Phil Yordan top ten

Yes, I am aware when it comes to Yordan it's often unclear who did what but anyway... 

 1) The Big Combo (1955)

2) Men in War (1957) 

3) When Strangers Marry (1944) 

4)  El Cid (1961)

5) Johnny Guitar (1954)

6) The Naked Jungle (1954)

7) The Chase (1946)

8) The Harder They Fall (1956)

9) Joe Macbeth (1955) 

10) Reign of Terror (1949) 

These were all good scripts. Yordan had a strong track record. 

Movie review - "King of Kings" (1961) ****

 For some reason this film is called a flop when it did very nicely particularly internationally - maybe MGM were expecting Ben Hur Mark Two which it wasn't but it made a strong profit.

Handsomely made. Smart. Hunter does well in a difficult role. The support cast steal the show but they always do in Jesus movies.

Charlton Heston Top Ten

 1. Ben Hur (1959)

2. Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

3. Ten Commandments (1956)

4. El Cid (1961)

5. Omega Man (1971)

6. Soylent Green (1972)

7. Naked Jungle (1954)

8. Three Musketeers (1973)

9. Planet of the Apes (1968)

10, Major Dundee (1965) - excellent performance

This was a really easy list to compile. Unlike many stars of his generation, Heston had a strong 70s.

Unsung Aussie filmmakers - Ron Randell: A Top Twenty

We hear a lot about Aussie stars who've madee it in Hollywood. Actors plucked from our shores and given roles in big studio films who go on to fame and fortune - Mel Gibson, Chris Hemsworth, Margot Robbie, etc, etc. We don't hear as often about Aussie actors who got a big overseas break... but didn't make it. Shooting comets who were going to be the Next Big Thing but weren't. Ron Randell was a case in point. Stephen Vagg decided to shine a light on the career of this (relatively) little known actor who still carved out a sixty year career by looking at twenty of his most notable performances.

1) South West Pacific (1943)

Ron Randell was no overnight sensation. Born in 1918, he broke into showbusiness as a child, appearing on a radio show for kids and becoming an established performer in that medium. By the late thirties he was a busy stage actor too. He was a tall good looking guy so in a way it's odd film producers didn't use him until South West Pacific (1943), a propaganda short from Cinesound Productions. Randell has a short scene playing an American soldier cut off behind Japanese lines alongside an Aussie soldier (played by Grant Taylor) - a concept so strong they could have made a feature on that alone. South West Pacific proved unexpectedly controversial when opposition politicians criticised it as being too supportive of the government during an election year, and critics complained about its quality, saying it was cringe-y and shouldn't be exported.

See for yourself - a copy of the film is here - https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F01453/

2) A Son is Born (1946)

Randell was invalided out of the army due to illness and travelled to the US during the war for treatment. While there he did a few screen tests, but to little avail. (He writes about it here - https://archive.org/details/Cavalcade_v04n01_1946-06/page/n14)

He returned to Australia and resumed his busy career on radio and stage. His first role in a feature came when Eric Porter cast him in this melodrama as the spoilt son of a wronged woman (Muriel Steinbeck). Randell's n'er-do-well father was played by Peter Finch, even then known as the best actor in the country, and very good in the movie... but, surprise surprise, Randell wipes the floor with him. Charismatic, vicious, cruel, it's a great performance and established Randell as a force to watch. It makes it frustrating when you consider that Randell went on to play so few villains in his subsequent career - he had a real gift for them, and wasted his talent far too often in bland leading man roles.

(Information on A Son is Born is here https://www.ozmovies.com.au/movie/son-is-born#details)

Release of the film was delayed to take advantage of publicity from Randell's next film, which really made his career...

3) Smithy (1946)

This biopic of Charles Kingsford Smith was, along with The Overlanders, the big Australian movie of 1946, and  competition was hot over who would play the lead role. Director Ken G Hall said it came down to two actors, Finch and Randell - and Randell was chosen due to his superior romantic appeal. While Finch was the better actor, I feel it was the right decision - Randell suited the more conventional, romantic approach Hall wanted to take with the material. It's a good performance, too, particularly in the second half of the film, which  was a big box office success.

A clip from the film is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGzGHBy-Jqw

The movie was financed by Columbia Studios, who were so impressed with Randell they offered him a long term contract. It was a massive break and he accepted.

4) Bulldog Drummond at Bay (1947)

Randell's American career got off to a solid start when their B picture division were looking for a new face who could "talk British" for a revamp of the Bulldog Drummond series, an adaptation of adventure stories by Sapper (only with the fascism drained out of them). So basically he went straight into leading roles. This was an okay film, a little creaky - Randell wasn't quite comfortable in the lead. He only played Drummond twice before the series was cancelled.

A clip from the film is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejdI-Eu923Q

5) The Loves of Carmen (1948)

In addition to being starred in "B"s, Columbia built up Randell as a star by giving him support roles in "A"s - It Had to Be You (1947) with Ginger Rogers, The Mating of Millie (1948) with Glenn Ford, The Sign of the Ram (1948) with Susan Peters. Most notably he was in the studio's biggest film of 1948, The Loves of Carmen (1948) with its two biggest stars, Glenn Ford and Rita Hayworth.  Randell was billed third. Columbia, it seemed, loved him and a brilliant future awaited.

A trailer is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEkWuhv1-EA

6) Make Believe Ballroom (1949)

Then it all stopped. Or at least cooled down.

Columbia cancelled the Bulldog Drummond series. They tried Randell in a revival of the Lone Wolf series but that only lasted one film before that franchise was cancelled as well. They put him in a support role in a "B", Make Believe Ballroom (1949), and seemed to lose interest. He would appear in some Columbia "B" films but never an "A" movie again. The studio started promoting other young leading men - John Derek, Also Ray. Randell was left behind.

What the hell happened? What had gone wrong?

It seems Columbia fell out of love with Randell. Maybe he was difficult on set. Maybe response to his performances were not what they hoped - this might have been at an executive level, but it could have been with the public. None of his movies had been big hits.

Whatever happened, the tide had turned. Randell was no longer the Next Big Thing.

7) Omoo Omoo the Shark God (1949)

Randell was still a good looking leading man and was offered the lead in a quickie adventure movie, Omoo Omoo the Shark God, based on a novel by Herman Melville.  It was cheap and silly, the sort of thing you don't want to appear in if you're on the way up, but is actually quite fun and if Randell wasn't a great star he was a perfectly acceptable lead,. He went on to appear in a series of low budget adventure stories along this line, such as Tyrant of the Sea (1950), Counterspy Meets Scotland Yard (1950), China Corsair (1951), Lorna Doone (1951) and The Brigand (1952). Many of these were made for Columbia who over time started to shift Randell down the last list, even in "B" movies. Still, he was working.

A copy of the film is here - https://archive.org/details/Omoo-OmootheSharkGod.

8) Wicked is the Vine (1949)

Randell headed to New York in the late forties to rejuvenate his career. He appeared on Broadway in The Browning Version and also on television in Wicked is the Vine. This was a TV play by Australian Sumner Locke Elliot about Lizzie Borden, the first script by an Australian to be performed on US television. It was well received, kick starting Elliot's career in New York, and leading to a series of small screen offers for Randell.

9) Candida (1952)


Randell's film career was drifting into support roles. However he got a good opportunity on stage co starring with Olivia de Havilland in a production of Shaw's Candida that toured the country. By the fifties Randell had become one of those actors who could not afford to specialise in one kind of acting - he went back and forth between films, television, radio and stage.

He and de Havilland appeared together on radio in a production of My Cousin Rachel (she had just made the film version with Richard Burton). You can hear it here - https://www.oldtimeradiodownloads.com/drama/lux/lux-radio-theater-53-09-07-845-my-cousin-rachel. For all Randell's talent he did not have a deep voice - his performance does not compare with Burton's in the film. Maybe that is what held back Randell.

10) Kiss Me Kate (1953)

Randell made the occasional "A" film in the fifties and sixties though always as a support player. This classic musical cast him as Cole Porter, and probably gave him his greatest exposure to audiences since Carmen. He also appeared down the cast list in "A"s such as The Mississippi Gambler (1953) and I am Camera (1955).

11) "The Kiss"

In the early fifties, Randell headed over to England to see what opportunities were there. He got work on television and stage but what really helped raise his profile was MC'ing a variety show on television (he was experienced doing this on Australian radio in the forties). One night Randell blew a kiss to the audience at the end of the episode, which sent the media into a minor frenzy, helped Randell get all sort of jobs including hosting The Vise (1954-55). It wasn't stardom but it was something.

12) The Caine Mutiny Court Martial (1955)

Randell returned to Australia in 1955 to appear in a production of Herman Wouk's hit play, The Caine Mutiny Court Martial. It wasn't to be a triumphant homecoming though - bookings were erratic and the cast were locked in their Sydney hotel due to a failure to pay their bill. (Read the article here - http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91195559) Randell soon went back to England.

13) OSS (1957-58)

Television came to the rescue when Randell received an offer to star in an espionage TV series shot in Europe. It was a minor success and sold well around the world. It led to him being offered lead roles in features again, albeit Bs like The Strange Case of Dr Manning (1958).

14) The World of Suzie Wong  (1958-60)

By the late fifties Randell was truly an international actor, basing himself wherever the work was. He experienced Broadway success when cast in a support role in The World of Suzie Wong alongside William Shatner and Frances Nguyen. The show ran for a couple of years - although Randell's part was only minor (and he missed out on the film role to Michael Wilding) it's always nice to be in a hit and it helped raise his profile.

15) The Most Dangerous Man Alive (1961)

Randell's last leading role was in this science fiction B movie which was the last feature from director Allan Dwan, a remake of a Lon Chaney Jr movie.It has a poor critical reputation but Randell gives it his all; the film has a minor cult.

A copy of the trailer is here - https://www.videodetective.com/movies/most-dangerous-man-alive/519344


16) King of Kings (1961)

Perhaps it was his Suzie Wong profile that led to Randell receiving his best film offer in ages - as the Roman centurion who arrests Jesus in Nicholas Ray's epic King of Kings. Randell is excellent in the film's best part - he gets good chances and takes them, reminding everyone of his talent. It seemed to rejuvenate his career slightly in the sixties - he returned to Australia for the film's premiere here, and worked on number European films such as Gold for Caesar (1963) and Follow the Boys (1963). Producer Samuel Bronston later used Randell in Savage Pampas (1966). However he never became a leading man again in features. It's curious as to why when King of Kings did so well - maybe he didn't have the hunger. Maybe he didn't get the offers. Maybe he was too indistinct a screen personality. Still, his fine performance remains.

Randell is at the London premiere here - https://www.britishpathe.com/video/king-of-kings-premiere/query/Carroll

17)The Duplicate Man (1964)

Randell was busy as a guest star on US television through the sixties. One of his most fondly remembered performances were in "The Duplicate Man" an episode of The Outer Limits. It says a lot for film fandom that Randell's sci fi works - Most Dangerous Man Alive, The She Creature - are far more remembered and written about than anything else he did even though they constitute a relatively small part of his output.

18) There's a Girl in My Soup (1967-68)

Randell returned to Australia in the late sixties, in a touring production of There's a Girl in My Soup (a hit on stage for Gig Young and on screen for Peter Sellers)l unlike The Caine Mutiny Court Martial this proved to be a triumph, running for months around the country. Randell was so encouraged by this response he would return to his native country several times in productions of plays. While in the country he would guest star on episodes of shows like The Rovers, The Long Arm and Delta.

Several Australian actors returned home during the revival of the seventies, such as Michael Pate, Ray Barrett and Charles Tingwell, and its tempting to wonder what would have happened had Randell done the same. But he elected to stay based in the US.

19) Whity (1971)

Randell was top billed in this lesser known work from German director Rainer Fassbinder, a combination of European Western and American South Melodrama, shot in Spain. The same year Randell was in Russ Meyer's The Seven Minutes (1971) so clearly this was a "cult filmmaker" time for him.

A clip from Whity is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni1bwcRNndY It looks insane.

20) Bent (1979-80)

By the seventies Randell's film and TV offers dried up and he mostly worked as a theatre actor (including several stints in Australia). He worked solidly on Broadway, always in support roles but in some good productions like Sherlock Holmes. His biggest success was in Bent, Martin Sherman's play about gay men in Germany which starred a young Richard Gere, and had Randell in a support role.

Randell's last notable performance was in a 1995 theatre revival of the classic School for Scandal starring Tony Randall.  That's a sixty year career. Maybe Randell didn't become the massive star that Australia thought he was going to be in 1946. But to work as an actor for over five decades. That is a hell of an achievement.

Movie review - "Circus World" (1964) ** (re-viewing)

Samuel Bronston had tackled Revolutionary America, medieval Spain. the Boxer Rebellion and Ancient Rome -with this he turned his eye on turn of the century circuses. Not as inherently violent as those periods, but still plenty of spectacle and colour. John Wayne is believable as a circus owner and its nice to see him out of Westerns.

But they didn't bring a story.Wayne runs a circus, has an adoptive daughter (Claudia Cardinale) and a rival (John Smith) plus a best friend (Lloyd Nolan). He decides to take his show to Europe. Things get off to a rocky start when, in the film's best sequence, the boat capsizes and a lot of his animals and equipment are sunk. But he bounces back with relative ease, gets together a new circus and is a success. There's a fire at the end, but no members of the public are present and it's quickly resolved.

There's a subplot - or is it the main plot, I wasn't sure - about Wayne and Cardinale who run in to Rita Hayworth, Cardinale's mother; she was married to Cardinale's father, but had an affair with Wayne which resulted in the dad basically killing himself on the trapeze.

There are interesting elements raised but never developed. At the beginning a lot is made of John Wayne and John Smith being Wild West style artists, which is cool and a great reason to explain their presence in the cast... but then this feels forgotten and these two just hang around the circus at the end. Lloyd Nolan feels as though he's in the movie just for exposition. Richard Conte looks as though he's about to do something interesting, as a clown who is the brother of Cardinale's father, but he never does. (Or is he the person who wrote "suicide" on Cardinale's wall? I wasn't sure who did that.) John Smith's character threatens to become interesting, with this supposed rivalry with Wayne and romancing Cardinale - but the script never develops any conflict. (Why not make him Wayne's biological son? Why not ramp up the conflict?)

The romance between Cardinale and Smith is rushed through and feels a bit yuck because although Cardinale is stunning as always (especially in those trapeze outfits), she plays it so naive and child like.

John Wayne is fun. Richard Conte and Nolan are professional. John Smith is weak; his role was to have been played by Rod Taylor, and it's a shame it wasn't - Taylor is simply a better, more charismatic actor and the part could've used it. Rita Hayworth was excellent in her part; she looks tragic and is a believable trapeze artist. Many good elements, but it doesn't mesh, and the film's failure at the box office is hardly surprising.

Vale Omar Sharif

Omar Sharif was always a bit of a punchline rather than an actor but he remains (I'm pretty sure anyway) the only Arab to have become a genuine Hollywood star, and proved you can sustain a lucrative career appearing in only three hits and countless flops provided those three hits are among the biggest blockbusters of all time.

For the sheer hell of it here are my top five random Omar Sharif performances in massive flops:
1) Fall of The Roman Empire (1964) - actually has the same plot as Russell Crowe's Gladiator just structured differently and as a result no one went to see it. Played King of the Armenians.
2) Mackenna's Gold (1969) - the team that made Guns of Navarone reteam with Sharif thrown in and results in a confusing Western. Played a Mexican.
3) Che! (1969) - Sharif as Che Guevera has to be seen to be believed as does Jack Palance as Castro. It's actually kind of an interesting movie just very right wing. Played an Argentinian.
4) The Last Valley (1971) - Michael Caine out miscasts Sharif here in a film which answers the question "why doesn't Hollywood make any movies about the 30 Year War?" Plays a German.
5) Top Secret (1984) - one of the funniest comedies of all time, and the only reason I can think it wasn't a massive hit is it mixed genres. Plays someone from a random nation.

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.

Book review – “Nicholas Ray The Glorious Failure of an American Director” by Patrick McGilligan

I admit to being a little surprised to hear that McGilligan picked Ray as a topic – but when you think about it, why not? He still has a strong cult and his life was fascinating. At one stage the French new wave critics ranked him with Welles and Hawks – now I doubt he’d be as highly regarded, although Rebel Without a Cause remains a classic. He was Mr Cult film for a long time: They Live By Night, On Dangerous Ground, Johnny Guitar, In a Lonely Place, Bigger Than Life.

Ray’s great gift seems to have been getting along with powerful people – straight out of college he went to work at a sort of architectural commune with Frank Lloyd Wright, he had associations with Thorton Wilder and Woody Guthrie (doing folk music on radio, which was news to me), Joe Losey, Elia Kazan (his most crucial relationship – he brought Ray to Hollywood) and John Houseman. Later on he prolonged his career by impressing James Dean, Howard Hughes, Lew Wasserman and Sam Bronston. Bisexual, he chalked up an impressive list of conquests – Natalie Wood (when she was a very adult 16 – this is hot reading), Shelley Winters, Marilyn Monroe, Edie Wasserman, Gavin Lambert.

Did any directors throw away their life and career as much as Ray? He got chance after chance, constantly setting up in new countries and studios but burning bridges. After wrecking his reputation in Hollywood studios he found refuge with independents, then with Sam Bronston, then other places in Europe – but kept stuffing it each time with drinking, drug taking, gambling.

The standard of the book is very high, like all McGilligan works - extremely well researched, empathetic, very strong in particular in leftist politics and the critical reputation of its subject.

Movie review – “John Paul Jones” (1959) **

The first Spanish epic from Samuel Bronston, who cleverly used assistance from Franco and financial backing from the Du Pont family over several years in the late 50s and early 60s to create a number of epics. It was also the last film as director from John Farrow, for whom this was a passion project (Farrow had served in the Canadian navy and had a life-long interest in sailing).

 

It doesn’t mean it’s good, though – this is a stilted, bland biopic, not helped by Robert Stack’s stiff performance in the lead role. Stack was often stiff but it’s particularly distracting here. For instance there’s quite a well written scene (albeit in a flowery way) where Jones defies the father of his girlfriend (Marisa Pavan) – but Stack sinks to the occasion. The script has flashes of a more complex man in John Paul Jones – his tendency towards violence, for instance – but it’s not conveyed by the actor playing him.

 

I was led to believe this was a big budget film but it doesn’t seem particularly spectacular – certainly not to compare with Bronston’s later epics. I kept expecting epic battle scenes and swarms of extras, instead there’s lots of close ups, tight shots and scenes set indoors.

 

For all that this sheds life in a period of American (and British) history not often featured on screen. The British are treated with the greatest respect - Stack’s scenes with his British opponent captain (Peter Cushing) are positively bromantic. Plenty of hokey biopic moments, such as Stack freeing his brothers slaves (but keeping them on as servants), lines of dialogue like “Who is this Patrick Henry?”. But it is quite open about how some of the most important things the Americans did during the revolution was suck up to the French to get money and arms. And the costumes and photography are pretty.

 

There are cameos from various historical figures including Patrick Henry (played by MacDonald Carey), George Washington (don’t know who plays him – we never see his face, just hear his voice, kind of like a depiction of Jesus), Ben Franklin (Charles Coburn), Marie Antoinette, Louis XVI (Jean Pierre Aumont), Catherine the Great (Bette Davis). 

 

The only one of these that’s a stand out is Bette Davis, who is like this massive jolt of star power and energy at the end of the film – she sweeps in to remind everyone what charisma is. It makes you not mind so much her whole sequence is tacked on. (To avoid this they should have had her play Marie Antoinette). 

 

There’s a bit of Catholicism thrown in there by Farrow in the scene where Pavan goes to mass.

Book review – “Charlton Heston Journals 1956-76” by Charlton Heston

I never really thought much of Charlton Heston until I read this book - he was just this swaggering, noble looking guy who wasn't much of an actor and showed off his teeth through a bunch of epic films. This diary reveals an intelligent, thoughtful man, very serious about his craft, always capable of taking risks. It made me revisit his performances - sorry, nope, I still don't think he was much of an actor (I went through the same thing with Mark Wahlberg after Entourage - respect him more as a person, still don't think much of him as an actor).

But he certainly had a worthy star career: he backed Orson Welles for Touch of Evil and tried to use him on other films (including Anthony and Cleopatra, which Welles wasn't available for but really should have done instead of Heston); he backed Sam Peckinpah on Major Dundee to the point of giving up salary for him; was involved in Civil Rights and went on the March to Washington; backed newbie Tom Gries for Will Penny; pushed through The War Lover; took chances on films like Pro and The Planet of the Apes (which could have been a disaster); constantly took off time to do theatre.

His film career became unexciting in the 70s when he was bogged down in too many disaster films - although successful, they were very same-y, and when the tide ran out on the cycle, Heston's career never quite recovered. 

 

(I think part of the problem was he wouldn't read a script unless it was accompanied by a firm offer - he should have looked around a bit for other parts in films by top directors.)

Very stiff and Protestant, not a barrel of laughs, Heston didn't become a big time gun-toting right-winger until after this journal, where he's still considering the Democrat Party - personally I think his primary motivation for this was because it offered him a great role. 

 

Fascinating reading - a lot more interesting than most Heston performances.

Movie review - "55 Days at Peking" (1963) **1/2

Very much falls into the "one that got away" category, since the siege of the foreign legation during the Boxer Rebellion is a terrific subject, ripe for epic but self contained enough to do cheap sequences, full of glamour, exotic action and political drama (a dying empire, new nations asserting themselves for money, international co-operation, etc)- not to mention great opportunities for an international cast. This is presumably how the film got funded in the first place - it's a shame they couldn't come up with a script to match it (Phil Yordan did come up with the evocative title).

The elements sound good - Charlton Heston as a US marine, David Niven as the British ambassador, Ava Gardner as a shady Russian aristocrat - it sets up all the stuff: surrounded by Chinese, hostile Empress, the siege starts, the Empress backs it, goes on... But never really catches fire.

You never get the sense our heroes are under much threat; the whole rebellion must have been a terrifying time - in a hostile country - but you never get the sense of fear they way you do in, say, Zulu. Maybe this is because the key Chinese are played by English and Australian actors (good ones and well cast, admittedly, but still not Chinese) - Leo Genn, Flora Robson and our own Robert Helpmann.

Also the film wastes too much time - there are all these scenes which go nowhere, like Ava Gardner tending this British soldier who get, like who cares; and the one where David Niven lies on a couch wondering to his wife whether he's done the right thing - again,who cares? (And this is one scene after Niven's son as been shot - the biggest surprise in the film, incidentally, and the most effective... until they ruin it by having the son recover and thereby rob the incident of its point - but my point is, the wife was mad in the previous scene then is no longer mad, how about a scene that progresses the story?)

There's too much talking about how hard the siege is, instead of showing how hard it is. The scene where Heston and Niven dress up as Chinese and goon the attack isn't bad; ditto the use of fireworks at the end and Robson's scene at the end where she realises its all over; and it's certainly colourful. The influence of the Cold War can be felt: while the Germans and Japanese are loyal, good fighters albeit still following the orders of the British), the Russians are shown to be treacherous and wanting to get out of it, and the Boxer Chinese are pretty much a faceless mass.

Movie review - "King of Kings" (1961) ***

Jeffrey Hunter's casting as Jesus in this Bronston epic led some to dub the film as I was a Teenage Jesus but he's fine - as fine as you can be playing Jesus, it's a thankless role in many ways, you can't be too controversial or show anything other than serenity or pain.

He certainly looks the part, with his beard and blue eyes, and conveys a degree of intensity. He's certainly more authentic seeming than the very American Robert Ryan as John the Baptist and Harry Guardino as Barabbas. The film doesn't seem to have done too much for his career (playing Jesus didn't really help Jim Cazaviel, Chris Sarandon, or Max Von Sydow either - its not as though casting directors go "great, you can play another prophet).

It's been ages since I saw a Jesus movie when I watched this and I was struck (a) what a good yarn the Jesus story is (at its most basic), especially the events around the Crucifixion and (b) how history repeats itself. Time and time again we have societies oppressed by an occupier which throw up Messiahs, who soon attract disciples through a combination of their message and sense of certainty. People who are totally sure about something will always attract followers - Alan Jones, Che Guevara, the guy who prompted the Tai Ping Rebellion. They will always attract hostility, too, and be seen as a threat(which, to be honest, they are).

The film splits into two narrative strands, which touch occasionally and intertwine at the end. One of them is the Jesus strand, where he spouts various parables (in a sort of "greatest hits" way), collects disciples, does the Sermon on the Mount (done as a sort of Q and A session, which actually works very well- although you get the impression it would have been a bit nosier with people talking over the top of each other), heals people.

The main problem with this section is the eternal one - the "softly softly" approach on Jesus; also his disciples are not that well drawn either, even the usual standbys like Peter and Judas (played by none other than Rip Torn - though I wouldn't have known it unless I had read it, he's hard to recognise), so when both betray their leader it doesn't have the emotional impact it might had their been a little more character development.

More compelling is the second story strand, which involves the Roman occupation of Judea and concerns Jewish resistance leader Barabbas who wants to use Jesus' followers for Jewish independence (an idea which works well), the local king Herod (Frank Thring doing his Thring thing with aplomb), and a Roman centurion (another Aussie, Ron Randell) who has served a long time in Judea and is greatly affected by Jesus (he turns out to be the soldier who says "surely this was the son of God") - this is easily the most interesting character, because he takes a real emotional journey, and Randell gives the best performance. Salome is a kind of spoilt Lolita-like teen, a concept which works and Hurd Hatfield totally gets the slightly-dissatisfied-public-servant "air" of Pontius Pilate.

There is some Bronston spectacle - the opening sequence where Pompey enters Jerusalem is quite stunning, the Sermon of the Mount is full of extras, the final battle from Barabbas' troops. But it doesn't particularly need it.

The film may have been more effective as a spectacle if it focused more on Barabbas and the Centurion and making Jesus more of a supporting character. Or else making it about Jesus and making it more intimate. As a result it sort of falls between two stools. But its still quite a good movie, with a moving finale. Watching it, I couldn't help think: it would be terrific to do a Rome-type series set during this period.

Movie review - "The Fall of the Roman Empire" (1964) **

The film that caused the collapse of the Samuel L Bronston empire (well, that and a few other things).

Despite the catchy high concept title and the bright idea of setting a film in the reign of Commodus (which worked during Gladiator) the film has a conceptual flaw - unlike King of Kings or El Cid it isn't set around a particular person, and unlike 55 Days at Peking it's not around one particular self-contained event.

The Fall of the Roman Empire took a long time (as the opening narration admits), too long to really be encapsulated in one film - though it is fair enough to mark it at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and the film does touch on the broad reasons (bringing barbarians within the frontier but never really getting along with them, corruption at the top with the crown basically being a thing for sale)

Stephen Boyd is the fictitious hero, seemingly modelled on Ben Hur (his hair is dyed light brown, Charlton Heston was originally offered the role) - indeed, there is a scene at the beginning where Boyd and Chris Plummer talk about their childhood friendship which is just like the one at the beginning of Ben Hur between Boyd and Heston, and Boyd and Plummer have a chariot sort-of-race along a mountainside road.

The similarities don't end there: both Gladiator and Fall have as their hero a fictitious general who is favoured by Marcus Aurelius over the Emperor's actual son, Commodus and who is loved by the Emperor's daughter (here played by Sophia Loren, beautiful but with little to do). Both films Commodus gets jealous and Marcus is murdered. Commodus becomes emperor and eventually turns on the hero. The hero ultimately defeats Commodus in a gladiator battle.

But there are some keen differences - and these differences are, I think, why the film flopped at the box office (the writers of Gladiator must have watched this film and learned). Marcus A dies relatively early in Gladiator enabling the story to get going but here its over an hour before Alec Guinness kicks the bucket. In Gladiator Commodus tries to kill Russell Crowe pretty much straight away, sending Russell off to gladiator land and a strong second act. Here Commodus makes Stephen Boyd head of the army - Boyd goes off to fight on the northern frontier and there is kind of a second act plot, about Rome trying to get along with barbarians (led by John Ireland in an unconvincing beard) - but this is driven more by James Mason, as a Greek slave who envisions the Roman Empire as a kind of international brotherhood of man, rather than Boyd, who stands to the side and goes "I agree" and asks after Loren. But when Loren and others rise up against Commodus (Loren's married to Omar Sharif, who I had trouble recognising without his moustache), Boyd refuses to join in. So we have a passive hero. And when Boyd is finally arrested, the final climax fight happens straight away.

This film can't be simply dismissed - it does seek to tackle some difficult subjects, such as the role of the Roman Empire in incorporating different nationalities, and some of the visuals are awesome: the forum set was the biggest outdoor set ever constructed and looks great, there are memorable images, such as the funeral of Marcus Aurelius, shots of legions trooping through the snow (this is one of the snowier Roman epics), Marcus inspecting the troops.

The final fight between Plummer and Boyd in the forum, surrounded by spears, is also good - if only you cared a bit more about who won. If only Plummer cut loose a bit more (we only see a bit of gladiator stuff).

If only, if only... if they'd just copied Ben Hur's structure the way Gladiator did (have act two with Boyd as a prisoner then becoming a gladiator), then act three would have really had impact - and this might have saved Bronston. 

 

Story, story, story.

NB Bronston films that had to be cancelled included The French Revolution, Paris 1900, Night Runners of Bengal and Isabella of Spain.

Movie review - "El Cid" (1961) ****

Full marks to Sam Bronston for having the guts to make an expensive blockbuster out of the life of a man little known in the English speaking world - the Spanish hero El Cid, who helped fight off the Moors. 

The story is definitely a strong one - Cid battling against not just the Moors, but treacherous Christians, and his own family - and Bronston probably figured he had a major ace in the hole with the finale, with a dying Cid strapped to his horse to lead his troops to victory. Making a Spanish story also may have ensured co-operation from the powers that be in Spain.

White anglo Charlton Heston ensures the Cid isn't too Spanish - actually Heston is perfect in the role, imposing, regal and stuffy, which is what Cid apparently was (so devoted to duty he kills his prospective father in law for insulting his honour, saving the life of a prince who wants him dead, gets that said prince off side after he becomes king by humiliating him in front of his men and getting him to promise that he hasn't killed his brother... I kept thinking of Liam Neeson in Rob Roy constantly running around trying to defend his honour, getting into no end of trouble).

This is one of the few medieval films to take the topic of chivalry seriously - it's shown not to be some silly concept, but the way to a better future, to stop the cycle of revenge killings. Although Cid's main enemy is technically the Moors (led by Herbert Lom, very effective with his face covered), he also battles jealousy from the Spanish Court - and there are several nice Moor characters, too (some of whom want to fight against Lom but the bigoted "Christian" Spanish king won't let them - this gives the story extra resonance today).

The film goes for three hours, and it needn't have - the story fairly spanks along in some places (for instance at the beginning the Cid routs the enemy, sets free some Moors, fights a duel, etc in about ten minutes), but in others it screeches to a halt (mostly whenever Sophia Loren appears - its as if the filmmakers realised her character doesn't have that much to do apart from go "you killed my father" and "why are you never home", but they wanted to increase her role so they drag out her scenes with Heston). It's a shame they didn't aim harder for a two hour running time, I think it still would have worked.

Some of this is awesome - stunning spectacle (you really see it up there on screen). Anthony Mann was best known for his Westerns rather than his epics, but his "eye" is great here - beautifully composed shots, memorable moments (eg the scene of horses running along the beach, the final battle).

He's good on the intimate physical stuff, too: there are two terrific duels (especially the joust fight scene which is really exciting) and a suspenseful assassination. There's a bit of 1961 psychology tang in the script by emphasising a possible incestuous link between the siblings prince and princess of Spain. Similar to Braveheart in some ways, too,with the hero's sufferings causing a bratty prince (John Fraser) to become a noble king - though to be honest Fraser's character is such a prat for most of the film, even after Cid has saved his life, I can't see him being too high and mighty for long afterwards.

Note for Aussies - Frank Thring plays a villainous Moor who plunges to his death.

Movie review - "Circus World" (1964) **1/2

Along with The Fall of the Roman Empire this was the last gasp of the short-lived Sam Bronston experiment. There is plenty of production value in this tale of an American circus in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century and John Wayne is at home as the owner of the circus; Claudia Cardinale is beautiful as ever although a little silly (she has to act like a child who becomes a woman - but I'm sorry the way she fills out those outfits she's a woman from the get-go).

Despite all the writers who worked on it the story is not strong, most of it concerned with Wayne casually looking for ex love (and Cardinale's mother) Rita Hayworth. The big secret is that Hayworth was having an affair with Wayne... Cardinale is shocked for about five minutes before forgiving him. And that's it. John Smith (in a role Rod Taylor was meant to play only he walked out prior to shooting) plays Wayne's partner and Cardinale's love interest - you keep expecting him to do something, some confict, but nothing happens. Ditto Lloyd Nolan as Wayne's off sider. Hayworth isn't bad in her role, a faded beauty - the part is similiar to the one she played in Separate Tables.

The best bit comes around 20 minutes in when there's an accident involving the circus at the docks and everything sink. There's also a decent fire sequence towards the end. Colourful and not bad, but, like so many Bronston productions, needed a little more care in the script.