|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 20, 2023 13:19:49 GMT
"Tiger Bay" sounds like a really a good one. It's now on my radar. I saw Horst Buchholz, for the first time, last year in the good, light-hearted comedy "Fanny." It will be interesting to see him in a very different role.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 20, 2023 13:30:53 GMT
"Tiger Bay" sounds like a really a good one. It's now on my radar. I saw Horst Buchholz, for the first time, last year in the good, light-hearted comedy "Fanny." It will be interesting to see him in a very different role. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 8, 2023 13:56:29 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
Flawed human beings caught up in war
The timing could not have been better when this film was initially released to audiences in Britain, since it occurred when the U.K. went to war with Germany again. And this film is an espionage drama about a German officer (Conrad Veidt) who teams up with an agent (Valerie Hobson) to bring down the British navy in WWI.
There are some interesting twists, and I think it helps that we are given as much information as Veidt’s character in the beginning. We are kept in the dark, like he is, about Hobson’s true identity. We do not learn until he does that she is a double agent, really on the British side. We are not meant to sympathize or lament his betrayal, but we can understand how this reversal of fortune affects him, much better than if we were given an omniscient point of view. Our knowing as much as he does ensures that we remain engaged, not detached, from the proceedings.
Valerie Hobson is one of my favorite British actresses, and I just love the way she plays her ambiguous character in this film. We can sense her uneasiness around Veidt, especially when he makes romantic gestures in her direction (because she is married to another agent). And we also get this aspect of her being in control, but that control is fraught with uncertainty. When Veidt realizes he’s been double-crossed he is quite dangerous and her life is in jeopardy.
Another thing that makes the film work for me is that while Veidt is the villain of the piece, and we are not going to feel sorry for him in any way, we are kind of mesmerized by him. He has a unique screen presence, and though he is doomed in the last five minutes of the story, we are eager to see how it will finish playing out and if he does not survive, how he ultimately goes down. Again we do not want him to succeed and we probably do not want him to survive, but we are invested in his demise not because he’s the bad guy getting a well-deserved comeuppance, but because he is a hugely flawed human being arriving at a dictated outcome.
Veidt and Hobson were re-teamed by the filmmakers a year later for a more romantic wartime drama, CONTRABAND, but THE SPY IN BLACK is a better collaboration. It also benefits from a nifty supporting turn by lovely June Duprez at the beginning. Her character’s fate is just as interesting as Veidt’s.
|
|
|
|
Post by kims on Jul 8, 2023 15:11:25 GMT
I haven't seen this. Any film with Veidt is worth watching for his performance, even if a film is bad
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 8, 2023 15:32:15 GMT
It took until my second viewing of "The Spy in Black" to appreciate it. I was too confused the first time I saw it to like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jul 10, 2023 11:30:00 GMT
IMO, the films Conrad Veidt made in Britain were among the best of his career. I think I like the Hobson/Veidt teaming better in CONTRABAND (BLACKOUT in UK), though. I like the subtle comedy scenes they share.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 18, 2023 13:59:07 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Assuming another man's identity
THE CAPTIVE HEART is a film that turns its viewers into a captive audience. Along with CARVE HER NAME WITH PRIDE, it’s one of the finest British war films to depict the harrowing nature of life inside a Nazi concentration camp. As the incredible events unfold, things only get more harrowing…more dangerous for the main character.
Michael Redgrave is a Czech captain who escapes from Dachau and assumes the identity of a dead British officer. However, while he’s managed to avoid death, he is still not very lucky. Under his new guise, he is captured along with British soldiers and taken to a new camp for prisoners of war.
The producers shot these particular scenes on location at Marlag, a POW site in Germany. Filming occurred only a short time after the war had ended…when such structures were still intact…so considerable realism is added to the story.
Redgrave gives a sharp performance and skillfully navigates the trickier aspects of the plot. After all, he’s a British actor playing a Czech posing as a Brit– and he has to speak convincing German at key moments. In addition to the different national identities and dialects required for the role, he has to maneuver a character who is heroic and deceptive at the same time…someone that does whatever is necessary to survive.
Part of surviving involves writing love letters to the estranged wife (Rachel Kempson) of the man he’s impersonating. It’s a hoax of romantic proportions, and he unwittingly wins the wife back through this correspondence. Naturally, she does not yet know her husband is dead or that a foreign Cyrano is behind the messages she keeps receiving by mail. Instead she continues to read and savor each word.
Screenwriters Angus MacPhail and Guy Morgan have adapted a story by Patrick Kirwan that’s based on the true story of two people. Mr. Redgrave’s character is standing in for a Czech officer named Josef Bryks, who had joined the RAF Reserve and did end up having a relationship with the widow of a pilot that served in the RAF. The couple married after the war; however, this film’s narrative stops short of wedded bliss.
Eventually, Redgrave is busted out of the POW camp, and he makes his way to England. This sets the stage for the denouement where he finally meets the lady he’s been playing post office with all this time.
He confesses the ruse and lets her know why he had to take her late husband’s identity. She seems to understand, though she is emotionally conflicted by the news. After learning about her husband’s death, she rereads the letters she had received during the war from this imposter. She decides he is the man she now loves!
Off camera, Rachel Kempson and Michael Redgrave had an even more unusual relationship. They though they would remain married, Redgrave struggled with his sexuality and was often unfaithful– something Kempson seemed to tolerate. A short time after THE CAPTIVE HEART hit screens, they took their children to America and made films in Hollywood for awhile. But none of those pictures were half as good as THE CAPTIVE HEART.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 16, 2023 14:16:16 GMT
This neglected film is from 1954.
“I’m sorry but I don’t have anything smaller.”
This is a charming lightweight production that features Gregory Peck with a distinguished cast of British character actors. Together, they bring one of Mark Twain’s more amusing stories to life. Peck is an American, naturally, who’s accidentally made his way to England in a storm. Down on his luck, with no money and nobody to help him, he wanders the streets trying to find a job. Since he’s so conspicuous, one wonders why he isn’t arrested for vagrancy or put on the next ship back to the U.S. and immediately deported.
But then if he spent the story in jail or on his way back to his native country, we wouldn’t get this delightful tale of a fish out of water who learns a most unusual lesson in economics. The titular million pound note belongs to an old codger who decides to wager a bet that no one can spend such a large bill. He sees Peck grifting along one day outside his window and chooses him. If Peck’s able to re-present the note in one month’s time, unspent, then the codger and another man will do everything in their power to find him suitable employment.
This, of course, leads to all sorts of silly predicaments. There are some wonderful scenes inside a restaurant where Peck eats two full meals and is unable to pay for the food with anything smaller. He then goes to a haberdashery to buy some new clothes, but the merchant also cannot make change for such huge currency. You get the idea. He will be setting up accounts with the understanding that when he has a real job in a month’s time, he can pay it all back.
Some of what happens on screen stretches credibility. For instance, how does he know what he will be earning on his new job? What if he overextends himself financially? He keeps the million pound note in a pocket for the first half hour of the movie. Wouldn’t he be afraid it might get lost or stolen?
There is a very memorable outdoor sequence where the wind does blow it out of his hands, away from him. He scrambles to get it back. If he loses possession of the million pound note, he’ll be right back to where he was in the beginning, broke and jobless.
Obviously, we’re not meant to concern ourselves with the reality of the situation. This is a farce…it is Twain’s way of humorously commenting on the attainment of wealth. On a deeper level, Twain is making statements about the futility of monetary goals. As well as a wry critique about banks, savings and loans.
Peck is having the time of his life as the sudden millionaire. When he checks in at a fancy hotel, people fawn all over him. They excuse his atypical behavior (since he’s about as nouveau riche as they come!) by convincing themselves he’s just eccentric.
None of them seem to be providing genuine customer service to him because they value his patronage. Instead, they seem to have one thing in mind: what they can gain by having such a wealthy man in their establishment. Of course, none of these folks realize he’s actually a bum!
If you think about it, the story could really go in any direction. Twain provides us with a dandy premise, and depending on how Peck’s character is fleshed out, the money and change in status can either corrupt him or reaffirm his original values. It’s a good what-if, and the idea has been redone several times since this British production first entertained audiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 15, 2023 13:38:57 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Tense sequences and atmospheric touches
This British classic has a lot of tense sequences and atmospheric touches that make it a most absorbing way to spend 90 minutes, if you are looking for something worthwhile to watch. The problem with many Hollywood medical mysteries from the 1940s is that the doctor usually turns sleuth and ends up investigating the same way any old inspector would. But this British offering brings in an outside police detective (Alastair Sim) whose job it is to learn about the intricate goings on at a clinic/surgery where multiple murders take place.
While Sim is investigating, he is asking questions someone unfamiliar with specific medical practices would be asking. In a way he stands in for a viewer who may not have a working knowledge of what surgeons do or what anesthetists do. While attempting to understand how a core group of doctors and nurses work during an operation, he is also trying to figure out which one would be able to kill a patient on the operating table. More importantly, which one would have sufficient motive to want said person said.
Of course, any good mystery will provide more than one viable suspect and more than one red herring. As Sims gets to know the five main professionals at the clinic, so do we. We learn how each one may have had an unusual connection to the first victim. Then when a second killing occurs, that is much more graphic than the original death, we begin to theorize which doctor or nurse may have also wanted the second victim out of the way.
There is a spectacular sequence midway into the story that should be mentioned. It takes place after an evening dance and leads to the death of the second victim (Judy Campbell). It all plays like a Hitchcock suspense thriller with the victim being followed back to the clinic after the dance. She intends to reclaim a piece of evidence that she seems to be using to blackmail the real culprit. Of course, she gets bumped off before she can do something with that evidence, or phone the police.
A bit later a third attack takes place, in which one of the nurses (Sally Gray) is nearly gassed to death, and then dropped down a flight of stairs. Unlike the previous targets, she survives. Since she is no longer a suspect, she secretly works with Sim and Sim’s assistant to fool the others. The idea is to force the killer to strike again during the next surgery.
The final sequence involving the surgery brings everything to a satisfying conclusion. The doctor (Leo Genn) who seems most guilty, and the one (Trevor Howard) who’s being framed, are of course, both innocent.
Rather it is a lovely soft-spoken colleague (Rosamund John) who surprisingly turns out to be the murderer. A very credible backstory has been created for Miss John’s character which adequately explains why she committed the first murder, and how that led her to commit subsequent acts of violence.
Part of what makes the film so absorbing to watch are the skillful performances. Plus there is some clever editing, which keeps the viewer off balance, not only during the killing scenes, but during the surgery. We never fully know how it will all play out, until it’s almost too late. I won’t spoil the twist, which involves the color green, referenced in the title. You will have to watch the film for yourself to find out what that means.
|
|
|
|
Post by kims on Sept 15, 2023 18:32:41 GMT
I can watch GREEN FOR DANGER over and over again-what a cast, what a script, what editing and Alistair Sim-perfection.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Sept 15, 2023 23:41:11 GMT
Any film with Sally Gray is alright with me!
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 22, 2023 13:58:10 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Facing death they get a second chance at life
Sometimes we don’t need to know what the inspiration or source material is, we just need to take the movie on its own terms and let it work its magic on us. DOUBLE CONFESSION isn’t a magical motion picture per se, but it does cast a spell on its spectators, who are quickly drawn into a hodgepodge of scenarios and intriguing character studies that play out along a coastal resort area.
The central focus involves the death of a married woman that may have been having an extramarital affair. Her dead body is found inside a seashore cottage. Not too far away, a blackmailer’s body has also been found down near the water. Police take their sweet time investigating both deaths and it is implied the woman was murdered while the man had accidentally fallen off a cliff. But these pronouncements are later reversed, when it’s revealed the woman had in fact committed suicide while the man was pushed off the cliff.
The two deaths which happen on the same night are linked since both of the deceased individuals knew a businessman (William Hartnell) in town. Part of the mystery here is just how culpable Hartnell’s character is in the two deaths, with police and invested local parties offering a wide array of theories.
One theory belongs to the dead woman’s husband (Derek Farr) who has just returned from a few years abroad. After a lengthy separation, he was on his way to the cottage to reunite with his wife when he found her lifeless corpse. He doesn’t exactly cooperate with the police, but he puts pressure on Hartnell since he holds Hartnell responsible for what’s happened and has a score to settle. This unnerves Hartnell’s sleazy associate (Peter Lorre, who steals every scene he’s in).
Hartnell and Lorre enjoy a slightly unusual relationship. Particularly since there isn’t anything Lorre won’t do out of loyalty for Hartnell. At one point, Lorre devises a plan to divert suspicion from Hartnell and cause an ‘accident’ for Farr. As I said, there’s an assortment of scenarios playing out here, and you almost need a scorecard to sort who’s who and what their individual motives may be.
While all this is happening, Farr takes time along the shore to relax. He meets a pretty tourist (Joan Hopkins) with troubles of her own, involving a domestic crisis at home. She’s here to clear her mind and regain perspective. She and Farr start falling for each other, even if she wonders whether he may have killed his wife, until it is proven the wife committed suicide. There’s a memorable scene where Farr and Hopkins each have their fortunes read inside a tent, and they hear things told to the other about their respective pasts and futures, which draws them together even more.
Meanwhile, there is a standalone subplot that involves a single woman past her prime (Kathleen Harrison) who sets her sights on unsuspecting prey (Leslie Dwyer). The film keeps cutting back to them for lighter, amusing moments and eventually we see them pair off. They are totally unaware of the two dead bodies and the investigations that have been going on with the other characters.
Although this is not a brilliant movie, it’s one I enjoy a great deal. Would it have been better in the hands of a skilled director like Alfred Hitchcock? Probably. Especially the scene in the lake where Lorre tries to kill Farr with a speedboat while Farr’s out for a swim with Hopkins. The editing would have been more strategic and suspenseful if Hitchcock had overseen that sequence. But as it is, DOUBLE CONFESSION still casts a spell on us. It draws us into a series of interconnected activities about the dead and the living. The living who are facing death, get a second chance at life.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 9, 2023 15:51:47 GMT
This neglected film is from 1937.
Young and accused
For an Alfred Hitchcock film there is surprisingly little suspense in this one. We know from the very first shots when a woman’s body is washed up on the shore, that she’s been murdered.
But we also know that a young man (Derrick De Marney) couldn’t possibly have done it, because we watch him discover the body. Even if we hadn’t seen that, the title of the film tells us he’s innocent. So there is hardly any doubt or suspense about whether he’s the actual culprit. It would’ve been better if we hadn’t seen him discover the dead gal’s body and the drama had started with him being seen running away.
That way when a local constable’s daughter (Nova Pilbeam) gets drawn into the situation, we can wonder if her instincts are correct in trusting him and wanting to help him go on the lam and prove his innocence. In fact it would’ve been even more intriguing if he had been a Norman Bates who was actually guilty but she was still captivated by his boyish quality and wanted to be with him up to the end, despite what the law would see fit to do.
Speaking of young, Mr. De Marney was 31, perhaps a bit too old for the role; while Miss Pilbeam was just 18. She’s perfectly cast as a confused teen who is trying to do what’s right, while falling in love with a wanted man. Since her father is a law enforcer, and his career may be in jeopardy once the truth is known about her aiding and abetting a fugitive, the situation becomes increasingly complex.
In case things get too overwrought Hitchcock does have the sense to add in a few comic relief types. Some of these funnier side characters have a bit of an edge to them. Best among them are Mary Clare as Pilbeam’s society-minded aunt who is overseeing a party when Pilbeam and De Marney are on the run and temporarily stop off at her home. There is also a vagabond played by Edward Rigby who is able to help prove De Marney’s innocence due to his having received a new raincoat from the murderer (George Curzon).
Incidentally the raincoat with the missing belt that was used to strangle the victim has been changed from the original novel. In the book, it was a regular overcoat which lost a button that wound up in the killed woman’s hair. De Marney’s character was cleared in the book because the coat he lost had all its buttons intact. Not sure why Hitchcock and his writers changed it to a raincoat with a belt, unless he had a predilection for death by strangulation, something he’d revisit later in FRENZY (1972) with women offed by a necktie killer.
Despite some of the more drawn out aspects of the couple hiding from the police and the lack of genuine suspense, there are still rather nice moments in the film. Some of the shots of the English countryside are worth savoring. And the romantic angle between the leads is well played. Plus there is an interesting resolution when Pilbeam and Rigby track down the culprit, who is performing in blackface as a member of a hotel band.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 9, 2023 16:37:48 GMT
⇧ Wonderful review of an okay Hitchcock movie. It's been several years since I've seen it, but remember having a similar impression. Only from memory, but weren't there several obviously miniature sets used of a train and factory or am I confusing this one with another Hitch movie?
The other thing I clearly remember from this one was the stunning Nova Pilbeam, a striking looking actress who, having been the female lead in a Hitchcock movie at eighteen, I would have guessed would have had a bigger career. She seemed to have had it all - looks, talent, screen presence, but her IMDB bio says she married in '39 and retired in the '40s. Plus, what a great name.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 9, 2023 16:45:47 GMT
⇧ Wonderful review of an okay Hitchcock movie. It's been several years since I've seen it, but remember having a similar impression. Only from memory, but weren't there several obviously miniature sets used of a train and factory or am I confusing this one with another Hitch movie?
The other thing I clearly remember from this one was the stunning Nova Pilbeam, a striking looking actress who, having been the female lead in a Hitchcock movie at eighteen, I would have guessed would have had a bigger career. She seemed to have had it all - looks, talent, screen presence, but her IMDB bio says she married in '39 and retired in the '40s. Plus, what a great name.
Incidentally, I felt that Derrick De Marney very much resembled Farley Granger. So I wonder if Hitch had De Marney in mind when he was casting ROPE a decade later. Of course by then De Marney would have been 40-something and way too old to play a college student...but I wouldn't be surprised if Granger was cast because he reminded Hitchcock of De Marney. |
|
