Margaret Lockwood was probably the most popular homegrown British female star ever - more popular I think in the long run than Anna Neagle or Jessie Matthews (maybe Gracie Fields challenges her). Her reputation remains today, chiefly on the basis of three classic films: The Lady Vanishes, The Man in Grey and The Wicked Lady. Try thinking of some other Lockwood films off the top of your head - there's Bank Holiday, The Stars Look Down, Night Train... and that's about it. Maybe Jassy. I remember enjoying Madness of the Heart on TV as a kid. She only worked with really good directors a few times (Carol Reed and Hitchcock) and made an awful lot of crap.
She was very popular, though. Partly because she always had a sparkle in her eye, partly because she was good looking, but not beyond the realms of all possibility good looking. She was also lucky her years of real beauty happened to coincide with WW2, when British women were a bit more cashed up and independent than usual, or at least wanting to be so, and her good spirits were very attractive.
Lockwood's first phase of stardom came in the late 30s, when she played a series of bright young things for Hitchcock, Reed, etc - her performances stand up today, she was very winning and likeable and attractive.
Then there was the bad girl phase of the mid 40s - her raven hair helped her adapt well to these, she flashed some cleavage and killed people. She didn't play villainous roles that often. Her post Wicked Lady films were weaker, none seem to linger in the memory (some apparently were hits - I wish the biography was more specific on this), eventually her place was supplanted by Anna Neagle.
Lockwood continued to star in films through the 50s (she even made three for Neagle's husband Herbert Wilcox), then from the 50s to the 70s she had one of those crappy stage and TV careers you could have in England in those days - nothing memorable, lots of stock thrillers and comedies, forever touring up and down the country and appearing on TV.
Lockwood would complain often about poor material (especially when under contract to Rank in the late 40s) but really she and her agent didn't know a good script when it fell on them - or if they did then they fled, preferring old musty vehicles all the way up til her retirement. Lockwood turned down an offer to go to Hollywood to make Forever Amber (she would have been great and I think would have made a go of it there - but then come to think of it Phyllis Calvert didn't, really), turned down parts in The Browning Version, kept making crap after crap.
This biography makes Lockwood seem something of a lonely, tragic figure - maybe "tragic" isn't right (after she became a star she didn't do anything she didn't want to do), just really lonely. She was born in India, mum took her to England while dad stayed in India (until he died in 1950), Margaret became stage struck early as a girl and mum duly escorted her around til she started getting work, she became a star and got married to some bloke called Rupert who was her first boyfriend - she knew mum would chuck a mental so kept it a secret (they didn't spend their wedding night together), mum found out and chucked a mental. War came around, hubby went off to the army, they had a kid, mum looked after the kid, Mags fell in love with an officer and had an affair. There was a custody battle - mum (who sounds like a total bitch) gave evidence against her daughter!! Mags won custody, was very close to her daughter - she had some long term boyfriends but the one she thought was a stayer, John Stone, fell in love with someone else and shot through (that girl then fell ill with cancer and Stone nursed her until her death). She was a recluse, rarely giving interviews. She sought mum's affection but mum ended up hating her (we never really know why); at first she didn't like fame but then did then didn't like it again; she kept to herself, worked hard.
It's an interesting journey - feels as though it lacks something, maybe that's just Lockwood (she doesn't seem like a very nice person), but enjoyable.
For no real reason here is my Margaret Lockwood top ten (in no particular order):
1) Bank Holiday (1938)
2) The Lady Vanishes (1939)
3) The Wicked Lady (1945)
4) The Man in Grey (1943)
5) Cast a Giant Shadow (1954)
6) Love Story (1944)
7) Night Train (1940)
8) The Stars Look Down (1939)
9) Madness of the Heart (1949)
10) Highly Dangerous (1951)
Friday, March 02, 2007
Book review - "A Talent for Trouble: The Biography of William Wyler" by Jan Herman
William Wyler had one of those blessed lives and careers: born in Europe to a well off family, he received a strong education, then a passage to America and Hollywood not through hard craft and conniving but through his relative, Carl Laemmle of Universal Studios. Once he got there, though, he worked hard, becoming a director, cutting his teeth on Westerns, moving up the Universal ranks, then going to work for Goldwyn. His films more than any were responsible for the Goldwyn touch (its easier to list classic Goldwyn films that he didn't direct).
