Mar 231961
 
one reel

Recent divorcée Roslyn Taber (Marilyn Monroe) and her divorce-enabling friend Isabelle Steers (Thelma Ritter) run into Gay Langland (Clark Gable), an aging and bitterly nostalgic he-man cowboy, and Guido (Eli Wallach), a lost widower. The men immediately start competing for her. Though neither of them exhibit any qualities she’s interested in, she moves in to Guido’s empty house with Gay. After numerous nights of drinking, they head to a rodeo, picking up Perce Howland (Montgomery Clift), a brain-damaged and alcoholic rodeo rider, along the way. The three men decide to work together on a scheme to capture wild mustangs and sell them for dog food. Since Roslyn has a strong dislike of murdering animals, and dying in general, their plan is not going to go over well with her.

Gable was drinking and smoking himself to death. John Huston was seeking death through all manner of vices, though the most visible during production was booze and gambling, And they were amateurs next to Clift and Monroe where depression, drugs, and alcohol had them already sliding into the grave. But the old men had a head start, so it was Gable who died first, less than two weeks after finishing the production. Monroe would follow in a year and a half without finishing another picture. Clift lasted five years when what Robert Lewis called the “longest suicide in history” finally took him out at age 45. Somehow Huston outlived them all, though as a sickly man filled with thoughts of mortality.

And I shouldn’t leave out screenwriter Arthur Miller. Death wasn’t calling to him, but he was immersed in anger (perhaps petty) as his marriage to Monroe fell apart. He had started writing the script for her, but changed it along the way to be an attack on her.

This isn’t random trivia about the making of The Misfits. This is the movie. It’s anger and loss and death. There are no characters, but simply actors acting as themselves. And the many messages are what those actors, and more, the writer and director, would rant about before passing out.

Gable realized he’d made few good movies in his career and put in few good performances (points for self knowledge) and thought this was his chance to act. But acting was never a skill he processed. His character comes off as exactly what Gable was: a fading star who’d survived on equally fading charisma, who was in poor health and looked older than he was. (Gable was in his late ‘50s, looked like he was in his late ‘60s, and was supposed to be playing a guy in his mid ‘40s). Monroe came in with hope and fear and ended with a better understanding of the film than Gable. She hated it and her performance, though she’s by far the best of the three top-billed cast members. Of course she also hated that Miller was plastering both her personal life, and his prejudiced view of her across the screen. Clift doesn’t act. He’d long lost the ability to even try to do that. Pain and pills, a broken face, and desperation was all he had, and that’s what he displayed. He didn’t play a character, just his very sad self.

Well, at least both Monroe’s and Clift’s deteriorated mental states fit the picture. And as kindred souls, they were also the only ones that unreservedly got along. Their scenes together are the best in the film, not because they show the characters, but because they record two real broken people trying to support each other, but with no illusions that things will work out.

Wallach and Ritter do their job as the only people involved who were coherent and functional.

I don’t know what happened on that set, but there are plenty of stories to choose from. Everyone bends the truth and sees with their own eyes. So, was Monroe hospitalized due to her excessive drug use and spiraling anxiety, or was it a ploy by Huston to give himself time to deal with the exorbitant gambling debts he’d built up? Was Gable a calm gentleman who was patient with both Monroe’s and Huston’s delaying shooting on a daily basis, or did that drive him into a frenzy that partly led to his heart attack? And did Gable respect and work well with Clift, or was the threat he was heard to make toward Clift more indicative of his feelings? Was Monroe happy to work with her old friend Wallach or was she trying to get his scenes cut so he wouldn’t upstage her? Did Gable and Wallach enjoy playful banter or were they constantly picking at each other? Did Gable and Huston compete to see who had the most testosterone, or… There’s no “or” on that one; they were in a playground competition. What is certain is that behind the scenes it was a mess, and that mess is splattered all over the film stock.

Damn, it’s surprising the result isn’t worse.

It’s not that The Misfits is a bad film as much as it isn’t a film at all. It’s just broken people displaying their failings. The plot doesn’t make much sense, nor do the characters, nor does much of anything, if taken as a movie. As the document of deteriorating lives, it is successful.

Without wildly changing the whole story (something that wasn’t going to happen since Gable had final call on the script and he liked it as it was), the film was in bad shape even before the morbid cast was assembled. Miller wrote it as if for the stage, not the screen, and outside of the two scenes with horses, it could be transformed into a play changing almost nothing. The stilted lines are only occasionally part of conversations. Instead, each character caries out monologues, stating, over and over, their philosophies of life. Don’t look for subtlety. You want to know Gay’s thoughts on freedom or Guido’s on marriage or Roslyn’s on morality? Have no fear, each will have at least two speeches covering those topics. Strangely, with all that philosophizing, it all comes to nothing, or maybe not so surprising. The mustang roundup isn’t half bad if they’d just turned down the symbolism five or six notches and not have multiple characters explaining the message as if it wasn’t abundantly clear. The unearned ending muddies the waters even more. The studio and Huston wanted to do some needed reshoots when they saw what they had, but Gable said “no” and his contract backed him up.

Every character is annoying in some way, but then hanging with sick, lost people often is aggravating. And sick lost people saying the lines of an angry man is a rough way to spend two hours. For portions of the story (I assume written when Miller was still seeing Monroe as his goddess), Roslyn is a manic pixie dream girl, before that was a thing. She dances and hugs trees and brings life to those who see her, all in a way no real human would. I tend to think the film would have been better if it had swerved into this mode full time; at least the constant pontificating on life would have fit. But then she shifts to insecure, nagging, and neurotic. She’s easier to take than Gay, who whines and whines about manliness. “The rules had changed,” he must say a dozen times, and he just wants to be a he-man cowboy. Was this important to Miller? I don’t know, but it was important to Huston (and to some extent to Gable) who did see himself as a manly-man in a world where rules were stopping him from conquering the wilderness. I’ve heard people say they dislike Guido the most because he gets angry when the others don’t. I’ve also heard Guido most reflects Miller’s mental state. I can’t say. Eli Wallach is only acting, unlike his co-stars, but he’s full on method acting, so perhaps he’s too deep into his character as well.

Monroe is luminous, because she was luminous. Clift comes off as kind and noble, and also mangled and mentally damaged, because he was. The rest is best not to dwell on. There’s no narrative film here to watch, just a jumble or real world fears and a premonition of death. But that’s interesting in a different way. If you wish to study the decline and death of actual people, The Misfits is helpful source material.

Feb 191961
 
five reels

Author Paul Varjak (George Peppard) stumbles into the life of flamboyant escort Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn). Though kept by a wealthy, married woman (Patricia Neal), he falls for Holly and tries to win her affections. But Holly, who is intoxicating to all, is scared of anything that might tie her down, and spends her time searching for a rich sugar daddy, though what she needs is something to make life feel worthwhile, something metaphorically like Tiffany’s.

Audrey Hepburn is Breakfast at Tiffany’s. She dominates every scene she’s in, and the few she isn’t in only work due to anticipation of her return. And she’s amazing. I can’t look away from her. There’s many other aspects of the film that are top notch: the script—filled with witty neo-realistic dialog, the score by Henry Mancini, the cinematography, the art direction which is a love-letter to New York City, smart editing, and excellent supporting performances by Buddy Ebsen, Martin Balsam, and Patricia Neal, but it’s all about Hepburn. The image of her in that Givenchy black dress and long gloves is iconic.

Hepburn made Holly Golightly. Truman Capote created the character for his novel, but his version was a rough, crass woman, whose charm was always a fake. Hepburn’s Holly was still deeply troubled, but her elegance, while learned, were part of her. She wasn’t pretending to be alluring and glamorous; that was now her nature. She’s foolish and sometimes cruel, but bewitching. Partly that’s because that fit Hepburn, but more because it is what Hepburn wanted. Producers Martin Jurow & Richard Shepherd, screenwriter George Axelrod, and later director Blake Edwards shaped Holly to Hepburn, and then she did the rest. The result is one of the great screen characters. Some (particularly Capote) complain that they changed the ending from the novel, but they had to. The novel’s ending was built around the novel’s Holly, and the film’s Holly was a very different creature, with a very different fate.

I often see Breakfast at Tiffany’s labeled a romantic comedy, which it isn’t. It’s only partially a romance, and while it has comedic moments, it’s not a comedy. I can’t think of another film where the word “bittersweet” fits better. Our portal character may be Paul, but the film isn’t about him. It’s a drama about a girl finding a direction.

George Peppard’s performance has been criticized as bland, but I don’t see that as a flaw. Paul has to be plain and earthly, as a counter weight to the fireworks that is Holly. Peppard pushed to tone down the character’s vulnerability, making him more of a he-man (a kept he-man) and in doing so, also reduced his own appeal. No doubt his intention wasn’t to shine even more of a light on Hepburn/Holly, but that’s what he did, and it works.

But there is one flaw with the film, the horrible Asian stereotype played in yellow-face by Mickey Rooney (Edwards said he’d give anything to be able to recast the role). Besides being racist, the character doesn’t fit the rest of the film, doing slapstick pratfalls, and is never funny. It isn’t a fatal flaw mainly because of how little he’s in the film—only a few minutes. An easy edit could remove 90% of him without effecting anything (and should be done). A clever one could eliminate him altogether.

