Shampoo - Hal Ashby, 1975
Warren Beatty is very cool, women are very stupid.
That's about it.
Shampoo: 5.0/10
Julie Christie in Shampoo: 6.0/10
And now, Demon Seed. I read up on the premise of this film. Very intriguing, and it did not disappoint. i'm on the verge of napping so I'll wrap this marathon up quickly.
Julie Christie's husband builds a supercomputer born with an existential crisis named Proteus IV , which kidnaps Christie in her own home while she is alone, commences to psychologically abuse her and plans on impregnating her.
It's themes of immortality, a man's need to procreate no matter how, and how far the human race will go to complete silly goals can be over obvious, but are effective none the less. Things that happen in this film make little to no sense, but it still manages to work quite successfully.
And Julie. The last Julie performance of the program is among her best. Locked away by herself for the vast majority of the run-time, she's fantastic acting against a creepy offscreen voice. Her fear is palpable, and the slow transition from mania to almost a Stockholm Syndrome state is excellently handled.
Demon Seed: 8.6/10
Julie Christie in Demon Seed: 8.5/10
And now we rank her performances in order from the best.
1. The Go-Between
2. Darling
3. Demon Seed
4. Petulia
5. Billy Liar
6. Far From the Madding Crowd
7. The Fast Lady
8. Shampoo
9. Young Cassidy
10. In Search of Gregory
So her performance average in this marathon of Christie performances is 7.0. It's amazing how heavily that Gregory movie affects her average.
So today's TCM star is Ingrid Bergman, another actress I love. I decided to record a few of the films, nothing like with Christie. On the plate will be Roberto Rossellini's Stromboli, Hitchcock's Spellbound, famous noir Gaslight, Europa '51, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
These will roll out much slower, as I take time to actually do other things. Hopefully Cox On Demand will start working again.
Showing posts with label Julie Christie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julie Christie. Show all posts
Friday, August 6, 2010
Julie Christie #8
"You have a very superior pelvis."
Imagine that line as one of cinema's great heartbreaking moments, because it is. I had doubts going into Richard Lester's Petulia, expecting a stereotypical 60s, counterculture romp. The first few minutes did nothing to ease my anxieties, but after the initial (and strange) meet cute, with leads Julie Christie and George C. Scott, the movie veers off into several wild directions. It's no 60s romp.
Scott and Christie make for a very strange, then believable, then fantastic couple after they both leave their spouses to start spending time together. They're both looking for a bit of freedom (Scott from his marriage and responsibilities, and Christie from a dark recent past shown in some flashbacks) and San Francisco, a budding countercultural melting pot, seems for them the right place to do it. With that much story set up, Lester feels free to throw in all kinds of side-stories and sub-plots to keep us from the end, and they work magnificently to create a whole.
And again, thank you, Mr. Nicolas Roeg, for existing. Anything you film is among the most aestheically pleasing ever produced on film.
As for Christie, she really takes a backseat to Scott's heart and soul character of the film, but she's great as the fish-out-of-water looking for anything to set her free (whether it be a man, or a tuba). This film fits nicely into my whole "we don't get to know Christie's characters very well" shpeel from a couple days ago. Petulia, I must note, was released in 1968, right in between Far From the Madding Crowd and The Go-Between.
Petulia: 9.3/10
Julie Christie in Petulia: 8.5/10
There are only two more films left in the Christie marathon: Demonseed (Yay!) and Shampoo (not too excited,really).
Imagine that line as one of cinema's great heartbreaking moments, because it is. I had doubts going into Richard Lester's Petulia, expecting a stereotypical 60s, counterculture romp. The first few minutes did nothing to ease my anxieties, but after the initial (and strange) meet cute, with leads Julie Christie and George C. Scott, the movie veers off into several wild directions. It's no 60s romp.
Scott and Christie make for a very strange, then believable, then fantastic couple after they both leave their spouses to start spending time together. They're both looking for a bit of freedom (Scott from his marriage and responsibilities, and Christie from a dark recent past shown in some flashbacks) and San Francisco, a budding countercultural melting pot, seems for them the right place to do it. With that much story set up, Lester feels free to throw in all kinds of side-stories and sub-plots to keep us from the end, and they work magnificently to create a whole.
And again, thank you, Mr. Nicolas Roeg, for existing. Anything you film is among the most aestheically pleasing ever produced on film.
As for Christie, she really takes a backseat to Scott's heart and soul character of the film, but she's great as the fish-out-of-water looking for anything to set her free (whether it be a man, or a tuba). This film fits nicely into my whole "we don't get to know Christie's characters very well" shpeel from a couple days ago. Petulia, I must note, was released in 1968, right in between Far From the Madding Crowd and The Go-Between.
Petulia: 9.3/10
Julie Christie in Petulia: 8.5/10
There are only two more films left in the Christie marathon: Demonseed (Yay!) and Shampoo (not too excited,really).
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Julie Christie #6 and #7
Finally, my most anticipated Julie Christie film, Billy Liar. The film that got everybody talking about her really barely features her. She's in three scenes, eleven minutes. Two of these scenes constitute the best scenes in this film, a very good film at that.
Tom Courtenay (Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner) is a young man constantly hiding from reality in his daydreams of a nation he is in charge of. He dreams of moving to London and being a screenwriter, but he doesn't write and he's gone ahead and old everyone he got a job anyway. He's also managed to get himself engaged to two very annoying girls, while really being in love with his long-time, flighty friend Julie Christie.
This is the first film Christie made with John Schlesinger (followed by Darling and Far From the Madding Crowd), and it's the closest we've been able to get to one of her characters. Christie tries to convince Courtenay to move away to London just for the hell of it and marry her, and in doing so reveals the inner workings of her character in a beautiful and fanciful way. So much so that it almost feels like another of Courtenay's day dreams.
Courtenay himself is nothing short of a revelation. The brooding, working class mug of Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner disappears so completely to reveal a joyful, oblivious, working class optimist.
And special notice to the opening credits sequence, which visually sets up the class conflict setting perfectly.
The film wasn't quite as great as I was hoping it would be, but it was still a joy to sit through
Billy Liar: 7.9/10
Julie Christie in Billy Liar: 8.5/10
The same cannot be said for her next collaboration with Schlesinger. Darling won her an Academy Award in 1965, but I had a hard time opening up to a movie with such an unsympathetic protagonist. I don't think there was a scene that didn't feature Christie, something that would normally be my dream. Here, though, she's ladder climbing, aspiring actress who just wants more, more, more.
I know Darling is meant to be a critique of the then modern superficial era, and I guess it's pretty successful, but the exploits and self-destructive decisions of "Darling" Diana Scott just are not interesting enough to successfully fill up the 129 minutes that it does. The film is incredibly entertaining right out the gate, and remains so for a while. It just lets itself sag in the back half, and fails to present much of a compelling conclusion to sweeten the taste right at the end
Julie Christie is clearly giving this her all, sinking into this horrible character. She definitely deserved this Oscar, I might call it her best performance so far in this marathon, but it's too bad they couldn't do a little snip snip to script to make Darling a bit more lean and outright enjoyable.
Darling: 7.3/10
Julie Christie in Darling: 9.o/10
Next up: The director of Superman III supposedly makes a good movie with Petulia. We'll see about that.
(Shut up, I don't care about those Beatles movies he made.)
Tom Courtenay (Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner) is a young man constantly hiding from reality in his daydreams of a nation he is in charge of. He dreams of moving to London and being a screenwriter, but he doesn't write and he's gone ahead and old everyone he got a job anyway. He's also managed to get himself engaged to two very annoying girls, while really being in love with his long-time, flighty friend Julie Christie.
This is the first film Christie made with John Schlesinger (followed by Darling and Far From the Madding Crowd), and it's the closest we've been able to get to one of her characters. Christie tries to convince Courtenay to move away to London just for the hell of it and marry her, and in doing so reveals the inner workings of her character in a beautiful and fanciful way. So much so that it almost feels like another of Courtenay's day dreams.
