The film that kicked off the Hardy film series properly, with the cast, director and theme song who would become regulars. Mickey Rooney and Cecilia Parker are back as the two kids, ditto Sara Haden as the spinster aunt, they dump the eldest daughter, Lewis Stone and Fay Holden take over the parent roles and Ann Rutherford. Rutherford is a terrific addition to the series (although in defence of the girl who first played the role she didn’t get much of a chance to do anything). Lewis Stone is a bit more serious and solemn than Lionel Barrymore, who always had the whiff of fire and brimstone about him (albeit tempered with humour); he’s not quite as imposing as Barrymore, which means he doesn’t quite dominate his scenes in the same way. Fay Holden seems a little bored and lacking warmth; certainly she’s not as good as Spring Byington.
There is story continuity – a newspaper editor has gone broke through buying land in the hope the aqueduct went through but Judge Hardy blocked it, there’s a return of the shonky businessman involved in the same project, Marian is writing love letters to the engineer she romanced, and Andy’s relationship with Polly Benedict is developing. But the main plot involves the Hardies going on holiday to Catalina Island. Both Andy and Marian have romances, despite their attachments elsewhere – Andy with a fast-living jitterbugger (daughter of a divorcee), Miriam with a lifeguard (separated from his wife). The jitterbugger helps Andy learn how to pash but who is high maintenance; she wants to have been everywhere and done everything by the time she’s eighteen, which means a guaranteed root for Andy, but not for the last time in the series he begs off. (However, his pashing does improve – thus pleasing Polly Benedict).
There’s a kind of creepy scene where Judge Hardy strikes up a conversation with the girlfriend and then tells Andy the girl is no good – because she’s a bit fast and immoral. I also didn’t like it when Hardy talks Marian out of marrying a man who’s separated because “you can’t beat society… codes of convention that have been forged over hundreds of years”. Then he gets the family to cross examine the guy about his love for her – which makes him break up with her. Keen to stuff up his kid’s sex lives, this judge! (Although Marian refers to having “lost her wings” one night – did he root her? And to be fair the guy turns out to be a cad.)
(On that point - the lifeguard proposes to Marian in order to romance her - that's an awful lot of trouble to go to.)
It should be pointed out that for all Dad dispensing romantic advice, he’s still dim enough to get himself into financial strife by going guarantor for some idiot businessman. He only gets out of trouble with the old grandad-actually-owns-this-from-the-civil-war deux ex machina, used in Darling Buds of May.
Apart from this little plot, which only features at the very beginning and end, Mum and Dad mostly serve as sounding boards for the kids. Dad does go fishing, but Mum and Aunt Milly seem to spend the holidays cooking and washing up. Watching this I couldn’t help thinking – did Aunt Milly and Judge Hardy have something going on? Maybe they were secret polygamists, a la Big Love, with Milly as a secret number two wife. The Hardies apparently lived in Idaho - not tha far from Utah.
Mickey Rooney is excellent as always; I also enjoyed Cecilia Parker a lot. Watching these films again I’m struck how much her character to the success of the series – sweet, pretty (though she had a bit of a gut – check out her in the swimsuit scene), always getting her heart broken, snapping at Andy.
Structure wise I think they should have kept all the action in Catalina – it feels awkward to have all this stuff about Hardy guaranteeing a debt shoved in at the end. At the end of the film Lewis Stone appears announcing more adventures.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Movie review – “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” (1944) ***
Much better script than Arabian Nights, with many of the problems sorted out. But surprisingly enough, not as much fun. Jon Hall’s dad, the Caliph, is overthrown by Mongols and betrayed by a treacherous second in command. His young son runs off into the desert and finds a cave which can open by saying “open sesame” where he hooks up with a bunch is thieves. How cool is that! What little boy at some stage hasn’t wished they could run off to the desert and wound up leading a gang of thieves living in a cave, fighting a tyrannical ruler?
The kid grows up to be Jon Hall and we cut to a scene with him and the thieves riding along singing a la The Desert Song. They decide to kidnap the Khan’s fiancée, who is of course Maria Montez. But instead Hall instead up being caught himself – and is tied up in the square awaiting for execution, only to be rescued by his men… a sequence that is an exact copy of the opening of Arabian Nights, only centering around the hero instead of the baddie.
A surprising amount of screen time is devoted to Turhan Bey, who plays one of Maria Montez’s servants who helps out Hall. Presumably this role was written for Sabu, but Bey’s casting makes it entirely different. Sabu was a big kid but Bey is more mature, suave, grown up, with careful pro-noun-ci-ation – Sabu was never a sexual rival to Hall but Bey he could be (indeed, he played Montez’s love interest in Sudan). Bey gets all these close ups of him looking dreamy – it’s like they were building him to be a star, which I found odd, mainly because I guess I’d just seen a bunch of movies where he played suspicious support characters and gigolos, billed ninth (if that) in the cast list.
Hall is a bit awkward and all-American to play a dashing hero but is okay, helped by a pencil moustache; again, he is actually beaten during the final duel with the baddie but fortunately his mate comes along to stab the baddie just in time.
Montez is pretty, imperious and wears a neat turban; she goes for two swims, one in a lagoon, one in a bath, but she’s not much of an actor – she can’t even look upset when her father is killed in front of her eyes, and during the final fight she can’t look scared or excited (at one stage Turhan Bey asks her to open castle doors to let in goodies – but she doesn’t even move). Andy Devine plays one of the thieves, an enjoyable anachronistic piece of casting (“I haven’t killed a Mongol all day,” he whines at one stage).
There is some hokey dialogue (moons reflecting in eyes, you will prey for death, that sort of thing.) Despite all the strong things about the film – a better script, colourful sets – this did feel a bit flat in places. Maybe it was the absence of Sabu, with his youthful zest; Bey’s character is a bit creepy – why would he be so in favour of Ali Baba? Is he in love with Montez? Hall? It doesn’t work.
Neither does the fact that Hall wants to lead a revolt to take his throne back mainly to stop Montez getting married. It’s like he’s sitting on his arse in a cave, happily being a robber while his people are suffering – and only acts when someone tries to pinch his girlfriend. There’s also a lack of action, although the finale, involving the jars, is quite enjoyable.
Movie review – Falcon #6 - “The Falcon in Danger” (1943) **1/2
A plane crash lands in Washington (cue some poor model work) – only it turns out no one is on board. Great beginning – Marie Celeste for planes. One of the cops ask if it’s gremlins, which will please fans of the 1984 film. Cut to the Falcon gambling at an illegal casino with his new fiancée, a Texan (Amelita Ward) – which at least is interesting and offers a bit of variety. The cops ask him to investigate, and he refuses, until a girl (Elaine Shepherd) asks help looking for her father. The girl is a stunner, much better looking for than his fiancée – her father has been kidnapped. It turns out there were kidnappers.
This is quite brisk and well done. Some more unusual characters than you often got in this film – not just the noisy fiancée but also the bitter daughter (a very good performance from Jean Brooks, who went on to feature in a number of movies in the series).
There are some pleasing surprises, like a scene in a factory full of female welders, and a scene where the Falcon is shot at the 35 minute mark (not seriously), and a finale involving a killer Doberman and where, if I’m not mistaken, the Falcon kills the baddie in cold blood. But we don’t see the baddie during this bit (the actor who plays him mustn’t have been available on the day or something). After that then the Falcon gets dumped for a change.
This is quite brisk and well done. Some more unusual characters than you often got in this film – not just the noisy fiancée but also the bitter daughter (a very good performance from Jean Brooks, who went on to feature in a number of movies in the series).
There are some pleasing surprises, like a scene in a factory full of female welders, and a scene where the Falcon is shot at the 35 minute mark (not seriously), and a finale involving a killer Doberman and where, if I’m not mistaken, the Falcon kills the baddie in cold blood. But we don’t see the baddie during this bit (the actor who plays him mustn’t have been available on the day or something). After that then the Falcon gets dumped for a change.
Movie review – Holmes #6 – “Sherlock Holmes Faces Death” (1943) ***
After three war films, Universal came up with a good old-fashioned nasty family story for Holmes (although it does have a war link, being set at a house that’s been converted into a home for convalescent soldiers). The horrible Musgraves live in isolated Musgrave Manor, complete with an eavesdropping alcoholic butler, windswept grounds, secret passageways, crypts, a family curse and a clock that strikes thirteen times (“the last time that happened was the night X died”) –and a house guest, Watson, who is looking after the soldiers. Someone is stabbed in the neck, so Holmes is called in.
Rathbone is in particularly fine form in this one, all darkened expressions and quick movement - nothing escapes him. I love how he takes on those vowels – words like “room” and “lured”. Watson talks about narrowly escaping marriage – loved that confirmed bachelorism – and Lestrade has become an idiot – when he says he’s lost and all turned around, Holmes comments that he has been for years and asks one of the servants to give him a saucer of milk.
It’s very bright and entertaining; the house is marvellous fun, with a terrific Musgrave curse turning into a chess board – though they perhaps could have got more spook factor out of it. The support cast is a bit mild, with the exception of the guy who plays the shell-shocked soldier. A young Peter Lawford appears at the beginning, saying “blimey”.
In Holmes final speech is downright socialist - he talks about how England is changing, less guilty – how people won’t think of themselves while others are starving, etc. That’s the sort of thing that could get you blacklisted in the 50s. (One of the great things about this series – Holmes’ homilies at the end were always a bit different.)
Rathbone is in particularly fine form in this one, all darkened expressions and quick movement - nothing escapes him. I love how he takes on those vowels – words like “room” and “lured”. Watson talks about narrowly escaping marriage – loved that confirmed bachelorism – and Lestrade has become an idiot – when he says he’s lost and all turned around, Holmes comments that he has been for years and asks one of the servants to give him a saucer of milk.
It’s very bright and entertaining; the house is marvellous fun, with a terrific Musgrave curse turning into a chess board – though they perhaps could have got more spook factor out of it. The support cast is a bit mild, with the exception of the guy who plays the shell-shocked soldier. A young Peter Lawford appears at the beginning, saying “blimey”.
In Holmes final speech is downright socialist - he talks about how England is changing, less guilty – how people won’t think of themselves while others are starving, etc. That’s the sort of thing that could get you blacklisted in the 50s. (One of the great things about this series – Holmes’ homilies at the end were always a bit different.)
Movie review – Holmes #5 – “Sherlock Holmes in Washington” (1943) **
Holmes doesn’t appear in this until around 12 minutes or so. Before then a British agent is abducted in the US by some foreign agents, led by Henry Daniell (back in villainy harness after his red herring role in Voice of Terror). So Holmes and Watson hot foot it over to Washington and go chasing for some microfilm. (The agent soon wounds up dead, delivered to Holmes in a trunk – bloodthirsty bunch, these Golden Years of Hollywood filmmakers).
Watson chews gum and enjoys Flash Gordon, which is fun – more could have been made of this, the culture clash. (He also chats about cricket.) It’s certainly more fun than the bland woman (Marjorie Lloyd) who unknowingly has the microfilm – although she does get knocked out and rolled up in a carpet, which is cool. Holmes doesn’t wear any disguises but he pretends to be a prissy antiques collector. Again, Holmes is about to be killed when someone comes to the rescue.
Although Daniel is a baddy he’s got a superior – none other than George Zucco. But Daniell is wasted as a henchman and Zucco’s villain is a bit of a whimp, to be honest – he’s a bit squeamish and not very smart. They also make this big deal about how he’s been in America for ages and is a pillar of the community but he isn’t very American (now if the blustery southern senator had turned out to be a baddy, that would have been a surprise). This is the weakest Rathbone Holmes film – just a lot of running around and undeveloped villains. Holmes quotes Winston Churchill about America at the end.
Watson chews gum and enjoys Flash Gordon, which is fun – more could have been made of this, the culture clash. (He also chats about cricket.) It’s certainly more fun than the bland woman (Marjorie Lloyd) who unknowingly has the microfilm – although she does get knocked out and rolled up in a carpet, which is cool. Holmes doesn’t wear any disguises but he pretends to be a prissy antiques collector. Again, Holmes is about to be killed when someone comes to the rescue.
Although Daniel is a baddy he’s got a superior – none other than George Zucco. But Daniell is wasted as a henchman and Zucco’s villain is a bit of a whimp, to be honest – he’s a bit squeamish and not very smart. They also make this big deal about how he’s been in America for ages and is a pillar of the community but he isn’t very American (now if the blustery southern senator had turned out to be a baddy, that would have been a surprise). This is the weakest Rathbone Holmes film – just a lot of running around and undeveloped villains. Holmes quotes Winston Churchill about America at the end.
Book review - “Seagalology” by Vern
Brilliantly funny look at the films of Steven Seagal, the sort of book that threatens to give fan boy writing a good name. Vern looks at all the films in Seagal’s career – not just his early 80s classics, or more mainstream actioners in the 90s, but also all – all – his direct to videos. Inevitably the quality of the films in the latter section of the book makes that less interesting to read, but Vern doesn’t a consistently bright and entertaining job, and there’s always a random Seagal twist – an album, an energy drink, the appearance of Imelda Staunton in the support cast (!) – to keep things interesting. And it actually ends on a feel good note, with an unexpected rise in the quality of Segal’s films, an excellent summing up, and a sweet coda where Vern goes to see a Seagal concert.
Vern says at the outset he wasn’t doing a traditional biography, but he has done research. Not just watched all the films, he’s watched some several times, read a few articles and copies of scripts, listened to commentaries. At times I wished he went the extra yard and did more of a bio – I have a feeling the more he found out about Seagal the better this book would have been. But its terrific fun and a great read.
Vern says at the outset he wasn’t doing a traditional biography, but he has done research. Not just watched all the films, he’s watched some several times, read a few articles and copies of scripts, listened to commentaries. At times I wished he went the extra yard and did more of a bio – I have a feeling the more he found out about Seagal the better this book would have been. But its terrific fun and a great read.
Movie review – Falcon #5 – “The Falcon Strikes Back” (1943) **1/2
Tom Conway’s first solo Falcon film was greeted with enthusiasm by audiences and ensured the survival of the series. Conway wasn’t quite as good as his brother – the voice was the same, but Sanders had a little bit more effortless aplomb; he also looked a bit more unique than Conway. But he still played with style and class.
Helping with continuity we see the return of Falcon’s Brooklyn sidekick, Oriental houseboy and female journo who he spars with – although some of these are played by different actors (eg Richard Loo instead of Keye Luke). There’s also a police chief who, again, thinks the Falcon has committed a crime, which the Falcon then has to solve – plus an ending where the Falcon is approached by a damsel in distress with a request to solve a crime. This one involves the theft of government war bonds that leads the Falcon to a resort.
The best scene has Conway interrogating a woman while she’s swimming laps – and then she is shot. There’s also some fun stuff involving a puppeteer (Edgar Kennedy) and when the houseboy turns up as a visiting dignitary, and a genuinely clever piece of business to enable the Falcon to escape (he pretends to throw the car keys out the window – but they’re a different set of keys).
On the down side there’s a scene where the Falcon distracts the female journo (Jane Randolph from Cat People) by kissing her – she’s supposed to be swept up in it but its done in by Randolph’s poor performance, she’s not convincing at all. This was directed by Edward Dmytryk, who gives it gloss and pace. Rita Corday, one of the supporting actors, went on to appear in several Falcon films as different characters.
Helping with continuity we see the return of Falcon’s Brooklyn sidekick, Oriental houseboy and female journo who he spars with – although some of these are played by different actors (eg Richard Loo instead of Keye Luke). There’s also a police chief who, again, thinks the Falcon has committed a crime, which the Falcon then has to solve – plus an ending where the Falcon is approached by a damsel in distress with a request to solve a crime. This one involves the theft of government war bonds that leads the Falcon to a resort.
The best scene has Conway interrogating a woman while she’s swimming laps – and then she is shot. There’s also some fun stuff involving a puppeteer (Edgar Kennedy) and when the houseboy turns up as a visiting dignitary, and a genuinely clever piece of business to enable the Falcon to escape (he pretends to throw the car keys out the window – but they’re a different set of keys).
On the down side there’s a scene where the Falcon distracts the female journo (Jane Randolph from Cat People) by kissing her – she’s supposed to be swept up in it but its done in by Randolph’s poor performance, she’s not convincing at all. This was directed by Edward Dmytryk, who gives it gloss and pace. Rita Corday, one of the supporting actors, went on to appear in several Falcon films as different characters.
Movie review – Kettle #10 - “The Kettles on Old MacDonald’s Farm” (1956) *
The last Kettle movie sees them replace the theme music with ‘Old MacDonald Had a Farm’ and replace Arthur Hunnicutt with Parker Fennelly. Fennelly actually plays Pa, but although he tries it doesn’t work. It is good to see Ma romancing, but it’s like she’s cheating on Pa. They should have just killed off Pa and have Ma get a new boyfriend. Ma being wooed – now that’s a great idea for a Kettle film.
There’s some romance, between poor John Smith (who acts with the awkwardness of a body builder) and boss’s daughter Gloria Talbott. Why didn’t they make the poor kid one of the Kettles? They want to get married so they hide out at the Kettles old farm. The girl’s father tracks them down. He actually likes the poor kid but is worried that his spoilt daughter won’t be able to last as his wife. So Ma suggests she rough it on the farm for a few weeks so she learns how to be a good little housewife.
Now that’s not a bad fish out of water type concept, a little sexist, but solid – a princess roughs it on the farm. Only they totally mess up the execution. The concept only works if the girl is a real princess, but Talbot can’t act, and they don’t give her character any princess factor. They should have made her a fashion model or a movie star or something. And her rationale for living on the farm is a bit weak – to pass a test so she can get married. She should have been a pampered movie star researching a role or a city journalist doing it for a bet or something.
This drags on and on with far too much time on the dull lead couple. The biggest strength of this was Marjorie Main – why not make it a Ma Kettle story? Have her inherit a city store or run for Congress or something? Or have her wooed? Why not make one of the kids a Kettle? This film shows a total lack of understanding of comedy construction. There aren’t even any Indians – just a dopey mate of Pa’s called George. (Why not have him as a Kettle kid?) The only decent bit is when Ma stares down a bear.
A sign of the times – one of Ma’s little kids is called Elvis who plays on a banjo.
There’s some romance, between poor John Smith (who acts with the awkwardness of a body builder) and boss’s daughter Gloria Talbott. Why didn’t they make the poor kid one of the Kettles? They want to get married so they hide out at the Kettles old farm. The girl’s father tracks them down. He actually likes the poor kid but is worried that his spoilt daughter won’t be able to last as his wife. So Ma suggests she rough it on the farm for a few weeks so she learns how to be a good little housewife.
Now that’s not a bad fish out of water type concept, a little sexist, but solid – a princess roughs it on the farm. Only they totally mess up the execution. The concept only works if the girl is a real princess, but Talbot can’t act, and they don’t give her character any princess factor. They should have made her a fashion model or a movie star or something. And her rationale for living on the farm is a bit weak – to pass a test so she can get married. She should have been a pampered movie star researching a role or a city journalist doing it for a bet or something.
This drags on and on with far too much time on the dull lead couple. The biggest strength of this was Marjorie Main – why not make it a Ma Kettle story? Have her inherit a city store or run for Congress or something? Or have her wooed? Why not make one of the kids a Kettle? This film shows a total lack of understanding of comedy construction. There aren’t even any Indians – just a dopey mate of Pa’s called George. (Why not have him as a Kettle kid?) The only decent bit is when Ma stares down a bear.
A sign of the times – one of Ma’s little kids is called Elvis who plays on a banjo.
Movie review - Holmes #4 – “Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon” (1942) ***
This starts in Switzerland, where Holmes spirits away a scientist who has developed a – surprise – secret weapon, a really good bomb. But he winds up abducted by Moriarty, played here by Lionel Atwill (who also appeared in Hound of the Baskervilles).
It’s interesting to compare Atwill’s Moriarty with George Zucco – both actors had many similarities during their careers (stage background, best known for villains, often co-starred, teamed together in a book by Gregory William Mank), but they were different sort of actors. Zucco gave off an air of kindly, scholarly bewilderment – you genuine believed his Moriarty would want to retire to his studies. Atwill’s villainy was more overt and full blooded, a bit more sensual if that makes sense. He seems to enjoy himself when he tortures the scientist and his Moriarty is keen on money – you can imagine him wanting to retire to his mistress and bundles of cash.
This is an entirely decent Holmes entry, with the rivalry between Holmes and Moriarty emphasized, both men enjoying the challenge. Rathbone fans will enjoy seeing him get into not one, not two but three disguises. There’s also a terrific scene at the end where Holmes allows himself to be captured by Moriarty, and Holmes suggests how Moriarty should kill him (by draining his blood – “the needle to the last, hey, Holmes” says Moriarty).
I have to say it’s a bloody risky plan of Holmes to put himself in a position where he relies on Watson and Lestrade to track him down. I know Holmes arranges for the pain dripping device on the car to be set up so they can track him – but so many things could go wrong, especially with those two idiots. Actually to be fair Lestrade isn’t as dumb here as he would later become – not only does he save Holmes at the end, his quick thinking stops Holmes from being carted off in a coffin during the middle bit.
The Conan Doyle story ‘The Dancing Men’ provides a key chunk of the story. Two newcomers join the series who would stay til the end – director Roy William Neil and actor Dennis Hoey (who played Inspector Lestrade). Despite Holmes quoting Shakespeare’s ‘This England’ speech at the end and the war flavour of the macguffin, the war propaganda is toned down a little – no inspirational speeches during the middle like the one Evelyn Ankers gave in Voice of Terror.
I love the way Mrs Hudson comes home to find Watson pointing a gun at Holmes in disguise and a scientist, and is shocked, then Holmes says its okay its only me, and she relaxes. She’s probably used to it.
It’s interesting to compare Atwill’s Moriarty with George Zucco – both actors had many similarities during their careers (stage background, best known for villains, often co-starred, teamed together in a book by Gregory William Mank), but they were different sort of actors. Zucco gave off an air of kindly, scholarly bewilderment – you genuine believed his Moriarty would want to retire to his studies. Atwill’s villainy was more overt and full blooded, a bit more sensual if that makes sense. He seems to enjoy himself when he tortures the scientist and his Moriarty is keen on money – you can imagine him wanting to retire to his mistress and bundles of cash.
This is an entirely decent Holmes entry, with the rivalry between Holmes and Moriarty emphasized, both men enjoying the challenge. Rathbone fans will enjoy seeing him get into not one, not two but three disguises. There’s also a terrific scene at the end where Holmes allows himself to be captured by Moriarty, and Holmes suggests how Moriarty should kill him (by draining his blood – “the needle to the last, hey, Holmes” says Moriarty).
I have to say it’s a bloody risky plan of Holmes to put himself in a position where he relies on Watson and Lestrade to track him down. I know Holmes arranges for the pain dripping device on the car to be set up so they can track him – but so many things could go wrong, especially with those two idiots. Actually to be fair Lestrade isn’t as dumb here as he would later become – not only does he save Holmes at the end, his quick thinking stops Holmes from being carted off in a coffin during the middle bit.
The Conan Doyle story ‘The Dancing Men’ provides a key chunk of the story. Two newcomers join the series who would stay til the end – director Roy William Neil and actor Dennis Hoey (who played Inspector Lestrade). Despite Holmes quoting Shakespeare’s ‘This England’ speech at the end and the war flavour of the macguffin, the war propaganda is toned down a little – no inspirational speeches during the middle like the one Evelyn Ankers gave in Voice of Terror.
I love the way Mrs Hudson comes home to find Watson pointing a gun at Holmes in disguise and a scientist, and is shocked, then Holmes says its okay its only me, and she relaxes. She’s probably used to it.
Movie review – “Easy Virtue” (1927) **1/2
Why bother adapting Noel Coward as a silent movie? I guess they needed material. It starts with Isabel Jeans on trial- her drunken husband accused her of having an affair with an artist she was posing for. (The QC is Ian Hunter from The Ring). The artist was in love with her so the husband attacks him, the faints. The highly strung artist then shoots himself and the woman is found guilty of misconduct. So she flees to the Riviera where she has a romance with a younger man. After marrying him, he takes her home to meet the parents, including a creepy mother with a moustache – the first in what would be a long line of emasculating Hitchcock mamas unwilling to tie the apron strings. The family don’t like her and they figure out her past and are shocked. (I don’t know why they’re shocked – I mean he did pick her up on the Riviera.) Ian Hunter turns up again and he’s one of the few people to be nice to her. So she divorces her second hubby.
Jeans is very pretty and her character is quite sympathetically depicted. It’s clear her first husband was an idiot and the artist a whimp, and her second husband’s family, except for the dad, are horrible. So at the end when she goes “shoot there’s nothing left to kill” (after her second divorce) – it’s not really tragic, because I don’t think she really loved her second husband and she’s better off without her. And you get the feeling she won’t be single long.
It is very well directed with the added benefit of some location filming on the Riviera and in impressive country homes. It’s full of visual flourishes – POV of a judge’s magnifying glass, there’s a great scene with a switchboard operator listening in over a romantic conversation and really getting into it (this is very clever silent filmmaking). Hitch seems particularly interested in exploring match cuts in this one there are heaps of them: a letter held up in court going to flashback, a kiss on the wrist, a suitcase arriving near a cat to indicate France and then a dog to indicate England. The story concept of a woman marrying a rich man and meeting his family, some of whom would be hostile, would pop up in Rebecca and Marnie.
Jeans is very pretty and her character is quite sympathetically depicted. It’s clear her first husband was an idiot and the artist a whimp, and her second husband’s family, except for the dad, are horrible. So at the end when she goes “shoot there’s nothing left to kill” (after her second divorce) – it’s not really tragic, because I don’t think she really loved her second husband and she’s better off without her. And you get the feeling she won’t be single long.
It is very well directed with the added benefit of some location filming on the Riviera and in impressive country homes. It’s full of visual flourishes – POV of a judge’s magnifying glass, there’s a great scene with a switchboard operator listening in over a romantic conversation and really getting into it (this is very clever silent filmmaking). Hitch seems particularly interested in exploring match cuts in this one there are heaps of them: a letter held up in court going to flashback, a kiss on the wrist, a suitcase arriving near a cat to indicate France and then a dog to indicate England. The story concept of a woman marrying a rich man and meeting his family, some of whom would be hostile, would pop up in Rebecca and Marnie.
Movie review – Hardy #1 – “A Family Affair” (1937) ***1/2
The credits say this was based on a play by Aurania Rouverol, but it was the success of MGM’s 1936 version of Ah, Wilderness that prompted the studio to initiate this slice of small town Americana. Many of the same cast re-appeared and the studio were rewarded with a big success, so much so it lead to a rash of sequels.
Lionel Barrymore, a favourite of Louis B Mayer, plays the all wise Judge Hardy. He has a wife (Spring Byington), a spinster sister-in-law and two daughters. But the film is stolen by Mickey Rooney as his teenage son, Andy. Rooney fairly bounces off the scene, his energy and verve was perfect for the role – wisecracking, leaping up stairs two at a time. He starts the movie not liking girls, although that soon changes when he meets Polly Benedict (not played by Anne Rutherford).
It deals with a serious issue – the judge is under massive pressure to not grant an injunction preventing construction of an aqueduct. So much so that the people who want the aqueduct are threatening to run against him. It matter-of-factly describes the corruption of the time – newspapers changing their tune at the whim of their owner, political machines arranging to oppose Hardy, commercial pressure on judges, the man who applies for the original injunction is bribed and tries to bribe Judge Hardy, political powers try to blackmail him with perjured witnesses.
There’s a subplot about the Hardy’s married eldest daughter Joan, who has had an affair (Production Code style – she had dinner in a private room and was kissed). Joan is whiny and melodramatic, with a mannish voice who indicates all of the place. She never appeared in any other films and good riddance. (The Chuck Cunningham of the Hardy family series) More fun is bright and bubbling Marian, who has a sweet romance with an engineer. Mother Hardy is always worried about dinner and bursting into tears. Sara Haden hangs around like a lesbian.
But the most effective moments are the little everyday ones – meeting your girlfriend’s parents, going out on a date, sweet romancing. Hardy is surprisingly tolerant of his kids – when his eldest daughter tells him about her marriage troubles he doesn’t blow his top, he doesn’t seem to mind when his other daughter kisses her beau on the front steps. He can even talk to his eldest daughter about suicide. He’s a lot nicer than the townspeople of Carvel, who are really mean and nasty to the Judge when their crappy little aqueduct doesn’t go ahead. I wouldn’t blame the Judge for wanting to leave. The judge agrees his eldest daughter’s realisation that “a marriage depends on a woman” – but at least he adds that it’s unfair. He also comments that “all parents want for their children is some peace and security and as much happiness as the traffic will bear” – that’s not a silly thing at all.
The film even explores some religious differences - the Hardies are Congregationalists and Mum is a little worried Marians boyfriend is a Presbyterian. (Normally Hollywood steered away from this sort of stuff). There is also a fine, barnstorming Capra-esque finale with Judge Hardy taking on a mob at a political hearing. I enjoyed this a lot.
Lionel Barrymore, a favourite of Louis B Mayer, plays the all wise Judge Hardy. He has a wife (Spring Byington), a spinster sister-in-law and two daughters. But the film is stolen by Mickey Rooney as his teenage son, Andy. Rooney fairly bounces off the scene, his energy and verve was perfect for the role – wisecracking, leaping up stairs two at a time. He starts the movie not liking girls, although that soon changes when he meets Polly Benedict (not played by Anne Rutherford).
It deals with a serious issue – the judge is under massive pressure to not grant an injunction preventing construction of an aqueduct. So much so that the people who want the aqueduct are threatening to run against him. It matter-of-factly describes the corruption of the time – newspapers changing their tune at the whim of their owner, political machines arranging to oppose Hardy, commercial pressure on judges, the man who applies for the original injunction is bribed and tries to bribe Judge Hardy, political powers try to blackmail him with perjured witnesses.
There’s a subplot about the Hardy’s married eldest daughter Joan, who has had an affair (Production Code style – she had dinner in a private room and was kissed). Joan is whiny and melodramatic, with a mannish voice who indicates all of the place. She never appeared in any other films and good riddance. (The Chuck Cunningham of the Hardy family series) More fun is bright and bubbling Marian, who has a sweet romance with an engineer. Mother Hardy is always worried about dinner and bursting into tears. Sara Haden hangs around like a lesbian.
But the most effective moments are the little everyday ones – meeting your girlfriend’s parents, going out on a date, sweet romancing. Hardy is surprisingly tolerant of his kids – when his eldest daughter tells him about her marriage troubles he doesn’t blow his top, he doesn’t seem to mind when his other daughter kisses her beau on the front steps. He can even talk to his eldest daughter about suicide. He’s a lot nicer than the townspeople of Carvel, who are really mean and nasty to the Judge when their crappy little aqueduct doesn’t go ahead. I wouldn’t blame the Judge for wanting to leave. The judge agrees his eldest daughter’s realisation that “a marriage depends on a woman” – but at least he adds that it’s unfair. He also comments that “all parents want for their children is some peace and security and as much happiness as the traffic will bear” – that’s not a silly thing at all.
The film even explores some religious differences - the Hardies are Congregationalists and Mum is a little worried Marians boyfriend is a Presbyterian. (Normally Hollywood steered away from this sort of stuff). There is also a fine, barnstorming Capra-esque finale with Judge Hardy taking on a mob at a political hearing. I enjoyed this a lot.
Movie review – “Battle of Dien Bien Phu” (1979) ***
British documentary about the famous 1954 battle. Some irritating errors in the narration - “the Vietnamese didn’t give the French too much trouble” prior to World War Two. Yeah, right. But worth it for some tremendous vision: troops arriving in Vietnam in 1945, Ho Chi Minh chairing meetings, paratroops arriving, Giap planning battles (next to him is a self-conscious officer who keeps smiling), Russian footage of coolies creating supply lines for Vietminh, Giap and his model of Dien Bien Phu, the first attack, the destroyed air strip. They have to rely on photos for vision of the French camp during the battle, but there is vision of the surrender.
It sticks it to the French for clinging on to their colonies and bad military strategy, which was based on “come and get me”. Be careful what you wish for, Frenchies. Even when they knew it was a bad idea they stuck around as it was too expensive to withdraw. Assuming the Vietnamese would not be able to get their hands on heavy guns. They had 24 hours of the attack but it didn’t seem to do any good). The French seem to have lost the battle on the first day of the attack when they lost an outpost and the airfield was attacked. Within the first five days they lost all the outposts and soon they were cut off.
Two thirds of the French forces were not French, one fifth of the French side deserted (the majority sat it out within the entrenched camp, asking for food from their former comrades). Dulles wanted the Yanks to bomb the Vietnamese but Eisenhower refused. Half the French who surrendered die in imprisonment.
No vision of the two brothels they shipped in, unfortunately. (That would make a great story – POV of this battle from the hookers.) But an interesting doco all the same.
It sticks it to the French for clinging on to their colonies and bad military strategy, which was based on “come and get me”. Be careful what you wish for, Frenchies. Even when they knew it was a bad idea they stuck around as it was too expensive to withdraw. Assuming the Vietnamese would not be able to get their hands on heavy guns. They had 24 hours of the attack but it didn’t seem to do any good). The French seem to have lost the battle on the first day of the attack when they lost an outpost and the airfield was attacked. Within the first five days they lost all the outposts and soon they were cut off.
Two thirds of the French forces were not French, one fifth of the French side deserted (the majority sat it out within the entrenched camp, asking for food from their former comrades). Dulles wanted the Yanks to bomb the Vietnamese but Eisenhower refused. Half the French who surrendered die in imprisonment.
No vision of the two brothels they shipped in, unfortunately. (That would make a great story – POV of this battle from the hookers.) But an interesting doco all the same.
Movie review – Holmes #3 – “Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror” (1942) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
After a number of years, Universal lured Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce over to their studio and ushered in a series of popular Sherlock Holmes movies. They were set in the present day, and often had Holmes and Watson fighting Axis agents, and would end with Holmes making some pro-Allied speech.
In this one, Holmes tracks down a Lord Haw Haw type broadcaster who has links to fifth columnists. Fifth columnists were highly popular topic for filmmakers during America’s early years in the war, but it died down when fifth columnism turned out to be not that serious a problem in Britain and America.
This has the benefit of a strong support cast, including Henry Daniell, Montagu Love, Thomas Gomez and Evelyn Ankers. Ankers is very beautiful (lots of close ups with key light – a big feature of this movie) but perhaps not quite realistic as a working class cockney, an implied hooker; she agrees to become a mistress to the agent in order to nab him. Of course, this means she must die. It’s quite clever to have Daniell as a government minister because you automatically assume that he’s going to be the traitor – but it turns out to be someone else.
For most of the film Holmes’ detecting doesn’t seem to be that crash hot. He fails to catch a Nazi agent despite being right there, is almost killed and has to be rescued, and most of the hard work is done by Ankers and her fellow criminal cronies. However, in good Holmes form he knew what was happening all along.
I love how a person turns up to their apartment with a knife in their back and collapses. Holmes asks Watson if he’s dead and Watson says yes. Great doctoring there, Watson! The final speech is taken from ‘The Last Bow’, a Sherlock Holmes World War One story, about a wind blowing that’s going to result in a better England. (Not really true in the case of World War One – maybe World War Two though).
In this one, Holmes tracks down a Lord Haw Haw type broadcaster who has links to fifth columnists. Fifth columnists were highly popular topic for filmmakers during America’s early years in the war, but it died down when fifth columnism turned out to be not that serious a problem in Britain and America.
This has the benefit of a strong support cast, including Henry Daniell, Montagu Love, Thomas Gomez and Evelyn Ankers. Ankers is very beautiful (lots of close ups with key light – a big feature of this movie) but perhaps not quite realistic as a working class cockney, an implied hooker; she agrees to become a mistress to the agent in order to nab him. Of course, this means she must die. It’s quite clever to have Daniell as a government minister because you automatically assume that he’s going to be the traitor – but it turns out to be someone else.
For most of the film Holmes’ detecting doesn’t seem to be that crash hot. He fails to catch a Nazi agent despite being right there, is almost killed and has to be rescued, and most of the hard work is done by Ankers and her fellow criminal cronies. However, in good Holmes form he knew what was happening all along.
I love how a person turns up to their apartment with a knife in their back and collapses. Holmes asks Watson if he’s dead and Watson says yes. Great doctoring there, Watson! The final speech is taken from ‘The Last Bow’, a Sherlock Holmes World War One story, about a wind blowing that’s going to result in a better England. (Not really true in the case of World War One – maybe World War Two though).
Movie review – Falcon #4 – “The Falcon’s Brother” (1942) **1/2
After a number of Saints and three Falcons, George Sanders was anxious to leave B movies and graduate to As, so he asked to be killed off. Fortunately for RKO, they had Sanders’ real life brother, Tom Conway, to step in.
Neither Allen Jenkins nor James Gleason return but there are similar characters (i.e. wacky sidekick and frustrated police officers) played by other actors. The Falcon goes to pick up his brother on a boat, the Falcon cracks on to a woman but not letting her past which is a bit off. Then he discovers that someone claiming to be his brother has killed himself – but Falcon figures out he was actually murdered by poisoned cigar, and goes looking for his brother.
Conway is given a star’s entrance, lighting a cigarette in a darkened corridor. And it’s wonderful to see the two brothers together. Because they’re similar type of actors – cultured, smooth – Conway easily takes over (one of the few occasions where an actor can directly step into another actor’s role). Sanders gets run over so Conway goes looking to solve the murder. This means Sanders is out of action for most of the film but gets better at the end, just in time to take a bullet for some politician at the climax. It’s a shame there wasn’t more Conway-Sanders stuff, this could have been a minor classic with that. But they only have a few scenes together – they don’t even give Sanders a death bed scene with Conway, which is a shame.
There’s another female journo (Jane Rudolph) who comes along who gets jealous of Conway’s flirting. She has a good line – “Ladies aren’t permitted without escorts" “Who said I was a lady?” For the first time in a Falcon movie the baddies are Nazis – it was going to happen sooner or later. On that level this is enjoyable; it’s just a bit frustrating because it could have been better.
(NB Incidentally no mention is made of Sanders having a fiancée, despite a great hoo-ha being made of this in the first three films.)
Movie review – Kettle #9 – “The Kettles in the Ozarks” (1956) *1/2
After eight films as Pa Kettle Percy Kilbridge decided to call it a day but Marjorie Main slugged it out for two more Kettle films on her own. Or rather, with new male co-stars. This one has her with Arthur Hunnicutt, playing Pa’s brother Sedgwick. Ma goes to visit him with 13 kids in order to help him stay the farm while Pa stays at home. (Tom, Rosie and Elwin – who are referred to – don’t come along.)
So they hop on the train and are genuine pains with their animals and food going everywhere – which is annoying rather than funny. They arrive at the farm to see that Sedgwick has unwittingly hired out the farm to gangsters bootleggers and hijinks ensue.
In order to ease the transition for the audience, Sedgwick is established as a lazy no-good who has Indian helpers and has a woman (in this case his fiancée) do a lot of work for him. But it’s almost always a mistake to replace a beloved character with a direct copy and it certainly is so here. Kilbridge had this wonderful, laid back dry delivery – Hunnicutt tries but he’s just not up to it. And also the fact that he’s Ma’s brother in law, not husband, leaves a hole at the heart of the film – no matter how lazy Pa was, Ma loved him, and they had enough of a sex life to produce sixteen kids.
And I’m sorry for Sedgwick not to marry his fiancée for twenty years – that’s really not funny. It’s just mean (she’s missed the chance of having children). At least Pa gave Ma sex, kids and romance. Although there is a pretty elder Kettle teenage girl, they don’t do anything with her – the film could have used a bit of romance, instead of trying to get Sedg to marry his fiancée, which is sad.
There’s a bit more slapstick in this one – lots of falling down wells, shenanigans involving animals, including a funny sequence where they get drunk (drunk pigs are gold). But generally this is very hard going.
So they hop on the train and are genuine pains with their animals and food going everywhere – which is annoying rather than funny. They arrive at the farm to see that Sedgwick has unwittingly hired out the farm to gangsters bootleggers and hijinks ensue.
In order to ease the transition for the audience, Sedgwick is established as a lazy no-good who has Indian helpers and has a woman (in this case his fiancée) do a lot of work for him. But it’s almost always a mistake to replace a beloved character with a direct copy and it certainly is so here. Kilbridge had this wonderful, laid back dry delivery – Hunnicutt tries but he’s just not up to it. And also the fact that he’s Ma’s brother in law, not husband, leaves a hole at the heart of the film – no matter how lazy Pa was, Ma loved him, and they had enough of a sex life to produce sixteen kids.
And I’m sorry for Sedgwick not to marry his fiancée for twenty years – that’s really not funny. It’s just mean (she’s missed the chance of having children). At least Pa gave Ma sex, kids and romance. Although there is a pretty elder Kettle teenage girl, they don’t do anything with her – the film could have used a bit of romance, instead of trying to get Sedg to marry his fiancée, which is sad.
There’s a bit more slapstick in this one – lots of falling down wells, shenanigans involving animals, including a funny sequence where they get drunk (drunk pigs are gold). But generally this is very hard going.
Movie review – Holmes #2 – “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” (1939) ***1/2
Basil Rathbone’s second outing as Sherlock Holmes was his last for 20th Century Fox. You wonder why that studio didn’t decide to made a B picture series out of the character – maybe they were worried about the cost - but Universal stepped into the breach a few years later. This is not based on a Conan Doyle story but on a play.
It has Holmes battling Moriarty, played by ever reliable George Zucco – Zucco didn’t belong to the top rank of screen villains (he was no Rathbone, George Sanders, Claude Rains or Henry Daniell, he lacked their spark, perhaps a bit too gentle), but he comfortably sat on the second tier and is still pretty good. It starts with Moriarty getting off a murder charge and telling Holmes that he will break him through committing a big crime. And I’ve got to say it’s a really clever plan – he pulls a double bluff, killing someone and setting up a fake family curse, and doing a dodgy robbery, both to hide his real goal.
Rathbone is front and centre in this one so we see him do a lot more detecting – poking around at footprints in mud, that sort of thing. Ida Lupino specialised in playing tough, driven dames so she’s not very convincingly scared as a damsel in distress, worried that her brother is going to be killed. However, she is very pretty. Her drip boyfriend, who doesn’t believe there’s anything to it, is played by Alan Marshall. Actually, Marshall’s drippiness works well since part of the plot hinges on Lupino thinking that he wants to kill her.
There are forerunners to the later Universal movies: Nigel Bruce’s Watson, who was quite useful in Hound of the Baskervilles, is more of a buffoon here (eg he doesn’t recognise Moriarty at a key moment); there is a dopey inspector (E E Clive) similar to the later Inspector Lestrade; Terry Kilburn as Billy is a fore-runner to the Baker Street Boys.
There’s a great scene where Moriarty gets up his butler for not watering his flowers and Holmes plucking on his violin. But the best is with Holmes, in disguise, sings ‘I Do Like to Be Beside the Seaside’. (You’re not meant to know this until later in the film, but trust me it’s more fun knowing that it’s really Rathbone in the straw hat hamming it up dreadfully like no one’s business.) There’s also an effective sequence with Lupino being chased through the fog by a Gaucho assassin, who could be straight out of the Doyle stories (which featured pygmy assassins). I remember years ago not liking this as much as Hound of the Baskervilles but on watching it again, it’s just as much fun. It mightn’t be as spooky and Baskervilles has the slightly stronger cast (though this one has Henry Stephenson), but this is still pretty good. It has more Rathbone (very much in action man mode, shooting guns and brawling), and an exciting climax with Zucco plunging to his death off the top of the tower (although we don't see him actually die).
Friday, November 21, 2008
Movie review – Falcon #3 – “The Falcon Takes Over” (1942) ***
Bizarrely, the first on-screen incantation of Farewell My Lovely was in a Falcon movie. But it results in one of the most satisfactory entries in that series, even if Chandler fans might be annoyed. It is a bit contrived that Sanders wants to investigate a murder committed by Moose Molloy (Ward Bond, excellent) – his motive is he just wants to do it for fun, because his mate Allen Jenkins is forced to drive Molloy’s getaway car. But it gets more logical when someone actually hires Sanders to do a job.
Occasionally this drags, especially when there’s too much wacky character acting from Jenkins and James Gleason. But Irving Reis directs well, the story is decent and there are some very strong support performances from Bond, Anne Revere, Helen Gilbert, and Lyn Bari.
Like Wendy Barrie in the first film, Bari sets her cap at the Falcon even though he’s engaged to someone else (presumably Barrie’s character – we never see her). Falcon not only pashes Bari he also pashes hot blonde Gilbert (the latter is a funny moment – he does it after just meeting her).
Turhan Bey pops up again in his second Falcon, again in a sinister role.
Movie review - Kettle # 8 – “Ma and Pa Kettle at Waikiki” (1956) ***
They finally alter the music for the opening credits a little, though not much, and the opening credits remain the same. This has a great idea – one of Pa’s old rivals for Ma, a cousin, became a pineapple tycoon in Hawaii. But now he’s fighting to hang onto his pineapple empire, so he asks Pa to help, under the mistaken impression that Pa is a highly successful businessman (on the basis of some lying letters). So they trot out to Hawaii.
The idea of lazy, shiftless Pa pretending to be a successful tycoon is a great one, and you wonder why it wasn’t used before – in perhaps a more obviously business-y city than Honolulu. Tycoons walking around dressed like Pa Kettle would be highly unusual in New York or Chicago – but not that odd, one can’t help thinking, in Hawaii. But who knows maybe it is and it still works fine, especially when people start talking his idiot pronouncements as analysis of genius. (A concept used back in Once in a Lifetime and later in Being There).
Lori Nelson comes back as the hot Kettle, Rosie, one of 15. (They don’t mention Elwin or Tom). There’s a rehash of the routine of Ma dealing with some snobby dowagers (not very funny), a convoluted finale with gangsters luring Pa out to an island with a tale of buried treasure and Russell Johnson from Gilligan’s Island plays a sort of gangster businessman.
The Hawaiian setting is not really exploited for the first half– you get the impression this bit was originally written to be set in any big city, then rewritten for the Hawaiian angle. But the last third, dealing with shenanigans involving gangsters on and island, feels specially tailored for the location. (They totally drop Nelson and the male love interest for this bit and instead have Ma and Pa to run into their Hawaiian equivalents – lazy dad, fat ma, and massive brood of kids.)
Unlike most Hawaiian movies, it’s in black and white and there’s not an emphasis on bikini babes - Lori Nelson doesn’t even get into a swimsuit. In the first two thirds all the Hawaiian characters are in menial jobs – massaging white people, rickshaw drivers. A glimpse of a factory with all the Hawaiians toiling on the line is unexpectedly depressing. (However, it is funny when the rickshaw driver carting Ma gets tired and Ma has to take over.) But then the last third introduces the Hawaiian Kettles, whose massive brood of kids helps Ma and Pa defeat some gangsters.
More could have been made of Pa’s jealousy over Ma’s suitor, and a lot more smoothness in the construction, but this is one of the brightest Kettles. The playing of the leads remains wonderful.
NB Claudette Thornton, who plays a secretary, gets this credit “secretary to Mr Thornton” and a bunch of close ups – another budding star? Or executive’s girlfriend? That seems to happen a few times in these B pictures.
The idea of lazy, shiftless Pa pretending to be a successful tycoon is a great one, and you wonder why it wasn’t used before – in perhaps a more obviously business-y city than Honolulu. Tycoons walking around dressed like Pa Kettle would be highly unusual in New York or Chicago – but not that odd, one can’t help thinking, in Hawaii. But who knows maybe it is and it still works fine, especially when people start talking his idiot pronouncements as analysis of genius. (A concept used back in Once in a Lifetime and later in Being There).
Lori Nelson comes back as the hot Kettle, Rosie, one of 15. (They don’t mention Elwin or Tom). There’s a rehash of the routine of Ma dealing with some snobby dowagers (not very funny), a convoluted finale with gangsters luring Pa out to an island with a tale of buried treasure and Russell Johnson from Gilligan’s Island plays a sort of gangster businessman.
The Hawaiian setting is not really exploited for the first half– you get the impression this bit was originally written to be set in any big city, then rewritten for the Hawaiian angle. But the last third, dealing with shenanigans involving gangsters on and island, feels specially tailored for the location. (They totally drop Nelson and the male love interest for this bit and instead have Ma and Pa to run into their Hawaiian equivalents – lazy dad, fat ma, and massive brood of kids.)
