FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A modern-day witch (Kim Novak) living “underground” in New York City with her brother (Jack Lemmon) and aunt (Elsa Lanchester) secretly casts a spell to lure her neighbor (James Stewart) away from his fiancee (Janice Rule). Meanwhile, her brother foolishly cooperates with an occult author (Ernic Kovacs) on his latest book, threatening to expose their true identities.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Elsa Lanchester Films
• Jack Lemmon Films
• Janice Rule Films
• Jimmy Stewart Films
• Kim Novak Films
• Play Adaptations
• Romantic Comedy
• Witches and Wizards

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that people who “saw this mild comedy” — an “adaptation of John van Druten’s play” — when it was released in theaters may “have a soft spot for it”, but warns that “otherwise you’ll be disappointed, even bored”. He notes that while a “dream comedy cast was assembled”, “everyone seems to have taken tranquilizers”, and argues that the “picture cries out for wildness, even slapstick humor”, thanks to “lifeless direction by Richard Quine”. I’m in full agreement with Peary’s assessment of this disappointing “follow-up” to Novak and Stewart’s romantic pairing the same year in Vertigo. Novak, while appropriately sexy and seductive, seems decidedly bored throughout much of the film:

while Stewart brings nothing new to his rather thankless role as a spellbound chump.

Meanwhile, Lanchester is typecast in a throwaway role as Novak’s ditzy aunt:

and Lemmon is merely serviceable as Novak’s foolhardly brother.

Smidgens of relief come from both Janice Rule as Stewart’s smug fiancee, and Ernie Kovacs as the perennially befuddled “occult” author, but they ultimately can’t save the predictable storyline from itself.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Janice Rule as Merle Kittridge
  
• Ernie Kovacs as Sidney Redlitch
  

Must See?
No; this one isn’t must-see viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• SciFilm Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A retired policeman (James Stewart) with a fear of heights is asked by his friend (Tom Helmore) to follow his beautiful wife (Kim Novak), who has recently become obsessed with her suicidal ancestor. Soon Stewart finds himself obsessively in love with Novak, and is devastated when events take a surprising turn for the worst.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Framed
• Hitchcock Films
• Jimmy Stewart Films
• Kim Novak Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Obsessive Love

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of what he refers to as “Hitchcock’s most perplexing film” by noting the significance of the opening scene (a “chase across a San Francisco roof”), which demonstrates how the lead character, ‘Scottie’ Ferguson (Stewart), develops the debilitating vertigo that plagues him throughout the remainder of the film. He astutely points out that “after the cop who tries to save [dangling Stewart] plummets to his death”, “Hitchcock never shows [Stewart] being rescued” — thus, “by leaving Scottie in mid-air, Hitchcock instills in us the feeling… that Scottie has slipped into a surreal, dreamlike netherworld that exists between life and death, the present and the past, the real and illusionary”. He further notes that “because a cop died in his place, [a guilty] Scottie is attracted to death, which is embodied by the beautiful, ethereal, [suicidal] Madeleine” (a “well cast” Kim Novak).

To say more about the film’s suspenseful, psychologically intense storyline is to immediately give away spoilers; unfortunately Peary’s entire review (like most you’ll find online) is simply riddled with them. Suffice it to say that a significant death occurs about halfway through the film, and a further critical plot twist is revealed about 2/3rds of the way through — both of which should come as a deliciously unexpected surprise to novice viewers, thus adding to the film’s enduring legacy as a first-rate thriller. With that said, I’ll agree with Peary that the “unique and brilliant” structure of the film — in which “the picture becomes an intense, psychological character study of Scottie” rather than a potential murder mystery — is somewhat “infuriating”; like Peary, “I prefer the mystery unraveling to Scottie unraveling and becoming unbearably obsessive, tyrannical, and self-destructive”. Plus, as he notes, the surprisingly “tragic ending is… unsatisfying and depressing”.

