|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 26, 2022 17:48:59 GMT
Reviews for UA films will be placed here.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 29, 2022 16:38:37 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Raines makes an impact on Donlevy
 One usually doesn’t think of Brian Donlevy as a leading man. Even when the actor receives top billing in a film, he tends to play a more villainous type of character…hardly a guy who elicits our respect or sympathy. But in this noir released through United Artists, Mr. Donlevy is cast as a likable romantic lead.
He’s an intelligent entrepreneur who puts his wife (Helen Walker), stockholders and employees first. Unfortunately, wifey is two-timing him and when his back is turned, she begins to plot his murder with her lover (Tony Barrett). Of course, Donlevy is unaware of these schemes until it’s too late.
There’s a memorable sequence involving Donlevy and Barrett along a mountain road. Barrett knocks Donlevy out and pushes his body off the side of a cliff, then Barrett takes off in Donlevy’s car. However, the vehicle crashes with an oncoming truck and explodes. Donlevy wakes up a short time later and disoriented, makes his way back up to the road where he hitches a ride away from the site of the dangerous accident.
When the authorities investigate the crash, Donlevy’s body is not found, believed to have been burned in the fire. Not surprisingly Walker is overjoyed that her plan seems to have succeeded. She is now a rich “widow” and can live it up.
Meanwhile, Donlevy has gone off to a small Idaho town and is experiencing amnesia. While the memory loss gimmick is contrived, it does allow the character to get back to basics. He takes a job as a mechanic at a local garage.
During this period, he falls in love with the lady owner (Ella Raines)…a gal who genuinely cares for him. Donlevy and Raines share excellent chemistry, and the pair would make two other films together at Republic. The Idaho-based scenes have a Capra-esque quality to them.
At the same time we see Walker back in San Francisco, facing a few unexpected difficulties. A servant woman (Anna May Wong) who had been loyal to Donlevy suspects Walker of Donlevy’s “murder” and poses a problem.
Plus a pesky detective (Charles Coburn in a straight dramatic role), is sniffing around Columbo-style. Coburn’s a lot of fun to watch, unnerving Walker, and his part is similar to the inspector character he played in LURED.
Eventually there’s enough evidence to arrest and convict Walker. This turn of events coincides with Donlevy regaining his memory, and his return from the dead. Some of what occurs on screen is rather routine, but the story moves along at a decent pace. It’s nice to see Donlevy as a good guy enjoying a happy ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 29, 2022 17:21:01 GMT
⇧ Outstanding review of a complex story that's not easy to summarize.
⇩ Below are my less-coherent comments from a few years back on the same movie.
Impact from 1949 with Brian Donlevy, Ella Raines, Charles Coburn and Helen Walker
A solid noir with an engaging but full-of-holes plot that still works as the twists and turns are fun enough if you don't over analyze them and the actors are strong, although Donlevy is a bit too old for the role.
Okay, here goes: wealthy industrialist deeply loves his wife who is plotting to have her boyfriend kill him (she's not the get-her-hands-dirty type of femme fatal) by having the boyfriend pose as a cousin who wants to ride along with the husband from LA to Denver - the boyfriend plans to kill the husband along the way. But things go very wrong in a wonderfully over-the-top noir scene of attempted murder including a lug wrench, cliff fall, car crash, fire and, then, mistaken identity of a burned body.
After that, the movie moves into classic noir mode - smart, affable, older detective very slowly but persistently unravels wife's explanation while believed-to-be-but-not-actually dead husband (you'd learn this in the first twenty or so minutes) assumes another identity hoping to let his wife be convicted of his murder. If it sounds confusing - it is, but it only ramps up from there with new loves, new clues, dramatic headlines, last minute evidence produced at trial, in part, by a trip to Chinatown to find a crucial witness.
It's all a bit crazy, but is helped along by the outstanding acting of the beautiful Ella Raines (she does her beauty the timeless way - quietly understated but with bone structure that can't be denied, plus flawless skin) as the husband's new love interest, conscience and insanely good ammeter sleuth who partners up with the old detective. Throw in classic noir scenes of San Francisco (film noir's co-capital city along with New York) and outstanding cars, clothes and architectural time travel to the late '40s and it's well worth the two-hour investment despite its believability issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 29, 2022 21:47:25 GMT
⇧ Outstanding review of a complex story that's not easy to summarize.
⇩ Below are my less-coherent comments from a few years back on the same movie.
Impact from 1949 with Brian Donlevy, Ella Raines, Charles Coburn and Helen Walker
A solid noir with an engaging but full-of-holes plot that still works as the twists and turns are fun enough if you don't over analyze them and the actors are strong, although Donlevy is a bit too old for the role.
