tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post246686416319852442..comments2023-03-30T16:56:53.692-07:00Comments on Icebox Movies: Land of the Pharaohs (1955)Adam Zanziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-14925777385622686842009-12-31T23:43:34.477-08:002009-12-31T23:43:34.477-08:00The thing about a film like Land of the Pharaohs i...The thing about a film like <i>Land of the Pharaohs</i> is that it's all about the visuals for me. There's that old saying about how a great filmmaker starts out by making sure that his film will produce at least some sort of sensation with the sound turned off. After all, the medium is entitled <i>motion pictures</i>.<br /><br />Which is funny, considering that this is the same filmmaker who gave us <i>His Girl Friday</i> and other films known well for their expert dialogue. But with <i>Land of the Pharaohs</i>, Hawks really seems to let at least his visual imagination run loose. I don't think I've seen a better film about Egypt, actually (discounting every single movie ever made about Moses).<br /><br />However, despite it being one of my personal favorite Hawks films, it would be foolish of me to suggest it's one of Hawks' best films. For example, it doesn't hold a candle to what I consider his masterpieces: <i>Red River</i> and <i>The Big Sleep</i>.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-26266370554509855882009-12-30T11:35:14.688-08:002009-12-30T11:35:14.688-08:00I agree with you, up to a point, that this film is...I agree with you, up to a point, that this film is undeserving of the scorn so often heaped upon it. It's an interesting film in many ways, definitely worth seeing at least. As a great admirer of Hawks, who I consider the best director of the classical Hollywood era, obviously I find much to like here. Hawks seems to have been besotted with inanimate objects in this one, and the pyramid and the pharaoh's treasure room have more personality than most of the actual human characters. As a result, the pyramid-building sequences are frequently stunning, as is the grand finale with the precisely calibrated closing of the tomb. The editing in that sequence is perfection itself. But it'll never rank among the best of Hawks, because Hawks truly excelled when dealing with character, and as you point out, this film doesn't have any really worthy characters to speak of. Sometimes this worked for Hawks, when he wanted to highlight a group rather than the individuals within it, as in <i>Air Force</i> or <i>The Thing From Another World</i>. Here, one simply feels the lack of anyone to follow, any story to grasp onto, any truly good performances to enjoy. The film's pleasures are largely abstract and formal as a result, and as far as that goes it's a worthy experiment.<br /><br />It's interesting that you note the film's relatively compact running time, since that's actually the result of studio-mandated cuts when Hawks' cut was deemed overly long. Hawks insisted that his own cut was a far better movie, but I find that prospect highly unlikely; the proud director always liked to blame others for his flops when he could, just as he liked to take credit for any success he could plausibly claim as his own. The fact is, the film isn't a good natural fit for his sensibility or his talents, and it's remarkable that he even managed to make a partially satisfying, if deeply flawed, film out of it.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-5499389260406312362009-12-18T01:03:57.181-08:002009-12-18T01:03:57.181-08:00Love Hawkes but haven't seen this one, I also ...Love Hawkes but haven't seen this one, I also never would have gotten the Indy reference which hopefully will make that film a bit more bearable the next time I see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-88851318424977934592009-08-18T13:11:29.540-07:002009-08-18T13:11:29.540-07:00Thanks for the kind words, Ryan. Glad to see that ...Thanks for the kind words, Ryan. Glad to see that you've returned to blogging after a long hiatus, too!<br /><br />Chris, I bet "Land of the Pharaohs" would most definately work well in a theater, although I had just enough of an exciting time watching it at home. Hawks fans don't know what they're missing! About "Redacted", you're not the first one to feel shut out by the film, and because so many people felt that way about it, I'm planning on writing an extremely long review on it that will probably be posted on here in the next month or so. I actually like your use of the e. e. cummings punctuation on your blog. I'm trying to figureout how to Follow your blog, too, but there doesn't seem to be a button anywhere that can allow me to. I'll keep in touch, though.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-66671024653273395482009-08-17T19:00:13.337-07:002009-08-17T19:00:13.337-07:00Bravo on this piece, your finest yet --- great ana...Bravo on this piece, your finest yet --- great analysis, and a personal slant that makes the writing hit home and makes it distinctly yours. I hope you continue in this vein, but if you do you will start to make me look pretty bad. You're an inspiration, Adam.Ryan Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18054550377681273142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-26895927434280066682009-08-17T12:29:39.937-07:002009-08-17T12:29:39.937-07:00Hi Adam:
Thanks for the comment on my blog. Your ...Hi Adam:<br /><br />Thanks for the comment on my blog. Your blog is much more carefully written and thought out than mine (which is pretty off the cuff and casual - which I why I use the ee cummings lower case there). Armond's politcs are a bit baffling these days. He started out as a good old lefty - but like Christopher Hitchens - he became a bit of a neo-con after 9/11 during the Bush years. Plus, he's exhibited a fundamentalist streak in his diatribes against "atheist" critics and audiences who revel in nihilism. It's definitely true that his earlier criticism (collected in the Resistance) is much more insightful and less strident than his recent reviews at the NY Press.<br /><br />Regarding DePalma's Redacted - I personally had a mixed reaction to the film. I admired what DePalma was doing from a formal perspective - commenting on how we perceive the war through various mediums (and the inherent bias in each of those mediums). However, I do think the actual movie was pretty flawed with very crude writing and acting. And after The Hurt Locker, Generation Kill, and documentaries from soldiers in the war such as Severe Clear - Redacted does come across as a bit unfair towards the majority of the troops. Have you ever seen this dialogue between Pauline Kael and Godard from a few decades back? Godard says that he admires DePalma's emphasis on the image - but he wishes DePalma scaled his scripts better - which I think isn't exactly what he meant to say (his English is a bit limited). I think he's commenting on DePalma's occasionally overly cavalier attitude towards scripts which gets expressed in some of the more ridiculous moments in Snake Eyes (like the last 15 minutes) and the Black Dahlia. I do think most critics don't properly explicate what DePalma's sophisticated visual strategy is doing - but it's also true that DePalma is often shockingly sloppy with things like narrative and character. Still, I did admire his audacity with Redacted even if I wasn't a fan per se of the movie itself.<br /><br />BTW, I haven't seen Hawks' Land of the Pharoahs. But I feel like that's one I need to see on a big screen.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Chrisckoh71https://www.blogger.com/profile/10563402142923766923noreply@blogger.com