|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 2, 2023 14:45:46 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Creepy and tormented
This is a standard mystery thriller based on the Jack the Ripper tale. Fox had previously filmed Marie Lowndes’ novel in 1944 with the original title intact, THE LODGER starring Laird Cregar.
Key changes from the 1944 version- Daisy/Kitty is now called Lily. She is still the landlady’s niece and still a showgirl. The landlords’ last name is no longer Bonting; it is now Harley. The scriptwriters have added a dog that looks like Lassie. The dog’s scenes with Slade give us a new way to perceive him. Another important change is that the sets are smaller, conveying a sense of intimacy. The lodger’s rented room and the attic where he does his experiments are appropriately claustrophobic.
The greatest improvement is the casting of Jack Palance as Slade. In my opinion, he’s the real reason to watch this version. He exudes the right combination of masculinity and menace. We are drawn to him and frightened by him at the same time, which is how it should be for the story to work. That was not the case with Laird Cregar.
Something about this version seems brutally honest to me. Maybe it seems honest because of Palance’s performance. Other actors might chew the scenery, and in fact Palance does chew the scenery in some of his films. But not here. He brings us into the world of a demented man in a very sympathetic sort of way. We see the intense struggle he is having within himself.
At one point when he convulses after a killing and is comforted by dance hall girl Lily (Constance Smith), he appears quite broken and pitiable. He’s a man who knows what he is doing but cannot stop himself. In fact, Palance is so effective in these scenes, we want to believe he could change if someone just reached into his soul and saved him.
Palance also shows us the coldness of the character. There are suggestions he is a religious man, since he reads a bible left in his room. But in his mind, there is nothing holy about women who shamelessly flaunt themselves at men. They must be punished. We are told this stems from the fact that his mother had been a showgirl, and she chose her career over caring for him. He’s experiencing a Freudian complex and compares “sinful” women to his mother. I think this explanation makes a lot more sense for the killings than having Slade avenge a sister’s death or a brother’s demise.
Another way we see Slade’s coldness is when he stops being kind to the Harley family dog. Suddenly the animal is afraid of him– implying that off-screen Slade had abused it in a fit of rage. We are given a fascinating and honest performance of a man with demons.
Re: the landlords. Frances Bavier (who retains her American accent) and Rhys Williams (with his Welsh accent) play the couple who let a room to Slade. Initially, she is a doting landlady trying to make her new boarder feel at home; while the husband is put-off about bringing a stranger into their home. But half an hour into the film, they’ve reversed themselves. She is suspicious that the guy is Jack the Ripper; but the husband explains several coincidences and gives the man in the attic the benefit of the doubt.
It’s interesting how these characters change their perspective on someone they think they know, when they do not know much about Slade at all. Instead of flat representations, we have fully dimensional characters whose own fears and beliefs add to the complex layers of the story.
Since it’s a modestly budgeted programmer, the producers do not drag things out. The story runs around 73 minutes, and the scenes are concise with forward momentum. Occasionally, the plot slows down for a brief musical interlude at the dance hall, or when we see Slade’s softer side playing the piano. But mostly, the action builds and the film doesn’t waste time.
The director wisely shoots the Fox back lot from different angles to make it seem like there are more streets and outdoor sets than there probably are. The period detail inside the main set, the couple’s house, is attended with care but not great opulence. Ironically, it’s a very cozy looking picture, despite its very unsettling theme.
The finale in this 1953 production differs from the 1944 version. Instead of having Slade chased backstage, he takes off in a horse-driven carriage. There’s a nicely filmed action sequence where the police inspector (Byron Palmer) and his men pursue Slade down the city’s streets. It all reaches a dramatic conclusion at the canal. The ending doesn’t show Slade’s capture or even his death. It’s left open as to whether he has drowned in the canal; or if he is swimming underneath to some darker place.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 7, 2023 15:13:49 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Gaslight meets Titanic
DANGEROUS CROSSING is part of the “nobody believes me” tradition of storytelling. In movie terms, it’s GASLIGHT meets TITANIC. I say this because a wealthy woman (Jeanne Crain) is set-up so that others will think she’s mad…but instead of a British home, the action takes place on an ocean liner. And 20th Century Fox is re-using its sets from TITANIC (1953) which was produced a few months earlier.
Miss Crain is cast as a troubled rich chick who just married a handsome charmer (Carl Betz)…supposedly. He’s disappeared without a trace, shortly after she boarded the vessel. Where did he go, what’s happened to him? Did he even exist? Perhaps she’s not really married after all, and she’s been hallucinating.
