|
Post by NoShear on Jan 25, 2024 17:30:43 GMT
Alfie from 1966 with Michael Caine, Julie Foster, Jane Asher, Shelly Winters and Vivien Merchant
It's not easy to make a movie that is, both, of its time and timeless, but Alfie pulls it off. Yes it captures the start of London's swinging 1960s sexual revolution, but its themes of infidelity, abortion, commitment, fatherhood and finding meaning in life are timeless.
Michael Caine is outstanding as Alfie, a middle-aged, good-looking single man who lives his life mainly to sleep with "birds," without forming any real attachment to them. He's a democratic playboy who sleeps with younger, older, single and married women.
We get to know Caine as he "breaks the fourth wall" throughout telling the audience his thoughts and motivation. He comes across as selfish and insensitive, but somehow without seeming to be mean or nasty.
Oversimplifying his philosophy, he lives for himself. While he'll leave things vague sometimes, he not only doesn't lie to women, he usually tells them straight out he's not in it for the long haul. The amazing thing is how many women hang on hoping he'll change.
The wife who casually cheats with him has no expectations, but several young single women, notably two played by Julie Foster and Jane Asher, stick around too long believing, one assumes, that time will turn Caine their way.
Even when Asher has Caine's son, after he offers to pay for an abortion, she makes no demands on him. He half fathers the boy until Asher accepts an offer of marriage from a kind man she doesn't love, but who she knows will make a good husband and father.
One thinks Caine might see life in a different light after he has to go to a sanitarium for a lung infection for a bit, but he ends up banging the wife, played by Vivien Merchant, of his sanitarium roommate when he gets out. That leads to the movie's defining scene.
Merchant has an abortion at Caine's apartment to keep the affair a secret from her husband. Caine is emotionally torn when he sees (the audience doesn't) the aborted fetus. His following thoughts and reflections might not be your views, but they are timeless.
Coincidentally, on the same day Caine sees his child's fetus, he sees his son with Asher being raised by another man. It's Caine's come-to-Jesus moment, which lands him in the arms of his older paramour, played with delicious sexual insouciance by Shelly Winters.
Alfie gets his comeuppance as Winters turns the tables on him - you'll want to see how - which leaves Caine maybe adrift or maybe fortified to return to his philandering ways.
As a time capsule of the 1960s at a turn, Alfie is a gem. Some men have short hair and wear ties, while others are starting to wear their hair long while sporting turtlenecks or open collars. The freer clothing styles reflect the freer sexual standards.
Yet the movie's themes are not stuck in the 1960s. While today, women no longer see marriage as a singular life goal, many still want to get married and many will find men who can't commit. It's called an evergreen problem for a reason. It works in reverse, too.
The aging playboy isn't new either. As friends and former lovers pair off and start families, he will begin to question his lifestyle. Being the oldest guy in the singles bar can be a sobering moment.
The "shortcut" here (as movies need) is Caine having a child and one aborted in quick succession. It drops the realities of his lifestyle right in front of him in one poignant moment.
As a movie, Alfie would fail miserably if Caine's Alfie was mean spirited or a braggart. That man is boring.
Caine, instead, seems to truly believe his broken philosophy about avoiding love and commitment. So even though he hurts women, you not only don't hate him, you - sometimes - can almost feel sorry for him.
Alfie was, rightfully, a breakout movie for Michael Caine as he perfectly embodies an aging lothario. Asher, Foster, Merchant and Winters also deliver moving performances as Caine's "women." Merchant, in particular, will touch you playing a very broken and lost wife.
Alfie manages to be both of-the-moment and a movie that smartly explores timeless problems. It's a picture that almost seems fun until, unexpectedly, you find yourself being emotionally battered. That's what good movie making will often do to you. Fading Fast, your review is typical of your insightful socio offerings, but I was surprised to read how old Michael Caine's ALFIE is described: I thought of him as thirty-something - hardly middle-aged!? Because of this, I found the Shelley Winters character rejection of ALFIE to be especially galling.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 25, 2024 18:51:29 GMT
Fading Fast, your review is typical of your insightful socio offerings, but I was surprised to read how old Michael Caine's ALFIE is described: I thought of him as thirty-something - hardly middle-aged!? Because of this, I found the Shelley Winters character rejection of ALFIE to be especially galling. I think "middle-aged" has shifted "out" since the 1960s, but you are right that I should have chosen my words more carefully. I think the point is that Caine's character was getting old to be a playboy, especially in an era when a man was expected to be married by his thirties, As you note, all this is powerfully brought home when proto-cougar Winters notes she prefers the younger man. Ouch!
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jan 25, 2024 19:06:35 GMT
Fading Fast, your review is typical of your insightful socio offerings, but I was surprised to read how old Michael Caine's ALFIE is described: I thought of him as thirty-something - hardly middle-aged!? Because of this, I found the Shelley Winters character rejection of ALFIE to be especially galling. I think "middle-aged" has shifted "out" since the 1960s, but you are right that I should have chosen my words more carefully. I think the point is that Caine's character was getting old to be a playboy, especially in an era when a man was expected to be married by his thirties, As you note, all this is powerfully brought home when proto-cougar Winters notes she prefers the younger man. Ouch! I don't think you mis-chose your words - I didn't mean to read as critical, Fading Fast, just that I didn't think of ALFIE as being that old, so Winters stung with her brushoff... I wonder if the point is also heightened by Shelley Winters, frankly - and I risk reading as sexist here, not looking like, say, a mature Julie Christie ala Shampoo instead. (I just saw a stockily built woman whom I found sexy, but I'm going to the narrow world of film ideals rather than reality here.)
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 1, 2024 12:46:22 GMT
The Driver from 1978 with Ryan O'Neil, Bruce Dern and Isabelle Adjani
Is it neo-noir or just a crime drama? With all but no backstory to the characters, who are nameless throughout, a surreal world of crime and policing and a city as a kind of urban jungle, if The Driver isn't neo noir, what is?
Ryan O'Neal plays a for-hire getaway driver, called The Driver, who commands a high price for his services. Thankfully, he isn't uber-cool like an action adventure hero, just a handsome, anti-social, laconic loner who is very good at his job, like many noir criminals.
As O'Neal plies his unique trade, an off-balance police detective played by Bruce Dern, with a team of two that seems to know Dern's mind is no longer tightly tethered to reality, makes capturing The Driver, or The Cowboy as Dern calls him, his singular mission in life.
After opening with a heck of a good car chase scene, with O'Neal driving the getaway car from a casino heist (in a state without legalized gambling), Dern amps up his efforts to catch O'Neal.
When a witness, The Player, played by French beauty Isabelle Adjani, denies seeing O'Neal drive the car, Dern gets all angry, but he has to release O'Neil. Later, O'Neal tries to pay The Player, but like him, she seems happiest looking pretty, but being left alone.
Dern then spins a bit farther out into orbit as he plans a sting operation for The Driver that even in the 1970s, and even if you know nothing about the law, screams entrapment. None of that matters to Dern though as he's on a mission.
In real life, if Bruce Dern was a normal, well-adjusted man, then he has to be the greatest actor ever as he seems to have "crazy" stamped on his forehead in most of his roles, this one very much included.
Dern's plan involves a staged bank robbery, using real criminals, where O'Neil gets a cut to drive the getaway car. The police-sanctioned sting robbery goes horribly wrong with guards and civilians getting shot and, of course, the criminals turning on each other.
O'Neal not only drives the getaway car successfully, but he comes away with all the "hot" loot, which he stashes in a train terminal locker. Yet, of course, Dern is still after him as is one of the gang from the bank heist.
O'Neal then concocts a scheme with The Connection (think, his business manager) to launder the money. In a very classic noir-like turn, briefcases of "hot" and "clean" money go in and out of lockers at the train station as locker keys discreetly change hands a few times.
It climaxes, no spoilers coming, the only way it could, with one final car chase as O'Neal and Adjani try to get the "clean" money from one of the gang members.
The real ending, though, is the very cool denouement back in the train station where Dern and O'Neal meet for one last time as The Player, Adjani, watches from a distance. It is, by far, the best scene in the movie.
O'Neal is surprisingly good as The Driver, especially when he finally, later in, gets to say a few complete sentences of dialogue and do something other than drive. Had the movie been a success (it wasn't) a sequel or TV series could easily have followed.
Adjani underwhelms as the aloof Player, in part because she has so few lines and, in part, because she has on so much makeup she looks like a mannequin. Dern, as noted, is in his acting sweet spot here playing a highly functioning sociopath.
The Driver, like many of the original noirs, exists in a parallel universe where cops, criminals and citizens all have specific roles to play in a morally ambiguous world that allows these dark and tragic tales to unfold unencumbered by normal constraints.
Cars speed all over town at night without getting into the accidents that would happen on real planet earth. Unhinged cops go about their corrupt pursuits without oversight and loner criminals exist for no reason other than professional pride and to look cool.
Director Walter Hill specialized in these types of neo-noir movies that "bridge" traditional noir with the completely insane universe of cops-and-robbers movies that directors like Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarantino have been making for the past two-plus decades.
