Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Movie review - "Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull's History Lesson" (1976) **

 That's right, Robert Altman made two films with Paul Newman. This one has Burt Lancater too. And Harvey Keitel, Will Sampson, Geraldine Chaplin, Shelley Duvall.

It's long. Over two hours. Ambles. Nice visuals, production value. It ambles. Bill puts on a show. Chats. Chats with a woman in his bed. There's Indians. Sitting Bull is stoic.

It shows Bill to be a bit of a braggart and a tool. That was blamed for the film's commercial failure. I don't think it was that - I think it's because the film was dull. Altman wrote the script with Alan Rudolph but they weren't working from a particularly strong source material, I'm guessing.

I was glad it was over. The acting and photography and stuff is fine, it's just dull.


Monday, September 27, 2021

Movie review - "Images" (1972) ***

 I'm surprised this Altman isn't better known. It's kind of a commercial genre for him - a thriller about a woman going crazy and possibly killing people. It's got nudity from the star, Susannah York, and focuses on her sex life. 

Maybe people didn't go for York - who gives a very good performance. Maybe it was distribution - it was from Hemdale and lacked the muscle of a Hollywood major. I guess the a lot of it is ambiguous and part of me (okay a lot of me) wished that Altman had worked on this with a co writer. Some subplots feel unfinished, like York's relationship with her stepdaughter (Cathryn Harrison).

Vilmost Zsigmond shot it, Rene Aberjonois plays York's husband. Beautiful desolate locations.


Thursday, September 23, 2021

Movie review - "That Cold Day in the Park" (1969) ***

 Early Robert Altman. Shot in Canada and it feels like a Canadian film. Sandy Dennis is one in a long line of 50s-60s repressed spinsters whom one suspects is a stand in for  gay male from the writer, though I may be wrong about that.

She picks up a guy from a park (Michael Burns) and gives him clothes and a bed and is hot for him. The guy pretends to be mute but can chat and lives with his sister - who is often nude and seems to want to sleep with him. Dennis wants to sleep with him too. He doesn't want to sleep with her so she hires a hooker for him (Luana Anders, very good) and locks him in his room.

Its unsettling and weird and quite interesting to watch. It felt long - I would've preferred her to be ga-ga earlier but then I like my stories more conventional.

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Movie review - "The James Dean Story" (1957) **1/2

 A curio. An early work from Robert Altman, a documentary about the recently deceased James Dean. Because it's Altman it is visually interesting. It benefits from lots of contemporary footage - chats with people who knew Dean, stills, clips from premieres of his films.

They didn't get the best talent to talk - people who vaguely knew him at his home down and college, some kind-of ex girlfriends.

You can tell it's made by people of talent. They got Sandy Stern to write it, so the narration (with Martin Gabel's bombastic tones) has a poetic quality.

Interesting. I mean, Dean comes across as a pretentious wanker, to me at any rate, but interesting movie.

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Next James Deans

 1) Paul Newman in Somebody Up There Likes Me

Dean was going to play Rocky Graziano in Somebody Up There Likes Me for MGM. He died. Paul Newman stepped in instead. Newman became such an individual star that it's often forget he was very much in Dean's shadow for a long time, playing a lot of similarly moody young men. Like Dean, he was also under contract to Warners. Every role Newman played in the late 50s you could imagine being played by Dean.

2) John Kerr in The Corn is Green

 In 1955 just before Dean died it was announced Maurice Evans was negotiating with Dean to star in The Corn is Green for TV with Judith Anderson. He was about to start rehearsals when he died. Kerr took the part - Anderson's role ended up being played be Eva La Galliene.

3) Dewey Martin in The Battler

Martin took over a role meant to Dean in The Battler on TV. 

4) Paul Newman in The Left Handed Gun

Apparently Dean was going to be in this. Sounds like a perfect fit. Unlike the first three this may have more been in the "advanced talks" phase. Dean would have made a Western, inevitably. Even Brando did one.

5) Tony Perkins in Fear Strikes Out

This was in negotiation apparently not a done deal. The role would be perfect for Dean - moody young man, athlete, TV origins.

Monday, September 20, 2021

Movie review - "Get Back" (1991) **

 This was grim. Paul McCartney's world tour in a particularly uninteresting time in his life. Linda is on keyboards but we don't see much of her. We see more of these other musicians there. Sorry ifyou're important, guys, I didn't recognise you.Nice colours.Bright lights.  Baby boomer audience members dancing away having a good time. Late 80s fashion - mullets, long sleeves.

Paul goes through the hits, Beatles and Wings with some newer ones. There's clips to some songs - vision from Help! and shots of Vietnam veterans and the like.

It's not very well done. I mean it's professional, just dull. It's Trad Dad had more fun. Richard Lester's last studio film to date. You long for some life... some pretentious chat, some backyard footage, an appearance by Ringo. Something.

Sunday, September 19, 2021

Richard Lester - random thoughts...

 I recently completed the (feature length) cinematic oeuvre of director Richard Lester and tried to come up with a top ten  I couldn't. I totally respect him as a director, I get the cult thing - he's had at least three books written on him. He just doesn't do it for me.

I came up with a top seven...

1) It's Trad, Dad (1962) - quite a bright debut feature. Not really a proper musical, it's a collection of musical acts, but some of those are very good and presented imaginatively. Compare it with the hard slog, impersonal gloss and late 80s fashion of Get Back (1991).