Okay, here goes: wealthy industrialist deeply loves his wife who is plotting to have her boyfriend kill him (she's not the get-her-hands-dirty type of femme fatal) by having the boyfriend pose as a cousin who wants to ride along with the husband from LA to Denver - the boyfriend plans to kill the husband along the way. But things go very wrong in a wonderfully over-the-top noir scene of attempted murder including a lug wrench, cliff fall, car crash, fire and, then, mistaken identity of a burned body.
After that, the movie moves into classic noir mode - smart, affable, older detective very slowly but persistently unravels wife's explanation while believed-to-be-but-not-actually dead husband (you'd learn this in the first twenty or so minutes) assumes another identity hoping to let his wife be convicted of his murder. If it sounds confusing - it is, but it only ramps up from there with new loves, new clues, dramatic headlines, last minute evidence produced at trial, in part, by a trip to Chinatown to find a crucial witness.
It's all a bit crazy, but is helped along by the outstanding acting of the beautiful Ella Raines (she does her beauty the timeless way - quietly understated but with bone structure that can't be denied, plus flawless skin) as the husband's new love interest, conscience and insanely good ammeter sleuth who partners up with the old detective. Throw in classic noir scenes of San Francisco (film noir's co-capital city along with New York) and outstanding cars, clothes and architectural time travel to the late '40s and it's well worth the two-hour investment despite its believability issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 29, 2022 22:50:35 GMT
⇧ Outstanding review of a complex story that's not easy to summarize.
⇩ Below are my less-coherent comments from a few years back on the same movie.
Impact from 1949 with Brian Donlevy, Ella Raines, Charles Coburn and Helen Walker
A solid noir with an engaging but full-of-holes plot that still works as the twists and turns are fun enough if you don't over analyze them and the actors are strong, although Donlevy is a bit too old for the role.
Okay, here goes: wealthy industrialist deeply loves his wife who is plotting to have her boyfriend kill him (she's not the get-her-hands-dirty type of femme fatal) by having the boyfriend pose as a cousin who wants to ride along with the husband from LA to Denver - the boyfriend plans to kill the husband along the way. But things go very wrong in a wonderfully over-the-top noir scene of attempted murder including a lug wrench, cliff fall, car crash, fire and, then, mistaken identity of a burned body.
After that, the movie moves into classic noir mode - smart, affable, older detective very slowly but persistently unravels wife's explanation while believed-to-be-but-not-actually dead husband (you'd learn this in the first twenty or so minutes) assumes another identity hoping to let his wife be convicted of his murder. If it sounds confusing - it is, but it only ramps up from there with new loves, new clues, dramatic headlines, last minute evidence produced at trial, in part, by a trip to Chinatown to find a crucial witness.
It's all a bit crazy, but is helped along by the outstanding acting of the beautiful Ella Raines (she does her beauty the timeless way - quietly understated but with bone structure that can't be denied, plus flawless skin) as the husband's new love interest, conscience and insanely good ammeter sleuth who partners up with the old detective. Throw in classic noir scenes of San Francisco (film noir's co-capital city along with New York) and outstanding cars, clothes and architectural time travel to the late '40s and it's well worth the two-hour investment despite its believability issues.
I haven't seen "The Big Combo," which led me to look up what other movies of Walker's I've seen and I was surprised to find she has a pretty thin movie resume (23 credits), but I have seen her in a few of them in addition to "Impact" and "Nightmare Alley." You wonder - I didn't read her IMDB bio - why she didn't have a bigger career. But I think the same thing about Raines; sometimes it just doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 3, 2022 15:23:52 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
We resurrect
Universal had already made a precode drama using Leo Tolstoy’s ‘Resurrection’ as its source material in 1931. That first sound version of the literary classic starred John Boles and Lupe Velez and kept Tolstoy’s title. But when independent producer Sam Goldwyn decided to remake the story, he apparently felt the word resurrection was too complex for the average moviegoer to understand, so he simplified it to the phrase ‘we live again’ which is uttered several times in the dialogue on screen.
Goldwyn couldn’t have chosen a finer lead actor than Fredric March to play Prince Dimitri. Mr. March earned two Oscars for his work in other pictures, but I’d argue that he gives his best performance here. In the earlier sequences his prince is conceited, somewhat naive and highly sexual. In the later sequences he is astonishingly humble, heroic and contrite as to affect redemption. He does a wonderful job exploring the many facets of his intriguing character.
For the leading lady, Mr. Goldwyn has cast his European discovery Anna Sten as the peasant girl whose life is forever changed by the prince. Goldwyn had tried unsuccessfully to turn Miss Sten into the next Garbo in Hollywood, and much is written elsewhere about that.