Trying to help the woman get to the bottom of things is a concerned doctor (Michael Rennie). He has made inquiries with the ship’s staff to see if she was accompanied by a man as she claims. But nothing seems to corroborate her version of events. When she gets a call from her husband who says he’s gone into hiding for some inexplicable reason, she is still not believed.
Based on a hit radio play from 1943 and definitely something that would have worked as an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents a few years later, this is a fairly predictable thriller. Since the main role is played by Jeanne Crain, who always plays virtuous females, we know as an audience that she’s telling the truth. She really did have a husband and something strange is going on.
She is not imagining any of it, and is in fact the victim of a greater conspiracy. Part of the enjoyment one might have in watching the film is seeing how all the dots finally connect and how this cooked-up nonsense does sort of make sense in the end.
There is a muted romance that occurs between her character and the doctor, which is kept platonic while she is still technically married to bad boy Betz. And if you like scenes where people have drinks in a luxurious dining room while danger lurks out on deck, then this may be your type of flick.
Personally I think it would have been better if the viewers had been fooled into believing she was being gaslit when in reality she actually was insane. Or else she was pretending to be a victim of gaslighting, in order to get rid of a man she wanted out of her life. That would have been a much more clever angle, instead of having her become the helpless damsel that needs saving at the end when Betz tries to throw her overboard.
Despite the lack of real suspense, there are some tense moments. And the actors do their best with the material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 7, 2023 17:08:06 GMT
Dangerous Crossing from 1953 with Jeanne Crain, Michael Rennie, Max Showalter and Willis Bouchey
Dangerous Crossing feels like a The Twilight Zone episode that was made into a movie. The Twilight Zone stories worked really well in their TV format, but in a full-length movie, the story feels a bit thin and asks you to accept being kept in the dark a bit too long.
At the opening, we see a newlywed, played by Jeanne Crain, and her husband as they board a cruise ship for their honeymoon. He goes off to the purser's office as she goes up on deck with plans to meet him in the bar in fifteen minutes.
He never shows up in the bar, nor can Crain find him anywhere, prompting her to reach out to the crew for help. After a ship-wide search fails to find her husband, the ship's doctor, played by Michael Rennie, starts asking her the "are you really sure your husband boarded the ship with you" type of questions.
From Crain and from an exchange of ship-to-shore wires, Rennie learns that she is a wealthy young woman who lost her father a few months ago and, then, met and married her husband all in one week right before boarding the ship.
The captain and most of the crew, with the exception of the more open-minded (and handsome) Rennie, doubt her sanity. But since we, the audience, saw Crain board with her husband, our sympathies lie with her, even when she begins to act erratically under the strain of not understanding what has happened.
Most of the movie is Crain alternating between calmly and frantically looking for her husband with Rennie, seemingly free of all other duties, trying to help her. Rennie appears genuinely concerned, but also, Crain's good looks aren't lost on him.
As in any good mystery, a bunch of feints and possibly clues are tossed into the mix - a mysterious man with a limp, a suspicious crew member and a fellow passenger who might be too friendly are all possibly involved.
We finally know something deeper is going one when Crain has a brief, foggy, late-night meeting with her husband (he called her room and told her to come up on deck to meet him). He presents himself to her as a man hiding because he's in some sort of trouble, but it's all too vague and rushed.
Unfortunately, for an hour and five of the movie's hour and fifteen minutes, all we pretty much get is the above: Crain frantically looking for her husband while everyone but the doctor believes, more and more, that she's nuts. It wears a bit thin.
(Spoiler alert) The climax is another late night meeting on deck between Crain and her husband where he reveals he's only after her money as he tries to kill her by throwing her overboard. Of course, the handsome doctor shows up just in time to save her and all ends well.
It's not a bad story, but with its obvious ending, you feel let down as you expected more for all the tension and mystery that had been built. Had Dangerous Crossing been an hour-long episode of The Twilight Zone, it would have been a good, not great, one. As a B movie, it's also okay, but still you feel disappointed there wasn't something more to it all in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 19, 2023 14:29:13 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
After the initial carnage has played out
This was Victor Mature’s first lead role in a western. He had previously supported Henry Fonda in MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, playing Doc Holliday to Fonda’s Wyatt Earp. Usually, the execs at 20th Century Fox put Mature in musicals, where he couldn’t sing or dance, but looked good supporting female stars like Rita Hayworth and Betty Grable. Or else they assigned him to crime dramas. A bit later in his career Mature reinvented himself in biblical epics and historical dramas.