2) A Hard Day's Night (1964) -freewheeling in the best sense, the perfect marriage of performer and director it would seem, superb music. It makes it so odd that in Help (1965) Lester seems bored with the Beatles and more interested in the support cast, people like Leo McKern - seriously, watch the movie, you could cut all the Beatles out of it except Ringo and he's just a maguffin.

3) Petulia (1968) - excellently acted smart drama, one of the more realistic depictions of domestic violence, not to mention marriage and divorce, in a Hollywood film

4) The Three (and Four) Musketeers)(1973-74) - Lester is kept under control by a very good adaptation of a strong source material. His "bits" add to the fun rather than detract. Superb cast.

5) Juggernaut (1974) - Lester brought on as a hired gun. He adds lots of "bits" but the satire works in the context of the film and he's straightjacketed by a strong narrative line.

6) Robin and Marian (1976) - more superb actors, one of Sean Connery's best performances, some terrific stuff (eg death of Richard I). A very real take on the story. My only gripe is that Marian doesn't seem that into Robin. And maybe the thought of King John (Ian Holm) having a horny 12 year old bride (Victoria Abril!) isn't as funny as Lester think it is.

7) Cuba (1979) - the basic story of Casablanca turned on its head. A slightly silly last act but wonderful things up until then - the atmosphere and colour of Cuba, with its jai alai games, poverty, sleazy clubs, corruption, plantations, dodgy foreigners at casinos, casual violence. I get why this flopped but I think it's terrific. Connery is great, so is Brooke Adams, so is everyone, actually.

As for the rest...

Mouse in the Moon (1963) and Butch and Sundance the Early Days (1979) a both "whatever" sequels - not terrible, just watching them the whole time you go "I wish the original stars were in this... and why is there no romance?" (Lester is lousy at romance.) I don't mind Return of the Musketeers (1989), it's just a bit "whatever" too despite having the original cast (I think they should have adapted Man in the Iron Mask instead... better story).

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966) and The Ritz (1976) were not bad but, for me, movies that you watch going "this was probably really fun on stage". Royal Flash (1975) I've written about at length - I think it was miscast, used the wrong Flashman novel, and needed voice over. Finders Keepers (1984) felt miscast.

For his culty movies... The Knack (1965), How I Won the War (1967) and The Bed Sitting Room (1968) all have great things and are visually interesting but just... boring. Sorry cultists. The last two in particular seemed to make the same point again and again. I absolutely recognise these films have their fans.

I don't count Superman 2 as a Lester film - it was Richard Donner's, he overlooked the casting and the script Lester just shot most of it. Superman 3 however... yikes. Liked it as a kid, has good ideas in it (bringing in Lana Lang, having bad Superman) but it's lazy, full of stupid "bits" (that Perry White subplot involving the competition, Richard Pryor as a general) and has a script lacking in logic and full of contempt for its source material. This movie actually made me angry.

Anyway, Richard Lester. He was attached to do The Princess Bride. It would've been okay but he would've muffed the love story. I think he would've done a great Sea Kings.

This is more negative than I intended. Give Petulia and Cuba a look if you haven't.

Movie review - "Superman 3" (1983) **

 Critical opinion of this Superman movie has not been kind. Richard Donner was famously sacked off the original with Richard Lester shooting new footage for that and Superman 2. This one is more clearly Lester's film - he was the only director. It's also the film of David and Leslie Newman, with no Robert Benton or Tom Mankiewicz.

I remember loving it as a kid. I adored Richard Pryor and thought the opening slapstick sequence was incredibly hilarious. I remember being upset that Lois Lane got so little screen time.

It's really fun to see those actors again - Chris Reeve, Margot Kidder, Jackie Coogan, Marc McClure, etc. I loved Annette O'Toole as Lana. 

The idea of a bad Superman isn't a bad one and him going some for a school reunion is a great one. The computer stealing scam is funny.

But it's lazy. So lazy.

Cobbled together. After a while I started getting angry watching it.

The script is random. Richard Pryor is on unemployment forever then turns out to be a computer genius, so good he attracts Robert Vaughan, who has a Valerine Perrine style mistress in the form of Pamela Stephenson. Vaughan's plan is vague, something to do with oil. It starts and stops - Pryor creates a kryptonite variant, turning Superman bad accidentally; he makes the weather change; he a super computer which... is bad. Pryor has to go to Smallville to do something with computers which involves a slimy bully who is hitting on Lana. Smallville?

It's full of comic bits. Some are okay - that opening sequence. Some are irritating - Pryor describing what Superman did, Pryor impersonating a general to give Superman a gift, Pryor getting the bully drunk, Pryor on skis, a three beat story of Perry White running a competition at the office and the winners going on holiday and having a bad time.

Vaughan may as well have not been in the film. Stephenson could've been cut out - I guess she sleeps with Superman, which is different. But why not use this emotionally?

It's just a shame they didn't use the comic books as a resource more - they could've brought in Braniac, Supergirl, Mxy.

Or just focused it on the two Supermans. Have Vaughan want that from the get go. Give him a specific plan (control of oil is fine but be specific). Make Pryor a computer genius from the start. Really work on the Lana-Clarke Kent plot, have him want to be a father figure, fall for his high school sweetheart, be heartbroken over Lois. Have Lana kidnapped. Have bad Superman do really bad things.