It's far from perfect, but for simple, unadorned and uncomplicated entertainment, and as a window into a movie genre in transition, The Driver is a fun and quirky 1970s Tinseltown curio that’s held up pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Feb 8, 2024 17:20:54 GMT
Written in the tone of the Don Dubbins scene in "ELEGY" of The TWILIGHT ZONE... I agree, you are the fairest cake topper, but tell me something: Why did the watershed inspiration have to include a line at the expense of those African American children??
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Feb 8, 2024 17:28:57 GMT
^ CORRECTED ^
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Feb 8, 2024 22:03:41 GMT
Alfie manages to be both of-the-moment and a movie that smartly explores timeless problems. It's a picture that almost seems fun until, unexpectedly, you find yourself being emotionally battered. That's what good movie making will often do to you.
*********
Alfie 2004 is entertaining, but a bit sad and pointless. It's a remake without purpose and without the soul of the original, but darn it, the style and acting talent keeps your attention as does the Neverland feel of New York City. Still, the only move is to see the original first. Thanks for looking at these two films, FadingFast. I certainly agree with your assessments of them. Alfie (1966) is a film to be watched with attention, Alfie (2004) is nice simply to look at with the sound off.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 9, 2024 12:59:51 GMT
Life for Ruth (also known as Walk in the Shadow) from 1962 with Michael Craig, Janet Munro, Patrick McGoohan, Paul Rodgers and Leslie Sands
Life for Ruth has the maturity and confidence to admit that there are (at least) two legitimate sides to complex political/legal/social issues. Many of today's movie makers behave more like children, creating stories that conveniently make their arguments look perfect.
At what point does the state have the right to override the religious beliefs of the parents when a child's life is at stake is the complex issue at the core of Life for Ruth. Both sides are fairly presented making the film challenging and engaging viewing, no matter what you believe.
Michael Craig plays a father and Jehovah Witness (although the term is never used) whom we see rescue two children after a boating accident. He saves the child most at risk first and then saves his own daughter, who is severely injured while he was saving the first child.
This obviously good man is then faced, along with his wife, played by Janet Munro, with deciding whether to allow the hospital to give his daughter Ruth a blood transfusion to save her life. Blood transfusions go against "their" religion.
Even in the moment of crisis, it's clear "their" religion is really his religion, with Craig signing a release for the hospital stating he refused the transfusion for his daughter. He believes blood transfusions go against the Bible and his choice will save Ruth's eternal soul.
The child dies, but the inquest finds Craig innocent. Yet the attending doctor, played by Patrick McGoohan, angered that he wasn't allowed to save the child's life, brings a charge of manslaughter against Craig, which apparently, one can do under British jurisprudence.
That is the set up used to examine both sides of the issue. Craig and Munro's marriage begins to break as Munro confesses she only converted from Church of England to Craig's religion because that's what he wanted, but her true beliefs never changed.
Craig's father, a Jehovah Witness himself, supports his son, but most of the community is against him in this pending case. Repeatedly, the issue is examined, in particular, in one powerful scene when McGoohan discusses the case with a newspaper editor and a solicitor.
McGoohan is all logic - "I'm a doctor, I save lives -" and the editor is in sympathy, but the solicitor sees that Christian Craig believes he did right by his child's eternal soul. The solicitor then notes that the editor is a Catholic, which prompts a "so what" from the editor.
The solicitor avers that, one day, the Catholic Church might ask McGoohan to save the life of an unborn child at the expense of a living mother. He also notes "I'm a Jew and the thing smacks of persecution to me" and states he won't take on the case.
In a beautiful moment of British fair play, the solicitor says he knows his Catholic friend and the doctor are sincere in their beliefs, so he gives them the name of an excellent solicitor that will take on the case. They all part cordially. If only we had some of that maturity today.
The movie climaxes, no spoilers coming, in an outstanding courtroom scene that does get overly dramatic at its close. Still, the points it makes are powerful and honest. The movie deserved a less-sensational ending, but it doesn't undermine the overall message too much.
The acting is uniformly impressive. McGoohan and Craig create characters who convince you that they hold their beliefs deeply and sincerely. Munro, a bridge between the two, shows the challenges of loving someone who has passionate beliefs in unconventional ideas.
The actors in the supporting roles, like the aforementioned solicitor, played by Paul Rogers, the newspaper editor, played by Leslie Sands and so many others demonstrate the deep acting bench of British cinema at that time.
The entire picture, restored in its original black and white - which the British, back then, did with a depth and contrast that has never been bettered - is beautiful in a sad but significant way. Director Basil Dearden made sure no scenes were superfluous and every nuance counted.
Life for Ruth is a movie for adults who understand that complex issues don't have simple slogan-driven answers. It's a movie for grownups who respect that good people can sincerely hold opposing beliefs. It's also a movie that, sadly, wouldn't be made today.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 9, 2024 13:18:28 GMT
Life for Ruth (also known as Walk in the Shadow) from 1962 with Michael Craig, Janet Munro, Patrick McGoohan, Paul Rodgers and Leslie Sands
Life for Ruth has the maturity and confidence to admit that there are (at least) two legitimate sides to complex political/legal/social issues. Many of today's movie makers behave more like children, creating stories that conveniently make their arguments look perfect.
At what point does the state have the right to override the religious beliefs of the parents when a child's life is at stake is the complex issue at the core of Life for Ruth. Both sides are fairly presented making the film challenging and engaging viewing, no matter what you believe.
Michael Craig plays a father and Jehovah Witness (although the term is never used) whom we see rescue two children after a boating accident. He saves the child most at risk first and then saves his own daughter, who is severely injured while he was saving the first child.
This obviously good man is then faced, along with his wife, played by Janet Munro, with deciding whether to allow the hospital to give his daughter Ruth a blood transfusion to save her life. Blood transfusions go against "their" religion.
Even in the moment of crisis, it's clear "their" religion is really his religion, with Craig signing a release for the hospital stating he refused the transfusion for his daughter. He believes blood transfusions go against the Bible and his choice will save Ruth's eternal soul.
The child dies, but the inquest finds Craig innocent. Yet the attending doctor, played by Patrick McGoohan, angered that he wasn't allowed to save the child's life, brings a charge of manslaughter against Craig, which apparently, one can do under British jurisprudence.
That is the set up used to examine both sides of the issue. Craig and Munro's marriage begins to break as Munro confesses she only converted from Church of England to Craig's religion because that's what he wanted, but her true beliefs never changed.
Craig's father, a Jehovah Witness himself, supports his son, but most of the community is against him in this pending case. Repeatedly, the issue is examined, in particular, in one powerful scene when McGoohan discusses the case with a newspaper editor and a solicitor.
McGoohan is all logic - "I'm a doctor, I save lives -" and the editor is in sympathy, but the solicitor sees that Christian Craig believes he did right by his child's eternal soul. The solicitor then notes that the editor is a Catholic, which prompts a "so what" from the editor.
The solicitor avers that, one day, the Catholic Church might ask McGoohan to save the life of an unborn child at the expense of a living mother. He also notes "I'm a Jew and the thing smacks of persecution to me" and states he won't take on the case.
In a beautiful moment of British fair play, the solicitor says he knows his Catholic friend and the doctor are sincere in their beliefs, so he gives them the name of an excellent solicitor that will take on the case. They all part cordially. If only we had some of that maturity today.
The movie climaxes, no spoilers coming, in an outstanding courtroom scene that does get overly dramatic at its close. Still, the points it makes are powerful and honest. The movie deserved a less-sensational ending, but it doesn't undermine the overall message too much.
The acting is uniformly impressive. McGoohan and Craig create characters who convince you that they hold their beliefs deeply and sincerely. Munro, a bridge between the two, shows the challenges of loving someone who has passionate beliefs in unconventional ideas.
The actors in the supporting roles, like the aforementioned solicitor, played by Paul Rogers, the newspaper editor, played by Leslie Sands and so many others demonstrate the deep acting bench of British cinema at that time.
The entire picture, restored in its original black and white - which the British, back then, did with a depth and contrast that has never been bettered - is beautiful in a sad but significant way. Director Basil Dearden made sure no scenes were superfluous and every nuance counted.
Life for Ruth is a movie for adults who understand that complex issues don't have simple slogan-driven answers. It's a movie for grownups who respect that good people can sincerely hold opposing beliefs. It's also a movie that, sadly, wouldn't be made today. Tears came to my eyes reading this review...it's such a powerful movie and the way you described it brought all those deep emotions in the story back to me.
McGoohan's character has a God complex, which is ironic...he is not motivated to bring charges against Craig for his own glory, but for the sanctity of what he believes. He lacks some sympathy for Craig and Munro. McGoohan is driven by the fact he couldn't save a life, he failed, and he blames that failure directly on Craig. So in a way, McGoohan is using the court system as a vengeful god to punish Craig. It's all quite fascinating.
One thing the film does admirably is that it lets us look at the internal conflicts Munro is experiencing. Not only is she struggling with where she stands in terms of religion, reconciling her faith with her husband's faith, she also has to deal with whether or not she wants to remain married. A very good scene has her realizing that if she goes back to Craig and continues the marriage, they will undoubtedly have another child...and she doesn't exactly want to replace Ruth, the lost daughter. So many complex emotions reverberating.
