The Russ Meyer style which would become so famous in Vixen and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls was established with this melodrama - he'd used fevered narration, jump cuts, tilts, breasts and over the top melodrama before, but this one was in colour.
It was written by Jack Moran, who brought so much to the party in Faster Pussycat, and who has written himself basically the lead role, a guy running a crummy cabin by a lake, living with his daughter and oversexed French wife. They are visited by Ken Swofford as a corrupt detective.
I didn't enjoy it. There was too much focus on male characters, which is never good in Meyer films. Only Alaina Capri's character seems to enjoy sex - Swofford is a rapist. There is some melodrama and a high body count - it's like Lorna or Mudhoney in that way.
Rhe casting wasn't up to scratch. Babette Bardot has the figure, but is awkward and uncomfortable. Adele Rein is pretty, but it just feels kind of wrong having her as Moran's daughter. Moran was okay. Alaina Capri gets lots of chances and looks like Erica Gavin, but isn't up to it - all the way through this film I kept thinking to myself "I wish Erica Gavin was playing this role".
Ken Swofford is very professional. He's this film's Alex Rocco - a rare Meyer actor who went on and had a decent career - you'd recognise him from a million 80s TV credits. (Charles Napier would fulfil a similar role on later Meyer movies).
It looks good. I just didn't have that much fun watching it.
Friday, November 30, 2018
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Movie review - "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" (1965) ****
Russ Meyer's first classic. It has many of the elements he'd delivered before - energetic handling, skilled photography, melodramatic plot - but this one is elevated. It takes the structure of Motor Psycho but crucially makes these characters the protagonist and also turns them into women. He brought back Haji from Motor Pyscho and discovered Tura Satana to play the lead ones.
Having women as the bad girls completely turns the piece on its head - because strong vicious women even now are a relative rarity on screen, it remains so fresh to see these amazons go from go go dancing, to driving around in the desert, killing a random guy, then trying to rob a man in a wheelchair.
Paul Trinka is super wet as Kirk, the nice normal son, and Susan Bernard very annoying as the whiny girl... but that adds to the film's charm. I didn't like Stuart Lancaster that much in Mudhoney but didn't mind him here as the wheelchair bound old man (the structure of this is a bit weird - there's half an hour of a plot involving a drag race in the desert and accidentally killing a guy, then the rest two thirds is about conning an old man out of money).
I think it helped Meyer himself didn't do the script, though he wrote the story. There's some very quotable lines in the dialogue.
The real ace in the hole here is the cast. Tura Santana is of course an incredible icon - exotic, mysterious, vicious. Haji is extremely good as her lesbian off sider (this is spelt out with surprising explicitness - though I guess it was a little in vogue in the 60s with The Children's Hour and The Foxes). Lori Williams isn't as well known - I guess she's blonde and isn't as buxom - but fits in very well with the others, as a kind of I'm-only-in-it-for-laughs type who can resist trying to seduce the big muscle head.
Big, outrageous melodramatic fun that has aged well.
Having women as the bad girls completely turns the piece on its head - because strong vicious women even now are a relative rarity on screen, it remains so fresh to see these amazons go from go go dancing, to driving around in the desert, killing a random guy, then trying to rob a man in a wheelchair.
Paul Trinka is super wet as Kirk, the nice normal son, and Susan Bernard very annoying as the whiny girl... but that adds to the film's charm. I didn't like Stuart Lancaster that much in Mudhoney but didn't mind him here as the wheelchair bound old man (the structure of this is a bit weird - there's half an hour of a plot involving a drag race in the desert and accidentally killing a guy, then the rest two thirds is about conning an old man out of money).
I think it helped Meyer himself didn't do the script, though he wrote the story. There's some very quotable lines in the dialogue.
The real ace in the hole here is the cast. Tura Santana is of course an incredible icon - exotic, mysterious, vicious. Haji is extremely good as her lesbian off sider (this is spelt out with surprising explicitness - though I guess it was a little in vogue in the 60s with The Children's Hour and The Foxes). Lori Williams isn't as well known - I guess she's blonde and isn't as buxom - but fits in very well with the others, as a kind of I'm-only-in-it-for-laughs type who can resist trying to seduce the big muscle head.
Big, outrageous melodramatic fun that has aged well.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Movie review - "Motor Psycho" (1965) **1/2
Everyone knows Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! It's less well known that that movie was a kind of sequel to this one, which actually performed better at the box office. I think that's because this is so male centric, and Russ Meyer films aren't that interesting when they're about the men.
This is about three bikers driving around the countryside causing trouble - they rape a woman who happens to be married to the local vet (Alex Rocco, quite a well known actor). Instead of looking after his wife (she's not dead) he goes off driving looking for them. He comes across Haji, who the bikers tried to kill (they killed her husband).
They probably should have killed off Rocco's wife instead of keeping her alive - because you lose sympathy with him ignoring her and flirting with Haji
There's a few scenes of pure high camp, to indicate the direction Meyer would go in - one where Haji sucks out the poison from Rocco, and it's like they have sex; another where she distracts a guy who is going to kill her by demanding he sleep with her first and she rips off her clothes. This is all good fun.
Haji is excellent value. The actors who play the killer bikers aren't bad.
The rape stuff is unpleasant. I know that's an oxymoron but the scenes where the bikers trap the girl and she's screaming - it's yuck. There's too many men - too much focus on Rocco who is more concerned with revenge than his wife.
The acting is good, the action well done, and the cinematography effective.
This is about three bikers driving around the countryside causing trouble - they rape a woman who happens to be married to the local vet (Alex Rocco, quite a well known actor). Instead of looking after his wife (she's not dead) he goes off driving looking for them. He comes across Haji, who the bikers tried to kill (they killed her husband).
They probably should have killed off Rocco's wife instead of keeping her alive - because you lose sympathy with him ignoring her and flirting with Haji
There's a few scenes of pure high camp, to indicate the direction Meyer would go in - one where Haji sucks out the poison from Rocco, and it's like they have sex; another where she distracts a guy who is going to kill her by demanding he sleep with her first and she rips off her clothes. This is all good fun.
Haji is excellent value. The actors who play the killer bikers aren't bad.
The rape stuff is unpleasant. I know that's an oxymoron but the scenes where the bikers trap the girl and she's screaming - it's yuck. There's too many men - too much focus on Rocco who is more concerned with revenge than his wife.
The acting is good, the action well done, and the cinematography effective.
Movie review - "Mudhoney" (1965) **
More overheated Southern melodrama from Russ Meyer. You wonder why couldn't he find someone better looking than John Furlong to play the drifter who comes to a small town and gets the hots for his employers wife. I guess the main audience for these films cared about the women more than the men - it just would've made it more believable.
Meyer went ambitious with this one - perhaps too ambitious. He didn't like the film, though Roger Ebert did. There's an awful lot of drama and acting - too much stuff with men to be honest; the lecherous old codger and the nice old codger. There's a lot of sappiness in it - the two leads walking hand in hand as the sun goes down.
The main girl here isn't very buxom. Lorna Maitland who was in Lorna has a part but its support.
There's too much Hal Hopper, who plays the wife beating drunk. Too much Stuart Lancaster, the old guy who creepily wants Furlong to run off with his niece. (How about just talking to the niece instead of getting a man to save her?) Too much Furlong. Too much men.
We never get a sense of who Antoinette Christiani is other than "bored housewife". I know character depth wasn't a great Meyer strong point but his memorable female characters had more drive. There's an over the top finale with a death toll like Lorna but the film simply wasn't fun, at least not to me.
Meyer went ambitious with this one - perhaps too ambitious. He didn't like the film, though Roger Ebert did. There's an awful lot of drama and acting - too much stuff with men to be honest; the lecherous old codger and the nice old codger. There's a lot of sappiness in it - the two leads walking hand in hand as the sun goes down.
The main girl here isn't very buxom. Lorna Maitland who was in Lorna has a part but its support.
There's too much Hal Hopper, who plays the wife beating drunk. Too much Stuart Lancaster, the old guy who creepily wants Furlong to run off with his niece. (How about just talking to the niece instead of getting a man to save her?) Too much Furlong. Too much men.
We never get a sense of who Antoinette Christiani is other than "bored housewife". I know character depth wasn't a great Meyer strong point but his memorable female characters had more drive. There's an over the top finale with a death toll like Lorna but the film simply wasn't fun, at least not to me.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Movie review - "Lorna" (1964) ** (warning: spoilers)
Russ Meyer's first dramatic feature is very much in the tradition of horny Southern melodramas, eg God's Little Acre, the works of Tennessee Williams, The Long Hot Summer. The horny woman here is the title character, the buxom Lorna whose husband can't satisfy her. Then one day she's raped by a guy and enjoys it and wants the guy to hang around. The husband is teased about her wife being unfaithful, not knowing they're actually accurate. He returns home - lots of people wind up dead.
It's directed with energy and verve and looks good - even though its black and white, Meyer was skilled with the camera. The players really commit. I liked the locations, the preacher as Greek chorus, and the salt mine for those Sodom and Gomorrah parallels.
But it's not very pleasant. There's no sense of humour. I did not enjoy the rapes. To pad out the running time there's a rape at the beginning - some female character who drops out of the story. It takes a long time to get to Lorna.
Lorna Maitland is buxom, but quite a sweet, sad figure - she's not one of the man eaters Meyer would become famous for.
A few trims that this would be respectible-ish - there is some nudity but not a lot. This was interesting to watch rather than enjoyable and you can see why, when people talk about Meyer, no one really talks about this film much, except to mention it in the context of his career.
It's directed with energy and verve and looks good - even though its black and white, Meyer was skilled with the camera. The players really commit. I liked the locations, the preacher as Greek chorus, and the salt mine for those Sodom and Gomorrah parallels.
But it's not very pleasant. There's no sense of humour. I did not enjoy the rapes. To pad out the running time there's a rape at the beginning - some female character who drops out of the story. It takes a long time to get to Lorna.
Lorna Maitland is buxom, but quite a sweet, sad figure - she's not one of the man eaters Meyer would become famous for.
A few trims that this would be respectible-ish - there is some nudity but not a lot. This was interesting to watch rather than enjoyable and you can see why, when people talk about Meyer, no one really talks about this film much, except to mention it in the context of his career.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Movie review - "Wild Gals of the Naked West" (1962) *
A nudie cutie from Russ Meyer - the film's poor box office performance led to him trying a different genre, more dramatic. This was hard going. There's more nudity, but it's just a series of moments - you wouldn't call them scenes - around an old western backlot. Sometimes the woman are topless, the colour photography is fine, the women are attractive. Most of it is music over action, with occasional narration. Sometimes there's a prospector talking to the screen. He has a distinctive voice.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Movie review - "Eve and the Handyman" (1961) *
A hard slog despite the novelty of starring Russ Meyer's wife Eve, who was so crucial to his success (she later died in a plane crash). The plot has her follow a handyman around - which is nice in that the woman is the voyeur. It's nicely shot but there's not a lot of nudity or comedy and it is was hard going for me to watch, just from a boredom point of view. It doesn't even have much cleavage.
Book review - "Last Laugh, Mr Moto" by John P Marquand (1942)
You think World War Two would make a Mr Moto automatically more interesting but this was a hard slog despite the interesting setting of the Caribbean. Though what a Japanese agent is doing there is confusing.
The hero is another drunken American. His boat is hired by a mysterious couple who want to take him to an island. The characters are uninteresting the action unsuspenseful.
The hero is another drunken American. His boat is hired by a mysterious couple who want to take him to an island. The characters are uninteresting the action unsuspenseful.
Friday, November 23, 2018
Movie review - "The Immoral Mr Teas" (1959) **
The film that kicked off Russ Meyer's career as a significant force in independent filmmaking - made for a low cost it was very profitable. Absolutely it came along at the right time - a few years before it would've been too much a few years later not enough - but it has verve, energy and colour. It reminded me of Jacques Tati and Frank Tashlin in a weird way - the adventures of this salesman who perves on women.
He develops the ability to look at them with no clothes on but to be honest they're not wearing that much early on - lots of low cut tops. Plenty of cleavage on display, and breasts. There's a scene where he walked past a little girl doing a hula hoop which felt wrong - kids have no place in this world.
It only goes for an hour. It got monotonous - there's no story. But it is bright and hard energy.
He develops the ability to look at them with no clothes on but to be honest they're not wearing that much early on - lots of low cut tops. Plenty of cleavage on display, and breasts. There's a scene where he walked past a little girl doing a hula hoop which felt wrong - kids have no place in this world.
It only goes for an hour. It got monotonous - there's no story. But it is bright and hard energy.
Top Ten Non Horror Karloff
Happy 131st birthday Boris Karloff. You loved cricket and were married five times. Everyone knows your horror greats (if you don't you should) but for procrastination reasons I thought I'd do a Karloff non-horror top ten.
1) Scarface (1931) - Boris plays a gangster memorably killed in a bowling alley
2) The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini (1967) - part Scooby Doo, part Beach Party - he was too ill to stand so spends the whole movie in a coffin (it's a comedy)
3) Targets (1968) - horrific because it's about a spree killer with a gun but not a horror - Karloff plays a character based on himself - a superb film one of the best debut features from a director
4) The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932) - Karloff did a lot of yellow face acting back in the day but he's very effective as a mastermind and it's a fast paced thriller
5) The Lost Patrol (1934) - he's a religious maniac who goes mad in a shooting-gallery-plot film directed by John Ford
6)The Criminal Code (1931) - his performance as a murderous convict led to his casting as Frankenstein's monster
7) Charlie Chan at the Opera (1935) - he plays someone who escapes from a lunatic asylum admittedly but it's not a horror film, one of the best Charlie Chans
8) The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947) - he's the baddy in a Danny Kaye comedy
9) How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966) - narrator of a classic TV show
10) "The Emperor Jones" done for radio for Theatre Guild of the Air (1945) with Karloff really good - Canada Lee plays the lead
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Movie review - "Vera Cruz' (1954) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Fun Western which I think I'd really love if it didn't have Gary Cooper in one of the lead roles. I've developed such an intense dislike for Cooper - he's so gaunt and worn out here he looks like he already has cancer (maybe he did), and he's so weak and whiny, playing a, gee, poor old Confederate who's lost his land so is moving around Mexico. He seems to be after a pay day but he's as honorable as anything - you never think for a moment he might do the wrong thing.
He's blown off the screen acting wise by Burt Lancaster who is superb as a smiling villain. Mind you Lancaster does have the best part - all flashing teeth, and eating like a pig, and getting offended easily, and having a bromance with Cooper, and being super brilliant fighter. You get the sense that Lancaster really likes Cooper but you never get the feeling Cooper likes Lancaster.
Super impressive gallery of supporting rogues including Charles Bronson, Jack Elam and Ernest Borgnine - you wish they'd been given more to do. Maybe that's unfair, they do have a bit to do, but they are generally lumped together and its hard to tell them apart.
Denise Darcel (countess) and Sara Montiel (local) have quite large roles but neither are particularly good actors.
The budget was big and the film was shot in Mexico. Aldrich uses it well - production values are high, and there's lots of shots from a distance with soldiers on the horizon.
Some clever bits of writing such as getting out of being surrounded by Mexicans by using kids. Aldrich's misogyny was already apparent - he's got Lancaster slapping Darcel, and a really uncomfortable attempted rape by Bronson on Montiel. I know everyone's tough and has a rough time in Aldrich films, but he doesn't have women inflicting the violence.
Still a good example of how to make a vehicle for two stars.
He's blown off the screen acting wise by Burt Lancaster who is superb as a smiling villain. Mind you Lancaster does have the best part - all flashing teeth, and eating like a pig, and getting offended easily, and having a bromance with Cooper, and being super brilliant fighter. You get the sense that Lancaster really likes Cooper but you never get the feeling Cooper likes Lancaster.
Super impressive gallery of supporting rogues including Charles Bronson, Jack Elam and Ernest Borgnine - you wish they'd been given more to do. Maybe that's unfair, they do have a bit to do, but they are generally lumped together and its hard to tell them apart.
Denise Darcel (countess) and Sara Montiel (local) have quite large roles but neither are particularly good actors.
The budget was big and the film was shot in Mexico. Aldrich uses it well - production values are high, and there's lots of shots from a distance with soldiers on the horizon.
Some clever bits of writing such as getting out of being surrounded by Mexicans by using kids. Aldrich's misogyny was already apparent - he's got Lancaster slapping Darcel, and a really uncomfortable attempted rape by Bronson on Montiel. I know everyone's tough and has a rough time in Aldrich films, but he doesn't have women inflicting the violence.
Still a good example of how to make a vehicle for two stars.
TV review - "Jack Ryan" Season 1 (2018) ****
On the whole, this was fantastic. It's got impressive production values, it's very smart - the use of technology is skillful. Most importantly they nailed the character of Jack Ryan. He's a decent smart guy (maybe too smart - he never makes a mistake, only sometimes figures things out a bit too late).
He's got a super smart antagonist, and I love his relationship with Greer. Very well cast. The can't resist the temptation to have Ryan pull out his gun and do something bad ass every ep - the show needed a John Clark character to do this.
Oh and when Abbie Cornish comes in and says she's a doctor for infectious diseases, that kind of gives away what the final plan will involve.
Matt McCoy is in this!
He's got a super smart antagonist, and I love his relationship with Greer. Very well cast. The can't resist the temptation to have Ryan pull out his gun and do something bad ass every ep - the show needed a John Clark character to do this.
Oh and when Abbie Cornish comes in and says she's a doctor for infectious diseases, that kind of gives away what the final plan will involve.
Matt McCoy is in this!
Movie review - "Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?" (1969) ***
The third in Robert Aldrich's psycho biddy trilogy although he didn't direct this, just produced it. Bernard Girard originally directed and was replaced by Lee Katzin.
The plot has recently widowed Genevieve Page realise she's short of cash so she starts murdering housekeepers who have savings, and lives off said savings. A new housekeeper (Ruth Gordon) proves troublesome because she's looking into the death of a friend.
Page and Gordon are great fun - Page is clearly a bit too young but plays the role to the manor born. You know something, though? This really needed Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and it's a shame Aldrich found both so hard to work with. They simply have more charisma, and were more compelling on screen.
there's also far, far too much time devoted to Page's dull neighbour (Rosemary Forsyth), her young son, and Forsyth's romance with Gordon's nephew (Robert Fuller). Peter Brandon and Joan Huntington are better value as Page's nephew and his wife - but even with them the punches are pulled. If you make a film like this you've got to go for it.
I do love how Page is so smart and figures out Gordon's antics fairly early and Gordon's death is a genuine surprise. It's a solid film, worth watching, but falls short of a classic.
The plot has recently widowed Genevieve Page realise she's short of cash so she starts murdering housekeepers who have savings, and lives off said savings. A new housekeeper (Ruth Gordon) proves troublesome because she's looking into the death of a friend.
Page and Gordon are great fun - Page is clearly a bit too young but plays the role to the manor born. You know something, though? This really needed Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and it's a shame Aldrich found both so hard to work with. They simply have more charisma, and were more compelling on screen.
there's also far, far too much time devoted to Page's dull neighbour (Rosemary Forsyth), her young son, and Forsyth's romance with Gordon's nephew (Robert Fuller). Peter Brandon and Joan Huntington are better value as Page's nephew and his wife - but even with them the punches are pulled. If you make a film like this you've got to go for it.
I do love how Page is so smart and figures out Gordon's antics fairly early and Gordon's death is a genuine surprise. It's a solid film, worth watching, but falls short of a classic.
TV review - "Bodyguard" (2018) **** (warning: spoilers)
I was completely gripped by this to start off with - exciting scenes, well written and acted, expertly staged. It had a lovely British feel with its research and acknowledgement of procedure. It doesn't reinvent any wheel - terrorists are Arabs or rogue ex soldiers, bodyguards are hot and devoted and tormented. There is enough twists to keep it fresh - there are several women in positions of power including the Minister.
The last ep or two this goes off the rails. The bomb detonation section in particular dragged because you know the guy was going to live (if he'd lived maybe it would have been worth it). I appreciate the twist of killing off the Minister but you do miss her at the end for the emotional stakes.
The last ep or two this goes off the rails. The bomb detonation section in particular dragged because you know the guy was going to live (if he'd lived maybe it would have been worth it). I appreciate the twist of killing off the Minister but you do miss her at the end for the emotional stakes.
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
George Seaton top ten
Random thought - a filmmaker who no one really talks about or even cares about today... despite winning two Oscars... George Seaton. A writer who moved into directing and producing. So for no reason other than procrastination a George Seaton top ten
1) Miracle on 34th Street (1947) - classic movie, with a dash of cynicism that ensures it still holds up
2) 36 Hours (1964) - very good war time thriller, one of Rod Taylor's best movies
3) Airport (1970) - big all star disaster movie with outrageous interior design
4) The Song of Bernadette (1943) - Seaton wrote but didn't direct this, a very good 1943 dramatisation (note those qualifiers) of a full on story
5) Coney Island (1943) - one of the most fun Betty Grable musicals
6) The Country Girl (1954) - there's a lot of Acting - Bing Crosby drunk! Grace Kelly without make up! Bill Holden shouting! But the drama is good, the language evocative
7) Teacher's Pet (1958) - Clark Gable and Doris Day, plus Gig Young does a drunk scene that's funny provided you don't remember in real life he was an alcoholic who then shot his wife and himself
8) The Day at the Races (1937) - Seaton was one of the writers on this, which has some of the Marx Brothers best routines. Try to ignore the "spiritual" numbers.
9) The Bridges at Toko Ri (1954) - he produced this rather than directing of writing. A very fine film, surprisingly downbeat.
10) The Rat Race (1960) - Seaton produced this charming Tony Curtis-Debbie Reynolds rom com.
I admit I was scrambling a little at the end to make up this list, maybe it's not that much of a shock he's not remembered so well...
Tv review - "Four Star Playhose - The Squeeze" (1953) **
Dick Powell runs a gambling den which is visited by the son of the DA (Richard Jaeckel, who appeared in many films directed by Robert Aldrich, who did this). The story was written by Blake Edwards. This isn't bad. Joan Camden isn't much as Jaekel's sister.
TV review - "Four Star Playhouse - The Gift" (1953) **
Geez, some of these golden years of TV drama shows were pretty dull. This is set at Christmas and is kind of a Christmas Carol knock off. Charles Boyer is rich and lonely. Maureen O'Sullivan is in it. This was a hard slog. Robert Aldrich directed it but it has no passion.
Sunday, November 18, 2018
TV review - Four Star Playhouse - The Bad Streak (1954) **
Very dull episode which was directed by Robert Aldrich but has none of his vigour in the handling. Charles Boyer is at least well cast as the manager of a gambling den suffering financial strife. He's confronted by his son, Robert Arthur who is not well cast - he looks like a little boy and tries to act tough but is not convincing. It's uninteresting drama not well done.
TV review - "Brigadoon" (1966) **
I only watched this because it was on Internet Archive - and I'm curious about the career of producer Norman Rosemont who specialised in TV adaptations of classics - musicals at first, then novels.
This was his first such adaptation, a version of the musical. I've never seen the 1954 MGM film which seems generally regarded as disappointing. This isn't much chop either - the opening scenes clearly aren't shot anywhere near Scotland. Robert Goulet is okay as the lead - he's got looks and can sing, I think he just lacks a bit of pep and individuality necessary to be a star. Peter Falk adds novelty as his best friend and Sally Ann Howes fine as the main girl. Finlay Currie looks as though he's about to drop dead as the head of the village.
It takes an awfully long time for the penny to drop for Goulet and Falk that the village is weird and the locals never seem to find it that weird these newcomers are in town.
There are some nice tunes, though many you feel would work better on stage. But the love story is good - and occasionally it as a magic, as the story is fine. As it went on I enjoyed it more.
This was his first such adaptation, a version of the musical. I've never seen the 1954 MGM film which seems generally regarded as disappointing. This isn't much chop either - the opening scenes clearly aren't shot anywhere near Scotland. Robert Goulet is okay as the lead - he's got looks and can sing, I think he just lacks a bit of pep and individuality necessary to be a star. Peter Falk adds novelty as his best friend and Sally Ann Howes fine as the main girl. Finlay Currie looks as though he's about to drop dead as the head of the village.
It takes an awfully long time for the penny to drop for Goulet and Falk that the village is weird and the locals never seem to find it that weird these newcomers are in town.
There are some nice tunes, though many you feel would work better on stage. But the love story is good - and occasionally it as a magic, as the story is fine. As it went on I enjoyed it more.
Movie review - "The Garment Jungle" (1957) **
Columbia would have dreamt of another On the Waterfront with this one - a fact based tale of organised crime in the garment industry. They got in Waterfront's Lee J. Cobb and while they couldn't get Rod Steiger they got in Richard Boone who is pretty awesome, and there's no Eva Marie Saint but Gia Scala isn't bad, and while there's no Karl Malden there's Robert Loggia who is great. Instead of Marlon Brando though they got Kerwin Matthews, who, for all the residual affection I have for him off the back of his performance in kids adventure movies, isn't good.
Mind you he isn't helped by a script which makes him passive a lot of the time - he rocks up and tells dad Cobb that he wants to work in the family garment firm, but then gets all golly gosh offended when he finds dad has links with the Mob to shut up the union. But then he doesn't do much just whinge to dad and hang around the wife of union leader Robert Loggia, as if waiting for Loggia to die. I think they needed to have Matthews more active - go undercover to find out info on his dad or something (there are account books but Cobb just tells him about them and Valerie French goes "oh I have them").
I don't know what Valerie French is doing in this film - she plays Cobb's girlfriend, and she does have a copy of the secret accounts but doesn't seem to serve much purpose dramatically. Maybe they just wanted another girl in the story... She doesnt really offer any sort of different position. Maybe they should've made her a villain - someone who tries to seduce Matthews, or something. Or a daughter of Richard Boone, who is torn over what her father is doing.
Cobb is fine in his role though you get the impression his character is softened. Loggia is very good in the most fleshed out part - a fanatical union leader fighting for good but neglecting his wife and new baby. Gia Scala was a surprise - I really liked her. Loved her intro dancing. Boone is an excellent villain. Wes Addy is a bit too smooth and Sir Percival Evil as a baddy.
Some of the handling does seem flabby others tougher - I'm not sure how much as original director Robert Aldrich and replacement Vincent Sherman. The location shooting helps.
There's some good moments - the opening pre credit sequence which leaps right into it (this would be a Robert Aldrich trademark), some performances, the execution of Loggia (especially when he realises his mates have betrayed him). But its pretty undercooked stuff. Just thinking about it really Matthews should have died and Cobb lived - that would've been more moving.
Mind you he isn't helped by a script which makes him passive a lot of the time - he rocks up and tells dad Cobb that he wants to work in the family garment firm, but then gets all golly gosh offended when he finds dad has links with the Mob to shut up the union. But then he doesn't do much just whinge to dad and hang around the wife of union leader Robert Loggia, as if waiting for Loggia to die. I think they needed to have Matthews more active - go undercover to find out info on his dad or something (there are account books but Cobb just tells him about them and Valerie French goes "oh I have them").
I don't know what Valerie French is doing in this film - she plays Cobb's girlfriend, and she does have a copy of the secret accounts but doesn't seem to serve much purpose dramatically. Maybe they just wanted another girl in the story... She doesnt really offer any sort of different position. Maybe they should've made her a villain - someone who tries to seduce Matthews, or something. Or a daughter of Richard Boone, who is torn over what her father is doing.
Cobb is fine in his role though you get the impression his character is softened. Loggia is very good in the most fleshed out part - a fanatical union leader fighting for good but neglecting his wife and new baby. Gia Scala was a surprise - I really liked her. Loved her intro dancing. Boone is an excellent villain. Wes Addy is a bit too smooth and Sir Percival Evil as a baddy.
Some of the handling does seem flabby others tougher - I'm not sure how much as original director Robert Aldrich and replacement Vincent Sherman. The location shooting helps.
There's some good moments - the opening pre credit sequence which leaps right into it (this would be a Robert Aldrich trademark), some performances, the execution of Loggia (especially when he realises his mates have betrayed him). But its pretty undercooked stuff. Just thinking about it really Matthews should have died and Cobb lived - that would've been more moving.
TV review - "Four Star Playhouse: The Witness" - Season 2 Ep 5 (1953) **
Four Star Playhouse was an anthology run by Dick Powell, David Niven, Frank Lovejoy and Charles Boyer. Apparently Powell did the bulk of the work behind the scenes! He's in this one, and produced it. He plays a lawyer defending a young Charles Bronson, when he was called Buchwinki. Strother Martin is in it as well.
The most interesting thing about it is that it was directed by Robert Aldrich - it's hard to discern his personal touch, though it's a workmanlike job - and that Powell's lawyer character uses delaying tactics to get his way. The ending where the guy confesses is far too abrupt. This felt like it was better suited to one hour instead of half.
The most interesting thing about it is that it was directed by Robert Aldrich - it's hard to discern his personal touch, though it's a workmanlike job - and that Powell's lawyer character uses delaying tactics to get his way. The ending where the guy confesses is far too abrupt. This felt like it was better suited to one hour instead of half.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Movie review - "Tron" (1982) **
I didn't much like this when I saw it on VHS as a kid but decided to give it another chance on the big screen - and still didn't like it.
I absolutely respect the intelligence on display, the uniqueness of the vision, the fact that it's trying to do something different.
But it's hopelessly confused dramatically - a real mess. Steven Lisberger doesn't know how to construct scenes or add dramatic tension - this really needed some old hands riding shotgun to help him, and I don't think Disney under Ron Miller was able to do that.
It's not a bad story - David Warner is an evil executive up to No Good, so Jeff Bridges tries to hack into the system and finds himself sucked in to the system. I was constantly confused as to what was happening and why. I'm sure it all made sense once explained but I struggled to follow it.
The action scenes weren't exciting - its remarkably devoid of any tension or thrills.
The frustrating thing is its got so much potential - for instance there's an intriguing love triangle between Bridges, and fellow programmers Cindy Morgan and Bruce Boxleitner. But they don't do any thing with it. Morgan is basically a smurfette. Why doesn't the bad computer make everyone play games?
I respect this. Just don't like it.
I absolutely respect the intelligence on display, the uniqueness of the vision, the fact that it's trying to do something different.
But it's hopelessly confused dramatically - a real mess. Steven Lisberger doesn't know how to construct scenes or add dramatic tension - this really needed some old hands riding shotgun to help him, and I don't think Disney under Ron Miller was able to do that.
It's not a bad story - David Warner is an evil executive up to No Good, so Jeff Bridges tries to hack into the system and finds himself sucked in to the system. I was constantly confused as to what was happening and why. I'm sure it all made sense once explained but I struggled to follow it.
The action scenes weren't exciting - its remarkably devoid of any tension or thrills.
The frustrating thing is its got so much potential - for instance there's an intriguing love triangle between Bridges, and fellow programmers Cindy Morgan and Bruce Boxleitner. But they don't do any thing with it. Morgan is basically a smurfette. Why doesn't the bad computer make everyone play games?
I respect this. Just don't like it.
Friday, November 16, 2018
The A to Z of The Other Side of the Wind
(originally written for filmink magazine)
A conventional review doesn’t seem appropriate when reviewing an Orson Welles film, particularly one that’s getting a release more than 40 years after actually being made, so Stephen Vagg thought he’d tackle it A to Z.
A is for AFI Lifetime Achievement Award, which Orson Welles was given in 1975… and used the occasion to tub-thump for money to finish The Other Side of the Wind. To be honest, that story and all it involved and what it meant for Welles (and Hollywood) is more moving than anything in Wind itself – but the film is still fascinating, provoking and a reminder of what a talented man Welles was.
B is for Bogdanovich, Peter, perhaps the most famous acolyte and chronicler of Welles, who plays a character based on himself in the film. Bogdanovich began his career as an actor, as he often takes pains to point out, and has carved out a decent part-time career for himself as a character player. His performance in Wind is not one of the film’s best, but it doesn’t matter because he’s so spectacularly well cast and brings such fascinating baggage to the role. It’s also heartbreaking to see this early ‘70s Bogdanovich be so cocky and confident on screen, and to know what hardships were facing him down the track (several flops, the murder of girlfriend Dorothy Stratten, two declarations of bankruptcy). There’s also a “young dumb blonde girlfriend of the director” character played by Cathy Lucas based on Cybill Shepherd, which understandably annoyed Bogdanvich. Shepherd herself and Bogdanovich’s ex-wife Polly Platt can be glimpsed in the film.
C is for completion, fear of, something which (some) amateur psychologists think Welles suffered from – pointing to all the unfinished films he made in his life along with Wind (Don Quixote, The Dreamers, The Deep, Filming the Trial, It’s All True). Defenders argue Welles would’ve loved to have finished those films if he’d had the money and support – indeed, some get very touchy at any suggestion otherwise. Personally, I think it’s possible to reconcile both the view that he was let down by other people and he contributed to the problem. To me it makes total sense that Welles might put his heart and soul into a film and then get cold feet towards the end, when energy runs low, funds run out, and you fear the finished project isn’t going to be as good as you hoped. And I get the feeling he knew that had Wind been released in his lifetime there’d be a bunch of reviews that would say “another disappointment from the maker of Citizen Kane”… as they did for F For Fake and Chimes of Midnight and for everything else since Citizen Kane. It doesn’t make the fact that he didn’t make more completed movies any less tragic.
D is for The Deep, another unfinished film of Welles’, this one made in the late ‘60s. It was based on the novel which was filmed by Phil Noyce as Dead Calm, and I hope someone like Netflix puts that together too. I have a feeling that with its thriller plot it might be more accessible to non film buffs than Other Side of the Wind.
E is for editing, done by Welles and (after Welles died) Bob Murawski. Murawski did a stunning job of approximating Welles’ style – he imitated the great innovator with supreme skill, and if anyone deserves an Oscar from this film apart from Welles and Gary Graver it’s him.
F is for Ford, John, who I’d argue had as much, if not more, influence on the character of Jake Hannaford than any other figure, including Welles and Ernest Hemmingway. Like Ford, Hannaford was self-consciously macho, Irish, had a clan who would hang around him, had Peter Bogdanovich as an acolyte, John Milius as another acolyte (he inspired the Jack Simon character played by Gregory Sierra) and was possibly gay (read Maureen O’Hara’s memoirs for the dish on that).Of course, there’s a lot of Welles in Hannaford but I would say there’s more Ford.
G is for Gary Graver, the DOP of Wind, and Welles’ right hand man for the last fifteen years of the latter’s life. Their relationship was fascinating and complex – Welles was a father figure and inspiration to Graver, though the relationship was possibly abusive (Graver was rarely paid and at Welles’ beck and call). It’s rich emotional material, more interesting than any of the relationships depicted in Wind, to be brutally honest. It has to be said Graver does a brilliant job of photography on Wind, and one hopes he gets an Oscar nomination.
H is for homosexuality, a theme which interested Welles later his career – such as in his film script for The Big Brass Ring, and The Other Side of the Wind, which hints that Jake Hannaford has a crush on his leading man. Mind you, there’s a lot of straight sex in it, too. A lot. Hey, it was the seventies.
I is for Iran, the country of the film’s co-financier Mehdi Bushehri, the brother-in-law of the Shah. When the Shah was overthrown in 1979, the legal situation of the film became extremely tricky and contributed to its delay in being released. Which is classic Orson Welles – his productions didn’t just have financial troubles, they had troubles that involved revolutions.
J is for John Huston, who plays Hannaford – rather surprisingly since Welles normally nabbed the best roles in all his own productions. Huston’s performance is fine, but you can’t help wishing that Welles had taken the role – he had more of a twinkle in his eye, more humour, more fun. And of course, the scenes with Bogdanovich would have taken on an extra dimension. I do love how Welles and Huston were BFFs in real life though.
K is for Karp, Josh, whose superb book on the making of the film is required reading for anyone interested in it.
L is for legal troubles, which dogged this film even more than other Orson Welles productions. I think any creative person would have adored the chance of working with Orson Welles. I think any lawyer would have been terrified.
M is for McBride, Joseph, a noted film historian, biographer, screenwriter, author and educator, who appears as a character based on himself, and wrote one of the best books on Welles, Whatever Happened to Orson Welles, which did so much to revive appreciation in the considerable achievements of Welles’ later years.
N is for Netflix, famed for their market dominance, the high quality TV shows, and the patchy quality of their movies. The restoration of Wind is one of the best things that the company has ever done, the best “original” movie they’ve ever released, and they should be proud of it.
O is for Oja Kodar, who co-wrote and appears in the film, and was Welles’ creative and romantic partner during the latter years of his life, even while he was married to (and lived with) another woman. You old hound dog, Orson! Kodar spends a lot of Wind’s running time walking around nude – I mean a lot – and is front and centre in what is already the film’s most famous sequence, riding cowgirl on Bob Random in the front seat of a car while her necklace beads slapp against her body and rain splatters outside. Welles’ admiration for Kodar’s body clearly didn’t extend to wanting to hear her talk – she doesn’t say a line in the entire film. She was apparently a leading reason in holding up the release of this film, which is a shame, since she is an arresting presence.
P is for pornography, which Gary Graver used to make to pay the bills while working free for Orson Welles. Orson even famously helped him out once, editing a shower scene in a porno called 3AM. Wind is easily Welles’ most sexy film, with plenty of nudity and copulation and even a dildo in the opening scene. I always thought Welles was a great lost maker of horror films (just look at how creepy the Xanadu scenes were in Citizen Kane) or action flicks (see the house of mirrors shoot out in Lady from Shanghai, or the battle sequences in Chimes at Midnight). After watching Other Side of the Wind, I’m convinced he would have made first rate porn and erotic thrillers too.
Q is for Q and As, which appear a lot in Wind – scenes of people standing around asking questions and replying. Did this happen to Welles in real life? Does it happen in real life? It felt weird to me watching the film but maybe this was how things were in the seventies and/or among famous directors.
R is for Rich Little, a celebrity impressionist originally cast in the role later played by Peter Bogdanovich. Little shot most of his part but then walked out on the film because he had a professional engagement. Welles promptly recast the role and no doubt stewed on the betrayal – which a lot of selfish self-centred people do, which Welles clearly was, despite all his genius.
S is for Susan Strasberg, daughter of Lee and Paula, a one-time wunderkind of Broadway whose career had become reduced to mostly appearing in guest shots on TV dramas when she got the call to appear in Wind. She plays – quite well – a figure based on Pauline Kael, who famously both defended and criticised Welles in print. Welles clearly remembered the latter – her essay Raising Kane – more than the former. The finale of Wind involves Hannaford punching this character in the face for suggesting he might be gay.
T is for They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead, a stunning documentary about the making of Other Side of the Wind, focusing in particular on Welles and his relationships with Bogdanovich, Kodar and Graver. It’s gripping, moving and captivating – a more emotionally affecting movie than Wind itself, though Wind is more innovative technically.
U is for Unknown Actors, which Welles delighted in using in his projects over the years. Sometimes it paid off – but there are some performances in Wind which are simply bad, such as Geoffrey Land as the Robert Evans style studio head, and Cathy Lucas as a Cybil Shepherd type. Gregory Sierra, a good actor, is disastrously miscast as a character that’s meant to be based on John Milius.
V is for vision, Orson Welles’, which is all over this film. A visual feast, full of ideas, erratic, overwhelming, stimulating. I know this is a flawed movie and I’ve been critical in this take, but I should also add it’s full of moments and scenes that have stayed with me, and I’ve seen it three times in a month, and each time gotten new stuff out of it. To counter balance that…
W is for writing, a skill at which Welles was never that good at, at least not compared to his abilities as an actor and director. If he had the help of a skilled collaborator like Herman Mankiewicz (as on Citizen Kane) or was adapting William Shakespeare, he was great, but he struggled more when writing on his own or with Kodar (eg The Big Brass Ring, Mr Arkadin). Wind has a great set up – a party in the last 24 hours of a director’s life – and plenty of ideas for drama: he’s gone bankrupt, his girlfriend is young enough to be his granddaughter, his leading man has quit, he might be in love with his leading man, he has to borrow money off his former protege. But none of these are really developed – the film is more interested in style and philosophical chat. There’s no confrontation with the girlfriend, or the leading man. No real resolutions, except death. And Welles fans will leap to his defence and go “oh that’s the way he intended, he’s subverting the form”. And I’m sure he intended to. But I’d also argue, looking at the whole of his career, that he simply wasn’t a very good screenwriter, and that’s reflected in Wind. And I also think it’s possible to say that, and say that the film is still fascinating and entertaining and well directed.
X is for X rated, which this film flirts with being at times. A dildo in the opening scene! (see pornography)
Y is for young Hollywood vs old Hollywood, which this film exemplifies. Hannaford is, like Welles and John Ford, very much a creature of old Hollywood, surrounded by cronies (played by old pros like Norman Lloyd, Mercedes McCambridge, Cameron Mitchell, Lili Palmer and Edmond O’Brien)… but who was so talented and such a maverick that he was immensely appealing to young Hollywood, as shown in the film (and in real life) by people like Bogdanovich, McBride and Jaglom.
Z is for Zabriskie Point, the 1970 Michelangelo Antonioni film which featured a house that is used in Other Side of the Wind. Welles mocks Antonioni’s film-within-a-film in Wind – lots of arty shots of Oja Kodar walking around naked not saying anything. Welles fans claim this is brilliant satire, which it is, but there’s so much of it. Kodar walks around not saying anything in the “real” section of the film, that you wonder how much he was sending it up, and how much he was simply having fun doing it himself.
A conventional review doesn’t seem appropriate when reviewing an Orson Welles film, particularly one that’s getting a release more than 40 years after actually being made, so Stephen Vagg thought he’d tackle it A to Z.
A is for AFI Lifetime Achievement Award, which Orson Welles was given in 1975… and used the occasion to tub-thump for money to finish The Other Side of the Wind. To be honest, that story and all it involved and what it meant for Welles (and Hollywood) is more moving than anything in Wind itself – but the film is still fascinating, provoking and a reminder of what a talented man Welles was.
B is for Bogdanovich, Peter, perhaps the most famous acolyte and chronicler of Welles, who plays a character based on himself in the film. Bogdanovich began his career as an actor, as he often takes pains to point out, and has carved out a decent part-time career for himself as a character player. His performance in Wind is not one of the film’s best, but it doesn’t matter because he’s so spectacularly well cast and brings such fascinating baggage to the role. It’s also heartbreaking to see this early ‘70s Bogdanovich be so cocky and confident on screen, and to know what hardships were facing him down the track (several flops, the murder of girlfriend Dorothy Stratten, two declarations of bankruptcy). There’s also a “young dumb blonde girlfriend of the director” character played by Cathy Lucas based on Cybill Shepherd, which understandably annoyed Bogdanvich. Shepherd herself and Bogdanovich’s ex-wife Polly Platt can be glimpsed in the film.
C is for completion, fear of, something which (some) amateur psychologists think Welles suffered from – pointing to all the unfinished films he made in his life along with Wind (Don Quixote, The Dreamers, The Deep, Filming the Trial, It’s All True). Defenders argue Welles would’ve loved to have finished those films if he’d had the money and support – indeed, some get very touchy at any suggestion otherwise. Personally, I think it’s possible to reconcile both the view that he was let down by other people and he contributed to the problem. To me it makes total sense that Welles might put his heart and soul into a film and then get cold feet towards the end, when energy runs low, funds run out, and you fear the finished project isn’t going to be as good as you hoped. And I get the feeling he knew that had Wind been released in his lifetime there’d be a bunch of reviews that would say “another disappointment from the maker of Citizen Kane”… as they did for F For Fake and Chimes of Midnight and for everything else since Citizen Kane. It doesn’t make the fact that he didn’t make more completed movies any less tragic.
D is for The Deep, another unfinished film of Welles’, this one made in the late ‘60s. It was based on the novel which was filmed by Phil Noyce as Dead Calm, and I hope someone like Netflix puts that together too. I have a feeling that with its thriller plot it might be more accessible to non film buffs than Other Side of the Wind.
E is for editing, done by Welles and (after Welles died) Bob Murawski. Murawski did a stunning job of approximating Welles’ style – he imitated the great innovator with supreme skill, and if anyone deserves an Oscar from this film apart from Welles and Gary Graver it’s him.
F is for Ford, John, who I’d argue had as much, if not more, influence on the character of Jake Hannaford than any other figure, including Welles and Ernest Hemmingway. Like Ford, Hannaford was self-consciously macho, Irish, had a clan who would hang around him, had Peter Bogdanovich as an acolyte, John Milius as another acolyte (he inspired the Jack Simon character played by Gregory Sierra) and was possibly gay (read Maureen O’Hara’s memoirs for the dish on that).Of course, there’s a lot of Welles in Hannaford but I would say there’s more Ford.
G is for Gary Graver, the DOP of Wind, and Welles’ right hand man for the last fifteen years of the latter’s life. Their relationship was fascinating and complex – Welles was a father figure and inspiration to Graver, though the relationship was possibly abusive (Graver was rarely paid and at Welles’ beck and call). It’s rich emotional material, more interesting than any of the relationships depicted in Wind, to be brutally honest. It has to be said Graver does a brilliant job of photography on Wind, and one hopes he gets an Oscar nomination.
H is for homosexuality, a theme which interested Welles later his career – such as in his film script for The Big Brass Ring, and The Other Side of the Wind, which hints that Jake Hannaford has a crush on his leading man. Mind you, there’s a lot of straight sex in it, too. A lot. Hey, it was the seventies.
I is for Iran, the country of the film’s co-financier Mehdi Bushehri, the brother-in-law of the Shah. When the Shah was overthrown in 1979, the legal situation of the film became extremely tricky and contributed to its delay in being released. Which is classic Orson Welles – his productions didn’t just have financial troubles, they had troubles that involved revolutions.
J is for John Huston, who plays Hannaford – rather surprisingly since Welles normally nabbed the best roles in all his own productions. Huston’s performance is fine, but you can’t help wishing that Welles had taken the role – he had more of a twinkle in his eye, more humour, more fun. And of course, the scenes with Bogdanovich would have taken on an extra dimension. I do love how Welles and Huston were BFFs in real life though.
K is for Karp, Josh, whose superb book on the making of the film is required reading for anyone interested in it.
L is for legal troubles, which dogged this film even more than other Orson Welles productions. I think any creative person would have adored the chance of working with Orson Welles. I think any lawyer would have been terrified.
M is for McBride, Joseph, a noted film historian, biographer, screenwriter, author and educator, who appears as a character based on himself, and wrote one of the best books on Welles, Whatever Happened to Orson Welles, which did so much to revive appreciation in the considerable achievements of Welles’ later years.
N is for Netflix, famed for their market dominance, the high quality TV shows, and the patchy quality of their movies. The restoration of Wind is one of the best things that the company has ever done, the best “original” movie they’ve ever released, and they should be proud of it.
O is for Oja Kodar, who co-wrote and appears in the film, and was Welles’ creative and romantic partner during the latter years of his life, even while he was married to (and lived with) another woman. You old hound dog, Orson! Kodar spends a lot of Wind’s running time walking around nude – I mean a lot – and is front and centre in what is already the film’s most famous sequence, riding cowgirl on Bob Random in the front seat of a car while her necklace beads slapp against her body and rain splatters outside. Welles’ admiration for Kodar’s body clearly didn’t extend to wanting to hear her talk – she doesn’t say a line in the entire film. She was apparently a leading reason in holding up the release of this film, which is a shame, since she is an arresting presence.
P is for pornography, which Gary Graver used to make to pay the bills while working free for Orson Welles. Orson even famously helped him out once, editing a shower scene in a porno called 3AM. Wind is easily Welles’ most sexy film, with plenty of nudity and copulation and even a dildo in the opening scene. I always thought Welles was a great lost maker of horror films (just look at how creepy the Xanadu scenes were in Citizen Kane) or action flicks (see the house of mirrors shoot out in Lady from Shanghai, or the battle sequences in Chimes at Midnight). After watching Other Side of the Wind, I’m convinced he would have made first rate porn and erotic thrillers too.
Q is for Q and As, which appear a lot in Wind – scenes of people standing around asking questions and replying. Did this happen to Welles in real life? Does it happen in real life? It felt weird to me watching the film but maybe this was how things were in the seventies and/or among famous directors.
R is for Rich Little, a celebrity impressionist originally cast in the role later played by Peter Bogdanovich. Little shot most of his part but then walked out on the film because he had a professional engagement. Welles promptly recast the role and no doubt stewed on the betrayal – which a lot of selfish self-centred people do, which Welles clearly was, despite all his genius.
S is for Susan Strasberg, daughter of Lee and Paula, a one-time wunderkind of Broadway whose career had become reduced to mostly appearing in guest shots on TV dramas when she got the call to appear in Wind. She plays – quite well – a figure based on Pauline Kael, who famously both defended and criticised Welles in print. Welles clearly remembered the latter – her essay Raising Kane – more than the former. The finale of Wind involves Hannaford punching this character in the face for suggesting he might be gay.
T is for They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead, a stunning documentary about the making of Other Side of the Wind, focusing in particular on Welles and his relationships with Bogdanovich, Kodar and Graver. It’s gripping, moving and captivating – a more emotionally affecting movie than Wind itself, though Wind is more innovative technically.
U is for Unknown Actors, which Welles delighted in using in his projects over the years. Sometimes it paid off – but there are some performances in Wind which are simply bad, such as Geoffrey Land as the Robert Evans style studio head, and Cathy Lucas as a Cybil Shepherd type. Gregory Sierra, a good actor, is disastrously miscast as a character that’s meant to be based on John Milius.
V is for vision, Orson Welles’, which is all over this film. A visual feast, full of ideas, erratic, overwhelming, stimulating. I know this is a flawed movie and I’ve been critical in this take, but I should also add it’s full of moments and scenes that have stayed with me, and I’ve seen it three times in a month, and each time gotten new stuff out of it. To counter balance that…
W is for writing, a skill at which Welles was never that good at, at least not compared to his abilities as an actor and director. If he had the help of a skilled collaborator like Herman Mankiewicz (as on Citizen Kane) or was adapting William Shakespeare, he was great, but he struggled more when writing on his own or with Kodar (eg The Big Brass Ring, Mr Arkadin). Wind has a great set up – a party in the last 24 hours of a director’s life – and plenty of ideas for drama: he’s gone bankrupt, his girlfriend is young enough to be his granddaughter, his leading man has quit, he might be in love with his leading man, he has to borrow money off his former protege. But none of these are really developed – the film is more interested in style and philosophical chat. There’s no confrontation with the girlfriend, or the leading man. No real resolutions, except death. And Welles fans will leap to his defence and go “oh that’s the way he intended, he’s subverting the form”. And I’m sure he intended to. But I’d also argue, looking at the whole of his career, that he simply wasn’t a very good screenwriter, and that’s reflected in Wind. And I also think it’s possible to say that, and say that the film is still fascinating and entertaining and well directed.
X is for X rated, which this film flirts with being at times. A dildo in the opening scene! (see pornography)
Y is for young Hollywood vs old Hollywood, which this film exemplifies. Hannaford is, like Welles and John Ford, very much a creature of old Hollywood, surrounded by cronies (played by old pros like Norman Lloyd, Mercedes McCambridge, Cameron Mitchell, Lili Palmer and Edmond O’Brien)… but who was so talented and such a maverick that he was immensely appealing to young Hollywood, as shown in the film (and in real life) by people like Bogdanovich, McBride and Jaglom.
Z is for Zabriskie Point, the 1970 Michelangelo Antonioni film which featured a house that is used in Other Side of the Wind. Welles mocks Antonioni’s film-within-a-film in Wind – lots of arty shots of Oja Kodar walking around naked not saying anything. Welles fans claim this is brilliant satire, which it is, but there’s so much of it. Kodar walks around not saying anything in the “real” section of the film, that you wonder how much he was sending it up, and how much he was simply having fun doing it himself.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Movie review - "Alvin Purple" (1973) *1/2
I'm not a wowser, or at least I don't think I am, and I absolutely acknowledge the box office success of this, which was remarkable. It's got a great title and Graeme Blundell is utterly perfect in the lead (any other actor and I think this would have flopped). And there are some very attractive women in stages of undress.
But it's a hard, hard, slog. It's so repetitive - women chase after Alvin. That was okay for the first half hour but as things went on it became more difficult. I remember the car chase being one that particularly broke me.
I mean I could handle it if there had been some solid comedy sequences, but it's a one note samba. There is novelty in seeing grand dames of theatre like Jackie Weaver running (or lying) around nude.
But it's a hard, hard, slog. It's so repetitive - women chase after Alvin. That was okay for the first half hour but as things went on it became more difficult. I remember the car chase being one that particularly broke me.
I mean I could handle it if there had been some solid comedy sequences, but it's a one note samba. There is novelty in seeing grand dames of theatre like Jackie Weaver running (or lying) around nude.
TASTE OF FEAR and the Big Twist
(Originally written for the Blacklist website)
(Warning: this essay involves spoilers for the 1961 British film TASTE OF FEAR aka SCREAM OF FEAR)
One
of the hallmarks of erotic thrillers are Big Twists. The wife and
mistress are in cahoots! The wife and boyfriend are in cahoots! It’s an
identical twin/imposter! They killed the wrong person! They’re not
really dead/gay/crippled/blind! They’re insane/no they’re not/yes they
are/well they weren’t but they are now!
Erotic
thrillers also throw in Erotic Twists, which tend to mean one thing:
They’re Actually Lesbians (TAL). The first really notable TAL was in the
French classic LES DIABOBLIQUES (1954), which revolutionized the
thriller genre. It took a while for TAL to establish itself in
English-speaking films but once the floodgates opened, boy did they
open: BASIC INSTINCT (1992), SINS OF DESIRE (1993), BOUND (1996), WILD THINGS (1998) and its sequels, MULHOLLAND DR. (2001),
PASSION (2013), THE HANDMAIDEN (2016) are just some TAL movies.
Occasionally guys make out with each other but they lag well behind the
girls.
In
LES DIABOLIQUES the reveal the two female leads were in bed together
was a great shock. It retains some of that power today, mostly because
the scene defies expectations you instinctively have when watching a
film from 1954, even a French one. But TAL has been used so often in
recent years it has no power to surprise in a modern day erotic
thriller — it’s really there for character or titillation (depending on
the quality of the filmmaker).
There
is another sort of twist, however, that I think would still retain the
capacity to shock. It’s used in the 1961 British film TASTE OF FEAR
directed by Seth Holt and written by Jimmy Sangster for Hammer Films. At
the time Hammer were enjoying success with their horror movies, many
written by Sangster, who was getting sick of them, so he decided to try a
thriller. Inspired by LES DIABOLIQUES and PSYCHO (1960), TASTE OF FEAR
was a success and led to Hammer making a bunch of follow ups, many
written by Sangster –MANIAC (1963), PARANOIAC (1963), NIGHTMARE (1964),
HYSTERIA (1965), THE NANNY (1965) (the best of the bunch), CRESCENDO
(1970), FEAR IN THE NIGHT (1972), etc.
Strictly
speaking these films are psycho thrillers rather than erotic
ones — they usually deal with someone trying to drive someone else
insane rather than sex/obsession/desire. But TASTE OF FEAR has one
genuine erotic shock in it worth discussing.
The
plot is about wheelchair-bound Susan Strasberg (aged 23) returning to
the family home after the mysterious disappearance of her father. She
clashes with her stepmother Ann Todd (52) and creepy doctor Christopher
Lee (39) but is helped by hunky chauffeur Roland Lewis (33).
Towards
the end of the film, Todd arranges for a car to go off a cliff with
Strasberg inside. Todd then turns and passionately embraces… Lewis, a
man young enough to be her son.
It’s
a real jolt, in part because you expect Todd to be in cahoots with Lee
and kill Lewis, but also because she’s an older woman making out with a
much younger man — and it’s not a polite peck, they go for it, not once,
but three separate times.
And
while we didn’t see a lot of women in bed together on screens in 1954
but we do now, we didn’t see a lot of 52 year old women making out with
33 year old men in 1961 and we still don’t now — at least not where the
younger men are hunks and adults (often guys who go for older women in
films are depicted as inexperienced geeks/teenagers e.g. THE GRADUATE,
1967, THE SUMMER OF ’42, 1971, THE READER, 2008.)
We’re
often told it’s hard to shock audiences these days because they’ve seen
so much and society is so tolerant, but every society has things which
aren’t normally seen — and one of them is still a 52 year old woman with
wrinkles making out with a handsome 33 year old man on screen.
Erotic thrillers are still capable of erotic shocks — it’s just what you decide is erotic.
Movie review - "The Wicked Lady" (1946) ****
(originally published for the Blacklist)
Here’s a pitch for an erotic thriller…
Meet
Barbara. Twenties. Sexually voracious. Stunning. Emotionally messed up
by her mother’s death. Visits her boring best friend from high school
who’s in love with an older rich guy. Barbara seduces the old guy,
marries him, moves into a mansion.
Barbara
gets bored. She gets the hots for a hunky young dude she meets at her
own wedding and tries to seduce him. She stops sleeping with her old
husband and starts robbing people for kicks and a bit of spare cash. She
meets another thief, and they start a torrid affair. A servant of the
old guy busts her, but she kills him with poison. She catches her thief
lover in bed with another woman, so shoots him dead. She falls in love
with the hunky younger dude, and he loves her — but he shoots her while
she’s committing a robbery, not realizing it’s the woman he loves. She
dies from her wounds. The old guy winds up back with the boring best
friend.
Sex,
murder, betrayal, robbery, couple swapping, irony…. You can see it,
can’t you? In 1993 you’d have Shannon Tweed or Tanya Roberts as Barbara,
and Andrew Stevens as one of the male leads.
But it wasn’t made in the 1990s — it was actually shot in 1945 and it was called THE WICKED LADY.
And it was one of the most popular British movies of all time.
THE WICKED LADY was
one of a series of films known today as “Gainsborough melodramas.” They
made in the 1940s by Gainsborough Pictures, usually set in the past,
and turned actors like Margaret Lockwood, James Mason, Stewart Granger,
and Phyllis Calvert into stars. The plots were full of sex, greed,
longing, murder and death. In THE MAN IN GREY (1943) Lockwood sleeps
with Mason, the abusive husband of her best friend Calvert, who is
actually in love with Granger; Lockwood arranges for Calvert to die, but
is killed herself by Mason. In MADONNA OF THE SEVEN MOONS (1944)
Calvert is married with a daughter when she discovers she has a split
personality that makes her run off to Florence and become the mistress
to thief Stewart Granger. In CARAVAN (1946) Stewart Granger loves Anne
Crawford but loses his memory and marries gypsy girl Jean Kent.
The
films were critically despised and enormously popular (in Britain at
any rate — American audiences never much went for them.) Being set in
the past allowed not just cool costumes and sets, but enabled a lot of
(relatively) daring sexual and political content to get past the censor.
This had resonance during the social upheaval of World War II,
particularly for female audiences experiencing unprecedented financial
and sexual independence at the time.
The
stories normally focused around a “good” woman and a “bad” woman, who
would drive the action, and gave audiences a choice of who to identify
with/fantasize over. The bad woman usually slept around a lot, murdered
people and was killed at the end, but she was also (in the better of
these films, at least) depicted with some empathy — it was clear she was
“that way” for a reason, whether a restrictive society, a cruel
husband, love of a dud guy, etc A sympathetic character could still
genuinely love the bad girl, as in THE WICKED LADY. And
the “good” girl was always shown to have strong sexual drives — she was
just better able to control them — and her passivity was normally shown
to have bad consequences, eg. sitting back and watching another woman
steal your husband. They did a similar good-bad split with their male
leads — the good man was dashing but decent and poor, the bad man was
cruel and violent but also rich and sexy.
By
the late 40s the genre died out as the films became less popular. Its
death was helped along by executives and stars embarrassed by the films’
complete lack of critical acclaim, but it has to be admitted that later
Gainsborough melodramas movies don’t work as well as the first ones.
They were either given the serious, “respectful” treatment and became a
lot less fun (e.g. SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS, 1948), or began to focus
too much on the male characters (e.g. HUNGRY HILL, 1947, BAD LORD BYRON,
1949) or they were miscast (anything with Dennis Price in a lead), or
they were simply ineptly done… For instance JASSY (1947) and THE ROOT OF
EVIL (1947), instead of having two female leads, one good and one bad,
both feature the one female lead who is a mixture of good and bad, which
may be more true to life, but tends to be dramatically unsatisfying and
rob the films of narrative drive and conflict.
The
films were harder to make well than people realized at the time, or
indeed later — for instance, take a look at the Faye Dunaway-Michael
Winner remake of THE WICKED LADY (1983.) It adds nudity and violence,
including a duel with horsewhips between Dunaway and a topless Mirina
Sirtis, but lacks the same energy and focus.
The
1945 WICKED LADY was not robbed when overlooked at Oscar time. It is
often silly — practically every scene has a moment which feels like “this is the subtext” is
being subtitled on screen. The actors ham it up — Margaret Lockwood’s
nostrils literally flare in some scenes. It is not politically correct.
There is an unpleasant rape scene.
But
it has a plot full of action and incident; it has clearly defined
characters who behave logically and contrast in clear ways; it is
centered around a fascinating female protagonist who is not likeable but
always compelling and whose desires (for sex, love, money, safety)
drive the bulk of the story; there are strong male characters (well, two
of them). And, for 1945 British cinema, it is extremely erotic — people
have sex in fields, cheat on spouses, fall in lust at first sight — and
is thrilling. It has integrity. And what your erotic thriller needs as
much as eroticism and thrills, is integrity.
Movie review - "The Last Sunset" (1961) ** (warning: spoilers)
Weird. So weird. I mean, it starts off okay - you've got Kirk Douglas as a cowboy meeting up with old flame Dorothy Malone who's married to Joseph Cotten. And then Rock Hudson turns up to arrest Douglas for murder but he can't do it because he's in the wrong jurisdiction. That's fine. And Hudson and Douglas wind up on a cattle drive together and they're harassed by Neville Brand and his gang. That's good, solid, if formulaic stuff. They spice it up by having Rock Hudson fall for Malone, and Cotten be a coward in the civil war.
Its the subplot of this that'll get you. Malone and Cotten's daughter Carol Lynley has a crush on Douglas, which is good dramatically, even if at 15 it's a bit too young. But instead of a love triangle between mother and daughter, which would've been ideal, Malone falls for Hudson. Lynley falls for Douglas. There's a reveal that Douglas is her father... then if I'm not mistaken HE GOES AND SLEEPS WITH HER. I mean we don't see them kiss but they sort of embrace then cut to them lying on a hay bale together looking tired and happy - that's sex in 1961 Hollywood. He finds out she's his daughter and goes and sleeps with her!!!!
Hudson is affable, Malone good. Douglas recites some poetry and acts up a storm. I wish Cotten had had more to do - they get rid of his character far too earlier. He would've been a useful threat - they should've kept him alive until the end.
Carol Lynley isn't up to the demands of her role. She's adequate - but it needed someone better. Sandra Dee, who was offered it, would've been better - though I think the best choice would have been Tuesday Weld, who apparently was going to do it.
Neville Brand and Jack Elam and their young sidekick look like they're going to do something interesting, but don't really.
It's a really muddled film. Aldrich disliked it. I'm surprised the incest of this isn't better known.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Movie review - "The Legend of Lylah Clare" (1968) **
Robert Aldrich liked his Hollywood stories - The Big Knife, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, The Greatest Mother of Them All. This one has divided his fans, even though there's a cult around it.
I think I get what this was meant to be (I could be wrong) and feel Aldrich doesn't get there. It's a kind of gothic film - a woman is hired to play the role that was once played by a now-dead movie star. The director who was married to the movie star becomes obsessed with her.
There's much debate over Kim Novak in the lead - is she good or bad? I don't think she's effective here - the film needed someone really able to go there, like Bette Davis did. Tuesday Weld, who played the role on TV, could have done it - she had the touch of madness about her. Jeanne Moreau, originally announced, would've been great. Vivien Leigh if they wanted to go older. Joanne Woodward. Genevieve Page. Reading the lead was inspired by Greta Garbo/Marlene Dietrich made me go "that's who they should have cast - someone like that". There were people around
In Novak's defence her voice is dubbed at the end - when she "turns into" Lylah Aldrich uses a German actress voice for her. It's silly.
You don't get the sense Novak loves Peter Finch, or Finch loves her (or the memory of Lylah). Actually you don't get the sense anyone loves each other which is what this needs - Baby Jane had strength because it was about family, and this should be about a makeshift family but isn't.
Also the action should have stuck more at the house - like Sunset Boulevard. They leave the house too much.
Actually now I think about it Sunset Boulevard has the creepy vibe they should have gone for here -references to the old days, old Hollywood. We should have seen more clash with the new Hollywood (which Sunset could do because of the sound-silent break but was easy enough to do with old Hollywood and new Hollywood).
Frustrating. Aldrich didn't nail this but a few changes and he could've had another classic.
I think I get what this was meant to be (I could be wrong) and feel Aldrich doesn't get there. It's a kind of gothic film - a woman is hired to play the role that was once played by a now-dead movie star. The director who was married to the movie star becomes obsessed with her.
There's much debate over Kim Novak in the lead - is she good or bad? I don't think she's effective here - the film needed someone really able to go there, like Bette Davis did. Tuesday Weld, who played the role on TV, could have done it - she had the touch of madness about her. Jeanne Moreau, originally announced, would've been great. Vivien Leigh if they wanted to go older. Joanne Woodward. Genevieve Page. Reading the lead was inspired by Greta Garbo/Marlene Dietrich made me go "that's who they should have cast - someone like that". There were people around
In Novak's defence her voice is dubbed at the end - when she "turns into" Lylah Aldrich uses a German actress voice for her. It's silly.
You don't get the sense Novak loves Peter Finch, or Finch loves her (or the memory of Lylah). Actually you don't get the sense anyone loves each other which is what this needs - Baby Jane had strength because it was about family, and this should be about a makeshift family but isn't.
Also the action should have stuck more at the house - like Sunset Boulevard. They leave the house too much.
Actually now I think about it Sunset Boulevard has the creepy vibe they should have gone for here -references to the old days, old Hollywood. We should have seen more clash with the new Hollywood (which Sunset could do because of the sound-silent break but was easy enough to do with old Hollywood and new Hollywood).
Frustrating. Aldrich didn't nail this but a few changes and he could've had another classic.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Script review - "The Yakuza" by Paul Schrader based on novel by Leonard Schrader
I'm not sure which draft this is exactly - I'll assume it was the Schrader one that sold for a lot of money and not the Robert Towne rewritten one.
Some of the writing is clunky - the dialogue isn't that great, there's lots of descriptions (everyone's clothes are described), there's some dodgy voice over explaining things.
But it's a good story full of classical tropes - the private eye asked to come back to help out a friend, the missing girl a la The Searchers, the old Yakuza dude who comes out of retirement.
Really the film is as much Tanaka Ken's movie as Harry the American hero. It's a buddy movie about two dudes in love with each other - the girl in the film, Harry's ex, is really a beard. She has no personality just a kid as stakes.
In this version Hanako the daughter lives - apparently in the film she's killed. The death toll is very high. It's a good action film with lots of honour and the Japanese stuff gives it freshness even now.
Some of the writing is clunky - the dialogue isn't that great, there's lots of descriptions (everyone's clothes are described), there's some dodgy voice over explaining things.
But it's a good story full of classical tropes - the private eye asked to come back to help out a friend, the missing girl a la The Searchers, the old Yakuza dude who comes out of retirement.
Really the film is as much Tanaka Ken's movie as Harry the American hero. It's a buddy movie about two dudes in love with each other - the girl in the film, Harry's ex, is really a beard. She has no personality just a kid as stakes.
In this version Hanako the daughter lives - apparently in the film she's killed. The death toll is very high. It's a good action film with lots of honour and the Japanese stuff gives it freshness even now.
Movie review - "World for Ransom" (1954) ***
Robert Aldrich's second feature as director is his first real "Aldrich" picture - he used many of the cast and crew from the China Smith TV series he'd worked on and was one of the producers. Many of the crew would work on his later films - especially DOP Joe Biroc whose style is all over this, with weird camera angles and characters having sweaty faces. Writer Hugo Butler uses a flowery dialogue style that Aldrich would often use.
It's a pretty entertaining picture. I was never sold on Dan Duryea as a star - far better in support roles, particularly villainous - but it was low budget and he's fine. There's a strong support cast including Nigel Bruce in his last film, Gene Lockhart excellent as a villain, Marian Carr interesting as the femme fetale who Duryea touchingly loves, Patric Knowles good as her slimy cousin (I never liked Knowles much but I didn't mind him here).
It's set in backlot Singapore which I always like. The story revolves around kidnapping a scientist. There's plenty of betrayal and double cross and I thought this was pretty good.
It's a pretty entertaining picture. I was never sold on Dan Duryea as a star - far better in support roles, particularly villainous - but it was low budget and he's fine. There's a strong support cast including Nigel Bruce in his last film, Gene Lockhart excellent as a villain, Marian Carr interesting as the femme fetale who Duryea touchingly loves, Patric Knowles good as her slimy cousin (I never liked Knowles much but I didn't mind him here).
It's set in backlot Singapore which I always like. The story revolves around kidnapping a scientist. There's plenty of betrayal and double cross and I thought this was pretty good.
Thoughts on Susan Strasberg
Watching Susan Strasberg in The Other Side of the Wind made me
waste/spend an hour or so googling her and her career. I always liked
her because of her good work in Taste of Fear (1961), The High Bright
Sun (1965) and Psych Out"(1968) where she specialised in the role of
Woman Who Gets Scared By Things (mean step mothers, Cyprus terrorists,
hippies).
The daughter of Lee Strasberg, she started her career with a real bang - she is great as Kim Novak's sister in Picnic (1955) and became a Broadway sensation before she was 20 playing the title role in The Diary of Anne Frank. It was thought she was going to be this incredible star but after she was in Stage Struck (1958), a remake of the Katherine Hepburn film Morning Glory, everyone seemed to decide she was crap and she didn't help by doing things like run off to Italy and believe Richard Burton when he said he'd leave his wife for her.
As she later admitted she also didn't try as hard as she could in part because she was afraid of not living up to the family name. She kept working for most of her life as an actor and later wrote some memoirs. It's a shame she didn't make more better quality stuff but she had an interesting life. And (SPOILERS) no one seems to comment how the climax of Other Side of the Wind involves the John Huston character punching her character in the face for suggesting he might be gay.
The daughter of Lee Strasberg, she started her career with a real bang - she is great as Kim Novak's sister in Picnic (1955) and became a Broadway sensation before she was 20 playing the title role in The Diary of Anne Frank. It was thought she was going to be this incredible star but after she was in Stage Struck (1958), a remake of the Katherine Hepburn film Morning Glory, everyone seemed to decide she was crap and she didn't help by doing things like run off to Italy and believe Richard Burton when he said he'd leave his wife for her.
As she later admitted she also didn't try as hard as she could in part because she was afraid of not living up to the family name. She kept working for most of her life as an actor and later wrote some memoirs. It's a shame she didn't make more better quality stuff but she had an interesting life. And (SPOILERS) no one seems to comment how the climax of Other Side of the Wind involves the John Huston character punching her character in the face for suggesting he might be gay.
Movie review - "The Grissom Gang" (1971) ***1/2 (re-watching)
I really liked this the second time around. Maybe I was more prepared going in. Maybe its bleakness and toughness was kind of refreshing. The conflicts were big, the dramatic lines clear, the handling strong. Joseph Biroc has a field day making everyone sweaty.
it's not always an easy watch. Rich Kim Darby is kidnapped by some guys who killed her rapey boyfriend - she's then kidnapped again by basically Ma Barker and her boys, one of whom (Scott Wilson) falls in love. Wilson and Darby act all over the shop - Wilson playing someone who is mentally regarded, does a giggle and curls his lips and throws his voice into it; Darby screams and seduces and panics and is scared. Darby is excellent - Wilson has excellent moments.
There is strong support from Wesley Addy (Darby's dad), Tony Musante (brother - Mustante should've been a star), Irene Dailey (crazy Ma), Connie Stevens of all people (just weird to see her in an Aldrich film but she's fine, does a few numbers and gets shot... she plays the girlfriend of one of the original kidnappers), Robert Lansing (a private eye type working for Addy).
Lansing is the one thoroughly sympathetic person in the film, although you definitely feel for Darby - who is in a horrible position and has to sleep with Wilson to survive. I wasn't wild about her falling for him - I guess there's Stockholm Syndrome and all that, but it made me uneasy. Maybe I'm worrying too much but Hollywood always glamorises kidnappings of hot women via a love story which makes dramatic sense but in real life I feel adds to rape.
Still like I said I enjoyed this more on a second viewing. It's Aldrich at he's uncompromising peak, a sweaty intense melodrama with action.
it's not always an easy watch. Rich Kim Darby is kidnapped by some guys who killed her rapey boyfriend - she's then kidnapped again by basically Ma Barker and her boys, one of whom (Scott Wilson) falls in love. Wilson and Darby act all over the shop - Wilson playing someone who is mentally regarded, does a giggle and curls his lips and throws his voice into it; Darby screams and seduces and panics and is scared. Darby is excellent - Wilson has excellent moments.
There is strong support from Wesley Addy (Darby's dad), Tony Musante (brother - Mustante should've been a star), Irene Dailey (crazy Ma), Connie Stevens of all people (just weird to see her in an Aldrich film but she's fine, does a few numbers and gets shot... she plays the girlfriend of one of the original kidnappers), Robert Lansing (a private eye type working for Addy).
Lansing is the one thoroughly sympathetic person in the film, although you definitely feel for Darby - who is in a horrible position and has to sleep with Wilson to survive. I wasn't wild about her falling for him - I guess there's Stockholm Syndrome and all that, but it made me uneasy. Maybe I'm worrying too much but Hollywood always glamorises kidnappings of hot women via a love story which makes dramatic sense but in real life I feel adds to rape.
Still like I said I enjoyed this more on a second viewing. It's Aldrich at he's uncompromising peak, a sweaty intense melodrama with action.
Book review #4 - "Mr Moto is So Sorry" by John P Marquand
For me this was a return to form after Think Fast Mr Moto in part because of its interesting setting - Peiking, and an expedition to find buried treasure in the Mongolian desert (I wonder if this inspired the film of Thank You Mr Moto).
It's also got a more compelling American-male-aboard-who-gets-involved-with-Moto protagonist - a man who has embezzled money from his family. He romances the standard exotic woman and once more it's not that compelling - I wonder if its me, or Marquand. Again there is excellent action that you want more of. This has a long page count.
The support characters are very strong - a Japanese officer who is a rival for Moto (more militaristic but respect worthy), a local prince, a super smart Russian intelligence officer, and a Western officer who works for the Prince... who is an Australian! He keeps asking for a "lucifer" to light his cigarette! Must have been based on a real person. Great to see an Aussie baddy.
There's massive stakes here - a possible war between Japan and Russia over Japanese expansion in Manchuria. The book is a bit sympathetic to Japanese expansion! Well the Japanese do win and the Americans are impotent. It's kind of a downer book with Moto triumphing. Overlong but a good entry.
It's also got a more compelling American-male-aboard-who-gets-involved-with-Moto protagonist - a man who has embezzled money from his family. He romances the standard exotic woman and once more it's not that compelling - I wonder if its me, or Marquand. Again there is excellent action that you want more of. This has a long page count.
The support characters are very strong - a Japanese officer who is a rival for Moto (more militaristic but respect worthy), a local prince, a super smart Russian intelligence officer, and a Western officer who works for the Prince... who is an Australian! He keeps asking for a "lucifer" to light his cigarette! Must have been based on a real person. Great to see an Aussie baddy.
There's massive stakes here - a possible war between Japan and Russia over Japanese expansion in Manchuria. The book is a bit sympathetic to Japanese expansion! Well the Japanese do win and the Americans are impotent. It's kind of a downer book with Moto triumphing. Overlong but a good entry.
Movie review - "Outlaw King" (2018) **
Two productions hang over the head of this - Braveheart and Game of Thrones.
Braveheart was silly, and full of Mel Gibson close ups and violence but was great drama - you understood every character, the relationships were clear. You had noble Wallace who turns psycho after his wife is killed; his wacky sidekicks; the evil Edward II and his weak gay son; the gay son's wife who lusted after Wallace; the uncertain Robert the Bruce who learns to be a man watching Wallace. It had a clear structure - happy Wallace, romantic Wallace, dead wife, revenge, initial triumph, betrayal, execution, posthumous triumph.
Compare it with this - you've got Robert the Bruce hanging out with the future Edward II. He seems like a decent guy. He decides to rebel because...? Um Wallace is killed? Who we don't meet. He kills a person in a church. Gets married. Fights a war. It's tricky but he gets there.
You understood character's purpose in Braveheart. I struggle to recall any from Outlaw King. One of his mates was a bit psycho. Edward I was a bit ruthless. Edward II was a bit incompetent. The wife had a bit of spirit.
There's no passion in this. No drive. No love for Scotland or hatred of England. There's none of the complexity of Game of Thrones in terms of character or politics.
There are some good bits. An opening tracking shot at least shows thought. There's some sure fire material like the capture of Bruce's family - the execution of his brother (would've have more impact if we'd gotten to know him better) and imprisonment in a cage of the women. The production values are fantastic- sets, costumes, locations. It feels authentic. The acting is fine - I'm just not sure Chris Pine is a star. No one disgraces themselves. It was just underwhelming.
Braveheart was silly, and full of Mel Gibson close ups and violence but was great drama - you understood every character, the relationships were clear. You had noble Wallace who turns psycho after his wife is killed; his wacky sidekicks; the evil Edward II and his weak gay son; the gay son's wife who lusted after Wallace; the uncertain Robert the Bruce who learns to be a man watching Wallace. It had a clear structure - happy Wallace, romantic Wallace, dead wife, revenge, initial triumph, betrayal, execution, posthumous triumph.
Compare it with this - you've got Robert the Bruce hanging out with the future Edward II. He seems like a decent guy. He decides to rebel because...? Um Wallace is killed? Who we don't meet. He kills a person in a church. Gets married. Fights a war. It's tricky but he gets there.
You understood character's purpose in Braveheart. I struggle to recall any from Outlaw King. One of his mates was a bit psycho. Edward I was a bit ruthless. Edward II was a bit incompetent. The wife had a bit of spirit.
There's no passion in this. No drive. No love for Scotland or hatred of England. There's none of the complexity of Game of Thrones in terms of character or politics.
There are some good bits. An opening tracking shot at least shows thought. There's some sure fire material like the capture of Bruce's family - the execution of his brother (would've have more impact if we'd gotten to know him better) and imprisonment in a cage of the women. The production values are fantastic- sets, costumes, locations. It feels authentic. The acting is fine - I'm just not sure Chris Pine is a star. No one disgraces themselves. It was just underwhelming.
Monday, November 12, 2018
Movie review - "Big Leaguer" (1953) **
Notable mostly as the directorial debut of Robert Aldrich - and an example of how MGM forgot how to make fun movies under Dore Schary. This really should have been an easy, fun film - about a bunch of baseball players trying out in the major leagues. You can see what it should have been - something light and breezy with a bit of seriousness and romance; showcasing some young talent, with a veteran actor to headline.
But they stuff it. I don't blame Aldrich - the direction is competent enough. But it's not a good movie. There's no laughs, no charm, no songs. No drama, no excitement.
The script is so clunky. There's endless narration, describing characters and backstories and situations that needed to be dramatised. It's all so serious and self important. Everyone is reflective and philosophical. Okay so they didn't want to make it light, fine - but they don't make it really dramatic either. You don't feel the exhilaration of the sport, or the stakes. It's dull and serious.
Occasionally it threatens to get interesting - it's moving when a player get cut. But don't worry he's back at the end! Or there's some potential drama when a father turns up not wanting his kid to play ball - but don't worry there's no confrontation or any real conflict, he just watches the game and that's that.
Vera Ellen is hideously awkward as Edward G Robinson's niece who loves Jeff Richards. Don't worry - there's no conflict there! Why have conflict when you can have narration?
Richards is tall and good looking and a real baseball player but is very awkward. He's like a young Clint Eastwood.
Other young up and comers include Richard Jaeckel and William Campbell. (Dore Schary wasn't a great spotter of talent... though these guys are better than Vera Ellen who is dreadful.)
Robinson is always a pleasure though not entirely convincing as a former top player - they really shouldn't have included that scene where he goes up to the plate and has a swing.
Just a stiff, dull pointless film with no life in it. I guess the baseball scenes feel real.
But they stuff it. I don't blame Aldrich - the direction is competent enough. But it's not a good movie. There's no laughs, no charm, no songs. No drama, no excitement.
The script is so clunky. There's endless narration, describing characters and backstories and situations that needed to be dramatised. It's all so serious and self important. Everyone is reflective and philosophical. Okay so they didn't want to make it light, fine - but they don't make it really dramatic either. You don't feel the exhilaration of the sport, or the stakes. It's dull and serious.
Occasionally it threatens to get interesting - it's moving when a player get cut. But don't worry he's back at the end! Or there's some potential drama when a father turns up not wanting his kid to play ball - but don't worry there's no confrontation or any real conflict, he just watches the game and that's that.
Vera Ellen is hideously awkward as Edward G Robinson's niece who loves Jeff Richards. Don't worry - there's no conflict there! Why have conflict when you can have narration?
Richards is tall and good looking and a real baseball player but is very awkward. He's like a young Clint Eastwood.
Other young up and comers include Richard Jaeckel and William Campbell. (Dore Schary wasn't a great spotter of talent... though these guys are better than Vera Ellen who is dreadful.)
Robinson is always a pleasure though not entirely convincing as a former top player - they really shouldn't have included that scene where he goes up to the plate and has a swing.
Just a stiff, dull pointless film with no life in it. I guess the baseball scenes feel real.
Movie review - Moto#8 - "Mr Moto Takes a Vacation" (1938) ** (re-watching)
The last in the series - though actually filmed before Mr Moto on Danger Island. I found this hard going. It started very well, with an archeological site digging and raiding the tomb of the Queen of Sheba. But then the action shifts to San Francisco and really bogs down.
It's not exotic - the production values have trimmed right down. Moto goes to Chinatown but it's not as impressive as the Chinatown in the opening of Think Fast Mr Moto. The male and female leads are drippy though neither have much to play. There is far, far, far too much of Moto's idiot British friend - I didn't mind this sort of character in Mr Moto Takes a Chance because he wasn't in the film too much and made things worse for Moto, but this bloke (different actor playing basically same role) is just annoying as hell.
Lionel Atwill adds some class to the support but his part isn't big enough. All the tough talking gangsters and scenes with flashing neon signs in the background make this feel more like a Charlie Chan picture.
The best thing about it is the finale - there's a terrific confrontation/reveal with the killer in a darkened museum followed by a terrific fight. But too little too late.
It's not exotic - the production values have trimmed right down. Moto goes to Chinatown but it's not as impressive as the Chinatown in the opening of Think Fast Mr Moto. The male and female leads are drippy though neither have much to play. There is far, far, far too much of Moto's idiot British friend - I didn't mind this sort of character in Mr Moto Takes a Chance because he wasn't in the film too much and made things worse for Moto, but this bloke (different actor playing basically same role) is just annoying as hell.
Lionel Atwill adds some class to the support but his part isn't big enough. All the tough talking gangsters and scenes with flashing neon signs in the background make this feel more like a Charlie Chan picture.
The best thing about it is the finale - there's a terrific confrontation/reveal with the killer in a darkened museum followed by a terrific fight. But too little too late.
Movie review - Moto#7 - "Mr Moto in Danger Island" (1939) **1/2 (re-watching) (warning: spoilers)
The weakest Moto movies with Peter Lorre were the last two. This was actually filmed last but released before Mr Moto Takes a Vacation. Its based on a non-Moto novel, and has a serviceable plot but feels tired.
Its set on Puerto Rico, which would normally be a plus but its depiction here isn't very evocative - I get the feeling Fox were starting to trim the budgets, and production values were normally a big appeal. There is a pretty cool swamp and caves.
The support cast is strong - Amanda Duff is sweet (she married Philip Dunne), and there's Douglas Dumbrille, Leon Ames and Jean Herscholt. The story is quite clever and I didn't mind the comic relief wrestler. The romantic male lead is particularly wet. I did like Herscholt being revealed as the baddy.
It was just all a bit undercooked for me. Maybe it was because it was directed by Herbert Leeds instead of Norman Foster.
Its set on Puerto Rico, which would normally be a plus but its depiction here isn't very evocative - I get the feeling Fox were starting to trim the budgets, and production values were normally a big appeal. There is a pretty cool swamp and caves.
The support cast is strong - Amanda Duff is sweet (she married Philip Dunne), and there's Douglas Dumbrille, Leon Ames and Jean Herscholt. The story is quite clever and I didn't mind the comic relief wrestler. The romantic male lead is particularly wet. I did like Herscholt being revealed as the baddy.
It was just all a bit undercooked for me. Maybe it was because it was directed by Herbert Leeds instead of Norman Foster.
Movie review - "Too Late the Hero" (1970) *** (re-watching) (warning: spoilers)
So much I love - the rousing theme music, Biroc's fantastic photography, Henry Fonda in a cameo, the sweaty faces, Michael Caine at his most cynically cockney, a strong British support cast (Ronald Fraser, etc), Ken Takakura as a sympathetic Japanese officer, location filming in the Philippines, the sports contest nature of the finale with people running to safety (making for a tremendous finale).
It doesn't quite work. I think the concept was perhaps high concept enough - I mean, The Dirty Dozen is full of conflict but this is more stock: American joins British on patrol, where the officer has a bad reputation. That's not really a huge concept for a film - certainly not like a bunch of convicts being given a second chance.
It needed something else - like it takes place in the last week of the war (which would make the cynicism more believable), or the Americans have just bombed the Brits so the Brits hate Cliff Robertson, or Robertson is a woman because she's the only person who can speak Japanese or the whole patrol are planning on committing a robbery or something.
The story is too simple and liner - they go on patrol, squabble, achieve mission but accidentally find out some Big Secret, and rush back.
There's also too much silliness and lack of reality - talk of long hair conscientious objectors as if its 1968, Michael Caine surviving the dash at the end... then instead of passing on the information turning around and walking back into no man's land!!!!!
And Cliff Robertson looks bored. I know he clashed with Aldrich - and Aldrich was known to cut against actors he didn't like (ask Trini Lopez) but it does hurt the film.
Still, like I say, I do have affection for it. It might be better appreciated as a sports movie, with Cliff Robertson as a ring in for a British side, and the last act consisting of a big game.
It doesn't quite work. I think the concept was perhaps high concept enough - I mean, The Dirty Dozen is full of conflict but this is more stock: American joins British on patrol, where the officer has a bad reputation. That's not really a huge concept for a film - certainly not like a bunch of convicts being given a second chance.
It needed something else - like it takes place in the last week of the war (which would make the cynicism more believable), or the Americans have just bombed the Brits so the Brits hate Cliff Robertson, or Robertson is a woman because she's the only person who can speak Japanese or the whole patrol are planning on committing a robbery or something.
The story is too simple and liner - they go on patrol, squabble, achieve mission but accidentally find out some Big Secret, and rush back.
There's also too much silliness and lack of reality - talk of long hair conscientious objectors as if its 1968, Michael Caine surviving the dash at the end... then instead of passing on the information turning around and walking back into no man's land!!!!!
And Cliff Robertson looks bored. I know he clashed with Aldrich - and Aldrich was known to cut against actors he didn't like (ask Trini Lopez) but it does hurt the film.
Still, like I say, I do have affection for it. It might be better appreciated as a sports movie, with Cliff Robertson as a ring in for a British side, and the last act consisting of a big game.
Movie review - Moto#6 - "Mr Moto's Last Warning" (1938) ***1/2 (re-watching)
Very good Moto film, one of the best. It's got the strongest villains, and the highest stakes, and ties in with real world shenanigans. It's got the best death and Moto really has to work hard to triumph. There's also no wet "heroic" romantic male lead. Every role has some meat on it. There is a silly ass sidekick for comic relief but I didn't mind him because it's his idiocy that causes trouble for Moto.
The villains: Ricardo Cortez as a smart villainous ventriloquist; George Sanders is always worth watching, as a monocle wearer; Leyland Hogson.
The deaths in this have impact - John Carradine, as a fellow agent, is sent to the bottom of the ocean in a chilling sequence. Also there's a guy who impersonates Moto who is killed.
Virginia Field, irritating in the first Moto film, has a decent role here to play - of a woman who realises her lover is a spy - and does well.
The villain's plot is great - they want to blow up a French ship in Port Said, run by the British - to cause trouble between France and Britain (this actually happened in the war when British ships sunk French ones).
It's a very good Moto.
The villains: Ricardo Cortez as a smart villainous ventriloquist; George Sanders is always worth watching, as a monocle wearer; Leyland Hogson.
The deaths in this have impact - John Carradine, as a fellow agent, is sent to the bottom of the ocean in a chilling sequence. Also there's a guy who impersonates Moto who is killed.
Virginia Field, irritating in the first Moto film, has a decent role here to play - of a woman who realises her lover is a spy - and does well.
The villain's plot is great - they want to blow up a French ship in Port Said, run by the British - to cause trouble between France and Britain (this actually happened in the war when British ships sunk French ones).
It's a very good Moto.
Movie review - "Rough Cut" (1980) **
Burt Reynolds channelled Cary Grant a few times in his career - in this one he even imitates him at the beginning, and Lesley Anne Downe is given the funny rejoinder that he sounds like Tony Curtis imitating Cary Grant. More of this sort of jokiness would have made this a better movie.
Mind you for the first hour this was a lot of fun - Reynolds and Downe being attractive and flirting with each other as they plan a heist, and crossing back to David Niven. Downe may be the poor man's Jacqueline Bisset/Audrey Hepburn but she's attractive and she and Reynolds seem to like each other.
But in the second half the plot kicks in and things get confusing and murky - the film's troubled production history becomes apparent. They introduce Reynolds' heist crew far too late in the day and you don't really care about them. I wish David Niven and Reynolds had more scenes together.
Mind you for the first hour this was a lot of fun - Reynolds and Downe being attractive and flirting with each other as they plan a heist, and crossing back to David Niven. Downe may be the poor man's Jacqueline Bisset/Audrey Hepburn but she's attractive and she and Reynolds seem to like each other.
But in the second half the plot kicks in and things get confusing and murky - the film's troubled production history becomes apparent. They introduce Reynolds' heist crew far too late in the day and you don't really care about them. I wish David Niven and Reynolds had more scenes together.
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Movie review - "The Grinch" (2018) **
Adequate version of the famous Dr Suess cartoon which lacks with vim and spirit of the better Pixar/Disney/Dreamworks films. It's totally fine, and kids will like it - but doesn't have the same emotional punch as a classic. Benedict Cumberbatch voices the Grinch. There's some impressive animation - the alpine settings look great on the big screen as does the Christmas lights.
Friday, November 09, 2018
Movie review - Moto#4 - "Mr Moto Takes a Chance" (1938) ***
The second film shot in the series but for some reason the fourth released. Not sure why. It's an imperial adventure more than a detective mystery - Moto is running around Cambodia making sure the locals don't overthrow the French.
He teams up with a visiting British aviatrix who jumps out of a plane and works for British intelligence, two visiting American cameraman, a rajah. Moto pretends to be a guru and an archelogist and there's pits and executions and a finale where the goodies are under siege in a temple.
The extras budget is amusingly blown early on and at the end there's only a few cast members but the film's ambition is endearing and the sets are good.
I liked the cast - Chick Chandler's comic relief camera guy didn't grate, and Robert Kent and Rochelle Hudson were enjoyable juveniles, and the villains were strong.
He teams up with a visiting British aviatrix who jumps out of a plane and works for British intelligence, two visiting American cameraman, a rajah. Moto pretends to be a guru and an archelogist and there's pits and executions and a finale where the goodies are under siege in a temple.
The extras budget is amusingly blown early on and at the end there's only a few cast members but the film's ambition is endearing and the sets are good.
I liked the cast - Chick Chandler's comic relief camera guy didn't grate, and Robert Kent and Rochelle Hudson were enjoyable juveniles, and the villains were strong.
Movie review - Moto#5 - "Mysterious Mr Moto" (1938) **1/2 (re-watching) (warning: spoilers)
This gets off to a great start with Moto escaping from Devil's Island but instead of keeping things in the third world he heads off to boring old studio London and hangs around. I go back and forth over what I think of this one. I mean there's some good stuff - the opening escape, the novelty of seeing Aussie Mary Maguire in a role (hearing her accent when her character gets upset), Henry Wilcoxon adding some name value to the support cast, the reveal the upper class twit is the baddie. Leon Ames adds some support cast class. There's a striking scene where Moto encounters racial prejudice at an English pub - the bar guy charges him more and the others mock him.
But it's stiff - a bit stagey. Wilcoxon's character is a dull idiot. Maguire doesn't have anything much to do other than love Wilcoxon. The film lacks a bit of verve. Energy. I mean it's okay. Just not great. Needed another twist or something.
But it's stiff - a bit stagey. Wilcoxon's character is a dull idiot. Maguire doesn't have anything much to do other than love Wilcoxon. The film lacks a bit of verve. Energy. I mean it's okay. Just not great. Needed another twist or something.
Wednesday, November 07, 2018
Movie review - Moto#3 - "Mr Moto's Gamble" (1937) *** (warning: spoilers) (re-viewing)
The Mr Moto series took a detour with this one - its not very exotic, being set in San Francisco, and concerns a good old fashioned rigged boxing match/death in the ring with gangsters. It's completely fine, just more familiar - explained by the fact it was a Charlie Chan film, which was rewritten as a Moto when Warner Oland fell ill (he later died).
So we have some Chan-like comic relief in the form of Chan's son, played by Keye Luke, and a dumb boxed played by Maxie Rosembloom. Lynn Bari is on hand as a wisecracking press gal who loves a boxer Dick Baldwin suspected of murder; Jayne Regan is the classy girl. I enjoyed the finale with a rigged gun and Moto using a father's love to expose himself as the killer.
I wish Bari's part had been bigger and she could've carried more of the comic relief. Lon Chaney Jr is apparently in it. Ward Bond is easier to spot, as a boxer.
Entertaining, solid mystery - just not really "moto".
So we have some Chan-like comic relief in the form of Chan's son, played by Keye Luke, and a dumb boxed played by Maxie Rosembloom. Lynn Bari is on hand as a wisecracking press gal who loves a boxer Dick Baldwin suspected of murder; Jayne Regan is the classy girl. I enjoyed the finale with a rigged gun and Moto using a father's love to expose himself as the killer.
I wish Bari's part had been bigger and she could've carried more of the comic relief. Lon Chaney Jr is apparently in it. Ward Bond is easier to spot, as a boxer.
Entertaining, solid mystery - just not really "moto".
Movie review - Moto#2 - "Thank You, Mr Moto" (1937) ***1/2
Fantastic Moto film which benefits from very exotic locations - it starts in the Gobi desert with someone trying to kill Moto in a tent, then spends the rest of its running time in Peking. The storyline is strikingly non-American - there is a male American "hero", played by Thomas Beck (who performed that function in the first film, though he's a different character here) but he could be completely cut out of the film and it wouldn't affect the story! There is an American girl, played by Jayne Regan, who does perform some plot function because the main baddy falls for her, causing the main baddy's (Sidney Blackmer's) love interest (Nedda Harrington) to get jealous. Other characters in it are Russians or Chinese.
The emotional heart of the film is the Chinese family who own Genghis Khan scrolls and are tempted to sell them - Philip Anh and Pauline Frederick (yes Frederick is in yellow face like Lorre which is unfortunate). Anh is tempted, Frederick is angry, she gets shot, Anh kills himself in shame, Lorre vows to avenge them, and does so, destroying the scrolls -it's good meaty dramatic stuff and quite unexpected.
John Carradine has a small but juicy role as an antiques dealer who gets shot.
The emotional heart of the film is the Chinese family who own Genghis Khan scrolls and are tempted to sell them - Philip Anh and Pauline Frederick (yes Frederick is in yellow face like Lorre which is unfortunate). Anh is tempted, Frederick is angry, she gets shot, Anh kills himself in shame, Lorre vows to avenge them, and does so, destroying the scrolls -it's good meaty dramatic stuff and quite unexpected.
John Carradine has a small but juicy role as an antiques dealer who gets shot.
Movie review - Moto#1 - "Think Fast Mr Moto" (1937) *** (re-viewing)
Had a hankering to rewatch these again because I always have enjoyed them even though I absolutely acknowledge the dodginess of Peter Lorre in yellow face. Mind you is Moto the only Japanese hero from a Hollywood studio film? As in, the actual lead, first on the call sheet, all that stuff, not a support? I wouldn't be surprised if he was. And it feels slightly less dodgy because Moto dresses up in so many disguises (I completely acknowledge I'm a white man writing this and it may be far more offensive to other people).
I liked the fast pace of these films - Norman Foster directed - and the stories were pretty good. I loved the studio backlot exotica - Chinatown in San Francisco, on board a liner, Shanghai. The production values feel really strong - Fox didn't stint, there's lots of detailed sets (shops, night clubs) and extras and so on.
The cast is, on the whole, strong. Lorre has star power and Sig Rumann and Murray Kinnell offer strong support. There's a decent Asian support role - Lotus Long (a Japanese actress who often passed as Chinese) as a girl romanced by Moto who helps him out and is shot dead warning the police. You lady killer, Moto!
I've read the original novel - lots of changes made, but it uses some of the same names, and kind of follows the template of the books, which were normally about an American abroad who meets a girl and gets involved in adventures with Moto popping up along the way. Only this film is told from Moto's point of view whereas the books were told from the American man's point of view.
Thomas Beck is okay as the guy - he starts out as a drunk, like the hero of the first Moto novel, but gets sober and responsible disappointingly quick, once he meets mysterious Virginia Field, who is poor, even though she gets to sing a song. But it's a solid start to the series.
I liked the fast pace of these films - Norman Foster directed - and the stories were pretty good. I loved the studio backlot exotica - Chinatown in San Francisco, on board a liner, Shanghai. The production values feel really strong - Fox didn't stint, there's lots of detailed sets (shops, night clubs) and extras and so on.
The cast is, on the whole, strong. Lorre has star power and Sig Rumann and Murray Kinnell offer strong support. There's a decent Asian support role - Lotus Long (a Japanese actress who often passed as Chinese) as a girl romanced by Moto who helps him out and is shot dead warning the police. You lady killer, Moto!
I've read the original novel - lots of changes made, but it uses some of the same names, and kind of follows the template of the books, which were normally about an American abroad who meets a girl and gets involved in adventures with Moto popping up along the way. Only this film is told from Moto's point of view whereas the books were told from the American man's point of view.
Thomas Beck is okay as the guy - he starts out as a drunk, like the hero of the first Moto novel, but gets sober and responsible disappointingly quick, once he meets mysterious Virginia Field, who is poor, even though she gets to sing a song. But it's a solid start to the series.
Book review - Moto#3 - "Think Fast, Mr Moto" by John P Marquand
The third published but the first filmed - and it did use some of the novel, not a lot but some, notably a few character names. I wasnt wild about this book - it's about a quite dull hero, another American abroad but in this case someone who works for his family's company, who travels from China to the less interesting Hawaii to shut down a plantation. It's managed by a girl who shares his surname but they're not closely related which is confusing. Far too many pages are devoted to their dull relationship as they chat. There's some intrigue - it turns out the plantation is being used to funnel money in the Japanese-China fight in Manchuria. Moto is on hand and he triumphs so really the "hero" is being used to help Japanese occupation in Manchuria. Nice! (not). There's some okay action at the end but this book lost me by then.
Movie review - "The Other Side of the Wind" (2018) ****
I saw this twice, on Netflix and in the cinema, to get my film buff points. Random thoughts:
* big screen better than small because there's so much detail and visual/sound stuff to take in that you can appreciate it better on the big screen but...
* on both big and small screens the story problems remain
* the central idea is rich with drama - the last day (or night, really) of a director's life... he's fighting with the head of the studio, he's going bankrupt, his former acolyte is now far more successful than he is and he needs to borrow money off the guy, he's got a girlfriend young enough to be his granddaughter, he's got a bunch of cronies, his leading man has quit the film he's making and the director may be in love with him - all fantastic stuff but...
* Welles was never as good a writer as he was a director - he was okay if he had help from say Shakespeare or Herman Mankiewicz or Booth Tarkington or the life of William Randolph Hearst... but either on his own or with Oja Kodar he struggled... plenty of good ideas and moment but he/they struggled to shape scenes and exploit the drama. Opportunities are missed wholesale - the character of Jake Hannaford's girlfriend is thrown away, the male lead never comes to the party except at the end and he just stands there and it's not resolved or developed in any way. And Welles fans will probably argue "oh he's subverting expectations" but I think it was just beyond his abilities as a writer, and would point to the similarly flawed script for The Big Brass Ring to back this up
* the character of Hannaford is clearly autobiographical but there was also a hell of a lot of John Ford in it, perhaps more than Welles - the group of cronies, the Irish history, the hard drinking, the fact one of his acolytes was a filmmaker as well who seems to have been inspired by John Milius, the fact Bogdanovich wrote books on Ford as well, the guns
* no critic seems to be commenting the climax includes a moment where Hannaford punches a female critic for suggesting he's gay
* interesting to see Susan Strasberg, whose career so did not live up to its early promise, pop up as the Kael type figure - she's not too bad, though I admit I would have loved to have seen Polly Platt doing it (she was originally cast)
* fascinating to see Peter Bogdanovich, so cocky at that stage in his career, doing his annoying impressions, with a handsome yet slightly pudgy face, his acting not really up to the role but it's compensated for the fact he's playing himself and so much of it is based on their relationship - the fact he was a critic turned filmmaker, his very quick success, the deal he has with a Robert Evans type head of studio (similar to the one the Directors Company had at Paramount)
* Cybil Shepherd can be glimpsed super briefly - there's also super quick appearances from people like Curtis Harrington, Henry Jaglom and Dennis Hopper and apparently Cameron Crowe is there too - and Les Moonves!
* I get the film within a film is meant to be a spoof on Antonioni but Welles spends an awful lot of time on it - I mean we see a lot of this film, way after its satirical point has been made, and get the impression it was also there to show off his girlfriend's hot body (she walks around nude a LOT) -also the opening boobs and bums in the sauna seem really not needed
* the blankness of the actors in the film within in a film makes sense but it makes no sense, to me at any rate, that the actor characters played by Kodar and Bob Random, are similar dull blank slates - I think this is a major problem with the film especially as a crucial plot is that Random has betrayed Hannaford by leaving the film, but he's given no character, nothing... and I get the feeling Welles realised these actors simply weren't up to it... I could be wrong, but I don't think I am because...
* there's a fair few actors in the film who aren't up to it - some get away with it because they're cast so beautifully, eg Bogdanovich and Joseph McBride - but Geoffrey Land, the guy who plays the head of the studio isn't up to it (I wish they'd cast someone like Edmond O'Brien or Cameron Mitchell who are in the film but feel under-used... but I guess they were too old and Welles wanted to have someone do Robert Evans, not that the exec is presented unreasonably... Hannafort doesn't attend the screening) - neither is Cathy Lucas who plays the girlfriend
* the old dudes and dudettes like Norman Crane, and Mercedes McCambridge and Lili Palmer are magnificent (though you can sense Palmer was meant to be Marlene Dietrich)
* I love that there was a rival acolyte for Hannaford based on John Milius but Gregory Sierra is super miscast - too skinny and not faux-macho enough
*Technically its stunning - the editors and team at Netflix did a marvellous job - it has a magic about it - I did start to zone out around the two thirds mark
* parts of it felt weird, the people standing around having philosophical chats in front of a big crowd and going off to the drive in at the end.
Had this come out I feel it would've flopped - the story isn't up to it. But I'm so glad it was finally released and I hope Welles, Gary Graver and the editor get Oscar noms.
* big screen better than small because there's so much detail and visual/sound stuff to take in that you can appreciate it better on the big screen but...
* on both big and small screens the story problems remain
* the central idea is rich with drama - the last day (or night, really) of a director's life... he's fighting with the head of the studio, he's going bankrupt, his former acolyte is now far more successful than he is and he needs to borrow money off the guy, he's got a girlfriend young enough to be his granddaughter, he's got a bunch of cronies, his leading man has quit the film he's making and the director may be in love with him - all fantastic stuff but...
* Welles was never as good a writer as he was a director - he was okay if he had help from say Shakespeare or Herman Mankiewicz or Booth Tarkington or the life of William Randolph Hearst... but either on his own or with Oja Kodar he struggled... plenty of good ideas and moment but he/they struggled to shape scenes and exploit the drama. Opportunities are missed wholesale - the character of Jake Hannaford's girlfriend is thrown away, the male lead never comes to the party except at the end and he just stands there and it's not resolved or developed in any way. And Welles fans will probably argue "oh he's subverting expectations" but I think it was just beyond his abilities as a writer, and would point to the similarly flawed script for The Big Brass Ring to back this up
* the character of Hannaford is clearly autobiographical but there was also a hell of a lot of John Ford in it, perhaps more than Welles - the group of cronies, the Irish history, the hard drinking, the fact one of his acolytes was a filmmaker as well who seems to have been inspired by John Milius, the fact Bogdanovich wrote books on Ford as well, the guns
* no critic seems to be commenting the climax includes a moment where Hannaford punches a female critic for suggesting he's gay
* interesting to see Susan Strasberg, whose career so did not live up to its early promise, pop up as the Kael type figure - she's not too bad, though I admit I would have loved to have seen Polly Platt doing it (she was originally cast)
* fascinating to see Peter Bogdanovich, so cocky at that stage in his career, doing his annoying impressions, with a handsome yet slightly pudgy face, his acting not really up to the role but it's compensated for the fact he's playing himself and so much of it is based on their relationship - the fact he was a critic turned filmmaker, his very quick success, the deal he has with a Robert Evans type head of studio (similar to the one the Directors Company had at Paramount)
* Cybil Shepherd can be glimpsed super briefly - there's also super quick appearances from people like Curtis Harrington, Henry Jaglom and Dennis Hopper and apparently Cameron Crowe is there too - and Les Moonves!
* I get the film within a film is meant to be a spoof on Antonioni but Welles spends an awful lot of time on it - I mean we see a lot of this film, way after its satirical point has been made, and get the impression it was also there to show off his girlfriend's hot body (she walks around nude a LOT) -also the opening boobs and bums in the sauna seem really not needed
* the blankness of the actors in the film within in a film makes sense but it makes no sense, to me at any rate, that the actor characters played by Kodar and Bob Random, are similar dull blank slates - I think this is a major problem with the film especially as a crucial plot is that Random has betrayed Hannaford by leaving the film, but he's given no character, nothing... and I get the feeling Welles realised these actors simply weren't up to it... I could be wrong, but I don't think I am because...
* there's a fair few actors in the film who aren't up to it - some get away with it because they're cast so beautifully, eg Bogdanovich and Joseph McBride - but Geoffrey Land, the guy who plays the head of the studio isn't up to it (I wish they'd cast someone like Edmond O'Brien or Cameron Mitchell who are in the film but feel under-used... but I guess they were too old and Welles wanted to have someone do Robert Evans, not that the exec is presented unreasonably... Hannafort doesn't attend the screening) - neither is Cathy Lucas who plays the girlfriend
* the old dudes and dudettes like Norman Crane, and Mercedes McCambridge and Lili Palmer are magnificent (though you can sense Palmer was meant to be Marlene Dietrich)
* I love that there was a rival acolyte for Hannaford based on John Milius but Gregory Sierra is super miscast - too skinny and not faux-macho enough
*Technically its stunning - the editors and team at Netflix did a marvellous job - it has a magic about it - I did start to zone out around the two thirds mark
* parts of it felt weird, the people standing around having philosophical chats in front of a big crowd and going off to the drive in at the end.
Had this come out I feel it would've flopped - the story isn't up to it. But I'm so glad it was finally released and I hope Welles, Gary Graver and the editor get Oscar noms.
Book review - "Hunting the Bismarck" by C.S. Forester (1959)
Odd sort of book - it was turned into the movie Sink the Bismarck and reads like a screen treatment for a film, describing the story and full of dialogue between characters, only there's no obvious hero. There are various officers, and politicians (Winston makes an appearance), and captains of ships, and Ministry officials - but no Kenneth More character.
Its very brisk and easy to read. I really liked how they gave a bit of backstory to some people on the Hood before killing them - I remember Forester did this in Brown on Resolution, giving a German sailor a bit of backstory about his wife, for a paragraph or two, before killing them.
The basic story is strong - ship escapes, has battle, takes out Hood, almost gets to France, is stopped by a plane with one torpedo, the Brits almost sink one of their own ships, then the Brits hammer the Bismarck. It's a bit odd but I read it super quick.
Its very brisk and easy to read. I really liked how they gave a bit of backstory to some people on the Hood before killing them - I remember Forester did this in Brown on Resolution, giving a German sailor a bit of backstory about his wife, for a paragraph or two, before killing them.
The basic story is strong - ship escapes, has battle, takes out Hood, almost gets to France, is stopped by a plane with one torpedo, the Brits almost sink one of their own ships, then the Brits hammer the Bismarck. It's a bit odd but I read it super quick.
Movie review - "Shanghai Cobra" (1945) **1/2
Maybe two and a half stars is a bit much but after the first couple of Charlie Chan Monogram Pictures the extra energy provided by director Phil Karlson came as a relief. I'm trying not to be too wise after the event, knowing Karlson went on to a very fine directorial career, but he's clearly putting in more effort than Phil Rosen - the camera actually moves around in a few scenes, there's some decent atmosphere with the murder via cobra.
The mystery is once again solid - I think George Callahan, whose name appears on a lot of these, was a decent writer. Sidney Toler tries to be animated in a few scenes but still isn't much chop. There's comic relief once more from Mantan Moreland and Benson Fong (as Tommy Chan).
Movie review - "The Survivor" (1981) ** (warning: spoiler)
A really frustrating film because it showed so much promise - this could've been really good. Producer Tony Ginnane later said he regretted not showing more gore, going instead for a more cerebral approach. There's no reason that couldn't have worked - had he gotten a decent director. David Hemmings was very mediocre, and the botched job done by him and the screenwriter (though in fairness the latter's work could have been rewritten) stands as a rebuke to the idea Australia doesn't/didn't have enough local talent. It's very poorly written, full of logic holes, and shoddily directed, missing opportunities for suspense wholesale.
Robert Powell really should be an everyman type hero but he looks so weird and ethereal - this worked in Harlequin but not really here. There's no one for the audience to hang on to because Jenny Agutter is weird too - she's a psychic. The film needed an ordinary audience surrogate. They could've dropped the psychic stuff altogether for Agutter. Or used Angela Punch Macgregor more.
Peter Sumner has quite a big role - maybe the film could've used him more. Argh, I don't know, it's so frustrating. I wish Everett de Roche had done a pass at the script. Or Tony Morphett. Someone who got logic. And I wish a decent director had filmed it - Richard Franklin, say. Or Simon Wincer. What a waste.
Robert Powell really should be an everyman type hero but he looks so weird and ethereal - this worked in Harlequin but not really here. There's no one for the audience to hang on to because Jenny Agutter is weird too - she's a psychic. The film needed an ordinary audience surrogate. They could've dropped the psychic stuff altogether for Agutter. Or used Angela Punch Macgregor more.
Peter Sumner has quite a big role - maybe the film could've used him more. Argh, I don't know, it's so frustrating. I wish Everett de Roche had done a pass at the script. Or Tony Morphett. Someone who got logic. And I wish a decent director had filmed it - Richard Franklin, say. Or Simon Wincer. What a waste.
Sunday, November 04, 2018
Movie review - "They'll Love Me When I'm Dead" (2018) *****
Superb documentary - everything you need about The Other Side of the Wind and more. It's less innovative than that film but more emotionally affective, as the material is better - the highs and lows of Welles' last years, his difficulties raising money for projects, his relationship with Bogdanovich (who was his student, then outstripped him, then fell back in the pack - and Welles hurt Bogdanovich mocking Cybill Shepherd and making jokes about At Long Last Love with Burt Reynolds on a talk show), his relationship with Gary Graver (who was so devoted, hoped that Wells would turn his career around and it didn't).
Fantastic footage including outtakes starring Rich Little, behind the scenes stuff, Welles doing a Q and A before the film about the film, the porn clip from 3AM which Welles edited for Graver. No Oja Kodar but it doesn't matter.
A truly fantastic doco.
Fantastic footage including outtakes starring Rich Little, behind the scenes stuff, Welles doing a Q and A before the film about the film, the porn clip from 3AM which Welles edited for Graver. No Oja Kodar but it doesn't matter.
A truly fantastic doco.
Movie review - "Forever England" (1935) **1/2
The first screen version of C.S. Forster's excellent novel is a little creaky. More faithful than Sailor to the King it nonetheless doesn't quite capture the book's magic. The opening sequence is there, slightly hampered by Betty Balfour's slightly manic performance as mother and Barry MacKay's wet work as the sailor (the character is a lightweight in the book but does he have to be wet?).
John Mills is fine as Brown - he's got an everyman quality that the role requires - and Jimmy Lyndon ideal as Ginger.
The film is less harsh than the book - MacKay not as motivated by ambition, Brown's heroism is recognised at the end instead of being destined to be not known.
Surprisingly the attack only takes up 25 minutes of screen time - it doesn't get going til 45 minutes in. I think Walter Forde wasn't a great visual director. Imagine if someone like Hitchcock or Michael Powell had done it. The film never really makes it clear what Brown is doing, or how he got to hang out, and misses some key action stuff like Brown shifting his position overnight, and the German strategy.
Instead the running time is padded out with shots of training for sailors and footage of British ships (this had official naval co operation), a boxing game with some Germans.
I did always remember one things about this movie - the fact the officers of each ship know and tell the enemy there was nothing they could have done in the battle because the ships were bigger, i.e the German tells Brown that there was nothing they could have done because the German had the bigger ship and at the end the Britisher tells the German there was nothing he could have done because he had the bigger ship. Such matter of fact honesty is rare in American war films.
John Mills is fine as Brown - he's got an everyman quality that the role requires - and Jimmy Lyndon ideal as Ginger.
The film is less harsh than the book - MacKay not as motivated by ambition, Brown's heroism is recognised at the end instead of being destined to be not known.
Surprisingly the attack only takes up 25 minutes of screen time - it doesn't get going til 45 minutes in. I think Walter Forde wasn't a great visual director. Imagine if someone like Hitchcock or Michael Powell had done it. The film never really makes it clear what Brown is doing, or how he got to hang out, and misses some key action stuff like Brown shifting his position overnight, and the German strategy.
Instead the running time is padded out with shots of training for sailors and footage of British ships (this had official naval co operation), a boxing game with some Germans.
I did always remember one things about this movie - the fact the officers of each ship know and tell the enemy there was nothing they could have done in the battle because the ships were bigger, i.e the German tells Brown that there was nothing they could have done because the German had the bigger ship and at the end the Britisher tells the German there was nothing he could have done because he had the bigger ship. Such matter of fact honesty is rare in American war films.
Book review - "Brown on Resolution" by CS Forster (1929)
A delightful surprise - I was curious to read this because I enjoyed Sailor of the King, based on it. It has a reputation of a stiff upper lip tale which I guess it is - but it's extremely well written, with evocative descriptions and fast pace, anchored with research. It's also surprisingly racy, downbeat and cynical - Brown's mother meets a sailor while on holiday and decides to spend five hot days in bed with him. The sailor is dim but a good military guy with excellent prospects - when he sinks the ship at the end he's mostly glad because it improves his chance of a post career cushy job and fame. The mother decides to raise the kid on her own, is devoted to him, has a financial knock back but hangs in there, forces him into the navy, and dies very young of cancer - in part because, Forster makes clear, she was too proud to seek treatment early.
Brown is a very average sort of guy - amiable, obedient to his mother. He's a good sailor with solid prospects, keen for the promotional opportunities that war gives him. When he sneaks away to Absolution Island he could just hide out but he decides to do his duty even though he knows it'll probably mean death. He does it, and dies - again, mostly due to bad luck, from a bullet by a slacker German disobeying orders (I love this touch). If the Germans had gotten away half an hour earlier they would've been okay. And the kicker is, no one will know about Brown's heroism - the Germans knew but they are all killed in the ensuing attack. It's really great stuff.
The action sequences on Resolution are superb - the escape (relatively easy because the Germans don't really care), slipping into the water, climbing through the bushes. Forster is very good making a far fetched scenario realistic - he goes to great pains describing the German's slackness initially, the fact Brown is helped by the rough vegetation on the island which makes it hard to get through and provides excellent hiding places for Brown. The sequences are logically worked out - he escapes, finds a good spot, starts shooting the next morning, manages to fight off an initial boarding party due to his location, then changes locations over night and fights again, succeeds in taking out over 30 Germans.
You do get the sense it should be a short story - the stuff about the mother having an affair does feel a bit padded out. It's not as though Forster adds much character to Brown - for instance, he has a mate Ginger who survives the attack but with half his face blown off... Forster goes "oh they were friends for two years" but that's it. Still, a fantastic adventure book.
Brown is a very average sort of guy - amiable, obedient to his mother. He's a good sailor with solid prospects, keen for the promotional opportunities that war gives him. When he sneaks away to Absolution Island he could just hide out but he decides to do his duty even though he knows it'll probably mean death. He does it, and dies - again, mostly due to bad luck, from a bullet by a slacker German disobeying orders (I love this touch). If the Germans had gotten away half an hour earlier they would've been okay. And the kicker is, no one will know about Brown's heroism - the Germans knew but they are all killed in the ensuing attack. It's really great stuff.
The action sequences on Resolution are superb - the escape (relatively easy because the Germans don't really care), slipping into the water, climbing through the bushes. Forster is very good making a far fetched scenario realistic - he goes to great pains describing the German's slackness initially, the fact Brown is helped by the rough vegetation on the island which makes it hard to get through and provides excellent hiding places for Brown. The sequences are logically worked out - he escapes, finds a good spot, starts shooting the next morning, manages to fight off an initial boarding party due to his location, then changes locations over night and fights again, succeeds in taking out over 30 Germans.
You do get the sense it should be a short story - the stuff about the mother having an affair does feel a bit padded out. It's not as though Forster adds much character to Brown - for instance, he has a mate Ginger who survives the attack but with half his face blown off... Forster goes "oh they were friends for two years" but that's it. Still, a fantastic adventure book.
Book review - Moto#2 - "Thank You Mr Moto" by John P Marquand (1936)
A very solid Moto - some say its the best in the series in part because of some evocative writing describing Peking in the mid 30s. This is very good, and there's some very well done action scenes too - you wish there was more of these instead of the more philosophical chat stuff. (This seems to happen with thriller writers - they're good at action but can't resist characters waffling on.)
The hero is a new American, a guy living in Peking, who gets caught up in a racket of selling Chinese artefacts, run by a British major who is killed. Structurally it follows the first book in the series - American caught up in conspiracy, mystery girl, an early murder, Mr Moto popping in an out, support cast of orientals. The lead character is less interesting here because he starts out good and is always basically good. Moto is more sympathetic, working for the dove faction in Japanese politics, against an agent who works for the hawk faction. Still a good book.
The hero is a new American, a guy living in Peking, who gets caught up in a racket of selling Chinese artefacts, run by a British major who is killed. Structurally it follows the first book in the series - American caught up in conspiracy, mystery girl, an early murder, Mr Moto popping in an out, support cast of orientals. The lead character is less interesting here because he starts out good and is always basically good. Moto is more sympathetic, working for the dove faction in Japanese politics, against an agent who works for the hawk faction. Still a good book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)