Unlike most Hawaiian movies, it’s in black and white and there’s not an emphasis on bikini babes - Lori Nelson doesn’t even get into a swimsuit. In the first two thirds all the Hawaiian characters are in menial jobs – massaging white people, rickshaw drivers. A glimpse of a factory with all the Hawaiians toiling on the line is unexpectedly depressing. (However, it is funny when the rickshaw driver carting Ma gets tired and Ma has to take over.) But then the last third introduces the Hawaiian Kettles, whose massive brood of kids helps Ma and Pa defeat some gangsters.
More could have been made of Pa’s jealousy over Ma’s suitor, and a lot more smoothness in the construction, but this is one of the brightest Kettles. The playing of the leads remains wonderful.
NB Claudette Thornton, who plays a secretary, gets this credit “secretary to Mr Thornton” and a bunch of close ups – another budding star? Or executive’s girlfriend? That seems to happen a few times in these B pictures.
Movie review – “The Strange Door” (1951) **1/2
A throwback from Universal to the sort of films it made during its Golden Era, complete with Boris Karloff as a henchman. The actual star is Charles Laughton, in fine, lip smacking form as a noble so annoyed a woman picked his brother over him that he locked his brother up under the stairs. He kidnaps a noble and forces him to marry a woman.
In many ways this felt closer in spirit to the AIP Poe films of the 60s than Universal’s earlier classics – it’s an old dark house story with a monster in the basement (Universal’s tales tended to be about monsters on the loose). You can imagine it with Jack Nicholson, Hazel Court and Vincent Price.
The chief attraction of this is Laughton who is wonderful.. He was a wonderful moment at the end when he’s about to kill a girl and she momentarily reminds him of his old love. Michael Pate is fun as an evil henchman (a lot nastier than Boris) and Boris good as always in one of his “yeth, math-ter” parts. Richard Staple, who plays the noble, is OK – not bad, but nothing special. He doesn’t have much chemistry with Sally Forrest, with whom he’s supposed to fall in love – although there is a funny scene where they are threatened by Laughton, he says “you haven’t fallen in love have you” and then they do this big pash…despite it being a life and death situation.
The film reminded me of the horror films Karloff made in Britain in the late 1950s – polished, professional, the rough edges smoothed over. But they seem to lack some of the fun of Universal during their golden age. I think it was a mistake to not reveal Laughton’s secret until the one hour mark i.e. that he was getting revenge on his brother for stealing the woman he loved. There’s probably not enough story here for a feature – but there is a great climax, with three heroes about to be crushed in a cell and Boris and Laughton fighting it out, and Laughton getting stuck in a wheel. (NB Though it is a bit off that poor old faithful servant Karloff kicks the bucket to save three nobles – who keep going “we must have the key” while Karloff is dying struggling to get the key to the cell.)
In many ways this felt closer in spirit to the AIP Poe films of the 60s than Universal’s earlier classics – it’s an old dark house story with a monster in the basement (Universal’s tales tended to be about monsters on the loose). You can imagine it with Jack Nicholson, Hazel Court and Vincent Price.
The chief attraction of this is Laughton who is wonderful.. He was a wonderful moment at the end when he’s about to kill a girl and she momentarily reminds him of his old love. Michael Pate is fun as an evil henchman (a lot nastier than Boris) and Boris good as always in one of his “yeth, math-ter” parts. Richard Staple, who plays the noble, is OK – not bad, but nothing special. He doesn’t have much chemistry with Sally Forrest, with whom he’s supposed to fall in love – although there is a funny scene where they are threatened by Laughton, he says “you haven’t fallen in love have you” and then they do this big pash…despite it being a life and death situation.
The film reminded me of the horror films Karloff made in Britain in the late 1950s – polished, professional, the rough edges smoothed over. But they seem to lack some of the fun of Universal during their golden age. I think it was a mistake to not reveal Laughton’s secret until the one hour mark i.e. that he was getting revenge on his brother for stealing the woman he loved. There’s probably not enough story here for a feature – but there is a great climax, with three heroes about to be crushed in a cell and Boris and Laughton fighting it out, and Laughton getting stuck in a wheel. (NB Though it is a bit off that poor old faithful servant Karloff kicks the bucket to save three nobles – who keep going “we must have the key” while Karloff is dying struggling to get the key to the cell.)
Book review – “Between the Lines: My Story Uncut” by Jason Donovan
Jason Donovan has always been considered something of a joke, from his first Neighbours success. There was the mullet, skateboard and Charlene, then copying Kylie’s singing success. But he was a professional, hard worker and he kept making good decisions – small parts in prestige projects that didn’t depend on him, like Heroes, West End success in Joseph and his Technicolor Dreamcoat. It started to go pear-shaped when Donovan successfully sued The Face for claiming he was a closet homosexual – this was a turning point the real turning point was the fact Donovan took off two years after that and developed a drug habit. (Like Damien Martyn’s second innings failure against South Africa in 93-94 was blamed for sending him into the wilderness whereas the real reason was the fact he then struck a major loss of form.)
He turned down Priscilla Queen of the Desert (as did Paul Mercurio and Tony Curtis – the one time in a million when turning down an Australian feature was a bad career decision), couldn’t figure out what to do musically, came across as a try hard by admitting his drug use. But he did keep professional and eventually turned it around with consistently strong work and he’s still at the table.
It’s an interesting journey but not much of a book. Mum and Dad had a vicious split but Jason doesn’t know why, the rise to fame was quite easy (he even knocked back a chance to be on Neighbours when it was on channel seven), antics on Neighbours were tame (a bit of pot, first having sex with Kylie at the Sydney Travelodge), Kylie Minogue is a well adjusted lovely person, so is Erica Baxter. There’s a lack of decent anecdotes or humour and he’s not much of a writer. He’s good on analysing his loneliness and drug addiction but not so good at observing the world around him. He barely mentions his work on Rough Diamonds and MDA, and doesn’t even mention Horseplay, but devotes several pages to his wife, manager Richard and various best mates.
In some of the interviews I’ve seen with Donovan in the past few years he has this manic, mad glimpse in his eye – a little more of this might have made his memoir a more interesting. You get the feeling that punches have been pulled – perhaps with far too much of an eye on the impact a truly honest, fun book could have on his career.
He turned down Priscilla Queen of the Desert (as did Paul Mercurio and Tony Curtis – the one time in a million when turning down an Australian feature was a bad career decision), couldn’t figure out what to do musically, came across as a try hard by admitting his drug use. But he did keep professional and eventually turned it around with consistently strong work and he’s still at the table.
It’s an interesting journey but not much of a book. Mum and Dad had a vicious split but Jason doesn’t know why, the rise to fame was quite easy (he even knocked back a chance to be on Neighbours when it was on channel seven), antics on Neighbours were tame (a bit of pot, first having sex with Kylie at the Sydney Travelodge), Kylie Minogue is a well adjusted lovely person, so is Erica Baxter. There’s a lack of decent anecdotes or humour and he’s not much of a writer. He’s good on analysing his loneliness and drug addiction but not so good at observing the world around him. He barely mentions his work on Rough Diamonds and MDA, and doesn’t even mention Horseplay, but devotes several pages to his wife, manager Richard and various best mates.
In some of the interviews I’ve seen with Donovan in the past few years he has this manic, mad glimpse in his eye – a little more of this might have made his memoir a more interesting. You get the feeling that punches have been pulled – perhaps with far too much of an eye on the impact a truly honest, fun book could have on his career.
Movie review – Holmes #1 – “The Hound of the Baskervilles” (1939) ***1/2
The greatest Holmes tale, a classic of horror and mystery, has long been popular with movie makers. This production in particular eventually kicked off a long-running series with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson. Rathbone was a brilliant Holmes, all rapier intelligence and moods; Bruce’s Watson didn’t appeal to purists, who disliked his buffoonish comic relief, but he is very likeable. (In this one he’s not as much an idiot as he becomes – he’s quite brave going out on the moors and not that dumb).
Richard Greene was given top billing over Basil Rathbone, a decision treated with much mirth since (like Ida Lupino being billed over Bogart in High Sierra), and even at the time Rathbone was far better known than Greene – but in fairness Rathbone does disappear for the middle third of the film. And during the spooky climax Greene fights off a mad dog for a long period of time, which is genuinely heroic, whereas Holmes and Watson rock up late with guns.
The direction is unremarkable and the writing competent, but you could get away with that in the Golden Age of Hollywood. There are neat sets, and spooky moors, and a really excellent support cast including Lionel Atwill (dodgy doctor), John Carradine (creepy butler), Wendy Barrie (love interest – she seems to be stalking me at the moment, Barrie, I’ve seen her in something like five films in a row). Although I’ve seen this before when watching it again I thought that Atwill would turn out to be a baddie due to sheer typecasting.
The finale is a little bit damp in that we never see the baddy actually shot or captured, he just takes off and Holmes couldn’t be bothered chasing him. But there’s a marvellous final line – “Watson, the needle”.
Movie review – “Repulsion” (1965) ****
After the international success of Knife in Water, Roman Polanski got out of Poland and made this thriller, his first English language movie, and another success. Catherine Denueuve is very beautiful and effective as the woman who goes bonkers when left alone. Brilliant direction and some stunning moments – the crack in the walls, the ceiling closing in, the hands grabbing her, the dream sequences. It does feel as though it goes on a bit and could have 15 minutes cut out. The support cast are very strong.
Movie review – “The Eagle” (1925) ***
Rudolph Valentino’s career had almost been ruined by his own negligence and interference from his wife, Natacha Rambova, but this film saw him return to the public favour. (It was his penultimate movie - he made Son of the Sheik then died). He plays an officer in the Russian Imperial Guards whose act of heroism attracts the attention of Catherine the Great – she wants to make him her stud, but he refuses and takes off, resulting in a price on his head. It’s back to home where dad has fortunately been swindled out of his estate by a baddy – I say “fortunately” because it gives Rudy the chance to don a mask and become “The Eagle”, and fight for revenge. He pretends to be a tutor to the baddy’s daughter in order to get access but unfortunately he falls in love with the baddy’s daughter.
This is an enjoyable swashbuckler with some decent action and Rudy in good dashing form; he also gets the chance to do a bit of comedy and pulls it of. The film has story problems – we know the baddy is a baddy (all the locals hate him) yet he’s allowed to live and not even be punished at the end. They needed to give Rudy someone to duel – a henchman or something. Also the Catherine the Great angle is introduced, dropped for most of the film, then returns as a deux ex machina. It’s interesting that Catherine isn’t unsympathetically portrayed – she’s a tyrant, but with a heart. Vilma Bankey is Rudy’s love interest.
But it’s still a lot of fast-paced fun, with good performances, a pleasing risqué tone and pleasant art direction.
Movie review – “Dying Breed” (2008) **1/2
The Alexander Pearce story is so well known and obviously exploitable that it’s a mystery why it took so long to become a horror movie – perhaps due to difficulties of filming in Tasmania. But here it is, with a decent budget and two horror “names”, Nathan Phillips and Leigh Wannell. Wannell is a likeable actor with an honest open face, even if he doesn’t have much of a character to play apart from “nice guy”; Phillips has a bit more to chew on, but unfortunately he becomes boorish. The pretend Irish female lead is irritating but the other girl quite nice and Billie Brown makes his outlandish character convincing.
It looks terrific with some great Tasmanian scenery and is quite slick. There are some effective shocks too, especially those involving a little girl. Script wise things get a shifty after the little girl turns up – the actions of the characters become increasingly illogical and there are contrivances with the characters hooking up again.
It looks terrific with some great Tasmanian scenery and is quite slick. There are some effective shocks too, especially those involving a little girl. Script wise things get a shifty after the little girl turns up – the actions of the characters become increasingly illogical and there are contrivances with the characters hooking up again.
Movie review – “Knife in Water” (1962) **1/2
I remember reading a review of Dead Calm (by Scott Murray, if memory serves) which said it wasn’t nearly as good as Knife in Water, but I’m sorry that’s snobby crap. Not that this doesn’t impress, especially when you consider it’s a first feature. This is skilful low budget filmmaking and Roman Polanksi’s talent is evident in every frame.
The script is very much a script written by a director – not really much of a story, but plenty of memorable scenes and bits. Polanski knows how to frame a shot – it helps having three characters as you can give a bit of depth to your mise-en-scene. Setting it on a boat gives strong production value.
Part of the reason I think this was a hit at the time is it is so analyseable – the symbolism of the knife (castration!), the competition between the two men, the woman starting as a trophy and emerging as a power, old vs young, material vs non (you couldn’t pick this was made in a communist country). Has a feeling of eeriness, even if it does only have 30 minutes of story (if that) and it doesn’t really make sense why they would invite the hitchhiker on the yacht.
Memorable scenes such as pulling the yacht on land through the reeds, the knife-through-fingers trick that appeared in Aliens. Decent acting – Polanski dubbed the hitchhiker guy. The girl is much, much better looking once she takes off her glasses and lets her hair down.
The script is very much a script written by a director – not really much of a story, but plenty of memorable scenes and bits. Polanski knows how to frame a shot – it helps having three characters as you can give a bit of depth to your mise-en-scene. Setting it on a boat gives strong production value.
Part of the reason I think this was a hit at the time is it is so analyseable – the symbolism of the knife (castration!), the competition between the two men, the woman starting as a trophy and emerging as a power, old vs young, material vs non (you couldn’t pick this was made in a communist country). Has a feeling of eeriness, even if it does only have 30 minutes of story (if that) and it doesn’t really make sense why they would invite the hitchhiker on the yacht.
Memorable scenes such as pulling the yacht on land through the reeds, the knife-through-fingers trick that appeared in Aliens. Decent acting – Polanski dubbed the hitchhiker guy. The girl is much, much better looking once she takes off her glasses and lets her hair down.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Book review – “Queen of the Ice: Queen of Shadows”
In her movies Sonja Henie gives the impression of a determined little cherub who wouldn’t let anyone get in her way – and it seems from this biography that was a true story. Little Sonja was born into a wealthy Norwegian family; she wanted to be a champion ice skater and by jove she became one, then she wanted to become rich and she did, and she wanted to become a movie star and she did that too, and she wanted to have sex with movie stars and she did and so on.
Sonja accomplished this with steely determination, hard work from a young age and, one assumes, ruthlessness. She also had considerable parental support who devoted their lives to her career (the Henies never seemed to have to work)
Sonja packed a lot into her life – so much so that by page 46 of this book she’s already won gold at the 28 and 32 Olympics. She won a swag of world championships then turned professional after gold at the 36 Olympics. A successful tour of the US saw movie offers. Daryl Zanuck sensibly wanted to trial her out as a novelty item, but to give Sonja her due she held out to be the star of her own vehicle. Zanuck relented (he was afraid of MGM signing her) and he was rewarded with a string of popular films.
Novelty stars like Sonja Henie and Esther Williams needed the studio system to thrive – the writers who could turn out tailored vehicles, supporting actors under contract to provide the acting, and, most of all, studio facilities (in Williams’ case, a pool, in Henie’s, an ice rink). Henie made a string of films, of which the best known today would probably be Sun Valley Serenade, owing to the appearance of Glen Miller and the Nicholas Brothers. According to this book she had delusions about wanting to be a dramatic actor, but never seems to have seriously pursued them. There was too much money to be made ice skating, and money was the great love of her life.
Henie made buckets of cash throughout her life, whether as a “shamateur” (dad charged appearance fees during her Olympic career), running her ice shows, not declaring large amounts of money to avoid tax, smuggling money from Norway to America, refusing to give a cent to the Norwegian resistance during the war (Henie was not at all hostile to the Nazis), constantly clearing out hotels in which she stayed of towels and bath mats, etc (something which got her into trouble in, ironically, Batista’s Cuba).
She was popular, with men as well as women. Like a lot of athletes who spend most of their time training therefore can’t eat, travel, drink or study, she liked sex. She had several toy boy skater lovers (one whom she dumped then who died in 1939 after picking up an infected rabbit and wiping his eyes), as well as a fling with Tyrone Power and a number of playboys, two of whom she married, both times disastrously. A third marriage lasted – he at least worked for a living and was rich, seemed to be a prick, but was at least nice when Henie got leukemia.
I’m surprised Sonia Henie isn’t more of a gay icon – imposing relationship with her mother (who was devoted to her), heaps of gay skater employees, a fling with bisexual Power (who apparently called his penis “Jack” and her vagina “Bertha” – they even quote a letter from Power to Henie where he mentions Jack), a lust for sex, money, fame, glamour and diamonds, elaborate ice shows, a tendency to marry idiots, middle age descent into alcoholism and true bitchiness. Her life would make a great musical – you could do it on ice. Maybe her friendliness to Nazis would be a bit off putting on Broadway – maybe you’d make her a support character instead.
Excellent biography, benefiting considerably from two superb sources – Sonia’s brother Leif and her secretary Dorothy. Main gripe - no referencing .
Sonja accomplished this with steely determination, hard work from a young age and, one assumes, ruthlessness. She also had considerable parental support who devoted their lives to her career (the Henies never seemed to have to work)
Sonja packed a lot into her life – so much so that by page 46 of this book she’s already won gold at the 28 and 32 Olympics. She won a swag of world championships then turned professional after gold at the 36 Olympics. A successful tour of the US saw movie offers. Daryl Zanuck sensibly wanted to trial her out as a novelty item, but to give Sonja her due she held out to be the star of her own vehicle. Zanuck relented (he was afraid of MGM signing her) and he was rewarded with a string of popular films.
Novelty stars like Sonja Henie and Esther Williams needed the studio system to thrive – the writers who could turn out tailored vehicles, supporting actors under contract to provide the acting, and, most of all, studio facilities (in Williams’ case, a pool, in Henie’s, an ice rink). Henie made a string of films, of which the best known today would probably be Sun Valley Serenade, owing to the appearance of Glen Miller and the Nicholas Brothers. According to this book she had delusions about wanting to be a dramatic actor, but never seems to have seriously pursued them. There was too much money to be made ice skating, and money was the great love of her life.
Henie made buckets of cash throughout her life, whether as a “shamateur” (dad charged appearance fees during her Olympic career), running her ice shows, not declaring large amounts of money to avoid tax, smuggling money from Norway to America, refusing to give a cent to the Norwegian resistance during the war (Henie was not at all hostile to the Nazis), constantly clearing out hotels in which she stayed of towels and bath mats, etc (something which got her into trouble in, ironically, Batista’s Cuba).
She was popular, with men as well as women. Like a lot of athletes who spend most of their time training therefore can’t eat, travel, drink or study, she liked sex. She had several toy boy skater lovers (one whom she dumped then who died in 1939 after picking up an infected rabbit and wiping his eyes), as well as a fling with Tyrone Power and a number of playboys, two of whom she married, both times disastrously. A third marriage lasted – he at least worked for a living and was rich, seemed to be a prick, but was at least nice when Henie got leukemia.
I’m surprised Sonia Henie isn’t more of a gay icon – imposing relationship with her mother (who was devoted to her), heaps of gay skater employees, a fling with bisexual Power (who apparently called his penis “Jack” and her vagina “Bertha” – they even quote a letter from Power to Henie where he mentions Jack), a lust for sex, money, fame, glamour and diamonds, elaborate ice shows, a tendency to marry idiots, middle age descent into alcoholism and true bitchiness. Her life would make a great musical – you could do it on ice. Maybe her friendliness to Nazis would be a bit off putting on Broadway – maybe you’d make her a support character instead.
Excellent biography, benefiting considerably from two superb sources – Sonia’s brother Leif and her secretary Dorothy. Main gripe - no referencing .
Movie review – Invisible #5 “The Invisible Man’s Revenge” (1943) ***
After fighting Nazis, Jon Hall is back as the invisible man. He looks a lot better with a moustache and has the benefit of a supporting cast that includes Evelyn Ankers, John Carradine and Gale Sondegaard.
He’s an amnesiac who has lost five years of memory after being conked on the head during a diamond-hunting expedition to Africa. He comes back and is determined to get money owed him by his fellow expedition members. Hall is a different sort of character in this – nasty and not very sympathetic, so it’s not that weird for his former friends (Sondegaard, Lester Matthews) to conk him on the head and dump him in the river. He winds up in the home of mad scientist John Carradine, working on an invisibility formula, who is dying to test it on some humans. So Hall offers himself up as guinea pig.
Hall’s performance isn’t bad at all – he wasn’t the best actor in the world but honestly he didn’t have much scope with those dashing hero parts he normally played; here he gets to depict an angry anti-hero and it really energises his acting. After three invisible movies with a sympathetic hero, it’s great to see one with a nasty hero again.
Some cool invisible stuff - Hall threatens Matthews with a knife, throws flour on his face to prove is there, and becomes half invisible. It’s also a great idea to have the invisible man require blood in order to be able to become visible - a very effective pinching of the vampire legend. It gives Halls character some real motivation to be evil apart from just going insane. (Hall starts out as a bad egg here so he can’t blame invisibility on making him nasty).
It’s a shame Evelyn Anker’s character isn’t used a bit more – they set up Hall is obsessed with her but could have done more with this. Also Sondegaard and Matthews deserve a bit more darkness and more of a come-uppance – one feels Gale Sondergaard in particular is under-utilized.
But on the sunny side it’s great that Hall is finally defeated by a dog instead of a human – Carradine’s dog, looking for revenge. (You think Anker’s journo boyfriend Alan Curtis is going to do this but he’s unconscious at the end). And it's all fast paced and exciting.
The film uses the class system are motivation – Hall, Carradine and a comic cockney (Leon Errol) are anti-gentry (Carradine partly makes his dog invisible because he was being picked on by the gentry). Although there is this all wise and all knowing knight Leland Hodgson at the end who comes along to pass judgement, like those nobles who appear at the eleventh hour in Shakespeare plays.
He’s an amnesiac who has lost five years of memory after being conked on the head during a diamond-hunting expedition to Africa. He comes back and is determined to get money owed him by his fellow expedition members. Hall is a different sort of character in this – nasty and not very sympathetic, so it’s not that weird for his former friends (Sondegaard, Lester Matthews) to conk him on the head and dump him in the river. He winds up in the home of mad scientist John Carradine, working on an invisibility formula, who is dying to test it on some humans. So Hall offers himself up as guinea pig.
Hall’s performance isn’t bad at all – he wasn’t the best actor in the world but honestly he didn’t have much scope with those dashing hero parts he normally played; here he gets to depict an angry anti-hero and it really energises his acting. After three invisible movies with a sympathetic hero, it’s great to see one with a nasty hero again.
Some cool invisible stuff - Hall threatens Matthews with a knife, throws flour on his face to prove is there, and becomes half invisible. It’s also a great idea to have the invisible man require blood in order to be able to become visible - a very effective pinching of the vampire legend. It gives Halls character some real motivation to be evil apart from just going insane. (Hall starts out as a bad egg here so he can’t blame invisibility on making him nasty).
It’s a shame Evelyn Anker’s character isn’t used a bit more – they set up Hall is obsessed with her but could have done more with this. Also Sondegaard and Matthews deserve a bit more darkness and more of a come-uppance – one feels Gale Sondergaard in particular is under-utilized.
But on the sunny side it’s great that Hall is finally defeated by a dog instead of a human – Carradine’s dog, looking for revenge. (You think Anker’s journo boyfriend Alan Curtis is going to do this but he’s unconscious at the end). And it's all fast paced and exciting.
The film uses the class system are motivation – Hall, Carradine and a comic cockney (Leon Errol) are anti-gentry (Carradine partly makes his dog invisible because he was being picked on by the gentry). Although there is this all wise and all knowing knight Leland Hodgson at the end who comes along to pass judgement, like those nobles who appear at the eleventh hour in Shakespeare plays.
Book review – “Female Brando – The Legend of Kim Stanley” by Jon Krampner
There are actors and there are actor’s actors – performers whom other actors love and admire. Brando would be the best know – others would include Montgomery Clift, Olivier. Apparently Kim Stanley was the 50s equivalent for women.
Kim Stanley is not that widely known today, at least in Australia. I got her confused with Kim Hunter. Unlike Barbara Bel Geddes she didn’t have a hit TV show late in her life, unlike Helen Hayes she never played a series of cute little old ladies, unlike Geraldine Page she didn’t get a great film role towards the end of her life, unlike Maureen Stapleton she didn’t appear a lot in movies.
You’d know the roles she created on Broadway, mainly from film versions in which the roles were played by other actors: The Chase (Jane Fonda), Picnic (Susan Strasberg), Bus Stop (Marilyn Monroe). She was also in a popular stage version of A Touch of the Poet, and the film Séance on a Wet Afternoon as well as the famous Actors Studio disaster, Three Sisters.
She drank like a fish, ate like a pig and rooted like a rabbit – while married to her second husband she had a child to her lover (Montgomery Clift’s brother). Adored by other actors and writers, many of whom she had sex with – Ben Gazzara, Lorenzo Semple Jnr, Cliff Robertson, J P Miller. Several writers also turned her into fictitious characters.
If Stanley had died around 1960 she would have been this great legend. As it is she got fat and boozy, lost her looks and figure, and she’s more of an underground figure today. Her great performances were mostly given on stage and live television – of course its impossible to recreate stage performances but there’s still a fair few live TV performances available, it’s just hard to see them. (Marketing idea for this book – re-release The Goddess on DVD and throw in a couple of Stanley’s best television performances.) Of course there is a tantalising quality about this, very susceptible to cultism eg “ah, if only you’d seen Kim Stanley, now there was an actor.”
Krampner has done a lot of admirable research, including a stack of reviews from many of her colleagues and friends, who talk about her with a mixture of exasperation and admiration. Everyone attests to her acting genius, though some argue it went a bit off the boil towards the end. He does a very good job – I enjoyed his little asides – although at times I felt if he was an actor himself perhaps he might have been better able to convey what Stanley was like as a performer. But this admittedly is a very difficult skill – off the top of my head Simon Callow is the only writer I can think of who can do this – and generally what Krampner does is fine. (Maybe also he could have gone into more detail about Stanley’s influence on other female actors.)
Kim Stanley is not that widely known today, at least in Australia. I got her confused with Kim Hunter. Unlike Barbara Bel Geddes she didn’t have a hit TV show late in her life, unlike Helen Hayes she never played a series of cute little old ladies, unlike Geraldine Page she didn’t get a great film role towards the end of her life, unlike Maureen Stapleton she didn’t appear a lot in movies.
You’d know the roles she created on Broadway, mainly from film versions in which the roles were played by other actors: The Chase (Jane Fonda), Picnic (Susan Strasberg), Bus Stop (Marilyn Monroe). She was also in a popular stage version of A Touch of the Poet, and the film Séance on a Wet Afternoon as well as the famous Actors Studio disaster, Three Sisters.
She drank like a fish, ate like a pig and rooted like a rabbit – while married to her second husband she had a child to her lover (Montgomery Clift’s brother). Adored by other actors and writers, many of whom she had sex with – Ben Gazzara, Lorenzo Semple Jnr, Cliff Robertson, J P Miller. Several writers also turned her into fictitious characters.
If Stanley had died around 1960 she would have been this great legend. As it is she got fat and boozy, lost her looks and figure, and she’s more of an underground figure today. Her great performances were mostly given on stage and live television – of course its impossible to recreate stage performances but there’s still a fair few live TV performances available, it’s just hard to see them. (Marketing idea for this book – re-release The Goddess on DVD and throw in a couple of Stanley’s best television performances.) Of course there is a tantalising quality about this, very susceptible to cultism eg “ah, if only you’d seen Kim Stanley, now there was an actor.”
Krampner has done a lot of admirable research, including a stack of reviews from many of her colleagues and friends, who talk about her with a mixture of exasperation and admiration. Everyone attests to her acting genius, though some argue it went a bit off the boil towards the end. He does a very good job – I enjoyed his little asides – although at times I felt if he was an actor himself perhaps he might have been better able to convey what Stanley was like as a performer. But this admittedly is a very difficult skill – off the top of my head Simon Callow is the only writer I can think of who can do this – and generally what Krampner does is fine. (Maybe also he could have gone into more detail about Stanley’s influence on other female actors.)
Movie review – “Arabian Nights” (1942) ***
Alex Korda’s 1941 version of Thief of Bagdad kicked off a cycle of Middle Eastern fantasy adventures which didn’t really taper off until 1963’s Cleopatra. Ironically both that film and this were produced by Walter Wagner.
This was one of the most popular fantasy of the cycle, and it’s not hard to see why: it would have been just the tonic after a hard day at the munitions factory. Even now elements of it hold up extremely well: gorgeous technicolour, enjoyable sets, good looking dancing girls, dashing heroes, imperious heroines, comic relief fatties, energetic direction, and a story that gleefully steals from various Arabic legends (not to mention Westerns).
There is also the appeal of Maria Montez, who became a star with this film. She is given a star entrance, all feisty in a skimpy outfit, seen in the reflection of a mirror. She certainly wasn’t the best actor in the world but she was good looking, and was good act lounging on pillows and acting imperious.
The script is a bit of a mess Rather oddly, this starts with the villain Leif Ericson hanging by his chains (he’s been there for seven days!) about to be killed by the hero Jon Hall when his men come to rescue him. Shouldn’t the roles have been reversed? It’s not very nice of Hall to hang up his brother for a week, no matter how bad he’s supposed to be, and gets the movie off to an odd start.
After a bit of swashbuckling, Hall runs away (not very heroic) and is hit by an arrow. Sabu sees it, figures out who Hall is from his ring, then swaps rings with an anonymous baddy – but doesn’t tell anyone who he is. No one seems to notice Hall is missing for a very long time. What sort of government was he running? A couple of assassins take a pot-shot at him and he’s out of commission. (It’s never established that Hall was a good ruler or that his brother Ericson is a bad one.) Sabu and Montez – who work for a theatre company along with Saladin and Aladdin – decide to get out of town until things die down, after which Montez hopes her boyfriend, Hall’s usurping brother, will come to power and make her queen. Sabu persuades Montez to take Hall with them as they head off into the desert. Montez agrees because she likes the look of Hall. Everyone thinks Hall is dead so Ericson takes over the throne legitimately.
(That’s not that evil. Making him even more human is the fact he mainly wants to become caliph mainly to marry Maria Montez, who wants to be a queen – that’s a very human emotion. This script isn’t very well structured. If Sabu was really on Hall’s side surely he could have told everyone who he was when he found him, the baddy hadn’t taken over yet. I think instead they should have had Hall more obviously betrayed and make the baddies more powerful in the beginning).
Montez goes back to marry the baddy, but she doesn’t know that the baddy’s second in command has arranged for Montez to be sold into slavery so she won’t marry the baddy. But its okay because by this time Hall has fallen in love with her too – and he promises her. The baddy tracks down Montez and rescues her – you know, he’s not really that much of a baddy, he just wants his girlfriend back. The real baddy is the second in command, who wants Montez to kill Hall’s brother.
Anyway there is a rousing battle at the end. Hall and his brother fight a duel – and the brother would have won it had not the second in command stabbed the brother in the back. So to be honest the brother should have been ruler.
But regardless this is still colourful fun. Soldiers in particular must have loved the scene where Sabu breaks into a harem and the girls chase after him. Then to distract a guard on his behalf they stage a fight. Turhan Bey appears as a soldier and some of the action was shot in Monument Valley, giving it a Western feel every now and then. The three leads were later reunited in White Savage, Cobra Woman, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Gypsy Wildcat and Sudan.
Movie review - Kettle #7 – “Ma and Pa Kettle at Home” (1953) **1/2
The Kettle films alternated between two main plots – the Kettles at home or the Kettles on a trip. This one sees them back at home and introduces a third heart-throb Kettle child – Elwin (Brett Halsey), a senior in high school. The plot has him in competition with a neighbour school girl over best farm – first prize is a college scholarship. That’s not a bad little plot, if contrived – I wondered when they were going to get around to a Hatfield and McCoy type story, and actually this could have been developed a little more.
But to compensate, Percy Kilbridge as Pa is in very strong form. It really gives him a chance to shine, watching lazy, shiftless Pa try to con and bludge his way into having a good farm. It’s also great to see the whole family back in their ramshackle house again – they belong there a lot more naturally than in their new-fangled home. (It’s a shame they couldn’t have moved back in long before, but I guess they felt they couldn’t after all the points they made about hygiene in Ma and Pa Kettle.)
There are two visiting journalists, a snobby guy and a younger journo who perhaps is supposed to be a leading man, but he looks kind of goofy. There’s a surprisingly schmaltzy Christmas finale – they real pour it on with fellowship, good cheer and hugs, a real throwback to The Egg and I.