I think she got a raw deal and was overly scrutinized by critics. I have always been a fan of Miss Sten’s intense yet sincere acting. She is always luminous on screen with flawless skin and those gorgeous eyes, rendering her one of the most beautiful women on celluloid. She photographed better than anyone else, including Garbo and Dietrich.
Adding to Sten’s idiosyncratic charms is her keen understanding of the material. Just like March, she has to portray many facets of her character. She morphs from simple servant girl who has a child out of wedlock, to a wiser woman who has suffered the tragic loss of her child. She then resorts to prostitution to survive. Later, when she is on trial for the murder of a client, she has become a cold-hearted snake, seemingly devoid of all her previous innocence.
Of course March crosses paths with her again, and he realizes the part he played in her downfall. He feels a personal sense of responsibility to not only redeem himself and denounce all his worldly goods, but to help redeem Sten too, despite her resistance. It’s a fascinating two-character study.
Some of the dialogue is quite memorable, and it probably would have seemed overwrought with lesser actors. March says: “I have so much to do, so many wrongs to make right. Give me courage not to fail. Help me dear God to live again.” When he sees Sten, he elaborates further: “We still have life before us. We must do all we can to raise ourselves.”
But Sten retorts angrily: “Raise ourselves? You can’t raise the dead. We won’t live again. Not you and I. Why did you come back? I had learned to live without happiness. Now you come back and say such things and make me feel again. Why do you torment me?” As the dialogue rings in our ears, we realize he will leave his life with all its materialist trappings for a principle. He is wrestling with conscience and with love. He knows he can live again with her forgiveness and her help.
On a personal level, these speeches and the characters' situations resonated with me. I remembered times I had been severely wronged…as well as times I had seriously wronged others. I am still working on my own redemption. Maybe someday I will experience a full resurrection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Nov 3, 2022 16:27:34 GMT
While, Topbilled and I had an, overall, different take on the movie, I found his thoughts and perspective on it smart, insightful and touching. It's clear he had a more personal connection with the movie than I did. It's interesting to see the different takes we have on these pictures.
We Live Again from 1934 with Fredric March and Anna Sten
Hollywood, Samuel Goldwyn and too many screenwriters turned Leo Tolstoy's novel Resurrection into a mess of a movie in We Live Again. The confused title is the first clue that this is a muddled effort.
The movie's awkward blend of communism, Christianity and an uninspiring love story, starring Fredric March and not-Greta-Garbo-like Anna Sten, properly bombed at the box office when it came out, but today can be seen as an early 1930s Tinseltown political and philosophical curio.
Based on the class struggles that, eventually, led to the communist revolution in Russia, We Live Again opens with some good old-fashioned Depression Era commie propaganda as espoused by a young, idealistic, pre-revolution, wealthy Russian prince played by Fredric March.
His family indulges his radicalism a bit as they try to steer him to a respectable military career and proper marriage, but he has eyes for the servant girl played by Anna Sten. After a quickie with her late one night, he has to leave the next day on maneuvers so he never discovers that she became pregnant.
She is dismissed because that was what was done with pregnant servant girls then. After her baby dies, she moves to Moscow. Seven years later, March is now a successful officer about to marry a woman of his class, while Sten has become a prostitute.
Their paths cross again when Sten is accused of murder at a trial where March is a juror. After the jury's exonerating verdict is misunderstood based on a technicality, Sten is sentenced to five years hard labor in Siberia.
March now has his epiphany moment where all his forgotten youthful ideals flow back to him. After a stubborn bureaucracy rebukes his efforts to help Sten, March goes full-radical communist.
You almost understand why there was a Russian revolution when you watch one mindless and heartless bureaucrat after another dismiss March's pleas for obvious justice for Sten. Back then, before it was tested in the real world, one could at least hope that communism would solve that uncaring bureaucracy problem.
The climax is a wealthy 1930s radical Hollywood screenwriter's dream of how a man of conscience should behave until "come the revolution." It must have felt great to strike a blow for the working class before heading off to an expensive dinner at the Brown Derby.
Whatever your political views, this is not a good movie. Anna Sten, Samuel Goldwyn's attempt to "discover" the next Greta Garbo, emotes and gestures as if she's in a silent movie where she seems surprised to discover she's speaking.
She's pretty and maybe could have been an okay actress, but being thrown into the deep end of the acting pool earlier in her career, ruined her.
March gives it his all and it's a professional effort, but he can't overcome a lack of chemistry with Sten, a movie that never decided on one tone or style, painfully awkward transitions and the aforementioned radical and radically confused politics.
One thing We Live Again does have going for it today, maybe because its leftist views are never out of style in Hollywood, is a beautiful restoration.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 25, 2022 16:01:02 GMT
This neglected film is from 1943.
