palette, but here he outdoes himself with mountains of garbage, a gorgeous city (that is clearly meant to be inspired by Tokyo) that Megasaki rules, and a series of distinct but specific dogs.  There's something to be said for the way that he uses the personalities of the dogs to match their voices in a way that works but isn't too wink-y, and some of the details in the movie are catchy.  If you look closely enough at the credits, you'll find that Anjelica Huston is credited as "mute poodle" a character that's in the film but doesn't actually talk, so there's literally no reason for her to be credited other than an in-joke between two old friends.  Perhaps the best such trick is casting Yoko Ono (yes the Yoko Ono) as an Assistant Scientist...named Yoko Ono.

But the movie is (and I know his defenders hate when people say this about him) "too twee" for me.  It has too many characters to really connect with any of them, and it borders that line between honoring and exploiting a culture that's not your own (Anderson is from Houston), with Anderson casting Japanese actors to play the Japanese characters...and then making all of their dogs be played by white actors.  The film is inventive, frequently to a fault, but I don't want to tear down inventive so I'm going with 3 stars because it's technically "good," but I left considerably under-impressed.  This isn't even Anderson stretching like he did with Grand Budapest or finding a new place to test his skills like Mr. Fox-it's just kind of another movie, one similar and borrowing heavily from what he's done before without anything new to say.

OVP: Youth (2015)

Film: Youth (2015)
Stars: Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz, Paul Dano, Jane Fonda
Director: Paolo Sorrentino
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Simple Song #3")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Paolo Sorrentino and I have been a mixed bag so far.  When I first saw his film Il Divo, I hated it.  I thought the movie was dull, listless, and at times confusing (it felt like one of those SNL sketches where everyone's wearing a wig and calling it an impression).  To my great surprise, though, I ended up adoring The Great Beauty, his followup film that won the Best Foreign Language Oscar award and my OVP.  So I went into Youth with great anxiousness, particularly considering my fondness for some of the actors (Caine, Weisz, Fonda) and disdain for some of the others (well, one of the others-Paul Dano).  The film itself feels like it's being slightly cribbed from the same page as both of Sorrentino's previous films, in which an insanely rich man who lives in a sort of strangely sheltered paradise finds a crossroads, but unfortunately (despite some solid performances), it never captures the strange life force of The Great Beauty, feeling in many ways like an imitation that lacks the heart and completeness that comes with such a work.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Fred (Caine) as he lives in a luxury resort in the Swiss Alps, being looked after by his daughter/assistant Lena (Weisz).  He spends much of his days being pampered and enjoying an insane amount of luxury relaxing, medical care, and spa treatments, while at night he sees random musical and stage acts amidst the glamorous but fairly vapid seeming crowd of wealthy spa goers.  His most significant relationship, aside from that with his daughter, is with his friend Mick (Keitel), who is a longtime film director who is trying to create his "testament" picture, one that will surpass all of his other work.  He also strikes up a friendship with movie star Jimmy Tree (Dano), who is tired of being associated with a specific blockbuster performance of his as a robot and wants to be considered a "true artist."  Fred's life is thrown into chaos when an emissary of Queen Elizabeth II wants him to perform his "Simple Songs," the biggest hit of his career, for Prince Philip's birthday.  Fred hasn't conducted in years, and initially refuses even if you know as the film progresses that he will acquiesce.

The film is not short on big ideas, and there's something commendable about trying to create something breathtaking (though the shots aren't as consistently superb as The Great Beauty, Youth is still in love with its cinematography and it occasionally shows).  You see Fred, Lena, and Mick all encounter their own mortality, watching their lives and the way they have constructed them (along with their egos, as narcissism and its strengths/pitfalls is a critical component in the movie) be thrown asunder, with each handling failure in a different way.  Asking larger questions of "what drives life" and "what should we allow to define us"-these are big questions, and ones that the cinema at its best occasionally answers.  However, I felt like the movie wasn't prepared to handle these moments, or at least the script wasn't.  Though we get loads of great soliloquies from all five of the main actors, they don't really interact with each other as much as just exist onscreen together, and the constant barrage of beautiful scenery is meant to feel more pretty than to tell its own silent film of a story (which was something I admired so much in The Great Beauty).  As a result, we get fine acting mixed with a message that just can't cut it.

The acting is, of course, very good.  Keitel, Weisz, and Caine all have excellent moments each, and even Dano manages to make me like him for the first time onscreen in eight years.  Caine leaves Fred very unknowable, which is a risky choice, but we get the sense as the film moves on that he's less unknowable to the audience and more unknowable to everyone, including himself.  He's lived his life without much thought toward his actions until much time after they had passed, and in some cases too far after they had happened.  The final scene is a bit much (the "Simple Songs" feels a bit drawn out and not as iconic as it probably is meant to be), but Fred, finally giving in to the fact that time has past and in many ways moved past his era, sells it with his stern, defeated stoicism.  Only Jane Fonda, in fact, really equals what he's doing here, but man does she sink her teeth into her role as a former movie star now reduced to side roles on television.  Her monologue is the most damning, throwing not only Mick, her beloved former director, under the bus but herself and all of the entertainment industry.  The way she dismisses film, and all of the men who try to continue their moment in the spotlight when it has passed, is cruel, jarring, and viciously accurate.  Fonda's lighting has been criticized by the actress herself, but it's a great decision by the director to shine a garishness on one of the cinema's most beautiful actresses, pushing her in a way to show that continued survival is brutal and requires a nasty force.  It's very late in the film and a small part, but for those who have been wanting Fonda to get the great role her comeback has so far been lacking should look no further.

Those are my thoughts on Youth, a film with great intentions that cannot deliver them despite a fine lineup of actors.  What are yours?  Anyone finding this their favorite Sorrentino picture?  Is Rachel Weisz the most underrated actor currently working?  Can Caine make it six-decades-in-a-row?  Do you agree with Fonda's indictment on film in favor of TV?  Share your thoughts below!

OVP: The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Film: The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Stars: Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Saoirse Ronan, Edward Norton, F. Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric, Jude Law, Harvey Keitel, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson
Director: Wes Anderson (with that call sheet, who else?)
Oscar History: 9 nominations/4 wins (Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Costume*, Film Editing, Makeup & Hairstyling*, Original Score*, Production Design*, Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I'm not sure what it is about Wes Anderson, but he's never really been part of my oeuvre.  I don't know if it's because his films are a bit too "twee" or "precious" for me (I know his fans hate that "twee" gets bandied in every review of his, but it kind of fits), but his quirky version of the world hasn't ever jived with me.  And while I still have my reservations, I'm starting to come around, after Moonrise Kingdom and Fantastic Mr. Fox both scored with me, and now we have a third hit: The Grand Budapest Hotel.

(Spoilers Ahead) I think what sets this particular Wes Anderson film apart from most of his other work, and why I think I liked the actual plot of the film better than almost any others (Moonrise gets more points for its characters, but cannot sustain its promise as long as Grand Budapest) is that it spends considerably less time trying to be an ensemble.  The movie does have a series of very distinct characters, and all of the Anderson cast is there (save for Anjelica Huston-what happened there, why is she not making appearances in his films anymore?), but they aren’t the principle characters.  This is, in fact, the tale of two men: Zero (played as a boy by Revolori, as a man by Abraham), and M. Gustave H (Fiennes).  Both men have their own set of personal baggage which we understand as the film unfolds, and as a result of this stronger central vision Anderson manages to make a more personal-feeling film, one where we actually connect with the two lead characters in a stronger way than most of his past pictures.

I am thinking this particularly about Gustave H, a Wes Anderson creation if there ever was one: a bit of a fop, he spends his days running a luxury hotel like it’s the Pentagon and wooing his many wealthy aging patrons.  The most important of these is Madame D (Tilda Swinton in some hilarious old-age makeup), whom we learn as the film ends was the enigmatic owner of the Grand Budapest (a mystery that everyone solved relatively early in the film), and their chemistry throughout the opening scenes is pretty delicious, which is important since her death/murder is what sustains the plot as we move about a series of elaborate winter-covered luxury hotels across a mythical land named Zubrowka.

The film’s best parts involve Fiennes (really wonderful in this role-he’s always so good though), so frequently unaware of what is happening around him that when he occasionally has a genuine moment with his young apprentice Zero it throws off the audience in a most alarming and real way.  I love the moments where he defends Zero against the oppressive military, both times played for comic effect but there’s a real sense of morality that comes from Fiennes’ Gustave that proves that he’s not just a silly man, but a man who is aware of the importance of friendship and companionship as one gets older, and shows the deep value he puts on friendship.

The film, in my opinion, needed more of this Gustave-style realism.  The latter half hour of the film works the best not because we’ve seen the silliness of the film and it’s coming to a compelling close, but because we get a few unexpected wrenches thrown at us (think of the end of American Graffiti for a strong comparison).  Gustave H’s need to protect Zero costs him his life in the face of a brutal dictatorship.  Zero grew up to be a near copy of Gustave in that he lives his entire life for his hotel, giving up his fortune to keep it standing, and that he never got to spend his life with Agatha. 

It’s worth noting that the Agatha story doesn’t work.  Saoirse Ronan’s character doesn’t get enough to do and while the film for-the-most-part navigates the there’s-more-to-this-story script without leaving huge gaps, I felt that the Agatha story was a bit too small for us to get the significance of Zero keeping the hotel for her rather than for Gustave.

Still, though, this is a wonderfully complicated movie that sticks with you long after you leave the theater (or turn off the Netflix, as it were), and I have to say, is probably the best film that Anderson has made so far.  If this is the direction he’s headed, I’m aboard the train (which will undoubtedly be conducted by Owen Wilson).

What were your thoughts on The Grand Budapest?  Did you like the new direction that Anderson took his band of merry men (and Tilda) or do you wish that he would have stuck to something a bit more fancifully sweet?  Do you think that Fiennes should come back for his next adventure?  And will Anderson score an Original Screenplay Oscar nomination?  Share in the comments!