|
|
Post by NoShear on Apr 20, 2024 0:05:21 GMT
This neglected film is from 1958.
“A saddle tramp doesn’t have much call to be a gentleman.”
There’s something I’ve always liked about westerns from this period that star Jock Mahoney. He began as a Hollywood stuntman, and his athleticism and natural acting style make him ideal for this genre. When his character is meant to ride into a scene fast and jump off, as happens in this picture, there is no double.
Mahoney does most of his own stunt work; there are never quick cutaways by the editors to go to the double and then back to him in close-up. As a result, there is greater fluidity with the camera when he is on the scene, which increases the realism.
I also think Mahoney, while not exuding tremendous sex appeal, still manages to have respectable chemistry with his leading ladies. In this film the leading lady is Argentinian born actress Linda Cristal who would make her mark later in a popular TV western series called High Chaparral. She was under contract at Universal and would soon earn her first Golden Globe for a comedy supporting Tony Curtis.
Here Cristal is cast as the part Mexican daughter of an expatriate American (Lorne Greene) who has settled on a ranch south of the border. Greene is right at home and seems to be practicing for his long-running role as Ben Cartwright on Bonanza. At first Greene’s character seems suspicious, because everyone in the story is meant to come across with ulterior motives…at least, until we get to know them.
Mahoney has been hired by a rich eastern man (Carl Benton Reid) to travel to Mexico and find out if the man’s brother is still alive. The last two gunfighters Reid hired to do the job ended up killed. Mahoney accepts the assignment, since he will earn a substantial fee which he’ll need to settle down. After arriving in Mexico, Mahoney meets some famous ex-gunman who have “retired” down here. But they claim to know nothing about the person Mahoney is seeking.
In the next part, when Mahoney meets Greene and Greene’s top foreman (Gilbert Roland), he wonders if Greene has had a role in the brother’s disappearance. Greene does know where the mystery man is hiding, but Greene turns out to be a good guy. The person that Mahoney should be on guard about is Roland, who has his own double cross in mind.
One thing I love about this film, aside from it being filmed mostly on location in Mexico in Eastman color, is the way the story is structured. The first half has Mahoney on a mission but also sort of nomadic, figuring out what the next part of his life will be after he completes his mission. Related to this is a mystery, since he does not know where the missing man is actually hiding.
In a good twist, it turns out the man is hiding in plain sight, as a beloved priest of the people.. The priest, who is called Padre, is played by character actor Eduard Franz. Franz was a Universal contractee. Just a year earlier he played a disturbed old man who stalked the child of clergyman George Nader in MAN AFRAID (1957). This time he’s on the right side of the law and the right side of God.
Before we find out that Franz is the man that Mahoney is looking for in Mexico, there are some good bonding scenes between Mahoney and Roland. This makes it rather unfortunate when halfway through the picture, Roland turns out to be a villain who intends to kill the priest to collect a different bounty that will be paid by a man in San Antonio who wants the padre dead.
We know that in order for Mahoney to save Franz, he is going to have to kill Roland. This eventually leads to a climactic shooting with Roland falling to his death off the side of a steep cliff. After the death of Roland’s character, Mahoney then has to decide if he will take the priest away from the peasants who need him, to return him to his brother in the U.S. Ultimately, he decides against it.
In the end, Mahoney sacrifices the hefty reward he’d have received for his work, which he planned to use to buy a ranch of his own in Oregon. But now he will just remain in Mexico, commit to a future with Cristal, and will probably end up running Greene’s ranch. So, it’s not like this adventure has all been for nothing.
A case of role reversal here for me, TopBilled: It's hard to picture Jock Mahoney in anything as a good guy since Sally Field's sexual abuse allegation while Gilbert Roland seems the perennial roguish hero. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 11, 2024 14:40:27 GMT
This neglected film is from 1936.
A plan to bring divorced parents back together
I think when you watch something like this, you have to understand who the film was designed to appeal to when it was made. Deanna Durbin, in her very first feature film, is cast as an ideal teenager with a seemingly ideal life. With her smile and singing voice, it’s easy to see why she was an instant hit with moviegoers. The target audience for such a film would have been other girls her age, who had yet to transition to adulthood. While experiencing the pangs of adolescence, these girls would have been prone to mischief and plenty of crushes on boys.
Durbin was 14 when THREE SMART GIRLS was in production at Universal, and had just turned 15 when the film was released into theaters. We cannot evaluate her as a seasoned performer, for this is just the beginning of her movie career; but she has good instincts and a natural way in front of the camera with her costars. On that she can be judged.
The story of THREE SMART GIRLS involves three female siblings who live in Switzerland with their mother (Nella Walker), and are separated from a wealthy American father (Charles Winninger) who resides in New York City. Durbin is the youngest of the three sisters; the older two are played by Nan Grey and Barbara Read.
The girls get along rather well, almost too well with none of the rivalries or competing agendas we might expect. Instead, their conflict involves a wish to reunite their divorced parents.
Reuniting the parents becomes an urgent matter when they learn from a governess (Lucile Watson) that dear old dad is set to take a new wife. The fiancee is a gold digging vamp played to the hilt by Binnie Barnes.
Aiding and abetting Barnes’ schemes to land a rich husband is her equally vain mother (Alice Brady, who also plays her role to the hilt). In fact, Barnes and Brady are such a scene stealing duo, it’s almost a letdown when their plans are foiled at the end, since we know they won’t be back for the sequels.
Contemporary critics mentioned the film’s emphasis on sentimentality, but I think there is a good dose of adult humor mixed in…especially when Barnes and Brady are on screen, as well as Mischa Auer who’s cast as a drunken and impoverished Hungarian count. Indeed, there are enough eccentric side characters to keep the thing from becoming too saccharine.
Some handsome young leading men are included to give the older sisters romantic partners. Durbin’s character does not have a substantial romance until the third part of the trilogy, HERS TO HOLD, which wouldn’t hit screens until 1943 when she was seven years older. One older sister’s suitor is played by Ray Milland on loan from Paramount, who was a last-minute substitution for Louis Hayward who bowed out due to illness. Milland portrays a well-to-do lord who owns considerable property in Australia.
Sometimes the girls get a bit overemotional in their scenes when the script requires them to deal with possible loss or rejection. At one point Durbin runs away when she is unable to cope with the fact that Winninger seems to be going full speed ahead with the wedding to Barnes.
I never got the sense the girls were too spoiled or acted entitled, though there probably was some of that in their general demeanor. But I did get the sense they were daddy’s little drama queens when something didn’t quite go their way! However, that’s part of what gives the film its charm and probably is a good reason why it connected with its intended audience, other girls who wanted things to be perfect and stay that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 27, 2024 14:29:14 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
Mischief maker
Venus, as played by Ava Gardner, is a real mischief maker in this delightful adaptation of a hit Broadway musical comedy. She plays a beautiful marble statue that experiences a transmutation of sorts. After coming to life, she causes trouble for a hapless window dresser (Robert Walker).
Though Mary Pickford’s production company and Universal-International, which co-financed the project and exhibited the film, have removed much of the music from the stage hit, some of the key songs are retained. For whatever reason, Gardner’s voice is dubbed in these renditions, though her costars, Dick Haymes, Olga San Juan and Eve Arden, are not dubbed.
Gardner was borrowed from home studio MGM along with top-billed Walker who plays the less-than-ideal romantic male lead. Walker is an expert at bumbling comedy routines, making his character so ultimately endearing, that we cannot help but cheer him on, even though in real life we know a figure like Gardner, whether she’s a statue or a live flesh being, would probably never choose a guy like him!
The original production featured Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. Martin was a last-minute replacement for Marlene Dietrich, and Venus became a breakthrough role for Martin, turning her into a bonafide Broadway star. Martin had been offered the part in the film by Pickford, but pregnancy made her bow out. Personally, I think this was a good bit of luck for the film, as it forced Pickford and Universal execs to seek Gardner’s services, and she is perfect for the part.
Eve Arden is her usual wisecracking self and steals every scene she is in. This becomes a cliche after writing countless reviews of films in which she appears, but she is that good. Ironically, I would argue Arden gives the most fleshed out performance. We sympathize with her Girl Friday routine as the ultra efficient eternally overlooked secretary of a department store owner (Tom Conway).
Conway’s character becomes so enamored with statue Gardner coming to life that it causes Arden to take action. Faced with the idea that Arden will quit and dessert him, Conway comes to his senses and eventually agrees to marry Arden. Only in the movies! Of course this means Gardner will now end up with Walker.
Haymes and San Juan are on hand as Walker’s pal and initial girlfriend, who eventually hook up themselves, or so it is implied, since their screen time wanes as the story goes on. I found Haymes quite believable in a second banana role, though when it comes to the musical numbers, Haymes is clearly lead material in his own right.
The Broadway version of the story takes place inside a museum, where the statue comes to life after the hapless joe slips a ring on her finger. Here, the story has been transplanted to a department store which has a model home inside it; thus, allowing the writers to comment more on postwar suburban housing patterns.
The department store setting also allows us to examine business practices, when Conway blames Walker in the beginning for the disappearance of the statue.
For the most part it’s a smooth adaptation, though it did not fare well with contemporary audiences. Some of the dialogue is a bit forced; not every scene plays perfectly because the characters are often saying things to be funny instead of saying things in a realistic way.
