The Discreet Bourgeois

Possessed by an urgency to make sure all this stuff I love doesn't just disappear

The Last Ten Films I’ve Seen

  1. Knives Out (Rian Johnson)
  2. Broadway Danny Rose (Woody Allen)
  3. All About Eve (Joseph Mankiewicz)
  4. Master of the House (Carl Theodor Dreyer)
  5. The Laundromat ( Steven Soderbergh)
  6. Red Beard (Akira Kurosawa)
  7. The Merry Frinks (Alfred E. Green)
  8. The Holly and the Ivy (George More O’Ferrall)
  9. A Christmas Carol (Edwin L. Marin)
  10. Sunrise (F.W. Murnau)


The Last Ten Films I’ve Seen

  1. Get Me Roger Stone (Dylan Banks &c.)
  2. That Uncertain Feeling (Ernst Lubitsch)
  3. They Shall Not Grow Old (Peter Jackson)
  4. Henry V (Laurence Olivier)
  5. Can You Ever Forgive Me? (Marielle Heller)
  6. The Third Man (Carol Reed)
  7. A Letter to Three Wives (Joseph Mankiewicz)
  8. If Beale Street Could Talk (Barry Jenkins)
  9. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? (Morgan Neville)
  10. Everybody Knows (Asghar Farhadi)


1- I have revered Ernst Lubitsch mostly based on three movies: Trouble in Paradise, Ninotchka and the perfect The Shop Around The Corner.  I find that when I stray from these three, the other Lubitsch films are not great or, more often, downright bad (I’m looking at you Cluny Brown!).  I watched That Uncertain Feeling hoping it would join the immortal 3, but, alas, it is really the bottom of the barrel.  The thing about The Shop Around The Corner that makes it so splendid is the perfect comedic timing beautifully blended with a dash of vinegar and sentiment.  I have seen the three stars of That Uncertain Feeling before but as comic actors they are flat-footed. Plus the story is just nasty. And it’s good that Burgess Meredith is already dead, because otherwise I couldn’t be responsible for my actions.

2- They Shall Not Grow Old is stunning.  It is one of the most visceral and magical films I have ever seen.  There is such an immediacy. You are in World War I.  It is no longer a remote set of images, blurred with time and primitive camera technique.  I always bristled when silent clips were shown with added sound.  It just seemed so artificial. I also felt insulted as if they were implying that modern audiences couldn’t handle a film without ambient sound.  Why do I admire this so much? It is done with such care and obvious love (Peter Jackson is a WWI fanatic).  It never feels like it is cheating the way that CGI always seems to me.  CGI is there to dazzle you, but more often winds up numbing you. What Peter Jackson does here is to completely remove the barriers of time between us and the participants of the war.  The voice dubbing is remarkable and for once 3D is an enhancement.

3- Thanks to the amazing AMC A-List deal I have been seeing a lot more movies in the theater than I ordinarily would.  And even though I think the Oscars are stooooopid, they were a good excuse to see contemporary films.  Can You Ever Forgive Me? was a great surprise, and it is a film I probably wouldn’t have gone to see.  An adult character study of a protagonist who is absolutely unsympathetic played beautifully by Melissa McCarthy.  I don’t understand the glowing reports for Richard E. Grant.  I usually love him but not here, through no fault of his.  His character was such a cliched, bitchy queen (and stupid on top of it) that there was not much sympathy from me.

4- I had the same feeling about A Letter to Three Wives as I did regarding the Lubitsch films above.  This film is an earlier product of most of the same people who gave us the masterpiece All About Eve, but this one never takes off for me. The snappy dialogue seems too self-conscious, the characters are not very appealing or funny (except, of course, for Thelma Ritter).  Plus the Macguffin of which husband has run away, turns out not to be a Macguffin at all.  When it is revealed, it is such a disappointment since you feel the movie could have been so much more.  Maybe it needed Bette Davis. Maybe every movie needs Bette Davis!

5- I was so happy to see a foreign language film in wide release.  I had high hopes for Everybody Knows. I mean, come on! Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem and Ricardo Darin?  Plus a friend had told me the director is  fantastic. Well, it was good, beautiful to look at, and kept you pulling along, but the plot/mystery became so top-heavy and red-herring-laden that at the resolution I wasn’t sure what was resolved and I felt just glad that it was over. But Penelope Cruz is gorgeous and a great actress much in the same vein as Sophia Loren. And too bad Darin is not better known here.




Leave a comment

All About Midrash


 A method was developed in the  literature of commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures to flesh out stories that either seem to be hinting at something more than is on the page, or to fill in what appear to be gaps in logic.  This amplification of the text is known as midrash, the root of which is the Hebrew word for ‘to search out a meaning’ or ‘to research’.  When developing midrash the assumption is that the text is perfect.  What appears to be inconsistencies are really our inadequacies of understanding.  Repeated study and deepening familiarity with the text eventually reveals answers.

For example, Cain is forced to wander after slaying his brother. He finally settles in the land of Nod and has a family. Even the youngest student will say ‘Wait a minute, I though Adam and his family were the only people on the earth. Who are these Nod people?’  Midrash to the rescue! Perhaps God created other nations during the goings-on in the Garden of Eden. That would explain it! This detail was just left out of Genesis.  Raising the possibility of these other nations serves an important purpose beyond this apparent game-playing with the text:  by quashing a possibly nervous-making gap in the story, the student can move on to the real meat of the passage instead of being distracted by something not in the text.

But it can’t be a free-for-all. It is incumbent upon the reader to find a way that the text itself answers any questions. A possible solution must be teased out from what is on the page.

 All about eve

The whole notion of midrash came to mind when I was watching All About Eve with my dear friend Donna who had never seen it before. All About Eve is a film that I watch several times a year and one that I am evangelical about. If I find that you have not seen it and I deem you worthy, I will inflict its perfection on you. While this perfection is certainly not biblical, it is certainly among the one or two perfect creations of the Golden Age of Hollywood.  Acting, writing and production values are greater than in just about any other Hollywood product I can think of. No, it is not Bergman or Bresson. We’re not talking about that kind of perfection. It is just a solid entertainment that somehow slips into the sublime.

When the viewing was over, my friend commented that while she liked it, she found the opening and set-up of the story contrived to the point that it almost wrecked the enjoyment of the rest of the film. I know the film so well that the beginning is just the beginning to me, just like the way Cain goes off to marry into this heretofore unexplained people. It is just what happened.

I always bristled at the comment that a film wasn’t believable. I always felt that critics who took this tack to deride a film (and the late Gene Siskel was a prime offender here), had no business reviewing films because they obviously were not equipped to deal with the artifice of the genre. My friend asserted that this was not the case with her. She was as ready to suspend disbelief as the next person. It was just that the particular setup was too clunky.

I thought about it for days. Was this most beloved film seriously flawed and I had just been blind to it?  Midrash to the rescue! Donna felt that the set-up of Eve entering so completely into the lives of these theater folk was too slap-dash.  Once the story got going, she was able to forget the problems she had with the set-up, and enjoyed the rest of the movie.  Was there something midrashically  implicit in the story that could be developed into something that could mollify my friend and let us all get on with the task of reveling in what was obviously wonderful about the movie? As a matter of fact, yes:

1- Karen’s first flashback starts with her getting out of a taxi and looking for an unnamed person who will turn out to be Eve.  Eve emerges from the shadows, and the story begins.

2- When Karen describes Eve to Margo in the dressing room, Margo remembers her as  ‘The mousy one with the trench coat and the funny hat’

These two points indicate to us who have viewed the film countless times, that even before the movie’s story begins, Eve has been hard at work zeroing in on her prey.  Both Karen and Margo are aware of her peripherally and are predisposed to sympathize with her. Her pathetic image night after night at the theater, cultivated with just the right costume and hushed, modest voice had worked well enough that once she gets into the dressing room, she moves in for the kill.  The group is putty in her hands.  It’s all there in a few hints in the screenplay.

Will this midrash on All About Eve mollify Donna’s displeasure at a perceived plot gap?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it sure takes care of it for me an allows me to put it to rest.