Science in the Movies

As scientists we get a pretty hard time of it.  If we’re not struggling for publishable results, or being misquoted in the press about our research; then we’re being portrayed as über-geeks in The Big Bang Theory or with cinema-screen foreheads and clipboards in adverts (I’m looking at you Tefal).  Some of my non-science friends still call me boffin. If that isn’t enough, our subject matter, our interest, nae, our passion can be treated with such cavalier contempt in films.

As I see it, there are several issues to address here.  There is a fair amount (as you might expect) of bad science in movies; however there is also some good science (or at least the director has made an attempt to grasp some basics).  Quite often the scientist is the voice of reason (though the incidence of anyone paying them any attention is rather less); more often than not however, the mad scientist is the preferred flavour.  Finally I shall give some thought to the stereotypes that are perpetuated in the movies and whether there is any likelihood that it may change.

FilmsRruss' Favourite Directors

Many people have a favourite actor/actress that they will follow religiously; sometimes for a good reason, sometimes the reason is rather more spurious; perhaps they look good in tight trousers (I'm looking at you Kate Beckinsale!).  I honestly don't think there is any actor that I would particularly try to see all their films.  There probably are some whose films I see a lot of, simply because I like the genre they tend to stick with.  I am far more likely to follow a director's career and actively seek out the movies they make.  This article is testament to that.  These are guys (yes I'm afraid that they're all men) who I think make amazing films, and I'll always want to see their creations no matter the genre.
In no particular order then.

Matthew Vaughan 

Having cut his teeth as a producer for Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn has made an amazing transition to the Director's chair.  His first film was the excellent Layer Cake; very much a crime caper in a similar vein to Lock Stock or Snatch, which oozes cool and has a hell of a cast.  From there he hasn't looked back, taking him all the way to the great X-Men reboot and even rumours linking him to the new Star Wars films. 

Films to see: Layer Cake; Stardust; X-Men: First Class. 

Zack Snyder

There is no doubting Zack's visual flair, he has made the slow-quick-slow camera work a very distinctive trademark; and I for one love it.  He created a very enjoyable remake of Dawn of the Dead, but it was when he brought Frank Miller’s graphic novel 300 to our screens that we took notice.  It strikes me that Zack is at his best when interpreting other works, because when he wrote and directed Sucker Punch it looked phenomenal but the story was woeful.  So having said that, I'm really looking forward to Zack's Man of Steel which is written by David S Goyer and Chris Nolan. 

Films to see: 300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead. 

Christopher Nolan

There is nothing that this man has directed that isn’t superb.  From the simple but very very clever Memento through to The Dark Knight Rises, he hasn’t missed a trick; and I haven’t missed a film (apart from Following).  Not afraid of making people think, he doesn’t pander to the lowest common denominator.  Memento didn't let you lose concentration for a second, The Prestige kept you guessing, Inception is a total mind-bender, and the Batman films have no right to be as clever as they are.  He has done a truly remarkable thing, he has actually made intelligent blockbusters, proving that you don't have to leave your brain at the door to enjoy spectacular films. 

Films to see: All of them! But especially Memento, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises. 

Duncan Jones

Born Zowie Bowie, Duncan obviously wanted to distance himself from his famous father.  This guy is definitely the new kid on the block in this list having only directed two feature film; the superb Moon, and Source code.  He has also made a short film called Whistle which is also well worth a look. Of course he doesn’t have a very long CV, but it's pretty good, and I'm excited as to what he'll do in the future.

Films to see: Moon, Source Code, Whistle.

 



Guillermo del Toro 

Del Toro is probably the one director on this list that I am least familiar with, however I love the films I have seen and there is no doubting that he has a very distinctive style.  Usually a lot of eyes are involved!  Whether it's the beast at the end of Hellboy, or The Angel of Death in Hellboy 2, or the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth, eyes are important to him.  I'd love to have seen his Flies and Spiders if he had directed The Hobbit!  Similar to Chris Nolan, the Hellboy films are much cleverer than you would expect, and Blade 2 (though I haven't seen it for a long time) equally so.  Hellboy is a great fantasy film, the second one in particular is fantastic and has Del Toro's wonderful style all over it; Pan's Labyrinth even more so.  As I say, I'm less familiar with much of Del Toro's work, but I now have Blade 2 to watch again, Cronos is on my LoveFilm list, and I am hoping that he brings his quality to Pacific Rim, because it looks spectacular, but could so easily be rubbish in someone else's hands. 

