Book review - "No Way to Treat a Lady" by William Goldman (1964)

 Goldman wrote this during the writing of Boys and Girls Together. Like most of his writing it's easy to read. This one is only short with brief chapters. It's not always easy to follow. It has a black heart too. Lots of chapters are from the POV of a woman who lets in an intruder who kills them. Goldman admits he was comfortable with dark material - the torture in Marathon Man, etc. It isn't very enjoyable to read. I know that's not the point. But there's so much creating women we identify with who are killed. It was too nasty for me.

Movie review - "She Loved a Fireman" (1937) **1/2

 John Farrow's second directorial effort is another unpretentious B from Warners - clocks in under an hour but fairly spanks along. It helps in that Dick Foran has decent star presence, in a low key way: he's burly and bumpy, engaging, and fun. He plays a cocky bookie who decides to become a fireman and falls for Ann Sheridan who is sister to his work superior/nemesis Robert Armstrong. Armstrong and Sheridan also give this cast some weight. She was good from the get-go, Sheridan. Armstrong is fine. Veda Ann Borg is in it, too.

The story bangs through a lot of plot - Foran goes to college, is disgraced chasing after Sheridan, redeems himself. It's fun. Not distinguished, but it hits the notes. Eddie Acuff, who plays Foran's friend who is injured (the "Goose" part) looked familiar but I couldn't pick it.

Movie review - "You Can't Cheat an Honest Man" (1939) ***

 This was probably funnier if you grew up with WC Fields and Edgar Bergen and were very familiar with their feud... I had vaguely heard of it. It inspired this plot where Bergen falls in love with Fields' daughter (Constance Moore).

There's not a lot of family stuff though - which I think was a mistake. Most of the action is set at the circus which Fields runs. Better if Moore had worked there. There's a millionaire who loves Moore and a comic table tenis game at the end.

George Marshall is credited as director but apparently Fields didn't like him and another man took over for Fields' scenes. Still, decent credit for Marshall to have.

Movie review - "Monsieur Beaucaire" (1946) ***1/2

 Fun Bob Hope movie - I enjoy seeing him in period pictures. This one is set in the court of Louis XV where he's a barber. Duke Patric Knowles, a dashing man/great fighter, etc, is sent to marry the daughter of the king of Spain... Hope gets confused for him causing comic antics and life and death struggles against baddies.

The film involves two people who I also like: director George Marshall (a new favourite) and female lead Joan Caulfield (always bright and chipper, a sort of back up Paulette Goddard). Knowles is dull and irritating - he was lucky to still get second leads in studio pictures by this stage. Sorry if any family members of his come across this. I don't mean to be cruel. I wish Knowles had turned out to be a villain.

It's in black and white but the period settings still impress.

Top Box Office Hits of 1946

 Interesting list. Bing Crosby was super popular. The peak of Alan Ladd. No Errol Flynn.

Movie review - "Murder He Says" (1945) ***

 Fun comedy with pollster Fred MacMurray caught up with a family of murderous hillbillies: Margery Main, her husband, her twin sons and crazy daughter. Helen Thompson is the visitor looking for cash.

I did wish the leads were Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard but the ones we have are game, the support cast excellent. I was maybe expecting something better - this has a growing cult - but it was clever and funny. There's a Ghostbreakers injoke from director George Marshall, who also made this.

Movie review - "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" (2001) *

 Famous flop isn't agonisingly awful just bewilderingly dull. Eddie Murphy runs a club on the moon, crosses with some gangsters and goes on the run. The film could've taken place on Earth. They do some moon stuff like Murphy's bodyguard being an android (Randy Quaid) and they go outside every now and then but it's not very sci fi. It's not very anything - not funny. 

Rosario Dawson smiles and does her best but is just the Girl. Jay Mohr does a turn, so does Ileanna Douglas.

I can see where the money went - on sets and effect - but it was not needed. At times, with its chasing around on a foreign planet, I was reminded of Total Recall. It's not as good but it what passed through my head.

Movie review - "The Rules Don't Apply" (2017) **

 Warren Beatty's last film, perhaps, which would be a shame. I know he was working on a Howard Hughes movie since the 1970s. This was what he came up with?

There is a movie to be had in focusing on the women that Hughes stashed away. He only focuses on one, played by Lily Collins, who doesn't seem to be that big chested (I don't mean to be gross but that was such an overwhelming thing for Hughes). Then his attention drifts to one of Hughes' drivers. Collins drops out of the movie for a big slab of time.

Neither are that interesting. Many of the scenes are repetitive or flat - she's not a good driver, they have a religious upbringing, Annette Bening is Collins' worried mother,

It's fun to see people like Ed Harris and Amy Madigan in the movie, as well as Steve Coogan, Candice Bergen, etc. It was just a bit dull. Hughes was eccentric and odd. The two leads weren't that engaging.

The best bit came at the end when Hughes is on the phone to prove is sanity with his young son running around in front of him. This was quite moving. Hughes pulls focus from the young lovers. But he's not that engaging either. It was just dull.

Movie review - "The Ghost Breakers" (1940) ****

 There's no hiding much of this humour is problematic -well, one aspect in particular, Willie Best, who plays Bob Hope's black servant. Best is very talented playing the role going and he is funny but it hasn't aged well.

Hope and Paulette Goddard have aged marvellously - a wonderful team in a comedy chiller, as Gene Wilder called them, she's pretty and game, he's cowardly but determined to pull through for her. They seem to genuinely enjoy each other's company.

Support includes Paul Lukas, Anthony Quinn (in a double role) and Richard Carlson, all of whom could be baddies which adds to the fun as does the castle on a island, genuine voodoo types.

George Marshall directed, one of many superior movies he made in an under-rated career.

Movie review - "Bulworth" (1998) **1/2

 I'm conflicted. I appreciated it being a film for grown ups, some of the political satire was sharp, like the jabs at the insurance industry. It did predict the appeal of the "outsider" galvanising things - like Sanders and Trump. Mind you, it wasn't the first movie to cover that ground eg The Candidate, Face in the Cword.

But so much was annoying. The lib-splaining, the age gap between Beatty and Halle Berry (I don't care if they make a joke out of it, why couldn't Pam Grier or someone have played this? I know the answer, but she should have), the moment where Berry goes to Beatty "you're my n*gger" (yikes), all the lecturing, the martyrdom, the homeless man telling us to live up to Bulworth's spirit..

Dramatically the big problem was the lack of connect between Bulworth/Beatty and the audience. At the beginning of the film he's having a break down and arranges for his own execution - fine. Then he continues to have a melt down, and is running around, and rapping, and dressed in a beanie, and being weird and it doesn't make sense, in part because we've got nothing to contrast him with. Only at the end when he starts acting like a regular person does he seem real. I mean, what does Bulworth truly believe? What did he believe? He's distant from the audience, hiding behind is breakdown. We never meet his daughter, his wife is a caricature.

Strong support cast including Oliver Platt (whose cocaine fuelled rants feel written by Aaron Sorkin but I could be wrong), Will Bailey, Jack Weston, Don Cheadle, Paul Sorvino, Christine Baraski, etc.

Movie review - "Heaven Can Wait" (1978) ***

 Absolutely competent remake from Warren Beatty. It's fine. It doesn't break new ground in the way Bonnie and Clyde, Shampoo and Reds did but it provides an enjoyable experience.

If helps that Beatty used to play football and was just (I stress "just") young enough to believably play him on screen. The role is in his wheelhouse - befuddled anxious man in over his head.

There's an excellent support cast. Charles Grodin and Dyan Cannon are brilliant in the stand out, showiest parts. James Mason and Buck Henry are entertaining angels, and Jack Weston provides heart (when he loses his mate a second time at the end it's very moving).

The least effective for me was Julie Christie. I was put off by her perm, I admit. She doesn't have much of a role. I will say I loved her final scene with Beatty - that ending section was the best part of the film.

Some script questions from me - more impact stuff. What about Tom's existing family and friends? What about the impact of Joe's death on the team? And Vincent Gardenia's cop character took over too much at the end for a character we don't meet until late.

But charming and pleasant in the way Town and Country and Love Affair weren't.

Movie review - "Shampoo" (1975) ****1/2

 I didn't like this when I first saw it but I was too young and the film was on TV and had been censored so I was unclear about some things, like how Julie Christie shocked the guests at the part and what Warren Beatty did with Carrie Fisher (did he take a dump?) but as time has passed I appreciate more and can see how good it is.

I don't think it reinvented the wheel - it took a very very old restoration comedy (the rooster in the henhouse) and gave it a new sheen, with Hal Ashby's low key direction, Robert Towne's witty script (I know Beatty is credited as co writer, I just feel he's more an editor and credit hog), perfect cast, fresh set up (male hairdresser in Beverly Hills), and Warren Beatty in the most perfectly cast role of his career. By the late 80s he would be too old for these roles but he is utterly at home in the mid 70s and it has an added tang knowing he co starred against so many ex-girlfriends.

Beatty plays a super stud who drives around Beverly Hills on a motorbike, sleeps with all these women, is great at his job... but it's also reassuring because he's a mess at business (he can't get a loan to start his own shop), he is longing for Julie Christie who he can get but not permanently, and his life is a mess. The women have sexual drive for him - Beatty was most effective as a hapless lust object pursued by strong women and in over his head amongst the world.

Goldie Hawn is charming as is actress girlfriend, Julie Christie is fascinating as his true love (no great catch in a way, with a drinking problem, and a disdain for hard work, but very charismatic), Jack Warden is imposing as the affable but tough businessman, Lee Grant is electric as Warden's wife, Jay Robinson effective as the salon owner, and Carrie Fisher makes a smash debut as the precocious teen (smart beyond her years but not as smart as she thinks she is). The only really dud one is Tony Bill in what is admittedly a thankless part as the director keen on Hawn.

The music is excellent, as is Ashby's direction. It lost a little pace in between parties for some reason - I'm sure it's structural.

Movie review - "The Fortune" (1975) **

 Famous flop which on paper sounded as sure fire as anything in the mid 70s- Beatty, Nichols, Nicholson, the writer of Five Easy Pieces... with an exciting new star Stockard Channing. Where some bumbling con men kidnap an heiress in the 1920s. Sounds fun.

But it's not. They don't kidnap her, not really, she goes willingly because she's in love with Beatty and has to marry Jack Nicholson and Nicholson wants to bang her. The action is stretched over a long period - it seems like ages - when farces work better over a compressed period of time.

I was never sure what the goals of the characters were. To have sex? Make money? Why not just re-do Ransom of the Red Chief (like Ruthless People did). I couldn't tell the character differential between Beatty and Nicholson.

They don't use Channing's father and under-use Beatty's wife. Doing farce and comedy is hard - Carole Eastman doesn't do it (I know her script was rewritten). Mike Nichols' careful, classic direction lacks pace.

It's a really boring movie. It's not even attractive - most of it is shot in this dusty, deserty area.

Script review - "Jerry Maguire" by Cameron Crowe

 Felt like reading this again so I did. So good. Fresh, interesting. An amazing star vehicle. Why did Tom Hanks turn this down? I do feel Tom Cruise was a better choice. Dorothy is lovely but I remember a lot of my mates at the time really wanted to date Avary. Rich support characters: Rod Tilson, his wife and brother, the kid, the sister, the babysitter, Bob Sugar, the other athletes.

What happened to Cameron Crowe's writing in the 21st century? Is he too rushed? Needs to do research?

Movie review - "Men in Exile" (1937) **1/2

 John Farrow's directorial debut this was made for Bryan Foy's B unit at Warners. The cast is very "B" - people like June Travis and Dick Purcell. No one who made it to the A league.

It's set in a third world country where some American exiles get involved in a plot to overthrow the government. While a "B" it's one shot in the studio so the production values are decent.  It's meant to be a remake of Safe in Hell I think but it's not a lot like it.

Purcell is passive a lot of the time - he doesn't take part in a robbery, doesn't join in the revolution, winds up arrested for a coup attempt, is saved from an execution not by anything he did but from his girlfriend's weakling brother confessing.

The handling is confident. The depiction of the island dictator is very sympathetic - he's kindly, charming, says he never intended to execute Purcell it was a trap. The film would've been better if it was more cynical. Still, not bad. Clock in under an hour.

A review in Variety is here.

Movie review - "The Parallax View" (1974) ****

 I'm still wrapping my head around Warren Beatty's career - it's so random. After Bonnie and Clyde he made a disaster (The Only Game in Town) and a film that seemed to disappear ($) then two of the cultiest movies of the seventies: McCabe and Mrs Miller and this.

It's an astonishingly shot movie - Gordon Willis does a sensational job with unusual framing, use of shadow and light, long shots. The film is constantly off kilter and unsettling. (Kudos to the art department as well).

Gorgeous "tinkle music" score. Very very strong cast - Beatty's shaggy haired reporter in over his head is actually in line with his most effective screen persona: man who is slightly hapless. He's still a stud muffin - Prentiss is his ex and he's got some woman staying over early on who is never seen again.

Paula Prentiss scores in her small role as does everyone else really: Hume Cronyn, Jim Davis (craggy, smoking senator), William Daniels, Kenneth Mars.

The car chase feels dumbly inserted. The ending is amazing. The plot makes no sense if looked at too closely. But it works.

Movie review - "McCabe & Mrs Miller" (1971) ****1/2

 In many ways a traditional Western - a gunslinger hero who stands up to bullies, a hooker with a heart of gold, three badmen coming into town in high noon, the gunslinger kills them all, brothel and mining, the baddies are a mining company, the slimy saloon owner.

It does provide a fresh take - the gunslinger is blustery and spends the last half trying to avoid a fight, the hooker is mercenary and the gunslinger always has to pay her (and she's hooked on opium), it's set in the snow, the mining company sends some harrassed middle tier executives.

It's beautifully shot and lit (it takes some getting used to but is worth it), the Leonard Cohen songs work a treat. The villains are superb - especially the imposing Brit (what a baddie!) and the psychotic kid who wastes Keith Carradine for no reason (the "half breed" doesn't get a showy moment).

It takes a while - two hours - but works on it's own terms. By making a genre piece Altman is restrained - he can bring his magic to an existing form.

Movie review - "$" (1971) **1/2

 Warren Beatty tries his hand at a caper film which is what Kaleidoscope should have been. Despite being teamed with Goldie Hawn the public didn't really go for it - but then they rarely did for Beatty films unless he played a lust object pursued by a vivacious woman. I think because he did not portray dynamism on screen.

It's about a bank security expert and his hooker girlfriend robbing safe deposit boxes held by crooks including Robert Webber and Scott Brady (a great late career turn for him) plus a German. Gert Frobe is a banker.

This isn't a bad movie. German setting different. Little yuck to have all these Americans ripping them off. There's a nasty German killer, mind.

The tone of this never quite works. It's not that sexy or fun despite Hawn. She's with beatty at the beginning - they're a couple - she sleeps with people. Maybe more of her would've helped. I don't find Beatty a compelling screen presence. He's fine, just not compelling. 

Richard Brooks wrote and directed it. The subtext of "money" is really, really hammered in - like there's scenes in a strip club with slides showing money projected against the wall and sounds about money playing while there are silhouettes of strippers.

Movie review - "The Only Game in Town" (1970) **

 A notorious flop that is impressive for the sheer number of dumb ideas: casting plump Elizabeth Taylor as a show girl, managing to cost $11 million in 1970 money despite being a two hander set in Vegas, teaming Taylor opposite Warren Beatty.

Maybe it would've worked with Taylor and original choice Frank Sinatra... actually no, Taylor just didn't look like a chorus girl. And so many better options were out there who did: Debbie Reynolds, Ann Margret... Being a chorus girl wasn't that essential to the story, I wish they'd changed her job to, I don't know, blackjack dealer or something.

I never believed her and Beatty as a couple either. He seems too young. They have no sexual chemistry. I wonder why Beatty did this. To work with George Stevens and Taylor probably. Also, he used to be a pianist, so playing one presumably had appeal.

Taylor is shot through soft focus. It's badly directed. The script adaptation doesn't work. Once Taylor turns down her married lover for Beatty you know they'll be together but there's still an hour to go. This went for almost two hours!

The treatment the material required is obvious. It's about two battered down people seeking for a last grasp of happiness. That is totally, utterly missed.

Movie review - "The Devil's Command" (1941) **1/2

 Boris Karloff thriller from Columbia directed by Edward Dmytryk has wonderful moody atmosphere and narration, nice settings (the second half takes place in a house on a cliff with waves crashing below) and an ideal set up: he's a scientist whose wife dies prompting him to commit experiments raising people from the dead.

This should have resulted in zombies and body snatching, but while some gruesomeness is reported we don't see enough on screen. So this never gets into high gear. It was entertaining, has Karloff and only runs an hour. Oh and there's a problematic mentally delayed handiman plus Anna Reeves as a fake medium and Amanda Duff as the daughter.

 

Movie review - "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) ****1/2

 I get why this is admired but admit it leaves me a little cold. Not a lot, a little. Maybe it's overlong - almost two hours. It does build but occasionally the same beat got hit. Maybe I felt it was overpraised. I dunno.

It is well made. Beautifully shot. Location work. It was lucky in many ways - the right movie at the right time, the right amount of sex and violence - but Warren Beatty and co worked hard for that luck.

It has many old fashioned values - exciting new stars, gangsters, Depression era criticism - updated in new ways - sex, violence, social issues (Clyde is impotent).

Faye Dunaway is stunningly good. Every film Warren Beatty made between this and Splendor in the Grass flopped. I wonder if perhaps because Beatty isn't really a star - he's handsome, charming, all that, but doesn't have great drive. Splendor was Natalie Wood's film. This is Faye Dunaway's story. Her character goes on the biggest journey: bored country girl (flashing a naked back at the beginning), going along with Clyde for kicks, enjoying it, then doubting it, falling for Clyde but frustrated by his ability to not make love, wanting to give up... On contrast Clyde's character remains more constant: part-shy, part-braggart (he does develop the ability to get an erection).

Gene Hackman is very good. Estelle Parson's yelling may get on your nerves. Denver Pyle's Frank Hamer is perhaps too much of a buffoon. Gene Wilder's performance is excellent. The extras are terrific.

Movie review - "Kaleidoscope" (1966) **

 Remarkable how dull this film is. It should be fun - Warren Beatty is a playboy-burglar-gambler who is blackmailed into helping detective Clive Revill bust gangster Eric Portman, while shacking up with swinging bird Susannah York, who is Revill's daughter.

But the film muffs it. There's little suspense or action, it takes over 40 minutes for Beatty to be blackmailed when that could have happened within 15 minutes, the story lacks any decent twists, it seems cheap (I think the budget went on a location shoot to Monaco, the last act is a few people hanging out in a castle), it feels as though there aren't enough characters (Portman is crying out for a henchman, the others could do with a sidekick), Beatty does this robbery but we don't see him rob again, there's a card game that goes on far too long, Revill saves the day at the end not Beatty.

It was a jolt to see Beatty in a fight scene. He's charming and attractive but lacks that drive and intensity of a top level star - after this and Promise Her Anything you could imagine him going the way of George Hamilton but he had Bonnie and Clyde coming up next.

Nice colour and York looks pleasing, in a series of attractive gowns.

Book review - "Preston Sturges: The Last Years of Hollywood's First Writer Director" by Nick Smedley and Tom Sturges

 Sturges' career is very well covered via some solid biographies but this adds a fresh take in focusing on his last decade - the one after his Fox stint, when he made just the one film but was constantly trying to get up projects and failing, before dying relatively young.

Smedley tries to put a positive spin on this era, emphasizing how Sturges found true love with his last wife, never gave up, was always coming up with new ideas. And I'm sure Sturges when on form was marvellous company.

But he does not come across well in this superbly researched, illuminating book. He couldn't stop drinking, he loved his wife but cheated on her and ignored her, he was a lousy father (he didn't see his wife or kids for the last few years of his life), he kept spending money (once the third highest paid person in the country he managed to blow it all via idiotic decisions when all he had to do was buy real estate), he was hard to collaborate with, he whinged, he was fired from some projects and my sympathy was with the producers.

We did miss out artistically from a lack of Sturges projects - Smedley makes a case for the greatness of The Millionairess and I liked his gangster comedy idea - but some sound like terrible ideas.

Famous faces and names pop in and out -Sturges was mates with Orson Welles, he was always trying to work with Alec Guinness and Robert Donat, Errol Flynn almost starred in The French They Are a Funny Race (not sure how Errol would've gone but it would've been better than Flynn's Herbert Wilcox movies).

I think Sturges' problem was that he went from rags to riches so many times in his career, was such a successful gambler, that kept thinking his luck would turn around. And maybe it would have if he's managed to save some money and stay off the booze.

Movie review - "Second Chance" (1953) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

 One of Bob Mitchum's junky thrillers he made for Howard Hughes at RKO. It's enjoyable and low rent and gives a decent 50s role to Linda Darnell. The copy I saw had a washed out look,  I think because it was shot in 3D. It was shot partly in Mexico.

It's best remembered if at all for its climax on a cable car - the last twenty minutes. I wonder if more could've been made of this.

Linda Darnell is a solid actor but I never quite believed she genuinely loved Mitchum. I did buy him loving her - he was committed in this role. Jack Palance is the best - genuinely terrifying. Dan Seymour adds some Sidney Greenstreet-style class. 

During the cable car some English supporting actor gets all this dialogue that should've gone to Darnell. It was quite a shock to see a guy plunge to his death in front of his son - and that kid had his mothered murdered by his dad the previous night. Full on!

Enjoyable second tier action which will best please fans of Palance, Darnell and Mitchum.

Movie review - "Unfaithfully Yours" (1948) **

 Some critics adore this one. I didn't like it. Rex Harrison is ideal as the jealous conductor who fantasizes about killing his wife. The dialogue is witty. I like Linda Darnell. The support cast is very good.

But I hated the story. Killing his wife because he thinks on thing grounds she's having an affair... I don't find that funny. Or watching three fantasy sequences. Or seeing him try to do it. I don't like him, I hate him.

That's just me, I know. I'm not surprised to see this flopped. It's mean. Darnell is nice. He's a fool. I mean, if he fantasised about killing the lover and the lover was a bully or something...

My "hot take": Sturges actually lost it after Miracle of Morgan's Creek. After that he went downhill, not when he left Paramount.

Movie review - "Promise Her Anything" (1966) **

 After making a series of arty movies Warren Beatty decided to do something popular. He had developed What's New Pussycat? then turned it down at the eleventh hour - so picked something similar: a frantic comedy set in Greenwich Village about a man surrounded by beautiful dames. There's even a Bacharach-David theme song sung by Tom Jones.

The central idea though is more Doris Day/Shirley MacLaine/Norman Krasna: Leslie Caron plays a single mother who arrives in the big city of nab a husband for her son. She chases after Robert Cummings, doing a fun riff of Dr Spock as a child rearing expert who hates kids, and is loved by her neighbout Beatty, who makes nudie films.

The film doesn't lean into its concept. It needed Norman Krasna to do a pass. William Peter Blatty wrote it - after his other dud John Goldfarb Go Home. This was called The Babysitter and was shot in London because Caron couldn't take her kids out of the country (her affair with Beatty led to divorce from Peter Hall).

For a while this was pleasantly enjoyable. Beatty was animated and clearly trying in a Jim Hutton style part. Caron was cute, her kid was a lot of fun, I laughed at the baby stumbling into nudie cutie shots. Donald Sutherland is in it briefly (this was shot in London).

Robert Cummings, an actor I like, was looking too gaunt by this stage to play a threat to Beatty. The plotting is frantic as is the direction (Arthur Hiller). It started to grate half way and only got worse as it went on

Movie review - "The Sin of Harold Diddlebock" (1947) **1/2

 It didn't need to cost as much money as it did and the pacing is off. It needed to be tightened and brighter. But once I got used to old Harold Lloyd I didn't mind this. There's pleasant anarchy with him getting drunk for the first time, and buying a circus and winding up on a ledge with a lion among other things.

It just could've been tighter. Oh and the romance is bad. The girl is like the sixth version of another girl or something. Is that romantic?

Movie review - "The Cat and the Canary" (1939) **** (re-watching)

 Great fun. Tight running time, beautiful photography, genuinely spooky, very meta (with Bob Hope commenting on the cliches of the genre) but also delivering on what it's satirising. Paulette Goddard and Bob Hope team marvellously - she's not energy, glamour and zest, he's got patter and cowardice. Fine support cast too including Gale Sondegaard.

Movie review - "Hail the Conquering Hero" (1944) **

 Wasn't wild about this. It was polished and everything and I know it's supposed to be a classic it just didn't do it for me. I think the story should be high satire but Sturges keeps pulling punches. And the justification feels strained. Eddie Bracken's goal is wholesome - to make his mother proud - but his mother doesn't need him to do it to feel proud. Ella Raines - very very miscast and unconvincing, Paramount were right to want to drop her - doesn't need him to be brave to love Bracken. The soldiers led by William Demarest go to very unconvincing lengths to sustain the lie. The townsfolk are naive but not evil. The baddies in the election aren't that bad.

Censorship and wartime sensitivity holds this back. There's not even classic sentimentality like, I dont know, visiting a veterans hospital or something. The various soldiers helping Demarest are varying in quality.

Maybe this could have worked with more sex. Bracken wants to "kiss" a girl who only dates heroes so the guys make up a story, then he's caught in a big drama and the girl's dad would threaten to shoot him otherwise. Demarest would've been better as a villain.

There's no sense of the small town feel that was so great in Miracle of Morgan's Creek.

Movie review - "Mickey One" (1965) **

 I get this has a cult. I appreciate it trying to do something different. I'm sure I don't get it. 

It was hard to watch. Looks cool - black and white photography, jazz, Kafka esque.

Warren Beatty is very handsome but miscast, as he often was in his career when you think about it, as a Polish American stand up comic.

Interesting turns from Franchot Tone and Hurd Hatfield. Alexandra Stewart is pretty. 

That's about it. I was bored.

Movie review - "The Palm Beach Story" (1942) ****

 Bright comedy, very well done, with a lot of emphasis on female desire and desirability. Claudette Colbert's good looks get her given money by one tycoon and proposed to by another tycoon and gets frree train tickets from eccentric rich men but she can't resist struggling inventor Joel McCrea even though his idea is a little silly.

Mary Astor is also full of lust. Rudy Vallee's brother, the millionaire, is pure.

The cast are extremely likeable - Vallee must be the most engaging richest man in the world in the movies. The Ale and Quayle Club bring enjoyable anarchy.

Maybe four stars is generous. It's just very well done all the way through. Funny final gag.

Movie review - "Sullivan's Travels" (1941) ***** (warning: spoilers) (re-watching)

 This classic lives up to its reputation. Great, simple idea, still relevant. Sturges pokes affectionate fun of everyone - studio moguls, pretentious directors.

My one gripe -it did repeat a lot with Sullivan trying to get away then being stopped. That happened several times.

But the romance with Veronica Lake is wonderful - sexy, believable, genuine. I really felt these two fell in love. McCrea spits out his lines with elan - I imagine Henry Fonda was an original choice but McCrea is fine, as he often was (he never let the side down, McCrea). 

The support cast are stunning, from the butlers and studio execs to the 13 year old driver who picks up Sullivan, the old lady who lusts after him (few directors of Hollywood from this time emphasised female lust as much as Sturges), the prisoners. 

The last act is incredible filmmaking - the bleak prison, the justice system, the abuse, the humanity found in the black church people letting in prisoners and the joy from cartoons.

Movie review - "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" (1944) (warning: spoilers) ****

Sturges takes on small town Americana with a lot more affection that he's given credit for. William Demarest is crusty but loves his girls who have grown up smart and independent. Well, smart-ish.

Betty Hutton is wonderful as the sassy Trudy who gets drunk and impregnated by an unknown soldier. Diana Lynn is hilarious as her boogie-woogie playing wisecracking sister. Eddie Bracken's nerdiness is fun - he's an unsexy Sturges nerd, like Rudy Vallee in The Palm Beach Story. 

Pace drops around the two thirds mark but picks up. The ending is a deux ex machina but perhaps the greatest in cinematic history.

Movie review - "The Great Moment" (1944) ***

 The odd one out in Preston Sturges' Paramount directing career because it is a serious drama, albeit with comedy moments. It was cut about by the studio so auterists have been forgiving of it more than actually liked it.

I didn't mind it. It is very much of its time and genre, the medical biopic that Warners especially seemed to specialise in. Yet it is still very Sturge - an inventor worried about being ripped off. There is the Sturges stock company (William Demarest, etc), the Sturges slapstick (laughing gas), the hard edged Sturges (politics from the medical union, former partners claiming he's ripped them off), Sturges interests (worried about money, an inventor, a marriage under strain), Sturges sentimentality (deciding to give up money to help a crippled girl not feel pain... this is well done).

Maybe the bits showing what happened to McCrea weren't needed. I have read the original script. The problem with the film the way its structured is it tells this mini story about McCrea leaving the farm and trying to get recognition, then cut to wife Betty Field telling a story about how he died, then going back to the invention. Maybe they just should have shown that bit. The version I watched was 78 minutes.

It has studio benefits: handsome, production design, rich array of character actors. I wasn't wild about Betty Field - she veers from giddy little thing to whining wife to patient wife. It's not much of a part maybe. 

