Something Wild (1986)
★★★ / ★★★★
Charles (Jeff Daniels) left a diner without paying for his lunch. Lulu (Melanie Griffith) ran after him and started asking him questions about his unpaid bill. Charles, guilt-ridden and insistent that it was an accident because he had a lot of things on his mind, assumed she worked in the diner. But she didn’t; she just happened to eat at the same place. She was attracted to his inner rebel so she invited him for a ride. Expecting that she would drop him off where he worked, Lulu took him to her hometown, the two posed as husband and wife, and attended a high school reunion. “Something Wild,” smartly written by E. Max Frye and skillfully directed by Jonathan Demme, was a fun and breezy romantic comedy with an edge. It started off like a typical screwball comedy with mistaken identities and an amusing trip to a cheap motel. Charles and Lulu were different but the same. Charles was bored of his life’s painful routine and more than welcomed Lulu’s exciting impulses. In bed, she liked to use handcuffs. Charles laughed with disbelief (and pleasure). I related with Charles more than I thought I would. Like him, I depend on routine because it’s safe and predictable. But then there are those moments when I crave to do something so out of character to remind myself that I’m alive and still in control. Half-way through, the tone turned darker when Ray (Ray Liotta), Lulu’s husband who recently got out of prison, bumped into the fake couple at the reunion. He wouldn’t believe that the two only met the day before. He was determined to show Charles and Lulu that despite being sent away, he still owned the girl like she was his convenient plaything. Demme’s direction was key. There was a critical transition between the light and dark tones. I find that most filmmakers, when handling pictures of hybrid genres, forget the importance of flow. Sometimes it makes or breaks the picture. Despite the thriller aspect in which Liotta was allowed to work his devilish magnetism, it stayed grounded in reality. Lulu wasn’t just a quirky girl prone to crazy antics. She knew when she crossed a line and wasn’t afraid to apologize for it. Charles was somewhat wimpy but he wasn’t promoted to vice president of the company he worked for if he didn’t know how to fight for what he wanted. As for Ray, despite his intense jealousy, there was complexity in his eyes. Jail hardened him, disappointed that life had moved on during his institutionalization, and he was desperate to find something that stayed the same. He expected Lulu would be that constant thing. She just wasn’t. We believed the growing affection between Charles and Lulu and we believed that their lives were in danger. Unpredictable, astute, and subtle, “Something Wild” had been unjustly forgotten. It reminds us that we should always be mindful of that rebel in us.
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
★★★★ / ★★★★
When the sassy socialite Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn) was about to marry a man (John Howard) who didn’t grow up from a family with money, Tracy’s ex-husband (Cary Grant) who still had feelings for her arrived prior to the big event to stir some trouble, along with him a reporter (James Stewart) and a photographer (Ruth Hussey). I instantly fell in love with “The Philadelphia Story” because of the effortless, magnetic chemistry between Hepburn, Grant and Stewart. The way they interacted with each other was so natural, I felt like I was listening to friends having a friendly banter and I couldn’t help but smile. I might not have gotten all the jokes because the comedy was a bit different back then but the bona fide feeling of the actors having a good time in their roles transcends time. I loved something about each of the leading actors. Hepburn played a plucky character with a distinct voice who wanted to show the world that she was strong but there were moments where she wore her weaknesses on her sleeve. Grant played a mysterious character who I found the most difficult to connect with but as the film went on, I felt his genuine love for his ex-wife and the pain and jealousy of seeing her with another man. As for Stewart’s character, my absolute favorite, he was charming, funny, and witty–such characteristics culminated when, ironically enough, he was drunk out of his mind. I was surprised with how much I was invested in the characters because some synopses I read described the picture as a screwball comedy. Perhaps I just had bad experiences with movies labeled as “screwball comedy” but I thought the movie was so much more than that. Not only did it have real moments of sensitivity and a little bit of romance but it did not settle for the obvious. I could see why Hepburn’s character was torn between her husband-to-be, her ex-husband, and the reporter because they all have positive and negative qualities about them. I also admired George Cukor, the director, for being efficient with his time. Not one moment did I feel bored or that the movie was going too slow because he kept the lead characters talking and he let the quirky supporting characters in and out at just about the right moments. I especially enjoyed Virginia Weidler as the nosy kid who wanted attention and the way she would act as if she was one of the adults. “The Philadelphia Story” is known as a classic comedy and I believe rightfully so.
The Big Lebowski (1998)
★★★ / ★★★★
I usually don’t like screwball comedies because the characters are stupid without any sort of redeeming qualities, the jokes are rude and sometimes mean-spirited, the story has no idea where to go, and I quickly get bored watching them because they fail to get me to think. Strangely enough, I enjoyed “The Big Lebowski,” written and directed by the Coen brothers, because of such qualities except for the fact that it is far from mean-spirited. Jeff Bridges stars as The Dude, whose real name was Jeffrey Lebowski, a guy who was mistaken by two miscreants as the millionaire Lebowski. Since the two didn’t get what they wanted from The Dude, one of them decided to pee on his carpet. What started off as a story about a slacker who wanted compensation for his carpet ended up being about a lot of things: a kidnapped woman (Tara Reid), an artist who had intentions of her own (Julianne Moore), nihilists who craved money, and the dynamics among bowling buddies (Steve Buscemi and John Goodman). All of such disparate elements came to together in a way that didn’t necessarily make sense–in fact, sometimes I had no idea what was going on–but it was very funny because each character was driven by well-defined motivations (no matter how strange they might have been). I did not expect this kind of movie from the Coen brothers because I’m more familiar with their thrillers (“No Country for Old Men,” “Blood Simple”) and dark comedies (“Intolerable Cruelty,” “Fargo”), but after watching the film I was glad that I got a taste of their lighter side. The only real complaint I had with this picture was it had no reason to run for almost two hours long. Somewhere after the half-way point, I began to wonder when it was going to be over because at that point it still did not try to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The characters were still too busy running around like children and it made me restless. Nevertheless, despite its flaws, I still enjoyed watching this movie because of the characters’ funny fixations and interesting mistaken identities. And considering I detest stoner comedies, I think it’s a solid accomplishment.