Enjoyable B picture from Columbia - I'm not that familiar with that studio's B output but presume they made a lot of them. It benefits from Peter Lorre in the lead. He runs an island which works on slave labour. Robert Wilcox goes undercover to bust him - in a quite extreme convoluted way which doesn't do him much good because Lorre's figured out pretty quickly that Wilcox is a narc.
Bad for Wilcox. But on the sunny side Lorre's annoyed a heap of people on the island, including, his trapped wife Rochelle Hudson and cook George Stone and guard Charles Middleton.
It's unpretentious, fast paced and a bit clunky story wise. Director Charles Barton later made some of the best Abbott and Costello movies and I thought he did a good job. Lorre is great fun. Much is made of the physical attractiveness of Wilcox - this was different. Wilcox is a handsome dude; I hadn't heard of him - he married Diana Barrymore and died young.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Movie review - "West of Shanghai" (1937) **
Boris Karloff appeared in a fair bit of yellow face during his career - Fu Manchu, the Mr Wong series, this... He plays a Chinese general who encounters some American oil people in China. This was directed by John Farrow, early in his directorial career and he does a good job - it's full of energy, and solid acting, and nice touches.
It starts off well, with a bunch of potentially interesting characters on a train - an oil dealer (Richard Cortez), a nubile woman, a warlord (Karloff), a general (Validimir Sokoloff),a businessman (Douglas Wood). Sokoliff is assassinated, and everyone hops off at a war torn province.
Then things slow down, with Gordon Oliver as this dull decent oil engineer, and Karloff's assistant hot for white women, a dull missionary, and far too many scenes of people sitting around talking. The one surprise was that you think Oliver is going to get with Sheila Bromley but he falls for a married woman (Cortez's wife) - because Cortez is killed they can go away together. And Bromley doesn't really have much of a purpose in the film.
Karloff's character is very unbelievably attached to Oliver. Okay so Oliver helped save his life ages ago but to then arrange to kill Cortez, kill his lieutenant and go to his death...? It's like, alright, already. Disappointing.
It starts off well, with a bunch of potentially interesting characters on a train - an oil dealer (Richard Cortez), a nubile woman, a warlord (Karloff), a general (Validimir Sokoloff),a businessman (Douglas Wood). Sokoliff is assassinated, and everyone hops off at a war torn province.
Then things slow down, with Gordon Oliver as this dull decent oil engineer, and Karloff's assistant hot for white women, a dull missionary, and far too many scenes of people sitting around talking. The one surprise was that you think Oliver is going to get with Sheila Bromley but he falls for a married woman (Cortez's wife) - because Cortez is killed they can go away together. And Bromley doesn't really have much of a purpose in the film.
Karloff's character is very unbelievably attached to Oliver. Okay so Oliver helped save his life ages ago but to then arrange to kill Cortez, kill his lieutenant and go to his death...? It's like, alright, already. Disappointing.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Book review - "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume One" by Edward Gibbon (1776-89)
Classic tome about the very long fall of Rome, basically from the reign of Commodus onwards... all the way to the fall of the Byzantium. Which is an awfully long fall, longer than the rise. It's probably fairer to say Rome fell a number of times (Crisis of the third century, Gothic invasion) but managed to live on in one form or another until the final defeat at the hands of the Turks.
Once you get used to his style of writing, its entertaining to read and Gibbon has no doubts as to the bad things human beings can get up to. His anti-Christian slant means this feels surprisingly modern (although less so his views on sexuality - namely the famous quote that of the early Emperors only Claudius' tastes were "entirely correct"). He has man crushes on the Antonines, and lesser known emperors like Alexander Severus, and Decius. A little tricky to read but worth it.
Once you get used to his style of writing, its entertaining to read and Gibbon has no doubts as to the bad things human beings can get up to. His anti-Christian slant means this feels surprisingly modern (although less so his views on sexuality - namely the famous quote that of the early Emperors only Claudius' tastes were "entirely correct"). He has man crushes on the Antonines, and lesser known emperors like Alexander Severus, and Decius. A little tricky to read but worth it.
Book review - "The History of the English Speaking Peoples" by Andrew Roberts
Really should have been titled History of why critics of the English speaking peoples are wrong. There's no reason why some historian shouldn't have taken on Churchill's mantle and Roberts is a good writer and entertaining historian - but while his style remains as readable as ever and he has a good eye for an anecdote, it's constant neo-con agenda gets wearying.
So the concentration camps in the Boer War were for the good of the Boers, Britain had to fight World War I for the sake of honour, the massacre of Amristar was justified, why can't the aborigines just get over what happened, the Vietnam War was justified and only lost due to defeatism of the West (a breathtaking lack of handling for military strategy), Platoon and Full Metal Jacket only depicted the American army negatively because of Hollywood's liberal bias (ignoring the fact Oliver Stone was a veteran), mis spelling Kevin Costner's name, the Attlee government spent too much on welfare and not enough on roads. It got boring.
So the concentration camps in the Boer War were for the good of the Boers, Britain had to fight World War I for the sake of honour, the massacre of Amristar was justified, why can't the aborigines just get over what happened, the Vietnam War was justified and only lost due to defeatism of the West (a breathtaking lack of handling for military strategy), Platoon and Full Metal Jacket only depicted the American army negatively because of Hollywood's liberal bias (ignoring the fact Oliver Stone was a veteran), mis spelling Kevin Costner's name, the Attlee government spent too much on welfare and not enough on roads. It got boring.
Script review - "Rope" (1948) by Ben Hecht, Arthur Laurents
This tends not to be regarded among top flight Hitchcock - I've never been sure why. Maybe because James Stewart is so patently miscast in a role needing Cary Grant or James Mason. Maybe it's regarded as "film theatre" even though it improves mightily on Patrick Hamilton's already excellent source material - and it is cinematic too, using close ups of the rope, the chest, the various people talking.
It's a brilliant screenplay. It starts with a bang - a murder - and proceeds at a fine pace. The two killers, Brandon and Philip, are very definiable and different. The supporting characters too - which no one remembers - are easy to understand: the dopey guy who was in love with the dead man's girlfriend, the dead man's girlfriend, a nattering woman, the dead man's father, the house keeper. Most of all there's Rupert, the superior intellectual whose words and attitudes are thrown back at him by the killers.
The build up of tension is done extremely well as Rupert slowly figures it out, clocking the interactions at the party. The killers almost get away with it right up until the end. The homosexual subtext - is it that, or more subtle depictions of gay characters (the two guys live together, are clearly a couple) - is completely appropriate for the story: two people living in a hidden world, turning their exclusion into superiority. I suppose there are some overly convenient things, like Brandon letting Rupert come back up and Brandon giving away his gun. And some speeches are preachy. But this is a knockout.
It's a brilliant screenplay. It starts with a bang - a murder - and proceeds at a fine pace. The two killers, Brandon and Philip, are very definiable and different. The supporting characters too - which no one remembers - are easy to understand: the dopey guy who was in love with the dead man's girlfriend, the dead man's girlfriend, a nattering woman, the dead man's father, the house keeper. Most of all there's Rupert, the superior intellectual whose words and attitudes are thrown back at him by the killers.
The build up of tension is done extremely well as Rupert slowly figures it out, clocking the interactions at the party. The killers almost get away with it right up until the end. The homosexual subtext - is it that, or more subtle depictions of gay characters (the two guys live together, are clearly a couple) - is completely appropriate for the story: two people living in a hidden world, turning their exclusion into superiority. I suppose there are some overly convenient things, like Brandon letting Rupert come back up and Brandon giving away his gun. And some speeches are preachy. But this is a knockout.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Movie review - "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (1962) ***1/2
I was surprised by the emotional reaction I had to this film. My expectations were so low going in - I'd seen clips with Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne far too old to play young things in the old west, heard that the film's heart apparently laid with Wayne's gunslinger as opposed to lawyer Stewart.
But it got me in the gut. It's very sympathetic to Stewart, who wants to bring law and education to the West - he's got book learnin', teaches at the school. He's brave but gets bullied by Lee Marvin's Liberty Valance, the sort of thug who always threatens the world (for instance he brutally attacks Edmond O'Brien). The film is about the conflict between Marvin and Stewart, with Wayne looking on... he understands Marvin and can deal with him; can see that Stewart can't, knows that Stewart stands for a better future. Both love the same woman (Vera Miles).
