Cinema Assembled or: Why I Saw The Avengers Four Times In One Week - Written By Zach Frances

Four. That's the amount of times I saw The Avengers in a single week and I wasn't alone. 2012's The Avengers redefined the summer blockbuster. It was a mega-hit. The Avengers was a meteoric phenomenon. But why was it so successful? Better yet, why are superhero movies in such high demand? Or the question I really want to explore: Why did I see The Avengers four times in one week? I have never done that that with a movie before. What was it about The Avengers that got so many people into the theater and kept them coming back?

I know perfectly well why I saw it two out the four times that I did: I am a world class comic book geek. Captain America, in particular, is a character I've been following since childhood, and although Marvel Comics handles him in some extremely dumbass ways, I would follow Cap anywhere. But why? Well, superhero comics are modern mythology. Where there was once Zeus, Hercules, and Dionysus, there is now Superman, Batman, and The Avengers. The parallels between modern day superheroes and ancient myth are numerous.

One of the most interesting parallels was made popular by comic book historian Michael Uslan:

"The room looked like the Justice League of America secret sanctum, and I’ll never forget the dean looking at me from the end of the table and saying, “So you’re the fellow who wants to teach a course on funny books at my university?” I launched into my thesis and he let me talk for two or three minutes before cutting me off. “Come on, Michael! Comic books as mythology and folklore? Art? And literature? Give me a break! Comic books are cheap entertainment for children – nothing more, nothing less." So I said to him “Can I ask you two questions?” He said, “Ask me anything you’d like.” I said, “Are you familiar with the story of Moses? Can you summarize very briefly the story of Moses?” He looked at me like I was crazy and replied, “Well, I don’t know what game you’re playing here, but I’ll play it with you. The children of Israel were being persecuted, their first born sons were being slain. A Hebrew couple put their infant son in a wicker basket and sent him down the River Nile where he was discovered by an Egyptian family and raised as their own son. When he grew up and learned of his heritage, he became a hero to his people because …” And I said “Stop. That’s great. You said before that you read Superman comics?” “Yeah,” he said, “I always read them as a kid.” I asked, “Do you know the origin of Superman?” and he replied, “The planet Krypton was about to blow up and a scientist and his wife placed their infant son in a little rocket ship and sent him to Earth where he was discovered by the Kents who raised him as their own son. And then when he grew up …” He stopped, stared at me for an eternity, and said, “Mr Uslan, your course is accredited.” I became the first college professor of comic books!"

It is my belief that people need mythology and that people need the world to be mythologized in order to make sense of it. Each and every time I dive into a comic book I am transported to 'a stronger, loving world'... Did you catch that? Tell me what I'm referencing in the comments section and I'll do my best to figure out a prize to give you. But just like how comic books transport me to an incredible and fantastic universe, superhero movies do the same thing.

The Avengers may just be the best entertainment this side of the millennium. But still, why was The Avengers such a colossal success? Of course there is the obvious: Taking a group of superheroes, popular in their own right and fresh off their own titular films, and cramming them into one movie is bound to draw some spectators, but that doesn't explain why those films were so successful in the first place. Let's look at things from a social perspective: The world is in a tough spot and has been for a while. Americans, in particular, are feeling more depressed by the day as they continue to be driven to bedlam by a broken and abhorrent political system. The world is bigger now than ever before. Now more than ever humanity's plight appears all the more frivolous. Now I'm not saying that the world needs a superhero, although I do in my heart of hearts believe that to be the case, I would never disrespect anyone's hardship by implying that what they need is a super-man in a super-suit with super-righteous super-goals inspiring them to pursue super-deeds. What the world needs far more than a superhero is a break. The Avengers gave us a two and a half hour block where we were free to forget about our problems. What I'm saying is that everyone needs to escape from something, I believe that to be part of the human condition. For me The Avengers is far more than easy escapism, the subject material being a great interest of mine, but I recognize that The Avengers supplied me with exactly that: Escapism. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with escapist cinema, in fact I believe that is the way movies ought to be.

As far as the film itself is concerned there is very little that is technically innovative or revolutionary about it and that's perfectly acceptable. It wouldn't have been the kind of experience that is was had it pretended to me anything other than pure fun. A few rotten apples use this to justify why The Avengers failed as a truly great movie, and some even go so far as to say that The Avengers is actually a harmful film that dumbs-down an already disassociated audience with watered-down heroics. I disagree on both fronts and would even add that these naysayers are not only a deluded and miserable lot but that they also fail to understand the most important and consistent tenet of the cinema: Entertainment. Film started off with peepshow pioneers who gave the poor folk of the world ten seconds of joy, and that same basic practice has since expanded and evolved into The Avengers: Cinema Fulfilled. No, The Avengers does not fail in any conceivable way, in fact it is monumentally, monstrously successful in every way it tries to be. The Avengers is much more than a movie, its an experience. The Avengers gave us epic battles, a considerable amount of character development for a film of its type, amazing special effects, a rag-tag team of superhero underdogs, Sam Jackson with an eye patch, and a hot chick with seemingly deadly strands of hair. Those who say they hate the film, I am also convinced, must hate all of these things.

So, no, the movie is not revolutionary in the high-brow sense of the word, but let's be realistic with the current state of the so-called Arthouse: It hasn't actually been revolutionary since the 1970s. The Avengers actually does break new ground in the superhero genre by proving that an interconnected comic book universe can be translated into a cinematic one in a coherent and fluid fashion. What Marvel has done here is unprecedented and of the wholly remarkable variety. Not since Star Wars has a series of films been so beloved and so closely followed by such a loyal and possessive fleet of fans. This is not a film of underlying themes, but it can still be argued that several heady concepts are communicated within the film, but more than anything else it is a film with an unprecedented ability to entertain its viewer. The Avengers has reestablished the summer blockbuster as more than a mere spectacle, but as an important cinematic world event.

Captain America, Thor, The Hulk, and Iron Man are a few of Marvel's best loved characters, several of them are longstanding flagship titles of the comic book company. They are all given the treatment they deserve here so as to make sure that neither the hero nor his fans are treated as second class. It is the same delicate treatment the heroes had received previously in their own films independent of The Avengers. Captain America: The First Avenger remains my favorite of the pre-Avenger films. I found Captain America: The First Avenger to be one of the most warm-hearted and genuinely pleasant movies I had seen in a very long time. I stated earlier how much Cap means to me as a comic book character and I was so glad to see the film communicate some of the reasons why I love him so much. The First Avenger was a gift I was proud to call my own. I found it to be the definition of pure and innocent cinema. It reminded me of the Indiana Jones series, and other films of that nature, just as the comics do. The First Avenger has an unprecedented rewatchability factor. It is fairly faithful and spiritually intact. It is a glorious and heart warming film. I found this movie version of Cap to be almost just as inspiring as his comic book origins, and although it is a playful film, its not afraid to get intensely intimate and shamelessly patriotic. Yeah. The First Avenger actually makes me feel patriotic, I think that may be one of the reasons I love the Cap so much in the first place. The film romanticizes many things that don't seem to exist anymore, patriotism is one of those things, so's honor, sacrifice, bravery, and devotion. Also I must add that I found Hugo Weaving's turn as The Red Skull, my absolute favorite comic book villain of all time, to be an inspired one. I thought that he gave the best performance of the series. But everything about The First Avenger is pitch-perfect and refreshing, most of all it brings a smile to my face and makes me feel good, and that's something only the best movies can do.

Kenneth Branagh was not an obvious choice when it came to hiring a director who was capable of bringing Marvel's Mighty Thor to life but he sure turned in a wonderful effort. Thor was a very good film and must have been much more difficult to pull off compared to the rest of The Avengers team who were either completely grounded in reality or were at least acquainted with it. Thor was absolute fantasy and Thor was an absolute triumph.

