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.

THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962)

(Week 10: John Wayne)

THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962)

Directed by John Ford

from rikuwrites.blogspot.com

This is a film about an underdog and an unsung hero. James Stewart plays Ransom Stoddard, a young lawyer who opposes to the violence of the old west and tries to change its way by teaching the townsfolk to read. John Wayne plays Tom Doniphon, a typical western hero, except that here he finds himself at odds with a changing world. As most of the town is quick to follow Stoddard's way, Tom's merits slowly becomes irrelevant. The girl Tom likes, Hallie (played by Vera Miles), is indifferent to his valor and partial to the lawyer's intellect. 

The two men have to band together to protect the town from its villain. Lee Marvin plays Liberty Valance, the leader of a gang of outlaws that have been menacing the town. While not being as fleshed out as the two heroes, this role is crucial to the film; he presents Stoddard a series of challenges that tests his tenacity. It is unclear why Tom hadn't done anything about Liberty until now, since Liberty seems to be afraid of him to some degree. Perhaps he doesn't feel that he alone can overthrow the whole gang, or perhaps he knows that without Liberty as the town's villain, he would no longer be the town's hero. 

The film was shot in black and white, either due to low budget or to conceal the actors' age. Stewart and Wayne don't look like the young men that their characters claim to be, and to some degree that has an effect on the film. A young actor would have made Stoddard's youthful idealism more strongly felt. And with Wayne, Tom's refusal to change his way sometimes comes across as a part of his old age. A more appropriate casting would have made for a much different film. Having said that, both Stewart and Wayne give a powerful performance. They play their characters seriously and with a lot of heart. 

This is a western that offers what is familiar and expected while also providing a heartfelt story and memorable characters. This is one of those films that left me with a feeling of having experienced something really special, like it flipped a switch somewhere. It manages to tell a morality tale without being heavy-handed. THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE isn't just a good western but a really good film.

SUDDEN FEAR (1952)

(Week 9: Joan Crawford)

SUDDEN FEAR (1952)

Directed by David Miller

from bitlogger.blogspot.com

This film starts with a conversation about its male lead, Lester Blaine, an actor who isn't quite attractive enough to play a romantic hero. Joan Crawford's character, Myra Hudson, is the playwright who opposes to Lester's being in her play. She would soon learn that in life, unlike on stage, a man can be charming without being conventionally handsome or dreamy. 

This film could not be more perfectly cast. Jack Palance as Lester has a tremendous presence and is fantastic as a menace. Gloria Grahame plays his accomplice in a role that seems cut out for her. Crawford, by now an aging star with a struggling career, isn't taking much of a risk here but still gives a strong performance. Together they serve the story what it needs. 

And what a story it is. Lester seduces Myra, marries her and plots to murder her in order to take her money. When she accidentally finds out, Myra doesn't call the police but instead plans to murder him--obviously not your typical victim. You see her quickly transforms from a happy, somewhat saintlike woman to a terrified victim, then to a vengeful heroine. Crawford isn't afraid to get ugly here. She proves herself an authentic actress with raw emotion in a sequence where she discovers the truth. She goes from a state of bliss to heartbroken, to absolute terror. Her terrified face is candid and without composure, so unlike the elegant and pompous movie star she often appears to be.

from Mubi.com

The film is filled with suspense almost in every corner. The characters and their actions are unpredictable. Without spoiling anything, I would say that the ending surprised me, not the things that happened but how they did: I didn't expect Myra to turn out the way she did in the end, nor did I expect the moral with which the film concludes. The way the final murder is orchestrated, too, is witty and subtle.

I love a genre film that transcends its genre, and this is one of them. It proves that genre fiction can be well written, too, with substantial characters and well-developed story arcs, and is in fact more effective because of it. All these elements combined makes SUDDEN FEAR a great watch.

DUCK SOUP (1933)

(Week 8: The Marx Brothers)

DUCK SOUP (1933)

Directed by Leo McCarey

from myopera.com

I don't like slapstick comedy. I don't get it. And if you don't get it, you don't enjoy it. There are moments here that make me chuckle, moments that I thought are delightfully creative and surprising. But despite it being only a little bit over an hour long, I had a hard time sitting through this film.

I won't go too much further. The Marx Brothers made great contributions to the entertainment business, that is not to be dismissed. But their medium doesn't agree with my palate, so I can't write anything decent about their works.

