Book review - "We did okay, kid" by Anthony Hopkins

 Is Hopkins a great actor? He's been great - Silence of the Lambs, Howard's End - but  a lot of dreck. Hollywood thinks he's great - Hollywood is like that. It was Hollywood who kept his career going when he walked out of the National in the 1970s.

Hopkins always seemed like he had his head in the clouds. This confirms it. Internal. Quiet. A loud alcoholic.

The book livens up in some spots - being sledged by Paul Sorvino making Nixon, discussing his process in Silence of the Lambs. I wish there had been more of that. But I think he lives in Hopkins land. This is low on anecdotes and actors insights. 

Movie review - "Wild Geese II" (1985) * (warning: spoilers)

 What happened on this movie? Did they not understand what made the first work?

The first had really interesting characters - doomed men, with no future, looking for a cause, men out of shape.

This is mostly about Scott Glenn as a gloomy mercenary from Lebannon. Edward Fox plays Richard Burton's brother from the first one. Why didn't they use someone with a bit more life? Like Oliver Reed, Peter O'Toole? Maybe they tried. Fox is just pompous. 

There's a throwback to the first film in a training montage. But it's super short. Then a training sergeant yells at a former IRA man then just kills him. Whose dumb idea was that?

The story feels so repetitive. Scott Glenn gets hauled into a car. Then Barbara Carrera. Then Glenn again. 

Why didn't they lean into them being mercenaries?  

Random plots like Carrera and Glenn falling in love, and a network paying for it, and Carrera's brother helping, and there's a double agent (actually that's not bad), and the Russian foisting an IRA man on them, and the IRA giving Fox LSD. And it ends with Hess (Laurence Olivier) deciding to go back. 

No stakes - no reason to bust him out. 

Just shit. 

Interesting to see Laurence Olivier as if he's going to die, Ingrid Pitt as a hooker working for the Russians and Patruck Stewart. Nice views of Germany. 

Movie review - "The Jazz Singer" (1980) **

 I was in the mood for this. It's not very good but it's a big crap musical with Neil Diamond a warm presence with a wonderful voice who deserved a better film. Starts with a thumping song, shots of NYC and Diamond and Laurence Olivier being Jewish and you wonder what went wrong. Then Diamond's in blackface with some black musicians.

Franklin Ajaye and Luci Arnaz are perfect support. Script makes dumb decisions like not killing off Olivier (isn't that the point?). Apparently they were going to kill off Arnaz too that would've been ideal. And dumb to make him married that makes him an arsehole. Lean into the melodrama. 

Great songs. Diamond doesn't disgrace himself. Olivier has a high old time. Campy fun when Diamond goes on the road.

Movie should have been book ended by a huge concert. 

Movie review - "Nicholas and Alexandra" (1971) **1/2

 It's not a dumb movie, it's an elevated epic, tries to be smart, looks terrific, is well acted.

But Nicholas and Alexandra were idiots - suited for being amiable powerless monarchs not actual rulers, like Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. They could have brought democracy to Russia or at least saved their monarchy and avoided civil war, kept the country out of World War One. But they blundered on. So the film is a drag.

They're not active or compelling they're just dumb and useless. No exotic sex or action.

Tom Baker livens things up a little as Rasputin - Peter O'Toole, Sam Spiegel's choice, would've been better. All the solid British actors get wearying after a while - everyone's good but they're so dull. It feels like a BBC mini series. I kept wishing for some miscast American pop star to keep things lively.

There's no personal connection. James Goldman made the royals come alive in Lion in Winter but that was an interesting family. This has some family stuff but they are weighed under by all the characters. I couldn't tell the difference between the four sisters.  Alexi has some character but he's a horrible brat - when he tells off his dad towards the end it's like "shut up kid you got us into this mess".

Dr Zhivago had a relatable core - Omar Sharif torn between Julie Christie and Geraldine Chaplin.Lawrence of Arabia was about Lawrence and his relationships with Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn. Ben Hur was Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd/Jack Hawkins/Haya Harareet.

What's the core here? Kind of Nicholas and Alexandra and their family... but it keeps crossing to politicians like the Bolshevieks who are simply more interesting. You could've found ways to make the family interesting - differentiate them, give conflict - but they don't.

I liked John McEnery as Kerensky the leader in between Nicholas and Lenin. In part because he was blonde and looked different from the others. I googled the character - he married a Brisbane girl and spent some time here! Brian Cox is terrific as Trotsky. Ditto Michael Bryant as Lenin. But these characters are interesting. They really should've been the focus. Or else really dug into life in the Imperial court. They tried to have it both ways and ended up not nailing anything.

The finale where the family is killed is well done. They build up the suspense with the family waiting in the room - it's a terrific scene, drags out the emotion and gives a sense of what this film needed to be: dig into the little things, ram home the moments.

It feels like it should have done for ten hours.

Movie review - "Lady Caroline Lamb" (1972) **

 I heard this movie was terrible which its absolutely not. It's not amazing but it's fine. I think maybe Sara Miles isn't that awesome in the lead, which is ironic since Robert Bolt wrote and directed it for her. His direction is competent.

The flashier roles as the guys - Jon Finch full of glowering intensity as Melbourne and Richard Chamberlain all androgynous rock star as Byron. I really liked Finch in this. In a way he's kind of the protagonist because in the second half Miles just goes nuts, going berko at Byron/Chamberlain. I wonder if Bolt was channelling his feelings for Miles here - sticking up for her in the face of the establishment etc.

It will help if you like Miles but this was fine.

Movie review - "The Boys from Brazil" (1978) **

I still remember the opening sequence of this film, when fresh faced Steve Guttenberg stumbles upon Nazis in Paraguay and is stabbed to death as a result.

The scene sequence still has power - it's the best in the film. After that the action slows down and the film is bogged in accent acting of Laurence Olivier and Gregory Peck. Alright, Peck, you play a villain we get it. Alright Olivier you've got an accent, we get it.

The Nazis don't feel to be a threat - I mean, James Mason tries to take out Peck. The kid who plays the young Adolph isn't good. It's not scary. It feels too silly.

Movie review - "Clash of the Titans' (1981) ****

I know I'm biased because I loved this as a kid but for me this has such magic about it. It helps that producer Schneer got top British actors to play the Greek Gods, as well as Burgess Meredith in the Obi Wan role. Harry Hamlin and Judi Bowker are engaging leads - he's handsome and polished and should have done more of this stuff. Bowker is pretty; she doesn't get too much to do except stare either vacantly or wistfully but she has a look perfect for the part.

There's a surprisingly amount of nudity - Perseus' mother breast feeds him and walks nude along the beach. Judy Bowker's bare bum coming out of the bath.

The momentum suffers in the middle when Hamlin and Bowker get engaged, but it recovers for a tremendous second half which has some amazing action sequences - particularly the raid on Medusa's lair. Then this it followed by more exciting battles including taking on Calibos and scorpions and a race against time to stop a sacrifice.

There's so much good stuff - the mechanical owl (much whinged about but I liked), the depth of characterisations (the villains - Maggie Smith and Calibos - have complex, three dimensional motivations), the all too human Gods, a magical sword and helmet, "release the Kracken" (I did think about people taking a shit when this was mentioned), giant vultures,the three witches,  Medusa's two headed dogs, the Kraken (actually he's a little too much like Godzilla).

It's a very strong script with a marvellous sense of adventure. No wonder people love Harryhausen seeing this again took me back to childhood.

Movie review - "The Bounty" (1984) ***

No one seems to remember or care much for this version in part I think because it flopped but also because it was going to be made by David Lean in two parts and has a bit of "oh if only" aura about it.

It's intelligent, looks great, has location shooting in Tahiti, and a real life Bounty replica. The film is full of people about to become big stars - Mel Gibson (a kind of star, the hottest thing in Hollywood at the time), Tony Hopkins (famous but pre Silence of the Lambs), Daniel Day Lewis (quite a big role), Liam Neeson (quite a big role).

The movie never really comes alive. The local Tahitans are either noble savages or nubile women - the character of Fletcher Christian's wife has never been anything in movies other than a doe eyed topless smiling ninny.

Maybe it was a mistake to do it in flashback. The stuff on the boat is good. It suffers from the anti climax factor most Bounty stories have. 

It looks fantastic. It's smart. It lacks a little X factor but this probably should be better remembered. It's very well cast.

Script review - "Rebecca" by Robert Sherwood and Joan Harrison (warning: spoilers)

I remember being intrigued by this film in writings about it especially of the name Maxim, and read the original novel - I still recall the gasp at the big twist that Rebecca was murdered.

That's been changed here, a little - Maxim still admits to punching her and then she conks her head. Ah.... isn't that manslaughter? Anyway.

I was struck by how much time this spent on character. The opening 30 pages is devoted to the romance between Maxim and "I" (little odd to read that in the character header) so their relationship has a firm footing. It's not a very healthy relationship - Maxim is snappy and rude, and emotionally abusive. He doesn't hit her and is handsome and rich - and she's dutiful and doesn't have anyone and is a moron. You do utterly believe it would happen - she doesn't know any better and he needs an easy ride.

The rest of it is subtle and well done - this would never fly as an original script, I reckon they'd think it was too dull, but it had a best seller behind it. They go to Manderlay, she meets his sister (who clocks her as a nice ninny), she clashes with the superb villain Mrs Danvers (some wonderfully subtle writing, with Danvers talking about clothes and hairbrushes and suggesting "I" kill herself). The big set piece is the masqueraade ball.

The secret comes out with half an hour to go and the rest has the characters as passive - it's the inquest, with Maxim and "I" being swept along. The most active thing Maxim does is refuse to be blackmailed. He's saved by a deux ex machina of Rebecca's cancer diagnosis. I thought maybe at the end of the film they might give "I" a moment against Mrs Danvers as the house burns down but "I" is pretty much shunted off.

The film still has freshness because of its depiction of power, twisted relationships, sex, and repression.

Book review - "Charlton Heston: Hollywood's Last Icon" by Matc Eliot (2017)

A disappointing book. Heston is a fascinating star - big, tall, stiff, capable of good work, a really wide variety of movies. He had a genuine sense of duty which prompted him to do sterling work for the AFI, SAG, the government (visiting troops in Vietnam), the Civil Rights movement, and, unfortunately (to me at any rate), the NRA.

Eliot's book is very strong on the later phase of Heston's life - his family life, the difficulties in his marriage (with a firey woman who at times resented him and suffered migranes... it's clear ole Chuck was whipped), his battles with Alzheimers (very moving), his dealings with the NRA (which seem to have been prompted by a desire for attention and something to do as much as anything). He's helped by talking to Heston's kids and NRA people - who credit Heston with helping make them more powerful, which is a horrible legacy.

It's also pretty good on Heston's upbringing - he was devastated by his parent's divorce, his mother didn't want him to see his father, his mother had an affair and married the bloke who tried to bond with Charlton. He was solitary and awkward, but was tall, commanding and good act.

The film is weak on Heston's career. It sort of rehashes what's in his diaries, skims his TV and theatre work, doesn't really analyse the acting. There are irritating factual errors and the writing is uninspired. Heston deserved a better book.

Script review - "A Bridge Too Far" by William Goldman

Not recognised as one of Goldman's classics even though in Adventures in the Screen Trade he spoke highly of the experience and the resulting film - he seemed to have only good things to say about Butch Cassidy and Bridge - I think later Princess Bride and Hearts of Atlantis were added to this.

It's done in that lively Goldman style very easy to follow and read, with little asides (eg "he's four days away from becoming a legend") and some bright dialogue. He was hamstrung by the fact many of the principals were still alive. Montgomery died in 1976 - I presume that's why he's not in the film at all, only mentioned. Lord Browning - who died in 1965 - has to take on some of the mistakes (eg ignoring intelligence reports that Germans were in the area), which for me was the main flaw of the film. It felt unfair.

I did struggle to tell the characters apart on the page - this was less of an issue on screen because the main roles were played by stars. There are some lively cameos - the sergeant who drives his "dead" captain to a hospital; the Americans going across the river to take the bridge; Major Frost and Urquhart's adventures behind enemy lines.

Some characters threaten to become interesting but don't, like that bridge-building captain (I think Elliot Gould played him) and the Irish guards officer Vandeleur (Michael Caine). Others are annoying like the Polish general, Sosabowski who whinges all the time.

Structurally although the film takes place over several days it feels like one afternoon - I know films sometimes struggle with that and wasn't sure how to fix it, it's just the reaction I got. Also it didn't feel as though it built - towards the end when the Poles started their attack, I was getting impatient.

Still some very effective moments - the siege, the build up, the death of the old lady and the little boy. And it gets points for being a British-American film about a big defeat. There aren't that many apart from Tora Tora Tora.

Script review - "Marathon Man" by William Goldman (warning: spoilers)

It's been ages since I saw the movie but I gather from what I've read the two differences between this and the final film were this had more scenes involving Scylla at the beginning and alsouo the ending was different. In Goldman's account Babe meets Szell takes him out to the lake and shoots him. This version I read may have been the one with some Robert Towne doctoring because Szell seems to cut himself here... or is he shot? I wasn't sure. He doesn't eat the diamonds though.

Never mind, you can still tell it's mostly Goldman - page turning, gripping stuff with this bleak nihilistic tone. Babe really goes through the wringer: his professor doesn't like this thesis, he gets mugged, his girlfriend is a spy, his brother is a spy, he gets tortured by Szell, Janeway pretends to be his friend and betrays him. But he is a good runner and has a handy gun and those things turn out to save his life.

I never quite believed the scene where Babe blew away three toughs, crack shot or not, but the twists are great: Elsa is spying on Babe, Babe is Doc's brother, Babe is killed, Janeway is a traitor.

Goldman's New York feels like a horrible place, with its road rage, airport baggage chaos, bullying crims, muggers, corrupt officers, sweltering heat. Adds to the intensity of the piece.

The best character is Scylla, torn, broken, loves his brother... though some of his "we're too old for this" spy dialogue is clunky.

This is one of Goldman's best works but be warned, it is a bit depressing, with its torture and hero losing everyone close to him.

Movie review - "Mad as Hell: The Peter Finch Story" (2011) ****

Very good documentary about the legendary Australian star, which benefits from some fantastic footage and talking heads. There's home movies of Finch by the beach with Peter Thompson (film critic from Sunday), photos of Oliver and Leigh watching the Mercury Theatre, interviews with Virginia McKenna, Vincent Ball, Glenda Jackson, his kids, his first wife (the ballet dancer), Trader Faulkner. There's more random people like Bill Hunter and Barry Norman (though his father, to be fair, directed Finch in a few films).

We see clips from his early films and radio shows, as well as his later British and Hollywood films. There's a lot to get through. The darker side of Finch's nature isn't really explored - he's a hell raiser, and womaniser but that's about the depth of it. I think they simply didn't have time.

But they get the essence of him: the erratic upbringing, the nomadic lifestyle, the talent that flowered in the relatively small patch that was Australian radio and theatre, the stage career that petered out (though it did include being Iago to Orson Welles), the film career that never quite reached the top rank though he managed to appear in a good film at just the right intervals (A Town Like Alice, The Nun's Story, The Pumkin Eater, Far from the Madding Crowd, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Network), the things that held back his talent, the personal charm. An exasperating charming man who left a strong legacy and is surprisingly little remembered in Australia today outside buff circles.

Movie review - "Shoes of the Fisherman" (1968) **

Why did they give this the blockbuster treatment? I get that it was a bestseller, but surely in the late 60s MGM must have given pause as to whether a story of the Vatican set in the near-future deserved to be road-showed. At its heart this is a film about a bunch of character actors talking in rooms. It doesn't require spectacular locations or stars.

For instance, was there really a point for the opening sequence of a Siberian mining camp where we meet priest Anthony Quinn? Sure it looks cool but the film could've started with him arriving from prison. Actually the story doesn't really start until 50 minutes in when the Pope dies. 

Not that it's much of a story: Quinn becomes Pope, gets asked to mediate between Communist Russia (in the form of Laurence Olivier) and Red China (in the form of Bert Kwouk). Quinn solves the problem by promising to give away all the Church's money. The end. There's a subplot about a priest mate of Quinn's, Oskar Werner, having controversial beliefs.

Opportunities for drama are missed wholesale. Quinn as a priest in a Siberian prison might have made an interesting story - but the movie starts with him getting out. Quinn as a Pope giving away all the Church's money (Mr Deeds Goes to the Vatican) could've been interesting (what would cardinals do, etc) - but the movie ends with that. Quinn as a Pope fighting dark forces in the Vatican could've been interesting - kind of hinted at by Leo McKern's political seeming cardinal - but it isn't really developed. Quinn having a friendship with a troublesome priest Oskar Werner could've been interesting - but I didn't get what the beliefs were, and there's no consequences because Werner dies of a convenient hemorrhage. Quinn as pope ducking out to meet ordinary people could've been interesting (Henry V, Roman Holiday) but he just meets one lady, gives her a homily and that's it.

There's an awful subplot about the marriage troubles of TV journalist (David Janssen, giving basically the same performance he did in The Green Berets), complete with a visit to a "fast" party with dancing extras and sixties music.

The inside-the-Vatican stuff was interesting to a non-Catholic - what happens when a Pope dies, the procedure when a priest is under attack for his teachings (Oskar Werner). Some of the visuals are striking - the final Papal procession, the voting cardinals.

I liked the cast. There's no compromises, really - Quinn is ideal as the cardinal, John Gielgud is an effective pope, Werner was excellent, Olivier can do this stuff in his sleep, McKern is an imposing cardinal who deserved a better film. The women are weaker but they have terrible characters to play.

The sheer fact this film exists is fascinating - a multi million dollar look at Vatican politics. I just wish it had been better.

Book review - "Orson Welles: One Man Band" by Simon Callow (2016)

The third of Callow's books on Welles - I think he intended to go all the way until his death but old Orson was so prolific and all over the shop that he only makes it until Chimes at Midnight.

There is heaps until then, though - the making of Black Magic and The Third Man, the torturous shoot of Othello, the stage production of Othello with Peter Finch, the triumph of his Las Vegas magic show and Moby Dick Rehearsed, the disappointment of King Lear, Harry Lime on radio, the various cameos, Mr Akardian, Touch of Evil, the TV shows, directing Laurence Oliver in Rhinoceros, The Trial.

There were some astonishing achievements in there, especially for someone who never equalled Citizen Kane - Othello, Touch of Evil and especially Chimes at Midnight are all striking films, Moby Dick Rehearsed a terrific play, The Fountain of Youth a remarkable piece of TV. Welles would be consistently dogged by bad luck but also good luck would periodically drop out of the sky eg Charlton Heston pushing for him on Touch of Evil, money just magically appearing for The Trial. He appeared in many terrible films as an actor but just enough good ones to keep him in demand (The Third Man, Compulsion).

Welles could never get it together - Hollywood seemed to welcome him back with A Touch of Evil but post production was so traumatic it seemed to turn the studios off him (he disappeared during the editing yet again); artistic triumphs like Moby Dick Rehearsed were not commercial successes; when given complete artistic freedom and support he resulted in The Trial; he'd make fantastic TV but not given the chance to follow it up; commercial successes like Rhinoceros were hurt by the fact Laurence Olivier effectively banned him from rehearsals; Chimes at Midnight was a masterpiece with no distribution. Again and again one keeps thinking "if only"... "if only" he'd been able to make a second film for Zugsmith at Universal, if only he'd been able to schmooze executives as well as cast and crew, if only a major studio had distributed Chimes. But still, so much of the work survives to thrill us.

After reading Patrick McGilligan's biography on Welles' early years, Callow's nuts and bolts biography work (dates, places etc) suffers in comparison. But he is a wonderful writer and is particularly superb and insightful on Welles' acting, and his theatre work. A fantastic read.

Book review - "Dropped Names" by Frank Langella

Langella is probably best known to movie buffs for his portrayal as Dracula and Richard Nixon, and his many villainous roles; he was also the off screen partner of Whoopi Goldberg for a time. I admit to not knowing a lot about his career except that he worked extensively in theatre; this entertaining memoir fills in a lot of blanks.

Rather in the matter of Bring on the Empty Horses by David Niven, it's structured in the form of a series of encounters with famous people - Laurence Olivier, Yvonne de Carlo, Bob Mitchum, Rita Hayworth, Rex Harrison, George C Scott.

A lot of this is great - Burton was a drunken bore, forever reciting stock pieces; Tony Perkins made a joke about the size of his cock as a come on; his homoerotic relationship with Raoul Julia; being mysteriously hated by Colleen Dewhurst; Laurence Olivier saying gay actors need to "hide the Nellie" and talking about his premature ejaculation; affairs with Rita Hayworth, Yvonne de Carlo (who was happy just to hop on and go), Elizabeth Taylor and Jackie Kennedy. An interesting analysis of working with director George C Scott and Elia Kazan (who Langella never worked with but regrets that fact). Worth a read.

Book review - "Charmed Lives: A Family Romance" by Michael Korda (1979)

Alex Korda is one of the most improbably glamorous figures of the British film industry: a Hungarian Jew who worked his way up to become a pillar (or at least important cog) of the British establishment, hopping from country to country, film to film, leaving behind a genuinely impressive body of work an a decent pile of cash despite suffering a bunch of reversals (broken heart, revolution, World Wars, the Holocaust).

Michael Korda has a great view as his nephew - the tantrums, talent, intrigue. Most fascinating is his view of Alex's last marriage with a flirtatious younger woman who seemed more than a little interested in Michael Korda. This book really makes Alex Korda seem like a three dimensional person and is a lot of fun. The bit at the end where he goes to the 56 Hungarian Revolution feels tacked on.

Book review - "The Two Frank Thrings" (2012) by Peter Fitzpatrick

It's kind of inviting chuckles to describe someone as a giant of the Australian film industry, particularly in the 1930s, but there's no doubt F.W. Thring was one of its leading lights, up there with Ken G. Hall and Stuart F. Doyle. In particular it was Thring's rivalry with Doyle which led to the creation of many stupendous cinemas (the best Australia's ever had, really - some still exist today), and the creation of rival film studios; he helped turn Hoyts into an entertainment giant, set up radio stations, created his own production company, produced a raft of films (shorts and documentaries as well as features) and stage shows. It was a rich legacy and Thring deserved a biography. But would it sell? After all not many people remember or even watch his stuff today? So why not add the son - far more famous and (to be honest) entertaining? This is the first dual father and son biography I've read but it really works and this was a terrific book.

F.W. Thring had an amazing life and career: country town upbringing (from Wentworth), stints as a bootmaker and conjurer before finding his niche running cinemas in Tasmania; an early marriage with a woman that resulted in a kid but he soon shunted both off wife and daughter to South Australia while he made his name in Melbourne; running a waxworks in Melbourne that led to marriage to the boss' chubby daughter (his first wife conveniently died) and a career as an exhibitor, at which he was very successful, including being managing director of Hoyts, enabling to buy a mansion in Toorak; then setting up Efftee Studios.

Efftee's output is a mixed bag - Thring obviously had a lot of skills, including organisation, salesmanship, and an eye for a good property (eg he made vehicles for Pat Hanna and George Wallace, he produced Collitts Inn for the stage), but he really wasn't a good director. It's a shame he couldn't have stayed producer and helped secure better exhibition for his films and gotten others to direct - but maybe then it wouldn't have been less fun and Thring wouldn't have gotten involved in movie making in the first place.

His personality remains a little sketchy - a chubby man over fond of a drink, who had an eye for the main chance and who loved show biz; who perhaps also liked Donald Warne (Fitzpatrick hints at an affair). His most touching relationship is that with his daughter; he died before he got to know his son well. It's interesting to wonder what would have happened had Thring managed to live at least another couple of years - I like to think he'd make a couple of decent features. My own one-that-got-away: a big screen adaptation of Collitts Inn.