Wyler seemed to have it all: he earned piles of money and kept it, he got to have affairs with lots of good looking women (including Margaret Sullavan whom he briefly married and Bette Davis) then settling down to an extremely happy marriage, happy family life, success directing all sorts of genres, lots of prizes and admiration in his lifetime, very worthy war service, bravery during time of the HUAC hearings, got a little bit old but died before he went ga-ga or anything like that.
There was some sadness - one of his children died young, he became partially deaf in the war, he was never embraced by auteur critics, smoking made him wheeze... but honestly in the grand scheme of things he got a very good deal. Very few flops: if the critics didn't like them the public did or vice versa but usually both liked his movies (even The Liberation of LB Jones has its admirers - no one seems to like The Children's Hours) No thwarted hopes and dreams and bankruptcy like Von Stroheim, Welles, DW Griffith, Sturges, etc - his personal vision was harder to ascertain, his life lacked a tragic romance... which perhaps why he is not so well remembered today. There's no real "if only" about Wyler - his was a happy, fulfilled life.
Jan Herman's biography is excellent - well written, strongly researched, balances behind the scenes making of film stories with contexts of the time and plenty of personal touches. Most people say nice things about him - there are a few dissenters - Sylvia Sidney hated what she saw as his sadism, ditto Carroll Baker, but most actors seemed to have loved [I'm guessing in retrospect] the way he made them do take after take; some writers whined eg Michael Wilson and his supporters - but again most writers seem to respect him highly - perhaps not so surprising when Terence Stamp quotes Wyler as saying the key to directing was 80% script and 20% casting - I think casting can be more important in some cases, eg star vehicles, but those two things I think are the key.) Wyler deserved an excellent biography and he gets one.
Wyler seemed to have it all: he earned piles of money and kept it, he got to have affairs with lots of good looking women (including Margaret Sullavan whom he briefly married and Bette Davis) then settling down to an extremely happy marriage, happy family life, success directing all sorts of genres, lots of prizes and admiration in his lifetime, very worthy war service, bravery during time of the HUAC hearings, got a little bit old but died before he went ga-ga or anything like that.
There was some sadness - one of his children died young, he became partially deaf in the war, he was never embraced by auteur critics, smoking made him wheeze... but honestly in the grand scheme of things he got a very good deal. Very few flops: if the critics didn't like them the public did or vice versa but usually both liked his movies (even The Liberation of LB Jones has its admirers - no one seems to like The Children's Hours) No thwarted hopes and dreams and bankruptcy like Von Stroheim, Welles, DW Griffith, Sturges, etc - his personal vision was harder to ascertain, his life lacked a tragic romance... which perhaps why he is not so well remembered today. There's no real "if only" about Wyler - his was a happy, fulfilled life.
Jan Herman's biography is excellent - well written, strongly researched, balances behind the scenes making of film stories with contexts of the time and plenty of personal touches. Most people say nice things about him - there are a few dissenters - Sylvia Sidney hated what she saw as his sadism, ditto Carroll Baker, but most actors seemed to have loved [I'm guessing in retrospect] the way he made them do take after take; some writers whined eg Michael Wilson and his supporters - but again most writers seem to respect him highly - perhaps not so surprising when Terence Stamp quotes Wyler as saying the key to directing was 80% script and 20% casting - I think casting can be more important in some cases, eg star vehicles, but those two things I think are the key.) Wyler deserved an excellent biography and he gets one.
Book review - "Osprey series: Stirling Bridge and Falkirk 1297-98" by Peter Armstrong
Osprey Publishing specialise in easy to read illustrated military history titles which concentrate on a specific subject - a battle, campaign, type of army from a specific time - and use lots of colour pictures and short paragraphs to go with it. They don't dumb it down, the research is excellent, they just make it accessible. This looks at the William Wallace rebellion, which I became interested in through the film Braveheart. It's two battles really, which is what Wallace's campaign really consisted of, with a few raids thrown in. Stirling Bridge was won by Scotland, partly because the English foolishly crossed a river right in front of the Scots and were massacred on the bank. Then England got serious, Edward I took charge (a horrible man, Edward, great solider, totally formidable - Patrick McGoohan played him magnificently in the Gibson film), and they beat the Scots at Falkirk - partly because the mossy ground inhibited Scottish maneuvring, partly because of the superiority of English cavalry (which covered the Scottish flanks) and long bowmen, who hammered the Scottish infantry and effectively won the battle. (George MacDonald Fraser once wrote a funny line about Scotland at war - he was referring to the Duke of Cumberland and it went along the line that the Duke learned the valuable lesson that if you stop Scotland scoring in the first five minutes you're in with an excellent chance because they tend to lose interest.)
