Movie review - "Son of Dracula" (1943) ***

Actually not the son but the man himself, whose moved to America to start a new life. Although Bela Lugosi was still around Universal decided to cast Lon Chaney Jnr, who they were building as a star - although Chaney was a brilliant wolfman and an OK Frankenstein's monster he's a very poor Dracula, this chubby mid-Westerner looking ill at ease as a suave European.

That's a shame since this film as so much else going for it: vampires totally fit in with the "world" of the American south where most of the action takes place (swamps, black servants, plantations, bayous, rich old men in wheelchairs), the central story is a good idea (Louise Allbritton wants to marry Dracula so he'll turn her into a vampire and can spend all eternity with her real boyfriend, Robert Paige), there's a great scene where Paige shoots at Dracula but the bullets go through him and his his fiancee, the Robert Paige character is pretty much emotionally destroyed by all the stuff he goes through in the film, Frank Craven and J Edgar Bromberg offer good character support.

Movie review - "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman" (1942) ***1/2

The first of Universal's sequels to combine the monsters takes the two most logical: Lon Chaney Jnr is revived from his tomb and goes looking for a doctor who might be able to solve his problem, namely Dr Frankenstein - which, you know, I totally buy - and would make rich fodder for a television series: all the weird monsters turning up at the Frankenstein's for medical treatment (Dracula, mummies, invisible men).

However, there is no mad Frankenstein doctor in this one - just a Baronness (I think she's meant to be Colin Clive's granddaughter and the daughter of Basil Rathbone or Cedric Hardwicke - you'd think the latter because Evelyn Ankers played that role in the previous film but Ilona Massey who plays here here has a European accent).

Massey's character is disappointingly normal - so, too, is that of charisma by-pass Patric Knowles, who plays Chaney's doctor who has enough spare money and time on his hands to follow Chaney to Transylvania. When Knowles eventually finds himself at the operating table, as all good doctors do in these films, he doesn't really get into it - you find yourself wishing that Lionel Atwill, who plays the town's mayor, had that part. And the final act is a bit of a mess.

Still, there are many delights: Roy William Neil directed and Curt Siodmark wrote the script so it is full of atmosphere, Chaney's return as the Wolf Man (he's very good, oh so tragic), ditto Maria Ouspensaka has the gypsy woman, Dennis Hoey's inspector (as if he had a free day from the Sherlock Holmes films), we see Bela Lugosi's version of the monster (not bad but OK - just like Lon Chaney Jnr's really and certainly not one to make you go "ah if only he'd played the role in 1931 - missing this role didn't stuff Lugosi's career, he got plenty of chances after, lousy script selection, his own addictions, poor agents and Universal executive's attitudes did), there's a totally random production number in the middle of the film sung by gypsies, and most of all the Monster and Wolf Man have a brawl at the finale.

Alright! Apparently the film as originally shot had Frankenstein talking in Lugosi's voice like he did at the end of Ghost but preview audiences laughed - I can understand that, what made an effective moment in the previous film might seem odd.

Movie review - "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942) ***1/2

Think that Frankenstein's Monster is an easy role to play? Just walk round with bolts on the side of yourhead and make grunts? Well, that's what Lon Chaney Jnr does with the fourth entry to the series - and he still doesn't bring what Boris Karloff did to the role. It's all in the eyes, you see, and Boris could do it whereas Lon doesn't - which surprised me, I have to admit, because he has such an expressive face in The Wolf Man. Maybe his face simply didn't "fit" with Jack Pierce's make up. Or maybe Karloff made too strong an impression. They do try - even throwing in a bunch of scenes with a cute little girl, but it never does work.

At least Bela Lugosi is back, the bullets didn't kill him, dragging the monster to see another son of Frankenstein, played by Cedric Hardwicke (Colin Clive was dead and Rathbone too busy as Sherlock Holmes - "quick, we need someone English and classy..."). I get Hardwicke mixed up at times with Lionel Atwill (useful thing: Atwill is slightly chubbier) which makes it tricky since they both play doctors who are friends in this movie and frequently wear the same white coat.

Hardwicke like most Frankensteins makes a vague attempt at being decent and not revive the monster but is influenced by another doctor, in this case Atwill, as well as Lugosi pressure. Atwill looks on to proceedings most of the time with a glint in his eye as if to say "if I were the lead I'd really cut loose" but he never does really, which is a shame, though his presence always keeps things lively (his essentially kinkiness always sneaked through the camera, somehow, did it, Atwill).

Lending class to the film is Evelyn Ankers (as Hardwicke's daughter - granddaughter of Frankenstein) and Ralph Bellamy as her prosecutor boyfriend (even in his male juvenile leads, Bellamy seems as if he's playing the Ralph Bellamy part and we're waiting for some other bloke to come and sweep Ankers off her feet).

This film gets off to a creaky start with yet another mob burning down a castle and the funny sight of Ygor and the monster just strolling into town up the main street passing ducks and a girl in pigtails (surely Ygor would have realised by now that discretion was the better part of valor), then improves with Hardwicke and Atwill come along, sogs down again, but really perks for a rousing finale, with a whole bunch of great brain transplant stuff - the Monster wants a little girls brain, Hardwicke wants to put in a scientists, Lugosi wants his in there (was ever a body so popular) - great moment when its Lugosi and a very satisfying explosive finale. The "ghost" bit comes from when Hardwick talks to the ghost of his dad, who hear is not played by Clive but Hardwicke.

Movie review - "The Wolf Man" (1941) ****

Excellent werewolf film with a top notch script from Curt Siodmark, that is beautifully structured and invented some werewolf mumbo jumbo that has since been taken as lore (esp the poem that is recited through the movie). Universal provided perhaps their best ever cast for a horror film: Lon Chaney Jnr, coming off Of Mice and Men, was being launched as a horror star and he is excellent as Larry Talbot, the kindly (if a bit lecherous and forceful when it comes to pursuing Evelyn Ankers) American who turns into the title character.

The great appeal of the story is that it is a tragedy, Chaney is a good man who gets bitten because he is brave (i.e. trying to rescue someone from a wolf attack), it's not his fault and there's nothing he can do about it - and Chaney's miserable, haunted face is perfect for the role. Claude Rains isn't believable for one second as Chaney's father, but he has class and presence to spare, and his acting is very good, and at the end very moving.

Ankers is lovely and makes a real character out of potentially a thankless role - in the looks dept she's totally out of Chaney's league but she makes her attraction to him believable (enough) (I think what's behind it is she's engaged to handsome but bland Patric Knowles and along comes this new interesting American with these haunted eyes and she likes the drama of it - even if he has the looks of, well, Lon Chaney Jnr).

Ralph Bellamy, Warren William and Knowles have little to do in their roles but offer more class; Bela Lugosi is highly effective in his one scene, and Maria Ouspensaka is the definitive creepy gypsy woman. There's not an ounce of fat on this - Chaney arrives, meets Ankers, is bitten, turns werewolf, meets a tragic end - it's beautifully done.

Well, mostly: why is Knowles cool with Chaney in one scene but friendly in the very next one? Why is Lugosi working as a fortune teller on the night of a full moon when he knows he's a werewolf? (Even if he doesn't know, his mum does). Why does Lugosi become a proper wolf but Chaney a man with makeup? And they might have been better hiding the make up instead of revealing it from the get go (it does make you laugh at times). But it looks great, is very well made and deservedly confirmed Chaney Jnr as a horror star.

Movie review - "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) ****1/2

One of the first examples of a-sequel-that-was-better-than-the-original. It takes a while to get going, being more tongue in cheek than the 1931 film, despite the fact that Boris Karloff kills two people in the first five minutes (parents of the little girl he killed in the first one, too! And they don't even do anything really making them deserve to die, they're just investigating).

It starts with a humorous sketch of Byron and the Shelleys and there are prominent "gag" characters including Una O'Connor and even Ernest Thesiger, whose Dr Pretorious (along with the Monster) is the one who really propels the action. In this sequel Clive's Frankenstein is like a recovering alcoholic, determined to stay away from bringing the dead to life with the love of a good woman (Valerie Hobson replaces Mae Clarke), but being tempted by Pretorius.

I admit it takes me a while to get into this, with its slightly camp nature to start off with and the monster being chased-captured-escaped-chased stuff getting a bit repetitive. But it gets better and better: the scene with the blind man admittedly lunges ruthlessly for the heart strings but it totally works (even if you can't shake the memory of Gene Hackman in Young Frankenstein) and the last half hour is brilliant, particularly the "raising the monster" scene, with its fabulous sets, thumping of a heart beat, rapid editing, lispy Dwight Frye offering to get a fresh heart for a hundred crowns, titled camera angles, crack of thunder, and Else Lanchester's thrillingly bizarre and strange appearance as the Bride (its a shame she never revived the character).