Courtenay himself is nothing short of a revelation. The brooding, working class mug of Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner disappears so completely to reveal a joyful, oblivious, working class optimist.
And special notice to the opening credits sequence, which visually sets up the class conflict setting perfectly.
The film wasn't quite as great as I was hoping it would be, but it was still a joy to sit through
Billy Liar: 7.9/10
Julie Christie in Billy Liar: 8.5/10
The same cannot be said for her next collaboration with Schlesinger. Darling won her an Academy Award in 1965, but I had a hard time opening up to a movie with such an unsympathetic protagonist. I don't think there was a scene that didn't feature Christie, something that would normally be my dream. Here, though, she's ladder climbing, aspiring actress who just wants more, more, more.
I know Darling is meant to be a critique of the then modern superficial era, and I guess it's pretty successful, but the exploits and self-destructive decisions of "Darling" Diana Scott just are not interesting enough to successfully fill up the 129 minutes that it does. The film is incredibly entertaining right out the gate, and remains so for a while. It just lets itself sag in the back half, and fails to present much of a compelling conclusion to sweeten the taste right at the end
Julie Christie is clearly giving this her all, sinking into this horrible character. She definitely deserved this Oscar, I might call it her best performance so far in this marathon, but it's too bad they couldn't do a little snip snip to script to make Darling a bit more lean and outright enjoyable.
Darling: 7.3/10
Julie Christie in Darling: 9.o/10
Next up: The director of Superman III supposedly makes a good movie with Petulia. We'll see about that.
(Shut up, I don't care about those Beatles movies he made.)
Julie Christie #5
And here we have the first film on the program that I can wholeheartedly embrace, without reservation. It's also the first on the bill that I was actively looking forward to. I forget why; most likely some offhand comment by Glenn Kenny or someone. The film is Joseph Losey's 1970 Cannes Grand Prix winner The Go-Between. It's a pretty standard story of class conflict in the English countryside in 1900, before class distinctions were questioned. But what could be standard and simple is elevated by several things: Losey's organic and fluid direction, in which not a single shot, camera angle or cut is wasted or takes away from the whole; Michael Legrand's building and melodramatic classical piano score; pristine sets and art direction; brilliant performances by Julie Christie, Alan Bates (again), Margaret Leighton, Dominic Guard, and Michael Redgrave; and, most importantly, one of my new favorite scripts ever by Harold Pinter, adapted from L.P. Harltley's novel of the same name.
Leo (Dominic Guard), gets invited to his rich friend's estate and is taken in very graciously by the whole family for the summer. He quickly befriends his friend's older sister Julie Christie (I love not giving her characters names). He quickly falls in love with her, and she begins using him to carry messages and letters to the neighboring tenant farmer (Alan Bates) with whom she's carrying on a secret relationship, despite being promised to a wealthy viscount. Slowly Leo begins to understand what's happening around him and his fantasy summer unravels into traumatizing ends. The whole film is told in flashback by an old Julie Christie and an impotent, chubby, older Leo (a brilliant Michael Redgrave).
What makes the film so special is what's not shown on screen, and how all those components listed above make what isn't shown perfectly clear. We never need to see Bates and Christie on the screen together to feel the sexual tension and chemistry between them. Without ever saying anything, it becomes so clear that maybe Christie's mother (Margaret Leighton) and the rest of the house no more than they're letting on.
As for Christie, she is so perfectly lovely and sweet, cold and abusive, innocent and knowing all at the same time. In a film full of near perfect components, Christie truly does stand still stand out as amazing. I do find it interesting though that both The Go-Between and Far from the Madding Crowd feature Christie in the lead role but don't exactly tell stories about her. Instead they both seem to use her characters as centers and catalysts around which to tell the stories. This was more Leo's perspective and story; Madding Crowd liberally switched perspectives between her 3 suitors. And if we throw out the horrid In Search of Gregory, all of the Christie films so far have featured her as unobtainable and mostly unknowable characters. We've failed to get close to her time and time again. It's amazing that she's made these difficult characters so easy to watch and so three dimensional. I firmly believe her farmer in Far From the Madding Crowd would have been just an attention obsessed, annoying stereotype rich girl in most others' hands.
