Book review - "Elizabeth and Monty: The Untold Story of Their Intimate Friendship" by Charles Cassilio

 Montgomery Clift comes out of this badly - bitchy, self pitying, smart, whining about his loss of beauty, a junkie, a pain. People loved him though. And even people he annoyed worked with him again. Liz Taylor comes out of this wonderfully. Brave, funny, loyal, smart.

Gossipy but done with scholarship. And you know something? The small size of Clift's manhood is not insignificant. 

Each film the two made together were iconic in their way - Place in the Sun, Raintree County, Suddenly Last Summer and (in planning) Reflections in a Golden Eye.  But sorry Clift was a bit of a loser.

Movie review - "The Sicilian" (1987) **1/2

 Heaven's Gate hurt Cimino's career but it didn't kill it - he made Year of the Dragon which underperformed in North American but did well enough for finance to be raised for this movia, a biopic of Sicilian bandit/politician Salvatore Giuliano.

There's very little American interest in the story but it was based on a novel by Mario Puzo. Christopher Lambert is not ideally cast in the lead. John Turturro is his best friend,  Giulia Boschi is his girlfriend and  Barbara Sukowa a horny countess. Joss Ackland is a mafia don and Terence Stamp is a prince.

The novel was part of The Godfather series and included the Corleones. They are removed here - presumably due to legal issues. It's a shame - I get the reasons, but maybe some American characters added could have helped the movie connect with American audiences. Or any non-Sicilian audiences. There's a lot of chat about Sicilian politics, elections and communists, that I felt a little behind the eight ball with.

Lambert looks good but is terrible. There's an awful "If you don't rape me I'll rape you" scene between Lambert and a countess and they listen to music and have sex  (Many Cimino's film have rape in them.) I think once they cast Lambert they just needed to reduce all his dialogue and give it to Turturro and Ackland and Stamp. Or just cast Terence Stamp. Or someone who can act. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude. The women in the cast aren't great either.

The tremendous period  detail of his earlier films is present in the outdoor scenes but indoor scenes with big bands feels fake.

The spectacle, sweep and subject matter could've made this really good. There was a cut version and Cimino version - I saw the latter. It has stature but has a lead who can't act and some dreadful scenes as well as some amazing ones.

 Gore Vidal did a pass of the script. Most of the key actors are English but Aldo Ray has a small role.

Movie review - "Last of the Mobile Hot Shots" (1970) **

 Having missed with an earlier Tennessee Williams film, Lumet strikes out again. An even more imperfect source - The Seven Descents of Myrtle - an even more distinguished screenwriter (Gore Vidal), an impressive cast (James Coburn, Lynn Redgrave, Robert Hooks), James Wong How as cinematographer, Quincy Jones did the score.

I know it's Tennessee Williams but this is a lot of hammy yapping in rooms mostly. Coburn marries Redgrave on a game show then they go to an old house and meet Coburn's brother, Hooks. None of the casting feels right. Coburn starts off bad, I got used to him, he grew into the role more, but he feels wrong. I liked Redgrave at first but then she got on my nerves more and more and was eventually too hard. I wanted to like Hooks, it was great to see a black man in a Williams production but he doesn't feel right. Too lightweight or something.

I didn't get it. I'm not sure Lumet did. On a basic level, the themes of sexual attraction and the menace of the incoming flood are not felt at all.

This film and Boom! killed Williams' appeal as someone whose work Hollywood wanted to adapt (though he came back on TV in the 1980s).

I've got to say though - it's oddness has an appeal.

Movie review - "Is Paris Burning" (1966) **1/2

 I think Paramount were hoping for their own version of The Longest Day, with this all star account of the liberation of Paris. Thing is, most of the stars were French, so the film was a hit in France but not America. Also, don't mean to be rude, but the battle wasn't that important militarility, more politically (hugely so) - and the film doesn't really go into that, the fact that France might've wound up in civil war. To be fair the film does allude to some of this  - there's no colonial troops though. Or British.

Still there are powerful scenes - the last train of prisoners being sent off to the camps, the massacre of young resistance workers, Orson Welles as the Swedish diplomat persuading Gert Forbe not to blow up the city. And many of the cast lived through the events so it has an authenticity that you just can't get now.

Kirk Douglas is Patton, Glenn Ford is Bradley, Anthony Perkins and George Chakiris are soldiers, Robert Stack is a general - but most of the stars are French: Leslie Caron, Jean Paul Belmondo, Simone Signoret, Bruno Cremer (a large role), Alain Delon, Charles Boyer, Michael Piccolo, etc.

