|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 15, 2023 14:31:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Survivors move forward and rebuild
TWO FLAGS WEST was released by 20th Century Fox the same year the studio released BROKEN ARROW. Both westerns feature Jeff Chandler in a lead role. Mr. Chandler would gain fame in a series of action flicks and period dramas at Universal. TWO FLAGS WEST gives him one of his best parts, third-billed, as a U.S Army leader who hates Rebs and hates Indians and anything else he deems traitorous.
Chandler is joined by top billed Joseph Cotten who is on hand as a Confederate colonel now demoted to lieutenant; Cornel Wilde as a loyal Union colonel who works with Cotten to bridge the gap between both sides against the natives; and lovely Linda Darnell as Chandler’s available and much-coveted sister-in-law who is a recent war widow.
We also have some good supporting players. There is Jay C. Flippen as Chandler’s right hand at Fort Thorn; up-and-coming Fox contract player Dale Robertson as one of Cotten’s men; plus Noah Beery Jr. and Arthur Hunnicutt as two more faithful Rebs.
The title of the film is a great symbol for a war torn nation and its two acrimonious factions, forced to work together to tame and civilize the west. Yes, there are slightly outdated cultural depictions in a Hollywood film from 1950…and yes, there is some glossing over of Civil War history.
However, the script takes pains to show the bitter hardships experienced by both sides. Neither group is demonized or even presented in a purely favorable light. In short, these are realistic characters who’ve lost a lot and learned a lot in battle.
I appreciate how a real Southerner, Joseph Cotten, is playing the southern leader in the film. No fake accent is required, Cotten is the real deal. I also appreciate that Miss Darnell, whose own ethnic background includes Mexican American heritage, is cast as a Mexican-Californian woman in the story. This isn’t just studio play-acting. There is considerable authenticity in the casting of the main roles.
Robert Wise’s direction is perfectly attuned to the requirements of the script. The huge standoff at the fort near the end of the movie, which leads to the deaths of Wilde and Chandler, is expertly staged and totally gripping.
It all ends on a hopeful note about how survivors move forward and rebuild. We are not told that Darnell and Cotten will end up as a couple, though he did try to express something sentimental to her earlier.
She’s not leaving the fort anytime soon, and neither is he. He’s become a full-fledged American again, realizing the south was defeated, but he has new purpose under Lincoln and a reunified nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 15, 2023 15:33:36 GMT
I haven't seen this one, but appreciate your comments on Wise, as I've seen about half the films he's directed. He gets the most out of whatever script and actors he's handed.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 21, 2023 15:20:05 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Robertson goes from bad to good
This was the first of three western films that Dale Robertson made with editor-turned-director Harmon Jones. The first two pictures were produced at Robertson’s home studio 20th Century Fox. When Robertson moved over to Universal a few years later, Jones went with him. Ten years later, Jones would also direct an episode of Robertson’s western TV series, Iron Horse.
When a star feels comfortable with a director, he delivers a confident performance. Robertson was comfortable with the western format and would become associated with this particular genre.
Leading lady Jeanne Crain is a bit less at ease as a western star, though she does her best. This was the last assignment Miss Crain had under her original contract at Fox. Her popularity had waned and her two most recent films at the studio were not hits. After ten years, she was let go in a cost-cutting measure. She would freelance, signing a multi-picture deal at Universal where she went on to make a few more westerns.
Jeanne Crain did not headline her own weekly television series like so many stars did in those days when movie offers dried up. By the mid-60s her screen appearances were infrequent. She did a disaster flick in the early 70s before calling it quits.
The story for CITY OF BAD MEN focuses more on Robertson than it does on Crain. As the title suggests, it’s about a growing community– Carson City– that attracts a group of rough characters. The roguish bad men are all crooks with designs on a $100,000 payout. This does not involve robbing a stagecoach or robbing a bank. Instead, a big match is scheduled between real-life boxers Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons. With tickets set at $15 per person (a huge sum for 1897), it’s an event that draws wealthy spectators from miles around.
Robertson and his brother (Lloyd Bridges) breeze into Carson City to get their hands on all that dough. They’re up from Mexico, and we learn Robertson had lived in the area six years ago and at that time was romantically involved with Crain. She’s moved on with another guy, a well-to-do businessman, because her heart was broke after Robertson left and didn’t come back. Obviously, they have unfinished business and are still in love with each other.
