Browsed by
Month: February 2011

Child Bride / Child Bride of the Ozarks (1938)

Child Bride / Child Bride of the Ozarks (1938)

“I’m going to fight for these people until the state realizes that child marriage must be stopped!”

Synopsis:
A schoolteacher (Diana Durrell) enlists the help of her D.A. boyfriend (Frank Martin) in lobbying to make child marriage illegal in Appalachia — but will she succeed in time to prevent 11-year-old Jennie (Shirley Mills) from being forced into marriage with lecherous Jake Bolby (Warner Richmond)?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blackmail
  • Do-Gooders
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • May-December Romance

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “sleazy backwoods potboiler” — a “low-grade exploitation film” which did not have to operate within the strictures of the Hays Code, given its status as an “educational” movie — is “terribly acted, scripted, and directed”, not to mention “very campy”. It’s perhaps best known for the infamous skinny-dipping scene, when Mills (actually, her body double) takes a lengthy swim in a pond while her friend (Bob Bollinger) stands nearby keeping watch — and it is indeed shocking to see what the producers were able to get away with in this regard.

A number of later scenes — such as sleazy Richmond “wooing” Mills by bringing her a stuffed doll — are equally disturbing.

What Peary chooses to focus on his review, however, is the “extremely interesting character” of the teacher (Durrell), who is a “liberated woman in the sense that she has chosen her job and living alone over marriage to the man she loves”, and is “a crusader, willing to put herself on the line for her cause” (indeed, one particularly frightening scene shows her being kidnapped and nearly tarred and feathered by a group of angry men).

Unfortunately, after her strong presence during the film’s exposition — in which she’s shown actually traveling “around talking to the men and women of Thunderhead Mountain” in an attempt to explain that child marriages have “ruined the lives of the females”:

— she is largely absent, as the narrative shifts instead to the central plot involving wily Richmond’s manipulation into a marriage contract with young Mills. Yet her presence does indeed allow for some “unexpected feminism” in an otherwise “ridiculous” film — which, according to Peary, will keep you “constantly… amused and amazed”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A notoriously risque look at child marriage

Must See?
Yes, as an infamous exploitation flick.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Grave of the Vampire / Seed of Terror (1974)

Grave of the Vampire / Seed of Terror (1974)

“What’s growing inside your womb isn’t a human being!”

Synopsis:
A half-human vampire (William Smith) seeks revenge on the legendary vampire (Michael Pataki) who raped his mother (Kitty Valacher).

Genres:

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary seems at least mildly impressed by this “little-known” horror flick, which he refers to as “pretty good” and “unusual in many ways”. However, I’m hard pressed to see exactly how it merits either of these dubious accolades. It starts off on a sour note (vampiric rape in a graveyard – ew!), and never really improves. The performances throughout are uniformly bad (with chiseled Smith in particular lacking charisma):

… and the sloppy script suffers badly from lapses in both coherence and logic. We’re shown little to nothing about Smith’s life as a “half-vampire”, for instance — we know he eats raw steak and drinks Chianti (most cinematic vampires seem conveniently capable of drinking red wine, by the way — perhaps simply because it looks like blood!), but what else goes into his daily existence as a mutant breed? And what’s up with the totally illogical ending? Unless you’re a diehard fan of the vampire genre, you can certainly feel free to skip this one.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some creepy scenes

Must See?
Definitely not.

Links:

Penny Serenade (1941)

Penny Serenade (1941)

“We don’t need each other anymore. When that happens to two people, there’s nothing left.”

Synopsis:
A newly married couple (Cary Grant and Irene Dunne) experience the joys and heartaches of parenthood when they adopt a young baby (Jane Biffle).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Adoption
  • Beulah Bondi Films
  • Cary Grant Films
  • Flashback Films
  • George Stevens Films
  • Irene Dunne Films
  • Marital Problems

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this classic soaper one of “Hollywood’s genuine tearjerkers” — a picture “so well made and acted that you’ll forgive being manipulated”. He notes that it possesses “tremendous warmth” and “lots of humor” — most notably during the lengthy, remarkably insightful sequence in which “the new parents bring home their new family member and realize they don’t know the first thing about care of a baby” (how many neophyte parents do, really??). Indeed, I can’t recall any other classic film which so accurately (and humorously) pays attention to the small details of parenthood, from trepidation over shushing a fussy baby to genuine terror over how to give a slippery infant a bath. (NB: In perhaps the film’s BEST moment, family friend “Applejack” — Edgar Buchanan — steps in and literally rolls up his sleeves to help out, with remarkable aplomb).