To be free of tyranny
Fritz Lang and fellow German expatriate Bertolt Brecht collaborated to bring audiences this chilling tale about the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich (Hans Twardoswski). The Nazi official’s reign of terror against the Czechs had also been depicted in HITLER’S MADMAN (1943).
This version starts out rather slowly and presents life in a small village that is relatively quiet until the assassination occurs. A local woman (Anna Lee) witnesses the tail end of the event, with the killer fleeing the scene. Brian Donlevy plays the killer, a doctor involved with an underground movement, who uses an alias.
Donlevy ends up seeking refuge at the home of Lee and her family. Walter Brennan is Miss Lee’s father, a professor of history. He’s sympathetic to Donlevy’s situation and agrees to help the fugitive hide from the Gestapo. An inspector named Gruber (Alexander Granach, who gives new meaning to the phrase scene stealer) makes it his personal mission to ferret out the assassin. Even if it means arresting Brennan.
Granach also finds time to harrass Lee, when Brennan refuses to talk and provide the Gestapo with the killer’s name. The Gestapo’s heavy-handed tactics fail, causing Lee, her boyfriend (Dennis O’Keefe) and other members of the community to band together and support the underground movement’s resistance efforts.
Lang’s smooth direction is aided by fine performances, Brecht’s screenplay and James Wong Howe’s noir-like cinematography. Though the film runs two hours and fourteen minutes, it all manages to move along at a fairly brisk pace.
Several subplots keep us fully engaged. Not only do we have a political love triangle between Lee, Donlevy & O’Keefe, we also have Brennan’s scenes at a detention center with other hostages. Day after day, one by one, the hostages are executed as none of them will cooperate with the Gestapo. These scenes are rather grim and emphasize the brutality and oppression the Czechs faced.
There is also an interesting side story involving Gene Lockhart as a smarmy double-crossing businessman. He pretends to be part of the underground, but then betrays the agitators and turns them over to Granach. Eventually Lee and the other villagers decide to frame Lockhart for Heydrich’s murder, to prevent any more needless executions of the hostages.
The part where Lockhart realizes he’s being set up and is powerless to stop it, is most riveting. He has a very memorable death scene.
For some reason we are not told whether Brennan’s character was spared. We also do not see if Lee ends up marrying O’Keefe, or what happens to Donlevy. Still this is a very compelling motion picture that allows great introspection about what it means to be free of tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 7, 2022 15:47:46 GMT
This neglected film is from 1940.
Turnabout is fair play
Thorne Smith, the writer of whimsical supernatural comedies, has another one of his stories adapted to the big screen with TURNABOUT. Mr. Smith, the same man responsible for the foibles of a guy named Topper, has a way with outlandish scenarios that seem to set up a bevy of amusing gags. And while the results are sometimes uneven in this particular offering from Hal Roach’s studio, you have to admire its makers for taking risks.
Comedy is about taking risks. After all, what tickles the funny bone for one person may fail to generate a laugh for another. Still TURNABOUT has such an original premise that even when the gags, pratfalls and nonsensical dialogue do not quite register, we still remain invested in the outcome. Part of our investing in this is based on the palpable chemistry exhibited by the film’s two leads, John Hubbard and Carole Landis.
Hubbard and Landis are spouses who have settled into the humdrum routines of married life, and frankly, they seem to be arguing quite a bit. Each one is rather unhappy, or is it unfulfilled, in their respective marital roles. Hubbard dreads the grind of going to the office each day and dealing with a bunch of stuffed shirts that include boss Adolphe Menjou and coworker William Gargan.
At the same time Landis abhors the drudgery of being stuck at home and having to perform the expected housewife duties…despite the fact that she has a maid (Marjorie Main) and a butler (Donald Meek) to help. Meek seems particularly frightened by his employers’ increasing dissatisfaction with the general set-up.
This is where another “character” gets involved. An oriental looking statue resembling a makeshift Buddha suddenly becomes animated and casts a spell of sorts on the young couple.
This causes them to switch bodies. We’ve seen body switches in other movies, like FREAKY FRIDAY (mom and daughter) and 18 AGAIN! (grandfather and grandson). But TURNABOUT was the first example, and it goes further, since the switch involves different genders.
The middle section of the story has Landis inhabiting Hubbard’s body, going to his office, doin his job and various masculine things. While she/he is bringing home the bacon, we have Hubbard in Landis’ body, doing feminine things wives do; some of what he/she does is hilarious.
From an editing standpoint, this is achieved with dialogue from one performer dubbed over the other. Of course, they have to combine aspects of both genders in their performances. It’s all pretty clever.
