|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 6, 2023 14:42:18 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Melodrama with noir touches
First, the title itself is rather generic and in a way, problematic. (The book upon which the story is based, is called Bella Donna, which sounds a bit more exotic.) The problem with a word like “temptation” is that it’s fine insomuch as the main character remains tempted. But the woman Merle Oberon is portraying is so impulsive, that she’s tempted for about two minutes before she acts on her impulses and gives in to her desires.
If you’ve gone beyond temptation, which she has (and how!), then what do you have? More temptation? Not really. This word would work if the story was about her leading others into temptation, but that is not exactly what occurs.
The story is very slow-moving in spots. One contemporary critic felt the 98-minute running time was not justified. It’s a drama that with more economical editing could have been told in 75-80 minutes. Some scenes are simply too long to sustain viewer interest. That’s most likely because producer Edward Small and director Irving Pichel wanted the characters to take leisurely strolls and repeatedly wring their hands so that we could linger on the lavish architectural design and take in all the exquisite period clothing.
Also, I suspect they wanted us to have plenty of time to dwell on Miss Oberon’s latest hat. She must set a record for the amount of showy headpieces she wears. Though I suppose it adds a bit of outrageous fun that she’s always so overdressed. She seems to be the type that would get decked to the nines just to walk down the hall to the bathroom.
While this is certainly Miss Oberon’s movie, a few of the supporting cast manage to make an impression.
Paul Lukas is on hand as a well-meaning doctor. He suspects Oberon of having ulterior motives, when she swoops in on his pal George Brent– a very single and very rich Egyptologist. Lukas is looking out for Brent and wants to prevent his friend from marrying Oberon, which will undoubtedly be the biggest mistake of all time. As a result, the tension between Oberon and Lukas underscores the conflicts that play out on screen which gives the plot some dimension and substance.
Meanwhile, Charles Korvin appears in a very memorable role as a sinister yet sexy blackmailer. He skillfully ensnares Oberon, which isn’t hard to do. Especially since she has become quite unhappy after marrying Brent…they start a passionate affair while her husband is off searching tombs for mummies and buried treasures. Of course, Korvin is using Oberon, but Oberon seems to want it this way.
Eventually she is goaded by Korvin into killing Brent, so that they can be together and enjoy all the money she will inherit. Korvin gives her some poison (probably arsenic) which she will dole out to Brent in small but steady doses to weaken him.
However, for some inexplicable reason, Oberon realizes she may be a lot of things, but a black widow is not one of them. She decides she can’t murder Brent and tells Korvin. He reminds her that her husband has become quite ill from the poison she’s been administering and that she has plenty of reason to want her husband dead. She can’t back out now, even if she wants to.
But Oberon disagrees. In her frustration, she uses the rest of the poison to get rid of Korvin while Brent makes a full recovery. That horrible man, with a cleft on his chin to rival Cary Grant’s, is now history.
While the more delirious aspects of the film involve Oberon and Korvin, I want to mention how much George Brent’s noble characterization registers. He provides a dapper performance that is not too deep, not too superficial– successfully conveying the part of a good and respectable spouse. Mr. Brent is always serviceable in these types of melodramas with strong females. Before working with Miss Oberon, he had plenty of practice at home studio Warner Brothers opposite Bette Davis.
Speaking of Bette Davis, TEMPTATION reminds me a lot of THE LETTER. Mainly because we have a woman in a foreign land who takes a lover then resorts to murder in order to be free. Ultimately, she realizes what a decent husband she has and how wrong she was to stray.
I like how Brent’s reasons for marrying Oberon are obscured until the end, when we find out how much he really thinks of her. As for the character played by Oberon, she turns confessor after doing away with Korvin. So she is entitled to some form of redemption, though the production code still necessitates her death.
This is a Victorian melodrama with noir touches. It’s a mostly satisfying effort at motion picture entertainment, though it is definitely not the classic it could have been and should have been. I am inclined to say more, but I will wisely refrain from the temptation to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 6, 2023 15:10:04 GMT
When I wrote the below review last year, I assumed Universal produced the movie, but now having read Topbilled's comments a few posts above, it appears the movie was really an independent effort produced by International Pictures, which merged with Universal around the time of the movie's release.
Temptation from 1946 with Merle Oberon, Charles Korvin, Paul Lukas and George Brent
With nothing more than a basic gold-digging- and cheating-woman story at its core, Universal Studios used all its powers to turn Temptation into an engaging dark melodrama / mystery driven by love, lust, honor and betrayal.
Set in the early 1900s, mainly in Egypt, Merle Oberon plays the aging gold-digger running out of money from a prior divorce settlement who sets her sights on a staid, wealthy, middle-aged English bachelor and Egyptologist played by George Brent.