It’s also fascinating, from an ethnographic perspective — albeit one undoubtedly whitewashed by Hollywood — to see how “easy”, relatively speaking, it was for childless couples to adopt a child back in the 1930s. While much of the narrative drama hinges on Grant and Dunne’s ability to adopt (and keep) their child, there’s still no comparing the process undergone here with the years of agonizing most American couples these days suffer through in their quest to build an adopted family. Along those lines, I’ll admit I couldn’t help feeling irritated by the sloppy handling of an essential plot “twist” towards the end of the film, involving whether or not Dunne and Grant will be able to keep their beloved new daughter; without giving too much of the plot away, I will ask, why wasn’t the highlighted concern taken much more seriously, much earlier on?

But ultimately, it’s foolhardy to ask too many questions about a film designed purely as a heart-rending soaper. Indeed, while the film occasionally makes you “angry because [it] unabashedly milks the tears”, at least it possesses “characters… worth getting emotional about.” To that end, Cary Grant and Irene Dunne (both of whom Peary nominates as Best Actor/Actress in his Alternate Oscars book) do indeed “give sensitive performances”. Also noteworthy are character actor Buchanan (an inspired casting choice) and Beulah Bondi (as the owner of the adoption agency where Grant and Dunne finally fulfill their dream of parenthood).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Irene Dunne as Julie Adams
  • Cary Grant as Roger Adams
  • Edgar Buchanan as Applejack
  • Beulah Bondi as Miss Oliver
  • The humorous, insightful “newborn” scenes

Must See?
Yes, as a classic soaper.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Sitting Pretty (1948)

Sitting Pretty (1948)

“I dislike children intensely — and yours, if I may say so, have peculiarly repulsive habits and manners.”

Synopsis:
A self-described genius (Clifton Webb) comes to work as a live-in babysitter for a couple (Maureen O’Hara and Robert Young) with three unruly boys, provoking much discussion among the townsfolk.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clifton Webb Films
  • Comedy
  • Governesses and Nannies
  • Maureen O’Hara Films
  • Richard Haydn Films
  • Robert Young Films
  • Small Town America

Review:
A few years after his infamous turn as Waldo Lydecker in Otto Preminger’s Laura (1944), Clifton Webb gave a similarly acerbic — and equally memorable — performance in this adaptation of Gwen Davenport’s 1947 novel Belvedere. Although clearly dated in many ways, Sitting Pretty still packs a surprising amount of comedic punch — thanks almost entirely to Webb, who never falters in his depiction of Mr. Belvedere as an outrageously self-congratulatory man, a philosopher and “genius” who never harbors the slightest doubt in his abilities to handle any situation that arises. Indeed, as the story progresses, Belvedere’s list of professed accomplishments and prior occupations grows so outlandishly long (“Mr. Belvedere, is there anything you haven’t been?” “Yes, Mrs. King — I’ve never been an idler or a parasite.”) that we eventually realize he’s a superhuman entity; while he never actually opens up an umbrella to go soaring through the air like Mary Poppins, his ability to achieve such a feat is somehow never in doubt.

Given that Mr. Belvedere is decidedly asexual (or, depending on how you look at it, secretly “coded” as homosexual), the fact that the film’s storyline eventually hinges on Robert Young’s jealous suspicions that his wife is engaging in a romantic dalliance with her nanny is simply ludicrous. Yet such narrative quibbles are somehow easily forgiven, given the overall outlandish flavor of the screenplay — which eventually takes an unexpected twist that places the entire story in a new context. And Webb is given so many delicious lines to spout that it’s pure fun simply waiting to hear how he’ll handle the next one. Watch for an enjoyable supporting turn by British comedic actor Richard Haydn (who played a dramatically different character in Preminger’s Forever Amber the previous year).

Note: This film (or rather, Webb’s impersonation as Mr. Belvedere) was so popular that two sequels — Mr. Belvedere Goes to College (1949) and Mr. Belvedere Rings the Bell (1951) — quickly followed; while they get half-hearted ratings, I’ll admit I’m smitten enough by Webb-as-Belvedere to want to check them out.

UPDATE, 12/9/11: I recently watched Mr. Belvedere Goes to College (1949) on YouTube (some kind soul uploaded it there), and thought I would write a quick capsule review here (especially given that no reviews at all are linked to this obscure little title on IMDb). As expected, it’s not nearly as “complete” a comedy as Sitting Pretty, and certainly isn’t must-see viewing for film fanatics — but fans of Webb won’t regret checking it out. His “Lynn Belvedere” remains in peak form in the sequel, responding to the rhetorical question, “You’re not serious…?!” with a resolute, “I’m grim.” (Only HE could make that retort sound convincing!) The film’s title explains itself: given that his formal education apparently consisted of no more than “two revolting weeks of Kindergarten”, Belvedere decides — for reasons I can’t name without spoiling the first picture a bit — to finally get a college degree. This allows the filmmakers ample opportunity to expose the hazards of freshman hazing — to which, interestingly enough, Mr. Belvedere allows himself to be subjected (to a certain extent, anyway).

Unfortunately, far too little time is actually spent on Belvedere’s travails in the classroom; NONE, actually (we simply see him reading books wherever he goes). Instead, a rather insipid subplot is allowed to dominate the proceedings, involving a would-be romance between a grown-up Shirley Temple (whose annoying character possesses a significant secret identity) and Tom Drake (of boy-next-door Meet Me in St. Louis fame); as might be expected, whenever this narrative takes center stage, things grind to a deadening halt. Enter Mr. Belvedere again, however, and one’s energies are immediately restored: he’s just THAT delightful. As Bosley Crowther laudingly describes him in his review for the New York Times, he’s “brilliantly, classically clever and often delightfully droll, but he is also profoundly earnest”; in sum, he’s “a fellow who knows himself thoroughly and who has the good sense to realize that modesty would be false”. Indeed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Clifton Webb as Mr. Belvedere (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Richard Haydn as Mr. Appleton
  • Plenty of delightfully droll dialogue: “Intoxication is a form of escape often sought by the mentally immature.”

Must See?
Yes, simply for Webb’s iconic performance. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

Links:

White Rose, The (1982)

White Rose, The (1982)

“We can only get rid of the Nazis if we lose the war.”

Synopsis:
During the height of World War II, German college student Sophie Scholl (Lena Stolze) discovers that her brother Hans (Wulf Kessler) is involved in an underground anti-Nazi movement known as the White Rose, and decides to join in the group’s efforts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • German Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Resistance Fighters

Review:
The gripping true story of Sophie Scholl — a young German woman who was murdered, along with several others, for daring to voice anti-Nazi sentiments during the height of WWII — was brought vividly to life in the Oscar-nominated film Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005), a powerful, must-see modern movie. More than twenty years earlier, Michael Verhoeven’s The White Rose told the same story, from a slightly different perspective. While Sophie Scholl was based on recently unearthed transcripts of Sophie’s interrogation after being caught distributing anti-Nazi flyers at Munich University, and essentially begins at this late point during her “final days”, The White Rose depicts the evolution of the titular group’s activities, showcasing how a handful of German youths eventually came to believe that their country was headed for imminent disaster under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, and were determined to try to bring the war to an end.

Unlike in Sophie Scholl — which, as its name implies, is primarily concerned with showcasing the final days of Sophie herself — the screentime here is shared amongst a number of different White Rose protagonists, thus allowing us to learn a bit more about the group’s clandestine efforts to spread its urgent message. Through close attention to detail, the film effectively reminds us of the sobering truth, that during this infamous period of European history, one could lose one’s life for daring to write an anti-government missive — and that an act as simple as buying several dozen postage stamps could mark one immediately as a potential traitor to one’s country. Unfortunately, there are a few too many narrative threads hanging loose throughout the screenplay — such as a confusing subplot about Hans’s apparent romantic dalliances with two different women (Anja Kruse and Mechthild Reinders); but admirers of Sophie Scholl are sure to want to check out this essential cinematic counterpart, which fills in the gaps about an infamous, little told episode in German history.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lena Stolze as Sophie Scholl
  • A powerful, unique perspective on German anti-Nazi sentiments

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth viewing, and must-see for those interested in this historical era.

Links: