|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 31, 2022 14:35:51 GMT
Coming up:
Life lessons
December 3
THE LITTLE PRINCESS (1939)
December 10
THE RED PONY (1949)
December 17
INTRUDER IN THE DUST (1949)
Holidays to remember
December 24
A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1951)
December 31
SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE… (1971)
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 3, 2022 18:40:13 GMT
THE LITTLE PRINCESS (1939)TopBilled: I could begin and end my review by saying this is my favorite Shirley Temple film, and leave it there. But what would the fun be in that, not explaining why this is such an endearing treasure. And I don’t think I am overstating things, because though the moppet is growing up on screen, her role in this film, sumptuously produced in Technicolor, is easily her best. She gives a performance that has to be counted as one of the real gems of classic children’s cinema.The plot deviates somewhat from Frances Hodgson Burnett’s literary classic on which it is based, but this is Hollywood and such liberties are sometimes necessary. The time period is now 1899, which is when CAVALCADE (1933) also began. Like Noel Coward’s story about British perseverance in the face of extended hardship, the action initially concerns itself with the Boer War and how loved ones are separated. The separation in this instance involves a young motherless girl (Temple) and her distinguished father (Ian Hunter) who is going off to war. Daddy has money, and he pays a girls’ school mistress (Mary Nash) to house, feed and educate his daughter while he’s away for this indeterminate amount of time.After Hunter helps set up the basic scenario and his character ships out, we see Temple settle in and find herself at odds with several of the girls at the school, especially bratty Lavinia (Marcia Mae Jones, who almost steals the picture). There is also Temple’s interaction with another girl the same age named Becky (Sybil Jason) who works as a servant at the school. In the beginning, Temple’s character is contrasted with Jones and Jason, because she has the same societal privileges as Jones, but the the same sincerity and kind heart as Jason. At the same time Temple develops familial relationships with a teacher (Anita Louise) and a handsome riding instructor (Richard Greene), playing Cupid for them.In addition, there is a friendship with the headmistress’ henpecked brother (Arthur Treacher) with whom an obligatory musical number is performed in the picture. Plus interactions with a neighbor’s Indian servant (Cesar Romero). Interestingly, Romero played a similar role in a previous Temple film, WEE WILLIE WINKIE. The story gets infinitely more interesting when Hunter is declared dead at the end of the war, with this announcement made at Temple’s lavish birthday party. Things quickly turn cold for her. She is kept on at the school, but supposedly without her former standing and wealth, she will have to do chores, plenty of chores, to earn her keep. At this point, she becomes more like Sybil Jason’s character, which puts her at considerable odds with Marcia Mae Jones’ character. There is a very well-known scene when she is cleaning and dumps ashes on Jones. Of course, we wouldn’t have a happy ending if Daddy wasn’t really dead. After prolonged anguish, cruelty at the hands of the mistress, and a torrent of tears, Temple escapes from the school and ends up on the streets. She goes to a hospital where Queen Victoria (Beryl Mercer) happens to be visiting, and where she is joyously reunited with her father.As I said, I find this a very enjoyable picture. It knows how to tug at our emotions and offers us Shirley at her most precious with added maturity. I suppose we could argue that young Miss Temple is not British, and she doesn’t use a British accent…so instead of playing this character she is really just playing her usual stock-in-trade orphan. But she’s never less than charming. ***Jlewis: This marked Shirley Temple’s second appearance in glorious Technicolor (pre video and TV colorization), although her earlier scenes only lasted a few minutes in the final reel of THE LITTLE COLONEL (1935). It took a little while for 20th Century Fox to find a suitable full-length color vehicle for their reigning box-office princess, but it ultimately was a good choice that contrasts to the subsequent THE BLUE BIRD, a fantasy made in response to Shirley not getting the WIZARD OF OZ role that Judy Garland took after MGM-Fox negotiations fell through. Much of the color is subtle here, except in the key dream ballet sequence, being set in Victorian London. Once again, Shirley followed in the footsteps of silent era Mary Pickford here with this adaptation of Frances Hodgson Burnett’s Sara Crewe, directed by Walter Lang with Gene Bryant assisting. This is, in fact, part of a whole trio of Pickford adaptations updated for Shirley: THE LITTLE PRINCESS, THE POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL and REBECCA OF SUNNYBROOK FARM were all done previously in 1917.Shirley had her tenth birthday five months before filming began but still fits the role better than Pickford did, since the former was a twentysomething playing a child/teenager part. Although the original source story was published in 1888, our setting here is 1899 at the time of the Boer War and, as usual, Hollywood takes on the questionable side of the Brits in this history lesson without any questioning involved. Like GONE WITH THE WIND that followed this to theaters in 1939, there are plenty of nervous undertones relating to the upcoming war that would break out in Europe.The United States was going through a pacifist don’t-get-involved-over-there mood at this time and there are plenty of grim reminders of war on display here, including a scene of one lady sobbing at a train station after hearing that her son was killed. Shirley plays Sara Crewe, daughter of Captain Crewe (Ian Hunter) who must depart overseas and leave the tyke with Emily her doll. Poor girl must go to a boarding house in which the matron in charge, Amanda Minchin (Mary Nash), seems semi-nice at first but then later morphs into Lady Tremaine of Disney’s version of CINDERELLA before long. The other girls, including bratty Lavinia (Marcia Mae Jones), are luke-warm at best in their socialization with her. More friendly is juvenile servant Becky, played by Sybil Jason (already a veteran child star of multiple Technicolor 2-reelers done over at Warner Brothers since 1936). At first all goes well, complete with spectacular birthday party involving a big cake and stereographs of her birth home of India. Then we get the big turnaround in her fortunes that follows other Shirley vehicles. Quite often she is separated from her parents or her parent(s) die: in this case, Daddy is reported missing in action and thought to be dead, with his financial assets in doubt. This transforms our Little Princess into Cinderella as Amanda plays up her Lady Tremaine role by sending her to the attic and reducing her to a rag-tag servant role. In addition, most Shirley vehicles also include some fluffy side-story romance between a stock girl and boy who befriend our star: sweet teacher Rose (Anita Louise) and Geoffrey Hamilton (Richard Greene), who looks after Sara’s pony and parallels Sara’s daddy when he enlists for the war overseas as well. The big drama here involves anti-sex Amanda being against the lovebirds seen together in public and ruining the boarding school’s “reputation.”For slightly more comic relief, we get beloved character actor Cesar Romero as a Hindu guru, working for neighboring Lord Wickham (Miles Mander), grandfather to Geoffrey. What I love about these old movies is just how loose they are with international accuracy. I mean, why does he own a South American macaw as a pet? Then again, that could be possible in England. Also the macaw named Rani essentially replaces the various dogs and monkeys in other Shirley vehicles, giving her an unexpected animal performer to react to. Additional feel-good part here: Arthur Treacher of later MARY POPPINS fame plays the usual “chip chip, cheerio” part as Bertie Minchin, the much nicer brother to cruel sister Amanda. He’s the one willing to step into Bill Robinson’s previous roles as co-dancer to our musical star. He also aids a bit in reuniting daughter with daddy when he is later discovered alive but suffering memory loss.Although 20th Century Fox allowed its exclusive rights to elapse over time and this became the primary Shirley feature to make many public domain VHS videos starting in the 1980s (along with her numerous Educational production short subjects), it is best to see a nicely preserved print courtesy of Fox video to fully appreciate Arthur Miller and William Skall’s photography.As I mentioned in the earlier review of JESSE JAMES, which Fox shot just prior and simultaneous to this in 1938, the studio seemed to favor a lot of navy blue outfits on its cast and more night time scenes that contrast to, say, Warner Brothers which favored a more golden hue in its big color productions of the period. One highlight is the ambitious dream ballet sequence staged by Ernest Belcher with Nicholas Castle and Geneva Sawyer. Intriguingly, the main character stars (Louise, Greene, Minchin, Treacher, Romero) all play various roles in Sara’s queenly fantasy part that parallel the ones played out in her waking life. The lovebirds get into trouble for “stealing a kiss.” It is not much of a sequence and pretty short overall, but it is one that highlighted the many video cover art images over the years. Story has a unique twist. Sara meets…guess who! The mighty Queen Victoria herself, played by Beryl Mercer. Yes, this is a far fetched story scenario but…what the heck! There are other famous child meets the queen films and these include another put out by Fox later in 1950, the quite memorable but seldom seen today THE MUDLARK (1950).I am also SO happy to report that Shirley does say “oh my goodness” on the soundtrack. At least once. That is mandatory, of course! All of the usual check-marks that relate this to all other Shirley vehicles check off accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Dec 3, 2022 20:30:22 GMT
Jlewis: One highlight is the ambitious dream ballet sequence staged by Ernest Belcher with Nicholas Castle and Geneva Sawyer. Fun fact: The dream ballet's choreographer, Ernest Belcher, was the father of dancer/actress Marge Champion.  |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 10, 2022 16:31:46 GMT
THE RED PONY (1949)
TopBilled:
 THE RED PONY is based on a series of short stories published by John Steinbeck that were collected into a book. It is a motion picture that can easily be watched more than once without losing any value.This production was only the second one made in Technicolor by Republic Pictures, a studio that had developed its own less expensive color process known as Trucolor. It was one of mogul Herbert Yates’ more important prestige productions, and as such was given a huge budget. The studio borrowed Robert Mitchum from RKO to play the ranch hand, and hired Myrna Loy to play the no-nonsense but loving mother. Miss Loy just begun to freelance after her long association with MGM and didn’t come cheap. Additional cast members include Shepperd Strudwick, as the distant father; youngster Peter Miles as Tom, the child protagonist of the story; Margaret Hamilton as his stern schoolteacher and Louis Calhern as the boy’s