But to compensate, Percy Kilbridge as Pa is in very strong form. It really gives him a chance to shine, watching lazy, shiftless Pa try to con and bludge his way into having a good farm. It’s also great to see the whole family back in their ramshackle house again – they belong there a lot more naturally than in their new-fangled home. (It’s a shame they couldn’t have moved back in long before, but I guess they felt they couldn’t after all the points they made about hygiene in Ma and Pa Kettle.)
There are two visiting journalists, a snobby guy and a younger journo who perhaps is supposed to be a leading man, but he looks kind of goofy. There’s a surprisingly schmaltzy Christmas finale – they real pour it on with fellowship, good cheer and hugs, a real throwback to The Egg and I.
Movie review – Kettle #6 – “Ma and Pa Kettle on Vacation” (1952) **
The Kettle films stuck to continuity more than, say, Universal’s horror series. They were always reusing supporting characters and cast and keeping things relatively consistent. (For instance, Pa’s Indian friends, the door to door salesman, and Ma’s nosy rival and her mother, appeared in most of the film in the series including The Egg and I.) This one features Ma and Pa’s in laws from Back on the Farm, who invite Ma and Pa to go to Paris.
The in-laws like them so there’s no conflict there. And, even more surprisingly, there is no subplot involving one of the Kettle’s kids. Instead the writers have come up with a spy who gives Pa some important documents. The baddies inc Sig Rumann spend most of the film trying to get a letter off him – which becomes wearying, especially after the half way mark when Pa gives the letter to the Embassy. The rest of the film has Pa act for the US government to smoke out the agents – but since he’s already given the letter to the government there are no real stakes. Not enough story for a feature.
Some bright spots: a really funny joke about Pa’s WW1 service (“they said I couldn’t go until they scraped the bottom of the barrel”), Pa speaking in a French accent, Ma punching out a spy, a great scene where the Kettles watch a dance sequence of a man slapping around a woman and Ma gets all upset, and a touching moment where Pa and Ma reminisce about the night he proposed. There’s yet another scene where Ma gets dolled up, something like the third in the series so far – I’m not opposed to these scenes, but the scriptwriters don’t really vary them much.
These films don’t hold up too well when you pay them attention, but they’re great when you have them on the television while reading a book or something. The best thing about them is the marvellous performances by Percy Kilbridge and Marjorie Main. Kilbridge all slow and non-plussed, Main bombast and raucous.
Note how when Ma and Pa say goodbye to their kids before going to Paris, this one Kettle child stands in the middle of the frame, given this attention which is never paid of. I wonder if they were the child of an executive or something?
The in-laws like them so there’s no conflict there. And, even more surprisingly, there is no subplot involving one of the Kettle’s kids. Instead the writers have come up with a spy who gives Pa some important documents. The baddies inc Sig Rumann spend most of the film trying to get a letter off him – which becomes wearying, especially after the half way mark when Pa gives the letter to the Embassy. The rest of the film has Pa act for the US government to smoke out the agents – but since he’s already given the letter to the government there are no real stakes. Not enough story for a feature.
Some bright spots: a really funny joke about Pa’s WW1 service (“they said I couldn’t go until they scraped the bottom of the barrel”), Pa speaking in a French accent, Ma punching out a spy, a great scene where the Kettles watch a dance sequence of a man slapping around a woman and Ma gets all upset, and a touching moment where Pa and Ma reminisce about the night he proposed. There’s yet another scene where Ma gets dolled up, something like the third in the series so far – I’m not opposed to these scenes, but the scriptwriters don’t really vary them much.
These films don’t hold up too well when you pay them attention, but they’re great when you have them on the television while reading a book or something. The best thing about them is the marvellous performances by Percy Kilbridge and Marjorie Main. Kilbridge all slow and non-plussed, Main bombast and raucous.
Note how when Ma and Pa say goodbye to their kids before going to Paris, this one Kettle child stands in the middle of the frame, given this attention which is never paid of. I wonder if they were the child of an executive or something?
Movie review – Kettle #5 - “Ma and Pa Kettle at the Fair” (1951) **1/2
Two of Abbott and Costello’s key contributors join the Kettle franchise for this instalment – writer John Grant and director Charles Barton. They finally dump Tom and Kim Kettle (who really only had two films in them) and suddenly there’s another non-retarded Kettle child, Rosie, played by pretty Universal contractee Lori Nelson, who romances James Best.
Unlike the last three Kettle films, this doesn’t have high concept twists like gangsters, ad campaigns, visiting New York or uranium. The humour more observational and based in reality, being centred around Pa’s laziness and tight fisted-ness. (Just thinking about it Pa drives these movies more than Ma) and a local fair a la State Fair. Ma enters a jam competition, Pa goes in a horse race, Rosie is a bit embarrassed about her parents. Even Rosie’s embarrassment, which is a bit unsympathetic, rings true (and at least she always apologises for it). This does mean though it’s a very light movie – perhaps too light. More could have been made of the romance plot – there’s no conflict there, just two kids who like each other and go dating. And Rosie’s whining does get on the nerves.
Grant surely had something to do with the Abbott and Costello references especially the Indians selling blankets at the fair (they mention “Who’s on First” and when a skinny guy and slightly chubby guy come along to buy some blankets and engage in word play, they ask if they’re Abbott and Costello – was this meant to be a cameo?) I’d guess he also had something to do with the routines where Pa negotiates with his creditors – there’s lots of word play and unique maths, very Abbott and Costello.
Unlike the last three Kettle films, this doesn’t have high concept twists like gangsters, ad campaigns, visiting New York or uranium. The humour more observational and based in reality, being centred around Pa’s laziness and tight fisted-ness. (Just thinking about it Pa drives these movies more than Ma) and a local fair a la State Fair. Ma enters a jam competition, Pa goes in a horse race, Rosie is a bit embarrassed about her parents. Even Rosie’s embarrassment, which is a bit unsympathetic, rings true (and at least she always apologises for it). This does mean though it’s a very light movie – perhaps too light. More could have been made of the romance plot – there’s no conflict there, just two kids who like each other and go dating. And Rosie’s whining does get on the nerves.
Grant surely had something to do with the Abbott and Costello references especially the Indians selling blankets at the fair (they mention “Who’s on First” and when a skinny guy and slightly chubby guy come along to buy some blankets and engage in word play, they ask if they’re Abbott and Costello – was this meant to be a cameo?) I’d guess he also had something to do with the routines where Pa negotiates with his creditors – there’s lots of word play and unique maths, very Abbott and Costello.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Movie review – “The Brute Man” (1946) **1/2
The films made towards the end of the third cycle of Universal horrors (1939-46) are generally not highly regarded by aficionados, but this is the exception, mainly because of the presence of Rondo Hatton in the lead. Not only was it a rare Hatton starring vehicle, the plot has elements from Hatton’s real life. Hatton was a champion footballer and handsome college student who became disfigured; here it’s due to him getting angry and chucking a na-na during science detention at college. Ten years later he goes looking for revenge.
Hatton is a compelling performer, mostly because of his appearance Actually, entirely due to his appearance – he’s not that crash hot when given a lot of dialogue, so his speaking is sensibly kept to a minimum. Hatton’s Creeper is reasonably sympathetic here - but he's still a psycho killer. He is given a blind girl to have a romance with – the Creeper is so dim he doesn’t figure it out she's blind until their second meeting. The blind girl must be lonely for company – on their first meeting Creeper says there are some people after me, and the blind girl doesn’t turn him into the cops, without knowing anything about him. Then he goes and buys a watch for her, but he doesn’t have the money – so he kills the shop assistant. He also kills a snooping delivery boy.
With a little bit more care this could have been a lot better. For instance, they should have focused the script on the Creeper’s revenge – giving him a better motive than my-old-college-mate-gave-me-wrong-answers-and-got-me-on-detentino-causing-me-to-have-a-major-accident. They should have done something really nasty to him, so his revenge would have been more fun. And they don’t introduce the pay-for-blind-girl-operation motive until 40 minutes in – this should have been done earlier. Also they could have had more romance between the Creeper and the blind girl. (They sort of hint at a romance between the blind girl and the slightly creepy cop at the end).
But it’s definitely watchable, and even though the pathos isn’t as skilfully wrought as in the best Frankenstein and Wolfman movies, Hatton’s presence gives it a gravitas lacking in other Universal movies. Jean Yarborough was a decent enough director (he did a number of Abbott and Costellos) and ensures this has a professional sheen. I also enjoyed some of the squabbling amongst the police as they fail to solve the murder, and it's fun to see Tom Neal as Hatton's college friend.
Hatton is a compelling performer, mostly because of his appearance Actually, entirely due to his appearance – he’s not that crash hot when given a lot of dialogue, so his speaking is sensibly kept to a minimum. Hatton’s Creeper is reasonably sympathetic here - but he's still a psycho killer. He is given a blind girl to have a romance with – the Creeper is so dim he doesn’t figure it out she's blind until their second meeting. The blind girl must be lonely for company – on their first meeting Creeper says there are some people after me, and the blind girl doesn’t turn him into the cops, without knowing anything about him. Then he goes and buys a watch for her, but he doesn’t have the money – so he kills the shop assistant. He also kills a snooping delivery boy.
With a little bit more care this could have been a lot better. For instance, they should have focused the script on the Creeper’s revenge – giving him a better motive than my-old-college-mate-gave-me-wrong-answers-and-got-me-on-detentino-causing-me-to-have-a-major-accident. They should have done something really nasty to him, so his revenge would have been more fun. And they don’t introduce the pay-for-blind-girl-operation motive until 40 minutes in – this should have been done earlier. Also they could have had more romance between the Creeper and the blind girl. (They sort of hint at a romance between the blind girl and the slightly creepy cop at the end).
But it’s definitely watchable, and even though the pathos isn’t as skilfully wrought as in the best Frankenstein and Wolfman movies, Hatton’s presence gives it a gravitas lacking in other Universal movies. Jean Yarborough was a decent enough director (he did a number of Abbott and Costellos) and ensures this has a professional sheen. I also enjoyed some of the squabbling amongst the police as they fail to solve the murder, and it's fun to see Tom Neal as Hatton's college friend.
Movie review – Invisible # 4 “The Invisible Agent” (1942) **1/2
America’s entry into World War Two didn’t affect most of their monster franchises, with this being the main exception. (I guess it would be hard to come up with ideas for the mummy, Frankenstein and Dracula to get involved in the war, but invisibility would be useful in war time).
It starts with a full on scene where Nazi agents Cedric Hardwicke and Peter Lorre try to persuade Jon Hall into giving up his uncle’s invisibility formula – by threatening to guillotine his hand. They even place it under the guillotine and are about to chop it off when Hall says he’ll tell. Of course, he’s only pretending and he punches them out before escaping.
But after this promising beginning it turns into a jokey WW2 film in the vein of Desperate Journey. Hall tells the US government who ask if they can use the formula. He refuses and they’re ok with it (you know, like they would) – but then Pearl Harbour is attacked and he turns it over on the condition that only he use the drug. So Hall parachutes into occupied Germany to find out about Nazi plans to invade America.
Cue lots of cute stuff with Hall tricking up comic Nazis and lots (and lots) of Nazis doing double takes. He’s not much of a secret agent, to be honest, constantly being unable to keep quiet – he’s always making some smart alec remark or showing off to agent Ilona Massey. No wonder Hardwicke and Lorre gets the drop on him relatively easily. Hall even goes a bit bonkers at once stage, convinced Massey.
This was a totally different sort of role for Hall –he was best known for South Sea Island parts which emphasised his handsome features and torso, but here he has to rely on his voice and acting ability. To be honest, he doesn’t really rise to the occasion and you can’t help wishing someone else played the role.
But to compensate there is Hardwicke and Lorre, who make excellent villains, both very smart – the only thing that helps the Allies win is that Japan and Germany squabble amongst themselves. Hardwicke likes to torture people and arrange for his own men to be shot – during one interrogation he has a person’s fingers broken. Lorre’s Japanese agent is a spiritual relative of Mr Moto right down to unscrupulousness and skill with ju jitsu. There is some racism often found in war movies of the time - Hall tells Lorre he “can’t tell you Japs apart”, Lorre talks about the odd sentimentality Caucasians have for white women
J Edward Bromberg and John Litel add class to the supporting cast and it’s done with Universal’s customary production sheen, including some need special effects. I get the feeling that had this been made a year later or something, when Hollywood was less silly with its war movies, this would have been a lot better.
It starts with a full on scene where Nazi agents Cedric Hardwicke and Peter Lorre try to persuade Jon Hall into giving up his uncle’s invisibility formula – by threatening to guillotine his hand. They even place it under the guillotine and are about to chop it off when Hall says he’ll tell. Of course, he’s only pretending and he punches them out before escaping.
But after this promising beginning it turns into a jokey WW2 film in the vein of Desperate Journey. Hall tells the US government who ask if they can use the formula. He refuses and they’re ok with it (you know, like they would) – but then Pearl Harbour is attacked and he turns it over on the condition that only he use the drug. So Hall parachutes into occupied Germany to find out about Nazi plans to invade America.
Cue lots of cute stuff with Hall tricking up comic Nazis and lots (and lots) of Nazis doing double takes. He’s not much of a secret agent, to be honest, constantly being unable to keep quiet – he’s always making some smart alec remark or showing off to agent Ilona Massey. No wonder Hardwicke and Lorre gets the drop on him relatively easily. Hall even goes a bit bonkers at once stage, convinced Massey.
This was a totally different sort of role for Hall –he was best known for South Sea Island parts which emphasised his handsome features and torso, but here he has to rely on his voice and acting ability. To be honest, he doesn’t really rise to the occasion and you can’t help wishing someone else played the role.
But to compensate there is Hardwicke and Lorre, who make excellent villains, both very smart – the only thing that helps the Allies win is that Japan and Germany squabble amongst themselves. Hardwicke likes to torture people and arrange for his own men to be shot – during one interrogation he has a person’s fingers broken. Lorre’s Japanese agent is a spiritual relative of Mr Moto right down to unscrupulousness and skill with ju jitsu. There is some racism often found in war movies of the time - Hall tells Lorre he “can’t tell you Japs apart”, Lorre talks about the odd sentimentality Caucasians have for white women
J Edward Bromberg and John Litel add class to the supporting cast and it’s done with Universal’s customary production sheen, including some need special effects. I get the feeling that had this been made a year later or something, when Hollywood was less silly with its war movies, this would have been a lot better.
Vale Michael Crichton
Got a massive shock with the news that Michael Crichton died the other day. Only 66 years old – what’s the story? I know cancer can be vicious, but he looked in such terrific shape – tall, fit, etc. He liked hiking and scuba diving, would talk about going to the gym. He smoked when he was younger, maybe that was it. Or maybe it was just plain bad luck.
The New York Times published a slightly narky analysis of his writing career, which commented again (and again) on Crichton’s weakness in creating characters. I admit his characters weren’t the best, but for crying out loud the guy’s corpse was barely cold, there was no need to be snide about it. Besides, some of his characters were memorable – the terminal man, the gunslinger in Westworld, the genial millionaire in Jurassic Park, the detective in Rising Sun. And for the record I think it’s a lot harder to make all that scientific mumbo-jumbo readable in the way that he did than to create characters.
The New York Times published a slightly narky analysis of his writing career, which commented again (and again) on Crichton’s weakness in creating characters. I admit his characters weren’t the best, but for crying out loud the guy’s corpse was barely cold, there was no need to be snide about it. Besides, some of his characters were memorable – the terminal man, the gunslinger in Westworld, the genial millionaire in Jurassic Park, the detective in Rising Sun. And for the record I think it’s a lot harder to make all that scientific mumbo-jumbo readable in the way that he did than to create characters.
Movie review – Falcon #2 – “A Date with the Falcon” (1941) **1/2
Once again the Falcon is trying to give up crime and womanising and get married, only to get embroiled in a mystery, in this case the disappearance of an imitation diamond manufacturer. His fiancée his played by Wendy Barrie, playing the same character as in the first one, but a totally different characterisation (in the first film she was high spirited and romantic, here she’s arch and bossy – she slaps Sanders several times and also destroys some plates).
There’s a scene where the Falcon is being carried away by the baddies and he gets out of his by being obnoxious to police – the technique used by Cary Grant in North by Northwest. I also liked the bit where a crowd gathers on the footpath thinking the Falcon will jump to his death from a ledge – and when he doesn’t they sigh with disappointment.
Allen Jenkins also returns. And Hans Conried, who plays the hotel concierge played a sketch artist in the first film. James Gleason plays a copper. It’s very well directed by Irvin Reis, who keeps it all fast moving and full of life. Story-wise, though, it does feel a little long, even if the running time is only 62 minutes.
There’s a scene where the Falcon is being carried away by the baddies and he gets out of his by being obnoxious to police – the technique used by Cary Grant in North by Northwest. I also liked the bit where a crowd gathers on the footpath thinking the Falcon will jump to his death from a ledge – and when he doesn’t they sigh with disappointment.
Allen Jenkins also returns. And Hans Conried, who plays the hotel concierge played a sketch artist in the first film. James Gleason plays a copper. It’s very well directed by Irvin Reis, who keeps it all fast moving and full of life. Story-wise, though, it does feel a little long, even if the running time is only 62 minutes.
Movie review – Kettle #4 - “Ma and Pa Kettle Back on the Farm” (1951) **
With fifteen children, you’d think the Kettles wouldn’t have to keep relying on their eldest, Tom, to provide them with story, but that’s what happens with this one – Tom’s wife Kim is about to have a baby, resulting in her parents coming to visit the Kettles (apparently they didn’t come to the wedding). Mum is a snob – she insists on naming the baby after Kim’s father (played by Ray Collins). But Tom Kettle wants the baby named after himself, which in my book is worse.
Anyway, the Kettles decide to move back out to the farm to get away from their in laws, so they can raise their baby in the new house (don’t Tom and Kim have their own home?). Then people think there is uranium on the Kettle farm – because Pa wears radioactive overalls once used by Long when he watched the atomic bomb tests during the war. (So presumably Tom Kettle isn’t going to live as long as his parents).
It’s a bit too convenient for the mother in law to be a dragon and I didn’t like Kim for going along with the idea of leaving for so long. Horrible misogynistic ending with everyone putting the dragon in her place; “will you behave yourself in the future?” asks Tom of Kim, and she nods.
Fun stuff: Pa’s expression when he thinks Ma is having another baby, Ma trying to be posh at dinner scene, Ma sticking up for her Indian friends to visit the baby. There’s also a vaudeville type routine, 14 x 5 = 25, which is a variation of a popular Abbott and Costello routine, plus a sequence where the Kettle’s friends (the door to door salesman and the Indians) steal a series of babies thinking their Tom Kettle’s – which is kind of funny until you realise that the parents of those babies would be freaking out.
Anyway, the Kettles decide to move back out to the farm to get away from their in laws, so they can raise their baby in the new house (don’t Tom and Kim have their own home?). Then people think there is uranium on the Kettle farm – because Pa wears radioactive overalls once used by Long when he watched the atomic bomb tests during the war. (So presumably Tom Kettle isn’t going to live as long as his parents).
It’s a bit too convenient for the mother in law to be a dragon and I didn’t like Kim for going along with the idea of leaving for so long. Horrible misogynistic ending with everyone putting the dragon in her place; “will you behave yourself in the future?” asks Tom of Kim, and she nods.
Fun stuff: Pa’s expression when he thinks Ma is having another baby, Ma trying to be posh at dinner scene, Ma sticking up for her Indian friends to visit the baby. There’s also a vaudeville type routine, 14 x 5 = 25, which is a variation of a popular Abbott and Costello routine, plus a sequence where the Kettle’s friends (the door to door salesman and the Indians) steal a series of babies thinking their Tom Kettle’s – which is kind of funny until you realise that the parents of those babies would be freaking out.
Movie review – Hitchcock #2 - “The Ring” (1927) ***1/2
One of Hitchcock’s few films on which he took a credit as screenwriter. It starts with a scene at a fun fair, full of artistic boldness (compared to other films at the time), and showing a real feel for the sort of lower middle-class entertainment that he would in The 39 Steps and Strangers on a Train.
Great use of point of view – the woman looking through the whole in the canvas into the male boxing world, Ian Hunter looking back, shots through a pond, close ups and reaction shots. William Goldman once said that the one requirement of a film director was that they had a vision about where to put the camera, and Hitchcock sure had that.
Also terrific atmosphere – carny signs, smoke. There’s even a black character in the movie – not a big role, but he’s still there. (Although to counter balance this liberalism there is a title card which says “win the fight with the n*gger and you’ll be there”). And a person picks their nose in church – you wouldn’t have that in a Hollywood movie at the time.
The plot has a girl planning on marrying one boxer but falling for another, more famous one – Ian Hunter, the best known member of the cast (he went to Hollywood and carved out a niche as a second lead, often outshone by Errol Flynn). She puts a bracelet on her arm – ring symbolism! – and she’s pashing him, the hussy. Actually this scene has a fair amount of sexual charge – certainly more than anything in The Lodger. So it’s not surprising she doesn’t tell her boyfriend, who then puts an engagement ring on her finger – more ring symbolism.
The nice poor boxer works his way up the ranks via a poster montage then we cut to the wife who is sitting on the leg of the rich boxer at a roaring 20s party watching some flappers Charleston. She’s so flirty with Hunter that the husband is a bit of a dill for not figuring out something is up until over an hour in (he suspects but he doesn’t get really angry until then – when he rips off her sleeve, revealing her bra strap).
Lovely quirky Hitchcock humour – such as a wedding where the guests are carnies (dwarves, Siamese twins who argue over where they should sleep), an entertaining flapper party sequence. Watching these you can’t help think that Hitchcock didn’t need sound to tell a story – indeed there are very few titles in the whole film - but sound would have made it far more entertaining. There’s some scenes which cry out for music, like the party scene, and when Brisson clocks Hunter at a nightclub while the band plays on; others which need atmosphere noises, like the fight scenes and carnie scenes. This is why, I think, silent film was replaced in popularity very quickly (except for Charlie Chaplin).
Some good acting. The final fight is well staged, fast-paced and exciting. At the end the girl goes back to her husband, takes off Hunter’s bracelet – but surely it’s only because Hunter loses the fight. Doesn’t auger well for the future! They’ll be alright just as long as he keeps winning, I suppose.
NB A thought – I would have loved Errol Flynn have made a film for Hitchcock – he would have been so easily castable by the great director, either during his dashing period (would have loved to see him in Suspicion), or his later seedy days (Rope, The Paradine Case, Dial M for Murder).
Great use of point of view – the woman looking through the whole in the canvas into the male boxing world, Ian Hunter looking back, shots through a pond, close ups and reaction shots. William Goldman once said that the one requirement of a film director was that they had a vision about where to put the camera, and Hitchcock sure had that.
Also terrific atmosphere – carny signs, smoke. There’s even a black character in the movie – not a big role, but he’s still there. (Although to counter balance this liberalism there is a title card which says “win the fight with the n*gger and you’ll be there”). And a person picks their nose in church – you wouldn’t have that in a Hollywood movie at the time.
The plot has a girl planning on marrying one boxer but falling for another, more famous one – Ian Hunter, the best known member of the cast (he went to Hollywood and carved out a niche as a second lead, often outshone by Errol Flynn). She puts a bracelet on her arm – ring symbolism! – and she’s pashing him, the hussy. Actually this scene has a fair amount of sexual charge – certainly more than anything in The Lodger. So it’s not surprising she doesn’t tell her boyfriend, who then puts an engagement ring on her finger – more ring symbolism.
The nice poor boxer works his way up the ranks via a poster montage then we cut to the wife who is sitting on the leg of the rich boxer at a roaring 20s party watching some flappers Charleston. She’s so flirty with Hunter that the husband is a bit of a dill for not figuring out something is up until over an hour in (he suspects but he doesn’t get really angry until then – when he rips off her sleeve, revealing her bra strap).
Lovely quirky Hitchcock humour – such as a wedding where the guests are carnies (dwarves, Siamese twins who argue over where they should sleep), an entertaining flapper party sequence. Watching these you can’t help think that Hitchcock didn’t need sound to tell a story – indeed there are very few titles in the whole film - but sound would have made it far more entertaining. There’s some scenes which cry out for music, like the party scene, and when Brisson clocks Hunter at a nightclub while the band plays on; others which need atmosphere noises, like the fight scenes and carnie scenes. This is why, I think, silent film was replaced in popularity very quickly (except for Charlie Chaplin).
Some good acting. The final fight is well staged, fast-paced and exciting. At the end the girl goes back to her husband, takes off Hunter’s bracelet – but surely it’s only because Hunter loses the fight. Doesn’t auger well for the future! They’ll be alright just as long as he keeps winning, I suppose.
NB A thought – I would have loved Errol Flynn have made a film for Hitchcock – he would have been so easily castable by the great director, either during his dashing period (would have loved to see him in Suspicion), or his later seedy days (Rope, The Paradine Case, Dial M for Murder).
Movie review – Falcon #1 - “The Gay Falcon” (1941) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
RKO were enjoying success with George Sanders in The Saint movies but apparently Leslie Charteris was being a nuisance, so they palmed the Saints off to Hugh Sinclair and developed a new B picture series, from a series of stories by Michael Arlen. Arlen’s tales weren’t as well known as Charteris’s but they proved popular with film audiences and 16 Falcons in all resulted. If the series is remembered today it’s probably because (a) we never found out why the Falcon was called the Falcon (in the original story that was his name but they changed it) (b) the Falcon’s first name was Gay and he would say to women seductively “I’m Gay” (c) the series was the first film to use Raymond Chandler as source material.
It starts with Falcon (Sanders) trying a new career as a stock broker – which doesn’t really mean anything since he hasn’t been established for audiences yet. He also has a bug-eyed girlfriend who is always wanting him to give up his old ways and settle down, a little like Bulldog Drummond.
Wendy Barrie, so bland in three Saint movies, was recruited to play the female co-star. She’s a bit more animated here, as a romantic secretary with a crush on the Falcon, but you can’t help wishing they’d got someone better. Allen Jenkins plays (surprise) a wacky sidekick – he’s actually the focus point of the plot, having witnessed a murder, which leads to a bunch of jewel thieves.
There’s a wacky Chinese servant, Gladys Cooper adds class as a scared damsel in distress, and that ever-reliable expert in 40s foreign menace Turhan Bey pops up in the support cast as a gigolo type. But the best thing about it is Sanders; the Falcon is a bit rougher than the Saint, and Sanders looks heavy in some scenes, but he’s got that cad thing down pat, and it’s fun to see him flirt with every female going, even Gladys Cooper, and all these women fall over him. (The Falcon is a bigger swinger than the Saint).
NB You know who could play George Sanders parts today? Rupert Everett – all that hedonism and bored aplomb. Maybe someone should think about Everett to play the Falcon or the Saint.
This is no classic, but it hums along well enough, has a nice light touch, and the story improves as it goes on. There is a neat twist ending that reveals Cooper did it.
It starts with Falcon (Sanders) trying a new career as a stock broker – which doesn’t really mean anything since he hasn’t been established for audiences yet. He also has a bug-eyed girlfriend who is always wanting him to give up his old ways and settle down, a little like Bulldog Drummond.
Wendy Barrie, so bland in three Saint movies, was recruited to play the female co-star. She’s a bit more animated here, as a romantic secretary with a crush on the Falcon, but you can’t help wishing they’d got someone better. Allen Jenkins plays (surprise) a wacky sidekick – he’s actually the focus point of the plot, having witnessed a murder, which leads to a bunch of jewel thieves.
There’s a wacky Chinese servant, Gladys Cooper adds class as a scared damsel in distress, and that ever-reliable expert in 40s foreign menace Turhan Bey pops up in the support cast as a gigolo type. But the best thing about it is Sanders; the Falcon is a bit rougher than the Saint, and Sanders looks heavy in some scenes, but he’s got that cad thing down pat, and it’s fun to see him flirt with every female going, even Gladys Cooper, and all these women fall over him. (The Falcon is a bigger swinger than the Saint).
NB You know who could play George Sanders parts today? Rupert Everett – all that hedonism and bored aplomb. Maybe someone should think about Everett to play the Falcon or the Saint.
This is no classic, but it hums along well enough, has a nice light touch, and the story improves as it goes on. There is a neat twist ending that reveals Cooper did it.
Movie review – Kettle #3 – “Ma and Pa Kettle Go To Town” (1950) **
This picks off after the last film, with Pa Kettle having won a competition that takes him to New York. They also get involved with escaped gangsters – stock characters who always turn up in these sort of movies (indeed, I’m surprised there were no gangsters in Ma and Pa Kettle). In a rather convoluted set up a gangster volunteers to look after the kids so Ma and Pa to go to New York and drop off a baggage (not really believable). In another contrivance, the bag goes missing. This results in a lot of irritatingly repetitive scenes with gangsters trying to get the bag off Pa – but there’s no point to it because it’s not the right bag (Pa buys a replacement).
Ma and Pa meet their son and daughter in law – the son Tom is trying to sell his incubator, mentioned in the previous film. They’re having marriage problems due to Tom’s jealousy over his wife Kim’s ex, resulting in a lot of un-interesting squabbling.
There is some fun stuff: Ma does battle with pancake, the radio station that plays ‘Music to Milk By’, Pa shows a gangster around the old homestead, 30 Rock fans will enjoy the scene where the Kettles visit 30 Rockefeller Plaza, the Kettles go for a ride around Central Park (and it flashes through your mind that these two must have had a thriving sex life), Ma on an exercise bike, Charles McGraw and Jim Backus as gangsters.
But generally the action is mild – you’d think the Kettles in New York City would be automatic comedy gold, and so evidently did the writers, because they didn’t seem to put much effort into the script. Indeed, much of the comedy is surprisingly carried by the support players – comic gangsters, cops and shop assistants. (Dad and Dave Come to Town is far superior). There are plenty of good ideas floating around – gangsters think Pa is a gangster, a businessman thinks he is a tycoon – but these aren’t developed properly.
Some of the scenes are really badly structured – eg Pa being cross examined by cops for a crime is a funny concept… but they’re doing it here for a silly crime (poisoning monkeys). It would have been far better for everyone – cops and gangsters – thought Pa was a big time gangster or something (there are hints in this line, but they didn’t run with the concept).
Also, around an hour into the film, the rich guy who picks up the real bag thinks that Pa is an underwear millionaire – a fine idea, enough for a film… but introduced far too late (and you can’t have a contrivance that Kettle is the surname of an underwear manufacturer that late in the piece.) (NB though it is funny Pa admitting he’s the underwear king because he’s in underwear.)
And it’s funny that the gangster who looks after the kids is tortured by the kids… but the thing is, he doesn’t deserve to be tortured. The bank robbers in Home Alone deserved to get pummelled because they were robbing the house, but not this guy. It wouldn’t have been hard to establish, just have him be really mean to the kids. As it is, the Kettle kids are just mean.
Final contrivance – the Kettles turn up at a high society do (which isn’t even that high society) and they happen to run into the rival for Kim Kettle’s affections. Lazy. Oh, and the Kettles are never in jeopardy, despite gangsters being involved. Just because a film is a formula picture doesn’t mean you can phone it in.
Ma and Pa meet their son and daughter in law – the son Tom is trying to sell his incubator, mentioned in the previous film. They’re having marriage problems due to Tom’s jealousy over his wife Kim’s ex, resulting in a lot of un-interesting squabbling.
There is some fun stuff: Ma does battle with pancake, the radio station that plays ‘Music to Milk By’, Pa shows a gangster around the old homestead, 30 Rock fans will enjoy the scene where the Kettles visit 30 Rockefeller Plaza, the Kettles go for a ride around Central Park (and it flashes through your mind that these two must have had a thriving sex life), Ma on an exercise bike, Charles McGraw and Jim Backus as gangsters.
But generally the action is mild – you’d think the Kettles in New York City would be automatic comedy gold, and so evidently did the writers, because they didn’t seem to put much effort into the script. Indeed, much of the comedy is surprisingly carried by the support players – comic gangsters, cops and shop assistants. (Dad and Dave Come to Town is far superior). There are plenty of good ideas floating around – gangsters think Pa is a gangster, a businessman thinks he is a tycoon – but these aren’t developed properly.
Some of the scenes are really badly structured – eg Pa being cross examined by cops for a crime is a funny concept… but they’re doing it here for a silly crime (poisoning monkeys). It would have been far better for everyone – cops and gangsters – thought Pa was a big time gangster or something (there are hints in this line, but they didn’t run with the concept).
Also, around an hour into the film, the rich guy who picks up the real bag thinks that Pa is an underwear millionaire – a fine idea, enough for a film… but introduced far too late (and you can’t have a contrivance that Kettle is the surname of an underwear manufacturer that late in the piece.) (NB though it is funny Pa admitting he’s the underwear king because he’s in underwear.)
And it’s funny that the gangster who looks after the kids is tortured by the kids… but the thing is, he doesn’t deserve to be tortured. The bank robbers in Home Alone deserved to get pummelled because they were robbing the house, but not this guy. It wouldn’t have been hard to establish, just have him be really mean to the kids. As it is, the Kettle kids are just mean.
Final contrivance – the Kettles turn up at a high society do (which isn’t even that high society) and they happen to run into the rival for Kim Kettle’s affections. Lazy. Oh, and the Kettles are never in jeopardy, despite gangsters being involved. Just because a film is a formula picture doesn’t mean you can phone it in.
Book review – “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes” by Annette Funicello
Sweet memoir from the woman who was America’s sweetheart for a long period of time. Funicello comes across exactly like you’d imagine – a bit shy, hard working, naïve, from a strong loving if strict family, nice to fans. She’s no dummy, though – recognising part of her appeal came from having a big chest (Though she points out she didn’t develop until after The Mickey Mouse Club and there were other girls on the show with bigger ones).
But the extent of Funicello’s success took her by surprise – takes her by surprise still. She was the break out star of The Mickey Mouse Club, despite being the last mouse-keteer. She headlined her own serial and had a semi-hit record and was the only mouseketeer kept on by Disney after the original series ended. Perhaps this was because she was the only one personally selected by Disney, thus meaning he had a personal stake in her success. But she did have a genuine, non-threatening girl next door quality. She also had a twinkle in the eye, which all stars need.
Full of interesting tidbits. I had no idea Disney planned on making a sequel to the Wizard of Oz and actually shot a few scenes, some of which were shown on the Disney program, but it never went ahead. (Surely it would have been better than Return to Oz).
There’s also a charming vignette about Funicello travelling on one of those all-star late 50s rock caravans (like other one Buddy Holly died in) – being forced to do homework by a tutor, making out with Duane Eddy, romancing Paul Anka (mum sat in the bathroom so they could have quality time).
Some darker stuff too – well, dark-ish: at one stage Annette asked Disney if she could see a shrink to help conquer her shyness but he advised against it for fear it would ruin her appeal )which Disney thought was partly based on her shyness) – and Annette wondered how her life would have turned out had Disney not done that.
There’s other stuff in this vein - Nancy Sinatra giving her the evil eye when Annette co-starred with Tommy Sands, a knife-wielding fan had to be turned away at the Disney gates and another maniac threatened to kill her when she decide to get married. She married her agent, an older guy, but they drifted apart – Annette was very much a homebody (she comes most alive in the book when talking about being a parent), whereas her husband was social. She considered herself a dancer more than anything else – yet says she only got to show off her stuff in one film, Babes in Toyland, one of her faves (she seems to forget Pajama Party, which also gave her a chance to shine – she also seems to forget that she made this as well as How to Stuff a Wild Bikini without Avalon, and that she did in fact show her navel in a few of the beach party movies.)
She talks with affection of Frankie Avalon, Fabian, Sands and Paul Anka – but barely mentions Tommy Kirk despite co-starring with him more than any of the others. She displays a great deal of postivity in the face of her MS. Reading this its easy to see why, for all her tinny singing voice and sameness of her roles (basically impatient-girlfriend-of-hero) she retains such affection with the public.
Movie review – Saint #9 – “The Saint’s Girl Friday” (1954) **
The Saint returned to the big screen after a twelve year absence, and to sweeten the deal RKO have Louis Hayward reprise the role – even if he only played it once, he was the first. This is a very British focused story, unlike the George Sanders films – it’s British setting and characters make it closer to the Hugh Sinclair movies, although Hayward’s Saint is, again, American.
The plot has the Saint called back to England by an old girlfriend, who turns out to have been killed in a car crash. He starts investigating, visits gambling dens. Diana Dors has a support role – a fun scene where she seduces Hayward to distract him. Also fun when some old biddies excitedly ask Saint about his violent activities.
The Saint does have a girl Friday, a pretty thing who assists him – but she only is properly introduced after the film is half over. The revelation of the identity of one of the crooks is a genuine surprise, but as a whole the film is a bit flat – more like an episode of a television series, and that wasn’t enough in 1954. It needed colour and a bit of flash, like the Roger Moore series later provided.
There is a cute final brawl where the Saint punches out the baddy while his henchman punches the baddy’s henchman and his girl punches the baddy’s girl. Hayward doesn’t kill as many baddies in this one but he does engineer things so that baddies kill their own men twice.
The plot has the Saint called back to England by an old girlfriend, who turns out to have been killed in a car crash. He starts investigating, visits gambling dens. Diana Dors has a support role – a fun scene where she seduces Hayward to distract him. Also fun when some old biddies excitedly ask Saint about his violent activities.
The Saint does have a girl Friday, a pretty thing who assists him – but she only is properly introduced after the film is half over. The revelation of the identity of one of the crooks is a genuine surprise, but as a whole the film is a bit flat – more like an episode of a television series, and that wasn’t enough in 1954. It needed colour and a bit of flash, like the Roger Moore series later provided.
There is a cute final brawl where the Saint punches out the baddy while his henchman punches the baddy’s henchman and his girl punches the baddy’s girl. Hayward doesn’t kill as many baddies in this one but he does engineer things so that baddies kill their own men twice.
Book review – “The Big Sleep” by Raymond Chandler
This new Penguin paperback series is great – only ten bucks, and the books aren’t heavy. (Physically, that is). Chandler writes so beautifully his words are a joy to read. I don’t read that much crime stuff and found the plot a little tricky to follow, maybe because I forgot who was who, but having seen the movies helped. And it does sort of sag around the three-thirds mark after Marlowe solves one crime, but then goes “but I wasn’t going to give up until I solved this other crime”. It was tricky to get the momentum going again.
But I guess the delight of Chandler is more the wonderful language, characters, atmosphere and dialogue – thumb sucking Carmel, hopeless Joe Brody, the withered General Sternwood, tortured Marlowe. Marlowe is quite homophobic (all pansies are physically weak) and smacks around women. I was surprised how he seems to walk everywhere – maybe that’s what keeps him fit despite all that drinking he does. Wonderful corrupt atmosphere – rainy nights, seedy bars, gay antique dealers, corrupt cops, cynicism to burn. Very satisfying ending which tied everything together better than I remembered.
But I guess the delight of Chandler is more the wonderful language, characters, atmosphere and dialogue – thumb sucking Carmel, hopeless Joe Brody, the withered General Sternwood, tortured Marlowe. Marlowe is quite homophobic (all pansies are physically weak) and smacks around women. I was surprised how he seems to walk everywhere – maybe that’s what keeps him fit despite all that drinking he does. Wonderful corrupt atmosphere – rainy nights, seedy bars, gay antique dealers, corrupt cops, cynicism to burn. Very satisfying ending which tied everything together better than I remembered.
Books review – “Rumpole and the Penge Bungalow Murders”
I always thought John Mortimer would use the Penge Bungalow Murders would be like Sherlock Holmes’ Rat of Sumatra adventure or Flashman’s US Civil War tale, but no in the autumn of his years Mortimer has decided to finally tell fans what happened during the oft-quoted triumph where Rumpole gets his defendant off alone and without a leader. My reaction was a bit similar to the one I had when I watched The Simpson’s Movie – relief it didn’t suck, and enjoyment at a solid entry into a wonderful series, though it was no masterpiece. But honestly at this stage in the game that’s a bit much to expect.
This isn’t the first full length Rumpole – from memory there was Rumpole’s Last Case, where he went to America. Like that one, Mortimer pads it out with another case (his first encounter with the Timsons which is fun), and a modern day case (Claude Erskine Brown in trouble for sexual harassment, which is not that much fun – hadn’t this story been done a few times before? Maybe it would have been better to do some story which tied back in more with the Penge Bungalow Murders). But it’s enjoyable, I enjoyed the mystery and the early romance with Hilda (including another female who Rumpole was interested in scoring). It was fun to see the Timsons and Rumpole’s old war friends.
I’d love to read more flashback Rumpoles – Rumpole at uni, in the war, with his son as a young men. With Leo McKern being irreplaceable, maybe there’s another TV series here – Rumpole as a young man. But who would play him? A young Leo McKern – good luck finding him.
This isn’t the first full length Rumpole – from memory there was Rumpole’s Last Case, where he went to America. Like that one, Mortimer pads it out with another case (his first encounter with the Timsons which is fun), and a modern day case (Claude Erskine Brown in trouble for sexual harassment, which is not that much fun – hadn’t this story been done a few times before? Maybe it would have been better to do some story which tied back in more with the Penge Bungalow Murders). But it’s enjoyable, I enjoyed the mystery and the early romance with Hilda (including another female who Rumpole was interested in scoring). It was fun to see the Timsons and Rumpole’s old war friends.
I’d love to read more flashback Rumpoles – Rumpole at uni, in the war, with his son as a young men. With Leo McKern being irreplaceable, maybe there’s another TV series here – Rumpole as a young man. But who would play him? A young Leo McKern – good luck finding him.
Watching silent movies
I’m not a big silent movie fan but I’ve found a new way to enjoy them – put them on fast forward. It takes less time and you get the gist of what’s going on. You’re not missing anything without the sound as most copies of silent films I watch just use the same any-old-classical –music-we-can-get-our-hands-on.
Movie review – “The Back Pirate” (1926) ***
Enjoyable swashbuckler, which Jeffrey Richards says is Doug Fairbanks Snr’s best movie. As it’s the only one of his I’ve seen I can’t really say if that’s true, but there is lots to admire – maybe not so much the story which is basic (young noble swears vengeance against pirates who killed dad) but a bit weak (he then joins the pirate crew, doesn’t seem to have much of a plan of action, but then gets sidetracked when he falls in love with a beautiful princess the pirates have captured).
It’s great strength is its action set pieces – Fairbanks fighting a muscular duel on a beach with a bald pirate captain, Fairbanks capturing a boat single handed (including the famous shove-sword-in-sail-and-slide-down bit), Fairbanks duelling against a whole bunch of pirates on his own, the goodies swimming underwater to the boats (magnificent stuff – I can’t believe this hasn’t been ripped off more), Fairbanks being lifted up by his men up several levels of the ship.
There is plenty of action, extras and swordplay, a couple of full on moments which wouldn’t have survived the Hays Code (a prisoner swallows a ring to keep it safe from the pirates – but then a pirate grabs his sword and walks out of shot then comes back in shot with the ring… he’s cut the dude open!!!; also in another scene a pirate tests his sword by impaling someone).
Doug walks the plank and fights lots of duels. He runs around in tight shorts flashing his chest – Victor Mature was never so exploited. The romance with Billie Dove is a bit simpering (how about some revealing outfits for her? But no, she’s fully clothed). Donald Crisp is fun as a one armed pirate. I got confused when Doug suddenly found all these men to help him at the end – where did they come from. Fairbanks is very charismatic – he seems a more American actor than his son, lots of energy and brashness.
It’s great strength is its action set pieces – Fairbanks fighting a muscular duel on a beach with a bald pirate captain, Fairbanks capturing a boat single handed (including the famous shove-sword-in-sail-and-slide-down bit), Fairbanks duelling against a whole bunch of pirates on his own, the goodies swimming underwater to the boats (magnificent stuff – I can’t believe this hasn’t been ripped off more), Fairbanks being lifted up by his men up several levels of the ship.
There is plenty of action, extras and swordplay, a couple of full on moments which wouldn’t have survived the Hays Code (a prisoner swallows a ring to keep it safe from the pirates – but then a pirate grabs his sword and walks out of shot then comes back in shot with the ring… he’s cut the dude open!!!; also in another scene a pirate tests his sword by impaling someone).
Doug walks the plank and fights lots of duels. He runs around in tight shorts flashing his chest – Victor Mature was never so exploited. The romance with Billie Dove is a bit simpering (how about some revealing outfits for her? But no, she’s fully clothed). Donald Crisp is fun as a one armed pirate. I got confused when Doug suddenly found all these men to help him at the end – where did they come from. Fairbanks is very charismatic – he seems a more American actor than his son, lots of energy and brashness.
Movie review – “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” (2008) **1/2
Not quite right. A very strong cast but the handling is a bit flabby and the script lacks drive. It needed something to propel the action. Also the relationships with the characters, with the exception of the Kirsten Dunst romance (which worked quite well), are undeveloped – there was more in particular to the Simon Pegg-Jeff Bridges relationship, their connection; plus also it would have benefited from a bit more complexity with Danny Huston and Gillian Anderson’s characters. It feels as though the movie could have been smartened up a bit but they weren’t sure of the tone or where they wanted to pitch the movie. Career boy movie? Rom com? Satire?
Movie review – “The Women” (2008) **
Artistically mostly a failure but fascinating to watch because you can see why they made the wrong choices they made. It would have been impossible to remake the 1939 film, which was inherently sexist – a bunch of women bitching and desperate to hang on to their men, nothing without them. So here the women are more supportive – they have careers and you are allowed to go back to a cheating husband, but only after you set up your own fashion line first. It means the work has been de-fanged a bit – the troublesome Rosalind Russell character becomes the bitch but with a heart of gold Annette Bening, there is Hollywood horseshit with Ryan running her own company.
That doesn’t matter so much. The real problem with this is that the ghost of Sex and the City lingers over it so much. I can understand why this is – presumably the success of that series/movie helped this get greenlit – but did Annette Bening have to be so reminiscent of Kim Cattrall? Did they have to focus on four friends and have scenes of them having lunch together chatting around a table being witty? Did it have to end with one of them having a baby? Did it have to be set in New York?
If this had come out in 1994 as originally planned it would have gone gangbusters. But now it just seems so old fashioned, with this irritating product placement for Sacks and this silly third act point where Bette Midler (wasted) inspired Meg Ryan with the words “you have to say to yourself ‘what do I want’?” The woman has a maid, housekeeper, one kid, big house and cool job - she doesn’t exactly strike me as Miss Selflessness.
English’s direction is very poor with anything other than a two hander (the two handers are fine but honestly who can’t direct one of them). Meg Ryan is okay, Bening too close to Cattrall, Debra Messing, Eva Longoria and Debbie Mazar are good, Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman are terrific, Jada Pinkett Smith is poor (she plays it totally wrong, all sitcomy – and I didn’t believe that these women would be friends with that sort of lesbian).
Some really good scenes – Bergen and Ryan (really wonderful two hander), Bening and Ryan’s daughter. And there are bright lines and lots of good actors. This didn’t deserve the shell-acking it received at the hands of middle aged male critics, who seemed to be personally offended by it, but it’s still a disappointment.
That doesn’t matter so much. The real problem with this is that the ghost of Sex and the City lingers over it so much. I can understand why this is – presumably the success of that series/movie helped this get greenlit – but did Annette Bening have to be so reminiscent of Kim Cattrall? Did they have to focus on four friends and have scenes of them having lunch together chatting around a table being witty? Did it have to end with one of them having a baby? Did it have to be set in New York?
If this had come out in 1994 as originally planned it would have gone gangbusters. But now it just seems so old fashioned, with this irritating product placement for Sacks and this silly third act point where Bette Midler (wasted) inspired Meg Ryan with the words “you have to say to yourself ‘what do I want’?” The woman has a maid, housekeeper, one kid, big house and cool job - she doesn’t exactly strike me as Miss Selflessness.
English’s direction is very poor with anything other than a two hander (the two handers are fine but honestly who can’t direct one of them). Meg Ryan is okay, Bening too close to Cattrall, Debra Messing, Eva Longoria and Debbie Mazar are good, Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman are terrific, Jada Pinkett Smith is poor (she plays it totally wrong, all sitcomy – and I didn’t believe that these women would be friends with that sort of lesbian).
Some really good scenes – Bergen and Ryan (really wonderful two hander), Bening and Ryan’s daughter. And there are bright lines and lots of good actors. This didn’t deserve the shell-acking it received at the hands of middle aged male critics, who seemed to be personally offended by it, but it’s still a disappointment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)