The first time I watched the film I wondered how it would end. By this, I mean I figured Craig would be exonerated. I didn't think it would be so bleak as to have him convicted and jailed. But I wondered if it would end with the verdict of him being freed, and if he would really reconcile with his wife. The last scene actually has him revisit the beach area where Ruth's accident had occurred at the beginning of the movie. There are other children at the site playing in the background. We sense how profound his pain is, but yet he will be able to go on. It's the perfect ending with our contemplating the enormity of what's happened.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 10, 2024 14:19:27 GMT
The Late Show from 1977 with Art Carney, Lily Tomlin, Bill Macy and Eugene Roche
More homage than send-up of the many 1940s B-noirs movies, The Late Show works mainly because of its unlikely but surprisingly enjoyable pairing of Art Carney and Lily Tomlin. Sometimes you write sentences in life that you never ever believed you would write.
Carney plays an all but retired private detective who gets involved in a case when his old partner is killed. Avenging the death of a partner is Noir 101; heck, it's the only reason Bogie puts up with Astor's BS in one of the greatest noirs ever, 1941's The Maltese Falcon.
Broken-down Carney - limp, hearing aid and ulcer - is no Bogie, but neither is Tomlin, playing a new-age actress/agent/fruitcake, another Mary Astor. Trying to retrieve Tomlin's kidnapped cat (yup), got Carney's former partner killed, so Carney is now on the cat caper.
While it sounds campy, for the most part, it isn't. Behind the cat kidnapping is a serious story that weaves in a valuable stolen stamp collection, a fencing racket, a murderous cheating wife and a vicious psychotic thug.
It's really 1940s noir with a 1970s overlay including the aforementioned new-age, hippy dippiness of Tomlin's character, plus the long hair of the men and everyone's too-loud and sloppy clothing. The movie looks 1970s, but is closer in spirit to 1940s noir.
The story is so complex you'll need a scorecard to keep the names straight, but since one isn't provided, you sometimes just have to go along until it gets explained a bit later on. As with many noirs though, it's atmosphere and characters that matter.
Surprisingly, 1970s Los Angeles, one of 1940s noir's favorite haunts, with its run-down shopping district, shady characters and residential section's faux Spanish architecture, is a good background for an updated noir populated by losers and small-time hustlers.
The real spark though is Carney as the taciturn "old man" who maybe has a bit more life left in him than it appears. It's not hard to see one of Bogie's or Dick Powell's 1940s cool "private eyes" having aged into Carney as those guys weren't savers or health addicts.
Carney wants to be alone, but Tomlin, wanting to get back her cat, drags Carney into her crazy world of 1970s new-age nonsense that really masks her loneliness. She covers it with too much talking, which pairs well with Carney's laconicness.
As these two begin to work together, the fun is Tomlin jabbering on way too much, but making several smart connections in the mystery as Carney grumpily assembles the pieces of the puzzle with old-school investigation and intuition.
There are enough classic chase scenes, shootouts, murders, fist fights, guns poked in ribs, harrowing threats, low-life characters and stolen goods trying to be fenced that the story, sans the 1970s new-age piffle, could easily have been made in the 1940s as a solid B-noir.
Credit also goes to Bill Macy playing Carney's "old friend," who like many "old friends" in noir isn't that reliable and to Eugene Roche playing a fence who sees everything in life, even murder, as a chance to haggle. These two could have stepped straight out of the 1940s.
So much so, had the movie been cast in the 1940s, two giants of classic noir, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre, could have subbed right into the cast.
Greenstreet could easily have played the Roche role as he had perfected the affably immoral "dealmaker" back then, just like Peter Lorre would have been perfect in the Macy role as the unreliable friend.
None of these parallels to 1940s film noir happened by accident. Writer and director Robert Benton clearly has a deep understanding and appreciation for the genre.
His movie has a reverence for noir's classic era with its style, story and tone echoing, but not mimicking those earlier pictures. Even though the movie is in color, the camera angles, lighting and brutality of the characters' world is straight out of classic noir.
Benton managed to make a 1970s movie feel noirish - the night scenes are most similar as they have almost a black and white look - but also of its own time. It's thankfully though not camp or "otherworldly;" it's a noir construct applied to the 1970s.
Even if you're not a film noir buff, The Late Show still works as an entertaining 1970s movie. But for fans of those old pictures, The Late Show is a treat as Robert Benton made his film a quiet tribute to all those now classic B noirs movies.
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Feb 10, 2024 14:28:43 GMT
The Late Show from 1977 with Art Carney, Lily Tomlin, Bill Macy and Eugene Roche
More homage than send-up of the many 1940s B-noirs movies, The Late Show works mainly because of its unlikely but surprisingly enjoyable pairing of Art Carney and Lily Tomlin. Sometimes you write sentences in life that you never ever believed you would write.
Carney plays an all but retired private detective who gets involved in a case when his old partner is killed. Avenging the death of a partner is Noir 101; heck, it's the only reason Bogie puts up with Astor's BS in one of the greatest noirs ever, 1941's The Maltese Falcon.
Broken-down Carney - limp, hearing aid and ulcer - is no Bogie, but neither is Tomlin, playing a new-age actress/agent/fruitcake, another Mary Astor. Trying to retrieve Tomlin's kidnapped cat (yup), got Carney's former partner killed, so Carney is now on the cat caper.
While it sounds campy, for the most part, it isn't. Behind the cat kidnapping is a serious story that weaves in a valuable stolen stamp collection, a fencing racket, a murderous cheating wife and a vicious psychotic thug.
It's really 1940s noir with a 1970s overlay including the aforementioned new-age, hippy dippiness of Tomlin's character, plus the long hair of the men and everyone's too-loud and sloppy clothing. The movie looks 1970s, but is closer in spirit to 1940s noir.
The story is so complex you'll need a scorecard to keep the names straight, but since one isn't provided, you sometimes just have to go along until it gets explained a bit later on. As with many noirs though, it's atmosphere and characters that matter.
Surprisingly, 1970s Los Angeles, one of 1940s noir's favorite haunts, with its run-down shopping district, shady characters and residential section's faux Spanish architecture, is a good background for an updated noir populated by losers and small-time hustlers.
The real spark though is Carney as the taciturn "old man" who maybe has a bit more life left in him than it appears. It's not hard to see one of Bogie's or Dick Powell's 1940s cool "private eyes" having aged into Carney as those guys weren't savers or health addicts.
Carney wants to be alone, but Tomlin, wanting to get back her cat, drags Carney into her crazy world of 1970s new-age nonsense that really masks her loneliness. She covers it with too much talking, which pairs well with Carney's laconicness.
As these two begin to work together, the fun is Tomlin jabbering on way too much, but making several smart connections in the mystery as Carney grumpily assembles the pieces of the puzzle with old-school investigation and intuition.
There are enough classic chase scenes, shootouts, murders, fist fights, guns poked in ribs, harrowing threats, low-life characters and stolen goods trying to be fenced that the story, sans the 1970s new-age piffle, could easily have been made in the 1940s as a solid B-noir.
Credit also goes to Bill Macy playing Carney's "old friend," who like many "old friends" in noir isn't that reliable and to Eugene Roche playing a fence who sees everything in life, even murder, as a chance to haggle. These two could have stepped straight out of the 1940s.
So much so, had the movie been cast in the 1940s, two giants of classic noir, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre, could have subbed right into the cast.
Greenstreet could easily have played the Roche role as he had perfected the affably immoral "dealmaker" back then, just like Peter Lorre would have been perfect in the Macy role as the unreliable friend.
None of these parallels to 1940s film noir happened by accident. Writer and director Robert Benton clearly has a deep understanding and appreciation for the genre.
His movie has a reverence for noir's classic era with its style, story and tone echoing, but not mimicking those earlier pictures. Even though the movie is in color, the camera angles, lighting and brutality of the characters' world is straight out of classic noir.
Benton managed to make a 1970s movie feel noirish - the night scenes are most similar as they have almost a black and white look - but also of its own time. It's thankfully though not camp or "otherworldly;" it's a noir construct applied to the 1970s.
Even if you're not a film noir buff, The Late Show still works as an entertaining 1970s movie. But for fans of those old pictures, The Late Show is a treat as Robert Benton made his film a quiet tribute to all those now classic B noirs movies. Interesting that Art Carney scored this second quirky yield where a cat is central to the story, Fading Fast.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 13, 2024 11:10:24 GMT
My Night at Maud's from 1969, a French film
My Night at Maud's is an intellectually pretentious New Wave French film, so, a French film, from the 1960s by famed director Eric Rohmer.
The quick summary is it's a nearly two hours movie of three characters smoking a lot as they talk endlessly about philosophy, like Pascal's wager, all while trying very hard not to be "bourgie" which in itself, feels very bourgie.
To be fair, it was the late 1960s in France and philosophy and cigarette smoke were simply in the air. Taking the characters as they are, My Night at Maud's looks at a formerly lapsed Catholic man in his early thirties trying to find love consistent with his renewed faith.
Jean-Louis Trintignant plays the Catholic man at a crossroads: he's a handsome introverted engineer who has had many affairs, but is now trying to find a woman, who shares his faith, to be his wife.