Films to see: Hellboy 2, Pan's Labyrinth, Blade II

Ridley Scott 

Often referred to as a very visual director, Ridley Scott has made some tremendous films.  I only really understood what was meant by being a visual director when I watched some of the extras on the Body of Lies DVD.  To explain on set how he wanted a scene to look, he would grab a pencil and paper and very quickly draw the storyboard so that the crew instantly knew what he was thinking.  Often it seems like he is the only one on set who is calm and knows exactly what he wants.  Amid the carnage of filming Black Hawk Down, he was the one unfazed by all the explosions; an oasis of serenity.  All this allows him to concentrate on how best to tell his story, and he is excellent at that; and usually his films are visually stunning. 

Films to see: Alien, Bladerunner, Gladiator 

Stanley Kubrick 

Kubrick was a real artist, everything he did was deliberate and had a reason.  He was also a perfectionist, often leading him to do many takes of any particular scene.  Of course this sometimes led to clashes of personalities on set, but there is no doubting that the finished product was always tremendous.  As an artist he produced works of art, and nowhere is this more evident than 2001:A Space Odyssey.  Not a film for everyone, but I think it is a joy to watch; utterly captivating and a sublime piece of film-making.  Even the "Ultra - violent" Clockwork Orange has moments of beauty.  Widely regarded as one of the best directors of all time, having watched eight of his most celebrated works I can certainly see why. 

Films to see: 2001:A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining. 

Quentin Tarantino 

Generally known for making violent films with a lot of bad language, Tarantino nevertheless has demonstrated over and over that he can write and tell a great story.  Perhaps he should be better remembered for his great characters, their development and the irreverent script he usually writes for them.  Who can deny we really understand Vincent and Jules when they are discussing "Le Big Mac".  Equally, we get a real sense of Kiddo's desire for revenge as we learn about the characters that wronged her.  And of course witnessing the superb Christoph Waltz's "Jew Hunter" in Inglorious Basterds, we understand why Shosanna goes to such desperate measures at the end of the film.  A brilliant writer and certainly also a great director. 

Films to see: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Basterds.



All images from IMDb

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

For the final film that Kubrick made he returns to a theme that he addressed in one of his earliest. However, where Lolita was more concerned with sexual repression and awkwardness, Eyes Wide Shut is far more a journey of sexual discovery. The film also investigates the strong bond that exists between two people in a marriage.

Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) have been happily married for many years and have a daughter about 7 years old. The Doctor seems very content and is used to his daily routine, Alice also seems happy but she feels that her life is less fulfilled as she plays the role of housewife. Then one night as the two are smoking pot before they go to bed, Alice drops the bombshell that she once fantasised about a guy she only caught sight of once in a hotel. This sounds like quite an insignificant story, but the performance of Kidman in that scene is really vulnerable, emotional and gripping, and she really sells the story convincingly. Which is just as well as this is really the key scene in the film as it sends the Doctor into a jealous turmoil.

Bill is immediately called out (the same night still) to console a widow who had just lost her husband, but when he leaves spends the rest of the night in a state of sexual confusion. A night which sees him visit a hooker’s house (doesn’t have sex), meets an old friend who turns out to play the piano for exclusive orgies, goes to get a costume for the orgy that night (while at the costume shop it is revealed that the shop owner’s daughter is having fun with two other guys), and then finally goes the orgy!

The film is really split into two halves, the first being the journey of sexual discovery, the second being more of a mystery as Bill struggles with his guilt about the previous night as well as trying to get to the bottom of what he witnessed. To this end the two halves have very different feels to them; where the first section is filled with light, lots of red (passionate colour?) and beautiful music, the second half is rather more subdued and the music in particular is very jarring. Essentially the music is a few notes played over and over on the piano and is very discordant; at points just one note! It does add to the guilty, haunted feeling that the Doctor is feeling, I just felt that it was ironic since it was a pianist that helped him out in the first half of the film.