But I do think this is a thoroughly enjoyable motion picture, and I did like how the occasional tunes bridged the various subplots and connected the scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 27, 2024 15:20:00 GMT
One Touch of Venus from 1948 with Ava Gardner, Robert Walker, Eve Arden, Tom Conway and Olga San Juan
Hallmark has been running with the mellow-romcom baton for years now, but before Hallmark, Hollywood, in its golden era, turned out Hallmark-like movies. Hollywood's version, though, came with higher quality casts, writing and production qualities.
One Touch of Venus, a 1948 Hallmark-like movie, is a bit trickier than your average romcom because it has a fantasy element driving its plot. It thus asks the audience to suspend some extra disbelief, but golden-era Hollywood was up to the task.
The movie's silly plot has a department store owner, played by Tom Conway, purchasing a life-sized statue of Venus, the ancient Greek goddess of love. Before its unveiling, though, one of Conway's employees, Robert Walker, on a whim, kisses Venus.
This brings the statue to life in the form of actress Ava Gardner. Gardner's Venus, full of amorous spirit, immediately sets her sights on Walker. Conway, though, believes Walker has stolen his now missing statue.
Walker also has a problem as his girlfriend, played by the wonderfully named Olga San Juan, is jealous of Gardner eyeing her boyfriend; what woman wouldn't be? Waiting in the wings for San Juan, though, is Walker's friend, played by Dick Haymes.
Thrown into the mix is Eve Arden playing Conway's (of course) hilariously sarcastic secretary who has a crush on womanizer Conway. Conway, though, is now in pursuit of the very human Gardner as he doesn't know Gardner is his statue come to life.
All of this is played with a light touch in a screwball-comedy manner and with songs from the Broadway play it is based on interspersed throughout. The songs are good of-the-era ones, but the lip synching is poorly done making Ms. Gardner, in particular, look awkward.
Fans of screwball comedies then and romcoms today will quickly suss out the plot; although, the final twist might surprise you. Nobody, though, watches these movies for suspense; they're watched for their fun romantic trip. On that score, Venus delivers.
Gardner, at the height of her beauty here, easily looks like Venus come alive. That alone would be boring, but Gardner thankfully imbues her portrayal of the goddess of love with a verve, mirth and wonder that makes her likeable, mischievous and flirtatious.
Gardner seems to be having a great time in the role. Her goddess knows she's knocking people and things around a bit, but it's all in service to love, so you're on her side. If the movie had been made a decade later, it could easily have inspired a TV show.
Walker has the tougher role of playing the befuddled "everyman" being pursued by the goddess of love, while his boss wants him jailed and his girlfriend wants him strung up. Walker is up to the task, but it's tiring to play a confused man for almost an entire movie.
Conway, too, has a one-dimensional role playing the pushy boss who wants Walker arrested and Gardner in his bed. His pursuit of Gardner, hurts Arden's character, but hopefully, he'll eventually notice that true love has been right in front of him all along.
Arden, Conway's true love, brings her special brand of self-deprecating humor to the role, while also firing off barbs at her boss who is a bit too puffed up. She's the woman the audience can relate to while they stare in awe at Gardner's prepossessing beauty.
The movie's plot is silly, its dialogue is often forced and its sets are pretty obvious, but where else can you, for about an hour and half, escape to a world where Ava Gardner pursues a regular guy and Eve Arden gets a shot at true romance?
If you think too hard while watching One Touch of Venus, you're doing it wrong. Like with Hallmark pictures today, it's a comfort-food movie that allows you to indulge your wish that love and happiness are in reach for everyone.
That hope - the hope that everyone can have his or her happily ever after - explains the enduring popularity of these lighthearted movies. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 31, 2024 15:15:09 GMT
This neglected film is from 1957.
To Korea and back
BATTLE HYMN, a Technicolor production directed by Douglas Sirk, is a look at the Korean War. By this point in his career, Sirk had become known for a series of lavish tearjerkers with producer Ross Hunter. Many of them featured Rock Hudson in the lead role. This time, the trio venture away from their usual formula to focus on a true life subject. The emphasis is on Colonel Dean Hess, an Air Force pilot and minister celebrated for his humanitarian efforts in Korea.
Hess was instrumental in the building of an orphanage in Korea, which occurred after he had already seen battle in WWII. In fact, he had been haunted by his earlier experiences, which caused him to return to the military and work in Korea. You see, Hess had accidentally bombed a German orphanage back in 1945, killing over thirty children, and he was unable to forget it. So when he re-enlisted and went to Korea, it became important to him to build a new orphanage there.