Despite the obvious gimmicky nature of the plot, this is actually a “deep” screwball comedy, if such a thing exists. We get meaningful commentary on two spouses realizing what it’s like to be in the other one’s shoes, literally. They gain newfound appreciation and respect for each other. They learn something from the experience, and so do we.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 20, 2022 15:09:04 GMT
This neglected film is from 1959.
Classic snow western
What impresses me about DAY OF THE OUTLAW is how director Andre DeToth and his cinematographer Russell Harlan give the landscape such reverential treatment. The Oregon setting is almost as much a main character as the people in the story.
DAY OF THE OUTLAW was shot in black-and-white in a cold wintery period of the year, which makes it look bleaker than most ’50s westerns. It features more criminal elements than we typically see in the genre, indicating Andre DeToth’s predilection for noir and to some extent, horror, which he delved into with HOUSE OF WAX.
I don’t think DeToth could have found a better group of performers to tell this type of story. With the exception of TV star David Nelson in a supporting role, the cast is comprised of Method actors.
Nelson’s naive quality and wholesome charm is a perfect contrast to the others. His character is a crook who will eventually be redeemed by the love of an innocent girl (Venetia Stevenson). But the other members of the cast are much rougher…they’re heavy hitters. People like Burl Ives and Robert Ryan.
Watching the tale unfold, we are lulled into a sense of complacency. Initially we have a fairly routine western on our hands, a drama about a land war. But then suddenly some rogues show up, led by Ives, and there are bigger problems to deal with that make Ryan’s issues with his neighbors now seem much less important. They have to band together against the violent outsiders invading their community.
Ives’ character represents a sort of anarchy that wouldn’t really be seen in American society until after Kennedy’s assassination, which was at least three years off.
As a response to such lawlessness and disorder, Ryan has to kill Ives before Ives and his men wreck civilization as the townspeople know it.
We figure a showdown will occur on the main street of town. But that is scuppered, when Ives is in need of surgery to remove a bullet from a previous altercation. The operation occurs at the same time his men are having a dance with the local women. One of the ladies is played by Tina Louise.
She is married to a cowardly man (Alan Marshal), who stands by when she is forced to entertain members of Ives’ gang in an elongated dance scene. As the dance continues, we see how increasingly uncomfortable and jarring it is for the women to endure such beastly “affection.” It seems as if one of the ladies will be sexually assaulted but the film never quite goes there which adds to the tension.
The tension only increases when Ives recovers from makeshift surgery and forces a change in Ryan’s plan. Ryan offers to help Ives and his men escape, before authorities reach the town. The only way out is up into the mountains during a heavy blizzard.
From here, it becomes a matter of who will survive the harsh storm. Will Ryan be able to outmaneuver Ives? And if he does, will he make it back to a town that is never going to forget the day an outlaw was in charge..?
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 2, 2023 15:05:57 GMT
This neglected film is from 1936.
Amity
This was David Selznick’s first independent production, a huge moneymaker in its day– easy to see why audiences loved it– and it was the first sound version of Frances Hodgson Burnett’s novel.
Selznick bought the rights from Mary Pickford who had made a silent film of the story in 1921. Pickford played the young boy, Ceddie, and his mother known as Dearest. But Selznick’s production avoids such unrealistic stunt casting, and he has placed Freddie Bartholomew into the lead role while handing Dolores Barrymore the mother’s part. They’re wonderful and ever so believable on screen together, especially in the earlier sequences.
They are joined by some of the very best character actors and actresses in Hollywood at that time– Jessie Ralph as an apple vendor; Henry Stephenson as a dignified lawyer; Guy Kibbee as a grocer (stealing every scene he’s in); Constance Collier as a society matron; and of course C. Aubrey Smith as Ceddie’s grandfather the distinguished earl. We also have Mickey Rooney and Jackie Searl in supporting roles. It’s a dream cast.
I think what makes this film work so well is how carefully the plot strands unspool, and how there is meticulous attention to detail. But the details do not overwhelm the story, because the primary focus remains characterization. Every character in the young lord’s orbit is carefully defined, and he has a reciprocal relationship with everyone he knows. They all gain something from knowing him, and he gains something from know them.
Another thing that makes the film work is that while the main storyline is noble, it never takes it self too seriously. There is plenty of humor sprinkled throughout, and this is reinforced by some of the performances which are slightly tongue-in-cheek yet always sincere.
Ultimately what we glimpse on screen is a measured study of contrasts. Things like amity between America and England; the dealings of the older generation and the younger generation; and how noblesse oblige can define the relationship between the rich and the poor. All these things are filtered through the experiences of an idealistic lad, and of course, lives change as a result of what happens to him.
The last sequence brought tears to my eyes. Isn’t it extraordinary how something that was written so long ago, and filmed so long ago, still has the power to entertain and move us?