Ignoring Rooney (and I do my best to), Breakfast At Tiffany’s is a masterpiece. It’s emotional, thoughtful, and gorgeous, and elevated Hepburn from a good leading lady to one of cinema’s greatest stars.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:
Nov 101960
 
four reels

Töre (Max von Sydow) is a pious man and master of a medieval farm. His wife Märeta delves into the fanatical, burning herself so she can feel Christ’s pain, but she dotes on their teenage daughter Karin (Birgitta Pettersson). The spoiled Karin is generally good natured, but thinks mainly of herself, and uses her beauty and charm to get what she wants from her parents as well as the local men. This has brought their pregnant and wild servant Ingeri to a boiling rage of jealousy. Karin, along with Ingeri, are sent on a journey through the woods to deliver candles to the church. What follows is rape, murder, more murder, and the intersession of two gods.

Based upon a folk ballad, The Virgin Spring is an art film, made by the ultimate art house director, Ingmar Bergman. Its legacy is the rape-&-revenge horror subgenre. Wes Craven updated it for The Last House on the Left, and several hundred films copied its barest outline, though none come close to it in quality. Is it a horror film? It was considered shocking when released, though considerably less so now. While its category is uncertain, much else about it is very clear: It is meticulously made, gorgeously shot, brilliantly edited, and perfectly acted. It is one of Bergman’s finest films, a simple story with a great deal to say.

Made to cash in on the success of The Seventh Seal, which also starred von Sydow, took place in the middle ages, and dealt with questions of religion, death, and meaning in life, The Virgin Spring is a calmer film. The Seventh Seal is filled with Bergman’s anger at finding no meaning in life supplied by a god. This film has that same message, but with greater acceptance. Some have focused on the film’s religious dichotomy, of Christianity vs. Paganism, with cruelty coming from the latter. But Bergman was an atheist by the time he made The Virgin Spring and was in no mood to celebrate Jesus. I guess you can’t make a film simple enough for some people. Our characters pray, but praying does no good. There’s no protection from God, nor from older gods. Good deeds do not lead toward good lives and bad ones are not necessarily punished. There’s no great meaning out there, no vast moral truth, and God has no plans for us, so it doesn’t matter if He exists or not. Things happen. Good things and bad things, and all we can do is muddle through, putting whatever significance makes us feel best to these events. Faith is a way of ordering our lives, perhaps a necessary way, but it is just something we make up.

And it’s in this theme that The Virgin Spring rises above its rape-&-revenge kindred. After the violation in those films, the revenge gives the viewer satisfaction, even when saying that the vengeance is wrong or self-destructive. But there’s no satisfaction in revenge here. Nor it is condemned. It is something that happens, something very human, and something with only the meaning we wish to give it.

After The Virgin Spring, Bergman moved away from period pieces and ethics, instead making meandering, modern, psychologically introspective films. For me, they never had the same power.

Oct 101960
 
four reels

In the small village of Midwich, every person  collapses, unconscious, for four hours.  Later, it’s found that every fertile woman in town became pregnant in those lost hours.  All give birth simultaneously to blond-haired babies with strange eyes.  As the children develop mental powers,   Gordon Zellaby (George Sanders), a scientist whose wife, Anthea (Barbara Shelley), bore one of them, argues that they must be taught to develop human morals while the military maintains they should be destroyed, while it is still possible.

Invasion films of the ’50s (and early ’60s) are not known for their impressive casts.  Most of the time you had wooden, incompetent C-actors.  In a few cases, the performers were competent.  Village of the Damned is the only case of a real A-talent, and it shows that actors are every bit as important as scripts and directors.  Luckily, the script and direction are good as well, but George Sanders elevates the project.  Happily, none of the other actors fall into the C category.

The movie is at its best in the first half, where the mystery of what has happened to the women is frightening to everyone.  It’s emotional as the virgin and the woman whose husband has been away for a year try to cope with their unexplained pregnancies.  The virgin birth concept was too much for the Catholic Legion of Decency, which caused MGM to delay the film and then move production to England.  It was handy that there were no fertile twelve or thirteen year-old girls in Midwich, but that would have been too much for British censors as well as American ones.

The picture plays back and forth between Zellaby as an overly analytical scientist trying to solve the mystery, and Zellaby as a concerned husband and man who is growing too old to have children.  His wife’s pregnancy was a miracle, but he thought just a metaphorical one.  He soon realizes that it’s an actual miracle, and the closest he’ll come to a child of his own is to teach this alien baby what he knows.

The second half of the movie gives us the creepy children who all look alike.  They’ve become cultural icons, and while the film becomes a bit muddled, it’s still fun.

Village of the Damned is another take on an Invasion of the Body Snatchers-type paranoia movie.  But this one doesn’t bring up images of communist cells all around us.  Yes, the attack is still from within, but from our children, presenting a metaphor for the generation gap, which was growing wider as the ’50s came to a close.  There’s also a Nazi undercurrent, with the blond kids the first step in the creation of a master race.  With several interpretations that avoid the whole McCarthy/Communist frenzy, Village of the Damned is an easier film to stomach than many of its contemporaries.