grandfather. Calhern’s performance, in particular, is one that should have netted a supporting Oscar nomination, if not an actual win.Besides Technicolor and the splendid cast, the film benefits from a memorable Aaron Copland score as well as Steinbeck’s writing. He adapted his own material and wrote the screenplay. Primarily Steinbeck’s screenplay uses two of the four original short stories, and it involves nostalgia related to the author’s childhood. There are many picturized stories of a boy and his horse, and some of them are quite average. But this one is well above average. It is notable in the way it captures its rural California setting so perfectly. There are important lessons that occur for young Tom, and as we watch the scenes play out on screen, some of those lessons can be quite painful but they are also life-affirming. The people and the situations in this film are realistic and their dialogue is natural. They speak like actual folks do. On so many levels this is a very rewarding motion picture, and I cannot recommend it enough.***Jlewis:
John Steinbeck stated that he enjoyed watching this adaptation of two of his 16 year old short stories in a theater, praising Tony Gaudio’s Technicolor cinematography of Agoura, California. He had collaborated with director Lewis Milestone on the screenplay in 1941, this being his first Hollywood contribution. Previously others of his works had been adapted for the screen, including one by Milestone, OF MICE AND MEN. In 1945, he compiled four of these short stories under the same title as the resulting movie, despite the pony himself only being featured in one. Republic took on the distribution rights for this ambitious Charles K. Feldman production featuring top stars Myrna Loy and Robert Mitchum. For various reasons, there was a bit of a delay between the rather costly (for Republic at least) filming in the summer of 1947 and its wide release in March 1949, but the results were worth it. The same story was redone for TV in 1972-73 with Henry Fonda, but that version apparently didn’t get viewed as often as the original over the years. This is the one I recall circulating the most in vintage 1970s 16mm movie rental guides and TV. It is a coming of age story set pre-1910 featuring Gerald Perreau a.k.a. Peter Miles as Tom, who fantasizes of medieval knighthood and circus performances in his drab rural farm surroundings. He lives with his parents (Loy and Shepperd Strudwick playing Alice and Fred) and his colorful visiting granddad (Louis Calhern in his familiar Buffalo Bill garb soon utilized to great effect in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN) who tells tales of the wild, wild west. Mitchum’s role is as Billy Buck, the ranch hand whom Tom develops a close attachment to and claims he is “half horse.” Among the child actors featured here are two of importance: blonde-haired Beau Bridges at the wee age of six and Don Reynolds, who was mostly in westerns for both big and small screens but later became even more successful as a movie animal trainer.Speaking of non-human animals, we open with a bunch even before the main credits begin: a rooster (and later we get a group of chickens cleverly arranged in a Busby Berkeley styled aerial spectacle that is quite the visual feast), a turkey, a barn owl (first of two owls in the pic), two dogs and a bunny rabbit. The boy also likes to collect his own menageries, much like the character of Arliss in the remarkably similar Disney classic of a decade later, OLD YELLER, such as a green snake and big, big toad. When Tom reads to his mother over the kitchen table, the subject is elephants in India. Surprisingly, the title character does not appear until 22 minutes into the picture and gets far less screen time overall than the human co-stars. Yet his opening scene is a well-choreographed one showcasing the child’s expression of excitement. “Mine?” “Yours” says daddy.Horses have dominated children’s entertainment for many generations but the 1940s was an especially fruitful decade with big screen adaptations of MY FRIEND FLICKA and NATIONAL VELVET and best selling books like Walter Farley’s The Black Stallion and Marguerite Henry’s Misty of Chincoteague. Kids grew up fast that decade on account of the war and horses provided a kind of childhood escapism that did not prompt any avoidance of everyday realities, harsh that they sometimes can be. Since the primary age most young readers become infatuated with horses is roughly 10-13, a time when they are just discovering what it is like to be an adult through careful observation of the adults in their familiar circles (and horses require the care of an older child, unlike the average cat or dog), this is the ideal subject matter to mold impressionable minds with.Despite its simple story, this is much more the multi-human psychological study. Each of the male adult characters in particular react to the arrival of our star pony and Tom’s training of him in different ways. Grandpa represents the older generation going out in the sunset who tells tales that ignite the imagination of what-can-be, but feels out of place with his daughter’s family. He frets to his daughter about how useless he is at his age.Daddy Fred and Billy are rivals as role models whom Tom looks up to. Fred gives the pony to Tom to develop a better connection with his son but Billy takes over. Feeling defeated, Fred takes a trip away from the family (again resembling OLD YELLER, although that father is away much longer). Perhaps he wants Tom to make a decision on his own as to accept as a father figure. Alice asks Fred: “Don’t you remember your first pony?” Fred: “I never had a pony.” Yet the pony experience does eventually reunite the son with his biological father as we see him instantly gravitate towards him over Billy in tears for comfort. WIZARD OF OZ witch Margaret Hamilton has a small but memorable role as the local teacher at the midpoint, asking the mind-drifting Tom “what’s the matter with you?”. Then the camera pans on a set of books and a globe that he is ignoring. Likewise, Alice is greatly concerned that Tom’s life is too confined to ranch-life and needs to explore more of the world beyond it; she herself feels stifled in her life role and may be hoping for more with her son.Spoiler alerts…
The pony escapes from his confines, having a wandering spirit like Tom, but suffers the consequences by getting sick in the storm. Does this suggest that the adults in this story are conflicted between letting Tom grow up to face the grim realities of life and keeping him protected from them instead? Again, this is a key reason why horse stories are always popular in the juvenile literature: children are conflicted just like the fellow species highlighted in that they need to roam a world without fences but still depend on adult human care within them until they graduate from high school.Tom places all of his hope in Billy saving the pony’s life but sometimes adults can not be as perfect as children hope them to be. Also, like the previously mentioned OLD YELLER, death is an unfortunate part of life’s growing experiences: vultures appear in both films but this time we actually see them feasting on the star character!The climactic scene is not a happy one and Billy temporarily falls off of his pedestal in Tom’s eyes. Yet a new horse arrives as a replacement much like Yeller’s pup that was born in a badger hole. Final dilemma in the final reel: will Billy have to kill his own mare to save a troubled foal being born? Fortunately we don’t need two deaths in our story and, thus, all ends well.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 17, 2022 16:11:31 GMT
Essential: INTRUDER IN THE DUST (1949)
TopBilled: The main problem I have with William Faulkner’s story, as well as this film adaptation by MGM’s Dore Schary, is that it is a white man’s response to the issue of racism in the south. First, racism is not a social ill confined only to the southern United States, and second, it is not something that can only be solved by white folks.The fact that racism is still occurring over 70 years after INTRUDER IN THE DUST was made indicates that something keeps renewing it generation after generation. The whole thing goes deeper than this story would have us believe. The tale fails to recognize the levels of racism and elitism that exist within white society as well as the issues of race and privilege within black society, since there are different skin tones and prejudices within these two larger groups. Making the main conflict white versus black or black against white is incredibly naive and way too simplistic a thesis than the overall subject deserves.It does not consider different shadings and attitudes regarding racism in our country. Furthermore, setting the drama exclusively in the south plays into regional stereotypes about southern life. Of course, Mr. Faulkner was writing about a part of the country where he grew up. But he is still guilty of perpetuating the stereotypes of the region. He gives us antiquated notions of what kids do, what sheriffs and lawyers do, what old unmarried women do, and what backwoods country folks do. None of the characters are fully fleshed out human beings.Certainly we’re supposed to like Claude Jarman’s adolescent character, since he starts to see beyond the color lines. This comes as a result of his strange friendship with the old black man, played by Juano Hernandez. Meanwhile, David Brian is on hand as an intelligent attorney and uncle to Jarman who’ll help try to save Hernandez from a lynching…though Brian still exhibits considerable narrow-minded viewpoints. The story is predictable. Hernandez will be saved. The drama will not go so far as to make him suffer death or become a martyr, though it might have been a powerful indictment about social conditions if it had. Also, Hernandez has to be perfectly innocent. He is so wholesome that the writing won’t allow him to get cited for obstruction of justice, even though he refuses to tell the sheriff or lawyer who the real culprit is, and he definitely knows who the real culprit is.Instead, he is presented as unrealistically heroic and sympathetic at every turn, to the point his character becomes a bizarre set of liberal white cliches about how the ideal black man is supposed to be. The killer in this type of story would never be a different black man. It has to be a white male killer. Therefore, the drama that unfolds is not about a falsely accused individual. It is about a falsely accused black man, due to a crime committed by a white man. There are no shades of gray or moral ambiguity on either side.I would’ve been much more impressed if the story had been crafted by a black writer or a black filmmaker (and there were some in the late 1940s) who was presenting their own ideas about race relations in America. Why do blacks need whites to tell their story and offer up solutions for them? It’s like the old master trying to control the narrative/destiny of the old slaves. Mostly INTRUDER IN THE DUST is hokum drenched in regional stereotypes and biases, masquerading as progressive truth and so-called entertainment.