The Incredible Hulk was the weakest link of the series. Edward Norton proved to have been a misguided choice for the tortured Bruce Banner and the rest of the cast seemed totally uninterested in what they were doing. Still. One runt does little to spoil the litter.

2008's Iron Man was the film that allowed all of this to take place. Being the flagship title of Marvel's cinematic universe an entire generation sought refuge in the company of Tony Stark. Iron Man caught on with an audience in a way that only Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, and Peter Parker had been able to do previously. No comic book character has benefited more from being adapted for film than Iron Man, who had never been as huge a comic book character when compared to the monster success he has become since he has been on film. Never being a massively popular publication to begin with, the character has since received the star treatment from Marvel and his books are quickly becoming better and better. I believe that Actor Robert Downey Jr. and director Jon Favreau are solely responsible for Iron Man's new-found popularity. It is my belief that people actually like Robert Downey Jr. more than they really like Iron Man, but that's debatable. The first Iron Man movie was great, with Jeff Bridges giving a dastardly delicious performance as the villainous Iron Monger, while Iron Man 2 suffered by 'pumping up the volume' and felt much more like a lead-in to The Avengers than a proper continuation of Tony's story. Also, I must include that Scarlett Johansson was god-fucking-awful in Iron Man 2. How she was even tolerable in The Avengers is something I attribute to director Joss Whedon's many talents. I mean, I know she looked good and I know that's what she was there for, but she continues to have the emotional depth and comic book believability of a dead horse.

These films seem to have done the impossible: Tap directly into what makes movie-goers happy and concoct a tried and true formula for it. Yes, these films are formulaic but rarely do they really feel that way. And what's the big deal if The Avengers does follow a formula if its a structure that works? Its not meant to challenge its audience, its out to involve them in the drama. Think about it, its easy to stuff your film with lofty idealism and conceptual labyrinths, but its much harder a task to make your film soulful. And that's something that all of The Avengers films have in common: Heart and Soul. The film is also likable, faithful, and has been unbelievably capable in providing true joy to so many people, young and old, and dare I say inspire them to be that much happier in their own lives. The Avengers equipped its viewer with the necessary tools needed to be wowed. And wow the world it did.

Just as a side-note: Three cheers for Tom Hiddleston who really gave The Avengers everything he had as the villainous Loki. He was not only consistently and believably threatening and wicked, he was charismatic enough to carry the entire conflict of the film on his shoulders. If The Avengers was not supposed to be a film of great performances Tom Hiddleston obviously didn't get the memo. He was extremely good here and I applaud the work he did by making Loki just as iconic as the superhero team that had been assembled to eliminate him. Bravo!

The Avengers is now one of the all-time essentials and it is a film that is very deserving of that title. It was a monster hit because it was given to a world in a social climate that desperately needed something fantastic to happen to them. It was a film that was tailor-made for every single person who paid to see it. Those who refuse it must refuse a lot of spectacular things in their life because the sole goal of The Avengers was to entertain YOU and only YOU. Marvel and Co. personally invited you to take a rest in their world, and to those that took advantage of Marvel's hospitality were handsomely rewarded and fiercely entertained. I wish to thank Marvel for putting so much faith in their books, so much faith in the fans, and so much care in putting out a product of such high quality. Marvel Studios have proved that not only is it great time to be a comic book fan but its a great time to be a movie-goer. I wish more companies were like Marvel for as a fan I have never been treated so kindly. Marvel is a company that is very rare in this world: They care about their fan-base and go out of their way to cater to them every chance they can get. The Avengers is a great movie and I just can't wait for round two!

Until then...

-Z. Frances

Licence Revoked or: Timothy Dalton's Bond - Written By Zach Frances

Franz Sanchez: You could have had everything.

James Bond: Don't you want to know why?

Timothy Dalton's run as James Bond was very short-lived. In this article, I am going to explore why. Dalton starred in two films as Bond, The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill, and subsequently stepped down from the role of 007. The fans never seemed to recognize Dalton as Moore's successor, and to this day, most can't seem to appreciate what he did for the series. Why? The answer is quite simple. Dalton's Bond was relatable, human, and susceptible. James Bond was always an idea, a comic concept, and a fantasy. Dalton's Bond was a human being, all the while he still retained all of the charisma and likability that had carried the character up to that point. But giving Bond a human feel would be Dalton's undoing.

Dalton's Bond was ruled by his emotions, this point is made abundantly clear in Licence To Kill where Bond's emotions lead him to ruin time and time again. The problem most fans have with Licence To Kill are in part some of the reasons why I like it so much. The film was criticized for not feeling like a true Bond picture, but more like a renegade cop movie that would have been quite commonplace in the late eighties. But that brings up a very interesting concept. A renegade by definition is a deserter, someone who rejects lawful or conventional behavior. Before Licence To Kill, Bond had been well-established as a symbol of efficient and heroic militarism, a cog in the machine of a government that was always morally and ethically absolute. Essentially, James Bond was the poster boy for covert militarism at work. In Licence To Kill, Dalton's Bond does the unthinkable when he disobeys a direct order from MI6 and disregards the fact that his licence to kill has been revoked by the very agency that issued it.

Dalton's Bond feels that an injustice has been done, an injustice not recognized by MI6, and promotes himself from secret agent to judge, juror, and executioner. He deserts his government in pursuit of a greater institution. James Bond pursues revenge and receives bloody satisfaction. You see, its one thing to say that Licence To Kill feels more like a renegade cop movie than a Bond picture, but its another to blatantly overlook the implications that becoming a renegade had on a character like James Bond. This is Bond without his gadgets, without back-up, without a lifeline to MI6, and this is Bond without a country. Bond is not fighting for national pride here nor is he risking his life to save the world from nuclear catastrophe. He is out to seek revenge for one lost life. He is emotional, overwrought, and cracks in his facade are clearly visible throughout the film. This time its personal. People don't like it when James Bond gets personal, or at least they weren't too keen to it in 1989.

Bond had always been able to separate himself from his work, something Dalton's Bond could never do. Even in The Living Daylights, everything was personal for Bond. Dalton's Bond was not afraid to allow himself to be emotionally affected, or as most fans and critics saw it, Dalton's Bond was incapable of completing a mission the way a 00 ought to. In fact, Dalton's replacement was one Pierce Brosnan, and Brosnan to me was nothing more than a bland continuation of Roger Moore's interpretation of the character. And in Brosnan's first bond movie, GoldenEye, he explains that his cold resolve is what keeps his alive. What Brosnan's Bond is basically saying here is that a real man has to learn to conceal his emotions rather than express them to anyone in any capacity. He's saying that a true man is not ruled by his emotions, but controls them from ever affecting his work, and he's saying that if a man does not do these things he will die, be rendered obsolete; replaced.  I consider that a direct attack on Dalton's previous run. But that's what fans wanted, if Bond were to be noticeably emotional or damaged then the fans would have to feel things. They wanted their Bond to have less depth than a comic book superhero. They wanted Bond to get the girl, kill the villain, save the world, and to never under any circumstances question his government or his methods.

In Licence To Kill, Dalton's Bond systematically defeats the villain, Franz Sanchez, in a way that could only be described as both obsessive and compulsive. He actually considers Franz Sanchez equally dangerous, and although he gets his little one-liners, he endures far more moments of doubt than most Bond fans are comfortable sharing with him. Dalton's Bond was not a superhero, but Dalton's Bond was revolutionary nonetheless. People like to call him the darker of the Bonds, and that is almost entirely untrue. He was the most human and passionate of them all, and there is absolutely nothing dark about being human and passionate. Bond fans seem to view emotion as heavy or adult. Well, I just think most Bond fans are delusional.

Daniel Craig's Bond seems to be getting far too much credit at the moment, especially in the character development department. If Dalton had been given the opportunity to make another Bond film, I feel as if the character would have developed much faster than he has. Dalton seemed to be pushing the character in an exciting and visceral direction, and Brosnan took the character a step backward. Now it is 2013 and James Bond has officially cried on film. Take a look back at Dalton's Bond, and try to tell me that sort of breakthrough wasn't long overdue.

In closing, I would just like to say how important Dalton's run was to the series. His films remain classics, cult or otherwise, and he is slowly getting recognition for the revolutionary way he handled the character. One of the biggest upsets in the entire Bond universe was the fact that Dalton was axed after only two films. Maybe Licence To Kill illustrated the emotional complexities that the character was capable of twenty years too soon on an audience that were simply not ready for a Bond they could actually touch.

Thanks For Reading!

-Zach Frances

To Catch A Thunderball or: Fiona's Apple - Written By Zach Frances

Fiona Volpe: Do you like wild things, Mr. Bond, James Bond?

James Bond: Wild? You should be locked in a cage.

Fiona Volpe: This bed feels like a cage. All these bars. Do you think I'll be safe?

Sean Connery's fourth outing as James Bond is also one of his very best. It is called Thunderball, and there is a very surprising theme underlying the film: prisons and prisoners. It may be the most complex Bond movie ever made.

The first time Bond sees the word 'Thunderball' it is stamped on the cover of a top secret folder, its contents confined by both confidentiality and sealed by tape. He is told to examine the documents contained within the Thunderball folder after hearing that his government is being forced to pay a large ransom to protect its citizens from nuclear catastrophe. Therefore his Government has been turned into a prison of SPECTRE, its citizens turned prisoners. There is also the matter of the missing plane that had carried the atomic bombs, its missing. Where does Bond find it? Confined underwater in a shark cage.

"Vanity has its dangers."

Several characters perpetuate the theme of prisons and prisoners further, but none so much as femme fatale Fiona Volpe. She completely fascinates me. Possibly my favorite Bond girl of them all, Fiona Volpe was portrayed by Luciana Paluzzi in the film with deadly precision. She is an agent of SPECTRE and an absolute scene-stealer. There are many fascinating things about Fiona, but first off I would like to talk about her appearance. She is a very desirable woman, sometimes she is too beautiful for words, and evil is one of her most attractive qualities. This makes the viewer a prisoner of his own attraction to danger and evil, but that's far too simple a statement to make when dealing with a Bond film. Her villainy highlighted by her physical beauty reveals deadly desire's true colors: passionate and "wild". Bond's relationship with Domino, the true Bond girl of the film, is of the traditional variety, meaning hollow and acceptable. Bond and Fiona, on the other hand, pursue a short but passionate and revealing affair. This proposes the concept that being evil is more emotionally rewarding than being good. Or at least a more passionate alternative to it. Her appearance perpetuates this concept further, since she is a very beautiful woman, much more so than Domino, one can assume that evil is more beautiful than good. While Emilio Largo has Domino followed constantly so as there is nothing to damage her innocence, Fiona is independent as well as damaged, and about as far from innocent as you can get. Bond's desire leads him to Fiona, but its his mission that makes Domino the necessary companion. Then again it is Fiona's mission that leads her to Bond, but you must understand, her mission was her desire. When men think with their hearts, evil's sway is well in reach, but when they think of their duty, rewards for this obedience will come with practicality.

In fact one of the major gripes Bond had with Fiona was the fact that she wasn't affected emotionally by sleeping with him. Perhaps even the fact that Bond was seduced instead of the other way around. Both characters are prisoners of sex and duty. The only time the two of them actually participate in romantic affairs is when the mission calls for or allows it to take place. Fiona tells Bond that the bed they are making love in feels like a cage after Bond tells her she belongs in one. In this situation, the mission is the prison, and Fiona and Bond's allegiance to their organizations is something they both know will prevent them from ever seeking true comfort in the arms of another. Fiona and Bond mix sex with violence so much I'd be surprised if either one can tell the difference between the two. Maybe there's no difference at all.

Fiona expresses how wild she feels, while earlier Bond expressed to Largo how he is not a man of passion. This contrast should prove an important one while on the topic of sex in Thunderball. Before Bond has his affair with Fiona, we see him engage in intercourse with a physiotherapist and it is neither passionate nor involving, its borderline bribery and boredom. With Fiona, it was very different, and the difference was made abundantly clear by Bond's actions after Fiona turns on him. Laying with evil made Bond feel something we had never seen before Thunderball, it made him feel passion. The question of whether or not Bond knew Fiona's intentions the whole time is wholly insignificant here because that's not the way Sean Connery played that scene. Sean Connery played a hurt Bond, but only as hurt as James Bond can get. Its a performance of nuance and subtlety, even if he knew in his heart of hearts that Fiona was an agent of SPECTRE, he was enjoying her company rather than absorbing it. He allowed himself to be physically and emotionally probed rather than physically dominate her. And then he learns that wasn't even a possibility. Also, the fact that the ring she wears gave her away is telling of the marital allegiances SPECTRE agents hold. There is absolutely nothing that gives away Bond's affiliation with the British government, but perhaps that's because they don't brand their agents. Interesting that its a ring though, considering the marital implications derived from such an accessory.

Fiona's apple, her passion, gave way to her death.

The death of Fiona Volpe is my all-time favorite death in any Bond film. The set-up is deliriously exciting and the whole scene washes over you in masterstrokes of editing. Its also my favorite death in any Bond film because of the underlying ideas that accompany it. She dies performing a passionate activity, dancing. A gunman has Bond in the cross hairs, Fiona knows this and Bond knows this. The gunman fires, and Bond swings Fiona around in order for her to catch the bullet. The bullet enters her spine, presumably lodging itself in her heart. Bond covers the bullet's entry-point with his hand and briefly continues to dance. This is a perfect visual metaphor for passion in the modern industrial age. Man can have his passions just as man can play with fire. But when duty calls, it is man's responsibility to heed it. Man must cover up his passions in order to fulfill his obligations to society. Man does not necessarily need to be devoid of emotion, but he cannot be ruled by it. Fiona had to die in order for Bond's world to continue unaffected by her cold resolve. Much like how Fiona's loyalty had not been swayed by sleeping with Bond and sharing one of the most private things you can share with a person, Bond was wholly unscathed by watching her die. Sex and dying are two very personal things, and they are things Fiona, a self-described wild woman, shared with 007, a self-described man of little passion.

Allow me to praise Luciana Paluzzi for a moment because I thought she was just extraordinary. Her physical beauty alone communicated the passion, honor, and maleficence the dialog likes to take credit for. The dialog did not communicate those feelings, it inherited them. Paluzzi communicates feelings that are not in the script, and her character feels the most alive out of all of them. She really did steal the show here, and like Mercutio and Moritz before her, her character was the crux of the production, regardless of her lifeline. She personified beauty and evil, and how the two can't inhabit the same body without warring with each other or causing some sort of self-fulfilling doom. One of the better performances by an Actress in a Bond film. Whether you agree or disagree, you do remember Fiona Volpe. A superb villain, very underrated, but incredibly iconic.

If I could just touch upon the similarities with James Bond and Emilio Largo for just moment, and say that like most of his other villains, they share several likenesses. Only in Thunderball the similarites are more evident, seeing how Largo is SPECTRE's Number Two, and, arguably, Bond is the British Intelligence Agency's go-to man. Neither man seems to trust their women, and neither of them should. They share an affectation for duty and honor, and an unbreakable bond with the organizations that have fostered them. It might also be worth pointing out that Largo defeated Bond in combat, and Bond's life was saved by Domino, a woman Largo once trusted. I find it interesting that Largo physically defeated Bond, almost as if his allegiances to duty were of the passionate kind, whereas Bond seems to go through the motions in a textbook style more than define them heroically, altruistically, or passionately.