I do have questions about Zellaby’s scientific credentials.  At first he appears to be a physicist, but he studies plants and works with the doctor on the women’s pregnancies.  He’s also an agent of the military (they say he’s one of them at the beginning), has access to explosives, lives in a manor house, and is invited to high governmental meetings.  Yet not one word is said about what kind of scientist he is.

Village of the Damned is a transitional film.  The paranoid and simplistic cold war alien pictures were fading out.  Horror was headed toward psychological thrillers and demonic movies while science fiction was dispersing, no longer clinging to a single unifying theme.  Village of the Damned had “evil” children, a rarity before 1960, but much more common after.  As no explanation is ever given for their creation (the scientists assume aliens are involved), they could as easily have been the Devil’s spawn, which leads to Rosemary’s Baby six years later.

It was followed by Children of the Damned, and poorly remade as Village of the Damned (1995).

 Aliens, Reviews Tagged with:
Oct 091960
 
four reels

Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a young, unhappy woman, steals $40,000 and leaves her old life behind, hoping the money can solve her boyfriend’s (John Gavin) financial problems, and maybe give her a future. During a storm, she stops at The Bates Motel, run by Norman (Anthony Perkins) for his invalid mother. Soon, Marion’s sister, Lila (Vera Miles), and Detective Milton Arbogast (Martin Balsam) are looking for her.

If you haven’t seen Psycho and somehow managed to avoid its story and missed the many parodies of its key scenes, then find a copy and watch it now.  You won’t be able to keep that virginity and live in our society for long.  Watching Psycho without knowing its surprises is a thrill.  While it is a good movie any way you see it, it loses much of its impact if you know what’s coming.

What is coming? The first Slasher which also contained mystery, stylish frights, and music that replaces sound effects in a way that no one else has ever managed. It has the artistry and skill of the finest suspense director and one of the best director’s of any kind, Alfred Hitchcock. Janet Leigh gave layers to what could appear to be a straight forward part. You could see her doubt, her longing, and her fear in every frame. And, of course, she is gorgeous. Perkin is even better. This is a performance that ranks with the best put on film and more Slasher directors need to study it to see what their insignificant films are lacking.

Not all the acting is superb (even Hitchcock was unimpressed with John Gavin as the boyfriend) and the psychologist’s end speech goes on far too long, but those are minor problems in a film that changed horror.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Oct 051960
 
one reel

Robin Hood (Richard Greene) and his gang, who loiter in Sherwood Forest, find a dying man escaping from the Sheriff’s guards.  He holds a clue to an evil conspiracy and The Sheriff of Nottingham (Peter Cushing) will do anything to keep it a secret.  Well, for awhile he will.  Then he goes off to do other things while Robin shoots at targets for fifteen minutes.  Eventually, Robin and some other characters the viewer will hardly know must make a stand against some traitorous nobles, most of whom have had little screen time till then.  Yeah, that’s the way to raise tension.

Richard Greene had a successful run as Robin on a British TV series, so Hammer Films, generally known for horror, put him into a big screen treatment and filled out the cast with Hammer regulars. The result might have been acceptable as a 45 minute episode of an ongoing show seen on a twelve inch black & white screen with occasional breaks to advertise Ovaltine, but it makes for a sad feature.  A few commercials for chocolaty beverages might be what’s missing.  It also might be talent, excitement, and a plot.

Greene plays Robin Hood as a guy from 1959 who wandered in off the street and put on a pair of tights. The standard ’50s haircut doesn’t help, nor does his absence of charisma.  But it is unfair to blame this drab little picture on him. He’s given nothing to work with.  I would be shocked to learn that the script was finished before shooting began.  The movie starts with a story about a secret held by a fatally wounded mystery man, and then drops that in favor of Robin proving his archery skill to a noble he randomly runs into.  It’s handy that the noble happens to be an important figure in the third act.

Sword of Sherwood Forest may be the only Robin Hood movie where Robin is irrelevant. A quick re-write could have removed him from the film. The conflict is between a group of nobles and the Chancellor of England (who fences so Robin isn’t needed to do the required swashing and buckling).  The Sheriff of Nottingham isn’t even after Robin.  As for all that helping the poor stuff—scrap it.  This Robin doesn’t seem to know anyone outside of the forest. Maid Marian spends her time trying to help the poor widow of a merry man, but that’s all the philanthropy on display.

You may find some entertainment in Oliver Reed’s portrayal of a stereotypically flaming henchman.  Or you might be offended by it.  Either way, it’s the only thing you’ll remember from this long eighty minute excursion into ineptitude.

Other Robin Hood Swashbucklers I’ve reviewed: The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Bandit of Sherwood Forest (1946), Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950), Robin and Marian (1976), Robin Hood (1991), and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991).