***Jlewis: Traditionally Hollywood tended to pooh-pooh social message movies as potential box-office poison with the prevailing motto of “if you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Yet the impact of World War II put the industry into a somewhat preachier mood than usual. During a five year stretch, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences patted itself on the back with four out of five consecutive Best Picture Oscar winners filled with commentary on alcoholism (THE LOST WEEKEND), soldiers adjusting to the home-front post-battle (THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, a block-bluster regardless of the prevailing logic), antisemitism (GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT) and political corruption (ALL THE KING’S MEN).Inevitably this phase would not last, as the impact by the HUAC took its toll of the industry’s screenwriters in particular and the rivalry of television encouraged a stronger emphasis on pictorial spectacle (wide-screens, glossy color) over sermonizing (apart from the traditional biblical kind which could be done in spectacular fire and brimstone fashion). Yet before this social activist cycle went in decline, there was a fascinating cluster of dramas tackling race relations that all got released with a year of each other in 1949-50: HOUSE OF THE BRAVE, PINKY, LOST BOUNDARIES, NO WAY OUT (which made Sidney Poitier a star) and this title. INTRUDER IN THE DUST was backed by MGM, which traditionally was not often associated with this genre. Studio chief Louis B. Mayer favored more fluffy escapism and Andy Hardy style romance than grit and reality. Yet the arrival of Dore Schary as a new Irving Thalberg-ish vice president prompted a dramatic transition of sorts. Schary had previously worked at the studio as a screenwriter and supervisor of such hits as BOYS TOWN and LASSIE COME HOME. After some time away with Selznick at RKO, Schary returned in this greatly promoted position with the encouragement of Nicholas Schenck and the New York offices who felt the studio needed revitalization during a post-war slump. Schary loved backing movies with “meaning” as opposed to Mayer’s favored heavenly clouds romanticism and provided plenty of warning ahead of time with his work at a pre-Howard Hughes RKO with such hard-hitting stuff as CROSSFIRE.Speaking of CROSSFIRE, this Clarence Brown directed adaptation of William Faulkner’s novel (only published the previous year) resembles it to a degree: social messaging through the format of a detective who-done-it. Less studio-bound, it features location filming in Oxford, Mississippi (combined with studio indoor shots). The town residents as extras give it a natural, middle-America you-are-there look. David Brian plays his lawyer/investigator role, John Stevens, much like so many others with good intentions in forties movies, complete with his noir-character hat. Chick Mallison (Claude Jarman Jr. of THE YEARLING) is the teenage observant and active participant in our story. He is the nephew of “Uncle” John who aids Lucas Beauchamp (Juano Hernandez), a middle-age black farmer accused of murdering a white man, Vinson Gowrie (David Clarke), trespassing his farm. Chick’s involvement is due to Lucas aiding him after an accident on an ice-filled lake while hunting and helping him get over his own initial racial prejudices.Of course, Lucas is really innocent and we spend the next hour figuring out who really did it. The bullet involved does not match Lucas’ gun, but the first laborious dig-the-grave scene at night involving Chick, Miss Habersham (Elizabeth Patterson) and Aleck (Elzie Emanuel) reveals nothing at first. Without spoiling too-too much, the outcome has a touch of the Cain and Abel saga, with the father Nub (Porter Hall) getting caught in quicksand just before Exhibit A is finally uncovered.Lucas is a fascinating character. While he is well aware of his limitations due to his skin color, he certainly does not view himself as a nobody. The grandson of slaves, he has experienced his share of heartache with the death of a wife, paralleling the story of Nub Gowrie who raised his sons as a solo parent after his wife died decades ago. Lucas permits an initially arrogant Chick to talk down to him despite providing him food and comfort after his ice accident, but also looks at him directly in the eye so that Chick suddenly becomes aware and uncomfortable with his backward behavior. Although Uncle John defends him as an attorney, he too has his superior attitudes that he knows fully well he must advance over in his final meeting with Lucas.Miss Habersham who assists John, Chick and Sheriff Hampton (Will Geer, unrecognizable here from his later Grandpa Walton TV role) resembles Lucas in a few ways. An eighty year old who has strong convictions about what is right and wrong, she too is stubborn and steadfast. Her most memorable scene involves standing guard at the prison house as angry residents threaten her with gasoline and accusing the one closest that he is blocking the light of her knitting. Veteran actress Elizabeth Patterson is one of those familiar faces you see in many vintage films of that decade, including our previously reviewed I MARRIED A WITCH. As was the custom of the times, we hear the notorious N-word spoken a few times, but always by “bad” characters. Hollywood writers considered it OK as long as such characters are shown as questionable, a situation repeated in the sixties through eighties when the F-word was frequently applied to gays.Although this film is less preachy than CROSSFIRE in its antisemitism theme, it does emphasize the importance of standing up for yourself and not giving in to the pressures of an unjust society. As Lucas leaves the law office one last time, teen and uncle observe the townspeople around him…  Chick: They don’t see him, as though it never happened.
John: They see him.
Chick: No, they don’t even know he’s there.
John: They do. The same as I do, and I always will as long as he lives. Proud, stubborn, insufferable. But there he goes, the keeper of my conscience.