Although Karloff starts the film in very murderous fashion, you really feel for him even more in this one - the villagers basically crucify him, he only wants a friend and a girlfriend. Thesiger is excellent and scary; its fun to imagine at times what Belga Lugosi would have made of it - perhaps less campy, more imposing a Pretorius. But its an incredibly impressive film and deserves the revival in its reputation that has happened in recent years.

Movie review - "Dracula's Daughter" (1936) **1/2

One of the least well known of Universal's horror cycle, despite being a sequel to Dracula itself, mostly because of the lack of star power. Few films better demonstrate "undercasting" than this one, with plenty of roles for a Lugosi, Karloff, Atwill, Rains, etc - but, alas, none. The actors who play the leads are competent, just not among the faves, and it's not as much fun without the old gang.

This takes place right after the end of the 1931 film with Edward Van Sloan (who mysteriously says at the end of that film "I'll be along shortly" when David Manners and Helen Chandler leave) being arrested for the murder of Dracula, whose corpse is then stolen by his daughter (Gloria Holden). The whole concept of Dracula's daughter is a terrific one, even if it throws up a bunch of unanswered questions (eg Who was mum? If dad was 500 years old but the daughter was 100, does that mean dad was fertile all that time?).

Gloria thinks dad's death will free her from her vampiristic tendencies, and when it doesn't she goes to a shrink (Otto Kruger) to be cured, which is a terrific idea, very modern - its something you'd expect to find in a smart '80s vampire film. The said shrink has been called to London to help defend Van Helsing - he's also called in when a girl appears with vampire bites, which is one coincidence too many.

For the most point I enjoyed this quite a lot, lack of star power notwithstanding: director Lambert Hillyer may have been a hack but he keeps things moving along (certainly it's not creaky the way the original film was); Gloria Holden is effective in the title role; the basic concept of the film is a decent one; the daughter has a great creepy assistant (Irving Pichel), there is a terrific scene where said assistant picks up a girl (Nina Gray) who is about to kill herself and takes her back to the daughter's apartment "to pose" and gets her blood sucked (this scene is quite sexy and full of lesbian overtones which has caused the film to receive extra critical attention in recent years - added to this is the fact that ladyship Hedda Hopper is very excited when Holden arrives and Holden also takes a chunk out of Marguerite Churchill's neck); Marguerite Churchill is very pretty and engaging as Kruger's madcap heiress secretary/love interest; it's great to return to Transylvania and the cobweb castle at the end; the gay subtext is fascinating (Holden continually says she wants to lead "a normal life").

But its a frustrating movie to watch, too: you're constantly aware of how better it could and should have been - had, say, a more charismatic actor than Kruger been cast as the hero (he's a good actor just not a hero), or James Whale directed as was supposed to happen, or they'd used Van Helsing more (watching this you realise Edward Van Sloan is pretty much a "whatever" horror star), or they'd made the final shift to Transylvania more logical and exciting (she wants Kruger... so she abducts Churchill and takes her all the way to Transylvania?? And what happened to Van Helsing's murder charge?). While it is more polished than Dracula it lacks the first film's magic.

Movie review - Moto #2 - "Thank You, Mr Moto" (1937) ***1/2 (warning:spoilers)

Excellent entry in the series - probably the best one of them all - which has production values so strong it could be an A feature. It starts in the Gobi Desert with Moto fighting and killing and then winding up in Peking as he searches for scrolls which say where Genghis Khan's treasure is located. (I recall a Fu Manchu movie where Genghis Khan's tomb was the Maguffin - I guess it's a good one).

The action is fast, there is heaps of abundant exotica, ancient curses, a grande dame Chinese lady whose son betrays her honour, some boring romantic leads (one played the very pretty Jayne Regan, who I liked a lot more than Virgina Field from Think Fast Mr Moto; the other played by Thomas Beck, who was the dull romantic lead in the first - I get that they wanted to recycle cast but did they have to do it in the very next film? And in the same sort of role) and engaging villains and wacky support types, including old standbys John Carradine and Sig Ruman (another returnee from the first movie).

There is lots of action including a fight on a junk, a fight in a tent in the desert, a hara-kiri, a supposed suicide and a real suicide. Moto - who is super energetic in this film - kills four people. Again, like in Think Fast Mr Moto, you could come to the movie not knowing anything about him and think he's a villain from the way he acts.

It looks fantastic - surely this had the biggest budget of any movie in the series? - with teams of extra and exotic sets: mansions, desert tents, desert, junks, and so on. It also has unexpectedly strong emotin with Philip Ahn very good as a Chinese determined to protect his family honour, then failing, then killing himself... and Moto touchingly promising Ahn on the latter's deathbed that he'll avenge his family's disgrace - and keeping to that bargain. It's really sweet, these two strong Asian characters in a 1937 Hollywood film (even if one is yellowface); Ahn's mother is also sympathetic (albeit yellowface) - indeed, all the baddies are Caucasian, I think.

I don't want to make this sound better than it is - it's a B picture - but if you want to sample just one Moto, I'd recommend this one.

Movie review - "Frankenstein" (1931) ***1/2

Watching this film immediately after Dracula its striking how much a better made film this is - better directed, scripted and conceived. Such are the benefits of coming second. You know this movie is going to rock from the moment you see Dwight Frye as a hunchback in the first scene.

Boris Karloff makes a brilliant star debut as the monster, so touching and dopey. You really feel for him - brought back to life without being asked by Colin Clive and Dwight Frye, scared of fire but then for some reason continually taunted with it, has scientist Edward Van Sloan try to kill him, then escapes, accidentally kills a young girl without knowing what he is doing (an effective sequence - even though when you think about it, it's not logical even for a moron than you'd throw a girl in the water just because you've run out of flowers to throw in the water), then has a packed mob of people carrying flamed torches come to kill you - led by Clive, the bloke who created you in the first place. Way to go take responsibility for you actions there, Doc! Where does this rich prat get off, son of an artistocrat (there's your problem, right there), making a monster, then collapsing because its too hard and leaving it for Edward Van Sloan to take care of while he goes off and get married, then when it goes on a rampage don't go after it himself but lead a mob.

Having said that, Clive gives a brilliant performance as the intense, mad doctor, who always seems as though he's on the verge of a nervous break down (what did Mae Clarke see in him?) and this sort of ambiguity makes the film a classic. John Boles lumbers through the film like a bulky footballer fronting up at the mid week judiciary. Karloff is the real star - the film could have worked with Lugosi but wouldn't have worked anywhere near as well - Lugosi's persona was too alive, too intense: he'd have been fine, though, as Frankenstein or in the Edward Van Sloan part. Great sets (esp Frankenstein's lair and the house at the end), costumes and of course make up.

I admit every now and then the memory of Young Frankenstein is overpowering and induces chuckles: like Frye stealing the abnormal brain. And what's the deal with that wacky nudge-nudge post wedding night scene at the end? Make sure you catch the version where Karloff actually throws the little girl in the lake and where Clive expressly says he feels like God.

Movie review - "Dracula" (1931) **1/2

Bela, Browning and Bram together for the first time in a film that very definitely shows its age but still has the capacity to chill, particularly in the early scenes with Dwight Frye in Transylvania. There are some great sets, the Transylvania castle (dripping in cobwebs) and the British castle (a similar mess - Dracula doesn't go much into house keeping), plus an English surgery, the scenes of Dracula's brides approaching Frye silently, the undeniable sexual undercurrent of Dracula's actions. There are also two iconic performances - Lugosi's intense title character and Dwight Frye's flamboyant Renfield.

The major debit is Todd Browning's direction, which is mostly static with some atrocious editing - watch the awkward way he cuts to Lugosi's close ups (or anyone's close ups), with lots of awful moments where there is a cut, a pause, then an actor flings back their arm or something. The middle third (or rather, last three-fifths and four-fifths) is as if the filmmakers give up on turning the story into a film and just have the filmed version of the play, complete with comic servants and most of the action taking place off screen (even the finale Dracula is killed off screen).

Also there is a major story flaw - why is Dracula going to England and going through all this trouble? (It could have been easily fixed by showing he's in love with Mina but we never get that). But its still full of effective moments - Dracula commenting that there are worse things than being dead (giving an insight into the loneliness of his life), Helen Chandler is very pretty, David Manners a decent enough male juvenile, Edward Van Sloan a sturdy Van Helsing (though no Peter Cushing), all the sexual subtext (sometimes its basically text - see how keen Frances Dade is on Lugosi), and an overall atmosphere of genuine creepiness.