In addition to these issues, there is the matter of a rival gang. More bad men, led by Richard Boone who never plays respectable law-abiding citizens in these types of motion pictures. Somehow, the sheriff convinces Robertson and Boone to work for him as deputies, to keep their men in line so the match will go off without a hitch. Of course, the plot is a bit contrived but it’s interesting to see the so-called bad men work for the law, while still coveting the money that is spent on the big fight.
We know Robertson will go straight, so he can end up with Crain before the final fadeout. And that Boone won’t go straight, and will end up dead. But these predictable elements don’t detract from one’s enjoyment of the film as a whole. There are some taut action sequences. The boxing scenes are fairly engaging. And the romance drama portion of the story pulls us in, since Crain and Robertson do share a palpable chemistry.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Aug 21, 2023 15:33:57 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Robertson goes from bad to good
This was the first of three western films that Dale Robertson made with editor-turned-director Harmon Jones. The first two pictures were produced at Robertson’s home studio 20th Century Fox. When Robertson moved over to Universal a few years later, Jones went with him. Ten years later, Jones would also direct an episode of Robertson’s western TV series, Iron Horse.
When a star feels comfortable with a director, he delivers a confident performance. Robertson was comfortable with the western format and would become associated with this particular genre.
Leading lady Jeanne Crain is a bit less at ease as a western star, though she does her best. This was the last assignment Miss Crain had under her original contract at Fox. Her popularity had waned and her two most recent films at the studio were not hits. After ten years, she was let go in a cost-cutting measure. She would freelance, signing a multi-picture deal at Universal where she went on to make a few more westerns.
Jeanne Crain did not headline her own weekly television series like so many stars did in those days when movie offers dried up. By the mid-60s her screen appearances were infrequent. She did a disaster flick in the early 70s before calling it quits.
The story for CITY OF BAD MEN focuses more on Robertson than it does on Crain. As the title suggests, it’s about a growing community– Carson City– that attracts a group of rough characters. The roguish bad men are all crooks with designs on a $100,000 payout. This does not involve robbing a stagecoach or robbing a bank. Instead, a big match is scheduled between real-life boxers Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons. With tickets set at $15 per person (a huge sum for 1897), it’s an event that draws wealthy spectators from miles around.
Robertson and his brother (Lloyd Bridges) breeze into Carson City to get their hands on all that dough. They’re up from Mexico, and we learn Robertson had lived in the area six years ago and at that time was romantically involved with Crain. She’s moved on with another guy, a well-to-do businessman, because her heart was broke after Robertson left and didn’t come back. Obviously, they have unfinished business and are still in love with each other.
In addition to these issues, there is the matter of a rival gang. More bad men, led by Richard Boone who never plays respectable law-abiding citizens in these types of motion pictures. Somehow, the sheriff convinces Robertson and Boone to work for him as deputies, to keep their men in line so the match will go off without a hitch. Of course, the plot is a bit contrived but it’s interesting to see the so-called bad men work for the law, while still coveting the money that is spent on the big fight.
We know Robertson will go straight, so he can end up with Crain before the final fadeout. And that Boone won’t go straight, and will end up dead. But these predictable elements don’t detract from one’s enjoyment of the film as a whole. There are some taut action sequences. The boxing scenes are fairly engaging. And the romance drama portion of the story pulls us in, since Crain and Robertson do share a palpable chemistry.
Just saw this film for the first time since Gritt features western actors each weekend and Robertson was featured a few weeks ago. In most of these films Robertson plays a man of dubious character, (if not a bad one), that changes at the end. I found it interesting that he would become the superhero type when he took the lead as Jim Hardy in Tales of Wells Fargo. One thing that didn't change was how the ladies viewed him. What a ladies man! |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 21, 2023 15:36:23 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Robertson goes from bad to good
This was the first of three western films that Dale Robertson made with editor-turned-director Harmon Jones. The first two pictures were produced at Robertson’s home studio 20th Century Fox. When Robertson moved over to Universal a few years later, Jones went with him. Ten years later, Jones would also direct an episode of Robertson’s western TV series, Iron Horse.
When a star feels comfortable with a director, he delivers a confident performance. Robertson was comfortable with the western format and would become associated with this particular genre.
Leading lady Jeanne Crain is a bit less at ease as a western star, though she does her best. This was the last assignment Miss Crain had under her original contract at Fox. Her popularity had waned and her two most recent films at the studio were not hits. After ten years, she was let go in a cost-cutting measure. She would freelance, signing a multi-picture deal at Universal where she went on to make a few more westerns.