Chick: OUR conscience, Uncle John.Speaking of OUR conscience, it should be noted that Mississippi was still segregated at the time of the movie’s filming so the black performers, including star Hernandez, had to spend nights and off-hours separate from the rest of the Caucasian crew.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 24, 2022 16:09:11 GMT
Essential: A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1951)
TopBilled: It’s interesting how this story, by a British writer, has become such a holiday staple in the United States. Americans probably love Charles Dickens’ classic just as much as the Brits do. Not one December goes by without Scrooge, the Cratchits and Tiny Tim making an appearance in some form or another.Fortunately for fans, myriad versions of the story are available online. It can be enjoyed in literary form and cinematic form, plus there are notable radio and TV versions. Of course, some of these adaptations are better than others. For nostalgic reasons, MGM’s 1938 production remains my personal favorite rendering of the tale. I’ve written before that when I was a senior in high school, our drama department put on a stage play of the Dickens holiday favorite. We used dialogue directly from the MGM movie, and I was cast as Ebenezer. So I spent a lot of time studying Reginald Owen’s performance, not necessarily to emulate it, but to get ideas on how to play the character. However, from a technical standpoint, I tend to feel that Alastair Sim’s interpretation of the disagreeable chap is probably the best one ever put to film. This is an opinion that many share. When I view how Sim approaches the role in the 1951 production, I see the neuroses of the character more clearly. And while I don’t think a casual viewer wants it played in a way that’s completely bonkers, Sim showing us the more neurotic and insecure side means his ultimate transformation is more miraculous. And this is, after all, a Christmas miracle story. Even though I am older now, I still recall whole sections of the script we used, and I can still recite a lot of the dialogue. Something about my experience as Ebenezer has stayed with me, and the scenes are always vivid in my mind. To be honest, part of who old Ebenezer Scrooge is at his core, actually haunts me. He was a lonely alienated man and none of us likes to be lonely. He was also a person who defined success by wealth and outward appearances, which is what so many people still do.The good thing about how he is, is that he is open to reforming. He wants to feel loved and be connected to other people. He would be hopelessly evil if he wasn’t redeemable or willing to be redeemed. That is what I love most about the character that Dickens created for us. The final scenes in the story are heartwarming. I sincerely hope our readers have a joyous Christmas this year. And if you know a real-life Ebenezer Scrooge, maybe you can be someone that helps extend the warmth of human kindness to him.***Jlewis: Charles Dickens’ 1843 novella was first adapted for the screen back in 1901 as SCROOGE OR MARLEY’S GHOST and one very conservative estimate for the total number of movie and TV adaptations since is 135. I am thinking the number is a thousand or more if you count all of the shorter, often parody, versions that may not be considered “official” versions.We have to include MICKEY’S CHRISTMAS CAROL, THE MUPPETS’ CHRISTMAS CAROL, Bill Murray in SCROOGED and such often overlooked updates like AN AMERICAN CHRISTMAS CAROL with Henry Winkler as well, but how about Dr. Seuss’ HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS as a thinly disguised version with some plot and name changes? Picking out the “best” is purely a matter of taste but this 1951 version and the ambitious 1984 version starring George C. Scott are frequently cited as “definitive” adaptations. OK. Quick confession. I do resemble both Ebenezer Scrooge and the Grinch in a few ways. I am not a fan of Christmas. Yet I am not mean to others, trying to stop them from enjoying it. And I am certainly not rich and greedy. Also not religious, not that it matters since Christmas has always been a half religious and half secular festivity.(Trivia note: When the Roman Empire was Christianized after the 4th century post-crucifixion, popular pagan holidays involving the winter solstice were adapted to the Nativity story despite no evidence that it happened in either December or January, so those “Put Christ back in Christmas” bumper stickers that you see on the highway are merely that driver’s personal feelings and not entirely based on fact.) In regards to religion, this story makes no mention of Jesus but does, in a roundabout secular way, offer insight on how to live a good Christian life. The “almighty power” the holiday of (supposedly) good-will can transform even the nastiest people for the better. Scrooge’s obsession with money and security is sharply contrasted with the saintly ideal of his meager employee Bob Cratchit and his son Tiny Tim, who both think the best in everybody despite being poor and handicapped.Today, 76% of the world’s wealth is owned by less than 8% of the human population and it is certainly not being spread evenly for the better health of humanity and the planet it resides in, so a story about how one’s obsession about wealth at the expense of happiness still has meaning and importance today. The story probably needs no introduction, but I will boil it down to the basics. Scrooge (Alastair Sim) underpays his one employee Cratchit (Mervyn Johns) but grudgingly allows him half-Christmas off. At night, he is visited first by his doomed-to-damnation partner in spirit form, Jacob Marley (Michael Hordern), followed by three other phantoms. The first, the ghost of Christmas past (Michael Dolan), takes him back to view himself as a younger wide-eyed innocent (George Cole) before cynicism took over (Carol Marsh is his sister and Rona Anderson is love interest, with familiar veteran Jack Warner as one of his major employers). The ghost of Christmas present (Francis de Wolff) takes him to see his nephew (Brian Worth) and the Cratchit family (with Hermione Baddeley of MARY POPPINS fame and Glyn Dearman) going about their lives and also some of the suffering in the