Various rantings on movies, books about movies, and other things to do with movies
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Script review – “The Queen” by Peter Morgan
Radio review – SDP – “Chicago Deadline” (1949) **
Radio review – Screen Guild Theatre – “Blue Dahlia” (1949) **1/2
Radio review – “Les Miserables” (1937) ***1/2
This captures Hugo's power and wonderful story. The least effective bit is a comic sequence involving a gravedigger (Welles was a genius, but not with comedy); also the final episode is a bit odd – it’s a recap of the entire story.
The cast includes some actors who would become ficutres at the Merucry such as Ray Collins and Agnes Moorehad; there’s also Welles’ first wife, Virignia, who plays Cosette (quite well, too).
Movie review – “Young and Innocent” (1937) ****
The support cast is marvellous, including several people who would pop up in The Lady Vanishes and some terrific kid actors. There are lots of good scenes involving kids in this – a game of blind man’s bluff, a dinner. Was Hitchcock making up for blowing up Desmond Tester in Sabotage?
The touch is a lot lighter than the previous couple of Hitchcocks - there’s no international intrigue, it's only a murder, the real killer is not much of a threat. However there are some moments of emotional intensity, such as some of the romance scenes, and the scene where Nova’s copper father says her actions have gotten him in trouble. (The last shot of her introducing her boyfriend to her father has plenty of material for Hitchcock academics to chew over.)
Marvellous shot composition as always. The climax is a bit odd – there is the famous tracking shot leading to the twitching eye of the killer but it’s a bit of a deux ex machina to have him conveniently faint and get the passive heroes out of trouble.
Movie review – “City Loop” (1999) **
The script has some bright moments of dialogue and characterisation and most of the acting is pretty good. It’s a non-linear story – but once you figure it out it’s like “so what”. It’s like doing a puzzle of just blue sky - it’s a puzzle, sure, but when you finish it it’s just blue sky. It also never manages to get the tone right – it has a slight expressionistic quality to it, which works on stage better than it does on film. Sometimes too the meaning is a bit too bald (especially in the exchange between Atwell and Dorman - “You’re so predictable”, and “Because I don’t want to”, etc.)
This feels as though it would have been a lot better had it been made with less money, or as a theatre piece, where Stephen Davis could have showed off his considerable skill with dialogue a bit more and let the actors cut loose. As it is it drags on too long and you are too often aware of the lack of story. You're glad towards the end when Dorman's character turns up because she's got all this energy - but she's allowed to go overboard. On the positive side I did enjoy the atmosphere of a film set at Brisbane at night - deserted streets, neon lights, empty parkland, etc.
Movie review – “The Farmer’s Wife” (1928) **
Unfortunately the story isn’t much. The farmer is a pompous middle aged idiot (Jameson Thomas), not good looking or charismatic or even funny, just prosperous; his wife is barely dead and he runs around looking for a wife, getting knocked back by four different women, even though they are batty, fat, ugly, etc. He finally realised his devoted house keeper (the pretty likeable Lillian Hall Davis) loves him and hooks up with her – are we supposed to be happy about that? That is pretty girl winds up with a middle aged loser? Also its frustrating to see him get knocked back all the time without much variation – true the girls change their mind towards the end but by then you’re unlikely to care. The acting is fine – good treatment of a not very inspiring story.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Movie review - "The Kid" (1921) ****
Chaplin's direction is excellent, as is the photography (many silent films age badly, not this one). The sets do look a bit set-ty. The story is effective, being steeped in Dickens (the poverty, comedy, pathos, coincidences). The dream sequence feels padded.
Movie review – “T Men” (1947) ***1/2
Documentary realism seems to be the name of the game – constant narration, buttoned down hero, location filming (including Chinatown, Farmer's markets). However it also has expressionistic moments, particularly via the stunning black and white photography. It was based on a story by Virginia Kellogg, who also provided the story for White Heat, and its familiar to that in feel – the presentation of the sober, methodical law enforcement up against character acting criminals.
There is unintentional humour when O’Keefe trawls the Turkish baths “looking for a man”. But there are some excellent scenes such as when O'Keefe's partner is killed in front of his eyes and a murder in a Turkish bath. Charles MacGraw makes an excellent henchman.
Movie review - "The Fighting Rats of Tobruk" (1944) **1/2
Chauvel aimed for authenticity and a lot of it looks like the real McCoy - there is documentary footage, lots of bunking down in sand dunes and driving around in tanks. The Tobruk story is an inspiring one but no filmmaker has managed to lick it's problems because it involved so much lying down on the ground and shooting at tanks as opposed to hand to hand combat, involved a lot of night fighting (which as shot here is confusing) and doesn't have an obvious climax.
Horseman's story was a bit silly but at least it was a story; Rats doesn't really have one, apart from Finch's romance with a nurse. It goes fight-injury-recover-fight-injury-recovery, etc. The comic interludes with George Wallace and Joe Valli are poorly integrated, and the New Guinea climax feels tacked on (it's cut off the version of the film I saw).
Grant Taylor is confident and masculine as ever, though slightly more battered than he was in Horseman - his reign as a leading man would soon be over. Rafferty does his Rafferty thing but Finch is very effective and moving.
For all the film's faults it is an invaluable time capsule of one of this country's greatest feats of arms. The visual look, the brusque attitudes of the officers towards the men, the seriousness of the treatment; even the poignant moment where Wallace tells the three leads "well, I had a go didn't I?" tell us much about Australia at the time. So it's a bit of a mess but it should still be watched if you're interested in Australian cinema or Australian military history.
Movie review – “The Story of Robin Hood” (1952) **
This one has Robin rob from the rich to give to the poor for a bit – then he starts using the money for stupid King Richard’s ransom. Why is that money well spent? Sounds like just another tax to me. Also there is far too much singing – there is a minstrel who keeps playing songs (couldn’t stop thinking about the Minstrel who winds up being eaten in Monty Python and the Holy Grail). And there’s not enough action. On the sunny side at least its colourful and its nice to see the story done shot in England with an all-English cast for a change.
Richard Todd’s Robin is like Joan Rice’s Maid Marian – cheery enough but second rate. Peter Finch’s Nottingham is better, if purely by virtue of his hawk like features; ditto James Robertson Justice’s Little John.
Movie review – “Othello” (1952) ***1/2
So I guess I'm prejudiced against this adaptation from the get-go. Still, it's an impressive film - even more so if you know the story behind it's making. It's visually striking being set in this big empty seeming castle by the see – massive rooms, banners of wood, crashing waves, running around along the tops of walls.
The open sequences of the funeral for Othello and Desdemona are stunning. The story proper gets off to an awkward start – the introduction of Iago is a bit clunky and confusing, not helped by the dubbing. Needs more close ups or something – this is an important sequence. But once Othello comes back from beating the Turks it gets better.
Orson Welles is a pretty decent Othello – I would have loved to see his Iago. (That’s not to say Michael McLiammor isn’t very good.) Gore Vidal once wrote wittily that the character of Desdemona in this film was reduced to being a “blonde wig” – Suzanne Clouthier is better than that, but she’s still not terribly inspired.
Movie review – “The Lost World” (1925) **1/2
There are some good sequences arriving at the Lost World and fleeing from dinosaurs and escaping from the ape men, but most of the time our heroes stand around being passive while dinosaurs slug it out and volcanoes. There is a last act where a poor old brontosaurus gets stuck in mud and falls off the plateau; they ship him back to London where he escapes and goes on a rampage. The poor thing is quite entitled, and you’re glad that he swims away at the end. (None of the expedition seem too concerned about the damage they’ve indirectly caused to London.) The best performance comes unexpectedly from Lewis Stone who plays the middle aged hunter who loves the girl only to lose him to his young friend – he gets the last close up.
Movie review – “Chimes at Midnight” (1965) *****
Welles’ distancing effects – titling camera work, extreme close ups, deep focus – work better with Shakespeare than naturalism because the language is more stylised. This suffers from some technical problems (especially dubbing) but is impressive. It feels medieval – creaky taverns, chilly castles, wind swept fields – and the acting is strong. I found Margaret Rutherford a bit odd but Keith Baxter was very good – smart, funny, a bit of a prick. You do understand why Hal has to dump Falstaff, but you still feel sorry for him – the close up of Welles as the end when Hal gives him the flick is one of Welles’ most effective pieces of acting. The coldness that seems to seep into all Welles’ films (for me at any rate) suits this story because Hal becomes cold.
Radio review – Biography – WC Fields (1956) ***
TV review – “The Fountain of Youth” (1956) ***
Radio review – Cavalcade – “They Died with Their Boots On” (1941) *
Errol Flynn reprises his role as Custer; because the film version covered so much, this turns out to be quite easy to adapt to half an hour – they simply concentrate on the final bit, namely Custer being assigned out to the West and coming up against gun traders who causes the whole Little Big Horn massacre. In other words it’s a complete whitewash of history.
The film had some glimpses of Custer’s instability but they’re cut out here. There’s a laughable scene where a soldier goes to see Custer to ask him if there’s any chance of getting back from Little Big Horn because his wife is worried and Custer admits the soldier will probably die, he should lie to his wife about it.
Olivia de Havilland reprises her movie role and they do their farewell scene, so it’s good that that’s captured on radio but that’s about all you can recommend to it. (We get no final battle)
Movie review – Marple #4 - “Murder Ahoy” (1964) **1/2
Rutherford climbs through a window, does a lot of poking around, sings ‘Rule Brittania’ and generally does her schtick – the highlight comes at the end where she fences the killer (this is fun). Jefferies is entertaining but the best performance is from the ever-cheerful young doctor. It’s a shame the ship spends all its time in port – it would have been more exciting and adventurous for them to go on a voyage.
This is really just like those crime dramas they’re always playing on UKTV (with English actors acting in English) – minimal production value, decent scripts, strong actors. What gives it its special tang is Rutherford and some of the supporting players. They include Miles Mellson and Derek Nimmo.
Radio review – SGP – “The Petrified Forest” (1940) **
Radio review – CP#3 – “A Christmas Carol” (1938) **1/2
Orson Welles makes an ideal Scrooge, and he narrates as well so there’s a little too much Orson in this one. (In his defence, Lionel Barrymore was meant to play Scrooge – as he often did on radio – but was unwell; Orson pays him tribute at the end of the episode.) The short length of the Dickens original means that more of the text survives the adaptation. It’s a perfectly decent work, although it lacks a little sparkle. At the end Orson wishes everyone a merry Christmas in an entertaining coda.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Radio review – Lux#197 – “The Scarlet Pimpernel” (1938) **1/2
Radio review – MT – “Heart of Darkness/Life with Father” (1938) ****/**
Life with Father is alright – it starts off entertaining enough, but Welles isn’t a natural "warm" comic, and I always feel this genre doesn’t really work unless you have a nostalgic connection to the material. You get sick of the father character – I think it’s supposed to be endearing, this bombastic dad who is actually clueless, a forerunner of Everybody Loves Raymond, but he becomes irritating. “Father did this”, “father said that” – who cares? It was interesting to hear Welles sing.
But Heart of Darkness is superb. It starts brilliantly – the sound effects (horns blowing, throb of drums) give you chills up the spine – so brilliantly that it takes a while to realise there’s not a lot of story. You can understand RKO’s reluctance to greenlight this as a feature – there’s barely enough plot here for half an hour let alone a feature. (NB to be fair, they did okay it but only allowed a limited budget and Welles didn't think he could make it work) Welles perfectly cast as Kurtz; Ray Collins plays Marlow.
NB At the end of the show Welles announces that the Mercury Theatre will be sponsored by Campbell Soup.
Book review – “Send Yourself Roses” by Kathleen Turner
Few female stars had a more rapid rise to fame than Kathleen Turner – out of drama school she quickly nabbed an agent, then scored a role in a Broadway hit (Gemini) and a soap, before landing the lead in Body Heat. This was an instant classic and she followed it up with two more excellent films, both very different – The Man With Two Brains and Romancing the Stone.
It wasn’t hard even at the time to see why she became so big so fast – that incredible voice, great sex appeal, confidence and genuine acting ability. She was on a hot streak for the entire 80s – Prizzi’s Honour, Accidental Tourist, War of the Roses.
But in the 90s it went sour. Her husband had business troubles (he was involved in a building which suffered a fire; 87 people died); she developed arthritis which led to a drinking problem; steroids and other medicines helped wreck her looks and figure; she featured in a number of flops. But she kept working and eventually had a big comeback as a stage actor, with The Graduate and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (although her marriage ended after 20-odd years).
Interesting trivia: Debra Winger was meant to play the lead in Stone but she bit Michael Douglas at a meeting; the role of Joan Wilder’s agent was originally shot with a male actor playing the role but the scenes were refilmed; Tony Perkins and Ken Russell had major problems with drugs and booze respectively on Crimes of Passion; she and Douglas had a fling on Stone; Nic Cage’s acting choices in Peggy Sue Got Married (the hair, the voice) were deliberately against the wishes of Coppola to show his independence of his uncle director; Burt Reynolds was a little bitch on Switching Channels.
To be honest I would have preferred more of this than her going on about Virginia Woolf and her guest role on Nip Tuck all the time; she also goes on a bit too much about her daughter, friends and general philosophy on life (I’m not saying it doesn’t have a place there’s just too much of it).
I did really like her tips on acting, including a discussion of a voice – Turner teaches acting and you can tell. She pats herself a bit too much on her back about her feminism and activism but I did find this interesting; I also enjoyed the biographical stuff: I had no idea she was a “diplomat brat” – she grew up the daughter of a US diplomat, living in Cuba, Venezuela and England (se was in Cuba when Castro came to power); her father died of coronary thrombosis when she was only 17; she has a brother who lives in New Zealand now. This goes on a bit too long but a decent enough read.
Radio review – CP#14 – “The Glass Key” (1939) **
There’s a special guest at the end of the episode – the governor of Sing Sing prison, who wrote the book on which Invisible Stripes is based, who makes an appeal to fix the causes of crime (i.e. society) and Orson gets into it. There is coughing in the background – from Orson? He sounds as if he’s got a cold, maybe that’s why his performance felt a bit off.
Radio review – MT#10 – “Julius Caesar” (1938) ****
Movie review – “Millions Like Us” (1943) ****
The film is very socialist – it’s all about sacrifice and giving into the greater cause. Roc at the end is sitting at lunch or something but eventually joins in the singing at the end. The romance between Crawford and Portman is very much skewed in Portman’s favour. If Launder and Gilliat had been Yanks they would have been blacklisted for this!
Radio review – Peter Bogdanovich interviews Orson Welles
Welles makes a lot of statements, some where you go “gee I dunno” (He argues that directors do their best work in their 20s and 70s), others which I think is dead right (everyone knows an Iago in their life).
He is a bit defensive about the lack of commercial success of his films (blames Kane on poor distribution, says Lady from Shanghai got its money back "but was no Gilda and they wanted Gilda"). Says there were only a few cuts to Lady from Shanghai, which surprised me – he takes the blame for what’s bad about this; refutes Bogdanovich’s claim that War of the Worlds was bad luck for him (credits this for the Campbell sponsorship and movie career); talks about being inspired for War of the Worlds by a priest’s claim that communists had taken over London (he perhaps takes a bit too much credit for this broadcast – poor old Howard Koch the author isn’t mentioned); chats about his passion for “the funnies”.
Welles seems to have been friends with or at least known everyone – Preston Sturges, Thornton Wilder, Sam Goldwyn, Barrymore. He’s constantly telling stories along the lines of “of course I knew Preston”.
Bogdanovich was asking questions for posterity, not television, so his queries tend to be drawn out and stumbling – but they are mostly pretty good and he has a warm rapport with Welles.
Radio review – Lux#211 – “It Happened One Night” (1939) ***
Radio review – Lux#83 – “The Legionnaire and the Lady” (1936) **
The first of Lux Radio’s plays from Hollywood, and the first introduced by Cecil B de Mille, this has the benefit of Clark Gable and Marlene Dietrich in the title role, both very well cast. It’s not much of a story (from the film Morocco) – they have a romance out in the desert, there is a superior officer who wants Dietrich and a dull uprising.
Many Lux productions felt overly condensed – this one feels padded. The most interesting thing is the bit at the end where Dietrich sings ‘Falling in Love Again’ for the crowd; also Jesse Lasky Jnr pops up to chat about the old days in Hollywood with host Cecil B de Mille.
Radio review – "Box 13: Ep 1-3" (1948) *1/2
That’s the first two episodes, anyway. The third one – where Suzy joins him to work – is better because it seems deliberately light (Ladd helps a little old lady dispose a dead body; Ladd was good with little old ladies as he showed in Lucky Jordan).
Movie review – “The People That Time Forgot” (1977) ***
Like the earlier film this is an entertainingly silly tale with a real feel for adventure. There are too many flash backs to the American guy back at the plane and not as much action as in the other movies, but it is still rousing and the search of Doug McClure gives the film a strong narrative drive.
Wayne was supporting his Dad in movies back in the early 60s; he’s a handsome lunk but he’s not much of an actor – Doug McClure was better. So it’s good to see McClure back in the film – the fate of his character gives the movie some depth (Penhalgion’s is killed). Sarah Douglas tags along as a female reporter – I couldn’t pick her at first but she’s one of the three villains in the second Superman. (NB This is copyrighted to AIP not Amicus; presumably AIP took over or something – not that they’d have to buy the rights of a non-copyrighted work.)