So, come back next week for Joan Crawford!

ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)

(Week 7: Marlon Brando)

ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)

Directed by Elia Kazan

ON THE WATERFRONT is the quintessence of Oscar winners. It was made with an original screenplay (based on a series of articles rather than a play or a published story) with a progressive message, staring great actors in powerful roles, and featuring a score by one of the best composers of its time. It was nominated for 12 oscars and won 8. If it were made this year it probably would still win the award.

Honestly, I didn't fall in love with the film. I thought it was heavy-handed and too melodramatic at times. That said, it is constructed with so many fantastic elements that I can't deny its virtue. Certain scenes revisited inspire greater appreciation. The writing is so great, as magnetic as a theater piece, and so perfectly matched with some of the best actors in films. It centers around Terry Malloy, a young man torn between doing the right thing and risking danger. Other characters face the same dilemma, too, but the stake is higher for Terry because the bad guys are his friends, and the good guys consist of a girl he's in love with, who is also the sister of one of the mob's recent victims.

Marlon Brando won the film one of its eight oscars. A theater-trained actor, Brando never lets his good look take a lead nor lets his craft show. He brings so much of himself to the role you can't imagine him as anything else but the character you see on the screen. The famous taxi cab scene really is as powerful as they say it is. Brando, as seen here, is capable of both subtlety and melodrama, and he knows just when to do which. 

Brando is supported by a great cast of actors who hold their own without upstaging him. Karl Madden plays Father Barry, a priest who tries to lead the witnesses to testify against the mobsters. He serves as the voice of reason and the one who leads Terry to the light. Madden's performance is perhaps the most multidimensional of the film. He portrays Father Terry as a man who wants to do good not just to serve God but because he is truly a good man who believes in justice. His role as the priest doesn't overshadow the man behind it. Rob Steiger as Terry's brother also gives a powerful performance. His character has two dimensions: the ruthless mobster and the caring brother, and he makes both believable. The chemistry between him and Brando makes the magic of the taxicab scene possible. The only performance I don't care for is Eva Marie Saint's, who also won an oscar for this film. She has one of the biggest roles as the girl who sees the goodness in Terry and encourages it. She is competent, but she doesn't bring a lot of creativity to the role and seems flat in comparison to everybody else's.

Overall, I think everybody should watch this film once. And regardless of how you feel about it, you should watch it again, then again a few years later. Having watched some of the scenes repeatedly, I find myself more and more impressed each time. Like all works of art, it can't speak to everybody, but ON THE WATERFRONT reaches such a high level of excellency that it deserves to be appreciated by all who care about films.

THE MAYOR AND THE MINOR (1942)

(Week 6: Ginger Rogers)

THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR (1942)

Directed by Billy Wilder

What's most incredible about this film is that it doesn't force us to believe in a ridiculous plot. Instead, it lures us into believing in it; just like the other characters, we believe her because we want to. 

Ginger Rogers stars as Sue Applegate, a woman who pretends to be twelve years old to get a half-price train ticket home. There isn't a moment here where her disguise looks believable, and the film doesn't pretend that it does. In the beginning we see the train conductors questioning her. The she meets "the major," who happens to have a serious eye problem, explaining how he could be so close to her and still not see the truth. When later she is exposed to a wider audience at the military institute, everybody believes her because they have reasons to want to, reflecting how people only see what they want to see.

Ginger Rogers is so charmingly unglamorous. Applegate doesn't come across as a witty, conniving woman. Instead she seems so jaded by life she would try anything. She doesn't get off on deceiving people seems surprised by how much she is able to get away with. At times she seems to be rolling her eyes at them. The film doesn't let us forget that she is a legendary dancer, but finds a way to incorporate her dancing in just the right moment. The scene where she dances becomes for me the most humorous scene of the film.

I won't pretend there aren't uncomfortable moments here, seeing Rogers in childish clothes being rocked in bed by Ray Milland, or later seeing him express his attraction toward her while he still thinks she's a child. There is reminiscence of Shakespeare "Twelfth Night" here, where the romance comes together so soon after the truth is revealed, as if the attraction had been growing all this time and repressed because the disguise was an obstacle. It didn't bother me too much, however, any more than it bothered Gingers' character. She knows he's attracted to her and she likes it rather than finds it creepy.