Knowing her notorious reputation could sink this Hail Mary effort, Oberon goes to Brent's friend and confidant, a physician played by the always outstanding Paul Lukas. Oberon puts herself in the role of a patient who confesses to her doctor her plans to deceive Brent into marrying her. She believes that the physician's code of patient confidentiality will prevent Lukas from warning his friend.
Putting that forced and convoluted scheme aside, it does set Lukas and Oberon up as antagonists, especially since she succeeds in marrying Brent, but then becomes bored as the wife of an archeologist whose social circle comprises other Egyptologists and their science, not society, minded wives.
After a contrived plot twist about Oberon helping out the daughter of a friend of Brent who got "entangled" with an Egyptian "prince," a womanizer and scammer played by Charles Korvin, Oberon, herself, and the fake prince begin having an affair.
After going at it regularly while Brent is away at an excavation site, Oberon and Korvin begin plotting to "get rid of" Brent so that they can be together with his money and live happily ever after. Or does Korvin see that as step one of a two-part plan to get the money all for himself sans Oberon?
The heart of the movie is watching aloof and calculating Oberon falling for Korvin. He may or may not be playing her, but she's all in for her relationship with Korvin in the same way men are usually all in for their relationships with her.
The Motion Picture Production Code didn't allow any sex to sneak onto the screen, but credit to Oberon for a convincing performance as a woman willing to risk it all for carnal desire. It's usually the man who becomes all stupid over sleeping with a woman, but in this one, it's Oberon's libido trumping her self interest.
From here, it's all clandestine meetings, planning, poisons, attempted cover ups, the occasional pang of moral conscience, a corrupt doctor, Lukas possibly thwarting the plan and a last-minute conversion in Oberon that's only somewhat believable, but does give the climax a couple of hard pivots.
Told through a flashback where we see Oberon, the Egyptian police and Lukas sorting out the fallout from the plot and its legal ramifications, Temptation cheats the viewer a bit with an ending that "tells not shows" the dramatic denouement, but that was probably more about Universal not wanting to end on too-down a note.
Universal Studios worked hard to create lavish sets that probably convinced no one that the filming took place in Egypt, but still the sets, Oberon's elaborate period costumes and the gorgeous black and white cinematography (now beautifully restored) makes Temptation a visually captivating picture.
But it's the acting that turns a very basic and old story into an engaging ninety-eight minutes of movie watching. Oberon is wonderful as the conniving and mirthfully wanton woman who ends up in one of her own style of tramps.
Korvin is equally captivating as the scheming womanizer who ensnares Oberon in that trap. Brent, meanwhile, is in his acting sweet spot here as the boring and kind-hearted husband, while Lukas centers the picture by all but playing the role of the entire Greek Chorus to this tragedy.
Temptation isn't a great movie, but it is an example of how the studio system could leverage a big budget, beautiful cinematography, smart screenwriters and top acting talent to make an old story feel like a fresh tale about the biblical sins of greed, lust, betrayal and murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 18, 2023 13:54:59 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Rural stereotypes
When Universal released THE EGG AND I in 1947, based on Betty MacDonald’s bestselling memoir, it had a huge hit on its hands. In addition to becoming one of the year’s highest grossing films, two supporting characters developed a cult following.
These characters, Ma and Pa Kettle (played by Marjorie Main and Percy Kilbride) were quickly groomed for a series of follow-up adventures, sans the original stars of the first picture (Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray). Helping Universal execs cinch the decision to spinoff the Kettles was the fact that Miss Main had earned an Oscar nomination.
It would take two years for the studio to premiere the first follow-up film. Part of the reason for the delay was the fact that MacDonald and the studio were hauled into court by her former neighbors who claimed they were the basis for the Kettles. During the ensuring litigation, the neighbors sought damages, feeling their reputation had been damaged by such disparaging portrayals of ‘themselves.’
The studio, for its part, settled the case out of court; and in 1949, was able to release MA AND PA KETTLE. Like its predecessor, the film was a rip-roaring success; and more than a half dozen sequels in the franchise would be released between 1949 and 1956. Percy Kilbride left the series near the end and does not appear in the last two outings.
Main and Kilbride worked well together, and they were able to help make the Ma & Pa Kettle characters highly popular with audiences. Due to the Kettles’ success at the box office, Ma and Pa became the ultimate in rural archetypes. These characterizations would pave the way for television sitcoms that sought to emulate this winning formula…most notable among these, The Beverly Hillbillies and Petticoat Junction which raised hillbilly comedy to an art form.
In the process, rural people were increasingly depicted as backwards and dimwitted…people who lacked education and had too many kids. Their foibles were exploited for laughs– reinforcing stereotypes that over time seemed to become acceptable. Miss MacDonald, the Washington-based author who created these characters, may have done more harm than good. On more than one occasion in her book, she made them the butt of the joke, pointing out their sloppiness and laziness.
