Browsed by
Month: March 2019

Big House, The (1930)

Big House, The (1930)

Comments 1 comment

“The whole prison system is cockeyed!”

Synopsis:
A man (Robert Montgomery) in prison for manslaughter is bunked with a petty thief (Chester Morris) and a burly inmate (Wallace Beery) who dreams of escape. During a brief stint on the lam, Morris falls for Montgomery’s sister (Leila Hyams) — but when he’s caught and re-sentenced, he returns to the impossible decision of whether to support his fellow inmates in a prison break or stay clean.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fugitives
  • Prisoners
  • Robert Montgomery Films
  • Wallace Beery Films

Review:
Peary doesn’t review this early prison drama in his GFTFF, but he names Wallace Beery Best Actor of the Year in his Alternate Oscars, where he discusses the Oscar-nominated film briefly. Peary notes that Beery arguably “stole the picture, providing it with its one characterization that broke from stereotypical portrayals of convicts” (though I’m not sure I agree with this, given that Morris’s character is pretty unconventional, and there are several quirky inmates lurking around the periphery of the story). Peary writes that while Beery’s “Butch is a dangerous brute”, we “pity him, even find him lovable because he doesn’t know any better”. He “looks almost comical” with his shaved head, and “when he jokes around or boasts of love conquests… he’s a good guy, a pal. But he doesn’t know how to control his violent nature”, and you “don’t want to let him out on the streets.”

While I think second-billed Beery does a fine and memorable job in his role, the choice of naming him Best Actor seems like an unusual one, given that he’s ultimately a supporting character to the lead (Morris) — who himself takes over the protagonist’s role from Montgomery. (Indeed, this shifting of perspectives from Montgomery’s snivelly whiner to Morris’s noble do-gooder is an interesting and successful narrative choice.) The entire film is well-directed, with many scenes reminiscent of later prison flick tropes (objects exchanging hands under tables; deals being made on the yard); the static shot in the basement hallway of The Hole is an especially haunting one, effectively conveying both the deep isolation and inextricable connectedness of men behind bars. This one remains worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the three leads


  • Atmospheric cinematography and direction


  • The exciting final jail-break sequence

Must See?
Yes, as a solid and historically relevant early prison flick. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Harder They Fall, The (1956)

Harder They Fall, The (1956)

Comments 1 comment

“Money’s money, no matter where you get it.”

Synopsis:
A washed-up sportswriter (Humphrey Bogart) eager for steady income accepts a gig as publicist for a hulky but ineffective new fighter (Mike Lane) working under a corrupt promoter (Rod Steiger) — but when an ethical journalist friend (Harold J. Stone) and his wife (Jan Sterling) learns more about what he’s doing, Bogart begins to have second thoughts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boxing
  • Corruption
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Jan Sterling Films
  • Journalists
  • Mark Robson Films
  • Rod Steiger Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “skillfully directed”, “remarkable, well-acted” film by Mark Robson — with an “outstanding no-punches-pulled (literally speaking) script by Philip Yordan,” based on a novel by Budd Schulberg — remains “the harshest indictment of boxing on film”, and is a “rare boxing film where the person who ‘sells out’ for money is not a fighter.” He notes that “the boxing world that is depicted is abominable. Not only is the sport itself brutal… but also most fights are shown to be rigged, and fighters are at the mercy of racketeers and money-hungry managers who should protect their fighters but treat them like cattle (to be bought, used, sold).” Peary adds, “Curiously, Max Baer plays the champ” who sadistically beats Toro [Lane], “twenty years after really mauling Primo Carnera (the basis for Toro) in [the] title bout; one wonders why he or Jersey Joe Wolcott (who plays Toro’s trainer) would participate in a film that condemns their sport” — but this comment belittles the intelligence and awareness of the boxers themselves, who surely realize (now if not then) the exploitation inherent in their own career choice, and also likely needed the money (!). Bogart looks tired and unwell in his final role, though this suits his character: he’s a man who recognizes that corruption is both tempting and relentlessly omnipresent, a formidable force to be reckoned with in a lifelong battle to privilege human dignity and respect over greed and gratification of the masses.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Strong direction by Robson
  • Burnett Guffey’s cinematography
  • Many effective scenes


Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful indictment of corruption in sports.

Categories

Links:

$ (1971)

$ (1971)

Comments 2 comments

“If we didn’t have thieves, we wouldn’t need banks.”

Synopsis:
A security expert (Warren Beatty) working for a German bank collaborates with a call girl (Goldie Hawn) to determine which safety deposit boxes contain dirty money, then engineers an elaborate heist. However, when the burgled cons (Scott Brady, Robert Webber and Arthur Brauss) learn they’ve been duped, they seek immediate revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Goldie Hawn Films
  • Heists
  • Richard Brooks Films
  • Thieves and Criminals
  • Warren Beatty Films

Review:
Richard Brooks wrote and directed this fast-paced long-con flick, set in Hamburg, Germany, and notable for having a single symbol as its title (it’s come to be referred to as Dollars). While it’s somewhat challenging to determine what’s happening during the first portion of the film, we eventually figure out that Beatty and Hawn are working together on an elaborate heist — though once they’re (barely) successful, their troubles have only just begun. (Then again, what else would you expect when you steal from thieves?) Unfortunately, this film should be a lot more fun than it is: it’s all machinations and little genuine involvement or narrative, with only the basics of a gotcha plot emerging. Hawn’s quirky character is poorly conceived, and while Beatty is appropriately clever and quick on his feet, he’s a slippery, unknowable sort. Fans of well-directed heists and chase sequences will want to check this one out, but it’s not must-see viewing for all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Good use of authentic location settings in Hamburg

  • Quincy Jones’ soundtrack

Must See?
No, though fans of heist flicks will probably want to check it out.

Links:

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

Comments 2 comments

“You are the life of the fatherland, you boys!”

Synopsis:
A jingoistic teacher (Arnold Lucy) encourages his entire class of high school students to enlist in the German war effort — but Paul (Lew Ayres) and his classmates quickly find war to be far more hellish than they could ever imagine.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Lewis Milestone Films
  • Soldiers
  • Survival
  • World War One

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “the most famous pacifist film is not as grisly as Erich Maria Remarque’s novel,” it “has enough horror and brutality to drive its anti-war theme home a hundred times over”. Influenced by a “rousing pro-militaristic speech by their professor”, a group of impossibly young and naive German teens quickly “discover that war has nothing to do with gallantry, duty, or the right cause” — instead, they “suffer through bombings, gassings, massacres, [and] hand-to-hand conflicts”. Peary argues that while “the dialogue scenes are static”, the “human story is powerful”, with “director Lewis Milestone’s visuals of the battle scenes… still impressive”, “effectively convey[ing] that being a soldier is a terrifying prospect.” Peary concludes his brief GFTFF review by noting “it’s unfortunate that films like this are never made when a war is in progress.”

In Alternate Oscars, Peary agrees with the Academy in naming this the Best Picture of the Year, and elaborates on what makes it so enduringly powerful. He writes that while “the boys enthusiastically enlist en masse, all hoping to be heroes”, “once in uniform, they realize that there is no glamour to war” — “instead, there are dictatorial officers, endless marchs, hunger, fatigue, nostalgia for home, rats in the trenches, mud and rain…” Indeed, there is “no heroism. Instead there is confusion, terror, hysteria, madness, amputations, [and] meaningless deaths. All that matters is survival, and those who survive are either insane, without limbs or sight, or unfit to return to civilization where old men still champion wars.” Most chilling and heart-stopping among many powerful moments is “the battle scene in which Arthur Edeson’s camera pans while charging soldiers are mowed down by machine-gun fire” — a scene “as impressive as it is terrifying”, and which “becomes even scarier when soldiers break through and jump into the trenches for hand-to-hand combat.” As Peary adds, “Significantly, not one shot is heroic or glamorizes war; instead we see how vulnerable all soldiers are and want to close our eyes until the fighting stops.” This almost unbearably impactful film will quickly convince you that war really is hell.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Powerful direction by Milestone


  • Arthur Edesen’s cinematography


  • Countless memorable moments

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring classic.

Categories

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

Links:

Queen Christina (1933)

Queen Christina (1933)

Comments 1 comment

“I do not wish to marry, and they cannot make me!”

Synopsis:
The headstrong queen (Greta Garbo) of 17th century Sweden is pressured to marry a prince (Reginald Owen), but falls instead for a handsome Spanish ambassador (John Gilbert). Will she choose loyalty to her position and her country, or her heart?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Gender Bending
  • Greta Garbo Films
  • Historical Drama
  • John Gilbert Films
  • Lewis Stone Films
  • Romance
  • Rouben Mamoulian Films
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that in this “marvelous historical drama”, Greta Garbo gives “her greatest performance” as Queen Christina, “one of the best-written, strongest female characters in cinema history — a leader who steadfastly refuses to crumble under the unmitigated pressures from her powerful male advisors and relies on her distinctly female brain, heart, and instincts to rule well”. He notes that “Garbo glows in the role. Never has she displayed such vitality, intelligence, or passion. (Only in Ninotchka is she as witty.)”, and adds that “the direction by Rouben Mamoulian is exquisite; particularly impressive are his close-ups, including Garbo’s head on the pillow at the inn and the astonishing, lengthy final shot of the star’s beautiful face”. In Alternate Oscars — where he names Garbo Best Actress of the Year — Peary elaborates on her performance, noting that “never did she display such wit, intelligence, energy, or passion in a part; never did she invest so much of herself in a character.” He points out the “many moments to be treasured” throughout the film — including “Christina silently walking around the chamber which she has shared with Don Antonio [Gilbert], memorizing everything with her fingers, eyes, and body”. Indeed, a big part of what makes this film so refreshing is its frank approach to Christina’s sexuality and gender presentation: she wears what she wants to, struts with confidence, mingles with men at will, has a highly sensual affair with Gilbert, and isn’t shy about expressing her bisexual desires back at home in her court. This memorable “biopic” remains well worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Greta Garbo as Queen Christina
  • William Daniels’ cinematography

  • A refreshingly frank pre-Code script

Must See?
Yes, for Garbo’s iconic performance. Nominated as one of the Best Films of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

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

Links:

My Fair Lady (1964)

My Fair Lady (1964)

Comments 2 comments

“What am I fit for? What have you left me fit for?”

Synopsis:
A Cockney flower-girl (Audrey Hepburn) receives phonetics lessons from an arrogant professor (Rex Harrison) who claims he can make her acceptable for “high society”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Battle-of-the–Sexes
  • Character Arc
  • Class Relations
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • George Cukor Films
  • Mentors
  • Musicals
  • Play Adaptations
  • Rex Harrison Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “film version of Lerner and Loewe’s musical adaptation of [George Bernard] Shaw’s Pygmalian … copped eight Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director”, but he argues that “seeing it today is extremely disappointing” — and I agree. As Peary writes, “Even the best songs have become… tiresome” and “the musical numbers are the film’s major problem” due to both terrible “postproduction dubbing” and lack of “any large production numbers”. Peary further argues that director George Cukor “wrongly chose to keep scenes intact from the stage version, losing what potential the cinema has for heightening the theatrical experience”. Even more problematic are the ill-conceived lead characters: as Peary writes, “Shaw was known for creating strong, intelligent women characters, and Cukor was known for directing similar women in his films. Then why does Hepburn’s Eliza come across as such a pushover, happy to give up her freedom for life with a dull man who has treated her badly?”

Peary’s assessment is spot-on. However, while he argues in Alternate Oscars that “Harrison was the best thing about My Fair Lady,” I disagree: Harrison’s lack of any singing range whatsoever beggars belief about his casting, and while his chauvanistic characterization may (sadly) be true-to-life, he’s so unlikable he fails to elicit any sympathy. Hepburn’s transformation, meanwhile, doesn’t ring true in the slightest: she’s initially a shrewish nag, yet once her lessons with Harrison are done, she’s become someone entirely different. Yes, I know that “transformation” is the entire point of the play — but we should be seeing more hints poking through of her prior mannerisms than merely some Cockney grammar slip-ups. Worst of all, of course, is that we most certainly do NOT want Hepburn to fall for Harrison, yet we know this is what the story is leading us towards. The lesson is all wrong; this film has dated terribly, if it ever somehow managed to ring true.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lovely cinematography
  • Fine costumes and sets

Must See?
No, though most film fanatics will be curious to check it out for its historical relevance as an Oscar winner.

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

Links: