Because I need a break

THE RAINMAKER (1956)

(Week 15: Burt Lancaster)

THE RAINMAKER (1956)

Directed by Joseph Anthony

I love Hepburn in this film. She plays Lizzie, an unglamorous country girl who, despite her unrefined exterior, is shy, sensitive, and romantic. She is getting old and about to miss her last chance at marriage. She is smart, too, but not in the know-it-all sort of way but insightful and at times incurably honest. She would have had more of a chance had she learned to hold her tongue.

As Lizzie, Hepburn is incredibly lovable and moving. We feel sorry for her loneliness and root for her in her attempt to be a more proper lady. Her a father tells her to not be afraid to take a chance. Leading by example, he agrees to pay a stranger to make it rain, knowing that he's a con. It seems like too much of an effort to prove a point, but it resulted in more win than the family could imagine.

Starbuck, the conman/rainmaker played by Burt Lancaster, is theatrical and passionate. He lies to himself just as much as to others, and not out of malice but because his fiction is better than reality. He sees beauty in Lizzie and encourages her to believe in herself. Subsequently, his version of the truth ends up being more helpful than anybody else's. 

THE RAINMAKER is joyful and thought-provoking. This is the kind of film that makes you feel good without being cheesy. The heart of it is in the way the family members care about each other, each in his own way, despite their differences. It is full of smart and genuine dialogues that are impressive in their simplicity. It explores human issues in clever and intriguing ways, with lovable, naive characters played by actors that treat them with respect.

SUMMER STOCK (1950)

(Week 14: Gene Kelly)

SUMMER STOCK (1950)

Directed by Charles Walters

There is no reason for this story to be told again. Guy meets girl, and they put on a show. Originally this project was intended to reunite Judy Garland with Mickey Rooney, but due to his decline in popularity, they cast Gene Kelly instead.

This is the kind of movie I was afraid EASTER PARADE was going to be. The difference here is that I actually enjoyed that little story but got bored really quickly with this one. A theater troupe shows up unannounced to use a failing barn to put on a show. Garland's character, the barn owner, puts them to work and ends up taking over the lead role in the show. Surprise, surprise.

There is great chemistry between Kelly and Garland. They had worked together twice before, in FOR ME AND MY GAL and THE PIRATE. They shine when they dance together. However, they aren't giving their best performances here. The characters just aren't well written and give them little to work with. The love story isn't believable. The song numbers stick out of the story rather than being well integrated. Even though they are well choreographed and performed, they just don't help to tell the story. And when the musical numbers don't tell the story, they're just a waste of time.

Those who enjoy watching Garland and Kelly do what they do best will enjoy many of these song-and-dance numbers. Watching these scenes again, I enjoy them more out of context than in, including one of Garland's most iconic numbers, "Get Happy," which not only looks but also feels out of place within the context of the story, having been shot after the filming was completed and the number having nothing to do with the story or the character she portrays in the film at all.

If you are particularly fond of these let's-put-on-a-show stories, or if you are a big fan of Kelly and/or Garland, you might have a fine time watching this. Otherwise, I would skip it. SUMMER STOCK is a good, but far from great, movie musical.

No entry this week...

No entry this week. I'm too far behind on everything.

Come back next week for Gene Kelly and Judy Garland in SUMMER STOCK!

SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (1944)

(Week 13: Claudette Colbert)

SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (1944)

Directed by John Cromwell

Claudette Colbert is best known for her screwball comedies, like IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT where she is cute and lovable. But she makes a great character actress here. She plays Anne, a matriarch who tries to take care of her family while her husband is fighting in WWII. Serving as a pillar for her family, her face exudes optimism with subtle hints of agitation as she tries to repress her sorrow. In her moments of deep despair, she also performs extreme emotions believably.

It's a shame that the film was made into an epic. It lacks the substance to support it. While it does a great job capturing life at the homefront, it runs out of material fast. There isn't enough ups and downs in this film to keep it from being somber and monotonous. It serves as a nice portrait of loneliness and sentimentality, but being three hours long makes the film drag and lose its effects. 

The film does have a lot of great characters and a great cast to play them. Jennifer Jones as Jane, a young woman discovering romance and sexuality. She plays the role with some affectation of a young lady, which is irritating at times, but there are many moments where she manages to be heartfelt. It is hard not to sympathize with her. There are characters like this in much happier films, where the romance isn't threatened by war and death. In the goodbye scene at the train station, perhaps the most melodramatic scene in the film, she soars. Shirley Temple plays the younger daughter. She, I find really annoying. Being unfamiliar with her other films, I can't say that she has no talent. But if she had any she didn't bother to use it here. There isn't much of a chemistry between her and Jones or Colbert for that matter. 