Hudson is believably cast in this real-life role. Certainly it’s a chance to stretch himself as an actor, taking on the story of a well-known hero who had notable demons to confront. Sometimes on screen, Hess’ personal life is messy. He has tried to atone for all he did wrong in WWII by turning to God; but that doesn’t fully absolve him of his guilt. In Korea, he will try to do something purposeful, so he can maybe get over his anguish.
While Hess is in Korea, his wife (Martha Hyer) back home learns she is pregnant; so there is new life on the way. Hyer’s role is quite marginal in this picture. She was one of Universal’s dependable lead actresses, typically cast in melodramas and westerns. In this instance, her persona as a good spouse is used to good effect. However, she is absent from much of the action, especially the scenes that occur in Korea.
In Seoul, Hess is acquainted with a Korean woman (Anna Kashfi); and an intimate relationship is more than implied. At the same time he also befriends a black pilot (James Edwards). The military is at this point racially integrated.
There’s an interesting scene where Edwards’ character guns down a truck and learns that some children were victims. His situation reminds Hess of what had happened before in the last war.
This was one of my favorite parts of the film. It was brilliant the way we had this extra character in a subplot that mirrored Hess’ own pain. Then how they both share their grief, in a rather therapeutic way.
Interestingly, despite the military being racially integrated and the relationships that Hess forms with the black pilot and the Korean gal, there are still scenes that depict racist or xenophobic attitudes which existed among U.S. military personnel. Americans may have been defending democracy on foreign soil, but they were not without prejudices. I supposed it would have felt false if Sirk had not included any of it.
While Hess is atoning for past sins, there are battles that must be fought and won in South Korea. Fighting scenes in the film display good aerial footage. There are several key death scenes. One of these involves Kashfi’s character. Of course, the production code necessitates her demise.
Mostly, I found Kashfi’s character to be one of the more fictionalized elements of the film. Not sure if Hess really did have such a close relationship with a Korean woman, while he was away from his wife. But here, in this film, she is included to ramp up the drama. But of course she cannot be the one he chooses. He has to ultimately re-choose his wife and go back home for a happy ending. Thus, Kashfi’s role is expendable in a narrative of this sort, and the character must die.
In terms of box office, Kashfi was probably thrown into the mix so there would be someone sexy or exotic for men in the audience to ogle. But of course Hyer’s character represents the morally correct choice of a partner as sanctioned by the production code.
Of course the main point of this story is the work Hess did to build the orphanage in Chejudo, South Korea. But when a Hollywood studio produces a movie for mass entertainment, usually the more reasonable aspects of the plot become secondary to the more sensationalized elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 4, 2024 15:33:02 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
Noble suffering and triumph
Margaret Sullavan is remembered for the work she did later at MGM, especially the romantic films she made with James Stewart. But she began her Hollywood career under contract at Universal. In the mid-1930s she appeared in several noteworthy pictures for Universal that merit attention.
One gem is LITTLE MAN WHAT NOW? (1934) which pairs her with two very different men– Douglass Montgomery and Alan Hale (Sr.). Talk about a contrast! The story focuses on a young couple struggling to survive, and it is a remake of a German melodrama from a year earlier which itself was based on a popular novel.
Universal executive Carl Laemmle would act as if he had conceived the idea for this production, when in reality he was just borrowing the template of what had been a hit in Germany. Laemmle and his team who endeavored to adapt the material don’t seem to Americanize it very much. But that doesn’t matter.
What does matter– the stars at the center of the drama. Douglass Montgomery, who had played the object of Katharine Hepburn’s affections in RKO’s LITTLE WOMEN (1933), is an actor who’s always drawn me in with his performances. How come nobody ever cast him to play Romeo?
I think it’s his unique combination of masculinity and femininity that he projects on camera. There is a soft quality in him that works when he has to play a vulnerable guy on the brink of failure.
Alan Hale is the total opposite. Older and a “man’s man” all the way, he brings experience and assuredness to his part. He portrays a paternal benefactor who would like to cross the line with young bride Sullavan. But things remain platonic between them.
Hale’s character doesn’t have a huge amount of screen time. He usually appears when there is a turning point in the narrative, trying to help solve some of the couple’s problems which sometimes creates new problems. Adding a layer of complexity is Hale’s open relationship with Montgomery’s mother (the much underrated Catherine Doucet). She is basically running a brothel.
As for Sullavan herself, she brings every bit of noble suffering and triumph that she can possibly muster to the screen. We know things will eventually improve as long as she remains by her husband’s side. This includes periods when he is unemployed and they are barely scraping by. After she becomes pregnant, their situation is even more delicate.
