The Movie Jar Series: Week 4

Casino: 

It is no secret that Martin Scorsese is my all-time favorite director. While I’ve seen many of his films, I didn’t watch “Casino” until I pulled it from my movie jar! I am so glad I selected it, because now “Casino” ranks in my top three favorite Scorsese films. This 1995 film stars the one the only, Mr. Robert DeNiro, alongside Sharon Stone and Joe Pesci. It is about the inner operations of corrupt casinos in 1970s Las Vegas. DeNiro stars as Sam “Ace” Rothstein, a bookie running the mob-owned Tangiers casino. Ace’s best friend, Nicky Santoro (Pesci), joins his side, hired by the mob to look out for him. Ace proves to be dynamite at running the casino, benefitting the mobsters who are skimming money off of the successes of the operation. Nicky is a loose cannon, which puts Ace’s position in constant jeopardy. Sharon Stone plays Ginger McKenna, a Las Vegas hustler and social climber who conditionally marries Sam for his money. Tensions rise as Sam grows deeper in love with his unattainable wife, and as Nicky seeks higher gains across town in the mafia world.

In true Scorsese fashion, this movie is over-the-top, gritty, and intense. Many of this iconic director’s trademarks are evident in this film. We see violence, greed, corruption, glamor, betrayal, and more. De Niro and Scorsese’s partnership proves to be highly effective yet again. De Niro narrates the entire film as well- in many of Scorsese’s films, the protagonist of the film also narrates to the audience. Excessive profanity, another signature trademark, is also evident in “Casino”.  Another quintessentially Scorsese feature is fantastic old-school music. Scorsese favors classic rock, namely the Rolling Stones. “Casino” is full of great songs that certainly add to the ambience of the film. From “Nights in White Satin” by the Moody Blues, “Go Your Own Way” by Fleetwood Mac, and “Gimme Shelter” by the Rolling Stones, there is no shortage of classic seventies tunes in this film. 

“Casino” may be a three-hour feature, but let me tell you- those three hours will fly by. Between the fully-fleshed character development and the compelling plotline, you’ll never wish this movie was any shorter. I felt truly immersed in the glitz and glam of a 1970s high-end casino. The set design is flawless. Scorsese is known for pulling out the stops when it comes to set design. His films are designed to completely immerse viewers into the universes he’s created. Las Vegas is as much of a character in “Casino” as any other. The color scheme is full of hues of deep red, shiny gold, forest greens, and fluorescent yellows. I can assure you could freeze any frame in the film and a passerby could guess that this was 1970s Vegas. Perhaps my favorite component of the entire film is the costumes. Namely, the costumes worn by Sharon Stone throughout the film. Her character, Ginger, represents just how wealthy Ace is. She trapses around Las Vegas in lavish furs and head-to-toe jewels slipping lofty tips into people’s pockets. Ginger’s outfits are also reflective of her state of being throughout the film. When we meet her, she’s the woman on top, tossing poker chips in a gorgeous sequin dress. By the end of the film, her appearance is noticeably more disheveled, trading her gowns for more sporty, beige attire. The attention to detail of this film is transportive. 

De Niro and Pesci always give incredible performances. But in my opinion, Sharon Stone really stole the show in “Casino”. Her performance as Ginger is absolutely captivating. She effortlessly depicts Ginger and her vastly dimensional persona. We meet Ginger as an uber-confident hustler. She utilizes her sexuality to get what she wants in life. Once she gets involved with Ace, we get a glimpse into the complexities of her life. This gorgeous, materialistic woman breaks down throughout the film, unraveling to reveal her true nature as a damaged woman. She is initially content with the extravagant gifts from her husband. Ginger receives more furs, jewelry, and clothing than any one woman could ever use. As her relationship with Ace becomes more fragmented, she becomes more dependent on pills and alcohol, sending her in a downward spiral. Sharon Stone brought such depth to this character. Ginger can be utterly glamorous and in complete control of everyone around her. She can also be on the verge of a mental breakdown, throwing tantrums and jeopardizing her familys’  happiness. 

Over all, “Casino” has quickly become one of my favorite films of all time. I find myself constantly thinking about it. From the set design and costumes, and score, to the insane plot and fascinating characters, I’m hooked. I will always recommend “Casino”, whether you’re looking for a glimpse into the life of the wealthy or into the underbelly of a corrupt organization. There’s no shortage of entertainment in this Scorsese hit. 

Shadow of a Doubt: 

“Shadow of a Doubt” is a 1943 noir psychological thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock. I was excited to pull this title from my jar and expand my Hitchcock viewings. It is about a teenage girl named Charlie, who’s living with her family in Santa Rosa, California. She lives a completely average life (which in her mind is quite dull). This all changes when her uncle, also named Charlie, comes to pay the family a visit one day. No one has heard from enigmatic Uncle Charlie in years. Young Charlie quickly comes to idolize her Uncle Charlie, seeking his approval and company. As time passes, however, his behaviors become more suspicious, and young Charlie questions his motives. His niece slowly notices that Charlie is wanted for murder. She takes it upon herself to get to the bottom of this mystery. 

Uncle Charlie is a classic psychopath. He is charming, good-looking, and knows just what to say to win over someone’s trust. Young Charlie is up against quite a villain. However, she is a very observant young woman and is just the right person to take down Uncle Charlie. “Shadow of a Doubt” is a satisfying thriller, giving the audience hints here and there, while still keeping them guessing. It definitely felt like a classic noir film. The conflicting relationship between young Charlie and her uncle is what really draws the audience into this movie. It is an understated film, which serves to its advantage. There is something far more sinister about an eerie estranged relative than there would be about a classic horror movie. Joseph Cotton, who played uncle Charlie, did not over-act his character, which was key. His understated performance as the villain allows the audience to be shocked at every twist and turn, no matter how subtle. “Shadow of a Doubt” may not give you nightmares, but its eerie premise is enough to keep you on your toes. I would certainly recommend this film to anyone looking to dip a toe into the Hitchcock pool. 

Chariots of Fire: 

1981 Best Picture winner, “Chariots of Fire” is known for its iconic score. Quite frankly, I was entirely unfamiliar with this movie aside from its theme. “Chariots of Fire” is based on a true story. It is about two runners training for the Olympics in the United Kingdom in the 1920s. Moreso, however, It serves as commentary on the class and religion-based divides prominent during that time. Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) is a devout Scottish Christian competing against Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish man facing severe prejudices. Eric is desperate to win the race to serve as a testament to his committed faith, and Harold is driven to win to prove that Jews are not inferior. Even though I generally find films touching on these subjects quite compelling, “Chariots of Fire” didn’t draw me in. It doesn’t help that I’m not super keen on the subject of running. Honestly, the fact that this movie was made forty years ago was pretty evident. It simply felt dated! While I can see that this is technically an important and quality film, I was bored. 

This is the kind of movie that I can envision enjoying the year it came out, but it didn’t hold up in 2020. It felt quite stuffy, with forced dialogue and a slow-paced, anticlimactic plot. I’m glad I got around to watching “Chariots of Fire” but I won’t be likely to rewatch or strongly recommend this film. I can certainly see how this film was successful in the eighties. It is an uplifting story about patriotism and overcoming prejudices. It is fairly understated, with no major actors cast and minimal effects. Over all, I think if the themes of this movie interest you, and you’re willing to watch a movie that is clearly decades old, you just might enjoy “Chariots of Fire”. Just not for me! Stay tuned to see what I think of my next selections next week.