Of course one of the key scenes in the film is the orgy that Bill visits. There was a risk that this could have been either fairly tasteless, or by skirting round the issue it wouldn’t have had the impact that it needed to. Naturally Kubrick executes it perfectly. Again rich colours and a very opulent setting are used to indicate that this is not only passionate but also luxurious rather than seedy. Most of the scenes are filmed in slow graceful tracking shots which really give the impression of a dream - indeed the title of the book that the film is based on translates from the German “Traumnovelle” as Dream Story.

I’ve already mentioned that Kidman is good, especially in that key scene, but Tom is equally good. Nothing completely spectacular, but always very believable whether he being a professional doctor, jealous of his wife, or being guilty and paranoid. In his most important scene along with Sydney Pollack, Tom is actually very good; even as he denies what happened last night, his eyes tell a different story. This scene demonstrates that Tom is far more than Maverick or Ethan Hunt, and when pushed he really can act.

Certainly not his best film, and not really one of my favourites, Eyes Wide Shut is none-the-less a fascinating story of discovery, and is beautifully filmed. Well acted by the two leads, and a typically striking music score, the film has an atmosphere that stays with the viewer well after the credits have rolled.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

There are many cynical Vietnam films, but few are as instantly brutal as Full Metal Jacket. The very first scene is a steady-cam shot that follows drill instructor Sergeant Hartman around the recruits’ digs as he verbally abuses them as he introduces them to Parris Island boot camp. I mean he really lays into them; within that first steady-cam shot there are 4 swear words 1 of which is fuck, and in the whole scene he swears 37 times 16 of which are fuck! Needless to say not all of the recruits can cope with Hartman’s tough love, in particular Private Leonard Lawrence (Private Pyle) doesn’t, and with disastrous consequences.

The whole film is told through the eyes of the Joker (Matthew Modine), both in the boot camp and then in Vietnam. As a war correspondent he is sent off to cover a story and ends up tagging along with a squad of marines which includes one of Joker’s friends from his days in boot camp. Of course as the film progresses the number of marines in this squad drops and drops, and it climaxes with a scene where Joker has to come to terms with killing face to face; he has to finally confront his demons as well as the mixed messages on his uniform.

There are quite a few tracking shots which gives the film a very fluid feel, which almost counteracts some of the confusing, disjointed battle sequences. The action is all superb and very well edited, though never over the top. One aspect I particularly liked was the tanks firing; usually filmed from behind we would see the tank fire, see the impact in the distance, and then hear the explosion. Exactly correct, I just thought that it was a nice subtle touch. Otherwise there were some beautifully framed shots as I have come to expect from Kubrick.

The main cast are all great, each with their little idiosyncrasies. Joker makes jokes to cope with the awful situation he finds himself in, Cowboy is a good soldier but lacks the conviction to lead when he is thrust into that situation. Lawrence (Vincent D'Onofrio) is really good as the persecuted and slightly unhinged private Pyle; but special mention must be made for Lee Ermey’s drill instructor. Gunnery Sergeant Hartman is an amazing character, he is just so brutal it is hard to imagine anyone being able to maintain that intensity for as long as he does. There is also an appearance of a very young looking Adam Baldwin as Animal Mother, a gung-ho marine who, as his name suggests, is fairly intense and likes nothing more than charging head on into battle.

At one moment in the film Joker explains that the conflicting messages on his uniform (Born to Kill and a peace symbol) are highlighting the duality of man; and the film itself has many examples of this. The marines are effectively brainwashed to become killing machines at boot camp, but the drill instructor explains that they are not robots, they need to remain men. It is implied that the Vietnam war is not a popular war with the American public back home, yet Joker is told to rewrite one of his stories with a confirmed kill at the end so that it appears that the marines are being successful. Of course finally, despite maintaining throughout the film that he is a killer, Joker finds it hard to look into the eyes of the enemy and actually pull the trigger.

Hard-hitting and brutal, Full Metal Jacket is another cynical look at an unpopular war, but is actually perhaps more subtle about it (boot camp excepted) than the other classic Vietnam movies. Great acting, completely absorbing, and with Kubrick’s ability to know exactly where to put the camera make Full Metal Jacket a truly memorable film.

The Shining (1980)

I think perhaps that this could be the most un-Kubrick film in the collection so far. Rather than being an out-and-out artistic masterclass, The Shining concentrates even more on the characters and the building tension. That’s not to say that it isn’t pretty to look at. Right from the word go there is some beautiful aerial photography, and there are myriad iconic scenes scattered throughout. 

The main reason to see The Shining is Jack Nicholson; he owns this film like a boss. He is wonderfully eccentric, and increasingly manic as his mental state deteriorates. He is so gleeful as he is talking to Mr Grady (Philip Stone) and accusing him of killing his wife and daughters; not to mention his wonderful three little pigs story culminating in Heeerrrre’s Johnny! He is really fascinating to watch in this role. Alongside Jack is Shelley Duvall as his wife Wendy who is very subdued compared to her husband, and spends the last third of the film in tears. As a character, Wendy is quite polar to Jack’s, but despite all the screaming and tears has a fairly strong resolve; she whacks Jack with a baseball bat when he gets too close, and is quick to cut his hand with a knife as he tries to unlock the bathroom door.

The tension is ramped up slowly as the film progresses. A particularly effective method is following Danny (Danny Lloyd) as he rides his trike around the hotel; this allows for the sudden disturbing appearance of the murdered twins, or a suddenly open door (scarier than it sounds!). The atmosphere is helped along by the music (which actually reminded me a lot of Scanners). I also like the way that as Danny was having one of his premonitions, a high pitched whining noise would build and build until eventually the screen would cut to an information card that said “Tuesday” or whichever day it was! Expecting something awful to happen as the music builds the viewer is then completely thrown.

A gripping thriller that is perfectly paced, beautifully made (I sound like a broken record reviewing Kubrick’s films), and wonderfully acted by the main man Jack Nicholson. The Shining isn’t a traditional horror film, but as a story of a man whose descends into madness brought on by the isolation of The Overlook Hotel, it’s pretty terrifying.

Barry Lyndon (1975)

Barry Lyndon is a period drama (18th Century) which tells the story of Redmond Barry. Born in Ireland to a relatively poor family, he is forced to leave the comfort of his village while still a teenager, because of a duel with a British officer over the hand of a woman. Barry first travels to Dublin, joins the British army, fights on the Continent during the 7 Years War; then through various opportunities eventually marries a very wealthy high society woman: Lady Honoria Lyndon. However, Lady Lyndon’s son by her first marriage despises Barry, and it is he who is his ultimate downfall.

I’m really surprised that I like this film so much. I don’t really go in for period dramas, and to be quite honest, nothing that exciting happens in the film. What makes the film so good is its look, style and atmosphere. Once again Kubrick has made a work of art. The film is just beautiful. Not the people, they are actually all very plain, not least Redmond Barry (Ryan O’Neal); but the scenery, the countryside, even the battles during the 7 years war are all stunning.

There are many occasions that the camera is focussed on a character, before it slowly withdraws revealing the glorious setting they are in. All of these wonderful vistas give real scope to the epic story unfolding. I must not forget the indoor photography either. For most of the indoor scenes, only natural light was used, and no artificial light was used for any of the indoor candle-lit shots (explains the copious use of candles in some scenes). I remember when I went to see a Stanley Kubrick exhibition in Berlin learning that he used a new technique for filming these scenes. A quick check on IMDB tells me that Kubrick used a lens designed by Zeiss (German company who make very good microscope lenses - amongst other things) for NASA which had a very large aperture and so could be used to film in low light situations. The results are magnificent, and with help from cinematographer John Alcott (who won an Academy Award for his efforts) Kubrick has delivered one of the most sumptuous films that I’ve ever seen. Actually the most dour moment of the entire film is Redmond’s marriage to Lady Honoria Lyndon.

The plot is helped along by narration by Michael Hordern, whose voice is perfect for this film and introduces quite a bit of humour. The acting is fine overall, but nothing amazing. I couldn’t really decide if Redmond Barry was always meant to be a bit distant or whether Ryan O’Neal just wasn’t that good in the role. The most memorable characters were probably Captain John Quin (Leonard Rossiter) who looked absolutely terrified when duelling with Barry; Captain Grogan (Godfrey Quigley) a friend from Ireland that Barry meets again in the army while in France; and the financial advisor Graham, played by Philip Stone who seems to be a favourite of Kubrick (he was a tremendously nervous Dad to Alex in Clockwork Orange).