Seldom did Victor Mature have a chance to star in a western, which is a shame, since he seems more at ease here than in those other genres. Mature wasn’t even the first choice for his role in this picture, for the part had originally been intended for John Payne. Due to scheduling conflicts Payne was unavailable which enabled Mature to step in.
FURY AT FURNACE CREEK begins with a bang. An army general, played by Robert Warwick, is given an order to abandon a wagon train needing protection. This proves to be a huge mistake, since warring Apaches kill the members of the train and take over the covered wagons to gain access into a nearby fort. Once inside the gates, the Apaches kill everyone in sight and burn the buildings to the ground.
When a motion picture begins with a highly dramatic series of killings, as it does here, there are two ways the story can proceed. Subsequent events can escalate, which means increased brutality and death…or the filmmakers can dial it down and hone in on the emotional repercussions that result from the massacre. Fortunately, this Fox ‘A’ western shifts gears and looks at the long-range psychological effects that occur after the initial carnage has played out.
There is a bit of a history lesson that is attached to the main storyline. Mature and his brother (Glenn Langan) arrive in the region, after the old army general is courtmartialed and dies of a stroke. The general’s their father. Mature and Langan take up residence in a boom town that springs up near the ravaged fort, called Furnace Creek.
The Homestead Act of 1880 has opened up the territory to settlers, miners and merchants— up to 10,000 of them who’ve come from the east in search of a better life. But Mature and Langan are not here to build a new life, as much as they are here to get answers about what happened to their father.
Using aliases, the bros launch their own investigation into the circumstances surrounding the massacre. They want to know who gave their father the orders to abandon the wagon train. During these scenes, we see an army captain (played by Reginald Gardiner) who was really responsible for issuing the command that led to the slaughter of so many innocent people. Gardiner was bribed by a local mining boss (Albert Dekker), a dodgy character with his own self-serving agenda.
As the general’s sons look for answers, each one approaches life differently. Langan, who is fresh from West Point, is more by-the-book; while Mature is somewhat roguish by nature and resorts to less savory tactics to uncover the truth. At the same time both these men get personally involved with a local cafe waitress (Coleen Gray), which creates a triangle.
The obligatory romantic complications ensue. Interestingly, Gray’s character is the daughter of a man who died at the fort on that horrible day the attack occurred. She feels the court-martial was conducted correctly, and that the general was to blame. It will take plenty of effort before all the facts come to light….before Dekker is caught and justice can be served. Only then will love be able to win out like it should.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 26, 2023 14:30:37 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
A race to the finish
It was a race to the finish in more ways than one. Two Hollywood studios both had pictures about a women’s air derby, but which one would get their entry into theaters first? I suppose it didn’t really matter, since each production was competently made, modestly entertaining and featured a strong ensemble of studio starlets.
While Warner Brothers’ WOMEN IN THE WIND had Kay Francis as the lead aviatrix with Eve Arden providing comic relief, 20th Century Fox’s TAIL SPIN had Alice Faye and Joan Davis. It also boasted a second lead in the form of Constance Bennett.
Miss Bennett is cast according to type as a wealthy playgirl. She enters the race to prove something to her doting daddy (Harry Davenport) and an ex (Kane Richmond) who’s also a flyer.
Bennett’s affluence puts her at odds with the rest of the gals who are working class types, especially Miss Faye. It doesn’t help that Faye’s fallen for Richmond, which creates a tricky triangle in the air and on the ground. This was Alice Faye’s first non-musical role at Fox, and she acquits herself nicely.
The producers have borrowed Jane Wyman from Warners. Why her home studio didn’t just put her in their own female flyer saga is beyond me. We also have Fox contract player Nancy Kelly in a strong supporting role. Miss Kelly gives the best performance, certainly the most memorable one, as a pilot whose husband has died. In her absolute grief, she takes to the skies and commits suicide with her plane. It’s heavy stuff and reminds this viewer of Andrea Leeds’ suicide in STAGE DOOR (1937).
Some contemporary reviewers complained that there were too many crashes. Wyman’s aircraft goes down, Kelly’s blows up, and Bennett also has engine trouble and must parachute to safety. But these events keep us glued to the screen. Most of it is pretty formulaic, but the aerial photography is boffo. And it’s always interesting to see a group of women take charge of their own destinies.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 5, 2023 15:38:38 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
Frontier law and order
Allan Dwan’s picturization of the legend of Wyatt Earp is a remake of an earlier Fox hit with the same title from 1934, starring George O’Brien. Seven years later the studio would produce yet another version of the oft-told tale with John Ford at the helm.
