|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 9, 2023 16:53:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 16, 2023 18:11:52 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
Atmospheric melodrama
![]() 
This is a very atmospheric film. Director Marc Allegret is doing specific things with the positioning of the actors and the use of Technicolor to create illusions of depth and perspective as in a Renaissance painting. It is exquisitely photographed, and all seasons are in evidence with the on-location shooting. It must’ve been a very painstaking and exacting process to capture the variety of images that ultimately ended up in the finished picture.
Allegret was a French director who went to England after the Second World War to make a few English-language productions. BLANCHE FURY, a gothic love story based on a real-life incident, is considered the best of those. By the early 1950s, Allegret would return to his native France where he spent the rest of his career. One assumes that if BLANCHE FURY is any indication of his talents, there must be a lot of greatness in his other works as well.
In BLANCHE FURY a woman (Valerie Hobson) travels to a country estate where she marries a distant cousin (Michael Gough). She doesn't love the cousin and has a torrid affair with their handsome groundskeeper (Stewart Granger), who is an illegitimate heir of the family's fortune. Desiring an opportunity to be with each other and claim all the money and property, the couple carry out a plan to murder the cousin. The twist here is that they stage the murder so that prejudiced locals will think a band of gypsies did it.
With an engaging storyline and Allegret's assured direction, BLANCHE FURY stands up quite well. Not only is the use of color and staging incredibly controlled, the two leads, Hobson and Granger, simply could not be better. Mr. Granger’s line deliveries are the sharpest ever seen from him, with the actor at his most effective during a dramatic courtroom scene near the end of the story.
Miss Hobson, in the titular role, was married to producer Anthony Havelock-Allan. She brings a pensive quality and a type of penance to the character she portrays. There are layers upon layers of guilt that she projects after a dangerous wish turns deadly. All her moments are solemnly played.
But what pulls even the most casual viewer into this film so strongly is that we see and feel the change in temperature. Not only do scenes in the countryside and moments around the exterior of the manor show us a variety of seasonal activities, but the way the characters adjust to these seasons perfectly conveys how their own inner-natures change. At times it’s as if they know instinctively just what their own startling conclusions will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 29, 2023 14:41:19 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Where’s my brother, what have you done to my brother?
It had been awhile since I had seen this classic British suspense yarn, and when I rewatched it recently, it occurred to me just how perfectly cast Jean Simmons is in the main role. Unlike Margaret Lockwood, who portrays a similar character in THE LADY VANISHES, there is something quite uneasy about Simmons’ approach to the ‘is she or isn’t she crazy’ character she’s playing. And this uneasiness draws the viewer into the story in unexpected ways.
In THE LADY VANISHES, we know that Lockwood is not really crazy. There is a considerable twenty-minute prologue where she’s at a lodge waiting to board a train the next morning, and she’s perfectly sane. So that later when she’s on the speeding locomotive and people start to think she’s nuts, we know she isn’t actually nuts. As a result, there is less suspense in Hitchcock’s version of this tale.
But in SO LONG AT THE FAIR, we really don’t have much time to observe or study Simmons during the introductory scenes. All we know is that she and her brother (David Tomlinson) have traveled from Britain to Paris for the world expo, that they are interested in going up the Eiffel Tower and that handsome Dirk Bogarde erroneously assumes they are a couple instead of siblings. There isn’t much time to develop Simmons straight away, so we don’t have a true picture of her the way we do with Lockwood in the previous film.
A short time later, when the brother goes missing and Simmons takes to wailing ‘where’s my brother, what have you done to my brother?,’ she is quickly on the brink of insanity. And we may wonder if those earlier scenes were part of a hallucination…perhaps she didn’t really come to Paris with a brother. Perhaps she’s a looney bird and belongs in a psych ward somewhere. Adding to the discomfort we feel watching this is how Simmons amps up the agitation and neuroticism her character may have even if she’s not one hundred percent loco.
I also think Simmons is more suited to the part, because she’s not quite as put together as Miss Lockwood. In all her films, Margaret Lockwood comes across as assured and confident, even in a mysterious or dangerous situation. But Simmons is never that self-confident. Off screen the actress battled insecurities and a drinking problem, so when her character on screen becomes high strung, it feels more believable. Simmons also does a fantastic job in 1957’s HOME BEFORE DARK— that time she is a woman recovering after a recent breakdown.
Back to SO LONG AT THE FAIR…whether or not she’s hallucinating, and going all mental, she has dashing young Mr. Bogarde at her side as an ally. He believes her story, even if the others who may be conspiring, do not seem to. Of course, this provides the narrative’s romantic strand, because if Bogarde can help prove Simmons did have a brother who may still be alive somewhere, she will be vindicated and free to take up with him.
I won’t spoil the ending for those who haven’t seen it. But like THE LADY VANISHES, there is a cover-up of sorts going on. And there are plenty of nail-biting scenes where our fragile heroine, with the help of the handsome man, is finally able to expose the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 29, 2023 15:02:37 GMT
Funny, as I was reading the first part of your review, I was thinking of how well Simmons played a "is she / isn't she" crazy character in "Home Before Dark," but then I saw you noted it. I think you're spot on as Simmons just has a mien that reads she could be a bit unglued, "Angel Face" is a good example of that. Lockwood is, as you note, the opposite, as she reads very stable and very in control. I just saw her in "The Man in Grey" (a very good movie that would make a fun Sunday Live! one) and she projected confidence throughout even when in very tough and humbling situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 12, 2023 14:54:50 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
Stylish reincarnation role-play
This stylish drama has a unique look and feel to it. The lead actress, Edana Romney, didn’t star in other films. As actress and cowriter of the picture’s screenplay, she put her all into this effort. She is ably assisted by director Terence Young and costars Eric Portman, Barbara Mullen and Hugh Sinclair. They help carry the story over some of its more uneven spots. But altogether, this is a fine production that meshes elements of noir, horror and mystery.
Portman portrays a wealthy aesthete. You could term him a conceptual artist who brings his ideas about the past to life in the present. Actually, all artists do that on some level. However, Portman goes to the romantic extreme by desiring to recapture a centuries old love affair with a new subject and source of inspiration in the form of Miss Romney.
At first she falls for him like any hotblooded female would, cast under his hypnotic spell and swept up by his imaginative ideas. But after receiving a warning from one of Portman’s houseguests (Mullen), Romney begins to question this unusual relationship. Soon her enchantment has turned to fear that the man she’s involved with may be quite mad. If she doesn’t escape his influence, she may become a victim.
There’s an interesting subplot where Romney leaves Portman and his bizarre reincarnation role-play. She goes off to holiday in Wales with one of her father’s friends, a handsome explorer (Sinclair) who is keen on her. She will choose to marry Sinclair and have children with him, though she has to get Portman out of her system for good.
At the conclusion of her holiday, Romney returns to London where Portman is throwing a lavish masquerade ball. There are some amazing costumes in this sequence, but the highlight is a magical gondola ride after dark. The evening climaxes with an elongated waltz that takes place in front of the titular mirrors inside a corridor so huge it is practically its own room.
Just as Romney is about to leave again, a murder occurs. Portman confesses, there is a quick trial and he is hanged. After his execution, we learn Romney has been going to visit his likeness in a wax museum. At the museum she is being stalked by the real murderer, which means Portman’s character was not a killer.
Stunning visuals, shrewd acting and a good deal of suspense combined with loads of atmosphere and originality make this a must-see motion picture. It’s a real winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 23, 2023 14:46:29 GMT
This neglected film is from 1952.
Elements of kitchen sink drama
I guess when you watch a film like this, you wonder why the story was written in the first place. Before being adapted for the big screen, it had been a stage play that resonated with theatergoers who made it a hit. I don’t have the answers, just a theory. My theory is this: I believe there was a sense of postwar malaise afflicting British sensibilities. And with nihilism, there must have been faithlessness.
The story presents a central religious figure whose own family seems to have lost its way. This is a critical problem during what it is supposed to be holy and festive season of the year. Relatives are seen traveling to the parson’s home at Christmastime for their own specific reasons. Perhaps the main reason is out of habit. They seem to be going through the motions.
As everyone gathers for the holiday, secrets are gradually revealed. Some secrets have been festering a long time. Why they all come out now is not fully explained, except everyone appears to be in a reflective and melancholy mood since the recent death of the parson’s unnamed wife.
The most dramatic secret involves a daughter (Margaret Leighton) who had a child out of wedlock during the war and never once introduced her son to the rest of the family. As if the shame of this wasn’t enough, we are further told that the little boy died. It’s heavy stuff.
Meanwhile there is a subplot concerning another daughter (Celia Johnson) who wants to get married and move to South America. In these types of dramas, it is never enough that they want to move to the other side of England. No, they have to be relocating halfway around the globe!
Unfortunately Miss Johnson feels a duty to stay home and care for her aging father (Ralph Richardson) who is not quite ready to retire from his parish, though he occasionally doubts the amount of good he’s doing for the local community. It’s sort of interesting to see Mr. Richardson in this paternal role a short time after playing such an overbearing father in THE HEIRESS.
None of these characters are particularly loathsome. They make mistakes, they fear the truth, but they are each fundamentally decent, including a son (Denholm Elliott) who’s in the military and prone to drinking too much with one of his sisters. But while they are not evil, they are still coming to terms with their individual demons.
What we have is an early kitchen sink drama…where things are overly bleak and overly confrontational. We know most of it will work out alright in the end, so that the characters and the audience will be able to enjoy a good holiday. But again, why…what is the point of venturing so far into such a depressing abyss? Was the writer trying to provide a type of therapy when Britain needed it most?
One thing I will say about the final moments of THE HOLLY AND THE IVY…it did pull tears out of me at the end…but this was not the story as much as it was Celia Johnson’s acting when her character realized she’d now be able to marry. She’s such a grounded and genuine actress, all her moments ring true. I was almost ashamed at how easy it was for me to cry at that.
But the film as a whole leaves me with a lot of unanswered questions…these are things that one can overlook if the film has sufficiently worked its holiday magic, causing the reviewer to be more forgiving than usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Nov 27, 2023 2:17:45 GMT
The Holly and the Ivy from 1952 with Celia Johnson, Ralph Richardson, Margaret Leighton, Maureen Delaney, Margaret Halstan and Denholm Elliott
All Christmas movies, including classics like The Bishop's Wife and Shop Around the Corner have conflict. Heck, even Hallmark puts some, albeit weak, conflict in its yearly explosion of Christmas movies because, otherwise, there is no movie.
Something has to go wrong or be a challenge or there's nothing to be overcome by the spirit of Christmas, so we can all feel good in the end. What is surprising is when a Christmas movie doesn't hold back but brings some real challenges and dysfunction.
The Holly and the Ivy brings it. Alcoholism, an out-of-wedlock birth (when that mattered), a minister's son questioning his faith and an adult daughter sacrificing too much for her widowed father drive the story in this little gem of a Christmas movie.
With his cozy rectory being nicely decorated for Christmas in anticipation of his adult children coming to visit, a reverend, played by Ralph Richardson, seems set to have a perfect Noel celebration, but early on we see that nothing is as it appears.
His son, played by Denholm Elliott, doubts his religious faith, but is uncomfortable discussing it with his father as the family's operating manual says that everyone tells Dad, Richardson, what they think he wants to hear.
This goes doubly for Richardson's younger daughter, played by Margaret Leighton, who is a fashion magazine editor in London. She secretly had a child out of wedlock who recently passed away at the age of four, prompting Leighton to turn to drink.
The "good daughter," played by Celia Johnson, is single, in her early thirties and runs the house for her absent-minded and aging father. Her boyfriend, played by John Gregson, is an engineer about to leave for a five-year assignment in South America.
He wants to marry Johnson and have her move to South America with him where they will start a family. Unless she can convince her sister, London-based Leighton, or one of her quirky aunts to take over the house, Johnson won't leave her father.
The aunts have their challenges, too. One, played by Maureen Delaney, is struggling financially, plus, she's no joy in general. The other aunt, played by Margaret Halstan, is kind but lonely. Her fear of not being invited for Christmas is heartbreaking.
The family then starts to arrive home on Christmas Eve. The house appears "happy" on the surface, but almost everyone is unhappy in reality. Oblivious to all the discord in his family, Richardson merrily goes about his day as the busy reverend.
Director George More O'Ferrall perfectly captures the contrast between the surface and the reality in a home like this as we see small alliances form as frustrations are discussed in nooks, rooms and corners away from the others.
The whispered conversations, the white lies, the conspiratorial flash of one's eyes, the occasional flare of anger and the immediate attempt to put everything "right" again so "Dad doesn't know" reveal a home in turmoil underneath its placid facade.
This is still a Christmas movie, so two things inevitably happen. The problems eventually spill out, which greatly surprises Richardson. But he also turns out to be much more understanding than his family expected, so solutions and reconciliations are possible.
It's the Christmas-spirit moment all Christmas movies have. Even in this gritty and realistic picture, the resolutions happen too quickly and easily. Yet it's believable that this family, in time, will solve its problems, so you just smile and enjoy the Hollywood ending.
The acting is uniformly impressive. Johnson and Richardson stand out, but each actor creates a convincing character. The dialogue is crip, honest and, often, harsh, with only the too-easy ending feeling forced.
The Holly and the Ivy, with its genuine family discord, is too realistic to ever become a beloved "holiday favorite." But for those who like their Christmas movies with some bite, it's an engaging film with only a bit too much sentimentality at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 15, 2023 14:08:45 GMT
This neglected film is from 1954.
Then what shall the sea have?
This neglected British war film has a strong cast, including Michael Redgrave, Dirk Bogarde and Bonar Colleano. It’s about 90 minutes in length, and much of it was shot inside a British studio, which will be fairly obvious to the average viewer…not at all on location. But it’s still worth looking at and sometimes is uploaded on YouTube.
The cast vary in terms of box office clout, and all are at different stages in their respective careers. Redgrave was the most successful at this point. He’d already established himself in British cinema and had already gone to Hollywood to make a few American films before returning to London. I should note that his wife, actress Rachel Kempson, plays his wife in this film, like she occasionally did in his other pictures.
Due to the somewhat limited budget, the music is sparse and there are modest special effects on display. Certainly nothing to write home about, and much of what ends up on screen could be termed a “B” version of the much more well-known British war flick IN WHICH WE SERVE (1942). In both pictures, we have soldiers stranded at sea in need of rescuing.
Here the men are on board an aircraft that is damaged by attacking Germans in the North Sea. Our main soldiers fall into the sea that apparently seeks to claim them; they manage to stay afloat in a rubber dinghy but cannot send any SOS message. However, a team of the RAF’s air-sea rescue unit have been alerted to their disappearance and launch a mission to locate them.
Subsequent scenes portray two officers (Anthony Steel and Nigel Patrick) coordinating the search and rescue efforts that ensue. Meanwhile there is a bit of comic relief involving some peripheral characters such as a bossy corporal (Sydney Tafler). Incidentally, Tafler was the brother-in-law of writer-director Lewis Gilbert. Gilbert used Tafler in a few more films, notably in REACH FOR THE SKY (1956), which was made two years later.
Of course, not all the comedic elements work in this film. Some of the so-called humor seems out of place. The amusing moments were probably incorporated into the script to lighten a drama focused on such serious subject matter.
The bulk of Redgrave’s scenes take place in the dinghy and have him acting opposite Bogarde, who is cast as a sergeant struggling to stay alive on the water. The men don’t always get along and must deal with the discomforts of their unexpected situation together. For example, they experience cramped space, go through their rations and try to keep their spirits up.
While Redgrave and Bogarde get a bit more prominence, there still are some interesting moments for costar Bonar Colleano who does a splendid job. Colleano was an American stage and screen actor that found success in Britain. Until the men are saved, the action is considerably restricted. Also, the men seem to have little to discuss at times, though I’m sure they have loved ones on their minds and probably could have talked about that. One of them becomes a father at the end of the movie.
Before everything gets resolved, there’s a side-story involving an important wartime document in a briefcase carried by Redgrave. Ultimately, we don’t find out the document’s exact value, which means you could call it a MacGuffin of sorts. The briefcase does come into play in a scene when Bogarde’s character threatens mass suicide because he’s depressed at sea.
Regarding Bogarde’s performance, he’s tapping into some Method-style theatrics in the dinghy. And quite frankly, I find his emoting to be a bit overdone compared to Redgrave’s more naturalistic style. But of course, Bogarde manages to convey the torment his character is undergoing, which the audience needs to see.
Going back to the briefcase for a second…I suppose the briefcase containing the document has been included in the film to show how these guys are worth rescuing. And by saving them, it can potentially save more people from the Germans. We don’t really need to know what’s written on any paper Redgrave’s character is carrying with him. After all, it’s classified information. But we know that when he delivers what’s inside the briefcase, it will be a patriotic and heroic act.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 25, 2023 15:38:29 GMT
This film is from 1951.
Ebenezer's redemption
It’s interesting how this story, by a British writer, has become such a holiday staple in the United States. Americans probably love Charles Dickens’ classic just as much as the Brits do. Not one December goes by without Scrooge, the Cratchits and Tiny Tim making an appearance in some form or another.
Fortunately for fans, myriad versions of the story are available online. It can be enjoyed in the form of literature, or by watching it on film. Plus there are notable radio and TV versions. Of course, some of these adaptations are better than others.
For nostalgic reasons, MGM’s 1938 production remains my personal favorite rendering of the tale. I’ve written before that when I was a senior in high school, our drama department put on a stage play of the Dickens holiday favorite. We used dialogue directly from the MGM movie, and I was cast as Ebenezer. So I spent a lot of time studying Reginald Owen’s performance, not necessarily to emulate it, but to get ideas how to play the character.
From a technical standpoint, I tend to feel that Alastair Sim’s interpretation of the disagreeable chap is probably the best one ever put to film. This is an opinion that many share. When I view how Sim approaches the role in the 1951 production, I see the neuroses of the character more clearly. And while I don’t think a casual viewer wants it played in a way that’s completely bonkers, Sim showing us the neurotic and insecure side means his ultimate transformation is more miraculous. And this is, after all, a Christmas miracle story.
Even though I am older now, I still recall whole sections of the script we used, and I can still recite a lot of the dialogue. Something about my experience as Ebenezer has stayed with me, and the scenes are always vivid in my mind. To be honest, part of who old Ebenezer Scrooge is at his core, actually haunts me. He was a lonely alienated man and none of us likes to be lonely. He was also a person who defined success by wealth and outward appearances, which is what so many people still do.
The good thing about how he is, is that he is open to reforming. He wants to feel loved and be connected to other people. He would be hopelessly evil if he wasn’t redeemable or willing to be redeemed. That is what I love most about the character that Dickens created for us. The final scenes in the story are heartwarming.
I sincerely hope our readers have a joyous Christmas this year. And if you know a real-life Ebenezer Scrooge, maybe you can be someone that helps extend the warmth of human kindness to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 6, 2024 14:15:29 GMT
This neglected film is from 1947.
At the Palais de Danse
This is a somewhat minor though memorable British noir from the postwar period. It stars real-life couple Richard Attenborough and Sheila Sim (married for 69 years) in the lead roles.
Attenborough is an ex-military twenty-something who has been through the war and now works as a cab driver. Sim plays his girlfriend who goes with him to meet up with one of Attenborough pals (Bill Owen) from the service. While having drinks and soaking up the atmosphere at a local Palais de Danse (public dance hall), the two guys catch up on old times.
It is obvious that while Attenborough is on the right side of the law, Owen is not. A short time later, Owen is seen consorting with black marketeers, some of whom run the dance hall. Mixed into this is a club hostess (Judy Kelly) who dances with customers and enjoys a relationship with both Owen and the head of the gang (Barry K. Barnes). To say she’s playing with fire is an understatement.
Owen feels cheated on a deal, so there is a skirmish with him and Barnes, and he takes a bullet. While running from the dance hall, he spots the cab Attenborough drives, which had been left unattended for a few moments. Owen hops in the back and hides. Attenborough returns to the car and takes off, not realizing his friend is in the back, unconscious and dying.
When Attenborough discovers his friend, it’s too late because Owen has died. This sets up the rest of the movie with Attenborough deciding to avenge Owen’s death and nail Barnes. One of the problems is getting evidence against Barnes, since all Attenborough has is a vague suspicion of Barnes’ guilt. The police show up at the dance hall to investigate since it was known Owen had dealings there.
Barnes and his boss (Barry Jones) try to get their story straight. And Kelly will keep quiet, since she is afraid of being bumped off herself if she says too much to the authorities.
In order to obtain necessary evidence against Barnes, Attenborough’s girlfriend (Sim) decides to go undercover at the dance hall to work there alongside Kelly and the other molls. Sim is almost a bit too prim for the role, and she is not exactly believable as a ten-cents-a-dance chick. But she does provide a sincere performance.
Much of the movie involves Sim and assorted shady types in the dance hall, while Attenborough is out on the streets in his taxi trying to learn about the black market scheme, to make inroads against Barnes and the rest of the gang that way.
There are ongoing bits of business with the coppers still investigating everything, but we know Attenborough, set up as the hero of the story, will be the one who actually brings Barnes down. For the most part, the film moves at a quick enough pace; we have engaging performances from nearly all the cast; and there’s plenty of atmosphere with the dance hall at the center of everything.
Some of the supporting players are just as good as Attenborough and Sim…in particular, I thought Judy Kelly went the extra mile to convey the frightened yet still independent nature of her character. Eventually she realizes she’s on the wrong side of the law and tells the police everything she knows. Her soft resignation in that moment is one of the better scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 6, 2024 14:32:03 GMT
If you have an hour and a half to spare (83 minutes to be exact), and you like noir, and you like smart British acting, check out DANCING WITH CRIME.
The folks at the BFI have done an immaculate job restoring the print for this one. The upload is in HD:
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 20, 2024 13:35:06 GMT
This neglected film is from 1938.
Up the Matterhorn
A preface at the beginning of the film tells us that many of the world’s tallest peaks were conquered by climbers by the mid 19th century. But one peak that hadn’t been successfully scaled, with an altitude of nearly 15,000 feet, was the famed Matterhorn in Europe. Two mountaineering parties sought to be the first to the top in 1865. One party was an Italian group led by Jean Carrel (Luis Trenker); and the other party was a group of British adventurers led by Edward Whymper (Robert Douglas).
The arduous climb would require plenty of determination and skill. What’s somewhat interesting about these two teams attempting to conquer the Matterhorn is how at first, they were more cooperative with one another. Then it became an intense competition, with both sides trying to beat the other. As the men struggled to reach the peak, their rivalry took on more nationalistic and political aims.
Luis Trenker, who plays Carrel, was an athletic climber who had appeared in an early German silent film version of the tale. Starting as a stunt man for the riskiest scenes, he quickly transitioned to acting, then later directing. As director, he was responsible for this remake in English; as well as a simultaneous remake called DER BERG RUFF (THE MOUNTAIN CALLS). The German remake is twenty minutes longer, and it can be found online, while the British release has been made available by the folks at Criterion.
The best parts of each film involve the on-location climbing, which of course, comes with breathtaking scenery. Mountaineering films became a popular fad for moviegoers to indulge in during the 1920s and 1930s. Some later films in this cycle were also made— namely, RKO’s THE WHITE TOWER from 1950.
THE CHALLENGE contains a highly memorable sequence where the British party reaches the top first. They celebrate, causing heartbreak for the defeated Italians who weren’t too far behind. As the British men start descending the Matterhorn, there is a problem with the ropes, and many of them fall to their deaths. It’s a shocking and ironic thing to watch, with them suddenly plunging from the summit of their existence into the great depths below.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 24, 2024 14:27:32 GMT
This neglected film is from 1943.
A good woman with a bad life
This early Gainsborough melodrama has a winning foursome in the lead roles. Up till this point, only one of them (Margaret Lockwood) was an established star; though this role took her career in a completely different direction and seems to have reinvented her. The other three— James Mason, Phyllis Calvert and Stewart Granger— already had motion picture credits but had not really broken through. Granger was the least experienced in movies, so his name appears in a slightly smaller font size on the opening credits.
Most of the main characters, including the title character played by Mason, are not very good people. They are morally compromised, some with greater shades of evil than the others. Mason is particularly cruel, and Lockwood who is cast as a dark-hearted mistress is just as wicked in her scenes. Granger’s character starts as a rogue then becomes more heroic. The only character the audience may like all the way is Calvert’s, but hers is a frustrating one because she is so self-deluded at times, such a poor judge of character, that the way she becomes a victim to husband Mason and supposed friend Lockwood, puts her in a category of complete naivety.
The fact that Calvert is never able to see Mason or Lockwood for who they really are, ultimately becomes her undoing. It’s a highly melodramatic narrative, with Calvert so desperate for matrimonial love and genuine friendship, that it’s all the more tragic when she receives neither. After finally giving up on her marriage to Mason, Calvert settles into an affair with Granger, which is being orchestrated behind the scenes by Lockwood. When Mason prevents Calvert from going off with Granger to an island in the Caribbean, because of the scandal it would create, Lockwood flips out.
I do have to say that Lockwood is particularly great at playing such an dangerous character. She’s the perfect contrast on screen to Calvert’s innate goodness. It is a bit shocking when Calvert’s character develops a case of pneumonia, and Lockwood furthers the illness along, by using the situation to kill Calvert. If this were a Hollywood film, Lockwood wouldn’t get away with it…but she does here.
When Mason learns what happened from a young boy (Antony Scott) who witnessed the murder, he confronts Lockwood. She offers up a weak excuse, before he beats her senselessly. How’s that for justice!
Some of the more interesting moments in the film are over-the-top yet still played with genteel adroitness. Maybe that’s what makes THE MAN IN GREY such a fascinating study. The good lady dies, the others are left to inflict more pain and damage on each other. And it’s all handled with ease.
But I think what we have is more than just an artificially contrived melodrama. We have a sad story about a good woman who lived a very miserable and bad life. And unfortunately, there are women in these types of situations from generation to generation. On that note, the film is a cautious reminder that we may have long-suffering female friends among us who genuinely need our help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 24, 2024 16:51:38 GMT
The Man in Grey from 1943 with Phyllis Calvert, Margaret Lockwood, James Mason and Stewart Granger
The Man in Grey, from a popular novel at the time, is the movie equivalent of a page turner. It's not high art, but more like a fun romance / bodice-ripper novel brought to the screen.
A nod must be given to Britain's Gainsborough Pictures for producing this reasonably elaborate costume drama during WWII. It might be a notch down from Hollywood at its best at the time, but it's only a small notch.
The story is framed by an opening and closing scene set in, then, present day WWII Britain as two strangers, played by Phyllis Calvert and Stewart Granger, meet at the auction of the Rohan estate.
They each have an ancestor connecting them to a scandal that took place in the Rohan family back in the early 1800s. The movie then quickly dissolves to that earlier time period where we meet Calvert again, this time playing her ancestor, a young lady at a finishing school.
Kind and socially respectable Calvert befriends the school's outcast, the poor "social nobody" played by Margaret Lockwood. The old WASP quip about being careful about the friends you make as a freshman at college applies here as well.
Lockwood later creates a scandal by running away from school with a boy. Calvert, meanwhile, now being "shopped around" for marriage is all but sold to the older, wealthy, respectable but cold Lord Rohan, played by James Mason.
Calvert goes into her marriage with an open heart, but quickly learns that her husband wants her only because he desires a male heir.
In fairness to Mason, he tells Calvert, you can have all the benefits of being my wife - name, stature, wealth - and affairs on the side like me, just be discreet. She's not happy, but makes her peace as it's not a terrible life, especially once she produces the required heir.
Calvert then meets a handsome young man, played by Stewart Granger, now playing his ancestor, who fires up her dormant libido. One assumes that in the book she and Granger took her libido out for a test drive, but on screen, that's left to your imagination.
The final piece of the puzzle falls into place when Calvert, by chance, meets a now very poor Lockwood who is struggling to get by as a traveling performer. Calvert, always the good and trusting friend, takes Lockwood into her home, effectively, as a companion.
The next step is the one that creates a stable equilibrium - Calvert and Granger have a discreet affair as do Mason and Lockwood, while Mason and Calvert, in public, play the happy couple - but movies are not made to showcase stable equilibriums.
Calvert wants the real thing, love in her marriage, and Lockwood wants the real thing, being Lady Rohan to the world. The climax, no spoilers coming, has Calvert trying to achieve her goal the honest way, while Lockwood tries deceit to achieve hers.
The result is a lot of drama and a surprisingly high body count, followed by a dissolve back to then present day England where Calvert and Lockwood tsk, tsk their ancestors and head off into the sunset and the rest of WWII.
Calvert, never looking prettier, is the one who both shines and carries the picture as the kind soul constantly being wronged, but who is still able to keep her good nature. Lockwood puts her natural dark sultriness to good use here as the conniving friend.
The men have smaller and less impactful roles as this is a women-driving picture, but still, Mason is in his element as an arrogant aristocrat as is Granger, young and handsome, in his, playing the swashbuckling "hero" Calvert deserves.
The Man in Grey is escapist fluff that hit the screen at the time when English and American audiences, saturated with war-time propaganda movies and newsreels, were happy to spend a few hours in a theater with a good old-fashioned tale of lust, greed, deceit, honor and heroism.
Today, the movie, despite its awkward 1943 bookends, works equally well as escapist entertainment free of the gratuitous sex, general anger and forced politics of modern pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 24, 2024 17:05:36 GMT
I agree that the framing device would have been more meaningful to a contemporary audience. Now the film can basically play without the auction scenes and still be just as effective.
I didn't quite buy Granger and Calvert being exact clones of their ancestors. I know this was done to facilitate the happy ending. But if a viewer had missed the auction bit at the beginning and come into the film ten minutes later, they would ask why a dead woman was now suddenly alive at the end and connecting with her soulmate in the modern day without having aged a bit!
|
|