It's not a perfect film - there are all these sequences which don't feel needed, like the final election sequence (included to give John Carradine the chance to barnstorm?) which went on forever. The bit where Marvin confronts Stewart and his cronies at an election meeting didn't feel true - Marvin was scarier operating out of the shadows and in the dark. And Stewart and Wayne are too old.
But age aside they are well cast. The themes of bullying still have resonance. Its about being brave and the importance of myth and about realising the world is going to pass you by and it's sad and quite lovely.
But it got me in the gut. It's very sympathetic to Stewart, who wants to bring law and education to the West - he's got book learnin', teaches at the school. He's brave but gets bullied by Lee Marvin's Liberty Valance, the sort of thug who always threatens the world (for instance he brutally attacks Edmond O'Brien). The film is about the conflict between Marvin and Stewart, with Wayne looking on... he understands Marvin and can deal with him; can see that Stewart can't, knows that Stewart stands for a better future. Both love the same woman (Vera Miles).
It's not a perfect film - there are all these sequences which don't feel needed, like the final election sequence (included to give John Carradine the chance to barnstorm?) which went on forever. The bit where Marvin confronts Stewart and his cronies at an election meeting didn't feel true - Marvin was scarier operating out of the shadows and in the dark. And Stewart and Wayne are too old.
But age aside they are well cast. The themes of bullying still have resonance. Its about being brave and the importance of myth and about realising the world is going to pass you by and it's sad and quite lovely.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Book review - "Joseph Kennedy Presents" by Cari Beauchamp
For whatever reason it took me about ten or something goes to finish this book. No criticism of the author or subject matter - it was just one of those cursed books. Maybe also it was the size of the print. Or all the detail.
It's a very good book. Exhaustive. Thorough. I learned a hell of a lot. Joseph Kennedy often pops up in movie history books as a support character - he's there wrecking Gloria Swanson's career, or Fred Thomson's, or helping found RKO, or bailing on it to go and become ambassador to England.
This is surprisingly the first book to focus on Kennedy in Hollywood - maybe serious Kennedy historians didn't take it seriously. Which is silly because Hollywood provided a large slab of his fortune, not to mention high public profile.
Kennedy is a fascinating creature. A sociopath who demanded loyalty from people he'd discard when he no longer needed them; a womaniser who was apparently poor in the sack; a genuinely loving and devoted father (as devoted as you can be not actually being around) who took intense interest in his kids; a ruthless capitalist who nonetheless realised, after the Depression, the need for more equitable distribution of wealth or you'd have a revolution, and turning Democrat; someone who figured out the economic basis of movies v quickly and could actually make money out of it (lots of low budget programmers).
It's got to be said, Kennedy may have engaged in insider trading and been a sneaky fox and ruthless - but it was the fault of people for getting involved with him. Fred Thomson was clearly a bit of a dill, as was Gloria Swanson. People who got close to him should've known better it was always about his kids and his money. And it's a shame he didn't go back to running a Hollywood studio later in life - say RKO in the late 40s, who could've used him.
Film wise, Kennedy's legacy isn't that awesome - a lot of silent Westerns, mostly. The only two films of his that buffs are like to remember are two from Gloria Swanson - The Trespasser and Queen Kelly (the latter made with Eric Von Stroheim). His real passions were obviously elsewhere.
It's a very good book. Exhaustive. Thorough. I learned a hell of a lot. Joseph Kennedy often pops up in movie history books as a support character - he's there wrecking Gloria Swanson's career, or Fred Thomson's, or helping found RKO, or bailing on it to go and become ambassador to England.
This is surprisingly the first book to focus on Kennedy in Hollywood - maybe serious Kennedy historians didn't take it seriously. Which is silly because Hollywood provided a large slab of his fortune, not to mention high public profile.
Kennedy is a fascinating creature. A sociopath who demanded loyalty from people he'd discard when he no longer needed them; a womaniser who was apparently poor in the sack; a genuinely loving and devoted father (as devoted as you can be not actually being around) who took intense interest in his kids; a ruthless capitalist who nonetheless realised, after the Depression, the need for more equitable distribution of wealth or you'd have a revolution, and turning Democrat; someone who figured out the economic basis of movies v quickly and could actually make money out of it (lots of low budget programmers).
It's got to be said, Kennedy may have engaged in insider trading and been a sneaky fox and ruthless - but it was the fault of people for getting involved with him. Fred Thomson was clearly a bit of a dill, as was Gloria Swanson. People who got close to him should've known better it was always about his kids and his money. And it's a shame he didn't go back to running a Hollywood studio later in life - say RKO in the late 40s, who could've used him.
Film wise, Kennedy's legacy isn't that awesome - a lot of silent Westerns, mostly. The only two films of his that buffs are like to remember are two from Gloria Swanson - The Trespasser and Queen Kelly (the latter made with Eric Von Stroheim). His real passions were obviously elsewhere.
Movie review - "Seven Days in May" (1964) ***1/2
The 70s didn't invent paranoid thrillers - this is one that stemmed from the early 60s anti-Commie nutbag generals running loose. You think today is a divisive time but back then there was everything with have now and nuclear weapons.
Frederic March is an unpopular president determined to push a nuclear treaty with the Russians through. Burt Lancaster is fabulous as a general who is secretly plotting a coup with Kirk Douglas solid in the thankless role of the officer who figures it out.
The best bit about this is the first half as Douglas figures out - relatively quickly, I should add - what's going on, and March and his team of advisers figure out what the hell to do. It's all very early 60s adult, which means a lot of craggy character actors smoking and black and white photography. Ava Gardner's part - an ex flame of Lancaster's - feels badly "tacked in" to get some glamour.
The film suffers in the second half when Douglas pretty much disappears from the action and it becomes more about March and Senator Edmund O'Brien trying to stop it. Also once they figure out a coup was on I always got the impression everyone wasn't in that much danger... maybe when Martin Balsam dies, that was a bit of a threat to democracy, but the plotters were remarkably passive. I mean, heaps of officers must've been involved in the coup - none of them did anything?
This is one of those movies that could be remade - you use the powers of the plotters more, have them try to kill people (I think Balsam's death is an accident).
Awesome cast - people like John Houseman and Hugh Beaumont (as a Bill O'Reilly type figure) add class to little roles.
Frederic March is an unpopular president determined to push a nuclear treaty with the Russians through. Burt Lancaster is fabulous as a general who is secretly plotting a coup with Kirk Douglas solid in the thankless role of the officer who figures it out.
The best bit about this is the first half as Douglas figures out - relatively quickly, I should add - what's going on, and March and his team of advisers figure out what the hell to do. It's all very early 60s adult, which means a lot of craggy character actors smoking and black and white photography. Ava Gardner's part - an ex flame of Lancaster's - feels badly "tacked in" to get some glamour.
The film suffers in the second half when Douglas pretty much disappears from the action and it becomes more about March and Senator Edmund O'Brien trying to stop it. Also once they figure out a coup was on I always got the impression everyone wasn't in that much danger... maybe when Martin Balsam dies, that was a bit of a threat to democracy, but the plotters were remarkably passive. I mean, heaps of officers must've been involved in the coup - none of them did anything?
This is one of those movies that could be remade - you use the powers of the plotters more, have them try to kill people (I think Balsam's death is an accident).
Awesome cast - people like John Houseman and Hugh Beaumont (as a Bill O'Reilly type figure) add class to little roles.
Book review - "MGM: Hollywood's Greatest Backlot" by Steven Bingen (2011)
If you're are even vaguely interested in studio backlots from the Golden Years of Hollywood this is a book for you - exhaustively researched and photographed, it covers the legendary backlot at MGM with it's all American street, train station, backlot London, Esther Williams pool, etc.
I admired the research and passion and appreciate the photos but have to admit: studio backlots aren't a big thing with me. Or maybe the problem is more I read this on my phone via kindle when it should be a coffee table book ideally.
Because it's about MGM there is an aura of sadness about it which the author admits - we remember MGM more because its dead. I was surprised the backlot was used so heavily and for so long - many of the photos refer to the films crappy movies of the 60s and 70s. Really - and this is all hindsight - they should've turned pretty much the whole thing over to TV in the 60s and 70s. Maybe that's a way it could've survived.
There's a lot I didn't know including the story of the Lins, wire dealers who bought the backlot, and further examples of mismanagement from Jim Aubrey.
I admired the research and passion and appreciate the photos but have to admit: studio backlots aren't a big thing with me. Or maybe the problem is more I read this on my phone via kindle when it should be a coffee table book ideally.
Because it's about MGM there is an aura of sadness about it which the author admits - we remember MGM more because its dead. I was surprised the backlot was used so heavily and for so long - many of the photos refer to the films crappy movies of the 60s and 70s. Really - and this is all hindsight - they should've turned pretty much the whole thing over to TV in the 60s and 70s. Maybe that's a way it could've survived.
There's a lot I didn't know including the story of the Lins, wire dealers who bought the backlot, and further examples of mismanagement from Jim Aubrey.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Movie review - "The Alamo" (1960) ***
John Wayne's big noisy Valentine to America- I can't believe it was so hard for him to get it financed. Maybe people were worried about the unhappy ending - or the budget blowing out like it did - or Wayne's inexperience behind the camera.
The direction's perfectly fine, by the way. He's no Ford, but its competently put together. Impressive spectacle at the end (still don't think it should've cost $12 million or whatever it did).
John Wayne plays John Wayne in a coonskin cap more than Davy Crockett. Wayne was a good enough actor to play a proper Crockett but he isn't given much in James Edward Grant's script - he does the John Wayne thing and occasionally talks about politics.
It's not much of a screenplay .- the battle is put in little context, the characters aren't that interesting. Richard Widmark's role as Jim Bowie took up surprisingly little screen time. A kind of quasi romance between Crockett and a Mexican girl played by Linda Cristal took up a surprisingly large amount of screen time at the beginning (there's not much action in the first half by the way... really it all comes at the end).
There's a lot of Chill Wills hanging around being colourful. Frankie Avalon looks completely ridiculous in a coonskin cap as a friend of Crockett - he does his best, and Wayne acts with complete sincerity in all their scenes together, he just looks so modern and out of place in this movie.
The biggest surprise for me was Laurence Harvey as Colonel Travis - I find Harvey can be very hot and cold but he was reined in here, and gave an excellent performance.
There's plenty of hokey moments - Bowie freeing his slave who then stays on to fight, women refusing to leave their husbands, character actors being "colourful". But it's a grand story still and Wayne's vision does have integrity.
The direction's perfectly fine, by the way. He's no Ford, but its competently put together. Impressive spectacle at the end (still don't think it should've cost $12 million or whatever it did).
John Wayne plays John Wayne in a coonskin cap more than Davy Crockett. Wayne was a good enough actor to play a proper Crockett but he isn't given much in James Edward Grant's script - he does the John Wayne thing and occasionally talks about politics.
It's not much of a screenplay .- the battle is put in little context, the characters aren't that interesting. Richard Widmark's role as Jim Bowie took up surprisingly little screen time. A kind of quasi romance between Crockett and a Mexican girl played by Linda Cristal took up a surprisingly large amount of screen time at the beginning (there's not much action in the first half by the way... really it all comes at the end).
There's a lot of Chill Wills hanging around being colourful. Frankie Avalon looks completely ridiculous in a coonskin cap as a friend of Crockett - he does his best, and Wayne acts with complete sincerity in all their scenes together, he just looks so modern and out of place in this movie.
The biggest surprise for me was Laurence Harvey as Colonel Travis - I find Harvey can be very hot and cold but he was reined in here, and gave an excellent performance.
There's plenty of hokey moments - Bowie freeing his slave who then stays on to fight, women refusing to leave their husbands, character actors being "colourful". But it's a grand story still and Wayne's vision does have integrity.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Movie review - "A Stranger in My Arms" (1959) **
Jeff Chandler was one of Universal's biggest film stars of the 1950s - it's odd he didn't make more movies with Ross Hunter, whose plush cinematic melodramas and comedies would've suited the granite-jawed Chandler. While Hunter mostly used Chandler types like Rock Hudson and John Gavin, he did work with Chandler on The Spoilers and this.
Chandler plays a test pilot who has PTSD. He's pressured to visit the widow and mother of a fellow pilot who died in Chandler's arms during the Korean War. Mum is Mary Astor in a classic 50s castrating mother performance. Also entirely suitable to the genre is June Allyson's noble, brave widow.
The nub of the plot is that dead man Peter Graves was a useless piece of work - a coward (Graves is good in flashback). Mum Astor wants him to have the Medal of Honour and Jeff is unsure whether to tell the truth That's not a bad idea for a film.
It does lack something extra - some drama playing out in the present day. Written in the Wind, from the same writer as this (the original novel, not the script) had more stuff going on - Robert Stack and Rock Hudson were childhood friends, so there was an element of betrayal when Hudson fell for Stack's wife; Stack kills himself and there's a murder trial; Stack's sister Dorothy Malone loves Hudson.
This doesn't have that. The most interesting character dramatically is Peter Graves who is dead when the film starts. He didn't love Allyson and was a coward. Sandra Dee is on hand as Graves' sister - a bit of a minx, I think meant to be along the lines of Dorothy Malone... but she's too young to be a threat for Allyson/Chandler.
I think Graves had to be alive - or Dee needed to become obsessed with Chandler - or Astor tried to kill him. Or something, anything, that played out more in the present day. There's nothing at stake except Graves' reputation and Astor's feelings and a slight feeling of awkwardness for Chandler. Compare so say Rock Hudson in Written on the Wind who was best friends with Robert Stack and wound up on trial for murder.
It doesn't help that the film is in black and white and lacks production values. Douglas Sirk lite.
Chandler plays a test pilot who has PTSD. He's pressured to visit the widow and mother of a fellow pilot who died in Chandler's arms during the Korean War. Mum is Mary Astor in a classic 50s castrating mother performance. Also entirely suitable to the genre is June Allyson's noble, brave widow.
The nub of the plot is that dead man Peter Graves was a useless piece of work - a coward (Graves is good in flashback). Mum Astor wants him to have the Medal of Honour and Jeff is unsure whether to tell the truth That's not a bad idea for a film.
It does lack something extra - some drama playing out in the present day. Written in the Wind, from the same writer as this (the original novel, not the script) had more stuff going on - Robert Stack and Rock Hudson were childhood friends, so there was an element of betrayal when Hudson fell for Stack's wife; Stack kills himself and there's a murder trial; Stack's sister Dorothy Malone loves Hudson.
This doesn't have that. The most interesting character dramatically is Peter Graves who is dead when the film starts. He didn't love Allyson and was a coward. Sandra Dee is on hand as Graves' sister - a bit of a minx, I think meant to be along the lines of Dorothy Malone... but she's too young to be a threat for Allyson/Chandler.
I think Graves had to be alive - or Dee needed to become obsessed with Chandler - or Astor tried to kill him. Or something, anything, that played out more in the present day. There's nothing at stake except Graves' reputation and Astor's feelings and a slight feeling of awkwardness for Chandler. Compare so say Rock Hudson in Written on the Wind who was best friends with Robert Stack and wound up on trial for murder.
It doesn't help that the film is in black and white and lacks production values. Douglas Sirk lite.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Thoughts on Jeffrey Hunter
Reading the script for The Searchers the other day made me appreciate how good the character of Martin Paulie is, though overshadowed by Ethan Edwards. In many ways the relationship between moral Martin and tormented Ethan is the heart of the movie - Ethan teaches Martin how to, well, be a vengeful maniac, but Martin teaches Ethan the importance of bringing Debbie home as opposed to, well, killing her.
It was probably the best role ever given to Jeffrey Hunter, an actor little remembered today - and to be honest probably little appreciated at the time. Hunter was a handsome lad, with a nice physique and handsome all-American looks. He was signed to a long term contract by 20th Century Fox who probably figured he'd be another Tyrone Power - they seemed to have similar thoughts about Robert Wagner, who also signed to the studio... though to be fair all the studios seemed to be signing up all-American boys in the early 50s: Warners had Tab Hunter, Universal had Rock Hudson, Columbia had John Derek, etc. One writer defined young male stars of this time as "brylcream boys" or "Brando boys" (Brando, Newman, Gazzara, Palance, Dean)... Hunter was definitely the brylcream brigade.
He was in a college play in 1950 when talent scouts saw him and Fox snapped him up. They were initially enthusiastic, giving him male juvenile leads or parts in war films such as The Frogmen - within three years he was given a lead in Sailor of the King. But it must've become apparently very quickly Hunter didn't have much charisma. He was handsome, he could act enough... but he had no personality, no charm, no individuality. He simply wasn't a star. Robert Wagner wasn't much of a movie star either - he had a slightly more brooding quality than Hunter which saw him outshine Hunter during the Fox tenure (in their films together - and they made several - Wagner almost always got the showier role); and Wagner went on to become a genuine TV star, something Hunter never managed.
Hunter's career is remarkable for the amount of lucky breaks he received, and failing to consolidate any of them - that initial contract, being cast in 14 Hours, a lead in Sailor of the King, The Searchers, playing Jesus in King of Kings, a TV show in Temple Houston, the original captain in Star Trek (he wouldn't do a second pilot). He was lucky to have been signed to a studio who did give him chances, he was lucky to have John Ford and Star Trek so people remembered him. I'm sure he was a nice guy and tried hard. But he was a bland actor and wasn't a star at all.
Nonetheless here is my Jeff Hunter Top Ten
1) The Searchers (1956) - brilliant Western and Hunter doesn't disgrace himself
2) King of Kings (1961) - Hunter does well in a difficult role
3) Sailor of the King (1953) - enjoyable movie which would've been better with a stronger actor
4) "The Cage" - the Star Trek pilot - would the series have been as successful with Hunter instead of Shatner? Who knows. It's still one of the better things he did
5) In Love and War (1958) - not bad all-Fox-young-stars WW2 epic.
6) The Longest Day (1962) - Hunter gets one of the best moments in this epic, dying on Omaha Beach
7) A Kiss Before Dying (1956) - Wagner gets the juicy role but Hunter does get to wear glasses.
8) Hell to Eternity (1960) - Hunter gets to play a real life hero in this war pic
9) Sergeant Rutledge (1960) - lesser known Ford with Hunter in the lead.
10) The Great Locomotive Chase (1956) - exciting Disney film.
It was probably the best role ever given to Jeffrey Hunter, an actor little remembered today - and to be honest probably little appreciated at the time. Hunter was a handsome lad, with a nice physique and handsome all-American looks. He was signed to a long term contract by 20th Century Fox who probably figured he'd be another Tyrone Power - they seemed to have similar thoughts about Robert Wagner, who also signed to the studio... though to be fair all the studios seemed to be signing up all-American boys in the early 50s: Warners had Tab Hunter, Universal had Rock Hudson, Columbia had John Derek, etc. One writer defined young male stars of this time as "brylcream boys" or "Brando boys" (Brando, Newman, Gazzara, Palance, Dean)... Hunter was definitely the brylcream brigade.
He was in a college play in 1950 when talent scouts saw him and Fox snapped him up. They were initially enthusiastic, giving him male juvenile leads or parts in war films such as The Frogmen - within three years he was given a lead in Sailor of the King. But it must've become apparently very quickly Hunter didn't have much charisma. He was handsome, he could act enough... but he had no personality, no charm, no individuality. He simply wasn't a star. Robert Wagner wasn't much of a movie star either - he had a slightly more brooding quality than Hunter which saw him outshine Hunter during the Fox tenure (in their films together - and they made several - Wagner almost always got the showier role); and Wagner went on to become a genuine TV star, something Hunter never managed.
Hunter's career is remarkable for the amount of lucky breaks he received, and failing to consolidate any of them - that initial contract, being cast in 14 Hours, a lead in Sailor of the King, The Searchers, playing Jesus in King of Kings, a TV show in Temple Houston, the original captain in Star Trek (he wouldn't do a second pilot). He was lucky to have been signed to a studio who did give him chances, he was lucky to have John Ford and Star Trek so people remembered him. I'm sure he was a nice guy and tried hard. But he was a bland actor and wasn't a star at all.
Nonetheless here is my Jeff Hunter Top Ten
1) The Searchers (1956) - brilliant Western and Hunter doesn't disgrace himself
2) King of Kings (1961) - Hunter does well in a difficult role
3) Sailor of the King (1953) - enjoyable movie which would've been better with a stronger actor
4) "The Cage" - the Star Trek pilot - would the series have been as successful with Hunter instead of Shatner? Who knows. It's still one of the better things he did
5) In Love and War (1958) - not bad all-Fox-young-stars WW2 epic.
6) The Longest Day (1962) - Hunter gets one of the best moments in this epic, dying on Omaha Beach
7) A Kiss Before Dying (1956) - Wagner gets the juicy role but Hunter does get to wear glasses.
8) Hell to Eternity (1960) - Hunter gets to play a real life hero in this war pic
9) Sergeant Rutledge (1960) - lesser known Ford with Hunter in the lead.
10) The Great Locomotive Chase (1956) - exciting Disney film.
Friday, March 03, 2017
Script review - "The Searchers" (1956) by Frank Nugent
It's a wonderful film but so much of that is in the script, particularly the character of Ethan Edwards, one of the most fascinating protagonists in Hollywood history. A bitter man, obviously hard to live with, a kind of vampire - sulkily refusing to be at the surrender of the South, or to accept the peace... you can see why Martha picked his brother instead of him. A complete bad ass - whip smart, cunning, knows heaps about Indians, a great shot, prone to scalp Indians out of spite so they don't get into heaven. Yet he's also human - his love for Martha, he saved Martin as a young boy, he tries to without news about Lucy's death from Brad. And in the end of course he doesn't kill Debbie.
It's a tough, exciting story - we plunge right into it with the arrival of Ethan, the dinner sequence accessing the backstory, the news of a cattle raid, the terrifying sequence of the Indians about to attack, the initial search (resulting in Brad's death). The historical detail all feels authentic.
It's almost relief to get some romance and comic relief visiting the Jorgensens with Martin being embarassed bathing around Laurie etc. The middle section is less brilliant - doesn't have the same pace, naturally, and making fun of Look feels a bit awkward... but it's redeemed in an odd way by having Look innocently killed along with other women and children by a glory hungry cavalry general. Structurally I felt it was a mistake to have them find Debbie, then lose her and have to find her again. I guess they wanted us to see her... but it feels like they would've taken her. The last act felt like repeat - with the Indians conveniently turning up and Martin going in to get her. But there were plenty of great moments - I actually love the comedy of Lt Greenhill and his sabre continually poking the reverend, and the final attack, and of course there's the ending.
The character of Martin often doesn't get much press because he was played by dull Jeffrey Hunter instead of iconic John Wayne but he is a fine creation too - a quarter breed, always questioned by Ethan, yet who earns his respect... as well as disdain by keeping a moral code. Who has to go on the search to save Debbie's life, not from the Indians but from Ethan. It's fitting that Nugent gives the killing of Scar to Martin not Ethan, and the happy ending - because he's been honorable, whereas to be blunt Ethan is a nasty piece of work, despite his good characteristics. (Ethan can't resist scalping Scar at the end out of sadism).
The script includes a large amount of big print that wouldn't necessarily be clear to the viewer - it is to the reader - but I guess writing it Nugent knew he had John Ford. The final ending wasn't in this script I read... Nugent has Ethan and Debbie enter the house together. Far better that he doesn't go off into the sunset.
First class writing.
It's a tough, exciting story - we plunge right into it with the arrival of Ethan, the dinner sequence accessing the backstory, the news of a cattle raid, the terrifying sequence of the Indians about to attack, the initial search (resulting in Brad's death). The historical detail all feels authentic.
It's almost relief to get some romance and comic relief visiting the Jorgensens with Martin being embarassed bathing around Laurie etc. The middle section is less brilliant - doesn't have the same pace, naturally, and making fun of Look feels a bit awkward... but it's redeemed in an odd way by having Look innocently killed along with other women and children by a glory hungry cavalry general. Structurally I felt it was a mistake to have them find Debbie, then lose her and have to find her again. I guess they wanted us to see her... but it feels like they would've taken her. The last act felt like repeat - with the Indians conveniently turning up and Martin going in to get her. But there were plenty of great moments - I actually love the comedy of Lt Greenhill and his sabre continually poking the reverend, and the final attack, and of course there's the ending.
The character of Martin often doesn't get much press because he was played by dull Jeffrey Hunter instead of iconic John Wayne but he is a fine creation too - a quarter breed, always questioned by Ethan, yet who earns his respect... as well as disdain by keeping a moral code. Who has to go on the search to save Debbie's life, not from the Indians but from Ethan. It's fitting that Nugent gives the killing of Scar to Martin not Ethan, and the happy ending - because he's been honorable, whereas to be blunt Ethan is a nasty piece of work, despite his good characteristics. (Ethan can't resist scalping Scar at the end out of sadism).
The script includes a large amount of big print that wouldn't necessarily be clear to the viewer - it is to the reader - but I guess writing it Nugent knew he had John Ford. The final ending wasn't in this script I read... Nugent has Ethan and Debbie enter the house together. Far better that he doesn't go off into the sunset.
First class writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)