Randolph Scott, who plays Earp in the 1939 production, had recently appeared in JESSE JAMES and SUSANNAH OF THE MOUNTIES as lawmen. He had also been in the somewhat westernized LAST OF THE MOHICANS, with Binnie Barnes who also appears in this film.
Though Mr. Scott did not always play fully heroic men, he still usually appeared in roles that were likable. His part as an outright villain in THE SPOILERS was a rare exception. Mostly, he was a dependable presence in this genre and audiences could be sure the characters he played would be on the up-and-up.
Despite being top-billed, Scott is not featured in the majority of the film’s scenes. Much screen time in FRONTIER MARSHAL is given to the “supporting” actors, who function as co-leads. We have Cesar Romero as Doc Halliday [sic] and Miss Barnes as a fictional saloon gal a.k.a. prostitute.
Barnes dominates a lot of the scenes as a tough rebellious woman whose business and personal satisfaction is derived from rowdy activity. She’s a lot of fun to watch and drives the narrative harder than the other main characters do.
Meanwhile, Nancy Kelly’s character, the supposed lead female, shows up later and has less general involvement in the proceedings. Her character, Sarah Allen, is the one Doc loves most. They share a past in the medical field. She’s a nurse who helps professionally when Doc is ailing. Later they work together to save the life of a boy who’s been shot in the street.
Comparisons to Ford’s subsequent 1946 remake are inevitable. But I prefer the conciseness of Dwan’s storytelling. In this particular story there is no need for the excessive poetic cinematography that Ford favors.
People in a town like Tombstone, Arizona during the 1880s probably didn’t spend much time appreciating the scenery. Why should we? It was a place of carousing and sudden violence. And I would say that Allan Dwan’s version captures it perfectly. He gives us the grit and the actual energy of the place, not the laidback eloquent view.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 19, 2023 16:11:58 GMT
This neglected film is from 1954.
Joe
As the opening credits play, a large herd of cattle moves from one end of the screen to the other. This means two things– we are seeing the vast property of a powerful land baron; and we’re seeing it in CinemaScope. After the credits end, we cut to a prison where young Robert Wagner is being released. He’s been incarcerated for three years, and on his way home, he stops off at a government building in town. Inside the lobby, there’s a huge portrait hanging. He pauses to look at it.
It’s the image of Matthew Deveraux (Spencer Tracy), his deceased father. Next, the young man is confronted by a trio of older half-brothers (Richard Widmark, Hugh O’Brian and Earl Holliman). It’s not exactly a warm reunion. They have a deal in mind to send him away.
We learn about his relationship with a young girl (Jean Peters), as well as his mother (Katy Jurado), a squaw who went back to live with her people. Interestingly, the character Wagner portrays is named Joe. Five years later on Bonanza, Michael Landon played the half-breed son of a huge ranch owner…he was also named Joe.
Probably the weekly television series was inspired by this panoramic big screen western. And panoramic is the word for it. Filmed on location, BROKEN LANCE is an expansive, scenic and realistic looking outdoor drama. As we flashback to life at the Deveraux ranch three years earlier, we see Tracy as the imposing patriarch.
He’s the center of everything, and his three older sons resent his control over their lives. There’a scene where he metes out a punishment for his two middle sons, after they had been caught rustling his livestock. They’re greedy and twisted in their rebellion. Immediately, we can tell the Deveraux ranch is a giant place with a giant set of problems.
Wagner is not at all like his older siblings; he’s the tender heart of the family. He has some romantic moments with the girl he loves, but because he’s the son of a native woman, obstacles stand in their way. The next morning, there are other issues when old man Deveraux discovers a nearby copper mine is poisoning the water supply. A showdown ensues and in a violent turn of events, gunfire erupts and the mine goes up in flames.
This leads to a lawsuit with the owner of the mine, and in court things only go from bad to worse. Joe has been assigned blame for the standoff that destroyed property and injured many men. As Deveraux watches his youngest boy go off to jail, the three other sons take over the ranch, which they quickly begin to sell off to outsiders. Deveraux is not one to sit idly by and lose everything, so he goes after his worthless offspring to stop them; but he dies while riding the range.
What might seem to be a typical 50s western on the surface is something that plays out like a Shakespearean tragedy. The long flashback ends, and by this point, we have realized Spencer Tracy’s character is a frontier version of King Lear. There isn’t much left when Robert Wagner comes home– except a score to settle with his brothers for what they did to him and their pa.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 24, 2023 14:52:53 GMT
This neglected film is from 1955.