Watching the film I kept wondering what the title meant– but that all becomes clear in the last few shots. The little man is not the underachieving husband in a world of business giants. It is their newborn son who has a world of opportunity and life decisions ahead of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 4, 2024 16:50:13 GMT
Little Man, What Now? from 1934 with Douglas Montgomery, Margaret Sullavan and Alan Hale
This American and raw pre-code is not only set in Germany, but feels like a German-made film as the story is based on a German novel and has style elements of early European cinema. (There is, also, an earlier German-made version of the movie.)
Germany's post-WWI depression was harsher than America's as reflected in the brutal job market seen in Little Man, What Now?, where even those employed are threatened regularly by their bosses with dismissal for negligible reasons.
Not surprisingly, playing at the edges of this film is social unrest where we see soap-box speakers and popular rallies that use the word "equality," which seems to be a surrogate for communism.
Douglas Montgomery and Margaret Sullavan play a young, poor and attractive married couple trying to get a start in life, but his incompetence and the fierce economy conspire against then. At his first job, he has to lie and say he's single as his boss, think Scrooge trying to marry off a daughter, only hires single men.
After he's let go from that job, it's a series of modest ups and harsher downs for the couple as job opportunities are hard to find and hard to hold, especially since Montgomery, to be blunt, isn't very smart.
Sullivan, though, has a head on her shoulders, and makes some good deals and barters when absolutely necessary. But in a deep economic depression that requires laser-like focus on budgeting and finances, these two, especially Montgomery, have too much of a gentle dreaminess about them to do anything but struggle.
In an odd series of events, they spend time living at his stepmother's luxurious apartment only to be swindled a bit by her, whom they discover is really running a brothel.
Stalwart actor Alan Hale pops up as Montgomery's mother's fancy pimp who takes a liking to Sullivan - not hard to understand that - but he turns out to be kinda okay as he never pushes Sullivan too hard and does some modestly nice things to help the young couple out.
As the couple's struggles worsen, the movie takes on a Steinbeck harshness as we see homeless people in the streets desperate for a piece of bread, rallies violently broken up by the police and gentle Montgomery horrified to find he's thinking about violently using a knife or throwing a rock.
The message here isn't subtle: harrowing economic times can turn any human being feral. These ideas are raised yet never fully developed as the story turns back to the young couple who is now barely getting by living in a shack-like attic room above a small store.
There is a hint of promise at the end, but this is a downbeat movie reflecting a brutal time. The only optimism in Little Man, What Now? comes from Sullavan whose youth and beauty can't help projecting hope.
Maybe the movie's themes - especially, the social unrest angle - is muddled owing to censorship as pre-codes did face regional review boards and other pressures to tamp down aspects of their stories.
Or maybe the director of Little Man, What Now?, Frank Borzage - who made several outstanding anti-Nazi films later in the decade - didn't want to make a pure message movie, but instead wanted to show a regular and likable couple, who are neither heroes nor villains, trying to cope in desperate times. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 24, 2024 14:24:33 GMT
This film is from 1954.
Stewart and Allyson reunite on screen
This musical biopic about bandleader Glenn Miller was a huge hit for Universal. It was produced nine years after Miller’s disappearance. (His plane had been shot down over the English Channel in December 1944, during WWII.) By the mid-50s, Miller’s music was being reissued and he was just as popular as ever.
Miller and his wife are played in the movie by James Stewart and June Allyson, who previously teamed up at Metro for THE STRATTON STORY (1949). They would pair up again a year later for the aviation drama STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND (1955). But the Glenn Miller biopic is probably the one people think of most when they recall Stewart costarring with Allyson.
Some critics have complained about Miller’s songs not being presented in the correct sequence. Tunes may appear at points in the narrative that don’t reflect the real timeline of events; when the hits were produced and first offered to the public. I think the reason the filmmakers have taken such liberties is because this is supposed to be more of a general medley or ‘greatest hits’ feeling, instead of an exact chronology of how the songs came to be.
The film is a rather loosely structured presentation of the songs, but this in no way interferes with the celebration of Miller’s music. Anyone expecting to get an accurate history about Miller and his band will probably be disappointed. In addition to the chronology of tunes being slightly ‘off,’ the filmmakers also take liberties with historical facts as related to Miller’s military duty.
One of the more important things I took from my viewing of this film is how much Glenn Miller connects his music to his wife Helen (Allyson). Yes, we see him on the road with the guys in the band, and we have him interacting with Louis Armstrong and other notable musicians.
But his wife is always close by and his love for her is equal to his love for music. She’s not exactly a neglected spouse, like the type we see in the 1942 movie ORCHESTRA WIVES rom 20th Century Fox that featured Glenn Miller in a rare acting role.
