|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 7, 2024 17:50:20 GMT
Arrowsmith from 1931 with Ronald Colman, Helen Hayes, Clarence Brooks and Myrna Loy
Arrowsmith is based on a big book by Sinclair Lewis. The challenge for making films from big books is how to distill a long and complex story down to a coherent movie of a reasonable length.
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on one or two time periods or one or two themes of the many in the novel, the makers of the movie tried to retain too much of the long and broad sweep of the story.
The resulting movie feels rushed and inconsistent as it speeds through too-many decades and too-many challenges and plot twists in only ninety-nine minutes of screen time.
For all its issues, though, director John Ford, with leads Ronald Colman and Helen Hayes, produced in Arrowsmith an interesting movie that raises several challenging philosophical medical questions.
The picture might not completely work, but it still has a number of engaging and thought-provoking scenes.
Colman plays Arrowsmith, who, when we first meet him, is a promising medical student more interested in research than being "a pill pusher." He's a young idealist doctor.
He then, however, marries a pretty young woman, played by Helen Hayes and puts research aside when he moves with Hayes to a rural community to build a practice, make a home and start a family.
After curing a bacterial outbreak in the local cow population - he's closing in on penicillin - which brings him national fame, Colman and Hayes move to New York City when Colman is offered a job at a distinguished research institute.
A few years later, Colman is sent to the Caribbean to treat, and do research on, a plague outbreak. With Hayes along - she's been the "strong woman" behind the man his entire career - Colman quickly faces a moral medical conundrum.
He has to decide if he is going to conduct a "study" where he only gives serum to half the population to "prove" its effectiveness and advance the long-term benefit to mankind or if he will just treat everyone as the "humane" thing to do.
This always rushed movie climaxes with Colman facing yet another moral conundrum, this one regarding how one does true and honest research. His decision, with the benefit of what we know today, looks idealisticly naive.
Along the way, there are many good "quick hits," as we see Colman battle narrow-minded government bureaucrats, superstitious patients and bosses more interested in publicity and funding than medical research.
It is also uplifting to see one of the great historical moments of scientific advancement as the discovery and refinement of antibiotics truly did improve life for mankind.
Colman and Hayes also go through a series of ups and downs in their relationship as Colman is often frustrated in his career choices, which impacts their marriage.
The usual financial and family challenges also buffet their marriage, including a potential love affair that Colman could have with a socialite played by Myrna Loy. It's an affair that is dramatically toned down from the book.
The cinematography in Arrowsmith is outstanding (and wonderfully restored). For 1931, the beautifully sets, sweeping shots, gorgeous use of shadow and general attention to detail is impressive.
John Ford was still learning his craft, but his ability to shoot epics was already forming, even if he didn't fully pull this one together.
Colman and Hayes, and several other actors, especially Clarence Brooks in a very refreshing-for-the-time not-at-all-stereotypical role as a black doctor, deliver outstanding performances.
Arrowsmith tried to do too much, resulting in a movie that feels rushed and inconsistent, but one that is still impressive, especially for 1931. With engaging performances and a big budget that delivered some spectacular sets and cinematography, Arrowsmith is worth at least one viewing.
Ford's comments years later suggested Colman seldom had to do retakes, that he was a very natural actor who made it look easy. When Hayes was asked about the film later in her career, she claimed some of her character's scenes were cut (because Ford was an alcoholic and made a pact with Goldwyn he'd keep off the sauce during production, so he sped up shooting by eliminating some of Hayes' material, to finish sooner so he could take a drink!). If all the scenes were shot that were contained in the original screenplay, it likely would have gone over two hours and might have seemed a more thorough rendering of Lewis' source material.
I am not sure I'd say Ford was still learning how to tell epic stories. He had been directing pictures since 1917, and one of his silent films from the mid-1920s is a classic western epic that clocks in at 150 minutes: THE IRON HORSE (1924). Again, I think he took a few shortcuts making ARROWSMITH because of his problems with booze. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 15, 2024 14:28:14 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Compelling portrait of a flawed alpha male
You do have to wonder how much of his own personality Kirk Douglas put into his searing portrayal of a boxer up from the wrong side of the tracks. The only person he seems loyal to is his brother (Arthur Kennedy who has an uncanny physical resemblance to Douglas), until even the brother becomes disgusted with his behavior and bails. Douglas places so much verve, and so much nerve, into the role that it gets a bit overwhelming at times.
He’s a boxer who has everything to prove. Yet he proves nothing, except that he’s a heel. Nevertheless, there are a few likable traits in him— he’s determined, he’s ambitious, and he works hard to get to the top and become a much adored champ. A better title might simply have been THE CHAMP, but MGM had already used it for a Wallace Beery drama 18 years earlier.
Comparisons have been made to BODY AND SOUL, which is also quite noir and graphic. And the story shares similarities with THE SET-UP, released the same year, in which Robert Ryan plays a boxer. Apparently RKO sued the producers of CHAMPION, claiming CHAMPION was a ripoff of THE SET-UP. The matter wound up in court. A judge dismissed the case, after some of the scenes in CHAMPION were altered to remove the most obvious plagiarism.
One of the highlights of this film is seeing the athleticism of Kirk Douglas on display. Too bad he was not in such good shape when he made SPARTACUS eleven years later. This is Douglas in his prime. It is believable that one look in the mirror would have turned him into a narcissist, convinced he could take anything and anyone he desired.
The best supporting players, besides Kennedy, are Paul Stewart and Ruth Roman who previously appeared in THE WINDOW as a sinister married couple. This time they are in mostly separate scenes. Stewart is Douglas’ manager, who is one-upped by him; while Roman plays a waitress Douglas weds then quickly discards right after the ceremony. It’s definitely the shortest marriage in film history.
Roman reappears later in the story, not completely over Douglas. A romantic complication occurs when she instead finds love with Kennedy. But Douglas is now determined to consummate the union, just to prove he can. The production code would frown on divorce, but it’s “okay” for Douglas to enjoy sex with a wife he never wanted. After Douglas dies from a cerebral hemorrhage, Roman will be free to marry brother-in-law Kennedy. For now, she belongs to Douglas.
It all plays out like a sports-themed soap opera. After he tires of wife Roman, Douglas loves and leaves another woman (Lola Albright), plus he has an on-off relationship with a rival fighter’s girl (Marilyn Maxwell). His testosterone fuels his need to be recognized as the ultimate he-man. He will enjoy time with the opposite sex, but he gets nowhere with any of these gals, because he is not a fully formed moral human being. It’s an interesting study in egotistical social climbing. However, the rungs do not lead up for him, they only lead down. Down for the count.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 14, 2024 15:19:34 GMT
This film is from 1959.
Heist gone wrong
ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW is a slow-building heist film by Robert Wise that works more as a character study about three very different men thrown together by circumstance. I should point out that this was the late 1950s when segregation was the norm. One of the three men is black (played by Harry Belafonte), and he’s an equal partner with an equal stake in the outcome of the crime.
Belafonte receives top billing at the end of the film, and it was his production company that put the project together. It’s clearly a showcase for him though the other other two leads, portrayed by Robert Ryan and Ed Begley, get roughly the same amount of screen time.
Originally, Richard Widmark was approached to play Ryan’s part. Perhaps this was because Widmark had so convincingly essayed a racist in NO WAY OUT (1951); and the character Ryan portrays in the film is about as racist and angry as they come. However, Widmark did not sign with the production. Ryan (a liberal in real life who worked with the ACLU on various causes) stepped in, and he gives one of his best performances.
Ryan’s character is an equal opportunity hater. Not only does he dislike blacks, occasionally using the ‘N’ word; he also distrusts successful women, like his wife Lorry (Shelley Winters); and he doesn’t seem to like gay people either. Basically, anyone who is not like him or anyone who does not conform to his idea of society’s correct order, that is someone he hates. So at the heart of this story we have three men who contrive to carry out a heist, but one of them is very polarizing; and it ultimately dooms their ‘mission’ in the end.
Ryan and Begley are the more skilled actors, and they are especially outstanding. So are the ladies in the key supporting roles (Winters plus Gloria Grahame). Belafonte does an adequate job in the acting department but is clearly a singer first and an actor second. There’s a good extended scene in a jazz bar where he sings a tune while playing the xylophone. The song is aptly called “All Men Are Evil.”
The jazz music on the soundtrack gives the film a little something extra and stays with you after the movie finishes playing. It’s almost a character in its own right. A lot of the film’s hipness can also be attributed to Robert Wise who I think was wanting to experiment in ways he hadn’t been able to in his earlier films.
Wise and his cinematographer use an infrared camera for some of the outdoor scenes so the daytime sky looks almost black instead of gray, and the clouds are very white. Also, Wise favors long shots in this movie, which give it a documentary feel. Since most standard heist films lack realism, I would say Wise was making a conscious decision to work against the earlier trends in this genre and take the story a bit more outside the box. It works.
Poetic landscape shots are particularly noteworthy. Sometimes the camera lingers on a puddle of water, or on that very black and white sky, or on a piece of trash on the ground. There is this constant awareness of what surrounds us and the main characters as they leave Harlem and go a hundred miles up along the Hudson to a small town where the robbery will occur. Related to this we get a sense of time shifts…the gradual change of day into night, and a significant delay before the action of the heist gets underway.
Ed Begley’s character is the glue that holds things together for much of the picture. And certainly, his demise during the robbery is bittersweet. He is so overcome with anger towards the police, his former source of employment, that he gets sloppy and allows his emotions to get the best of him. I was rooting for Begley, and I think that’s because his acting made us sympathize with the character. Especially when he tried to throw a key to Belafonte as he was dying. He was like a surrogate father to him, their bond transcended race.
As for the robbery itself, an important aspect is how it is staged with Belafonte going to the side door of the bank posing as a black stereotype. I would say Belafonte dressing up as “drug store boy” shows he was playing into Ryan’s prejudiced notions of blacks. But ironically, he needed to do that, to exploit the stereotype, in order to get the guard to open the door to them. To me, it shows how he has to play the white man’s game to get ahead.
After Begley’s character dies, the end of the film focuses on Ryan and Belafonte…and whether they will be able to get away with the crime. Ultimately, they find themselves on top of fuel tanks (shades of WHITE HEAT), involved in a shoot-out with cops. Even though the characters played by Ryan and Belafonte have concentrated on their racial differences, the police do not differentiate them from one another…they will be remembered as crooks and since crime does not pay, they’re both doomed in the fatal explosion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Mar 14, 2024 16:05:50 GMT
Odds Against Tomorrow from 1959 with Harry Belafonte, Ed Begley, Robert Ryan and Shelley Winters
Odds Against Tomorrow is a film-noir heist movie with vicious racial overtones that has lost none of its punch since its release.
A disgraced and pensionless ex-NYC cop, played by Ed Begley, recruits a tough and taciturn ex-con, played by Robert Ryan, and an urbane black singer with a large mob-owed gambling debt, played by Harry Belafonte, to knock off a small-town bank.
Director Robert Wise leveraged a screenplay by Abraham Polonsky based on a novel by William P. McGivern to create an incredibly taut movie about three people, whose lives are failing, taking a last shot at achieving personal redemption by pulling a huge heist.
Begley is an old man resentful that he was the fall guy for a political cover up; Ryan is a late middle-aged angry man who blames everyone else for his failures and Belafonte is a young, promising musician who's facing ruin from gambling debts.
Begley's team is immediately stressed as Ryan is an unabashed racist who starts taunting Belafonte from their first meeting. Yet as the saying goes, need breaks iron, so these two antagonists agree to work together with Begley for their own selfish motives.
The story is good, but as with most engaging movies, it's the people who matter and Wise gets the most out of his incredibly talented cast by rounding out his characters.
Ryan's girlfriend, played with emotionally needy perfection by Shelley Winters, is financially supporting proud Ryan, which is eating away at him. He's a despicable character, but he's complex and we come to understand him.
Belafonte is equally complicated as he could be comfortably successful, but his gambling addiction, perhaps driven by his passion for a luxurious lifestyle, has already caused his marriage to fail and now has him staring at ruin.
Begley we see is a bitter man trying to replace the pension he believes was stolen from him when the political machine he was part of needed somebody to go down and he was tagged.
By the time we see these men head up the Hudson to the bank they plan to rob, we also see that all their personal baggage is there with them, especially Ryan's arrant hatred of Belafonte simply because Belafonte is black.
It's a raw racism that doesn't require a "new theory" to explain it or special academic skills to see it because Ryan's hatred of blacks is so God-awful out loud. It gives Ryan, a man who is angry at his own failures, someone to feel superior to.
Begley appears not to care about race and tries to get Ryan to let it go for the good of the heist, while Belafonte ignores the goading up to a point. These are three actors who understand their craft.
The subtle beauty here is that Belafonte is no hero, as he would be portrayed today. Instead, he's a compulsive gambler and criminal, but we still feel great anger at the indignities he, regardless of his personal shortcomings, must endure from racist Ryan.
The planning stage of the heist is good as is the heist itself. Both are gripping and have a The Asphalt Jungle - the progenitor of the modern heist movie - feel as, in particular, you can't help somewhat identifying with the crooks.
The movie's beautiful black and white cinematography, kudos again to Wise, has a spartan look and feel that echoes the stark choices faced by its protagonists. Plus today, the on-location shots make for wonderful time travel to late 1950s New York.
When the movie is almost over, fans of the original Star Trek TV show will notice a powerful "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" moment foreshadowing the epiphany in that episode's famous half-white-half-black-face storyline.
Wise shows that tackling racism in a movie can be handled much-more effectively by weaving a message into a broader story than by overtly preaching denunciation. Modern virtue-signalling screenwriters and directors could learn a lot from Wise.
Odds Against Tomorrow is a powerful, engaging and atypical film-noir/racism mashup released at the end of the original noir era. Impressively, its forward-looking message still resonates today. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 21, 2024 14:51:37 GMT
This neglected film is from 1936.
After apostasy a pilgrimage for the soul
Robert Hichens’ story about two religious souls finding peace in the Algerian desert was produced as a play and published as a novel in 1904. It had been a tremendous success, so it’s not surprising that Hollywood execs wanted to adapt the story as a feature film. Several different versions were produced, including a hit silent film by MGM in 1927; and of course, this sound version made in Technicolor by David Selznick.
Originally Selznick wanted Greta Garbo to play Domini, the main female character but she was unavailable. His second choice was Joan Crawford, also busy with other projects; so he settled with his third choice Marlene Dietrich who was borrowed from Paramount.
This would be the first color film for Selznick, Dietrich and leading man Charles Boyer. In fact, it was only the third feature done in three-strip Technicolor up to that point. A special Oscar was awarded for the advances made in Technicolor.
Exteriors were done at a desert camp outside Yuma, and as is customary with a Selznick venture, there is fine attention to detail. This is definitely an art film, but one made to appeal to the masses craving romance and a few tears. In addition to Dietrich and Boyer, Selznick has chosen a stellar supporting cast that includes Basil Rathbone as a count; Joseph Schildkraut as a scene stealing servant; Alan Marshal as a French military captain; C. Aubrey Smith as an old priest; Lucile Watson as a wise nun; John Carradine in a memorable bit as a sand diviner; and Tilly Losch as a seductive dancer.
Notes about the production on the AFI website tell us that Selznick took great pains to work with the production code office to ensure that Catholic clergy were not offended by the presentation of a story that is largely about a monk (Boyer) who renounces his vows, enjoys carnal pleasures and gets married, then renounces life with his wife (Dietrich) and finally returns to the monastery he’d abandoned. Primarily Selznick wanted to be sure Hichens’ story was not banned by the church (it wasn’t); and if it was actually possible for a monk to be welcomed back to the religious life if he’d broken his vows to God (it was).
The production code people had concerns about the erotic dance scene performed by Miss Losch at the beginning of the film. Shots of her abdomen moving in certain directions were considered too risqué; and if you watch the scene, I think it can be acknowledged that Losch’s character does behave in a somewhat animalistic way in how she uses the abdomen, as well as her face and legs to simulate raw sexualized movement. I am not saying this as a prude, just a statement of fact; I am sure the scene helped sell the film to audiences during its initial release into theaters as well as a later re-release in the mid-1940s.
Despite Losch’s gyrating and a violent attempt by her character to kill a man (Henry Brandon) who won’t love her, this is Dietrich’s movie. The simmering passions of Dietrich’s character Domini and her subsequent need to express herself with a man after years of taking care of an invalid father, are what drive the narrative. Interestingly, the backstory in Hichens’ novel which is not really mentioned in the film is that Domini’s father had renounced his Catholic faith after the death of Domini’s mother, but Domini clung to the church despite her dad’s apostasy.
It is therefore ironic that she falls for Boyer’s character Boris, a half-French and half-Russian monk who is renouncing his vows. Ultimately, Domini will have to give up her marriage for the sake of the church, to facilitate Boris’ return to the monastery. This is a romance drama where the central couple must make supreme sacrifices.
I did wonder what would happen to Domini after Boris went back to resume his monastical responsibilities. In the novel, she finds out she is pregnant and has his son. No doubt the production code prevented Selznick from tacking on that sort of ending for the film. It would’ve been too much for conservative audiences to handle.
By the way, THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was banned in Italy, because the country’s Catholics saw the story as totally immoral and against the tenets of their faith. Other countries took issue with the film, but in some cases, there were slight changes to the plot and various cuts (usually removing scenes at the monastery to downplay a direct connection to the Catholic Church). These censorship problems abroad, as well as the boycott by the Italians, limited the financial success of the picture outside the U.S., and in its first run, it barely broke even.
But it’s a glorious and attractive motion picture to behold. There are some breathtaking moments even if the story may seem a bit pedestrian by modern standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 3, 2024 14:30:54 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
No chance of insomnia just murder
This suspense thriller from United Artists was produced by Mary Pickford and her husband Charles ‘Buddy’ Rogers. The first member of the cast that Pickford & Rogers hired was Don Ameche who plays the story’s evil husband. Ameche, formerly of 20th Century Fox, specialized in devious characters who would sometimes take things a bit too far. The hiring of Ameche paved the way for Claudette Colbert to sign on as the imperiled wife.
Colbert and Ameche had previously costarred in Paramount’s raucous screwball comedy MIDNIGHT (1939) as well as another genial farce, United Artists’ GUEST WIFE (1945). This was their third and final motion picture collaboration. They have a way of completing each other’s thoughts on screen, and are most believable as spouses, even if Ameche spends considerable time trying to off her.
As the murderous hubby, Ameche’s character intends to kill his wealthy wife by poisoning her with hot chocolate (I guess that’s a sweet way to go!), so he can marry a sexy chick (Hazel Brooks) who works at a downtown photo shop. Part of the plan involves her photographer employer (George Coulouris) and his wife (Queenie Smith) who is deceptively manipulated into keeping tabs on Colbert.
In a way it’s rather ironic that both Colbert and Leonard are unsuspecting wives embroiled in their husbands’ villainous schemes. Not quite sure what Coulouris gets out of it, except maybe a generous payoff by Ameche once they’ve gotten Colbert out of the way and Ameche gains control of her finances.
Some of the plot goes off in misleading directions. These are not red herrings per se, but one does get the idea the writers enjoy keeping the audience guessing how it will all turn out. We’ve seen Cary Grant possibly poison Joan Fontaine with a glass of milk in SUSPICION; and we’ve seen Humphrey Bogart poison two wives in THE TWO MRS. CARROLLS, also with milk. So to make this plot different, Ameche uses hot chocolate. But his plan doesn’t lead to the wife being killed; and in fact, the plot shifts gears dramatically in the final act, to where he is now setting her up to kill Coulouris!
Before we get to the end, there are scenes of Colbert being drugged and winding up in strange places, then undergoing analysis. She becomes haunted by the recurring image of a man with horn-rimmed glasses (Coulouris).
Part of the ruse includes hypnosis; so that her behaviors turn increasingly bizarre and come to the attention of a police detective (Raymond Burr) and others who consider her on the verge of a crackup.
Fortunately, there is a bright spot in the arrival of two friends. One is a gal pal from Colbert’s school days, played by Rita Johnson who adds some moments of levity.
Along with Johnson for the visit is a single bachelor (Robert Cummings) who takes a shine to Colbert and eventually helps her escape the ongoing nightmare she’s been experiencing.
German immigrant Douglas Sirk is the picture’s director. He’d soon begin a successful run helming melodramas at Universal. (Sirk and Colbert teamed up again at Universal for 1951’s THUNDER ON THE HILL). Sirk keeps the drama well-paced, and he likes to focus occasionally on macabre elements like a strange ‘hand like’ object that visitors to Colbert’s home use to knock on the front door.
I should mention that there is an interesting subplot involving an Asian man (Keye Luke) who is the honorary brother of Cummings’ character. Luke gets married in the middle of the film, and the ethnic wedding reception provides a gentle distraction from the unrelenting murder plot.
Of course, the Asian wedding could have been any non-Anglo type celebration, but it works fine and it gives this movie a bit more multiculturalism than most mainstream productions from the postwar period.
But first and foremost, this is a Claudette Colbert movie. She’s the star. The left side of her face is never out of focus, even when she’s running from Ameche and about to commit suicide or trying to shoot Coulouris in the downstairs hallway of her opulent home.
Colbert is a wiz at melodrama, almost as good as she is as comedy. And you do come away from watching the story, glad that she’s overcome such a nefarious man; and that she’s managed to find a new guy who will be a better replacement in marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 13, 2024 15:28:02 GMT
This neglected film is from 1957.
Thought-provoking western
The 1950s were not an easy time for liberal filmmakers, given the red scare and blacklisting that occurred in Hollywood. The conservative establishment wanted to control the amount of power liberals had over film projects. Because leftist ideas could be dangerous to the establishment, and those ideas came from the writers and the actors who spoke their words on screen, writers and actors were the easy targets. Occasionally there would be someone like Burt Lancaster or Kirk Douglas conservative audiences still liked, despite these actors' politics leaning to the left.
Douglas had formed his own production company, Bryna, in the middle of the decade. Most of the films that Bryna made starred Douglas or pals of his, and they were often released thru United Artists. Typically, they had limited budgets and were workshops for progressive stories that would not be seen on television at this time. Westerns dominated the TV airwaves in the 50s, and a feature film in this genre would have to set itself apart from what could easily be found for free on the small screen. Something like RIDE OUT FOR REVENGE is not standard conservative fare.
Rory Calhoun takes the lead role of a marshal who is stripped of his badge because he’s an Indian lover, quite literally. He’s fallen for the daughter (Joanne Gilbert) of a murdered chief who refused to obey army orders and take his people from the Dakota territory to Oklahoma where they would basically be prisoners on a government reservation. Calhoun sympathizes with this tribe of Cheyenne natives, and he’s not afraid to voice opposition.
Calhoun’s outspoken views put him directly at odds with an army captain (Lloyd Bridges) who is as racist and unsympathetic as they come. Bridges is behind Calhoun’s public demotion, and he intends to get the tribe moved out of the territory so he and others like him can claim land that is rich in gold. Complicating matters is Gilbert’s brother, the new young chief who has taken their father’s place— he’s played by Vince Edwards who a few years earlier had portrayed HIAWATHA (1952).
There’s an interesting subplot involving second-billed Gloria Grahame. She’s a widow in town who runs the boardinghouse where Calhoun and his orphaned nephew (Michael Winkelman) live. Grahame lusts after Calhoun and is in a tizzy because he won’t dump the native maiden (Gilbert) he loves.
Grahame is not all selfish; she is fond of Calhoun’s nephew and considers herself his surrogate mother. The boy is shockingly killed off in the middle of the film during a skirmish that sees Edwards and his fellow tribesmen seek revenge for the death of Edwards’ father. This skirmish takes place in town against the whites while young Winkelman is attempting to run away because he’s mad that his uncle is siding with the Cheyenne. Yes, there are some heavy themes playing out in the story.
The death of Winkelman’s character, an innocent boy, becomes a rallying cry among the locals and the army unit, led by Bridges, to enact a new policy of revenge against the Cheyenne who still are not heading off to the reservation willingly. Because Calhoun’s own nephew became a casualty, he is expected to help kill Edwards. But in an emotional scene, he is unable to pull the trigger; and this leads to a knife duel in a nearby river instead.
Ultimately Edwards dies and Calhoun ends up with Gilbert. She is not expected to go off to the reservation as she will become Calhoun’s wife. Meanwhile, Grahame seems to have accepted her fate as a lonely widow. She gets off a few good lines telling Bridges that she pretty much considers him scum, which means with all that venom and passion inside her, she’ll probably end up marrying him!
The film’s last scene is the most thought-provoking part of the whole movie. As they watch her people being displaced, Gilbert asks Calhoun what will happen when the whites face losing their land someday. It seems like a progressive apologetic statement from filmmakers in 1957 who are producing a document that lets minorities of the future know that the white hegemonic power would ultimately be history one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 23, 2024 14:44:34 GMT
This film is from 1932.
Crawford precode drama of sin and redemption
Though this sound adaptation of Somerset Maugham’s well-known story about a prostitute in the tropics didn’t do so well at the box office, it still has many virtues. First, it was a rare loan out from MGM for its lead actress, Joan Crawford, who was probably anxious to stretch her acting muscles and take on a part that was a bit less glamorous. Though the costuming and makeup does make her look a bit too gaudy.
Just a few years earlier Gloria Swanson had made an influential silent version, and her Sadie Thompson isn’t too different from Crawford’s. But moviegoers were probably used to Swanson the diva portraying somewhat outlandish women on screen. Crawford usually didn’t do these types of characterizations, often restricted by the polish of her home studio, and the need to play women who were ultimately redeemable (except for maybe LETTY LYNTON who gets away with murder, but even that is rendered in sympathetically).
One thing that this production, released through United Artists, has working in its favor is the strong supporting cast. Walter Huston & Beulah Bondi play a missionary couple who’ve come to the region to do the Lord’s work. And when Huston meets Crawford, he feels a huge need to save her from the devil. Though, ironically, a lot of this is his own neuroticism and insecurity, attempting to change Sadie so that she is not a temptation for him. Ultimately, when it seems as if she will cling to her seedy ways, he does give in and takes advantage of her.
I suppose we can pity this woman, because if she could have reformed in a traditional way, she probably would have. She has become a victim of circumstances (poverty, mostly) and a victim of society, as well as a victim of the religious right. Not to mention, she is a vulnerable woman who is the victim of a powerful and abusive man whose own vulnerabilities are more tragic than hers.
There is a ray of light that comes through in the subplot involving William Gargan’s character. He’s a military man in the area who takes a real shine to Sadie and wants to marry her. He would stand a more logical chance of taming, refining and reforming Sadie than Huston.
Although the film has a few creaky spots, there are some very solid moments. Crawford is really great at portraying the heart of a character who is treated heartlessly by so many. And despite the camera focusing considerably on the actors, director Lewis Milestone and cinematographer Lewis Marsh do take time to include some poetic shots of the landscape. All is not ugly and garish, some of it is rather natural.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 23, 2024 14:53:14 GMT
Rain from 1932 with Joan Crawford, Walter Huston, Guy Kibbee, William Gargan and Beulah Bondi
One reason they don't make movies like Rain anymore is that we no longer live in a religious country and many "sins" today are celebrated or "understood," but in 1932, a woman who drank, smoked and had sex for money was fodder for the religious "reformers."
Rain, based on a W. Somerset Maugham novel, was made when fire-and-brimstone preachers had a sizable following and there was meaningful voter support for their efforts to legislate sin out of existence (see Prohibition).
What Maugham did in Rain was move that battle to a small South Sea island and boil it down to a handful of people, forced by a cholera outbreak, to spend several days together in a small hotel during the rainy season.
Walter Huston plays a religious zealot and leader of a movement, who along with his wife, played by Beulah Bondi, are affronted to have to share a roof with a wanton woman played by Joan Crawford.
Along for the ride are a doctor and his wife who are on friendly terms with Huston and Bondi, but they aren't fervent believers. They want Huston to just leave Crawford alone, but they also don't want to have a big confrontation with Huston over it.
Rounding out the key characters are Guy Kibbee playing the laid back owner of the hotel and bar where everyone is staying and a sergeant, played by William Gargan, from the island’s US army base, who takes an immediate (more than) liking to Crawford.
Huston is insufferable in his religious fervor and judgement. He not only openly condemns Crawford, he goes to the governor of the Island to have her deported. He obnoxiously couches his efforts in terms of saying he's just trying to "save her soul."
Crawford is everything Huston rails against; she drinks, smokes, dances in public and, it's strongly implied, is a prostitute. Yet you have to give the woman her due as Crawford tries repeatedly to stand up to Houston withering attacks.
As this war rages on, Gargan and Crawford develop a relationship, which gives Crawford an ally until Huston uses his influence with the governor to get Gargan confined to the base. Huston is relentless.
Even Huston's friend, the doctor, goes to the governor to try to save Crawford, but he strikes out. Guy Kibbee, the most enjoyable character in the movie, tries to appeal directly to Huston, but it's like talking to a statue.
Kibbee, a perennial character actor, has one of his meatiest roles here as an easy-going non-judgemental man who married an island woman. He implies he left the States because he was fed up with Prohibition. His sincere efforts to help Crawford are moving.
In a powerful scene of religious "conversion," Huston finally breaks Crawford down, even convincing her to go back to the States where she says she'll have to serve time for some unstated crime. You probably won't like the result, but the scene is memorable.
Gargan and the others try repeatedly to save Crawford from "being saved", but she, now zombie like, follows only Huston. Maugham clearly had no truck with the fanatical branch of the Christian missionaries.
The climax, no spoilers coming, plays out against the backdrop of another night of nonstop rain, while the natives are having a festival with dancing and drum-beating music, which Huston dismisses as unimportant since they aren't Christians.
But does he truly dismiss it? The fast moving conclusion needed a bit more setup with hints along the way, but it still doesn't come as a complete surprise. It does, though, dramatically reshuffle the deck.
Today, the "sins" of Maugham's day are all but lauded as religion is no longer the West's cultural northstar. Instead, there are new political pieties that are enforced by secular scolds with the same obnoxious moral condemnation as Huston used in his day.
You'll hate him, but Huston's performance as the all-mighty preacher is scary good. Crawford, still learning her craft, is uneven but moving as the young girl trying to stand up to Huston's enervating assault.
As Huston's fire and brimstone is smashing about, it's Kibbee who provides the antidote with a very "Grateful Dead -" like 1960s live-and-let-live philosophy that makes you wish you could just hang out and have a beer with him. His is a wonderful performance.
Maugham knew how to tell a story, which director Lewis Milestone translated well to the screen with a talented cast. Rain's early talkie clunkiness is noticeable, but the power of the story, even ninety-plus years later, still comes through. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 10, 2024 7:18:01 GMT
This neglected film is from 1957.
“They sure make a man feel at home.”
Jeff Chandler portrays the title character, a Union major who comes to a Georgia town nine months after the Civil War has ended. He is there to carry out plans Lincoln made before his assassination to rebuild the south. The Reconstruction period lasted primarily from 1865 to 1877, though some of the rebuilding dragged on longer.
This western motion picture from United Artists was made by Chandler’s own production company. As an independent feature that feels like an extended western television episode, we see how efforts at rebuilding the South did not occur easily. Especially since there was distrust and suspicion.
After having their crops burned by Sherman’s troops and their storage facilities raided, the people in Kennesaw Pass have lost their ability to feed themselves. A cold winter will soon set in, and if they don’t take help offered by Chandler and his assistant, a captain played by John Lupton, they’ll die.
Chandler and Lupton face considerable opposition from the son (Ronald Howard) of the town judge (Donald Crisp) who incites locals against reconstruction under the North’s terms. At first Crisp sits silently on the sidelines, either not realizing or quietly condoning the extent of his son’s actions. But gradually, he is moved to support Chandler and stand up against Howard, whom he recognizes as an enemy of their people, preventing the town from going beyond current hardships.
This was Ronald Howard’s first American film, fourteen years after the death of his well-known father Leslie Howard who’d had great success in Hollywood during the 1930s. There is no attempt to explain his British sounding accent which he doesn’t conceal, but we can overlook that, particularly since Howard renders the film’s best performance. He’s not a scene stealing villain, but delivers a thoughtful performance as a misguided man whose politics ultimately do him in.
As for Jeff Chandler, he’s a likable fellow in a likable role, but he overdoes the dramatic aspects of the main scenario. He is either intentionally calm and reflective…or full throttle, such as a scene where he shoves a bartender into a wall after the guy is reluctant to serve him some whiskey. Chandler performs in subdued ‘off’ mode, or else in full blast ‘on’ mode; there’s no middle ground to his performance. He hurts the film and gives us a less credible human being on screen than might otherwise have been attained by a more naturalistic actor.
Two leading ladies appear at key moments. One is played by Joanne Dru, whose character gets off on the wrong foot with Chandler’s. She’s upset when her father (Morris Ankrum), a Northern ally, is killed by Howard’s secret lynch mob after Chandler had promised to protect him. Eventually she overcomes her hostility and allows herself romantic feelings, though I found it implausible she’d stay in the region since she no longer has family here, there’s a rationing of food supplies and other basic necessities by a nearby military post, and she might have a better chance somewhere else.
The second leading lady is Julie London in an intriguing role as a southern vixen who owns a large plantation. Though this is supposed to be set in Georgia, the plantation scenes were filmed on location in Louisiana. London vamps it up at the manse, consorting with Howard and his gang. But she also gets bit by the love bug, falling for Lupton, though he’s on the other side. Howard forces her to prove her loyalty to the South and lure Lupton into a trap which results in Lupton’s death. We don’t see London after that, but her final scene is a doozy, when she realizes she is about to cause the murder of the man she loves most.
There are countless other minor roles and extras in the town scenes. Most of these characters are played by folks who worked primarily in television westerns during this time. All of them are white, which I found a bit unbelievable. After all, this is the South. Why not see what the recently freed former slaves in the region were doing; or were they all driven off? It seems incredible that Chandler is here to “fix” the South, when one of the main aspects of the recent war (the abolishment of slavery) isn’t even acknowledged on screen.
After Howard’s character is killed by his own father (Crisp), there is a short coda where Chandler has now assumed full control of the town. He is leading the beleaguered folks to the military fort to petition for more supplies. It all ends on a hopeful note, if not a somewhat contrived note.
Despite liking the film, I found DRANGO to be a bit of a frustrating experience. It’s barely a good film, made on a modest budget. It could’ve been a great film; and I think if they’d had more money to show us things like the burnings and the killings— which all happen off screen— and there had been more plausible dialogue; a more natural performance by the leading man; and stronger direction, it would have been the great classic it should have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 9, 2024 14:27:56 GMT
This neglected film is from 1955.
Engaging independent western
This independent western released by United Artists has an intense plot and engaging performances from the lead players. At this point in his career Sterling Hayden had begun to drift into modestly budgeted oaters and crime flicks; this film combines both those genres, as it is basically a western with noir elements. Hayden is cast as a notorious gunfighter who returns to his hometown of Casper, Wyoming, to visit his ma’s grave, but finds out she was murdered.
At the same time he tries to rekindle a romance with an old flame (Karin Booth) who is now engaged to someone else (William Bishop). The other man is one of the town’s leading denizens, but has a ruthless streak and was behind the killing of Hayden’s mother, since he coveted her ranch. Hayden suspects this is what happened, but of course, cannot prove it. While this is going on, there’s a young man in town (Rod Taylor in his first Hollywood picture) eager to make his mark and challenge Hayden to a duel.
Because violence occurs wherever he happens to be, Hayden is not wanted around by the respectable townsfolk, and the council gives him till midnight to scram. As if all this were not enough— trying to get justice for his mother’s murder, trying to get Booth to give him another chance, dealing with Taylor, and trying to prove to the town he’s reformed— we have a marauding gang, led by baddie John Dehner, on their way to Casper to take over the town and pillage it.
At this rate there will be more than one showdown. Hayden easily succeeds in squaring off against Taylor. In the next part, the sheriff (James Millican) is shot and unable to stop Dehner, so Hayden must help defeat the gang. Also, Bishop’s character tries to get rid of Hayden who has become too heroic, but in a surprise twist, he is killed by Booth who does so, to save Hayden from being killed by Bishop. Yes, there’s a lot going on; a lot to unpack here.
Ultimately we wind up with Hayden and Booth reunited, planning a future. The death of Hayden’s mother has been resolved, and the townspeople now respect the former gunman. Despite all the intricate aspects of the plot, the film does have a laid back feel thanks to Sterling Hayden’s charming and rather subdued performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 26, 2024 14:26:50 GMT
This film is from 1942.
Wife’s powers aren’t entirely suppressed
The first time I came across this film, I was struck by two things. First, the title– it’s sensational, the way precode titles often are. Only if it had been made ten years earlier, before the enforcement of the production code, it would likely have been called I MARRIED A VAMP. Much of the wife’s shenanigans would have been sexually tinged with supernatural elements involved.
But because the film was made in the early 40’s when a wife’s feminine powers had to be downplayed to subordinate her to the husband’s power, she could not be too out of the ordinary. She could not be very enchanting. If she was, then she would be an adulterer who must pay the price of her sins like all femme fatales ultimately do.
In this case the wife’s powers are not entirely suppressed. But the exercising of her power is told in an almost jokey way. We are encouraged to laugh at her, at how much chaos she causes before the hubby gains control over her. Veronica Lake’s title character is not actually supposed to be taken seriously here, though I do think Miss Lake herself took the character quite seriously.
Fredric March as the leading man is an interesting choice, though I felt he was miscast. He’s almost too straitlaced, too dry and seldom cracks a smile. While he had made a screwball comedy with Carole Lombard several years before this, I don’t think farce is his strong suit. I would’ve cast Miss Lake’s costar from SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS, Joel McCrea…a handsome guy who’s believable in romcoms.
The rest of the cast is certainly distinguished. Susan Hayward, like Mr. March, doesn’t fare well in comedic vehicles. Robert Benchley is fine, and so is Elizabeth Patterson. Cecil Kellaway, as a mischievous relative of Lake’s, probably comes off best. He knows how to capture the impish aspects of the role. It’s easy to see why he’d earn an Oscar nomination a few years later as a leprechaun in Fox’s THE LUCK OF THE IRISH.
Okay, let’s get to the second thing that struck me when I first came across this film. And this impression still remains with me. The well-known sitcom Bewitched seems to steal its main idea, about a calamitous marriage between a dark-haired mortal and a blonde witch, from this picture without giving credit where it’s due. Credit of course goes to humorist Thorne Smith, since this concept was his brainchild.
Check out some of Mr. Smith’s other out-of-this-world comedies. Especially TOPPER and TURNABOUT. You don’t have to be married to someone with a broomstick to appreciate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 27, 2024 18:28:13 GMT
I just noticed that "I Married a Witch" will be showing on Movies! tomorrow at 6am ET if anyone got excited to see it after TopBilled's excellent review ⇧. Movies! is an obscure cable channel that shows a lot of old movies, but with commercials. I just DVR the movies I want to see on the channel so that I can fast-forward through the commercials when I watch the movie later.
As TopBilled pointed out, "I Married a Witch" is a spirit witch-human story that mainly plays as a lighthearted drama/comedy. And, as he also points out, it is a clear antecedent to TV's "Bewitched." Plus, Veronica Lake looks super-cute as a witch.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jun 27, 2024 19:13:06 GMT
I just noticed that "I Married a Witch" will be showing on Movies! tomorrow at 6am ET if anyone got excited to see it after TopBilled's excellent review ⇧. Movies! is an obscure cable channel that shows a lot of old movies, but with commercials. I just DVR the movies I want to see on the channel so that I can fast-forward through the commercials when I watch the movie later.
As TopBilled pointed out, "I Married a Witch" is a spirit witch-human story that mainly plays as a lighthearted drama/comedy. And, as he also points out, it is a clear antecedent to TV's "Bewitched." Plus, Veronica Lake looks super-cute as a witch.
I really like this romcom. Lake's screen persona is well suited for the role. Note that the real witch in the film is the character played by Susan Hayward. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jun 28, 2024 15:57:43 GMT
This film is from 1942.
Wife’s powers aren’t entirely suppressed
The first time I came across this film, I was struck by two things. First, the title– it’s sensational, the way precode titles often are. Only if it had been made ten years earlier, before the enforcement of the production code, it would likely have been called I MARRIED A VAMP. Much of the wife’s shenanigans would have been sexually tinged with supernatural elements involved.
But because the film was made in the early 40’s when a wife’s feminine powers had to be downplayed to subordinate her to the husband’s power, she could not be too out of the ordinary. She could not be very enchanting. If she was, then she would be an adulterer who must pay the price of her sins like all femme fatales ultimately do.
In this case the wife’s powers are not entirely suppressed. But the exercising of her power is told in an almost jokey way. We are encouraged to laugh at her, at how much chaos she causes before the hubby gains control over her. Veronica Lake’s title character is not actually supposed to be taken seriously here, though I do think Miss Lake herself took the character quite seriously.
Fredric March as the leading man is an interesting choice, though I felt he was miscast. He’s almost too straitlaced, too dry and seldom cracks a smile. While he had made a screwball comedy with Carole Lombard several years before this, I don’t think farce is his strong suit. I would’ve cast Miss Lake’s costar from SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS, Joel McCrea…a handsome guy who’s believable in romcoms.
The rest of the cast is certainly distinguished. Susan Hayward, like Mr. March, doesn’t fare well in comedic vehicles. Robert Benchley is fine, and so is Elizabeth Patterson. Cecil Kellaway, as a mischievous relative of Lake’s, probably comes off best. He knows how to capture the impish aspects of the role. It’s easy to see why he’d earn an Oscar nomination a few years later as a leprechaun in Fox’s THE LUCK OF THE IRISH.
Okay, let’s get to the second thing that struck me when I first came across this film. And this impression still remains with me. The well-known sitcom Bewitched seems to steal its main idea, about a calamitous marriage between a dark-haired mortal and a blonde witch, from this picture without giving credit where it’s due. Credit of course goes to humorist Thorne Smith, since this concept was his brainchild.
Check out some of Mr. Smith’s other out-of-this-world comedies. Especially TOPPER and TURNABOUT. You don’t have to be married to someone with a broomstick to appreciate them.
Surprised you didn't hold this one off for Halloween, TopBilled, but that finishing line was too good to wait any longer, I guess. (Holidays seem to bring the best out of you.) |
|