Involved by destiny
When LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING was released, 20th Century Fox was striving to bring more realism to the screen. The studio’s version of Han Suyin’s book challenged the production code, and it gave audiences something thrilling to watch.
Fox turned out other romance dramas in the mid-50s that were just as topical and sensational– PEYTON PLACE and ISLAND IN THE SUN come to mind. The adult subject matter was often adapted from daring stage plays or sexy novels.
William Holden was one of the most popular actors in Hollywood at this time, so it’s no surprise he was chosen to play the leading man. For over fifteen years, he had appeared in a succession of hits and was on the verge of being awarded an Oscar.
You might say Holden’s combination of charm, dashing looks and down-to-earth personality made him a quintessential post-WWII hero. He tended to play characters who knew what they wanted, and this is what his fans wanted.
Leading lady Jennifer Jones was known for conveying a nervous intensity. She often played two types of females– lonely single women or tempted married ones. She brought a spiritual quality to her roles– most evident in classics like SONG OF BERNADETTE and PORTRAIT OF JENNIE.
In LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING, Jones portrays a career woman of mixed race. Her character is seen as independent, but she becomes involved with Holden‘s character by destiny.
Interestingly, the film received a B rating by the Legion of Decency. The B rating meant Fox’s production was morally objectionable. It was regarded by the Catholic Church as promoting venal sin. Today it seems rather tame, and it gives us an interesting glimpse into how romantic stories were depicted on screen ten years after the war– when movies were trying to compete with television.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 1, 2023 8:15:41 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
What happens at night
Though the film starts a bit slow, once things get underway, we have a rather enjoyable and efficiently made comedy-drama from the folks at 20th Century Fox. By this point Sonja Henie had proven her worth at the box office. The studio often put her into comedies that allowed for a few ice skating sequences here and there. These concoctions typically paired her with Tyrone Power or John Payne.
However, the script for this production has a darker story involving an older gentleman hiding out from Gestapo agents after having escaped a concentration camp. Miss Henie plays the man’s daughter, who looks after him and ends up being romanced by two reporters (Ray Milland & Robert Cummings, borrowed from Paramount and Universal respectively).
While there are still some nice bits involving Henie and the two handsome young men, there is a sense of urgency and danger in this picture that is lacking in the actress’s other vehicles. As a result, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS AT NIGHT is a bit more potent and interesting to watch. Of course, there is still time to see the Scandinavian darling skate and also ski— she does almost as much skiing in some of her films as she does skating.
One of the film’s true highlights is an amusing bit with her and Cummings on the ice. His character is a show-off who thinks he can teach her some skating tricks. He quickly learns she is much more skilled than he is. It takes a good deal of talent to do comical shtick on ice, and Mr. Cummings certainly excels.
The plot involving the father (Yiddish actor Maurice Moscovitch) is at times secondary. Though Milland and Cummings are supposed to be in the alpine village to interview Moscovitch, we really don’t see the men doing much work— they are too distracted by the lovely young gal they’ve met!
Despite the more serious war-related background, this is still a feel-good Sonja Henie picture. All her films exude considerable charm. When they’re over, you realize you’ve been transported to a different realm. They don’t make movies like this anymore, and that’s a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 8, 2023 13:46:39 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Excellent equestrian drama
In the years immediately following the second world war, there was a cycle of equestrian dramas. Every major Hollywood studio made them, some more successful with audiences than others. This particular crowdpleaser did boffo box office for 20th Century Fox, and it helped cement Fred MacMurray’s reputation as a western star. In the 1950s he would headline a series of oaters, not always playing a morally upstanding type, but in SMOKY he is definitely the good guy.
SMOKY had been made by Fox in 1933 with Victor Jory in the lead role as the cowpunch horse tamer. That earlier production featured author Will James as narrator. The 1946 remake differs in a few ways. MacMurray is given the narrating duties, the casting has been slightly modernized and the story now takes place in rural postwar America. The images are presented in saturated, not quite garish, Technicolor. The studio would remake the property again in 1966, with Fess Parker.
I think this story works well, because it is unabashedly simple yet contains deep rumination about man and nature. It concerns itself with the treatment of animals and the need to choose kindness over cruelty. Some of the scenes where the title animal is whipped and nearly starved to death are shocking even by today’s standards.
Of course there has to be a slight romantic element. But to the filmmakers’ credit, Mr. MacMurray’s relationship with the horse remains central. He and Anne Baxter develop a sense of affection when he starts to work on her ranch, but it largely stays backgrounded. Intimacy between them is implied more than it is shown– they never kiss on screen and barely touch hands during one afternoon outing. Smoky is there with them the whole time.
The supporting cast is terrific. Burl Ives, in his motion picture debut, is a blacksmith that rides the range sometimes with the cowhands and brings his guitar along. Mr. Ives sings a half dozen traditional folk tunes, one a splendid rendition of ‘Jimmy Cracked Corn’ where the rest of the male cast join in. This makes for nice bonding between the men in this picture.
In addition to Ives, we have Roy Roberts as a suspicious ranch foreman; Bruce Cabot as MacMurray’s crooked brother; and J. Farrell MacDonald as an old timer. Another old timer is played by Esther Dale as Miss Baxer’s grandma. In a classic scene, she disapproves of how Baxter has cared for MacMurray after an injury. So she proceeds to rip the bandage off and start over. Ouch!
Except for Miss Dale’s involvement, this is a calming film. It makes one long to ride across the wide open range, even if you’ve never been on a horse before. The key component of the drama– about the belief one man has in the spirited but tamable quality of an animal– will stay with you long after the movie has ended.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 16, 2023 14:58:01 GMT
This neglected film is from 1957.
On an island together
This is one of my favorite films. It’s basically a two-character study, where only the stars– Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr– are billed in the opening credits; and there are no end credits. They are the only people we see until Japanese soldiers invade the atoll where they’re stranded. Even then, we mostly glimpse the Japanese at a distance…so our focus remains on these two.
What’s interesting is that we are not even given their full names. He is Mr. Allison no first name, a corporal in the Marines; and she is Sister Angela no last name, a nun from a strict Roman Catholic order. I am not even sure if we’re told what order exactly. Of course, it is suggested she’s Irish, while he’s obviously American. But we are not given many details about them, and their backstories are a bit vague.
The film starts with Mitchum’s character on a raft, floating up on shore a short time later. He carefully inspects the grounds and finds a dwelling near an old mission church. This is where he meets Kerr’s character, who it turns out is alone since an old priest she had been with just died. They get to know each other a little, and she lets him use a pipe that belonged to the deceased clergyman. She doesn’t explain her work or what made her become a nun in the first place.
She never even talks about her family background. The only thing she does explain is that she had come here looking for another priest who disappeared. It is not even mentioned what may have happened to the missing priest, whom I guess was possibly abducted or killed by the Japanese.
As for Mitchum, he says he was an orphan; that he was in and out of reform schools before joining the military and becoming a real man. He claims to have no wife or kids, no girlfriend anywhere. But I suppose it doesn’t matter where they’re from, because all that matters is being here together, on this unnamed island which despite its beauty is loaded with danger and an undercurrent of temptation.
You might say this is a survival-of-the-fittest type story. And neither one would probably survive this ordeal without each other. Some of what they face involves uncertainty about their collective fate; whether they will outlast the invasion of Japanese soldiers, while waiting for the allied forces to rescue them; and the feelings that dwell inside them as human beings.
Some scenes depict food gathering. There is a turtle hunt at the beginning which is quite amusing. And later he spears fish they must eat raw while hiding in a cave.
Other scenes play up their cultural differences and similarities. They are different in that he uses a lot of slang and is more informal; while she is more academic and literal in her use of language and interpretation of events.
There is also her nightly prayer ritual, which usually keeps him awake. And we see her reverence for religious symbols, which he recognizes when the mission church is burned. He saves a cross from the wreckage and presents it to her, which she still has with her at the end of the movie.
As for similarities, they are both disciplined and focused individuals. She has been trained by the church, while he has been trained by the Marine Corps. Plus we sense that fundamentally, they are both decent souls.
While the greatest conflict is their surviving the Japanese invasion, a few other smaller dramas occur. He gets drunk one night and asks her to marry him, after he has learned that she has not yet taken her final vows. This is followed by her subsequent illness, with him nursing her back to health.
In addition to this, he is forced to kill a Japanese soldier with his knife. The knife sort of takes on its own meaning, since he uses it for other things…such as sharpening bamboo sticks to spear the fish, and to craft a homemade comb for her which he hands to her as a gift. He also uses the knife to shave his beard. But when it is used to kill the enemy, he is reminded of his wartime mission.