Movie review - "Knights of the Round Table" (1954) **

To understand all the bad artistic decisions that went into making this film,you need to understand MGM had enjoyed a big hit with Ivanhoe, which is how they got it into their heads the bland American Robert Taylor might be suitable for Sir Lancelot, and they also recently scored a success with Scaramouche, hence the equally inappropriate Mel Ferrer as King Arthur. Scaramouche was a wonderful film but unfortunately this one is more inspired by Ivanhoe, with many of the same crew for the latter.

There is a total lack of feel for the subject - you would be hard pressed to find an Arthurian film where taking the sword from the stone is less magical, or the idealism of Camelot and the tragedy of its fall less moving, or a more miscast lead pair of actors (this, when Stewart Granger was under contract and Errol Flynn and Doug Fairbanks Jnr were still alive and looking for work).

Most of the cast look like those history enthusiasts who react medieval battles on special weekends - it's like "Medieval World" theme park.

It occasionally perks to life - in the battle scene between Arthur's troops and Mordred (the camera actually moves and it becomes exciting), Anne Crawford and Stanley Baker are a fine pair of villains, the plot where Elaine falls in love with Lancelot and dies in childbirth is quite moving, Geoffrey Woolf as Sir Percival gets the tone right in his performance (none of the other supporting knights, eg Gawain, are memorable), Ava Gardner is physically right for Guinevere and her character is perhaps the most human (she likes to have Lancelot around and gets jealous when he looks at other women -but they are reluctant to go for the jugular on her).

Taylor and Gardner have nil chemistry (Taylor has nil chemistry with everyone in this film) and the structure is a bit of a mess towards the end - Baker engineers Taylor's banishment, he leads a rebellion (in protest against Arthur not strictly enforcing the rule of law - which you know is totally fair enough, Arthur was playing favourites... is the film endorsing benign dictatorship over the rule of law? That Arthur should ignore laws he doesn't want to obey? What's such an unfair law, i.e. burn people who are adulterers, doing on the books in touchy-feely Arthur's kingdom anyway?), we think we're going to see a big battle... but then Arthur surrenders, then dies (huh? What happened? We're cheated of a big scene), Lancelot comes back, fights a one on one duel with Mordred, then goes and kneels in a church where God tells him "you're not pure,but you're forgiven and your son will find the Grail". Oh and he just chucks Excalibur in a lady (no lady to receive it). It's a bit of a mess, actually it's a total mess, and feels like they ran out of money or something. Or simply energy.

TV review - "Rome" eps 9 and 10

Julius Caesar returns to Rome and gradually takes over, so we all known mischief will be afoot soon. The character I'm getting into now is Octavia, Octavian's sister, who is coming across as a dopey, easily-influenced rich girl, likable but not too smart - after hubby was killed, now her lesbian lover gets her to sleep with her brother to get information out of him, which she does but he's on to her, so she runs off to a religious cult! (You can imagine this sort of stuff happening in Sydney's eastern suburbs.) Less pleasantly, ep 10 sees a return to some sadism - the Gaulish chief is killed painfully in a triumph (it's a long way from the muscle man who defiantly threw his arms at Caesar's feet in the Asterix comics), and Ray Stevenson kills a slave in a violent rage, though he does suffer for it.

Movie review - "Salome" (1953) **1/2

Columbia jumped on the 50s Bible bandwagon with this tale of the most famous dancer in the New Testament, which seemed a natural for the studio's biggest star, Rita Hayworth. This isn't a roadshow spectacular (not really teaming masses of extras) they recruited a top line support cast including Stewart Granger, Charles Laughton and Judith Anderson.

This film doesn't have a particularly good reputation, but after a flat credit sequence (yellow letters on a white background - how about some cool art or pictures of the ancient world?),for a while this is surprisingly engrossing, mostly because the main characters are well drawn and they all have understandable, well defined and conflicting motivations, which is always the stuff of good drama.

John the Baptist (Alan Badel, getting an "introducing" credit and lots of close ups, indicating Columbia had had plans for him) is clearly shown to be a wide-eyed fanatic,raving about God and the coming Messiah, preaching about the immorality of Judea's queen for marrying her dead husband's sister, the queen (Anderson) wants him dead for doing such things, Herod (Laughton) wants to keep him alive because he's afraid of the prophecy, Roman soldier Stewart Granger wants to defend him because he's become Christian, Pontius Pilate just wants the peace to be kept so he doesn't upset Tiberius Caesar (played without any kink or indication of sauce by Cecil Hardwicke - interesting Tiberius, along with the opening credit spiel, refers to himself as following Julius Caesar rather than Augustus - I guess everyone knows Jules but even Augustus wasn't super well-known to American audiences).

Where the script has troubles is with the character of Salome - they want to have her as a temptress who then sees the Light, but it doesn't quite work. For instance, her anger at the Romans isn't very well motivated - she's angry at them because they kicked her out of Rome and forbid her from marrying a Roman. It's not enough. Did she really like this guy? (If she did it cheapens her feelings for Granger). Did she really like Rome? The Romans should have done something nastier to her. Then she's after John's head, which is fair enough - but her conversion to Christianity isn't very well done (its both in the writing and Hayworth's playing).

So the final dance is confusing - I think she's doing it to save John, though I don't know how that works - and Laughton is supposedly so excited by it he agrees with Anderson's request for the head he agrees, which doesn't really make sense, as does Granger coming in at the end saying "you're all doomed" (they actually show Badel's head on a plate, which is pretty full on for 1953).

Hayworth is pretty and does a decent dance (even if, as in King of Kings, the dance is never that inspiring to make you so "yes,you would chop off a head for that"), Laughton and Anderson skilled as always, Badel makes an effective (not very sympathetic) fanatic (he is so keen on dying his eventual death isn't really a tragedy), Granger very good (he pulls off the"I believe in a better tomorrow" stuff, with a glint of the true believer in his eye, which are difficult things to do), but those wheels fall off at the end.

Book review - "Contract Warriors: How Mercenaries Changed History and the War on

Good overview of mercenaries in the modern world, particularly strong on the role of PMCs in modern day Iraq (though written in 2005 meaning it will unavoidably date). Rosen offers interesting sketches in Tim Spicer and Executive Outcomes, and throws in a rough history of mercenaries, with particular emphasis on Hannibal and John Hawkwood. Another strength of the book is emphasis on American mercenaries - ones such as the Irish brigade that fought against the US during the Mexican-American War, black ops, the Flying Tigers, the truck drivers in Iraq now - he also writes on the Lincoln Brigade, which many don't seem to consider mercenary (they fought mainly for ideological reasons - but so did many right-wingers, who fought on anti-commie grounds, and the Lincoln Brigade got paid, too). It also sheds light on some non-Western mercs, which traditionally receive nil coverage in the Western press - eg in Burma, Ivory Coast. Not as good as Anthony Mockler's books on the subject and from a squizz at the sources perhaps over-reliant on the internet, but still pretty good.

Movie review - "Ivanhoe" (1952) **1/2

The enormous success of Quo Vadis revived Robert Taylor's career and saw him cast in a series of big budget adventure spectaculars in which you could unanimously say his performances were "OK". 

You don't think of Taylor when discussing the great 50s swashbucklers, like Errol Flynn, Stewart Granger, Doug Fairbanks Jnr, or even Cornel Wilde, Louis Hayward, Richard Greene and Tony Curtis - all of whom were alive when this film was made, and all of whom would have been better as Ivanhoe. The non-casting of Granger is especially bewildering as he was under contract to MGM at the time and had just hit big in King Solomon's Mines - maybe there was a scheduling problem or something.

Of course, Taylor had just made Quo Vadis, so who knows. George MacDonald Fraser once argued that Taylor did make a contribution of a kind to these movies, a"stern but gentle good natured-ness" or something. I guess that's true - it's not much of a contribution. You do get used to him, he suits the beard - but you just wish it had been someone else.

Anyway, taken from Sir Walter Scott's novel, Ivanhoe has a very simple plot. It's set during the Middle Ages and Ivanhoe returns from the Crusades to raise money for Richard I's ransom. You might be thinking "hang on - wasn't that Robin Hood's job?" - and sure enough Robin turns up to help out Ivanhoe, only as a supporting actor which is kind of weird.

I don't know how Robin reconciles his stealing-from-the-rich-to-give-to-the-poor with the raising-money-for-Richard thing - maybe he charges a "ransom tax". He borrows most of the money off a Jewish family, gets kidnapped, gets rescued, and fights the baddy in a duel to save Elizabeth Taylor from being burned as a witch. Then Richard arrives to make things right.

