Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Movie review - "Goodbye Columbus" (1969) **
This is highly regarded by some critics and was a big hit in its day but the allure escaped me. Richard Benjamin is well cast and Ali MacGraw stunning good looking but I foun it all a bit bleh. It has a frankness depicting sex (the act and talking about it and it's consequences) which would have seemed fresh at the time. It all feels overly familiar: Jack Klugman as the unimpressed rich dad, Nan Martin as the snobbish mum - and Benjamin's slacker hero not that particularly interesting. It ends on a flat note. The movie felt like a rip off of The Graduate and I wasn't wild about that either. But it does have its fans.
Movie review - "Goodbye Paradise" (1983) **** (warning: spoilers)
Raymond Chandler on the Gold Coast, brilliantly pulled off by star Ray Barrett (in the role of a life time) and writers Denny Lawrence and Bob Ellis. It's a Gold Coast that doesn't exist in this way any more but certainly did then - in tropical, socialist hating Queensland, with its dingy clubs, discos, drag shows, cults, right wing political movements and military bases. (It actually seems more interesting)
There's some beautiful dialogue - Ellis at his most wonderful, perfectly delivered by Barrett. The plot isn't bad either, with Barrett chasing various clues as he tracks down a missing girl and encountering various characters (many of whom are familiar to Barrett... unlike say Philip Marlowe he's not entering a strange world, he's participating in a world he knows very well).
Great cameos from Kate Fitzpatrick (politician's second wife), Paul Chubb (seemingly dodgy ex cop), Lex Marinos (local tour guide), wondrous Robyn Nevin (an old flame of Barrett's), Mark Hembrow (night club guy), Grant Dodwell (sleazy Sea World type), Don Pascoe (old Labor senator), Kris McQuade (hooker), Guy Doleman (pukka officer), Tex Morton (politician), John Clayton (hippie). Many of these are not what they seem - wonderfully, Clayton and Doleman are in cahoots for a coup so that the Gold Coast can secede from the rest of Australia (a superb conceit), McQuade works for ASIO, Hembrow for army intelligence, Dodwell tries to assassinate someone, etc.
Not surprisingly for an Ellis script the young women are weak and all want to hump middle aged men - the girl who plays the first Cathy is especially terrible. And it's a shame Barrett is so passive at the end - I felt he should have helped expose the coup more, at least taken revenge for Nevin's death.
But it's got a lovely texture - melancholic, haunting - with decent action. A real cult movie.
There's some beautiful dialogue - Ellis at his most wonderful, perfectly delivered by Barrett. The plot isn't bad either, with Barrett chasing various clues as he tracks down a missing girl and encountering various characters (many of whom are familiar to Barrett... unlike say Philip Marlowe he's not entering a strange world, he's participating in a world he knows very well).
Great cameos from Kate Fitzpatrick (politician's second wife), Paul Chubb (seemingly dodgy ex cop), Lex Marinos (local tour guide), wondrous Robyn Nevin (an old flame of Barrett's), Mark Hembrow (night club guy), Grant Dodwell (sleazy Sea World type), Don Pascoe (old Labor senator), Kris McQuade (hooker), Guy Doleman (pukka officer), Tex Morton (politician), John Clayton (hippie). Many of these are not what they seem - wonderfully, Clayton and Doleman are in cahoots for a coup so that the Gold Coast can secede from the rest of Australia (a superb conceit), McQuade works for ASIO, Hembrow for army intelligence, Dodwell tries to assassinate someone, etc.
Not surprisingly for an Ellis script the young women are weak and all want to hump middle aged men - the girl who plays the first Cathy is especially terrible. And it's a shame Barrett is so passive at the end - I felt he should have helped expose the coup more, at least taken revenge for Nevin's death.
But it's got a lovely texture - melancholic, haunting - with decent action. A real cult movie.
Movie review - "Thunderbolt" (1910) **
Only 24 minutes off this movie survive but that's better than for most Australian silent movies and certainly enough to get a sense of what the whole thing looked like. This was directed by Jack Gavin, who plays the title role, the famous bushranger - though as per many films of the time we rarely get a good look at him because this is mostly shot in long shot, with blocking like a stage play and the camera allowed to film.
This is despite the fact that the action is inherently cinematic - the arrest of Fred Ward for cattle duffing, his fiancee going mad and dying, Ward escaping from the chain gang and swimming to freedom, then becoming a bushranger and robbing some Chinese (played by actors in yellow face mugging it up).
The scenery is passable - some very hilly countryside - but there's a decent amount of it. And the photography is of high standard.
This is despite the fact that the action is inherently cinematic - the arrest of Fred Ward for cattle duffing, his fiancee going mad and dying, Ward escaping from the chain gang and swimming to freedom, then becoming a bushranger and robbing some Chinese (played by actors in yellow face mugging it up).
The scenery is passable - some very hilly countryside - but there's a decent amount of it. And the photography is of high standard.
Film review - "Double Trouble" (1951) **
A 10 minute government short mostly notable for being the first time Lee Robinson worked with actors. It's left wing high concept - two Aussies prejudiced against new immigrants find themselves transported to a land where everyone thinks they're immigrants. The potential of this idea aren't really developed - it was only ten minutes but still... The acting is iffy and the photography good. Of some historical interest - fascinating especially from a 2015 view point.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Movie review - "Upstairs and Downstairs" (1959) **
Cheerful, bright, dim comedy which is one of the least well known of the Ralph Thomas-Betty Box output. Michael Craig and Anne Heywood are a young married couple; Heywood's father James Robertson Justice is Craig's boss and he suggests they get hired help so they can entertain. This leads to a series of not particularly funny episodes involving their attempt to find domestic help.
There's Claudia Cardinale in an early role as an Italian who parties with sailors, an old couple who are dodgy, a bossy old lady. Then in the last half Mylene Demongeot arrives as a hot girl and causes temperatures to rise. She romances Daniel Massey (in an American accent) but gets a crush on Craig.
A little more story would have helped - or laughs. And a little less upper middle class smugness. But it is cheery and amiable and it shot in glossy colour photography. Demongeot is very pretty and I enjoyed seeing Cardinale. There's also comic support from people like Sid James and Joan Sims.
What can you say about a movie like this really? It feel as though it belongs more to the 1930s (though there is a semi racy scene where Heywood flashes her bare back in bed with Craig.) Everyone looks good, it's dim, it mocks foreigners, etc etc.
There's Claudia Cardinale in an early role as an Italian who parties with sailors, an old couple who are dodgy, a bossy old lady. Then in the last half Mylene Demongeot arrives as a hot girl and causes temperatures to rise. She romances Daniel Massey (in an American accent) but gets a crush on Craig.
A little more story would have helped - or laughs. And a little less upper middle class smugness. But it is cheery and amiable and it shot in glossy colour photography. Demongeot is very pretty and I enjoyed seeing Cardinale. There's also comic support from people like Sid James and Joan Sims.
What can you say about a movie like this really? It feel as though it belongs more to the 1930s (though there is a semi racy scene where Heywood flashes her bare back in bed with Craig.) Everyone looks good, it's dim, it mocks foreigners, etc etc.
Movie review - "Sincerely Yours" (1955) **
We can't blame Warner Bros for trying to turn Liberace into a film star - he was one of the most famous people in the country in the mid 50s, enormously popular - and maybe he could have carried the right sort of movie (interesting challenge to set aspiring screenwriters - construct a successful Liberace vehicle) but although he tries, really tries, he's allowed to flounder here. Hopelessly miscast in a romantic melodrama, he's given way too much dialogue and a silly story. Sonja Henie was never given so much to say.
They throw in Liberace bits - opening with a concert where he plays "Chopsticks" for a kid in the audience, some banter with little old ladies at a nightclub, and plenty of piano playing - which works well enough (I liked the bit in the night club where the audience yell out "hey"). But when he's talking about wanting to play Carnegie Hall, or romancing Dorothy Malone.... I'm sorry. But no.
Like I say they tried - there's William Demarest doing crusty support act (he and Arthur O'Connell had this gig sewn up), Malone trying to act as though she's into him, glossy photography. And Liberace goes for it. And you know something? In some scenes he's not too bad - he can emote, and does the angsty stuff pretty well; he even pulled off a thinking about suicide scene. He's not good in romance but he's not a trainwreck as a dramatic actor. And the piano playing is excellent.