Back to Swashbucklers

 Reviews, Swashbucklers Tagged with:
Oct 041960
 
one reel

Shy and  fashion-challenged Mabel (Kristy McNichol) accompanies her bathing-beauty friends to a beach-side pirate extravaganza where she’s hit on by a sword-swinging performer (Christopher Atkins).  Several mishaps leave her unconscious on a beach, dreaming of being a hot babe in the 1800s and of the performer being Frederic, a member of a pirate crew.  The dream, which is 95% of the film, follows far too loosely, the plot of The Pirates of Pinzanse, including musical numbers.  It also adds a plethitude of teen ballads that are as far from Gilbert and Sulivan as you are likely to find, but I digress.  Young Frederic has just turned 21, thus finishing his apprenticeship with the pirates and allowing him to honorably leave them to become a pirate hunter.  Somewhat affronted by his plans, The Pirate King (Ted Hamilton), tosses him overboard, but Frederic easily finds his way to shore and encounters sexy Mabel.  To win her, he must overcome her major-general father’s objections, the tradition that the youngest sister marry last, and the Pirate King.  Luckily, Mabel has a lot more on the ball than Frederic.

Just as when I first saw The Pirate Movie two decades ago, on my recent viewing, I was ready to hate this ’80s pop updating of The Pirates of Pinzanse.   And, just like so long ago, I was surprised at how good it was…and then surprised at how it steadily became more and more insipid until I did hate it.

An updating of the Gilbert & Sullivan classic had promise.  The Pirates of Penzance is a broad comic opera.  Worrying about keeping a production pure misses the point.  Anyway to get a laugh is good, as the original work often points out.  The Pirate Movie starts as if the writer and director understand that.  The addition of numerous double-entendres work exceptionally well, and even changing the occasional lyric of the classics I am a pirate king! and I am the very model of a modern Major-General by inserting topical references turns out to be inspired.  The jokes are rapid fire and could come from a stand up routine:

“pirates used to operate around here, raping and pillaging.”
“Gosh, I’d hate to be pillaged.”

Things are really on the right track with Ted Hamilton as the Pirate King.  He is flamboyant enough for any true Swashbuckler, adding in a sure touch with broad comedy.  Equally good is Kristy McNichol.  She gained popularity amongst the teen crowd with overly serious portraits of tomboys and was ready to show her sexy side.  Yes, she was certainly ready.  Anyone growing up in the ’70s and ’80s would have found the phrase “Kristy McNichol is hot” nearly incomprehensible, but she certainly is.  She’s also a fine comedian.  Add to those cast members attractive sets and reasonable action and The Pirate Movie gives every indication of being a winner.  Oh well.

So where do things fall apart?  The initial failing is visible from the start: Christopher Atkins.  Atkins is in full, boy-toy, tween, sex symbol mode.  He runs around without a shirt and occasionally in a loin cloth, and if you predilections run toward very white boys with afros, then he looks pretty good.  Unfortunately, his acting chops don’t match his appearance (think how scary that is if you’re not excited by his pecks).  Not only can’t he create a believable character, he has no comic timing.  Lines that should be hilarious lie like last week’s fish.

Then there are the added songs.  The first anemic pop number can be taken as a parody, but the banal things just keep coming: horrible ’80s kid-rock followed by horrible ’80s kid-rock.  And no, your children aren’t going to like them either.  Each song is worse than the last, or maybe it’s the cumulative effect.  Whatever the case, by the end, I wanted to strangle the song-writer (composer is far to dignified a title).

Perhaps screenwriter Trevor Farrant heard those songs before he had finished his work.  It would explain why he gave up.  The story doesn’t end, just fades away.  There’s no wrap up for the characters, only a pizza pie fight and an acknowledgment that it’s all a dream.  The humor slips as well, going from witty to asinine, including a “spoof” of Inspector Clouseau which elevates Steve Martin’s rendition to Oscar-worthy by comparison.

What irritates me isn’t that this is a bad film.  There are many bad films.  But rather, that it had the potential to be such a good one and fell so short.

Back to Swashbucklers

 Reviews, Swashbucklers Tagged with:
Oct 041960
 
one reel

During the final voyage of the liner Claridon, a boiler explosion rips a hole in its hull.  While Captain Robert Adams (George Sanders) and Engineer Walsh (Edmond O’Brien) first attempt to keep the ship afloat, and then get the passengers to safety, Cliff Henderson  (Robert Stack) struggles to save his trapped wife (Dorothy Malone).

All the tropes of the ’70s disaster flick are in place in The Last Voyage, a lackluster production which exists only to show how well constructed those later films were—something that is easy to miss without the contrast.  With far too many static shots of two-person conversations and crewmen running up and down stairs, the movie is surprisingly drab.  It ought to be able to drum up some excitement considering the multiple explosions, fires, and of course, the rushing water, but it doesn’t.

