Movie review - Orson #5 - "The Lady from Shanghai" (1948) ****

I like this film a lot more than when I first saw it - does that mean I'm getting more high brow or that I'm caving into auteurist pressure?

Maybe the more films you see the more you appreciate Orson Welles' originality. Or when you re-view the movie you worry less about its' flaws (a slightly messy narrative, Welles' irritating Irish brogue, the unconvincing scenes of Welles throwing a punch) and concentrate on the positives.

There are many of these things: the beauty of Rita Hayworth (she was better looking with darker hair but she's still pretty good here, especially in her various skimpy outfits in the yacht - her acting's not bad either, not great but effective especially in the finale), the glorious support performances of Glenn Anders (strangling those words, baroque horror) and Everett Sloane, the glorious visuals, the rumbunctiousness of the courtroom scene, the location filming in Mexico and San Francisco, the Chinese Opera), and most of all the incredible shoot out in the Hall of mirrors.

The film was tampered with by other hands in post production, but not destroyed, just swarped a bit. It's definitely a Welles movie - I always imagine that yacht (Errol Flynn's in real life) mooring off the coast where Citizen Kane has his picnic. The yachting sequence at the beginning of the film goes on a bit too long, and the plot is a bit rushed. But intoxicating filmmaking.

Movie review - Errol #40a - "Cruise of the Zaca" (1952) ** (20 mins)

Errol Flynn was nothing if not an adventurer - movies were a chapter in his life rather than being the real deal and even at the height of his fame he was prone to go off and do something else: report on the Spanish Civil War, write a novel, run around with Castro, donate his boat for a biology expedition. The latter is the subject of this sort doco, directed by Flynn himself and released by Warners.

It starts with a long haired Flynn, looking in pretty good shape, being picked up by helicopter at his house in LA and flying to his boat the Zaca. He does a spot of whale watching first from the helicopter (falling in the water in what seems like a re-created scene). Then he sails down the US/Mexico coast, through Panama and into the Caribbean. Some views of fish and whales and islands - of more interest is seeing Flynn (who slurs in his voice over but on camera is fine), his then-wife-but-not-for-long Nora, his father, Howard Hill, John Deckard. This makes it fascinating. Flynn isn't in it nearly enough - a claim to be made about other films he was creatively involved in (Adventures of Captain Fabian, Assault of the Cuban Rebels Girls).

Book review - "Hello Americas" by Simon Callow

Part two of the Orson Welles story by Callow following his superb Road to Xanadu goes from the immediate period following Citizen Kane to Welles leaving America at the end of the decade. I thought at first it was an odd choice but it works brilliantly. 

We go through the making of The Magnificent Ambersons then the debacle of It's All True (the one-two punch that knocked him out in Hollywood, which Kane did not) - this section of the book is a bit sluggish to be honest; Callow is a highly skilled writer, but this is stuff that has been well covered before. 

Where it really picks up is what happens next: Welles basically turns his back on movies (apart from the odd acting gig) and returns to radio, also writing columns; much of his work has a political slant and Welles becomes interested in political causes, particularly of the Popular Front variety. 

 

Callow was clearly fascinated by this aspect to Welles (which I confess I knew little apart from assuming he had the regulation liberal views), quoting extensively from his speeches (I'm with the book reviewer of the New York Times who suggested a book of Welles writings would be a great addition to Wellesology - while Welles never had the long term impact as a politician or public speaker as he did as a filmmaker, it was an important part of his life at the time and deserves due consideration).

He also found time to woo and marry Rita Hayworth, take his magic tour on the road, then re-enter the theatre with a production of Around the World in Eighty Days (Callow is brilliant on theatre and this chapter is the highlight of the book for me; I wish he'd made a film in this sort of genre). Ratings and readership figures declined - Welles never seemed to have found the popularity on stage and radio he enjoyed in the late 30s -and he had to go back to films to make money (one of the strengths of Callow's books is he retrieves Welles from the POV that he was only interested in making movies, that was the centre of his life). 

 

Compromised films followed: The Stranger, Lady from Shanghai and MacBeth. Callow argues Welles probably had little chance with the first two but should have had his way with the last, but by then had gotten jack and was off in Europe making Black Magic.

This isn't as good as Road to Xanadu, mostly because the material is less compelling - there is less theatre, less radio, more politics and cinema, ares which Callow is less strong. But still highly enjoyable. Welles did have a hard time but reading this one can't help acknowledging he was given plenty of chances (in the mid 40s especially the studios were gagging for him to star in movies for them). But still gripping. Orson Welles the story was often more interesting than his films.

Movie review - Errol #19 - "Santa Fe Trail" (1940) ***

The last in a sort of trilogy - or, rather, the second follow up to Dodge City. Like that film, Errol is joined by Alan Hale and Big Boy Williams (and director Michael Curtiz, composer Max Steiner, writer Bob Buckner, etc) as they strive to clean up and rough and tough town in Kansas (there's even a scene where Errol visits a barber shop to get a shave and information). And their enemies are evil... abolitionists. Yes, that's right, abolitionists, that cancer on society. (Maybe Buckner thought he'd been a bit too nice to the North in Virginia City.)

Politically, this is one of the most fascinating Westerns Hollywood ever made. Errol is in the lead, and the goody - playing Southerner Jeb Stuart, who tsk tsks a fire-breathing abolitionist at West Point, Van Heflin. The film admits slavery is bad but dislikes violence as a way to resolve it - which I guess is fair enough, a bit Ghandi-like for Hollywood, though, especially in an Errol Flynn film, a genre which normally advocates violence (albeit sancitoned by the establishment) as a way of resolving problems.

This film is really one that got away - the battles in bloody Kansas of the 1850s is marvellous stuff for drama, ditto the attack on Harpers Ferry: so many issues, peace vs violence, is it right to use force to combat a great evil?

Raymond Massey is in excellent form as the religious nutter John Brown, who hates slavers so much he doesn't mind massacring them in their sleep. But the film drops the ball - while the script has copped flack for silly things like having Jed Stuart, Custer, Picket, Hood, Sheridan and Longstreet all classmates together that isn't the big problem (they just use it in a sort of kid's way to get familiarity and besides Stuart was at Harper's Ferry); a bigger problem is not exploiting the inherent dramatic possibilities involed: for example Errol and Ronald Reagan (as Custer) are fellow army mates, one from the South one from the north , so you'd think there'd be some excellent chance for confrontation on the issue of Brown... but there's none, just some boring squabbling over Olivia de Havilland (as if Ronnie has a chance next to Errol - though mind you, that didn't stop Patric Knowles in The Charge of the Light Brigade).

And some blacks freed by Brown make the point about what happens after they are free (which is a valid question to ask) - only it's kind of ruined by the fact that all the black characters in this film are depicted as dopey darky types, stupid and wanting to go back to being a slave. I think Hollywood simply wasn't capable doing full justice to this subject in 1940, lest not within the constraints of an Errol Flynn action film. Twenty years later, add some conflict and three-dimensional black characters, this might have become a classic. As it is, the film is always interesting.

There is at least plenty of action - the final attack on Harpers Ferry is spectacular (more so than the real thing perhaps though there is some accuracy - Robert E Lee was there and Stuart did walk to the barn to negotiate with Brown) and there are some solid shoot outs. Errol being an army officer kind of meshes a bit uneasily with Errol being a cowbody with Hale and Williams.

The star is in decent form, a bit disconcerting to see him go so easily on slavery (always arguing for peaceful reform, saying Virginia were going to consider a referendum stopping it, never really condemning it) and his love scenes with Olivia de Havilland feel perfunctory (I wish she'd swapped with Brenda Marshall for The Sea Hawk - Brenda Marshall wouldn't have mattered here). Ronnie isn't much but Brown is superb, as is Van Heflin as a seemingly principled anti-slaver who (typcially) turns out to be a rat. There is a surprisingly moving scene where Stuart, Custer and his mates are told by an Indian fortune teller they will all fight each other in a few years.

Comic review - Asterix #2 - "Asterix and the Golden Sickle" by René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo

The second Asterix book following Asterix the Gaul but not released into the English canon for a while - one supposes because the story isn't as strong. Nonetheless it sets up the tone of the series even more than its predecessor: Asterix and Obelix (carrying a menhir, a charming conceit) travel to Lutetia (present-day Paris) to buy a sickle for Getafix and uncover a sickle-racket. The colour and pictures are delightful, the drawing skilful, and there is some wit, particularly the ever-so-bored Frank Thring/Charles Laughton-like Roman ruler who turns out to be the top baddy (in a nice twist). But it seems a little on the thin side and gets repetitive - Asterix and Obelix looking for people, getting into fights, etc. Asterix uses the potion rather than his cunning and the satire isn't as sharp. Nonetheless, entertaining as always.

Movie review - Errol #14 - "The Dawn Patrol" (1938) ****

War was a bit of a lark in many Errol Flynn movies but not in this excellent remake of the 1930 Howard Hawks film. It is set in the Journey's End world of stiff upper lips and wondering about the slaughter - yes, it became a cliche, but it wasn't here, and it is still powerful, mostly because you know it really happened and its made by ex soldiers - director Edmund Goulding, stars Basil Rathbone and David Niven (who hadn't seen action yet but his father had died at Gallipolli), co-writer John Monk Saunders. And for all the jolly-good-chaps dialogue and befriending Germans who've tried to kill them, there's no denying the character's desperation as they booze away and try not to think about tomorrow.

Errol gives an excellent performance, the perfect dashing hero tired by war but trying to keep his spirits up - he's maybe a little over his head in the later scenes when he's character takes command but since his character is over his head it suits. Niven is excellent, too - he and Flynn have real camraderie, their boozing jousting sessions feel natural and warm - and I love the use of zoom on Flynn by Goulding when Flynn realises Niven's not dead like he thought.

Fans of the "male gaze" from gay directors may get something from analysing this all-male war film: note the number of pretty young boys in the cast, the non leads, such as the one who has a breakdown because his "best friend" dies (he can't understand why Flynn doesn't get as upset when Niven dies). It's not overt, just different from the handling of, say, a Raoul Walsh or Michael Curtiz.

Basil Rathbone and Donald Crisp provides strong support - Rathbone in a sort-of sympathetic role (he does have sadistic relish when he passes his job over to Flynn), Crisp in his normal cuddly part. Three main action sequences - two involving Flynn in which despite all the film's anti-war stance he is shown to demolish the Germans pretty easily.

Movie review - Errol #34a - "It's a Great Feeling" (1949) **1/2

Bright, breezy musical with colour and energy and is perhaps best seen on a Saturday afternoon on television. It stars Jack Carson and Dennis Morgan, whom few remember today but who were used by Warners as their equivalent to Bob Hope and Bing Crosby (Carson played an girl-crazy egomaniac, Morgan the smooth crooner, both were pals but also rivals who double crossed each other); it also stars Doris Day who most know about - she's very bright, chirpy and girl-next-door-ish, no wonder she became a star so quickly (this was one of her earliest movies) - though the character she plays isn't very nice, a bit too mercenary-ish and whiny about wanting to be a star. She plays a character but Carson and Morgan play themselves - Carson's directing a movie and Day is the girl who is going to be in it.

This film has a lovely in-jokey quality - even those unfamiliar with Carson and Morgan (which I admit I was to a great degree) soon "get" their rapport, and there are heaps of cameos: Michael Curtiz, Raoul Walsh, King Vidor, and David Butler (NB I can understand Curtiz and Walsh and even Vidor - but did anyone really want to see a David Butler cameo? I guess you can do that when you direct the film), as well as stars such as Gary Cooper (very funny), Joan Crawford (funnier still, spoofing her image, spouting some typical Joan Crawford dialogue), Jane Wyman, Eleanor Parker, Ronald Reagan (always fun to see him - his and Wyman's daughter Maureen is also in it), Sydney Greenstreet, Edward G Robinson.

It has the feeling of a revue, with stars doing "turns" (something Warners helped pioneer with Stage Door Canteen - two years later that studio released one of the last of that genre, Starlift) - there is some poignance knowing that Warners would soon have to let most of them go. It does wear out its welcome after a while; Day's character isn't very likeable and the ending unsatisfying, with her returning home. This results in a strong gag - this is a spoiler but it's the reason I watched the film: at the very end Day marries Errol Flynn (shot through soft focus, looking handsome but a bit weary). The film makes the joke of Carson and Morgan going "life's going to be boring with this bloke" then they cut to Errol Flynn - but watching it you can't help think "hmmm... marriage to Errol would probably be a bit too interesting, you'd be better off being a movie star". (NB is the film endorsing marriage over career?)

Comic review - Tintin #1 - "Tintin in the Land of the Soviets" by Herge

Tintin decides to do a story on the Soviet Union and straight away the commies try to kill him. This is the first of the Tintin adventures and Herge later withdrew it from circulation, so he never redrew or recoloured it - as a result it is in black and white with a very basic style - even Tintin looks a little odd. 

Totally fascinating - totally bigoted against the Soviets and commies (they have false factories to dupe foreigners, Stalin/Lenin/Trotsky are shown to have pinched all the money). 

It has pace and wit of a kind (I enjoyed the scene where Tintin is driving along trying to escape flames caused by his leaking petrol), and the scenes in the snow are effective, though is mostly silly (Tintin makes his own propellers out of wood and survives being hit by a train) and is chiefly of historical interest.

Movie review – Errol #53 - “Assault of the Cuban Rebel Girls” (1959) **

A pretty awful movie but for Errol Flynn fans totally absorbing because it’s so random. Errol may have made a hash of his life, boozing and blowing his money and running around with a teenager, but you’ve got to give him credit for not going gently into that good night – I mean, running off to Cuba to hook up with Castro when he’s at death’s door, then making a documentary and film in support of the leader? It's bizarre.

Errol, looking very weary, plays himself, who goes to Cuba and meets with the rebels in some footage that is told with his own weazy-sounding voice over. Then the film goes to a story focusing on three Cuban rebel girls: Maria, an agent for the rebels who lives in Havana chased by agents), Jackie, a Cuban exile who smuggles some guns for the rebels, and Beverly Aadland (Errol’s real life gaol bait), whose boyfriend is fighting with the rebels. They all troop off into the hills; Errol arrives to do his story, gets injured in the leg (something which apparently really happened to Flynn in Cuba), then leaves.

Although Flynn wrote the story, he isn’t in it much and it would have been a better movie if he had (just like with another script he wrote, The Adventures of Captain Fabian). There is a pointless scene where the three girls go for a nude swim. Technically the film is poor - bad acting, lousy sound, nil production values. It’s just so weird to see such a pro-Castro film (even though he wasn’t a confirmed commie then) from a Hollywood movie star.

Movie review – Errol #24 - “Gentleman Jim” (1943) ****1/2

Errol Flynn’s own favourite of his movies and he rarely acted with such infectious enjoyment – he’s obviously having the time of his life in the title role, a part which obviously was close to his real life character): big headed, cocky, a bit of a prat (the sort of person who has himself paged all the time at a gym just for the thrill of hearing his name), but with a likeable sheen (I do have the feeling real-life Errol was a bit more of a prick).

The whole film is made with a lot of love and affection – from the recreation of the “gay 90s” (Olympic Clubs, banks, fight scenes, boardwalks, etc) and the fights (all the fight sequences are excellent – some take place in gyms, tents, stadiums and one memorable one on a pontoon), the rich parade of character actors (Alan Hale as Flynn’s dad, Jack Carson as his mate, Ward Bond as John Sullivan and many more), funny lines.

Most of all there is Alexis Smith, looking like as Pauline Kael stated a ship in full sail; she’s feisty, smart and fun (up for a bit of nooky, too – watch how she gropes John L Sullivan’s muscles), Flynn’s best partner since de Havilland (I like Olivia D but she would have been too ninny like for this role).

Top notch script full of memorable one liners, clever exposition, and scenes (though why don’t we see the bit at the beginning where Errol talks the arrested fight fans out of trouble?). Best moments apart from the fights and the Smith-Flynn verbal jousting is the ending, where Ward Bond passes the belt over to Flynn and there is a moment of sadness, the end of an era inevitable in all sport (Danny Peary pointed out this is a rare pro-boxing film) – followed by the wonderful Smith-Flynn kiss with the line “in that case, I’m no lady”.

Aussie note – Peter Jackson, the boxer they talk about Corbett fighting in 61 rounds was an Aussie (a black man, originally from the Virgin Islands but who moved out here when he was six – Sullivan refused to fight him because he was black). Also Corbett went on to lose his title to a Kiwi.

The author of an Errol Flynn website wrote that after this film, the magic disappeared. I'd tend to agree: the rape trial happened just after this was shot - and afterwards Warners downplayed his image, putting him in more serious roles such as Edge of Darkness, Uncertain Glory and Objective, Burma! (these are good movies, but Errol doesn't swash and buckle so much). Only in a few random examples, such as The Adventures of Don Juan, did the old Errol come back. So that gives his appearance here extra resonance.

Movie review – Errol #8 - “The Prince and the Pauper” (1937) ***

By 1937 we’d seen the swashbuckling Errol, noble Errol, rebel Errol, romantic Errol – here we have the Cool Big Brother Errol. Although our hero is top billed he doesn’t play the lead – that goes to Billy and Bob Mauch, some twins who made some shorts but this is their only real film of note.

They are the leads, and this is definitely a kid’s film – it’s a kids fantasy, find out you’re identical to the king and get to rule a country (everyone does what you want), or if you become a pauper a cool sword fighter like Errol will come along and look after you like a big brother. There is no real love interest (a bar maid flirts with Errol), the plot is kind of simple.

