Booksellers Try to Keep Their Industry’s Pages Turning

"The Booksellers"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

*Although I've been catching up on some classic movies over the last few weeks ever since the movie theaters temporarily closed, I'm going to take a break from them every so often to dive into the indie films that have been made available in the Jacob Burns Film Center's virtual screening room.

With movie theaters being closed with the health crisis going on, I’ve been devouring books left and right.  Going to the movies and reading books are my two favorite past times, and if I can’t do the former, I’m going to do the latter.  Over the last seven weeks, I've been immersing myself in books at a rate that has made my love of reading the strongest that it has ever been.  Page after page I go, trying to read as much as I can before getting tired.  After racing through these books, I was thrilled to see a documentary that was available to stream, one that would explore the world of books.  This documentary is director D.W. Young’s "The Booksellers," an enthralling, intimate look into New York City’s independent bookstores and sellers of rare books.

The first few minutes are enough to get any bibliophile hooked, as we're brought into the bustling conference hall of the esteemed New York Book Fair.  With the camera gazing at the priceless books inside their display cases, we know that these booksellers aren't fooling around when it comes to their profession.  Their passion for books seems to be unparalleled from anyone outside their world, showing the care and enthusiasm that they put into preserving books that could be decades, even centuries old. 

After this, we're granted access to the offices, libraries, houses, storage garages, and bookshelves of several NYC booksellers who don't do anything less than astound you with their commitment to giving these works of art the respect that they, and their authors, deserve.  Although it could seem like the documentary interviews too many booksellers and might have worked a tad better had they just focused on a select few to go further into their stories (some booksellers are given more time than others), having this many book enthusiasts appear in the movie gives you a positive feeling of how the art of book collecting and selling could still be thriving in the years to come, so long as these individuals, and others, continue to emphasize the importance of keeping the voices within the cherished pages alive.

As we gain access into the lives of the booksellers, we’re also given the opportunity see the vast collections to which they’ve dedicated their lives.  With the loving views of their libraries, Young makes you want to climb the shelves, grab a book, read it, and then make you do it all over again.  You can get swept away by the shelves of volumes that have found the homes that they need, and it’s sights like these that not only absorb you into the lives of these booksellers, but also make you want to have your own book collection match the impressive sizes of the collections that are depicted in the film.

Almost halfway through the movie, there's a quote that's shown from children's author, Maurice Sendak that emphasizes how much a book can offer.  It goes, “There’s so much more to a book than just the reading.”  This is a quote that encapsulates what books mean to the individuals that this movie follows.  Although they love to read, they see books as more than just a way by which to pass the time, but also as a way of life and a method to preserve history and culture.

While the subject of print media vs. digital media might seem like it has been covered extensively, there's still some intrigue in exploring this topic from the point of view of these booksellers.  With many of the booksellers being from generations that saw print media thrive, those sellers feel more of a sting when it comes to print being pushed out by digital media because of how those sellers have dealt with print media for most of their lives, so there's a sentimental attachment to it.  With all of the work that the individuals in the film do to preserve books, we sense the importance of a book’s tangibility with how great it feels to flip through pages and view the essentialness of being able to have a book, a piece of art, in your hands.

Near the end of the film, there’s a quote from Jorge Luis Borges’ “The Library of Babel” that goes, “The library will endure; it is the universe.”  If “The Booksellers” is anything by which to go, the future of books could very well have countless more chapters.

Grade: A-

As a Surveillance Expert Analyzes Others, We Analyze Him: A Retro Review for “The Conversation”

Gene Hackman and John Cazale in "The Conversation"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

*With movie theaters closed for the time being, I’m taking this time to review classics that I have yet to see.  I’m going to try to do these Retro Reviews as often as I can until the theaters reopen.  Hope you enjoy them!

The opening scene of writer-director Francis Ford Coppola’s 1974 thriller, “The Conversation,” engulfs you in paranoia right from the start, having an overheard shot from high off of the ground that slowly descends upon a park.  With this shot, cinematographer Bill Butler, who had worked with Coppola five years prior on “The Rain People,” presents all of the unease of knowing, or feeling like someone is spying on you, whether it be from a close or far distance.  This is a masterful shot that brings us into a story of the main character going from being the watcher to the watched.

Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) is a surveillance expert who develops an obsession over recordings of a mysterious conversation between two people in a park  His fixation with these tapes soon lead to an ethical dilemma that causes him to call his years of work into question.

Hackman gives a performance where he shows his character’s sense of wanting to be closed off, making us work when trying to figure out what seems to be troubling him.  While he shuts himself away from others and shows intense focus on his work, there’s an understated sense of turmoil that we see simmering underneath Harry, and Hackman displays his character’s penchant for always trying to remain calm, even when the pressure from his work starts to break him.  There's a sense of remorse that Hackman provides his character, and the fact that he's so low-key with that feeling makes us think even harder about what could have happened to Harry in the past that made him feel this way.  It's a superb example of how much strength can be emitted from a restrained performance.

Backing up Hackman’s work are a few memorable supporting roles from John Cazale as Harry’s assistant who does his best to reach out to him; Allen Garfield as a surveillance equipment salesmen who’s sneaky in trying to get Hackman to admit the details of his past; Robert Duvall as “The Director,” a client of Harry’s; and Harrison Ford as “The Director”’s assistant.  All four of these performances help you experience the mounting discomfort that Harry feels when others interfere with his work, whether they mean well or not.

While Coppola’s screenplay is a thriller, the movie is also a strong character study that focuses on Harry’s profession as he grapples with trying to solve the mystery behind his recordings and coming to terms with a troubled past that has thrown his work into doubt.  This is a narrative that has a strong sense of focus as it has one focus on the surface, with Harry analyzing the recordings; then, underneath, there’s a focus about him dealing with his troubles.  Both parts of the story are explored in equal measure and give us an understanding of who Harry is.  Through Harry's interactions with others and the scenes where he's by himself, Coppola doles out a little insight at a time to keep us invested in unraveling the secrets that Harry isn't so easy with disclosing.

As a director, Coppola highlights Harry’s ironic obsession with privacy, despite his character working in surveillance.  Coppola accomplishes this by using many closeups as a way to emphasize Harry’s own privacy being invaded, while also showing him in enclosed spaces to show his fear of being watched.  When we arrive to the final half hour, Coppola unleashes the tension that has been slowly building up during everything that came before.  Coppola’s filmmaking skills create a climactic scene that’s not only shocking, but heartbreaking for the main character.  Coppola’s careful pacing in the exploration into who Harry is elevates this scene to its highest impact because it makes Harry’s arc much more emotional than I anticipated.

What's also notable about Coppola's direction is that, even though there are several supporting characters in the film, he conveys Harry's sense of isolation to such a degree that it oftentimes feels like he's the only character in the film, with all of the other individuals in his life just seeming like they're in the peripheral, or not there at all.  It's an accomplishment that places us right into Harry's mindset and has us feel his debilitating inability to connect with others.

Given Harry's unbreakable focus on his work, Coppola succeeds in absorbing us into the world or surveillance that consumes the main character.  Coppola does so not only with the set design that shows all of the complexities of the equipment in Harry and his team’s makeshift office, but also with the Walter Murch and Art Rochester’s accomplished use of sound that has us hear how the recordings sound to Harry as he listens to them.  This creates an authenticity to the presentation of the surveilled dialogue that has listen carefully to what’s being said, so we, along with Harry, must then pay close attention to hear what their subjects are saying.

With a story that’s compelling, thrilling, and unsettling, “The Conversation” is sure to spark a few after you watch it.

Grade: A 

Mel Brooks Creates a Hilarious Science Experiment: A Retro Review for “Young Frankenstein”

Peter Boyle and Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

*With movie theaters closed for the time being, I’m taking this time to review classics that I have yet to see.  I’m going to try to do these Retro Reviews as often as I can until the theaters reopen.  Hope you enjoy them!