The Last Voyage appears to be an action picture, but is really a melodrama, with all the over-acting that implies (yes, by comparison, the people in The Towering Inferno are subtle).  Instead of action, the story focuses on the conversations of the crew and the angst of a man and his wife.

Robert Stack (best known as Eliot Ness on TV’s The Untouchables) is the straight-laced, all-American husband, which is unfortunate as he’s much better in tough-guy roles.  As he protectively holds his daughter, his expression and body language implies he wants to dash her to the ground, pull out some revolvers, and begin taking out anyone in his way.  He just doesn’t have the suburban vibe.  But then, if I had a daughter as annoying as his, I’d likely toss her into the nearest large fiery hole.  And he’s got to be tense, being married to a woman who only knows defeat.  I understand her giving up (eventually), and even wanting to sacrifice herself so that her husband and kid will leave her and get to safety, but that’s all she does.  Her first thought is, “Leave me here to die,” and that’s all she says for the next hour.  Even if you sympathize with her, she doesn’t make for electrifying viewing.

It’s not a complete wash.  The real liner S.S. Ile de France was used, and partly sunk, giving the movie a realistic feeling.  And there’s a proper sense of doom in the slowly flooding engine room.  But anything good is countered by the predictability of the story (you always know what’s going to happen as it will be the opposite of whatever the captain is sayings), and a pretentious and pointless narration, that pops in randomly to tell us the ship is sinking in the most overblown language.

If you feel the need to watch a ship sink, try The Poseidon Adventure.

Other reviews of films featuring George Sanders: The Son of Monte Cristo (1940), The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945), The King’s Thief (1955), Village of the Damned (1960).

Oct 021960
 
three reels

After burning down their school, the girls of St. Trinian’s are turned over to a “modern educator” (Cecil Parker) who is really being paid to kidnap the sixth form girls.  It is up to Flash Harry (George Cole), police Sergeant Ruby Gates (Joyce Grenfell), and the entire fourth form, to rescue them.

This third St. Trinian’s outing continues in the direction of the second, Blue Murder at St. Trinian’s. There is no real lead, and not much cohesion. Instead, it’s a series of vignettes loosely held together by the thinnest of plots. The girls are barely in the film and for the most part, can’t be told apart. The sexy sixth form girls, played by actresses far too old to be in boarding school, exist to be ogled. The fourth form girls are a force of destruction, and most of their onscreen time is spent with them yelling while they attack.

Joyce Grenfell reprises her roll as the enthusiastic and naive policewoman, and her routine is still funny, but there is nothing I hadn’t seen in the two previous outings. More time is spent on her romance with her uninterested boss, Sammy (Lloyd Lamble). Once again, she has a scoundrel acting as a second suitor, this time in the form of veteran Post-War British Comedy actor, Cecil Parker (The Man in the White Suit, The Ladykillers). Parker is a wonderful addition to the cast, and equals Terry-Thomas’s cad seducer from Blue Murder, although I would have preferred an original plot point.

George Cole is also back as the greasy, smalltime crook, Flash Harry, and is still funny, but a little Flash is all that is necessary. In both this and Blue Murder, less Flash would have been more.

By this point in the series, the originality was gone. And for a film that bases its comedy on playing with the concept of a girls’ boarding school, almost no time is spent in one. Still, there’s a lot of fun to be had in the devious schoolgirls and the helpless authority figures that have to deal with them. Plus, the sixth form’s striptease version of Hamlet should be the standard for performances of that play.

The other films in the series are The Belles of St. Trinian’s (1954), Blue Murder at St. Trinian’s (1957), The Great St. Trinian’s Train Robbery (1966), and The Wildcats of St. Trinian’s (1980).

 

Sep 291960
 
five reels

Aging Dame Beatrice Appleby (Athene Seyler), and her lodgers, a washed-up military officer (Terry-Thomas), a very butch etiquette instructor (Hattie Jacques), and a nervous china mender (Elspeth Duxbury), are caught in a meaningless routine until circumstances “compel” them to become fur thieves—for charity. The beautiful, ex-con housekeeper (Billie Whitelaw), the only one who knows anything about crime, is kept in the dark, as the misfits carryout a series of daring capers.

One of the best of the later Post-War British Comedies, Make Mine Mink takes the often used tactic of tossing a group of eccentric characters into a situation where they have to work together. Many films in the movement did the same thing, but few did it as well. While the predicaments the gang of thieves get themselves mixed up in are clever, it is the characters and inspired casting that makes the film sing.

Terry-Thomas, known for his stereotypical English, upper-class twit roles, was a wonderful comedian who was generally wasted, getting minimal screen time as the comical heavy or silly man-at-the-bar. However, as Major Rayne, ex-commander of a mobile bath unit, he’s front and center and shifts easily from slapstick, to quiet wit with ease. It is the best role of his career. It helps that he has Hattie Jacques as his main foil and companion.  In Britain, she was famous for a string of Carry On films, though she is nearly unknown in the U.S. Jacques is one of those actresses that makes me laugh no matter what she does.

But this isn’t just a Thomas-Jacques vehicle, but an ensemble picture where everyone has their moment and everyone excels.  It would be easy to lose the relatively normal character of the housekeeper (well, not so easy considering Whitelaw’s beauty), but she holds her own.  She is our introduction to the strange household and the anchor that keeps the film from drifting into absurdity.

Make Mine Mink is another of the movement films that celebrates the quirky and unconventional, but unlike the bulk of the pictures made at Ealing Studios, it shies away from the sentimental climax in favor of laughs.

Sep 101960
 
three reels

Gladiatorial-trainee slave Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) inadvertently kicks off a slave rebellion when Varinia (Jean Simmons), the girl he’s fallen for, is sold to a Roman senator. Spartacus leads a growing army that eventually includes Cixus (John Ireland), David (Harold J. Stone), Antoninus (Tony Curtis) and an escaped Varinia. Their goal is to reach the coast where they will take ships to freedom. Meanwhile in Rome, high born Crassus (Laurence Olivier) and his protégé Glabrus (John Dall) vie for power with populist Gracchus (Charles Laughton) and his protégé Julius Caesar (John Gavin), both using the slave rebellion as a lever. All the while slave trader Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) bounces around trying to find the best deal for himself.

It feels a bit strange slipping Spartacus next to other “not-so-great” films because parts of it are brilliant. And it’s seldom bad. But it’s inconsistent, stuffing together variations in style and quality that reduce the whole. Those mediocre moments, that would be fine in another film, look ridiculous when spliced with the genius work.

This is also a film whose cultural significance often gets it a pass on its flaws. The Hollywood Blacklist was already unraveling, but Spartacus tore it apart. The novel that the film is based on was written by Howard Fast while he was in prison, serving a sentence for Contempt of Congress for refusing to name names to the House Un-American Activities Committee. He had to self-publish the book as no one would touch it. But Douglas wanted to play Spartacus, so the rights were acquired. Blacklisted and communistic Dalton Trumbo wrote the screenplay, and unlike his works of the previous decade, was given screen credit. Right-wing groups protested at theaters, but when John F. Kennedy walked though the picketers, the Blacklist was over. Why Trumbo got that credit is unclear. It may have been for altruistic reasons, or due to fighting between star/producer Douglas, director Stanley Kubrick, and Trumbo. Whatever the case, the result is what mattered.

Though the clashes between the filmmakers may not have mattered with regard to cultural significance, they do matter for the coherence of the film. Besides general personality differences, and a schoolyard desire to be top dog, Douglas and Trumbo clashed over the theme. Douglas wanted a parable about the Jews. Trumbo’s plan was to examine communism, the cold war, and McCarthyism. Those things do not fit together easily. They do all lead to a lot of heavy-handed speeches, which Kubrick disliked. He found most of the dialog given to Spartacus false and annoying. He was right; it is. He also thought Spartacus was a poorly developed character, lacking in human frailty, but Kubrick wasn’t allowed to change things. He disowned the film, and made sure he was never in this situation again.

None of that is the starting point for even a passable film, but a few smart casting choices set things off on the right foot. Laurence Olivier, Charles Laughton, and Peter Ustinov are all wonderful. Laughton and Ustinov imbue their characters with humor and a degree of likability (tricky in the case of the slave trader). Everything they do and say is engaging. And Olivier is better, giving the finest performance of his career. It is hardly coincidental that Ustinov and Laughton have the best lines in the film as they re-wrote their dialog. Olivier also rewrote his lines, though it is unknown how much made it into the final cut. It helps that their sections of the film, mainly the politics in Rome, is smart and makes the audience feel a part of the deals and betrayals. If this had been the whole film, with only references to the Spartacus, it would have been the best film of the year and one of the true greats.

So what pulls it down? What doesn’t fit? The problems start with a horrible narration that implies Christianity wiped out slavery, though it took 2000 years to do so. It also gives us a few lies about Spartacus (no, the actual man was not born a slave) before thankfully vanishing from the film. (I mentioned that Spartacus is rarely bad—this is one of the times.)

Then there is the casting of the slaves, particularly Douglas himself. Olivier, Laughton, and Ustinov give their characters a reality and seem to inhabit this faux-Roman universe. Douglas, on the other hand, always had a hard time playing anyone other than Douglas, and here it’s particularly noticeable. With a strong director—or when his own power was weak—Douglas could do the job, as in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers. In Spartacus, Douglas had power, both as star and producer, firing the first director and hamstringing Kubrick. So Douglas appears not as a slave in a Hollywood Roman Empire, but rather as a modern guy from New York goofing around in play-armor. Nowhere in the film does he ever fit the part of a gladiator in 73 BC. That isn’t bad on it’s own (though it certainly isn’t good). The ‘50s and ‘60s are jammed with period pieces led by actors who felt like ‘50 and ‘60s era Americans (check out Kerwin Mathews in The 7th Voyage of Sinbad). But sticking Douglas next to Ustinov, Laughton, and Olivier and that inability is highlighted. Many of the other actors playing slaves do little better. Harold Stone comes off as a gangster. And Tony Curtis as… Tony Curtis.

The result is, once the slaves escape, none of their scenes work—with the exception of battle scenes where the camera has pulled back. Even the famous “I am Spartacus” scene feels silly, that is, until the focus is switched to Crassus. His understanding of what is happening, his fear (which Olivier captures perfectly), makes it something memorable.

And even a few Romans seem odd. Very American and questionable actor John Gavin seems to be in a different movie than Laughton, yet they share most of their scenes. He’s not great when he keeps his mouth shut. When he speaks, it pulled me completely out of the picture.

Originally the casting was supposed to tie into the themes, with proper Brits playing the Romans and less restrained Americans as the slaves, but that fell apart when some original casting choices fell through and proper Brit Jean Simmons joined the film. It doesn’t look like it would have worked if they’d managed to actually do it.

Like the acting, the cinematography is inconsistent, though here I’d never say it was bad, but simply the parts don’t work when connected. When we approach a battle (and it is pretty much always approaching as there’s only a few minutes of actual combat) or travel over long roads and hilly countryside’s, we get vivid, bright, realistic shots, using a healthy bit of real light. It looks epic. Any other time, we are clearly on a sound stage with artificial lighting, artificial buildings, and artificial landscaping. It couldn’t look more fake. There’s a scene where a couple is burying their child where there is no possible in-world source for the light. Fake scenery can work. The Ten Commandments always looks great and never looks real. The problem is the combination.

Composer Alex North’s score is reasonably good on its own, but not so much in the film. Its use is crude and obvious, and is likely to instigate a few giggles now. Sometimes it just doesn’t fit with a scene. At others, it overwhelms. Since there’s no hummable theme we’re suppose to pick up, the music needed to be turned down several notches, and given a touch of subtlety.

The result of all of this is an enjoyable. gem-filled, schizophrenic mess. I can’t even say it had potential to be more as it was doomed from the start. It certainly should not have won an Oscar for cinematography, nor been nominated for editing and score. However the win for Peter Ustinov is reasonable, though I’d have given it to Olivier, and with my Foscars, I do.

Aug 121960
 
two reels

Graduate student Shirô is a passenger in a car driven by his wild and apparently supernatural “friend” Tamura when it hits and kills a local thug. Tamura doesn’t care but Shirô gets very upset. Eventually Shirô decides to turn himself in to the police, but the taxi crashes on route (most likely due to Tamura’s influence), killing Yukiko, his fiancée. This drives her mother insane. Shirô is later picked up by an addict who happens to have been the victim’s girl friend. She and the victim’s mother plan to get revenge, but Shirô leaves town at that point to visit his dying mother. Shirô’s father runs a horrible old-folks home and keeps a mistress in the house. The doctor lets people die, the policeman is carrying out blackmail, and except for one woman who is the spitting image of Yukiko, everyone in town is terrible. And it would be a spoiler except it is the entire point: Everyone dies, most in improbable ways, and goes to Hell.

Jigoku is an odd picture—an art house horror flick where the small budget from a dying studio is as responsible for the look as any creative desires. The first two thirds are grim, slow, and spartan. There’s very little light and the sets look like sets. While cost is obviously the reason, one can attempt to explain away the problems by claiming we’re already in Hell, just an outer circle where sins are remembered. That or just shrug and figure they ran out of money.

The final third—in Hell—looks a lot more interesting, though it is just as austere. With strange angles, colored filters, and a lot of gore, the afterlife is an imaginative dream world. And it is that look, the blood, and the screams that made Jigoku a cult hit. Many in Japan think of it as the beginning of modern J-horror, something that is a bit hard to fathom when watching.

Though Jigoku has an interesting aesthetic in its final section, over all there’s not much there. The plot doesn’t hold together, which isn’t a problem in a film which is essentially just some sins and some torture, but then it needs something in its place. Theme doesn’t do the trick as while Jigoku presents sin and guilt, it doesn’t have anything to say about them. The characters are one note sinners, except for Shirô who is too passive to be of any interest. Which leaves you with the film’s selling point: shock. For 1960 Japan, this was considered very edgy, with bodies being sawn in half and people being “flayed.” But it isn’t shocking now. Jigoku is worth a quick look for the tableaus of Hell, but nothing more.

 Asian, Foreign Language Tagged with: