Browsed by
Month: October 2012

Stepford Wives, The (1975)

Stepford Wives, The (1975)

“I’m not contemplating any Maidenform bonfires… But they could certainly use something around here!”

Synopsis:
A lawyer (Peter Masterson) moves with his wife (Katharine Ross) and two kids from New York City to the suburb of Stepford, where Joanna (Ross) immediately begins to suspect that something isn’t quite right with the other wives. Along with her new best friend (Paula Prentiss), she tries to investigate, but finds that few of the women are interested in discussing any concerns deeper than housecleaning.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bryan Forbes Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Housewives
  • Katharine Ross Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Paula Prentiss Films
  • Science Fiction

Review:
Critical opinions remain mixed on the success of this first adaptation of Ira Levin’s widely read ’70s novel, with many complaining that director Bryan Forbes turned it into too much of a straight psychological thriller without sufficiently tapping into its satirical underpinnings. I disagree. Forbes — whose earlier successes as a director included Whistle Down the Wind (1961), The L-Shaped Room (1962), and Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) — does an impressive job projecting the seemingly idyllic Stepford as a suburb filled with quiet menace, leaving us with no doubt that Ross’s very life is in danger from the moment she reluctantly leaves behind her former life in NYC and suddenly finds herself surrounded by women she can’t relate to on any level (this is a true nightmare!). Her friendship with Prentiss — as well as her interactions with a wealthy, tennis-loving housewife (Tina Louise) — amply highlight the normalcy that’s missing from the rest of the Stepford wives; meanwhile, the screenplay’s slowly oppressive structure — as first Louise, then Prentiss, are “taken over”, and Ross is sneakily roped into having her portrait drawn, then her voice “captured” — is genuinely frightening.

Fans of Levin’s work (which includes the novel Rosemary’s Baby and the thriller-play Deathtrap) will know that he frequently placed wives in positions of vulnerability, positing their husbands as calculating villains whose motives are masked behind a façade of loving attention. That dynamic definitely plays out here, with Masterson doing a fine job as Ross’s husband — a man who seemingly has her best interests at heart, yet is clearly involved in nefarious dealings on some unknown level. Ross is perfectly cast in the lead role, projecting just the right amount of feminist spunk, and Prentiss gives one of her best supporting performances as Bobbie, who fearlessly shows off her body in casually sexy outfits (which are in noted contrast to the prim dresses and hats worn by the Wives). While one can certainly quibble with any number of logistical elements of the story (most having to do with the wives “transforming”), The Stepford Wives remains an engaging and culturally iconic sci-fi thriller, one which all film fanatics should check out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Ross as Joanna
  • Paula Prentiss as Bobbie
  • Peter Masterson as Walter
  • Tina Louise as Charmaine
  • A genuinely creepy premise


Must See?
Yes, as a culturally iconic psychological thriller.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Man Who Loved Women, The (1977)

Man Who Loved Women, The (1977)

“For me, nothing is more beautiful to see than a woman walking.”

Synopsis:
A scientist (Charles Denner) obsessed with beautiful women reflects back on the many partners he’s pursued over the years, as he writes his thoughts in a manuscript he hopes to publish.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Flashback Films
  • Francois Truffaut Films
  • French Films
  • Womanizers

Review:
Francois Truffaut once insisted that “there is more truth in the bedroom than in the office or the board room” — which might explain his interest in making a film about a man literally obsessed with pursuing beautiful women, and making love to them at any cost. After a highly unrealistic opening scene (in which scores of women — mostly former lovers, along with a few friends — file by to pay their respects to the deceased Denner), the film’s first “scene of pursuit” shows Denner glimpsing a pair of enormously attractive female legs walking by in heels and a swishy skirt, then scrambling to jot down her license plate number as she drives away, and pursuing this phantom female (he never sees her face) with what amounts to foolhardy single-mindedness — only to learn that she lives in Canada, has a fiance, and won’t be back to France for another two years. This scene in many ways epitomizes the ludicrous and elusive nature of Denner’s ongoing sexual quests, which resemble more than anything those of Michael Fassbinder’s sorry sex addict in Steve McQueen’s Shame (2011).

Unlike McQueen, however, Truffaut keeps the tone of his film relatively lighthearted throughout; Denner’s obsession with accumulating female partners (most of whom are young, attractive, and unrealistically willing to jump straight into bed with him) rules his life, but his doctor — after telling him he’s contracted gonorrhea — simply chuckles at his lusty spirit, and Denner’s pursuits continue. Most of the screenplay is dedicated to showing us the string of varied women Denner beds, as well as his attempt to get his “scandalous” memoirs published; along the way, Truffaut intersperses occasional flashbacks to Denner’s youth, showing how his neglectful mother (Marie-Jeanne Montfajon) may have played a part in his lifelong neurosis. While there’s nothing particularly offensive about any of this — one can’t help staying engaged in what’s happening on screen, given Truffaut’s intrinsic storytelling talents — the film as a whole isn’t one of Truffaut’s best, and ultimately isn’t must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Note: Leslie Caron shows up in a brief scene as — you guessed it — one of Denner’s former lovers, but her role is so small as to be considered a cameo.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Nestor Almendros’ cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look by fans of Truffaut’s work.

Links:

Small Change / Argent de Poche, L’ (1976)

Small Change / Argent de Poche, L’ (1976)

“Of all of mankind’s injustices, injustice to children is the most despicable!”

Synopsis:
In a southern French town, a poverty-ridden young boy (Philippe Goldman) struggles to survive while the children around him deal with crushes, sexual awakenings, and other coming-of-age adventures.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Childhood
  • Coming of Age
  • Episodic Films
  • Francois Truffaut Films
  • French Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this episodic, “leisurely plotted” film as “Francois Truffaut’s glowing tribute to children, who must use all their immense, amazing resources to compensate for living in a sometimes brutal, adult-made, adult-controlled world”. He argues that the children in this film are “more relaxed than the students in [Truffaut’s] The 400 Blows, and the teachers are much more enlightened than those in 1959″ (though pedagogically-speaking, it remains painful to watch a well-meaning teacher [Chantal Mercier] alternately drill-and-kill her students on ‘important’ historical dates and force them to recite the same lines from a play ad nauseum). He notes that “the two children who share center stage” in the screenplay “are those who have the most difficult home lives” — a young boy (Geory Desmouceaux) “who lives alone with his handicapped father” and “develops a crush on his best friend’s mother”:

… and a “welfare case” (Goldman) with a mysteriously absent family. Otherwise, as Peary notes, “this is a simple film about innocent themes (a boy’s first kiss, boys sneaking into a movie, boys making their own breakfast, boys spying on a nude woman)” — though he argues that this simplicity masks “unforgettable scenes and faces”, with “much… revealed about children’s special, often-troubled world”.

While I recall greatly enjoying Small Change as a teenage film fanatic, I was less enamored with it during a recent revisit. The biggest problem is that the episodic nature of the screenplay — though clearly strategic to Truffaut’s purposes — makes it impossible to get to know much about any of these kids, each of whom seems like a potentially interesting protagonist on his/her own. To that end, the performances by the child actors are uniformly natural and engaging, and Truffaut should certainly be commended for the obvious time and energy he put into this pursuit — yet we continually long for more knowledge about each of their situations. Meanwhile, the overall tone of the film shifts too dramatically between humor and pathos, with certain scenes (such as an infamous episode involving a toddler left on his own in a high-rise with an open window) nearly too painful to watch, yet designed to garner chuckles (!?).

By its final scenes (spoiled in Peary’s review, though I won’t say more here), the movie has shifted into different territory altogether, with a well-meaning schoolteacher (Jean-Francois Stevenin) — who “will remind some of Truffaut” — providing a didactic lecture to his students before they leave for the summer; at this point, the true intent behind the film is suddenly revealed. Unfortunately, it casts an overly moralistic pall upon the film, which (as noted earlier) is otherwise presented as primarily a light-hearted coming-of-age ensemble tale. While there are many naturalistic moments to enjoy throughout the film, they ultimately don’t add up to a satisfying enough experience to recommend as “must-see” for all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An often-engagingly naturalistic look at the lives of children in 1970s France

Must See?
No, though it’s clearly a must for Truffaut fans.

Links:

Where the Boys Are (1960)

Where the Boys Are (1960)

“Experience: that’s what separates the girls from the girl scouts.”

Synopsis:
A group of midwestern college girls (Dolores Hart, Paula Prentiss, Yvette Mimieux, and Connie Francis) head to Fort Lauderdale for spring break, seeking romantic happiness and adventure in the sun — but they quickly find that dating is much more complicated than they anticipated, as Mimieux becomes sexually involved with a series of partying “Yalies”, Prentiss struggles to maintain her “good girl” status while dating an eccentric student (Jim Hutton), Hart dates a suave millionaire (George Hamilton), and Francis desperately pursues a quirky jazz musician (Frank Gorshin).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming-of-Age
  • George Hamilton Films
  • Jim Hutton Films
  • Paula Prentiss Films
  • Sexuality
  • Yvette Mimieux Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “cult favorite” (directed by Henry Levin) is “dated in many ways”, it remains an “enjoyable, offbeat, interesting film with appealing performances by the lead actresses”. He points out that “it’s surprisingly more advanced than other films of the period in regard to sex”, noting that “the dialogue about sex is frank” and that “it’s clear that our four girls are in search of boys for sex” (a point I can’t quite agree with, as discussed below). He further notes that “the four leads are very appealing”, given that they “all have a sense of humor” and “their characters are believable”; he commends the script for providing us with an “early film in which the girls are supportive friends, rather than rivals”. In his Cult Movies 3 book, Peary provides a much more detailed analysis of the film, describing its many differences from the novel it was based on (by Glendon Swarthout), which is apparently even more sexually explicit, and focuses primarily on the sexual adventures of Merritt (Hart).

In Cult Movies 3, Peary concedes that WTBA shouldn’t really “be taken all that seriously”, given that “any picture about the students who migrate to Spring Break in Fort Lauderdale is bound to be somewhat stupid and junky”. He further points out that one shouldn’t forget “this picture actually has George ‘Mr. Tan’ Hamilton striding across the beach — an image that never fails to delight camp-movie addicts”. However, he argues that the film “is above being enjoyed only on a camp level”, given that “there is much to appreciate” — including “young heroes and heroines” who are portrayed as “caring, smart, and, ultimately, responsible”, and men who “show… respect for the women they’re attracted to”. The exception to this latter statement is, of course, the tragic subplot involving Mimieux’s fatally naive sexual interactions with a group of faux-Yalies — but it’s to the film’s credit that these male characters never emerge as anything other than bit players designed to play slimy louses.

As noted above, I don’t quite agree with Peary that all the girls in this film are interested in pursuing sex per se. While they are all sexually curious to one extent or another (who isn’t?), it’s evident that they’re primarily looking for boys to date, to have fun with, and to possibly turn into longer-term mates. Prentiss’s “Tuggle”, for instance, is a self-avowed “good girl” who makes it clear that she’s exclusively interested in finding a man to settle down with: “Girls like me weren’t built to be educated. We were made to have children. That’s my ambition: to be a walking, talking baby factory.” In her screen debut, Prentiss has an appealing comedic presence, and her interactions with lanky Hutton generally ring true. Much less satisfying is the character played by Connie Francis, who nicely sings the title song but otherwise is relegated to a thankless role as the girl desperate to catch a man, any man; she’s too attractive to merit this type of degrading characterization, and I don’t blame her for dismissing the film later in her life as terrible.

Note: Where the Boys Are remains of minor historical interest as well simply given that its lead, Dolores Hart, left Hollywood after making this film to become a lifelong Benedictine nun in Connecticut.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Yvette Mimieux as Melanie
  • Paula Prentiss as Tuggle
  • Dolores Hart as Merritt

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its (relatively) bold exploration of ’50s sexual mores. But I doubt it holds much of its cult status any longer.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links: