104 in 2009 Week 30: Trouble in Paradise and Made in USA

This was a really disappointing week, which is part of why it's taken me so long to get this entry done. I don't mean that in the sense that both movies were terrible - in fact, they both fall on the "good" side of the spectrum. I mean it in the literal sense of disappointment - both movies should have been a lot better than they were. Perhaps frustrating is a better word. Yes . . . in fact, I think I may even have used it in one of the reviews. Frustrating. It was a frustrating week.

Trouble in Paradise
Ernst Lubitsch, 1932

Veteran thieves (and lovers) Gaston Monescu (Herbert Marshall) and the surname-less Lily (Miriam Hopkins) plot to steal a large amount of money from Mariette Colet (Kay Francis), the heiress to a large cosmetics fortune by having Gaston pose as her secretary. The plan falls apart when Gaston and Mariette begin to fall in love.

Trouble in Paradise is a highly acclaimed classic, and there are many things to admire about it – the generally clever, snappy dialogue; the great two-man act of Edward Everett Horton and Charlie Ruggles; Miriam Hopkins’ lively performance, and the refreshing pre-code amorality. Unfortunately, Trouble in Paradise is a romantic comedy that centers on a dud of a romance, which renders many of the positive elements moot. Marshall and Francis, while just fine individually, have very little chemistry together – and what little they have is smothered by the clumsy wink-wink-nudge-nudge-aren’t-we-getting-hot-and-heavy tone of most of their scenes together. It seems that every time they talk, they lean in close, as if to kiss. . . she closes her eyes. . . and then, unmoving, they start delivering their lines to the camera, as if the other person wasn’t even there. I never once believed these characters even knew each other, much less loved each other. I’m at a loss as to how this could have happened – Lubitsch was clearly capable of directing a relationship, as the scenes between Marshall and Hopkins positively sparkle, particularly the early courtship sequence in which they reveal just how many things they have stolen from each other.

It’s very frustrating. There are a lot of things I liked about this movie. Some I liked an awful lot. But it’s all built on such a shaky foundation.

5.5/10

Made in USA
Jean-Luc Godard, 1967

A reporter (Anna Karina) journeys to Atlantic City (no, not the real one) to investigate the murder of her former lover at the hands of the police. Politics ensue.

This is a difficult movie for me to wrap my head around, not only in terms of the fairly obscure narrative, but in terms of figuring out how I feel about it. On the one hand, it’s a gorgeous movie. Godard’s (or, perhaps, Raoul Coutard’s) affinity for bright, primary colors reaches near fetishistic levels, and it’s consistently a wonder to behold. There are probably no more than a handful of shots that don’t have prominent red, white, and blue elements. I never got tired of looking at this movie. There is also a scene, about a half hour in, in which Anna Karina argues about the nature of words and sentences with a bartender and customer, after which Marianne Faithful (another patron of the bar) spontaneously sings a song. Taken on its own, this is a tremendous piece, easily one of my favorite individual scenes that I’ve seen in quite some time.

The problem then becomes putting it all together. The second half of Made in USA gets bogged down in endless political diatribes played from a reel to reel tape recorder. A lot of the energy, which is an especially critical element of a Godard film, drains out of the picture, and while the climax is quite interesting, it’s followed by yet another political discussion, this one even more ham-handed than the rest. The thing just can’t hold together as a complete experience. It’s a shame, really. I want to love this movie – and I do love parts of it – but I can’t seem to muster much more than a mild liking.

6/10


Progress: 68 (Par +8)