Wallace lost his power after the defeat; his career went on for years after that, eluding capture and occasionally raiding the English before being betrayed by Scots eager to make peace then dying horribly. He did not have it off with a French princess and impregnate her, that was a Hollywood invention (I think its OK to have Edward I die around the time of Wallace as he only lasted an extra year in real life, but having Wallace father Isabella's child was a bit too much - mind you, you need romance, and Edward II was a wimp, even if it fits into Gibson's pattern of homophobia in his films a bit to easily). From reading this book and seeing the illustrations it also seems the movie was visually off when it came to Scottish army - Wallace was a proper neat knight, and the army disciplined, not a rabble (I guess Gibson wanted to differentiate them). A worthy corrective to the film. Reading it I don't think Scots would have had a genuine chance against Edward I, he was simply too good, not without say France invading as well or something. But Wallace's efforts did provide the basis for the successful efforts against Edward II.
Wallace lost his power after the defeat; his career went on for years after that, eluding capture and occasionally raiding the English before being betrayed by Scots eager to make peace then dying horribly. He did not have it off with a French princess and impregnate her, that was a Hollywood invention (I think its OK to have Edward I die around the time of Wallace as he only lasted an extra year in real life, but having Wallace father Isabella's child was a bit too much - mind you, you need romance, and Edward II was a wimp, even if it fits into Gibson's pattern of homophobia in his films a bit to easily). From reading this book and seeing the illustrations it also seems the movie was visually off when it came to Scottish army - Wallace was a proper neat knight, and the army disciplined, not a rabble (I guess Gibson wanted to differentiate them). A worthy corrective to the film. Reading it I don't think Scots would have had a genuine chance against Edward I, he was simply too good, not without say France invading as well or something. But Wallace's efforts did provide the basis for the successful efforts against Edward II.
Play review - "The Cherry Orchard" by Chekov
Perhaps Chekov's most famous play which has the advantage (in terms of becoming a legend) of being his last. I enjoyed it, though not as much as Uncle Vanya. I can't help it, for me the lead character, the rich girl, was too much of an idiot, frittering away most of her money. The characters I liked the most were the rich merchant determined to avenge his serf past and the socialist perennial student who manages to hang on to his ideals. Tragedy or comedy? I think just drama, a little funny, a lot sad. The ending device of chopping down the cherry orchard is extremely powerful.
Play review - "Fortune" by Hilary Bell
Chinese in the Australian Gold Rush, specifically a seven foot eleven year old called Chang. I would have loved to have seen this on stage to see how it would have worked. There is a strong story, even if at times it seems a bit familiar: the rough tart with the heart of gold who befriends Chang, the smooth talking villain who rips off then rapes the woman (perhaps this character is a little too PC - he seems a bit too conveniently evil), the Chinese woman who has given up her culture and replaces it. It all works, though. Best scene is when Chang raids the Chinese grave for money, this has real impact.
Play review - "Uncle Vanya" by Chekov
My favourite of the Chekovs I have read, it's really brilliant - the edition I read also had the benefit of a good, non-clunky translation. It perhaps as the most robust on screen drama, full of knock down arguments, especially between Vanya and the professor, and for some reason the chats about wasted lives seem to hit home more and the romantic love plots (people loving people who don't love them back, typical for Chekov) are very strongly defined, and moving. Many memorable characters: bitter Vanya, the egotistical professor, his younger wife, the doctor who is a bit of a conservationist commie, the plain daughter who loves the doctor. Impossible love, wasted lifes and estrangement - love it.
Play review - "Wolf Lullaby" by Hilary Bell
This Griffin classic starts with one of the strongest ideas for a play in recent years - child murderers - and it is easily enough to propel a work with weak handling. Bell gives it strong handling, and the result is powerful theatre. Many scenes have you gripped, wondering "what would I do" - such as the parents realising their kid is a killer, and the cop who is hard but not without humanity. Occasional lapses in dialogue - would a working class Tasmanian use the word "anticlimactic" in conversation? And while Bell says she doesn't point any blame, I think she does point some fingers - the killer is from a broken home, both parents working class shift workers. The Wolf device really gives directors something to think about in a way few plays do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)