Vertigo — which in recent years has steadily scaled the ranks of various highly regarded “best movie” lists, especially since a gorgeous restoration was completed in 1996 — is often cited as Hitchcock’s masterpiece, and certainly remains one of his most discussed and analyzed films. This is due in part to the fact that the story — in which middle-aged Stewart develops a near-pathological obsession with an aloof “icy blonde” — seems to mirror Hitchcock’s own idiosyncratic fascination with such women. However, while I admire the film on many levels, it’s ultimately not a personal favorite. Scottie’s treatment of Novak eventually becomes far too disturbing to easily stomach, and it’s not much fun to witness Hitchcock’s relentless assertion that when “given a choice of women, men are so weak they’ll always pick the helpless over the independent, the attractive over the plain, the frigid over the accessible, and the illusionary over the real” — indeed, the character of Barbara Bel Geddes’ “Midge” (Stewart’s ex-fiancee, who harbors an enduring crush on him) is never allowed to become anything more than a sorry symbol for everything “normal” and healthy Stewart is rejecting.

Yet regardless of how film fanatics may feel about the film’s ultimate ranking within Hitchcock’s pantheon, there’s much about it to enjoy — including Novak’s surprisingly nuanced performance(s), excellent use of Bay Area locales, and Bernard Herrmann’s justifiably celebrated score (one of his best). It remains a classic film ffs won’t want to miss viewing at least once — and likely more often, simply to absorb its complex psychological layering and storyline.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jimmy Stewart as Scottie Ferguson
  
• Kim Novak as Madeleine/Judy
  
• Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge
  
• Fine VistaVision cinematography
  
• Good use of Bay Area locales
  
• Bernard Herrmann’s score

Must See?
Yes, as one of Hitchcock’s most highly regarded classics.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links: (spoilers in nearly every review – be forewarned!)

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (by Bosley Crowther)
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Film Site Review
• TV Guide Review
• Moria Review
• NY Times Review of Restored Version (by Janet Maslin)
• TCM Articles
• ReelViews Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A simple country farmer (George O’Brien) is persuaded by his vampish lover (Margaret Livingston) to murder his wife (Janet Gaynor) on a boat trip — but O’Brien’s conscience gets the better of him, and he finds himself unable to carry through with his plans. He and Gaynor renew their love for one another during a romantic trip to New York City, but face unexpected challenges when they’re caught in a storm on their way back home.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• City vs. Country
• Femmes Fatales
• F.W. Murnau Films
• Homicidal Spouses
• Janet Gaynor Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that F.W. Murnau’s “American debut” remains a “great silent film”, one which “takes a simple, universal story and gives it startling emotional impact through breathtaking camera work”. He argues that “between The Birth of a Nation and Citizen Kane there is no better example in American film of visual storytelling”, given that the “expressionistic (sometimes lyrical) film… reveals the psychology of its characters from movement to movement through intricate lighting, camera movement and positioning, choice of setting, scenic design, and superimpositions (that reveal thoughts) and other special effects”. He points out that the “picture has a European look because it was designed in Germany before Murnau came to the U.S.”, and argues that the “acting is fine, with Gaynor and O’Brien showing why they were one of the era’s most likable screen teams, and Livingston making a devilish femme fatale“.

In his Alternate Oscars book, Peary names Sunrise the Best Picture of the Year, arguing that the actual winner, William Wellman’s Wings (1927), “pales in comparison” and “has dated badly”, and pointing out that Sunrise actually won the “Artistic Quality of Production” award, a category which was soon abandoned and is no longer remembered.

Peary’s not at all alone in his laudatory view of this visually stunning silent film, which is consistently innovative and atmospheric in its presentation style. However, one’s enjoyment of the story itself will depend greatly on an ability to view it as a fable rather than a realistic tale of infidelity and renewed marital trust. After all, Gaynor’s The Wife (as in Murnau’s equally fable-like The Last Laugh [1924], the major characters aren’t given names) manages to fairly quickly forgive her husband (The Man) for having homicidal tendencies towards her (!), allowing their New York trip to function as a second honeymoon rather than worrying about his dangerously mercurial nature. Meanwhile, the details of the entire narrative remain remarkably simplistic, in a fairy tale-like fashion; Peary himself refers to it as a “fable-morality play”.

In Alternate Oscars, Peary notes that Vidor’s thematically similar masterpiece from the same year (The Crowd) is every bit as impressive and “artistic” as Murnau’s film, but that Sunrise was still a better choice as Best Picture of the Year (calculated at that point from August 1927 to August 1928), simply given that it “turned out to be more influential”. He points out that both films “are about how a married couple’s enduring love neutralizes the hostile, destructive, corruptive powers of the city”; indeed, having recently rewatched The Crowd myself, the similarities are strikingly notable. Yet I found myself much more emotionally engaged in the travails of The Crowd‘s realistic (albeit “every man”) protagonists, while Sunrise‘s The Man and The Wife simply function as convenient archetypes, held at remove. Indeed, at times Murnau’s film edges dangerously close to stereotyping in its overly-simplistic presentation of city-versus-country, with O’Brien and Gaynor shown as naive hicks who can’t quite keep up with the pace of city living.

With all that said, there really is no denying the visual impact of Sunrise, which uses cinematographic techniques to tremendous effect, clearly demonstrating once again why F.W. Murnau is considered a pivotal figure in the early days of feature-length cinema. For that reason alone, it’s most certainly worth a look by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Charles Rosher and Karl Struss’s cinematography
  
  
• Excellent use of “in-camera” effects
  
  
• Creative intertitles
  
• Atmospheric sets and art direction
  

Must See?
Yes, as a visually evocative silent classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• FilmSite Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Articles
• Jigsaw Lounge Review
• Silent Volume Review
• Roger Ebert’s Great Movies Review
• Reelviews Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When an aging doorman (Emil Jannings) at a fancy hotel is demoted to washroom attendant, he hides this shameful fact from his family and neighbors as long as possible — but could an unexpected change in fortune be around the corner for Jannings?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Downward Spiral
• F.W. Murnau Films
• German Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “classic German silent film, directed without titles by F.W. Murnau”, “suffers today because of Jannings overdoing it with the self-pity and a happy ending that just doesn’t mesh with what went before.” However, he concedes that “Karl Freund’s cinematography is absolutely stunning”, noting that his “remarkable close-ups, Jannings’s dream sequence, and the opening street scene… shot through a revolving door” are “particularly impressive”. He argues that Freund’s “use of a mobile camera and his surreal effects were revolutionary”, and that “truly there are shots unlike those found in any other film”. DVD Savant’s review (of a newly restored version unavailable to Peary in 1986) provides additional insights into the movie, which he notes is often considered “the best example of German Expressionism”. He writes that “Murnau plans every shot to contrast the doorman’s proud position with his later, diminished status”, and argues that “the entire film is energized by a camera that adds its comment to each scene and each angle.” He notes that while Jannings’ performance may be “stylized”, “nothing about [it] is overwrought”, and further points out the “remarkable” set designs by Edgar G. Ulmer.

The Last Laugh is ultimately more of a cinematographic fable than a traditional full-length feature, given several factors: its rather limited narrative scope; the lack of any names given to the characters (Jannings is simply “The Hotel Doorman”); the lack of inter-titles (though written notes are occasionally used to good effect); and the admittedly “tacked on”, unrealistically happy ending. To that end, I disagree with Peary’s complaint that the epilogue “just doesn’t mesh with what went before”; instead, I see it as simply further evidence that the entire narrative is meant to be viewed from the doorman’s perspective. After all, the extreme reactions of his neighbors and family members — both to the glory of his original position, and the shame of his debasement — defy logic; therefore, the happy ending seems to nicely represent simply an extension of Jannings’ ongoing fantasies and delusions. Regardless, what’s most impressive about the film is — as both Peary and Savant point out — its visual inventiveness, making it an early classic film fanatics won’t want to miss seeing at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Emil Jannings as the Hotel Doorman
  
• Innovative direction
  
• Karl Freund’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a visually evocative silent fable by a master director and his DP.

Categories

• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Roger Ebert’s Great Movies Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
In Leni Riefenstahl’s controversial “documentary”, Adolf Hitler greets adoring crowds during the 1934 Nazi Party Convention in Nuremberg.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Nazis
• Propaganda

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to “Leni Riefenstahl’s documentary on the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg” as “one of the most argued-about films ever made”, noting that it’s “worth seeing if only because of its fame”. He writes that “Riefenstahl always contended that her film was art rather than propaganda”, which is “nonsense” given that she and her vast crew of assistant directors “employed tremendous cinematic artistry to glorify Nazism and the Fuhrer, who comes across as a Messiah”, a “hero”, a “solemn and caring father figure”, a “military leader”, and a “respected firm party leader”. (The resulting film, which took 6 months to edit, represents only 3% of the total footage shot.) He points out that “most controversial is how on occasion she filmed the people/soldiers as if they weren’t human, but statues or part of Albert Speer’s new architecture”, and notes that “equally disturbing are images of uniformed Hitler youths having the time of their lives, looking no more dangerous than Cub Scouts as they engage in playful roughhousing”.

In his review, Peary provides a useful overview of Riefenstahl’s many “expert” techniques in projecting “a positive image” of Hitler — including her “employment of symbols”, “camera movement (to keep potentially dry material from seeming static), camera placement (Hitler is always shot from below to make him seem heroic), and thematic use of light and darkness”. All of this is true — and yet Roger Ebert provides a slightly different perspective in his “Great Movies” review, where he argues that it’s actually “a terrible film, paralyzingly dull, simpleminded, overlong and not even ‘manipulative’, because it is too clumsy to manipulate anyone but a true believer.” However, Ebert’s perspective on the film seems to come from a modern viewing stance, rather than acknowledging its impact on those who were watching it at the time; while I’ll concede that I found it boring to sit through the entire two-hour film, I’m not its target audience — i.e., a German citizen in the 1930s wondering about the fate of my country. As Peary notes, the “film made [Aryan] Germans feel comfort about their future”, and to that end, Riefenstahl most definitely “succeeded” in her disturbing goals.

In sum, though it’s tempting to “boycott [the film] strictly because of its ideology”, it’s worth sitting through once — though “ironically, you’ve probably seen most of the footage already”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Plenty of evidence of strategically propagandist (and undeniably “artistic”) direction
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its historical notoriety.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The daughter (Isabelle Adjani) of French novelist Victor Hugo travels undercover to Nova Scotia in pursuit of a former lover (Bruce Robinson), but becomes increasingly unhinged and deluded about their aborted relationship.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Francois Truffaut Films
• French Films
• Historical Drama
• Mental Breakdown
• Obsessive Love

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that “Francois Truffaut’s extremely passionate telling of the true story of Adele Hugo (Isabelle Adjani), the younger daughter of Victor Hugo” is “a moving, fascinating, original film, beautifully photographed by Nestor Almendros, with special attention to period detail”. He writes that “Truffaut’s characters are always driven by their hearts rather than by reason and, typically, they love those who don’t love them equally or at the same time” — but he notes that “this is the one film where he really explores the humiliation and the pain one can endure when deep love is unfilled”. Indeed, given how undeniably “heartbreaking” Adele’s psychological downfall is, it’s especially remarkable that Truffaut’s film remains as riveting as it is; we can’t help watching with fascination to see what will happen to her next (or rather, what new plan she herself will concoct to perpetuate the life of fantastical lies she’s become so inextricably bound to).

While much credit should go to Almendros and Truffaut’s set designers for presenting such a faithfully rendered, atmospheric vision of the era and location, most of the film’s success belongs squarely on the shoulders of young Adjani, who was deservedly nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year by the Academy, and is given this award by Peary in his Alternate Oscars. In this text, he notes that she gives “one of the truly unforgettable performances of the decade” as a woman with “no sense of pride”, who eventually “goes insane” (in real life, Adele was apparently schizophrenic). He provides a bit more analysis of her character’s strange motivations in pointing out that “Adele’s need for love from her suitor is rooted in her need to escape from the house of her unloving father, to prove to him she is worthy of love” — with the ultimate irony being that “becoming slave to another man is her way of achieving freedom from her father”. One can’t help wanting to research more about the real-life Adele Hugo after watching this riveting “biopic”, which does ample justice to her tragic fate.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Isabelle Adjani as Adele H.
  
• Nestor Almendros’ cinematography
  
• Fine attention to period detail
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for Adjani’s stunning performance, and as an overall powerful film.

Categories

• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review