One night, he runs into an old friend, played by Antoine Vitez, whom he hasn't seen in years. Vitez is a philosophy professor and (of course) a communist who takes Trintignant to meet a friend of his, a free-spirited atheist divorcee, played by Francoise Fabian (the titular Maud).
A large chunk of the movie is the three of them sitting around Fabian's apartment smoking, eating, drinking and discussing philosophy, which sounds almost like the setup for a joke, "a Catholic, a communist and an atheist walk into a bar..."
There is plenty of debate and discussion about the existence of God, how to lead a moral life and how you can follow your sexual passion in a manner consistent with your beliefs and ideals. This is director Rohmer's movie sweet spot.
They discuss all this in the context of Pascal's wager, which is really, in modern terms, a min-max-regret game-theory analysis of the practical value of being good - of living a life consistent with Christian tenets - so that you can get into heaven.
Meanwhile, Fabian tries to seduce Trintignant, especially after Vitez leaves. Vitez set them up so that he himself wouldn't sleep with Fabian. God knows why this French communist philosophy professor's mind works this way, but that seems to be what he did.
Fabian and Trintignant then spend the night not sleeping together, despite her getting into bed naked. They talk about their past loves and his passion to marry a pretty blonde Catholic. Days later, they do begin an affair, but both kinda know it won't last.
Shortly after their affair begins, Trintignant meets a young, blonde and very pretty Catholic woman, played by Marie-Christine Barrault. Now he's faced with, potentially, getting his "ideal" wife, but of course he'll have to break up with Fabian.
That, plus a brief epilogue, is My Night at Maud's. While there are several scenes in the city and the countryside, the movie could easily have been turned into a play taking place on a few sets as the story boils down to three people sitting in a room talking about their lives.
If French 1960s existential angst mixed with communism, atheism and Catholicism is your thing, then it will be an engaging picture. If not, it's still pretty good, as you'll quickly get that these are intelligent but immature people who are simply trying to justify their selfishness.
They are highly educated adults with the emotional development of teenagers. Strip away the philosophical gobbledygook and it's the old story of men and women in their thirties trying to find love after several failed relationships have taken away their youthful idealism.
With its dialogue-heavy intellectualizing and its wonderful on-location shooting in the French city of Clermont-Ferrand, My Night at Maud's, filmed in beautiful black and white, is wonderful time travel to late 1960s France.
It is also an excellent example of late French New Wave cinema, the good and the bad of it.
|
|
|
Post by Grumpytoad on Feb 15, 2024 7:30:01 GMT
After watching a pretty bad movie released in 1940 featuring an innocent accused of a crime, my next film in line coincidently used the same idea. But it was SO much better done: Crossroads (1942) It had a nicely detailed mystery plot. But not so dense as to make things hard to follow. No loose ends, and a finish which wrapped things up with just enough cleverness. Performances not to shabby either. William Powell plays lead as a diplomat. Until this movie, only knew him in comedy pictures. Well, he handled drama just as skillfully. Looking forward to more straight dramatic roles if they exist. Hedy Lamarr as the wife of Powell's character. First time seeing her. Her beauty was obvious. But more importantly, her character was quite charming and I totally bought into the idea of the characters as a loving couple. Claire Trevor was interesting as an icy cynic. Have only seen her once before, in Key Largo. What a contrast in roles, yet love both performances. Basil Rathbone as head bad guy. His body of work is very familiar to me. A favourite actor of mine who always delivers on screen. Felix Bressart is really good as a friend to Powell's character. Remembered Bressart from The Shop Around the Corner, but like him better here as a kind and caring doctor, whose presence sort of balances out the nastiness of the grifting going on in the rest of the movie. More than worth a watch. Attachments:
|
|
nickandnora34
Junior Member
Just a grease spot on the L&N
Posts: 77
|
Post by nickandnora34 on Feb 17, 2024 1:53:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Feb 18, 2024 21:25:34 GMT
Life for Ruth (also known as Walk in the Shadow) from 1962 with Michael Craig, Janet Munro, Patrick McGoohan, Paul Rodgers and Leslie Sands
Life for Ruth has the maturity and confidence to admit that there are (at least) two legitimate sides to complex political/legal/social issues. Many of today's movie makers behave more like children, creating stories that conveniently make their arguments look perfect.
At what point does the state have the right to override the religious beliefs of the parents when a child's life is at stake is the complex issue at the core of Life for Ruth. Both sides are fairly presented making the film challenging and engaging viewing, no matter what you believe.
Michael Craig plays a father and Jehovah Witness (although the term is never used) whom we see rescue two children after a boating accident. He saves the child most at risk first and then saves his own daughter, who is severely injured while he was saving the first child.
This obviously good man is then faced, along with his wife, played by Janet Munro, with deciding whether to allow the hospital to give his daughter Ruth a blood transfusion to save her life. Blood transfusions go against "their" religion.