It's so frustrating because there's a good movie inside here, or at least a cohesive one, but this is a mess.

Movie review - "Butch and Sundance The Early Days" (1979) **

 I guess the original made too much money that 20th Century Fox felt it was too irresistible to not return to the well. William Goldman never talks about this film but he was heavily involved as a producer as well as working on the script. It was directed by Richard Lester, who was going to do Goldman's The Princess Bride (and maybe The Sea Beast too).

It's quite well made, looks handsome and all that. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it. Who cares how they met? The tone is similar to the first, a sort of jokey seriousness... but without them dying it doesn't have the same emotional weight. There's no Etta Place either. William Katt and Tom Berenger are fine but they're not Robert Redford and Paul Newman.

Why didn't they have a decent female role? Jill Eikenberry appears as Butch's wife, and other to his two kids... but it's not a very long sequence and the fact he just takes off and leave her  makes him seem like a drongo, and old. Why not use the Bassett sisters? 

Why not give them fiercer villains? There's Jake Lefors (Peter Weller) who pops up at the beginning and end but he's just doing his job.They have a scene where they note the railroad uses child labor but that's just in passing.

It's so hard to care. There's sequences which don't build, like in the snow when they try to transport medicine to help... and fail. The final train robbery you don't care. I mean, what's the point?

Maybe this would've worked with them as really young kids, like teenagers - Butch being tutored by Mike Cassidy. They could have made up a meeting with Sundance.

It's one of the most 'whatever' movies I can remember having seen.

Wednesday, September 15, 2021

Movie review - "Finders Keepers" (1984) **

 A frequently forgotten entry in Richard Lester's oeuvre... despite the success of the last two Superman films, this was all he could get made?

It's an ensemble comedy piece, set in 1973, presumably so Michael O'Keefe can impersonate a soldier escorting a dead body home.And there's a subplot about the dead body never actually having served because the real kid is hiding out (Jim Carrey) for dodging the draft at the behest of his dad (Brian Dennehy).

Everything feels off here. The pace is sluggish, the casting not quite right. O'Keefe is alright, I guess. I normally like Beverly d'Angelo, as an erratic actor he meets on the train, but not here - her gay jokes don't age well. Pamela Stephenson adds some life as widow who steals $5 million but she's barely in the film. Ed Lauter seems uneasy as a fellow conman who has quite a big role. Carrey has a decent bit of screen time as the kid hiding out but he never pays off in the way that you hope. Ditto Brian Dennehy. Louis Gosset Jnr pops up as O'Keefe's conman mentor in a part that could actually be cut out of the film.

The whole film is based on misunderstandings which gets tiresome. There's all these coincidences - Michael O'Keefe's conman gets confused for a helper for crook Ed Lauter, the dead returning soldier is actually hiding out. It doesn't pay off in a decent way.

Maybe it had all kept on the train or something. Lester's touch, so confident in his European films, feels uneasy here with Canada standing in for America. Maybe a more youthful lead, like say Carrey even, would be more engaging than O'Keefe, who plays it cocky, when someone more bumbling might be effective - and make more sense he had a mentor. Maybe a younger actor than d'Angelo too to give the lead duo more freshness.

It's awkward and needed another draft and probably for Lester needed to be filmed in England where he was more comfortable. Some people like this movie though.

Book review - "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card (1985)

 Took me a while to get through this for whatever reason. Hard to adapt into a film. Smart. Lots of ideas. I'm not wild about these narratives of the chosen one - brilliant child warriors. They're always a little fascist. But interesting. The future seems super depressing. Do columnists really have such impact as implied here? Best sequences are the bullying. Ender doesn't have much of a relationship with anyone except his sister.

Movie review - "Cuba" (1979) ***1/2

 Richard Lester's riff on Casablanca is great fun, for the most part, because he's got a basic solid situation and can flesh it out with observations and colour.

Sean Connery is a British mercenary who rocks into Havana around 1958 to help take out Castro and runs into old flame Brooke Adams (back in the day he was 30 she was 15... jeez) who is married not to a nice dude but to a dodgy factory owner (Chris Sarandon). There's a strand of jailbait attraction in some Lester films -in Robin and Marian Ian Holm's king had a 12 year old bride.

Hector Elizondo with hair is a local officer assigned to Connery by General Martin Balsam. Brooke Adams is gorgeous - she had a moment in the sun, Adams, this came out around the time of Days of Heaven and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Apparenty Ann Margret wanted to play the female lead but they went with Adams who was more believably Cuban - not a bad idea.

At heart this is a ensemble movie where the pleasure is in the subplots: Jack Weston as a salesman, Denholm Elliot as a shifty British ops, the two CIA men trying to balance budgets, the young revolutionary, his sister who works in a factory, the dancer at a club, Walter Gotell's factory owner, Hector Elizondo's young officer, Martin Balsam's corrupt detective, the sports games, the TV blaring.

The star driven center sometimes sits uneasily, in part because Sean Connery really is just another character - he's drifted along by events (he arrives to take out Castro, gets ambushed, but doesn't do much heroic; he roots Adams but she's not that into him).  When the film focuses more on them it goes out of whack and the action stuff at the end (with Connery and Weston driving a tank) doesn't quite work.