As for the casting, there’s a reason Stewart chose June Allyson to be his leading lady again, and why he would go on to make another film with her. She has a unique way of centering a story, even when she is not exactly playing the most central character. It’s one of her strengths as an actress.
Their courtship scenes at the beginning are wonderful. If we’re to believe what we’re shown on screen, Glenn & Helen Miller’s early period together as a couple was not without its share of problems. Stewart and Allyson do quite well playing the bumpier stuff in the relationship. Apparently, the Millers had broken up for awhile, before they reconciled and were finally married.
Because Miller’s wife is emotionally anchoring the story, we become more involved in the outcome. We realize he won’t return from the war, and she must grapple with powerful feelings when that happens. We are experiencing all the highs and lows of their marriage. In this regard, it’s a melodrama, more than it is a musical biopic.
Incidentally, I am surprised Universal didn’t assign house director Douglas Sirk to this project instead of Anthony Mann who was known for crime films, westerns and adventure flicks. Perhaps it is because Stewart liked working with Mann and they collaborated on other features. But I wonder how the film’s melodramatic aspects might have been conveyed if Sirk had been placed in charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 15, 2024 13:56:57 GMT
This film is from 1956.
Spoiled rich people in a desolate oil town
WRITTEN ON THE WIND is on par with Douglas Sirk’s other cinematic experiments at Universal-International in the 1950s. It is aided by superior production values and a skilled cast.
The entire film hinges on Dorothy Malone’s performance. She is the one who sells us the bill of goods at the end. And if she happened to be unconvincing, then the entire 99 minutes would be a waste of our time. But she does a marvelous job. And it is not surprising that for her efforts, she received the Oscar for a best supporting performance.
Malone’s scenes in the courtroom make it clear to us that not only was her brother Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack in an Oscar-nominated performance) a sad excuse for a man, but they all are living a nothing existence. The only hope is for those who manage to get away…which is what Lauren Bacall and Rock Hudson do in the last shots, as they leave the manse and drive off.
Malone’s character will never get away. She will be forced to take over the family business, because her father (Robert Keith) and brother (Stack) are dead. For her, it’s a very sobering conclusion, with more than bit of feminist irony. The shot of her sitting under a portrait of daddy, fondling the toy oil well in her hands– a phallic symbol if ever there was one– speaks volumes.
Sirk fills the earlier portions of the film with inspired mise-en-scene compositions that build the tension and suggest the inevitable outcome for these characters. At every turn, the director is offering motifs and manipulating them carefully, often without our noticing.
There’s a scene where Stack throws a drink into a mirror that is not only played for dramatic effect but is rich with symbolism. What we see is a fragmented life, and the mirror is reflecting back at him his own misery and despair. But he isn’t able to stop drinking.
Another important moment occurs when old man Hadley (Keith) is experiencing a heart attack on the stairs. Sirk does not allow the camera to linger on him during this display like most directors might be tempted to do. Instead the director inserts quick cut-aways to other members of the household, experiencing their own mini-attacks of anguish at the same time.
Sirk provides a searing tale about spoiled rich people in a desolate oil town. He brings us into the world of their interconnected destinies and their smoldering passions. He tells us that some things are written in the stars, and other things are written in the wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jul 18, 2024 17:08:37 GMT
This film is from 1956.
Spoiled rich people in a desolate oil town
WRITTEN ON THE WIND is on par with Douglas Sirk’s other cinematic experiments at Universal-International in the 1950s. It is aided by superior production values and a skilled cast.
The entire film hinges on Dorothy Malone’s performance. She is the one who sells us the bill of goods at the end. And if she happened to be unconvincing, then the entire 99 minutes would be a waste of our time. But she does a marvelous job. And it is not surprising that for her efforts, she received the Oscar for a best supporting performance.
Malone’s scenes in the courtroom make it clear to us that not only was her brother Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack in an Oscar-nominated performance) a sad excuse for a man, but they all are living a nothing existence. The only hope is for those who manage to get away…which is what Lauren Bacall and Rock Hudson do in the last shots, as they leave the manse and drive off.
Malone’s character will never get away. She will be forced to take over the family business, because her father (Robert Keith) and brother (Stack) are dead. For her, it’s a very sobering conclusion, with more than bit of feminist irony. The shot of her sitting under a portrait of daddy, fondling the toy oil well in her hands– a phallic symbol if ever there was one– speaks volumes.
Sirk fills the earlier portions of the film with inspired mise-en-scene compositions that build the tension and suggest the inevitable outcome for these characters. At every turn, the director is offering motifs and manipulating them carefully, often without our noticing.
There’s a scene where Stack throws a drink into a mirror that is not only played for dramatic effect but is rich with symbolism. What we see is a fragmented life, and the mirror is reflecting back at him his own misery and despair. But he isn’t able to stop drinking.
Another important moment occurs when old man Hadley (Keith) is experiencing a heart attack on the stairs. Sirk does not allow the camera to linger on him during this display like most directors might be tempted to do. Instead the director inserts quick cut-aways to other members of the household, experiencing their own mini-attacks of anguish at the same time.
Sirk provides a searing tale about spoiled rich people in a desolate oil town. He brings us into the world of their interconnected destinies and their smoldering passions. He tells us that some things are written in the stars, and other things are written in the wind. With your review here, TopBilled, I thought of THE LAST PICTURE SHOW then being something similar, only on the proverbial other side of the tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 30, 2024 15:28:55 GMT
This neglected film is from 1955.
Rousing spectacle
Universal went to Ireland to produce this picture. None of it was filmed in Hollywood, and the scenery is must-see. And while the leads were Americans, the supporting cast was entirely comprised of top Irish actors. So most of the performances are particularly authentic. Even Rock Hudson, an Irish-American, does a convincing job playing the title character– a rogue highwayman in the early 1800s.
This wasn’t the first time Hudson had worked with director Douglas Sirk, and it certainly wouldn’t be their last collaboration. By the mid-50s the handsome actor had become a household name, thanks to his appearance in Sirk’s remake of MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION. At this point of his career, Hudson was confident and every bit the star. Barbara Rush is on hand as his leading lady, and she exudes great confidence in her scenes, too. Like Hudson, she did several films with Sirk.
The beginning of the story tells us that Ireland in the early 19th century is a place “bitter with resistance against foreign rule.” In this case, foreign rule is English rule. But while the story might expectedly lapse into political drama, Sirk and screenwriter Oscar Brodney wisely keep the narrative focused on action, romance and the struggle of people to maintain their own identity. In that regard, the material is similar to Sirk’s earlier effort, HITLER’S MADMAN. However, this is not so much a tale of oppression, as it is a tale of overcoming adversity.
In order to prevent the whole affair from becoming too serious, Hudson’s character Michael Martin (a.k.a. Lightfoot) is presented somewhat amiably. In fact, he’s rather foppish at times, making foolish mistakes. There is comedy and mirth mixed in with the dark deeds of rebellion.
Lightfoot and his pal Thunderbolt (Jeff Morrow) belong to a secret society intent on overthrowing outside rule. Together they commit crimes, mostly robbing from the rich, to finance the resistance efforts of the downtrodden. And while they might be bad men, they’re not evil men. The more vulnerable aspects of Lightfoot’s character are shown when he falls in love with Thunderbolt’s daughter (Rush).
It’s obvious the studio spent a lot of money making this film, and it’s a very entertaining romp. In some ways, it reminds me of family entertainment that Disney’s live-action unit made during this time. The characters are larger than life, and their glorious adventures are fun in a most endearing way. It’s a rousing spectacle.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 13, 2024 15:01:40 GMT
This film is from 1945.
His greatest and most lasting work of art
In SCARLET STREET, Edward G. Robinson is cast as a would-be artist who meets and “saves” a streetwalker played by Joan Bennett. The two stars previously worked together a year earlier in THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW; and this time, they’re remaking a 1931 French film called LA CHIENNE by Jean Renoir.
The action gets underway as they meet on a rain-soaked city street one night. It doesn’t take long before Robinson is in over his head. He quickly falls into a depraved whirlpool of lust and deception, with Bennett the object of his affections. She’s young, attractive and the complete opposite of his henpecking wife (Rosalind Ivan). But she and her boyfriend (Dan Duryea) see an easy target, and they work to mislead Robinson and finagle money out of him at every turn.
By day Robinson is a cashier; and by night, he’s a Greenwich Village painter. When Bennett finds out he paints, she volunteers to pose for him. They agree to a cozy set-up in an apartment that doubles as his studio and her living quarters. Of course, Robinson’s wife has no idea any of this is going on; and he becomes increasingly attracted to his new subject despite being twice her age. As he takes leave of his senses, Bennett continues to manipulate and take advantage of him. Bennett plays her to the hilt.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t figure out what’s happening until it’s too late; and by the time the story reaches its inevitable conclusion, their clandestine relationship has led to his complete self-destruction. A desperate man who had it all suddenly ends up with nothing because of a muse with a bewitching power. But she has strangely inspired his greatest and most lasting work of art.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 25, 2024 11:44:33 GMT
This neglected film is from 1941.
Smart musical selections and delightful romantic comedy
When Universal decided to tinker with its winning formula, Deanna Durbin’s films lost a lot of their earlier charm. But it didn’t start with EVE. That’s because EVE starts off and ends quite well, thanks to smart musical selections and delightful romantic comedy. The team of producer Joe Pasternak and director Henry Koster who guided Durbin’s earlier successes, were responsible for this confection. It was the last picture they did with her before Pasternak moved over to MGM.
Critics consider this one of the actresses’s best motion pictures. Again she’s surrounded by an exceptional cast. Robert Cummings is the love interest. He plays the son of a dying millionaire (Charles Laughton) who wants to please dear old dad before it’s too late, and introduce him to the girl he’s chosen to marry. Laughton is a rascally old coot who thinks a stranger from a train station (yes, you guessed it) is his son’s fiance.
It wouldn’t be a problem, but Laughton’s health dramatically improves and of course he’s so taken with this girl that the real fiancee and her mother get shoved into the background. Durbin tries to run away from an impossible situation, until she realizes there’s a lot in it for her– so she decides to stay and fight for what should be hers. It becomes a farce of epic proportions, and they all have a blast with the material.
One critic thought Laughton was very inventive as the elderly character who gets a miraculous second chance at life. And I would agree. Not only is Laughton inventing new ways to be funny in this film, he is doing it with remarkable restraint, which is certainly an accomplishment if you’ve seen his other exaggerated performances. Laughton and our young leading lady work so well together that Universal would pair them in another story five years later– BECAUSE OF HIM. It’s clear they enjoy working with each other.
What makes the film great, in addition to the concept and performances, is there’s a deeper meaning. We get the sense that father and son did not know how to live life to the fullest until this outside person came into their home. It might have seemed random in the beginning, but it probably was fate. They make a complete unit, and the word “in-law” takes on a very positive connotation. If Durbin’s character hadn’t shown up when she did, there would have been no merriment or joy for them. And there would have been no movie for us. To have no movie like this would just be so wrong on so many levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 25, 2024 12:08:05 GMT
My comments from 2021.
It Started with Eve from 1941 with Charles Laughton, Deanna Durbin and Robert Cummings
Q: Why watch a movie with Charles Laughton in it?
A: Because Charles Laughton is in it.
It Started with Eve is a silly little movie with a silly little plot that is elevated to a lighthearted and enjoyable picture because Charles Laughton and Deanna Durbin are just that good individually and even better together.
A sick, wealthy old man, Laughton, seemingly on his deathbed, asks his son, Robert Cummings, to bring his new fiancee to meet him before he dies. As only happens in movies, when the son can't locate his fiancee, and fearing that his father will pass away that night, he pays a shopgirl, Deanna Durbin, to pose as his fiancee to make the old man happy.
When Durbin and Laughton meet, there's an immediate connection between them that seems to revive the old man. A few days later, a recovering Laughton asks to see Durbin again and the son panics as he now has to go on with the charade that Durbin is his fiancee as Laughton's doctor says the shock of the truth would be too much for Laughton.
Adding to the "conflict" (a strong word for the blitheness of this movie) is that Cummings' real fiancee and her mother just arrived in the city to meet his father. This leaves Cummings having to explain to them why another woman is posing as his fiancee. The mother and daughter are understanding at first, but as time drags on, they, not surprisingly, become impatient.
Finally, you have Durbin who genuinely likes Laughton and is both irritated by and attracted to Cummings (you see where this one is going very early on), but who was about to return to her hometown as her singing career, the reason she came to the city, never took off. The rest of the movie is watching Cummings trying to keep all the balls in the air as the old man - who, early on, figures out the switch, but plays dumb - tries to put Durbin and his son together.
You don't watch this one for the dopey story; you watch it to see Laughton and Durbin turn their goofy roles into enjoyable comedy as Durbin proves equal to the immensely talented Laughton. Be it Durbin practicing her smile at Cummings' direction so that she can fool Laughton or Laughton lying straight faced time and again to Durbin just to keep her around, their chemistry brings such mirth to the movie that you don't care about its nonsensical plot.
Stars like Laughton and Durbin make a lot of money for a reason. Sure, in some way the fates just shined on these two as the camera simply loves them (yes, it loves misshaped and craggy Laughton in its own way), but they also are incredibly talented actors. They have a deep understanding of their roles, what is called for in a scene and the little nuances necessary (their facial expressions in this one are spot on time and again) to take a mediocre script like It Started with Eve and turn it into an entertaining hour-and-a-half movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 25, 2024 12:13:20 GMT
Q: Why watch a movie with Charles Laughton in it?
A: Because Charles Laughton is in it.
As good a reason as any!
If I recall correctly, the first time I watched IT STARTED WITH EVE was just after Deanna Durbin passed away and TCM featured this title as part of its year-end In Memoriam segment. At the time I hadn't seen any of her other films, so this was an excellent introduction.
|
|