There is some terrible dialogue and dodgy script moments. The bones of the story are alright - pianist loses hearing, can lip read and sets about helping people with their problems. But its poorly executed - it takes too long for him to lose hearing, and far far too long for him to start helping people. And the people he helps aren't very sympathetic - a crippled boy who whines at God for not making him better, a woman whose daughter is embarrassed by her (Liberace gives her a make over... why should we care about this woman impressing her horrible daughter?) and girlfriend Dorothy Malone falling in love with a serviceman who doesn't come across much straighter than Liberace. The romance with Joanne Dru is poorly handled - basically thrown in at the end.
Could Liberace have carried a lead? Maybe say in a madcap comedy where he's a jewel thief, but not in something straight and serious. Still, this isn't that bad and Liberace isn't the worst thing about it.
They throw in Liberace bits - opening with a concert where he plays "Chopsticks" for a kid in the audience, some banter with little old ladies at a nightclub, and plenty of piano playing - which works well enough (I liked the bit in the night club where the audience yell out "hey"). But when he's talking about wanting to play Carnegie Hall, or romancing Dorothy Malone.... I'm sorry. But no.
Like I say they tried - there's William Demarest doing crusty support act (he and Arthur O'Connell had this gig sewn up), Malone trying to act as though she's into him, glossy photography. And Liberace goes for it. And you know something? In some scenes he's not too bad - he can emote, and does the angsty stuff pretty well; he even pulled off a thinking about suicide scene. He's not good in romance but he's not a trainwreck as a dramatic actor. And the piano playing is excellent.
There is some terrible dialogue and dodgy script moments. The bones of the story are alright - pianist loses hearing, can lip read and sets about helping people with their problems. But its poorly executed - it takes too long for him to lose hearing, and far far too long for him to start helping people. And the people he helps aren't very sympathetic - a crippled boy who whines at God for not making him better, a woman whose daughter is embarrassed by her (Liberace gives her a make over... why should we care about this woman impressing her horrible daughter?) and girlfriend Dorothy Malone falling in love with a serviceman who doesn't come across much straighter than Liberace. The romance with Joanne Dru is poorly handled - basically thrown in at the end.
Could Liberace have carried a lead? Maybe say in a madcap comedy where he's a jewel thief, but not in something straight and serious. Still, this isn't that bad and Liberace isn't the worst thing about it.
Book review - "Cagliostro: The Great Impostor" by Nina Wilcox Putnam (2009)
It's not surprising that the magician Cagliostro attracted the attention of Universal execs looking for a vehicle for Bela Lugosi, and then later Boris Karloff in the early 1930s - the mad mysterious physician inspired several books and films over the years. But the treatment turned out here by Nina Wilcox Putnam isn't very good - it simply rips off Dracula with its story of an immortal man who falls in love with a young woman who looks like his former love - only she's in love with a handsome young man who has a Van Helsing style mentor. There's black servants and a killing spree and invisible rays - it isn't very scary or memorable. What's more there's not much Cagliostro either - just "Dr Astro" (it's set in the present day). However you can see several things which were later used by John Balderstone when he turned this into The Mummy.
It is a shame Lugosi or Karloff never got to play Cagliostro - and certainly both men made movies with worse stories than the one here. But this was definitely not a Classic that got Away and Universal made the right decision not to make it.
It is a shame Lugosi or Karloff never got to play Cagliostro - and certainly both men made movies with worse stories than the one here. But this was definitely not a Classic that got Away and Universal made the right decision not to make it.
Book review - "Wally: the True Wallace Reid Story" by David Menefee (2007)
Wallace Reid is best known for dying - the first big Hollywood star to die in a scandalous way, passing away from a morphine addiction. He had a legit excuse for getting on it - a nasty accident led to him being given morphine and he became hooked - and couldn't shake it. That ensures this book has a solid, natural narrative because you know you've got a moving ending.
Life had been pretty good and cruisy for Reid until then - his father was a popular playwright whose work is never performed today but who enabled Wally to be raised with money and love; he was a good looking athletic kid whose natural charm and appearance helped him make it as a movie. There's a lack of well known movies on his resume apart from Birth of a Nation (in which Reid has a relatively small role) but appears to have been genuinely popular, and worked with legends such as Lilian Gish, James Cruze, Mae Marsh and Cecil B de Mille. He also wrote and directed.
Then came drugs, which he couldn't shake and which killed him. It's treated movingly and well by Menefee who has done some excellent scholarship on Reid's films. I'm not inspired to seek out any of them to watch (they sound awfully formulaic) but am glad it's done.
Life had been pretty good and cruisy for Reid until then - his father was a popular playwright whose work is never performed today but who enabled Wally to be raised with money and love; he was a good looking athletic kid whose natural charm and appearance helped him make it as a movie. There's a lack of well known movies on his resume apart from Birth of a Nation (in which Reid has a relatively small role) but appears to have been genuinely popular, and worked with legends such as Lilian Gish, James Cruze, Mae Marsh and Cecil B de Mille. He also wrote and directed.
Then came drugs, which he couldn't shake and which killed him. It's treated movingly and well by Menefee who has done some excellent scholarship on Reid's films. I'm not inspired to seek out any of them to watch (they sound awfully formulaic) but am glad it's done.
Book review - "Nemesis: The Battle for Japan 1944-45" by Max Hastings (2007)
Another superb book from Hastings which takes the relatively fresh approach of focusing on the last years of the war with Japan. So no Pearl Harbour, Bataan, Malaya, Singapore, Kokoda, or Midway. But there are still epic encounters - Slim in Burma, the Aussies in Borneo, Leyte Gulf, the Philippines, Le May's bombing campaign, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Marianas, the kamikaze. Refreshingly for a Western history there is plenty of non Western stuff - the home front of Japan, the occupied territories, the war in China (very neglected by Western histories over the years), the Russian invasion of Manchuria, the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan's final surrender.
Consistencies emerge: the most egotistical and famous Allied commanders (MacArthur, Mountbatten and Halsey) made the biggest mistakes (whereas Slim and Nimitz kept their mouths shut and did the job), American mistakes were frequently covered up by Japanese ones, the British tried to cling to their old position and kind of redeemed some of their early disasters, the Chinese got screwed over by everyone especially themselves, the Japanese regime was hideously evil and their soldiers and citizens manically brave, Stalin was a prick, citizens and innocents suffer while the powerful and privileged hang on.
There were a number of ways Japan could have prolonged the war (45% of their troops were in China, their navy committed suicide in the Philippines - had their consolidated more they could have held out for a number of years) - if they'd invaded Russia and not the West they might have one the whole thing. But they made the mistake of attacking the US in such a way that they never were going to be forgiven and paid the price - though not as big a price as the countries they occupied.
Australia doesn't come out of the book particularly well - Hastings is quick to praise out early contributions but not later on when our troops were sent on useless campaigns and often asked not to go. He's particularly harsh on wharfies who would strike and play up during war time - something we don't hear a lot about in Australia and which should be discussd more often.
The epic scale of so many of the encounters surprised me - I knew about Leyte Gulf and Okinawa, but the battles in China and Manchura involved so many people. I was surprised Japan had that many to kill. A lot of this is harrowing reading - the rapes (which was unofficial army policy for the Japanese and Russians), torture, racism, brutality, sadism. It's full on. But it's an excellent book.
(George MacDonald Fraser fans will be delighted to see Quartered Safe Out Here quoted so consistently and extensively in the bits on the Burma Campaign - but then Fraser's personal, human viewpoint of the conflict is very much in line with Hasting's approach.)
Consistencies emerge: the most egotistical and famous Allied commanders (MacArthur, Mountbatten and Halsey) made the biggest mistakes (whereas Slim and Nimitz kept their mouths shut and did the job), American mistakes were frequently covered up by Japanese ones, the British tried to cling to their old position and kind of redeemed some of their early disasters, the Chinese got screwed over by everyone especially themselves, the Japanese regime was hideously evil and their soldiers and citizens manically brave, Stalin was a prick, citizens and innocents suffer while the powerful and privileged hang on.
There were a number of ways Japan could have prolonged the war (45% of their troops were in China, their navy committed suicide in the Philippines - had their consolidated more they could have held out for a number of years) - if they'd invaded Russia and not the West they might have one the whole thing. But they made the mistake of attacking the US in such a way that they never were going to be forgiven and paid the price - though not as big a price as the countries they occupied.
Australia doesn't come out of the book particularly well - Hastings is quick to praise out early contributions but not later on when our troops were sent on useless campaigns and often asked not to go. He's particularly harsh on wharfies who would strike and play up during war time - something we don't hear a lot about in Australia and which should be discussd more often.
The epic scale of so many of the encounters surprised me - I knew about Leyte Gulf and Okinawa, but the battles in China and Manchura involved so many people. I was surprised Japan had that many to kill. A lot of this is harrowing reading - the rapes (which was unofficial army policy for the Japanese and Russians), torture, racism, brutality, sadism. It's full on. But it's an excellent book.
(George MacDonald Fraser fans will be delighted to see Quartered Safe Out Here quoted so consistently and extensively in the bits on the Burma Campaign - but then Fraser's personal, human viewpoint of the conflict is very much in line with Hasting's approach.)
Movie review - "George O'Brien: A Man's Man in Hollywood" by David Manefee (2009)
George O'Brien isn't particularly well known today, even among film buffs, but had an interesting career. A top athlete and World War One veteran (he was champion boxer for the fleet) he got his break as a stuntman and extra before becoming a star relatively quickly (in terms of progressing from bit parts to leads) in The Iron Horse. In the 1920s he was a decent enough box office draw for Fox but managed to appear in one classic - Sunrise - plus some John Ford movies and Michael Curtiz's Noah's Arc.
Sound didn't kill O'Brien's career but seemed to affect it in an odd way - he began appearing mostly in Westerns, then solely in them, and didn't really appear in anything else during the 30s. He re-enlisted during WW2 and saw hard service (in the navy), returned as a character actor (notably in some John Ford movies such as Fort Apache)... then went back to the navy. Plenty of film stars served in the military during the war -was he the only film star who went back to the navy deliberately when his film career wound down?
He was an odd kind of star, O'Brien - with his beefy build and not particularly memorable name or all American persona. Definitely not one of the great silent stars - no Valentino, no Fairbanks, no Tom Mix - but he had enough talent to impress Murnau, a young Howard Hawks, Allan Dwan and John Ford (with whom he had a long term falling out - which seems standard for people who worked for Ford). Hollywood executives liked him to a point but then seemed happier to shunt him off to Westerns.
The only career I can think that was like O'Brien's was Tim Holt, the actor who replaced him as RKO's B Western cowboy (Holt was cheaper) - mostly known for countless Westerns, but a surprising amount of classic movies on his resume (eg The Magnificent Ambersons, His Kind of Women), impressive war service. (I do admit though that Holt never had anything like O'Brien's success in the late 1920s).
He seems to have been a decent enough guy - sensible, hardworking, fit, held on to his money, didn't go insane or get hooked on drugs like so many of his contemporaries who met tragic ends (eg Olive Borden). Not a very good husband, running off to play soldiers whenever he good - World War Two I get but to do it in the 50s, I think he just liked the navy. He was married to Margeurite Churchill but from this biography didn't seem that interested in spending too much time with her - or with other women. And he appeared in a (very) large number of beefcake photos in the 20s some of which are downright homoerotic. Maybe it was all coincidental, but still... None of that is explored here.
This is still a pretty good book, benefiting from the fact that so much of it is unfamiliar to me so I was learning a lot. Occasionally the writer goes off on tangents with biographies of people connected to O'Brien - and I did feel that I wasn't entirely getting to know the real guy.
Sound didn't kill O'Brien's career but seemed to affect it in an odd way - he began appearing mostly in Westerns, then solely in them, and didn't really appear in anything else during the 30s. He re-enlisted during WW2 and saw hard service (in the navy), returned as a character actor (notably in some John Ford movies such as Fort Apache)... then went back to the navy. Plenty of film stars served in the military during the war -was he the only film star who went back to the navy deliberately when his film career wound down?
He was an odd kind of star, O'Brien - with his beefy build and not particularly memorable name or all American persona. Definitely not one of the great silent stars - no Valentino, no Fairbanks, no Tom Mix - but he had enough talent to impress Murnau, a young Howard Hawks, Allan Dwan and John Ford (with whom he had a long term falling out - which seems standard for people who worked for Ford). Hollywood executives liked him to a point but then seemed happier to shunt him off to Westerns.
The only career I can think that was like O'Brien's was Tim Holt, the actor who replaced him as RKO's B Western cowboy (Holt was cheaper) - mostly known for countless Westerns, but a surprising amount of classic movies on his resume (eg The Magnificent Ambersons, His Kind of Women), impressive war service. (I do admit though that Holt never had anything like O'Brien's success in the late 1920s).
He seems to have been a decent enough guy - sensible, hardworking, fit, held on to his money, didn't go insane or get hooked on drugs like so many of his contemporaries who met tragic ends (eg Olive Borden). Not a very good husband, running off to play soldiers whenever he good - World War Two I get but to do it in the 50s, I think he just liked the navy. He was married to Margeurite Churchill but from this biography didn't seem that interested in spending too much time with her - or with other women. And he appeared in a (very) large number of beefcake photos in the 20s some of which are downright homoerotic. Maybe it was all coincidental, but still... None of that is explored here.
This is still a pretty good book, benefiting from the fact that so much of it is unfamiliar to me so I was learning a lot. Occasionally the writer goes off on tangents with biographies of people connected to O'Brien - and I did feel that I wasn't entirely getting to know the real guy.
Movie review - "The Unguarded Moment" (1956) **1/2
This film is best remembered today if at all for being Esther Williams' first dramatic role in a decade, and for being co-written by Rosalind Russell. It's actually a neat little picture, about a high school teacher tormented by a stalker - the sort of story that's bread and butter for Aussie soaps.
There is some first rate stuff in it, like Williams being confronted in a gym by her stalker with a creepy voice (reminiscent of the later opening sequence of Midnight Lace), the persecution that Williams' character suffers when she claims she's being stalked (the students and conservative townsfolk think she's hitting on her students), some of the characterisations (the weak school principal, the weird woman hating dad Edward Andrews and his chilling relationship with son John Saxon). Williams isn't fantastic as an actress but has a decent character to play - strong, independent, sexy, concerned for her students, reluctant to dob in the main suspect. She has a logical and satisfying romance with George Nader, Universal's resident back up Rock Hudson but a strong presence.
Director Harry Keller was a good, solid suspense helmer and there's a strong support cast - John Saxon (one of the most talented teen idols acting wise, well cast), Andrews and Edward Platt. The main problem I feel is there isn't enough story to sustain a feature film. The mystery is "who is the stalker" - it could only be Saxon, Andrews or the principal, and all the cards indicate Andrews fairly early. It needed another twist or something - it feels too much like a one hour story. But still, I liked this more than I thought I would.
There is some first rate stuff in it, like Williams being confronted in a gym by her stalker with a creepy voice (reminiscent of the later opening sequence of Midnight Lace), the persecution that Williams' character suffers when she claims she's being stalked (the students and conservative townsfolk think she's hitting on her students), some of the characterisations (the weak school principal, the weird woman hating dad Edward Andrews and his chilling relationship with son John Saxon). Williams isn't fantastic as an actress but has a decent character to play - strong, independent, sexy, concerned for her students, reluctant to dob in the main suspect. She has a logical and satisfying romance with George Nader, Universal's resident back up Rock Hudson but a strong presence.
Director Harry Keller was a good, solid suspense helmer and there's a strong support cast - John Saxon (one of the most talented teen idols acting wise, well cast), Andrews and Edward Platt. The main problem I feel is there isn't enough story to sustain a feature film. The mystery is "who is the stalker" - it could only be Saxon, Andrews or the principal, and all the cards indicate Andrews fairly early. It needed another twist or something - it feels too much like a one hour story. But still, I liked this more than I thought I would.
Movie review - "The Korean War" by Max Hastings (1988)
I've become a big fan of Hastings work - he has an eye for the big picture of war, the strategy and key players, but also an old journo's eye for a personal story, and dramatic incident: the peasants, pilots, mechanics. He's a conservative but not silly - justifiably angry at a lot of what went down: idiocies from the North Koreans who started it, then the Americans who fought back so well but then pushed it too far, the lunatics who wanted the bomb (especially MacArthur who covered himself with glory via Inchon then almost caused World War 3). He argues the war was ultimately justifiable, just far too long - if only the US had the courage to stop at the 38th parallel, then the Chinese the same. (This presumably informed American activities during the First Gulf War - the sensible one.)
Even though this was written towards the end of the Cold War it's fascinatingly apt about lessons for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars - the danger of fighting a technologically poor but tough enemy on their home turf in unforgiving climate. Look at this quote (it relates to Vietnam but it's still apt:
The political difficulty of sustaining an unpopular and autocratic regime; the problems of creating a credible local army in a corrupt society; the fateful cost of underestimating the power of an Asian Communist army. For all the undoubted benefits of air superiority and close support, Korea vividly displayed the difficulties of using air power effectively against a primitive economy, a peasant army. The war also demonstrated the problem of deploying a highly mechanized Western army in broken country against a lightly equipped foe... Yet because it proved possible finally to stabilize the battle in Korea on terms which allowed the United Nations--or more realistically, the United States--to deploy its vast firepower from fixed positions, to defeat the advance of the massed Communist armies, many of the lessons of Korea were misunderstood, or not learned at all.
It's an excellent comprehensive history: causes, big personalities (of which MacArthur was the best known but also Truman, Ridgway - who comes out of this very well, the dodgy and brave Koreans), a Chinese point of view, POWs, air force, navy, Allies (including us - Kapyong gets a brief mention) the battle of Imjin River and Choisin Reservoir, the shockingly poor performance of US troops at the beginning of the war and the beginning of the Chinese offensive, how close the Chinese came to winning, all the nationalities (Turks were fantastic fighters apparently), how the war revived Japan, the climate, the pointlessness of the two year stalemate (due to fights over POWs).
It was a fascinating war - not as epic or easy to understand as World War Two - but a fight worth doing and remembering and it's an excellent book.
Even though this was written towards the end of the Cold War it's fascinatingly apt about lessons for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars - the danger of fighting a technologically poor but tough enemy on their home turf in unforgiving climate. Look at this quote (it relates to Vietnam but it's still apt:
The political difficulty of sustaining an unpopular and autocratic regime; the problems of creating a credible local army in a corrupt society; the fateful cost of underestimating the power of an Asian Communist army. For all the undoubted benefits of air superiority and close support, Korea vividly displayed the difficulties of using air power effectively against a primitive economy, a peasant army. The war also demonstrated the problem of deploying a highly mechanized Western army in broken country against a lightly equipped foe... Yet because it proved possible finally to stabilize the battle in Korea on terms which allowed the United Nations--or more realistically, the United States--to deploy its vast firepower from fixed positions, to defeat the advance of the massed Communist armies, many of the lessons of Korea were misunderstood, or not learned at all.
It's an excellent comprehensive history: causes, big personalities (of which MacArthur was the best known but also Truman, Ridgway - who comes out of this very well, the dodgy and brave Koreans), a Chinese point of view, POWs, air force, navy, Allies (including us - Kapyong gets a brief mention) the battle of Imjin River and Choisin Reservoir, the shockingly poor performance of US troops at the beginning of the war and the beginning of the Chinese offensive, how close the Chinese came to winning, all the nationalities (Turks were fantastic fighters apparently), how the war revived Japan, the climate, the pointlessness of the two year stalemate (due to fights over POWs).
It was a fascinating war - not as epic or easy to understand as World War Two - but a fight worth doing and remembering and it's an excellent book.
Novel review - "The Four Feathers" by A.E.W. Mason
Pukka adventure novel which has one of the great high concepts of all time - an officer, loved by his girl, admired by his mates - chickens out of active service at the time of the Sudan uprising. He's sent four white feathers of cowardice and sets out to redeem himself.
Despite this set up there is a surprisingly little amount of action - far too much time is spent on the incredibly dull heroin Ethne, who is stoic and suffering, and Durrance, the one who goes blind - who is a little more interesting, but still spends most of his time being blind and stoic. Harry Faversham's adventures in the Sudan are dealt mostly via reportage (we don't even get to be there for the death of Castleton, one of the men who gave him the feathers) except at the end when we go with him to Omdurman prison when he tries to bust out Lt Trench. Trench is given more of a character than dull lt Willoughby and there is good suspense as Faversham goes a little mad in the heat, an attempt fails and then succeeds. You read it and go "this would make a good movie... after some changes".
Despite this set up there is a surprisingly little amount of action - far too much time is spent on the incredibly dull heroin Ethne, who is stoic and suffering, and Durrance, the one who goes blind - who is a little more interesting, but still spends most of his time being blind and stoic. Harry Faversham's adventures in the Sudan are dealt mostly via reportage (we don't even get to be there for the death of Castleton, one of the men who gave him the feathers) except at the end when we go with him to Omdurman prison when he tries to bust out Lt Trench. Trench is given more of a character than dull lt Willoughby and there is good suspense as Faversham goes a little mad in the heat, an attempt fails and then succeeds. You read it and go "this would make a good movie... after some changes".
Book review - "The Riddle of the Sands" by Erskine Childers
A classic of British adventure writing which has its fans and was reportedly very influential, not only in the area of spy fiction but in increasing England's preparations for home defence, but I've always struggled to get through it. Some classic tales I can see easily why they were classic - Hound of the Baskervilles, The 39 Steps, King Solomon's Mines. But I was bored with this as a teenager and remain bored revisiting it as a middle age person.
It has a great idea - a yachtsman invites an old school chum on board his little boat and reveals he thinks he'd discovered a German plot to invade England. But its bogged down with incessant description of sailing around the Frisian islands - tacking, and crashing into sand banks and being cold and lots and lots of not particularly interesting maps. We don't find out its a plot to invade England until late in the day so up until then it's just not particularly interesting clues and a surprising absence of action and suspense.
Carruthers and Davies are far too similar as characters - Davies is more active and Carruthers pukka but it's not long before they blend into the one person. There are some promising villains - the English traitor Dollman, the captain Von Bruning - but we don't see enough of them, and they aren't scary enough. We don't see enough either of Dollman's daughter, Clara. A less faithful film adaptation would have fixed these problems - like Hitchcock's version of The 39 Steps.
It does pick up towards the end with some decent scenes of Carruthers poking around trying to eavesrop on isolated windswept isles - and it is very convincing.
It has a great idea - a yachtsman invites an old school chum on board his little boat and reveals he thinks he'd discovered a German plot to invade England. But its bogged down with incessant description of sailing around the Frisian islands - tacking, and crashing into sand banks and being cold and lots and lots of not particularly interesting maps. We don't find out its a plot to invade England until late in the day so up until then it's just not particularly interesting clues and a surprising absence of action and suspense.
Carruthers and Davies are far too similar as characters - Davies is more active and Carruthers pukka but it's not long before they blend into the one person. There are some promising villains - the English traitor Dollman, the captain Von Bruning - but we don't see enough of them, and they aren't scary enough. We don't see enough either of Dollman's daughter, Clara. A less faithful film adaptation would have fixed these problems - like Hitchcock's version of The 39 Steps.
It does pick up towards the end with some decent scenes of Carruthers poking around trying to eavesrop on isolated windswept isles - and it is very convincing.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Movie review - "Jungle Patrol" (1944) ****
Australia produced frustratingly few feature films during World War Two, but did come up with some first rate documentaries. The best known is the Oscar-winning Kokoda Frontline but there is also this effort, written and directed by Tom Gurr. Gurr had written South West Pacific which had been so criticised in some sectors that the Prime Minister ordered it's distribution cancelled and a new film made which emphasised real people and men on the front line. This was the result.
It's the story of a patrol from some real life soldiers along Shaggy Ridge in the Finisterre Range (not particularly well known battlefield, but then not many places in PNG outside Kokoda and Port Morseby are). They fly into the jungle, travel to their old base, do a patrol, see some action.
The best thing about it is, not surprisingly, the visuals - playing harmonica in a plane, native guides helping get gear off the plan, soldiers helping each other across a creek and have a swim, the long grass. The soldiers are never really given a chance to establish a character.
Peter Finch does the narration, and very well too. Like a lot of Aussie actors of the time - Chips Rafferty, Grant Taylor - he saw real service: something that should be more celebrated and known. Unfortunately he's given a few racist lines (eg "you couldn't fight the war without the boong, the steady, patient, boong"). That aside, it's a remarkable achievement and should be better known.
It's the story of a patrol from some real life soldiers along Shaggy Ridge in the Finisterre Range (not particularly well known battlefield, but then not many places in PNG outside Kokoda and Port Morseby are). They fly into the jungle, travel to their old base, do a patrol, see some action.
The best thing about it is, not surprisingly, the visuals - playing harmonica in a plane, native guides helping get gear off the plan, soldiers helping each other across a creek and have a swim, the long grass. The soldiers are never really given a chance to establish a character.
Peter Finch does the narration, and very well too. Like a lot of Aussie actors of the time - Chips Rafferty, Grant Taylor - he saw real service: something that should be more celebrated and known. Unfortunately he's given a few racist lines (eg "you couldn't fight the war without the boong, the steady, patient, boong"). That aside, it's a remarkable achievement and should be better known.
Movie review - "Kings of the Sun" (1963) **
An extremely flawed movie but consistently fascinating because it's the only time Hollywood has really tried to make a movie about the Mayan civilisation. The concept of this movie - which, surprisingly for something that's so different, wasn't based on a best selling book or play but was an original for the screen - is that the Mayans get kicked out of their kingdom, sailed over to modern day Texas, and mixed it with the local Indians.
Apparently the original writer was inspired by the weird Indian mounds and thought the Mayans could be the one responsible. Now that's actually a great idea, only it didn't wind up in the final film - it would have been a great way to start it, with the mounds, then going back in time to tell the story of how they were created. It's one of several bad decisions that hurt this movie.
It actually starts very interestingly. George Chakiris is the Mayan prince, whose people come under attack from Leo Gordon; Gordon chases him out of his kingdom so they have to force some fisherpeople to transport them across the sea to safety. Okay yes the actors look a little silly most of the time spouting dialogue, but there's plenty of action and pace, Chakiris is as well cast as any name Hollywood actor from this time, the characters are clearly drawn (Shirley Ann Field is the leader of the fisherpeople whose dad forces Chakiris is marry her as a condition for using their boats, which sets up solid conflict).
Then Chakiris arrives in America (well, soon to be America) and local Indian chief Yul Brynner worries about him, and winds up captured by Chakiris. I bought Brynner as an Indian but its at this point the film became muddy - Brynner sort of falls in love with Field who would rather be with Chakiris but he isn't showing any love so she's open to Brynner; Chakiris is going to sacrifice Brynner in a Mayan ceremony but gets talked out of it, in part because he kind of falls in love with Brynner, which annoys his head priest. Then, least convincingly of all, Leo Gordon and his men turn up to attack Chakiris. Like, why bother? The real reason is for Brynner and Chakiris and their mean to team up - I guess dramatically they had to but it didn't seem real. (Maybe it would have been better to reduce Gordon's part and instead have the baddies be a fringe hard-right group of Mayans).
Director J. Lee Thompson ensures there is plenty of blood and thunder but too often things get silly. Shirley Ann Field is cute as hell, but not terribly convincing, and she's got an awful character - she starts off spirited but then becomes this passive trophy to be fought over. Would the Mayans really build a large stone pyramid almost as soon as they arrive? Would Indians and Mayans really fight battles this way?
Dramatically, the movie suffers from us never really getting to know any Indian characters well apart from Brynner and his offsider - this needed to be fleshed out. Chakiris' character was muddy - maybe they were trying to make him enigmatic but I think it was just bad writing.
Still, it is about Mayans and so it's always interesting - props, costumes, and so on. There really is/was no other Hollywood epic like it.
Apparently the original writer was inspired by the weird Indian mounds and thought the Mayans could be the one responsible. Now that's actually a great idea, only it didn't wind up in the final film - it would have been a great way to start it, with the mounds, then going back in time to tell the story of how they were created. It's one of several bad decisions that hurt this movie.
It actually starts very interestingly. George Chakiris is the Mayan prince, whose people come under attack from Leo Gordon; Gordon chases him out of his kingdom so they have to force some fisherpeople to transport them across the sea to safety. Okay yes the actors look a little silly most of the time spouting dialogue, but there's plenty of action and pace, Chakiris is as well cast as any name Hollywood actor from this time, the characters are clearly drawn (Shirley Ann Field is the leader of the fisherpeople whose dad forces Chakiris is marry her as a condition for using their boats, which sets up solid conflict).
Then Chakiris arrives in America (well, soon to be America) and local Indian chief Yul Brynner worries about him, and winds up captured by Chakiris. I bought Brynner as an Indian but its at this point the film became muddy - Brynner sort of falls in love with Field who would rather be with Chakiris but he isn't showing any love so she's open to Brynner; Chakiris is going to sacrifice Brynner in a Mayan ceremony but gets talked out of it, in part because he kind of falls in love with Brynner, which annoys his head priest. Then, least convincingly of all, Leo Gordon and his men turn up to attack Chakiris. Like, why bother? The real reason is for Brynner and Chakiris and their mean to team up - I guess dramatically they had to but it didn't seem real. (Maybe it would have been better to reduce Gordon's part and instead have the baddies be a fringe hard-right group of Mayans).
Director J. Lee Thompson ensures there is plenty of blood and thunder but too often things get silly. Shirley Ann Field is cute as hell, but not terribly convincing, and she's got an awful character - she starts off spirited but then becomes this passive trophy to be fought over. Would the Mayans really build a large stone pyramid almost as soon as they arrive? Would Indians and Mayans really fight battles this way?
Dramatically, the movie suffers from us never really getting to know any Indian characters well apart from Brynner and his offsider - this needed to be fleshed out. Chakiris' character was muddy - maybe they were trying to make him enigmatic but I think it was just bad writing.
Still, it is about Mayans and so it's always interesting - props, costumes, and so on. There really is/was no other Hollywood epic like it.
Movie review - "Once Upon a Time in America" (1984) ***
Sergio Leone's gangster epic was at one stage chopped around a bit to get down to a shorter length. Whenever that happens there are critics who will always - always - write "well the full length version is best". I haven't seen shortened versions but to be honest wish I'd had - or that Leone himself had cut this more. Because it's a half masterpiece with brilliant stuff but also hideous moments.
I love the non-linear storytelling - going back and forth at the opening for instance, between gangsters looking for Robert de Niro, and de Niro in an opium den, then de Niro in 1967 coming home, the remembering hanging out with his friends. There are some fantastic Leone moments - that opening sequence, de Niro's return, the bursts of violence. Ennico Morricone's music score is one of his best, which makes it one of the best of all time.
You can't fault the casting either - Robert de Niro is terrific as Noodles, James Woods impresses as Maxie (even though he gets less screen time than I remembered) and there are memorable cameos from Burt Young, Joe Pesci and Treat Williams.
It's the treatment of women where this really stinks. Maybe I'm just an oversensitive snag, or maybe the people who praise this to the skies are inherently misogynistic men, but it was really uncomfortable the way every woman was a madonna or a whore. The Madonna side is taken up by Elizabeth McGovern (played as a child by Jennifer Connelly; both achingly beautiful) - the childhood dream of de Niro's, who spends most of her time looking wistful and beautiful and having this career we hear about but never see... so of course he rapes her in the back of a limo. (Clint Eastwood never raped in the Dollars films; Rod Steiger did in Duck You Sucker but at least the girl was a bitch and Steiger was an anti hero... Why give this act to the hero? Yeah okay character "he has to destroy her" but it was awful.)
The Whore roles are taken by the childhood friend of the boys who gives away sex for money and becomes a fat hooker; then there's Tuesday Weld, who gets turned on during a robbery and demands de Niro have sex with her and hit her - and then becomes Woods' mistress. Weld is very good in the role, incidentally - it's just such an awful part. I wish they'd just cut all the women out.
I love the non-linear storytelling - going back and forth at the opening for instance, between gangsters looking for Robert de Niro, and de Niro in an opium den, then de Niro in 1967 coming home, the remembering hanging out with his friends. There are some fantastic Leone moments - that opening sequence, de Niro's return, the bursts of violence. Ennico Morricone's music score is one of his best, which makes it one of the best of all time.
You can't fault the casting either - Robert de Niro is terrific as Noodles, James Woods impresses as Maxie (even though he gets less screen time than I remembered) and there are memorable cameos from Burt Young, Joe Pesci and Treat Williams.
It's the treatment of women where this really stinks. Maybe I'm just an oversensitive snag, or maybe the people who praise this to the skies are inherently misogynistic men, but it was really uncomfortable the way every woman was a madonna or a whore. The Madonna side is taken up by Elizabeth McGovern (played as a child by Jennifer Connelly; both achingly beautiful) - the childhood dream of de Niro's, who spends most of her time looking wistful and beautiful and having this career we hear about but never see... so of course he rapes her in the back of a limo. (Clint Eastwood never raped in the Dollars films; Rod Steiger did in Duck You Sucker but at least the girl was a bitch and Steiger was an anti hero... Why give this act to the hero? Yeah okay character "he has to destroy her" but it was awful.)
The Whore roles are taken by the childhood friend of the boys who gives away sex for money and becomes a fat hooker; then there's Tuesday Weld, who gets turned on during a robbery and demands de Niro have sex with her and hit her - and then becomes Woods' mistress. Weld is very good in the role, incidentally - it's just such an awful part. I wish they'd just cut all the women out.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Movie review - "Pussycat, Pussycat, I Love You" (1970) *
Did you know there was a sequel to What's New Pussycat? I didn't - and I'm guessing most people don't either, because this flopped. I'm surprised they even bothered to make it without stars - the first movie threw in everything but the kitchen sink: O'Toole, Allen, cartoons, Tom Jones, leading ladies. This does it on the cheap.
There's a young Ian MacShane in the lead, a neurotic playwright living in Rome who seeks a shrink and has troubles with his love life and worried about his hair falling out. It's a role that clearly calls out for Woody Allen and MacShane is spectacularly miscast. Severn Darden plays his shrink, which results in unflattering comparisons with Peter Sellers. Anna Calder Marshall is his wife, Beba Loncar his mistress. Veronica Carlson is among the women he beds. They are all bad. John Gavin threatens to liven up things as a Rock Hudson style egotistical actor but the material ultimately does him in.
Rod Amateu writes and directs terribly. Lalo Schifrin did the music - one of the few top rate talents associated with the film. An awful, unfunny piece of garbage.
There's a young Ian MacShane in the lead, a neurotic playwright living in Rome who seeks a shrink and has troubles with his love life and worried about his hair falling out. It's a role that clearly calls out for Woody Allen and MacShane is spectacularly miscast. Severn Darden plays his shrink, which results in unflattering comparisons with Peter Sellers. Anna Calder Marshall is his wife, Beba Loncar his mistress. Veronica Carlson is among the women he beds. They are all bad. John Gavin threatens to liven up things as a Rock Hudson style egotistical actor but the material ultimately does him in.
Rod Amateu writes and directs terribly. Lalo Schifrin did the music - one of the few top rate talents associated with the film. An awful, unfunny piece of garbage.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Movie review - "South West Pacific" (1943) **1/2
I felt sorry for this featurette because it's quality was criticised when it came out - an example of cultural cringe, I thought. Typical - and mean. And there were definitely elements of that, I'm sure - but watching it, it's actually not that great. Ken G. Hall has made it with customary proficiency but he (or someone) made a key error in the central concept - to wit, have actors talk to the camera in monologues pretending to be real people.
I think once that decision was taken this was doomed - I can't imagine how that ever would have worked. I kept wishing that Hall had instead dramatised a few of the episodes. As it is, all the people talking to the camera feels a little silly, not helped by the florid self conscious dialogue of Tom Gurr's script. Occasionally it veers into outright camp as in the Muriel Steinbeck section about Gwennie, the former beauty parlor worker turned munitions factory worker, pouring TNT into containers.
It is an all star cast (for Australian cinema of the time, that is) including Cinesound character actor legend Alec Kellaway, Muriel Steinbeck, Peter Finch (as an RAAF pilot), future director Ralph Smart (as an RAF pilot), Chips Rafferty, Joe Valli, Bert Bailey in his last movie, Grant Taylor and Ron Randell. All struggle with varying degrees to talk to the camera - despite the talent involved I do feel it would have been more effective with real people, or else for the segments to be dramatised.
Because so many of the segments would lend themselves to dramatisation - Bert Bailey on a farm having to deal with the female land army; Muriel Steinbeck as a munitions factory worker and her naval boyfriend; Grant Taylor and Ron Randell as an Aussie and Yank soldier cut off in the jungle against the Japanese; Peter Finch and Ralph Smart as duelling pilots, with Chips Rafferty and Joe Valli as their duelling mechanics. All would have made great movies.
Other stuff is a bit duller - Alec Kellaway talking about the joys of working in a factory, Bill Perryman's road builder, John Nugent-Hayward's factory manager (although it was politically fascinating to hear him talk about the high rates of income tax Australians had to pay.)
Characters in the movie are very upfront about Australia's problems and defeats - we hear about Greece, Crete, Malaya, Singapore, the ships Sydney, Perth and Canberra. I also liked how Grant Taylor paid tribute to the Kiwi and Indian soldiers as well as the Poms and Yanks. (There's a vague left wing bent here with the film's praise of high taxes, industry workers, women and Indians).
I think once that decision was taken this was doomed - I can't imagine how that ever would have worked. I kept wishing that Hall had instead dramatised a few of the episodes. As it is, all the people talking to the camera feels a little silly, not helped by the florid self conscious dialogue of Tom Gurr's script. Occasionally it veers into outright camp as in the Muriel Steinbeck section about Gwennie, the former beauty parlor worker turned munitions factory worker, pouring TNT into containers.
It is an all star cast (for Australian cinema of the time, that is) including Cinesound character actor legend Alec Kellaway, Muriel Steinbeck, Peter Finch (as an RAAF pilot), future director Ralph Smart (as an RAF pilot), Chips Rafferty, Joe Valli, Bert Bailey in his last movie, Grant Taylor and Ron Randell. All struggle with varying degrees to talk to the camera - despite the talent involved I do feel it would have been more effective with real people, or else for the segments to be dramatised.
Because so many of the segments would lend themselves to dramatisation - Bert Bailey on a farm having to deal with the female land army; Muriel Steinbeck as a munitions factory worker and her naval boyfriend; Grant Taylor and Ron Randell as an Aussie and Yank soldier cut off in the jungle against the Japanese; Peter Finch and Ralph Smart as duelling pilots, with Chips Rafferty and Joe Valli as their duelling mechanics. All would have made great movies.
Other stuff is a bit duller - Alec Kellaway talking about the joys of working in a factory, Bill Perryman's road builder, John Nugent-Hayward's factory manager (although it was politically fascinating to hear him talk about the high rates of income tax Australians had to pay.)
Characters in the movie are very upfront about Australia's problems and defeats - we hear about Greece, Crete, Malaya, Singapore, the ships Sydney, Perth and Canberra. I also liked how Grant Taylor paid tribute to the Kiwi and Indian soldiers as well as the Poms and Yanks. (There's a vague left wing bent here with the film's praise of high taxes, industry workers, women and Indians).
Movie review - "100,000 Cobbers" (1942) ***1/2
I used to think the great "one that got away" of Ken G. Hall's career was his version of Robbery Under Arms (which he started trying to do in the 1930s and then in the 1940s but could never get done)... but after watching this terrific featurette (about 35 minutes) I kept thinking "why didn't they turn it into a feature"?
I know the answer is "because that's not the brief" - it was a commission from the Department of Information - but it wouldn't have taken too much effort. Because the film is about five blokes who join the army and become mates, and four of their women - that's easily enough characters and conflict to sustain a feature film. You flesh out their stories and in a flash you'd have an Aussie version of The Way Ahead. The acting talent is easily there, particularly Grant Taylor, Shirley Ann Richards and Joe Valli.
As it is, all the characterisation and story telling is by necessary sketchy. We barely get to spend much time with any of them so their chance to make an emotional impact is limited - with the exception of Scotty (I think there was a law against Joe Valli playing a character that didn't have that name) who joins up but gets kicked out because he's too old.
I would have loved to have seen more of the romance between laid back Bill (Grant Taylor) and the chiropodist played by Shirley Ann Richards (a little bit of Cinesound feminism) - Taylor and Richards were genuine charismatic attractive starsand could have easily held a feature as leads. The character of Peter (John Fleeting, who appeared in a few Cinesound movies), the rich boy who joins the army, has a lot of potential, as does that of his secretary who becomes a nurse (played by Aileen BBritton).
A lot more could have been done with Barry Ross in the Chips Rafferty type part of Bluey, the rebel - and his kind of romance with "Blondie". No characterisation is given to Gilbert Ellis as the newlywed soldier and his stunning looking wife (what a babe) - but this could easily have been amended. (She keeps looking like she's going to tell him she's found someone else - which would have been dramatically interesting.)
Still, there's no point crying over spilt milk - may as well enjoy what's there which is considerable: a professionally assembled, entertaining short film, with some fascinating location work at Liverpool training camp and Luna Park. It's by necessity hokey in places but done with sincerity and some decent acting (Ellis and Fleeting are stiff) and demonstrates how in charge of his craft Ken Hall was at this stage.
I know the answer is "because that's not the brief" - it was a commission from the Department of Information - but it wouldn't have taken too much effort. Because the film is about five blokes who join the army and become mates, and four of their women - that's easily enough characters and conflict to sustain a feature film. You flesh out their stories and in a flash you'd have an Aussie version of The Way Ahead. The acting talent is easily there, particularly Grant Taylor, Shirley Ann Richards and Joe Valli.
As it is, all the characterisation and story telling is by necessary sketchy. We barely get to spend much time with any of them so their chance to make an emotional impact is limited - with the exception of Scotty (I think there was a law against Joe Valli playing a character that didn't have that name) who joins up but gets kicked out because he's too old.
I would have loved to have seen more of the romance between laid back Bill (Grant Taylor) and the chiropodist played by Shirley Ann Richards (a little bit of Cinesound feminism) - Taylor and Richards were genuine charismatic attractive starsand could have easily held a feature as leads. The character of Peter (John Fleeting, who appeared in a few Cinesound movies), the rich boy who joins the army, has a lot of potential, as does that of his secretary who becomes a nurse (played by Aileen BBritton).
A lot more could have been done with Barry Ross in the Chips Rafferty type part of Bluey, the rebel - and his kind of romance with "Blondie". No characterisation is given to Gilbert Ellis as the newlywed soldier and his stunning looking wife (what a babe) - but this could easily have been amended. (She keeps looking like she's going to tell him she's found someone else - which would have been dramatically interesting.)
Still, there's no point crying over spilt milk - may as well enjoy what's there which is considerable: a professionally assembled, entertaining short film, with some fascinating location work at Liverpool training camp and Luna Park. It's by necessity hokey in places but done with sincerity and some decent acting (Ellis and Fleeting are stiff) and demonstrates how in charge of his craft Ken Hall was at this stage.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Movie review - "What's New Pussycat?" (1965) ***
The sixties at its most swinging - Peter O'Toole in the lead, Charles Feldman producing, Woody Allen writing but being rewritten, Clive Donner directing (there was a time when Donner was one of the leading British directors in the world), Tom Jones singing the title song, Peter Sellers in a wig, European leading ladies, Richard Williams animated credit sequence.
It's a mess but it's fun, bright and colourful. Not all the jokes work, in fact most of them don't, but there are so many of them you can count on some hitting their mark, and I've got a soft spot for movies which end in a slapstick chase on small cars (it has an almost Beach Party vibe about it).
There's a massive race as to who can ham it up the most - Sellers of course through sheer Sellers-ness but O'Toole tries to match him and Woody does his schtick; Romy Schneider plays things relatively straight, which is probably for the best (the plot has O'Toole try to give up womanising to settle down with her), but Paula Prentiss is brilliantly hilarious as a stripper who likes to commit suicide after bad dates (she's sexy too), Edra Gale goes OTT as Sellers' wife (wearing a viking outfit lot of the time), Ursula Andress lots of fun as a woman who parachutes from the sky (though she only appears in the last half hour) and Capucine again impresses with her comedy chops.
The women are very good looking and it's all full throttle.
It's a mess but it's fun, bright and colourful. Not all the jokes work, in fact most of them don't, but there are so many of them you can count on some hitting their mark, and I've got a soft spot for movies which end in a slapstick chase on small cars (it has an almost Beach Party vibe about it).
There's a massive race as to who can ham it up the most - Sellers of course through sheer Sellers-ness but O'Toole tries to match him and Woody does his schtick; Romy Schneider plays things relatively straight, which is probably for the best (the plot has O'Toole try to give up womanising to settle down with her), but Paula Prentiss is brilliantly hilarious as a stripper who likes to commit suicide after bad dates (she's sexy too), Edra Gale goes OTT as Sellers' wife (wearing a viking outfit lot of the time), Ursula Andress lots of fun as a woman who parachutes from the sky (though she only appears in the last half hour) and Capucine again impresses with her comedy chops.
The women are very good looking and it's all full throttle.
Movie review - "You Can't Win 'Em All" (1970) **
Buddy action film, very much in the vein of Howard Hawks, which has two novelties - it's setting during the Turkey-Greek War of 1922, and the starring duo of Tony Curtis and Charles Bronson. These two work well together - sparky Curtis and taciturn Bronson, double crossing each other and chasing women. There's also a dame who both want to get in the sack and who has her own adventure - Michele Mercier, who I'd never seen in anything before but has a big role and holds her own well enough.
There's some decent production values - the budget goes a long way with plenty of extras, and bullets. The story at times felt like Vera Cruz and it might have been better had they borrowed more from that film and had more of a clash between the two guys, with one becoming more good than the other... but no the guys fall in love pretty much. I think action adventure is very hard to do well and they don't particularly do it well - it's done "okay".
Some interesting faces pop up in the support cast - Patrick Macgee as a Turkish general, and Australia's own Tony Bonner, of all people, as a soldier.
There's some decent production values - the budget goes a long way with plenty of extras, and bullets. The story at times felt like Vera Cruz and it might have been better had they borrowed more from that film and had more of a clash between the two guys, with one becoming more good than the other... but no the guys fall in love pretty much. I think action adventure is very hard to do well and they don't particularly do it well - it's done "okay".
Some interesting faces pop up in the support cast - Patrick Macgee as a Turkish general, and Australia's own Tony Bonner, of all people, as a soldier.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Movie review - "God Forgives... I Don't" (1967) **
Important in its own way because this was the first time handsome Terence Hill and beefy Bud Spencer teamed up on what was to be something like 20 movies, most of them westerns. Hill is a gun man and Spencer an insurance investigator, both chasing after bandit Frank Wolf.
I found this very hard going. Hill and Spencer later became known as comedy stars but there's precious little of that here. There's some glowering, gun play and double crosses - decent action, a story reminiscent of For a Few Dollars More with a finale like The Good the Bad and the Ugly. It's quite a harsh, serious film, different to later Hill-Spencer vehicls. Frank Wolf shows off his mutton chops that you'll probably recognise from Once upon a Time in America.
I found this very hard going. Hill and Spencer later became known as comedy stars but there's precious little of that here. There's some glowering, gun play and double crosses - decent action, a story reminiscent of For a Few Dollars More with a finale like The Good the Bad and the Ugly. It's quite a harsh, serious film, different to later Hill-Spencer vehicls. Frank Wolf shows off his mutton chops that you'll probably recognise from Once upon a Time in America.
Book review - "Bride of Frankenstein" by Michael Egremont Ed Philip Riley
Part of Philip Riley's republication of novelisations of various old movie scripts. I've really loved some like The Raven and Masque of the Red Death but found this a drag. I love the movie but reading this I realised the story isn't much - it's a retread of the first movie with Dr Pretorius standing in for Henry Frankenstein, who is a whiny passenger here, pushed along. Frankenstein's wife is a damp squib. There is some touching stuff with the monster and his search for a mate, but the themes are familiar to what we saw in the first movie. It doesn't help that Egremont isn't much of a writer - how he craps on for Pretorius' dialogue.
What makes Bride great is its treatment - Karloff, Clive, Thesinger, Whale's incredible direction. Found this heavy going.
What makes Bride great is its treatment - Karloff, Clive, Thesinger, Whale's incredible direction. Found this heavy going.
Monday, March 09, 2015
Play review - "Frankenstein" by John Balderstone (1930)
John Balderston had a big success rewriting the play version of Dracula for US audiences but was unable to make lightning strike twice re-doing a less popular version of the Shelley classic. It was an influential though because Robert Florey relied on it when writing his first screenplay of Frankenstein (which became the 1931 film).
It's not a bad play - Balderston was a good dramatist and breaks the action down well. Act One involves creating the creature (here actually called "Frankenstein), at two the creature goes on his rampage, act three Henry Frankenstein gets his comeuppance. There's dull Victor, Henry's rival in love, and duller Dr Waldman who walks around whining "you can't play God" a lot. Still the drama is extracted, there are some jolts like the death of Henry's sister.
It's not a bad play - Balderston was a good dramatist and breaks the action down well. Act One involves creating the creature (here actually called "Frankenstein), at two the creature goes on his rampage, act three Henry Frankenstein gets his comeuppance. There's dull Victor, Henry's rival in love, and duller Dr Waldman who walks around whining "you can't play God" a lot. Still the drama is extracted, there are some jolts like the death of Henry's sister.
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Book review - "Fredric March: A Consumate Actor" by Charles Tranberg
March was an odd actor - very well respected and talented, technically a star (he headlined numerous popular movies) but not very well remembered today, despite winning two Oscars. The main reason I think is that he wasn't a personality star like say Errol Flynn, Bogart or Gary Grant - you never hear someone call a part a "Fredric March type character" or a "Fredric March" vehicle. He really was a character actor with leading man looks. So many times in his career he seemed to get a role that someone else turned down - Fred March was the star you had to settle for.
Still it was an amazing career with a swag of classic films. He deserved a book although his life wasn't super exciting - small town upbringing, well off family, he attended college and went into banking but got the acting bug. It didn't actually take that long for him to make it - he had talent, enthusiasm and looks (it's always easiest if you're a good looking young guy) - and was soon a name on stage, being particularly regarded for his John Barrymore turn in The Royal Family. Then it was off to Hollywood, where he signed for a time with Paramount then freelanced successfully: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, Nothing Sacred, The Buccaneer.
Towards the end of the 30s he returned to the stage, which he gets props for doing because he was still much in demand as a movie star. I think he did it to make his wife happy but ultimately it proved to be a smart move (as Charles Tingwell once said, if you look after the acting the career will take care of itself) and his Broadway career would thrive when his star roles got less impressive - in the 50s he was no longer a box office draw, but he was a Broadway draw. March liked to blame the down turn in his movie carer on the fact he was accused of being a Communist; now that may have had a little bit to do with it, but I think more important was the fact that he appeared in a bunch of flops in the late 40s, he was getting on in years, and also he didn't fall back into some sure fire commercial genre like Westerns to stay in the public eye.
March didn't always do good work but he never sold out, always pushed himself; he seems to have been a joy for directors to work with - conscientious, diligent, aware of his tendency to ham, very open to new talents and directors, like Paddy Chayefsky and Elia Kazan when they were starting out, saying that films were getting better instead of whining about the old days. He also had excellent relationships with people like William Wyler and John Frankenheimer. This meant he was always in work, right up to the end - and it was consistently varied and interesting work too: The Best Years of Our Lives, Long Day's Journey Into Night, Gideon, Inherit the Wind, Hombre.
He was married for along time to Florence Elridge, always overshadowing her in terms of career success (on films and stage) and popularity with people - but they clearly relied on each other; he seemed to need her discipline and drive, and political nous (he was more a little boy); he was protective of her, promoted her career, and she would tolerate his many infidelities and constant on-set lechery (March was very much pro-sexual harassment in the work place). Their marriage reads like one of those arrangements where the wife basically mothers the husband. I doubt he would have accomplished half as much without her.
They adopted two kids - got along well with the girl but the boy was more of a handful, getting into trouble with the law and eventually dying in a car crash. (I wouldn't have minded more about their son actually.)
But this is a fine book, a worth tribute to a good actor and not particularly memorable star.
Still it was an amazing career with a swag of classic films. He deserved a book although his life wasn't super exciting - small town upbringing, well off family, he attended college and went into banking but got the acting bug. It didn't actually take that long for him to make it - he had talent, enthusiasm and looks (it's always easiest if you're a good looking young guy) - and was soon a name on stage, being particularly regarded for his John Barrymore turn in The Royal Family. Then it was off to Hollywood, where he signed for a time with Paramount then freelanced successfully: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, Nothing Sacred, The Buccaneer.
Towards the end of the 30s he returned to the stage, which he gets props for doing because he was still much in demand as a movie star. I think he did it to make his wife happy but ultimately it proved to be a smart move (as Charles Tingwell once said, if you look after the acting the career will take care of itself) and his Broadway career would thrive when his star roles got less impressive - in the 50s he was no longer a box office draw, but he was a Broadway draw. March liked to blame the down turn in his movie carer on the fact he was accused of being a Communist; now that may have had a little bit to do with it, but I think more important was the fact that he appeared in a bunch of flops in the late 40s, he was getting on in years, and also he didn't fall back into some sure fire commercial genre like Westerns to stay in the public eye.
March didn't always do good work but he never sold out, always pushed himself; he seems to have been a joy for directors to work with - conscientious, diligent, aware of his tendency to ham, very open to new talents and directors, like Paddy Chayefsky and Elia Kazan when they were starting out, saying that films were getting better instead of whining about the old days. He also had excellent relationships with people like William Wyler and John Frankenheimer. This meant he was always in work, right up to the end - and it was consistently varied and interesting work too: The Best Years of Our Lives, Long Day's Journey Into Night, Gideon, Inherit the Wind, Hombre.
He was married for along time to Florence Elridge, always overshadowing her in terms of career success (on films and stage) and popularity with people - but they clearly relied on each other; he seemed to need her discipline and drive, and political nous (he was more a little boy); he was protective of her, promoted her career, and she would tolerate his many infidelities and constant on-set lechery (March was very much pro-sexual harassment in the work place). Their marriage reads like one of those arrangements where the wife basically mothers the husband. I doubt he would have accomplished half as much without her.
They adopted two kids - got along well with the girl but the boy was more of a handful, getting into trouble with the law and eventually dying in a car crash. (I wouldn't have minded more about their son actually.)
But this is a fine book, a worth tribute to a good actor and not particularly memorable star.
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Movie review - "My Dream is Yours" (1949) **1/2
Doris Day's second starring vehicle has a simpler, stronger plot than Romance on the High Seas: agent Jack Carson is fired by singer/radio star Lee Bowman because apparently Bowman's gotten a big head (although maybe Bowman was capable of negotiating a better deal on his own behalf and Carson is a crap agent) so Carson sets about trying to find a replacement star... and duly stumbles across Doris Day.
That's a decent set up for a movie and this is helped by strong support from Adolphe Menjou, and Eve Arden, as Carson's wise cracking friend. I'm not a massive fan of Carson has a romantic comedy lead - he's too big, too effective in unsympathetic parts for me, and I never believed Day was that into him. Day is pretty and perky as ever and there's novelty factor in that she's a war widow with a young kid. Bowman is an effective false love interest - I liked him in Buck Privates and he was a handsome, engaging actor, especially with a pencil moustache (he doesn't have one here), but never quite made the grade as a star.
There is a sequence where Day sings with animated characters including Bugs Bunny.
That's a decent set up for a movie and this is helped by strong support from Adolphe Menjou, and Eve Arden, as Carson's wise cracking friend. I'm not a massive fan of Carson has a romantic comedy lead - he's too big, too effective in unsympathetic parts for me, and I never believed Day was that into him. Day is pretty and perky as ever and there's novelty factor in that she's a war widow with a young kid. Bowman is an effective false love interest - I liked him in Buck Privates and he was a handsome, engaging actor, especially with a pencil moustache (he doesn't have one here), but never quite made the grade as a star.
There is a sequence where Day sings with animated characters including Bugs Bunny.
Movie review - "My Name is Nobody" (1973) **1/2
Sergio Leone provided the idea for, produced and directed some of this entertaining spaghetti Western - the opening sequence in particular feels very Leone, if a derivative of Once Upon a Time in the West; ditto the ending shoot out. The plot is reminiscent of The Gunfighter with Henry Fonda as the top gunslinger who keeps getting hassled by challengers.
Terence Hill is the young up and comer who is a massive fan of Fonda and uses him to get his own revenge. There is an awful lot of voice over by Fonda at the end of this movie, which is an odd combination of Leone western and the more comical Terence Hill Westerns (eg the slapstick moment where Hill slaps people in the face).
Hill is a good looking guy with intense eyes, though for me he's no match for Henry Fonda. (This may be because I'm more familiar with Fonda). I felt it was a bit too convenient that the 150 man Wild Bunch posse taken on by Fonda and Hill at the end all carried dynamite in their pouches to enable them to be defeated.
Still, once I got used to the fact this wasn't pure Leone, and there wasn't gong to be a third big part on it (I felt it needed one), I found it reasonably entertaining. Ennio Morricone provided one of this best scores, there is a decent amount of action imaginatively staged, it has some sweep, and I enjoyed the Sam Peckinpah in jokes. (His name is on a tombstone).
Terence Hill is the young up and comer who is a massive fan of Fonda and uses him to get his own revenge. There is an awful lot of voice over by Fonda at the end of this movie, which is an odd combination of Leone western and the more comical Terence Hill Westerns (eg the slapstick moment where Hill slaps people in the face).
Hill is a good looking guy with intense eyes, though for me he's no match for Henry Fonda. (This may be because I'm more familiar with Fonda). I felt it was a bit too convenient that the 150 man Wild Bunch posse taken on by Fonda and Hill at the end all carried dynamite in their pouches to enable them to be defeated.
Still, once I got used to the fact this wasn't pure Leone, and there wasn't gong to be a third big part on it (I felt it needed one), I found it reasonably entertaining. Ennio Morricone provided one of this best scores, there is a decent amount of action imaginatively staged, it has some sweep, and I enjoyed the Sam Peckinpah in jokes. (His name is on a tombstone).
Sunday, March 01, 2015
Movie review - "The Courtship of Eddie's Father" (1963) ***1/2
A really sweet movie which always seems to be playing on TV and no wonder. Sure it's a little long (almost two hours) and some of it has early 60s sexism, but it has a big heart and some first rate writing: the film is full of little touches and excellent kid-dad dialogue. Ronny Howard is fantastic as Eddie and Glenn Ford supports him well as the widowed father; Ford tended to be miscast a lot around this stage of his career (eg For Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Love is a Ball) but he's completely at home here.
Stella Stevens is very funny in her support role, Jerry Van Dyke less so - these scenes aren't particularly well done. Dina Merill and Shirley Jones are ideal in their parts, sophisticated woman and girl next door respectively (though I can't look at Jones these days without thinking of her racy, sexy memoirs). But the real guts of it is Ford and Howard - their chemistry is marvellous.
Vincent Minnelli is often criticised as a director more interested in art design than emotion but this movie has real heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)