Joel McCrea is fine in the lead. He would soon give up non Westerns to purely be in the saddle. There's no Sturges sexiness which might have jazzed things up.

It's interesting, smart. I don't think a full success but I preferred it to Christmas in July.

Movie review - "The Lady Eve" (1941) ****

 Perhaps this is a little over rated.There's not a lot of farce. It's mostly a sexy romance with conwoman Babara Stanwyck trying to get millionaire Henry Fonda and falling for him, then getting revenge when he discovers the truth.

I expected more to be done with Charles Coburn - he should have turned against Stanwyck or something.

But as a star vehicle this is first rate. The two leads seem to be having the time of their lives and there is genuine erotic charge. Maybe because Stanwyck has clearly been around and is active in her pursuit.

With the wrong stars though this would sink.

Movie review - "Christmas in July" (1940) **1/2

 Not as impressive as The Great McGinty - the problem is the basic story. Dick Powell is a gormless idiot who is clearly a gambling addict, constantly entering competitions. He thinks he's a chance to win a coffee slogan ("it's in the bunk"), and is tricked into believing he's successful. He acts like a complete idiot, running around and blowing all the money on expensive gifts for his girlfriend, mother and whole neighbourhood (including a crippled girl getting a doll which did get to me, I admit).

It's stressful to watch because Powell is an idiot, with no apparent talent - the sort of Gary Cooper part who would be the hero in a Frank Capra movie. He blows all his money without checkign which is dumb rather than funny and I just found it stressful.

The pace is fast and the cast strong especially the support cast. Ellen Drew is sweet as Powell's girlfriend.

Movie review - "The Great McGinty" (1940) **** (re-watching)

 Cynicism ages marvellously and Preston Sturges' debut holds up really well. It wasn't one of my favourites with its second tier cast but watching it years later after Trump and fatherhood it moved me more than ever.

The handling is wonderfully confident for a first timer but that's one of the benefits of the studio system - beautiful photography, fast editing, solid players.

The joy though is the script. Its matter of fact acceptance of corruption, use of sex (Donlevy shakes down what is clearly a brothel and is asked "why don't you go up and get your fortune read", when he discusses an arranged marriage he glances at the legs of a woman who asks "what's that got to do with it"), and the way it tackles serious issues: slum lords, child labour. It's also very moving at the end when Donlevy has to give up the women and children he's come to love. The woman does have a heart of gold but I loved her swimming skilfully in the waters and getting Donlevy to marry her without mentioning her children.

Terrific.

Movie review - "Krakatoa East of Java" (1968) **1/2

 I found it impossible to dislike this movie, with all it's creakiness - the geographical inaccuracy of the title, the C list-ness of its cast (Maximillian Schell! Diane Baker! Sal Mineo! Brian Keith! Joe Leyton!), random moments like a woman singing a song in her underwear, Cinerama.

Even the dopeyness of the script was endearing - it's about this famous eruption but the plot is about a boat that spends its time hunting for treasure in a balloon as the volcano erupts.

I do love its kitchen sink story telling approach: a boat of orphans, nuns, Brian Keith has the bends, prisoners, impoverished rich people, a cargo load of pearls, a long lost son, diving, pearls, drug induced hallucinations, Diane Baker's history in a mental asylum, a prisoner mutiny, a very inefficient rescue mission.

It was endearing.

Movie review - "The Mummy Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" (2008) **1/2

 It was a bright idea to move the setting to China and deal with those mummies. There's fast action and colours. The whiteness of the leads is distracting - even the supporting characters, I mean, come on - and there's too many heroes to service. There's Brendan Fraser and Maria Bello (not as good as Rachel W) and their son, Luke Ford. In particular Fraser and Ford are too similar - swashbuckler-y types. Really they should have had Ford be a kidnap victim and have his parents go to rescue him. 

If they couldn't have Rachel Weisz back they should have killed her character off screen and had Fraser romance a Chinese lady for fresh romance.

Fun to see Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh just a shame they couldn't have bigger parts. Ditto one feels more could've been done with John Hannah.

Interview with Bryan Forbes at EMI

Link is here

THE EMPEROR OF ELSTREE’S  FIRST 300 DAYS

TEN months after being appointed managing director of Associated British Productions and less than seven months after announcing a film-making programme of fifteen features, Bryan Forbes can report that four are editing, three are shooting and another three are set to start. Forbes states that this programme, desi n ned bv h ! m and Bernard Delfont, chairman and chief executive, Associated British Picture Corporation, to mature within eighteen months, is on schedule—and that he is preparing and developing a further six films with the intention of having ‘a continuous flow’. (It should be noted that Bernard Delfont has also announced a further separate schedule of thirteen films to be made by another ABPC subsidiary, Anglo Amalgamated, under the personal supervision of Nat Cohen.) That Bryan Forbes should personally direct certain ABP subjects was written into his contract and he is currently at the helm of ‘The Raging Moon’, starring Malcolm McDowell and Nanette Newman, on location in Hertfordshire, not far from Elstree studios. Between takes, Forbes answered my questions about his first three hundred days as head of ABP.

You are {personally directing ‘The Raging Moon’. What attracted you to it?

B.F. I think it’s a good story. It’s about young people and very much of today. I think it’s probably the sort of film I do best— very much in the genre of ‘The L-Shaped Room’. It came to me about last October from Bruce Cohn Curtis, who had had it at Columbia for a couple of years. It was a very much more expensive picture which we found ways of doing on a much more cooperative basis: we got the budget down to viable proportions. Obviously, I couldn’t be more generous to myself than I am to other producers: I can’t have one set of rules for other people and more generous rules for myself. The title—a quote from Dylan Thomas. It’s a contemporary love story. It so happens that the two protagonists end up in wheelchairs in a home: the boy is struck down: the girl is already there, a polio victim.

You have weighty administrative responsibilities now. How is it that you’re personally directing this one?

B.F. It was never intended that I should give up direction. The original brief was that

I should get things going. And I suppose it’s fair to say that at the time of the announcement, I probably thought it would be 18 months before I was directing again; as it happens, it’s about a year. May 1 was the announcement but I’d been in the chair for at least five weeks, unofficially, before then: In fact I started at the end of March.

Does the fact that you’re back directing after this comparatively short period mean you’re bored with the administrative chores?

B.F. No, not at all. I’m told—and I’m learning all the time—that the secret of administration is to delegate. I have a very good team around me which I’ve assembled in the ten months and have every confidence that they can run the studio and I will only be ‘ called in ’—which I am on a daily basis, of course. I go to the studio—we’re only 15 minutes away—and I have a hot line. I only have two pictures shooting at the moment—the rest are editing—and they’re going well, on schedule and on budget. Even if I was at the studio full-time every day I wouldn't be interfering with the day-to-day shooting of a film because that’s not what I do. I have Johnny Hargreaves, my deputy managing director, and Ian Scott, who’s the administrator, and Norman Walker and a very strong team now of heads of departments. There’s a totally new atmosphere at the studio. For example, I doubt whether I’ve ever had a better crew. I can honestly say, with my hand on a stack of bibles, that of the seven pictures we’ve now been involved in there hasn’t been one minute lost through any form of industrial strife at all.

Was personally directing films part of the original deal or is this something that’s developed since?

B.F. That was absolutely categorically written into the deal and arms length terms agreed. It was always intended that I would direct The Barnardo Boys' and that was written into the deal, too. I think it would be foolish for me not to direct because I would lose touch.

Are you likely to direct any more while in your present position with ABP?

