|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 26, 2022 3:40:12 GMT
Coming up:
Directed by Ida Lupino
March 4
OUTRAGE (1950)
March 11
THE BIGAMIST (1953)
March 18
THE HITCH-HIKER (1953)
March 25
THE TROUBLE WITH ANGELS (1966)
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 4, 2023 13:30:29 GMT
Essential: OUTRAGE (1950)TopBilled:This month we are looking at four films directed by Ida Lupino. Though she made more of a name for herself as an actress and as a director of episodic television, she did have success with a series of low-budget motion pictures she helmed in the early 1950s, as well as a family film starring Hayley Mills that was directed in the mid-60s. With OUTRAGE, Miss Lupino is quite gutsy. She is bringing to the public’s attention the trauma associated with a sexual assault. Though technically, this is not new ground in Hollywood cinema, since rape is a part of what plays out on screen in JOHNNY BELINDA made two years earlier. Yet this smaller picture produced independently and released through RKO seems much more frank in its treatment of the subject. Mala Powers is cast as the main character, a pretty gal who is stalked one night by a crazed individual and ultimately attacked by him. I think the stalking scene is on par with anything Hitchcock ever did. It builds in a suspenseful way, and we realize the sheer terror of the situation, even if the violent act occurs off-camera. We don’t need it spelled out for us that there is no escape for her, and she will not survive this incident without being victimized horribly.Since this huge turning point is directed by a woman, there is no real fetishizing of the female victim as a sex object. She is being used for sex, of course, but not in a way that is meant to convey pleasure of any sort. She’s violated, and Lupino makes sure we understand the gravity of the scenario. There is a line-up scene that occurs a bit later after the assault has been reported. This scene is worth mentioning, because of how Lupino stages it. As the line-up takes place and Powers studies the men in front of her to identify the culprit, Lupino upsets the balance with a series of quick cuts from one potentially guilty face to the next. As a director, she is mining the drama in yet another suspenseful way.Part of the reason we continue to stay with the movie is because we want to see what happens next to Powers’ character. Will she get justice? More importantly, will she be able to get on with a normal life after such a devastating turn of events? Or will she be an endless topic of conversation for the local gossips? This is a story that like JOHNNY BELINDA, has its work cut out in terms of the heroine reaching a happy resolution.A nationally known critic seemed to think that Miss Lupino and her cowriter Collier Young presented an optimistic viewpoint about a rape victim’s recovery. However, I slightly disagree. I would say that Ida Lupino’s direction provides much ambiguity. We see Powers’ character deal with unrest after the rape. She takes off on a bus and seems to be rather aimless during her healing period. I think there are a lot of young women and young men, even today, that wind up transient and on the streets because of sexual traumas.Specifically, it is not going to be easy for the main character to continue rebuilding her life in a society like ours. When people find out what happened to her, they will always feel sorry for her and view her as a victim. Plus how is she ever going to be able to trust a man again? This isn’t something she can just walk away from without any ongoing repercussions. THE OUTRAGE is thoughtful cinema at its best, and it is definitely worth watching.***Jlewis: This is the first time I really sampled Ida Lupino’s directed films. I had seen plenty of Lupino herself in front of the camera as an actress and, like any film history enthusiast, I was well aware of her talents behind the camera in an era when movie direction was practically 100% male-dominated. (This was not the case decades earlier when women had more opportunities in the business, with Alice Guy-Blaché and Lois Weber at the forefront during the silent era.)Much of Lupino’s filmography involved B-budgeters for the big screen, followed by a lot of television that included memorable episodes of The Twilight Zone, Bewitched and even Gilligan’s Island. Along with husband Collier Young, she headed the Filmakers production company (distributing through RKO with this 1950 title) that had a specialty for social commentary dramas with a moral message. This was a genre that peaked among bigger Hollywood productions during the post-war forties with such efforts as the previously reviewed INTRUDER IN THE DUST. In the fifties, these tended to be made on a smaller, more economical scale. Some titles stress an emotional theme, like