Yes, it’s comedy and yes, political correctness as we know it today did not exist in the 1940s and 1950s. But MacDonald could have written these characters more sensibly. And Universal International could have had its screenwriters show the Kettles with a bit more dignity.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 3, 2023 14:08:04 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Amusing history lesson
This charming Abbott & Costello farce from the folks at Universal was a hit with critics, but not exactly a hit with moviegoers. Maybe audiences back then weren’t captivated by history lessons retold in comedic terms, even if Lou Costello, one of the era’s biggest clowns, was doing the telling. Still the picture has a lot to offer in the form of clever entertainment.
It all starts on a New York estate known as Danbury Manor, circa 1780. The American revolution is still in full swing, and Costello plays a tinker and patriot who helps George Washington’s army. For his troubles, he’s given a letter of recommendation from Washington, who remains off screen. While this occurs, Benedict Arnold, who also remains off screen, conspires with the British to surrender troops so the rebel forces will be defeated.
Granted, some of this isn’t too funny, but it’s nicely done with fine period detail that includes splendid costuming and convincing set pieces. We also get realistic references to bonds of servitude, the idea that titles could be taken away after the war, as well as what happens to traitors and a sense of U.S. history from that time up to 1946, over 165 years later.
When Costello appears on screen, humor abounds though some of it is rather silly. We see him fall in a haystack and sneeze; get a pitchfork in his derriere; and ride a horse backwards. Yes, this is typical slapstick from Costello, which probably appeals more to a juvenile crowd; and is usually balanced out by partner Bud Abbott who plays the straight man– in this case, the villain.
Interestingly, Abbott and Costello were feuding off-camera during the year this film was made and barely speaking to each other, so they have limited on-camera interactions in this movie. In fact Costello has much more screen time with leading lady Marjorie Reynolds. Fans of Miss Reynolds probably will not complain. But this may also explain why the film didn’t do so well at the box office, like earlier A&C efforts that were bonafide hits.
Due to a mix-up, Costello and Reynolds are mistaken for traitors and they are killed by the rebels. This may have been the only time Costello died on screen, not sure; but he and Reynolds come back as ghosts.
In the then-present day scenes set in 1946, they are now spirits trying to find the letter Washington wrote which would prove they didn’t betray their country and release them from the state of limbo they’ve been experiencing for a century and a half.
Some of the gags are very good in this movie. There’s a funny scene with Costello drinking water but the water pouring out of him, because he supposedly has holes after being shot. Also, as they try to clear their names, they deal with modern day conveniences in a most amusing fashion. They quickly learn about cars, electric lights, telephones and radio. In a way, it’s a shame this story wasn’t made in the 1950s when they could have added in gags with them learning about television.
Some of the language that is used is worth mentioning. First, there are the expressions used that relate to them being ghosts and a psychic (Gale Sondergaard) who senses their presence. One word that is spoken in the dialogue is ‘unmanifest’ which means the ghosts can disappear fast. In later supernatural comedies this would become known as dematerializing. Also, we have Costello and Reynolds learning some mid-40s slang, which is somewhat cute, since Americans would certainly talk differently about things 165 years later.
Abbott has a dual role, playing a descendant of his earlier colonial character. But instead of a butler this time he’s a psychiatrist. I guess this profession was chosen for laughs, since he can get the heebie jeebies due to the pranks the two ghosts are pulling which might drive him mad. In addition to Abbott and Sondergaard, the modern-day scenes include John Shelton and Binnie Barnes. Miss Barnes is particularly adept at comedy and I’ve always been at a loss as to why she’s so underrated, though it is some consolation that she still managed to have a long career in films.
Eventually, Costello and Reynolds locate the missing letter…so they get their happy ending and can head off to a rightful afterlife. There are references to a 4th of July picnic, and while this is not exactly a holiday picture, it’s still a nice one to watch around Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jul 4, 2023 16:23:43 GMT
This neglected film is from 1946.
Amusing history lesson
This charming Abbott & Costello farce from the folks at Universal was a hit with critics, but not exactly a hit with moviegoers. Maybe audiences back then weren’t captivated by history lessons retold in comedic terms, even if Lou Costello, one of the era’s biggest clowns, was doing the telling. Still the picture has a lot to offer in the form of clever entertainment.
It all starts on a New York estate known as Danbury Manor, circa 1780. The American revolution is still in full swing, and Costello plays a tinker and patriot who helps George Washington’s army. For his troubles, he’s given a letter of recommendation from Washington, who remains off screen. While this occurs, Benedict Arnold, who also remains off screen, conspires with the British to surrender troops so the rebel forces will be defeated.
Granted, some of this isn’t too funny, but it’s nicely done with fine period detail that includes splendid costuming and convincing set pieces. We also get realistic references to bonds of servitude, the idea that titles could be taken away after the war, as well as what happens to traitors and a sense of U.S. history from that time up to 1946, over 165 years later.
When Costello appears on screen, humor abounds though some of it is rather silly. We see him fall in a haystack and sneeze; get a pitchfork in his derriere; and ride a horse backwards. Yes, this is typical slapstick from Costello, which probably appeals more to a juvenile crowd; and is usually balanced out by partner Bud Abbott who plays the straight man– in this case, the villain.
Interestingly, Abbott and Costello were feuding off-camera during the year this film was made and barely speaking to each other, so they have limited on-camera interactions in this movie. In fact Costello has much more screen time with leading lady Marjorie Reynolds. Fans of Miss Reynolds probably will not complain. But this may also explain why the film didn’t do so well at the box office, like earlier A&C efforts that were bonafide hits.
Due to a mix-up, Costello and Reynolds are mistaken for traitors and they are killed by the rebels. This may have been the only time Costello died on screen, not sure; but he and Reynolds come back as ghosts.
In the then-present day scenes set in 1946, they are now spirits trying to find the letter Washington wrote which would prove they didn’t betray their country and release them from the state of limbo they’ve been experiencing for a century and a half.
Some of the gags are very good in this movie. There’s a funny scene with Costello drinking water but the water pouring out of him, because he supposedly has holes after being shot. Also, as they try to clear their names, they deal with modern day conveniences in a most amusing fashion. They quickly learn about cars, electric lights, telephones and radio. In a way, it’s a shame this story wasn’t made in the 1950s when they could have added in gags with them learning about television.
Some of the language that is used is worth mentioning. First, there are the expressions used that relate to them being ghosts and a psychic (Gale Sondergaard) who senses their presence. One word that is spoken in the dialogue is ‘unmanifest’ which means the ghosts can disappear fast. In later supernatural comedies this would become known as dematerializing. Also, we have Costello and Reynolds learning some mid-40s slang, which is somewhat cute, since Americans would certainly talk differently about things 165 years later.
Abbott has a dual role, playing a descendant of his earlier colonial character. But instead of a butler this time he’s a psychiatrist. I guess this profession was chosen for laughs, since he can get the heebie jeebies due to the pranks the two ghosts are pulling which might drive him mad. In addition to Abbott and Sondergaard, the modern-day scenes include John Shelton and Binnie Barnes. Miss Barnes is particularly adept at comedy and I’ve always been at a loss as to why she’s so underrated, though it is some consolation that she still managed to have a long career in films.
Eventually, Costello and Reynolds locate the missing letter…so they get their happy ending and can head off to a rightful afterlife. There are references to a 4th of July picnic, and while this is not exactly a holiday picture, it’s still a nice one to watch around Independence Day. Nice tie-in with Independence Day, TopBilled, and yet another example of your impressive film knowledge. Happy 4th, TopBilled!! |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 4, 2023 18:11:47 GMT
Thank you NoShear...happy 4th!
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 11, 2023 14:10:08 GMT
This neglected film is from 1955.
Back from hell
Audie Murphy’s 1949 autobiography served as the basis for a 1955 motion picture from Universal that dramatizes his military experiences during WWII. In the opening sequence we learn that his childhood was kind of hellish; his father had run out on his mother and nine kids leaving them in abject poverty.
The situation forced him to quit school at 12 and take a full time job to help support the family. By age 16, his mother had died and his younger siblings were sent elsewhere to live. In order to support himself, Audie Murphy decided to enlist in the armed services. This was right after Pearl Harbor had been bombed.
Because of his age, height and weight, he was rejected by three branches of the military. He was finally accepted into the Army as an infantryman. After basic training Audie Murphy was sent to North Africa then on to Italy.
The film does not waste time getting right into the battle scenes. So immediately we have a sense of the danger he faced. There are some humorous moments where he seems like the last one who will adapt to these conditions; and his fellow soldiers help him through an initial awkward phase. But the young infantryman soon gains confidence and proves himself.
As the story unfolds we become better acquainted with the other men in his company, who come from a variety of backgrounds. What makes these scenes interesting is how Audie Murphy the actor plays these moments as a tribute to his old buddies, most of whom would be killed in battle. You can’t help but sense he is trying his best to give the most faithful rendering possible of this story– not for his own personal glory, but to ensure that the other men are honored and come across as heroes in their own right.
Originally, he did not want to play himself in the film version of his life story. He had suggested the studio use Tony Curtis; but Universal execs persuaded him to do it instead. Perhaps he had felt self-conscious about the idea of playing himself; and in a way it is a bit surreal to see him at the age of 30 portraying incidents from when he was in his teens. However, he had retained his youthful looks, so he could still convincingly pass as a teenager when this movie was made.
