Lifeboat was released in 1944, starring Tallulah Bankhead and Jon Hodiak (among others) and directed by the infamous Alfred Hitchcock, who makes his trademark cameo in a newspaper ad washed up on the boat. It follows the story of the survivors of a ship which has been torpedoed by a German U-Boat during the height of World War II: a journalist, a billionaire, several passengers and crew members and, in a surprising twist, a German U-Boat sailor. As the passengers struggle with hunger and thirst on the open ocean, they also have to deal with navigational issues and whether or not they should trust the most experienced sailor on board, who is also the one who destroyed their ship. I won't spoil the ending, but it's an incredible twist.
One of the things I really liked about this film was what Alfred Hitchcock was able to do with such simple stock. He filmed in black and white, at a time when color films had become much more prominent, which I think was an excellent strategy. He made great use of a small set; the entire movie takes place on the lifeboat. An effect was created in the background by simply moving a set card which looked like the ocean in a wavelike motion, which was extremely simple and yet well done. All of the actors in the film were stage actors, not film actors, which I believe was a calculated decision on Hitchcock's part. Stage actors know how to perform emphatically and dramatically in order to fill a small stage, and this sort of exuberance worked well to fill the small set of the boat. The plot and characters were able to develop simply through dialogue changes and relationship evolution as they fall deeper and deeper in to starved, dehydrated, stranded madness. This sort of plot development worked well, again, in the small set of the lifeboat, as the writing and performance did the legwork. Every aspect of the film and plot was designed to compliment the lifeboat set, something only a genius like Hitchcock could have come up with. Overall, I thought the flick was innovative in its ability to be so simple and yet so technically sound. I give it 4.5/5 bottles of water... Lord knows Gus could have used it...
Next up is The Poseidon Adventure (1972), directed by Ronald Neame, adapted from a novel by Paul Gallico, and starring Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine and Shelley Winters, is the classic example of a disaster flick. The basic premise is this: Gene Hackman plays an angry, disillusioned reverend aboard the SS Poseidon, a passenger ship on the brink of retirement, traveling through the Mediterranean. The aging boat is struck by a massive wave at the stroke of midnight on New Years Eve, and is turned completely upside down. The reverend leads a group of passengers up through the overturned boat in hopes of reaching the stern engine room, where the steel hull of the boat is thinnest and hopefully they will be able to signal for help. Again, no spoilers on the ending.
This was an okay film, not technically great or cinematically beautiful. The performances were not great, but they got the job done. The plot was overbearing and unrealistic, and the relationships made no sense. This reverend was supposed to be leading a group of passengers into a hopeless situation, so you would think he would have a certain magnetism, or panache for leading, or social skills of any kind for that matter. Alas, it was not so; Hackman plays the reverend as an arrogant, stubborn, lone wolf type of man, who manages to offend every member of his group many times. I didn't see anything in his performance that would suggest he would be able to lead such an effort, yet the majority of the passengers follow him without a second thought. It seemed needlessly unrealistic. Another complaint I have regards the shot composition and stock. The film is shot with a wide aspect ratio and every set is very open, which wasn't what I expected from an overturned boat filling with water. The plot seemed disjointed from the cinematography; the plot attempted to convey a feeling of claustrophobia and peril and hopelessness that just wasn't reflected in the wide shots and gaping set placement. Overall, I rate the film 2/5 unnecessarily dead characters. Watch the film and you'll see.
The final film in this block was Life of Pi (2012), directed by Ang Lee and DP'ed by Claudio Miranda. This was a technically fascinating film which won four Oscars in 2013 (Achievement in Directing, Achievement in Cinematography, Original Score and Visual Effects). It follows the story of Pi, an Indian teenager who's father owns a zoo. Pi is a strange kid, befriending a Bengal Tiger against his father's will and switching religions many times throughout his adolescence. Pi's family is forced to move, with all of their animals, to Canada with little notice. On the boat ride, during a violent storm, Pi is thrown into a lifeboat along with his friend the tiger, and they are cast adrift in the Pacific Ocean. Once again, no ending spoilers, but I will say that the ending of this movie is profound and heartwarming.
The standard cinematics of this movie were very good, but there was nothing unique about them. Not a bad thing, the crew did a good job, and did everything right. This film's forte, however, was in the special effects. The swells of the ocean, tossing and turning Pi's small lifeboat, were incredibly beautiful, and truly worthy of the Achievement in Visual Effects award. Then there were the CGI scenes of the tiger... just breathtaking. The action was just the right amount of aggression and pacifism, swapping from a ferocious roar to a peaceful, wistful gaze effortlessly. I can't say enough about the visual effects in the movie. Overall, 4/5 breathtakingly animated tigers, for a job well done in the CGI department.
