|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 5, 2024 13:24:48 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Strange hero
One thing working against this film is that while the title character, played by John Mills (who also produced the film), is a wandering sort of fellow, the film itself wanders in too many directions. The editors don’t know when to trim certain sequences and refocus the plot— not that there is much of one— so the elements never combine as cohesively as they might.
At one point near the beginning, Mr. Polly inherits money from his late father and goes on the road with a newly purchased bicycle. During his nomadic travels he meets a girl named Christabel (Sally Ann Howes) and spends considerable time getting to know her. But then, all of a sudden, she wants nothing more to do with him and that’s that.
There could have been a better movie based entirely on his up-and-down relationship with her; or she could have just been some fleeting acquaintance he fancied but didn’t waste a lot of time on. But to concentrate on this ‘relationship’ for an extended period, then for it to suddenly end, seems rather pointless. If the goal is to send him on the road to learn specific lessons, that is one thing, but in this case he doesn’t exactly learn anything from Christabel. He merely goes back and marries a distant relative (Betty Ann Davies) he could have married after his father’s death.
I am sure for some who have read H.G. Wells’ original story, which was published in 1910, these are essential sequences. But I do believe that a filmmaker’s prerogative and perhaps right is often to take liberties with the source material. You know, to choose the best elements and mold them into a much more logical narrative. Not everything from Wells’ story needed to be put into the movie.
It is enough that Mills and his costars are faithful to the spirit of the original work. I feel Mills has put plenty of thought into the history of Mr. Polly’s aimless nature, that he is striving to find something constant and meaningful in his life. Also, that Mr. Polly is in some respects unconventional and unable to abide by society’s more traditional norms. That is all fine and dandy.
But there are too many strange bits involving the character. One of the strangest parts includes a fire the character sets. I suppose because there is some sort of production code overseeing the film, Mr. Polly cannot deliberately be an outright arsonist. So while devising a scheme to burn his business and leave insurance money to his wife, since he plans to commit suicide as the fire rages, we see the place accidentally catch fire on its own. Therefore, it is an accidental fire and not ‘true arson.’ Also, Mr. Polly fails at suicide, or else that would be the end of everything.
After the blaze— when Mr. Polly is deemed some sort of strange hero for saving the life of a local man on the night of the fire— he leaves his wife and goes off to stay at an inn. Working at the inn, he gets to know a nice woman (Megs Jenkins) and helps her battle a bully (Finlay Currie). But the bully character is not fully fleshed out…why is he so mean, such a threat to the woman and her business?
Afterward defeating the bully in a most preposterous way, Mr. Polly goes back to check on his wife and decides she no longer needs him. So he returns to the inn and the woman there, and we’re led to believe this will now be a happy life for him. Really?
Are we meant to say that Mr. Polly did right by his wife by leaving her in the first place? By leaving the insurance money and giving her plenty of space to succeed without him? When he returns to the inn, will he have a romantic relationship with the woman there and become an adulterer, maybe even a bigamist? On paper, this may seem comical but on screen it doesn’t translate as very funny.
The film ends before it all goes too far in that direction. Again, this is something that seems to be unable to commit to one complete story arc, except that maybe now Mr. Polly is done roaming. But even then, why should we care, when Mr. Polly himself never seemed to care much about anything anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 22, 2024 15:32:28 GMT
This neglected film is from 1935.
He was a fraud until he wasn’t
Claude Rains had already made a name for himself by this point in Hollywood. There had been a few successful horror pictures at Universal which demonstrated his skill in the genre. It seems only natural that he would gravitate to playing a mind reader in this British production that combines elements of suspense with irony and dark melodrama. As the title character, he displays considerable charm working with his wife (Fay Wray).
Together Rains and Wray travel the British countryside putting on shows in old music halls. With her clever assistance he fools audiences into thinking he has extrasensory gifts and can read what’s on their minds. In reality, he’s a fake. But his phony powers ironically give way to real ability, when a newspaper heiress (Jane Baxter) crosses paths with them. Suddenly Rains can sense an impending tragedy will strike, while they are journeying on a train.
There’s a great scene where Rains pulls the cord and tells everyone on board that the train will crash soon and they must get off at once. The others don’t believe them, but Rains and Wray get off the locomotive with Baxter. The train then lurches forward without them, and sure enough, it crashes. This brings Rains to national attention, especially since Baxter’s newspaper publishes stories about Rains that make the front page.
From here the story devolves slightly into a love triangle, where Rains’ character thinks Baxter is the source of his true clairvoyance. He does not want to go anywhere without her, much to Wray’s annoyance. At the same time Baxter is developing feelings for Rains which causes Wray to become concerned about the state of her marriage.
There is a middle sequence where Rains denounces his newfound powers, after the death of his mother (Mary Clare). But then he begins to have visions of another impending disaster, this time involving miners. He tries to warn the bosses and workers at a nearby mine to evacuate. But, similar to what happened on the train, none of these people listen; and soon there is a huge cave-in.
This leads to Rains being put on trial, which seems rather incredible. He is blamed for spooking the miners with his ominous warnings, which prosecutors argue is what caused the workforce to make mistakes and for the cave-in to occur. But during the court proceedings Rains has yet another vision, this time about where to find some men who are still buried under the debris. With his help, the men are pulled out of the rubble and saved.
I’ve always felt this was one of Claude Rains’ more memorable, if lesser known, motion picture vehicles. He has a field day playing a man who is a fraud until he isn’t. Then, it becomes a matter of how to use his extraordinary talents to help others. As viewers, we like these stories because we want to believe in good instincts. The question is: do we listen to these instincts and do what we should when we should?
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 7, 2024 13:54:09 GMT
This neglected film is from 1947
Killer counts on a prevailing prejudice against the mentally ill
THE OCTOBER MAN is a good British film noir starring John Mills, in which we have a main character who is said to love life. He goes through a terrible ordeal and then experiences post-traumatic stress. It affects the amount of confidence he has in himself, and his ability to rebuild his life, which won’t be the same as it was before.
He’s involved in a terrible bus crash, and it sets in motion a series of events that nearly overtake him. Mills plays this man continually on the brink of suicide. His troubled psyche is shown in how he reacts to screeching train whistles and a tied handkerchief, which may be a symbol of his inner torment.
The film shares themes with RANDOM HARVEST because of the mental block that Mills’ character suffers after the accident. Also, it’s a bit similar to THE BLUE DAHLIA because of the head injury trauma that’s depicted. In THE BLUE DAHLIA, William Bendix plays a returning serviceman who has experienced brain damage in battle. We don’t quite get that in THE OCTOBER MAN with Mills’ character, though it might be suggested that his condition is similar to men who’ve just come back from the war.
Mills gives an honest performance; a very understated and graceful performance. The way he conveys the barely suppressed hysteria of the main character is outstanding.
Unlike many of his contemporaries, Mills was successful in avoiding being typecast in his motion picture assignments. With THE OCTOBER MAN, he’s channeling a wounded hero in his portrayal– physical recovery and mental recovery, after a traumatic event. The bus crash stands in for the disaster and fatalities that men saw first-hand in the war; though his character is a civilian, and he’s a chemist. He carries this wounding with him throughout the rest of the story, until the very end.
We see him lose everything in the beginning. Then he gradually rebuilds his life. Settling into a room at a hotel, he begins a new job, then starts meeting new people. Eventually, we see him falling in love, regaining his confidence. Then it’s all in jeopardy again when a murder occurs.
I found Joan Greenwood to be most effective as the love interest. She doesn’t have oodles of screen time, but her role is essential, especially when it comes time for the plot’s denouement.
Meanwhile, we have Edward Chapman in the role of another hotel resident. He is revealed as the killer two-thirds of the way into the drama, which isn’t too surprising. This sets up a final sequence with Mills hurrying off to a train station to stop Chapman and prove his own innocence.
There’s a very tense scene where Mills confronts Chapman, in order to out him as the killer. This is where we see how twisted Chapman’s character is. He’s defiant, and he thinks he will get away with murder. He is counting on a prevailing prejudice against the mentally ill to trap Mills’ character and ensure that Mills is blamed. I love how deranged and bold Chapman plays it is during this confrontation, and how nihilistic it is for Mills’ character. Mills will take the fall for the killing, unless he fights back and does something. Truly excellent acting from both these men.
Of course the mistake Chapman’s character makes is he should have gone off to Glasgow, long enough for Mills to be arrested. Then he could have made his way to Lisbon from Glasgow. The one thing where I think the plot stretches credibility is that the police wait a rather long time before they decide Mills is their man and go to arrest him. I don’t think we’re supposed to feel the police are exactly incompetent. But they are being thorough, and they take their sweet time.
Perhaps the story needs to have the police act slowly, so that Mills is free to confront Chapman and figure out where he’s going. But I felt the police would have been more aggressive. Also not once does Mills’ character even consider finding an attorney to consult with, because he’s more interested in either going back to the hospital for treatment, or else killing himself…before he develops the resolve to nab the true culprit.
Ultimately, Mills does become self-empowered enough to prevail. And after the main crisis has been resolved, we know that he will end up with Greenwood. She’s someone who has supported him and has been there for him through it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 28, 2024 14:05:45 GMT
This neglected film is from 1941.
Home is where the spy is
Anthony Asquith helmed this British wartime flick which has equal parts comedy and melodrama and builds to a suspenseful climax in a final scene that is sure to stay in one’s memory for a long time. Asquith was a contemporary of Alfred Hitchcock’s, and since Hitchcock was now in America making films for David Selznick, I suppose the job of producing intrigues about German spies fell to Asquith.
What puts the story over in spades is the incredibly talented cast that Asquith has assembled. Leslie Banks plays a scientist in Scotland whose plans are so important to the British government that the Germans are working night and day to intercept those plans. We are told Banks is an individualist and prefers to work in his own home-based laboratory with a helpful assistant (Michael Wilding) instead of carrying out his experiments about bombs at a government facility in a larger city.
There is a romantic subplot involving Wilding and Banks’ daughter (Carla Lehmann) that seems rather inconsequential until it becomes a triangle involving a wounded soldier (John Mills). Mills’ character has been brought to the family home to convalesce after an injury.
Lehmann is doing her part for the war effort and playing nurse, so of course, she spends oodles of time with Mills, which annoys Wilding. This subplot becomes increasingly important, because Mills is not just any old British soldier, he’s working for the Germans.
While all this is playing out, Banks’ wife (Jeanne de Casalis) has rented a room in the family’s nearby cottage to a mysterious stranger (Alastair Sim). The cottage functions as sort of a guest house and had been intended to be turned into a miniature hospital to treat wounded men. Sim’s character is a bit of a red herring and misdirects our attention, since his suspicious behavior may cause a viewer to think he is in cahoots with the Germans, not Mills.
Eventually it is revealed that Sim is also “working” with the Germans, but not in the same way that Mills’ character is. In fact, Sim and Mills don’t seem to share much screen time. Sim goes to a nearby town to meet with other members of an ‘organization’ that consists of locals who are either Nazis or in step with the cause of the Third Reich.
The twist, which I did not see coming, is that Sim is actually a British spy sent to the area to fool the German organization and counteract what Mills is doing. The scene where Sim is uncovered to be a British agent is very clever and leads to a good deal of nail-biting suspense.
In addition to Mills and Sim, there is an assortment of other characters who take up temporary residence at Banks’ home. One is a butler (Wally Patch) who turns out to be working for the police; he’s undercover at the house to protect Banks and his military secrets.
Another character added to the mix is a cockney evacuee (George Cole, in his first screen role at the age of 16) who has been sent here during the blitz as a charity case. Cole is hilarious as a know-it-all boy who tells Banks how to conduct his experiments, and who ends up helping Banks and Patch when Mills takes them hostage.
There’s a lot of action with the requisite amount of comic relief in this 90 minute motion picture. At first, it was a tad bit difficult to keep track of all the supporting characters, but part of the fun is figuring out their agendas, figuring out who is on which side of the war. The last scene in which Mills’ character is apprehended by Sim is amazingly well-played and full of unsettling images that not even Hitchcock could have done better.
|
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 28, 2024 14:47:50 GMT
Would you include where I can watch the films reviewed. Or maybe easier, a list of websites where to look for these neglected films.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 28, 2024 16:32:21 GMT
Would you include where I can watch the films reviewed. Or maybe easier, a list of websites where to look for these neglected films.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 1, 2024 16:06:26 GMT
This neglected film is from 1958.
All children come from heaven, except juvenile delinquents
Influenced by Hollywood films from the same period, such as MGM’s BLACKBOARD JUNGLE, this British social message drama covers a lot of the same ground while putting its own spin on things. Set in and filmed in parts of Liverpool, the drama concerns a juvenile liaison officer (Stanley Baker) whose assignment is to patrol a busy neighborhood in plain clothes.
As part of his duties Baker associates with other members of the community determined to correct wayward youth. One of these folks is a priest, played by Peter Cushing who would soon make his mark in horror films. Here, Cushing is much less monstrous. Instead, the monster of the piece is a know-it-all teenager (David McCallum) who seems to have a weird power over the other boys his age. That is, until he starts to go too far and becomes an outright criminal.
Baker first meets McCallum when he apprehends McCallum’s younger twin siblings stealing from a local store. Taking the youngsters home Baker learns there is no mother around— she’s moved to London and remarried. There is a father, but he’s away on an extended business trip. So the rearing of McCallum and the two younger kids becomes the responsibility of an older sister (Anne Heywood) who is an adult in her early 20s. She will become a romantic interest for Baker, naturally.
The set-up is clever, because not only is Baker patrolling the nearby streets where McCallum gets into trouble…but Baker becomes directly involved with the family through his relationship with Heywood. In a way, Baker takes on the role of the family’s surrogate patriarch; which of course, puts a crimp into McCallum’s plans to continue running wild.
Also, as part of the set-up for this story, there is a subplot involving an unknown arsonist. And that person turns out to be McCallum, which leads to a standoff later inside the twins’ school. In one of the classrooms, we see McCallum hold a bunch of children hostage at gunpoint then make some unrealistic demands of the police. Of course, Heywood needs Baker to give her troubled brother a break, but Baker has to operate according to the law, not according to his heart.
I didn’t think the writers did a decent job explaining McCallum’s criminal behavior. He seems to be a monster for no good reason. Why did he start setting fires? What was the root cause of that behavior? We’re never really told this information.
Also, we’re not told why the mother left and never came back, or why McCallum would even have a twinge of guilt when he accidentally runs over a Chinese worker with a stolen van. Too many holes in the plot make us guess too much.
Also, I had a slight problem with the editing. It seems like Dearden and his editor are consciously trying to make this a “European art film” by adding in various jump cuts, so scenes never really dissolve or logically lead into subsequent scenes. Instead, we’re barely finished with a scene when suddenly we find ourselves plunged into the next scene almost in progress. I didn’t see the purpose for this. Maybe later, during the siege at the school, where the action would undoubtedly be more chaotic and disjointed. But not earlier in the picture when Baker was on his rounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 13, 2024 15:13:04 GMT
This neglected film is from 1954.
And after it’s over, then what?
This bleak noir, which combines antiwar sentiments with a heist narrative, is about four ex-fighters and their wives who reach the end of the line together. Two of the men are American, and one of the women is an American; the rest are British, though one of the British wives has become an American because of her marriage. An outstanding cast has been assembled to play these parts; and some of the British performers would forge successful careers in Hollywood. It’s an interesting Anglo-American hybrid of talent.
The drama starts in the present, with the four men inside a stolen car, about to pull off a bank robbery near the pub where they’ve all gotten to know each other. We flashback to glimpse their troubled lives leading up to this; and gradually the individual stories intersect at the pub.
Besides the pub and the street outside the bank, the main sets are the living quarters for each of the four couples; plus a cemetery, a train and an airport where the final scenes take place after the crime.
Laurence Harvey is the ringleader you might say; a gentleman cad who is kept by a doting somewhat older wife (Margaret Leighton, married in real life to Laurence Harvey). Harvey has no financial responsibility or real understanding of matrimony, except to the extent that his rich wife can keep bailing him out of jams when he incurs debts. She’s a fool to let him use her this way, but when he turns on his seductive charms, she goes weak in the knees.
Harvey’s retired father (Robert Morley in an extended cameo) won’t give him any money, which makes Harvey desperate for some quick cash. He hatches the idea for the robbery, and he is able to coax the other men along. One interesting part of Harvey’s past is that he was in the war and made a name for himself killing men in battle. Later, we come to realize he is just a well-heeled thug; war was something a guy like him did well since he takes perverse joy in decimating others.
Stanley Baker plays the other British chap. His character has been a fighter in the ring. As his flashback starts, we learn he is about to get out of the boxing racket. After his last bout, he ends up in the hospital with an infected hand that requires amputation. A subsequent scene has his wife (Rene Ray) make the mistake of loaning their savings to a relative who does a runner.
Baker makes the most of the angst and his performance is perhaps the most potent. Early shades of kitchen sink drama for sure.
One of the Americans is portrayed by Richard Basehart. He served in the war in Britain and married a beautiful young British gal (Joan Collins at the start of her screen career). Basehart now lives and works in New York. He has also served in Korea. He returns to England to reclaim his wife, since Collins is visiting a hypochondriac mother (the superb Freda Jackson). Mother dearest is a manipulative shrew who doesn’t want Collins to return to the U.S. with Basehart.
While in England saving his marriage, Basehart has forfeited a job in New York. He burns through what money he has and is dependent on his nasty mother-in-law. So, like Harvey and Baker, he is desperate to turn the tide and will join the robbery. Some of the film’s most tender scenes occur between Basehart and Collins, since Collins’s character is pregnant. She’s kept from finding out about her husband’s journey to the dark side, until the very end. This was the couple that I wanted to succeed the most.
The fourth man in the heist, the other American, is played by John Ireland. He is currently in the Air Force on a furlough. However, he fails to return to duty, to avoid being transferred to West Germany, since he is eager to stop his unfaithful wife (Gloria Grahame) from cheating on him. Grahame, no stranger to noir, adds a comedic flourish to her role as a vain actress who just can’t keep her libido in check when hubby’s back is turned. While I didn’t think Grahame gave the best performance, she is still very entertaining to watch.
Because Ireland is now out of a job, and determined to prove something to his estranged wife, he joins the others in the plot to steal from the bank. Of course, crime does not pay; it goes terribly wrong. One interesting aspect about the failure of the operation is how Harvey starts to kill the other men whom he sees as both a liability and an obstacle to his retaining all the funds they’ve grabbed and hidden at a nearby cemetery.
The cemetery is symbolic, since all the men will die, including Harvey. Three of them are shot to death; one is run over by a train while scurrying across the tracks near the cemetery. The final sequence is action packed and filled with nihilism. The film seems to be telling us that these men would have been better off dying as heroes in the war; there’s no place for them in a postwar society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 13, 2024 16:15:11 GMT
Good review, TopBilled. I also see it inspired you to channel your inner Englishman, "does a runner." 
I wrote the below comments a few years back.
The Good Die Young from 1954 with Laurence Harvey, Richard Basehart, Stanley Backer, John Ireland, Gloria Graham and Joan Collins.
The Good Die Young is a kitchen-sink and crime-drama mashup done in a noirish style with an almost The Twilight Zone overlay - phew. Like the better all-in-one gadgets, it doesn't do any one thing great, but it is serviceable.
Set in London, we meet four men whose lives are falling apart. One, Stanley Baker, plays a middle-aged boxer who retired and immediately lost his modest savings while he had to have his hand amputated owing, in part, to an injury sustained in the ring. He needs money.
The second, Richard Basehart, plays an American office worker who, effectively, quit his job to come to London to get his wife, played by Joan Collins (never looking better) to come back home. She's been taking care of her hypochondriac and passive-aggressive mother. Yet, after a few setbacks in London, he no longer has airfare home for them. He needs money.
A third is a military pilot, played by John Ireland, whose actress wife, played by Gloria Graham, is openly flaunting her affair in front of her husband. He believes if he could afford to support her in the upscaled lifestyle she prefers, he could win her back. He needs money (or, better, a different wife).
The last one is a playboy, played by Laurence Harvey, whose profligacy has burned down his money bridges to both his wealthy father and successful artist wife. With a check he wrote to pay off his most-recent gambling debt about to bounce, he needs money.
After all that kitchen-sink drama, these four coincidentally meet over the next few weeks in the local pub where cocky and creepy Harvey tries to talk the other three men into robbing a mail truck he knows will be carrying ninety-thousand pounds. While first laughing him off, the other three ultimately face the decision of becoming criminals or not: they do not choose wisely.
The Good Die Young now slips into both noir and The Twilight Zone mode as these men, who would have led honest lives if not pushed to the wall, after much angst, agree to go along with Harvey's slapdash plan. Harvey is a good salesman, but he's got a shoddy product.
(Minor spoiler alerts for the next three paragraphs as it's not a big surprise.) We know what is going to happen next: these four are going to fail, but still, you're engaged in watching it painfully unfold.
You're not quite rooting for them to succeed, but you can't help feeling bad as you know they (with the exception of Harvey) only ended up tumbling down to this level of desperation owing to a lot of not-good things happening in their lives in rapid succession.
The "heist" itself is so sloppy that it's almost comical as a policeman walks right into it at the start, which just leads to one fatal mistake after another. As it all falls apart, a flash version of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre plays out as greed and deceit amongst the gang members delivers the deathblow.
The denouement is less noir than The Twilight Zone as you almost expect the closing scene to be the four men meeting up in the pub like they did early on with one of them saying, "You won't believe this crazy dream I had, now don't laugh, but we tried to hold up a mail truck..."
The Good Die Young is a small-budget effort with some real star power that mixes too many styles, but still works in a morality-tale way.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 13, 2024 18:53:59 GMT
Thanks Fading Fast. When I start saying things like 'I'll order a sarnie and a pint,' then we know I've gone all British.
I can't quite put my finger on why I enjoy THE GOOD DIE YOUNG so much. I think it's the way the filmmakers have taken the ordinary heist formula and infused it with an interesting anti-war thesis. It's a think-piece but still succeeds as old-fashioned entertainment. My favorite scene is where John Ireland's character doesn't quite make it across the train tracks.
And I think the ending where Richard Basehart's character drops dead near the plane and the money scatters in the breeze is a bit like what happened to Lizabeth Scott at the end of TOO LATE FOR TEARS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 13, 2024 18:57:21 GMT
Thanks Fading Fast. When I start saying things like 'I'll order a sarnie and a pint,' then we know I've gone all British.
I can't quite put my finger on why I enjoy THE GOOD DIE YOUNG so much. I think it's the way the filmmakers have taken the ordinary heist formula and infused it with an interesting anti-war thesis. It's a think-piece but still succeeds as old-fashioned entertainment. My favorite scene is where John Ireland's character doesn't quite make it across the train tracks.
And I think the ending where Richard Basehart's character drops dead near the plane and the money scatters in the breeze is a bit like what happened to Lizabeth Scott at the end of TOO LATE FOR TEARS.
 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 20, 2024 14:49:14 GMT
This neglected film is from 1939.
A pug or a mug
There is a moment when Jimmy Hanley’s character Tommy Mutch realizes that his new career as a boxer isn’t what it initially seemed to be to him. He’s been played for a mug, by a crooked promoter (Edward Chapman) who’s been building up his career as an overnight sensation. Only to require, per a contract, that Tommy take a fall during the next bout. Tommy decides he may have been a mug, but he’s honest. And once he knows the score, that’s it, he quits.
When this British sports drama hit screens, contemporary reviewers were trying to decide if it was a human document about real people with real problems. While some of the plot is formulaic and exaggerated in spots, I do think the characters correctly represent working class folks. Tommy is from Notting Hill, and he first entered boxing to make some dough to impress a girl he likes (Jill Furse). But he rethinks all this, after he steps into the ring and gets wise to the rackets.
However, things change suddenly, when his sister Elsie (Phyllis Stanley) finds herself in financial trouble. Elsie works in a nearby cafe, and she’s been charmed by a smooth talking cad (Michael Wilding, in an early screen role) whose romantic gestures are not genuine. Instead, he angles to steal money from the till the moment Elsie’s back is turned, which he does. Unfortunately, he gets away, and Elsie is now responsible for the theft and must replace the missing loot.
Tommy decides that he will go back to the promoter, and agree to take a dive in the ring. Although this goes against his principles, it’s important he earn some quick money to help his sister out of a jam. The promoter (Chapman) couldn’t be happier.
Of course, once Tommy’s got the gloves back on, will he really be able to go through with it? Or will he experience pangs of conscience and fight an honest match against his opponent? Even if it means his taking a bad beating?
The story of the independent fighter is often romanticized in cinema, especially Hollywood productions where charismatic guys like John Garfield, Kirk Douglas or Sylvester Stallone occasionally slug it out to the death. Here, Jimmy Hanley, who was a popular young performer in British cinema during the 1930s and 1940s, conveys a different energy. But he is no less effective in such a role. What plays out on screen is rather predictable and nothing new for most viewers, but this is still an entertaining flick with strong characterizations for it to be recommended.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 30, 2024 15:04:28 GMT
This film is from 1945.
Derailed then back on track
The relationship that develops between a British housewife (Celia Johnson) and a doctor (Trevor Howard) happens quickly and lasts briefly. Writer Noel Coward and director David Lean present two people who are needy at the same point in their lives, falling into something sudden and deep. The story takes place over the course of four Thursdays.
They meet casually on the first Thursday, when Laura Jesson gets grit in her eye on a train platform. Dr. Alec Harvey, a man she just met in the refreshment room, helps clean it out. Initially their interaction is quite minimal. Hardly romantic. Later they end up seeing each other again outside a store. It’s another platonic run-in. He takes the afternoon off from his medical practice, and they go to the cinema together.
Laura and Alec have such an enjoyable time, they decide to do it again the following Thursday. During the six and a half days that follow, Laura considers not seeing Alec again but does end up going. He has a medical emergency and doesn’t make it to the restaurant where they planned to dine. However, he finds her later at the train station when she’s heading home. He explains what happened and they agree to try again the following week.
The third Thursday it become more serious. They take in another movie then enjoy a lovely drive together. Alec kisses Laura at the station before they go their separate ways. The fourth Thursday they want more. Alec’s staying at a friend’s apartment downtown and asks Laura to head over there with him.
She declines, then changes her mind at the last moment. Alone in the apartment, it seems as if they will consummate the relationship. But all of a sudden Alec’s friend returns, so Laura has to hurry out a back door. She feels ashamed. Yet all they’ve done is kissed, nothing else.
Laura phones her husband and fibs about why she’s spending so much time downtown and why she can’t get home to fix dinner. She is not owning up to what’s been happening with Alec. Though, ultimately, Laura realizes it has to end. This is when Alec says he’s been offered a job in South Africa which he will take to make things easier on both of them. Neither one will leave their spouses or children to be with each other.
It can’t be anything more than friendship, because BRIEF ENCOUNTER is restrained by the production code. The characters are bound by a strong sense of morality. Laura and Alec’s story, which is quite simple, allows us to feel powerful emotions. There is light comic relief with minor characters in the refreshment room of the train station to offset the heavier moments. And there are also scenes set in the present, where she’s at home with her husband and children, remembering the events of the past four Thursdays.
Perhaps the most engaging part is Laura’s continual voice-over narration. We are privy to her innermost thoughts and feelings. She is telling her husband everything in her mind, but we are the ones she’s really telling. She’s a lonely soul, trying to maintain propriety but needing to reach out and connect with someone in a meaningful way. She decides a lot of the people she meets are idiots; she even calls herself an idiot at one point. But she doesn’t consider Alec idiotic at all.
In an interesting sequence, Laura’s on the train home and looks out the window. She glimpses herself dancing with Alec, driving with him in the countryside again and traveling abroad with him. It’s presented as a montage, but a fantasy montage.
At one point the camera switches to the reverse angle of the fantasy figures dancing. Suddenly from their vantage point we see Laura on the other side of the train window. It’s a skillfully made, imaginatively conceived film. The primary setting is the train station. But it really takes place in another realm. Two hearts have been derailed but are now back on track.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 30, 2024 15:13:26 GMT
Brief Encounter from 1945 with Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard
There is no reason why a short movie about a middle-class man and woman, both married, having a fleeting affair should be anything more than a mundane picture, yet Brief Encounter's poignant portrayal of a heartbreaking romance is a minor cinematic classic.
Based on a Noel Coward play, almost everything about it rings true and sad. Leads Celia Johnson, as the housewife, and Trevor Howard, as the general practitioner, who meet by chance in a small train station cafe, look like your neighbors, not movie stars.
While we learn more about Johnson's marriage than Howard's, both seem happily married; although, maybe a bit bored with their spouses after nearly two decades together raising kids and facing all the day-to-day challenges life throws at everyone.
When Johnson and Howard meet, neither is looking for an affair. Their initial time together - he has some hours free from his hospital work and she's in the city for a day of shopping - is spontaneous and almost English proper.
But after several of their half-day weekly rendezvous, both realize something more than a friendship is going on, which leads to the joy of new love and the guilt of cheating.
These are basically good people doing something very wrong. They want to be together, but they don't want to wreck their families, so they slow-walk their way forward knowing every path leads to some kind of heartbreak.
It all plays out amidst the palpable fear of exposure as being "respectable" meant so much in England at that time. And not just for the woman, as revealed by Howard's obnoxious friend's scathing disapproval of Howard’s behavior.
With Johnson's voiceover narration, we see how the affair preys on her. She knows she is fortunate to have a good and kind husband and two healthy young children. She also knows what she is doing is wrong, but the heart and libido have a powerful pull of their own.
Brief Encounter works because it gets the details right. The accidental train-station meeting, the afternoon escapes at the movies, walking arm in arm for the first time or waving goodbye as his train leaves are all perfectly captured by director David Lean's keen eye.
Early in his directorial career, Lean, who would go on to direct some of the great mid-century epic love stories, shows he already understood that it is those small details - a knowing glance, a gentle touch - that reveals the intimacy and affection of a romance.
Lean also understood the importance of atmosphere. The trains coming and going in the station, amidst clouds of steam and blasts of whistles, parallels the jarring passion of the affair. Similarly, the lovers' trip to the countryside, like their love, is only a redoubt from reality.
There is nothing special about two middle-class people having a brief extramarital affair, except that to them, it is earthshaking. Steered by Lean's thoughtful directing, Johnson and Howard, fully realizing Coward's script, make us all feel just how earthshaking it can be.
It is this ability of Brief Encounter, the ability to bring someone else's inner tragedy to life for the audience, that makes it a timeless classic. |
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Oct 31, 2024 11:08:13 GMT
BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a film I can re-watch fairly often and not tire of it. It is a fantastic film.
I always feel a little frustrated with Laura, however, because her husband, Fred, is just so darn nice. I want to shout at her "be happy with what you have. Many women don't have such a nice man!"  |
|