But it's a film full of rich atmosphere and is stimulating to watch. All the actors are fabulous.

Monday, September 13, 2021

Movie review - "The Ritz" (1976) **

 I think this would've been fun on the stage especially in the mid 70s in New York, knowing the Bath Houses were around the corner, with it all set within a bathhouse and the actors running around in towels. You'd have gotten a charge from the energy of the live performances, especially Rita Moreno as the local Bette Midler style entertainer.

It feels like a faithful adaptation it's just hard to care too much about it. There is novelty of Jack Weston having the lead role as the man on the run from his mafia relatives who seeks refuge in the bathouse.

Moreno goes all out but I think would be better on stage. Weston is fine. F Murray Abraham is hilarious, but then he has the best part. Treat Williams' detective with a falsetto gets tiring quickly. Maybe if this was changed into a musical or something, But it lacks the film-friendly farce of say La Cage Aux Follies which was about deception and relationships.This doesn't have a core. Jack Weston is pursued by Jerry Stiller, his brother in law, and his wife turns up. But no one changes through the experience. There's running in and out of rooms, Moreno thinks Weston is a producer, people get Williams and Abrams mixed up but... it gets tiresome.

This was all shot in London!

Sunday, September 12, 2021

Trying to Make a Case for Royal Flash (1975)

 
Posted by Stephen Vagg | May 17, 2020 |  in Diabolilque - see here

There’s no film I can remember trying to like more than Royal Flash (1975). I tried hard when I first saw it in the 1990s. And again a decade ago. And then last week. No doubt I will make another attempt in a few years time.

Because I really want to enjoy this movie.

And I don’t.

The only author I ever sent a fan letter to was George MacDonald Fraser, who wrote the screenplay (and original novel). It was in the mid-1990s when fan letters were still a thing; I can’t remember what prompted me to put pen to paper (and include a stamped self-addressed envelope – manners are manners) but I’d been an admirer of his for years. My gateway was an unusual one – his Hollywood History of the World, a chatty, irreverent look at historical pictures; the blurb on the back announced Fraser as “the author of the Flashman novels” as if I was supposed to know them – since I enjoyed Hollywood I sought them out and was delighted.

For those who don’t know, like the young me, the Flashman novels are (were) a series of comic historical adventures which center around Harry Flashman, a fictional character who first appeared in Tom Brown’s Schooldays by Thomas Hughes (1857). Fraser felt an instinctive pull towards the character – Flashman was its villain, a bully and a coward, hearty and sly, but easily full of more life than anyone else in the story. In the mid-1960s, Fraser, then a journalist eager to move into novel writing, decided to make Harry F. the star of his own  novel: Flashman (1969) begins with him being expelled from Rugby School and subsequently joining the British Army; he goes on to serve in the disastrous retreat from Kabul in 1842, where he narrowly escapes with his life due to a combination of quick-thinking, cunning and cowardice, and is incorrectly branded a hero.

Fraser says it took him two years to find a publisher, which in hindsight seems odd – the novel is a marvel of pace, humour and inventiveness, with a hugely clever central conceit, exciting action sequences, and superb historical background. Fraser wrote it as if it were an authentic memoir, stuffing Flashman’s adventures full of real incidents and people (including the Duke of Wellington, Lord Cardigan and Queen Victoria), and adding a fake introductory cover note explaining the book had been “discovered” in 1965 during a sale of household furniture in Ashby, Leicestershire. The author was so convincing that several academics assumed the book was real.

The novel sold well, and several Flashman adventures followed, each dealing with a different, exotic period of nineteenth-century history – Royal Flash (published 1970, set in revolutionary Europe), Flash for Freedom (1971, slave-owning USA), Flashman at the Charge (1973, the Crimean War and southern Russia), Flashman and the Great Game (1975, the Indian Mutiny), Flashman’s Lady (1977, Borneo and Madagascar), Flashman and the Redskins (1982, the Gold Rush and Battle of Little Big Horn), Flashman and the Dragon (1985, the Second Opium War), Flashman and the Mountain of Light (1990, the First Anglo-Sikh War), Flashman and the Angel of the Lord (1994, John Brown’s Raid), Flashman and the Tiger (1999, Austria, the Tranby Croft Affair, the Anglo-Zulu War), and Flashman on the March (2005, the Abyssinian Campaign).

Fraser also wrote other works, notably a non-fiction history of the English-Scottish Borderers (The Steel Bonnets), a series of short stories based on Fraser’s time as an officer in the Gordon Highlanders in Libya after World War Two (broadly known as the McAuslan Stories), some more serious historical novels (Mr American, Black Ajax, The Candlemass Road) and comic ones  (The Pyrates, The Reivers) plus two memoirs (Quartered Safe Out Here, Light’s On at Signpost) and a lucrative side career as a screenwriter.

There was movie interest in Flashman from the beginning – indeed, Fraser says it was the  sale of the film rights in 1969 which enabled him to give up journalism and become a full-time writer .

The director of the Flashman movie was to be Richard Lester, who admired the book greatly, calling it “a marvellously interesting premise… There were lots of things in it that made sense to me—about soldiering, about the military, about the economics of military politics.” He succeeded in setting up the project at United Artists, who had financed most of Lester’s sixties features, including A Hard Days’ Night (1964) and The Knack (1965). Frank Muir worked on the script and John Alderton, best known for his TV work, particularly Please Sir (1968-72), was cast as Harry Flashman.  Locations were being scouted in Spain when a change in management at the studio led to the project being cancelled. It’s not hard to see why – Hollywood was pulling out of the British film industry at the time, Flashman would have been expensive (it’s hard to film the retreat from Kabul on the cheap),  and Lester’s most recent movie, The Bed Sitting Room (1969) had been a box office flop; indeed, the director did not make a feature for the next four years, paying the rent by making TV commercials.

Lester did not forget the novel, however, and when Alexander Salkind approached him to make an adaptation of The Three Musketeers, the director hired George MacDonald Fraser to write the script. The resulting movie was turned into two films – part two was called The Four Musketeers (1974) – and proved to be an enormous critical and commercial success, re-establishing Lester as a bankable director and launching Fraser as a screenwriter (his later credits included Octopussy (1983), Red Sonja (1985) and Casanova (1987)). It also enabled Lester to reactivate a Flashman project.

Instead of adapting the first novel, he decided to film the second in the series, Royal Flash. There were two very good reasons for this – firstly, it was a far more self-contained story than Flashman, involving no epic battle scenes in Afghanistan, but rather intrigue around English manors and European castles; secondly, the plot was more road-tested, being based on Anthony Hope’s classic novel, The Prisoner of Zenda which had been successfully filmed a number of times, notably in 1937 with Ronald Colman.

Lester surrounded himself with friendly collaborators. Fraser himself wrote the script, and the producers were Dennis O’Dell, who had helped make several of Lester’s earlier movies, and David Picker, the former head of production at United Artists, who had just turned producer and recently hired Lester to direct Juggernaut (1974).

Royal Flash was filmed in Europe and England with a cast including Malcolm McDowell as Flashman, Alan Bates, Florinda Bolkan and Oliver Reed. It was released through 20th Century Fox in October 1975 to underwhelming critical and commercial response.

No one seemed to pay too much attention to the film at the time and it has been little remembered since. It’s not regarded as a fiasco though presumably it lost a great deal of money (the budget was reportedly $4 million). Few people seem to talk about movie now outside Lester cultists, and even their enthusiasm feels muted; Fraser gives it only a brief mention in his memoirs, focusing on accounts of working with Oliver Reed. Lester later admitted the film was “generally ignored and considered to be a substandard version of The Three Musketeers,” adding “It was perhaps a poor choice of mine to pursue because it was a period film, a comic romp with some serious overtones and a lot of swordplay and it did come after Musketeers which was a well-loved piece of subject matter.”

I’ve seen the movie a few times over the years – most recently just last week. I wish I could say it’s a personal favourite and/or undiscovered gem, the way you can with a cult that originally flopped at the box office – like, say, Streets of Fire (1984) or Somewhere in Time (1980) or other Lester films such as The Bed Sitting Room I1969) or How I Won the War (1967). I love Fraser’s writing – his memoir of World War Two, Quartered Safe Out Here, is a masterpiece, the McAuslan stories are a delight, the first seven Flashman novels are classics. I enjoy some Lester movies and Oliver Reed is always worth watching.

And the movie has some splendid things about it – handsome production design, superb performances from Britt Ekland (perhaps her best screen work), Oliver Reed and Joss Ackland, as well as memorable turns from Bob Hoskins, David Jason and Bob Peck. The sheer fact that it is a $4 million Flashman movie that exists makes it inherently fascinating.

But it’s a mess.

It just doesn’t work.

I wish it did but it doesn’t.

It has none of the novel’s charm, or excitement. It’s not funny or thrilling. There doesn’t seem to be any point to it.

Yet Fraser did the adaptation. And he could not have asked for a more sympathetic collaborator than Lester.

What happened?

First of all – and I stress this is all opinion, and nothing more – I think they chose the wrong novel to adapt. It’s a shame they couldn’t have started with Flashman which set up the central conceit so beautifully – emphasising the character’s cowardice and bluster in a world of hypocrisy, adventure and lies. I get the cost involved but it’s simply hard to access the joys of the character of Harry Flashman as well via  Royal Flash.

Part of Flashman’s appeal in the novels is that for all his many many faults, he is constantly coming up against people who are far worse – religious maniacs, despotic rulers, idiotic aristocrats, torture-happy dancing girls. Flashman’s humor, wry observations and greed is constantly used to skewer the hypocrisy of the era, shining a light on the underbelly of the derring-do propagated by Victorian-era writers. Fraser’s superb gift as a novelist – and off the top of my head I can’t think of any other writer who can do it as well- was that he could do all that while still delivering genuinely exciting adventure and a richly-researched historical background.

Royal Flash is a perfectly decent Flashman novel – it’s penned with energy and verve, and the exploitation of the Schleswig-Holstein Question is very clever. There are some fun characterisations and exhilarating action, Rudi Von Sternberg is an excellent villain with an engaging bunch of henchmen, and Lola Motenz and Otto Bismark are colourful characters culled from history.

However, it does feel different to other novels in the series. Royal Flash mostly takes place in the fictional Duchy of Strackenz, making it the only Flashman story to be set in a fictitious location. And the whole plot is taken from The Prisoner of Zenda – now, Fraser has some fun with this, with Harry Flashman telling “a young lawyer” (Hope) his story and claiming Hope plagiarised him, and the author adds plenty of original touches – but it does not change the fact he still used another novel’s storyline wholesale, which he never did again. It’s an exciting story, don’t get me wrong, I love reading it, but it makes Royal Flash seem like “The Prisoner of Zenda starring Harry Flashman” rather than something more original. It’s definitely not as “on theme” as, well, the first Flashman, where our hero had to deal with the upper class idiocy of Lord Elphinstone and Lord Cardigan, the assassination of Sekundar Burnes, the terror of Afghan attacks, the horror and incompetence of the retreat, the Blimp-ish-ness of Brigadier Shelton, the cyclical manipulation of British defeat – the first novel was simply funnier, more exciting and had a greater satirical point.

I am completely sympathetic to the cost issue involved – there was no way of filming the first Flashman cheaply. A more appropriate novel to adapt might have actually been the third in the series: Flash for Freedom, a thrilling account of the 1840s slave trade, with Harry caught between slavers and abolitionists in the slave-owning states of America. Any film of this would have involved scenes set on the Ivory Coast of Africa and a slave ship, so it would not have been cheap either – but there would be no epic battles, and that novel had a better feel for Flashman. It also had stronger characters (slaver John Charity Spring, Cassie the slave girl, slave owner Manderville and his kinky wife) and more recognisable historical characters (Abraham Lincoln). Plus, the American setting would (presumably) have helped its box office chances there.

If I was ever approached to adapt a Flashman – and I should be so lucky – I’d push for Flash for Freedom first… unless budget was no problem in case I’d go for Flashman . (Having said that I feel the masterpieces in the series are Charge, Great Game, Lady and Redskins – but the first and third novels are better introductions to the character).

Having decided to do Royal Flash – and to be honest, if I was an executive at Fox in 1974, I would’ve supported that decision – I don’t think the script does justice to the book, despite the fact Fraser wrote it himself. The story is there, the characters are there, with necessary condensation (for instance, the removal of Flashman’s wife Elspeth, which I think was wise)… but it doesn’t capture the flavour of the novel.

Admittedly It’s hard to recreate at script level all the historical detail which makes the books such a joy but they should have at least had a voice-over. Flashman’s jaundiced comments about the world and the people he meets are one of the chief strengths of the novel and this is lacking from the film. I realise the question of whether to use voice-over in movies is a vexed one but in the right hands it can be marvellously effective way of getting inside the head of the protagonist. It could also have helped sped up exposition and made the film move faster – as it is, it takes thirty minutes for the impersonation plot to kick in. (In Fraser’s defence, voice over may have been proposed and even tried but not worked out.)

A more serious problem is that the three lead roles in Royal Flash all feel miscast. I asked Fraser who his ideal screen Flashman was and he replied, “the late Errol Flynn, by a mile”. Fraser told me he thought “Malcolm did  a wonderful job” adding they felt the actor was “the only real option” for the role at the time except “for maybe Alan [Bates]”, who played Rudi.

Critical response to McDowell’s performance was not overly effusive on release, and time has not seen that change. Lester himself thought this casting hurt the movie, saying “McDowell was absolutely 100% bounder – the sleaze was coming through to the film.” Malcolm McDowell is an excellent actor, a strong presence, who can be superb in the right role, and he plays the part as written. But he seems too cruel, too vicious, too lecherous, too sleazy.  Harry Flashman in the novels is wonderful company – witty, fun, entertainingly honest. McDowell’s Flashman is not.

I think for any Flashman film to work you need the lead role to be played by someone who was believably cowardly but likeable about it. I’m aware saying “characters should be likeable” is triggering for some observers, but when you need audiences to follow a character who does what Flashman does – snivels, hides and whines while people die around him – for over ninety minutes surely he has to be engaging?

In fairness, what other seventies British film industry leading man could have done better that McDowell? I’m not sure Alan Bates was the answer. Michael Caine? Sean Connery? Richard Harris? Michael York? Roger Moore? Robert Powell? Personally, I think York was the best option from stars  at the time – he played with a lighter touch; I wonder if he was ever in the running.

Fraser told me that one producer proposed Burt Reynolds – and while Reynolds would have been very American and contemporary, perhaps too much so, that star had the combination of charm, insecurity and swagger that would have been perfect for Harry Flashman. A comic – like Graham Chapman from Monty Python, or Peter Cook- could have worked.  On a non-film star level, I think John Alderton, based on what I’ve seen of him in other things, could have been marvellous.

The other leads are not well cast either. Alan Bates was an excellent actor but the part of Rudi Von Sternberg needed personality and flair as much as acting ability. It’s a gift role – think of Douglas Fairbanks Jnr in the 1937 Zenda – but required a performed with more life and/or flamboyance. Someone like (to give it a Richard Lester connection) Robert Shaw in Robin and Marian (1976) or Richard Harris from Juggernaut (1974).

Flamboyance is what’s needed in Lola Montez too but Florinda Bolkan doesn’t provide it. She was a Brazilian actor best known at the time for appearances in Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion (1970) and various giallos. It’s a terrific part and you long (or at least I did) for someone who would nail it – imagine, say, Faye Dunaway or even Raquel Welch in the part (both had been in Musketeers) – but Bolkan does not.