TO HELL AND BACK is photographed in CinemaScope, which adds to its realism. It is important to watch the story in widescreen, to gain a sense of how the action on the battlefield affected so many men all at once. It is also important to remember when looking at the film that Audie is saying things as he probably originally said them over a decade earlier. The expression in his eyes indicates this is an acting performance that is relying entirely on emotion memory to convey the truth about what happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 5, 2023 14:21:07 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Conservative and liberal values in the same family
In this film you get to see some of the studio’s more well-known postwar stars at the beginning of their respective careers. Rock Hudson has just been promoted to leading man roles; Julie Adams (still billed as Julia Adams) is featured as a female lead; John McIntire is already carving out a niche for himself as a dependable character actor; and Dennis Weaver is seen in one of his first supporting roles. All four of these contract players would have a long association with Universal up through the 1970s and 1980s.
This particular production benefits from the sure hand of actor-director Raoul Walsh. It is blessed with a strong script and gorgeous Technicolor cinematography. There was a trend in westerns at this time to tell the stories of notorious gunfighters whose days as outlaws in the late 1800s made them memorable figures. A lot of tales about the Jameses, Daltons and Youngers had been passed down as oral history and became part of common folklore. In this case, Bernard Gordon’s screenplay has as its basis the autobiography of its historic main character, John Wesley Hardin.
After watching the film I read up on Hardin. I had to wonder how much of Hardin’s own accounts, which were not published until 1925, about thirty years after his death, were exaggerated by him. Also, while I would expect the screenwriter not to take it all as gospel, I would think some of what was considered factual in the early 1950s was later proven to be untrue.
Regardless of what actually happened during some of these episodes from Hardin’s life, it is certain that he lived a colorful life. He killed his first man as a young teen and had many violent encounters. He would spend years on the run before finally being brought to justice. And after he was tried in a court of law, convicted and sentenced, he served about 17 years in prison before a governor pardoned him.
A lot of what we see in the film is romanticized. The romantic aspects of the story help sell it as entertainment, and give this tale a broad commercial appeal. I don’t fault the filmmakers for that. I rather like it. However, the real John Wesley Hardin was a braggart, a man who seemed proud of his exploits, and he dealt with some very mean law officers that probably forced him to be just as vicious in return.
Rock Hudson’s portrayal is not mean, vicious or one bit cynical. While not soft, he is still wide-eyed and his character is depicted as devilish, fun-loving and someone who doesn’t know how to stay away from trouble. In a way the script makes it seem like he is an addict— addicted to gambling, women and danger all in equal measure. The guy cannot help himself.
What really impresses me about this film is how it gives us a family that comes together to help Hardin. But at the same time this nuclear unit exhibits a rigid dichotomy. Interestingly, John McIntire plays a dual role— as a fear-instilling man of the cloth who whips his rebellious son — and as the preacher’s much more liberal and tolerant half-brother.
It is no surprise which father figure Hardin turns to for help, when he can’t obtain leniency or any sympathy from the other. Yet both patriarchs, the father and the uncle, are present in the courtroom when Hardin is sentenced, both of them there to offer support in the ways they best know how.
Some of this dichotomy is revisited in the final sequence of the movie when Hardin is released from the penitentiary. He reunites with his wife (Adams) and their now teenaged son (Race Gentry). Afraid that his son will be as reckless as he once was at that age, he hits the boy to punish him the way his father had done to him, to knock some sense into him. Then like the understanding uncle that always helped him, he rides off after his boy to make amends with him in a local saloon. Only this time there are unexpected and dramatic repercussions when Hardin is shot in the back by a whippersnapper out to prove something.
In real life Hardin was killed a year after his release from prison, by the father of a man he had pistol whipped in a fight. But in the movie, in order to ensure a happy ending, he survives being shot and goes home with his wife and son to live out his last days peacefully on their farm.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 14, 2023 14:06:16 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Watch your step
Shelley Winters had already impressed the bosses at Universal by the late 1940s. At this point she’d been promoted to leads in film noir and westerns at the studio. My guess is that she probably was put into this picture, while filming other stuff…since her screen time is limited. She plays an old girlfriend of William Powell’s, despite the obvious age difference, and tries to reignite the flame though she’s been told he’s now married. He’s quite happily married in fact, but it doesn’t stop her.
She keeps throwing herself at him, first in a bar where they reconnect, then at a party she’s invited him to in her home. All this plays out in the first twenty minutes, then she goes missing and disappears from the next hour of the film. We only see her again, for another five to ten minutes at the end to wrap up the story. While Winters is off screen the heart of the film belongs to Powell, whose character is suspected of doing away with her, even though he doesn’t exactly have a real motive.
One thing I have to say in Miss Winters’ behalf is that she certainly knows how to make the most of limited screen time. She steals the first sequence and after she vanishes, her energy continues to linger over the picture. When she pops up again at the end, she has a very dynamic scene where her character tries to kill herself. Much of it is rather shocking, not necessarily over the top, but she has these important scenes she can make a lot out of, and she definitely does.
As for Mr. Powell, he had recently left his long-time studio MGM and was now freelancing. Under a multi-picture contract at Universal in the late 1940s, he had already made a political satire called THE SENATOR WAS INDISCREET as well as a whimsical romcom with Ann Blyth called MR. PEABODY AND THE MERMAID. He wasn’t lacking for good scripts, that’s for sure. And TAKE ONE FALSE STEP, which is written and directed by Chester Erskine, is a fine motion picture with a truly engaging story.
It’s interesting to watch Powell forced into pseudo-detective mode in this story, to clear his name. The situation evokes shades of Nick Charles. Plus we also have James Gleason on hand as a police detective, who at first thinks Powell is guilty. Not unlike Gleason’s more famous role as Inspector Oscar Piper in RKO’s Hildegarde Withers mysteries. The two actors had previously costarred in RKO’s THE EX-MRS. BRADFORD which also combined elements of mystery, suspense and comedy. Powell and Gleason are older at this point but they’re both pros and they do an excellent job here, reeling us along.
In addition to Powell, Winters and Gleason we have one of Powell’s former MGM pals Marsha Hunt. She’s cast as a girlfriend of Winters who doesn’t believe Powell is a killer and helps him try to find out what happened. In all her scenes, Miss Hunt is poised and most assured. Since she actually has more screen time than Winters, she helps anchor the film with her sensible feminine presence.
One thing I especially enjoyed about this picture is how episodic it is. Powell travels from Los Angeles to San Francisco to clear himself. There are a lot of on-location scenes with him on the road. During this journey, we have some amusing vignettes where he encounters people of various backgrounds who can either help him or get in his way.
A particularly good sequence has Powell “negotiating” with a preteen for information about what the cops know, and ultimately the boy steers the cops in the wrong direction, to buy Powell extra time to find much-needed answers about Winters’ fate. Powell’s a real pro in this extended bit with the kid. I almost got the feeling that Powell enjoyed letting his costars shine because it was as entertaining to him as it would be for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 24, 2023 14:54:46 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
What price humanity?
This is one of those stories that resonates across generations. The greed of the main character (Edward G. Robinson) leads to a series of unfortunate reversals for those who exist within his orbit. Ironically, Robinson’s character does not face his own reversal until the end. It helps that he’s been chosen to play this character, because viewers associate him with slick gangsters from his days at Warner Brothers a decade earlier. And so while we see him portraying this so-called respectable businessman, we sense that underneath the shiny veneer, there is a tarnished soul.
The other great thing about Robinson’s performance is that he gives us a lot of charm and likability despite the obvious flaws, so we want to root for him though we suspect we should not. And if Robinson the actor is manipulating us the audience in this way, it works to the story’s advantage because his character is also supposed to be manipulating his family and their local community.
I remember when I first saw this film, ten years ago, and I thought Burt Lancaster was miscast because physically he does not seem as if he could be related to Robinson. But this time around, I was able to overlook the disparity in the actors’ physicality, deciding Lancaster resembled Mady Christians enough to get by in the role, as she is playing his mother.
Lancaster is probably a good choice to play the idealistic son because we do not see him as being hardened in any real way. He still clings to the notion that dear old dad is decent, when it becomes increasingly obvious that Robinson is not decent at all.
Universal purchased the rights after Arthur Miller’s drama had proven popular on Broadway in 1947. On the stage, Elia Kazan served as the director and Robinson’s role had been handled by Ed Begley. None of the Broadway cast transferred to the film, and even Kazan was not given the chance to direct it for the screen.
Miller’s story features two important characters that were not initially glimpsed by the audience. One character is the family’s deceased son, who died in the war and is continually referenced. The girl (Louisa Horton) that Lancaster is dating, was once promised to his dead brother. Meanwhile Christians’ character insists that her boy, officially classified MIA by the government, will return home though the family and girlfriend know different.
The other character unseen in the stage production was Robinson’s business partner, who has been incarcerated. In the motion picture version, this man is seen, and it gives us one of the movie’s more powerful moments. It comes when Lancaster, now having doubts, decides to visit his dad’s old partner at a nearby prison.
During the ensuing conversation, the partner (Frank Conroy) confirms that Robinson was in fact responsible for sending a shipment of defective cylinders to the military for use in its aircraft. This led to downed planes during the war and the loss of lives. Of course, Robinson had a good lawyer because he was exonerated by a jury, while the partner took the fall and ended up behind bars. The moment of truth, where Lancaster realizes the horror and enormity of his father’s actual guilt, is powerful.
Equally powerful is the subsequent scene where Lancaster returns from the prison visit and goes in search of his father. A short time later he finds Robinson finishing a poker game with some chums in the back office. After the other men leave, Lancaster confronts him with what he knows and throttles him!
