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!