Radio review - BP - "Blithe Spirit" (1952) **1/2

Noel Coward's classic play is probably actor proof, which is why it's been so popular among amateur companies over the years. That's not to say you can't give an average production, which is what this is. John Loder plays the lead role and he's strictly average - so is everyone else except Mildred Natwick as Madam Arcadi. The ending doesn't have Loder die - he just takes off, leaving his two dead wives as ghosts.

TV review – "The Tudors – Season 4" (2010) ****

This falls into two halves: Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr. The first half is sex and relationship stuff, with some terrific characters, especially Katherine (brilliantly played by Tasmin Archer) – sweet, sexy, thick as a plank, hungry for love, totally in over her head (I love it when Mary meets her for the first time - the expression on her face, "where did he find this one?"). There's also the smug, greedy Thomas Culpepper, so vile he rapes a peasant and kills her husband (and this apparently actually happened); Lady Rochford, who is in lust with Thomas and gets off arranging trysts between him and Katherine; the lecherous, angry Earl of Surrey (who seems to replace the "bad boy" role that was played by Charles in Season 1 and Sir Francis in Season 3 - he's a bit too old to be sexy though). This part ends with a rash of executions, including a hung drawn and quartering (of a snotty character so it's okay).

 

The finale as terrific tension, even though I knew the outcome – the central thrust is, will the King arrange for the execution of his last wife? And will Catherine Parr, who's been shanghaied into the marriage, be able to push through her protestant agenda? There's the torture and murder of Anne Askew (like most outlandish seeming things in this series it was the most true) and also a movingly pointless battle at Boulogne. I had no idea the Catholics came so close to taking over again during the last days of Henry VIII - Catherine Parr's place in history needs to be reconsidered.

 

There are some boring bits - Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk ran out of usefulness a long time ago and seeing him brood again about the Pilgrimage of Grace is dull (no wonder his wife left him - is that a new actress playing the wife at the end under the veil? He does have a good death scene though.) 

 

The actors who play the Seymours don't kick goals in their parts - these felt undercooked. (A season 5, about the reign of Edward VI would surely have fixed this.) Jonathan Rhys-Meyers plays old through attitude and performance rather than make up, except for the last two episodes.

 

All in all a wonderful, enjoyable series - a great shame there's no Season 5 and 6. There's easily a season each in Edward and Mary's reign - the Seymours, Lady Jane Grey, Norfolk, Bloody Mary, princess Elizabeth, etc.

Movie review – “The Beach Girls and the Monster” (1964) *1/2

It didn’t take long for the success of Beach Party to spawn a number of imitators, of which this was one of the most weird. It belongs to an unusual Beach Party sub-genre – "Beach Party Horror", which also includes The Horror of Party Beach. 

This has the attraction of a Hollywood semi-legend in the cast – former Maria Montez co-star Jon Hall, who also directs (and offered up his house as a location). He's not much of a director to be honest - although he's not helped by the film being in black and white.

The plot involves a hilariously bad rubber suited monster going on a killing rampage along a beach - although to be fair the killer turns out to be a person in a rubber monster suit. There's a bit of Eugene O'Neil drama at the Jon Hall house - he plays a scientist whose younger wife is a tramp who hits on her step son (to Hall's first marriage) who just wants to go surfing, and there's some crippled sculptor there as well. So much drama!

There are some attractive girls and some surprisingly good songs apart from an atrocious ballad. There's also a lion puppet. Frank Sinatra Jnr helped provide some of the music. A lot of fun despite being appalling - there are plenty of beach girls and surfing and monster stuff.

Book review – “The 39 Steps” by Mark Glancy

A wonderful book on the classic film, which covers details into the pre-production, production and release, as well as an extensive critical analysis. Very enjoyable to read - unavoidably it's on the academic side, but it's not jargonistic. John Buchan receives his due (I wouldn't have minded a little more on this); the piece benefits a lot from the files at the BFI. 

Glancy is a bit harsh on Charles Bennett being too disdainful of Hitchcock - that just came about because Bennett had been ignored for so long in discussion of Hitchcock's films (and he continues to be - he is not credited at all in the theatre show The 39 Steps despite it being a facsimile of the script).

Movie review – “Homicidal” (1961) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

William Castle not only rips off Psycho (visiting a motel, a blonde driving in a car in the rain with headlights behind, a Martin Balsam lookalike investigating, mother complex), he rips off himself - there are heartbeats on the soundtrack, a mute old woman, a bland pair of juvenile lovers, an old rickety house... all things that were in The Tingler.

After a bland flash back there is a terrific opening sequence where a beautiful woman (Jean Arless) pays a bellhop at a hotel money to marry her - but then she stabs the justice of the peace to death. She then goes to an old house where she's been staying with a mute nurse in a wheelchair and money is to be inherited by a weird looking kid, Warren. You'll guess from the moment you see "him" that the man is actually a woman - but you know something? Knowing this doesn't really detract from the story, it's just so weird. A bit sordid.

Castle's direction is functional, and makes the story look like the episode of a TV anthology - this would have been far better had he only produced and gotten someone else to be behind the camera (he could have still done his introductions). And it's never as gripping after that opening sequence. But it does have a fascination due to the dual man and woman role. Also I love the fright break towards the end of the film when audiences are given a chance to leave the theatre - it's terrific.

Script review – “Sgt Rock” by John Milius (draft dated 1993)

A pleasant surprise – the quality of Milius’ scripts seemed to decline in the 80s, his work became more self-important and too consciously Kurosawa-y (i.e. all about honour and legend): but this is a bright, tough war film, full of guts and glory. It helps in that it’s a bit cynical too –it’s set during the Italian campaign around the Battle of Monte Cassino, and pays due notice to General Clark’s determination to get to Rome, even when it wasn’t the smartest tthing to do militarily.

There's cameos from General Fryberg (the New Zealand commander in charge at Crete), Ernie Pyle, Nisei soldiers, black soldiers, New Zealander diggers... Milius was always more aware than most American writers of war films that other countries and races fought during ww2. The German enemy is treated respectfully - there's a final duel between Rock and a senior German (which is a little silly to be honest).

The film seems to have been written for Arnold Schwarzeneggar - Rock has a German accent (indeed he infiltrates the German lines). I can see why it wasn't made - it's not that it's bad, I really enjoyed it, it's just it would be expensive to do and at the end of the day this is a straight up war-is-hell film. It just seems to lack a bit of X factor - reading I thought it would need direction of the quality of Spielberg's in Saving Private Ryan to make it memorable.

Movie review – “Living It Up” (1954) ***1/2

Martin and Lewis films rarely had strong plots but this one does – it’s based on Hazel Flagg, the musical adaptation of Nothing Sacred. The duo are shoehorned into the plot very well: I totally bought Jerry Lewis being willing to fake a fatal illness to get a trip to New York, and Dean Martin as his dodgy doctor who wants to go along with it, in part to get off with the hot reporter (Janet Leigh, in best mid 50s pointy boobed form) who is promoting the story.

Lots of fun: both Jerry and Dean are in excellent form - they are bright and lively, bounce off each other well, and sing and dance like real musical comedy stars. The plot is solid and brisk, and there's a strong support cast: Leigh, Fred Clark (newspaper editor), Edward Arnold, Sig Ruman and Sheree North (she does a terrific shimmy on the dance floor with Jerry). 

It lags in a few places - could have done without the surgery comic sequence going on for so long - and Jerry could have done with a love interest but it's bright and colourful. New York is fun in that sound stage way.

Movie review – “The Bat” (1926) ***

Enormously fun adaptation of an incredibly popular play. The plot is about a murderous thief called the Bat, who wears a rather odd bat disguise and kills people who get in the way of him pinching things. He goes to a mansion in the country where some guests are looking for some missing loot. In common with most old dark house mysteries there's lots of running around from room to room, shocks and deaths when people are cut off, plus a few twists (eg he's not a cop he's the killer, a person they think dead isn't) and a comic maid.

This is beautifully designed by William Cameron Menzies - massive, expressionistic sets with very high roofs and large staircases. It's also brisk directed and the acting is pretty good. And there's a bit where there's a bat signal - a light on the wall which has the reflection of the bat - an inspiration for Batman.

Movie review – “Corregidor” (1943) **

The story of this siege and battle is one of the great American epics of the war – they didn’t make that many films about it, because Americans don’t like to concentrate on defeat, but there was a period when stories about defeat were the only contemporary tales they ould tell: Air Force, Wake Island, Bataan, So Proudly We Hail, Cry Havoc. 

Corregidor was a moving story in real life - or, rather, a thousand moving stories, and the fact a lot of the people spent much of their time in cramped bunkers and dug outs meant it was ideal for low budget treatment from PRC. But this is a very mediocre film, despite some decent actors and Edgar Ulmer as one of the writers (but not a director).

The main story is a love triangle between three doctors - one of whom is, surprisingly, a woman (Elissa Landi, who in the 30s looked as though she might be a star; she died of cancer not long after this, her last film). She marries an old pal (Otto Kruger) despite being in love with a young spunk (Donald Woods) who dumped her back in the day because she was too rich. But guess who is working at Corregidor? 

There's some rallying speeches and explosions, plus the odd Filipino character is actually given some screen time and Dorothy Dandridge's mother plays a maid. But on the whole this is dull stuff and a waste of an amazing story.

Radio review – TG – “At Mrs Beams” (1945) **

The real life romance of Burgess Meredith and Paulette Goddard gave inspiration to blokes everywhere who dreamed of punching above their weight (not only was she hot, she was also loaded). But then I guess Meredith had his own sort of charisma, and that reputation-as-a-great-actor thing going on. The duo play a pair of unmarried thieves who wind up at a boarding house; they set about trying to seduce third parties, but both get jealous of the other. The play was from the 1920s but surely this kind of story was old even back then? Not terribly funny or charming - it is fun to hear Meredith and Goddard play together, but I think for it to work you needed Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant.

Script review – “Rocky Horror Picture Show” by Jim Sharman and Richard O’Brien

As a teenager I went to screenings of this film many (too many) times, so I know it back to front. It was an odd experience reading the film script - which was a shooting script so it's broken down into shots. I was struck by how many songs there are in it - by the time we've hit page 30 there'd already been five: 'Science Fiction', 'Dammit Janet', 'There's a Light Over at the Frankenstein Place', 'Time Warp' and 'Sweet Transvestite'. And there's a whole bunch more in the film - indeed the last third is pretty much just songs.