Gore Vidal and Francis Coppola worked on the script. Vidal whined about it a lot.

Book review - "Memoirs" by Tennessee Williams

 The 1970s weren't an easy decade for Williams but this is a first rate memoir - the writing is tight, clever, wry, warm. He was always good on himself. Honest. Maybe too accepting of flaws... a little restraint wouldn't have hurt.

John Waters wrote an entertaining introduction posing the question what would have happened had he lived. I wonder. Amazing work ethic.

Full of colourful characters: his sister Rose, mother, father, Gore Vidal and Truman Capote, Frank Merlo, Tallulah Bankhead, Maria St Just, David Merrick, Elia Kazan, Brando. There's lots of gay sex - like a lot. And pill popping and meltdowns and cracking up.

Williams writes with lucidity and power. His skills had not deserted him.

Movie review - "Suddenly Last Summer" (1959) ***1/2

 Ripe campy melodrama which I enjoyed a lot.  There's actually not a lot of story when you think about it - Elizabeth Taylor saw a Bad Thing Happen and is affected by it - and that is spun out for a decent running time. But it works because the three leads are all film stars having a high old time. Kate Hepburn and Liz acted their arses off, chewing the scenery, Monty Clift does dogged decency well (the accident adds to his character).

I think Gore Vidal did a very good script of Tennessee Williams' play... long scenes, literate, funny. Mankiewicz lets the action breathe.

Book review - "Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars " by Scott Bowers (2012)

Exhausting to read. Fascinating in parts. Not particularly well written. The sort of book where the good articles about it are more entertaining than the book itself. Bowers has no problem being molested as a young boy or a young teen under priests - which I know is the attitude of some people.

There's plenty of choice gossip, and to be honest a lot of it seemed plausible - Vivien Leigh was a wildcat in bed, Charles Laughton and Tyrone Power liked shit in their sex, Cole Porter was into oral, Montgomery Clift and Roddy McDowall were exceedingly fussy with their tastes, John Carradine was kinky, Errol Flynn liked girls but very very young, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott liked dudes, Rock Hudson is in there. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Gore Vidal was a friend.

Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn both being gay does surprise me - I guess it makes sense. Who knows?

Some stuff felt true because the people weren't famous eg producer Frank MacArthur being gay. Some stuff was just funny like Steve Reeves turning tricks for George Cukor. Some of it I did struggle with - like Bowers being around J Edgar Hoover. Maybe it happened, I'm not that wordly, I just struggled with it.

The best bits of the book are where it stories feel more detailed and authentic - like getting Nestor Almederos to the Oscar ceremony. Bowers had a full life!

Book review - "The Season: A Candid Look at Broadway" by William Goldman (1968)

Had another read of this fabulous work and enjoyed it as much as ever - gossipy, opinionated, smart, funny it has aged very well. Occasionally it feels a little mean, with cracks about actresses weight and the section on Mike Nichols, but consistently comes up with good, original ideas and fresh takes on the theatre.

Movie review - "The Lives of a Bengal Lancer" (1935) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

The film that kicked off the British Empire cycle of the late 1930s, giving lots of employment to English actors in Hollywood - not that there are many of them in this film, which has three American leads. One is specified as American (Richard Cromwell) the other Canadian (Gary Cooper) the third they claim is English and ignores his accent (Franchot Tone). Still, despite this it's incredibly pro-Imperial - there's a long speech about how Cromwell's father has devoted his life to the Empire, how sacrifice is how only a small handful of men can rule of the natives, Gary Cooper starts off being hostile to Cromwell's father then comes to realise what a great man he is.

George MacDonald Fraser once said this was the film that evoked India for him more than any other and it seems authentic, with it's polo games (the Brits play a lot of polo in this movie), markets, back alleys, soldiers quarters, palaces, head quarters, etc. It's not hard to see this influence on the Flashman series, with it's cowardly lead, British India setting, and soldier who puts on make up and goes to spy on treacherous Indians. (I liked this chap - he wasn't the lead, but he gave the impression of an English upper class type who went into army work for something to do.)