HEAVEN KNOWS MR. ALLISON was produced by 20th Century Fox and filmed by John Huston in Trinidad and Tobago, though the story is set in the South Pacific. It is about how plans change suddenly based on new circumstances. It is also about how two people become life-long companions, a platonic Adam & Eve in their own version of Eden.
They are saved at the end, when the Allies bomb the Japanese and reclaim the island. The final scene has her by his side, after he’s been injured and carried off to an American ship. They will go on with the rest of their lives…they will never be the same and will always remember this shared experience. A time where they both faced fear and began to understand the real meaning of their existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 16, 2023 16:44:10 GMT
Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison from 1957 with Deborah Kerr and Robert Mitchum
A nun and a marine have to survive alone on an, alternatingly, abandoned and occupied-by-the-Japanese island in the South Pacific in WWII. It's a "two fish out of water forced together" tale that is funny, dramatic and romantic in all the right ways.
In Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison, Robert Mitchum plays the sole survivor of a sunk submarine who washes ashore on an island where Deborah Kerr, playing a nun, is the last remaining member (she stayed behind to care for a dying priest) of a Catholic mission.
Mitchum is a not-well-educated orphan who found his identity in the marines. The marines are his family in the way that clearly educated Kerr found her identity and family in the Catholic Church. On paper these two should be oil and water.
They aren't though because Mitchum is a marine driven by honor who kills to defend freedom and protect innocents, not out of a love of killing. Kerr, having seen the horrors of war, understands the need for men like Mitchum.
It helps that casually Christian Mitchum has a respect bordering on reverence for nuns. He sees his job on the island being one to protect her, not as a weak woman, but as a vessel of God to be admired, respected and consulted.
Kerr is strong, but recognizes Mitchum has skills she doesn't. It's an oddly modern relationship without any of today's forced ideological need to show Kerr throwing boulders around or physically saving Mitchum.
All of this comes out as Mitchum and Kerr live together on the island, initially, in a kind of peaceful refuge from the war all around. Then, when the Japanese show up to occupy the island, Kerr and Mitchum are forced to hide in a cave.
It's survival time now as Mitchum has to sneak into the Japanese camp for food for them. It's a tenuous existence, giving them time to get to know each other. Then the Japanese leave and it's celebration time, but they are back to being alone on the island.
When reasonably safe, there's some joy to their existence as they manage, after much bumbling, to capture a large sea turtle for food. There's also humor as when Mitchum assiduously whittles Kerr a comb only to learn that she never uncovers her short hair.
This intimacy leads to romantic feelings, but she is a nun and he, despite all his uncouthness, is a gentleman in the true sense of the word. Things will only happen if Kerr, who has yet to take her final vows, makes a life altering decision.
Director John Huston seamlessly shifts the movie back and forth from low-key comedy, to subtle romance to, at the end, drama and action when the Japanese reoccupy the island and the US Navy begins bombarding it for an invasion. It's impressive filmmaking.
Kerr garnered a much-deserved Oscar nomination as the thoughtful and pragmatic nun, but Mitchum, a Hollywood outsider, was passed over for his equally compelling performance as an innately kind soldier. Their on-screen chemistry is wonderful.
Heaven Know, Mr. Allison gets overlooked today, probably owing to its out-of-vogue religious theme and its blend of genres - war, drama, comedy and romance - but it's a gem of a movie with two iconic stars made by an iconic director that, today, deserves more attention. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 29, 2023 13:25:54 GMT
This neglected film is from 1943.
Marriage material
Monty Woolley plays a reclusive artist who’s been putting paint on canvas for 25 years in a tropic paradise. He receives a cable from London informing him that he’s to be knighted by the king and must travel back to rainy England for the occasion. Of course, he’s not too keen to return, but agrees to make the trip with the help of his loyal manservant (Eric Blore).
After arriving in London, Blore takes ill with pneumonia. Blore’s condition worsens, and he dies. This leaves Woolley with the task of notifying Blore’s relatives. When the doctor asks for the servant’s name to complete the death certificate, Woolley sees a chance to maintain his own privacy and gives his own name as the servant’s. Now everyone will think Woolley is dead, and he won’t need to be knighted by the king.
Such is the beginning of this beguiling and gentle comedy from Fox that was scripted by Nunnally Johnson and earned the writer an Oscar nomination. Woolley as always is pitch perfect with his line deliveries, deftly combining sharp-tongued quips with the necessary tenderness when a scene calls for it. Also Woolley performs a bit of physical comedy running from the cops when his character tries to tell an executor of his estate that he’s still alive and someone else is buried in his grave.