Radio review – “Sherlock Holmes – The Adventure of the Final Solution” (1954) **1/2
It's wonderful to hear these three go at it against one another – Welles more than holds his own against the greats and makes you wish he’d gone mano-a-mano against more top level talent during his career. (Great actors and stars; I count the Mercury players as good actors, sometimes excellent actors – but they struggled to match Welles’ charisma).
Radio review – Lux#84 – “The Thin Man” (1936) **
Radio review – Lux#193 – “The Buccaneer” (1939) *1/2
Radio review – CP#9 – “Arrowsmith” (1939) **1/2
It feels like a shortened version of a long epic – wasn’t there a second wife or something? Although Welles’ character is a bit of a whinger and Hayes’ goes on about her ignorance a bit too much, the ending where she dies is quite moving. But this felt as though it needed another half hour to really give it the sweep it deserved.
Movie review – Marple #1 - “Murder She Said” (1961) ***
This one was the first and benefits from having a strong story: Marple sees a murder on a train (in the original novel it was a friend of hers who witnessed it) and sets about investigating by going undercover as a maid. Rutherford’s Marple isn’t like in the books but it’s a winning performance – it should be treated as a “cover version”, and anyway if you hire Margaret Rutherford you want the Margaret Rutherford thing.
Decent support casting including James Robertson Justice (grumpy invalid), American Arthur Kennedy, Muriel Pavolv, Joan Hickson (who later played Miss Marple on television) and Australian Bug Tingwell (who apparently put on weight to play a middle aged detective then was unable to shake it off for the rest of his life). Rutherford has two men panting over her – Justice (whose duels with Rutherford are a highlight of the film) and Stringer Davis (Rutherford’s real life husband). That little kid gets annoying after a while.
Book review – “King Solomon’s Mines” by H Rider Haggard
The story has since become cliché but it still works – the offer to make the expedition; the mysterious back story; being joined by the Zulu with a past; voyaging up Sheba’s breast; trudging through the desert; using knowledge of eclipses to outsmart the locals; taking part in a massive insurrection to restore the rightful king; Gagool the witch; being stuck in the mines.
Two black servants die for Good (one of them a woman, who is glad she died – as is Quartermain - because she’s in love with him and she doesn’t want miscegenation); Quartermain refers to “kaffirs” and Haggard seems to be promoting “separate development” of the black race.
Movie review – “The Baader Meinhoff Complex” (2008) ****1/2
Excellently directed with decent performances, it gives a real sense of West Germany during a crazy time – young people rebelling to the nth degree against a system they oppose (the rationale: what morality can the creators of Auschwitz impose?). The German response to terrorism doesn’t seem very effective: they’re always giving in to prisoner’s demands (they smuggle guns into cells), trying to reconcile, having poor security.
The cast have to make up the sexiest terrorists in recent memory – the women are mostly hot (though the actor playing Meinhoff looked like Chris Lilley in a wig), wearing these great boots, short skirts and long hair; loved that scene in the bath, plus the nude sunbathing at the Jordanian terrorist camp. I suppose that’s glamorisation in a way but the film makes it clear they are a bloodthirsty bunch who killed a lot of innocent people. Terrific movie. My main gripe – the lack of a card which explains what happened to the RAF following the end of the 70s.
TV review – “Battlestar Galactica: Season 4 – Part 1” *****
Movie review – Marple#2 - “Murder at the Gallop” (1963) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Movie review – “It’s Not Cricket” (1949) *
They get involved in looking for the lost dog of an opera star and an escaped Nazi (an atrociously mugging performance by Maurice Denham) who has a diamond. Diana Dors is funny in her scene as a man hungry secretary – it’s a shame her part wasn’t bigger. But this gets worse and worse as it goes on. Lazy, unfunny and an utter waste of the perfect film title for these two characters. Charters and Caldicott have another scene where they are in bed together - there's no rationale for it (eg in The Lady Vanishes there was a room shortage), so it's hard to come up with any other interpretation than they're into each other.
Book review - "Vanity Fair's Tales of Hollywood'
Movie review – “Humanoids of the Deep” (1980) *1/2
Within the first ten minutes the creature has killed a kid and a pet dog, normally taboo victims. There’s some New World left leaning social comment – the real baddies are a nasty cannery; there are some decent Indians who want their old land back. It has a female director, but that doesn’t stop her from including one scene where a bikinied woman is dragged into the ocean to be killed, another where a naked woman is slashed and killed on a beach, and another where a monster rips the top off a bikinied woman exposing her breasts. To be fair apparently these were inserted by another director – but the plot presumably always involved monsters wanting to rape women. Ann Turkel (as a “I’ve been warning you for years” scientist) and Vic Morrow (unscrupulous businessman) round out the support cast.
The basic concept is ripped off Creature of the Black Lagoon and there’s an Alien stomach bursting rip off at the end for good measure. A bit of gore and nudity, some alright chaos at the end, and a lot of stupidity. Poor Barbara Peeters.
Radio review – Lux#367 – “Wake Island” (1943) **
There was a period when American cinema rejoiced in glorious defeat, when Wake Island and Bataan where popular films. This is an adaptation of the former, with Robert Preston and Brian Donlevy reprising their film roles and Broderick Crawford stepping in for William Bendix. Conflict is provided by some squabbling sergeants and civilians having trouble mixing with soldiers. It is run of the mill stuff I guess but has extra resonance because its based on a true story – this would have been more effective as an original rather than an adaptation of a movie.
Radio review – Lux#484 – “And Now Tomorrow” (1945) *1/2
Movie review – “Warlords of Atlantis” (1978) **
Atlantis itself is a bit silly. I know the other films made by this team were silly too but this one is especially so. The locals wear Prince Valiant haircuts, the art direction isn’t as impressive and there’s not as much action. Some sloppiness which hints at a lowered budget - when an octopus attacks the ship water gets on the lens – couldn’t they protect the camera? Also the story isn’t much: it was a mistake to have so many sailors wind up on the expedition; the plot is mostly arrive-get arrested-escape; there’s no emotional connection (the romance with the girl seems perfunctory); McClure is starting to look old. Also there’s this irritating coda about mutinous crew members, when we don’t really care.
The cast include Shane Rimmer and a pre-Cheers John Katzenberger. Atlantians include Daniel Massey and good old Cyd Charisse, who even flashes her legs for old time’s sake – they’re still great! And the opening credit sequence is spookily enjoyable. But generally this is pretty poor. It needed a stronger story and atmosphere, and more effort all round.
Movie review – “For the Term of His Natural Life” (1927) ***
The location footage remains incredible and provides some tremendous images – the small boat bobbing in the ocean, the various convict settlements, convicts clambering over rocks. There are some good studio sequences as well, such as the final riot, even if the direction sometimes comes across as a bit tableaux-y. Performances are alright, a bit overboard in places – George Fisher is a character actor rather than a star; Eva Novak is pretty in a thankless role; Arthur McLaglen is chilling as Gabbett. Watching this again it strikes me the best part is not Dawes, scoundrel John Rex or the vicious Frere or even Gabbett, but Sarah, the faithful lover of Rex. Arthur Tauchert (the Sentimental Bloke) pops up in a supporting role as a sadistic guard.
Book review – “And So It Went” by Bob Ellis
Movie review – “At the Earth’s Core” (1976) ***
The actual plot is the standard lost world/time travel one – foreigners arrive in an exotic location, help oppressed locals throw off their tyrannical overseers (I don’t know who invented this – HG Welles in The Time Machine maybe? - but everyone uses it.)
McClure gives a broader, more comic performance than that time – for the first ten minutes after which he returns to the requisite he-man stuff. Cushing is also atypically cast, as a stuffy professor (he’s okay, but his put-on voice gets wearying very quickly and isn’t the reason you cast Cushing is to have someone play a whip-smart dude? There are lots of more appropriate actors in England to play stuffy.)
Like Land I laughed at some of this – cavemen speaking English, some of the creature effects (paper mache doesn’t look so crash hot in close up), the sex bomb performance of Munro (she’s always grinning even when her life is in danger and wears far too much make up) - but still enjoyed it. The sets are great and it had a real spirit of adventure and plenty of action; in its quiet moments (eg McClure creeping through caves) were particularly effective. Some of it was reminiscent of Return of the Jedi – McClure’s fight with a dinosaur in a dungeon, the make up of the evil creatures.
Movie review – “Monsters vs Aliens” (2009) ***1/2
Movie review – “The Land That Time Forgot” (1975) ***
The structure is reminiscent of The Birds – it takes a while to get to the big attraction (35 minutes before arriving in weirdo land) but until then there is plenty of fun with a different genre – The Birds had romantic comedy this one has a war film, with Doug McClure and a boat load of survivors from a U boat attack in taking over that U boat (the film is set in World War I). While in the Land things occasionally drag – there are a few too many unmotivated expeditions, and the film could have used a decent subplot about squabbling Germans vs Englanders, or a romance, or getting involved with a local tribal battles; I mean, this stuff is there but it isn’t developed, and you need it to be because otherwise it’s episodic dealing with monsters and missing link cavemen.
Some of the special effects are a little dodgy – there’s a laughable pterodactyl – but the photography and art direction is pretty good, and there is plenty of action (including the ever reliable climactic volcanic explosion). You need to approach it in the right spirit but if you do this is fun. McClure’s beefy muscular-ness is dead right for this sort of movie and Susan Penhaligon is very pretty as the lone woman in the group (she happens to be a biologist, which is useful – why no love triangle in the script, though?). The acting is fairly decent; that “bad German” was totally within his rights to want to leave before finding out what happened to McClure and Penhaligon – I don’t blame him. The ending is quite romantic in it’s lost, evocative way.
Book review – “David Williamson: Behind the Scenes” by Kristen Williamson
It was time for another David Williamson bio – Brian Kiernan’s excellent work hadn’t been updated since the early 90s. And Kristen was particularly qualified, being an author in her own right, not to mention ex-journo. I was interested to get her point of view, since Williamson’s plays are full of shrewish wives and adulterous husbands, and have been criticised for bad female characters. What is it like to be married to such a man?
Well, we find out. Dave is engaging, passionate, paranoid, likeable, talented, hard working and very perceptive about his own class and generation but nothing else (including the world around him). His wife seems the same. Oh my gosh – you mean soldiers were brave in World War I? The Chinese communist government was oppressive? Open marriage doesn’t work? It’s cold in Denmark? Paul Keating has the effrontery to refer to Balmain basket weavers – which apparently offends the Williamson’s friends, who included, we are told, economists, scientists, academics and film directors. How can they be basket weavers? Apparently there hadn’t been an international star in an Australian film before Susannah York in Eliza Fraser and the only Australian play on Broadway before The Club was Summer of the Seventeenth Doll. These faults can be forgiven in a memoir but not a biography by a professional writer.
This would have been better off had it taken the former course because the personal stuff is strong, apart from needing a bit of a cut. The story of their meeting, affair, marriage troubles, fights, etc are excellent as is the account of their life in Denmark and so on – invaluable for any serious student of Williamson. It probably could have done with a little bit less “that was a fun night” and “how great are my children” but at least that gives flavour (if repetitive flavour) about their homelife.
The “proper bio” stuff isn’t as strong; the background of political stuff is clunky, and she ridiculously shares her husband’s preoccupation with critics (calling people who don’t like his plays critics or “failed playwrights” – it is possible people just don’t like them?).
David and Kristen argue viciously, have dinner parties, support left wing causes, have affairs, work for the National Times, are on the board of the ABC, are friends with lefy politicians, don’t like conservatives or working class people, loathe working class slappers with cash. Just like characters in Williamson plays.
Louis Nowra wrote an interesting, perceptive review of the book. The review is a little unfair in places (I think Williamson’s plays do explore dark aspects of the human condition), but in some places he’s dead right, particularly Williamson K’s sometimes clunky prose, and lack of skill evoking characters. There is too much about critics. You have to discuss critics when talking about Williamson because he’s so obsessed about them, but you don’t have to be obsessed about them too. The space spent on quoting good and bad reviews would have been far better used talking about the people who were involved in the productions. We can always look up a crappy review, but wasn't Kristen there at the time?
People often talk about how actors are childish – it’s sometimes used as an insult but there is a serious component to this as well. It’s important for actors to be childish in that they can forget their inhibitions and play pretend the way a child can. Simon Callow refers to one rehearsal where the action was “desperately, seriously childish”. Writers need to do this too. (This is why so many actors and writers have drinking problems.)
Part of the reason why David Williamson is so successful I think is that he has remained childish. Mature adults don’t sent off faxes to five critics after 20 years of playwriting asking for a fare go; they don’t tell their wives they are having an affair. This means he’s always discovering new things and being enthusiastic about it.
It’s a must read for fans of Williamson (and those just interested in him). It doesn’t mean it’s not a heavily flawed book.
Book review – “Starmaker” by Hal Wallis and Charles Higham
Lots of interesting stories – you only wish there were more. Even though funding films was easier in the old days it was still a pain in the neck getting the script right, the cast they wanted etc. We hear a lot about original casting choices – Bette Davis was last choice for Now Voyager, ditto Monte Woolley for The Man Who Came to Dinner (Orson Welles almost did it, Charles Laughton was considered too gay – they were worried the same thing about Woolley); Mia Farrow agreed to do True Grit but turned it down after Mitchum told her how scary Henry Hathaway was; Kim Darby only reluctantly agreed to replace her despite a lack of reputation. The hassles of casting Casablanca get a long airing, not surprisingly (perhaps Wallis’ crowning achievement, although luck was on his side). He also talks at great length about the troubles of making Captain in the Clouds – would anyone care?
Apparently Elvis was a dream to deal with; his most troublesome stars were Jerry Lewis and Shirley Maclaine; Joan Fontaine was selfish (when Wallis arranged a cabin on a ship for her she didn’t even send him champagne) and Anna Manganini a handful but one of those handfuls that people seem to be affectionate about.
Wallis wrote this in collaboration with Charlies Higham and definitely feels like a Higham work – fast paced, gossipy, inaccurate in places, sketchy. He alludes to Higham’s claims against Errol Flynn (“we never would have employed him if we’d known), including the silly one that Dive Bomber was used by Japanese espionage – didn’t the US Navy want to do the film to show off their boats, etc? The book is frustratingly vague on Wallis’ family and his first marriage – he alludes to unhappiness, what was the deal there?
This is OK, but it feels incomplete. It doesn’t help that on a personal level Wallis is a little dull (hard working, private, happy marriages, likes massages and walks). There are memos at the end which are great because they give the impression of the sort of decisions Wallis had to make every day. You get the feeling had the entire book been comprised of memos it would have been better.
Radio review – CP#1 – “Rebecca” (1938) ***1/2
Mildred Natwick is a strong Mrs Danvers, not as good as Judith Anderson but still pretty good, and George Colouris, Ray Collins and Agnes Moorehead support (these three actors supported Welles in the bulk of Mercury’s on air stuff that I’ve heard). My main gripe – the plot bit is banged through in about two-three minutes (i.e. Maxim being on trial); it’s far too quick. They spent the time instead on atmosphere and character, which are strong, but I think they should have allocated a bit more time to the murder story.
Radio review – CP#5 – “Counsellor at Law” (1939) **1/1
Welles isn’t very convincing as a son of an immigrant mother who speaks with an accent (played here by Gertrude Berg), but he is well cast as a lawyer who is successful but feels as though he is a charlatan. He has to have something of a nervous breakdown, something we’re not used to seeing – sorry, hearing – from Welles, who is best known for acting with charming aplomb. He doesn’t quite hit it out of the park – he tries, it’s not bad, but for me there is something in Welles’ acting which stops him from reaching the top rank. I think he was a great star, a tremendous personality – but agree with Simon Callow that something happened in his development as an actor to stop him going all the way. Aline McMahon reprises her screen role as the ever-loving secretary.
Radio review – SDP – “Saigon” (1948) **
Radio review – Lux#805 – "King Solomon’s Mines" (1952) **1/2
Purists may recoil but that’s a legitimate interpretation of the story – which was more faithfully filmed in 1937. I just think they missed a chance with not having more about Gagool and the exiled king. I didn’t mind this as much as the film version, which I felt threw away opportunities wholesale.
Radio review – Lux#546 – "OSS" (1946) **1/2
This gives us another teaming of the legendary Ladd and Lake – they made four films together, three of them classics; the film of OSS was better than Saigon, but it lacked Lake (Geraldine Fitzgerald was the female lead).
To be honest, neither she nor Ladd are believable as spies – they’re too tough and sexy to fit in – but it’s wonderful to hear them together; even on radio they made a good team. Listening to this it felt different from the film – mainly I guess because the thing I most remembered from the movie (the training sequence with all the cool stuff spies do) is cut; however they do include the other but I remember, namely Ladd being asked to stay on the mission and whingeing about it (actually it’s a good bit of acting from him).
There’s some funny Lux stuff – the spiel for Lux mentions the fact that female agents in occupied countries can’t use Lux otherwise they wouldn’t fit in with the locals.