The Go-Between: 9.5/10
Julie Christie in The Go-Between: 9.0/10
Next up: seriously, it's going to be Billy Liar this time.
Leo (Dominic Guard), gets invited to his rich friend's estate and is taken in very graciously by the whole family for the summer. He quickly befriends his friend's older sister Julie Christie (I love not giving her characters names). He quickly falls in love with her, and she begins using him to carry messages and letters to the neighboring tenant farmer (Alan Bates) with whom she's carrying on a secret relationship, despite being promised to a wealthy viscount. Slowly Leo begins to understand what's happening around him and his fantasy summer unravels into traumatizing ends. The whole film is told in flashback by an old Julie Christie and an impotent, chubby, older Leo (a brilliant Michael Redgrave).
What makes the film so special is what's not shown on screen, and how all those components listed above make what isn't shown perfectly clear. We never need to see Bates and Christie on the screen together to feel the sexual tension and chemistry between them. Without ever saying anything, it becomes so clear that maybe Christie's mother (Margaret Leighton) and the rest of the house no more than they're letting on.
As for Christie, she is so perfectly lovely and sweet, cold and abusive, innocent and knowing all at the same time. In a film full of near perfect components, Christie truly does stand still stand out as amazing. I do find it interesting though that both The Go-Between and Far from the Madding Crowd feature Christie in the lead role but don't exactly tell stories about her. Instead they both seem to use her characters as centers and catalysts around which to tell the stories. This was more Leo's perspective and story; Madding Crowd liberally switched perspectives between her 3 suitors. And if we throw out the horrid In Search of Gregory, all of the Christie films so far have featured her as unobtainable and mostly unknowable characters. We've failed to get close to her time and time again. It's amazing that she's made these difficult characters so easy to watch and so three dimensional. I firmly believe her farmer in Far From the Madding Crowd would have been just an attention obsessed, annoying stereotype rich girl in most others' hands.
The Go-Between: 9.5/10
Julie Christie in The Go-Between: 9.0/10
Next up: seriously, it's going to be Billy Liar this time.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Julie Christie #4
There are many reasons to be excited about watching 1967's Far From the Madding Crowd: director John Schlesinger, of Billy Liar and Darling fame; legendary actor Peter Finch; fantastic actor Terrence Stamp; cinematography by one of the all-time greats Nicolas Roeg; and, of course, Julie Christie.
Thankfully, this three hour film, based on a Thomas Hardy novel about English farm life in the 19th century, is not a waste of time like some other films in this marathon. In fact, it's really good.
For three hours the film really doesn't have too much in the way of plot. A headstrong, young woman (Christie) inherits a large sheep farm, and also the attention of three different bachelors: the poor sheep farmer who's just lost everything (Alan Bates); the crotchety rich farmer who's never loved (Finch); and the violent, romantic bad-boy sergeant (Stamp). Romances and complications unfold very slowly over the course of the film. It confidently abandons a character for large stretches to really let another relationship flourish.
Every performance is fantastic, and Schlesinger handles a new genre very well. The scene where Stamps sergeant displays his sword skills for an amazed Christie was brilliantly erotic. But the real amazing aspects here are Nicolas Roeg's phenomenal camera work and Richard Rodney Bennett's haunting score. It's the camera and music that really draw out and emphasize the emotions of all the characters on screen.
As for Christie, she's great. Apparently, people didn't like this bit of casting, as she was then a huge movie star, but I thought she handled the headstrong/vulnerable tightrope walk with ease to burn.
Far From the Madding Crowd: 7.8/10
Julie Christie in Far From the Madding Crowd: 7.4/10
next up: the film that made Julie a star, Billy Liar
Thankfully, this three hour film, based on a Thomas Hardy novel about English farm life in the 19th century, is not a waste of time like some other films in this marathon. In fact, it's really good.