B.F. Yes, I think I shall do ‘ Barnardo’s Boys’ in 1971. I don’t think I shall do another one this year. Rumours have been rife. I’ve been asked to comment on my ‘resignation’ and my ‘rows with Mr Delfont’—all of which are non-existent and fabrication and prove this industry has very little else to do but bandy rumours and gossip, especially at a time when there is very little other news around. And, therefore, I suppose it’s fashionable to assume, because I’m directing that ‘something is rotten in the State of Denmark’, that I’m bored or I’ve had a row or I’m resigning—all of which is totally unThis (directing) wasn’t a unilateral decision. I’m managing director but I have a ‘i don’t claim to be a Messiah, or anything like that, but I do think I have a keener appreciation of film problems’. board to answer to. The decision for me to direct this one was approved by the board last November. It isn’t everybody who can put a picture together at very short notice: It had to be an experienced director; I had to bring the budget down (it’s a very tight budget, a very tight schedule—probably the tightest I’ve ever worked to). I was able to set the terms of the deal. I was fortunate in that Bruce Cohn Curtis, who brought the subject to me, was very happy to come in on, literally, a very sort of per diem basis and reduced his fees down. Everybody who’s come in, the main artists, have come in on a co-operative basis —they’re taking very little money and taking a chance with us on the profits of the film. And by a combination of all these factors we’ve got the film’s budget down to viable proportions.

Do you find any conflict between your administrative and creative responsibilities?

B.F. Well, I haven’t yet. To be honest with you, I feel, probably, more relaxed than previously. In a curious way it’s relaxed many of the tensions that one develops. In the ten months, I hope I’ve learned something and I would not have left the shop if I hadn’t thought it was in capable hands: I mean, John Hargreaves is an eminently capable person; I don’t think there’s a better budget brain in the industry ... In the ten years he’s been with me, and we’ve made 14 films together, scarcely a week’s gone by when he hasn’t been called upon to give his opinion on a budget or some production problem. Ian Scott is a first-class administrator . . . They both enjoy the confidence of John Read and Bernard Delfont.

How did you come to get the ABP job, what were the steps involved?

B.F. Well, there weren’t any steps as such. It all evolved from a conversation with Bernie, a social conversation in a restaurant, when, in fact, he asked me to sign a three picture deal to make films for ABP. Out of those conversations came the idea that it should be something wider.

Were your surprised to be offered it, or is it something you actively pursued?

B.F. I certainly didn’t actively pursue it: it never entered my head. The credit must go to Mr. Delfont, I suppose—if credit is the right word! . . I have a three-year contract which is renewable after three years. Does doing the ABP job mean you’re making less money than as an independent film maker?

B.F. Oh, yes. I suppose I cut my income by two-thirds.

What are the compensations?

B.F. Well, the compensations are, I suppose, that at a time of real crisis—I mean, when I took over there was admittedly a crisis in the British film industry but there wasn’t such an international crisis as there is today —ABP is doing something. I think it's an exciting time to be in this job. I’m certainly excited by the challenge of it and I think we are winning.

You must know that there was some surprise in the industry when you took the job. While everyone was prepared to admit that you were a practical film-maker of proven talent, there was some doubt as to whether you’d be happy with the day-to-day administrative chores.

B.F. Well, I'm not unhappy. I think the challenge is very exciting: it’s a totally different world, a totally different outlook; you have to change your attitude and I think I’ve There's no reason wh V cheaper films should be bad films. Bn ) think we can make Kjf . : mm very good films for JhS ,ar ,ess money than we have in the past'. learned a great deal. One of the things that has excited me is to take over something that was a very demoralised situation. When I took over, within 48 hours I was faced with a go-slow and a possible strike and, in fact, blows being exchanged and it had got to a very ugly stage; the industrial scene was very bad; the men at Elstree, rightly, were demoralised, they felt they had no future, they were wandering in a vacuum. There is a different atmosphere at Elstree now because I think they feel it’s a professional team and whatever I may lack, or have lacked, as an administrator, learning as I go along, at least I’ve understood and anticipated the problems. I don’t claim to be a Messiah, or anything like that, but I do think I have a keener appreciation of film problems and I was determined to get away from the label of film studios being factories. They are film studios where a lot of creative people gather together to create something. I ripped out the time clocks. It isn’t a factory. I will not have it said it’s a factory, I don’t want it to be a factory—it’s a film studio. Again, a lol of people, when you took on the job with its creative and administrative responsibilities, were prepared to accept that you’d take it on, in spite ol the inevitable financial loss, in order to make an honest contribution to the British film industry. But there were some others who were more cynical about your reasons for taking it.

One school of thought was prepared to accept that you were a successful filmmaker who could, as they say, Write his own ticket’ but that you had a Napoleon complex and couldn’t resist becoming Emperor of Elstree. The title rather conveniently fitted in because they knew you had an ambition to make a film about Napoleon.

B.F. So has Stanley Kubrick. They don’t say the same thing about him! If one made a film about Josephine would they say one had a Josephine complex? . . . You have to live with it. If people want to say I’m Napoleon— well, fine. This is a very jealous, cynical industry. Most of the knockers are people without much talent. I’ve never found the really creative people doing it. Ask the Johnny Schlesingers and so on—I don’t think they’ve joined the cynical band.

The other school of thought was even more unkind and that was that you needed a good picture and, that lacking that, the Elstree job just happened along at the right time.

B.F. If they want to think I was looking for handouts—fine. I wasn't in fact. I could have made, at that time, any one of about a dozen films. And if I hadn’t got a picture on offer I'd have written one. 

I think you’ve anticipated this question in your earlier replies. But just why did you take the ABP job? 

B.F. The challenge. I think if you’ve been a critic, as I have over the years—quite voluble and specific on certain abuses and, I think stupid practices in this industry— you’ve got to put up or shut up eventually. And if the job is offered to you, you can't turn it down and then go on criticising. I didn’t say ‘Yes’ overnight. I thought about it very seriously because all the things you’ve posed to me occurred to me as well —would I make a good administrator, would I be bogged down, would I completely negate anything I wanted to do. But on balance I thought Well, I’m not precluded from directing again. It’s worth having a go at it. If I fail—well, OK, I fail. But I'll try as hard as I bloody well know how!

Do you plan to return to independent production eventually?

B.F. If there’s any independent production to return to.

Have your own experiences as an independent film-maker helped you now that you’re on the other side of the desk?

B.F. Yes, very much, because with the small companies that I’ve run and made films with I’ve never made a really enormous budget picture. I’ve always thought that money has been thrown and passed away at an alarming rate by all sorts of people and I don’t necessarily exclude myself on a couple of occasions. I think we all tend to feel that the pit is bottomless. I think it is madness and we have to cut our cloth. There’s no reason why cheaper films should be bad films: I think you can make very good films for far less money than we have in the past.

Have you in the past been ‘screwed’ by the major companies and, if so, how does that affect your present conduct?

B.F. Well screwed in quotes. I certainly think there are films I’ve made in the past that have made a very handsome profit for the other sections and not for the actual person who made the films. It has affected my conduct to this extent: I've tried to do very fair deals with producers and artists; and if these films succeed I hope that everybody will get a very fair slice of any cake that’s going. When you were, successively, an actor, writer, director and co-producer—sometimes It’s quite true that I’ve always been somebody who wanted new worlds to conquer, as it were, or, at least, try and conquer ... I’m not ruthlessly ambitious’.

Were you consciously or unconsciously working towards a job like this?

B.F. No, I wasn’t. It’s very curious. Some years ago, literally years ago, John Davis once asked me if I’d like to run a studio. I should think he was thinking of Pinewood in those days. I remember a lunch we had together and he did pose the question to me and I didn’t take it very seriously at that time. But, you know, the years roll by and one has different things. It’s quite true that I’ve always been somebody who wanted new worlds to conquer, as it were, or, at least, try and conquer.

Are you ambitious?

B.F. I think everybody’s ambitious. I’m not ruthlessly ambitious. I mean, I haven’t destroyed my personal life or, I think, ever trodden over a succession of dead bodies.

What have been the major changes in your life since you took on the ABP job?

B.F. I think I’ve worked harder than I’ve ever worked in my life before for a longer stretch. I mean, one always works very hard directing a picture—it’s usually a 14-, 15hour day. It’s meant working a 14-hour day, six days a week for eleven months as opposed to, say, 12 weeks on shooting a film.

Has it turned out to be pretty much what you expected or different?

B.F. Totally different from what I expected. The problems have been greater and the rewards have been greater. I thought it would probably be much more even. But the peaks and the valleys are very high and low: it’s constantly changing. It must be like being a super general practitioner, a GP—sometimes there’s an epidemic and sometimes the phone doesn’t ring.

In August, you and Mr. Delfont announced a programme of 15 films. Is it on schedule?

B.F. Yes, it is. In fact, I think it’s just one picture ahead of schedule. We’ve got another three starting in March, April and June. The next one to go is ‘The Railway Children’, with Lionel Jeffries directing; and the next one is ‘A Fine and Private Place’, with Paul Watson directing; and the next one is ‘Dulcima’, with Frank Nesbitt directing. Those that have already finished shooting are ‘The Man Who Flaunted Himself’, ‘And Soon the Darkness', ‘ Hoffman’ and ‘ Eye Witness’. ‘Forbush and the Penguins’ and ‘ The Breaking of Bumbo’ are shooting now and ‘The Raging Moon’ is also shooting. That’s seven. Not bad.

On that record, what do you say now to those who took a rather cynical view of your production programme?

B.F. Most of them have written to me and submitted scripts. Forbush’ is being made in full partnership with British Lion and the NFFC.

Any more joint ventures planned?

B.F. Yes, we’re discussing one on a reverse basis with British Lion at the moment: we will get distribution next time and they'll get Shepperton; we had the studio deal this time and they got distribution. The advantages are that it spreads the risk. It brings in the NFFC. It involves two creative boards. The Boultings and Sidney (Gilliat) and Frank (Launder), it's useful to have their experience; I think in many areas they’re very good businessmen; I think they sell films very well—I don’t think anybody sells films, probably, better than the Boulting Brothers.

Have there been any major changes In the programme since it was announced?

B.F. Not major, no. I haven’t gone into production with two of the announced films, not that they’ve been abandoned or anything, but they either haven’t reached a stage where I was satisfied with the script or I couldn’t cast them to my satisfaction. But nothing has been knocked out. The two pictures that were announced in the programme but which haven’t been given a start date yet are ‘ Candidate of Promise’, which is merely a creative postponement, I haven’t been able to put all the ingredients together; Dickie Attenborough’s ‘ The Feathers of Death ’ is really waiting on Dickie—he’s got, in the meantime, very much involved in acting.

Have there been any additions?

B.F. There was a co-production with ITC, ‘Eye Witness’, which wasn’t in the first announcement. We’re also doing two Hammer films later this year. We’re not doing the current one, that’s with AIP, but we are doing two further Hammer films in the year—we’ve sort of taken over the old Warner Bros, commitments, I think.

When you’ve made the 15 films in this programme—and I think they were designed to mature in 18 months—what will happen then?

B.F. At the same time I am preparing and developing another six films: they’re in various stages of script development. The idea is to have a continuous flow. Whether it will be fewer films with slightly higher budgets or exactly the same will be decided, as it were, once the first half-dozen of our films come off and actually get into the cinemas. As you know, we’re fighting on other fronts as well. Mr. Delfont announced the twinning of the Saville Theatre, to give us a West End outlet. Otherwise, we faced the situation where we would be the major producers of films in this country yet dependent upon other people to get ourselves into a West End outlet. We might, with selected films, do what I know John Read and Bernard Delfont want to do: that is to get the films out into the provinces much earlier after their West End release. It may well be that, as in the case of ‘Spring and Port Wine’, we will, more and more, blanket the country with, perhaps, seven key provincial openings tied into a a West End opening which takes advantage of what is, today, national publicity. Films get publicity on television, which is national, and then the provinces have to wait.

You and Mr Delfont made it clear that no foreign distribution had been fixed but that films would be sold on their merits when completed. Have any advances been made in that direction, particularly with regard to the American market?

B.F. Yes and no. None of the films has yet been shown—I think the first answer print comes off next week. I think it's usually a mistake to show films half finished. I think from next week onwards we will be starting that phase of the operation. But, again, we are very dependent at this moment on getting West End outlets. There’s a long queue and we don’t have any particular pull. I know Mr. Read and Mr. Delfont feel the provinces have been neglected and that it would be advantageous, at the peak of interest, to cash in. It very often happens that there’s a great deal of interest shown in a film in the West End and it gets national press coverage and attention on BBC and ITV. But people in Huddersfield and Lincoln and stations beyond have to wait a long time to see that film by which time it's stale

But doesn’t the mass release put your print cost up?

B.F. Possibly. But which comes first: The chicken or the egg? I mean, if you go on television and advertise a new product, the housewife expects it to be in the shops.

Could you recover the cost in the UK alone?

B.F. On a successful film we could. I think our budgets are geared to the fact that if they really were successful we could, in fact, recover negative cost in this country. I’m not crystal ball gazing and it’s very difficult to so recover even with reasonably budgeted films. But it is possible. It’s quite conceivable that an American distributor, who may well be short of product by August of this year, might take three of our films.

Have you been following the progress of the Films Bill through Parliament with any interest?

B.F. I have. I think I’ve given evidence before two Select Committees, or whatever it is, over the years, even before taking up this job. Since taking up the job, we’ve certainly given our views to various Select Committees, some of which I gave attending with Mr. Delfont and Mr. Read; then there were some that they went alone to and some I went alone to. I welcome the fact that the NFFC is continuing. I hope it will lead to a greater spread of money. And, obviously, we’ll try to involve the NFFC, if they want to be involved—and I’m in close touch with John Terry and have been ever since the outset, weekly if not daily—and there are various projects we put to each other. He’s been in a difficult position until now because, although he’s expressed interest in our films in addition to ‘ Forbush ’, he couldn’t depend on getting that money and therefore it’s been mostly in principle. But I hope we will be involved. Certainly, we’ve both had very fluent and constructive forward conversations on it.

Do you see any technical advances on the horizon which will help make film-making quicker, cheaper, better?

B.F. I think front projection is the most important that I know of. I think there’s a crying need for capital investment in this industry. It’s very difficult at the moment because, of course, if you produce, say, a new camera, it isn’t like a car, since the market is limited. And in a depressed market it’s very difficult to get people to invest. We have invested in a lot more portable lighting equipment already and we intend to continue investing in new sound equipment. Almost in the first fortnight I was there we did purchase a very large amount of new sound equipment . . . and I want to improve our dubbing facilities, eventually. To return to the question, I would say front projection is the most important advance. I think the work that Charlie Staffell has done and Tommy Howard has done is of enormous potential. It should, when properly developed and brought down to a viable figure, bring down the cost of films.

Do you see any new trend coming?

B.F. I think that most of us are already middle aged! And we have to look to youth. That’s the audience and that’s the way it’s all pointing, I think. In some biographical notes about you it says that your motto is ‘ We shall find life tolerable once we have consented to be always ill at ease.’

Is this your own or something you’ve adopted? Is this just a joke or does it really express your feelings?

B.F. It’s from Flaubert. I think it does in a funny sort of way. But it’s not a motto: it’s more a way of life. It’s a philosophy, shall we say. And isn’t it a fairly good one? 

 

 

 

 

Movie review - "Palm Beach" (2019) **1/2

 For all its flaws at least this is a film with movie stars aimed at a very specific demographic. I think it should have leant in to this more and not given as much screen time to kids - Claire van der Bloom gets a whole subplot with Aaron Jeffries, taking away from others (particular Jacqueline MacKenzie who is not only too young but I forgot was in the movie)... they would have been better off giving this story to one of the older characters.

Some beautiful shots of a gorgeous part of the world, food porn, lots of dancing, and a great cast. Too much fake drama - someone could die but they don't, someone could be someone's dad but they aren't, someone fights but they made up. In The Big Chill it was grounded but big things happened (Jo Beth Williams slept with Tom Berenger, Kevin Kline impregnated Mary Beth Hurt, William Hurt decided to stay with them).

Movie review - "Town & Country" (2001) *

It's a tribute to Warren Beatty's appeal to studio execs that he got this green lit at $50 million and to his ability as a procrastinator to get the cost up to $100 million. No stunts, present day setting, no action, a trifle about adulterous middle aged people. It's a French style comedy that amazingly cost so, so much money.

Beatty, to be fair, is quite animated, doing double takes and running around and dressing in a polar bear outfit. He seems to be more comfortable here than in Love Affair because the script has made more allowance for his age - he ha grown children (one of them Josh Hartnett) and he's married (Diane Keaton).

He's irresistible to the ladies still - Natassa Kinski is a cellist who plays nude for him, Goldie Hawn is the cuckolded wife of his best friend (Gary Shandling), Andie McDowell is an eccentric belle, Jenna Elfman is into him.

Maybe one star is too harsh - it's not awful. At least not the first half. It's pleasantly shot. There's good actors. I smiled once or twice. Charlton Heston has fun as McDowell's nutty dad.

I think I was just offended so much money was spent on it. Maybe that's unfair, to review the budget rather than the film, but it's how I feel.

Also a lot of it is lame. The action takes place over months. It's not a nice, tight farce. The second half gets wonkier and wonkier and it finally ends.

Movie review - "Bugsy" (1991) ***

 Warren Beatty was about ten years too old to really get the leading man aspects of his character. And someone like Jack Nicholson would have been better. But he's more energised than usual - he's trying something different.

This is a movie of scenes rather than a full cohesive narrative. They are energetic scenes though - James Toback could be a good writer. The dialogue cracks and sparkles, the blocking is interesting. Maybe they could have cut the Mussolini assassination subplot - or at least spent less time on it.

Joe Mantegna (and the script) doesn't quite get George Raft, but it is fun  to see Raft as a character. Annette Bening is excellent - she strikes sparks. She's a lot better here than in Love Affair.

This goes on a long time. I recall moments rather than a film. By the time Bugsy died I was kind of relieved. But I absolutely recognised it was a good film.

Book review - "The Tap Dancing Knife Thrower" by Paul Hogan and Dean Murphy

 Entertaining memoir. Full of charm. Great to revisit it. Sometimes I couldn't help wondering "is that how it really happened?" (all the writing Hogan claimed to do, his easy going relationships, the tax stuff) but I went with it.

I love how Hogan seems to need a big brother character to get him going. First was John Cornell the second was Dean Murphy, who wrote this.

Book review - "Cary Grant" by Scott Eyman

 Typically excellent biography by Eyman of the legendary Hollywood star. Discussion in recent years has centered around Grant's sexuality - this one presents the evidence rather than making conclusions (some dicey... who cares what Budd Boetticher thought?) and basically leaves it for the reader to decide. He mentions Grant's physical beating of his first and fourth wives without comment.

Grant's father married above his class; the mother would pester him and was a bit eccentric - dad got jack and had her sent to a lunatic asylum, which he could. No wonder Grant became a bit odd and wanted to reinvent himself.

It's a tribute he turned out so normal. He was genuinely smart and charming,capable of kindness. Open minded about sex. As mentioned Eyman quotes a number of people who insist Cary was straight but quotes a bisexual dude who said Grant was open about that to him and the evidence seems to imply otherwise. Loved kids (he should have had more than one and he knew it - he tried).

He had his flaws. Stinginess, if you count that as a flaw (he would present house guests with a bill). He hit his first and fourth wives. Controlling.

A superb actor. Didn't push himself as much as he should have. A great friend of Clifford Odets.

Possible movie in this... Cary Grant married to Besty Drake, who came up with the idea of the film Houseboat. Grant sold it with Drake to co star but then fell for Sophia Loren, had the film rewritten for her, Loren and he had a fling but she refused to leave Carlo Ponti, Grant is left alone, but finds happiness via LSD.

Script review - "Bugsy" by James Toback

 A highpoint in the career of sex pest Toback. It feels like something of which there were countless versions - it lacks a cohesive core. There is the Bugsy-Virginia romance but that feels repetitive. There's also the story of Vegas, but that comes at the end.

Still the scenes are entertaining. The dialogue snaps and crackles. It's an entertaining read.

Movie review - "Love Affair" (1994) *

 This must have seemed like a sure thing. Two movie stars in a remake of material that had been a hit twice, and been revived due to Sleepless in Seattle. Script by Robert Towne. Katherine Hepburn cameo.

It flopped. Warren Beatty is in a lot of flops. He's hesitant, not dynamic. He's too old here. So old.

The updating never quite works. An airplane isn't as romantic as a cruise liner - they turn it into a cruise liner eventually but even that's not romantic. 

Beatty is a former football player. His chemistry with Annette Bening is, irony, not that great. Bening isn't very good. She doesn't have much to play.

Maybe this could have worked if they'd rewritten it to make it the Warren Beatty story - a compulsive Don Juan who settles down. That would've been interesting. Have Beatty as a smart seductive movie star. I didn't buy him as a famous former football player. I know he used to play football, but that was in the 50s wasn't it.

I got a kick out of the fact they were flying to Sydney.

This film was annoying. It's very close to the 1957 versions. The final scene at the end felt like that. The dialogue worked with Cary Grant but not Beatty.

It's not even well shot or that handsome. Conrad Hall's photography is... dimly lit. Backlit. Something lit. It's not beautiful. The locations in Tahiti feel nothing. The sets aren't that plush.

Pierce Brosnan is in it playing Bening's original love interest. He is suave and dashing - he would've been better in the lead as written.

There's a random collection of support actors - Paul Mazursky, Garry Shandling, Kate Hepburn. It's old time-y. Not in a good way.

This isn't  good movie.

Movie review - "The Mummy" (2017) ** (re-viewing)

 There are irritating things about the movie - Tom Cruise too old for his character, the female lead isn't up to the job (how about giving one of his old time leading ladies a gig), stock action, all the Dark Universe set up. But it's not the main problem.

The main problem is clear - Tom Cruise could be cut out of the movie. There's no connection between him and the mummy. He let her out but... so what?

If Tom had been the descendant of her old love and the mummy did it for love, you would have had a hit.

The film has no DNA.

I felt for the production people.