Again the music is an integral part of the film, the main theme is Sarabande, and seems to fit almost any occasion depending on how it is played. The film is split into two parts, almost the rise and then fall of Barry Lyndon, and as such is just shy of three hours long. The story, though not exciting in the traditional sense, is interesting enough that the film doesn’t drag, and if the story doesn’t entertain, then you can always just appreciate how gorgeous the film is.

Clockwork Orange (1971)

Set in London in an alternative future (future at least to 1971) when society is terrorized by vicious gangs of thugs, Clockwork Orange tells the story of Alex, the leader of a typically belligerent gang and his desire to be cured. The film really deals with how the government and society fail younger people, and the ineffective and sometimes drastic measures that are used to try and tackle the issue.

Clockwork Orange has always had a bit of a reputation as being a very violent and unsavory film; actually I would say that there is minimal violence. OK, so kicking someone in the legs and stomach while they're on the ground and then raping their wife isn't very nice, but none of it is graphic. I don't think that The Hunger Games is any less violent, and either version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is far more graphic and grim. Clearly there is perspective to this, and to 1971 sensibilities, Clockwork Orange was obviously more than a lot of people could handle.

So why should you watch this? Mostly for Malcolm McDowell; he is just brilliant. His portrayal of Alex is such that you cannot imagine anyone else playing that role. He is unpredictable, gleeful, strangely polite, repentant, but has the ability to always be slightly intimidating. Of course it helps that Kubrick’s screenplay based on Anthony Burgess’ novel is equally brilliant; if Alex didn't speak in his mock Shakespearean way (Nadsat apparently), then the film probably wouldn't have worked so well.

While clearly not in the same league as 2001 (few films are), Clockwork Orange nevertheless still has moments of beauty. Whatever the subject matter, Kubrick really knows how to set up a shot, and some of the sets (designed by Star Wars set designer John Barry - no, not that one) are oddly cinematic.

Similar to 2001, Kubrick decided to use a classical music score, but here it is often incongruous to what is happening on screen: Alex singing "Singing in the rain" as he is beating and raping, Rossini’s “The Thieving Magpie” while fighting Billy Boy and his gang in the old casino, or of course the use of “Ludwig Van’s 9th” which eventually drives Alex mad! Again this music elevates Clockwork Orange to a level where it is more than just a film. I think that with any other director at the helm it would have been a fairly ordinary film, but Kubrick crafted something more than that; an experience whose atmosphere really permeates the viewer and stays with them for long after the credits roll.

If anyone ever had doubts about seeing this because of its notoriety and potential content, I would recommend them to take the time to see it, I’m sure it is not what they would expect. Bold, iconic music, a compelling performance from McDowell, and occasionally sumptuous visuals, is definitely worthy of praise.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

The film that Kubrick made after Dr Strangelove was 2001: A Space Odyssey, and it couldn’t be more different.  Where Strangelove was character driven nuclear madness, 2001 is a celebration of film-making.  Based on Arthur C. Clark’s novel The Sentinel, the story is concerned with the idea that our evolution may have been driven by some intergalactic race, as well as being about our over-reliance on technology. Though you might be forgiven for not paying too much attention to the plot because the whole film looks glorious; it’s like watching a work of art.

The most obvious topic for discussion are the visuals. As I say, it’s about as far removed from the gloomy pictures of Dr Strangelove as it could be; the images are dynamic, crisp and it essentially looks as though the crew were actually filming in space, especially the opening shot of the sun rising over the Earth and Moon.  Phenomenal cinematography from Geoffrey Unsworth.  Though the camera is static for most of the film (I can only specifically remember the shot of Frank Poole jogging around the circular drum of Discovery as a moving camera), Kubrick always manages to position it in such a way that he can convey elegant motion.

