|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 23, 2023 14:38:54 GMT
This neglected film is from 1947.
Troubled hearts and souls
This is a film that plays out methodically on screen and takes us on an emotional journey. Joan Crawford had already perfected the tortured heroine routine in previous cinematic outings. In a way, nobody can really elevate melodrama to an art form the way she can…even though the script pulls her and the audience in somewhat unexpected directions.
Dialogue is sharp, and the tense pauses during the most dramatic moments are almost merciless. We never really know when to smile or frown, when to laugh or cry. This conundrum mirrors the title character’s confusion. We become so absorbed in what she’s experiencing, because of how Crawford puts it across, that we develop extreme empathy and first-hand knowledge of the situation before us.
One thing that surprised me as I watched it was how the writers, and Crawford herself, weren’t afraid to change course during the film's key moments. We are led to believe it is a woman’s story, in the postwar era, and to a large extent it is just that…but then we allowed to see how the angst which occurs in the love triangle with two very different men, affects the men just as much as the woman they are fighting over. And no, this not a battle in a typical sense, some of it is quite civilized, where everyone has perfectly good manners. But nobody is happy and misery often cuts through the artificial niceness.
My favorite scene is the one midway through the movie after Crawford's character marries the war vet by Henry Fonda. We learn that he is still experiencing PTSD, and that he’s still grieving the death of his wife. He has just as many hangups as she does…and this is where the film is so brilliant, because it lacks the female narcissism of other films and allows us to realize the man’s drama as much as the woman’s.
The second man in the scenario is a ruthless lawyer played by Dana Andrews. For his part, Andrews gets to portray a lot of cockiness and over confidence. But in a pivotal scene, he loses control and all sense of propriety. He nearly assaults Crawford after she’s married Fonda and is not willing to resume their affair. As a result of this, he comes across as the least likable character. However, we know that he, too, is dealing with emotional pain, stuck in a loveless marriage to his business partner’s daughter (Ruth Warrick).
I would imagine Miss Warrick was cast because of the role she had played in CITIZEN KANE a few years earlier. She was typecast as waspish socialites in movies and on television. We are not supposed to find her sympathetic, and she utters some of the story’s most vicious lines. She’s as cold as they come, and the scenes where her character takes Andrews to divorce court to air all their dirty secrets, even if it harms their young daughters, is something else! However, Warrick is not playing a one-note character, because even she is suffering psychologically...eventually, she conveys remorsefulness.
It’s fairly obvious how the production code office had a hand in the resolution of the main triangle. We know that Daisy Kenyon needs to turn from her extramarital affair and settle down to enjoy domestic bliss with her husband, to satisfy the code. I am sure director Otto Preminger chafed at the restrictions imposed on him and probably wanted a more ambiguous ending. But I think the film leaves us with enough unanswered questions to wonder if the troubled hearts and souls we’ve spent 99 minutes with will actually live happily ever after.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 29, 2023 15:15:57 GMT
This neglected film is from 1952.
High concept charmer
This is a high concept charmer from the folks at 20th Century Fox that provides Clifton Webb and Ginger Rogers with some of their best comedy roles. I say roles in plural form, since they get to appear as various characters in several movies within a movie. They are cast as silent motion picture icons whose old classics find new viewers broadcast television.
In real life Ginger Rogers never made any silent films, so she’s actually a bit too young to be seen as a woman that was at her peak in the mid-to-late 1920s, on a par with Garbo, Dietrich or Swanson. Also, while Miss Rogers is shown hosting a TV show in the modern day scenes, she actually never hosted or starred in a weekly series. She was a movie star that came of age after sound was introduced, so successful that she didn’t need TV to stay popular, even in her later years.
Of course, there is some irony in the fact that Rogers’ own hit films were released on video in the 1980s and have subsequently aired on retro movie channels.
As for Clifton Webb, he did make a few silent films that were largely forgotten; but he was never an equal of Valentino, Gilbert or Chaplin. His movie comeback occurred with LAURA in 1944…though in this story, his character makes a triumphant return to the screen in SITTING PRETTY (1948), which was a more recent hit for Mr. Webb complete with sequels.
The scenario is outlandish but admittedly a lot of fun. Webb’s a stodgy professor who never told his square of a daughter (Anne Francis) about his sensational Hollywood past. When the old flicks are aired on a local channel, she finds out dad was one of the world’s greatest lovers– affectionately termed a dreamboat.
She’s taken aback. So is Webb, who is embarrassed by the corny old movies. A trip to New York City to seek an injunction against the network leads to Webb reuniting with Rogers.
Meanwhile, Miss Francis is wined and dined by attractive Jeffrey Hunter, who plays a young network employee. Like a caterpillar emerging from a cocoon, Francis is a butterfly is ready to spread her wings.
There’s some excellent comic support from Fred Clark and Elsa Lanchester, and much of what transpires is done tongue-in-cheek. I rather enjoyed this spoof of silent cinema and its knowing wink about the industry as seen through television.
Oh, and while we’re at it– Ginger Rogers may not be what we call a dreamboat, she is definitely smoking hot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 29, 2023 15:58:47 GMT
Rogers, I assume because she was a dancer, always had a much-more-modern/muscularly tone body than most of the actresses of that era. Hollywood knew what it had as it often showcased it by gratuitously adding in swimming scenes to her movies.
Rogers circa 1933
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jun 29, 2023 22:50:56 GMT
Rogers, I assume because she was a dancer, always had a much-more-modern/muscularly tone body than most of the actresses of that era. Hollywood knew what it had as it often showcased it by gratuitously adding in swimming scenes to her movies.
Ginger was also a very avid tennis player most of her life.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 5, 2023 14:15:17 GMT
This neglected film is from 1958.
Life is sweat I mean sweet
Not quite near the quality of other Jerry Wald productions, but THE LONG HOT SUMMER does have its moments. And no, I’m not just talking about the scenes where Paul Newman struts around shirtless.
The story comes to life thanks to the real-life chemistry Paul Newman shares with wife Joanne Woodward. Together, they combine a focused approach with artistic talent…something they always did when collaborating in motion pictures.
But in this project, they are terribly overshadowed by a costar who can’t stop chewing the scenery. Yes, the whole sumptuous affair tends to get bogged down by Orson Welles’ kitschy performance as Will Varner, the southern patriarch who presides over the town and its inhabitants.
Welles seems to be punching up his moments on screen so much that a few of the younger performers, Richard Anderson and Tony Franciosa, seem to have a hard time keeping their composure. Welles is able to get away with the camp he exudes in sinister film noir like THE STRANGER or TOUCH OF EVIL, but here it is almost comical and feels out of place.
On a TCM ‘Essentials’ broadcast, Alec Baldwin slammed Welles’ hammy acting. Baldwin made a comment that on the call sheets Welles was listed fourth or fifth, and clearly desperate to be regarded as the star, he pulled out all the stops in a supporting role. It’s a dreadful characterization, matched only by the dreadful hair, make-up and endless Porky Pig sweat running down his face.
I need a cool drink of water every time I watch Welles in this film. On second thought, make that a nice tall glass of lemonade on the veranda, honey chile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 5, 2023 16:02:23 GMT
I really enjoyed your comments. I agree, Welles definitely has a ham element to his acting, but for some reason, his hamming it up doesn't bother me as it often does in other actors. It's kinda part of the "Welles Experience." 
I wrote the below comments four years ago. At some point, I need to see it again in light of your comments.
Long, Hot Summer from 1958 starring Paul Newman, Orson Welles and Joanne Woodward
The parallels to 1958's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, also staring Newman, are striking especially considering they were released in the same year (they are so similar, that I'd bet Newman had to struggle with keeping his characters and dialogue straight). Sure, this or that details is different, but both movies are about a wealthy and broken southern family dominated and abused by a patriarch that yells, screams, pushes, threatens and rolls over everything and everyone to get what he wants - even, perversely, love.
Both movies have emasculated, bitter sons pitted against each others or an outsider "adopted" as a son. Both also have said patriarch emotionally pushing - right into his children's marriages - to get grandchildren and both movies have failed love lives owing to closeted homosexuality thwarting, well, that which leads to offspring.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is the better of the two movies because the story is stronger - a failed, alcoholic son beats a conniving outsider for family drama and Burl Ives brings more nuance and reflection to his shoving-everyone-this-way-and-that patriarch role than does Welles.
That said, the scene in Long, Hot Summer where Welles calls out his daughter's long-time suitor - in front of the suitor's mother - for being "a sissy" and wasting his daughter's youth - including smashing an elegantly-set glass luncheon table - holds its own for gut-wrenching emotion with anything in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. And the ability of the mother and son to completely ignore, on the surface, what just happened is a pitch-perfect example of a dysfunctional family having expertly honed its communication-avoidance skills.
These are both well-done, smart and well-acted movies that bring you into - and toss you around with - massive family drama; you just have to be in the mood to be emotionally buffeted for a couple of hours.
N.B., I'm a big Joanne Woodward fan - and both she and Elizabeth Taylor do an outstanding job in their respective movies - but Taylor, in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, gives a stronger performance as the woman at the center of it all who see it all because she is smarter than all the bloviating men around her.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 13, 2023 15:36:26 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
Nevada bound
This was the second film to feature Sidney Toler as Chinese-American detective Charlie Chan. There would be nine more B films with Toler playing the well-known character, before 20th Century Fox dropped the series (and it moved over to poverty row studio Monogram). Apparently, this one had the highest budget, and in many ways it looks like an “A” mystery film. The sets are lavishly decorated, and we have people like Ricardo Cortez, Slim Summerville, Kane Richmond and Robert Lowery in key roles.
The set-up for this entry is fairly routine. Richmond is a friend of the Chan family in Hawaii. His estranged wife goes to Reno to obtain a divorce. But a short time after her arrival there, she is mixed up in a murder. The police think she did it, since all evidence points to her. Of course, Richmond knows she can’t possibly be capable of murder, a sentiment the Chans share. So it’s off to Reno to exonerate her.
Of course, this wouldn’t be a proper Charlie Chan story if one of the detective’s sons didn’t tag along to help solve the crime. In this instance, we get Victor Sen Yung as Number Two Son Jimmy. He is a novice at sleuthing and provides many of the film’s lighter moments. Though he is very eager to help his famous father, he makes mistakes and assumes things that are not quite true about the case. Sometimes when he makes a mistake, we get a gentle lecture from dear old dad which in itself can be quite amusing.
The Asian characters in this series are well-defined. They are sufficiently integrated in a “white man’s world” despite the ethnic stereotyping that occurs. Unlike some critics, I don’t find the characterizations too offensive, since I feel the performances are sincere and Charlie Chan is not being presented as a dumb immigrant. Instead his intelligence is very much on display, and he’s a most respectable figure. The son’s immature bumbling reminds us how superior the father’s knowledge is and why the culprits are always nabbed.
Though Earl Derr Biggers is the author who created our eponymous crime solver, the story for this entry was furnished by writer Philip Wylie who later became known for science fiction work. This is a mainstream studio production, so not only will the crime be solved, there will also be a happy ending for the young couple. The basic situation pulls them from the brink of divorce and puts them back into each other’s arms. Meanwhile, number two son picks up a girlfriend; and Charlie Chan returns to his wife in Hawaii and a home that is overflowing with many other children.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 19, 2023 15:03:44 GMT
This neglected film is from 1947.
What price justice?
There are a lot of socio-political angles in the story. The film is based on a real life case from 1924, that had been revisited in a Reader’s Digest article in 1945. In a way it reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock’s THE WRONG MAN, also based on a true story about a man blamed for a crime he did not commit.
Arthur Kennedy plays the wrongly accused in this picture. His character’s biggest crime is vagrancy and vaguely resembling a shooter that killed a Connecticut priest at close range outside a theater.
The actual culprit was never caught. After the beloved priest’s slaying, community members put pressure on local police to find the person responsible. Lee J. Cobb is the irritable police chief and he is not playing a sympathetic person at all. Under his supervision, men on the force badger the suspect and deprive him of sleep, so that he is coerced into confessing. None of this sits well with Dana Andrews’ character, a prosecutor assigned to get a conviction.