For three hours the film really doesn't have too much in the way of plot. A headstrong, young woman (Christie) inherits a large sheep farm, and also the attention of three different bachelors: the poor sheep farmer who's just lost everything (Alan Bates); the crotchety rich farmer who's never loved (Finch); and the violent, romantic bad-boy sergeant (Stamp). Romances and complications unfold very slowly over the course of the film. It confidently abandons a character for large stretches to really let another relationship flourish.
Every performance is fantastic, and Schlesinger handles a new genre very well. The scene where Stamps sergeant displays his sword skills for an amazed Christie was brilliantly erotic. But the real amazing aspects here are Nicolas Roeg's phenomenal camera work and Richard Rodney Bennett's haunting score. It's the camera and music that really draw out and emphasize the emotions of all the characters on screen.
As for Christie, she's great. Apparently, people didn't like this bit of casting, as she was then a huge movie star, but I thought she handled the headstrong/vulnerable tightrope walk with ease to burn.
Far From the Madding Crowd: 7.8/10
Julie Christie in Far From the Madding Crowd: 7.4/10
next up: the film that made Julie a star, Billy Liar
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Julie Christie #2 and #3
Apparently TCM was well aware that no one would be watching at 6 AM, and so they programmed accordingly. Instead of showing Billy Liar, Christie's next (star-making) film, they jumped ahead a couple years and showed Young Cassidy. Christie's only got a few minutes of screen time so I'll keep this short, even though it's a perfectly adequate film.
Directed by Oscar-winning cinematographer Jack Cardiff, after John Ford got ill three weeks into shooting, Young Cassidy is based on the early years of Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. Here he's John Cassidy, played very well by Rod Taylor. Christie is a local prostitute/Cassidy's friend.
The film's structure is extremely loose, and it takes a long time for everything to get going. Cassidy seems like just a normal laborer, ready to fight for Irish independence. He occasionally throws out lines, like "I'm very clever with words" so that we know he's smart, but we never really see it until BAM all of a sudden he's writing.
Maggie Smith is good as Cassidy's love interest, but nothing special. No one else does anything very interesting.
Christie, though, with her 2 scenes, does leave quite an impression on the film. She comes in, looks beautiful, and sleeps with Cassidy. Not much, but her magnetism and presence is palpable.
Young Cassidy: 6.1/10
Julie Christie in Young Cassidy: 5.5/10
Next up is Peter Wood's 1969 drama In Search of Gregory. This is a terrible movie. Holy fucking terrible. Much worse than The Fast Lady. Christie's character, who lives in Rome, travels to Geneva for her father's latest wedding. Outside the airport she sees an advertisement depicting Gregory Mulvey (Michael Sarrazin), an autoracer everybody in her family seems to know. Her (I think) mentally disabled brother tells her stories about his adventures.
She becomes obsessed with meeting him and won't stop talking about him. She walks around sulking, waiting for this guy to show up. It's not a performance. It's just Christie in front of a camera. John Hurt acts dumb and confused. Michael Sarrazin, who gave up a lead role in Midnight Cowboy for this piece of shit, just acts ridiculous and child-like. Although, if I had to choose between winning an Oscar and (SPOILER) banging Julie Christie, I know I'd choose the latter.
In Search of Gregory: 2.1/10
Julie Christie in In Search of Gregory: 2.0/10
Next up: 3 hours of Christie deciding between 3 men in Far From the Madding Crowd
Directed by Oscar-winning cinematographer Jack Cardiff, after John Ford got ill three weeks into shooting, Young Cassidy is based on the early years of Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. Here he's John Cassidy, played very well by Rod Taylor. Christie is a local prostitute/Cassidy's friend.
The film's structure is extremely loose, and it takes a long time for everything to get going. Cassidy seems like just a normal laborer, ready to fight for Irish independence. He occasionally throws out lines, like "I'm very clever with words" so that we know he's smart, but we never really see it until BAM all of a sudden he's writing.
Maggie Smith is good as Cassidy's love interest, but nothing special. No one else does anything very interesting.
Christie, though, with her 2 scenes, does leave quite an impression on the film. She comes in, looks beautiful, and sleeps with Cassidy. Not much, but her magnetism and presence is palpable.