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 6, 2023 15:55:23 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Careful tense stares
Howard Da Silva made this film on the verge of being blacklisted. He appears briefly in the first few minutes, then doesn’t reappear until the 70 minute mark (it’s only a 91 minute movie). Despite minimal screen time, he is still able to etch a memorable character…a gangster that finds a way to keep the media on his side, when the cops try to bring him down.
Another good performance belongs to Herbert Marshall, as a newspaper baron whose son (Gar Moore) kills someone in cold blood. He helps cover up the crime to uphold their family name, then things backfire significantly.
We don’t get to the murder right away. The initial portion of the film spends time establishing a relationship between Dan Duryea and Gail Storm, who play news hounds.
Mr. Duryea comes to Miss Storm’s town looking for a fresh start. He buys into her struggling news business, which is really no match for Marshall’s empire– and the two get off on the wrong foot. Mostly because they approach stories from different vantage points. She favors a homespun take on current events, and he looks for the scandalous elements to increase circulation.
Of course, we know Duryea and Storm will fall in love while arguing. But the second half of the film backgrounds their romance, because the murder cover-up and its connection to the mob is where most of the real drama occurs.
The film was made with a modest budget. Its cheapness is evident in the newspaper office scenes which seem to have been shot inside a warehouse.
However, the black-and-white cinematography by director Cy Endfield and his cameraman Stanley Cortez goes a long way to enhance the picture’s overall visual appeal…providing shadows galore that add a level of depth to conceal the cheap looking sets.
It helps tremendously when they shoot outdoors in the streets and at an actual cemetery, since more authentic locations counteract the studio interiors.
THE UNDERWORLD STORY benefits from deliberately slow pacing. If this was a B film made at a major studio, the narrative would be rushed and crammed into 60 minutes. But because they have stretched it out to an hour and a half, we get a lot of extra pauses and reflections…insights to the characters and their motivations.
The dialogue is a trifle pedestrian in spots, but pros like Herbert Marshall and Howard Da Silva keep it interesting– if not for the words they are uttering but for the reactions they are generating and the careful tense stares that seem to go so well with this kind of story.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 11, 2023 14:41:01 GMT
This neglected film is from 1956.
Selling out?
PATTERNS is an adaptation of a teleplay by Rod Serling and was released through United Artists. Mr. Serling, who wrote great anthology dramas like ‘Requiem for a Heavyweight,’ seems to have fashioned a story here that might be called ‘Requiem for a Company Man.’
At the risk of spoiling the plot too much…Ed Begley plays an aging executive that is disgraced by an abusive boss (Everett Sloane). He refuses to resign and is soon embroiled in a vicious battle that puts his life in jeopardy.
Meanwhile, Van Heflin (taking over from Richard Kiley in the original TV version) plays a younger colleague who is groomed to take over.
While the motion picture is fairly engaging, there are a few things that crop up. One main question—what is the message of this film? Are we supposed to feel sorry for the old executive who is being squeezed out? Or are we supposed to realize that in the dog-eat-dog world of high-powered business, it’s a bloodthirsty sport where only the fittest survive?
Maybe the message is to stand up to workplace bullies? When reaching the end of this film, one wonders if Serling’s script originally had a different resolution in mind. All the different points of view established in the story do not seem to be given closure before the final fade out.
Begley’s son learns about his father’s tragedy off screen, so we are deprived of seeing the impact it has on him. Meanwhile, we are not sure what Heflin’s wife is willing to do make sure her husband will succeed.
In a lot of his other works, Serling never intends for the story to be ambiguous or left to interpretation, because he seems to have a goal with the narrative. But in this case, there is not much of an ending, almost like he was afraid to give us the whole truth.
Serling approaches the subject matter in a hard-hitting style at first, but then seems to soften in the middle. As a result, PATTERNS loses its backbone and bogs down in sympathy and maudlin melodrama. Ultimately, the story is just a chronicle of boardroom maneuvering like EXECUTIVE SUITE, but this is a disappointing turn of events. Especially, since the story had such potential as a damning indictment of the abuses and corruption that take place at the top.
In EXECUTIVE SUITE, we see a transferring of power at the end of the picture. But in PATTERNS, all we see is a potential threat to the established hierarchy. We are not even assured that Van Heflin’s character will beat Sloane. PATTERNS is a work that attempts to examine a complicated issue, sets it up in black-and-white good-versus-evil tones, but then seems to leave us wondering what might happen next.