This is Billy Wider's directorial debut, and already he knows exactly what he's doing. The story is so beautifully orchestrated there seems to be no wrong notes struck. The supporting characters are so pitch perfect it seems as if he handpicked them himself. THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR is a cute little story that knows how it should be told and has no problems winning a place in the audience's heart. 

EASTER PARADE (1948)

(Week 5: Fred Astaire)

EASTER PARADE (1948)

Directed by Charles Walters

(from Allposters.com)

Many movie musicals rely too heavily on the fame of their stars to bring people to the theater. They don't even need a good plot or a good script, and the stars don't even have to be great singers or dancers, so long as they make money for the studios. Musical numbers are underlined and highlighted rather than seamlessly incorporated into the film. These are what makes them feel outdated and silly. Having seen a handful of these movies, I can't explain how surprised and delighted I was when I watched EASTER PARADE.

When Fred Astaire dances, your jaw drops. When Judy Garland sings, you gasp. These aren't just great performers; they are true stars. Their talents are literally extraordinary. No one can do what they do the way they do it, and that is what carries the film.

The story is pretty simple, but told with great charm. Astaire plays a famous dancer whose partner/lover quits on him. To get back at her, he picked a random dancer from a nightclub and insists that he can turn her into a dancing star. Garland, who isn't a stranger to dancing but certainly not a Ginger Rogers either, fills the role perfectly. Her awkwardness is so believable and charming it's hard not to adore her character. Astaire, though lacking a devastating good look and a masculine build, commands the screen as well as any traditional leading man does. His soul, for lack of a better word, is truly musical. That which makes him an extraordinary dancer makes his singing distinguished and potent, despite being deprived of a great big voice.

All the musical numbers flow smoothly into and out of the scenes. It is as if the film believes in its stars enough to leave them to do what they do best. The songs of Irving Berlin's drive the story forward as opposed to merely providing platforms for the stars to show off. Co-star Ann Miller as the departed lover also wows the audience in her numbers just as much as the couple. 

It must be noted that Astaire and Garland are, on top of all that, good actors. While the story doesn't demand much of their emotional range, it does give them opportunities to prove their talents through subtlety. They play their comedy straight and without being over-aware of it, providing the heartfelt acting that musicals require through every scene and every song in order to suspend the disbelief of such a grand medium. EASTER PARADE knows how to utilize its stars and doesn't work too hard to please its audience.

MARY OF SCOTLAND (1936)

(Week 4: Katharine Hepburn) 

MARY OF SCOTLAND (1936)

Directed by John Ford

(from katharine-hepburn.webs.com)

I don't expect every movie based on historical events to be accurate. Movies, most importantly, must entertain, while documentaries must be factual, even when the facts aren't so fascinating. MARY OF SCOTLAND, directed by John Ford, is neither historically accurate or entertaining; it makes no efforts to be factual or truthful. Overall, it is boring and depressing.

Rarely have I seen Hepburn so ineffective, so out of place in her elements. In general she exudes strength and charisma enough to play any queen, but here she seems overwhelmed by the awkwardness of the sets, costumes, and script, which underutilizes her massive range of emotions by confining her to the low octave, leaving her little room to be inspired and exercise her versatility. Not once did we see her disappear behind this role. 

The film is based on a play by Maxwell Anderson, one of the instances where dramatic writings don't translate well onto the screen. The theatrical structure seemed to have been thoroughly transformed for the cinema, leaving only its stiff, overwritten speeches. The actors, some of the best of their time, couldn't add enough color to these lines to make them sound less overwrought and irritating. The film has a serious shortage of emotional truth. You know, the truth that fiction must contain more than fact? That which makes us identify with the characters and their circumstances? It has none of that.

Watching this, it is hard not to remember two famous films that are based on the same historical events and characters: MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (1971) and ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE (2007), both of which weren't well received by the critics, and neither allowed themselves to be bound by facts. Personally I think Vanessa Redgrave  (1971) embodies the character more gracefully than Hepburn, and both films effectively explore the complicated relationship between Elizabeth and Mary. (The 2007 version, over-the-top and mediocre as it may be, contains more moments of truth than Ford's version.) These women strongly believed they were born to be queens, and therefore they must be enemies. There is no reason otherwise for them to hate each other, and so many reasons for them to get along.

In John Ford's version, Elizabeth is portrayed by Florence Eldridge as an archetypal villain, and Mary her helpless victim. They are allowed one moment of truth, towards the end, wherein Elizabeth shows a hint of her vulnerability while explaining why Mary has to die. She almost becomes human but backs out too soon. Still, she came closer to being fully realized that most of the characters in this film.

I find the history of Mary and Elizabeth fascinating enough. It offers many possibilities of good drama. Unfortunately, this one misses all the marks and comes short of being a decent film. As a fan of both Hepburn and Ford, I'd soon rather forget all about this one. 

IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)

(Week 3: Clark Gable)

IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)

Directed by Frank Capra

"The Wall of Jericho" (from eastbayri.com)

Clark Gable is handsome and extremely charismatic. He possesses great qualities of a romance hero. It is no wonder that this movie would have launched him to stardom--he shines so brightly he hides the movie's flaws under his light. 

Personally romantic comedy isn't my favorite genre. When the focus is on people falling in love, the film just isn't very interesting or wholesome. But there are people to whom these stories appeal, and there are stories like these that, if well told, could appeal to skeptics like me.

This film has a thin little plot line that works around its stars. Both Gable and his leading lady, Claudette Colbert, set examples for many romantic comedy couples to come. Colbert plays Ellie, a bratty, temperamental heiress who has a dispute with her father over the man she had just married. She runs away and on the way meets an out-of-work journalist played by Gable.

They start off not liking each other, but there are moments when they work together and find pleasantry in each other's company. No surprise, they fall in love. You see what they like about each other, and you see them struggling against their feelings due to their circumstances. We see growth in both characters, particularly in Colbert's. These are basic elements of storytelling well played. I also like a few of its memorable, iconic elements, like "the wall of Jericho" or the hitchhiking scene. 

Both Gable and Colbert reportedly hated the script and didn't want to participate in the film. I can see why. The script itself is nothing without them. More than carrying the film, they gave it a lot of charm necessary for this kind of movie. Ultimately I wasn't much moved or impressed by the film. However, for the mark it has left in film history and for its achievement in storytelling, I would say that IT HAPPENED ON NIGHT is worth a watch. In the right mood, you might even like it.

HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE (1953)

(Week 2: Lauren Bacall)

HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE (1953)

Directed by Jean Negulesco

From the way they packaged this DVD, you wouldn't know that aside from Marilyn Monroe, this film actually has two other big stars: Betty Grable and Lauren Bacall. Monroe's part is actually the smallest and least thought out of the three, so that those who watch this film hoping to see a lot of Monroe would be disappointed. 

But Bacall is my favorite, and lucky for me her part is the biggest. Her story arc is one that we follow most intimately. The film is about three models living together and looking for rich husbands. Bacall plays Schatze, a shrewd divorcée whose finances are so bad she scrapes by by renting out her furniture. Well, not hers. The furniture belongs to Freddie Denmark, the mysterious man whose fancy apartment she is renting as a part of her plan to trap rich men. 

Grable and Monroe play hopelessly naive goofballs that buy into Schatze's ideal. Grable's character agrees to go with a married man to his "lodge," thinking she would meet other eligible millionaires. There ended up being just the two of them. She got sick and wasn't able to go home. Monroe's character is extremely nearsighted but refuses to wear glasses for fear of seeming unattractive to men. There isn't much to her storyline, but I did get a few laughs from watching her run into things.

(from filmhash.com)

These characters are delightful but unbelievable. It was hard to enjoy a movie with three story lines in none of which I could invest, due to their flimsy nature. Let me elaborate more on Bacall's character. Schatze doesn't believe that poor men are bad; she just would rather marry a rich one. Bacall, as always, comes across as intelligent and slightly rigid. She keeps the other girls in line and fends off the underserving men. Meanwhile she falls in love with two men, a rich older man and a poor age-appropriate one. Bacall seems out of place in such an old-fashioned, somewhat sexist plot where an intelligent woman would rather use her brain to reap men's wealth than acquire independence. She seems too smart to play a gold digger believably. (In contrast, Bacall would later recreate Katharine Hepburn's role of Tess Harding from WOMAN OF THE YEAR on Broadway, a woman whose husband was threatened by her success.) Schatze goes a great length to refuse the poor man she falls for and convince herself that she is in love with the wealthy one. By the end of the film you do wonder if she is really all that smart.

(from Amazon.com)

The overall plot is pretty hilarious. I reviewed the summary on Wikipedia right after watching the film and it still made me laugh. But the execution is poor. The script just isn't that funny or engaging or genuine. Schatze doesn't quite seem desperate enough for us to understand her necessity for a wealthy husband, and the other two characters are just too shallow to be taken seriously. It may be a feast for the eyes to see three very attractive women in such a glamorous way, but it is hard to sympathize with the characters of HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE.

THE PETRIFIED FOREST (1936)

(Week 1 1/2: Humphrey Bogart)

THE PETRIFIED FOREST (1936)

Directed by Archie Mayo

This is one of those films towards which I can't help being biased. I love the theater, and what I love about old movies are the styles of acting and writing that are more theatrical than what you commonly see in films today. This film is based on a play and makes no effort to hide its theatrical origin. In fact, two of its actors had originated their parts on Broadway. Some plays don't translate well on screen--this one does fantastically.

The story is about Alan: British, intellectual, penniless, and a wanderer. Jaded with life, he travels across this "petrified forest" and wanders into a roadside diner where he meets a cute girl who loves poetry and longs to see more of the world. He possesses many qualities that she admires in a man and probably doesn't see much in the men in her life, so that she falls for him almost instantly. But Alan has a secret: he is depressed to the point of suicidal. And while he likes her, he doesn't open his heart to her quite the same way that she does for him. Then, enters Duke Mantee, an outlaw on the run, terrorizing everybody involved.

The writing is superb. Scene after scene we get to know different characters in lively, colorful dialogues. Leslie Howard as Alan is charming and full of quips. Does he seem like somebody ready to jump to his death at any second? Not really. But I personally haven't known anybody who is truly suicidal. Famous figures like Virginia Woolf or Ernest Hemingway both suffered from bipolar disorder. The deepest, darkest part of themselves is probably hidden from most people. Perhaps Alan, too, keeps that part of himself away from the screen.

Bette Davis as Gabrielle is cute as a button. She is enchanting in every shot. Those who only know her as the diva she would later become would find her natural charm in this film very refreshing. She makes memorable what is otherwise a drab and archetypal character. 

Duke Mantee is played by Humphrey Bogart. Then 36-year-old and struggling to stay in business, Bogart became a star with this film. He proves himself an exceptional character actor with enough charisma to outshine both Howard and Davis. His characterization of Duke Mantee is magnificent and sensitive. It is a wonder how one could combine such magnetism with realism. Duke Mantee is both a legend and a person, and Bogart does both justice. 

The petrified forest as the setting evokes the kind of mysticism that the forest in Shakespeare's "Midsummer Night's Dream" does, except here it is a nightmare. The characters romanticize it and at once is aware of its haunting quality. Though terrorized by Mantee, they also give away a hint of excitement at this incredible event that shakes up the mellow rhythm of their lives. While it is known as a precursor of film noir, and while it utilizes many qualities of a Western, it seems to be neither. Instead, THE PETRIFIED FOREST treats its themes and characters so seriously it transcends genres and will outlast many eras to come. 

ANNA CHRISTIE (1930)

(Week 1: Greta Garbo)

ANNA CHRISTIE (1930)

Directed by Clarence Brown

How inauspicious to start off this blog with an entry about a film I didn't like? But Garbo is first on the list, and this movie is significant in her short career: it was her first talkie. I can only imagine how exciting it must have been for fans of her silent films to hear their favorite star not only talk but speak the words of Eugene O'Neil.

ANNA CHRISTIE is about a fallen woman reuniting with her estranged father and falling in love while trying to escape her past. Whether or not the film was shot in sequence, the last half an hour of the film seems to be much better than the earlier portions. Garbo is really good in it. She speaks the lines more clearly. Her acting becomes more genuine, even though the scenes demands much of her emotional range. I'm saying this because this is not how I would describe Garbo's performance in the earlier part of the movie, where she is stiff and seems to be struggling with acting in English. 

She does sound good. She has a low, warm and luscious voice. She also possesses an effective lost-girl look. The dramatic make-up accentuates both her beauty and sadness. It's hard to tell if she commands the screen with her  charisma or if the camera does most of the work. In any case, she has a strong presence without appearing out of character. 

The role of Anna's father, the Swedish coal barge captain, is played by George F. Marion, an American actor who is so convincing I thought he was Swedish as well, but not in a good way. It's a challenge to understand his speech. He had originated the role on Broadway as well as played it in the silent film adaptation of the play. I guess there is such a thing as playing the role too well.

Charles Bickford plays Matt, Anna's love interest. He is the least quirky of the cast, which makes him a nice addition. He serves well as a leading man and character actor in a role that doesn't ask much of him. It's not hard to imagine a better film with an entire cast of actors like him. The result might have been a more heartfelt and nuanced storytelling.

I haven't read the Pulitzer Prize's wining play on which the film is based, so that I don't know if there might have been some changes made. There were moments when I thought that the actors didn't do the words justice, but there were also moments when I thought the script itself was weak. It's a story about people trying to make up for their past, so for the most part we don't see their problems as much as hearing about them. The ending feels like a copout. Anna could be one of those great female characters in American drama, but is portrayed here more like a dramatic caricature than a tragic-heroine. ANNA CHRISTIE is not entirely painful to watch--and really there are some good moments here--but unless you are a Garbo fan it is barely worth the time.

Welcome

The term "The Golden Age of Hollywood" makes me think of old movies, of Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart, but where exactly does this "age" begin and end? Like any curious mind of our time, I consulted Wikipedia for the answer.

Wikipedia offers defines it as a "style" of filmmaking used during this era, and offered some numerical data (1927-1960). What excited me the most, however, was the collage of stars with whose works I admire so much. I saw Ingrid Bergman, Henry Fonda, the Hepburns, etc. 

It was, first and foremost, the stars that sparked my interest in old movies, starting with Audrey Hepburn after seeing her in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S (1961) in high school. I felt in love (who didn't?) and started watching more of her films. SABRINA (1954) remains a great example of how captivating old movies can be. You have three of the most charismatic people in the world--Hepburn, Bogart, Holden--and a script that is thoroughly witty and charming. One time I turned on the TV for background noise and it was on, and I was glued to the screen until it ended.

Cut to how many years later, I still don't consider myself a film buff, since the more you see the more you realize how much you haven't seen. But I have developed a passion for many of the stars and directors. Like most people, I consider the other Hepburn to be one of the greatest actresses that ever lived. I have a little crush on Anthony Perkins (pre-PSYCHO) and young Jimmy Stewart (pre-James). I can't get enough of Lauren Bacall's distinctive voice. In the meantime I have also come to consider myself a writer. I went to college and got myself a degree in English, and a minor in Writing, and am currently working on a novel and other fictional projects. True to my upbringing in the age of information, I'd rather work on multiple projects at a time than focusing on any one thing, so that while I am already overwhelmed with an endless and impossible list of things to do, I think starting a weekly blog about old movies sounds like a good idea.

So, here's how we're gonna roll. In the order of the stars listed on the Wikipedia page, I'm going to watch and write about one of his or her movies each week, starting with Garbo and ending with Pickford. Now, some of these stars I have been a fan of for years, some I have only heard of but never seen in action (such as Garbo), and some I've never even heard of (such as Pickford). For my idols I probably would watch something of theirs that I have never seen, which should result in some interesting entries about obscure, and possibly awful, films. For the ones unfamiliar to me, I will probably watch what they're best known for. This project will be, if nothing else, an education. 

(First row, left-right) Greta Garbo, Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Clark Gable, Katharine Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Marlon Brando, Marx Brothers, Joan Crawford

(Second row, left-right) John Wayne, James Stewart, Buster Keaton, Claudette Colbert, Gene Kelly, Burt Lancaster, Judy Garland, Gregory Peck, Elizabeth Taylor, Kirk Douglas

(Third row, left-right) Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn, Jean Harlow, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Howard Hawks, Grace Kelly, Laurence Olivier, Marlene Dietrich, James Cagney

(Fourth row, left-right) Ava Gardner, Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, Henry Fonda, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Orson Welles, Mae West, William Holden, Sophia Loren

(Fifth row, left-right) Vivien Leigh, Joan Fontaine and Gary Cooper, Spencer Tracy, Barbara Stanwyck, Lillian Gish, Tyrone Power, Shirley Temple, Janet Leigh and Charlton Heston, Rita Hayworth, Mary Pickford

(source: Wikipedia)

For my readers, I hope that you enjoy reading these entires, and that they inspire you to watch some of these films. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure if I will have any insights and knowledge to share. I am really no expert, though I will make an effort to learn more about these films as I continue to explore them, as much as time will allow. I can only promise that these entries will be written primarily to celebrate my love for OUR GOLDEN CINEMA, what it has accomplished and contributed to our civilization.

PS. I'm looking for contributors. Email me.