Young Cassidy: 6.1/10
Julie Christie in Young Cassidy: 5.5/10
Next up is Peter Wood's 1969 drama In Search of Gregory. This is a terrible movie. Holy fucking terrible. Much worse than The Fast Lady. Christie's character, who lives in Rome, travels to Geneva for her father's latest wedding. Outside the airport she sees an advertisement depicting Gregory Mulvey (Michael Sarrazin), an autoracer everybody in her family seems to know. Her (I think) mentally disabled brother tells her stories about his adventures.
She becomes obsessed with meeting him and won't stop talking about him. She walks around sulking, waiting for this guy to show up. It's not a performance. It's just Christie in front of a camera. John Hurt acts dumb and confused. Michael Sarrazin, who gave up a lead role in Midnight Cowboy for this piece of shit, just acts ridiculous and child-like. Although, if I had to choose between winning an Oscar and (SPOILER) banging Julie Christie, I know I'd choose the latter.
In Search of Gregory: 2.1/10
Julie Christie in In Search of Gregory: 2.0/10
Next up: 3 hours of Christie deciding between 3 men in Far From the Madding Crowd
Monday, August 2, 2010
Julie Christie
TCM is running a marathon of Julie Christie's filmography, beginning with her debut The Fast Lady and ending with 1977's Demonseed. I've always loved the actress so I have cleared out all the room on the DVR, and will be watching these films all week. I didn't record Dr. Zhivago, The Go-Between, or Shampoo; the latter because they're available through Netflix Instant, and the former because it is just too fucking long.
McCabe & Mrs. Miller and Don't Look Now are two of my all-time favorites, and Julie Christie is a large part of why. She's amazing. She absolutely kills in every role I've seen her, and she's truly stunning. It's a shame (but not surprising) then that her film debut isn't up to her later standards. The Fast Lady is not good. At all. The title comes from a sports car Stanley Baxter stupidly purchases to get the attention of Christie's superficial, spoiled daughter of an auto tycoon. It's an attempt at silly comedy that fails 100% at being remotely funny.
As with every character in The Fast Lady, Julie Christie's has no arc, or any seeming emotional investment in anything going on. But, wowww. In 1963, the 22 year old actress was looking good. The two scenes of Christie in a swimsuit made all 106 minutes worth it. Besides her looks though, Christie acts just like everyone else here: not very well. She doesn't embarrass herself or anything. It's more likely that director Ken Annakin (SERIOUSLY) had no interest in telling her to do anything except look incredibly sexy. She does have much more presence than anyone else onscreen. Thank God someone recognized that and gave her more and better roles.
The Fast Lady: 3.0/10
Julie Christie in The Fast Lady: 6.0/10 (expect these to always be bloated, my love is my bias)
Next: Jack Cardiff's 1965 biopic Young Cassidy
McCabe & Mrs. Miller and Don't Look Now are two of my all-time favorites, and Julie Christie is a large part of why. She's amazing. She absolutely kills in every role I've seen her, and she's truly stunning. It's a shame (but not surprising) then that her film debut isn't up to her later standards. The Fast Lady is not good. At all. The title comes from a sports car Stanley Baxter stupidly purchases to get the attention of Christie's superficial, spoiled daughter of an auto tycoon. It's an attempt at silly comedy that fails 100% at being remotely funny.
As with every character in The Fast Lady, Julie Christie's has no arc, or any seeming emotional investment in anything going on. But, wowww. In 1963, the 22 year old actress was looking good. The two scenes of Christie in a swimsuit made all 106 minutes worth it. Besides her looks though, Christie acts just like everyone else here: not very well. She doesn't embarrass herself or anything. It's more likely that director Ken Annakin (SERIOUSLY) had no interest in telling her to do anything except look incredibly sexy. She does have much more presence than anyone else onscreen. Thank God someone recognized that and gave her more and better roles.
The Fast Lady: 3.0/10
Julie Christie in The Fast Lady: 6.0/10 (expect these to always be bloated, my love is my bias)
Next: Jack Cardiff's 1965 biopic Young Cassidy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