The title comes from the fact that the deceased brother went on a suicide mission, after realizing Robinson’s culpability. His death is an instrument of justice here. Not only does Robinson now realize that all those innocent flyers who died were like sons of his, the jurors that cleared him of the charges, were all twelve symbols of his son who died.
Robinson is starting to turn a corner, morally, but he grapples with whether or not he is supposed to turn himself in and go to prison…especially since if he doesn’t, it is possible that Lancaster may turn him in to the authorities. At the same Christians has been trying to keep the family together, and remain supportive of her husband.
The last part of the film contains what may be one of Edward G. Robinson’s best scenes. Now armed with the knowledge that he must atone for his wrong-doing, but also feeling that his life is not worth living, he ascends the stairs and a few moments later a gunshot is heard off-camera. He has killed himself.
Yes, it’s a very dramatic ending. Some of it feels influenced by Eugene O’Neill’s tragic family sagas. And I would say Tennessee Williams wrote in this vein as well, where there is never a happy ending for such characters.
Universal gives the movie an upbeat coda, where Lancaster and his girlfriend seem to have married and are leaving the house to live the rest of their life somewhere else. Of course, the mother remains behind…and she will have to spend the rest of her days dealing with what they had and lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 24, 2023 15:32:38 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
What price humanity?
This is one of those stories that resonates across generations. The greed of the main character (Edward G. Robinson) leads to a series of unfortunate reversals for those who exist within his orbit. Ironically, Robinson’s character does not face his own reversal until the end. It helps that he’s been chosen to play this character, because viewers associate him with slick gangsters from his days at Warner Brothers a decade earlier. And so while we see him portraying this so-called respectable businessman, we sense that underneath the shiny veneer, there is a tarnished soul.
The other great thing about Robinson’s performance is that he gives us a lot of charm and likability despite the obvious flaws, so we want to root for him though we suspect we should not. And if Robinson the actor is manipulating us the audience in this way, it works to the story’s advantage because his character is also supposed to be manipulating his family and their local community.
I remember when I first saw this film, ten years ago, and I thought Burt Lancaster was miscast because physically he does not seem as if he could be related to Robinson. But this time around, I was able to overlook the disparity in the actors’ physicality, deciding Lancaster resembled Mady Christians enough to get by in the role, as she is playing his mother.
Lancaster is probably a good choice to play the idealistic son because we do not see him as being hardened in any real way. He still clings to the notion that dear old dad is decent, when it becomes increasingly obvious that Robinson is not decent at all.
Universal purchased the rights after Arthur Miller’s drama had proven popular on Broadway in 1947. On the stage, Elia Kazan served as the director and Robinson’s role had been handled by Ed Begley. None of the Broadway cast transferred to the film, and even Kazan was not given the chance to direct it for the screen.
Miller’s story features two important characters that were not initially glimpsed by the audience. One character is the family’s deceased son, who died in the war and is continually referenced. The girl (Louisa Horton) that Lancaster is dating, was once promised to his dead brother. Meanwhile Christians’ character insists that her boy, officially classified MIA by the government, will return home though the family and girlfriend know different.
The other character unseen in the stage production was Robinson’s business partner, who has been incarcerated. In the motion picture version, this man is seen, and it gives us one of the movie’s more powerful moments. It comes when Lancaster, now having doubts, decides to visit his dad’s old partner at a nearby prison.
During the ensuing conversation, the partner (Frank Conroy) confirms that Robinson was in fact responsible for sending a shipment of defective cylinders to the military for use in its aircraft. This led to downed planes during the war and the loss of lives. Of course, Robinson had a good lawyer because he was exonerated by a jury, while the partner took the fall and ended up behind bars. The moment of truth, where Lancaster realizes the horror and enormity of his father’s actual guilt, is powerful.
Equally powerful is the subsequent scene where Lancaster returns from the prison visit and goes in search of his father. A short time later he finds Robinson finishing a poker game with some chums in the back office. After the other men leave, Lancaster confronts him with what he knows and throttles him!
The title comes from the fact that the deceased brother went on a suicide mission, after realizing Robinson’s culpability. His death is an instrument of justice here. Not only does Robinson now realize that all those innocent flyers who died were like sons of his, the jurors that cleared him of the charges, were all twelve symbols of his son who died.
Robinson is starting to turn a corner, morally, but he grapples with whether or not he is supposed to turn himself in and go to prison…especially since if he doesn’t, it is possible that Lancaster may turn him in to the authorities. At the same Christians has been trying to keep the family together, and remain supportive of her husband.
The last part of the film contains what may be one of Edward G. Robinson’s best scenes. Now armed with the knowledge that he must atone for his wrong-doing, but also feeling that his life is not worth living, he ascends the stairs and a few moments later a gunshot is heard off-camera. He has killed himself.