Even in the moment of crisis, it's clear "their" religion is really his religion, with Craig signing a release for the hospital stating he refused the transfusion for his daughter. He believes blood transfusions go against the Bible and his choice will save Ruth's eternal soul.
The child dies, but the inquest finds Craig innocent. Yet the attending doctor, played by Patrick McGoohan, angered that he wasn't allowed to save the child's life, brings a charge of manslaughter against Craig, which apparently, one can do under British jurisprudence.
That is the set up used to examine both sides of the issue. Craig and Munro's marriage begins to break as Munro confesses she only converted from Church of England to Craig's religion because that's what he wanted, but her true beliefs never changed.
Craig's father, a Jehovah Witness himself, supports his son, but most of the community is against him in this pending case. Repeatedly, the issue is examined, in particular, in one powerful scene when McGoohan discusses the case with a newspaper editor and a solicitor.
McGoohan is all logic - "I'm a doctor, I save lives -" and the editor is in sympathy, but the solicitor sees that Christian Craig believes he did right by his child's eternal soul. The solicitor then notes that the editor is a Catholic, which prompts a "so what" from the editor.
The solicitor avers that, one day, the Catholic Church might ask McGoohan to save the life of an unborn child at the expense of a living mother. He also notes "I'm a Jew and the thing smacks of persecution to me" and states he won't take on the case.
In a beautiful moment of British fair play, the solicitor says he knows his Catholic friend and the doctor are sincere in their beliefs, so he gives them the name of an excellent solicitor that will take on the case. They all part cordially. If only we had some of that maturity today.
The movie climaxes, no spoilers coming, in an outstanding courtroom scene that does get overly dramatic at its close. Still, the points it makes are powerful and honest. The movie deserved a less-sensational ending, but it doesn't undermine the overall message too much.
The acting is uniformly impressive. McGoohan and Craig create characters who convince you that they hold their beliefs deeply and sincerely. Munro, a bridge between the two, shows the challenges of loving someone who has passionate beliefs in unconventional ideas.
The actors in the supporting roles, like the aforementioned solicitor, played by Paul Rogers, the newspaper editor, played by Leslie Sands and so many others demonstrate the deep acting bench of British cinema at that time.
The entire picture, restored in its original black and white - which the British, back then, did with a depth and contrast that has never been bettered - is beautiful in a sad but significant way. Director Basil Dearden made sure no scenes were superfluous and every nuance counted.
Life for Ruth is a movie for adults who understand that complex issues don't have simple slogan-driven answers. It's a movie for grownups who respect that good people can sincerely hold opposing beliefs. It's also a movie that, sadly, wouldn't be made today. Tears came to my eyes reading this review...it's such a powerful movie and the way you described it brought all those deep emotions in the story back to me.
McGoohan's character has a God complex, which is ironic...he is not motivated to bring charges against Craig for his own glory, but for the sanctity of what he believes. He lacks some sympathy for Craig and Munro. McGoohan is driven by the fact he couldn't save a life, he failed, and he blames that failure directly on Craig. So in a way, McGoohan is using the court system as a vengeful god to punish Craig. It's all quite fascinating.
One thing the film does admirably is that it lets us look at the internal conflicts Munro is experiencing. Not only is she struggling with where she stands in terms of religion, reconciling her faith with her husband's faith, she also has to deal with whether or not she wants to remain married. A very good scene has her realizing that if she goes back to Craig and continues the marriage, they will undoubtedly have another child...and she doesn't exactly want to replace Ruth, the lost daughter. So many complex emotions reverberating.
The first time I watched the film I wondered how it would end. By this, I mean I figured Craig would be exonerated. I didn't think it would be so bleak as to have him convicted and jailed. But I wondered if it would end with the verdict of him being freed, and if he would really reconcile with his wife. The last scene actually has him revisit the beach area where Ruth's accident had occurred at the beginning of the movie. There are other children at the site playing in the background. We sense how profound his pain is, but yet he will be able to go on. It's the perfect ending with our contemplating the enormity of what's happened. I watched this last night after both of you recommended it. I love something like this that explores ethical questions (like "The Winslow Boy.")
However, now that I've just watched the Sunday melodrama, "Three on a Match," all I can think about is how tragic it is when a man influences a woman to the point of harming her own child. Here, Munro will go back to her husband, but she'll never forgive herself for siding with him rather than the doctor when Ruth's life was at stake. In, "Three on a Match," Vivian's real downfall started when she let a man talk her into running off with him with her child in tow. In the end she was ready to sacrifice her life, in atonement for what she had done as well as to save him.
|
|