It’s a classic case of ‘careful what you wish for.’ A well-known man who guarded his private life has now become a nobody and is no longer believed to be telling the truth. It’s an amusing premise that easily sustains the picture’s 87 minute running time.
In addition to Woolly and Blore, we have some other fine character actors of the era in key roles. These include Laird Cregar as a gallery owner; Franklin Pangborn as the executor; and Una O’Connor as a bereaved widow. Also on hand is British star Gracie Fields who plays an unexpected love interest of Blore’s that Woolley must pretend to like, whom he eventually marries.
Fields makes such an impression in her role as the cockney wife that she practically steals the film. Fox execs were so taken with Fields and the wonderful chemistry she shares on screen with Woolley, she was signed to do another film with him. The follow-up was 1945’s MOLLY AND ME.
While the performances are a highlight, it’s Johnson’s carefully constructed screenplay that makes it all worthwhile to watch. His writing is attuned with both the ups and downs of celebrity, but also the ups and downs of married life. Some of it is unholy; much of it is quite holy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 29, 2023 14:11:02 GMT
I haven't seen this one ⇧, but agree that Woolley always gives a sincere and professional performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 3, 2024 15:41:35 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Angel and the madman
The set-up is quite simple. A wealthy Dutch landowner (Vincent Price), known as a patroon, has decided to reach out to a cousin (Anne Revere) on his grandmother’s side. He inquires if one of her daughters would like to provide childcare for his young daughter. We learn that Revere and husband Walter Huston are modest farmers in mid-19th century Connecticut. They are not well-off, and it is only by marriage that Revere is even quasi related to Price.
Gene Tierney plays the daughter who wants to go to upstate New York to work for Price and Price’s wife (Vivienne Osborne). She cannot go unless it is her father’s will and the will of the Lord. It’s a bit amusing to see Walter Huston as a bible-thumping patriarch, considering he had recently played the devil in THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER. Nonetheless, he consents and Tierney is allowed to travel to Price’s opulent mansion in the Hudson River valley, the titular Dragonwyck.
Of course, we know there are many adventures ahead and not all of them will be pleasant. Price’s estate is rife with secrets and inner turmoil, which Tierney’s presence will bring to the surface. The film was made a year after Miss Tierney gave an Oscar-nominated performance in Fox’s LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN. In that film she was an unhinged woman. This time, she’s much more angelic and wholesome. Price is the one who is unhinged, and of course, these types of roles would become his stock in trade for several decades.
Sometimes I am not sure if Gene Tierney is acting or if she is just a model posing as an actress. She has a fascinating screen presence and probably photographs better than any other Hollywood starlet of her generation. Because of her beauty, it is easy to see why Price would fall in love with her and scheme to get rid of his wife. Also, it makes sense she would attract a handsome doctor (Glenn Langan), thus forming the main triangle that plays out on screen.
The story doesn’t fully concern itself with matters of the heart, however. Part of Price’s megalomania involves his need to control the tenant farmers who rent land from him. He enjoys lording his power over the people who toil in the Hudson Valley. Though the writing doesn’t get too preachy, I did feel as if this was liberal filmmaking trying to comment about the need for modern-day labor unions, or at least co-ops that might be formed to reorganize power among the lower classes. So in a way this motion picture has a communist tinge to it.
All of the performances are uniformly good, and DRAGONWYCK features one of the finest supporting casts ever assembled. In addition to Revere, Huston and Osborne, we have Spring Byington as a saturnine housekeeper; Harry Morgan as one of the lowly farmers; and even Jessica Tandy is on hand as a woman who helps Tierney in her hour of need.
It’s exquisitely produced by 20th Century Fox and nicely directed by Joseph Mankiewicz who wrote the screenplay based on Anya Seton’s novel. But as is often the case with Mr. Mankiewicz, some scenes are rather talky and go on too long.
The most interesting aspect of the story, namely Price’s secret drug addiction, is kept in the shadows…probably because the production code would only permit the suggestion of such horror, not the actual depiction of it on camera. As a result, much is left to the viewers’ imaginations, and in this case, we are expected to make quite a few assumptions about Price’s character. For instance, we are not told why he has developed an addiction or what the root cause of his deranged behavior may be.
Still there is a lot to recommend DRAGONWYCK. Despite not all the elements successfully gelling, and despite the heavy-handed pro-labor aspects of the plot, it is worth watching at least once. It won’t leave you too emotionally scarred.
|
|