Maybe audiences would never go for a Flashman. Lester felt “that equivocal anti-hero wasn’t easy to take. They wanted a real hero, a hero that was a bounder as well as a hero.” But I don’t think Royal Flash gave the character the best shot.

There have been attempts to film the novels since then. Colin Firth (an ideal Flashman) was attached at one stage, and Ridley Scott at another. It’s never happened – they would be expensive to do, and tricky to get the tone right. But like most fans of the novels, I can’t help wishing that there will be another attempt bringing Flashman to the screen because Royal Flash does not do Harry true justice.

Movie review - "Robin and Marian" (1976) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

 After revitalising Dumas with The Musketeers films, Richard Lester turned his eye to Robin Hood. At one stage Lester was going to film The Princess Bride by William Goldman and the script for this was written by Goldman's brother James.

It's got a wonderful cast - Sean Connery is a perfect old Robin Hood, all foolish muscularity, ditto Audrey Hepburn as Marian, a little fed up. Both sexy oldies. I wish they didn't have the moment where he knocks her out. And TBH she doesn't seem that into him or he into her. Like, she's really keen to poison him instead of seeing if he'll recover.

Nicol Williamson is wonderful as Little John ditto Richard Harris as King Richard I and Robert Shaw as the Sheriff. They all sparkle in their roles. Williamson, Harris and Shaw are great at doing "turns". So are Ronnie Barker (Friar Tuck) and Denholm Elliot (Will Scarlet).

It's cynical and realistic, I guess. Richard I is killed by a stray arrow, as he was IRL. Robin talks about Richard's massacres at Acre, which happened. 

Robin doesn't really do anything that noble. He just helps some nuns escape. He leads a revolt just cause, basically. John doesn't get his comeuppance. I wish he'd had a more noble cause. It's a downer ending, not just because Robin and Marian die, but because Friar Tuck and Will Scarlet get captured. The Sheriff fights Robin more for old times sake rather than a cause.

And yet the film has integrity. It feels real. Fantastic cast. Great moments. The final duel between Robin and the Sheriff feels like a real, exhaustive duel.

The character with the most integrity is Little John. He's loyal to Robin, wants to kill the Sheriff even if the Sheriff wins the duel, he loves Marian and says he never would've gone on a crusade if she'd been his girl, he kills the big villain (apart from King Richard I guess) played by Ken Haigh, he tries to stop the murder suicide at the end.

The film has the power to shock. The talk of Richard's massacre at Acre, as I've mentioned, but also showing King John horny for his wife... who is shown to be 12. A 12 year old sex pot played by a young Victoria Abril.

I'm a bit all over the shop when it comes to my feelings for this film. It's got some fantastic stuff. I wish... the sense of romance between Robin and Marian was stronger and Robin fought for a more noble cause. I know that's not what the filmmakers wanted to do though and respect that.

Saturday, September 11, 2021

Movie review - "The Bed Sitting Room" (1969) **

 Look, I get the joke - the nuclear bomb has been dropped and everyone is carrying on as if it hasn't, so they still get the tube, and talk on TV, and chat to the PM... while everything has been bombed out. I mean, what do they eat are they sick, but... Yeah, I get the joke.

The Kurt Weill like score. People acting with British stiff upper lips.

Maybe it was better on stage where absurdity is easier to convey - I felt this about How I Won the War too. Some of it is funny. But at 90 minutes it's a punish. Like War it seems to make the same point again and again and again - it's like enough material for a one act play but that's all.

Strong cast - Michael Hordern, Ralph Richardson, Rita Tushingham, Marty Feldman, Spike Milligan, Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore, Colonel Peacock from Are You Being Served. The craft services table would've been fun.

Thursday, September 09, 2021

Movie review - "Petulia" (1968) ****

 It took me a little while to get into this, it was so different from other Richard Lester films I've seen. There's jazzy visuals, beautiful photography, lush John Barry score, depictions of late 60s San Francisco (including Janis Joplin singing and Edward Hessman as a hippy), some non liner narrative with flashforwards and flashbacks.

The story is named Petulia and Julie Christie plays that role but it's as much if not more about doctor George C Scott, who is divorced from Shirley Knight, who has a new guy but still is attached to Scott; they share two kids. Scott has a girlfriend but then starts a relationship with Julie Christie who is married to Richard Chamberlain. Scott has a friend, Arthur Hiller, who is having some troubles with his wife.

Half-way through it turns out Christie is in an abusive relationship with Chamberlain, who beats her senseless. This is very well handled - one of the most frank and believable depictions of domestic violence in a Hollywood film til then, helped by the casting of charming Chamberlain, and Joseph Cotten as his rich, protective father.

All the acting is excellent. It's an A-league cast - Christie is stunning to look at and very good playing the scatty, haunted Petulia, the manic pixie dream girl with a secret; Chamberlain is a perfect rich man's son, spoilt, narcissistic, hot enough for Christie; Scott typically good as an everyman, I guess. Knight, Cotten and Hill are all very good. It's ironic that Scott is in this when he was fond of punching out his girlfriends in real life.

This was a very good movie and a complete surprise.  I don't know why critics called it cold and mean and anti-American it's just a more realistic depiction of marriage.

Wednesday, September 08, 2021

Movie review - "How I Won the War" (1967) **1/2

 Richard Lester was riding high off the success of his Beatles films and The Knack when he made this which features key figures from those films - Michael Crawford, John Lennon, Charles Wood.

It's not an easy film to define - which partly explained its lack of box office success - but is basically a satire of World War Two films with Crawford as a terribly keen lieutenant leading a platoon of odd sods including Roy Kinnear and Lennon.

A lot of this was annoying. Maybe I'm too attached to war movies but it's like - yes, war movies can be over the top, but World War Two was a noble cause, the British didn't start it. 

The visuals are interesting. It looks good - with Spain standing on for Africa. It has a slightly absurdist take (eg soldiers appearing in soccer uniforms, in bright colours) which I think plays better on stage because in film you want to invest yourself in it more. The use of real life footage is effective as are the deaths. There's a cricket game, which is a novelty.

But I didn't like it. Maybe I need to see it again or something.

Movie review - "Help!" (1965) ***

 The colour photography is wonderful, some splendid locations such as the Austrian snowfields and the Bahams and the songs of course are sublime. But this second Beatles film lacks something.

It's got more of a story but the story is tired and racist - a cult tries to retrieve a ring off Ringo's finger. The spoofs of war films and spy movies may have seemed fresh then but haven't aged well. The Beatles don't have individual personalities - John looks bored, Paul grins, Ringo gets more screen time. They don't have particularly funny gags.

Eleanor Bron is the girl, as she often was in the sixties. Leo McKern gets a lot of screen time as the baddie. Lester seems far more interested in him, Bron, Roy Kinnear and Patrick Cargill than the Beatles. In terms of story you could cut three of the Beatles out you only need Ringo.

Monday, September 06, 2021

Movie review - "The Knack... and How to Get It" (1965) **1/2

 One of the main films of swinging London, this has plenty of life and energy - Richard Lester at his "happening" peak, with Charles Wood having adapted Ann Jellicoe's play, and some ideal actors like Michael Crawford as the geek who is determined to to learn how to pick up chicks from his mate Ray Brook. Rita Tushingham is excellent as the main girl. Jackie Bisset, Jane Birkin and Charlotte Rampling make their debuts.

The whole rape subplot - Brook seems to rape Tushingham, she says he raped her - goes on a lot and feels very disasteful. This won the Palm d'Or?

Great visuals.


Book review - "Dean and Me A Love Story" by Jerry Lewis and Jerry Kaplan (2007)

 I enjoyed it. I also wondered how much it was true. Lewis sticks to a consistent line - Dean was an adored elder brother figure, very talented, Jerry worshipped him, no one appreciated Dean, Jerry admits to some faults but it came from love.

Entertaining. I took it with a grain of salt. Maybe that's unfair.

Sunday, September 05, 2021

Movie review - "Bye Bye Birdie" (1963) *** (re-watching)

 I saw this again recently. Liked it more the second time around. Maybe I saw it in a better mood.

Apparently the cast got cranky the film went to Ann Margret but do you blame George Sidney? Do we really want more of Dick Van Dyke as a momma's boy, with Maureen Stapleton clearly too young to be his mother, or Janet Leigh as his long suffering fiance, the entire point of her character now gone that she's an Anglo and not a hispanic (surely they could've gotten away with that in 1963), or Bobby Rydell's whimpy boyfriend, or the actor who plays Ann-Margret's mother being this sort of blank slate with her campy husband (I sense the rage building in that woman, as if she's going to poison him), or Jesse Pearson's caricature rock star?

There are some funky numbers, garish colours, the concept of Lynde as a suburban dad is funny, Ann-Margret is sensational and it's not believable for five seconds she'd go back to Rydell. Why didn't they cast a pop star as Conrad?

Movie review - "It's Trad, Dad" (1962) ***

 For a few years there were a heap of British rock films which consisted of rock acts and some vague story. Don Sharp did one, so did Michael Winner. This was Richard Lester's effort. (There were American ones too some made by Amicus who did this).

There's some fun Lester touches like the opening sequence. I'd probably enjoy this more if I recognised the acts. There's bands I'd never heard of like The Temperance Seven. I've got to say though their songs, with this slightly absurdist staging and French subtitles, was fun.

It's actually an engaging film, full of energy. More enjoyable than  The Mouse in the Moon. The music acts come fast, there's kind of a story, it's imaginatively staged.

Friday, September 03, 2021

Movie review - "The Mouse in the Moon" (1963) **

 This sequel to The Mouse that Roared is probably best remembered as an early work from Richard Lester. Peter Sellers didn't return and his absence his felt - it's simply not as funny to watch Margaret Rutherford as the Queen, or Bernard Cribbins as the daggy love interest and even June Ritchie isn't as good as Jean Seberg. Terry Thomas has a glorified cameo as a British spy - maybe they could've tried him in multiple parts? 

There's no real romance like there was between Sellers and Seberg. It takes an hour before the rocket takes off. There's no charm. Some okay jokes. The space race jokes are of their time.

Thursday, September 02, 2021

TV review - "Hacks Season 1" (2021) *****

 Nothing much to say. Brilliant. Smart, funny, surprising. I thought tales of comics had been done. I was wrong. Las Vegas setting gives it tremendous freshness.