About a century ago in the 1920s, the most thrilling place in the world for cinema was Weimar Germany. Sure, the United States and Hollywood had a far more robust and wide-ranging industry, a star system and concentrated studio infrastructure, but there weren't quite the same revolutionary leaps in style and tone and technique as what was going on in this part of Europe. Apart from perhaps the general filmographies of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, the German films of this era - Nosferatu , Metropolis , Dr. Mabuse the Gambler , The Last Laugh , The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - are the silent films most remembered today. In the 1930s however, the cinema of Germany began to change, and there was a great exodus of German filmmakers and actors. The Nazi Party came to power in 1933, and from very early on enforced a policy of propaganda on the film industry. Movies had to now subscribe to a certain image of the German culture and people; other subjects, themes, and criticisms were...
Act Two of Wicked is weaker than Act One. That is what the musical theatre community made me aware of in anticipation of the second-half of Jon M. Chu’s Wicked movie , which I am now inclined to agree should have just been consolidated as one film the whole time. The split of these movies, which were initially produced together, is quite plainly just a ploy to get a little more out of the brand -and it is neither something that would work nor be considered for any other musical without a familiar intellectual property attached. And though the context of the second act is fairly different, it does need that chemistry with the first. Sondheim pieces like Into the Woods or Sunday in the Park with George have much starker distinctions between their acts, but you would never think of separating them. Hell, this movie closes on a bookend that you have to recall was begun a year ago. It’s a bad idea also in terms of the quality. Wicked is by no means the only ...