Going My Way** (1944)

This is far from the first Best Picture winner to leave me wondering what the Academy saw in it to make it worthy of its highest award. It features Bing Crosby, one of the hottest entertainers of the time, crooning and meandering his way through a tale of kindness and redemption. Maybe it was the allure of Crosby’s charm. Maybe it was a weak year for films. While Going My Way is not an inferior film by any means, it doesn’t exactly light up the screen these days.

Father Charles O’Malley (Bing Crosby) is assigned to a financially struggling church in New York City. The elder priest of the church, Father Fitzgibbon (Barry Fitzgerald), does not approve of O’Malley’s nonchalant attitude and his lack of strict, conservative Catholicism. Rather than look down upon the sins of others or look the other way for regular mass attendees, O’Malley inserts himself into their lives. By seeking to understand and make a difference, O’Malley shakes the foundation of the parish and the lives of those around him.

This is a nice story about a likeable new guy in town who mixes things up for the better. Most, if not all the supporting characters are enjoyable. What Going My Way lacks is wow factor. It’s a solid little film but it’s also the kind of heart-warming ‘rise-above’ sort of yarn that has become clichéd and predictable. That’s not the fault of anyone involved with this film. Rather, all the half-baked feel-good flicks over the decades have numbed our senses to these kinds of inspiring tales.

Praise is due to Bing Crosby for not being as stiff as some singers-turned-actors have been. Then again, Crosby was more than just a singer- he was an entertainer. He and other crossover artists had more presence and charisma than most of the compartmentalized stars of today. Sure, they made records, but they also performed to smaller audiences, not just stadiums. Stars like Crosby knew how to work a room and that helps when the time comes to work the camera.

The people behind the camera, however, are another story. The director may have won awards, but there isn’t much in the way of visual stimulation to be found here. I counted a number of static shots where the cast has to move about. There are still elements of composition to this set up- people still need to hit their marks and be placed just right- but it’s not as visually interesting to watch people move about without moving with them. It’s old school Hollywood and perhaps I shouldn’t complain, but I’ve seen much more daring directorial decisions in films around and before Going My Way’s release.

This film will probably continue to be known for as long as there are avid admirers of Bing Crosby’s work. Without Crosby front and center (and that Oscar win), this film would have been forgotten about in fairly short order. It’s a charming, nice, safe film that will entertain those of us who enjoy classic cinema, but nothing outside of its casting possesses that legendary quality that demands it be watched.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Can this film really be considered a sequel? If so, it probably marks the longest time between a film and its sequel in film history. The original Fantasia was conceived by Walt Disney to showcase how animation really could achieve high-art status. With no need to doubt those lofty goals anymore, Fantasia 2000 feels more like a recycled idea that fails to build on its predecessor.

Of the eight shorts that comprise Fantasia 2000, only four of them are clearly memorable to me. One of these is “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” or the one short from the original Fantasia that people still recognize today. It’s the exact same short that appeared in 1940, so I have to completely disregard its presence in order to grade the film’s new contributions. It only makes sense to me to base my rating on the merits of what is new. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” is a masterpiece of a short but its inclusion almost feels lazy to me. It’s as if Disney threw it in to give people a reason to see the film in the first place.

The animation to George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” is the standout. It depicts a bustling Depression-era day in New York City and the animation is styled after Al Hirschfield’s cartoons of that time. This is the one short that lives up to what the original Fantasia set out to do- blend animation and music to artistically express life and emotion.

Donald Duck shows up toward the end of the film as Noah in “Pomp and Circumstance.” It’s amusing to watch him struggle with the ark and all the animals on board but it lacks the wow factor of “Rhapsody in Blue.” The only other notable short is “Pines of Rome.” It features a family of humpback whales who end up being able to fly. This piece was used heavily in marketing the film but all it really amounts to is “oh, and there were some flying whales.”

It is interesting that Disney went on to have much more success in the new millennium with computer animated tales (the most successful of which coming from Pixar). Could Fantasia 2000 be seen as traditional animation's last gasping attempt to assert its relevance? Yes, but I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Traditional animation is far from dead; it just fails to wow the eyes and minds of today’s audiences like CGI can.

Fantasia 2000 is every bit the risky experiment that Fantasia was in 1940. It is a bold proposition to ask audiences to sit through some arty shorts. This time around, there is no urgency in the mission. Fantasia 2000 functions more as nostalgia for the original and other Disney shorts of yesteryear. This film runs much shorter than its predecessor but it still feels as if time drags while you watch it. The animation is crisp but there is no big draw here. It may be far from pointless, but this feels like a film without much of a purpose. I recommend it only for the most hard-core Disney fans.

RATING: 3 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Psycho (1960)

I watched a lot of horror and slasher films as a teenager. When I watched Psycho for the first time in college, it didn’t register very much with my moderately desensitized brain. It wasn’t scary and I thought it was a little boring. A few years later, I watched it again. By that time I was paying more attention to the craft of filmmaking and appreciated older films much more. Needless to say, my rating took a hefty jump.

A few years after my second viewing, I had the opportunity to watch Psycho again with my wife. She does not like horror movies but I managed to convince her that she wouldn’t be grossed out. After all, this was a film from 1960. Just like Vertigo, this is a fun film to watch with someone who has never seen it and doesn’t know about any of its plot twists.

My wife found Norman Bates creepy but never overly dangerous. She managed to put two and two together before the surprise ending but that didn’t make it any less uncomfortable. That is where the power of Psycho rests- everything about it is unsettling. Both the content of the film and its structure are designed to disarm you and prevent you from slipping into an ordinary film-going experience.

It really takes a second or third viewing to appreciate the character of Norman Bates. Your first time watching, you are so bent on figuring out what is going on that you fail to see the finer details Anthony Perkins has on display. At first glance, his body movements, mannerisms, and glances throw off an unnerving vibe but only enough to make Norman seem a little off. Everybody knows somebody who seems a little off, which makes Norman odd but not too unusual. Repeat viewings reveal the subtle menace in his stance, eyes, and words. They chide us for not picking up on those signs before while simultaneously inviting us to relish in the evil residing within our antagonist.

If Norman Bates is only a little unnerving the first time you watch Psycho, the structure is apt to jar you outright. We start out the film following Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) on the lam after stealing money from her employer’s client. After getting to know her over the first half of the movie, our supposed main character is killed. Focus then shifts to Norman Bates as he tries to cover up Marion’s murder. While this tactic may not be as unique anymore, it had to be shocking at the time.

Also worth noting is that Psycho is a very realistic film, one in which many of the characters live morally gray lives. It’s up to you whether or not you want to feel sympathy for Marion. Was her stealing justified? Does her decision to redeem herself before her demise add any sympathy or is it inconsequential? Is her death punishment for her sins or is it a random tragedy? That’s just one character. There are several others in Psycho that get you asking all kinds of questions. That’s about as real as fiction can get right there.

Psycho may have been a victim to my immature mind back in college, but I have redeemed myself over the years, bumping it higher and higher with each subsequent viewing. Has it reached its peak on my rating scale? Only time will tell, but I cannot honestly envision it getting much higher. Psycho stands out as a classic film but even Norman Bates is no match for some of the films higher on my rating scale. Regardless, the film has finally reached my highest rating category- great.

Original Rating: 3 out of 5

Revised Rating: 3.75 out of 5

New Rating: 4 out of 5