|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 24, 2024 20:54:40 GMT
Interesting that a film with a title of The Man in Grey would be headlined by two actresses instead of at least one of the two actors.
As TB noted only Lockwood was an established actor at the time. (and in that photo with Calvert, at first glance, I was sure that was Ireene Dunne).
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 25, 2024 0:06:13 GMT
I think the billing put Lockwood first since she was the bigger name, but she is not playing the character with the most screen time. That honor belongs to Calvert.
If they had all come into this with equal box office clout, Mason as the title character would likely have been billed first, followed by Calvert, with Lockwood in third place. Since Granger was less experienced and his character doesn't turn up till the half-way point, he clearly would have remained fourth-billed.
Incidentally, THE MAN IN GREY can be streamed on the Criterion Channel. That's where I watched it a few nights ago...the print has been nicely restored.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 12, 2024 7:39:47 GMT
This neglected film is from 1958.
Long Range Desert Group
The Long Range Desert Group, known as the LRDG, was a British Army raiding unit during WWII. The group was initially formed in Egypt in 1940 and specialized in covert missions in North Africa, missions that were carried out to undermine enemy operations. The men in the LRDG were rugged and daring souls, and their story, both collectively and individually, is told in this fine motion picture.
Guy Green had previously directed star Michael Craig in the Rank Organisation’s espionage thriller HOUSE OF SECRETS (1956). That proto Bond tale had underperformed at the British box office, so the studio put Craig into other genres. This was a chance for Craig to show what he could do in a war flick. While he was clean shaven and ever so dapper in HOUSE OF SECRETS, he would sport considerable facial hair this time, and he’d be filming on location in Tripoli.
The entire cast and crew were sent to Tripoli, and it would not be an easy shoot for them. Just as the characters faced harsh situations in the movie, the actors had to deal with sand storms and intense heat. Most days it reached 120 degrees Fahrenheit, so much of the filming was done during the cool morning hours. Careful attention was paid to the use of uniforms and the jeeps used, to accurately reflect conditions that took place on the eve of the Second Battle of El Alamein in late 1942.
In some ways, this picture plays out like other well-constructed war films that were made a dozen or so years after the actual war. There is a sense of looking back and reminding the audience about the costs of freedom. SEA OF SAND focuses on an eclectic group of men from various backgrounds, with very specific personality types. Craig one of the captains alongside John Gregson who is also a captain. They must work together with the other men to penetrate a German fuel dump in the desert. They go off with enough equipment, water and food rations to last a few weeks.
While they are out in the vast desert, they realize unexpected enemy tanks are heading towards the British army. So it becomes their job to thwart the advancement of the tanks. As these skirmishes occur, we learn more about the men in this group. Craig’s heart is broken, apparently from a romantic relationship that has gone sour. Gregson is an engineer who knows a lot about minefields, and he has a young son at home who makes him proud.
Among the rest of the group is a trooper played by Richard Attenborough who prefers to fill his canteens with booze instead of water. It becomes increasingly obvious to Craig that Attenborough is drunk during some of their maneuvers and that Attenborough’s unprofessional behavior may put lives at risk. At the same time Attenborough has formed a close bond with a corporal (Percy Herbert) in the unit. When Herbert is willing to sacrifice himself so that others may survive, Attenborough is humbled and reforms.
I think what I enjoyed about this film is that it didn’t feel as if the men were inflated to be super heroes. They were ordinary guys who had issues but were all cooperating as a team. I figured they all wouldn’t still be alive by the end, and sure enough, several of them were not. But I felt like I got to know each of them on a personal basis. The characters who died on screen somehow managed to have full lives, even if their lives were cut short because of the dangerous conditions in which they worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 18, 2024 16:36:27 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
Danger in motion
SLEEPING CAR TO TRIESTE has an interesting cast. It’s a remake of an earlier British film called ROME EXPRESS, which also has the main action occurring on the Orient Express.
In the first version, the main character was an American actress traveling across Europe on the long-distance passenger train. This time around, the actress has been dropped and some of the other subplots are reworked to create more of an ensemble drama. These plots utilize mostly British characters. There is still an American character, however; but now presented in the form of a U.S. soldier (Bonar Colleano) traveling to France by rail. He enjoys the company of several lady friends.
A subplot involves two sophisticated crooks (top billed Albert Lieven & Jean Kent) coveting a diary that has been stolen from a Paris embassy. During the theft, a guard was killed, so they are wanted for murder. Of course the diary is a McGuffin of sorts. We’re not really meant to know what’s in the diary, except that it’s an important item.
Presumably, the embassy diary contains information of vital importance to the national security of several democratic countries. Sometimes the diary is not referenced much at all, because the filmmakers draw us into the relationships that are developing among the different characters instead.
One of the things I love best about SLEEPING CAR TO TRIESTE is that there is great sense of continuity, when the characters walk between the various compartments…or when they meet up in the dining car for a meal. Also, there is great attention to detail so that when someone gets off the train, they suddenly appear in the background (rear projection) shots a few moments later, walking along the platform. So it all feels tightly woven together, at least that’s how I felt about it.
Occasional humorous touches divert our attention from all the serious drama involving the diary and foreign intrigue. I found it realistic, since we would definitely see different attitudes and conflicts playing out on a train carrying hundreds of passengers. In some ways this is like GRAND HOTEL, except instead of being set in a place of fine lodging, everything takes place on a moving train. It’s no surprise to me that the original version was made in 1932, the same year as GRAND HOTEL.
My favorite story strand in the film was the one involving the male secretary (Hugh Burden) and his overly demanding millionaire boss (Finlay Currie). It easily could have been left out of the movie, but gives some added humanity and dimension. You have to wonder why the secretary stayed with such a grumpy employer all those years!
With regards to the conclusion…like Hitchcock’s THE LADY VANISHES, we get a bit of an unexpected surprise near the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 8, 2024 8:18:13 GMT
This neglected film is from 1955.
By design and by accident
FOOTSTEPS IN THE FOG is a cold and dreary little thriller. The weather is cold. The main characters are cold and horrid to each other. They get up to a most dreary business in which they maneuver to be free of their crimes but are stuck with one other to the bitter end. I would imagine the leads, Stewart Granger & Jean Simmons, liked the idea of playing roles with edgy qualities, characters not interested in a life filled with sunshine but one full of darkness.
It all starts with the funeral of Granger’s late wife. Friends (Bill Travers & Belinda Lee) take pity on him, since he’s now a widower, alone in the world. Granger heads to his wealthy home and interacts with a young maid (Simmons). She walks down into the wine cellar where she finds some dead rats, suggesting they died from a poison that had been put into a bottle of medicine which they had gotten into…part of an experiment Simmons was doing to confirm her suspicions that Granger had indeed murdered his wife.
So as not to make Simmons too much of a heartless monster right off the bat, we see she’s verbally abused by an elderly housekeeper. Her motives are to get out from an oppressive situation, to use the proof she has on Granger, in order to blackmail him into improving her lot in life. The scene in which Simmons reveals her hand to Granger is intriguing to say the least.
From here the stage is set for a series of power plays. Simmons will wear the dead lady’s jewels and clothes when she sees fit and she will command the other servants who now resent her more than ever. At the same time Simmons begins an unusual affair with Granger. A subplot involves the characters played by Lee and Travers. They are drawn increasingly into the goings on in this house. Lee has feelings for Granger, but Travers covets Lee for himself.
During a visit to Granger’s mansion to discuss Lee’s infatuation, Travers notices Simmons is wearing items worn by the dead wife, as glimpsed in a portrait on the wall. Granger starts to wonder if he should send Simmons away, but she intends to remain by his side no matter what. There are scenes that take place outdoors in the fog, suggesting an atmosphere in which neither one of the main characters is able to see clearly.
A shocking scene has Granger decide to follow Simmons in the fog and kill her, but he accidentally clubs another woman instead— the innocent wife of a constable. Granger hurries home to establish an alibi, surprised to find Simmons there still very much alive. He realizes his fatal mistake and that he will need Simmons, the intended target, to help corroborate his “innocence.”
FOOTSTEPS IN THE FOG was made at a British studio by American director Arthur Rubin, who usually did comedies at Universal. Lubin had previously directed Universal’s Technicolor remake of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA in 1943. This film is also in Technicolor, has sumptuous furnishings with sets and actors who lend it all an air of grandness. But at its core, we have a noir-like melodrama with people who do vile things to each other.
Off camera Granger and Simmons were still married at the time. They’d already achieved notable success in Hollywood earlier in the decade. This was a chance to return to their native England and show everyone they’d done well for themselves in spite of their humble beginnings.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Mar 29, 2024 15:52:23 GMT
This neglected film is from 1951.
Teaching mastery
Some films cause greater introspection than others. As a former school teacher, I found myself relating to the main character a bit more than I cared to admit. I worked as an instructor in public schools, charter schools and parochial schools. The fact I worked in so many different educational environments shows I was very hirable and didn’t quit after the first negative experience, but ultimately, I did have to leave, just as Mr. Crocker-Harris does here (actor Michael Redgrave is so precise on screen).
The Crocker-Harris character leaves for health reasons and because he needs to move on. I left one school job, because I realized the educational system was broken and there was a lack of solutions.
After I left, I had an experience similar to Crocker-Harris’. At a local library one day, there was a former student who avoided me as if I was a plague. Just like Crocker-Harris, I had believed that even if I wasn’t popular, I still provided the best education possible. But when a former student didn’t exactly think very fondly of me and had no appreciation of my best efforts…it wasn’t easy to deal with; it was hurtful.
In education there is a reputation to uphold, a nobleness of the profession, and we are “locked” into the image of that. The popular teachers tell jokes and try to be the kids’ buddies, but many of them are quite woeful. The kids are never going to take them or the material seriously. They’re glorified babysitters.
In THE BROWNING VERSION, the most popular teacher is Fletcher (Bill Travers). He is a counterpoint to Crocker-Harris, and is more favored by the headmaster (Wilfrid Hyde-White). Since Rattigan’s drama is not about the particular challenges faced by Fletcher, we get a fairly one-dimensional rendering of him. Basically, he is Fortinbras to Crocker-Harris’ Hamlet.
I understand the inner conflicts of Crocker-Harris. Sometimes a classroom teacher is only an object of attention, not a real human interacting with the students. In THE BROWNING VERSION Crocker-Harris is a dichotomy; going from rigid in the job to a pushover in his personal life.
Crocker-Harris admits that perhaps he should not have married the woman he married (Jean Kent), but feels a sense of obligation and doesn’t wish to waver from the commitment. That’s another form of not intending to fail. The subplot concerning the wife’s infidelity is most devastating, of course; but some of the failure is her fault, too.
The best part of the story, in my opinion, is where the Crocker-Harrises are socializing with the other faculty. There is some sort of outdoor celebration, and they step out to watch it with the others. In that moment, they realize their marriage is over; there is no need to continue the sham.
I do feel that for every boy like the one in the local library who shunned me, there are some who remember having a good time in my classroom and learning something valuable with me. Yes, there were the Mr. Chips moments.
But I was tasked with teaching mastery, even if ironically I did not have mastery in teaching myself. Like Crocker-Harris, I had aligned myself with a group of people whom I thought shared my view of how sacred it was or could be. But sadly, I learned there were— and still are— ineffective teachers in our communities. I would not accept being one of them.
Rattigan’s story is in existence because it’s meant to be a reminder that educators are not meant to fail. And if they do fail, they might understand how they failed, so they are not failures again. In that regard, the story tries to achieve impossible perfection in what a teacher is ideally desired as being at all times. Most normal people would crack under the strain of such a superimposed unreality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Mar 29, 2024 16:13:03 GMT
I would encourage everyone to read Topbilled's ⇧ very personal and moving review of this movie.
The Browning Version from 1951 with Michael Redgrave, Jean Kent, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Nigel Patrick
Writer Terence Rattigan specializes in showing the agonizing pain of "ordinary" lives of quiet failure. In Rattigan's The Browning Version, a middle-aged teacher (a "master"), Michael Redgrave, at an English boys school is leaving owing to a heart condition requiring him to take a less-demanding position elsewhere.
We see in Redgrave's final days at the school that he is out of touch with his students. They know he is a brilliant scholar, but they also see him as an aloof disciplinarian, who, to their eyes, is devoid of human emotion and sympathy.
The oleaginous headmaster, perfectly portrayed by Wilfrid Hyde-White, says all the right things to and about Redgrave, but is obviously happy he is leaving even as it becomes clear Redgrave has, without recognition, helped the headmaster improve the school's curriculum.
In a final parting shot, the headmaster tells Redgrave his request for a pension exception owing to his illness - he is short the required number of years for eligibility - has been denied by the School Board.
Worst of all, Redgrave's younger wife is carrying on an all but open affair with a bachelor science teacher at the school. Even with that setup, Redgraves so perfectly fits the role of cold, distant and arrogant teacher that our sympathies initially lean with his antagonists.
Then a series of events reveals a more human and painful understanding of the man. One of the rare students he reached brings Redgrave a touching going away present. Redgrave then learns his nickname is "the Himler of the lower fifth" (his class) at the same time his wife's affair comes fully out in the open. These incidents cause Redgrave to think back to the beginning of his academic career.
Eighteen years ago, when Redgrave came to the school, he and his wife thought his talents as a scholar would lead to a successful teaching career. But he didn't have the personal skills to reach his students or interact with his peers, which caused him to pull in on himself and others to pull away.
Had he asked for help or had others offered it, perhaps he could have turned his career around, but instead, eighteen years later, we see an outwardly hardened, but inwardly broken man.
Clearly not helping is his status-conscious wife who, instead of trying to lift him up, belittles him at every opportunity. Redgrave himself is understanding seeing their failed marriage as equally his fault owing to his unsuccessful career. Maybe, but watching his wife constantly and viciously undermine his confidence and self respect leaves us less forgiving of her than Redgrave is.
Finally, we see Redgrave's deep hurt at his "Nazi" nickname as he thought he was a bit of a "comical" figure to his students and teaching peers, but did not think they viewed him as mean and heartless.
Processing all this information in his last remaining days at the school, Redgrave's epiphany moment comes, unfortunately, too late to save his career or marriage (the latter is better off not saved). Yet, in his final actions and parting speech, we see a man who could have been a better version of himself if he himself, his wife, his peers and his headmaster had tried to help him.
A common theme of writer Terence Rattigan's work is that many good people are broken because they are square pegs trying to fit into the rigid round holes of the British class system. A system which, with its social and cultural structure that admires conformity, quietly but ruthlessly ostracizes those who are unique or different or perceived as "not quite up to snuff."
In The Browning Version, we meet a seemingly cold and antisocial teacher who appears to "deserve" the scorn and disdain others publicly and privately feel toward him. But director's Anthony Asquith's powerful interpretation of Rattigan's play reveals a more nuanced and heartbreaking story of an awkward man whose potential is destroyed early by an inflexible system, an unforgiving wife and unsympathetic peers.
The Browning Version has no special effects, no bombast and only some melodrama. Instead, it's just a poignant tale about a fully drawn "regular" man whose life has sadly, quietly and unnecessarily failed.
N.B. Michael Redgraves' performance here is impressively nuanced and poignant, especially considering he is playing a man who keeps his emotions and, even, thoughts inside.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 2, 2024 13:35:13 GMT
This neglected film is from 1936.
Simple painter with not-so-simple life
The film starts with Rembrandt van Rijn (Charles Laughton) already a well-known and sought-after painter in Holland. He spares no expense when it comes to buying the most lavish gifts for his ill wife Saskia. While having a pot of beer at the local pub, Rembrandt makes a speech about all women and how knowing his wife is like knowing all women.
It’s a marvelously recited piece, and Laughton does it beautifully, covering a variety of feelings. After spending time in the village, Rembrandt arrives home and learns his precious Saskia is dead, leaving him to raise their son Titus on his own.
A short time later, a big fuss is made about a large painting Rembrandt does of the city’s civic guard. To say the denizens of high society don’t like or appreciate it is an understatement. One critic complains it has too many shadows, too much darkness and confusion.
After Rembrandt’s failure with the local politicians, he remarries. The new wife is his housekeeper Geertje (Gertrude Lawrence). The film then skips ahead ten years, and we see they are in dire financial straits. Furnishings are being repossessed from the large home they share.
He can reverse his misfortune by painting “properly” for the prince. He is told decent painters paint decent people, not beggars (a favorite subject of Rembrandt’s). He is supposed to paint pictures people will want.
There’s a lengthy scene where Rembrandt is taken on to the street to learn how to beg properly by a derelict (Roger Livesey) who has been sitting for one of his portraits. But Rembrandt knows that begging on the street is not the same as begging the prince to sponsor his work.
The film’s a treatise about the value of art for art’s sake versus art as business. Laughton captures the pathos of a man torn between both extremes, who continues to work because of his ongoing need to create. It’s more a meditation on character than a story with a strong underlying plot. There’s an extended segment with good character development, where he returns to the country to see his own people. Laughton revels in portraying the peasant-like qualities of the man.
When Rembrandt gets back to the city, he meets a new maid named Hendrickje (Laughton’s real-life wife Elsa Lanchester). He puts a clean canvas on an easel and begins to paint her portrait. She’s a former country girl, so a common bond develops immediately. Laughton and Lanchester enjoy a natural, easy chemistry.
Some household drama occurs when Geertje clashes with Hendrickje, before she separates from Rembrandt. This is followed by troubles related to money owed the government, which culminates in the loss of Rembrandt’s house and furniture. But his spirit is indomitable, and we see Rembrandt and Hendrickje take up residence in a small house where he continues to paint. One day a marquis visits and offers cash for a painting. However, what Rembrandt earns must to be used to pay off his creditors. The creditors have the law on their side.
Cleverly Hendrickje comes up with a way to subvert the law. As Rembrandt’s new “employer” claiming ownership of his artworks, she can sell the paintings and not pay his creditors since she is not the one in debt to anyone. They are happy for a time until Hendrickje takes ill, like the first wife Saskia. So the story starts to come full circle. There’s a splendid scene where he’s painting Hendrickje for the last time, and they reenact their first meeting with the same dialogue.
The story comes full circle in another way, too. Rembrandt is seen begging on the street after Hendrickje’s death, and a brash young painter wants to do a portrait of him. The young painter and his friends take Rembrandt to a pub where they learn who he is. Rembrandt is given pocket money, and he leaves the pub to go purchase some paints and brushes. He looks in a mirror and decides what he shall paint next.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 10, 2024 14:30:53 GMT
This neglected film is from 1952.
Britain under siege
As an American it’s interesting to learn more about the crisis Britain was under in mid-1940, a full year and a half before the United States would enter the war and become one of Britain’s most important allies. By this point the French had already been under assault by the Nazis, and now the Germans were focusing on the British…with the goal of forcing Britain’s surrender.
Another interesting thing I learned reading up on the Battle of Britain, to use the phrase first spoken by Churchill, was that British historians and German historians disagree on the length of this part of the war.
British historians consider it that period from the summer into the late fall of 1940, while German historians also factor in the continued blitz that kept Britain under siege into 1941.
In 1952 Templar Productions produced this first-look at the Battle of Britain with a strong cast supported by military advisors who only a decade earlier had served in the war. Contemporary critics seemed to be fairly united in their praise for this production.
This would be in stark contrast to the critically panned 1969 production BATTLE OF BRITAIN which featured an even more distinguished cast but a longer running time with repeated aerial footage and dull dramatic scenes.
The title ANGELS ONE FIVE comes from the fact that ‘Angels’ was a code word for Altitude and ‘One Five’ meant 15,000 feet. This was one of the radio procedures of the Royal Air Force (RAF). The motion picture’s cast is headed by Jack Hawkins portraying the Group Captain of a squadron.
Meanwhile, John Gregson plays a replacement pilot whose neck is injured during a freak accident and is assigned a post in the operations room under Hawkins while his neck heals.
Part of the film details the risks involved during a key bombing raid. During the raid, the Luftwaffe attacks England with its twin-engined fighter bombers. There is considerable attention to detail and historical accuracy as these sequences play out on screen.
Eventually Gregson’s character has recovered from his injuries to rejoin the other British flyers. But then he is mortally wounded in the air while fighting a German aircraft. Though there is no happily ever after for men like Gregson, their efforts helped keep Britain from surrendering to the Nazis, before the U.S. and other western allies joined the movement towards victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 3, 2024 13:06:51 GMT
This neglected film is from 1942.
“Is there going to be a war, do you think?”
Celia Johnson’s character realizes at one point that Great Britain is headed for a showdown with Nazi Germany. She asks her captain husband (Noel Coward) if he thinks there’s going to be a war. The answer seems rather self-evident. But I suppose we need to see how naive some people were at the start of it all, just how unfathomable a second world war was to them. A subsequent scene in which we hear Churchill telling them over the radio that indeed there is another war provides us with some chilling realism.
Though Johnson and the other wives don’t exactly dominate the film, since their scenes are far and few between and mostly seen in flashback, they do manage to make an impact. For it is because of their safety and the future that may be had with these women that the men have gone off to battle and intend to defeat the Germans. Much of it is fairly standard propaganda; except for the sinking of the ship in the beginning and a home being blasted by a bomb during a blitz scene, none of it seems as dark or frightening as it might have been.
We know that Coward’s screenplay is only working towards one end, and that is the depiction of brave British men and women. The one who is shown to be a coward (Richard Attenborough) quickly comes to his senses and regains his valiant Britishness.
None of the men are shown to be morally compromised; they’re all almost perfect, led by a nearly perfect officer (Coward). So there is no real dimension to them as human beings, and several of the actors give very wooden performances.
The best one in the cast, or at least the one who gives the most well-rounded performance, is John Mills. We see his earnest devotional qualities, but we also see some of his silly immaturity. When his character is married and he goes off on a honeymoon, he allows us to glimpse the newness of the situation through his eyes. His character grows as a result, because Mills as an actor is committed to having his character evolve, even if the script doesn’t always lend itself in that direction.
In addition to Mills’ performance, the film benefits from some fine action sequences directed by David Lean. However, I did feel as if the picture had two distinct personalities…the tense, moving action scenes on one hand; and talky stage bound scenes on the other hand. It felt as if Lean was giving us a story for the screen, while Coward was giving us a story for the theater. If the viewer can reconcile these key differences, then it is not a terrible experience watching the whole thing unfold.
But at nearly two hours with so many flashbacks that do not seem to advance the story forward, but instead take the characters backward, it can be a bit frustrating to watch. While I appreciated the sincerity of the piece, I found that many parts of it tested my patience. A good half hour could have been trimmed.
Another thing I want to mention is that I didn’t feel Coward knew the full backgrounds of these characters; they didn’t seem conceived as complete personages; just fragments of lives during a specific period in war. I think Coward did a much better job with CAVALCADE a decade earlier, which was anti-war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 3, 2024 15:20:14 GMT
In Which We Serve from 1942 with Noel Coward, Celia Johnson, John Mills and Kay Walsh
In Which We Serve is not Mrs. Miniver, the standard by which all other WWII propaganda films should be judged, but it is in the top five. By seamlessly blending homefront stories, naval battle scenes, the Blitz and military morale, In Which We Serve makes everyone, British or not, proud of that tiny island's Navy.
Written, co-directed (along with David Lean) and starring Noel Coward as the commander of the newly christened destroyer the HMS Torrin, the movie opens with the Torrin going down in battle, then through flashbacks, we learn about its crew and prior action at sea.
The odd thing about choosing playwright, composer, singer and actor Noel Coward - not a square-jawed, physically imposing specimen - as captain is that it works incredibly well.
At a time when Britain needed every able-bodied man, seeing a not-scripted-out-of-central-casting captain struck just the right note. By the end of the movie, he's the captain you want to serve under, or the captain you want to be.
Coward does have the perfect family with a dedicated naval wife, played by Cecilia Johnson, and a young son and daughter who all but unconditionally support Coward, despite their fears, as the good of England goes before the narrow needs of the family.
That theme is repeated time and again as we see a just-married and just-joined-up young sailor, played by John Mills, kissing his bride, played by Kay Johnson, goodbye as he is about to board his ship (leaving Kay Walsh in time of war or not would never be easy).
The importance of winning the war couldn't be missed on those left behind as the war found its way to the homefront. During the Blitz, bombs rained down on England's cities. In an odd reversal, it often was sailors, as we see on the Torrin, getting letters from home that a loved one had died in an air raid. This was a war that had to be fought and won.
Aboard the Torrin itself, Coward is a fair and firm captain. He does the "small" things - visits the wounded, shows respect to the lowest ranking man and risks his life right alongside his men - that builds genuine loyalty.
As a result, he and his crew, in very British-like fashion (at least according to the image Britain portrayed of itself during the war), do their jobs unflappably even in the cauldron of battle.
The action scenes on the Torrin - with incoming fire seemingly from everywhere - are exhilarating, especially when the ship sinks a couple of enemy destroyers. But it is equally impressive to watch the crew man the guns and follow orders even when the ship is going down.
In Which We Serve is unabashed propaganda at a time when England needed unabashed propaganda. Noel Coward clearly understood this and produced one of WWII's propaganda classics. Impressively, even eighty years later, it is still an engaging and inspirational movie.
 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 16, 2024 13:56:27 GMT
This neglected film is from 1957.
A full house at the wrong time
I remembered watching this film only once before, more than a decade ago. But I remembered it as one that was meaningful, and rewatching it, I can see why I felt that way. There comes a point two-thirds of the way into the story where Officer Alec Holmes (Tyrone Power) tells the crew and passengers with him that they are now in the last extremity of the voyage they are all making together. When phrased like that, it’s bleak.
Things get started with a bang, literally, in the film’s first few minutes. A cruise ship has been exploded by colliding into a derelict mine. Many die right off, but the ones who have managed to withstand the initial blast, find themselves floating in the Atlantic with the wreckage. Power’s character is among those immediately glimpsed, and he quickly organizes them all aboard a lifeboat.
However, the boat can only hold so many. Some take turns treading in the water, alongside the vessel, while the last remaining shark repellent is used to keep them safe as long as possible. There is talk about limited supplies of water and food; rationing becomes a necessity. They must all follow orders and cooperate to stay afloat until they are retrieved by a rescue ship.
Power, who produced the film, is directed by writer Richard Sale with a predominately British cast. Hollywood name Lloyd Nolan is also present, having costarred with Power back in 1940’s JOHNNY APOLLO. Nolan’s character only makes it to the one-hour mark; but he imparts plenty of wisdom before dying, and his death scene is very dramatic. He’s the first one to be sacrificed for the others.
At this point, knowing that a huge storm is forming overhead, Power must decide which ones are strongest to keep rowing the lifeboat. This means he decides which ones need to be cut loose, thrown overboard, and basically given to the sharks. The sea around them has now become a watery grave. It’s harrowing to watch the scenes where Power holds them at gunpoint and decides which ones can be saved and which ones must be jettisoned.
To be fair he insists that he will even jettison himself if the time comes that he is no longer one of the strong ones. That scene happens a bit later, where after receiving a wound, he gives up on himself, ironically, just as the rescue ship finds them. Emotions run high when Power plays executioner, and he’s told that he’s committing murder. But to him, he’s doing the right thing in a utilitarian sense.
Sale’s story was based on a real-life incident that had previously been depicted in Paramount’s SOULS AT SEA in 1937, that time with Gary Cooper as the officer who had to make difficult life-or-death decisions. But I think this film, with its lack of studio polish, comes across a lot grittier and more realistically. Former glamour boy Power has a very unglamorous role here, and he is more than up to the task.
One thing that impressed me was how Power was willing to let himself look old and weathered in the last sequence. This showed the experience had drastically aged the character. The female costars (Mai Zetterling and Moira Lister) wear plenty of make-up in the early scenes then become more beaten up by the elements, while still looking beautiful. In short, the performers aren’t worried about how they look. Movie star narcissism is forced to surrender to the realism of the plot on screen.
Of course there’s only so much realism that can be allowed. We are never privy to dialogue about how they will relieve their bowels. And while there is discussion that a floating dog may become supper at some point, that never actually happens.
At one point in the narrative, a survivor shows a lucky poker hand. Apparently he was on a winning streak aboard the cruise ship just before it blew up. He had three aces and two kings; a full house. This mirrors the fact that the lifeboat is overcrowded. It’s the luck of the draw, whether or not a person is able to stay alive when there is disaster at sea.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 19, 2024 7:23:37 GMT
This neglected film is from 1938.
Romantic intrigue taken to farcical extremes
THE DIVORCE OF LADY X was released in North America by United Artists and was made by Alexander Korda’s London Films company. It boasts impressive Technicolor as well as elegant costuming and sets. It’s safe to say many films in 1938 were not this technically advanced. It had an American director (Tim Whelan), so its humor seems to translate well. Plus the cast was already becoming known in Hollywood productions– a group which includes Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon and Binnie Barnes.
Olivier and Oberon would soon pair up again for a completely different type of film– Samuel Goldwyn’s adaptation of WUTHERING HEIGHTS. But in this picture, they are playing characters and a scenario that is about as far from Bronte as you can possibly imagine.
It’s a shame Oberon wasn’t photographed more often in color during the 1930s and 1940s, when she was at her peak. Her complexion is absolutely flawless. And despite excessive dialogue, the scenes do move quick enough, thanks to the actress’s spirited line deliveries and her obvious chemistry with Olivier.
Originally, third-billed Binnie Barnes played Oberon’s role in the first screen version of this story. It was called COUNSEL’S OPINION and hit screens five years earlier. Barnes proves how versatile a performer she is, relinquishing the lead and taking a supporting character part in this remake. In addition to Barnes’ presence in the two films, Korda makes sure both versions were given big budgets.
As for Olivier, he’s quite charming in THE DIVORCE OF LADY X. He plays a divorce attorney who meets a lovely costume ball attendee (Oberon). They innocently share a room for one evening; but the next morning, things do not seem so innocent when he is led to believe she’s married to his client (Ralph Richardson). The client has a supposedly unfaithful wife (in reality, the woman played by Barnes). So what develops is a romantic intrigue taken to farcical extremes. It’s all played to a tee by the film’s delightful stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 19, 2024 8:06:08 GMT
The Divorce of Lady X from 1938 with Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, Binnie Barnes, Ralph Richardson and H.B. Hallam
The Divorce of Lady X is Merle Oberon's movie as it is her charm, her mirth, her sparkle, her beauty, her exuberance that carries this romcom from beginning to end.
Yes, Laurence Olivier is very good as the young, single and cynical divorce lawyer who has all but sworn off women until Oberon lands in his hotel room one night and playfully tweaks all his defences against the fairer sex, but it is still Oberon's movie.
Owing to a dense London fog, and some romcom ridiculousness, Oberon forces her way into Olivier's suite one evening as she needs a place to sleep and he has an extra bed.
It's the movie's set-up scene and it's fun as heck as Oberon is intrigued by this cranky and handsome lawyer, so she flirt fights her way with him all night and all through breakfast, but never reveals her identity.
Since it's 1938, these two didn't engage in any slap and tickle that we see, but still, the sexual tension is palpable.
Later that day, a client tells Olivier he wants to sue his wife for divorce because she spent last night in a hotel room with a man.
Olivier, in classic romcom confusion, believes his client's wife is Oberon, she isn't, and almost refuses the case because he thinks he's the man in question.
The rest of the movie is Olivier confused and emotionally torn as he is falling in love with Oberon, but can't reconcile that with his mistaken belief that she's married and has a reputation as a wanton woman.
This story works because Oberon discovers Olivier's confusion, but instead of correcting him, she just runs with it. This drives him nuts as she is incredibly attractive and flirty, but he thinks she's a "bad woman."
Oberon is having a ball, yet she's never mean-spirited. Eventually, she realizes she's digging a hole for herself, but she still can't stop as she's having too much fun.
Her grandfather, who acts as her father, tells her she's playing with fire, but her youth and beauty isn't ready to listen to his voice of wisdom and experience.
Produced in London, The Divorce of Lady X, based on a play, feels incredibly stagey, right down to the sets which look like they were lifted out of a theater.
Oddly for the day, though, the movie is filmed in color - a horribly fake looking color desperately in need of restoration - that does, though, add to the movie's fairytale atmosphere and lets us see how beautiful Oberon looks, not in black and white for a change.
Binnie Barnes, Ralph Richardson and H.B. Hallam are all good in supporting roles - Hallam, in particular, is enjoyable as the quintessentially unflappable English butler - but this is Oberon's movie and she carries it with a youthful exuberance and an infectious playfulness.
The following year, Oberon and Olivier would hit new heights of fame in what is widely considered one of the screen's all-time-great love stories, Wuthering Heights.
The Divorce of Lady X is a wonderful opportunity, though, to see that soon-to-be-famous movie couple, before they achieved immortality as Heathcliff and Cathy, in a silly-but-enjoyable-as-heck romcom.
 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 29, 2024 13:40:29 GMT
This neglected film is from 1943.
Strange things happen in the dark
This British espionage drama, with shades of noir, was made during WWII. While it features plenty of light-hearted moments, it still reflects the greater concerns of a wartime public, who lived in fear that Nazi agents were infiltrating their society. James Mason, in an early lead role, plays a military officer who has been court-martialed because some information that was in his possession fell into the hands of the enemy.
Of course, he is eager to clear his name and this is what kicks off the story. If THEY MET IN THE DARK had been an Alfred Hitchcock film, it probably would have contained many more MacGuffins and chase scenes.
The story is based on a bestselling novel, in which it is a detective, not a disgraced officer who does the investigating. There’s a girl (Joyce Howard) tossed into the mix, who just so happens to visit a cottage where a woman has been murdered. The dead woman was one of Mason’s main hopes to find out who’s behind the German spy ring. But due to this sudden turn of events, he doesn’t have much to go on now.
Howard’s character, who meets him in the dark outside the cottage (hence the title), joins the investigation. She has no choice, since police don’t believe her story about the dead body, after it’s gone missing. At first, Mason doesn’t want Howard interfering with his own investigation, so they are humorously working at cross-purposes.
Their search leads them to a theatrical agency. At the agency, the owner (Tom Walls) is involved in dubious practices, some of which are not entirely clear. But we do come to find out that Walls is the head of the underground ring. Howard poses as a wannabe singer seeking representation with Walls to get a foot in the door, while Mason cozies up to a real singer (Phyllis Stanley) associated with Walls, who performs nightly at a posh club. Stanley’s character is a patriotic Brit, seemingly unaware that Walls is a bad guy.
The nightclub is swarming with various Nazis, as well as a man (David Farrar) from the British military on Mason’s side. Several interesting scenarios play out at the club, which provides some of the film’s humor. Meanwhile, the police are closing in because of their own investigation.
The film’s highpoint has Howard going back to the cottage where an eccentric tenant (Karel Stepanek) is gardening. Mason and the police soon arrive. As Howard inspects a scarecrow in the garden, she makes a gruesome discovery that the body of the dead woman is stuffed inside the scarecrow and is about to be burned. It’s a rather shocking development.
Of course, they still need to need to nab Walls and his cronies back at the club, which they do. And once the case has been solved, meaning Howard has her answers, and Mason can be reinstated to the military, the couple can go forward with the rest of their lives, which they plan to spend together. It’s not a great film, but it’s still a fairly entertaining one.
|
|