Yes, it’s a very dramatic ending. Some of it feels influenced by Eugene O’Neill’s tragic family sagas. And I would say Tennessee Williams wrote in this vein as well, where there is never a happy ending for such characters.
Universal gives the movie an upbeat coda, where Lancaster and his girlfriend seem to have married and are leaving the house to live the rest of their life somewhere else. Of course, the mother remains behind…and she will have to spend the rest of her days dealing with what they had and lost.
There's an echo of this story in the 1949 movie "House of Strangers" that also stars Robinson.
My comments on that movie here: "House of Strangers" |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 24, 2023 15:51:59 GMT
Robinson was on a roll in the late 40s...THE RED HOUSE, KEY LARGO, ALL MY SONS and HOUSE OF STRANGERS are all classics. Then he was gray-listed, and he was forced into B films, or else British A films. His Hollywood career would not fully recover until 1955's THE VIOLENT MEN, an A-western at Columbia that reunited him with his DOUBLE INDEMNITY costar Barbara Stanwyck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 24, 2023 16:27:22 GMT
Robinson was on a roll in the late 40s...THE RED HOUSE, KEY LARGO, ALL MY SONS and HOUSE OF STRANGERS are all classics. Then he was gray-listed, and he was forced into B films, or else British A films. His Hollywood career would not fully recover until 1955's THE VIOLENT MEN, an A-western at Columbia that reunited him with his DOUBLE INDEMNITY costar Barbara Stanwyck. |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 24, 2023 21:49:57 GMT
Robinson was on the "gray list" and credited DeMille with reviving his career. Hard to believe with DeMille's politics that he would hire anyone under suspicion.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 8, 2023 14:59:47 GMT
This neglected film is from 1932.
Amusing Hollywood satire
This picture, based on a very popular play that ran for over a year on Broadway between 1930 and 1931, is certainly dated. Nevertheless, it retains quite a bit of charm. The basic story is one that spoofs Hollywood filmmaking, and there is even a little ‘disclaimer’ at the beginning, by Universal executive Carl Laemmle, explaining why he chose to adapt it for the big screen. Apparently, he felt it was important to poke fun at the movie business and have a good sense of humor about how men like he were making a living.
While ONCE IN A LIFETIME is not the best satire ever produced about the foibles of Hollywood, it seems one of the more potent examples. It is not necessarily better than SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN which came twenty years later, but it has a greater understanding of the transition from silents to talkies. Mostly because the people acting in the film had recently come to the motion picture capital themselves to achieve stardom on screen and had to deal with that historic transition first-hand. As such, their performances are imbued with realism.
Aline MacMahon, who plays one of the vaudeville performers that goes to Hollywood in the beginning of the story, had just a year earlier left the east coast to start appearing in precodes at Warner Brothers. She was one of the many transplants from the New York stage brought out west because she had a distinctive voice that would record well in a sound film. It’s highly appropriate that she’s playing a woman who starts an elocution school.
Her pupils include silent stars whose voices grate like nails on a chalkboard…famous people desperate to learn how to speak properly, in order to continue their careers. So you can see where SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN’s Lina Lamont comes from!
Cast alongside Miss MacMahon are Russell Hopton and Jack Oakie as fellow vaudevillians who are just as eager to make their mark in Hollywood. Most of the dialogue between them on a train to California is witty yet still realistic. We get a sense of their dreams, how they still wish to prove their talents to others, as well as how industrious they are.
I was particularly impressed with Oakie, on loan from home studio Paramount, who turns in a fairly subdued performance. Typically Oakie amps up the aww-shucks quality of his roles, exaggerating a premise for comedic effect. But here we have a more earnest portrayal of a guy who has seen a lot of ups and downs and may in fact be a bit depressed by the low points.
After they’ve arrived in La La Land, we see them gradually succeeding in their efforts. Oakie’s character probably evolves the most, since he becomes the most successful. But his fame as a producer is a fluke, which is a wry comment by writers George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart, that Hollywood is a gamble. Blind luck more often than talent seems to win out. Oakie is hailed as a brilliant visionary, ahead of his time, which is certainly amusing since he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing on a soundstage. (But I guess he knows how to “handle” a leading lady!)
There are several supporting characters, most of them heightened stereotypes, that help put across the idea this is a tongue-in-cheek satire. But underneath the silliness, there is a serious commentary about storytelling as art and the making of such art. One writer at the studio goes idle too long and ends up institutionalized. Other talented people cannot successfully transition from silents to sound. Young hopefuls learn what they must do to make it.
And there is one biting line that says it’s easy to make money in Hollywood, as long as you don’t try to make good films. Though some good films accidentally do make money at the box office. I don’t know how much ONCE IN A LIFETIME made for Universal when it was released, but I think it is definitely a good film that deserves a proper restoration.
|
|