The first half of this is the best - meeting Brad and Janet, arrival at the castle, the emergence of Rocky, Eddie going on a rampage, the seduction of Brad and Janet. The second half doesn't really have much to offer apart from songs - Dr Scott turns up, they do a long floor show, Frank is killed, there's a downer ending.

It was fascinating to read what had been cut. There's a whole song sequence, 'Once in a While', sung by Brad and Janet after they've been seduced by Frank - this felt like a dud. (I wish they'd cut 'Sword of Damocles' - such a lousy song. The only read dud in an otherwise excellent soundtrack.) There's some extra talk by Frank when Brad and Janet arrive. Some big print which says Rocky hates Frank but gets upset at his death because he's all Rocky has (I never got that Rocky hated Frank from the movie). A whole bit when Dr Scott sucked up to Riff Raff around the time Riff Raff kills Frank. A few extra lines here and there. All good cuts, I felt - the main problem was still there (i.e. trying to find out something to do with the third act.)

Film review – “The Ghost Goes West” (1936) ***

Charming fantasy comedy which George MacDonald Fraser once praised as one of the few films which depicted Scottish history well on screen. He was referring to the opening sequence where Robert Donat is a horny Scottish noble who is killed fleeing some fellow Scots who are trying to kill him – I think Fraser appreciated the bawdiness of this, as well as the (all too believable) notion of Scots arguing and feuding amongst themselves when they’re meant to be taking on the British. Donat is very winning in the dual roles as the modern day Scot and his ghostly ancestor - there's a strong support cast too including Eugene Pallette and Jean Parker (a lovely female lead).

Alex Korda productions never cared what nationality their filmmakers were - this has a French director (Rene Clair) and American writer (Robert Sherwood). Maybe that's why the depiction of Scotland was so engaging. I know this was a hit in Britain but would be interested to find out how it did in the US - presumably well since the satire of Americans (materialistic but basically nice) is gentle and affectionate.

The script is quite cleverly worked out - the second act comes from hearing about the ghost and wanting to use it for commercial purposes, but the ghost won't come out because he's afraid of crime. But it loses points by having the deux ex machina of the rival tycoon turning out to be a descendant of Donat's rival family. It gets by more on charm than laugh-out-loud comedy.

Movie review – Keaton#3 – “His Wedding Night” (1917) **1/2

Fatty Arbuckle is very funny as a soda clerk who has a bunch of adventures at work (serving beer to Buster Keaton, etc) while being engaged to a pretty thing. His rival kidnaps the girl but Fatty saves the day. Keaton does a scene in drag modelling the wedding dress but it’s Arbuckle’s film. Love the bit where a horse sits on him.

Movie review – Chaplin#2 – “Kid’s Auto Race at Venice” (1914)**

A star is born – Charlie Chaplin as the tramp for the first time complete with cane, hat, etc. It only goes for a little over 6 minutes and isn't exactly what you call story-heavy: most of the running time consists of the Tramp at a race event; a photographer is trying to film it but the Tramp keeps walking in the way. He makes funny face expressions and occasionally falls over. His movies would get better but he is already endearing.

Movie review – Chaplin#1 - “Making a Living” (1914) **

Charlie Chaplin’s first film – apparently it goes for 15 minutes and ends with a Keystone Kops chase sequence but the version on internet archive I saw only went for eight minutes. Charlie is still the lead but he doesn’t play the Tramp (although he has a moustache). He’s more of anti-hero, a smooth-talking con man who tries to scam a few people out of things – the main plot has him steal a camera belonging to a photographer who’s shot a car accident. Not awesome but Chaplin knew how to move and fall over - clearly a stunning talent from the beginning.

Script review – “Red Dawn” by Kevin Reynolds (1983 shooting script) (warning: spoilers)

The copy of the script I read only credits Reynolds was writer but surely it went through John Miliius' typewriter. It’s been a while since I saw the film but from memory this followed it reasonably closely. The structure seemed the same; Act one: we plunge into the invasion pretty much straight away our heroes turning guerrilla; Act two – a downed American pilot tells them about what’s going on with the war and things get harder; Act three – the Soviets send in a crack team of counter-insurgency experts to beat the Wolverines.

There are some key differences. For instance, the script has an extra girl character, Sandy, who joins the wolverines and has a romance with Jed (the lead guy) –and she ends up killing herself in order not to fall into the hands of the baddies (they gave this scene to Toni in the film). Erica, who falls in love with crashed pilot Andy (the sweetest romance in the script) dies with him in the script, whereas in the movie she survives. The only survivors in the script are Toni and Danny – and Colonel Bella doesn’t let Jed and Matt go off together to die peacefully (they just die here).

I didn’t quite buy the set up for a US-Russia war – it’s as believable a one as they could have come up with, but I still didn’t buy it. (Tomorrow When the War Began was more believable because it was Australia.) But the central idea is such a strong one I can understand why they went for it.

The first third of this does read like a John Milius wet dream, as the whole movie was accused of being – teenagers taking off for the hills, playing soldiers, killing Cubans, doing the fantasy war game thing. But Milius has a gift of surprising and the film gets better as it goes on – more complex, and darker. The kids are responsible for their friends and family being killed, they have to kill one of their number, most of them die. Also there are moments where the enemy is humanised – a Cuban officer expresses enthusiasm for Indian history right before he’s killed, a captured Russian soldier is very brave and has a moment of connection before he’s killed, the tough Russian officer who does after the kids at the end admires them, the main Cuban antagonist is weary of war. The kid characters aren't much - the girls are a bit crazy and gun-toting because they've been raped (Milius was never one for great female characters), the officer is stoic, there's a Quisling Mayor; the most interesting kid is the guy who goes ga-ga and starts scalping Cubans.

Definitely not a movie for everyone, but it wears it’s heart on it’s sleeve and you can see why it’s got such a big cult.

Radio review – TG – “Great Expectations” (1953) ***

Not as star-studded as the Theatre Guild version of David Copperfield - Boris Karloff is the only name here, as Madgwick. (It’s great to hear Karloff expanding his range, trying different parts – poor old Bela Lugosi never had the luck, but then there are more roles for British actors than Hungarian. And Boris was never addicted to morphine.) The story adapts quite well to radio because you can focus on a few characters: Estella, Miss Havisham, Jagger, Pip, Madgwick. It has a happy ending between Pip and Estella which I understand came from the 1946 film version rather than the novel. Not bad – interesting, rather than awesome.

Radio review- Suspense – “The Visitor” (1947) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Donald O’Connor is a guy approached to impersonate a kid who was apparently murdered in a small town a few years ago. Is he the real kid or is he not? If he's not they'd be able to tell he isn't, surely, even if it was three years ago and he went through adolescence - but if he, he makes a lot of mistakes and errors for someone who grew up in the town. It's confusing. Not a bad mystery though and it's fun to hear O'Connor as a gangly juvenile caught up in this story. Eddie Bracken apparently played the role in a previous version of the story done for Suspense.

Script review – “Harper” by William Goldman (warning: spoilers)

Part of the reason Goldman did so well as a screenwriter is he had a great knack at rejuvenating old Hollywood genres – Westerns (Butch Cassidy), newspaper movies (All the Presidents Men), swashbucklers (The Princess Bride). This was his take on private eye films and it launched his career (he’d written one full script before, an adaptation of ‘Flowers for Agernon’ for Cliff Robertson which wasn't filmed, and do some rewriting on Masquerade, but this was his first proper produced credit).

It’s bright enough, no classic, no Big Sleep, but it has some funny dialogue (Goldman always tries to end a scene with a wry line; may favourite one was “when she’s 100 you’ll only be 124”) and colourful characters to attract a good support cast (which it did). To his credit, Goldman didn’t take too much credit for the success of the film, attributing it to a terrific cast and good timing.

His script is solid – it’s logical, it holds - but not in the class of Butch Cassidy. 

As in the movie, the script loses heart when Taggert the secretary dies – you just don’t care about Arthur (Harper's lawyer mate) as much. It’s also too open ended for my liking – I get that Arthur isn’t going to shoot Harper but does Harper saying “oh hell” too mean he’s not going to report Arthur. Structure-wise it isn’t that great – lots of running around and going from encounter to encounter. Which is a requirement of the genre, I guess. Harper gets beat up a lot – about three or four times.

Play review – “Me Pregnant” by Nick Coyle (seen April 23, 2011 at Old Fitz)

Entertaining, weird, off the wall one-man show from Coyle, who has been described as a "cult figure" in Sydney's theatre scene - I didn't think we had such things. I don't know much about Coyl - apparently he didn't go to drama school even though he's very talented, with a great voice and acting ability - he struck me as one of those brilliant kids I occasionally worked with doing law revues who never had the careers they should have due to apathy. Being a "well-made play" kind of guy, I preferred this when the story kicked in - it's basically about a girl in a village, a bit of a nerd, who's killed a goblin. We cut between the girl and goblin's point of view. Medieval fantasy is mixed up with modern references, and it's frequently brilliant and often quite moving.

Movie review – “The Tingler” (1960) ***1/2

Enormous fun courtesy of William Castle. A lot of it is straight up melodrama, kind of filmed in the style of something like Alfred Hitchcock Presents - TV acting and simple direction with a melodramatic plot (eg Vincent Price's scenes with his unfaithful wife, the ingenue couple who want to get married, the stylised black and white photography on TV sets). But when it gets going it's great; the initial idea is a good one - Vincent Price is a scientist who believes there's a creature in our spine with causes the tingling, and tries to extract it - and the creature may be a bit fake looking but I think it's really effective.

And there's a great deal of imagination throughout: a man kills his deaf mute wife through her inability to scream (played by Judith Evelyn who, in a nice touch of film irony, was tormented by Vincent Price on stage in Angel Street); there's a running bath tub where we see blood coloured red in an otherwise black and white movie (a body emerges from the bed - like Hitchcock and Jimmy Sangster, Castle had obviously seen Les Diabolique); Castle at the beginning and Price during the film encourages the audience to scream to survive the tingler; Price takes an LSD trip; the tingler attacks a movie theatre at the end, and the movie theatre plunges into darkness and climbs under chairs (what showmanship!); the shock ending. You want to see it in a cinema with electrocuted chairs but it's still pretty fun.