Ivanhoe has no character (its not Taylor's fault) - no humour, or rebellious swagger even seemingly much interest in what is going on, he is brave and dutiful and that is pretty much it. (The best swashbucklers eg Robin Hood, Zorro, were far more rebellious). The character of Rowena (Joan Fontaine) does nothing in the story - I mean nothing. OK she helps count the money towards the end and is kidnapped and looks smug when Ivanhoe picks her over Rebecca (Elisabeth Taylor).

Rebecca is a far more interesting character - not only is she better looking, she's actually useful: she's the one who raises money for Ivanhoe, makes him better when he is injured, and gets put on trial. And she loses the guy at the end!

The Jewish factor in this story does give it a tang. Even more interesting is the "villain" Sir Boris (George Sanders, wonderful presence and voice - NB the sound design on this is very good with great drum sand swords and stuff - but not really the physically believable in the sword fights in the way say Basil Rathbone or Robert Douglas were) - he's really just an efficient hired hand for King John, but he falls for Rebecca and has this beautiful moment where he's willing to give it all up for her. Jeffrey Richards points out in his book on swashbucklers that the character isn't really done justice in the writing or playing to which I'd tentatively agree (you really could have made something of this) but he's still the most interesting character on screen, certainly more so than Ivanhoe and Rowena. Sanders and Liz Taylor are what keep the film going.

Most of the time watching this I couldn't help but think what a better movie The Adventures of Robin Hood was, a similar show piece extravaganza. Richard Thorpe's direction is a bit pedestrian, lacks the leads, and the supporting cast is irritatingly erratic - while there are some good performers, eg Felix Aylmer, and I got used to the actor who plays King John, others are just nothings (eg the guy who plays Robin).

The whole film lacks a bit of magic and seems to have been made by people who lack a real feel for its topic (cf David O Selznick's version of The Prisoner of Zenda). Having said that once it gets to the siege of the castle it starts to improve - this fight is a good sequence, as is the earlier joust and the final duel. And it certainly ticks boxes for a colourful kiddy town medieval movie: there's a damsel in distress (actually two), evil knights, good knights, minstrels, witch trials, the throwing down of the gauntlet, jousts, trial by combat, chivalry (I love the "referees" during the final fight - if you do something chivalrous you get shot by an arrow! Certainly a lot tougher than the mid-week judiciary), castles with drawbridges and moats and people who pour cauldrons of rocks down the side, sieges with ladders.

 

I was going to give it three stars - but at the ending Richard I just rocks up with his troops, no intro or build up, just arrives in deux ex machina style and I thought "stuff it, no". Still some fun - just could have been so much better.

Book review - "To Hell and Back" by Audie Murphy

Murphy was the most decorated American soldier in World War Two so anyhalf-decent memoir would be totally gripping - and this is better thanhalf-decent. Not a classic but very, very good. It's written in thatsub-Hemingway style which flowered in American literature in the 40s and 50s(among the practicioners was Robert Ruark, an admiring quote from who appears onthe back blurb).

It's full of memorable incidents and the action is evocatively drawn - Germans trying to protect their tanks by putting captured American troops on top of them only to have the Americans fire with little hesitation, Murphy taking on the 200 Germans, one of his mates being shot the day before he's to go home (something which has become a cliche in movies but here it actually happened), soldiers cracking up and crying, encounters with "women of the war" (shall we say"). As you would expect, it's a lot tougher and bitter than the film adaptation - a lot more of soldiers in the lower ranks snarling at their officers (they're not mutinous - Murphy often writes admiringly of his officers - just often snappy and insubordinate), a lot more depression.

Both book and film share a key problem, though - lack of individual characters. We keep meeting people, Murphy chats with them, and they get shot. It's hard to keep track of who is who. Even Murphy himself is a bit of a cipher - we get little self-analysis (which I guess I can understand = it wasn't part of the man),and little history (which I think we needed). But its such an amazing story, and it does give an insight into a ferocious fighter and also the mood of American soldiers who did really really heavily fighting in WW2. Reading this its no surprise Murphy as as messed up as he was.

Comic review - Asterix #32 - "Asterix and Obelix The Class Act"

A wonderful tonic to the shoddy quality of the recent Asterix books, this is a delightful compendium of fourteen "bits and pieces" related to the series going back to 1962 and is fascinating for the fan. It includes things like: a short story about Asterix helping Lutetia get an Olympics bid (made for Paris' 1992and a strong enough idea for a whole story); a slightly dodgy tale written about Gaulish women, i.e. Geriatrix's Lollobrigida-like wife, for "Elle" magazine(written to give the girls' an adventure - she doesn't go anywhere and is totally passive; the intro to this one argues that the series wasn't"anti-feminist" - yeah, right - it also adds that they showed women more than many comic strips do, which is true, and that men are made fun of as much if not more than women, which is true, too - but the tone is nastier about women); the story of the birth of Asterix and Obelix (where all the characters' parents act just like them, even doing the same jobs - which is funny but not very democractic); a story about the coming of spring; the saga of a fight between a cowardly rooster and an eagle told from the POV of the animals (where Obelix is shown to actually be able to chat with Dogmatix after all) Dogmatix getskidnapped. The two authors appear in a few tales themselves, all charmingly - in one they come across Obelix's descendant, in another they show how they come upwith ideas. Most brilliantly is one where Uderzo draws Asterix adventures indifferent styles: sci fi, psychedelic, action-orientated - this is brilliant and shows just how talented the lead duo were, notwithstanding the recent slide in quality.

Comic review - Asterix #33 - "Asterix and the Falling Sky" by Uderzo

The worst entry of the series to date. Not as offensive as Asterix and the Secret Weapon, just bad. Uderzo was susceptible to flights of fancy and this is his most fantastical yet, with a space ship arriving bringing visitors seeking Getafix's magic potion. He's followed by enemies from the galaxy also seeking potion. The two of them fight it out, while the Gauls mostly look on.

Uderzo says at the end he wanted to write this as a tribute to Walt Disney but Disney at least knew the value of a strong story. This is just a collection of weird stuff happening, some way-out sci fi visuals (some of which is admittedly pretty good - a grasshopper-like villain, a big ball spaceship like The Prisoner).There are several large comic panels, as if Uderzo was aware he didn't have enough story and wanted to pad out the running time. The reality of Asterix stories was always a tenuous thing, with its magic potion and perpetual setting of 50BC, but they had their basis in reality - mainly, historical background and analogy with contemporary customs and society. By bringing in sci fi Uderzo totally throws the baby out with the bath water - its just plain silly. More seriously, our heroes are passive most of the time, the artistic styles vary widely and are inconsistent with the normal style of the strip (there's something like a teletubbie, a superman, a grasshopper and spaceships), the story lacks imagination or vitality.

Comic review - Asterix #31 - "Asterix and the Actress" by Uderzo

Uderzo throws a curve ball by introducing Asterix and Obelix's parents - they live in a far off town where they sell souvenirs, happily existing under Roman occupation... which kind of makes the whole concept of the series a joke (why resist the Romans at all then?) It's a good idea though to have the two dads put in gaol as Pompey tries to retrieve an old sword and shield, and a good one to have an actress come into the village. But not such a good idea to have said actress pretend to be Panacea, Obelix's old flame. This story confronts Asterix's sexual persuasion more than any other - both his and Obelix's mothers want them to get married but the two are passionately against the idea. Obelix is shown to at least be in love with Panacea - so is, later, Asterix... but only after he's been hit on the head and goes into a catatonic state (he later snaps out of it). On the basis of this and Asterix and the Secret Weapon the inclination seems fairly clear. You could argue "well, he's just a big kid like Tintin and Captain Haddock" - but Tintin and Haddock lived in a world without women (excepting Bianca Castafiore). Asterix lives in a village surrounded by women and families.

Stories where the narrative is driven by the Romans always seem to suffer a little, because our heroes are passive. Uderzo has little fun with the topic of actresses (the theatre is a subject that could have supported a decent adventure), the action is repetitive, the fight to rescue the dads without threat or interest, the re-appearance of Panacea totally uninvolving.It's a flat effort and you wish Uderzo would hang up his pen

Movie review - "Caesar and Cleopatra" (1945) **1/2

Apparently the most expensive film made in Britain at the time and you can't help but wonder "why?" It's basically a filmed play, most of which takes indoors. There are some big sets and some extras and boats, but you don't really need them for the story - at least, not the way its presented here by Gabriel Pascal. 

To be fair to Rank, they gave similar free reign to Laurence Olivier and he produced Henry V so it wasn't wrong they green lighted this. I mean,Vivien Leigh, Claude Rains, Shaw, colour, the cream of English acting talent (Cecil Parker, Flora Robson, etc), with the box office appeal of Stewart Granger as an extra lure... It just should have cost a lot of money.

The story concerns the events around Caesar's arrival in Egypt and his placing of Cleopatra on the throne. Their relationship is one of friendship, politics and respect rather than romance and passion - you never get the sense they would generate enough enthusiasm for each other to create a son, as they did. But it works as an interpretation.

Shaw's dialogue is a treat and the two leads are superb - Rains isn't perhaps totally believable as a military general, but he's very engaging, and Vivien Leigh is spot on as the kittenish Cleopatra. There is a real warmth between the two. 

 

The rest of the cast use a variety of fake beards and skin dye (eg Flora Robson) which is sometimes off-putting (Granger, with his dark skin,very short toga and earring, looks as though he's on the way to Mardi Gras), although everyone can act.

A film of the head rather than the heart or the eye, and as such not suited for a spectacle, but as an example of filmed theatre, fair enough. 

 

It has that wash-out colour look found in Rank Films at this time - it may as well have been in black and white (Michael Powell's clever use of colour was a rarity for British cinema). 

 

Michael Rennie impresses as a centurion.

Movie review - "King of Kings" (1961) ***

Jeffrey Hunter's casting as Jesus in this Bronston epic led some to dub the film as I was a Teenage Jesus but he's fine - as fine as you can be playing Jesus, it's a thankless role in many ways, you can't be too controversial or show anything other than serenity or pain.

He certainly looks the part, with his beard and blue eyes, and conveys a degree of intensity. He's certainly more authentic seeming than the very American Robert Ryan as John the Baptist and Harry Guardino as Barabbas. The film doesn't seem to have done too much for his career (playing Jesus didn't really help Jim Cazaviel, Chris Sarandon, or Max Von Sydow either - its not as though casting directors go "great, you can play another prophet).

It's been ages since I saw a Jesus movie when I watched this and I was struck (a) what a good yarn the Jesus story is (at its most basic), especially the events around the Crucifixion and (b) how history repeats itself. Time and time again we have societies oppressed by an occupier which throw up Messiahs, who soon attract disciples through a combination of their message and sense of certainty. People who are totally sure about something will always attract followers - Alan Jones, Che Guevara, the guy who prompted the Tai Ping Rebellion. They will always attract hostility, too, and be seen as a threat(which, to be honest, they are).

The film splits into two narrative strands, which touch occasionally and intertwine at the end. One of them is the Jesus strand, where he spouts various parables (in a sort of "greatest hits" way), collects disciples, does the Sermon on the Mount (done as a sort of Q and A session, which actually works very well- although you get the impression it would have been a bit nosier with people talking over the top of each other), heals people.

The main problem with this section is the eternal one - the "softly softly" approach on Jesus; also his disciples are not that well drawn either, even the usual standbys like Peter and Judas (played by none other than Rip Torn - though I wouldn't have known it unless I had read it, he's hard to recognise), so when both betray their leader it doesn't have the emotional impact it might had their been a little more character development.

More compelling is the second story strand, which involves the Roman occupation of Judea and concerns Jewish resistance leader Barabbas who wants to use Jesus' followers for Jewish independence (an idea which works well), the local king Herod (Frank Thring doing his Thring thing with aplomb), and a Roman centurion (another Aussie, Ron Randell) who has served a long time in Judea and is greatly affected by Jesus (he turns out to be the soldier who says "surely this was the son of God") - this is easily the most interesting character, because he takes a real emotional journey, and Randell gives the best performance. Salome is a kind of spoilt Lolita-like teen, a concept which works and Hurd Hatfield totally gets the slightly-dissatisfied-public-servant "air" of Pontius Pilate.

There is some Bronston spectacle - the opening sequence where Pompey enters Jerusalem is quite stunning, the Sermon of the Mount is full of extras, the final battle from Barabbas' troops. But it doesn't particularly need it.

The film may have been more effective as a spectacle if it focused more on Barabbas and the Centurion and making Jesus more of a supporting character. Or else making it about Jesus and making it more intimate. As a result it sort of falls between two stools. But its still quite a good movie, with a moving finale. Watching it, I couldn't help think: it would be terrific to do a Rome-type series set during this period.

Book review - "Stewart Granger: The Last of the Swashbucklers" by Don Shiach

Stewart Granger was one of those actors who seemed destined for stardom. Tall,good looking, masculine, with lots of presence and a deep speaking voice, he was just so incredibly easy to cast in things, especially being British. 

It didn't take him long to get his acting career going - he started to get jobs pretty soon after deciding to become an actor, and it wasn't long before he was working for Olivier and Robert Donat. Shiach argues (correctly I think) that this may not have been the most healthy thing for him - a bit more struggle and he might have had more respect for his profession. 

Nonetheless, he had a burgeoning career - which was interrupted by war service. He was invalided out of the army,which sounds cool until you discover he was invalided out because of stomach ulcers, which I'm sure were painful but sounds like such a wimpy thing to have.But it was a boon to his career - he started to get work regularly in films and launched to fame in The Man in Grey.

Granger's career as a star falls neatly into several categories:

(a) 1943-46 Gainsborough tosh costume dramas, which proved very popular and are still watchable today

(b) 1945-48 costume dramas made by other filmmakers which were a bit better than Gainsborough but not as popular
(c) 1948-49 some dud films and an arty theatre venture which helped almost send him broke

(d) 1950-58 MGM star

(e) 1958-1970 international star of European films

(f) 1972 onwards - mainly a businessman.

My main interest with Granger is the MGM period, to whom he was contracted for most of the Dore Schary period. His association with the studio started with a bang with King Solomon's Mines, but almost collapsed with Soldier's Three and The Light Touch but recovered with two other remakes, Scaramouche and The Prisoner of Zenda. He never found another film which touched the popularity of the remake "trilogy", though sometimes he came close eg Bhowani Junction. 

 

To be frank, a lot of this was Granger's fault: he turned down roles in A Star is Born, Ben Hur, Ivanhoe, From Here to Eternity, not to mention the London version of A Streetcar Named Desire (the role was taken by someone called Bonar Colleano). MGM made several big budget swashbucklers during this time with Robert Taylor, and everyone one of them is a part Granger should have played: Quo Vadis, Ivanhoe, Knights of the Round Table, The Adventures of Quentin Durward. He wanted to play Mogambo but the studio insisted on Clark Gable. Granger surely must have the worst knack of part-picking since George Raft (which I think is part of the appeal of his career to me - its inherent tragic-ness).

He kept his screen presence right up til the end - for instance, he looked terrific in The Wild Geese - but I think people just got sick of him. He was difficult and got along badly with directors. He didn't have an eye for talent or scripts - turning down Messala in Ben Hur because it wasn't the lead, I mean, really. He was never happy with anything he was in, always grumbling or whining about his scripts (even for Scaramouche he complains in his memoirs about his injuries). How about enjoying your art, Stu? Or just life? He was a bit of a wanker. No wonder Jean Simmons eventually left him (though she wound up with another grump, Richard Brooks).

This book has copped it on the net reviews I have read. I really enjoyed it -mostly I guess because I'm a Granger fan, but its well written, Shiach does good analysis of Granger's films (he admits Granger wasn't a great actor but still admires him - for instance, he prefers Granger's performance to Ronald Colman's in The Prisoner of Zenda) and makes decent guesses as to his subject's personality (mostly culled from his memoirs i.e. his desire to prove himself as a brave man, misogyny, fact that he annoyed so many people who worked with him).

 

The lack of research is irritating and seems mostly to consist of reading a few biographies/autobiographies (especially Granger's) and watching the films. This is annoying at times, especially when it comes to the post 1960 period not covered by Granger himself. I would have enjoyed reading a bit more about his business ventures and the films he made in Europe. As a result what could have been an important book is merely a polished stop gap.

Book review - "Vincent Price: A Daughter's Biography" by Victoria Price

A rarity among bios written by children of famous stars in that its author has actually undertaken extensive scholarship - so much so, in fact, that it could stand alone as a bio even without the "daughter" section, that is like a"cherry" on top. Price deserves an excellent book about him and this one is it.

Victoria Price came along when dad was in his mid-fifties - he was an often absent father (which, since we're talking about the 60s when Price was at his stardom peak, you can understand), whom she adored and had a good relationship, until he left her mother for Coral Browne, whereupon things got a bit distant until Browne's death.
So this isn't a nasty grave stomping bio - nor is it a hagiography. It's really well balanced: Price loves and likes her father, admires his skill, but is not slow in shying away from his less pleasant side. Vincent could be a mean drunk, take out his bad moods at home (no surprise when you think about it as everyone who worked with him would remark on how nice and charming he was - he'd have to let off steam some time), probably squirmed out of war service in WW2 (or rather let 20th Century Fox do the job for him), showed anti-Semitic tendencies during the 30s (though he gradually became a great liberal), wasn't particularly brave during the McCarthy era (he was graylisted, and got out of it by writing a letter where he said people who didn't name names were un-American), received "assistance" on a 50s television quiz show. She also - and this really surprised me - admits dad may have been bisexual.