I think that one of the reasons it all looks so phenomenal is because the shots are long, slow and deliberate.  If shots are rushed with lots of fast edits (Michael Bay) then it is possible to get away with less than perfect effects; but here everything looks spot on.  For example there is a moment just after an hour into the film when Dave and Frank move from a stationary corridor into a rotating module before climbing down a ladder upwards! It’s hardly an important scene, just two characters moving about the ship, but it looks so natural and effortless. If a director has bothered to make these incidental scenes so amazing then it all adds to the magnificence. In this case it really was the director, as Stan designed as well as directed all of the special effects shots.

     

As well as being a treat for the eyes, 2001 is also a treat for the ears. The music is all fabulous. Most notably Strauss’ Blue Danube Waltz beautifully complements the dance of the spacecraft docking with the space station, and of course Thus Spake Zarathustra which is synonymous with this film. It also features Aram Khachaturian's Gayane ballet suite, which I would never heard of if James Horner hadn’t used elements of it in the main titles of Aliens!





In complete contrast to all the music, I also love the eerie silence as Dave Bowman is trying to rescue Frank. Of course as well as being dramatic, it is scientifically accurate as sound doesn’t travel in the vacuum of space. To borrow the tagline from another famous Sci-Fi film “In space no-one can hear you scream”. During this sequence all we hear is the hum of the EVA pod and Dave breathing in his helmet; but only when we see Dave's point of view.

The last 15 min are a bit of an indulgence as Dave travels into the monolith "Star Gate" orbiting Jupiter. Queue lots of psychedelic images, swirls and smoke; all rather like Ellie travelling through time and space at the end of Contact, but less coherent! Or rather Contact is like 2001!  In fact there were a few moments when I realised that George Lucas borrowed quite a bit from the visual design of some of the sets.

                              I'm sure the Millennium Falcon just blasted its way out of there!

Perhaps more a work of art than a film, 2001 looks absolutely phenomenal, and is an absolute joy to experience.   That statement comes with a warning though.  I know that this kind of film isn’t for everyone; my wife for one finds it very boring. It’s almost two and a half hours long and no fantastic action sequences or meaty dialogues between great actors getting their thesp on!  It’s an experience rather than a regular film, but I for one think it’s wonderful.

Dr Strangelove (1964)

Gentlemen you can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Kubrick’s darkly satirical take on the threat of nuclear war in the 60s and some of the anti-Russian sentiments of the time is an absolute delight.  Released two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the film must have touched a raw nerve, and I could imagine some people being less than enthusiastic about some of the characters involved.

Brigadier General Jack Ripper (an excellent Sterling Hayden) puts his air base on condition red and sends signals to all the B-52 bombers stationed around Russia to proceed to their targets and carry out a nuclear strike. This is not an official order, and as soon as US President Merkin Muffley is alerted he calls all the top military minds to the War Room in the Pentagon. He then tries to avoid World War 3 by diplomacy; but one plane is not recalled...

At the heart of all the madness is a great cast. Peter Sellers is again fantastic as Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake (an RAF officer desperately trying to talk sense into Jack Ripper), President Merkin Muffley (desperately trying to calm down the Russian Premier over the phone) AND the bizarre Dr. Strangelove who seems to be a German expat but whose right arm has a mind of its own and keeps giving Nazi salutes. Where I said yesterday in Lolita that it was Sellers that stole the show, I feel that this time it is two of his supporting actors that are the highlights. Sterling Hayden (better know to me as McCluskey from The Godfather) is absolutely brilliant as the deranged Jack Ripper. Though Ruskie-hating seems to be endemic in the US military, Jack takes it one step further imagining that the Commies are after his bodily fluids! Clearly this is because humans require water to replenish their bodily fluids, whereas all the Russians drink is Vodka; and the conspiracy runs as far as putting fluoride in the water which saps his essence! He manages to play the role with all the gravitas of a commanding officer and a has a great screen presence.

George C. Scott is just fantastic and hilarious as Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson, the military head who reports the bad news of the imminent nuclear strike to the president. As well as being gung-ho about war with Russia, he is also like a schoolboy trying to hold on to his beliefs; attempting to plant a secret camera on the Russian Ambassador and worried that once the Ambassador is allowed unprecedented access to the war room that he will see the “Big Board” which tracks all of the bombers. Like Hayden he plays the role straight down the line, not even a hint of irony in his performance. It is much of Turgison’s script that provides the LOLs in the film. I must also mention Slim Pickens (no really, that’s his name) as Major “King” Kong, the pilot of the B-52 bomber. It is he who rides the nuclear bomb as it falls towards its target, and has become the iconic image from this film. Among Slim’s crew is a very young James Earl Jones; he doesn’t get much screen time, but is still effortlessly cool.

       

Another aspect of the film is the idea of the constant races between the US and Russia, the one-upmanship that both nations strive for, and the fear that there will be a gap in their knowledge with respect to the other. Both the space race and the arms race are mentioned, but when the Russian ambassador mentions that they have developed a Doomsday weapon the US president is horrified; until Dr Strangelove announces that they also have such a weapon as they feared a Doomsday gap! Equally, as the risk of nuclear fallout is discussed, the possibility of furnishing a deep mine shaft so that people may survive a holocaust is mentioned, a conversation that leads Gen. Turgidson to blurt out “We must not allow a mine shaft gap!”

A wonderful film full of great performances, and wonderful clashing images. The photography was all very gloomy, but I’m not sure if this was intentional or whether the transfer to DVD just wasn’t that great. Highly recommended, and at a snappy run time of 90 minutes, a thoroughly brilliant film to fill a short gap in anyone’s schedule.

Lolita (1962)

Lolita is the daughter of Charlotte Haze, a widow who has taken in a lodger: Professor Humbert Humbert who is soon to take up his position as Professor of French literature at the University of Beardsley. Humbert is immediately infatuated with the young Lolita, to the extent that he marries Charlotte in order that he can always be near her.

Based on a novel by Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita is all about forbidden love and sexual obsession. James Mason is the polite, slightly lecherous Humbert, whose obsession with Lolita moves from infatuation, through protective, to an awkward sexual relationship, until he finally becomes overbearing and delusional. All of which Mason communicates flawlessly. I’ve never seen James Mason in anything before this, so I’ve no idea if this is up to his usual standard. To me James Mason is the voice Eddie Izzard uses whenever he is acting out God’s part in a conversation! Though if he’s this consistent then that would account for why he has 154 titles to his name in IMDB!

As the film progresses it is clear that Charlotte Haze (Shelly Winters) is a very needy character but is charmed by the polite Humbert, completely unaware at his idolatry of her daughter. Winters is not in the same league as Mason, and although she is good she is a bit more from this school of acting. Casting a young girl for the complicated, mature role of Lolita can’t have been easy, but Sue Lyon copes very well. Only 16 when Lolita was released her character is a school kid through most of the film, but she plays off Mason very well and gives a very mature performance.

The stand out performance is definitely Peter Sellers. He lights up every scene he is in, whether he is drunk, dancing, talking non-stop, or masquerading as a German psychiatrist! He is an absolute delight, and I’m sure that it is his chameleon performance here that inspires Kubrick to cast him in his next film Dr Strangelove.

The film itself looks tremendous. Shooting in black and white, the interior shots are all beautifully composed, and there are some nice tracking shots in Charlotte’s house. The classical score complements the scenes that feature it very well, but it is fairly sporadic throughout the long running time of almost 150 minutes. Either that or the music was so complimentary and unobtrusive that I didn’t notice it. One time is was very noticeable was over the intro credits. The scene was simply someone painting a girl’s nails (we find out later that it would most likely have been Humbert, just one of the little ways that he fawns over Lolita), printed credits and beautiful classical music.

For all my praise of this film, all of which is deserved, I still don’t think that it was my kind of film. Of all the films in my Kubrick Collection, Lolita is the only one that I had not seen before, so I was able to watch it with no preconceptions. So when I say that it isn’t my kind of film, this is my initial gut feeling having thought about it for a few hours. I’m not really sure what I mean by that; it’s not that I couldn’t sympathise with the characters, or appreciate the performances, or the cinematography... I think I’m talking myself into liking it more and more! After all, I have been able to quickly bash out over 500 words! Maybe it requires a second viewing to nail down my feelings. But not just yet, I have 7 more films and a documentary to watch. Can’t wait.