Dramatically it's fascinating. The plot has newby Cromwell assigned to his father's company and getting scolded by dad all the time - yet Tone and especially Gary Cooper take a very proprietal interest in him. Indeed, Cromwell is such a useless soldier (he goes AWOL because his dad is mean, he gets lured into a trap by a femme fetale, he breaks under torture and gives away vital information, the only really heroic act he does in the final fight is stab someone in the back) and Tone and Cooper really go all out to help him (they stick up for him with superior officers, defy orders to rescue him), it's hard to understand why... unless of course Cooper is sleeping with Cromwell. There's a strong homo-erotic subtext to this movie, with Cooper and Cromwell walking around without their shirts, torture, a bromance between the men, and the only female character is a femme fetale... no wonder Gore Vidal liked it.

Most of the action takes place at the end, but that's very exciting. And you don't guess what happens - you expect Cromwell to be brave on the rack but he cracks... but is allowed to survive, whereas brave Cooper dies. Cromwell conveys a weakness which helps the role, Cooper is okay, and Franchot Tone really excellent. Guy Standish and C Aubrey Smith are typical Raj types.

Movie review – “Visit to a Small Planet” (1960) **1/2

Gore Vidal’s TV (and later Broadway) play was more suited to the talents of Jerry Lewis than you might originally think, just based on the names “Gore Vidal” and “Jerry Lewis” – it was irreverent, fun and full of satire. But instead of Frank Tashlin directing it, who would have been perfect, they gave the job to Norman Taurog – and had it shot in black and white. 

 

Opportunities are thrown away wholesale and what could have been one of Lewis’ best movies has the aura of unfulfilled potential. It hurts in particular that Lewis isn’t allowed to have a happy ending with the girl.

 

The support cast includes Gale Gordon and Fred Clark (who were normally interchangeable as authority figures but here they’re in the same movie!). There’s a talking dog (well, a dog Lewis can talk to via ESP), a comic setpiece where Jerry visits a beatnik café and wows the locals.

Movie review – “Myra Breckinridge” (1970) *

In a Vanity Fair piece on the making of this film, director Michael Sarne makes some of the least convincing arguments in defence of his own lack of talent – “I didn’t really want to make the film”, “the producer was an idiot”, “the preview in San Francisco in front of a gay audience went really well”. Rex Reed would later take Sarne to task but his performance – clearly cut about as it is - is poor. Raquel Welch tries but she’s simply not up to it – although she does look pretty in a variety of outfits.

Gore Vidal’s novel was never going to be easy to adapt but this is a fair mess – characters and subplots come and go, it lacks rhyme or reason, the cutting in of old Fox movies (something Julien Temple loved doing) gets irritating after a while. Anal rape may have been liberating (or something) in the late 60s but now it just comes across as unpleasant.

Still, there’s no denying the film has its fascination: Mae West’s return to the big screen (some of her lines are actually funny and she sings a version of ‘Hard to Handle’ – Mae West doing a dong later covered by The Black Crowes!); early performances from Farrah Fawcett and Tom Selleck (both poor – Fawcett doesn’t even go through with a lesbian love scene with Welch); John Carradine saying “tits”; John Huston.

NB To understand how this got through the system you have to remember it was a time when sure fire projects like Hello Dolly were crashing, and sleepers like The Graduate and Easy Rider were raking in the dough. Shutting your eyes and hoping for the best also resulted in MASH for the same studio, so there is something to be said for this method of filmmaking.

Movie review – “Othello” (1952) ***1/2

I’ve never been a big fan of the play. I recognise the genius of the words, the character character in Iago, but Othello is such a wanker, I never buy him killing her. Actually that’s not true I do but he is so stupid, and Desdemona a good chick (marries a black man despite dad’s opposition), it just makes you feel depressed.

So I guess I'm prejudiced against this adaptation from the get-go. Still, it's an impressive film - even more so if you know the story behind it's making. It's visually striking being set in this big empty seeming castle by the see – massive rooms, banners of wood, crashing waves, running around along the tops of walls.

The open sequences of the funeral for Othello and Desdemona are stunning. The story proper gets off to an awkward start – the introduction of Iago is a bit clunky and confusing, not helped by the dubbing. Needs more close ups or something – this is an important sequence. But once Othello comes back from beating the Turks it gets better.

Orson Welles is a pretty decent Othello – I would have loved to see his Iago. (That’s not to say Michael McLiammor isn’t very good.) Gore Vidal once wrote wittily that the character of Desdemona in this film was reduced to being a “blonde wig” – Suzanne Clouthier is better than that, but she’s still not terribly inspired.