Of course, it’s a worthwhile film to watch, if not for the vague ending…for the extraordinary performances that bring 84 minutes of corporate drama to life on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 11, 2023 17:18:25 GMT
Patterns from 1956 with Van Heflin, Ed Begley and Everett Sloane
Patterns, a business boardroom drama, started life as a teleplay written by the, at that time, relatively unknown Rod Serling. Its success prompted Hollywood to make it into a low-budget, but well-cast movie that foreshadowed the haymaker style of dialogue writing and delivery that's become the norm of business and political movies and television shows today.
Van Heflin plays a smart and relatively young executive whose success running a regional plant prompts his hiring into the executive suite of the Wall Street headquarters of his company. As the movie opens, we see him being introduced to his fellow executives while he's ushered into his well-appointed office. Equally inviting, the company found, furnished and decorated an attractive home for him and his wife.
The bonhomie of the first day is quickly shattered, though, when at his inaugural executive meeting, the head of the company, played by Everett Sloane, viciously browbeats Van Heflin's new partner, an older executive played by Ed Begley.
Heflin is stunned as he realizes he's in some sort of corporate thunderdome where he doesn't know the rules or the players - it's a heck of a first day at work.
It takes a bit for the puzzle to become clear to Heflin, but he eventually realizes that he was brought in, in part, to replace Begley, not work with him. This is made harder for Heflin as he begins to like and respect Begley, a tired executive now cracking under Sloane's abuse.
Heflin finds no solace at home from his social-climbing and greedy wife who wants her husband to be as cutthroat as necessary to get ahead; she even helps throw Begley under the bus behind her husband's back.
Sitting at the center of this executive suite war is Everett Sloane whose business philosophy is a dark combination of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Ayn Rand where the only measure of a man's worth is his ability to compete better, manage better and drive the business better than the next man.
In this contrived setup, Begley is a sympathetic character shown to be a caring father whose confidence is being systematically undermined, while Van Heflin is the moral outsider who sees the injustice. Sloane, more a caricature than character, takes joy in maliciously destroying Begley under the pretext of doing what's right for the business.
The dialogue throughout is smart and powerful in the modern way that characters spit out complex philosophical thoughts in long flawless speeches seemingly on the fly. When Van Heflin and Sloane have the climatic face off the entire movie has been leading up to, the scene will have you gripping the arms of your chair over what is, effectively, two men fighting about the role of an executive.
Kudos to writer Rod Serling for creating an exaggerated but compelling look at business-leadership philosophy, a subject that usually has one's head bobbing forward and eyelids closing.
All our sympathies, here, are with Begley and Heflin because Serling set it up that way, but the reality is Begley should have resigned as, it was noted, he'd have his pension and wouldn't have the shame of being fired. The few people who get to the top of a company are expected to perform like professional ballplayers and when they can't, they should be replaced.
Every employee and every shareholder of the company relies on the top executives to make critical decisions that ensure the survival and success of the company. Executive jobs come with plenty of pay and perks, including attractive retirement packages in exchange for an unforgiving demand for top performance.
So while Patterns tells a compelling story that shows business in an unflattering light - Sloane's character is loathsome - had the facts remained unchanged, but the characters tweaked, we'd see a completely different picture.
Had Sloane been a gentler version of himself trying to kindly encourage Begley, a man whose day at the top of the business world had passed, to retire comfortably and had Begley been shown to be an greedy executive not willing to give up his luxurious perks and high compensation, our sympathies would switch sides, but the facts would not be that different.
Patterns is impressive for what it does with actors, dialogue and not much else. There are a few story-framing New York City location shots, but the bulk of the action takes place on a foreboding executive floor. Serling tossed in a loyal-to-Begley secretary and a loving son, but they are just props to further sway our emotions to Begley.
The picture is contrived and aggressively tendentious, but the viewer can still form his own opinions about right and wrong. Patterns the movie works, though, for the same reason most good movies work, you care about the characters and conflict in this well-written and well-acted boardroom drama.
N.B. As a kid from NJ and just out of college in the mid 1980s, my first job on Wall Street was working for a firm that was in the same building, 120 Broadway, used as the corporate headquarters in Patterns. I was a bit awed to be working in such a building.
Opened in 1915, 120 Broadway has the distinction of being the first skyscraper to take up a full city block in Manhattan. It is a beautiful and impressive behemoth of a building whose architecture can't help but inspire you. It's no surprise that the makers of Patterns, looking for a skyscraper that said "this" is the center of the business world, chose The Equitable Building.
And the lobby today:
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 11, 2023 22:26:46 GMT
Patterns from 1956 with Van Heflin, Ed Begley and Everett Sloane
Patterns, a business boardroom drama, started life as a teleplay written by the, at that time, relatively unknown Rod Serling. Its success prompted Hollywood to make it into a low-budget, but well-cast movie that foreshadowed the haymaker style of dialogue writing and delivery that's become the norm of business and political movies and television shows today.