The men in this film are much more interesting. Joseph Cotten plays Tony, an old friend of the family who is clearly in love with Anne. He is dashing in his uniform and charismatic as a playboy. Robert Walker plays William, a young corporal who tries to win the affection of his grandfather even though his heart isn't in the war. His character must have spoken for many young men at the time. (Keep in mind that the war was still going on when the film came out.) The grandfather, played by Monty Wooley, is a traditional man who values war glories and despises disorders and weakness in men. While his story line does provide a few moments of melodrama, he downplays his emotion and thereby giving his character the realism it needs. What the character provides more effectively, instead, is the humor. 

I enjoyed the film. It's old-fashioned and heartwarming, with just enough realism. Though a little excessive, it still manages for the most part to be honest and moving. If you're not bothered by its length and want to enjoy some gently-paced drama, I'd say that SINCE YOU WENT AWAY is a good choice.

THE GENERAL (1926)

(Week 12: Buster Keaton)

THE GENERAL (1926)

Directed by Buster Keaton and Clyde Buckman

Looks like I'm in trouble again. 

Buster Keaton is best known for his silent films, which he wrote, directed, and starred in. While he continued to make films in the sound era, he's not really the star of those films. In other words, he's the star of the silent era, not the golden era. He shouldn't be on the list, but he is, and I didn't want to just skip him--I would feel like I was cheating.

So I had to choose whether to watch one of his well-known works or his later stuff. I went with the former and watched THE GENERAL. Once again I faced the same problem I had with DUCK SOUP. I just don't care for this kind of writing/performance. I don't care for physical comedy, on which the film largely based its success. It's just not for me.

The film is about a young man who, having been rejected by the army, uses his skills as a mechanic to rescue the girl he loves from Union spies. Throughout the film he commits many honorable acts in a comedic fashion. 

I don't really know what to write about movies like this. It has a plot in a sense that something is happening at all time, but the events don't really contribute to the growth and development of the character. This just isn't that kind of storytelling, and it was tedious to watch.

I'm not a film expert so I can't really comment too much on the film's style or how much it contributes to film history. I admit I lack the palate to appreciate it as it deserves. But this is one of the most important films of the silent era, so it might be worth watching for anyone who cares about films.

THE MAN WHO KNEW TO MUCH (1956)

(Week 11: James Stewart)

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956)

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

With Hitchcock I know I can always count on good storytelling. With this one, a remake of his own film from the 30s, almost every scene was surprising.

The story is about a young married couple, played by James Stewart and Doris Day, on a quest to rescue their kidnapped son and stop an assassination. Stewart plays an everyman well. In his youth he had the look of the boy next door. Now in his fifties, he is every husband and every father. He's not so good looking it's distracting or intimidating. Instead, he invites us to identify him with somebody in our lives.

As for Doris Day, the leading lady, I found her neither captivating nor convincing as an actress. She may have been a beauty icon in her time, but here she seems less like a star and more an understudy. She's not as charismatic as Hitchcock's other blondes, like Grace Kelly or Eva Marie Saint. I don't feel her pain as a mother worrying for her son's life. Although she does have a wonderful singing voice and shines during the last sequence where she sings by the piano. 

With such an intense story, humor is always appreciated. However, the comedy in this movie seems really clunky. Some of my least favorite examples are the scene in the restaurant where Stewart's character just can't manage to figure out the etiquette, and the scene in the taxidermy store, which shows some promise but just isn't funny. These scenes relied solely on the visual and physicality, which ends up being annoying rather than funny. Some sharp, witty dialogues might have saved them. But I did laugh with the humorous ending. I would have preferred a more wholesome closure, but this way is more surprising, more hitchcock-esque.

As a classical music aficionado, I enjoyed the way the assassination scene is orchestrated, literally and literarily speaking. But it feels more gimmicky  than effective. Maybe Hitchcock had intended it to be yet another funny scene. If so, I don't think it was a very good choice. This is, after all, a thriller, and what could have been the most intensely dramatic and thrilling scene just doesn't quite deliver.

What I see here is a film made by someone who likes to tell stories and enjoys experimenting with different styles and tactics, a common notion about Hitchcock. It is as if the effects his story has on the audience are secondary to his having a good time telling it. Nothing wrong with that. The fun definitely translates to the screen, and while THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH may not be the most thrilling of thrillers, it sure is a whole lot of fun to watch.