Between movies like “Blazing Saddles,” “Spaceballs,” and “Robin Hood: Men in Tights,” Mel Brooks developed a superb career in taking certain types of movies and providing them with a comedic spin.  One of his earliest examples is the 1974 horror-comedy, “Young Frankenstein,” which lampoons Mary Shelley’s literary creation to give us a monster movie that has as many laughs as Frankenstein’s castle has cobwebs.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein (Gene Wilder) is a lecturing physician at an American medical school who’s been troubled by the fact that he’s the grandson of Victor Frankenstein.  He soon learns that he has inherited his family’s estate in Transylvania and travels there to take a look at the property.  While there, he will follow in his grandfather’s footsteps and create his own monster.

Wilder, who worked with Brooks on “The Producers” and “Blazing Saddles,” provides a fun performance that sees his character making a transformation from a professor to a crazed scientist, a transformation that’s cleverly hinted at when his character is teaching a class at the start of the film, where he goes from calm to crazed when a student brings up Frederick’s lineage.  It’s a moment that has you looking forward to how his character will adopt the mad-scientist persona that we all know from the original “Frankenstein” film, and Wilder delivers.  When Wilder arrives to this part of his character, he has an unhinged gleam in his eye that toes the line perfectly between the passion of the Dr. Frankenstein from the original film and a terrific comedic edge.  It’s a performance that’s a wonderful compliment to Wilder’s work in “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” bringing a sense of witty unpredictability that helps make this move as fun as it is.

Peter Boyle delivers an excellent physical performance as Frankenstein’s monster.  With the way he walks, displays some very humorous facial expressions, and elicits other unintelligible sounds as his form of speech, it all helps make for a superb new take on the iconic monster.  This is all heightened to tremendous effect in a comedic sequence where he and Frederick perform Irving Berlin’s “Puttin’ On the Ritz” in a crowded theater, delivering a highlight in the truest sense.

Marty Feldman’s portrayal of Igor, Frederick’s servant, is an absolute delight as we see him hobbling and bumbling along, helping out Frederick and getting into some very funny mishaps along the way.  Right from his first scene, you know that he’s going to make you laugh every second that he’s on screen, and he succeeds in doing that, bringing us a character who keeps you wanting more and more of him, despite him having an ample amount of screen time.

The screenplay by Brooks and Wilder takes a story that everyone knows and gives it an invigorating twist.  The duo exhibits a talent for developing humorous sequences that unfold with a magnificent balance of visual and verbal humor that make the outrageous situations of the film so memorable.  Unlike the parody movies that have come out over the last 20 years, their narrative doesn’t rely on easy gross-out gags to evoke laughs, but instead relies on the cleverness of their writing, both in terms of setup and dialogue.

Other than the comedic aspects, the narrative has a slightly emotional undercurrent that focuses on the monster and Frederick coming to terms with who he is, and this is something that’s brought to the forefront within the last few minutes where one of the characters (I won’t say which, as I have to give away a humorous plot point if I explain it any further).

The monster doesn’t come alive until around the hour mark, so that gives us plenty of time to see the witty interplay between Frederick, Igor, and Inga (Teri Garr), Frederick’s assistant, as they try to get accustomed to each other.  This allows for the hilarity to build among them as they try to figure out how to make Frederick’s reanimation experiment succeed.  Once the monster is added to the mix, this offer up many other possibilities for this group of characters, and you’ll enjoy everything that you see.

Brooks provides the movie with all of the touches of a classic horror movie.  The cinematography by Gerald Hirschfeld has the movie shot in black-and-white, which provides the movie with the feel of director James Whale’s “Frankenstein” from 1931.  This is just one of many examples of Brooks showing a strong dedication to using the traditional technical aspects of early monster movies while mixing in his brand of humor.

As Frederick screams to the heavens, “Give my creation life,” you’ll see that Brooks has done that with “Young Frankenstein,” a movie full of life that will have you dying from laughter.

Grade: A

In England, a Marriage Goes from Romantic to Deadly: A Retro Review for “Suspicion”

Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine in "Suspicion"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

*With movie theaters closed for the time being, I’m going to take this time to review classics that I have yet to see.  I’m going to try to do these Retro Reviews as often as I can until the theaters reopen.  Hope you enjoy them!

During the spring semester of my senior year of college, I was fortunate enough to take a class called “Alfred Hitchcock in America,” where, once a week, we would watch one of his movies, starting from near the beginning of his Hollywood career and working our way forward.  Having thought about that class recently and doing these Retro Reviews, I wanted to watch a Hitchcock movie that I haven’t yet seen.  There are several of those, but one that popped into my mind was his 1941 psychological thriller, “Suspicion.”  While having Hitchcock as a director is enough of a draw, the prospect of watching a suspenseful movie with the pairing of acting icons Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant makes a movie sound even more enticing than it is already.

One day, Lina McLaidlaw (Fontaine) meets the suave playboy Johnnie Aysgarth (Grant) on a train.  Some time later, they decide to elope.  While their marriage seems pleasant at first, Lina soon begins to suspect that Johnnie may be planning to murder her for her inheritance.

Fontaine, who stared in Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” the year before, delivers a performance that makes you experience the sense of being trapped in a perilous situation from which there doesn’t seem to be a way out.  She presents a vulnerability that attaches us to her character, but steadily brings out Lina’s ingenuity as she follows the clues as to who Johnnie is and what he intends to do.  There’s a subtle strength to Lina when she formulates her plans to expose her husband, which makes her all of the more engaging because of Fontaine’s character being an ordinary person, a trait that makes her journey both heart-pounding and emotional due to the circumstances into which her quiet life is thrown.

Grant, who would go on to star in Hitchcock’s “Notorious,” “To Catch a Thief,” and “North by Northwest,” is fun and devilish as someone who knows what he wants, but is calm and particular in how he’s going to get it.  He has Johnnie always being on his toes to dodge any suspicions that might come his way from Lina, seeming slightly jittery at points, but is quick to pull himself back together.  He exhibits his character’s power to make Lina remain in his side to throw her off his trail, having an attitude that can be affable with the perfect shade of understated malevolence, someone who doesn’t seem like he could be a killer, but could have that darkness lurking underneath.  This is a concept that’s wonderfully encapsulated in a dinner conversation within the last half hour when several characters discuss a person’s chances of being a killer.

The screenplay by Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison, and Alma Reville (Hitchcock’s wife), which is based on Francis Iles’ 1932 novel, “Before the Fact,” does well in playing around with a couple of different genres.  The first act plays out like a standard, well-acted romance, one that makes Lina and Johnnie’s relationship seem loving (from Lina’s standpoint, with her still being in the dark about Johnnie’s true intentions).  However, given the effectively slow nature of the disclosure of Johnnie’s true self to Lina, the shift that the movie takes into thriller territory works because of that buildup.  Once we get into the second act, there’s still more buildup to be had, with the screenwriters not going headlong into giving us thrill after thrill, but rather unsettling us with the calculated nature of Johnnie’s dastardly plans and reassuring us with Lina’s careful thoughts as to how she will escape from danger.

The cinematography by Harry Stradling Sr.’s, who collaborated with Hitchcock on his comedy, “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” does well in making us feel paranoid about when and where Johnnie will appear.  There are several times where Stradling frames a scene in such a way where Johnnie soon steps in, but it’s done in an unexpected way that puts you on edge, and you’re soon placed in the same state of apprehension in which Lina soon finds herself.  This is a simple tactic, but it’s effective every time it’s utilized.

Hitchcock has the ability to make anything suspenseful.  With this film, as in many of his others, the numerous opportunities that he has had to work with fully developed characters has allowed him to heighten his talents for making simple conversations so filled with suspense.  What could begin as seemingly ordinary interactions soon become something more disquieting as Hitchcock cuts between reactions as we see characters catching onto certain things and increasing the tension with their realizations.  Other than this, he presents his talent for letting scenes play out for the right amount of length for optimal impact, while also injecting humor here and there before tightening the cord once again.  As is the grand Hitchcock tradition, he works his magic to keep you guessing, just as the title of this film suggests.

Grade: A