I would say this is an example of a liberal film that sides against the police. One could easily substitute Kennedy with a black actor and remake this film today about any number of overzealous white cop scenarios where black lives do not matter.
Once we veer away from the more sensational aspects of the story, we can see that by and large this is a typical police procedural done in the popular semidocumentary style. And as a style of moviemaking, it’s quite effective, since it provides a bit of staged ‘realism.’ Helping create a sense of realism is the idea of filming scenes on location in Connecticut, not on a studio backlot.
What holds it all together is the central bond between the lawyer (Andrews) and his upscale wife (Wyatt). Both performers have an easy, natural chemistry. Wyatt would go on to specialize in playing respectable housewives on television, but not before a turn as a killer in THE MAN WHO CHEATED HIMSELF.
Andrews gets the most screen time, and he delivers some impressive speeches inside the courtroom. Everyone turns against his character, when he decides Kennedy can’t be guilty and instead of prosecuting, he ends up defending the guy! How’s that for dramatic irony.
Going by notes re: the real-life case, we should keep in mind that because the prosecutor prevailed in exonerating the accused man, the accused did not remain incarcerated and did not get the electric chair. He went on to marry and have a child. If justice had not prevailed, a child would have been denied the right to live.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 19, 2023 15:39:32 GMT
Boomerang! from 1947 with Dana Andrews, Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley
Boomerang! shamelessly packs a lot of morality into its brief eighty-eight minutes, but it works because it's based on a real event - sometimes life offers up its own sermon.
In an "average" Connecticut town, a minister is shot and killed on his nightly walk. Despite several witnesses, there are no suspects, which has the town angry and the in-power "reform" party's local boss, played by Ed Begley, pressing hard on the police chief, played by Lee J. Cobb, to solve the case before the upcoming election.
After an extensive investigation, a suspect is found, evidence is collected (witnesses identify him, ballistics evidence says it is his gun) and a preliminary hearing is scheduled. The State's Attorney, played by Dana Andrews, has his doubts, but Begley presses him hard, too.
Begley reveals to Andrews that his, Begley's, personal finances are fully leveraged to a land deal that will only go through if his party wins the upcoming election, which will only happen if they convict the suspect.
Begley also "points out" that Andrew's wife, as the committee chair of the government department buying the land, while innocent of the scam, if it all comes out, will look dirty. Finally, Begley dangles the governorship in front of Andrews if he gets the conviction.
With that setup, Andrews has every reason to sweep his doubts aside, except for the law, integrity and justice. He now faces his The Ox-bow Incident and Judgement and Nuremberg moment all in one.
Echoing the former, when an angry crowd forms around the prisoner as he's being escorted to court, only Andrews and the police chief Cobb are able to stop the lynching.
Then in a strong echo of the latter movie, Begley presses a contemplative Andrews with this question, "Is one man's life worth more than the community?" Andrews gives the only answer a man and prosecutor of integrity could.
Then and now, the job of a prosecutor is not to rack up conviction any more than it is to let guilty men go free; the job of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done. That message from Boomerang! is no less important and relevant today.
It's still undecided as all Andrews seems to have is his doubts versus some pretty damning evidence. From here, it's off to a climatic preliminary hearing where Andrews will try to sort all that out in the cauldron of a very public trial.
Director Eli Kazan is in his sweet spot with this one as he loves stories of the underdog against the crowd. Yes, he lays the lessons on thick, but by hewing closely to the truth, he keeps the story and morality afloat.
It helps also that a strong cast - Begley as a sleazy political boss, Cobb as a cantankerous police chief and Andrews as the square-jawed hero - has everyone in a role they were born to play.
Boomerang! is a tale of political corruption and mob justice pushing against the right of each individual to fair and impartial justice. It's a tale that has been told since man has been telling stories, but it will never get old.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 19, 2023 15:48:03 GMT
Great review Fading Fast. I especially like this paragraph:
With that setup, Andrews has every reason to sweep his doubts aside, except for the law, integrity and justice. He now faces his The Ox-bow Incident and Judgement and Nuremberg moment all in one.
Elia Kazan directed THE SEA OF GRASS the same year, over at MGM...which is a different type of film. It's interesting to see how directors' output varied by studio.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 28, 2023 14:30:00 GMT
This neglected film is from 1933.
Zoo uprising
This film has a strong reputation and has impressed audiences and critics since its release into theaters back in 1933. Personally, I found it a bit sluggish in spots and almost belabored. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the sincerity and romantic sentiments on display, but it seemed to me as if the story was a little one-dimensional and could have been told in half the time.
During the introductory reel, too many scenes are spent presenting the animals in their various cages at the titular zoo. In fact the first ten minutes is focused on the animals, and we don’t even see the first human star (Gene Raymond) until after the initial sequence finishes. I get it, the producers had spent a lot of money renting animals and wanted to show them off and generate an atmosphere of believability that this is a zoological habitat.
But why they’ve set this in Budapest, when it seems more like an ordinary zoo in southern California where nobody speaks with any realistic sounding Eastern European accent, is a mystery to me. I suppose Budapest sounded more glamorous, more old world-ish, and more simplistic in terms of the basic romance that ends up consuming the picture.
I agree with other reviewers who say Mr. Raymond is enjoying himself in the role of Zani, an urban Tarzan who functions as a pseudo animal rights advocate. While working at the zoo, he frolics with cubs in their cages, carries on whole conversations with monkeys, seems to be able to read the minds of elephants, and entertains visitors to the site, especially children with his antics. He makes the film a bit more lively and fun than it otherwise might have been.
Cast as the female lead is Loretta Young. She was borrowed from home studio Warner Brothers for this assignment. Interestingly, she’d defect from Warners a short time later with Darryl Zanuck, to make films for him. By mid-decade, Zanuck would merge his indy company 20th Century Pictures with Fox to form 20th Century Fox, and Miss Young would become a Fox contract player for the rest of the 1930s.
She’s so youthful and delicate looking. Yet there’s considerable spunk and determination underlying her gentle nature, so she actually seems right at home in this production.
Young portrays Eve (who might just as easily have been called Jane), a just-turned-18 orphan who is about to be shipped off to a job for five years by a cold and nasty headmistress (Lucille Ward). Other girls at the orphanage conspire to help Young escape during a field trip to the zoo. She’s been here before, and she’s previously caught Raymond’s eye. He wants her to be free of all that nonsense and live with him, though he has no future prospects.
Into this mix we have a small boy (Wally Albright) from a rich family who also ‘escapes,’ from his nanny…and eventually, the three hideout together. This occurs after Raymond’s character is accused of stealing and must face the police. To think they could all remain here, indefinitely, is somewhat preposterous. Though the scenes where they huddle together in an enclosed area are charming, and we do root for love to ultimately win out…which it does.
There’s a dramatic sequence in the last reel where some of the zoo’s most dangerous animals get loose. As all this chaos occurs, Raymond demonstrates his bravery in saving the boy’s life. As a result of his heroic efforts, he is forgiven his crimes and will be allowed to marry Young.
In a nice twist, they get jobs at the estate of Albright’s wealthy father, so they will remain in contact with the kid.
This is not a great film, in my humble opinion, but it gets the job done. Certainly the sequence where the animals run amok at the end, is the big moment, and will stay etched in any viewer’s memory. I just felt that it took too long for the main story to get underway. Also, there aren’t any real suitable subplots– the stuff about the kind doctor (O.P. Heggie) who runs the zoo and has a fatherly bond with Raymond– seems nearly inconsequential at times. Mostly, we are stuck with just one storyline that, like I said, could have been told in half the film’s run time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 28, 2023 14:58:44 GMT
Zoo in Budapest from 1933 with Gene Raymond, Loretta Young, O. P. Heggie and Paul Fix
Who would have thought a movie made in 1933 would blend a modern message about animal rights - including anti-fur zeal equal to PETA's - with an orphanage reform plea all wrapped inside a magical, almost fairytale-like story about a zoo and a special handler?
Zoo in Budapest manages to do all that in this quirky but engaging effort that includes many long, loving shots of animals just being animals; it could almost double as a nature documentary.
Gene Raymond, in his charmingest career role, plays a Doctor Dolittle-like young man who was raised in a zoo by the institute's scientist and leader played by O. P. Heggie.
Raymond, who moves amongst the animals with an acrobatic ease, is loved by all the animals and humans in the zoo except for the zoo's bitter keeper, played by Paul Fix (think Wicked Witch of the West).
Fix wants to have Raymond arrested because he occasionally steals women's furs (and burns them, as he's not doing it for profit) in a pique over the insensitivity these women have toward the animals whose fur they wear. It feels incredibly modern.
At the same time, an eighteen-year-old orphan girl, played by Loretta Young, from a nearby strict orphanage, who is about to be "bartered" into a menial job for five years, is considering escaping at the zoo.
Finally, in a forced subplot, a young boy with a mean governess is looking to escape her care so that he can go to the zoo and ride on an elephant.
With that set up, all three "escape" on the same day. Raymond holes up in the zoo to avoid arrest; Young flees the orphanage group, and the boy runs away from his governess. Eventually, all three wind up hiding out together in the zoo.
Before finding the boy, though, Raymond and Young meet and, it's strongly implied, have sex while hiding in the bushes. It has a The Blue Lagoon "virginal innocence and discovery" feel to it.
Now that they've taken care of business, Raymond and Young discover the boy and all three hide in the zoo as the mean zookeeper, Fix, leads an ever-more frantic and marshaled search to find them. The three are, symbolically, like the animals in the zoo themselves.
The conclusion has a pretty dramatic animal breakout that ties all the subplots together too easily, but Zoo in Budapest is not a plot-driven movie. Its raison d'être is to advocate for animal and orphan rights in an enchanting story about young love.
The core of the movie, thus, is long sequences of animals just being animals and of Raymond interacting with them in a kind, loving and carefree way. The plot is so thin that Young has barely any dialogue until two-thirds of the way in.
It's also why the characters are, mainly, two-dimensional as Zoo in Budapest is really a fairytale for adults where kind, loving people solve problems with kindness and love, while the bad, mean people ultimately fail.
Zoo in Budapest is offbeat and ahead of its time with its animal rights and orphanage reform advocacy. Its charm is simply in its being: in its beautiful shots of nature, in Raymond's uncomplicated love of animals and in his and Young's youthful passion to be free and together.
Somebody high enough up at Fox studios wanted to say something about animal and human rights and about the joy of nature, so much so that he or she was able to get this unconventional but fun and forward-looking picture made, surprisingly, in 1933. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 30, 2023 15:05:43 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Somewhere in his memory
This is not a typical noir, there is no real femme fatale, a lot of the crime occurs off-screen, and the action is minimal. Instead we have more of a psychological probe going on with the main character. He’s a war vet who happens to be an amnesiac, trying to regain his memory and put the pieces of his life back together. It’s intriguing stuff.
What works best is the irony at the center of the drama. The man that George Taylor (John Hodiak) is searching for, to help answer key questions about his past, is in fact himself. Along the way he meets a nightclub singer named Christy Smith (Nancy Guild) who plays a part in his recovery. Guild reminds me of Gene Tierney who was also under contract to 20th Century Fox at this time. Perhaps the script was devised with Tierney and Tyrone Power in mind. But Hodiak and Guild, which rhymes with wild, do just fine.
The two stars are joined by Lloyd Nolan typecast as a cop, and Richard Conte, also typecast as a crook. The girl’s relationship with Conte’s character creates the necessary triangle, fraught with the usual complications. One thing that Joseph Mankiewicz’s leisurely paced story has going for it is that Conte’s sinister motives are not really revealed until the end, so while he is certainly the villain, he’s not as transparent as some in this genre.
There is also an extended sequence featuring actress Josephine Hutchinson, taking character roles by this point in her career. She is a slightly, okay more than slightly, deluded dame who provides clues that will enable Hodiak to reclaim his identity when she doesn’t have much of an identity herself.
Some parts of the film drag out too long. But Mankiewicz is known for his literate style of storytelling. And since he not only worked on the screenplay but directed the picture, we can be sure that while it may take a bit too long to get to the end, none of the subplots really meander. Everything does lead to a full and cohesive understanding of where Hodiak has been and who he is now.
John Hodiak was an MGM contract player that was borrowed four times by Fox in the mid-40s. He did a picture with Tallulah Bankhead for Alfred Hitchcock (LIFEBOAT); he costarred with Anne Baxter in a feel-good comedy-drama (SUNDAY DINNER FOR A SOLDIER); he played the lead in a war flick with Gene Tierney (A BELL FOR ADANO); and he starred in SOMEWHERE IN THE NIGHT.
 When this picture was made, it was an important year for the actor. He and Miss Baxter would marry around the time that she would earn an Oscar for her searing performance in THE RAZOR’S EDGE. Then Hodiak was back at MGM working alongside Judy Garland in THE HARVEY GIRLS before his next picture, on loan out to Paramount, that would cement his status as a lead in film noir (DESERT FURY).
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 30, 2023 15:50:33 GMT
Somewhere in the Night from 1946 with John Hodiak, Nancy Guild, Lloyd Nolan, Richard Conte and Margo Wood
Somewhere in the Night could have been a very good movie, but a too-complicated story leaves this one with its parts being better than the whole.
John Hodiak plays a war veteran who, owing to an encounter with an enemy hand grenade, has a reconstructed face and amnesia.
Hodiak, now back in the States and trying to find his identity, follows the only link he has to his past life in Los Angeles, which puts him right in the middle of an unsolved murder and a missing two-million dollars of Nazi loot.
Even that takes some time to learn, though, as the plot unwinds very slowly, so for much of the movie, you're left with just the characters. While Hodiak is a bit wooden here, a strong supporting cast and good individual scenes keeps you, mainly, engaged.
Hodiak quickly meets a good-girl lounge singer played by Nancy Guild who, for no reason, completely believes in Hodiak's innocence and loyally tries to help him unravel his mysterious past.
She's the gem in this one, firing off one-liners or delivering a perfectly timed eye roll or shrug with such verve you wonder why Ms. Guild didn't have a bigger career.
Equally engaging is the police lieutenant, played by a young Lloyd Nolan, who matches Guild for funny asides and understated zingers. Their scene together in a Chinese Restaurant would work as an entertaining and funny skit on its own.
For most of the movie, though, we don't really understand how Hodiak's character ties into the missing money. We don't understand why an oddball local thug has him beat up.
We also don't understand why a nightclub owner, played by a very young Richard Conte, is so helpful and we don't understand how a hard-boiled gunmoll, played with arrant bitterness by Margo Wood, fits into any of it.
Finally, we don't understand how a strange woman, who maybe, had an affair with Hodiak, and her now institutionalized father fit in. Yet, we follow Hodiak out to that creepy mental institution only to see him threatened again and nearly framed for murder.
After all that, and after plenty of dark noir alleys, bonks on the head, guns brandished, sinister waterfront scenes at night and even a couple of visits to an odd fortune-teller hangout for mobsters, it all comes together quickly at the end.
The story pretty much makes sense, but there's an implicit bargain movies strike with their audiences: the longer a movie keeps you in the dark with a complex or convoluted plot, the better the payoff should be.
Somewhere in the Night's payoff, though, is more of a shrug than a wow, leaving the audience kinda disappointed.
Co-writer and director Joseph Mankiewicz is too talented not to keep your attention with the aforementioned good scenes, characters and dialogue, but you feel Somewhere in the Night would have been a much-better movie if it had just untangled itself sooner.
Had it been made thirty-years later, even though the movie was just okay, they might have thought about doing a spin off starring Lloyd Nolan continuing his fun take on a police lieutenant with Nancy Guild as his smarter-of-the-two informal partner. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 7, 2023 14:34:47 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
Foster and Christy
A lot of biopics made during the studio era blended fact and fiction. Sometimes the fictionalized aspects of a person’s life on screen were regarded as truth, especially if they glorified the individual’s reputation. In this case, 20th Century Fox has seen fit to dramatize the life of composer Stephen C. Foster (Don Ameche) who gained fame as one of the country’s most beloved songwriters of the 1800s.
This is supposed to be a feel-good film, presented in Technicolor, so the darker aspects of Foster’s life have been glossed over. If his life story was remade today, no doubt his struggles with mental illness would be more prominently featured; his alcoholism and the break-up of his marriage would not be given short shrift; and the legacy of his music which celebrated life in the antebellum south would be seen through a politically correct lens.
I guess we should be grateful those darker elements are not present in this 1939 production, and that for the most part, the story remains a fairly nostalgic affair. Foster’s simple music, which owes a debt to negro spirituals, is what’s front and center; it’s what this picture seeks to celebrate and often succeeds at doing.
I am not sure if I would have picked Don Ameche for the lead role, though he can sing and has musical talent. Mr. Ameche was probably cast because of the strength of his performance in another popular biopic, THE STORY OF ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL. Audiences accepted him playing historical figures from the past.
They also accepted someone like Al Jolson playing a role largely in blackface. However, it should be pointed out that there are several scenes in which Mr. Jolson does not appear in blackface. Typically this only occurs when he is on stage, when his character E.P. Christy is performing minstrel routines with his band.
One thing that is factual here is that Foster and Christy had a long-running collaboration. It may be argued that Foster would not have achieved renown if Christy’s blackface routines had not popularized the material Foster wrote.
This would be Jolson’s last on screen role in a motion picture, though he did provide the vocals for Columbia’s biopic about his life, THE JOLSON STORY, seven years later. Jolson is a consummate entertainer, and his musical scenes are a highlight…they are infused with a lot of energy and fun. In the more dramatic scenes, he holds his own opposite Ameche.
Cast as the faithful wife is Andrea Leeds, borrowed from Sam Goldwyn. It occurs to me while watching her that physically she has a striking resemblance to Olivia de Havilland. I read that producer Daryl Zanuck wanted one of his contract players Nancy Kelly to take this role, but I think Miss Leeds provides the necessary amount of wholesomeness and naive quality required. She works very well in the scenes where her character is dealing with her husband’s genius and madness.
Another nice thing about this production is that we are given background on how Foster came to pen some of his most famous tunes. For example, there’s a sequence at the beginning of the film where our young lovers meet up along a river while they are courting, before their marriage. At the end of the picture, he composes what is perhaps his most well-known piece, ‘Old Folks at Home a.k.a. Swanee River’ when he is reflecting about simpler times they shared near the Suwannee River in Florida.
There is also the relationship the two have with the coachman (George Reed) of the wife’s wealthy family. He’s affectionately called Old Joe, and Joe keeps asking throughout the movie when a song will be written about him.
In a poignant scene, Joe dies and they feel as if they’ve lost a member of the family. As Joe dies, Ameche whistles some impromptu notes to him, which becomes the basis for a song about Old Joe. A choir sings this at Joe’s grave, and I felt this to be a highlight of the picture.
The war between the states becomes a plot point in the second half of the movie. The scriptwriters take several liberties with the facts during this part. We see Foster’s career go belly up, when he is condemned by northerners for glorifying the south with his popular tunes. For a time his music is not played because of this. Some of these reversals did not really occur until after the war.
I suppose it provides ample drama to alter the timeline slightly and have Foster feeling defeated if his sympathy for the south is used against him. One thing for certain is that Foster’s own family– a financially successful northern family– was not in favor of abolition. I wonder how this point would be handled today if the film were remade now.
The last sequence of the picture is the most powerful. Foster has been involved in a life-threatening injury on the night that his ode to Swanee River is to be performed by Christy. When he doesn’t show up at the theater, his wife realizes something is wrong. She rushes out to find him, and Christy follows. Foster dies a short time later, but we are told that his music will continue to live on and remain an important part of American culture. His simple compositions celebrate the lives of all Americans, about how we triumph over adversity and do not forget our origins.
|
|