There is so much more I can talk about concerning Thunderball, but I feel that this article has gone on long enough. This is one of my favorite Bond films, and I think technically speaking, it may be the best of the Connery era. A lot of people seem to gloss over the characters in Thunderball and I enjoyed taking this time to single out a few interesting points about them. Like I said in my Dr. No article, a lot of people fail to consider Bond's underlying themes, but if you do the films become much more interesting. Thunderball is high up there on my list of favorites and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Thanks for reading!

-Zach Frances

Batman On Film: The Animated Series (1992-1995) - Written By Zach Frances

Batman The Animated Series: Volume One

Forget about the movies. The best film representation of the Caped Crusader is, and will always be, The Animated Series that ran from 1992 up until 1995. This show is stellar, and it not only revolutionized Saturday morning cartoons, but it redefined Batman for a new generation.

Volume One contains some of the best Bat-Stories ever spun. The best telling of Two Face's origin can be found here in a mind blowing two part episode. Neither origins for the character told by Loeb nor Nolan, respectively, can compare to the one that is found here.

The legendary Heart Of Ice can be found here as well. This is a very important episode and marks a very significant moment in Batman's history. One of his less beloved villains became an overnight fan favorite. He went from unsympathetic to incredibly heartbreaking. This character was Mr. Freeze. The episode actually went on to not only land the show its very first Emmy award, but it also affected the comic book universe. Many writers adopted the new Freeze origin that Heart Of Ice proposed.

But Heart Of Ice wasn't the last time that the Animated Series would alter and inspire the comic book universe. In one of the best episodes from Volume One, an episode called Joker's Favor, another important event would take place. Although she had but a handful of lines, Harley Quinn made her first appearance. She would go on to not only change the comic book universe but become a long-lasting part of pop culture. An inspired creation on behalf of Paul Dini, a sensation was born.

My favorite episode contained within the first volume may seem slightly controversial to some, but Mad As A Hatter is an exceptional show. Mad As A Hatter tells the story of Jervis Tetch, the man who will become the Mad Hatter. I thought this episode was so well-done, I have watched it several times. It is a true joy to see the Mad Hatter handled with such care. The best Mad Hatter story ever told, and it will make you a believer of him. A loving portrait of a madman. The show was very good at redeeming lesser liked and lesser known villains. They had already done so with Mr. Freeze by the time they would make the Mad Hatter a legitimate psychopathic threat. They would do it again with Scarface and the Ventriloquist, but I'm getting ahead of myself now.

If you're thinking about buying the first volume, do so immediately. It just might change your life.

Batman The Animated Series: Volume Two

God! Where do I even start?! The second volume is a triumph! Its superhero storytelling at its best, and absolutely essential for all Batfans young and old!

Heck, the episode called 'The Laughing Fish' is worth the money alone! Hands down the best episode of the Batman Animated Series, and honestly, one of my favorite Batman stories ever told in any medium. Whenever I get the chance to turn someone new on to this wonderful series, 'The Laughing Fish' is always the episode I pick out, and I have never had anyone tell me they were disappointed in the program I had selected. 'The Laughing Fish' is a phenomenal, stylish, disturbing, and cartoonish tour de force of superhero entertainment.

But that's not all, folks! Almost every single episode is fantastic! Sure, its got its clunkers, 'Moon Of The Wolf' and 'Cat Scratch Fever' for example are God awful, but it also includes some of the best work to ever come out of the animated series.

Along with the incredible Laughing Episode episode, volume two also boasts the Emmy Award winning two-parter 'Robin's Reckoning'. A very earnest and touching episode where the Boy Wonder's origin is completely explored, and I remember it being one of my favorites as a child. It hasn't lost its touch, the episode struck a chord with me. The darn thing works!

There is another fantastic two-parter included here and it is called 'Heart Of Steel', and it is a fan favorite. A wonderful Sci-Fi Batman story that remains one of the most exciting episodes of the Animated Series.

A few other stand-outs in volume two are the Riddler Episodes, and a Penguin episode titled 'Birds Of A Weather'. Paul Williams of Phantom Of The Paradise fame returns to give voice to the most sympathetic rendition of the beloved super villain. Penguin's best episode in the series and, most likely, the best Penguin tale there is in any medium.

As a kid I really enjoyed the two episodes featuring a villain called Kyodai Ken, a master Ninja Assassin from Bruce Wayne's past. The better of the two, an episode called 'Day Of The Samurai' is still one of my favorite episodes in the show's run. I loved the character of Kyodai Ken, and although I wish Bruce Timm and Co. did more with the character, I respect the fact that he never became old, tiresome, or non-threatening. Great character.

'Almost Got 'Im' is a Paul Dini classic, and another fan favorite. I was also quite partial to 'Perchance To Dream', it was a very bizarre and well done episode, almost like Batman does the Twilight Zone. I loved it. I think I might watch it again tonight actually, as it is a very absorbing story, and I enjoy the way they tell it.

The second volume is, in my opinion, the very best of the Animated Series. Volume One was pretty good too, and Volume Three (with the exception of a few episodes) was a rather week set. Volume Two is Batman The Animated Series at the top of its game, at full stride, and it just never lets up. The special features are short but sweet, and the commentary tracks are both informative and funny as usual. Buy the discs for the shows. I'm so happy I did, they helped to renew a love for Batman I hadn't felt so intensely since I was a kid. And as you grow up, anything that makes you feel twenty years younger is a good thing. And this, this is a good thing.

Batman The Animated Series Volume Three

Truth be told, this is where things start to go sour. There are quite a few undesirables here. But let's focus on the good stuff. And Ra's Al Ghul is always good stuff. There are are a handful of episodes that feature this legendary villain, and the rendering the Animated Series gave the Demon's Head remains the most faithful to the source material. The two-part episode called The Demon's Quest is lifted straight from Denny O'Niel's original writing. A glorious representation of one of Batman's deadliest foes.

Volume Three showcases another new villain to the Animated Series. The villain's name is Bane and the episode is named after him. I have to be somewhat harsh on this particular episode, only because Bane is my absolute favorite Batman Villain. I have always loved him, and while the Animated Series does some good things with his character, they also make an abundance of bad decisions that would later be continued by the notorious disaster that calls itself 1997's Batman & Robin. Yes, the Animated Series is partly to blame for how Bane was presented in Joel Shitmaker's franchise killing toy commercial. As a matter of fact, Joel Shitmaker lifted several ideas from the Animated Series, and used them to systematically bring the Batman down to the level of the Smurfs.

Where was I?

Oh, yeah. Volume Three has a phenomenal Poison Ivy episode. It is called House And Garden and its freakier than the freakiest twist on The Twilight Zone. Seriously, this shit is disturbed! God, I love it! I don't want to spoil anything for any of you who haven't seen this particular episode, but be warned: this one will make your skin crawl and you brain bleed. It really is that peculiar! Its another great episode written by Paul Dini. Poison Ivy at her very best!

Read My Lips is a FANTASTIC one! Scarface and The Ventriloquist seek retribution, and they receive bloody satisfaction. Honestly, a better Scarface story doesn't exist! What this show managed to do with second and third tier villains is extraordinary. They breathed new life into these damaged goods and brought them to the foreground with a vengeance. Seriously, who the hell even knew who the Clock King was before the Animated Series came around? Anyone? Didn't think so. Temple Fugate is now a name I will never forget.

All in all the Animated Series was the best thing to ever happen to a superhero. Glad it was Batman. Superman was given his own animated series as well soon after, and it was handled by the same creative forces behind Batman TAS. Superman The Animated Series is another wonderful television show I plan to explore with you in the near future. Actually, thus far, Superman TAS is the one good film representation of the character.

In closing, THANK GOD FOR BATMAN THE ANIMATED SERIES! My childhood would have been a nightmare without it!

The Humiliation At Crab Key Island or: A Dr. No You Can Touch - Written By Zach Frances

Dr. No: I'm a member of SPECTRE
James Bond: SPECTRE?
Dr. No: SPECTRE. Special Executive for Counter Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion. The four great cornerstones of power headed by the greatest brains in the world.
James Bond: Correction. Criminal brains.
Dr. No: The successful criminal brain is always superior. It has to be.

Seniority has nothing to do with it, Dr. No is one of the best Bond movies ever. Much is written about the James Bond series, but not much is actually said. The fans of James Bond fit into what I like to call a bandwagon following, meaning that they go with the popular trend of the character. Goldfinger used to be heralded as the best Bond film ever made. Period. Then Skyfall came out and the critics praised it. Suddenly the fans learned a different tune. Me? Never. Dr. No was one of the best when I was five years old and its still one of the best today. The titular character is the reason why.

"East, West, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other."

Dr. Julius No does not appear until nearly two hours into the film, and by then he is more than an enigma, he's a goddamn ghost, and that's exactly the way actor Joseph Wiseman plays him. The name 'Dr. No' is ushered repeatedly throughout the film. Almost religiously. Truths, lies, and mysteries are all spun before the crux of the film makes his entrance. The film defines Dr. No by what people say about him, rather than what he actually does, by mysteries rather than facts, by his absence and not his presence. Dr. Julius No is defined by the dangerous measures the hero goes through in order to face him and not the actual confrontation that expels him. As it happens, Dr. Julius No is the most fleshed out and fully realized character of the film, regardless of having such a small amount of screen-time. He is an unseen and hauntingly sinister shadow, a nightmare, a mad man, a God, and then he appears... and Joseph Wiseman does not disappoint.

"Unfortunately I misjudged you, you are just a stupid police man..."

The scene where Bond comes face to face with No and joins him for dinner is, bar-none, the greatest scene of its kind. Ever. In any film. The way Wiseman approached his character was flawless, understated, and unsung. To say he was emotionless would be insulting, he oozes insecurity. A man who has awaited defeat since childhood, No had been dealt one embarrassment after another in a series of painful blows throughout his lifetime, and he has welcomed every one of them with his... hands open. He's fashioned himself a God but never defines the purpose of his Kingdom nor does he particularly identify himself with it. He speaks loathsomely of those who have rejected him his entire life, of the humiliation he suffered that repels him from being accepted, and  the jealousy and sadness that all of that humiliation creates. Sadness can be mistaken for emotionless very easily, which is a mistake most people make when they watch Dr. No.

Make no mistake of it, No is a tragic character. He sits with Bond, both orphans, both unwanted, both are being used by a secretive organization for their own devices, and yet only one of them is ruined because of it. Dr. No offers his companionship to Bond and Bond laughs in his face. Bond humiliates him. Just one more person in a long line of people who have rejected No and have laughed in his face. Just another humiliation.

Dr. No's final humiliation is death. He fights knowing he cannot win, he never wins, and he doesn't deserve to. His own master plan betrays him, his Kingdom consumes him, and, ultimately, he suffers the greatest humiliation of all: fighting for your life and failing to save it. No was a wonderful villain, and the best villain ever crafted for a motion picture. Most people think that since its a Bond film, there isn't anything lurking between the lines. I assure you that these people are being foolish. When you look at Dr. No, at the way he carries himself and if you actually listen to what it is he says, a portrait of an unloved, heartbroken, and vicious man appears before you. Whether you choose to recognize his dilemma is a decision entirely of your own choosing. You just can't ignore the humanity of Dr. No. It is impossible for me to accept the final confrontation as anything other than it truly is: humiliation. I'm not saying No did not deserve death, just the opposite. What I am saying is far more important: No deserves to be viewed as the villain he really is. No is complex, multi-layered, and tragic. Dr. No is an enigma.

There are several other reasons as to why Dr. No is my favorite Bond of them all, but none of them are as important as exploring its titular character. Well... maybe this deserves some attention:

Smoldering hot.

There you have it. One of my favorite Bond films of all time, and one of my favorite movies ever made. A strong sense of nostalgia accompanies this film when I watch it. A strong sense of nostalgia and an overwhelming feeling of adventure. I am a huge Bond fan and this is the first of many essays I plan to write about the series. I saw it fitting that the first essay I wrote was about the first installment in the franchise. Thanks for reading.

-Zach Frances

Four In The Wave - Written By Zach Frances

For this ongoing CineThreatOnline series I will be selecting films from four of the most influential filmmakers of all time: Michelangelo Antonioni, Federico Fellini, Francois Truffaut, and Jean-Luc Godard. All four of these legendary filmmakers emerged in the 1950s and '60s as part of two separate but equally revolutionary movements: The Italian and The French New Wave. They are some of the most incredible filmmakers of all time, and their films are not only consistently thought-provoking but occasionally downright genius works of art.

The Filmmakers: Michelangelo Antonioni, Federico Fellini, Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard.
The Films: L'Avventura, 8½, The 400 Blows, Vivre Sa Vie

First. The Italians:

Michelangelo Antonioni is a polarizing figure in the film community. You either love him or you hate him. Me? I absolutely love his films! L'Avventura is one of most enigmatic films I have ever seen. L'Avventura tells the story of the disappearance of a young woman and how (if) it affects the other characters in the film. The film stars Monica Vitti and Gabriele Ferzetti as the only two people with any conviction as to actually find out what happened to her. Along the way, even they lose interest with their missing friend, and become much more interested in each other. The fate of the missing girl is hardly a misnomer. The film is wonderfully acted and the script is so good it can cause a delirious side-effect of awesomeness. Most impressive is how L'Avventura looks, and the thing looks gorgeous, possibly the best camera work done in an Antonioni film. And the people are beautiful! Honestly, take a gander at Monica Vitti:

Monica Vitti is one of the most beautiful women ever photographed. You honestly can't your eyes off of her. In contrast to her stunning appearance, the character she portrays is soulless. Empty. Then you start to realize that's the point of it all. Everything looks beautiful in L'Avventura, but it's all empty. From the characters to the very world they inhabit, its all a heartless vacuum of emptiness. But God, it looks unbelievable. The emptier you are, the more beautiful you become. Antonioni communicates a great deal here about humanity. About vanity. About waste.

The acting is very impressive. Monica Vitti turns in the best performance of her film career, as does Gabriele Ferzetti. Another top-notch performance is given by Lea Massari as the woman who goes missing. In her brief amount of screen time she lays down a mesmerizing performance. She plays her character as displaced, jaded, and finally waking up to the world around her. To the emotions she is actually feeling. She is not as empty as the rest, its almost as if she can recognize the emptiness in her soul and it makes her sad. So when she finally does go missing, the audience really has no clue what actually happened to her. Massari plays the part so well that the cause of the disappearance could be wide variety of things. An accident? A murder? Did she kill herself? Did she run away? Her performance is so eerie that it haunts the rest of the film. Vitti's character treats her as you would a phantom, and so do we. Did she even exist? Did she actually exist at all? Lea Massari is the phantom, but Monica Vitti is the enigma. Why is she so mysterious? Why is she so damn alluring? Monica Vitti is an intoxicating force to be reckoned with here, and by the end of the film, you still never really got to know her. Because truthfully she isn't anyone. She is a ghost that's afraid of scaring herself. She is the ghost of a good thing. The most visually stunning haunt in the entire cinematic universe.

I actually always looked at L'Avventura as the Arthouse's most intelligent and legitimately scary ghost story. I always viewed the characters not so much as actual people, but as impressions of living things. A practical joke on behalf of the living. Monica Vitti seems to be the only one who isn't in on the joke, as she struggles with losing her humanity. But alas, she is so beautiful she is unreal, she is ghostly, something so perfect she must be an apparition. A mirage. An imitation of life. And the film never judges its specimens. Not once does Antonioni pass any judgement on the characters whatsoever. You see what you want to see.

L'Avventura is also an Antonioni anti-mystery. The film sets you up for it, you think you recognize the give-away thematic elements, and then it takes you somewhere else entirely whilst the mystery takes a back seat. This would not be the last time Antonioni would take Hitchcockian themes and dissect them. He was known for turning film on its head. He was always exploring the boundaries of film, and he enjoyed it. He was an artist first and foremost, and L'Avventura was his Mona Lisa.

L'Avventura is one of the great treasures of the cinema. One of my all-time favorite films ever made, and one of the most mysterious films in my collection. I am awe-struck by Antonioni's vision, startled by it really. I am taken aback, my heart leaps out of my chest at such a beautiful sight when such an empty truth is underlying all notions of attraction. Attraction can be such an empty feeling. It's only when forced to live with said-attraction, that empty emotion, that it starts to haunt you.


Moving On To The Next Selection:

I'm going to be honest. As a movie-goer Fellini has always been a tough pill for me to swallow. He is one of the most self indulgent filmmakers ever to exist, and his films lose sight of themselves all too often for my liking. But 8½ is a different story. 8½ is a remarkable odyssey into the sordid mind of a filmmaker. It is the best movie ever made about making movies. Its Fellini's greatest achievement as a director, as an artist, and as a visionary. 8½ earns Fellini his legendary status. This might just be the most influential film I have selected for this segment. I highly enjoy 8½ and it is one of the few films by Fellini I can honestly say I have enjoyed fully from beginning to end. This is definitely one of the more daring films ever produced, surely one of the more honest jewels in the Arthouse, and if you haven't seen this debonaire classic for yourself.... you just haven't actually watched a film yet.

Next Up, We Have The French:

Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows. The best coming-of-age story ever told. The most deeply moving experience I have ever had with a piece of 50s cinema. Partly auto-biographical, this was Truffaut's feature debut, and it was the best debut from a director since Orson Welles with Citizen Kane. Truffaut actually scheduled the shoot so that he would be the same age Welles was when he made Citizen Kane. Coincidence? I think not. Both films transcend the medium.

Words really can't do this film justice. If you've seen the film, then you can understand why I've selected it. The most moving motion picture of the 50s, directed by a natural born master of the medium. Essential viewing for all film fans.

Last But Certainly Not Least:

Whenever I'm asked what my favorite Godard film is, I always receive funny looks when I tell them Vivre Sa Vie. I know it's not as energetic as his earlier films like Breathless and Band Of Outsiders, but it is one of the only truly touching films Godard ever made. Watching Vivre Sa Vie is like a cinematic awakening. This film has a lot of heart. Nothing about the soul of the film is staged in any way, the soul of the film is defined by its own constantly evolving personality which makes the emotional toll of watching Vivre Sa Vie wholly organic and very real. Its as if we are watching a film being born out of an idea, we watch the film have fun with its new found life, and  we watch how it all ends. A clever metaphor for the life creative people give to inanimate objects, and for the passion that is ultimately lost on them. Godard never tries to force this one on you. Godard has split the film into twelve different tableaux in order to tell his story, a device that has been borrowed and used time and time again. The most important thing about Vivre Sa Vie is that Anna Karina's best performance can be found here as a prostitute in 1960s France. Karina is astonishing in Vivre Sa Vie. Physically and emotionally, she is a godsend.

Her eyes give everything away.

 Rather than go over the entire film and all of the ideas and statements Godard makes with it, which would take forever, I'll simply talk about one scene in particular that has since been branded into my heart.

It takes place in a movie theater. Anna Karina is watching Carl Theodor Dreyer's silent masterpiece The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, and begins to weep. We watch as she connects deeply with a film, and we in turn are affected by it as we are reminded of how moving a great film can really be. The entire sequence is breathtaking. One of the most touching things Godard ever filmed. This isn't to say that Godard is not a heartfelt filmmaker, there are personal moments in most of Godard's films, but sometimes he strives more of an artist than a human filmmaker. Here, in Vivre Sa Vie, the soul of the filmmaker can be found in all of its compounding sentimentality.

This scene means so much to me because never has the act of investing yourself emotionally in a film been explored to such a startling result. Anna Karina watches the film in tears, and she looks incredibly pretty and innocent. Watching films can be a beautiful experience. Vivre Sa Vie demonstrates that wonderfully.

Next Time In Four In The Wave: L'eclisse, Fellini Satyricon, Jules And Jim, Breathless

Avante-Garde: Experimental Silent Cinema Of The 1920s and '30s - Written By Zach Frances

Are you into films that are a little on the weird side? Alright! What about films that are just downright ludicrous? Well, if you are, then Avante-Garde cinema is right for you!

I have selected a few of my favorites as recommendations. If you are well versed on the finer points of Avante-Garde and Surrealism in cinema, then my recommendations should provide some interesting insight. If you are a beginner, this can maybe point you in the right direction.

Starting off with an early favorite of mine:

Robert Florey and Slavko Vorkapich are responsible for this little ditty. If you are new to the Avante-Garde style, I would highly recommend that you watch this film first seeing as how the narrative is relatively easy to follow. Yes. This is one of those rare Avante-Garde films that actually follows a semi-coherent and surprisingly straight-forward story. Not only is 9413 moderately accessible, but it is really a brilliant piece of work.

9413 is an incredibly well done film, and a deeply personal experience on behalf of the spectator. The imagery and symbolism used in the film are not very hard concepts to grasp, making it a wonderful entry-point for those who are new to the cinematic style. It is a wonderful gateway into the world of the Avante-Garde.

Did you enjoy 9413? Ready for the next one? Well. Try Man Ray's 1929 wonderful little film titled THE MYSTERIES OF THE CHATEAU OF DICE.

 The Chateau Of Dice is simply an incredible experience from beginning to end.  The film opens with a title card that reads: 'A Roll Of The Dice Will Never Abolish Chance', a sentiment that is repeated both visually and lyrically throughout the entirety of Man Ray's twenty minute expedition into the heart of phantoms. 

The Chateau Of Dice opens on a mannequin hand wielding a pair of dice. As if to symbolize humanity's wooden-hollow grasp on chance and assumes that fate considers all living things to be inanimate objects. We cannot stop fate. It is revealed that a faceless couple is rolling the dice in order to decide first if they will leave the house that day and secondly where. The dice answers the duo and they leave, driving out into the open and vast world. The camera work may seem to become less and less consistent on their lengthy drive, but this is all part of the point. The camera gets shakier and shakier the further the duo descend into the unkown. Meaning, our vision loses sight of itself once we alter our own path and seek out the unexpected. In fact the spectator is moving faster than the characters are seeing as how we arrive at the Chateau at least fifteen minutes before the characters ever do. 

Since the audience got there early, we look around at all the strange sculptures and the remarkably twisted architecture that make up the Chateau. We are reminded of a strange destiny that brought us here. One thing is wrong. After a while the spectator realizes he is all alone, and there is nothing he or she can do about it. We begin to ask ourselves questions like "Where Are We"? as our equilibrium descends into a spinning blur of confusion, occasionally fixing itself, but ultimately losing sight of the question. Day and night become interchangeable, the sun sets, the night leaves in an instant, we are still very much alone, and that's when we start to ask the right questions. 

We finally start to wonder whether or not phantoms exist. If a physical action done in the physical world, does it leave a trace of itself?

It's morning and the spectator has found a small group of people to latch onto. They are playing with large and seemingly fuzzy dice. These are people of the more playful variety. Playing with chance. It is also very important to note that unlike the earlier duo's faces which were completley void of personality and depth, this current group's faces are not completely souless. It is still hard to make out the finer points of their facial features, they are still faceless in a sense, but nearly as much as the earlier duo were. We are reminded by a title card about using dice to abolish chance. It never happens. 

The small group of people, two women and two men, go for a swim. The women keep their faces underwater so as not to reveal their true selves. A title card flashes that reads: 'Swim Cinema'. We are shown reflections of the pool on the wall overlooking it, the shadows of the characters are swimming, and the shadow-play demonstrates quite effortlessly the truth about what Man Ray was telling to tell us about phantoms. They do exist, all you have to do is look for them.

Once the group have finished with their dip in the pool they proceed to pose for the camera doing a handful of ridiculous things and wearing some ludicrous appartus that reminds us of a beauty salon. The character's faces progressively become more well-defined. What we can gather from this slow reveal of their faces is that the more physical traces we leave on this earth, the more our identities become clearer to the public eye. The more we do the more the world knows about us, the more fate and chance knows about us, and the more the spectators know about us.

The group gets understandably tired from having an exhausting day of leaving their mark on the intrinsic universe and go to sleep. All together they literally fade away into oblivion. Were they phantoms? Was this scenario a phantasm? The Chateau Of Dice holds many mysteries.

Finally, the duo from the beginning of the film catches up with their audience and arrives at the Chateau. They find a pair of dice in the grass, and give it a roll to see whether or not they shall remain there or not. The dice answer, they shall remain. They scale the roof and freeze like living statues. Or how Man Ray would like us to see them, they freeze in place like physical prints of themselves. Their essence remains. And that is all the world sees of us. It is also a clever observation on movie-going. When an audience sees a film, they are forced to believe that that the scenario in which they are watching play out is happening in real time right there in fron of them, when in actuality it is a the documentation of the physical remains of a group of creative pull participating in an activity. Well, aren't films real? Do they not have life? Are there not living and breathing emotions trapped inside each and every frame? I'm sure they are. With The Mysteries Of The Chateau Of Dice Man Ray asked us, 'Do Phantoms Exist'? And he taught me that not only do they exist, but everything I do in this world adds to the ongoing haunting that is human activity. A wonderful film, and one of my favorite pieces of Avante-Garde cinema.

Next we have the lovely 1928 splash by Hans Richter: GHOSTS BEFORE BREAKFAST

Ghosts Before Breakfast opens with a title card that reads: The Nazis Destroyed The Sound Version Of This Film as 'Degenerate Art'. It Shows That Even Objects Revolt Against Regimentation'. After that the films spits us out into 9 whole minutes of twisted symbolism, dazzling photography, and startling ideas. One of the very first images we see is that of young man putting on a bow tie. The bow tie rebels against him, refusing to be tied down. So much so, that the necktie actually unties itself and flies away from the young man, in a beautifully flowing sequence of stop-motion trick photography.

If Ghosts Before Breakfast is constant in one basic idea, its the idea of breaking free and splitting apart. Which is something all of the objects do, except for the objects that symbolize something violent. Violence is the only real thing that sticks with its own kind and never splits apart from its destined route. The imagery is downright overwhelming at times, but slows down for moments at a time to show us the same four hats avoiding capture from fervent young men aching to catch them. The hats, at this point, represent the idea of rebellion. You can never trap it, catch it, or stop it. Rebellion, like Violence, is an unstoppable force of nature.

The actions in the world of Ghosts Before Breakfast seems to be orchestrated by an omnipotent clock. You can't stop time. Time is the ruler of all. We shown a bulls eye being split apart, not by a bullet, but by the very lines that define it. When a  man's goal is blurred, his aim becomes twisted.

Then Breakfast is served, and those rebellious little bowler hats fly up to the table. A quartet of ghosts appear, the hats belong to them. The hats latch on to their masters, and their masters enjoy their breakfast.

I recommend Ghosts before Breakfast to all fans of the Avante-Garde, and at 9 minutes, it really isn't asking all that much of you, granted you are interested.

And the last film I have selected is a little known Surrealist gem from Orson Welles and William Vance called THE HEARTS OF AGE.

The Hearts Of age is an altogether wholly entertaining experience. As a viewer you're not sure whether what you are being shown are pf the visionary variety or if its all just a meaningless exercise on behalf of Orson Welles. The Hearts Of Age was made in 1934 when Welles was only nineteen years old, which makes The Hearts Of Age the debut film from the legendary Orson Welles. And it is quite a sight to behold.

The Hearts Of Age is a film I like to revisit every so often as it is truly an entertaining film. The images are loosely tied together, but are still set up in an otherwise coherent pattern. I find The Hearts Of Age to be a very important film in Welles' stunning catalog of directorial efforts. It is very interesting to see the man, the myth, the legend do something that is so far removed from what you would normally associate yourself. If nothing else, The Hearts Of Age is a refreshing and joyful experience, and another notable film from the cinema of the Avante-Garde.

Well then.

I hope you enjoy some of the films I have selected. Avante-Garde is an acquired taste, it is a whole new language of film, and at first it can be very difficult to decipher and communicate with. But once you do, you will be granted access to some of the most interesting and enduring films ever made. Once again, I hope you enjoy these films and thanks for reading.

Zach's Favorite Films Of The Silent Era!

It is time for a very special post. CineThreatOnline will be discussing their favorite films of the Silent Era in an upcoming video, but for now Zach Frances will write about some of his personal all-time favorites.

Starting with Number One:

Pandora's Box is unquestionably my favorite film ever made. Nothing else even comes close. I have written before for CineThreatOnline about this 1929 masterwork from the great G.W. Pabst, and I stand by my sentiments entirely.

Pandora's Box is one of those mystifying and enigmatic pictures. A monumental artistic achievement, and the Silent Era's last gasp of life. Pandora's Box is a character study of everyone in the film with the exception of it's main character Lulu. As a spectator, you are not supposed to wonder why Lulu does the things she does, but you are supposed to be greatly affected by them. Just like the other characters in the film, you are both obsessed and repulsed by what Louise Brooks as Lulu makes you feel. She makes you feel woozy, confused, and lost. She makes you fall in love. And she makes you bleed because of it.

No one could create Louise Brooks, just like no one could create Pabst's 'Lulu'. No. Pabst's 'Lulu' had to be real, had to exist, and had to do so naturally; unaware. No. Louise Brooks is not a Pabst invention, and neither is her performance in Pandora's Box. What Pabst did, quite simply, was find his 'Lulu'. The film itself is pure invention, Pabst used psychology as his weapon and his intellect as his charm. He pinned actors against each other, he favored one actor on Monday only to dismiss him by Tuesday. Pabst created the purest form of realism possible. By exposing his actor's insecurities, hiding the plot from them, and initiating mind games with every member of the cast on and off set. Pabst loved chess. His love of chess is evident in Pandora's Box. Pandora's Box is his 'check-mate'.

So. No. Pabst did not create Lousie Brooks. Pabst made Lousie Brooks what she is today; an ultimately tragic relic of a bygone age. I cannot believe how astonishingly perfect Pandora's Box was conceived. Pabst is a true nobleman of the cinema for a number of reasons, my confidence will never sway in that regard. Pabst made the perfect film. A rarity, a pleasure, and a true art. His direction, the key to the enigma, only comes out of its perpetual hiding after a few viewings. It is Louise Brooks, and only Louise Brooks, that your eyes and heart feast on during the first time you watch Pandora's Box. Brooks was the most enchanting, dazzling, and transcendental of the silent screen goddesses. In the scene where Shon is caught making love to her by his fiancé and his son, Brooks delivers the greatest facial expression ever captured on film. An act of dominance and sexual achievement. A grin that is truly timeless, as if she's staring through time and space, testing your wildest urges, daring you to love her, and begging you to beg to forget it. Although Brooks didn't know then, or even cared to know at the time, soon she would have Pabst all figured out. She realized that the greatest performance of her career, and one of the most legendary in all of cinema, was not a performance at all, it wasn't even acting. It was her. It was documentary. I was real.

Perhaps the greatest invention belonging to G. W. Pabst was the invention of truth. Things look different when they are being filmed, it is a natural reaction to put on on an act of sort when one knows he or she is being watched. Pabst bypassed that fault in cinematic realism and created reality. Untouched by fabled hands, pure and innocent, L. Brooks. Arguably, Pabst is the only director who has ever accomplished such a remarkable feat.

Number Two:

If you want to be startled by a motion picture, if you want to be haunted by a performance, if you want to be humbled by sincerity -- Carl Theodor Dreyer's 1928 tale of The Passion Of Joan Of Arc is for you. What Dreyer accomplishes here is all thanks to his star, Maria Falconetti. Never has a role been executed to such an empathetic extent as Falconetti demonstrates here. You feel for her, more importantly, you feel her.

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc is haunting but it is never morbid nor is it depressing. In fact it is a lush example of filmmaking at its best, a director at his peak, and an actress in the role of a lifetime. The best scene Godard ever filmed was set in a movie theater. Godard filmed his actress, Anna Karina, watching The Passion of Joan Of Arc and becoming so deeply affected by it that she starts to weep. I weep almost every time I see Maria Falconetti. NO. Strike that. I weep almost every time Maria Falconetti sees me.

I always love the watching the early sound pictures from the great silent era directors. Another one of Dreyer's best work, in my opinion, was Vampyr, and the language the film tells itself in is purely of the silent era. While sound does exist in Vampyr, the images take center stage. Sound almost reveals itself as a cursed and wretched presence in the film. Vampyr is my favorite vampire tale ever filmed. Step aside, Nosferatu! And Vampyr is like the blurred and wounded brother to it's sisterly counterpart, The Passion Of Joan Of Arc. Together both Vampyr and The Passion Of Joan Of Arc tell a great deal about the soul of the man who made them. Both represent two very different sides to the man, yet viewed back to back provide both a coherent personality and a sympathetic heart. Carl Theodor Dreyer was the heart of early cinema. Dreyer was the master of light. His films are so powerful that they are literally stunning.

Number Three:

Conrad Veidt should be a household name the way Chaplin, Garbo, and Fairbanks are household names. In The Man Who Laughs Veidt plays Gwynplaine, a victim of a horrific act of torture and wickedness. He is the man with a permanent smile, disfigured as a child because he was the unfortunate son of a unwise father.  As the title card states, the King condemned him "to laugh forever at his fool of a father."

Regarded as the most sparkling jewel of Universal Studios' silent canon, The Man Who Laughs was directed by the great Paul Leni, a key figure in German Expressionist cinema, and it is directed with the grace of a master. Leni tells it like a tragedy. Leni makes you never want to smile again, not unless you really mean it. As much as I like directors like Lang and Dreyer, I feel that most of their most interesting and emotional work came after addition of sound, whereas as filmmakers like Pabst, Leni, and Murnau were true silent film virtuosos who understood the language in which the era communicated itself better than most and never quite made a film in the sound era as monumental as their silent masterworks. Some didn't live to see the light of sound. Leni never made a sound picture. Which is shame. Leni was an incredible master of film, what he would have done with the sound technology is unimaginable. His final film, The Last Warning, is telling of a director aching to get his hands dirty. Paul Leni does not usually receive proper acclaim for his contributions to early cinema. Those reservations are usually reserved for those who went on to make interesting sound pictures, like Lang or Dreyer. It's unfair. Leni is a goddamn pillar of the Silent Era, without the films of Paul Leni German Expressionism never would have matured into a coherent platform for displaying real human emotion. The Man Who Laughs is the most mature and adult film in the Expressionist canon. It is also one of the best.

Conrad Veidt is a marvel in the film. He was born to play Gwynplaine the Smiling Clown, and I believe I was born to watch to him play it. But alas, Veidt was not Universal Mogul Carl Laemmle's first choice. Originally Lon Chaney was locked for the role, but wasn't too wowed my the material and bowed out. Lon Chaney made a splash in 1923 with another Victor Hugo screen adaptation, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, and Chaney felt the material was far too similar for his liking. Nothing against the man of a thousand faces, but thank heavens Chaney dropped the ball! Veidt delivers one of the most harrowing and affecting performances ever seen. He is both horrifying and pitiful, a monster and a victim, a smile and a gasp. It is commonly known that Bob Kane drew inspiration for the legendary comic book villain the Joker from Veidt's appearance in the film. But I think he also took some of Veidt's manic hysteria with him as well. When you watch him on stage, you forget you're watching a movie altogether. Suddenly... suddenly you're watching an artist.

Number Four:

And make that two points for Conrad Veidt as we add another wonderful piece of German Expressionism on to the list! Actually, Robert Weine's 1920 film The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari is the expressionist film. Upon it's initial release the film was called vulgar, juvenile, and disgusting. Well, I have some good news for you... it still is!  

The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari has an attitude problem. The film wants nothing more than to punch you right in the face. Visually extraordinary, stylistically legendary, and thematically revolutionary, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari is one of the best and one of the very first horror films ever produced. And the film is psychologically insane. Modern storytelling isn't nearly this good.

Robert Weine was an interesting figure in the history of film. Though he would never make something as triumphant as The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari ever again, he would still have moments of genius periodically throughout his later career. Most notably with The Hands Of Orlac in 1924, another picture starring Conrad Veidt, and though it is incredibly slow paced, The Hands Of Orlac is ultimately satisfying and rewarding. But it's The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari that I am here to appreciate. It is the performances of Werner Krauss and Conrad Veidt that I am here to remember and happily lull.

Visually, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari might be the most influential film ever made. I honestly doubt whether German Expressionism would have hit the western world the way that it did had it not been for Caligari. Metropolis certainly wouldn't have existed, Film Noir would not have developed in quite the same way, and modern filmmakers like Tim Burton and Guillermo Del Toro would be visionaries without a vision had it not been for Caligari.

It is an incredible film, and I highly recommend it. Modern psych-thrillers don't even come close to matching Caligari's complex and completely absorbing tale of murder, insanity, and possession. The dynamic of substance and style are equally matched throughout the film. Cheers, Weine, for a film that will live forever!

Number Five:

1931. City Lights. Chaplin's best work. Made during the heyday of talkies, City Lights is rebellious and courageous. It is the most heartfelt thing Chaplin ever produced. He proved that sound was not an improvement over silent films, but rather hindered the evolution of visual storytelling. He took what was already being called a dead technology and made something beautiful and extremely heartfelt with it. Words cannot describe the glory of City Lights, and that's something Chaplin wanted to make perfectly clear.

If only Silent Films had never died, and simply became a separate entity from Talkies, Film would have so much more beauty and love to them. What silent films accomplished in its short lifespan is more than modern filmmaking has done in almost one hundred years. Silent films evolved so far in such a short time that it's a crime against art that Talkies had to come along and tarnish such a fine legacy. Talkies haven't evolved worth a shit. In fact, if you follow the so-called evolution of the Talkie, you'll find that it's not an evolution at all, it's a downward progression, a devolution, and a fucking disgrace. The Silent Era is the one true era of cinema, it is Cinema unfiltered, it is Cinema 100 proof. It is my all-time favorite era of film, and it is a wonderful place to visit.



Be on the look-out for CineThreatOnline's web video where Zach Frances and a panel of film fanatics will be discussing Zach's favorite silent films, as well as the much-loved The Artist. Is The Artist a return to silent film, a love letter, or just an Academy Award Winning gimmick? Keep an eye out for the web video to see what CineThreatOnline thinks about it.