Van Heflin plays a smart and relatively young executive whose success running a regional plant prompts his hiring into the executive suite of the Wall Street headquarters of his company. As the movie opens, we see him being introduced to his fellow executives while he's ushered into his well-appointed office. Equally inviting, the company found, furnished and decorated an attractive home for him and his wife.
The bonhomie of the first day is quickly shattered, though, when at his inaugural executive meeting, the head of the company, played by Everett Sloane, viciously browbeats Van Heflin's new partner, an older executive played by Ed Begley.
Heflin is stunned as he realizes he's in some sort of corporate thunderdome where he doesn't know the rules or the players - it's a heck of a first day at work.
It takes a bit for the puzzle to become clear to Heflin, but he eventually realizes that he was brought in, in part, to replace Begley, not work with him. This is made harder for Heflin as he begins to like and respect Begley, a tired executive now cracking under Sloane's abuse.
Heflin finds no solace at home from his social-climbing and greedy wife who wants her husband to be as cutthroat as necessary to get ahead; she even helps throw Begley under the bus behind her husband's back.
Sitting at the center of this executive suite war is Everett Sloane whose business philosophy is a dark combination of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Ayn Rand where the only measure of a man's worth is his ability to compete better, manage better and drive the business better than the next man.
In this contrived setup, Begley is a sympathetic character shown to be a caring father whose confidence is being systematically undermined, while Van Heflin is the moral outsider who sees the injustice. Sloane, more a caricature than character, takes joy in maliciously destroying Begley under the pretext of doing what's right for the business.
The dialogue throughout is smart and powerful in the modern way that characters spit out complex philosophical thoughts in long flawless speeches seemingly on the fly. When Van Heflin and Sloane have the climatic face off the entire movie has been leading up to, the scene will have you gripping the arms of your chair over what is, effectively, two men fighting about the role of an executive.
Kudos to writer Rod Serling for creating an exaggerated but compelling look at business-leadership philosophy, a subject that usually has one's head bobbing forward and eyelids closing.
All our sympathies, here, are with Begley and Heflin because Serling set it up that way, but the reality is Begley should have resigned as, it was noted, he'd have his pension and wouldn't have the shame of being fired. The few people who get to the top of a company are expected to perform like professional ballplayers and when they can't, they should be replaced.
Every employee and every shareholder of the company relies on the top executives to make critical decisions that ensure the survival and success of the company. Executive jobs come with plenty of pay and perks, including attractive retirement packages in exchange for an unforgiving demand for top performance.
So while Patterns tells a compelling story that shows business in an unflattering light - Sloane's character is loathsome - had the facts remained unchanged, but the characters tweaked, we'd see a completely different picture.
Had Sloane been a gentler version of himself trying to kindly encourage Begley, a man whose day at the top of the business world had passed, to retire comfortably and had Begley been shown to be an greedy executive not willing to give up his luxurious perks and high compensation, our sympathies would switch sides, but the facts would not be that different.
Patterns is impressive for what it does with actors, dialogue and not much else. There are a few story-framing New York City location shots, but the bulk of the action takes place on a foreboding executive floor. Serling tossed in a loyal-to-Begley secretary and a loving son, but they are just props to further sway our emotions to Begley.
The picture is contrived and aggressively tendentious, but the viewer can still form his own opinions about right and wrong. Patterns the movie works, though, for the same reason most good movies work, you care about the characters and conflict in this well-written and well-acted boardroom drama.
N.B. As a kid from NJ and just out of college in the mid 1980s, my first job on Wall Street was working for a firm that was in the same building, 120 Broadway, used as the corporate headquarters in Patterns. I was a bit awed to be working in such a building.
Opened in 1915, 120 Broadway has the distinction of being the first skyscraper to take up a full city block in Manhattan. It is a beautiful and impressive behemoth of a building whose architecture can't help but inspire you. It's no surprise that the makers of Patterns, looking for a skyscraper that said "this" is the center of the business world, chose The Equitable Building.
And the lobby today:
I like how you thought about the story in terms of the way it might change if one character (Sloane) was written more sympathetically and the other one (Begley) was greedy. I do agree that Serling is deciding how he wants the viewers to observe the characters. It would have been more interesting if Serling chose to make them a little more ambiguous, thus requiring the audience to draw their own conclusions about the big power struggle in which the outside exec (Heflin) finds himself.
I found Beatrice Straight's performance somewhat plain and didn't feel as if she was as compelling as she could be. I don't think the actress interpreted the role the way Serling wrote it...she seems to downplay some of the sharper moments, making the wife almost casual in scenes, though we know she is calculating.
Thanks for sharing the photos of the way the building looked years ago and how it looks today. The building seems like a character in its own right! |
|