Book review – “Private Life of Henry VIII” by Greg Walker

Solid entry in the excellent British Film Guide series on classic British movies. It covers the background to production of Korda’s classic, it’s place in the canon, various readings of the film. I found particularly interesting the analysis of the movie in the context of British foreign policy of the 30s (Korda was highly conservative for the time encouraging England to arm through this film) and the impact of Holbein’s portrait. I would have liked more stuff on the actual making of the film and the book is, perhaps unavoidably, heavily reliant on secondary sources and academic-y. But Walker writes insightfully and well, even if you can tell his background is literature, culture and history rather than cinema.

Radio review – TG – “The Bishop Misbehaves” (1952) **

These Theatre Guild comedies always seemed so damn light, although it’s always a pleasure to hear Charles Laughton. He plays the bishop of the title who is a crime fiction buff and finds himself getting involved in a hold up along with his sister (Josephine Hull from Arsenic and Old Lace). The robber is actually a jolly good sort only helping out a girl trying to steal back money that was stolen from her father by a real baddy. I think when the Angry Young Men got angry they were railing at this sort of stuff. It would have made a good B film in the 30s, a vehicle for an elderly star- I checked this, and what do you know, it was. Laughton is good as always.

Play review – “The Skin of Our Teeth” by Thornton Wilder

A play with a big reputation – it won the Pulitzer, helped launch the careers of Elia Kazan and Montgomery Clift, was done by Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. I have to admit that I wasn’t wild about it – although reading it I felt that it might play better than it reads. It deals with a nuclear family, mum and dad and two kids, who go through variation adaptations of history (an ice age, after a way), along with the sexy Sabina. Mum and dad are sort of like Adam and Eve. Wilder mixes things up by having the characters refer to the fact they are in a play, argue with the stage manager, talk about other roles they’ve played. It’s a real pot pouri of stuff here – a whole bunch of ideas and concepts, obviously put together by someone intelligent; it’s often funny and there’s some solid drama too (eg the reaction of the wife when the husband leaves her for Sabina, the son getting up the dad) and a terrific role in Sabina – but I don’t think it’s aged well because we don’t get all the references now. (Also I think theatre-goers are less familiar with the bible). Reading it I was going “gee this is clever” more than enjoying it – but it might play better on stage.

Movie review – M&L#10 - “Money From Home” (1954) **1/2

This Martin-Lewis film gets off to a marvellous start – based on a Damon Runyon story, it’s set in 1930 and we’re plunged into a world of wacky gangsters and street characters with bright colours and scene sets (this was the duo’s first movie in colour – in 3D too - and it looks wonderful). 

 

They set up an interesting story with Dino as a gambler who gets in hock with the mob and Jerry as his cousin, an aspiring vet who might be able to hobble a horse that enables Dino to pay them back… but then having set up all this terrific atmosphere they move the film out to Maryland. Where it could have been set in any year, really – period detail is thrown out the window.

 

 It’s a real shame; there are some laughs (I always enjoy it when Jerry spoofs a mature person), it is colourful (there’s this rich Arab I think who’s based on King Farouk who has a harem that I got the feeling was added for production value), it’s good to have the gangsters come back at the end, there’s a fun horse race. Also Marjie Millar and Pat Crowley are pretty, engaging female leads for Martin and Lewis. Oh and Dino sings ‘I Only Have Eyes for You’. 

 

Actually come to think of it this isn’t a bad film, I just wish it had all been set in New York and there were more colourful Runyon characters, it could have been a minor classic.

Script review – “The Private Life of Henry VIII” by Lajos Biros and Arthur Wimperis

Kudos went to Vincent Korda’s design and Charles Laughton’s acting but the script from Biros and Wimperis did the heavy lifting – and despite some flowery dialogue it remains a fun read. The irreverence, pace and zest are all on the page to start with. History is excellently telescoped – why not have Anne’s execution on the same day as his marriage to Jane Seymour, since that is in effect what happened (and it helps get the story off to a great start)? Why not have Jane Seymour die in childbirth – dramatically it works better than her nodding off two weeks later.

The Jane Seymour stuff is effectively act one – the bulk of the rest of it concerns Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. Anne is act two, Katherine act three; both plots are similar – each girl is in love with another man – but are handled differently: Anne doesn’t want to be married, but gets out of it cleverly by pretending to be grotesque (treated comically); Katherine actively encourages Henry’s pursuit but can’t resist the lure of Thomas Culpepper’s young flesh and both wind up executed (treated tragically). Katherine Parr is an epilogue and throughout the film various servants and commoners act as a Greek chorus commentating on the action. Very racy and funny, with some conservative propaganda (Henry talks about the importance of being well armed to defend against hostile foreigners), and pathos (Henry’s reaction to Katherine Howard’s death). Some have claimed Arthur Wimperis' little asides are corny but I felt they fit in with the tone of the script.

This was published in 1934 as part of a commendable effort to draw attention to the importance of screenplays. There’s a fascinating introduction by someone called Ernest Betts, who is very stuffy but offers invaluable insights into the attitude of screenwriting in the British industry at the time – very poor. (Betts says most scripts simply aren’t worthy of commendation, talks about it seeming unlikely films will last.) The script is presented in a different format to today – two columns, one for description, one for dialogue (this is used in TV for lifestyle programs); the shots are described (long shot, medium shot), and numbered but the scenes aren’t numbered.

Script review – “I Walked with a Zombie” by Curt Siodmak and Ardel Wray

Val Lewton’s take on Jane Eyre, set in the Caribbean – which makes total sense since Mrs Rochester in the book came from the West Indies. There have been some changes: the nurse (Betsy) is hired to look after the crazy wife, Jennifer. The brother (Wesley) is the Rochester figure’s brother. There’s also a mum – a missionary’s wife who’s becomes sympathetic to voodoo to get her work done.

 

Not an ounce of fat on it – maybe it could have done with more fat. Betsy falls in love with Paul (the apparently attractive brooding brother) very quickly – and we miss the big scene of Wesley refusing to pack Jennifer off to the insane asylum. 

 

I also feel we miss something in the character of the mother – when all’s said and done she’s a bit crazy to have turned her daughter-in-law into a zombie. And now I’m nitpicking we could have done more building up to Wesley’s (the brother’s) actions at the end, setting Jennifer free so he can kill her. Maybe this was more in the original script – I read a transcript. 

 

Still, highly intelligent and thoughtful, especially in it's treatment of voodoo, and enough walks by Betsy through windswept gardens and beaches at night to be scary even on the page.

Movie review –“David and Goliath” (1960) **

I admit I only saw this because Orson Welles was in it but it’s not bad. The real title should be David and Saul, because it’s more about their relationship – but then Goliath has more box office potential. It turns the famous story into a peplum –so instead of David being a young boy as he’s usually depicted, he’s of bodybuilding age (played by someone called Ivo Payer). After his girlfriend is killed – struck by lightning in a storm (I’m not kidding) – he goes to the city and Saul hires him as a harpist… which I thought happened after he beat Goliath (but I checked – I was wrong). 

Anyway, he has a tricky relationship with Jonathan, Saul’s son, and a sweet romance with Saul’s daughter Michal despite being lusted after by Saul’s sluttish daughter. Then he fights and beats Goliath. The climax consists of Saul’s mean Prime Minister trying to assassinate David – but being saved by Saul, which seems weird. 

Some bright colours and spectacle and dubbed voices – a typical example of the genre. Peter Bogdanovich in his interview book with Orson Welles asked Welles if he directed some of it, in particular an early scene where the camera passes by some columns as Saul appears and Welles said yes. This was released in the US by Embassy.

Movie review – “Thor” (2011) ***

It seems to have been ages since Ken Branagh was associated with a big Hollywood movie but his childhood enthusiasm for the comic book apparently helped get him the gig on this noisy, expensive action tale. And he does a pretty good job, too – taking it seriously but not pompously, the story runs along, the acting is fine. Only one scene - with Natalie Portman and her gang looking for Thor in the hospital - with the camera swooping around, did things jar. 

 

Chris Hemsworth impresses as Thor - an easy role to mock, but he plays it to the manor born, has obviously spent a lot of time in the gym, and is very believable. Anthony Hopkins could play his part in his sleep, Stellan Skarsgaard and especially Rene Russo are under-used, Portman is pretty is a not much role - but more crucially her romance with Hemsworth is dangerously undercooked. It needed two more scenes, romantic scenes to establish they had a real connection, so the bit at the end had more emotional pull. (Actually come to think of it the roles of his friends are under-used too.)

 

The effects and design are good, especially the stuff that takes place on Asgard is great. Fish out of water comedy is surprisingly not really dealt with. Kat Dennings impresses as Portman's wise-cracking younger friend, a role normally given to actors less good looking, older and/or black. Idris Elba has great authority as the gatekeeper (good on them for trying to racially mix things up in Asgard). No classic of the genre, but not a disaster and an enjoyable theme park ride.

Movie short review – Buster#2 - “The Rough-house” (1917) ***

Buster Keaton fell so in love with filmmaking that after making one short, The Butcher Boy, he was writing and directing them – helping rather, along with Fatty Arbuckle, the star. Arbuckle plays one of a family who run a hotel, during the course of which he destroys his bedroom, a kitchen and a living room. Very funny slapstick and destruction. Keaton has a small role as a gardener who turns into a policeman, just in time to take part in the final chase.

Movie short review – Buster#1 - “The Butcher Boy” (1917) ***

Fatty Arbuckle remains one of the best known silent film stars because of the scandal that effectively ended his career, but he was a really terrific screen comic. He had this great expressive face, a mischievousness about him, the weight of course, and tremendous physical skill. This falls into two halves: shenanigans in a butchers, resulting in a flour fight, and a section in a girls boarding school where Arbuckle (and the rival for his girls' affection) dress up in drag. This is hilarious too. Buster Keaton makes his film debut as Arbuckle's co worker - he's funny, but not as funny as Arbuckle, or that dog on the treadmill at the butchers.

Movie review – “The Nut” (1921) **1/2

I think stars can change their image twice in a career, but no more (eg Hugh Grant – loveable and bumbling to bad boy). Douglas Fairbanks went from all-American boy to swashbuckling hero around this time with The Mark of Zorro – this was one of his last all-American boy movies, and it’s a real charmer. He plays a rich man who is a bit of a dill and tries to prove himself to the girl he loves – the same formula as His Picture in the Papers, really. But it’s a lot more accomplished and clever, and the photography was better – it looks great. It’s full of memorable gags: Doug getting out of bed and ready for work via an automated machine (this was really clever), see through photography of Doug climbing up a ventilator shaft, Cupid working as a telephone operator, the final marriage in front of the judge. Fairbanks is showing his age a little so he got off the treadmill at the right time.