this one. Mala Powers plays Ann Walton, who is dating James Owens (Robert Clarke) and forcing him to deal with her stuffy parents (Lilian Hamilton and Raymond Bond). She is a good girl who works late at night for overtime pay, then makes the mistake of traveling home along a dark street at night…and the coffee server, sporting the trademark villain’s scar on his neck, has been ogling her for some time. We don’t see what happens but we assume there is sexual assault. The police (Hal March as Sgt. Hendrix), the family doctor and even the still proposing James try their best to help her, but she nose-dives into despair and refuses to allow anybody to touch her. What isn’t clearly spell ved out is how others in town, including the college students of her professor father, seem to all know (or at least have a hint) of what happened. Or is it all in Ann’s mind? One scene of her passing two neighbors whispering may be an over-reaction on her part. She changes her last name and makes a bus trip to Los Angeles to escape attention.Stopping at a diner, she is identified as a runaway on the radio news but, again, the visitors are all going about their business. We are not certain if this is just her mind imagining it or if others don’t bother to notice her because she is not noticeable. I have read some reviews of this film suggesting that the director herself may have been making a commentary on how society as a whole tends to fail women who suffer these fates. Along her voyage, Dr. Bruce Ferguson (Tod Andrews) stumbles upon her as her knight in shining armor. First, he fixes her sprained ankle and, later, much of her angst. She works for an orange packing business but a suitor named Frank (Jerry Paris) tries to woo her at a worker’s dance and gets a full wallop with a wrench.Initially Bruce does not understand why she made such an attack since he, unlike her and we the viewers, did not see how such a “nice” man was so direct in forcing a kiss on her. However, despite her almost committing murder, Bruce is later convinced that she only turned to violence out of desperation. After sparing her a full prison term, he eventually convinces her to return to James…even if she is starting to fall for him instead.We get plenty of the trademark ol’ Hollywood style sermonizing here, namely from Bruce before the court judge. While some of the dialogue borders on the hokey ol’ Hollywood preach-side, it is important to note just how rare films covering sexual assault were prior to the later fifties PEYTON PLACE period. This is still heavy, hard-hitting drama.I didn’t exactly enjoy this little film but that isn’t really its purpose anyway, given the subject matter. Parts were more melodramatic than necessary and it also felt padded for length. Would it have worked better as a featurette running just a half hour, if there was a market for such films? Later school 16mm instructional dramas followed this formula. For me, much of its appeal comes from Mala’s lead performance, which is quite the plum role here. Oh…and that is the director’s sister, Rita Lupino, who plays friend Stella Carter.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 11, 2023 9:21:05 GMT
Essential: THE BIGAMIST (1953)
TopBilled:
 Certainly melodramatic in spots, THE BIGMIST is a drama directed by Ida Lupino that also features her in one of the lead roles. She plays the unsuspecting wife of a man (Edmond O’Brien) who happens to have another wife at the same time. Hence the title.Though the story is a bit sensational, it is still an absorbing drama that presents a unique triangle. Things get messy when the women find out they’ve been duped. Playing the other wife is Joan Fontaine, who in real-life was married to Miss Lupino’s cowriter and ex-husband Collier Young. In some ways, the story seems like a clever re-working of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s ‘The Scarlet Letter.’ Only this time the adulterer is male, and expertly played by Mr. O’Brien. For the most part, his indiscretions are not made public but kept private.At first, the only person who suspects his double life is a social worker (Edmund Gwenn) whose job it is to investigate O’Brien and Fontaine, when Fontaine is not able to have a child and wants to adopt. Of course, it is heartbreaking for her when she later learns that O’Brien already has a child with Lupino. As the plot unfolds, we watch the ramifications of the man’s betrayal play out. He has married two women in two different towns, one in San Francisco (Fontaine) and one in Los Angeles (Lupino). The women are from different economic classes. Fontaine’s character is ritzier, while Lupino is a working class gal. O’Brien couldn’t have fallen for two more different women if he tried!It takes awhile before each wife find outs that the other one exits. Lupino’s direction carefully builds the suspense. This approach succeeds in causing us to wonder how the cad will eventually be undone and what the ladies will do. (They end up going to court over the matter.) The last act of the movie is when they gradually come to the realization that their husband is a bigamist. As a result of his secret now being exposed, they each evolve from naive to knowledgeable– perhaps emerging stronger because of it.Lupino and costar Joan Fontaine give impressive performances as the wives, and it is not easy to decide which one deserves to keep O’Brien before the final fade out…if they should even want to stay with him at all. Enlivening the proceedings are some of the era’s best character actors: Jane Darwell as a cleaning lady; and Edmund Gwenn, already mentioned above, as the social worker who catches on to O’Brien’s duplicitous ways and outs him.***Jlewis:
 Another of Ida Lupino’s (co-operated with her husband) indy Filmakers Productions, released this time through Republic and with Ida also in front of the camera as character Phyllis Martin. THE BIGAMIST is a much grander picture than OUTRAGE with big name familiars co-starring with Lupino, such as Edmond O’Brien, Joan Fontaine, Edmund Gwenn and even Oscar winning supporting favorite Jane Darwell of GRAPES OF WRATH and GONE WITH THE WIND fame.Harry (O’Brien) and Eve Graham (Fontaine) wish to adopt a child through the childcare services with interviewer/investigator Mr. Jordan (Gwenn) and cleaning lady Mrs. Connelley (Darwell) playing assistant sounding board. Mr. Jordan is already suspicious that Harry is hiding something about his private life that could delay the adoption proceedings. Nonetheless Gwenn’s initial investigation reveals nothing strange about this white-bread, if chain smoking, salesman. That is, until he stumbles upon Harry identifying as Harrison at a residential home and hearing a baby cry in the room…Simply put, Harry and Eve are unable to have children but Harry as Harrison is a father already. Rather than suggest the baby is a nephew or somebody else he is caring for, Harry admits to Mr. Jordan that he lives the double life and spills it all out in flashback. He claims that his lonely life as a salesman has pushed him towards two women. Harry first met Phyllis on a Hollywood Star Home bus tour, which allows for the delightful in-joke reference to Edmund Gwen as a big movie star who played Santa Claus in MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET. Harry comments, in this flashback, that it was “a lovely picture” as a pick-up line with her. Phyllis had never seen that picture but the two share a love of mutual smoking; she being the hard-working waitress at a Chinese restaurant.Back home, he fails to get enough alone time with Eve, who is playing the society wife to increase revenue for him in the deep-freeze business. Joan Fontaine beautifully plays this part as the woman who can give everything to a husband but a child bearing his name. Since they occasionally suffer in the intimacy arena due to Eve’s work fatigue and the sudden death of her father that keeps her away, Harry’s wandering lust goes elsewhere. Phyllis lives in Los Angeles while Eve is in San Francisco, so can he wing it between the two?The second marriage is for Phyllis’ reputation when she discovers she is pregnant. For his part, Harry thinks he is doing a good thing even if it conflicts with California marriage laws and it prompts one lie after another. He loves Eve too much after eight years to seek a divorce, but pretends she doesn’t exist when with Phyllis. “How did you expect to get away with it?” asks Mr. Jordan, along with we fellow viewers. Obviously he did not expect to. Things start to unravel with Phyllis first: “I’m sorry it had to happen this way. I never meant to hurt you,” but she still loves “the big lug.”As Mr. Jordan comments…and I agree…“I can’t figure out my feelings towards you. I despise you and I pity you. I don’t want to shake your hand and, yet, I almost wish you luck.” In the 21st century, the moral police is far less controlling about who sleeps with whom than they were way back in 1953, so I am sure earlier moviegoers had much more to be shocked over. Lawyer Tom Morgan (Kenneth Tobey) defends him as “not a monster” but “a man who made a terrible mistake.” Since this was an increasing problem in “modern America” that needed to be adjusted to, the judge verdicts that “when a man, even with the best intentions, breaks the moral laws that we live by, we really don’t need man made laws to punish him.”All in all, despite its quaint age, this material makes for some highly enjoyable soap opera entertainment. Both Lupino and Fontaine are great here in their respective performances as in-charge women who would succeed at any career if given better opportunities and, despite loving the same man, could succeed independently without him just as well. O’Brien at least manages his role with some sympathy. Leith Stevens’ music score is not quite as good as it is in THE HITCH-HIKER but it carries the story along and creates plenty of emotional impact with the visuals. Speaking of which, there are many impressive outdoor locations of urban California that were tended to be restricted more to the travelogues at that time than any mainstream feature.Most of the cinematography is a bit pedestrian, but there are a few dramatic artsy shots of importance. My favorite involves Eve seeing her husband get arrested for his crime from a balcony, overlooking the car parked among “in” and “out” lanes. Even if there aren’t many other jolting visuals like this one, the story works well enough to compensate and keep you engaged.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlewis on Mar 11, 2023 18:27:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 18, 2023 17:07:06 GMT
Essential: THE HITCH-HIKER (1953)
TopBilled: I am going to come right out in the first paragraph and say I don’t care for this film. I rewatched it last night, and quite frankly, I was surprised by how dull it is. But the main reason I do not like THE HITCH-HILER is because I don’t think its male characters ring true…they are spouting dialogue written and directed by a female, who thinks she knows how men talk and behave. That woman is Ida Lupino, and her life experiences don’t make her an authority on how men act in the type of situations depicted in this film. On Friday March 10th, the British soap Emmerdale had a special all-male episode. While the long-running program is currently helmed by three female producers, they turned the special episode over to a male writer, a male director and the only characters that appeared in the episode were men. It was to highlight awareness about men’s health issues, where the guys gathered in the local pub and discussed the suicide attempt of a mutual friend. The friend showed up halfway through the session and told them why he tried to end his life, and they all pledged to support him through his struggles with depression.I mention the Emmerdale episode because it was crafted and filmed with genuine care for men in the audience watching. This 1953 film does the opposite. It exploits a situation in which two men (Edmond O’Brien and Frank Lovejoy) are held captive by another man (William Talman). It isn’t entertaining or uplifting, and the story is just a bunch of “dangerous” incidents Lupino strings together to generate artificial suspense. I found some of the cinematography unnecessarily arty. Why do we need to zoom the camera in between Lovejoy and O’Brien who are in the front seat, to reveal Talman the passenger in the backseat, holding a gun…and having his face suddenly come out of an artfully composed shadow into light?It just feels like Lupino and her cameraman are trying to add value to something that is nothing more than a routine kidnap story. Early on we see how Talman the murderer extraordinaire has killed a young couple who picked him up along the road. Then he hitches a ride from a lone male driver whom he quickly kills before racing off in the stolen car, until the car has mechanical trouble and he waves down Lovejoy and O’Brien.Why would he kill the other motorists so quickly, without any motive, then decide to keep these two guys alive? Obviously, it is so we can have a movie about the three of them driving out to the middle of nowhere, before police show up and at the last minute save Lovejoy and O’Brien. It makes no sense why Talman would find value in keeping them alive. He is not going to use them as hostages to negotiate with the police. If anything, they are in his way. Logically, he would have killed these two the same way he had killed the others, then escaped in their car without giving them another thought.At one point, Talman does fire his gun at Lovejoy, which conveniently has a blank in the chamber. Why not let Lovejoy actually get wounded to up the drama. Why not have Talman kill one of them, where it is just Talman versus the survivor. That would have been more realistic and interesting to watch. There is also a part where Talman realizes O’Brien shares a physical resemblance to him, so he has O’Brien wear his leather jacket in case they are stopped. This plot point isn’t really explored in depth. If Talman’s character is such a criminal mastermind, wouldn’t he have traded clothes with O’Brien, then disfigured O’Brien’s face and left him for dead, causing the police to misidentify O’Brien and thus allow Talman to get away successfully…or at least buy time to evade justice..?The end of the film is just as ridiculous as most of what comes before. There is a sudden standoff in some Mexican town they’ve just reached, and the local authorities swarm the area and very easily confront Talman who neatly surrenders and is walked off by them, while Lovejoy and O’Brien are left to get on with the rest of their lives. The ending is too tidy for a story that should be much messier and hard-hitting. Also, I felt Lupino was afraid to make the two leads less than perfect. Neither one is a heavy drinker. When they toy with the idea of going to Mexicali in the beginning to find female companionship, this is scuttled when O’Brien realizes Lovejoy is asleep in the passenger seat. Any red-blooded male would have tapped his buddy on the shoulder and said ‘hey, we’re here…wake up!’ But then, they would have spent the night in Mexicali, and never have met Talman or experienced all the nonsensical drama that follows.A thumb up means stop and pick me up. A thumb down means skip this movie. ***Jlewis: This Filmakers Production of Ida Lupino and Collier Young’s, the fifth and final one released through RKO (of 12 made altogether), was filmed mostly in Big Pine, California during the summer of 1952 but is set on both sides of the California/Baja border. Edmund O’Brien, who also appears in the THE BIGAMIST, plays Roy Collins arriving over the border from a Mexican fishing trip with buddy Gilbert Bowen (veteran radio voice actor Frank Lovejoy with a face you may not recognize but a voice that will sound eerily familiar). Both make the error of helping a stranger who is later revealed to be serial killer Emmett Myers (William Talman). He holds them hostage for much of the film’s duration in a thriller suspense to end all thriller suspenses.The opening lines read “This is the true story of a man and a gun and a car. The gun belonged to the man. The car might have been yours- or that young couple across the aisle. What you will see in the next seventy minutes could have happened to you. For the facts are actual.”While not based on an actual true event (with names changed to protect the innocent), I am certain such events like it happened before and since. However, at the time, there was much criticism for it suggesting that literally anybody hitching a ride could be a potential criminal since hitch-hiking was quite common back then if not so much today. Leith Stevens’ music score is not quite as innovative as it was in THE BIGAMIST but it creates plenty of emotional impact with the visuals. Speaking of visuals, there are many impressive outdoor locations of urban California that were more often associated with travelogues at that time rather than mainstream features. The cinematography is professionally done without too many overly dramatic effects, although there are a few of importance.I have not done a thorough investigation into how many pre-fifties movies tapped into this kind of storyline but there were a number of popular radio dramas that did. This film has several radio connections, as already indicated, and the great “theater of the mind” was an innovative art-form before the television era that influenced so much cinema. CBS’ long running Suspense had some that weren’t entirely the same but carried similar plot-points, such as “Drive-In” and “On a Country Road.” although its own “The Hitch-hiker” was a supernatural spook adventure that went in a different direction. Therefore, this film was probably quite innovative in its day as a visual thriller, rather than just an audio one, even if it might give you a sense of déjà vu today due to how many movies and TV episodes repeated this basic set-up in the years since.When the two initially pick up Emmett, his face is covered in shadow as he sits in the back seat. Ida as director and cameraman Nicholas Musuraca both do a wonderful job introducing him for the first time in this way, with Gilbert’s cigarette lighter illuminating his face after his gun is introduced first. We also get a sense as to why Emmett is on a killing spree as he slightly brags about his accomplishments: “Sure, I am Emmett Myers! Do as I tell ya and don’t make any fast moves or a lot of dead heroes back there will get nervous.” He can’t be enjoying his life in any other way but psycho-emotional satisfaction, constantly being on the run from the cops and running out of gas with each car he steals. He also prides himself in “one bum eye” that won’t stay closed so that his future potential victims never know if he is completely asleep when they attempt their escape.Although this is a fun and exciting adventure, you can still predict the positive outcome for the two good guys and, as usual, crime does not pay for the villain. In addition, some modern viewers may ask the all-too obvious questions like…why can’t two muscular guys subdue the killer much earlier? Also why doesn’t Emmett bump them off right away like he does his earlier victims? Ahhh…but then we would not get a full 70 minutes of entertainment, now would we? Keep in mind that there were no cell-phones and other tech novelties that we take for granted today. This brings up one cinematic trope that was used frequently in old movies (including the previously reviewed OUTRAGE): quite often we hear the frequent “news flash” mention on nearby radios about “Emmett Myers being at large” and our heroes reported missing.The experts investigating take far less time connecting the two situations than in your standard CSI re-run TV episode and our trio hear all about it during “interruptions to the dance music.” I am not suggesting that this gimmick is all that bad, but just quaint in an ol’ Hollywood sort of way that would not be realistic enough for a modern day drama. A common theme for that time was that family and faith can pull one through the worst situations that life can dish up. No, this may not always be true and certainly not all of us agree with that logic, but it was a belief that got many soldiers through war. Like many soldier heroes in the war films of the fifties in particular, Gilbert and Roy both “have wives and kids back home” so that we the viewers must root for them to survive in the end.Emmett, on the other hand, has nobody to love or feel connected to and holds grudges against everybody involved in his rough childhood and bum life past. He is also lacking…“faith.” There is a notable scene when Gilbert speaks Spanish to a little girl in a grocery store, reminding him of his own daughter, that gets Emmett in a rage since he “doesn’t speak Mexican.” The line is “go with God, you little one.” Later Emmett mocks Roy for crying “God” when an airplane misses finding them. Essentially this is a three actor story with others merely on the sidelines. (Jose Torvay, Jean Del Val and Clark Howatt play key roles in the law enforcement, while bilingual Natividad Vacio plays Jose, the one who is able to nab their whereabouts.) This triangular chess game involves two minds trying with much struggle to outwit the other, culminating in vast desert scenes worthy of a major western, complete with vultures flying over head and disturbing camera angles that highlight exhausted minds.A final fishing trip is planned by Emmett for his captives with Roy forced to wear Emmett’s clothes in case he is discovered “dead,” but Roy cuts through Emmett’s insecurities by pointing out that “without your gun, you are nothing”… as proven in the final act. What is most interesting about this thriller is that, apart from the little girl cameo, the entire cast is male, all directed by a female who could achieve great performances regardless of gender.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 25, 2023 8:44:08 GMT
Essential: THE TROUBLE WITH ANGELS (1966)TopBilled:
Things were super hectic at work the last few days and the week got away from me. I didn’t have a chance to rewatch out latest selection. So I will just hand the reigns over to Jlewis who wrote some very insightful commentary about Ida Lupino’s last feature film as director…***Jlewis: This zany comedy-drama, filmed in the late summer and fall of 1965 and unveiled just in time for Easter ’66, was hardly Ida Lupino’s greatest effort but it successfully coincided with a mid-decade boom period for “funny” nun stories. Sally Field played the most famous, flying one on TV while Debbie Reynolds also put on the habit as a singing one.Such fodder always did well at the box-office regardless of critical “approval,” much like the indestructible Elvis Presley musicals and the countless James Bond knock-offs of the same decade. There would be the expected sequel that went into production in 1967: WHERE ANGELS GO…TROUBLE FOLLOWS! The always wonderful Rosalind Russell gets the lead as Mother Superior heading a St. Francis(ville) Academy featuring a Sister Celestine (Binnie Barnes, married to the studio executive Mike Frankovich), Sister Constance (Camilla Sparv), Sister Clarissa (Mary Wickes) and an assortment of others (cast including Marge Redmond, Dolores Sutton, Margalo Gillmore, Portia Nelson, Marjorie Eaton and Barbara Bell Wright).Making this more of the novelty comedy aimed at secular audiences is the casting as other prominent co-stars: Hayley Mills, fresh off her Disney contract and working on a Columbia picture now, plays a high school-er even if her age of 19 makes her a trifle old. Also we get the one and only Gypsy Rose Lee as a dance instructor “with progressive ideas”, who is promoted more in the film trailers than in the actual film itself. June Harding is “introduced” on screen (this being her first theatrical after much TV work) as Mary’s fellow comrade in arms, Rachel Devery, despite she also being too old for the part… in fact, she turned 28 during filming.For the older generation not coping well with Beatlemania and the onslaught of long hair, such material offered “comfort food” as ideal for-the-whole-family entertainment. Hayley and her fellow teens can be mischievous “angels” who only slightly rebel, but rebel just enough from their more religiously inclined elders. Not surprisingly, this was a comedy film suited for church groups regardless if they were Catholic or not. This has a lot to offer to us Hayley Mills fans, as she first appears on screen aboard a train getting scolded by an elderly fuddy-duddy: “Really, a child your age…smoking!” Her response in her hotsy totsy British accent: “I’m not a child, Madam. I am a midget with bad habits.” I suspect that Ms. Mills was already getting tired of such juvenile roles, especially since her previous contract with Disney at least allowed her to “grow up” in THE MOONSPINNERS and THAT DARN CAT. Both Mary and Rachel, the latter being the shy follower while the former takes the lead, cause the usual havoc on the prim and proper convent school: leading “tours” through sisters’ bed chambers and escaping through the fire exit (setting off the alarms), trying to avoid swimming lessons with one cold after another, and prompting a bubble explosion during a teachers meeting. They also make a plaster cast of fellow student Marvel-Ann (Barbara Hunter) that doesn’t come off her head too easily (but the scene of Sister Superior performing surgery on the cast is a riot!). Plus they smoke up a storm in the dormitory causing yet another fire alarm, then play counter-spies on a rival school’s band to revy up the competition with their own…but the Reverend Mother is more impressed than outraged with that stunt. Often the girls’ punishment is washing dishes. Pots when the punishment is worse. Gypsy Rose Lee’s role is minor here and rather unusual as a dance instructor getting the girls to practice their etiquette and walking technique. This is ironic considering her career, made all the more famous with GYPSY the musical, which…lo and behold…Rosalind herself co-starred in the movie version of, with Natalie Wood.There is not much of a story during the first half, the focus being a parade of funny antics by these teens that get the trademark Rosalind Russell post-AUNTIE MAME responses. Yet a Christmas party with aging women has an emotional impact on Mary, making her re-evaluate Mother Superior and her role in giving spiritual and emotional comfort to others. Likewise, the elder sees a lot of her own youth in Mary, including her self-described “iron will.” Although Mary soon reverts to her usual antics (with the smoking up the fire alarm sequence shortly following), there is a gradual shift in her personality and, after other impacting moments (one sister leaving for the Philippines to aid the sick and another dying unexpectedly), she decides to join the order herself.As an orphan with a hardly devoted uncle as her caretaker, she finds a new family in this setting. (This is sort of a reverse of Julie Andrews’ Maria in THE SOUND OF MUSIC, the highest grossing film of the decade.) There are some familiar scenes for Pennsylvania residents with backdrop locations such as Ambridge (Beaver county) and Willow Grove (Montgomery county) at both ends of the state. The more studio-bound scenes were shot in California, which makes for some dramatic changes in on-screen weather effects. One shot showing bare trees in late November or early December is quickly followed by Hayley sporting the shades in bright western sunshine.There is also some confusion in the dialogue as to whether this story spans the months of September through May, the final school term, or a full three years of high school. I suspect that the original source material by Jane Trahey covers the latter, but some boo-boos occurred in the screenwriting adaptation. Like many popular comedy films of the sixties, this sports an impressive animated title sequence which was mostly done by DePatie-Freleng, the same company of Warner Bros. Looney Tunes veterans that previously provided the legendary PINK PANTHER feature titles and its subsequent cartoon series. All in all, a rather satisfying, if sometimes predictable, comedy that marked the end of an era…as 1966 would see dramatic changes in mainstream entertainment that would render this rather old fashion in hindsight.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 25, 2023 8:50:18 GMT
After re-reading Jlewis' review of THE TROUBLE WITH ANGELS...
I wanted to add that not only did film culture change soon after the movie's release (with the abolishment of the production code and the implementation of a ratings system), but Catholic culture also changed significantly. There were updates in the church after the convening of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) from 1962 to 1965.
|
|
