Script review – “Sunshine” by Alex Garland

Garland’s had something of a blessed life as a writer – his first novel was a best seller, then he was lucky enough to hook up with Danny Boyle. But give the main his due – this is a first-rate script, taut, well structured, tough, believable enough (I have no idea whether the science is real or not but I was convinced – except flying through space, even if only for a short while, that I didn’t quite buy). A review of Variety thought it borrowed too liberally from 2010 but it’s not that close to it. Yes there is another ship that they go on board, but there’s another mission here. And the ending is different. This draft has some changes from the final film – there’s a sex scene/romance between Capa and Cassie, the captain has a non-Japanese name, Mace is more heroic here (Capa saves the day more in the movie), the ending is less confusing in the film. Good changes, really. The theme is still the same – when it comes to the survival of the human race, leave it to computers!!

Movie review – “Mad Bastards” (2011) **1/2

Full of authenticity – the great faces, a non professional cast who look like they’ve been through some of the battles that the film depicts (something confirmed at the end when they talk to camera): the burly, beefy man out of gaol, full of torment and anger; the chubby, hard but decent cop (a terrific performance, I hope he gets lots of work); the angry, wild victim of domestic violence; the old codger constantly asking for a cigarette. The outburst of violence are very well handled. But it’s not really effective as a drama – it’s too long, there’s not enough story, too many scenes of staring into the distance, too much undeveloped. For instance, they set up this idea of some aboriginal men having a men's group – but there’s just scenes of them sitting around not talking. (Until the end). Once is funny but it gets frustrating. I think it needed a bit of meat and potatoes story in there – a secret about something that happened in the past, say. Really good music (Alex Lloyd as a cameo – he’s so chubby).

Radio review – BP – “Uncle Harry” (1952) *** (warning: spoilers)

Enjoyable thriller which had been turned into a film starring George Sanders but here has Joseph Silkraut or something or other in the lead. He plays a supposedly kindly man who lives with two pushy sisters (one played by Agnes Moorehead) who is tempted to become a murderer when his former flame rocks up and is about to marry someone else. The flame is a bit of a hussy. He accidentally kills one sister but the other takes the blame. At the end he tries to confess but the sister on death row won’t give him the satisfaction!

Radio review – Suspense – “The Blue Hour” (1947) **1/2

In the 1940s you often saw a plucky heroine get involved in shady dealings – here Claire Trevor plays a showgirl who was associated with a gangster who’s been bumped off. People keep pestering her for what she knows. Not really original – her love interest is a guy called Mahoney - but enjoyable enough and Trevor is always good in these wrong-side-of-the-tracks-but-likeable parts.

Book review – “Sun and Shadow” by Jean-Pierre Aumont

Aumont belongs to that sub-category of movie stars – foreigners who went to Hollywood and usually played second leads in between some interesting marriages. Michael Wilding is another I can think of in this category. Nonetheless, he had a fascinating life and I really enjoyed his memoirs. 

 

Aumont has been blessed by good and bad fortune. He had only been acting for a short time before being picked to act in a play by Jean Cocteau and Louis Jouvet. Good luck. His looks ensured he enjoyed a steady film career as a leading man during the 1930s (good luck), until interrupted by war. (Bad luck) He was on leave visiting his dying mother (bad luck) when his platoon was mostly wiped out (good luck). He managed to get a visa to America from Vichy France, was picked to act in a play with Katherine Cornell (through a French theatre acquaintance) which didn’t go to Broadway, but got him film offers. (Good luck). He signed with MGM, starred in two films (no support roles for him), the most notable of which was The Cross of Lorraine (good luck), then went to fight for the Free French in Africa, Italy and France. Real service too – driving tanks, in amidst running into Marlene Dietrich; he was injured twice. (Good and bad luck)

 

He returned to Hollywood, where his reign as a leading man didn’t last long (very few French accented actors have had a long reign as a star - Charles Boyer, Maurice Chevalier, maybe Louis Jourdan). However he did carve out a decent career as a second lead, in films like Lili and Hilda Crane. He also worked in France and on stage (including Broadway)… and even had a nightclub act (despite the fact he wasn’t the best singer). 

 

Aumont is still perhaps best remembered (in a certain segment of the population, anyway) for his marriage to Maria Montez – the barely had started dating when he proposed, right before he took off for 18 months of service, but they were happy until her tragic early death (an odd one: a heart attack in a hot bath). Montez comes across a bit sketchy in this account - nice, beautiful, eccentric, devoted to her husband and astrologers. Apparently she and Aumont were going to star in Orphee for Jean Cocteau - the mind boggles. (They couldn't get the financing then the next they heard of it he was making it with Jean Marais.) Her death is one of the most moving sections of the book, though. 

 

Aumont later married Marisa Pavan, and was also in the 40s engaged to Hedy Lamarr; he also hints at a romance with Grace Kelly (who was alive when this book came out). His daughter Tina became an actor and was married to Christian Marquand (like Aumont, a French star who played some support roles in Hollywood). 

 

Aumont was probably too good looking to write a really good book – I get the feeling he wasn’t as an accomplished raconteur in the way, say, Michael Caine or David Niven was. He’s a bit up himself at times, constantly referring to the fact that he got better reviews on stage than his female co-stars. 

 

 But there’s lots to enjoy. Particularly strong is a chapter on starring with Vivien Leigh on Broadway, which includes some astute analysis of Leigh’s personality and acting, as well as an account of her breakdown; also performing with Al Pacino on Broadway (apparently Al loved to paraphrase), working with Cocteau, Louis Jouvet, Joan Littlewood (in a play on the Congo Crisis), and Francois Truffaut on Day for Night (he says things like “the problem with real life is it’s so badly directed” – very Truffaut – the director wrote the foreword to this book); the elongated shoot that was Castle Keep. Worth a read.

Movie review – “Song of the Islands” (1942) ***

For an actor best remembered for historical epics and film noir, Victor Mature made a surprisingly large number of musicals. This might have been because early in his career he did a stint on Broadway opposite Gertrude Lawrence in Moss Hart’s Lady in the Dark. So during his career he romanced Esther Williams, Rita Hayworth, Betty Hutton and, here, Betty Grable.

 

Mature looked a little funny when he was younger – he hadn’t grown into his looks, it’s like they’re painted on. But he plays very well with Grable – they saw each other in real life for a while, and they certainly have an easy rapport. Their chemistry is one of the best things about the film.

 

Despite four writers being credited, the story for this is very slight. Grable and Mature are the children of rival landowners in Hawaii. They break up for some reason around the end of the second act – do you reckon they get back together? It’s on par with the level of Elvis Presley movies that came along twenty years later. 

 

But there’s plenty of colourful photography, island settings, songs and dance numbers, wacky natives (ha ha they’re fat ha ha). Mature doesn’t sing fortunately, but Jack Oakie (the comic relief second male lead – the Phil Silvers part) has a number.

Movie review – “Mr Sardonicus” (1961) ***1/2

A rare William Castle period movie – set in the 19th century, it’s about a doctor (Roland Lewis) summoned to the house of his former love (Aubrey Dalton) to work on her disabled rich husband (Guy Rolfe). Rolfe’s part was surely meant for Vincent Price, whose voice might have given this more kick; having said that Rolfe is pretty good. T
he Sardonicus make up is effective and I enjoyed the story – with it’s leech torturing of young girls, creepy graveyards, made up European country setting, Oscar Homolka as a hulking servant, decent twists (eg Sardonicus can’t eat or drink at the end), final shot.
Most of all there’s the appearance of Castle himself at the beginning of the film and towards the end announcing a poll whether Sardonicus has been punished enough – what a producer! Dalton is pretty but her character is a bit unsympathetic – I kept expecting her to be punished, too.

Script review – “Indecent Proposal” by Amy Holden Jones

I read an interview where she talked about her original draft for this. She said the married couple started out more working class, which isn’t the case here (the title of the script says “revision”) – but that the character of Gage the billionaire is tougher, which he is here. He’s more ruthless, wanting Diana (the girl) because he can’t have her. And instead of that silly speech about he once saw a girl and fell in love with her, ripped off Citizen Kane, there’s a much better one about how when he was younger he won at a slot machine and has always gotten everything he ever wanted. And instead of the film ending where Gage lies about how many other women he’s done this to, thereby “allowing” Diana to dump him, Diana just dumps him – Gage watches sadly as she’s reunited with her husband at the end.

Some of the things I remember from the film as being very silly are still here – the husband blowing all his million bucks on an animal (here a hippo when from memory the film had a leopard), the couple trying to gamble their way out of trouble, the husband acting like a spoilt brat. But it still works.

I recall first hearing about this plot that the central idea wasn’t very original – hadn’t it been done already with Honeymoon in Vegas? But I was single at the time and didn’t appreciate in actual fact it’s a terrific concept – because you can’t help wondering what you’d do in that situation. It’s also a perfect Hollywood screenplay: three big star parts, one for a hot girl who gets to wear a series of fantastic outfits, one for an elder male star who wants to be sexy and powerful (although Robert Redford apparently didn’t think he was sympathetic enough, requesting silly script changes), one for a hot young male. Plus a series of glamorous locations and a scene stealing comic relief part, David’s lawyer friend. Plus is gives the message that love is better than money so all the poor people in the audience can go home happy.

The script is solid professional work rather than amazing – the characters aren’t of great depth, but then I guess they’re not supposed to be. It was a shame the part of Gage was neutered so, but then the film was a hit so maybe they were right.