Book review – “Burr” by Gore Vidal

Vidal reignited his career as a novelist with a historical opus – Julian. Then he tackled American politics with Washington DC, then (after the Myra Breckinridge detour) combined the two genres with this one. It’s about the career of America’s most random politician – a vice president who killed another politician in a duel and went on trial for treason. (Why don’t they still do this? Would save a lot of hassle.)

Burr himself turns out to be a surprisingly dull character – and his famous daughter is also a hazy concoction. More fun is had with the incompetent Washington and unscrupulous Jefferson. Got to say I didn’t enjoy this as much as Julian – it lacked the protagonist having a strong goal. Too much time is spent on the dull journalist rather than Burr. Also it lacks the bright voice of Vidal which features in his essays.

Movie review - "The Catered Affair" (1956) **1/2

An attempt to combine Father of the Bride with Marty (working class mother is determined to give her daughter a big wedding whether she likes it or not) doesn't work, chiefly because of the basic idea: it is fun to see Spencer Tracy make a goose of himself because he can afford it, but it is not fun to see Bette Davis throw away her family’s money here. 

There is also Bette Davis’ performance, which is very much an acquired taste - in my opinion, she is horrible and ruins the fine work done by all other members of the cast.

The film was one of many adaptations of TV shows that performed disappointingly in the wake of Marty (The Bachelor Party, 12 Angry Men) and Hollywood cooled on TV as a source of movie ideas, and would not get as excited about the medium again until the spate of movies based on old TV shows in the 1990s.

Book review – “Washington DC” by Gore Vidal

Fast paced engrossing best seller in which Vidal showed his mastery of American politics. Its not the significant work that Vidal claims it is but it is very enjoyable. The depictions of sex where a bit racy at the time but have since become common place. It’s fun to spot who Vidal has based his characters on – the JFK surrogate, etc

Book review - "Julian" by Gore Vidal

After a long break, Vidal returned to novels with a bang with this assured work that deservedly became a big best-seller. It takes a look at the life of Julian, Roman Emperor for a short time in the 3rd century when the Roman Empire was declining and becoming Christian; Julian tried to restore worship of all the Gods but died before he had the chance.The later Roman Empire is a period I'm not that familiar with - like most people vaguely interested in history, I guess, my knowledge of Rome pretty much focuses on the Julius Caesar-to-Nero period; as George MacDonald Fraser once pointed out, who knows anything about the later emperors apart from the fact that Hadrian built a wall and Trajan a column. Since Gladiator I would argue that a few more people are familiar with Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, but not of the others since then. Why has cinema and popular fiction shied away from the later emperors, the Christian ones? My guess its because (a) the empire was in decline, and declines are sad, and (b) Christian audiences perhaps didn't like to realise that once their religion became top dog, the persecutions started - it was easier to write tales about them being eaten by lions.

Vidal, through Julian and his supporters, makes a compelling case against Christianity - though I don't believe that Christians are the best in the world at suppressing other religions. Surely there are people in every religion who want their religion to be top dog? The book is unavoidably reminiscent of I, Claudius - even Vidal acknowledges this in the introduction - with its tale of a studious, bookish person becoming an emperor. Julian isn't as likable as Claudius, who was so sympathetic, but that's more history's fault than Vidal's.

The book did inspire me to read up about the Roman Emperors more. No wonder it's a period that continues to fascinate - there was such a variety: gay, straight, bi (most of them), elderly, teenage, fat, thin,black (if I wasn't mistaken), smart, dumb. By favourite was Honorius,one of the last - whereas most of the Emperors towards the end only managed a couple of years at most, Honorius reigned for over 20, despite overseeing the near collapse of the whole empire.

Play review - "Romulus" by Gore Vidal

A bright, witty look at the last days of the last Roman Emperor, a terrific subject with an ideal writer, Vidal liking tales of kings and so on, and at the time had been writing Julian. It didn't meet with public favour - Vidal argues in the intro that this was because the humour contained too many digs at the audience i.e. middle class types; I'd rather think it was because the story's going to have an unhappy ending (Rome will fall - and Romulus's wife, daughter and son-in-law all die after he thinks they've gone off to safety), but also that New York audiences weren't that interested in Rome. I think this would have been a hit in London - the British seem to have a strong connection to Rome, with its monarchs, empire, ruling class, slaves, etc. Strong story and entertaining with an interesting central conceit, i.e. Romulus became Emperor to bring the whole thing crashing down, that reminded me of Messiah at times.

Book review - "Gore Vidal" by Fred Kaplan

Because Vidal writes about himself all the time you might feel "why a bio?" - but on the other hand you also feel, "well, I'd like to know what the untold story is". He deserves a big serious bio and Kaplan does an admirable job. Although drawing heavily on Vidal's own writings and interviews with the subject, this is very well researched and well written, too. It certainly doesn't lack for colourful characters - Vidal's father (though perhaps a bit bland as a person) was a top athlete, aviation pioneer, on the cover of Time, etc; his mother was a beautiful, funny, enigmatic pain (the classic mother-of-a-gay-son, to be honest); grand-dad was a blind Senator (conservative, isolationist, populist, honest, anti-welfare - continually defies "left wing" and "right wing" categorisation); step dad was an amiable wealthy idiot who later became Jackie Kennedy's step dad.

All these are familiar from Vidal's writings but Kaplan's more objective account is great to read. So are stories of the time at school (where Kaplan correctly devotes considerable chunks to the time Vidal spend honing his debating skills - something which contributed to his later genius as an essayist and skill as a television pundit). He was surprisingly straight as a younger man - had a full on and apparently satisfactory relationship with a girl called Rosalind (surely the basis for "Kit" in A Season of Comfort), then later on with Anais Nin before making the switch full time. After the war he was part of what was a pink mafia - running around Europe going cruising with other gay writers like Tennessee Williams and Isherwood, feuding with Truman Capote, etc (William Goldman is right - talent tends to cluster - sometimes the clustering can get really specific, e.g. Vidal went to bed with Jack Kerouac). Had enough cash to live this really nice lifestyle until declining sales of his novels forced him to look elsewhere to make money - an early attempt to write paperbacks didn't hit paydirt, but a move into television did. Then it was Broadway and movies, all of which Gore made a success at, then politics, at which he nearly made a success at, then back to novels, with a string of best sellers. No wonder he was confident and cocky.

The book becomes less interesting once Vidal gets his life in order. I would have liked more on his post 60s adventures in the screen trade, eg Caligula instead of all the pages devoted to his feuds with Buckley and Mailer - in the scheme of things surely they weren't that important. The book ends in the 1990s, before Vidal had what is maybe his final (?) chapter as a public figure: involvement with Tim McVeigh, opponent of Bush and the post Sept 2001 world. Not Kaplan's fault but you feel the book needs another edition.

Book review - Vidal novel #7 - "Messiah" by Gore Vidal

Vidal's last completed published novel before a considerable hiatus is a spoof on religion - specifically, the Jesus Christ story. Once it started in that I was fine with it, but it took a while to get going - excessively wordy at the start, too, as opposed to the relatively uncomplicated prose of his earlier novels, and with all these segues like a person ravishing a garden. But once the character of John Cave came along it was fine, and kept getting better and better. The satire is sharp and believable - I agree with the writer that it would make a good movie (A Face in the Crowd wasn't dissimilar). It remains clever until the end - the philosophy of Cave is kind of like a warped version of Vidal's own philosophy, the idea of having it told from a POV of Cave's ghost writer is a good one, there is excitement, the scene of Cave's death is well done, there is an unexpected twist in the battle within the religion following Cave's death. Vidal could have gotten a bit more excitement over his character fleeing into exile at the end (I guess he figured that there wasn't much point since we know from the beginning he got out OK), and also, again, he falls a bit short in the emotional stakes - his narrator is so superior and detached we never really feel he's in love with Iris... or Cave, for that matter. But a very strong book. Some of the dialogues are reminiscent of the best of G B Shaw.

Book review - "So You Want to be a Producer" by Lawrence Turman

Excellent how-to book from Turman, best known for The Graduate, one of those once-in-a-lifetime hits... as it proved for the producer, but he's since remained highly active making films and TV movies. The book is full of wisdom, enthusiasm and good stories. What I like most about it is that while Turman inevitably refers to The Graduate a lot, he talks just as much about his other less popular films (especially The Film Flam Man, which seems to have been a particular favourite - but also The Best Man, TV movies like Get Christie Love).
He admits failures and mistakes, promotes ethics and feeling positive, as well as hard work. He's a bit self serving but who isn't in this sort of book and he may well be telling the truth (for instance "working on the script" of Butch Cassidy seemed to be encouraging and reading and telling people the second act needed work).
The correspondence between Turman and William Goldman at the end is fascinating for Goldman fans (Turman tries to get Goldman, then teaching at Princeton, to write a movie about young people but Goldman declines - Goldman also says the Beatles are managed by a "faggott")