Movie review – “The Ape Man” (1943) **
To be honest it’s not much of a film with poor handling an uninspiring pair of leads (two wisecracking reporters with zero believable chemistry; she’s way too hot for him – such was life in war torn Hollywood with so many leading men away in the forces). Lugosi goes on a rampage but it’s not much of a rampage – however there is a satisfying camp moment where the gorilla (well, man in gorilla suit) strangles him. There’s a bit at the end from someone who claims to be the author of the story – he winks at the camera and it goes to the end. That might be funnier in a better movie.
Radio review – Lux#415 - "China" (1943) **
TV review – “Battlestar Galactica: Razor” (2006) ****
Friday, May 01, 2009
Movie review – Elvis#23 - “Easy Come Easy Go” (1967) **
Radio review – Command Performance with Errol Flynn (1944) **1/2
Radio review – Lux#214 - "The Lives of a Bengal Lancer” (1937) ***
It’s entirely appropriate that Errol Flynn step into the shoes of Gary Cooper, who played the role of the Canadian lancer in the film; Errol’s a lot more believable as a Canadian, and Brian Aherne is more English than Franchot Tone. Aherne and Flynn make believable friends – apparently Aherne was once considered for some of Flynn’s roles (including Captain Blood if I’m not mistaken).
Aherne never had Flynn’s charisma, but he had class and comfortably slots into the role of best friend. Jackie Cooper is good as the whiny, cowardly son of C Aubrey Smith – he isn’t even given the chance to redeem himself at the finale, he’s just a coward.
The best thing about this episode is when the actors chat at the end, Smith scolds Aherne and Flynn for missing weekend cricket games.
Radio review – Lux#309 – "Virginia City” (1941) **1/2
Radio review – Lux#380 - “This Gun For Hire” (1942) ***
The wisecracking Joan Blondell is fun and gives a decent enough performance but she just isn't Veronica Lake.
It’s a decent story, where the best thing about it is Ladd and Cregar – there is probably too much action for radio. The story has been tweaked so that it focuses very heavily on Ladd/Raven with Blondell and Cregar prominent - the part of Blondell's cop boyfriend, played by Robert Preston in the film, is almost entirely sidelined.
At the end of this de Mille announces that Ladd was about to enter the army as a private – that didn’t last long! He doesn't sound very enthusiastic about it.
Radio review – Lux#121 - “Captain Blood” (1937) ***
Radio review – Lux#200 – “The Perfect Specimen” (1939) **1/2
Errol Flynn, May Robson and Joan Blondell repeat their screen performances for radio; like the film itself it’s a bright though mild comedy which coasts on the charisma and likeability of its stars.
The story is an early version of Twins crossed with It Happened One Night – Errol is raised in seclusion as the perfect man until encouraged to break out by Blondell. This has story problems – it really needed another antagonist apart from the grandmother – it probably would have been better had Flynn’s fiancée genuinely wanted to be with him. Basically, if you liked the film you'll enjoy this.
Movie review – “Rogue Male” (1976) ****
Alistair Sim, in one of his final performances, plays O’Toole’s well-connected uncle. He’s very good as indeed are most of the support cast: the kindly fat German who helps him, the taciturn first mate (Mark McManus), the Jewish lawyer (great speaking voice – Harold Pinter!), the chubby lawyer assistant (Hugh Manning), and most of all the jovial assassin (John Standing).
But the star through and through is O’Toole – he was at his best playing cracked aristocrats, brave and smart but a bit mad. The ending is very exciting, with Standing trying to charm O’Toole into signing a confession, making like they are great friends and brothers – then getting conked out in cold blood. (My memories of watching this were vivid: the fingernails, hiding on a boat, that finale.)
Occasionally it’s let down by the fact it’s made for television – there are these crappy telemovie music stings and cuts, and it lacks that extra gloss which comes with a feature. It’s a shame – this is better than a lot of movies O’Toole made. Another minor gripe – I wish it was a bit lighter in that cave so we could have a better look at the weapon he makes.
Book review – “Ayesha” by H Rider Haggard
The structure is similar – they go on the voyage, escape death (an effective avalanche), discover the hidden kingdom, meet a girl who falls in love with Leo, journey to the capital, meet Ayesha, Ayesha and Leo moon about each other despite her tendency to despotism, but things end badly when they try to solidify their union.
Once they track down Ayesha the story starts to slow down. It takes forever to get to Ayesha – but the book is called Ayesha, we know that she’s going to come back to life. It’s a bit unrealistic, sure, but the pages Haggard devotes to air-fairy mumbo jumbo doesn’t make it less so. And there’s too much about reincarnation and descriptions of rituals, which aren’t interesting.
The basic story isn’t bad – Ayesha is old, but Leo decides to be with her anyway and with a kiss she becomes beautiful (a neat reversal of the princess and the frog). It’s a great idea to have the mortal girl who loves Leo be the ruler of a land with a vicious husband, and she ends up leading an attack against Ayesha; also for Ayesha’s kiss to be so powerful that she kills Leo. (One of the best scenes comes when she angrily kills someone after this.) But it takes so long to get through it all ultimately its a shadow of the original.
Part of the problem is I think the characters aren’t as engaging. In the first book Leo was trying to solve a family mystery and fell hopelessly under Ayesha’s spell; here he knows what he’s getting in for and he doesn’t have any sort of journey to go on, so his inherent blandness is more noticeable in this one. Ditto Holly – there’s no development in his relationship with Ayesha or Leo – he doesn’t even have a wise old associate of Ayesha to chat with. Ayesha isn’t nearly as compelling either in this one.
Movie review – “In the Year 2889” (1968) *1/2
There’s a couple of dodgy gangsters, a mutant, a father who seems very keen to have his daughter start breeding (she’s waiting for her boyfriend to come back but he’s a mutant). Buchanan throws in a bit of religion. Some of the make up is okay for a low budgeter and there are one or two effective sequences of characters walking around the forest at night – Buchanan was actually good at these, using silence and shadows. But then he snaps out of it with some crummy talking scenes. So-so acting, an enjoyable scene with O’Hara and the other girl wearing bikinis in the pool (just because its post apocalypse doesn’t mean you can’t catch some rays), and an abrupt ending.
Movie review – “Not of this Earth” (1957) ***
Movie review – “Sweeney Todd” (1936) **1/2
Slaughter’s performance ages well – of course it’s hammy but it’s ham with integrity. And who wants to see a realistic performance of Sweeney Todd? The trick barber’s chair always makes me laugh. There’s an attack on an African village, a young woman who dresses as a boy, and a flat climax. The best sections of this are the middle bit.
Movie review – “The Big Sleep” (1946) ****
The scenes are less good in the middle, which is why the film drags a little around there. Indeed, I was surprised how slow it got; I think the memory of those opening scenes is what carries it through - the structure certainly isn’t as sound as a, say, Chinatown. I’ve seen this a few times and can never follow the plot; also I get the whole Eddie-Mars-running-a-nightclub-and-having-an-ex-wife thing mixed up with the Howard da Silva character in The Blue Dahlia. But it really picks up in the last half hour with the introduction of Elisha Cook Jnr (he has a great death scene – there you go with the scene thing again). And it’s got a fantastic finale. (NB This factor is why you have to be careful remaking films like this – they depend so much on casting and scenes rather than a strong story).
The Bogart-Bacall combination is strong, if not as magical as in To Have and Have Not – although that is a bit unfair because in that one they were falling in love (just like Hepburn and Tracy had never-to-be-repeated oomph in Woman of the Year). But all the performances are excellent – not just the leads, but the supporting characters: and this is from a cast which doesn’t feature big names. Just look at the actors who play Eddie Mars, Bernie the cop, the dodgy girl in the book store… they’re all really good. Such was the skill of Hawks.
There are lots of scenes of women finding Bogart attractive – Vickers, Bacall, Malone, a woman in a library, a female cab driver, a waitress, cigarette girl. Hawks says this was him making fun of the genre, but there doesn’t seem too much winking at the audience. I think they simply wanted to show him being a stud. There is lot of sex here – not just the Vickers character, the dialogue between Bogart and Bacall is dripping with innuendo. It’s also violent – Bogart kicks a henchman in the face, gets knocked out several times, and flings the baddie out of a room to his death.
Radio review – MT #14 - “Hell on Ice” (1938) ****
Movie review – “The Black Shield of Falworth” (1954) **1/2
The first two thirds of the movie is like a basic training army movie – Curtis learns knight stuff, romances Leigh, has a gruff sergeant with a heart of gold, wonders why the local lord ignores him. Then the last third they pull out all this plot and have a villain and it all turns out to be a scheme by Marshall – it might have been better to introduce it earlier. Also they don’t use the character of the sister at all – you keep expecting her to be killed or turn evil but nope she just hangs out with Leigh and has a romance with some bland male second lead.
Book review – “Little Caesar” by Allan Ginsberg
In hindsight it’s not hard to see why – most oohing and aahing about stars concerns how good looking they are, but there’s always room for a “character actor” star, especially one who can convey gravitas eg Morgan Freeman, Wallace Beery, Judi Dench. You can cast them as gangsters, cops, royalty, etc – people for the spunk rats to bounce off. Little Caesar then gave Robinson the role of a lifetime – literally, he could sponge off that image for the rest of his life. Being intelligent and ambitions he didn’t want to; like most Warners stars he hankered after better roles and fought the front office to get them; sometimes he succeeded too (a cop in Confessions of a Nazi Spy, a nebbish in The Whole Town’s Talking, a scientist in Dr Ehlrich’s Magic Bullet).
Robinson suffered greatly during the blacklist. I was unaware of how much stick he came in for – I figured because he wasn’t officially put on the list or put in gaol it wasn’t too bad. Well, I was wrong – he was frequently bagged in the columns and dragged in front of HUAC several times. This despite never actually being a member of the Communist Party (he was a do-gooder and a soft touch). In that horrible way of the time to get out of it he had to go through this medieval-like purging ceremony, admitting he had been duped. He even named a few names. (I’m convinced HUAC went after him especially hard because they wanted to nab a famous actor on top of all these writers and directors they had; along with John Garfield he would have been the biggest star tarnished by McCarthyism).
Robinson’s career suffered a decade dip accordingly. His tenure as a top rank star probably would have faded anyway – he was lucky to have it as long as he did – but he missed out on a decade’s worth of juicy roles. Robinson’s ability and castability meant he got good parts up until the end of his life, apart from the greylist period. However, even during that he made some decent Bs (Hell on Frisco Bay, Illegal), and found Broadway stardom again in Chayefksy’s Middle of the Night.
Robinson seems to have been an admirable person in many ways: good causes, artistic (great painting collection), a gentleman, intelligent. But he doesn’t seem to have been a particularly good father – Edward G Robinson Jnr was a boozer from the age of 12, constantly getting in fights and trouble, having a lousy acting career. His first marriage was also unhappy – she sounds like a bit of a bitch but also every time she had a nervous breakdown and wanted to get a divorce Robinson would send her to a clinic to get “fixed”… until he had a full on affair and wanted to dump her for his new wife. So that sounds a bit creepy. Maybe Robinson spent too much time thinking about his paintings, work and political causes and worry about his family. (The book is a bit hazy on this, apart from pointing out he picked up the tab for his useless son throughout his life.)
If Robinson had a stressful late 40s/50s, he had a very pleasant last decade or so in his life. He remarried happily, was in steady work, developed a love for travel, got involved in civil rights again, had some great roles (including The Cincinnati Kid). This is a good bio, a worthy treatment of an interesting star, being well researched and particularly strong on blacklisting.