Movie review – “Samson and Delilah” (1949) ***

Samson has always been one of the most popular Bible stories because of it’s two great leading characters (the long haired rebel and a temptress) plus it’s great action sequences (wiping out platoon with a skull, bringing the temple down around them) and the metaphor of cutting here. All that is here in spades in this Cecil B de Mille version, plus some Hollywood embellishment. 

 

Delilah (Hedy Lamarr) is in love with Samson but he prefers her sister (Angela Lansbury in a sexy outfit – it’s weird, like seeing your grandmother show off her midriff when she was young). So she engineers some Philistines to attend their wedding and the wife ends up dead, causing Samson to go on a rampage.

 

The fight with the lion has some very unconvincing moments (not just a fake lion but a too-obvious stand in for Victor Mature) – but some really good ones too, more than I remembered. The smiting of the Philistines with the jaw of an ass is very well done, as is the climactic collapse of the temple. Most of the running time, though, consists of dialogue – specifically long chats between Samson and Delilah. And some of said dialogue is very ripe and apt to induce giggles.

 

Mature is fine – I would have thought he was better than I did if I hadn’t read that Burt Lancaster was offered the role. Lancaster I think would have been terrific, all that intensity and bitterness. Mature wasn’t as good an actor. And his breasts are about the same size as Lamarrs! (Groucho Marx famously quipped that they were bigger.) 

 

Lamarr seems a little old at first when playing the love struck sister but once she switches into temptress mode she’s great. The support cast feels very American – even Lansbury and Herbert Wilcoxon seem like Yanks, plus Russ Tamblyn does as young Saul. The exception is George Sanders who is an excellent villain, full of intelligence and ruthlessness – and he has a great death scene toasting the pillar that’s about to collapse on him.

Script review – “Match Point” by Woody Allen

I wasn’t sure if this was a shooting script or post production (the title didn’t say) – but it includes all those “hi” “ok” “how are you” bits that were in the film. Indeed, this is a strikingly flabby, long script with some really clunky dialogue. Young people talking about opera, unconvincing discussions about business. If it was from a first time writer I imagine the studios would justifiably want it given a solid edit. They’d also note it rips off Crimes and Misdemeanours a lot. But it was from Woody Allen – and the result was one of the biggest hits of his career.

It’s still not a bad story – the central theme about the importance of luck is an intriguing one (interesting Woody thinks about this as he’s one of the hardest working filmmakers in the world today, all about work, work, work – but he’s received a due amount of good and bad luck in his life). Allen succeeds in getting into the skin of Chris, the tormented tennis pro, and Nola, the crazy, sexy aspiring actress (a number of variations of her have appeared in his scripts over the years). A decent work, which was filmed and acted very well, but not a masterpiece.

Movie review – “Thief of Bagdad” (1940) ***1/2

The biographer and poet Charlies Higham says this is his favourite film; it was also beloved by George MacDonald Fraser. I think if you saw it when young it must have been a magical experience – that amazing colour and sumptuous design (Vincent Korda really was the ace in the hole for his brother). It remains impressive on many levels – it looks incredible - but I’ve got to admit (reluctantly – I’m always hesitant when it comes to criticising films so many love) it didn’t blow my socks off.

For one thing, the script is a bit of a mess. Make that a complete mess – it starts with a flashback, we first meet Sabu as a dog, the genie comes in far too late, the princess is wet, etc. It needn’t have been since the story is very basic and solid – nice prince overthrown by evil adviser, uses thief and genie to triumph. I think other later versions of this tale, like Aladdin, have learnt from it.

Also John Justin is a very wet hero – he’s a funny looking weedy guy, who looks as though he needs a decent feed and charisma injection. The sort of actor you’d cast as a wealthy weakling rather than the heroic lead. Fortunately Sabu is on hand as the thief, and he’s extremely winning; June Duprez is very pretty even if she doesn’t have much to do except look pretty; Conrad Veidt is a brilliant villain and Rex Ingram fun as the genie.

Radio review – Best Plays – “Accent on Youth” (1952) **

Samuel Raphaelson’s play has been filmed a number of times, partly one guesses because male stars are attracted to the central idea – an aging playwright (he’s 50 I think) finds his much younger secretary fall in love with him, even though he’s wary of the idea. Oh, it’s such a drama to have fresh poon tang obsessed with you… They throw in a younger man to want the woman and an elder woman to be into the playwright. But who cares about playwrights anyway? Or old men who have young girls into them? Maybe I’ll care more in ten or twenty years time. It might help if there were some decent jokes or charm – it’s all light stuff about people living in apartments talking about running away to Finland.

Movie review – “17 Girls” (2011) ***

Americans have been remaking French stories for years so why shouldn’t the French do an American story – only not a film, but a real life incident: the famous teen pregnancy pact. This has been relocated to a grimy small town where most of the local kids are unemployed, in factories or the army. The hottest girl in school announces she’s pregnant; a girl who wants to be in her gang says she does too and pretty soon a whole bunch of them are. 

 

There’s some great stuff here – girls empowering themselves by being knocked up, bewildered parents and teachers (I loved the staff meeting), the collective mind set you get in schools amongst peers. I did feel the film lost some opportunities for drama – surely part of the reason to do it is to get back at boys, teachers and parents, yet there’s very little of either (maybe as a man I was looking for that more). 

 

Characters are frustratingly under-developed - the lead girl is an enigma, you think the tag-along girl is going to be an important player but she isn't, this little girl who desperately wants to be pregnant suddenly becomes important then fades away. 

Still, it's worth watching and I wouldn't be surprised if the Yanks remade it.

Movie review – “Corman’s Kingdom” (2011) ***1/2

Fun, well made doco on the legendary director/producer which won’t reveal much for the fan but has some great footage and talking heads (John Sayles, Jonathan Demme, Julie Corman, Frances Doel, Jack Nicholson, Joe Dante, Polly Platt [who was executive producer], Peter Bogdanovich, David Carradine, Peter Fonda.

It’s positive about Corman but not uncritical – for instance it’s noted how he couldn’t make the step up to bigger budgeted films in the 70s and how he kind of lost his way as an important filmmaker since the 80s. Some clue for why this happened is given with some observational footage of Corman on location with one of his new films in Mexico – he makes an impatient comment about how long the star takes to get her make up on and is always encouraging the director to shoot faster. I think economy was just too ingrained in his bones.

Best bits: Jack Nicholson crying with emotion over Corman (“I don’t think people realise how much he is loved”), Quentin Tarantino after the Oscars (the "other night" Oscars, when Corman got his special achievement) wondering if speaking at the awards got him in the Roger Corman school, Peter Bogdanovich cracking a smile and laughing when talking about Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women (I don't think I've ever seen him smile before!); Polly Platt saying that after Bogdanovoich left her, Corman rang her up and said she could direct a film whenever she felt like it (you should have done it).

Movie review – “How Will You Know” (2010) ***

Charming rom com which apparently cost $120 million, which is disgraceful since it’s basically a couple of people talking in a room movie. Like Broadcast News (also by this writer-director) it’s a love triangle with a feisty short woman at the centre, and where the false love interest is by far the best character. But unlike Broadcast News it’s not set in an interesting world – you think it’s going to be, the world of female sports (which would have been really great), but Reese Witherspoon is axed from the team at the beginning and never goes back. So instead of her being active, like Holly Hunter was (producing TV, etc), she’s passive, hanging around guys, trying to decide what she wants to do with her life.

 

Also the whole Paul Rudd plot is a bit tired – his business is going down the toilet, you know his father (Jack Nicholson was paid $12 million apparently for a role that could have been done in two days) is behind it, so it’s no shock. This goes on for too long and is too familiar. 

 

By contrast Owen Wilson’s character and the playing of it is really fresh and interesting (this is one of Wilson’s best performances).

 

When it comes to romance this film is on sure ground. Brooks handles scenes differently and lightly – it has real charm. But it lacks an interesting “world” within it is set – or weight (Broadcast News had journalism, As Good as it Gets had crazy Jack Nicholson). It didn’t deserve some of the critical shellacking it received but I can see why it wasn’t a big hit.

Movie review – “The Lovely Bones” (2009) **1’/2

Obviously made with love and care but it doesn’t quite work. Could it have ever worked? The story is about a young girl’s rape and murder – it’s never going to be completely feel good. Peter Jackson gives lots of screen time to the father character, not much to mum (I didn’t buy it she took off for so long). But this is really about the girl and Jackson doesn’t quite crack it. They try to give it more action by having the father and sister investigate – it still doesn’t work. Some very good acting – Saoirse Roman and Stanley Tucci in particular, and period design. It shouldn’t have cost as much money as it did.

Book review – “In and Out in Hollywood” by Charles Higham

Higham should be better known in Australia, at least in film circles – he’s one of the major film star biographers out there, with his resume including important (if controversial) works on Orson Welles, Errol Flynn, Merle Oberon and Howard Hughes. He also has a strong Australian connection – he emigrated out here in the early 50s and became a notable journalist for the Bulletin and SMH, among others; he was also a leading poet and wrote some books on Hollywood which are still in libraries. He moved to the US in the early 70s and wound up working for the New York Times as well as writing the biographies which made him famous. Well, maybe famous is too big a word – renowned?

 

This memoir is an interesting book. Higham’s had a colourful life – dad was an advertising mogul and MP, mum was a crazy alcoholic who had numerous lovers, step mum molested him, he went from childhood riches to relative poverty, despite being interested in male bodies from an early age (there’s lots – and lots – of commenting on male physiques here) he got married to a part Indian woman, they emigrated to Australia, got divorced (she turned out to be a lesbian), he soon got writing offers (I’m convinced his British accent would have helped out here just like it did for David Stratton in the 60s). There’s colourful descriptions of gay life in 60s Sydney (orgies in Rose Bay!)… and 70s/80s LA, and his various adventures in the biographers trade (tracking down surviving cans of It’s All True, uncovering Errol Flynn’s alleged Nazi activities, exposing Merle Oberon’s real birthplace, etc).

 

Higham is a talented writer with a real flair for description. You do get the feeling he over hypes the facts at time – I felt this from his biographies. He spends a few pages defending his Errol Flynn book, whose research has been much criticised – but by the end of that I still felt he was guilty of hyping. He can also be a real bitch – he seems to remember every slight a famous person gave him, whether it was not offering a drink or being cold towards him; he is constantly dismissing people, such as (he constantly reminds us he was in good shape and not ugly); makes lots of snide swipes at people; doesn’t seem overly concerned when he gets facts wrong or the impact his book could have on living people.

 

But there is much to enjoy: sketches of critics like the pompous Dwight Macdonald (the account of him having a stroke is very funny) or Pauline Kael (who Higham says was attracted to him, and was having affairs with Robert Altman and Irving Kershner); behind the scenes machinations of writing biographies; Curtis Harrington being a racist anti-Semite (!); claiming he was in love with good friend (and fellow sort-of-Aussie) Colin Higgins, etc. Worth reading if you’ve read a few Higham books.

Movie review – “Driving Miss Daisy” (1989) ***

Sometimes small time films just hit the spot with critics and the public which is what happened here. It’s a delicate tale about the friendship between a Jewish woman in the South and her black chauffer – a different look at race relations. Miss Daisy refuses to think she’s prejudice and constantly talks about how poor she was growing up but won’t invite Hoke along to a Martin Luther King speech. Hoke’s cheerful but just wants a job. Finely observed and all that – exquisitely played by Jessica Tandy and Morgan Freeman. Dan Aykroyd is less good, but he’s okay – his character has a great deal of poignancy, seemingly unable to have children with his wife, a good man trying to do his besting a tough world. Bruce Beresford's direction is pacey rather than sensitive and tranquil but pace is what it needs.

Movie review – “The Cockleshell Heroes” (1955) **1/2

The two biggest hits of Warwick Films early days were both World War Two movies about successful true-life British raids. Indeed, you wonder why they didn’t repeat the formula – surely there were more in history for them to use? (Although they did adapt history for other films eg Zarak Kahn, Killers of Kilimanjaro).

Like The Red Beret, this has an imported American star who clashes on screen with his British co-star – here Jose Ferrer and Trevor Howard. It’s hard to remember that Jose Ferrer was a genuine film star in the early 1950s – he featured in a number of hits off the back of a series of big Broadway successes. (A series of flops in the late 50s changed his position). He plays an unconventional, laid-back officer of the marines who clashes with the more by-the-book Howard – a stock clash, but it serves to give some drama.

Ferrer is okay – not as good as Howard, but then Howard gets a big monologue about his life and career (his frustration at not being promoted) whereas Ferrer doesn’t. The support cast includes Anthony Newley, who made a number of films of Warwick, and some females in small roles.

Ferrer does let the side down with his direction, which misses a lot of the excitement in what is a terrific story. There’s too much wacka-wacka comedy during the training sequences (was this the work of Bryan Forbes or Richard Maibaum? It’s not typical of either man, but it feels more English so I’m guessing Forbes).

Maybe it’s not all Ferrer’s fault – there’s music slathered all over the final raid when a bit of silence and suspense would have done the world of good. At the ending when three-quarters of the team are executed you don’t really feel anything – it’s like, they’re shot, it’s over, Ferrer and Anthony Newley just stroll down the street without a care in the world. It’s a shame – they should remake it.

Movie review – “Love and Other Drugs” (2010) ***

This was pitched as a romantic comedy but it isn’t, really – it’s rather a romantic drama, with some light moments and a bit of history thrown in. Indeed, it’s hard to think of a Hollywood film which changes tone so often – but somehow it seems to work, so full credit to Edward Zwick. It’s familiar in some ways to Zwick’s earlier thirtysomething. (And when you think about it the trouble-with-commitment drama-dy About Last Night.)

 

We start off in the mid 1990s, with Jake Gyllenhaul as a charming ne’er-do-well who finds himself flogging pharmaceuticals. Despite being ethic-less and attractive his career actually doesn’t really get going until viagara is introduced. This sounds a bit weird but is actually quite interesting, with some bright satire and information on how the system works in the US (I’m sure a similar sort of thing happens here too). Then he falls in love with Anne Hathaway who has Parkinsons – which again sounds weird but does work.

 

Hathaway is always likeable and here she’s naked a lot too. She’s not the best actor in the world. Gylenhall is more talented but he’s not as likeable. Those are highly subjective judgements I’m sure millions disagree with but what I mean to say is they even each other out. 

 

More frustrating is that the support characters are so poorly sketched out – the brother (an IT rich guy who goes bust) is just three for repetitive comic beats, there are George Segal and Jill Clayburgh as Gyllenhaul’s parents but we only see them in one scene, Hank Azaria looks as though he’s about to do something meaningful as a doctor but it never comes. 

 

Still, a lot better than I thought it was going to be.

Script review – “Taxi Driver” by Paul Schrader

Still a terrific read after all these years. Few scripts better got into the head of an assassin – indeed, few films could have claimed to inspire a presidential assassin. Lonely, tormented Travis Bickle is one of the all time great cinema characters – haunted, paranoid, lonely, desperate for a cause. We think he’s going to off a presidential candidate but he ends up taking out a pimp of a young girl. The only really bung note in it is the character of Betsy, the ambitious political assistant – I didn’t buy it even on the page she’d go near a guy like Travis. Schrader keeps specifying how handsome he is and I’m sure that in the 70s there was a man drought on as well but he must seem creepy. And he’s a taxi driver. But the rest of it feels all too real (Schrader himself drove a cab for a while and the authenticity seeps through. Apparently the script was originally set in Los Angeles which is hard to believe – it feels so New York.) Reading this I was surprised how small the part of Iris the prostitute was, but it is evocative. Powerful, delirious and a deserved masterpiece.

Movie review – “House of Tolerance” (2011) *1/2

I saw this at Cannes where it was selected for competition and earned an eight minute standing ovation but thought it was dreadful. Films about hookers at festivals make me go “uh oh” from the get-go and little of what followed made me change my mind. It's set in a brothel at the beginning of the 20th century. There's plenty of nudity and sex but little of it is erotic. There's plenty of intriguing set ups and characterisations too but little of it followed through. An example is there’s this good bit where there’s a sudden jolt of violence – a cut to a woman who’s been disfigured. But this is dropped for a great slab of time. Then the woman is brought in, walks in and out of the action. They occasionally flashback to the incident (as if to try and jolt some more excitement into the action). Then bring back the assailant at the end and there's this animal and... oh it's just dull.

They also set up this really interesting character- a 16 year old who wants to join the brothel – then do nothing with her. Ditto a Muslim girl, a lesbian. There’s a bit of period detail – doctors inspecting the girls, the money involved – but never enough. It goes on and on and on. And has a scene where a girl cries tears of semen. I did like the credit sequence and use of modern music.

Movie review – “The Artist” (2011) **1/2

Big budget French film, which is mostly silent. The plot is set during the coming of sound in Hollywood, with A Star is Born-type story about a top star (Jean Dujardin, very likeable) who seems like a nice chap despite an unhappy marriage (Penelope Ann Miller, looking old). He gets a crush on a young extra (Berenice Bejo), but doesn’t really do much about it, except encourage her to wear a mole. This helps her become a star while his career hits the skids – in part because he blows all his money on a silent film. A Star is Born had genuine emotional kick because the star was a self destructive alcoholic and the girl loved him from the beginning. The relationship here is more of a crush and the star doesn’t have any demons he’s just a bit of a simple idiot. There’s a brief moment where Dujardin can hear sounds but not voices and you think “oh this is where we’re going” – but then it’s over.

It looks terrific, the creation of old Hollywood is lovely, and I got a kick out of seeing Hollywood names in a French film – John Goodman, Miller, Malcolm McDowell, Ed Lauter. There’s a good performance from a dog. But it doesn’t quite work. A mostly full length silent film is heavy going these days (I loved the opening horror film within a film bit - more of this might have helped).

Movie review – “My Last Valentine in Beirut” (2011) ½

The first Arabic film in 3D – it’s from Lebanon and it’s terrible. It’s about a prostitute and there are all these scenes with long takes and bad acting which just go on and on. It’s another movie supposedly about the degradation of women which just has lots of woman degradation. I admit I walked out of the last half hour, I just couldn’t hack it. The photography is good as is the production design.

Movie review – “The Reef” (2011) **

Some effective moments, such as Damien Walshe Howling going under water in a capsized boat to look for supplies, and searching for the shark in the vast ocean – but they are too few and far between. Many bewildering decisions – why not give greater impetus for having them swim from the boat to the island? (They could have had the boat sinking? As it was it seems unduly reckless.) Why not give Gyton Grantly and Adrienne Pickering some sort of story? They’re having an affair, breaking up, she’s pregnant – something, anything. Why not have some young chicks in bikinis instead of thirty-somethings? Why so many scenes of Damien Walshe Howling stick his head under the water? A real shame.

Movie review – “The Contender” (2011) ***1/2

You’ve got to give it to the French – they’ve got balls. To make a film like this about their sitting president – wow. Not that is says Sarkozy is a bad politician – just very ruthless and ambitious. I didn’t know much about him before seeing the film, just that he had a really hot wife, but you pick it up quick enough, for the story is universal. (Although I did get confused about the difference between the French President and Prime Minister). Sarkozy is pushy and wants the top job but is thwarted by Jacques Chirac and this other smooth talking politico. But he keeps banging away, using clever strategy and skills at oratory, to get the top job… although it costs him his marriage. It’s a bit long and you wish Carla Bruni was in it but I really enjoyed it – funny, gripping, with a terrific central character. The guy who plays Chirac is particularly good and I expect to see him turn up in Hollywood action films.

Movie review – “The Beaver” (2011) **1/2

Mel Gibson gives a fantastic performance here – but then I guess he’s really playing himself, a burnt out middle aged family man who loathes himself and his life. (At times I couldn’t help thinking maybe the technique his character uses here would work for Mel in real life). 

You wonder why, then, half the film is devoted to the escapades of his son, which really don’t have anything to do with Mel. This goes on and on, while more interesting Mel is ignored. 

Also some of it doesn’t ring true: a valedictorian having to pay a boy to write her speech? Would the beaver really be a craze that sweeps the nation? Does the beaver have to be cleaned? 

Jodie Foster doesn’t have any character to play really and the young boy is just a young boy – there’s opportunities missed there. Instead they devote time to the son, and his girlfriend, and her fear of talking about her brother. Yawn, snore. A real shame. But Mel is really good.

Movie review – “The Egyptian” (1954) **

The Robe had been one of the most popular films of all time so Daryl F Zanuck tried to make lightning strike twice with this tale of religion in Ancient Egypt. The result was a famous flop, although it has many of the cast from the earlier film – particularly Victor Mature as the soldier friend of the hero and Jean Simmons as a pretty girl who can’t help loving the hero; as in the Robe he uses a handsome British newcomer in the lead, Edmond Purdom. He also throws in some terrific actors: Peter Ustinov (from Quo Vadis), Gene Tierney, John Carradine – plus his mistress at the time, Bella Darvi. The script was by some gun writers, Casey Robinson and Philip Dunne, and Michael Curtiz was the director - and Zanuck produced personally. The result was a big flop.

 

The crux of the blame fell on Purdom and Darvi, who are admittedly bland, but I’ve seen worse actors in popular epics. I think critics have been influenced by the fact that Marlon Brando was originally going to play Purdom’s part – it’s fascinating to imagine what that would have been like. (Surely the end result could have been no worse than Desiree?)

 

Philip Dunne also expressed regret that his choices for Wilding and Darvi’s roles – John Cassavetes and Diana Wynyard – weren’t used, and I think he’s spot on. Apparently Marilyn Monroe wanted Darvi’s part – something else intriguing to think about although Maz in an Ancient world epic… Darvi can’t act but she is very sexy.

 

The script has received praise in some quarters – I think it was the screenwriting history expert Tom Stempel – and indeed it gets points for tackling something different, to wit the rise of monotheism. But it’s flawed – Purdom’s character is a pussywhipped fool (Darvi is very upfront about being an independent courtesan who has to do what she does for money but the idiot falls for her anyway). We don’t meet Purdom’s parents so their suicide means little. Purdom’s hard luck is due to his own idiocy – it wasn’t Ben Hur’s fault he wound up in a galley but it is Purdom’s here. Then once he does he treats rich people only instead of helping out the poor. Actually the guy is a real drip all the way through – he gives up on a decent job, ethics, true love, his son, a career… It’s a shame the script couldn’t have Hollywood-ised it a bit more, made him more sympathetic.

 

I also think part of the problem is Ancient Egypt was a bit too “foreign” for American audiences at the time; they were familiar with Cleopatra, but she dealt with Romans, who are very familiar. Ancient Rome involves early Christianity and has parallels with the British Empire and all that stuff – but old Egypt is just weird. So I think they were up against it anyway. But credit to 20th Century Fox for drawing attention to a lesser known period of history.

 

 Jean Simmons is pretty in a nothing role – she’d later play a variation on the part in Spartacus. (In none of these “true love” parts did she wind up with the guy at the end.) Tierney is wasted, Mature is okay in a not-much part. Ustinov is good as always and John Carradine impresses as a grave robber. There's some amusement from seeing the very American Tommy Rettig (from Lassie) as Purdom's son. Perhaps the best performance is from Michael Wilding, as the vagued-out pharaoh - he ends the film with a long monologue about God, which is different, at least.

Original story of Zarak Khan

Interesting to compare this with the final film. From an old newspaper article in 1950, years before the movie was made...

WHO was the bravest man of the war?

Think of the long list of men and women who wore the badge of courage-sailors, soldiers, airmen, civilians, secret agents… But the man I am thinking of was none of these. He spent most of his life in lighting the British. His name was Zarak Khan. He was an Afghan of the North-West Frontier. In "The Story of Zarak Khan" (Jarrolds) A. J. Bevan tells how for 20 years Zarak was a brigand, a scourge to the British, a murderer, thief and despoiler of women. Yet, for the British, he gave his life.

Taken prisoner by the Japs, he demanded to be flayed alive, instead of being quickly beheaded, so that a Gurkha force would be in time to rescue the rest of the prisoners.

OUTLAW ZARAK, a giant 6ft. 4in. in height, was first an outlaw. The British put a price on his head. Once he was caught-and rescued by a colleague whom he afterwards stabbed in the back. Then in one of his forays he murdered a holy man. And even the frontier became too hot to hold him. He gave himself up.

"I have no cause to love your race," he said to a British agent, "but you have a reputation for being just." He was tried and sentenced to transportation for life to the Andamans.

BUT the Japs were in the Andamans; so Zarak Khan stayed in his cell. Now the North-West Frontier was in upheaval, full of enemy agents and raiding tribesmen. Zarak was given a suspended sentence and became a British agent. He volunteered for Burma.

One day in 1943 he was leading his patrol home, for the British officer had been killed. From the cover of the jungle he watched another British patrol ambushed by Japs. He followed and watched tha torture of the prisoners. Zarak sent messengers to summon a Gurkha force...

NOW he knew he must create a diversion to keep the Jas from moving on with the prisoners. So he charged the Japs single handed, and killed or wounded six before he was overpowered. They told him he must die.

To the captive British officer he said: "Tell these little yellow dogs that I, Zarak Khan, will never be beheaded . . . tell them that Zarak Khan is destined to be flayed alive."

When the British officer pleaded, If thy behead you it will be over quickly," the Afghan replied, "And over for you, too."

The Japs flung the giant to the ground. It took them an hour to finish their dreadful business. Zarak hung on to life-he had to buy time.

In all that time there was no cry from Zarak except at the end, he said, "Allah, Kismet" As the Japs stood watching him die there came a shout of "Gurkha, Ho!" One hundred and eighty Gurkhas leaped on the killers. The British officer was released from his bonds. He said of Zarak: "He chose it that way… he did it for us."

British and Gurkhas buried the dead giant, far from his native hills. Over his head they put a stone.

"On it," says Mr. Bevan, "are written words which Zarak would never have understood. "'Greater love hath no man…"

Movie review - “The Next Three Days” (2010) **

I wanted to like this more than I did. It sounded so promising – Paul Haggis, Russell Crowe, an intriguing set up (mild academic tries to bust wife out of prison) – but all along I kept thinking… “it just doesn’t work for me”. And it obviously didn’t for a large audience. Why? Okay first off I think the idea of busting your wife out of prison isn’t one of those all-time archetypal great ideas, like rescuing your daughter from kidnappers (Taken), or getting revenge on bullies. 

Maybe it would have worked if it had been about busting your daughter out of prison, or a man with nothing else to live for (i.e. a really dull job, no ties). But Russell’s got a young kid, parents, a good job – not to mention a hot single mother who clearly wants to go for him. Why risk all that? Even if Elizabeth Banks is very good in her part. Maybe they should have had her on death row or something.

Also the movie veers from Crowe’s character being incompetent (making locks that don’t work, getting knocked on the head) to very competent (eg killing meth dealers). I think it would have been better if he’d just been competent – but then I guess that’s not the film they were making.

There are some odd script choices too – like setting up an opposition police man at the beginning but then introducing another one. A lack of humor. Underdeveloped characters – like the single mother who strikes up a bond with Crowe. Frustrating.

Movie review - “True Grit” (2010) **1/2

I know this makes me a cinematic philistine but I’ve never warmed to the Coen brothers. Their skill and talent are beyond question, as are their intelligence, and I rejoice in their continued success because they’re not cookie cutter Hollywood. Still, their films leave me cold. Jeff Bridges is fine as Rooster Cogburn, but I missed the fatter, more charismatic John Wayne. Hailee Steinfeld is wonderful, as is the period detail and the language (from the novel). Josh Brolin is effective in a small role and Barry Pepper even better. The sudden outbursts of violence are expertly done, I’m glad it was a big hit. Still, I’ve got to admit – didn’t really go for it.

Radio review – Lux – “Magnificent Obssession” (1937) **

I’m surprised this novel hasn’t been refilmed during the last fifty years, despite it’s creakiness since it has such an excellent record with launching pretty boy male stars – film versions of it were big milestones in the careers of Robert Taylor and Rock Hudson. This radio adaptation has Taylor and Irene Dunne reprising their film roles. Taylor is actually pretty good – his strong voice was ideal for radio, and Dunne is solid. (She even sings a song at the end from the film High, Wide and Handsome!)

 

The story is hokey – Taylor’s a playboy who is injured – they’re too busy fixing him so they can’t save a useful doctor, who’s having a heart attack. It’s not his fault. Not his fault either that Taylor romances Dunne and takes her for a drive – she storms out of the car and gets run over (and is blinded). But he feels guilty enough to want to become a doctor. He pretends to be someone else around her, they fall in love, he cures her. Awww…

 

Easy to mock but it still holds – there’s also a great moral (something with prompted author Lloyd C Douglas, who speaks during the interval, to write it in the first place) of the importance of doing good anonymously: paying it forward, as it were. The opening introductory spiel talks about how Deanna Durbin, even though only 13, recognises the importance of using Lux soap - so the whole tween market isn't an entirely new phenomenon.

Script review – “Play it Again Sam” by Woody Allen

Allen had already enjoyed a hit on Broadway with Don’t Drink the Water but this helped establish him as a dramatic (well, comic dramatic) star. He admits to copying the structure of The Seven Year Itch; like that play, all the fantasy bits are amusing but get tiring after a while – there are too many of them, and the device has been copied too much. And it’s a little yuck he’s basically trying to seduce his best friend’s wife. But Allen’s character remains enjoyable, Bogie is a great foil, and some of the gags are still hilarious (eg “what are you doing on Saturday/killing myself/what about Friday”).

Movie review – “Zarak Khan” (1956) ***

The original story for this was apparently based on a true story about a bandit who started out fighting against the British but sended up fighting for them during World War Two, eventually losing his life. Errol Flynn was wanted for the lead role – it was made by Warwick Films, who specialised in British adventure tales with Hollywood stars and English co-stars. Flynn’s casting didn’t eventuate – a shame, since this is of better quality than many movies the old chap made around this time. His place was taken by Victor Mature, who made several other films for Warwick. The action was also relocated to the nineteenth century – maybe they felt more comfortable with the Victorian era setting.

Interesting cast – Michael Wilding is the British co-star who clashes with the American (another Warwick staple); Anita Ekberg has rarely looked sexier as a woman who’s married to Mature’s dad but loves Mature (she does a fantastic belly dance – it’s awesome); Bonar Colleo, an American who played Stanley Kowalski in the West End and specialised in American roles in British films prior to his death in the car accident; a young Patrick McGoohan; Bernard Miles and Eunice Grayson (as Wilding’s wife) from the Bond films (of course many Warwick behind the scenes personnel made Bond movies); Finlay Currie (as a tribesman).

Mature is believable enough to play a 50s tribesman (by the standards of the time) – I love Errol Flynn, but to be honest Mature’s a lot more virile to do all this action than Flynn would have been. There’s a lot of action – sword fights, horse racing, ambushes, escapes, collapsing bridges – and it fairly spanks along under the sure hand of director Terence Young. Maybe Flynn would have made Zarak’s last act more believable – he gives up his life to save Wilding, which just doesn’t make sense. They try to have him do it as an act of redemption for saving a holy man… but it still doesn’t work. It doesn’t help either that Mature and Wilding don’t have much rapport or screen time together. I get what they’re trying to convey (i.e. adversaries who respect each other – Britain love to admire their enemies) but it doesn’t quite work.

The story isn’t bad, though – while it’s not incredibly deep and is a bit repetitive (Zarak attacks something and escapes) it has pace and life. And the film looks superb, with glorious technicolour and wonderful production design: redcoats against the mountains, colourful mountain men, Ekberg’s costumes, etc.

Michael Wilding isn’t the strongest co-star – he was more comfortable as a light comic than an action man; Patrick McGoohan would have been better in his role. Ekberg’s performance is such that you wish she’d played a Bond girl (she did appear in From Russia With Love – but only on a movie poster for Call Me Bwana). (There’s a camp moment where Mature slaps her after he finds out she’s become an exotic dancer. Why, when she’s so hot?)

Documentary review – “Gene Tierney: A Shattered Portrait” (1999) ***

Accomplished documentary on the famous star, whose main attraction was her haunting, different looks – slightly bucked teeth, devastating eyes, high cheekbones. This enabled her to launch a career on stage, and then get offers from Hollywood – she was plucked from Broadway success to a 20th Century Fox contract. Not very good on screen at first, she worked hard and delivered a couple of outstanding performances, notably in Laura, The Razor’s Edge and Leave Her to Heaven. She might be best remembered nowadays though for her private life – rich father who lost his money and tried to control her; affairs with JFK and Aly Khan; the fan with German measles who kissed her when pregnant, causing her baby to be born retarded (inspiring an Agatha Christie book); the bouts of mental illness, including shock therapy, walking on a balcony, a spell working behind a counter; marriage to an oil man. High quality talking heads including Richard Widmark, Oleg Cassini (first husband, who looks kind of weird with ratty hair), sister and daughter. Good clips too of her romancing with Aly Khan.

Movie review – “A Corner in Wheat” (1909) **

Famous DW Griffith short because of it’s use of cross cutting montage, one of the first films to pioneer this technique. The action is still mostly in the form of theatrical tableuxs. The plot is about a rich tycoon who corners the market in wheat – but ha ha he falls in a silo and dies. Of historical rather than genuine dramatic interest but you could say that about most silent films made before World War I. Lots of gnashing of teeth acting. It is beautifully shot though.

Movie review – “Sundown” (1941) ***

In 1935, Henry Hathaway directed Lives of a Bengal Lancer, which kicked off a pro-British Empire cycle of adventure films that lasted for a number of years (including an American empire story, The Real Glory, also directed by Hathaway). This came at the end of the cycle; it didn’t kill it off as much as the war did - the glories of empire weren’t as believable on screen with Britain struggling against Axis might – especially not after the fall of Singapore. This is set in East Africa, i.e. Kenya – one of the more exotic corners of World War Two, albeit one that has given rise to surprisingly little cinema (Maybe because it mostly involved fighting against Italians who weren’t considered great cinema villains. Indeed the Italian POW in this one is mostly comic.)

 

The plot involves a local district commissioner (Bruce Cabot – very American for a British Empire movie) and army officer (George Sanders) teaming up to deal with a native uprising that’s been provided with guns. Gene Tierney is very pretty as a native girl who is a trader (but don’t worry – she’s actually white, so she can smooch Cabot). In addition to the comic Italian POW, there’s some stiff upper lip Britishers, a Dutch bloke who turns out to be a villain (which I thought odd until he turns out not to be actually Dutch), and a great White hunter (another American, Harry Carey). And there’s a finale with a reverend giving a talk in a bombed out cathedral (played by Cedric Hardwicke, playing Sanders’ father) trying to inspire the parishoners, just like in Mrs Miniver.

 

Leaving aside the racism and the propaganda (which is really limited to one big dollop at the end), it’s a solid adventure tale, with a decent amount of action and intrigue, a strong cast and interesting setting. I never really thought Cabot was much of a leading man, but at least he’s supported here by Sanders and Tierney, who looks lovely.

Movie review – “The Sting” (1973) *** (warning: spoilers)

This won Best Picture Oscar? I can understand why it was a big hit – plenty of twists in the story, humour, two big stars at their peak, period flavour, Scott Joplin’s music – but an Oscar? Each to their own, I suppose. Paul Newman and Robert Redford again work well together, even if Redford’s part really should have been played by a younger actor (Newman keeps calling him “kid” but it doesn’t work) and Newman’s character is so skilled and smart you don’t believe he’s down and out at the beginning. It’s a shame they couldn’t have given Newman and Redford better looking women to bed – maybe they figured that would distract from their bromance.

The support cast is littered with vaguely familiar middle aged character actors, like Ray Walston and Charles Durning. This is very pro-con man – the cons are loveable types who team up to beat a nasty gangster (Robert Shaw). I think of all the professions glamorised by the movies out of proportion to what they are in real life, it would be con men. In reality, they tend to be sociopaths who prey on the elderly, sick and infirm. In movies they’re always taking on people who deserve to be robbed. (As if Redford wouldn't have accepted the money at the end).

It was made by Univeral which might explains why the period detail and costumes, etc looks a little cheap and ugly. Films from that studio never looked as good as those from the others. Best moment: when the girl who's slept with Redford is killed. That was a genuine shock.

Movie review – “Burlesque” (2010) **1/2

Crappy camp fun. Christina Aguilera’s greatest gift is her singing voice so it was probably a mistake to launch her acting career in a film about burlesque, which is a dancing art form – although Christina has shown a tendency to dance trashily in her film clips. They try to get around it by having her play a dancing burlesque artist who breaks into song. Apparently the only other person who dances and sings is Cher – which you feel was changed from an original version “no one can sing” to enable Cher to have a big number. But it wasn’t worth it.

I saw this on a plane and it passed the time but it wasn’t that good. Too bad to be a movie of quality, not over the top enough to be delirious fun. There’s some bright lines, it spanks along, the costumes and dances are terrific, there are some solid songs and it’s got a strong support cast. Cher’s plastic surgery is very distracting, and she isn't much in the part, but she gets to do most of her scenes with Stanley Tucci, who is always good. Kristen Bell is fun as a bitchy vixen (it’s like watching Veronica Mars go undercover at a burlesque house), and there are bits from Alan Cumming (far, far too small a part – he’s wasted), James Brolin, McSteamy, and Diana Argon off Glee (again far too small a part). Christina Aguileria seems to try but she’s a bit bland on screen – her character lacks spark. (Tucci says her character has heart but we never see it). And she has to play most of her scenes opposite a bland guy.

Movie review – “Visit to a Small Planet” (1960) **1/2

Gore Vidal’s TV (and later Broadway) play was more suited to the talents of Jerry Lewis than you might originally think, just based on the names “Gore Vidal” and “Jerry Lewis” – it was irreverent, fun and full of satire. But instead of Frank Tashlin directing it, who would have been perfect, they gave the job to Norman Taurog – and had it shot in black and white. Opportunities are thrown away wholesale and what could have been one of Lewis’ best movies has the aura of unfulfilled potential. It hurts in particular that Lewis isn’t allowed to have a happy ending with the girl.

The support cast includes Gale Gordon and Fred Clark (who were normally interchangeable as authority figures but here they’re in the same movie!). There’s a talking dog (well, a dog Lewis can talk to via ESP), a comic setpiece where Jerry visits a beatnik café and wows the locals.

Radio review – BBC Drama - "Glengarry Glen Ross" (2005) ***1/2

Solid BBC adaptation of the classic play, which works well on radio because so many of the scenes are two-handers. The swearing I believe has been cut down, but the piece isn’t less effective for that. The cast is fortunately Americans rather than English actors aping the accent, including Alfred Molina, Hector Elizondo, and Bruce Davison (although I’d be curious to hear Englanders play it in their own accent). As devastating a critique on unrestrained capitalism as anything ever written in American theatre, up there with Arthur Miller.

Script review – “Lone Star” by John Sayles (warning: spoilers)

One of Sayles’ biggest successes at the box office, presumably because it has a (seemingly) more conventional structure, being a murder mystery. An old skeleton is discovered outside a Texan town, triggering off various revelations. This is a film about history, really – black, Mexican, white, family (Indians are mentioned but not as prominent as the others), heroes, villains. Lots of oral history, which means long speeches, intercut with flashbacks. Like all top Sayles works the story is solid, the characters are rich – it feels like a genuine town, populated by real people. Also like Sayle’s work, occasionally it falls into essay mode – historical essays, which are interesting to hear but do sound a bit clunky at times. Charlie Wade is one of the few out-and-out unredeemable villains Sayles created – utterly corrupt, ruthless, racist, terrifying. The ending is a bit yuck, with the half brother and sister deciding to continue a romantic relationship with each other.

Movie review – “No Strings” (2010) **1/2

Is Natalie Portman a movie star? Pretty? Absolutely. A good actor? Yes. Likeable? Definitely. But can she carry a not-much part on the basis of her personality – like a say, Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts? Well, she’s not quite there but she does well enough and teams amiably with Ashton Kutcher, who feels more at home (playing a role not unfamiliar to him - to wit, a dopey, big-hearted dufus). Ivan Reitman’s direction is erratic – sometimes the piece struggles, especially with the handling of the supporting characters (why is that blonde doctor [Cary Elwes] even in the film? Or the black guy who runs the coffee shop?). 

 

But then sometimes it all kicks in and really works – Los Angeles actually looks pretty, I really liked the use of Temper Trap at the end, the leads seem to like each other, there are some terrific support performances (Lake Bell especially - a totally recognisable TV type, hilarious -; also Kevin Kline and the blonde friend of Portman). Amiable, romantic fun.

Orson Welles box office

Citizen Kane (1941) lost $160,000, according to RKO.

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) recorded loss for RKO was $620,000.

The Third Man (1950) earned £277,549 of receipts in the UK.

Trent's Last Case (1952) earned cinema receipts of £155,903 in the UK.

Confidential Report (1955) earned £89,198 in the UK.

Alec Coppel Box Office

How some films written by Alec Coppel fared at the box office...

Mr Denning Drives North (1952) earned cinema receipts of £70,197 in the UK - not a good result.

The Captain's Paradise (1953) earned cinema receipts of £146,548 in the UK.

The Gazebo (1959) - cost $1,218,000, revenue $3,310,000 (domestic $1,860,000 and foreign $1,450,000) – profit $628,000

Swordsmen of Sienna (1962) final cost $1,065,000, total revenue $2,250,000 (domestic $1,500,000 and foreign $2,250,000) – loss of $100,000.

Script review – “Escape from New York” (1980 shooting script) by John Carpenter and Nick Castle

This was fairly close to the finished film - including the deleted sequence at the beginning which you can see on the DVD (a very good cut) so I was mostly easy to read this to get some idea of Carpenter's writing style. Quite sparse - he likes to underline big print to make a point. It's a real page turner - of course, this has a terrific set up. Great pulpy fun with a strong political subtext if you care to see it. Carpenter had such a hot streak from the mid 70s to mid 80s.

Radio review – “Cleopatra – Last Queen of Egypt” (2008) by Joyce Tyldesley

Enjoyable re-tread of the life of a woman who would remain the most famous queen of them all. They try to go easy on her reputation as a man eater and on Anthony's rep as an idiot - there were political reasons for her to do what they did as well as passion. But of course Hollywood was going to dramatise the other stuff. And Anthony was still at the end of the day pretty stupid.

Radio review – BP – “Farmer Takes a Wife” (1952) **

I always get this mixed up with The Farmer's Daughter - this one isn't about politics, but life along the Erie Canal, the old link between New York and the Great Lakes. The farmer of the title - played on Broadway and film originally by Henry Fonda (the role that made him a star) but here by John Forsythe - works on the canal but really wants a farm. He falls for a girl (Joan Laurie) who doesn't want to leave the canal. And that's about it. This is set just before the railways came in reducing the canal's importance. It's probably the sort of piece that you need to see and feel to really work - the faces, the atmosphere, the subplots - because it's charms escape me here.

Movie review – “Love the Beast” (2009) **1/2

Good on Eric Bana for making a film about his passion, i.e. cars. He ropes in some other celebrity rev heads such as Jay Leno and Jeremy Clarkson as well as getting Dr Phil to natter on how simpler things were in the old days because we only had three television channels so we could love our cars more. Eric chats with some of his old bogan mates, races in the Tasmania Targa, talks about his car, we see some old footage. If that sounds like the sort of movie you're into then you'll probably like this.

TV review – “Generation Kill” (2008) ***1/2

When The Hurt Locker came out I had several friends who insisted that Generation Kill did it earlier and better. I’m not sure I’d agree – Hurt Locker was more of a character study and had tremendous suspense. This has a lot of realism – like The Wire and Treme, also by these writers – but the characters aren’t particularly memorable. I had trouble telling them apart, none of the leads died. It looks terrific, there's some fine acting and brilliant dialogue, great bits (the rumour that J-Lo had died prior to invasion, a soldier taking a dump during a battle, accidental shootings of civilians, watching the video at the end). I've got to put my hand up and admit it didn't blow me away.

Movie review – “Rock-a-Bye-Baby” (1958) ***1/2

Jerry Lewis’ first two films after the split with Dean Martin were obviously originally written to be performed by a duo – The Delicate Delinquent and The Sad Sack – but this one is feels geared for a solo actor. As ever, they’ve played it safe, remaking The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek (not that Sturges worked on the film). Marilyn Maxwell, who often co-starred with Abbott and Costello on radio, is the lead – a film star who is worshipped by childhood friend Jerry Lewis to such a degree it’s pathetic more than touching. She gets pregnant (apparently she married the guy the night he knocked her up then he died – yeah right) and asks Jerry to raise the kids.

 

Typical of Tashlin, there’s lots of satire on Hollywood (beauty contests, jokes about screenwriters who don’t read the original book, a spoof of Easterns – ‘the White Virgin of the Nile’ which stars Maxwell), plenty of good looking girls, and sexy talk (eg Lewis and Connie Stevens realising they can have sex at the end and gleefully running off to do it) . Some very funny gags such as Jerry pretending to be various TV programs through a seat, and him feeding all the babies with a rubber glove that has very long fingers; he also does a wonderful rock n roll number, doing dance moves to spoof Elvis – and he’s terrific.

 

Lewis personally selected Connie Stevens to play Maxwell’s younger sister who is in love with him – she’s terrific, pretty and crazy enough to make you believe she’d go for him; Lewis rarely had a better female co-star (she’s up there with Shirley MacLaine in Artists and Models and Stella Stevens in The Nutty Professor). Maxwell is only so-so – she’s too old and not a believable star.

Movie review – “The September Issue” (2009) **1/2

There’s a better, more complex movie to be made on the life and times of Anna Wintour than this – but then I’m guessing the makers only got the access they did on the understanding this would be a more sympathetic depiction of her in the wake of The Devil Wears Prada. Still, it’s pretty interesting, as we cover Wintour putting together the September issue for that year. There’s lots of designers and models and fashion people, none of whom I recognised, many of whom you can sense fear from when dealing with the editor. Most of the drama comes from Wintour’s clashing with her long-time colleague, Grace (who, like her boss, was really hot when she was younger; Wintour also has a very good looking daughter). There’s also this editor at large at Vogue, a camp big black dude who reminded me of a similar character in Mannequin. The DVD has all these deleted scenes which add up to a whole other film.

Movie review – “13 Ghosts” (1961) ***

No wonder kids loved William Castle films – he made it feel like you were in the movie. Not only did he get exhibitors to distribute special glasses, he speaks to the audience at the beginning telling them how to use glasses to view ghosts, he provides subtitles to let them know when it’s time to use them, has a ten year old boy as the hero, and he appears at the end. 

This actually isn’t a bad ghost story – yes I’m being generous but it’s quite spooky. It’s about a family who move into a haunted house – dad is an absent-minded palaeontologist, which is different, mum sort of hangs around and is exasperated, there’s a hot elder daughter with the name Medea (Jo Morrow), and a younger brother… very Andy Hardy. The daughter romances a lawyer (Martin Milner), the boy bonds with a creepy old lady. There’s Ouija boards, séances, dodgy adults, kooky dads, dinosaur skeletons, dark rooms, and thirteen ghosts to choose from (including a lion tamer who lost his head). Good fun, brightly done.

Movie review – “Hollywood or Bust” (1956) ***

This is unavoidably in hindsight, but I felt the tension from Dean Martin towards Jerry Lewis in this one a lot. It’s mostly because of the characters they play – they’re not friends, rather he’s a gambler who is forced to drive cross country with Jerry to Hollywood (years before Due Date). Martin’s character isn’t very nice – there’s a really uncomfortable scene where he forces himself upon the female lead (Pat Crowley, who later falls for him - but still it's not too fun to watch). Jerry is in great form, far better than Dean, whether doing a tribute to movie goers of the world, or fighting a bull or panting over Anita Ekberg. Anita Ekberg plays herself – she was very famous at that stage, despite actually not having starred in a hit film.

 

This was directed by Frank Tashlin, which means there’s a lot more sexual innuendo (plenty of legs from girls, talk of underwear) and satire (gags about Gregory Peck, Burt Lancaster, Vista Vision, the censor… even one bit when Martin and Lewis drive through Las Vegas and see a sign advertising Martin and Lewis.) There’s a great dane dog who goes along with them on the ride and almost steals the picture plus several musical numbers.

Movie review – “Pardners” (1956) ***

Martin and Lewis films in colour were always more enjoyable. This is lots of fun, starting on a high note with the duo playing old cowboys out west who are killed by some baddies; their kids come back to avenge them. Cowards pretending to be tough guys in the old west is normally surefire – Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, etc – and it works here. Dean and Jerry have rarely been more relaxed or seemed to enjoy their partnership more – ironic when they were on the verge of splitting up (even though at the end they actually talk to the audience to reassure them they’re going to stick around). Decent support cast: Agnes Moorehead (funny as Jerry's protective mother), Lori Nelson, Jack Elam, Lee Van Cleef, Lon Chaney. Plenty of colour, action, barrooms, saloon singers, outlaws, etc.

Radio review – BP – “Victoria Regina” (1952) **

One for fans of Helen Hayes and few others, except maybe die-hard royalists – she repeats her stage triumph of the 1930s, playing a cutesy Queen Victoria. The emphasis is on her relationship with Prince Albert, their courtship and marriage, but it goes through to her jubilee, with cameos from people like Lord Melbourne and the Duchess of Kent. Affectionate, sweet, treacly.

Radio review – Lux – “Dragowyck” (1946) ***

Vincent Price always looked back on his role in this film with great fondness, for it took him out of supporting actor roles (although the blacklist put him back there temporarily) and made him a film leading man. He plays a sort of Rochester figure, a brooding rich man with a mysterious wife panted after by young thing, here played by Gene Tierney. It’s got a slightly unusual setting – Hudson Valley in the 19^th century, where lots of landholders were remnants from the Dutch era. Price is a big landlord with feisty tenants – I had no idea such things existed in the US, so there you go. It adds a bit of class war to the Jane Eyre romance. There’s a boring doctor ready to take Tierney into his loving, dull arms.

Book review – “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” by William Goldman

Goldman often refers to this script in his books on screenwriting as an example of a good script – he’s duly modest and all that but why shouldn’t he? It was a massive hit, really secured his place in Hollywood, and achieved the biggest ever sale for a spec script ($400,000 then – a record I believe was subsequently beaten by The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, The Yakuza, The Last Boy Scout, Basic Instinct and The Long Kiss Goodnight). The edition I read was a published version of the screenplay, complete with Goldman’s “cut to”s – I used to be a fan of this but they became irritating after a while.

This isn’t perfect – it’s not like, say, Casablanca, Double Indemnity or Citizen Kane. The middle is far too flabby – basically one long chase scene, with the leads going “who are those guys” (although it has a terrific second act curtain with the cliff jumping scene). Some of it’s annoying, such as “I got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals”, the women are basically cut outs, even Etta (Goldman was never at his best with females; bromance was his strong suit).

But it has a marvellous first act – the way the lead characters are introduced, the world, their relationship, etc. This should be studied. It also has a terrific last act – moving, powerful, and fantastic ending. Goldman says he was attracted to the material because of the characters, particularly Butch (affable, not particularly violent, honest in his dishonest way), and the fact they went to Bolivia and managed to relive the past for a few years before dying. He was spot on, too – it packs a wallop, especially the final scene.

In a way, there’s something very Aussie about this script – there’s the reference to Australia at the end of course, but also the fact its about bushrangers (basically), and bromance and mateship, with interests being cash, horses and whores, and lots of humour and violence. No wonder it was popular here.

Movie review – “I Saw What You Did” (1965) **1/2

After a string of successful films at Columbia, William Castle moved his operation over to Universal – not that you can really discern any change in style. It starts off as a sort of cute teen comedy about two teenage girls who, while babysitting on their sisters, make prank calls. They call one lady, who is then promptly murdered by her husband in the shower – she calls him a freak beforehand (is he a cross dresser? I wasn't sure). It’s a shocking sequence, taking this from teen film to horror in the blink of an eye. 

 

In a way it’s not unlike Psycho, which went from heist to horror – although that didn’t feel as much of a gear shift. The girls make a return prank call, say “I saw what you did and I know who you are”. They’re intrigued by the guy’s voice and go to investigate…

 

Although the prank call component feels dated, stranger danger is just as relevant as ever, giving this an unexpected contemporary quality. What gives it extra kick is the climax involves the killer going one of the teens and her younger sister who are alone in the house. This is really scary - Castle films often had very strong endings and this is no exception. (Although I was thrown by another gear shift - the teen goes from severely traumatised to happy go lucky in the blink of an eye.)

 

Joan Crawford is top billed but is actually in quite a small role as the killer's (John Ireland’s) neighbour. I’m guessing they thought about having her play the killer but for the story to work the killer has to be a guy – to get the girls interested int racking him down. 

 

John Ireland is very good, and the writing displays some genuine flair as to how teenage girls act and think when they're on their own.

Radio review – Lux – “The Man Who Came to Dinner” (1950) ***

For a role based on a specific person, Alexander Woolcott, a lot of different stars have enjoyed playing the part of Sheridan Whiteside: Monte Woolley, Orson Welles, Woolcott himself, Fred Allen and here Clifton Webb. There’s not much of a leap from Whiteside to Waldo Lydecker so it's no surprise that Webb does very well. An enjoyable version of a classic play, which hits all the right notes. Lucille Ball takes over the thankless role of Sheridan's secretary - she would have surely been better off playing the Gertrude Lawrence character. (Or, you know something? Lucille Ball could have made a decent Sheridan Whiteside too)

Radio review – Suspense – “Community Property” (1947) ***

Kirk Douglas never minded playing a prat at the height of his career, so it’s no surprise at this early stage (when his only really notable credit was The Strange Love of Martha Ivers) to hear him depict a real bastard. It’s one of the darkest Suspenses – he’s a man who inherits some money but doesn’t want to share it with his wife, so he kills her. Normally murder victims on this show kind of deserve it but not here – she’s a nag, but only because Douglas badgered her into it, even smacking her around – when he apologies to lure her into a false sense of security she sobs and tells him she loves him and sounds really nice… but then he kills her. He gets his comeuppance but not enough. Strong stuff.

Random thoughts on Orson Welles radio career

1) This is the one section of Welles’ career that feels fulfilled. In film (especially), theatre and TV there is this aura of unachieved greatness… projects unmade, classics that never came into existence. This may not be actually true (I get the impression he just got sick of theatre, getting satisfaction from lecture tours instead) but that’s the myth. But not for radio. On that medium you feel he accomplished everything he wanted to, and more… Indeed, he probably stuck at it longer than he wanted to in order to make money. Radio was his bread and butter for a long time, paying rent while he did theatre in the 30s, recovered from his film career flaming out in the mid 40s, and when he was seeking to raise funds for his films in the 50s.

2) His productions weren’t super-experimental. Everyone knows War of the Worlds – but this sort of liberty with the text was the exception rather than the rule for Welles on radio. His adaptations tended to be faithful – yes, lots of cutting and jazzing up, but he didn’t turn them on his ear.

3) He was obsessed with Americana. Welles loved – and I mean LOVED – nostalgic tales about America, particularly small town America, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Whimsical classics, family sagas, gentle comedies: Huckleberry Finn, Our Town, Ah Wilderness, Magnificent Ambersons, Life with Father… He was obsessed. It certainly put the films Citizen Kane and Magnificent Ambersons in context with me. Incidentally, these were often the weakest Welles shows because he was always miscast playing innocent aw shucks boys who come of age.

4) He was a terrific radio actor, which that booming voice and charm, but he like any actor he could be miscast. See above.

5) He longed to play comedy, and could be surprisingly effective, especially in a well constructed piece – this could either be a regular series, like The Jack Benny Show, or a play, like Twentieth Century. If just left to his own resources as comic, he floundered through lack of technique and experience – Orson Welles’ Almanac was a case in point.

6) Harry Lime was a marvellous vehicle - handsome, charismatic, sexy, funny, charming. Perhaps his best "hero" role. If he hadn't gotten so fat surely he would have lasted longer as a Hollywood star, as opposed to character actor - and he might have been able to parlay that into more films as director. But such things never mattered on radio.

Script review – “Last Man Standing” by Walter Hill (1995 draft)

It was a boring movie and it’s a boring script – Hill with the balls cut off. Written in regulation style so all we’ve got this is a dull story about a tough guy who goes into town. He’s a terrific gunman so he hangs around and plays each side off against each other to make money – but because this is Hollywood he gives the money away to help some prostitutes with hearts of gold, and a kindly little old man.

Kurosawa remake or not, it’s not interesting. I couldn’t help contrast this with Hill's script for Hard Times, which was a bit repetitive too but was also tough, tight and lean – yet still had some interesting characters (the drug addicted cut man, the smart-talking promoter, the main fighter). This one is flabby; the only really intriguing character is the sheriff who you think is completely corrupt and appalling but is only partly. Characters talk for too long - check out the monologue from the Texas Ranger - the action is repetitive (knock off one gangster, change sides then knock off another, change sides then another). The hero, Smith, is particularly dull - if he's such a super hero (there's never any threat to him in the action scenes) why doesn't he move to the city and make real money? There's no mystery or enigma. You also feel trapped stuck in that town for the length of the film.

Radio review – Lux – “Samson and Delilah” (1951) ***

Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr repeat their famous roles as the legendary Biblical lovers. Both do well enough even though not supported by their physiques. It takes a particular slant on the story - Delilah is the sister of Samson's wife, who betrays him mostly because he rejects her... and later she begs his forgiveness and helps him bring the temple down. Also Samson only kicks arse because his wife is killed - not his wife is killed because he kicks arse. Enjoyable schlocky fun; you'll laugh with the all-American kid Saul at the end - I think he's meant to become the first King of Israel. "Gee, Samson" he says. Hedy Lamarr talks at the end and you can hear her accent - not detectable at all during her performance.

Radio review – BP – “The Amazing Dr Clitterhouse” (1953) ***(warning: spoilers)

Fans of the 1938 Edward G Robinson film might be particularly interested in listening to this, since it’s a (I assume faithful) version of the original play starring Cedric Hardwicke, which was popular on the West End and Broadway. Hardwicke is a respected doctor who takes to committing crimes in order to do research on his own reaction, which is quite a bright idea for a black comedy. When trying to meet a fence he falls in with a real life criminal gang who he soon takes over due to his intelligence – much to the annoyance of the gang’s former leader.

The Robinson film version was flashy and jazzy; this is more sedate and laid back - Hardwicke is almost dull, the crooks are (naturally) lower class. It's enjoyable - I bought the premise, including the third act when Hardwicke kills the former gang leader to examine feelings of murder. The story does feel it should wind up then or soon after but goes on for a bit.

Script review – “The Killer” by Walter Hill and David Giler (draft April 1992)

On one hand, John Woo’s action packed, star-geared bloodbaths would seem a natural for Hollywood to remake – but on the other, they also have a peculiar Catholic, homoerotic thing going on, with it’s redemptive killers and bromance involving men trying to kill each other which doesn’t necessarily translate. Which is presumably why this never got off the ground.

The plot is about an assassin, Jeff (the Killer), an American living in Hong Kong, who blinds a girl during a shootout. He feels guilty and they fall in love with each other. An FBI agent (Lee) turns up to arrest Jeff and gets involved in people trying to kill Jeff.

Too much of this didn’t feel real: that the British police would use a visiting American FBI agent to go undercover to help them on his first day in town – and the American agent would go blasting around shooting people willy-nilly; that the agent would then be allowed to stay on as an adviser even after the Killer was wanted for murder; that the Tai Pan, the big baddy, was an English Tai Pan (running a Chinese gang); the FBI agent “sensing” the moves of the Killer; the Killer and the Agent taking a break to go chase down the assassin of the Agent’s Hong Kong contact who the Agent hardly knows; the notion that no one in the Killer’s building would know what he looked like even though he was an American living in Hong Kong.

Also everyone seems to love the killer, Jeff: the singer he renders blind; the FBI agent chasing him; his old contact and mentor who basically dies to keep his promise to him. Why not I suppose when you’re the sort of assassin who only kills corrupt politicians and crooks? The FBI agent, Lee, loves both Jeff and Chan, his Hong Kong contact. Oh, he comes across as an obnoxious American abroad too.

I did like the lean, tight form this was written in – old school Hill – and there’s plenty of action, but it doesn't hang together. I think they should have relocated this to milieu Hill knew (or could fake knowing) better, like Mexico or South America, or the old West.

Movie review – “Straight Jacket” (1964) *** (warning: spoilers)

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? made old movie stars genuine box office attractions for the next couple of years, especially Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, the two big drag queen icons. Apparently this was originally meant to star Joan Blondell and Crawford only replaced her after Blondell was injured, which sounds strange – Crawford was always a bigger name especially in this sort of movie. Maybe this fact was wrong.

Anyway, Joan gives a typical “Joan Crawford” star performance – eyebrows flaring, a bit over the top but totally committed and right for the role, professional and strong. She plays a lady who married a younger man who was cheated on her (Lee Majors!); she found out and chopped his head off and so was put away to the nut house for 20 years. The story gets going when she’s released into custody of her daughter (Diane Baker).

Crawford supposedly flexed her muscles behind the scenes on this film – Anne Helm was originally cast to play the daughter, but Crawford had her fired and replaced with Baker – but Baker was a better actor than Helm. (She specialised in pretty ingénues with dark sides who were outshone by the female star.) Also she allegedly insisted on a big close up after Baker’s break down at the end – but dramatically it was entirely right that she got a close up.

There’s long slabs of time when not much happens in this film – not uncommon in psycho biddy movies – but the shocks, when they come are good: Joan lopping off Majors’ head, Joan waking up to find heads in the bed next to her, the axe murders (one of a dodgy looking George Kennedy), the finale. There’s also plenty of camp value, with Joan either being insane or going insane in various scenes, Joan trying to seduce Baker’s boyfriend, Baker going nuts – plus Pepsi Cola product placement, and a performance by some old guy who was head of Pepsi Cola. Directed in so-so William Castle style. But fun.

Book review - Suddenly Last Winter” by Bob Ellis

The ALP’s return to power at a Federal level saw Ellis get his groove back writing about politics – I agree with Kim Beazley in that Ellis’ hatred for John Howard was so overwhelming it became monotonous and distorted his pieces, making them boring (blaming Howard for the Boxing day tsunami?). The reign of Kevin Rudd meant Ellis could go back to doing what he liked best – being wistful about lost eras and complaining about flawed ALP leaders. His pieces in ‘Unleashed’ running up to the 2010 election contained some of his best ever writing – he was spot on in a lot of his analysis (on the thugs of the ALP right, pointing out assassins don’t have honeymoons, asking why people would vote in a government on it’s record when they’d just assassinated their leader). His man crush on Tony Abbott led to some wonderful pieces, making up for his inherent misogyny (and it’s there, it’s always been there in his writing) when discussing Gillard.

It’s a highly entertaining account of one of the most fascinating elections in recent memory, rich in character and incident. Sometimes Ellis is guilty of smoking the crack pipe (thinking he has impacted the nation by a quick exchange with Tony Windsor the morning after the election – many megalomaniacs suffer from these sort of delusional) and he goes easy on anyone who pays him attention (eg calling Nick Minchin a good man because he came over and said hello when Minchin’s policies are against Ellis in pretty much every way), but often he’s spot on. Lots of bits I didn’t know, like Rhys Muldoon being close to Rudd.

We get all sorts of insights into Ellis’ life which seems to consist of a lot of getting in cabs, cars and trains and running to public events and hanging around, and eating bacon and egg rolls over coffee. He sleeps in a separate room to his wife, has for years, and his play and film ideas don’t sound very appealing (eg a story about Beaconsfield with Paul Howes as the hero – didn’t Howes just hang around and go “there there” to the victims’ families? What about making it about the rescuers and the trapped miners.)

Movie review – Chaplin#4 – “Between Showers” (1914) **

Charlie and a rival both try to help a girl cross the road after a storm and eventually wind up in a fight over who can help her more. Still very primitive but Chaplin does a bit more physical comedy in this one.

Movie review – Chaplin#3 – “Mabel’s Strange Predicament” (1914) **

Mabel is locked outside her room at a hotel and in the corridor in some (very well clothed) pyjamas – the tramp is downstairs, comes upstairs and tries to help her out. Not very funny. The Tramp does a bit of a walk but disappears for too much of the action.