Warners give the film the A treatment: Claude Rains is the villain, the cast also includes Henry Stephenson, Alan Hale (as a guard Rains sends to kill Edward VI – he has a so-so duel with Errol, it’s their first movie together) and Montague Love (playing an unsympathetic Henry VIII – the film sticks it to how he treated Catholics – was this due to the influence of the Legion of Decency?), Eric Wolfgang Korngold did a score (when you see William Keighley directed it really gives you a feeling the whole movie was a trial run for Robin Hood).

This is a solid, not sensational swashbuckler – it does drag a bit in places, like the ending running-around-at-the-coronation sequence, and feels as though it could have done with a bit more fun. Apparently Warners threatened to replace Flynn, who was asking for more money, with Ian Hunter or Patrick Knowles or George Brent – Errol is better than either of those would be but to be honest I don’t think it would have made that much difference.

Movie review - Errol #28 - "Objective, Burma" (1945) ***1/2

If you want to trace the development of the Hollywood war film, from tongue in cheek frivolity to tough, weary verisimilitude, you couldn't do much better than comparing this with another Errol Flynn vehicle, Desperate Journey. Unlike that film, this one is serious, hard and lacks any sort of female interest - the soldiers still wisecrack, but they are professional, no-nonsense killers who follow orders and get along with each other (unless really stressed) i.e. there is no contrived in-fighting, the enemy are ruthless and clever. Apart from Errol the only really well known member of the cast is Henry Hull, who is a bit too bombastic as a war correspondent; the others are pretty much unknowns, which makes it hard to tell who is who at times (so when they die it lessens the impact as you can't really remember or care who they were) - but it does add to tension since you're only sure Errol is going to make it home alive.

The film became known for being banned in Britain, for slighting British contribution to the Burma campaign - which, to be honest, it does: the opening spiel which sets the scene barely mentions the British making the whole thing seem like Stillwell fulfilling an "I will return" like promise (Merrill's Marauders also get a mention); we see one British solider (who assigns two Gurkhas to the expedition), but after that British are only mentioned as having outposts and the invasion at the end seems like an American operation. It didn't deserve to be banned, but it was a bit insensitive of Warner Bros not to change the intro and outro to mention the Brits a bit more, especially as it needn't have affected any of the guts of the film, and also Burma really was more a British-India campaign. George MacDonald Fraser, who served in the British army in Burma, wrote that British soldiers would have liked to have seen the film and he thought the reaction at home was partly due to guilt feelings about neglect of the Burma campaign (which was extensive - how many British films can you recall about Burma? Off the top of my head: The Purple Plain, Yesterday's Enemy and The Long, The Short and The Tall, all of which were made after the war.)

This film is also notorious for racism: soldiers including Errol casually refer to the Japanese as "slope-eyed" and "monkeys", Americans mow down Japanese like fish in a barrell, and Hull gives a talk after finding the Japanese have mutilated and killed some captured American soldiers where he says "wipe them all out I say" (Errol is silent during this but he doesn't say Hull is wrong). I would regard this as another example of the film making a greater attempt to reflect with more accuracy the values of its time.

Some writers such as David Shipman rank this as one of the best war movies; I wouldn't go that far, it is too long (eg the invasion sequence at the end goes on and on so), has the aforementioned problems of indistinguishable characters, etc. But it is definitely above average: stunning James Wong Howe photography, pleasing aura of reality (including documentary footage, emphasis on sweat and discomfort while fighting in the jungle), and many memorable sequences: the parachute jump (one of the reason the film runs so long is it lingers over what is rushed by in other combat movies but in this case it provides an exciting moment), arrival at the temple to find the tortured soldiers (a friend of Errol's asks him to kill him - he dies before our star has the chance, obviously they didn't want to go too hard core), the death of Hull the audience surrogate, the final attack by the Japanese at night, Errol handing over the dog tags at the end.

Errol gives a fine, restrained performance - but really any star could have been in this film. (After the rape trial it seems Warners tried to steer Errol away from overly-Errol-esque roles and in The Edge of Darkness and this he was particularly buttoned down. His character here is a former architect who smokes a lot, a good leader of men, but not Captain Blood - which makes his harsh reception in Britain all the more ironic.) Top Franz Waxman score.

Movie review - "The Adventures of Errol Flynn" (2005) ****

So many Errol Flynn movies have played on TCM that they owed him a decent doco and they've risen to the occasion. This is a really excellent overview of the actor's life, it's main flaw for me being not a real flaw - it's not long enough. I wanted a ten hour version!

A couple of great coups, led by interviews with Olivia de Havilland (like an elegant grandma with a touch of sauce to her personality - she confirms her crush on him, great story about teasing him to arousement during Robin Hood, says his main problem was he got away with too much), Deidre Flynn (who looks like a prison warden - a lot like her dad), and Patrice Wymore (looking like Lauren Bacall, she still seems to have a lot of affection for him), plus never seen before footage of William Tell (not a lost classic but I think it would have been entertaining); there's also 1977 footage of Nora Eddington (she talks about his drug addiction) and David Niven (who talks about what a prick Flynn could be - this doco goes easy on Flynn but it's good to have hints).

Various actors offer their views on Errol - I wasn't that interested in Burt Reynolds and Joanne Woodward, but loved Richard Dreyfuss - of course a pudgy Jew like Dreyfuss would want to be Errol Flynn more than anyone, but Dreyfuss really goes into bat for Errol as an actor (eg the romantic dialogue but also Too Much Too Soon). We see vision from his television work in the 50s, his random projects eg on Cuba. They acknowledge Erben was a Nazi but dispute Errol was - in showing an article on Charles Higham's book, Higham's name is blanked out. Exellent doco, all Flynn fans will like it, and even non Flynn fans.

Movie review - Errol #40 - "The Adventures of Captain Fabian" (1951) **

Errol Flynn wrote throughout his career - he was good enough before finding fame as an actor to have pieces published in The Bulletin, and later published some novels, as well as writing this screenplay (he also provided the story for Assault of the Cuban Rebel Girls). This isn't that bad, better than I remembered, though it has flaws and probably would have been better off being an episode of a 50s anthology show.

It's a melodrama which feels a bit film noir at times, with black and white photography, night scenes and everyone betraying everyone else and a femme fetale. Errol plays the title role but he's actually not in the film that much (he doesn't appear until about 20 minutes in), though his part is crucial: he's the captain of a boat in 1860 New Orleans who wants to get revenge on the rich family who destroyed his father - so he comes to the rescue of a woman (Michele Presle) on trial for murder, who was the lover of one of the family (Vincent Price). He gets her off, buys her a tavern and... that's his revenge? She prompts Price to kill his uncle then blackmails Price into marrying her, which would have been good revenge from Errol - but when he finds out about it he goes tsk tsk. It would have been a better film had Errol plotted some decent revenge - then had a bit more screen time for Errol so he could fall in love with Presle more believably, so it's more of a shock when he's arrested for murder).

Presle is Ok ; Price and Agnes Moorehead are dab hands at this sort of scenery chewing antics. Errol is so-so - he's a bit old but still charismatic (could have done without seeing him in a bath tub in an early scene, he's a bit pudgy) but he doesn't do enough (even at the end, the only decent action scene - it's a perfectly decent one with a bit of spectacle, rescuing Errol from a lynch mob - his crew are coming to rescue him not the other way round). When someone talks of Errol having a crew of cut-throats you get a bit excited but his crew don't do that much. A curio and only really for Errol completists but I didn't mind it - maybe I was reluctant to criticise it too much because he wrote it (and directed some of it, too).

Movie review - Errol #23 - "Desperate Journey" (1942) ***

There is a fair bit of fun to be had with this film - for Aussies there's the sight of Errol Flynn playing an Aussie (at the beginning he sings a bit from Waltzing Matilda and says "Australians are fighting men"), the central idea is very strong (group of airmen shot down in occupied Germany wreck havoc), and Errol has a classic last line, "And now for Australia and a crack at those Japs".

It's very much in Biggles mode, making the war seem like a game (several of the crew die, but its just like losing points in a video game). No one really seems to take it seriously, least of all Raymond Massey as a screaming Nazi, casual Errol or jokey Ronald Reagan. Actually, serious Arthur Kennedy does (playing a Canadian accountant) - his clash with the more casual Errol form the basis of the inter-crew drama (though Ronnie was billed with Errol above the title his role doesn't have the same meat on it as Kennedy's). I enjoyed this a lot as a kid but it holds up less well over the years. Errol's later war films were a lot more serious.

Movie review - Errol #25 - "Edge of Darkness" (1943) ***1/2

Not one of Errol Flynn's best known war films, but it's really excellent - it's not an Errol Flynn vehicle, really, but rather an ensemble piece; in fact, although Errol gives a fine, restrained performance, when I first saw the film I thought his casting threw the whole piece a bit off, but watching it again I got used to it.

It's definitely Errol's most communist (ish) film, with a top-notch script by later blacklistee Robert Rossen and images that seem straight out of the Soviet Union: the masses marching together with their rifles a la Eisenstein, the oppressive Nazis, the quisling who works at the factory (one Nazi says one of them "is for us", another says "The owner?", the Nazi replies "Of course"), the prominence given to women (several are leaders and take part in the fighting), the fanatical glint in the resistance's eye.

Most of all there is the film's theme, best espoused with some dialogue at the end: "I can't walk by myself". "You don't have to". While Errol is the leader, he's more first among equals - there's none of the solo dictatorial orders of Robin Hood or Captain Blood (even if they were rebels there was no doubt Errol was boss), the Norwegian fighters here work on the basis of teamwork. Whenever someone does an action by themselves here, its shown to be totally ineffective (a school teacher telling off a Nazi, a Nazi mistress telling off a Nazi) or dangerous to the whole group (a man attacks his daughter's rapist). There is a great scene where Errol has to force himself not to avenge his girlfriend's rape so as not to endanger the whole resistance.

Edge of Darkness is full of wonderful scenes : the Beau Geste-like opening sequence, the resistance meeting in the church (with everyone facing forward as they have their discussion), the school teacher's futile protest, Ann Sheridan's post-rape scene (where we forget about dad Walter Huston - this is good writing), the scene in the town suqare where the priest and women start blowing people away (director Lewis Milestone effectively using zooms here - Milestone does overuse his patented "tracking shot of charging troops" method from All Quiet on the Western Front a bit too often).

It is also a film full of strong characterisations: Judith Anderson's Nazi hater who nonetheless becomes affectionate towards a nice Nazi, Huston's decent doctor and his everything is-all-right dotty wife (Ruth Gordon), their quisling son and tough as guts daughter, the old school teacher, the pacifist priest, the mistress (Nancy Olson) to the head Nazi. Helmut Dantine's bad guy is a bit too scenery chewing and the film does go over the top on occasion in handling, but it holds up extremely well.

Two bits I noticed for fun: when Ruth Gordon goes on the boat at the end leaving Walter Huston, note how Huston's pretty maid is in the background shot - she's staying with her old employer, so presumably will offer some consolation for him! Also liked the bit where Errol tells Ann Sheridan that all the women with children are going to England but everyone else is headed for the hills to become a guerilla - Sheridan has this brief look as if to say "hang on, no one told me that".

Book review - "Laughing Matters" by Larry Gelbart

Few writers conquered mediums the way Larry Gelbart did: he was a leading sketch writer for radio then television, wrote the book of some superb musicals, developed one of the great television series in history, wrote some wonderful screenplays. It would be nice to add "and now he conquers books" - he doesn't really, though his memoirs are entertaining, brisk.
He seems to lack confidence - there are all these explanatory inserts from an editor, putting things in context and making comments. We don't care! It's Larry Gelbart!
There's also little chapters where Gelbart talks about people he admires such as Neil Simon and Woody Allen - sort of interesting but not really. And extracts of some of his work - a large chunk of Mastergate which does read brilliantly but surely the place for it is in a published edition of the whole script? And Gelbart falls into the trap that a lot of old comic writers fall into - going on about how better the old days were (which seems strange for someone who enjoyed success over such a long period of time - Gelbart's work remained fresh and young).
I most enjoyed Gelbart's behind the scenes accounts of making Oh, God!, Tootsie, Movie Movie, and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Some stories of the failures are interesting, too, like the series United States. But it's certainly not the book you know it could have been.

Book review - "Osprey Series - Lawrence and the Arab Revolts" by David Nicolle

World War I was mostly mindless slaughter in muddy European trenches but other theatres of the war were not without glamour (I know, I know, war isn't glamorous but this is comparative): India, chasing the Emden, Africa and Arabia. Although TE Lawrence gets title billing he isn't featured that much, which is part of the point of the book. We hear about the various battles and campaigns in Arabia, of which there was an awful lot, with a bewildering amount of tribes and factions. The British seemed to lose a lot, and you wonder how they won the war at times. Plenty of skirmishes and uprising - you may chuckle at old foreign legion movies but they certainly kept busy in real life in that part of the world, which makes it even more confusing why the Yanks thought once they got rid of Saddam everyone would peacefully turn to shopkeeping and accountancy.

Movie review - Errol #34 - "The Adventures of Don Juan" (1948) ****

Errol Flynn's career was in gentle decline after WW2, his films getting less distinguished, but a successful re-release of Robin Hood and The Sea Hawk prompted Warners to splurge on an old style swashbuckler.

They put up a healthy budget, brought back some old faces (Alan Hale as a side kick, Una O'Connor as a lady in waiting) and created a script that beautifully incorporates the damage time has done to Errol - he's a little bit old and weary now, has done a lot of hard living, but that's totally appropriate for Don Juan (Errol wouldn't have been as good playing this ten years earlier when he was all shiny teeth and healthy limbs).

There are some hilarious lines in the script, mostly involving Don Juan seducing women (presumably the work of Harry Kurnitz, one of the writers, who specialised in comedy), and the transition of Don from irresponsible playboy to patriot is well done. There is some decent historical background (its set at the court of Phillip II and Margaret, with Don trying to stop an evil count creating war against England - we couldn't have had Errol fighting the Poms), a wisecracking dwarf and weak king (which he was). Robert Douglas is a villain worthy of Henry Daniell and he and Flynn have a spectacular final duel; Raymond Burr is also good value as Douglas' nasty sidekick. Lots of comedy, colour and costumes, Max Steiner's score is among his most rousing.

The major drawback is Viveca Lindfors as the Queen; she tries hard but there's no magic there. Better value are the other Don Juan-hungry women: Ann Rutherford (Andy Hardy's old sweetheart), Helen Westcott and Nora Eddington (Flynn's wife, who is in the final scene). Another drawback is the fact Don Juan is fighting for peace rather than freedom from oppression - it's a lot harder to get excited about maintaining the status quo.

Comic review – Asterix #1 - “Asterix the Gaul”

My memories of the first instalment of the classic comic series were not that strong: I had vague recollections of too much exposition and a sub plot about hair. That’s true, but it stands up as a hilarious adventure, well-written, excellently drawn (so many magnificent faces, especially the dumb Romans), fast-paced and clever. The plot is driven by the Romans rather than the Gauls - they send a solider undercover to find out the Gaul's secret, and he does quite well, but eventually Asterix and Getafix are too smart. The series was still setting itself up at this stage: Obelix has a small role, drinking potion is a major event, they actually use Cacofonix at village functions. But the talent and energy were all there.

Comic review - Tintin #24 - "Tintin and Alph Art" by Herge

The final Tintin, a work in progress when Herge died in 1983. No doubt there was a time when people thought "ah, the lost classic", but this invaluable re-production proves, I think, that it wouldn't (Herge was on the slide towards the end of his career, as often happens - look at Tintin in the Picaros), but there is still a lot of fun to be had: Haddock imagining his marriage to Castiafiore and becoming wound up with modern art, the spoof of the art world. Tintin actually does some reporting here, a car tries to drive him over again. It's not bad, seems to have been shaping up to be a solid if not sensational entry. The main interest from this book was its insight into the process of writing Tintin - it includes various sketches, plans, jottings of ideas. Fascinating for the fan.

Book review - "Seabiscuit: An American Legend" by Laura Hillenbrand

A deserved best seller this is a wonderful book about an era I had zero knowledge about. American history books always seem to have this advantage because the gaps between success and failure are so huge - when America go corrupt and shonky, they really go corrupt and shonky. Hillenbrand has a real genius for zeroing in on the telling anecdote - like the jockeys who used tape worm to lose weight or put on sweat suits and climbed in the pile of horse manure outside the Tijuana racetrack (all the jockey stuff is gold). F Scott Fitzgerald once said there were no second acts in American lives but all the main characters in this have second acts - Red Pollard the jockey, Tom Smith the trainer and Charles Howard the millionaire owner (recovering from the death of his son) - even Seabiscuit (who like all champion race horses was a show pony who thrived on adulation). I thought it did get a bit bogged down chatting about different horses and stuff about track details and soggy hooves - I know it had to be in the book and horsey people will love it, but I preferred the human detail. Aussie connection: George Woolf, who took over riding Seabiscuit when Pollard was injured, used a saddle that used to belong to Phar Lap.

Movie review - Errol #6 - "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1936) ***

After the success of Captain Blood, Warners reteamed Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in another historical action romance, only it's not as good, mainly because the story is a such a dog's breakfast. They obviously started with the charge, and went "well what a great ending - but how do you fill up time before then?" The Crimea wasn't a very glamorous war, mainly lots of suffering and stuff up after stuff up - so instead most of the film is set in India, a lot more glamorous then the flavour of the month thanks to Lives of a Bengal Lancer. Russians were involved in skullduggery on the frontier, so that's how the two are connected.

The guts of the plot involves a nasty Indian prince who massacres a garrison (based on the Cawnpore massacre of 1857), then flees to the Crimea, so the English chase him. It doesn't come across any less silly on screen: Errol Flynn forges an order so the charge can go ahead so he can get the baddy which when you think about it is really quite fanatical (oh, they throw in the reason the charge is needed to save Sebastopol - the charge is shown to important for the war, just like Little Big Horn was falsely shown to be in a good cause in They Died With Their Boots On). But you know - in real life an officer making a mistake was responsible for the charge so maybe that's not that much of a distortion. Another less endearing quality about Errol's character is in India when there are tense times with the Indian prince and he goes "well let's attack him, then" - steady on, Errol!

The second major problem of the story is the "romance" plot consists of Olivia de Havilland being engaged to Errol but loving Patric Knowles - and she doesn't change her mind. This is irritating because Knowles is a bit wet and useless, and his character is a wanker (he never does anything brave, he thinks Errol won't mind the fact de Havilland falls for him then goes into a sulk when Errol gets p*ssed off). When de Havilland kisses Knowles you really feel she's cheating on Errol. I guess the reason they did this was because they knew Errol was going to die in the final charge and wanted to have him do some noble gesture - but couldn't they have made Knowles a bit more admirable? Or maybe have Errol love Olivia secretly or something Incidentally, Errol has far more rapport with David Niven, who plays one of his solider mates than Knowles.

On the positive side there are three top notch action sequences: an ambush where Errol saves the day, the siege and massacre (very effective), and the final charge (Tennyson's poem superimposed over the top, which is a bit distracting but you get used to it). Errol also has a great death scene, getting shot and throwing a lance into the baddy but lingering long enough to see the baddy get totally skewered. The production values are great, black and white suits it, the support cast has plenty of Brit actors. Michael Curtiz's direction ensures plenty of shots of shadows and marching troops. But too much of a mess for me to class as top notch Flynn.

Movie review – “Mission Impossible 3” (2006) **

They shouldn't have made this film without a reason - a decent twist, a major new character (eg Sean Connery in the third Indiana Jones). They do add a fiancee for Tom Cruise – but that’s not enough, not unless it was J Lo or Judi Dench or something. After an intriguing beginning the film becomes stock: a rescue mission, another mission, then another one. The first MI film had a strong idea (the team wiped out); the second had at least that terrific opening sequence. This third one is slick, plenty of explosives, some tangy dialogue – but still seems like a big budget episode of Alias. The villain is the boss – gasp! We think someone is dead – but they were wearing a mask! The macguffin is... something we never find out! (eg Ronin) Come on... try harder. Cruiser got lazy on this one, no wonder it underperformed. A talented support cast is given little memorable to do. Three of the leading women are slim types with long hair, just like Jennifer Garner.

Movie review – “You, Me and Dupree” (2006) **

Kate Hudson has a wonderful backside and it is lovingly photographed in this Gen X comedy about the fear of aging. She’s OK in the part but doesn’t have much to do: this is one of those films written by people who don’t seem to like women, they either fear or objectify them.

Owen Wilson in fine form as the perennial slacker who has a crush on Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday (cute idea). Matt Dillon isn’t quite right as the husband, though Michael Douglas is a delight.

The writers should have looked at Neil Simon’s The Odd Couple – it’s not enough just to throw an odd one into the mix and have a series of incidents, you need a plot to act as the spine (in the Odd Couple it was trying to pick up the Pigeon sisters). Without it, things quickly go tiring.

Movie review – “Night of the Living Dead” (1968) ***1/2

I remember seeing this at a cinema in the early 90s and the audience laughed through it, but just try watching it at home alone, especially if in a deserted house like the one in the film. It was a remarkably accomplished debut, very well directed, especially considering the low budget and still holds up well.

Yes, some of the acting is a bit creaky (especially the women, who admittedly have weaker characters), and the shots of the zombies staggering around outside are funny rather than scary, but the atmosphere is still terrifically creepy, the music effective, and some scenes still pack a wallop: the failed escape attempt, when the little girl kills her parents horribly, and the nihilistic ending.

Attention was given to the film because the hero (Duane Jones) was black – but although he seems sensible and brave, he’s not much of a hero: his decision to stay upstairs is wrong, he organises a disastrous escape attempt, he’s bossy, he gets himself shot at the end when he should have known to keep his head down.

Movie review – Errol #22 - “They Died With Their Boots On” (1942) ***1/2

Warners tackle the George Custer story, and provide it with Errol Flynn, who is perfectly cast, being handsome, swashbuckling and erratic, and a healthy budget. They play fast and loose with history, mainly by turning incidents from Custer’s life into cute (fictional) “bits”: he arrives in West Point with dogs and a new uniform, he meets his future wife without being able to talk to her, he is promoted to general accidentally, gets off to a bad foot with his future father in law by singing "Garryowen" too loudly – indeed, the first half of this film is mostly played for comedy, even including the Civil War.

Then it gets progressively more serious: Custer becomes a drinker, gets off it, redeems himself through fighting Indians, fights corruption, goes to his death. All of which is true – the film also shows he was a big headed cocky kid prone to going his own way, which was true, too, so the film is not without some historical interest. Although in real life Custer remained cocky and idiotic and here he sort of grows up (though there is still a maniacal glint in his eye at the end).

This does mean, though, that Errol Flynn can give one of his finest performances, a real emotional journey from silly boy to grown man, and he does it very well. Just like Essex was in Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, Custer is let off the hook from history here: it was corrupt Indian agents who caused all the trouble, you see, by creating a false rumour about gold in the Black Hills and selling them guns (the film is quite sympathetic to Indians – they are brave and shown to be betrayed by the whites; Custer admits if he was an Indian he’d fight, too); Custer’s final assault is not shown as the blunder it was but as a way of rescuing neighbourhood towns and - in one of the most memorable twistings of the law by a Hollywood screenwriter – as a way of insuring the legal admissibility of some hearsay evidence! (Hearsay is admissible if it’s a dying declaration – Custer, mate, it’s not worth it just to get something past a judge).

The final battle is a bit flat – just people galloping across a plain shooting at each other, when doing something closer to the truth would have been a bit more exciting. It’s also a bit too much of a coincidence that the two soldiers who clashed with Custer at West Point turn out to be bad (Arthur Kennedy gives a good performance as one of them). Olivia de Havilland is strong as Errol’s co-star – she could do this sort of part in her sleep by now, but she does have a bit more meat here, playing someone a bit more mature, and their final parting has special resonance. Max Steiner’s score is excellent (constant use of "Garryowen"). Raoul Walsh’s direction keeps it flying by (no shadows on the wall for him).

Book review – “Osprey Series: Isandlwana 1879” by Ian Knight

Isandlwana is one of my favourite battles mainly because it was such a spectacular stuff up – and I’ve always found it impossible not to be moved by the fate of the Brits as they get slaughtered by the Zulus. Ian Knight’s reputation as a Zulu War authority is deserved; he gets a little bogged down in technical stuff for most of this book, though, and it lacks the feeling and flavour most accounts of this battle have. Only when it comes to the last moments of the battle – the lone siege in the cave, the retreat of the British – and the aftermath does he start adding the little touches that really bring it home – British troops forced to sleep on the battle site and waking up drenched in blood, etc. Good pictures and so on. Maybe should have referred to the movies esp Zulu Dawn as they are so well known.

Movie Review – Errol #18 - “The Sea Hawk” (1940) *****

Pretty close to perfection as these things go. OK I will admit to two gripes: it isn’t in colour (the black and white photography is excellent but after watching The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex and Dodge City you can’t help wishing for colour), and Brenda Marshall is a bit flat as the female lead (she’s OK but no Olivia de Havilland – it doesn’t help that her character is a ninny: “If you believe in it, it must be right”).

That aside there is much to admire: the story flows beautifully, very well structured (it sort of combines Captain Blood with Robin Hood to the background of Elizabeth and Essex and Spanish Armada history), the production values are spectacular (a fantastic sea battle, a hellish swamp, the Elizabethan Court, the Tilbury address), the support cast superb (Flora Robson as Queen Bess, Alan Hale as a sidekick, Claude Rains and Henry Daniell make an incredible two villains), Michael Curtiz’s direction (plenty of shadows and compositions), Eric Wolfgang Korngold’s score is his finest, there is an all time classic final duel (I prefer it to the one in Captain Blood even if Daniell couldn’t fence in real life – more action, with shadows on the wall and cutting candles).

Errol Flynn is very strong in the lead role – he turns in a different type of swashbuckler in this film, a more tight-lipped school boy type, awkward with women; Errol is totally believable in the part, a tribute to his acting skill considering his persona, and shows how versatile he could be.

The Spanish are no one dimensional villains: Phillip II wants world domination and the Panama officers are obviously a bit cruel, but Claude Rains still loves his neice and Gilbert Roland’s captain is engaging, brave and likeable; the Spanish are also very smart, even the scummy spy (the way they figure out Flynn is going to Panama is genuinely clever). I’m like George MacDonald Fraser in kind of wishing the film had gone on to include overwhelming the entire Spanish Armada, but the ending as it stands is satisfying. Wonderful movie.

Comic review - Tintin # 2 - "Tintin in the Congo" by Herge

The second Tintin is the first in colour. It was not seen in English speaking editions for ages due to its extreme political incorrectness: the local Africans have massive lubra lips and golliwog hair, Tintin is worshipped as a God on two occasions and Snowy is worshipped as a god once, Tintin goes game hunting and kills a swag of local wildlife, a medicine man tries to kill Tintin to keep his hold over the tribe. It's not terribly accurate, either: Tintin fights American gangsters involved in diamond smuggling. Although it was colourised and re-drawn this is a bit more offensive than Tintin in the Land of the Soviets.

Movie review - "Bull Durham" (1988) ****1/2

A wonderful film about baseball, love, sex and romance - not necessarily in that order. It took Susan Sarandon's career to a whole new level, proving you can have love goddesses over 30 (a marvellous role and she is marvellous in it); it also introduced her to off screen partner Tim Robbins who really made his name with this as the idiotic pitcher who is not without cunning and soul.
When I first saw the film I thought these two parts were the best - but watching it again I think I like Kevin Costner's ball player the most. Crash, the great minor leaguer who had a brief spell in the majors, who doesn't have the talent to back his intelligence and love for the game; who hates being called into teach Robbins but part of him loves it, too, who enjoys camraderie of the game but is also slightly aloof from his fellow players (all of whom are dumber than he is - including, really, the coach), who is not above using a teammates voodoo to help him play better.
The whole film is steeped in atmosphere - the cash drop coms, the bull, the dialogue players have with each other, the different players (religious, Hispanic), the crappy music, the cheerful groupie. For sights, smells and feels it leaves every baseball film (and most sports films) in its wake.
Maybe the last section goes on a bit too long - Robbins leaving - it's as if the film doesn't want to end, which i can understand since it's been so much fun. Ron Shelton said the problem with most baseball films is they end with "the big match" - this one does too, though, in a way: you know when Costner and Sarandon do get together its going to be the root of the century, and so it is.

Movie review - "Braveheart" (1995) ***1/2

Randall Wallace's screenplay has copped a lot over the years mostly because of its historical errors, which are admittedly irritating, but its also an excellent piece of writing, full of passion, sweep, action, romance and characters. It's easy to understand it's appeal to Mel Gibson, with its Christ like hero (well, he does bed two hot chicks but apart from that he matyrs himself for a cause and has disciples, etc), its opportunities for violent action sequences and negative depiction of gays (though could anyone really depict Edward II in a positive light?).

The main irritating historical errors are (a) making most of Wallace's men highlanders (b) the romance with Isabella who was only a child and living in France at the time (c) offering up excuses for all of Wallace's failures (he was beaten at Falkirk because of Scottish treachery and the English "cheated" by using a crossbow, he willingly goes to die) - but all have strong reasons (a) in order to distinguish them from the English (b) to give the story a bit of romance and to give a sense of triumph over Edward I (c) because Wallace is here a Hollywood hero. I think the story needed romance - and while yes its a bit silly to have Isabella father Wallace's child, the film does show Isabella to be capable of ruthlessness and cleverness, which is what she was. Also film is cleverer and more complex than most Hollywood blockbusters (its not quite Lawrence of Arabia but it is close): it shows how Edward I was a tough enemy (true), how Wallace had as much trouble from the Scots nobles as the English (true). The development of Robert the Bruce character is very satisfying and gives a real feeling of journey. Edward I died two years after Wallace, but that's not that long. England and Scotland had been at peace for most of the time prior to the rebellion, but Wallace would hype it in his speeches to the troops.

It's also notable how the film gets around a major problem: how to stick to the fact that Wallace died horribly (and you can't avoid that), but still be inspirational - well, by (a) using the Robert the Bruce story (b) inventing Isabella's pregnancy and (c) having him see vision of his dead wife (so effective it was later re-used in Gladiator). Very clever and a rousing film. Mel Gibson perhaps gives himself one too many closeups (and did Wallace have to be so invincible and such a stud?) but excellent support perfs from Patrick McGoohan (why didn't this revive his career more), Brendan Gleeson and two stunners in Catherine McCormack and Sophie Marceau.

Movie review - "All The President's Men" (1976) ****1/2

Top notch political thriller which has a great subject matter but it was confusing as buggery so full marks for William Goldman to knock it into shape - you are fully aware of what is happening and why and why it is important. There's not much time to create characters for Woodward and Berstein (hence stars - Dustin Hoffman has a little more flair than Robert Redford though Redford is fine - as pointed out by David Shipman since he was playing a real person his usual hesitant performance was appropriate) but the support characters are vivid, esp Ben Bradlee, Ronseberg and Sloan. Alan J Pakula was ideal for directing this sort of paranoid thing coming off The Parallax View (DOP Gordon Willis created a created look, plenty of dark alleys and creepy parking lots). The film is also one of the few that give an impression of how newspapers really work - journalists motivated by competition with other papers as anything else, the mistakes they make, pressures put on them from editors and owners, how they go about collecting information, the pressure they apply to sources. Its rivetting.

Book review - "Raymond Chandler" by Tony Hines

I picked this biography to read from the library shelves chiefly because of its pulp cover and a flick through the contents revealed that the book, while not a hefty tome, was concisely and well written. I'm not a Chandler nut but I was interested to find out a bit more about him, and I liked his screenplays.

I wasn't disappointed - this is an excellent biography, well researched (it doesn't go into awesome detail but enough), extremely well written with some solid analysis of the books and his life. Raymond Chandler was an odd man but he had an odd life - American born, American father (alcoholic, absent), Irish mother, but Anglo-Irish (he had no love for Catholics), moved to England as a boy, public school educated at the expense of a rich uncle, even worked for the civil service, then back to the US, was friendly enough for a family to adopt him, saw war service with the Canadians (real mccoy war service too, seeing people die and being concussed by a shell), working in the oil business and making a fortune, marrying a woman 20 years older (when he was 31!!), losing his money in the depression - not through poor investments but through being an alcoholic and losing his job, turning to writing in middle age and by putting in hard yards (months over a single story) became conversely very good very quickly.

His first two Marlowe novels were snapped up by Knopf who recognised their quality - but they did not sell well and he struggled financially until two windfalls happened: Hollywood hired him for Double Indemnity and his books started to sell in paperback. Despite increased fame and money he still managed to remain unhappy, turn out one more classic book, become a widower, then drink himself to death - but he still made it to 70.

Chandler comes across very vivid here - the most overriding image is that of loneliness, growing up without a father, living in America with no family around him (when he brought mum over that was little help). When he married he picked a woman 20 years older and they did not seem to socialise. He had a few mates but seemed to shed them after time. He wanted company yet didn't at the same time - not uncommon for a writer, I can relate. He often found it better to communicate through letters.

He was a wonderful writer, Chandler, who like Steven King found the perfect genre for his gifts (would he have thrived in another genres? He didn't write enough non detective stuff to tell). A very good screenwriter, too: he only wrote a few but they included Double Indemnity, The Blue Dahlia, and Strangers on a Train (it's frustrating Universal never financed Payback although Chandler needed strong directors). A very strong style although it seems everyone likes only three of the Marlowes (The Big Sleep, Farewell My Lovely and The Long Goodbye) - opinion seems more divided on the others.

The biggest two surprises: one was Chandler connected to two Australian women during his widower years (when he formed crushes at the drop of a hat): one his secretary, Australian born, whom he tried to "rescue" and who sued unsuccessfully for his estate after he died, and another who was a penpal (he planned to visit Australia towards the end of his life but changed his mind).

The second involves his marriage - one of the great weird love stories: Chandler and Cissy, aged 50, a former beauty who ran with the opium set and had nude photos of her, who was sick for much of her last years, who separated from him in the Depression for a bit due to his drinking, nonetheless clicked with Chandler - he seems to have been devoted to her (well, apart from two affairs), especially towards the end of her life when he could be the real knight in shining armour I think he always wanted to be. They led a self-contained life, few friends. When she died he was devastated. This was the most moving part of an unexpectedly moving book.

Book review - Osprey series "Irish Wars 1463 - 1603"

The wars in Ireland during the Tudor reign seem similar to Vietnam or Afghanistan - a large military super power fighting a fierce proud enemy in often unforgiving territory and being beaten as often as not. To be honest, I was most familiar from this period from the Alan Hale sequence in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex - Essex was thumped by the Irish, but his replacement, Mountjoy, crushed the revolt for good (well, until it flared up again).

Movie review - "The Last King of Scotland" (2007) ***1/2

Kevin MacDonald makes a knockout dramatic feature film debut with this enthralling account of life under Idi Amin. Although based on a novel rather than a true story it still works, mostly because nothing the made up character (James McEvoy) does is that historical - there's one thing involving an Amin wife (Kerry Washington, a so so actor with a great behind) which I thought was made up but Amin did have a wife who was killed and sewn up. The film has a great look and feel: soundtrack, interesting photography, actual Ugandan locations. Acting from the leads is top notch: Forest Whittaker deserved his Oscar as Amin, a combination of madness, rat cunning, insanity, burly charm; McEvoy is also good in a part which in many ways is harder as he is the straight man - he makes likeable a character who isn't really likeable, a sort of callow backpacking Scot just out to have a good time and shag all he can, even if its the wife of another man (Gillian Anderson pops up as one). At the end the Entebbe hijacking comes in and I had a horrible feeling that the Israelis would coe to McEvoy's rescue but fortunately it does not happen.

Movie review - Errol #16 - "The Private Lives of Elisabeth and Essex" (1939) ***1/2

Bette Davis famously wanted Laurence Olivier instead of Errol Flynn for this film (and it showed she had an eye for talent since this was before Wuthering Heights had come out) - and Olivier would have probably given an excellent performance as Essex, but one can't blame Warners for casting Errol Flynn, especially as Essex was highly ideal for him: spoilt, handsome, impetuous. Indeed, it's frustrating Errol didn't take the role a little more seriously and try a little harder, because this really could have established him in dramatic parts.

The script is partly to blame - I think it would have been better off if Essex had been more of a rogue, an opportunist; certainly elements of those things are present in the character here, but they try to have it both ways by showing Essex genuinely loved Elizabeth, and also that there were other villains at work (the "villains" being Raleigh, Cecil and Burghley who suppress Essex and Elizabeth's correspondence while the former is in Ireland, thus being the ones responsible for Essex's failure to defeat Tyrone, not Essex). It's a shame the film didn't have the guts to be a good old fashioned woman-in-love-with-a-loser story, I think the emotional kick would have been stronger - it sort of half is, but doesn't go the whole way, still puts a bit of shine on Essex.

I am a Flynn fan but will admit the actor is wooden in several scenes, especially when he has to be serious (you never believe he really loves Queen Bess - which is why I think it would have been a better movie had he been playing "pretend", the woodeness would have been appropriate). He has his moments, though, especially arguing with Davis, and flirting with her; he's also strong with his on-screen antagonists, Alan Hale, Vincent Price and company. Davis is in fine showy form and there is plenty of meaty drama - history is telescoped as it must, but its not without some historical interest. The strongest scenes are when Essex and Elizabeth have their flirty scene punctuated by quarrels, when Essex comes back to Ireland, and the (entirely fictional but dramatically excellent) meeting of the two lovers just before his head gets chopped off.

Support performers are fine: it's a bit rough Raleigh and Cecil are villains, although at least with Vincent Price and Henry Daniell they have excellent suave interpreters. Henry Stephenson is also anti-Essex which seems weird: he's too decent. Donald Crisp's Sir Francis Bacon is intriguing: Crisp plays him as a decent stick but pay attention: the character swims with the tide and isn't a particularly good friend to Essex.

David Shipman once wrote that the Irish sequence was absurd but I don't think it is - sure the studio sets are obvious but that was common then; also it's good to see a film where the Irish get the drop on the British (Mountjoy, who is a character under Essex's command here, would finish the job after Essex). There is gorgeous Sol Polito colour photography and plenty of production values and Michael Curtiz shadows.

Movie review - Errol #15 - "Dodge City" (1939) ****

Olivia de Havilland's parts in Errol Flynn movies were harder than they looked - as with Errol Flynn, the best answer to people who say "oh, it's easy" is to reply "well, see what a hash other actors made of it". Olivia was pretty, spirited, innocent but with a dash of mischief (Australia's Shirley Ann Richards was similar in this regard); she often squabbled with Errol at first (this film gives her a useless brother who invites his own death partly due to Errol - she blames Errol until she comes around), tried to be brave but was about as tough, really, as wet lettuce. In Dodge City she inevitably winds up as a school teacher, but in a show of limited feminism she becomes a reporter (albeit of women's issues) and she does get involved in cleaning up the town.

The big attraction of this Western is its production values: stunning colour photography, massive production values (scores of extras, trains, cattles, brawls) - the money is all there up on screen. There are also some strong action sequences (a race between a stagecoach and train, a cattle stampede, the famous brawl sequence - which is best as a spectacle rather than something genuinely exciting, but still highly enjoyable, a final battle on the fire-riddled train). The plot feels a bit ramshackle: it works, but sort of ambles around from set piece to set piece (did we need that scene on the establishment of Dodge City?, Errol doesn't put on the badge til around an hour into it, what sort of character is this Col Dodge if he lets towns named after him go to rack and ruin?).

Errol is in good form, especially with de Havilland; I buy him in a Western (as did audiences, and he would make a stack of them over the next decade, more than swashbucklers in fact), but can't help thinking his Irish adventurer character would be a little more rougish - for instance when he visits Ann Sheridan at the saloon (in the role that really got her attention on Hollywood - she has only a few lines of dialogue but gets to sing three songs and looks sensational in technicolour) you feel that some sparks could have flown.

The support cast is very good: Bruce Cabot and Victor Jory make an imposing pair of villains (love Jory's voice), Alan Hale has a hilarious scene when he vists a temperance meeting. The film isn't afraid to go for it - the annoying "cute" kid is killed off (would such a thing happen today? Probably not, they'd just injure him.) Great colourful fun; I was surprised how many scenes remained vivid in my memory from childhood: the deah of the newspaper editor, the fight on the train, the wagon train sequence with people riding on horses from one to another like public transport, the brawl.

Movie review - Errol # 5 - "Captain Blood" (1935) *****

Still hard to beat as a pirate film - not just the story, which has never been beaten, really, for its combination of excitement, unjustice and historical background, but also the cast.

Warners were a notoriously frugal, tough studio but they really rolled the dice casting Errol Flynn - no leads apart from the Australian In the Wake of the Bounty, a big expensive movie (there is production value to spare: costumes, sets, extras, battles with swarms of fighting sailors), and they gave him the lead. They were totally right. Robert Donat would have been fine, and I think Clark Gable would have been sensational even with an American accent - but other alternatives who were mooted, Brian Ahern and Ian Hunter, I think would have been very ordinary.

There really was no one ever to touch Flynn: handsome, charismatic, idealistic. His inexperience is obvious but he had star charisma by the bucketload, so it was probably worth rolling the dice (he apparently tested sensationally - also a featurette on the making of the film shows clips from The Case of the Curious Bride and Don't Bet on Blondes, both which show him a handsome charismatic presence in front of the camera).

You can see Errol growing in authority (even though they re-shot the first two weeks you can still glimpse some of his awkwardness, which is not surprising). But he handles the dialogue quite well, and is spirited in his scenes with Olivia de Gavilland (the two had marvellous, natural chemistry - I especially love the scene at the end where she pretends to plead for her uncle's life - it's like two kids mucking around which is what it probably really was like).

The story fairly spanks along - within the first 20 minutes Errol has been caught up in Monmouth's rebellion (the film is very pro-protestant without saying so - but Spaniards and James II = bad, while Monmouth and William = good), hauled in front of Judge Jeffries, shipped off to the West Indies, turned into a slave, become a doctor. Casey Robinson's screenplay is excellent - maybe the Basil Rathbone character is introduced a bit too late (not until an hour or so in) and you expect a bit more of a come-uppance for Lionel Atwill.

Support cast is strong - Basol Rathbone sleek and sexy, kind of the dark side of Flynn (Rathbone's character in this is kind of similar to what I imagine the real Flynn to have been like), de Havilland a picture (innocence mixed with a dash of sauce, noble and brave), Guy Kibee and the assorted crew (including Ross Alexander who plays the significant role Jeremy Pitt - he looks a bit withered and tragic here and in real life he killed himself soon after the film), Henry Stephenson as the decent British stick. Eric Wolfgang Korngold's music score set new standards for this sort of thing, as did the battle sequences - actually you could say it for the whole movie.

Book review - "Once a Wicked Lady: A Biography of Maragret Lockwood" by Hilton Tims

Margaret Lockwood was probably the most popular homegrown British female star ever - more popular I think in the long run than Anna Neagle or Jessie Matthews (maybe Gracie Fields challenges her). Her reputation remains today, chiefly on the basis of three classic films: The Lady Vanishes, The Man in Grey and The Wicked Lady. Try thinking of some other Lockwood films off the top of your head - there's Bank Holiday, The Stars Look Down, Night Train... and that's about it. Maybe Jassy. I remember enjoying Madness of the Heart on TV as a kid. She only worked with really good directors a few times (Carol Reed and Hitchcock) and made an awful lot of crap.

She was very popular, though. Partly because she always had a sparkle in her eye, partly because she was good looking, but not beyond the realms of all possibility good looking. She was also lucky her years of real beauty happened to coincide with WW2, when British women were a bit more cashed up and independent than usual, or at least wanting to be so, and her good spirits were very attractive.

Lockwood's first phase of stardom came in the late 30s, when she played a series of bright young things for Hitchcock, Reed, etc - her performances stand up today, she was very winning and likeable and attractive.

Then there was the bad girl phase of the mid 40s - her raven hair helped her adapt well to these, she flashed some cleavage and killed people. She didn't play villainous roles that often. Her post Wicked Lady films were weaker, none seem to linger in the memory (some apparently were hits - I wish the biography was more specific on this), eventually her place was supplanted by Anna Neagle.

Lockwood continued to star in films through the 50s (she even made three for Neagle's husband Herbert Wilcox), then from the 50s to the 70s she had one of those crappy stage and TV careers you could have in England in those days - nothing memorable, lots of stock thrillers and comedies, forever touring up and down the country and appearing on TV.

Lockwood would complain often about poor material (especially when under contract to Rank in the late 40s) but really she and her agent didn't know a good script when it fell on them - or if they did then they fled, preferring old musty vehicles all the way up til her retirement. Lockwood turned down an offer to go to Hollywood to make Forever Amber (she would have been great and I think would have made a go of it there - but then come to think of it Phyllis Calvert didn't, really), turned down parts in The Browning Version, kept making crap after crap.

This biography makes Lockwood seem something of a lonely, tragic figure - maybe "tragic" isn't right (after she became a star she didn't do anything she didn't want to do), just really lonely. She was born in India, mum took her to England while dad stayed in India (until he died in 1950), Margaret became stage struck early as a girl and mum duly escorted her around til she started getting work, she became a star and got married to some bloke called Rupert who was her first boyfriend - she knew mum would chuck a mental so kept it a secret (they didn't spend their wedding night together), mum found out and chucked a mental. War came around, hubby went off to the army, they had a kid, mum looked after the kid, Mags fell in love with an officer and had an affair. There was a custody battle - mum (who sounds like a total bitch) gave evidence against her daughter!! Mags won custody, was very close to her daughter - she had some long term boyfriends but the one she thought was a stayer, John Stone, fell in love with someone else and shot through (that girl then fell ill with cancer and Stone nursed her until her death). She was a recluse, rarely giving interviews. She sought mum's affection but mum ended up hating her (we never really know why); at first she didn't like fame but then did then didn't like it again; she kept to herself, worked hard.

It's an interesting journey - feels as though it lacks something, maybe that's just Lockwood (she doesn't seem like a very nice person), but enjoyable.

For no real reason here is my Margaret Lockwood top ten (in no particular order):
1) Bank Holiday (1938)
2) The Lady Vanishes (1939)
3) The Wicked Lady (1945)
4) The Man in Grey (1943)
5) Cast a Giant Shadow (1954)
6) Love Story (1944)
7) Night Train (1940)
8) The Stars Look Down (1939)
9) Madness of the Heart (1949)
10) Highly Dangerous (1951)

Book review - "A Talent for Trouble: The Biography of William Wyler" by Jan Herman

William Wyler had one of those blessed lives and careers: born in Europe to a well off family, he received a strong education, then a passage to America and Hollywood not through hard craft and conniving but through his relative, Carl Laemmle of Universal Studios. Once he got there, though, he worked hard, becoming a director, cutting his teeth on Westerns, moving up the Universal ranks, then going to work for Goldwyn. His films more than any were responsible for the Goldwyn touch (its easier to list classic Goldwyn films that he didn't direct).

Wyler seemed to have it all: he earned piles of money and kept it, he got to have affairs with lots of good looking women (including Margaret Sullavan whom he briefly married and Bette Davis) then settling down to an extremely happy marriage, happy family life, success directing all sorts of genres, lots of prizes and admiration in his lifetime, very worthy war service, bravery during time of the HUAC hearings, got a little bit old but died before he went ga-ga or anything like that.

There was some sadness - one of his children died young, he became partially deaf in the war, he was never embraced by auteur critics, smoking made him wheeze... but honestly in the grand scheme of things he got a very good deal. Very few flops: if the critics didn't like them the public did or vice versa but usually both liked his movies (even The Liberation of LB Jones has its admirers - no one seems to like The Children's Hours) No thwarted hopes and dreams and bankruptcy like Von Stroheim, Welles, DW Griffith, Sturges, etc - his personal vision was harder to ascertain, his life lacked a tragic romance... which perhaps why he is not so well remembered today. There's no real "if only" about Wyler - his was a happy, fulfilled life.

Jan Herman's biography is excellent - well written, strongly researched, balances behind the scenes making of film stories with contexts of the time and plenty of personal touches. Most people say nice things about him - there are a few dissenters - Sylvia Sidney hated what she saw as his sadism, ditto Carroll Baker, but most actors seemed to have loved [I'm guessing in retrospect] the way he made them do take after take; some writers whined eg Michael Wilson and his supporters - but again most writers seem to respect him highly - perhaps not so surprising when Terence Stamp quotes Wyler as saying the key to directing was 80% script and 20% casting - I think casting can be more important in some cases, eg star vehicles, but those two things I think are the key.) Wyler deserved an excellent biography and he gets one.

Book review - "Osprey series: Stirling Bridge and Falkirk 1297-98" by Peter Armstrong

Osprey Publishing specialise in easy to read illustrated military history titles which concentrate on a specific subject - a battle, campaign, type of army from a specific time - and use lots of colour pictures and short paragraphs to go with it. They don't dumb it down, the research is excellent, they just make it accessible. This looks at the William Wallace rebellion, which I became interested in through the film Braveheart. It's two battles really, which is what Wallace's campaign really consisted of, with a few raids thrown in. Stirling Bridge was won by Scotland, partly because the English foolishly crossed a river right in front of the Scots and were massacred on the bank. Then England got serious, Edward I took charge (a horrible man, Edward, great solider, totally formidable - Patrick McGoohan played him magnificently in the Gibson film), and they beat the Scots at Falkirk - partly because the mossy ground inhibited Scottish maneuvring, partly because of the superiority of English cavalry (which covered the Scottish flanks) and long bowmen, who hammered the Scottish infantry and effectively won the battle. (George MacDonald Fraser once wrote a funny line about Scotland at war - he was referring to the Duke of Cumberland and it went along the line that the Duke learned the valuable lesson that if you stop Scotland scoring in the first five minutes you're in with an excellent chance because they tend to lose interest.)

Wallace lost his power after the defeat; his career went on for years after that, eluding capture and occasionally raiding the English before being betrayed by Scots eager to make peace then dying horribly. He did not have it off with a French princess and impregnate her, that was a Hollywood invention (I think its OK to have Edward I die around the time of Wallace as he only lasted an extra year in real life, but having Wallace father Isabella's child was a bit too much - mind you, you need romance, and Edward II was a wimp, even if it fits into Gibson's pattern of homophobia in his films a bit to easily). From reading this book and seeing the illustrations it also seems the movie was visually off when it came to Scottish army - Wallace was a proper neat knight, and the army disciplined, not a rabble (I guess Gibson wanted to differentiate them). A worthy corrective to the film. Reading it I don't think Scots would have had a genuine chance against Edward I, he was simply too good, not without say France invading as well or something. But Wallace's efforts did provide the basis for the successful efforts against Edward II.

Play review - "The Cherry Orchard" by Chekov

Perhaps Chekov's most famous play which has the advantage (in terms of becoming a legend) of being his last. I enjoyed it, though not as much as Uncle Vanya. I can't help it, for me the lead character, the rich girl, was too much of an idiot, frittering away most of her money. The characters I liked the most were the rich merchant determined to avenge his serf past and the socialist perennial student who manages to hang on to his ideals. Tragedy or comedy? I think just drama, a little funny, a lot sad. The ending device of chopping down the cherry orchard is extremely powerful.

Play review - "Fortune" by Hilary Bell

Chinese in the Australian Gold Rush, specifically a seven foot eleven year old called Chang. I would have loved to have seen this on stage to see how it would have worked. There is a strong story, even if at times it seems a bit familiar: the rough tart with the heart of gold who befriends Chang, the smooth talking villain who rips off then rapes the woman (perhaps this character is a little too PC - he seems a bit too conveniently evil), the Chinese woman who has given up her culture and replaces it. It all works, though. Best scene is when Chang raids the Chinese grave for money, this has real impact.

Play review - "Uncle Vanya" by Chekov

My favourite of the Chekovs I have read, it's really brilliant - the edition I read also had the benefit of a good, non-clunky translation. It perhaps as the most robust on screen drama, full of knock down arguments, especially between Vanya and the professor, and for some reason the chats about wasted lives seem to hit home more and the romantic love plots (people loving people who don't love them back, typical for Chekov) are very strongly defined, and moving. Many memorable characters: bitter Vanya, the egotistical professor, his younger wife, the doctor who is a bit of a conservationist commie, the plain daughter who loves the doctor. Impossible love, wasted lifes and estrangement - love it.

Play review - "Wolf Lullaby" by Hilary Bell

This Griffin classic starts with one of the strongest ideas for a play in recent years - child murderers - and it is easily enough to propel a work with weak handling. Bell gives it strong handling, and the result is powerful theatre. Many scenes have you gripped, wondering "what would I do" - such as the parents realising their kid is a killer, and the cop who is hard but not without humanity. Occasional lapses in dialogue - would a working class Tasmanian use the word "anticlimactic" in conversation? And while Bell says she doesn't point any blame, I think she does point some fingers - the killer is from a broken home, both parents working class shift workers. The Wolf device really gives directors something to think about in a way few plays do.