world he has overlooked himself (classic image of starving children under the jolly ghost’s robe is included).The ghost of Christmas future (C. Konarski) resembles the Grim Reaper and does not talk as the two venture into one very bleak future if things don’t change right away: seeing himself marked on a gravestone but unloved and forgotten by other humans has the desired impact on Scrooge. Kathleen Harrison, a mainstay on British stage and screen from the twenties through eighties (making it well past her 103rd birthday), plays Scrooge’s housekeeper Mrs. Dilber (unnamed in the book) who is the first to see Mister “Hum-Bug” become Mister Happiness for All.One psychological sideline to the story that often gets overlooked is Ebenezer’s mother dying when giving birth to him and he never being forgiven by his father for something that wasn’t his fault. Likewise, Fred was born to Ebenezer’s sister who also died giving birth to him and, as a result, uncle always had a grudge against nephew. Add to this Ebenezer not marrying his sweetheart Alice as he favors a marriage with money instead, but could this be him fearing potential heartbreak like his father? Ebenezer is never happy in his life, building walls around him to protect against further unhappiness. Despite what he has saved financially, he does not indulge himself at all, eating only the cheapest foods and living in drab and chilly quarters. Those poorer than him like Fred the nephew and even the Cratchits look wealthier than him despite owning so little…all because they spend their hard earned money on what gives them happiness in lives that can’t guarantee it all of the time. This Renown Pictures Production (U.K. title being SCROOGE, while marketed in the U.S. by United Artists under A CHRISTMAS CAROL) was made during a golden age in British filmmaking, despite director Brian Desmond Hurst having only a couple major titles to his credit. A dark, German Expressionistic tone is emphasized by the noirish high contrast with shadows, cinematography by C.M. Pennington-Richards that often resembles earlier David Lean adaptions of Dickens from a few years back.Curiously it was decided to not use Technicolor in an era when color was becoming much more common in mainstream movies and this may work to the horror side of the story’s advantage. Richard Addinsell’s score is appropriately menacing at times like something out of Hitchcock. Despite the darker tones, one must allow for some Hollywood, even British-based Hollywood, hokum at play since the recreated London here is rather clean and spotless (no dirt in the snow) with residents who look far healthier than they would have been a century earlier in real life. Sanitized or not, it is still far darker than MGM’s overtly jolly version of 13 years before.This may explain why it initially wasn’t as successful on this side of the Atlantic as on the other during its first year of release. Like another major film that wasn’t initially successful in its first year, THE WIZARD OF OZ, this particular version became the most watched on television during the next several decades before later full-color, not digitally colorized, adaptations took over. What I personally like about this version is that it gets its story told in a compact 86 minutes. A musical version of SCROOGE with Albert Finney came out in 1970 with the already threatening 117 minute running time and it appears that most adaptations since are just as long or longer…and quite often without any music numbers. Not that the ’51 version feels rushed in any way since it still takes its time to establish both mood and character. All a tribute to the mastery of good editing.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 31, 2022 18:37:31 GMT
SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE... (1971)
TopBilled: What we see on screen is the result of a series of off-Broadway workshops that involved the main cast. From what I understand, the workshops were meant to help the principle actors develop a strong sense of character– which means that what we witness in the film is based on emotional aspects of the performers’ own lives.It wouldn’t be a drama if they didn’t experience psychologically devastating moments. Very few of these characters have happy lives. They meet and experience life inside a traumatic vacuum. Some of the personal anguish is kept close to the proverbial vest, some of it is shared openly. I’m not sure how much pride is taken in individual situations, even when they approach the world with fearless attitudes. Most of the situations play out simultaneously. Occasionally the various conflicts overlap and collectively build into a bigger catastrophe. The action takes place at a bar on New Year’s Eve in Greenwich Village. It could be any bar, really. Any night when a celebration is supposed to occur. Any time a group of troubled souls converge, regardless of their financial backgrounds or social standing.It’s a curious thing to watch, because none of them know how to solve their problems. They have secrets that come out before the clock strikes twelve, but no assurances are given that life in the subsequent year will be any better than it is now. As the night continues, it all develops into a blistering misery fest, where we watch them wallow in excess and pain…usually excessive amounts of pain…with plenty of self-loathing and loathing by others to go round. Most of the characters are subtypes of a culture at large. Not every persuasion or part of the spectrum is represented, because not every persuasion or part of the spectrum had been defined yet in the early 1970s. So it’s a time capsule with limits. But for 1971, this is a somewhat notable attempt at visibility post-Stonewall.There seem to be two themes working at cross-purposes in Mervyn Nelson’s opus. One is liberation. The other is hate. A memorable hate crime occurs in the movie, and it’s not an easy scene to watch. There is also a scene where a disapproving mother enters the bar and causes a ruckus. Coming away from such a fuss, who would choose to be oriented this way? A masochist maybe. A person who feels they have no choice? As a tool of therapy for the participants, I suppose it has merit. But some of it does feel contrived and gimmicky. It’s hard to rate the cast’s specific performances, since much of it does not seem like acting per se…it seems like heightened cinema verite. For quite a few viewers, it will probably not be an enjoyable movie.However, I think it’s an important experiment. Some of my best friends are cinephiles that may want to watch the metaphoric train wrecks that unfold before us here. And some of my best friends might be watching something a bit more positive and life-affirming in a parallel universe.