by Brendan Foley
Two Cents is an original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team will program films and contribute our best, most insightful, or most creative thoughts on each film using a maximum of 200 words each. Guest writers and fan comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future entries to the column. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion.
The Pick
George Kennedy was the sort of actor that could make even the smallest parts feel lived-in and memorable. As buffoonish police captains, noble soldiers, surly prisoners, demented madmen, and many more, Kennedy was a fixed point of excellence across decades of changes in movies and television.
Take his role in this week’s pick, Charade. Little more than a snarling thug, Kennedy imbues his crook with personality and history in everything from the way he carries himself, to the voice he uses, and a thousand other small choices.
And Kennedy’s only a small part of what has made Charade such an oft-copied classic.
Directed by Stanley Singin’ in the Rain Donen, the 1963 film Charade finds newly-widowed Audrey Hepburn surrounded by a coterie of criminals (Kennedy, Ned Glass, James Coburn at his drawliest), CIA Agents (Walter Matthau) and a handsome fella who never seems to find his way to the truth (Cary Grant). Taking cues from Hitchcock and Hawks in equal measure, Charade presents a series of lies, half-truths and misdirects, practically daring the audience to keep up with whatever the most recent lie was.
But has fifty-plus year drained Charade of its charms? Has an endless series of ripoffs, homages, and a lifeless remake ruined the game for modern audiences? Are people just not that charmed by Audrey Hepburn anymore?
Well, to that last one, no. If you aren’t charmed by Audrey Hepburn you probably had your soul ripped out by a Dementor or something. Get that looked at, maybe they’ve found a pill or something that’ll help you.
Anyway, Charade. Does the con live on? We put it to the team.
Did you get a chance to watch along with us this week? Want to recommend a great (or not so great) film for the whole gang to cover? Comment below or post on our Facebook or hit us up on Twitter!
Next Week’s Pick:
We go from the refinement of Stanley Donen’s Paris to the… let’s say ‘less refined’ Tokyo of Sion Sono’s Toyko Tribes.
Adapted from a popular manga, Tribes follows a massive coterie of gangs warring with one another in a hyper-stylized comedy-action-fantasy-musical extravaganza of ultra-violence and mayhem. It’s a film of candy-colored insanity, as likely to make you cheer along or scream “Uncle!” after ten minutes.
Is Tokyo Tribes a new entry in the modern cult canon, or is this one international oddity that simply doesn’t translate? You tell us!
Would you like to be a guest in next week’s Two Cents column? Simply watch and send your under-200-word review to twocents(at)cinapse.co!
Our Guests
Trey Lawson:
Charade might seem strange to viewers whose primary exposure to the spy genre is the contemporary high-octane slate of Bond, Bourne, and Ethan Hunt. In fact, Charade represents a fascinating moment in the development of spy cinema. It’s important to remember that Charade was released just one year after Dr. No, and thus was in production well before the globe-trotting James Bond made espionage “cool.” There are no spy-fi gadgets or fancy cars — although one of the villains does have a hook for a hand. Aside from that quirk, the film is rooted in the dual traditions of the classic spy thriller (as epitomized by films such as Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much and North by Northwest) and screwball comedies of the 1930s/40s. The glue holding these two otherwise distinct genres together is the always wonderful Cary Grant, who famously appeared in both throughout his career. The repartee between Grant and Audrey Hepburn is simply delightful, and the film deftly balances its humor with action and suspense. In addition, Charade has one of the all-time great supporting casts, including James Coburn, Walter Matthau, and a particularly menacing performance by George Kennedy. Some might complain that the payoff at the end doesn’t add up to much, but with MacGuffin-driven capers like this, the pleasure is all in the journey rather than the destination. (@T_Lawson)
The Team
Justin:
There are numerous films that I believe to feature beautifully framed scenes, fantastic acting, and even a strong story, but must admit are simply not my thing. This is one of those films. It’s likely that a rewatch of this film when I’m in the right frame of mind changes my enjoyment level, but after this first viewing I find myself appreciating but not really enjoying the film.
Hepburn is simply stunning, Grant displays his classic and enviable handsomeness in every shot he’s in, and Matthau steals the scene whenever he’s on screen. Many shots in the film feel picture perfect, perhaps even lessons in how to shoot a film for that matter. It really is stunning… and I haven’t even mentioned how well written it is.
So why did I find myself bored or disinterested? Liam would likely point to my unrefined tastes. Brendan would likely just curse me and throw his hands up in disgust. However, it’s likely that I just wasn’t in the right place when I pressed play. I am unfortunately a slave to my emotions and mindset when I view a film; if I am not in the right mood, a film does nothing for me. On the other hands, if I catch the same film when my head is in the right space, it may blow me away.
In short, it’s a great film… but it’s just not for me… at least not at this moment in time. (@thepaintedman)
Elizabeth:
If you can get past the eye-rolling characterization of Reggie (Hepburn), who’s smart enough for witty flirtation with Cary Grant’s multiple personas, yet far too naive the rest of the time, there are many reasons to fall for Charade. Let’s blame the faults of her character (NOT Hepburn’s fault) on restrained gender norms of the time and think instead about what makes this such a winning film.
Bon mots abound in Peter Stone’s screenplay. For example, this conversation between Reggie and Peter:
“Do you know what’s wrong with you?” “No, what?”
“Nothing.”
Hepburn’s young widow and Grant’s older, questionable handsome fellow spark on the screen despite a 25-year difference (both spout comments about the space between their ages). The mostly male supporting cast includes a patronizing Walter Matthau & James Coburn as a drawling menace.
Donen’s 1963 film is thoughtfully constructed. The attention to shot composition! Note the lighting while Reggie stands in her apartment as Peter’s dark figure enters, or the clean editing as she races from…whatever the heck Grant’s character’s name is at that point. This blithe mystery is more ridiculous the more times I see it, but I can’t help loving it anyway. (@elizs)
Brendan:
I love love love this era of film and I love love love LOVE con movies and heist movies, so I was and remain the easiest possible target for Charade‘s copious charms. It’s a movie that is just absolute candy for me, from the murderer’s row of great characters actors to the sparkling banter to the gorgeous locations of Paris. And Audrey Hepburn. Good lord, Audrey Hepburn. The only reason this isn’t her most appealing moment on screen is because Wait Until Dark is an absolute goddamn clinic.
I’m an easy sucker for this kind of movie, but even acknowledging that, Charade is a cut above. Rewatching with the entire game given away only increases the pleasure, as you can really dig into just how many layers of performance the actors and characters are putting in. What a great movie.
Justin, I throw my hands up in the air at you. (@TheTrueBrendanF)
Austin:
Where to even start? Henry Mancini’s lush score and theme song? The title sequence by Maurice Binder (which you’d be forgiven for assuming was by Saul Bass)? The gorgeous 60s Parisian setting? The playful banter and utterly charming cat and mouse game between Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant? The equally charming cartoon rogues gallery of a claw-handed George Kennedy, nebbish Ned Glass, and utterly Texan James Coburn (“Yewww green-HAWWWWN!”)?
I first watched this on a crappy public domain VHS but it didn’t matter. The greatness shone through the high contrast and poor audio like sunlight piercing the clouds. So look, there’s no subtlety to this review: Charade is utterly endearing and an absolute classic. The first viewing presents a mystery with no shortage of surprises and twists. The tenth viewing is just as fun. (@VforVashaw)
Did you all get a chance to watch along with us? Share your thoughts with us here in the comments or on Twitter or Facebook!
Get it at Amazon!
Charade — [Criterion Blu-ray] | [DVD] | [Instant]