Movie review – “His Picture in the Papers” (1916) **

This was Douglas Fairbanks’ third film after transferring to the cinema from Broadway, and was the one that really established his star image for the first part of his career: the brash American kid on the go. The plot is simple enough – Doug wants to get his picture in the newspapers (a tale for our times, really) – even if the set up is a bit convoluted: he wants to do it so his father will give him half the family business which will mean his girlfriend’s father will give permission for them to marry. Plenty of action scenes result: car chases, a boxing match, fighting gangsters on the railway. It isn’t particularly well structured (we get all these scenes with the gangsters during the film then they meet Fairbanks – this just felt odd) but some of the titles (from Anita Loos) are very witty and the location shooting around New York helps a lot. Loos and director John Emerson were big influences on Fairbanks’ image, and worked with him many times after this film.

Play review – “The Latent Heterosexual” by Paddy Chayefsky

Chayefsky’s last produced play is a patchily brilliant, heavily flawed work, destined to not be revived for a while due to an unfortunate beginning idea: a gay middle aged novelist who has a hit gets married for tax purposes and finds himself enjoying the straight life. 

It’s a shame this element of the plot is in there because it’s dated, isn’t that funny and isn’t really needed – this is really a satire on corporations (business laws, taxes, trust funds, shares, debentures) and how one man allows himself to turn into a corporation… kind of like The Hospital meets Rhinoceros, only for business.

Some absolutely brilliant dialogue and speeches but too much of it is hitting the same note, i.e. long monologues describing business stuff (not having characters making fun of it, just describing it). So the play goes on too long – this felt like it would be a really effective one act play. 

Some of those notes are terrific, though – it hits real heights and it’s a shame Chayefsky refused to sell the film rights to Joe Levine (apparently because Levine intended to star Zero Mostel, who played the role on stage and had been hard to deal with). Oh, it’s another Chayefsky work where a hot young girl is horny for a middle aged man.

Script review – “The Old Dark House” by R C Sherriff and Benn Levy (warning: spoilers)

The script I’ve read on the internet is more of a transcript than an original – references to “1920s version of a slacker – but was still worth reading. This holds up incredibly well; the structure is very familiar (this film helped create the archetype) but effective: bunch of people turn up at an old house where really weird stuff is going on. So many vivid characters: the slacker war survivor, all devil-may-care aplomb; the Yorkshire millionaire, still in love with his dead wife and not too upset to lose his chorus girl lady friend; said chorus girl who falls in love with the slacker after one long conversation – and you believe it; sexy Margaret (she does have a dull husband); the religious Rebecca Femm (commenting on Margaret’s long, straight legs and white body and feeling her); the imposing butler, Morgan, a terror when drunk; the 100-something little old man; the seemingly meek but psychotic Saul. It’s a decent story, too – the big mystery being what is the family hiding… and is Saul really bad or is it his relatives? I did feel the millionaire character was under-used – he disappears for a long time. (He would have made a good victim for Saul – but having Saul actually kill someone would have made this a lot darker.)

Movie review – “The Stooge” (1952) **1/2

I read somewhere that this was one of Jerry Lewis’ favourite films of the Martin-Lewis combination, and you can see why: it’s the tale of one half of a comic act (Dean Martin) who, in 1930, struggles to make it on his own until he accidentally hooks up with a bumbler who becomes effective as a stooge (guess who?). They become a successful act but Martin won’t put Lewis’ name on the bill and seems to have a drinking problem and a big head. Lewis’ child, while moronic, is also angelic, loyal and faithful – and Martin can’t do it without him. What’s more he admits it after doing a solo performance, and gives Jerry a big hug. No wonder Jerry loved it.

There are some really funny bits in this – Lewis impersonating Maurice Chevalier and his own father. Conversely, the Martin-Lewis act on stage isn’t that funny. Most of the drama – all the conflict etc – comes in the last ten minutes, in common with many Martin-Lewis movies. Dean Martin gives a very good performance - he actually doesn't have that many opportunities to be dramatic as you might think but he takes all of them. (This film was his first indication that he had more in him that quips, songs and romance.)

Polly Bergen makes yet another appearance as a love interest, as does Marion Marshall (they often re-used the love interests in Martin-Lewis films). Marshall at least has some comedy to play with but Bergen's is a nothing role when it needed to be something more – a nagger who can’t help loving that man. Eddie Mayehoff from That’s My Boy also appears as Martin’s principled agent (yeah, right).

Documentary review – “The Spencer Tracy Legacy – A Tribute by K Hepburn” (1986) ****

Warm doco on the legendary actor hosted by Kate Hepburn who sounds a bit shaky here but gives this enormous subtext, especially in scenes where she’s talking to his daughter and at the end when she reads a letter she wrote to Tracy after his death (actually that’s not subtext – that’s text!) In her introductory spiel to the film she compares Tracey’s acting to potato bake: solid, delicious and filling. It’s as good a description as any I guess. She also walks around the places where he used to play polo, old studios (including MGM - which then had the "Sylvester Stallone Building").

There were some terrific old photos and vision (Tracey playing polo with Will Rogers), great exclusives (extracts from Tracey’s old journal), and a dazzling array of interviewees (how could you refuse Kate Hepburn I guess): Sidney Poitier, Joe Mankiewicz (confirming the story of how Tracey and Hepburn met and the comment "don't worry he'll soon knock you down to size"), Garson Kanin (I thought Hepburn never forgave him for his book on their relationship but there you go), Stanley Kramer, Robert Wagner, Frank Sinatra (in a scene from The Devil at Six O’Clock he takes his shirt off – no star of today would allow themselves to seem to weak), Burt Reynolds, Joan Bennett, Angela Lansbury, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Widmark, Lee Marvin, Mickey Rooney. Wagner and Kramer remark how Tracey was like a father to him – no such comment from his own daughter.

Watching the clips I was struck by how many times Hepburn had to stand on the sidelines misty-eyed as Tracy made a speech. And how when they talk about Tracey-Hepburn films they only mean half of them (no one seems to care about Keeper of the Flame, Without Love, Sea of Grass or Desk Set). Fascinating.

Play review – “The Passion of Josef D” by Paddy Chayefksy

Chayefsky’s least successful play on Broadway and you can see why audiences mightn’t go for it – all those Russian names and long history, it goes on for a long time, isn’t exactly feel good entertainment, and Chayekfsy is a bit too much in love with his research. 

But it’s marvellous – rich, bold, moving. There are funny moments and moving moments, too – a mixture of theatrical styles (Brecht, music hall, naturalism). Characters say asides to the audience at the end of scene, or break into song. There's violence and sex, lots of political talk and some symbolism.

The plot starts at the beginning of the 1917 Russian Revolution and goes up until Lenin’s stroke in 1924. We hear a lot (perhaps too much) about Stalin’s upbringing and character – the devoted, ruthless revolutionary, who finds God in the form of Lenin – a brilliant, tormented genius. The schisms of the party, Stalin’s romance with his revolutionary second wife, the struggles of the time – it’s all brilliantly, vividly conveyed.

Some superb moments, like the opening scene where we meet Stalin, who chats amiably to his prison guard who’s just let him out because of the revolution – then kills him. Or Lenin’s monologue five years after the revolution (any of his monologues, really), Stalin’s wife’s declaration of love for her husband, the two businessmen who symbolically kill themselves, the cameo of Trotsky. It’s wonderful and you really wish someone would revive it (a natural for a drama school looking for pieces with a big cast).

(Reading this made me check Shaun Considine’s excellent biography of Chayefsky. Apparently Charles Bronson almost played the lead role – it was even announced – before it went to Peter Falk. And Elia Kazan wanted to direct it for the Lincoln Centre but Chayefsky was impatient and ended up directing it himself on Broadway.)

Radio review – TG – “Dead End” (1946) ***

Enjoyable slice-of-life-in-a-tenement drama, sort of like Street Scene with the gangster element played up. The main plots concern an architect graduate struggling to find work in the depression; his childhood friend, a wanted gangster, who comes home to discover his mother doesn’t want him and his ex is a hooker; a young woman trying to prevent her younger brother (one of what became known as the Dead End Kids – not a massive presence here) from going to a life of crime. Effective stuff which makes points about poverty that are still relevant today. A decent enough production, with Richard Conte being the best known member of the cast (he plays the architect).

Radio review – BP – “Tonight at 8:30” (1953) ***/****

Two plays from Noel Cowards famous collection of short plays – Ways and Means and Still Life, both which were filmed. Madeline Carroll and Jerome Cowan are strong in the leads - John Chapman irritated me in his intro talking about Carroll going "gee whiz we were impressed by her 1948 debut in Goodbye My Fancy but we didn't realise she had a strong history of theatre". How about the New York drama critics having done some research before they saw a play?  

 

Ways and Means is a seemingly light comedy but with dark undertones about a bickering couple on the Riviera who run out of money via gambling addictions and decide to go into thievery - sort of Private Lives meets Trouble in Paradise. They are saved by a deux ex machina in the form of a thieving chauffeur.

 

It's okay but the second item on the program, Still Life is brilliant. Best known as Brief Encounter it's the terribly British tale of two married people who have a chaste love affair. Easy to mock, but impossible not to be moved by, it's done so well. David Mamet once wrote this was a great gay love story and you could read it that way, like every Coward play, but it is universal. (Would a gay version of this work? I don't think a gay couple would appreciate what they were doing was wrong so quickly.) I wonder how many adulterous relationships this inspired, real and imagined? Did it encourage people to stay true or to go for it? One of Coward's greatest works, and it's received a worthy production here.

Play review – “Sleuth” by Anthony Shaffer (warning: spoilers)

I read this after re-reading Dial M for Murder – this has all the cleverness of that, some big twists, and many similar themes (a major character is a crime writer, a major plot point is about a man who is having an affair with another man’s wife)… but Shaffer’s a much better writer than Frederick Knott. Don't get me wrong: Knott is a clever writer, and Dial M for Murder a minor masterpiece, but his writing tends to be functional – it’s all about plot. Shaeffer’s dialogue and characterisation are far superior – really clever and complex. The middle aged author obsessed with his virility and playing games - to such a degree he's destroyed his marriage. The younger man with a chip on his shoulder about his Italian heritage. It still holds up even knowing the big second act twist where an actor appears who is actually one of the two leads. Terrific ending.

Play review – “Dangerous Corner” by JB Priestley (warning: spoilers)

This was the last play I read in a collection of suspense plays I have, because it was the least well known, and at first found it not much chop – a bunch of middle class Britishers sitting around after a dinner party going jolly good and talking about a play. But then someone recognises a cigarette box that has a connection with a friend and relative of theirs who committed suicide and the revelations begin: X was in love with Y who was in love with Z, A blamed B for stealing because of C. There’s even drug taking and one of the male characters reveals he lusted the dead male – in a 1932 play!! And the dead dude was a bisexual drug addict who left a trail of destruction. Revelation upon revelation keeps it very gripping. It’s in three acts but you’d be better off staging it continuously. There’s a terrific epilogue where we leap back in time to the action at the beginning of the play and show what would have happened (or, more accurately, been avoided) had the revelations not started. And Priestley only wrote it in a week!

Radio review – BP#9 – “Outward Bound” (1952) ***1/2

I really enjoyed this adaptation of the famous play about a ship load of passengers who realise they’re actually dead and travelling to Heaven – and Hell: an alcoholic, clergyman, socialite, married man and his mistress, businessman. It’s a play of atmosphere, thought and mood rather than story. There isn’t much plot – they realise they’re dead, there’s a revelation or two, then it’s a question of who’s going upstairs or downstairs (with some people getting the option of going back to life). Very spooky and you can’t help think, “gee how would I react” – which is part of its appeal no doubt. It is also reassuring – good people are rewarded, bad people are punished, even insufferable bitches like the socialite get to go the Heaven if their dead husbands miss them. It was a big hit after World War I – I’d be interested to know how the remakes were received.

Radio review – TGA – “The Silver Whistle” (1952) **

Reminiscent of Cocoon and that episode of The Simpsons where Homer went to live in a retirement home. It’s about a carny operator/conman (James Stewart, whose excellent voice is always great to hear) who gets on the run from town authorities and winds up at an old person’s home. Even though he’s in his 40s he passes himself off as someone 35 years older, but who’s discovered the elixr of youth. It’s not really a believable concept, even on radio – how would it work…? At least it is a play about the aged. The humour is gentle but it does have a positive message about living for the moment and the important of positive thinking. Diana Lynn plays the love interest, a nurse engaged to a doctor who is romanced by Stewart. Jose Ferrer played this on Broadway; it was adapted into a Mr Belvedere movie.

Radio review – TGA – “The Importance of Being Earnest” (1947) ***1/2

It’s always a pleasure to renew an acquaintance with this classic comedy of matters (“a perfect curate’s egg of a play” as I think Noel Coward once described it). Full of lovely lines and fine characterisations – even if it’s resolved by a very convenient deux ex machina in the form of the revelation about Jack’s parentage. Like Wilde’s other comedies, it skewers hypocrisy but not as blatantly as them. It’s performed by John Gielgud and his company – he’s the only one who gets top billing (he plays Jack) but the cast include Pamela Brown (Gwendolyn) and Margaret Rutherford (Lady Bracknell, even though she played Miss Prism in the movie version). Some random observations – I never appreciated before how Algy is always stuffing his face full of food.

Movie review – “The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel” (1937) **

Unnecessary sequel, presumably made to make some easy cash and launch some new talent for Alex Korda, which it didn’t – unless you count a young James Mason, who plays a revolutionary. Some guy called Hans Schwartz directed and some actors called Barry Barnes and Sophie Stewart co-star. 

 

The plot has the Pimpernel’s pregnant wife get enticed to France, forcing the Pimpernel to go after him.

The whole story feels tired. None of the key actors have any charisma – Sir Percy, Chauvelin, or Lady Blakeney – and the supporting cast don’t come to the rescue. Lady Blakeney knows about her husband’s deception, so a massive source of tension from the first film is missing, there isn’t enough action and some of the escapes are downright silly (eg at the ending when Sir Percy is saved by a French mob). Chavelin is more of a joke than a genuine threat, too. 

 

There are some bright spots, such as a cricket game at the beginning and cameos from actors playing the Prince of Wales and Sheridan the playwright.

Movie review – “Things to Come” (1936) ***

A remarkable film; I wouldn’t go far as to call it a masterpiece but it’s endlessly fascinating. The sheer fact it was made, and on such a large scale, still strikes me as incredible, and Alex Korda deserves all the praise he received in his career for gambling on it. But then he always liked to gamble on major league talent – Charles Laughton, Robert Flaherty, and in this case HG Wells.

The opening sequences are incredibly eerie – Everytown in 1940, which falls victim to a catastrophic World War. I got chills watching it, especially the devastation, the impact of gas, the moving scene where Raymond Massey tries to help the life of a pilot he's shot down, the spread of infection. The bulk of the film’s action – about an hour – concerns the post-war world, with the rise of a dictator (Ralph Richardson) by shooting infecting people. This was all too believable… but his defeat at the hands of some super duper aeroplane flyers (led by Raymond Massey) which wasn’t. Massey and company have a civilisation devoted to progress and hygiene which looks pretty good after all the war. Then there's a last half hour set in the future where they are trying to fly to the moon by Cedric Hardwicke leads a sort of luddite revolt.

Plenty of ideas floating around here and it's possible to watch the film and not believe it completely endorses Massey's point of view (especially as he comes across as such a fanatic). Stunning special effects and production design. The episodic narrative and shoddy acting (in places) make you wonder why Korda thought it could make money? But it has become a sort of semi classic. Needs to be seen to be believed.

Radio review – Suspense – “The Swift Rise of Eddie Albright” (1947) **

Phil Silvers is an elevator operator determined to impress a trashy girl; he gets his chance when he crosses with some gangsters trying to dispose of a corpse in the basement. Silvers is fine and the relationship between his character and an old gangster who regrets his way of life is surprisingly moving – more could have been made of it. It’s not really a comedy but it’s a lighter edition of Suspense.

Play review – “Child’s Play” by Robert Marasco

Terrific thriller set at a Catholic all-boys school, which are inherently creepy environments. The kids at this one are becoming increasingly violent towards one another. Two rival teachers may have something to do with it – one is an old geezer who likes to think he gets along with everyone despite actually being full of hate, the other is a strict disciplinarian hated by the students. A young gym teacher, a former student, gets torn between them.

This is a play of atmosphere and increasing unease as opposed to gore talks of something going wrong, sudden outbursts of violence (a kid loses an eye), climaxing in a suicide. It’s really good – and is a shame Marasco didn’t kick on to more of a career. (He had no more plays produced, wrote some novels, the best known of which was Burnt Offering. He died when only 62 years old.)

Script review – “Sea Dragon of Loch Ness” (1979) by John Sayles

Despite Sayles' success around this time writing genre movies, it's not hard to see why this wasn't made - it's too expensive, with lots of location shooting in Scotland, and underwater sequences, many of which involve a sub. It's a shame though, because this is a pretty good script. 

Underwater oil drilling has woken up Nessie and she (or he) is not happy. Although Nessie is a tough piece of work, not to be messed with, she's not as bad as the creatures in Alligator or Piranha - indeed, she's allowed to live at the end. Like those other two movies, the heroes are an elder man and a younger woman who become romantically involved - he's into subs, she's into dangerous marine animals. The man also has a wise-cracking tough-talking kid who joins in on the adventures. And there's a rich Scottish lord who's financing the goodies.

Typical of Sayles scripts the story is worked out logically and thoroughly - it's simple but effective, there is good dialogue and decent characters. He also uses research well - the subs, Loch Ness, the oil industry - and the leftist politics are integrated skillfully rather than shoved down the throat. Good fun.

Play review – “Lady in Danger” by Max Afford

A rare Australian play to enjoy a run on Broadway, even if it was a very short one. Unlike other works from Australian playwrights like Oscar Asche and Alec Coppel, this hit Broadway direct from the Australian stage. It had been produced by the Independent Theatre in 1942 before being mounted by JC Williamsons.

It's a fun, solid little mystery about a married couple living in London; the husband is a journalist whose been blackballed because of offending a well-connected politician, the wife is writing a mystery novel. When the politician turns up dead they are drawn into the mystery. Other characters include the doctor next door, an alcoholic journalist (here alcoholism is treated for laughs) and his sophisticated wife, some cops and a Nazi killer. There are some funny lines and the story works pretty well.

In 1942 a story about a woman uncovering a nest of Nazi sympathisers probably would have had a lot more freshness - most Hollywood films in that year had that as a subplot. But by 1944 it had become old hat which might be why the story didn't take. (I would have thought it could have been turned into a good B movie but no, alas).

Movie review – “Fire Over England” (1937) ***

George MacDonald Fraser writes insightfully about this film in his Hollywood History of the World, discussing it with The Sea Hawk. Like that film it stars Flora Robson as Queen Elizabeth I, fighting to battle for England’s independence against Spain, who are getting increasingly annoyed at attacks from English privateers such as Francis Drake. She also flirts with a handsome young buck (here Laurence Olivier), who has romantic shenanigans amidst his duelling and ferreting out of traitors.

Story-wise this has some problems - it doesn't really make sense they'd risk sending Laurence Olivier back to Spain as a spy when he's lived with a family there for months, and there's a great risk he'd be recognised by them. 

 

The film also can't seem to make up it's mind who the female love interest is - beautiful Vivien Leigh is on hand as the girl waiting for Larry back home in England, but she's a nagging bitch. He seems to have more of a connection with a beautiful Spanish girl (Tamara Desni) who falls in love with him. This is certainly more dramatically interesting - but he winds up with Leigh. 

 

The final attack on the Armada also feels tacked on - the story feels over when Olivier arrives with the traitor's name. (These are all things that were fixed up in The Sea Hawk, which was like a semi remake - they made the film about one person, i.e. Errol Flynn, instead of splitting focus, the dramatic line was clearer, he romanced a Spanish girl, there's no final Armada battle, it ends with the Queen's speech).

 

Oliver is handsome and dashing and all that but overacts at times, particularly when his character gets all upset. Still, the good things outweigh the bad. Like most big budget Alex Korda productions, it looks wonderful. Robson is superb as Queen Bess, and has plenty of queenly moments, and Raymond Massey's Phillip is a worthy (and not completely unsympathetic) opponent. 

 

There is also lots of action and a strong support cast, including Leslie Banks (his blandness works for him for a change, playing the Earl of Leicester, a noble who's been in love with the Queen forever), a young James Mason (as the traitor whose place Olivier takes) and a young Robert Newton. Some fun moments too like when Flora Robson slaps Vivien Leigh. and Laurence Olivier sings not once but twice!

TV review – “Law and Order – Season 12” (2001-2002) ***1/2

A new assistant DA, Elizabeth Rohm, is just sort of dropped into the show without any sort of introduction. She’s not very good to start off with, having this irritating flat voice, but around episode 12 she gets a great story where she has to go into a hostage negotiation, and later gets in career trouble for it, and I started warming to her. It’s actually better knowing in hindsight her character’s a lesbian as you can read all this subtext into the scenes which the writers and actor were probably unaware of at the time. (Something proved in an episode that season about a lesbian girl – this isn’t written or played as if the character is gay at all. Maybe she only came out after the episode.)

Along with the regular jealous spouses and greedy kids, there’s the typical mixture of odd stories that you wouldn’t believe unless they were based on true stories: a vicious killer dog, the P-Daddy and J-Lo case, the Robert Blake case, environmental terrorists, re-birthing. The internet is a big novelty here: email and worms and disk fragmentation. September 11’s influence is felt, too – there’s often concern about governments having big powers. (Although they don’t do an out-and-out terrorism story until the series finale.) And again there’s a story where one of our main characters (in this case Van Bruren) meets a well trusted old friend who’s never been mentioned before who turns out to be crooked.

Guest cast includes Gary Busey (washed up singer), a very young Gennifer Godwin (as one of the fifty worders at the beginning – great to see someone who played this role kicked on with a career), Frank Whaley, Ted from How I Met Your Mother, and William Atherton - not really a star-studded line-up. Diane Wiest is great - having a more liberal DA really helps in conflict with Jack McCoy. Unfortunately it was her last season.

Movie review – “Elephant Boy” (1937) **1/2

Robert Flaherty spent a year in India shooting location footage and discovering Sabu the elephant boy, before Alex Korda turned the taps off and had the rest of the film completed back in England in studios with director brother Zoltan. The result was a big hit, chiefly because of the location footage and Sabu’s performance – but would it have been without the nuts and bolts narrative imposed in London. Yes it’s creaky and weak but try imagining the film without it. At least there's some sort of story.

Sabu’s performance remains a marvel – cheeky, natural, sympathetic, touching (especially when his father dies, killed by a tiger), likeable… It’s no wonder he became a sensation. The rest of the performances are okay at best, particularly from the English officer who leads the elephant hunt that makes up the “plot” of the movie. (I kept expecting him to be the baddie but he’s very sympathetic; the villain is an Indian hunter.) The elephant actors are very good.

Radio review - Lux - "Showboat" (1952) ***1/2

Because radio is such an intimate medium, adaptations of musicals don't always work, especially when they're loud, like Showboat. Still, it's interesting to listen to, particularly as many of the cast from the MGM film version repeat their performances: Howard Keel (he's very loud for radio), Kathryn Grayson, William Warfield, Ava Gardner (do they actually use her voice here as she sings? She sounds fine), Marge and Gower Champion (I don't know why they bothered having these two, actually, as we can't see them dance - they do sing a song but it's not the same). Famous tunes, 'Ole Man River' and 'Can't Help Lovin' that Man' make an appearance, among others, meaning the story is cut right to the bone, but it works well enough. Producer Arthur Freed appears at the end to talk a bit about the movie.

Movie review – “King Solomon’s Mines” (1937) ***

Solid version of the classic adventure novel, a lot more faithful and, to my eyes at least, better than the 1950 MGM version. Sir Cedric Hardwicke’s Quatermain is much closer to Haggard’s inception of the character, being small, old and wizened. Spunk-rat duties are taken by John Loder, who plays Sir Henry Curtis, and comic relief comes from Roland Young as Good – both good facsimiles for the description in the novel. There’s also Paul Robeson on hand as Umbopa, and he’s terrific – charismatic, strong and brave. A wise savage to be sure, but it’s a lot better than the one he plays in Sanders of the River; the white men here are his allies, but not his superiors – he’s the boss. He sings a few songs, naturally.

The story has been jazzed up and unnecessarily complicated. Instead of simply looking for Curtis’ brother, they add Anna Lee and her father as some Irish fortune hunters; the dad finds the map and heaps off, and Lee eventually persuades Quatermain and the others (who are on a hunting expedition) to follow. Unlike the MGM version - and like the book - the trek doesn't take up that much time, about half; the rest of it consists of adventures around the mines, helping Umbopa get his kingdom back and discovering the diamonds. It's a solid version rather than spectacular (it does lack star charisma aside from Robeson and the Irish accents are irritating), but very enjoyable.

Theatre review – “Much Ado About Nothing” (2010) dir John Bell

It’s one of my favourite Shakespeare’s an it receives a joyous, spirited production – well, could you do it any other way. I wasn’t sure exactly when it was set – 50s Italy I’m assuming, with the men coming back from… Korea? (I saw a version at NIDA set after the Boer War). I don’t think John Bell is the best director in the world, the production was full of dumb ideas – Don John is too much of a joke (played like Mr Bean), having actors play shuttlecock during the middle of the scene, a song is meant to be bad but clearly it’s good, etc. But none of them damage the piece or some fine actors.

Movie review – “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (1934) ***1/2

The film that helped make Hitchcock Hitchcock. True, he’d made thrillers before – notably The Lodger – but not exclusively so. This ushered in his first great string of masterpieces – it also saw the beginning of him being typecast. It’s still a bit creaky in parts and features one of Hitchcock’s least dynamic heroes in Leslie Banks (this is the third film I’ve seen recently with Banks which would have been better had someone other than him be cast in his role – the others were The Most Dangerous Game, Sanders of the River). Edna Best isn’t much either as his wife, although she at least has a more interesting character, a sharpshooter perhaps bored with her husband (she’s very keen to flirt with other men when they’re on holiday at the beginning). Nova Pilbeam is good, though, as their daughter who is kidnapped, and Peter Lorre is memorable as the head of the baddies – in fact, almost all the baddies are good, especially the women.

Full of terrific bits: the underlying fractures of the married couple (her flirting); the initial assassination (a comic sequence- playing a joke on the foreigner with the wool, which turns life and death); the train set; the fight at the dentist; the Sun worshippers who are agents; the fight in the meeting hall with throwing chairs (with Banks smoking as he does so); the assassination attempt at Albert Hall; the cheerful copper talking about overtime before he’s killed; another copper casually getting into shooting position before he is killed; the final shoot out (Lorre smoking too – a lot of smoking in this movie); Lorre’s expression as his female friend dies; Best coolly shooting the baddy about to kill her daughter; the final shot of emotionally devastated Pilbeam being reunited with her mother, looking like a mess.

Movie review – “Devil” (2010) **1/2

Entertaining enough thriller although you can’t help feeling it’d be better if they’d had the guts to really set this all in an elevator with five people. There was certainly enough characters and suspense, plus a death every 15 minutes or so to keep things lively. We would have gotten to know the characters better, and it would have been a lot spookier – especially not knowing what really was going on in the outside world, only hearing it through the intercom and from noises outside. Instead they keep cutting away to stuff outside. Decent acting; the direction is so-so. The story was provided by M Night Shamalan and like a lot of his work it’s extremely religious – in this case with a very Catholic bent.

Movie review – “Monsters” (2010) *** (warning: spoilers)

Enjoyable low budget sci-fi flick, all the better for being matter-of-fact about the world within which it’s set: alien creatures have landed on earth and they’ve created an “infected” zone, where they are cordoned off. The film doesn’t explain why, if the creatures are a genuine threat, they aren’t simply wiped out by humans. The fact they don’t is one they pay for. I don’t know why some viewers believe the ending shows that humans are the real monsters. Get stuffed – the aliens are. Even if they are nice to one another, so what – they’re a threat to the human race. (There’s this section of movie reviewers who are always taking the side against humans when watching science fiction movies.)

There’s not an awful amount of story – it’s mostly a trek with strong atmosphere, decent enough acting and great production design from filming in Mexico. The ending/beginning twist is clever, although it’s not absolutely clear whether the leads survive or not. I had to do some digging on the net – the writer-director thinks they were killed but admits its open to interpretation.

Radio review – Suspense – “The Story of Markham’s Death” (1947) ****

Excellent episode with Kirk Douglas giving a good performance (even though he doesn’t have the deepest voice) as a writer threatened by writer’s block. He heads to England and discovers a long-lost manuscript from Edgar Allan Poe which revives his career – and turns him into a murderer. It’s a terrific idea and is well played out, ending with Douglas about to be executed (a favourite finish of Suspense scripts). I’m surprised Steven King didn’t do a version of this script it’s right up his alley, being about a tormented writer, and his feelings towards a great, dead writer.

Radio review – Suspense – “The Argyle Album” (1947) ***

Edmond O’Brien – then during his brief, odd reign as a leading man (I think people enjoyed tubby tough guys after the war) – is perfectly cast as a reporter who investigates the death of another reporter, a big time columnist… and the photographer who was left with the dead reporter. This leads him to uncovering a bunch of war profiteers and fifth columnists – perhaps a bit late in the day for this sort of plot but it’s effective enough. This was turned into a movie, The Argyle Album, by director Cy Endfield. It was also previously recorded by Suspense with Robert Taylor.

Movie review – “Rembrandt” (1936) ***

Alex Korda was many things – a spendthrift, conman, rogue – but he adored great art, as displayed in this labour of love production. It gives Charles Laughton one of his best roles, as the legendary painter whose life was unfortunately not that interesting. It follows The Private Life of Henry VIII pattern by concentrating on the wives – as in that earlier film we don’t see the first wife (she’s dead when the movie begins) but we meet number two and three. Two is played by Gertrude Lawrence - a famous stage star and legendary charmer, but here shrewish and not very good looking. It doesn't help her that she plays a bitch. A lot nicer is wife three, played by Elsa Lancaster, in another great role for her. She and Rembrandt have a child out of wedlock which is a bit racy - but not racy enough to make this great fun. It's far too sensibly and sensitively treated.

There are plenty of good moments and scenes: Elsa dying as she's being painted (I didn't quite buy this reality-wise but it was effective), young painters teasing Rembrandt without knowing who he is, Rembrandt bonding with a beggar (Roger Livesey), the subjects of Night Watch whingeing that they're not all in the painting. It also looks like a dream - stunningly shot and designed - with some marvellous acting. But it remains more a collection of moments and good performers rather than a cohesive whole.

Movie review – “The Kid Stakes” (1927) ***1/2

Utterly charming kids’ movie, which ranks with The Sentimental Bloke and For the Term of His Natural Life as one of the finest Australian silent films (and still one of the best movies for children we’ve ever made). It’s the Fatty Finn story, the plot involving Fatty’s determination to win a goat race. He tries to put his goat in isolation, but his enemy lets it out, and there’s a 15 minute sequence without Fatty where we follow the goat on a path of destruction in a rich person’s a house. The climax is an exciting goat race.

Plenty of memorable moments: a cricket match (the titles refer to McCartney and Gregory); the rich kid who the gang call a sissy but actually turns out to be a good fighter; the goat being parachuted out of a plane (it’s silly, sure, but I couldn’t help laughing); the bookies working the final race; Fatty kissing the tall girl; the look of Woolloomoolloo of the time (friendly cops, street cricket games, shop keepers, the rich at Potts Point); the final race.

The kid actors are terrific – a worthy tribute to Tal Ordell, a major theatre and radio actor and writer who only directed one feature. His own son plays Fatty; he died as a pilot in World War Two. Beautifully shot by Arthur Higgins.

Radio review – TGA – “The Great Adventure” (1947) **1/2

By this stage I’ve developed a hostility towards the Lunts, they just get on my nerves, but they weren’t too insufferable in this story. He plays a famous painter who decides to fake his own death (it starts out as a misunderstanding but he goes along with it – like The Private Life of Don Juan), taking over the identity of his former man servant. He falls for a widow (Lynne), only troubles arise when the man servant’s ex-wife turns up and he gets involved in a fraud case involving the painting. This sort of impersonating story almost always works because the structure is inherently strong – act one setup and start the impersonation; act two become attracted to other people in your new life, have stakes from lying; act three have someone from the past comes in to complicate things.

TV review – “The Tudors – Season 3” (2009) ****

The through-line of season one was Wolsey, season two was Anne, this one is Cromwell. It covers the queenships of Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleeves. They try to boost Jane Seymour by making her something of an early feminist, which was a noble attempt but Jane Seymour depictions never seem to get the blood racing – she’s always overshadowed by the other wives. Also to much time is spent during this section on the Pigrammage of Grace and it’s dull leader Mr Aske – I think to give Henry Cavill something to do (mostly guilty brooding). But it overstays it's welcome by an episode.

In the second half, though, things really pick up, with better drama such as the persecution of Cardinal Poe's family, and the travails of Cromwell. Cromwell becomes a great character - a crawler, consummate politician, ruthless and unpopular, but also devoted family man, loyal to the king, emphatic in his belief the reformation is needed, touching in his final defeat and speech before execution (the executioner botches it, poor guy - but then you live by the sword you die by it).

Henry VIII also has more to do, going increasingly mad – I love the scene with him and his court jester (I looked this up, it was true). Anne of Cleeves is touchingly out of her depth with Henry (she’s effectively played by Joss Stone – who’s quite pretty – it’s made clear the poor thing just wasn’t Henry VIII’s cup of tea).

Princess Mary is very sympathetically depicted – alone, scared, hungry for love, wanting a good looking boyfriend, but also determined to hold on to her principles, very aware of her father’s flaws; you see enough steel in her eyes to see how she could evolve into Bloody Mary (why no season 5? This lot could have done it brilliantly)

There’s comedy too, such as Henry VIII chucking a tantrum on meeting Anne of Cleves and then being enamoured of Katherine Howard, who here is depicted as an extremely stupid nympho. I did laugh at the initial appearance of Sir Francis in the credits – with his eye patch and glowering it was almost as if the words “this is our new bad boy to titillate the ladies” flashed across screen – but he turns out to be an effective character, ruthless and scary. Excellent series.

Radio review – “The Shadow of Dr Fu Manchu” (1939) **

A 15 minute radio serial that went for a number of episodes. I listened to a bunch but not the whole lot - or I may well have because many of the stories were repetitive. Most of the action concerns Dr Petrie and Neyland Smith, who are a sort of buddy act, always being captured and locked up or having Fu Manchu’s assassins try to kill them. Plenty of hidden trapdoors and implements of death, plus clipped accents, brisk pace and the racism of the time (eg comments about "oriental devil"). Fu Manchu hardly appears, but there's a big role for Karamaneh, the slave girl of Fu Manchu who was actually a goodie. Apparently Gale Gordon (from all those Lucille Ball sitcoms) played Dr Petrie!

Movie review – “The Scarlet Pimpernel” (1934) ***

Korda had a few flops after The Private Life of Henry VIII but this was a solid hit, later inspiring a sequel and a remake. It gave Leslie Howard one of his best roles, perhaps his best (although that is saying something considering his career). He was perfectly cast as the adventurer who pretends to be a fop; it mirrors his real life adventures, where the seemingly dreamy, sensitive soul was also a war hero, great womaniser and brilliant businessman, the stereotypical Englishman who was really a Hungarian Jew, etc, etc.

It’s not a love letter to the aristocracy – the English upper classes are full of pompous, blustering clowns (who better to depict that than Nigel Bruce and Melville Cooper), the excesses of the French nobles are duly noted. Also the revolutionaries are imposing antagonists – smart, ruthless.

Merle Oberon is stunning (check out that low cut gown) and Raymond Massey a superb, scowling villain. There is some funny comedy (eg “how the French speak that devilish language of theirs I’ll never know”) although to be honest the piece could have done with some more action. At times it feels very much like an adaptation of a stage play.

Radio review – Lux – “Slightly Dangerous” (1943) **

Proof they made just as many lame rom-coms back in the 1940s. Lana Turner normally specialised in playing glamour-pusses but here she’s in a role that Ginger Rogers would specialise in – to wit, a bored small town girl dreaming of something more. (She’s a soda jerk – perhaps a nod to how Turner was discovered.) So she fakes suicide, which is a bit full on, and winds up in the big city pretending to be a rich man’s daughter, which isn’t terribly believable. Still, like today’s junky rom coms it can pass the time if you’re in the mood. Victor Mature plays her small town boss who pursues her to the city thinking she’s going to kill herself – then drags her away by claiming to be her husband. Charming. There’s a section where he or Turner must have pulled a face or something because the audience goes into hysterics. Without her beauty and just her voice Turner is a 80% less effective performer. Mature is accomplished in a handsome-male-prop part, a sort he played surprisingly often.

Radio review – Lux – “I Confess” (1953) ***

Opinion seems to be divided on this Hitchcock film – it certainly has one of his most passive protagonists ever, a priest who hears a confession for a murder… of which he finds himself subsequently on trial. It’s a contrived situation but it’s quite enjoyable to listen to, and courtroom/confessional dramas adapt well to radio. Cary Grant steps in for Montgomery Clift in what is a lousy role, really – spending the whole story going “sorry can’t say anything” until the killer goes conveniently crackers at the end. Grant's fine but there's not much anyone can do with that role - at least Clift got close ups with which to brood and angst. Phyllis Thaxter plays the girl.

Radio review – Lux – “Ruggles of Red Gap” (1939) ***1/2

Charming comedy from Leo McCarey at his peak before he turned into a foaming anti-Communist and features one of Charles Laughton’s best performances as the butler who’s transferred to a family out west (Washington state in 1908) and decides to liberate himself. Decent fish out of water comedy moments and a famous one where Laughton recites the Gettysburg address. There’s a good villain in the snobby American. It does seem to end at the finale of Act two, although there’s an extra bit where Ruggles sets up his restaurant and is visited by his old boss. Charles Ruggles and Zasu Pitts lend support.

Radio review – TGA – “Pride and Prejudice” (1945) **1/2

Joan Fontaine isn’t particularly well cast as Elizabeth Bennett and the other lesser known actors seem undercast. An average production of the famous novel, with inevitable trims (i.e. no Darcy’s sister) and it passes the time well enough. My mind drifted listening to it – I started imagining if it could be adapted to the old West. John Wayne as Mr Darcy, Maureen O’Hara as Elizabeth Bennett, an array of character actors in support… It would have been fun.

Radio review – Suspense – “End of the Road” (1947) **

Glenn Ford in tough film noir mode plays a car salesman who falls for a married woman at which point I was assuming it’d be a Double Indemnity rip-off but then it takes this detour – the woman seems to kill her husband so he investigates her past. She’s not keen on it so he slaps her around – charming. The woman says “she hates men, all men” which could have been an interesting character, but not here. The finale is a shootout where the woman and her husband wind up conveniently dead. Ford has a decent voice.

Movie review – “Sanders of the River” (1935) **

The first of Korda’s imperial epics, which has become something of a by-word for racist imperialist cinema (certainly in a way that The Drum or The Four Feathers didn’t). It’s certainly paternalistic: Sanders (as played by the uncharismatic Leslie Banks) is a smug civil servant working away in Nigeria. He’s called “Lord” by the much more charismatic Paul Robeson, whom Sanders rewards by making chief.

What makes the imperialism of this even worse is Banks’ Sanders is so dour, humourless and anal. He doesn’t have any spark or romance or humour. My favourite bit is when the natives revolt and Sanders’ boss asks him to help when he’s on leave in England, and he says “sorry I’m on leave – can’t do it. Not fair to my fiancée.” What a public servant. He only agrees to help when he finds out his fiancee’s brother’s life is in danger. And even then he promptly gets sick with malaria and lies on his back, only getting up out of bed to help Robeson rescue his kidnapped wife. And then when he does save the day he’s not that brave, he just rocks up with a boat that has a Maxim gun blazing away. He then appoints his puppet king (Robeson) to rule in his absence.

Paul Robeson was embarrassed by his involvement in this later, something not hard to understand. He says they changed the script on him – but I can’t imagine any version of this being non-insulting to black people. (At the end of the film Robeson says he’s learned the secret of ruling from Sanders to be loved rather than feared; Sanders says that’s the secret of the British. But he just did it with the maxim gun!) Utterly fascinating, with a strong performance from Robeson, some great art design and decent location footage incorporated. Lots of singing, not just from Robeson but also Nina Mae McKinney who plays his wife. Jomo Kenyatta is one of the extras.

Movie review – “The Private Life of Don Juan” (1934) **

The Private Life of Henry VIII team – Alex Korda, Vincent Korda, Lasjos Biro, Arthur Wimpres (credited for writing “lyrics”), Merle Oberon, Binnie Barnes – reunited in another “private life”, with Douglas Fairbanks joining the gang in the title role. But like The Rise of Catherine the Great, it doesn’t make the grade, despite some fine work in other departments. We knew who Henry VIII was, and were very familiar with his history, so they could have a lot of fun with a particular take on him. Don Juan is fictional, and his adventures aren’t that well known apart from being a great lover.

The basic plot has people think Don Juan’s dead after an imposter is killed so he decides to keep up it to take a holiday. He sees his reputation soar but when he comes back and tries his old schtick it doesn’t work. That’s not really much of a premise – the film badly lacks a baddy or more conflict. Or even decent gags – it’s kind of a one-note samba: Don Juan has this big reputation but is actually getting old. It needed more sex, humour and life. (Did the censor cut it’s balls off?)

It looks gorgeous, though – the sets and costumes are stunning, and there are some really good looking women, such as Oberon and Benita Hume (Mrs Ronald Colman and George Sanders, who plays Mrs Don Juan). Fairbanks is pretty good in the lead; he was apparently afraid of aging in real life so this gives his casting some poignancy.

Movie review – “The Sheik” (1921) **1/2

Old-fashioned, racist, romantic schlock which remains Rudolph Valentino’s best known role and one of the best remembered silent films of them all. Audiences made fun of it even at the time but they also turned up in large numbers. It has a simple, solid story which must have ticked wish fulfilment boxes for many women in the audience; there’s also lots of action, strong production design (palm trees, oasis, dunes, horses galloping over dunes, tents, belly dancing), and a charismatic performance from Valentino, who is very effective.

The heroine is a modern flapper, Diana (Agnes Ayres) who says things like, “Marriage is captivity – the end of independence. I’m content with my life as it is.” On a lark, she goes on a one-month trek through the desert and is kidnapped by Valentino. “I am not accustomed to having my orders disobeyed,” he says. “I am not accustomed to obeying orders,” she says. “That will change”. Etc. etc.

He doesn’t rape her, but he looks as though he wants to and is going to until he sees her praying for it not to happen. Adolphe Menjou rocks up as an old friend of Rudy’s (did Menjou ever look young?) – he persuades the Sheik to let the woman go back to her people. While she’s writing “Ahmed I Love You” in the sand (I’m not kidding) some bad Arabs attack – Menjou and Diana blow some away with their pistols but run out of ammo. She asks Menjou to shoot her so she won’t fall into their hands but before he can he’s shot. She’s taken away to Bad Arab land and the Bad Arab wants to rape her but Rudy saves the day. And the eleventh hour twist… he’s European, not Arab after all, so they can get married! Hooray!

Codswallop, but not un-entertaining. Definitely fascinating.

Movie review – “Freedom Ride” (1956) **

Odd film – a drama paid for by Greyhound Buses in order to promote coach travel. In under an hour it tells the stories of a couple of people travelling across the country: a woman (Angie Dickinson!) is on her way to New York to visit her fiancée but falls in love rather quickly with a meant-to-be-charming-but-actually-sleazy former football player; a young boy (Tommy Kirk, the perfect Eisenhower adolescent) is on his way to a Scout Jamborree; a grumpy old man is on his way to get the medal of honor for his dead son – he’s bitter about it, so there’s this sort of ghost character who appears to convert him to the importance of sacrifice. He also helps Dickinson to dump her fiancée. Nice guy!

As they travel, there are cutaways to historical events that happened where they’re driving past – fighting off Indians, the fire of Michigan, pirates in Key West (they actually don’t drive through Key West, just talk about it), the signing of the declaration of independence, the Gettysburg address. It’s all very sober, industrious and crew cut – when the grumpy old guy criticises war, the football player asks him if he loves his country. But the old guy comes around at the end. Dickinson and Kirk look so young; Kirk is really good, fresh faced and believably aw-gee-whiz-look-at-the-Golden-Gate-bridge - you can see why he got so much work.

Movie review – “The Caddy” (1953) **1/2

There were no bigger stars in the early 50s than Martin and Lewis – they dominated film, TV, nightclubs and radio, prompting mass crowds when they appeared. This film has footage of some hysteria that took place when they stayed at a hotel, early Beatlemania (Martinlewismania?). It stars Martin and Lewis as versions of Martin and Lewis and we flash back to how these two met – Lewis was the son of a golfer, Martin a fisherman. Lewis becomes Martin’s caddy and Martin becomes a champion golfer… so they wind up in show business.

Yep, it’s not much of a story, really: Martin sort-of gets a big head but not for long; Lewis encounters some snobbery but not much; Martin romances Donna Reed (very fetching in some low-cut lingere-type tops), and for about two seconds she thinks Martin has a wife (when actually it’s his sister, Lewis’ fiancé). 

Most of the running time consists of set comedy pieces (normally Lewis pretending to be someone) and nightclub act performances. Some highlights: Martin (who looks terrific here) sings “That’s Amore’, Martin and Lewis appear as themselves at the end, Ben Hogan makes a cameo, a very strong support cast including Fred Clark, and Joseph Calleia.

Radio review – TG – “Allegro” (1951) **1/2

Oscar and Hammerstein’s follow up to Oklahoma and Carousel was, if not a flop, then an under-performer at the box office. It’s not hard to see why – the book is very dull and the songs are unmemorable. It’s about a young doctor who is torn between wanting to do decent work and making lots of money. There’s a woman he marries who wants him to make money rather than Do the Right Thing. Didn’t Sidney Howard write this as Men in White? (Isn't every soapy treatment of doctors about this?) Apparently Oscar Hammerstein was inspired by his town torment as an artist – gee, poor Oscar. 

 

There’s some good moments, like when the doctor reads a file and finds out his wife has been cheating on him, and one good song. The rest was either boring and/or unmemorable. John Lund and Jane Powell play lead roles.

Movie review – “The Rise of Catherine the Great” (1934) **

Following the success of The Private Life of Henry VIII, it’s no surprise Alex Korda tried to make lightning strike twice, so we had private lives of Don Juan, Catherine the Great and Rembrant – but none of these matched the success of the earlier film. Catherine, like Henry, was as famous for her personal life as anything else she did but this film lacks Henry VIII’s vision. Henry VIII was an irreverent, lively film that centered around his different wives (ambitious, stupid, ugly, pretty and stupid, nagging). This doesn’t have a similar focus.

Elisabeth Berger’s Catherine starts as a shy noblewoman who marries the womanising wastrel Peter (Douglas Fairbanks Jnr). She tries to arouse his interest by dressing up in male drag and saying she’s had lots of lovers – but she’s only pretending to get his interest, which is cheating. For a moment they get along, but he goes progressively insane and eventually he’s overthrown – although Elizabeth hangs back for a lot of it, which makes her passive.

Why make a film about Catherine the Great if you didn’t want to tackle her having lovers? Or make fun of the sexual peccadilloes of the Russian aristocracy? What’s the point? Certainly I don't think audiences have the same affection for her they did for Henry VIII. (Why didn't Korda do The Private Life of Charles II?) So for most of the time this is flat, even if the sets and costumes are impressive, and Fairbanks delivers a strong performance. Berger’s Catherine isn’t for all tastes – certainly not mine. Flora Robson is terrific as Empress Elisabeth, though.

Script review – “Major League” by David Ward

Sweet, fun movie (if a little sexist) which has remained enormously popular over the years – just as girls like to re-watch Sex and the City and Clueless, and kids like to re-watch Lion King, guys like to re-watch this. It’s almost the perfect inspirational sports movie comedy: the basic plot involves the showgirl widow of a millionaire who inherits the Cleveland Indians; she’s determined to make her team lose so she can move to Miami so deliberately starves the team of funds and hires crappy players. They include a washed up veteran, a high-priced show pony, a flashy smooth-talking black dude, a prisoner.

In the script it’s later revealed the woman is a goodie who only pretended to be a bitch in order to inspire the team – but this reads untrue and doesn’t make any sense; they shot the scenes as written but test screenings found they preferred the woman as a villain so some reshoots were done. This was the right move. Why have her turn out to be nice?

There’s plenty of subplots: the flashy black dude tries to prove himself, the washed up veteran tries for a comeback and to reunite with his ex wife (only if he cheated before he’s going to cheat again), a rivalry between the gaolbird and the high flyer. And it leads up to a fun, inspiring climax. Not original by any means but this sort of film is hard to pull off, as imitators have found.

Movie review – “Robbery Under Arms” (1920) *1/2

Maybe the one star is unfair considering the year it was made and the fact it was Australian but this is still a bit of a slog, even under an hour. Bushranger films were the most popular genre during the early years of the Aussie industry, but the NSW government banned them in 1912. This one seemed to skirt around it somehow – presumably due to its highly moralistic tone. Mind you, that’s not inconsistent with the novel, where the robbing Marston brothers don’t commit that many crimes but spend forever regretting it. Also consistent is the sympathetic depiction of Captain Starlight – dashing, romantic, a gentlemen, a caring lover – and a better father figure than the Marston brothers’ real dad. He’s the one who encourages his boys to go into crime; they go a big cattle duff, then head to Melbourne and romance two sisters. They wind up on the gold fields but are unable to go straight. They’re betrayed by the bitchy Kate and are imprisoned; Starlight is killed but both sons are allowed to live (in the novel only one makes it), and go on to marry their sweethearts. Starlight’s girlfriend becomes a nun. Awww…

It was written and directed by stage actor Kenneth Brampton, who also plays Starlight. It’s not particularly well made – Brampton doesn’t seem to have discovered the close up and shoots in mid shots and long shots (not untypical for directors with a stage background). There is some decent action – horses galloping past, shoot outs – and a lot of arms flinging up to foreheads by the women, false beards from the men, and general emoting. At least Starlight’s sidekick is played by a genuine Aborigine. The cast also includes Roy Redgrave, Michael’s father (who left England after his son’s birth to work in Australia for JC Williamsons and died out here, shortly after this film in fact) – he plays Dick Marton, the rival nasty bushranger (not featured enough here, although apparently he’s in some of the footage that’s missing). And Charles Chauvel also apparently has a small role.