Jeanne Crain did not headline her own weekly television series like so many stars did in those days when movie offers dried up. By the mid-60s her screen appearances were infrequent. She did a disaster flick in the early 70s before calling it quits.
The story for CITY OF BAD MEN focuses more on Robertson than it does on Crain. As the title suggests, it’s about a growing community– Carson City– that attracts a group of rough characters. The roguish bad men are all crooks with designs on a $100,000 payout. This does not involve robbing a stagecoach or robbing a bank. Instead, a big match is scheduled between real-life boxers Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons. With tickets set at $15 per person (a huge sum for 1897), it’s an event that draws wealthy spectators from miles around.
Robertson and his brother (Lloyd Bridges) breeze into Carson City to get their hands on all that dough. They’re up from Mexico, and we learn Robertson had lived in the area six years ago and at that time was romantically involved with Crain. She’s moved on with another guy, a well-to-do businessman, because her heart was broke after Robertson left and didn’t come back. Obviously, they have unfinished business and are still in love with each other.
In addition to these issues, there is the matter of a rival gang. More bad men, led by Richard Boone who never plays respectable law-abiding citizens in these types of motion pictures. Somehow, the sheriff convinces Robertson and Boone to work for him as deputies, to keep their men in line so the match will go off without a hitch. Of course, the plot is a bit contrived but it’s interesting to see the so-called bad men work for the law, while still coveting the money that is spent on the big fight.
We know Robertson will go straight, so he can end up with Crain before the final fadeout. And that Boone won’t go straight, and will end up dead. But these predictable elements don’t detract from one’s enjoyment of the film as a whole. There are some taut action sequences. The boxing scenes are fairly engaging. And the romance drama portion of the story pulls us in, since Crain and Robertson do share a palpable chemistry.
Just saw this film for the first time since Gritt features western actors each weekend and Robertson was featured a few weeks ago. In most of these films Robertson plays a man of dubious character, (if not a bad one), that changes at the end. I found it interesting that he would become the superhero type when he took the lead as Jim Hardy in Tales of Wells Fargo. One thing that didn't change was how the ladies viewed him. What a ladies man!
What I like most about CITY OF BAD MEN is how it's a genre hybrid of western and boxing film. Usually westerns don't feature sports, but this one does. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 31, 2023 12:27:34 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Doctor heal thy wife
The picture is what you would call a Freudian mystery. Interestingly, it is based on a novel by an avowed communist writer (Guy Endore) with the screenplay adaptation by the very left-leaning Ben Hecht. So although the story concerns a bourgeoisie housewife (Gene Tierney), her wealthy doctor husband (Richard Conte) and their various society friends (including Constance Collier), the proceedings seem to subvert their lives in a semi-critical way. In fact the whole thing suggests these people may be rich but they are unhappy within the realm of their contrived materialistic environment.
Ironically, Conte is a highly regarded psychoanalyst who cannot seem to fathom the idea that his wife is mentally troubled, until it is almost too late. She begins to seek out the counsel of a quack healer (Jose Ferrer) who relies on hypnotism to keep the Mrs. under his spell, literally.
One thing I like about this film is how we see the men just as emotionally off balance as the women, which is considerable given the fact they are supposed to be rational and understand the complexities of the mind. Neither one really has control of himself, and they are both fighting for control of the lovely woman caught in the middle of their power struggle.
Tierney’s character first meets Ferrer at a department store where she has stolen an expensive pin. Within the first five minutes of the film, we learn she is a kleptomaniac plagued by an inordinate amount of anxiety and general insecurity. Ferrer detects her vulnerabilities and helps prevent embarrassment for her at the store. Then he exploits those vulnerabilities to get close to her in subsequent meetings at his hotel.
What she and the audience do not realize at first is that he is going to use her to get away with the murder of a woman (Barbara O’Neil) who is threatening to go to the police about a swindle he has committed.
I love the way the film gradually reveals how egomaniacal Ferrer is, and this really comes home in a scene where Conte visits him after the murder has been committed. Conte seems to be talking to an evil part of himself, horrified that his wife could ever get involved with such a man. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
Added into this mix is a strong performance by Charles Bickford as a police lieutenant investigating the murder. None of it looks good for Tierney, who spends time in jail before an attorney can bail her out.