***Jlewis:This reminded me of another film, PETER’S FRIENDS, that I have not seen since the 1990s on video: folks get together on New Years and there is an interesting clash of personalities. That one had a gay theme too but it was much more subtle. This one was obviously cashing in on the success of the previous year hit BOYS IN THE BAND.Time changes everything. Lifestyles change. Every old movie and TV show (and anything over a decade in age is certainly getting old) has aspects that have aged well and aspects that have not. In regards to SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE…, much of it is strikingly ahead of its time and its heart is in the right place in pushing for greater compassion and understanding towards everybody regardless of orientations, race, etc. Nonetheless it did start filming (according to the American Film Institute site) in April of 1970 before there were any Pride Marches commemorating Stonewall (and this also explains why the outdoor shots don’t look all that wintery for its New Years Eve setting) and, thus, a great many characters here are rather self loathing and self critical. Hardly proud and out.There is frequent usage of the now offensive, but not offensive back then, six letter F-word and its three letter abbreviation that was also used a few times in the Best Picture Oscar winner MIDNIGHT COWBOY. A few eyebrows may be raised for the elaborate holiday fairy extravaganza but I personally found it way too adorable and funny to consider it offensive in any way. The marketing by American International Pictures is also rather questionable in its trailers: “There is one in every city, one place (that), for a few hours, they forget the whispers behind their backs and share the one secret that makes them different”… as if they are mafia killers or something. Guessing that the director Mervyn Nelson (also assisted by Steve Marshall and Elliot Tuckerman) was gay, despite no mention of it in his later obituary but also no mention of marriage to a woman either. He was a veteran of Broadway who was 54 at the time and had plenty of life experiences that could have been incorporated here. Curiously he only has four major films to his credit, favoring the stage with occasional acting performances on screen ( i.e. THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL and GARBO TALKS).I did not investigate all of the personal lives among the cast, but my overall impression is that roughly half of them were gay and half were straight, the latter being liberal minded and supportive enough as gay allies to appear in this. Among the latter were some soon to be famous TV personalities such as Rue McClanahan of later Maude and Golden Girls fame, Gary Sandy a.k.a. WKRP in Cincinnati and even Gil Gerard a.k.a. Buck Rogers. Fannie Flagg, who wrote FRIED GREEN TOMATOES, was also popular on TV throughout the seventies, but was open as a lesbian to friends and acquaintances; her role here is as hostess Helen. Then there’s the pioneering transgender superstar Candy Darling of Andy Warhol and Paul Morrissey’s FLESH and later more mainstream hits like KLUTE. Shortly before this, Candy campaigned aggressively for the lead of MYRA BRECKINRIDGE but 20th Century Fox selected Raquel Welch. As much as I enjoyed Raquel in that so-bad-it-is-good box-office bomb, one can only wonder what Candy would have done with that role. Sadly, Candy would only be alive for four more years.Not much plot but lots of little incidents involving various figures who visit the Greenwich Village Blue Jay Bar… Marvin (Ben Yaffee) is a big businessman who is closeted, attending with his straight acting but gay-for-pay buddy Jim (Sandy) who acts somewhat homophobic in these surroundings. Jim later mistakes Karen (Candy Darling) for a biological female and that does not go well at all, resulting in some unexpected bloody violence.Flirtatious Lita Joyce (McClanahan) is frustrated that ex-boyfriend Scott (Gerard) is more attached to artist Terry (Gary Campbell) than her. She ultimately seeks revenge by outing the younger lover to his unexpectedly visiting mother (Peggy Namour) who expresses her homophobia in no uncertain terms. “How could you? It is dirty! Dirty! Dirty!” and “I wish I knew how sick you were” are lines familiar to many who were rejected by their families both then and, yes, even today. Another prominent front-burner saga involves a married engineer Barrett (Lou Steele) breaking up with his Swiss lover Michel (Uva Harden) to return to his wife.Various others have backstories of major and minor interest but I must admit to getting some of their names mixed up. I should single out Carleton Carpenter as “Miss Untouchable” since he had an extensive filmography stretching back through the forties that includes a bit part in our previously reviewed FATHER OF THE BRIDE. Future porn star Casey Donovan (especially good in Radley Metzger’s SCORE) has a tiny unbilled role. Sadie (Sylvia Syms) plays mother figure to all, playing the sounding board to their many confessions. She has a middle age operation that her “boys” helped her get through as a family. In many ways, this bar community is like an extended family with everybody there to offer support in a haven away from the harsh world.Tony Mitchell worked on the camera work, which is rather murky and dark. It is all professionally done, but I wonder if any straight-from-the-35mm-archive prints are available that show better definition. Considering how bright the atmosphere at the bar is supposed to be, I would expect the imagery to compliment better. The music selection by Gordon Rose is quite memorable, if a bit melancholy at times, and fits the moods on display. A highly enjoyable time-capsule made at the dawn of the liberation decade.
|
|