Price had an amazing life and career. He was never an A+ star like John Wayne, but he was definitely a star, one with drawing power at the box office - in the theatre and films, especially in horror. At a time in his life when many actors his age were drifting towards retirement he was given lead roles - indeed,vehicles. Even during the 70s and 80s he remained in demand - perhaps not as much demand as he would have liked but you can say that for every actor.

The book is full of surprises. I knew Price was into art - but didn't know he was able to incorporate it into his career so much. For instance, he ran a few art galleries, bought art for Sears, wrote many columns on it, hosted shows, even travelled the world on behalf of the government or various arts boards on art related matters. Price loved art but there's no doubt art was useful for Price's career - for instance, during a career lull during the 50s, he helped keep his name in front of the public by doing well on a 50s game show, and he made money from lecturing. I was also unaware of this 50s game show scandal -there was a Congressional inquiry into the whole genre following the admissions of rigging on Twenty One into which Price was dragged - although he never cheated it was revealed that the makers of the show had given him some help(i.e. letting him see the questions some time beforehand).
Another surprise was Price's greylisting in the 50s - despite growing up conservative (he admired the Germans for a time in the 30s on his European travels) his association with"premature anti-fascist" groups almost did major damage to his career, and he had to write a grovelling letter to get out of it (like another grey-listee, Edward G Robinson, he was partly rehabilitated by being hired on The Ten Commandments by right-winger Cecil B de Mille).

Price's background is also very interesting. Grandad made a fortune by inventing baking powder - only to lose most of it in the 1893 crash. Dad made a lot of money in the candy business - only he kept it. Vincent was kind of the odd one out in his family, slightly bohemian; he went to Yale, got a degree, worked as a bit as a teacher. Then he went to London to study art and wound up on the stage.

He was lucky - he was cast as Prince Albert in a play about Queen Victoria which had a short but very well received run at the Gate Theatre, then was cast in the same play when it was put on Broadway - the play was a hit and enjoyed a two year run, as good a launch as any actor has ever had. He was also blessed with height, looks and that marvellous voice.
But that's not enough. Price was smart - he knew he had been lucky and made up for it by working extremely hard. For instance, he translated his Price Albert part into German and learned it that way to get the feel of how German-speaking Albert may have thought. He would use his breaks during the long theatre run to work in summer stock. He tried to expand his horizons wherever possible, frequently returning to theatre(in the 40s he had another long run in "Angel Street"). He was polite to journalists and fans and always kept working. He had a good run in the 40s while under contract to Fox.
His career hit a bit of a lull in the 50s but he bounced back big time in the 60s with the AIP Poe films; Price was the biggest name to work for AIP but the studio did a lot for Price, too - they gave him some great roles, at least in the first half of the 60s (no one gets too excited about the ones in the second half of the decade except for Witchfinder General). And so he remained employed right up until the end. He did everything he could have wanted - comedy, drama, film noir, thrillers (he never wanted to do Westerns).Occasionally there's a bit of a whine about "never got to do Shakespeare", but he could have if he'd wanted to, and besides there was Theatre of Blood. Ditto every now and then he'd complain "they won't let me do comedy", but he did a lot of comedy, or "I'm typed in horror films" but some of those films gave him his meatiest parts. Price left it all on the field.

The last section of the book is the "Coral Browne" section - she takes over the book as she seems to have done Price's life (surely he had a bit more impact). Price's daughter was perhaps not the most objective here, but to be fair she quotes others who all seem to say the same thing: Browne was a very sexually active, crazy, funny, flighty woman who acted as a steamroller (knowing a few actors I can picture just what she would have been like). She was an Aussie, who faced prejudice due to her Aussie accent in London - one of her big breaks was an affair with Paul Robeson! She deserves her own bio.

Movie review - "King Solomon's Mines" (1950) **1/2

H Rider Haggard's novel is an adventure classic, a wonderful tale of white hunters, missing explorers, lost kings and buried treasure. 

This big budget MGM somehow succeeds in draining most of the excitement from it - I had vague memories of enjoying this as a child, maybe I got it mixed up with the 1937 version. I was surprised how dull it was. It was a popular success on release, one suspects due to two things (OK maybe three - it's a great concept): the star team of Deborah Kerr and Stewart Granger, and the location footage.

Kerr had been around for a while but was really starting to get into gear, taking Greer Garson's place playing cool-princess-but-burning-fires-underneath roles and she's ideal, sweating in the heat and fighting her growing attraction to Stewart Granger.

Granger is also very good - all tanned with grey temples, deep voiced (although his articulation is a little muffled at times), playing the part of Quartermain to the manor born (well a version of it- he's not quite the part in the novels but he plays a distinct interpretation of it - and I think he's better than Errol Flynn would have been, the original choice for the role - Errol was perhaps a bit too close to seed at this time); he seems to have taken a leaf out of James Mason's "I hate women" persona.

The location footage was then rare, and includes plenty of Watusi's, snakes, lions, rhinos, etc. 

 

Shooting on this was a troublesome experience - the original director was bizarrely Compton Bennett, who came to fame on a tormented musical drama, The Seventh Veil - why they gave him this, an adventure tale crying out for a John Huston, is a mystery, and it's no surprise that he ended up leaving the film with Andrew Marton finishing the job. Marton obviously was skilled at logistics but this could have used someone better at drama - it's too much like a travelogue hooked on location photography, with three adventurers walking through Africa: waterfall -excitement - snake - excitement - desert - excitement - natives -excitement. Because you know Granger and Kerr are going to make it, it's not that exciting - you just keep thinking Richard Carlson (as Kerr's brother) will cark it but he never does.

Haggard's novel was full of twists and turns and characters: sparse little Quartermain, brave Curtis, comic relief Goode. Granger and Kerr have a bit to play with here but what is Carlson doing in this story? He does nothing - you keep expecting him to die, or turn evil or something but he doesn't. He's not even comic relief. He is literally a passenger for the whole movie. (The only reason I can think he's in the film is for some exposition between Kerr and him about Kerr's marriage - but she could have done this with Granger).

The king-in-disguise who accompanies them is a striking looking actor but not much screen presence - there's no personality,he's given no scene or moment for us to warm to, he's just there at the side, except at the end when he fights the baddie while our heroes look on passively. So we don't care if he gets his kingdom back. In Haggard's novel we saw that the usurping king was a baddie (what happened to Gagool the Witch?) Here we just have to take their word for it. The best bit is when Kerr, Granger, etc are stuck in the mines themselves.

Book review - "No Roses for Mrs Miniver: The Life of Greer Garson" byMichael Troyan

Greer Garson was an actor in the right place at the right time -specifically MGM during WW2, where she epitomised class and glamour so loved by Louis B Mayer. She had the type of British-ness that the Yanks were just in the mood for - though to be fair the Poms lapped it up as well (cultures don't mind inaccurate portrayals as long as they're positive). Few stars had their reign so defined by war - she had hits from 1939 to 1945, but thereafter it was heavy going. You might say that "well, the war was over and people didn't dig lady like stars anymore" - but then what about Deborah Kerr? Greer just picked some bad films - and also she got old; she didn't get started as an actor til she was 27, and not famous til her mid 30s - it gives hope to careers of female actors who don't bloom til late.

I didn't realise how big she was on the London stage - once she became popular, she was really popular.The kicker is, she was only ever in the one popular play, Coward's Mademoiselle - the rest were flops, but Greer got great reviews in them (she was one of those stars-who-are-just-waiting-for-a-hit-film, like Mel Gibson was before Lethal Weapon and Colin Farrell is technically still today). This is an excellent biography, well researched, well written, affectionate towards its subject, who was probably riper for more satire (she gave the legendary incredibly long Oscar acceptance speech).

Greer Garson was a very haughty thing at times - when signed to MGM various producers kept asking for her to be in films, e.g. Day at the Races but she kept turning them down. Indeed she was inactive for over a year - she was going to sign in Dramatic School but got sick, before getting the small role in Goodbye Mr Chips which ended up launching her to stardom. (Living proof that there are no small parts, etc)

She seemed to bewitch people, on and off camera - audiences (in war time at least), the MGM front office (who she stood up to - the studios were meant to be bullies but like a lot of bullies they withered when you stood up to them, especially if you smelled of class and were devoted to your mother), the poor lawyer who became her first husband (after the honeymoon she realised she'd made a mistake and basically left him while he went off to India - he kept asking to have her back but no dice), Laurence Olivier (who directed her in a play and with whom she had an affair).

While the writer clearly has great affection for Greer, he has done his work and allows the facts to speak for themselves, and they show that she could be a right royal pain in the neck. She complained about MGM's treatment of her from the get go, even when she was queen of the lot, whining about not being able to do comedy, clashing with directors (even William Wyler on Mrs Miniver - which she didn't want to do at first because it meant she'd play a mother), rewriting scripts, and continually having poor choice of material. (She also dumped her first husband when they got back from the honeymoon).

MGM really tried with Garson - in her hey day they gave her top budgets and support talent, even in her decline they kept giving her chances - all her 1945 onwards films must have sounded great on paper: a romantic comedy with Clark Gable, a my-husband-isn't-dead-like-I-thought-he-was melodrama with George Cukor and Robert Mitchum, a broad family comedy, an adaptation of The Forysthe Saga, a sequel to Mrs Miniver, a remake of trusted material with hot new star Michael Wilding, a melo re-teaming with Walter Pigeon along the lines of Blossoms in the Dust.

But just as she could't put a foot wrong during the war she was cursed with bad luck after it - Adventure became a hit on the strength of its stars but no one liked it and seems to have been one of those hits that actually hurt you (eg the song Accidentally Kelly St by Frente), Desire Me was a disaster which George Cukor ended up leaving and on which Greer almost died, The Forsythe Saga did pretty well but failed to recoup its large budget (and wasn't quite there as a film, suffering from miscasting of Robert Young and Pigeon), no one wanted to see Mrs Miniver in peacetime, the Mike Wilding film proved too rusty (he had lousy luck, too, Wilding - after hitting it big in Herbert Wilcox movies he worked for all the right people - MGM, Hitchcock, Korda - but kept striking out), and the last one with Pigeon was too Dore Schary (i.e. done on the cheap and realistically) when it needed a little of the old MGM gloss. Julia Misbehaves was, surprisingly, her big hit from this time.

Of course, Deborah Kerr was there to snatch her roles, too - but at the end of the day Garson really has no one to blame but herself, she simply had no taste and was reliant on people to pick movies for her. She remained in demand for work right up until her death, though, even if just for theatre and guest shows and television, and to her credit never sold out and did something against her principles, ef a horror film. Marrying an oil millionaire gives you FU money I suppose.

There are lots of interesting tidbits - MGM wanted to make a film in the late 40s of The Fortunes of Richard Mahoney with Garson, the studio considered Stewart Granger for Marc Anthony in Julius Caesar (laugh but I think he could do it), Schary wanted to make an epic called Magna Carta with Granger, Garson, Simmons and Wilding, the film she made after leaving MGM, Strange Lady in Town was a hit but seems to have done little for her career, she badly wanted to made Interrupted Melody (in which I think she would have been ideal and which would have revived her career) but MGM dithered and she left the studio, whereupon they cast Eleanor Parker. (NB I don't think this was due to hostility for Garson - Dore Schary went on to cast her in Sunrise at Capobello - just a desire to lock down a decent male co star and they couldn't do it in time)

This book would have to be the definitive account of Garson's life and career - it is hard to imagine a more loving and detailed portrait, unless, say, you got really specialised, like an in-depth look at the making of one of her films, or a more detailed account of her partnership with Pigeon (it is a little hazy on the fate of her first two husbands after she left them).

That's not to say it's without flaws, the most notable being the excessive amount of time devoted to her post-MGM career - this starts around page 272 and goes til around page 370, and gets a little wearying at times, especially compared to the first two sections. Greer moved to Texas, home of her oil millionaire third husband Buddy Fogelson, who was smart enough to realise that if you marry an actress you let them act every now and then so she never really retired but was semi-retired from that point on. This seems to have been a genuinely happy marriage with the added benefit of meaning Garson spent the last section of her life totally loaded with cash (she had no kids). So we have a hundred pages of Garson being rich and happy, doing the odd acting job (eg The Singing Nun, bits of theatre and television, a Love Boat), accepting lots of awards, attending dinners and giving speeches. For all her repeated refrain that "oh they won't let me play anything other than the grand dame" she was often the grand dame in real life, poking fun at her image - but never too much fun. Not the "extraordinary lady" that Troyan argues she is, but a genuine, true aristocrat.

TV review - "Rome" eps 7 and 8

Finding Rome easier to watch now, as am more familiar with the characters (I finally recognise who is who) and the historical events. Ep 7 deals with the defeat of Pompey and Ep 8 with meeting Cleopatra. It takes this series about 30 minutes what it took Mank and Liz Taylor an hour and a half. It helps the 'ordinary' characters are nicer in this one - no of them do anything particularly sadistic (well Kevin McKidd knifes a pirate in the throat but he deserves it). I don't mind if all the politicians do ruthless stuff, they ask for it, but its stressful when the 'ordinary' characters do. The section where Pompey is wiped out is quite moving. The episode in Egypt is terrific, with a weird and wonderful slightly off kilter quality, a great little fat kid playing the king, and an entirely fresh conception of Cleopatra - doped out,s exed up, a bit wired, kind of like an ancient-era Paris Hilton, only with an underlying sense of steel (you feel sorry for the little king when she appears). It's the most believable portrayal I can recall seeing and eps like this one make you wish at times they'd drag it out rather than spank through history so quickly (for instance, there's enough stuff in Ep 8 along to justify a ten ep story line). They do push the realism factor a bit by having Ray Stevenson father Cleo's kid. And Roger Corman factor strikes again with a bit of lezzo action.

Comic review - Asterix #30 - "Asterix and Obelix All at Sea"

Uderzo throws in everything but the kitchen sink with this one. Some slaves revolt and steal Caesar's galley (good idea), led by a Kirk Douglas look a like (would have been a good idea for a panel or two but not as the important character he is - he is drawn totally differently fom the rest), the flee to the Gauls for protection (good idea), Obelix actually drinks the magic potion (great idea), the Romans get hold of magic potion and the Gauls go without (great idea), they wind up at Atlantis (crazy idea) where children fly around on winged horses (crazy idea) and everyone wants to be turned into children (crazy idea). Asterix and Obelix have some of their most emotional love scenes yet.People talk about how Herge reflected his personal demons with Tintin stories, but I'd love to know what was going through his mind when he wrote this. Better than Asterix and the Secret Weapon but still as messy as anything.

Comic review - Asterix #29 - "Asterix and the Secret Weapon"

The worst of the series to date with a sexism that spills well and truly over into misogyny. Cacofonix storms out of the village after hearing he's been replaced with a bard who is a woman. The bard sets the cat among the pigeons by - gasp - suggesting women are the equal of men, and soon the womenfolk are uprising and the woman has her eyes on the chief.

Asterix comics were never a beacon of feminism -- the women of the village were almost always gossipy and bitchy though admittedly the men were as bad, but here they are given centre stage and the results are awful. The bard is a shrill nasty man hating feminist - though maybe not entirely man hating, she seems to flirt with Asterix even if motivated by political reasons - she even kisses him and Asterix hits her. He feels bad about it but its still pretty full on, a hero hitting a woman in a comic, just in response to her kissing him. (Asterix's sexuality threatened yet again? This whole book is the biggest argument to date for the Asterix-is-a-screaming-queen lobby) Gauls and Romans bashing each other = funny. Women bashing Romans = funny. Men bashing women NOT funny. At the same time, Julius Caesar decides to send in a troop of Roman female soldiers to defeat the Gauls, betting that Gaulish gallantry will stop them hitting women - which is a terrific idea. But then the Gaulish women defeat the Roman women by putting up fashion shops and displays. (Earlier they are shown to lose their heart for a fight when it rains) What possessed Uderzo to write this women-hating rubbish? Was he getting a divorce or something? He again displays his taste for the fantastical by having a dragon appear in the forest and repeating the silly thing of Cacofonix causing it to rain when he sings. (He also repeats a number of jokes and visual things from earlier entries, eg the little kids being just like their dad.)

Comic review - Asterix #28 - "Asterix and the Magic Carpet"

Despite the magic potion and occasionally flights of Asterix fancy, the series always aimed for something close to realism, but things get fantastical here with the arrival of a fakir from India on a magic carpet. He's looking for a Gaul to stop the drought back home - not Getafix, but Cacofonix, whose singing, it is revealed (for the first time, and we've seen him sing before) always causes rain. So this story is based on two silly ideas - a magic carpet and Cacofonix's ability to start things raining. As a result this is one of the poorer adventures.The idea of Asterix going to India is a strong one - it didn't need this silliness (anyway, aren't magic carpets more Arabic?) On the bright side, the fact that the carpet fairly zips along and the plot is a race against time (start it raining and stop a princess from being executed)means this is very fast paced. Also, it can't be denied - magic carpets are magical and capture your imagination, you'd love to be in the air yourself, zipping over Europe and the Middle East. But it disrupts the Asterix universe a bit too much, I think. There's only a little section in India, too - most of the story is taken up with the voyage. Like Asterix's encounters with the Normans, one is left hankering for more.

Comic review - Asterix #27 - "Asterix and Son"

Asterix and Obelix do Two Gauls and a Baby as a mysterious bub turns up on Asterix's doorstep. There is some fun when the baby gets stuck into magic potion and starts beating people up (its especially funny when he smacks around animals), but this gets repetitive after a while. This is a bit more "adult" a comic - Lutetia makes snide references to the baby been put outside the door of bachelor Asterix (though he's shown to share a bedroom with Obelix) - this really upsets Asterix. Also Lutetia gets upset when a nurse (really a Roman soldier in drag) comes to live with them - living in sin. That's a French comic for you, I guess. It's really the Romans who drive this story, as they continually try to get the baby back - there's not one but two undercover agents, suggesting a lack of imagination. Most of the story takes place in and around the village. There is a good ending with the baby revealed to be the bastard son of Cleopatra and Caesar - wasn't this kid killed later on?

Movie review - "The Three Musketeers" (1948) ****

MGM weren't known for their swashbucklers - they were more a "woman's studio", or contemporary tough stuff - but when they did enter the genre sometimes the results were gold. Since they didn't have any real obvious action stars under contract (Clark Gable was getting a bit old), they improvised and tried Gene Kelly as d'Artagnan. 

It actually works very well - he's very American (as is most of the cast) but he has energy, idealism and athleticism. From that first brilliant duel sequence, where is meant to fight the musketeers but becomes friends fighting overs, I was a convert: he clambers over tree branches, leaps around, laughs. He's really good - and you wish he'd made another one in his career. (MGM had him and Stewart Granger but they kept using Robert Taylor).

June Allyson again is too American but again her persona suits Constance, all virginal, nice, pretty and brave. You could say the same for Lana Turner (whose performance has copped it in some sections, but I think she's fine - totally stunning, too) and Keenan Wynn. Gig Young and Robert Coote don't do much with two of the musketeer roles but Van Heflin is very good, all boozy torment and doom. Vincent Price snarls his way through Richilieu with ease, but John Sutton is perhaps over prissy as Buckingham.

 

Beautiful MGM colour and production values and plenty of action (including a Kelly sword fight along the beach near the surf - a homage to Captain Blood?). The crucial kicker, the segue of the story from bright, colourful fun to more serious tone, is done very well. Constance's death is very moving. Director George Sidney should be very proud - he showed it wasn't a fluke with Scaramouche.

 

Watching this, I was reminded why Dumas story has remained so popular over the years. Yes, there's the obvious stuff - glamour, action, romance, with some memorable characters (d'Artagnan, Milady, Athos, Richelieu) and lots of story.

 

But I think the heart of it is so much of the story strikes an emotional chord. People relate to d'Artagnan who arrives in a new city trying to make it, only to stuff up and get in three fights - but then wind up with three great mates. Or how he loves beautiful pure Constance - but can't resist sexy Milady (its the old Archie comics Betty vs Veronica). Or how Athos torments himself over his past. Romance, lust, friendship - this has it all, which is why it will be remade from here til kingdom come. This version of it isn't for everyone's tastes but I really liked it.

Movie review - Ladd #25 - "Shane" (1953) ***1/2

Sociologists of the future seeking to understand baby boomers could do worse than to look at the character of Joey, played by Brandon de Wilde in this classic Western. Joey hero-worships Shane, a relationship which makes this movie so loved, basically dumping his hard working decent father for him the moment he rides into town.

But Joey's love isn't unconditional - he's always asking Shane questions, nagging him to do things, being a blood-thirsty little pain ("You wouldn't be a coward, would you?" "You'd beat him up wouldn't you?"). When Shane rides off into the distance you don't feel really sad, because Joey hasn't been particularly nice or fun for Shane to be around - you get the impression Shane will be glad for peace and quiet. It doesn't help that de Wilde, whose performance was widely admired at the time, actually acts like a stunned mullet through the film. Joey is your classic boomer - spoilt, never satisfied, always looking for something better on the horizon, resents his parents.

OK, I'm being mean. There is much to admire in the Western, most of all the beautifully constructed shots - although, like other George Stevens movies from this decade, every now and then you can't help mutter "stop it with the beautifully constructed shots, George, and just get on with it" (for instance that final ride into town seems to take forever).

There are some terrific scenes: my favourite are Shane's confrontations with Ben Johnson in the bar, one where he walks away another where he fights him (these are terrifically tense), all the moments with Jack Palance (in a star making turn - NB like a few movie in the 50s such as The Proud Rebel this has the baddy make really nasty anti-Southern slurs - it wasn't until another decade that Hollywood would turn on the south). The use of loud sounds for gunfire became deservedly famous, as did Elisha Cook Jnr's funeral scene with the dog scraping at the coffin (you realise how life is normally so cheap in a Hollywood film - it's lovely that here they give it weight).

Alan Ladd's acting has copped it a lot over the years. He wasn't the best actor in the world but he had presence and Stevens helps him brilliantly. I wondered, could any star have played this role? I think a lot could have (I remember my old English teacher at school said Charles Bronson would have been and I agree - but in the late 60s or 70s not in 1953). Ladd does bring a stillness, and an inherent sense of sadness that he carried with him that totally suits the character. He is also very warm in his moments with de Wilde (probably because Ladd had children around de Wilde's age).

The best performance, though (and this surprised me) was Van Heflin, who carries the "reality" of the film. His farmer is a decent man, hard working, brave, loyal, etc - but when push comes to shove he simply lacks glamour, which Shane has (and Heflin didn't have, so he is perfectly cast). His relationship with Shane is moving - both men admire each other, and although Heflin knows his wife and kid prefer Shane in some way, he doesn't resent Shane. Jean Arthur is strong as the wife - her attraction to Shane is done very subtly and well. Emile Myer is electric as the bitter Ryker - although he's a villain, he's a three dimensional one and is given this great speech where he talks about his history (Ben Johnson also gets a chance to have a bit of lightness and shade).

These sort of films always raise issues on the questions of violence. While it supports the "violence is not the way" argument, it does glamorise the superhero like Shane, who can take on anyone, who everyone love, and so makes violence attractive. (Even Van Heflin is shown to be a tough guy.) Its a film of clear quality but didn't have the emotional impact it obviously does for other (maybe you have to see it as a young boy or with your son).

Movie review - "The Spanish Main" (1945) ***

A number of swashbucklers feature a weak female co-star eg The Sea Hawk - here it's the male star who is weak, and the filmmakers seem to know it, because they fairly rush through the first part of the movie: within the space of about five minutes Paul Henreid is shipwrecked in the Caribbean, thrown in gaol by Walter Slezak, escapes from gaol and becomes one of the most fearsome bandits along the Spanish Main within five years. Phew. Then we meet Maureen O'Hara, who is a lot more home at this sort of thing than Henreid (who never seems comfortable, whether fencing or flirting with O'Hara) - all flaming red hair and imperiousness, with hate that turns to love.
Walter Slezak makes an excellent villain, fat and unscrupulous and you know he'll kill you if he wants to. Binne Barnes is OK in what is a terrific role, Anne Bonney, the female pirate who loves Henreid and clashes with O'Hara (Barnes is fine - but she doesn't grab it and make it sing). This has a solid story - Henreid kidnaps O'Hara to annoy Slezak, then is betrayed by his own pirates who fear Slezak's wrath.
It's different to have the hero as a Dutchman and this was one of the first movies to acknowledge there were female pirates. There's no denying Henreid is weak, though - the character is written as rough and tough but Henreid's a boudoir chap and you can smell it on him. As a result his section is weak, as if they shied away from him (for instance, we never get to know any of his crew to any great degree - there's no Alan Hales or Guy Kibbees - which means we don't like the pirates as much; also what happens to the other colonists he was shipwrecked with? They would have made natural allies)
There is a very good ship boarding at the beginning (RKO threw a bit of money around for this) and a strong finale fight (Barnes goes down fighting to two men). Frank Borzage seems more at home with romance and chats than fighting - this has sexy undertones with a sequence where O'Hara is worried Henreid will have his way with her (she even grabs a dagger), then get a bit excited at the prospect and kind of disappointed when he decides to be gentlemanly, then keen to go off with him at the end.
The finale involves a deux ex machina as the ship is leaving - but it is a clever one and I think you should be allowed to use him if they are clever.