Thring Jnr was a different kettle of fish - flamboyant, outrageous, a genuine character. He didn't have his father's drive to make money but he certainly had ambition, appearing on radio and using his family's money (Thring Snr left a decent amount behind when he died) to fund a theatre company. Its hard to gauge how good an actor Thring Jnr was because so many of his film appearances are essentially cameos but Fitzpatrick's book makes a claim that he could, when presses, turn in some brilliant work on stage.

In a sense it didn't matter because Thring Jnr had such a vibrant big personality that he seemed to get work soon and easily - even if he was around today it's easy to imagine him being cast as villains in the latest blockbuster. He made several trips to London, drawing attention in a performance of Salome, acting opposite Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier, going a long run in a stage version of Doctor in the House, getting cast as a series of villains in Hollywood blockbusters (all good movies too: The Vikings, Ben Hur, King of Kings, El Cid). Then, when surely a decade at least of well paying work around the world was his for the taking, he elected to come home. Why is a bit of a mystery - but it seems he was simply homesick and enjoyed being a big fish in a small pond.

The Australian film industry of the 60s through to 80s never really used Thring in anything other than cameos but he enjoyed better parts on stage, including a long successful association with the MTC. He was a genuine institution in Melbourne, even becoming the King of Moomba and having a one person show. He never found happiness in his personal life - gay from the get-go, he never seems to have a sustained romantic relationship... apart from one with a good female friend who he made the mistake of marrying (it ended badly: he encouraged her to have an affair, she had one with Peter Finch, Thring Jnr lost his nut). However he could be an inspiring teacher and devoted mentor. A many of many contradictions who had a genuine talent - perhaps not exploited as well as it could have been (he dulled his edge with too much drinking), far too mean to his mother, but who nonetheless left his mark.

I loved reading this book. Wasn't as wild about the internal monologue bits, but I can understand why they were there. Some excellent scholarship, tremendous interviews, very well written.

Movie review - "Rebecca" (1940) ***** (warning: spoilers)

Astonishingly good adaptation of du Maurier's novel, which may have been a knock off of Jane Eyre but is executed with complete conviction and the perfect combination of American pace and English touches. It's a tribute to David O Selznick, who produced this at his peak - perfect selection of director, cast, writer, cinematographer, etc. It all works beautifully.

Joan Fontaine anchors the piece as the girl - the perfect Cinderella before a transformation, shy and uncertain - she was never this good in anything again. (She is less compelling when she "grows up" but that is the point.) Laurence Olivier is brilliant as the doomed Maxim - it's not hard to see why Selznick wanted Ronald Colman, but for my mind Olivier is better than Colman would have been; younger, with a darker tone.

Outstanding support cast, including Nigel Bruce, Gladys Cooper and especially George Sanders and Judith Anderson. The piece is less good in the last quarter as Fontaine and Anderson retreat to the background and it becomes about Olivier and the trial - despite Sanders' sterling work and a nice turn from Leo G Gordon at the end, the deux ex machina of the cancer feels like a massive cheat. But a great example of Hollywood in its Golden Age.

Movie review – “The Divorce of Lady X” (1938) **

Jolly japes amongst upper class twits with star power and colour photography but its crappy 30s British technicolour photography and the stars are Laurence Olivier (handsome, technically proficient but a bit too obviously technically proficient) and Merle Oberon (acting like she’s the prettiest girl in school, which she was). There’s also some very weak material – a fog leads Oberon to boss her way into Olivier’s hotel suite and she falls for him; he thinks she’s married, she isn’t but lets him think she is, to, er, test him I think and… look, it’s really stupid. Ralph Richardson hams it up and Binnie Barnes is also on hand as well as some character actors. 

I assume Alex Korda wanted to make this to showcase Oberon, who wears a variety of fashionable outfits and hats, as well as some “hey isn’t this cute” male pajamas. She and Olivier aren’t the best rom com couple but they are game, and Olivier’s performance in particularly grew on me. They are the best thing about this astonishingly lame comedy and it makes a fascinating companion piece to Wuthering Heights.