Of course we know that Conte will move heaven and earth to ensure that his wife does not go down for something she didn’t do. Part of the plot hinges on the fact that she’s been hypnotized into going places and removing evidence that could exonerate her. Another part of the plot involves Ferrer’s character hypnotizing himself so he will be able to kill and produce a “legitimate” alibi. I am not sure if these developments actually work, but as a work of fiction, it is all presented so competently that we can probably suspend disbelief when necessary.
It occurs to me that any viewer watching Gene Tierney in this movie is probably going to be cast under her spell. She’s a true hypnotic beauty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 31, 2023 12:50:58 GMT
Whirlpool from 1950 with Jose Ferrer, Gene Tierney, Richard Conte and Charles Bickford
To truly enjoy Whirlpool, one has to truly believe in hypnosis to the point where the hypnotized person can steal something, drive somewhere, hide the stolen goods, all while under hypnosis, and then truly not remember what they did when they come out of the hypnotic trance.
That is some serious hypnosis we're talking about.
Whirlpool also asks you to fully believe in Freudian psychoanalysis in the way mid-century movies completely believe in Freudian psychoanalysis.
In that post-war movie era, almost every adult disorder is thought to be the result of a repressed childhood trauma waiting to be brought back as a conscious memory by a competent psychoanalyst, which then "cures" the patient.
If you see hypnosis and psychoanalysis as hypnotists and doctors adjusting dials on the human brain to get things "just right," then Whirlpool is the movie for you.
If not, the plot will seem hokey, but the movie's outstanding acting, several engaging scenes and Otto Preminger's solid directing still make it an enjoyable, if sometimes, silly watch.
Gene Tierney plays the wife of a successful psychoanalyst, played by Richard Conte. When she, a very respectable and wealthy woman, is caught shoplifting in an upscale department store, a strange and confident man, played by Jose Ferrer, comes to her rescue.
We later learn he's a hypnotist who scams, mainly, wealthy women out of money. Tierney is clearly his next mark, but she seems very aware that he could be a con artist. His one hold on her, though, is that she doesn't want her husband to learn she's, possibly, a kleptomaniac.
Ferrer, brilliantly contorting the usual blackmail plan, slowly takes control of Tierney through hypnosis, which leads to Tierney's life being upended as Ferrer is playing a long-ball game that leads to Tierney being suspected of murdering an enemy of Ferrer's.
From here, the movie is Tierney's husband, Conte, trying to understand what the heck has been going on with what he thought was his happily married and emotionally stable wife, while the police, led by Charles Bickford playing a detective, investigate the murder.
Conte, who usually plays very "ethnic" types, often mobsters, is very good here as a kind husband and smart doctor who finds his life and marriage blowing up before his eyes.
Bickford, as always, is excellent as the brusque and laconic detective having a hard time understanding all the hypnosis and psychoanalysis mumbo jumbo when the facts point so clearly to Tierney.
Tierney, herself, is in her acting sweet spot here as she was born to play an aloof, unemotional woman under hypnosis. Heck, she played most of the roles in her career that way, even the ones not calling for her to look vacant and removed.
Ferrer gives the standout performance in this one as the smooth, oleaginous hustler pulling all the strings, always having a plan and, seemingly, always one step ahead of everyone else. You hate him, but he's the most interesting character in the movie.
To fully enjoy Whirlpool's plot, climax and resolution, you have to share the aforementioned complete confidence in hypnosis and psychoanalysis that mid-century movies seemed to have.
If you don't, there are still quite a few good scenes, including the one where Ferrer rescues Tierney at the department store and the one where he "doesn't" blackmail her, to keep you engaged.
Those, combined with several good performances and Preminger's steady directing, mean even skeptics of hypnosis and Freud will enjoy this noirish curio of a picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 3, 2023 13:55:19 GMT
This neglected film is from 1936.
The road to redemption
A truly neglected classic film that deserves immediate attention is this Fox war melodrama that effortlessly combines a war action premise with requisite amounts of soap opera. The picture stars Fredric March and Warner Baxter as two officers stationed in France during WWI, and it is directed by Howard Hawks. Mr. Hawks had helmed a silent film at Fox with the same title ten years before. This production bears no real thematic resemblance to Hawks’ earlier effort.
At the center of the story is a triangle between March, Baxter and pretty June Lang. Though it is not directly stated that Lang is playing a prostitute due to the production code, it is heavily implied. She serves as the kept woman of a commanding officer (Baxter). Her family has lost their home during the war, and due to her impoverished conditions, she’s been providing comfort to a man like Baxter.
To her credit, she acknowledges the fact she doesn’t exactly love him. She does have gratitude for Baxter, since he moved her relatives to a safer part of the country away from the fighting, and he’s sending them money. But that’s as far as her loyalty goes.
Complicating their relationship is the fact that while volunteering at a local hospital to help nurses treat wounded soldiers, she meets one of Baxter’s right hand men (March). She is actively pursued by March, and initially spurns his advances…but then does find herself falling in love with him. The film’s clever writers (one of them is William Faulkner) keep both Baxter and March in the dark about their shared love interest, and the men do not learn the truth that they are rivals until a key moment during battle.
One thing I enjoy about the picture is that March and Baxter both seem to be cast against type (not necessarily miscast)…and this works to the film’s advantage. Baxter typically played more respectable characters, while March wasn’t afraid to portray monstrous, morally questionable men. Here March is the sincere one trying to do right, while Baxter is taking men to the front and lying to them while setting them up to be killed. Because the two lead stars are performing roles they wouldn’t normally take on, they get to stretch their respective acting muscles.
There is a wonderful subplot involving Lionel Barrymore on loan out from home studio MGM. Initially we see him appear as an old codger trying to serve in the war. He gets thrown out as being unfit due to his advanced age. He tries again to join the men in battle, and the second time he succeeds with a bit of trickery– burning a paper that orders his removal from the area. We learn during this extended second sequence that he is in fact Baxter’s father, hoping to serve alongside his son, to make his son proud of him. Barrymore is brilliant playing a rascal finagling one last chance at redemption.
If you like ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT and PATHS OF GLORY, you will love THE ROAD TO GLORY.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 3, 2023 14:40:55 GMT
⇧ You just sold me. I've added it to my to-be-watched list.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 3, 2023 15:08:54 GMT
⇧ You just sold me. I've added it to my to-be-watched list.
A nice print of THE ROAD TO GLORY can be viewed here:
ok.ru/video/5870286014976 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 21, 2023 15:58:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1944.
Taking a stab at a classic
I was unaware of director John Brahm and his filmography before watching this version. It does not surprise me that he directed Laird Cregar a year later in 20th Century Fox’s similarly themed HANGOVER SQUARE (1945) where once more we have a killer on the loose in Victorian England with Cregar again playing the bad guy.
I think I should get this observation out of the way, immediately: I find Laird Cregar a fascinating and highly competent performer but I do not think he has a handle on these types of characters. My biggest gripe with Cregar in villain mode, at least in this version of the Jack the Ripper tale, is that he is playing the lodger too ambitiously. It feels like he is giving an operatic performance in the middle of a country and western tune. That’s the analogy I have for this, he’s not exactly hamming it up but he is definitely overacting the part.
Speaking of opera, I think he would have been perfect in Universal’s 1943 remake of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. That’s the type of story that does require an over-the-top quality and daresay camp. But Cregar is trying to reach impossible heights with the lodger role that simply are not to be found in the story, or if those lofty points of the character are suggested, they are not meant to be fully explored. A wise actor would have erred on the side of subtlety and kept some of the pathos muted.
It sounds strange my complaining about an actor who is certainly giving a competent performance but I think he has a different view of how the material is meant to be played, opposed to what the writers have intended. This is not a grand character in any sense. He’s a low-life reprobate who gets kicks out of tormenting and destroying women. Vulnerable women.
Okay moving on from Cregar, I think Cedric Hardwick is the wrong choice for the male home owner Robert Bonting. He’s too high class and this part requires a middle class character type. Some of Hardwicke’s diction is just too polished and I cannot believe him in the role. Barry Fitzgerald would have been my choice.
On the other hand, I think Sara Allgood is a vast improvement over Marie Ault in the 1927 version and she is also better than what Frances Bavier manages in the 1953 production.
As landlady Ellen Bonting, Allgood exhibits all the right mannerisms, she feels like a middle class woman and she also has a convincing accent (which Bavier lacks in MAN IN THE ATTIC). I also like Allgood’s rapport with Merle Oberon who plays her niece.
They’ve changed the name of the niece from Daisy in the British silent version to Kitty in this first American sound version. However, they recycled the name Daisy for the family maid. Merle Oberon does look like a refined Kitty cat, and she fits her role purr-fectly.
Oberon does an admirable job with the song-and-dance numbers during the scenes that take place in the theater, even if it is obvious her singing voice is dubbed. In short Oberon conveys the sort of coquettishness and energy her role requires. She gets on well with Allgood and has palpable chemistry with George Sanders, who sometimes in his other films is too proper to do justice with romantic storylines. That’s not the case here, thank goodness.
Sanders plays the copper. His police investigator character does not turn up until a third of the way into this movie. It is a good thing since it means we have to focus on Kitty’s relationship with her aunt and uncle at home, as well as all of them interacting with the new lodger (Cregar). Oberon and Cregar share zero sexual chemistry, which is not Oberon’s fault. There should definitely be heat underneath the daily routines and exchanges between Kitty and Mr. Slade the lodger. But that is absent.
This version of the story adds in a bit of forensic science. Inspector John Warwick (Sanders) is trying to connect Slade to the murders by lifting fingerprints from objects that Slade has touched in the room he’s renting. Some of the dialogue is a bit expository, explaining to 1944 audiences what collecting forensic evidence entails. But I did like this added into the plot since it increases realism and shows how a policeman might logically prove who the culprit is.
The lodger’s motives change in this telling. He is no longer innocent like Ivor Novello was back in 1927, nor is he trying to avenge a sister’s death. This time he’s off kilter because his brother was ruined by a showgirl. We are not given a full explanation of how the brother’s demise occurred by knowing a showgirl, but because the woman was supposedly so corrupt, Slade is now out to get all showgirls. In some ways this is laughable nonsense. The 1953 version with Jack Palance does a much better job explaining the lodger’s psychosis and includes some Freudian analysis of Slade which is much needed.
The costuming is exquisite throughout this production. But I found the set design not as good I hoped it would be. One of the problems I had with the sets is that they seemed like warehouse areas on the 20th Century Fox lot. For instance, the downstairs of the Bonting home is a little too spacious for middle-class folk. And the lodger’s quarters have high walls with too much space to walk around the furniture. An upstairs room in a modest city home would not look like this. The attic upstairs where Slade does his “experiments” would be even smaller. So I don’t think the set designer was correct in these aspects.
The studio warehouse feel is even more prevalent in the final sequence where Slade is chased by the inspector and the inspector’s men through the backstage area of the theater. But my goodness this theater seems to go on and on, with all kinds of stairwells and platforms and windows that Slade has at his disposal in a magnificent attempt to thwart capture. To be honest, the chase felt a bit dragged out, even if Cregar’s final closeup and his smashing through a glass window make up for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 22, 2023 18:59:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1944.
Taking a stab at a classic
I was unaware of director John Brahm and his filmography before watching this version. It does not surprise me that he directed Laird Cregar a year later in 20th Century Fox’s similarly themed HANGOVER SQUARE (1945) where once more we have a killer on the loose in Victorian England with Cregar again playing the bad guy.
I think I should get this observation out of the way, immediately: I find Laird Cregar a fascinating and highly competent performer but I do not think he has a handle on these types of characters. My biggest gripe with Cregar in villain mode, at least in this version of the Jack the Ripper tale, is that he is playing the lodger too ambitiously. It feels like he is giving an operatic performance in the middle of a country and western tune. That’s the analogy I have for this, he’s not exactly hamming it up but he is definitely overacting the part.
TopBilled, sometimes I get a back glance at your "TCM AND OTHER SOURCES FOR CLASSIC FILMS" posts. This is the latest one for me. I like your opera/country 'n western analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Sept 22, 2023 23:12:03 GMT
When TCM aired this film with an intro (don't remember who) the sad story of Cregar was told. Cregar wanted to be a romantic leading man. He obsessed about his weight, he took drugs and/or some treatment and died. I know people want to make drugs of all kinds legal, but the string of stories of deaths make me think twice. Cregar's death is a loss for the film world.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 23, 2023 0:03:18 GMT
When TCM aired this film with an intro (don't remember who) the sad story of Cregar was told. Cregar wanted to be a romantic leading man. He obsessed about his weight, he took drugs and/or some treatment and died. I know people want to make drugs of all kinds legal, but the string of stories of deaths make me think twice. Cregar's death is a loss for the film world.
He was a closeted homosexual, so the weight problem wasn't the only issue he was struggling with during that period of his life. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 23, 2023 2:05:26 GMT
When TCM aired this film with an intro (don't remember who) the sad story of Cregar was told. Cregar wanted to be a romantic leading man. He obsessed about his weight, he took drugs and/or some treatment and died. I know people want to make drugs of all kinds legal, but the string of stories of deaths make me think twice. Cregar's death is a loss for the film world. |
|
