FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
After watching a film about high-powered new American postal services, a bicycle-riding country postman (Jacques Tati) delivers his mail in increasingly speedy ways.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Comedy
• French Films
• Jacques Tati Films
• Village Life

Review:
French comedic-auteur Jacques Tati’s first feature-length film (he made six in total) was this expansion of his 18-minute-short entitled “L’École des facteurs” (“School for Postmen”), about nothing more than a bumbling postman delivering mail around a village. There does happen to be a carnival taking place as the film opens, which provides many of the initial sight gags, including Tati’s attempt to help with the erection of a pole:

… and his interactions with a “round-about” (merry-go-round):

After Francois (Tati) watches a film about speedy new American postal methods — including use of helicopters and motorcycles ridden through blazing fires (!) — the entire focus of the remaining storyline (such as it is) is on his zealous attempts to get mail more quickly to residents.

While several of Tati’s later films are considered must-see by many, this earlier outing is only required viewing for those interested in the evolution of his unique comedic style.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine location shooting in Sainte-Sévère-sur-Indre
  
• Numerous instances of masterfully choreographed physical humor
  

Must See?
No. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When a trio of witches prophesize that an 11th century thane named Macbeth (Orson Welles) will become king of Scotland, Macbeth — with support from his ambitious wife (Jeanette Nolan) — murders the king and takes over the crown, but the couple is soon consumed with paranoia over their newfound power.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Orson Welles Films
• Play Adaptation
• Plot to Murder
• Roddy McDowell Films
• Royalty and Nobility
• Shakespeare

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “dark, stylized adaptation of Shakespeare by Orson Welles” — “filmed on ‘B’ western sets at Republic Studios” — features “surrealistic and expressionistic flourishes,” and “can easily be seen as a visualization of Macbeth’s worst nightmare.” The fact that “Welles alters Shakespeare’s concept of the three witches and has them prophesy Macbeth’s initial success and ultimate downfall:

… confirms that Welles wanted his Macbeth to be as out of control of his destiny as he’d be if he were in a dream.” Peary argues that while the “picture gets off to a marvelous start,” Welles “cannot sustain the early power,” and “for some reason, listening to the speeches becomes difficult.” (He adds, “I think it would have worked much better as a silent film.”) However, while he believes “this is not a great Welles film, it does allow him to play the mammoth personality from whom many of his other characterizations developed” —

— “a man of conceit who achieves a lofty position, tremendous power, and (historical) significance by relinquishing his idealism and morality and committing ‘crimes’ (for which he feels guilt) against humanity.”

Perhaps inevitably, Welles’ adaptation was roundly criticized upon its release, for myriad reasons — ranging from the attempted Scottish accents of his cast (which were dubbed in response, then restored again in 1980), to the low-budget, intentionally stylized sets and costumes, to the many shifts and cuts made to the original play itself. These days, however, it stands out as a typically ambitious outing by Welles, who made good use of limited shooting days and funding, and infused his film with atmospheric dread throughout:

While it’s almost certainly not the “best” or most “authentic” Macbeth adaptation out there (I have yet to revisit Polanski’s 1971 version), I think film fanatics will appreciate seeing this iteration by one of America’s most innovative auteurs.

Note: Look for Roddy McDowall as Malcolm:

… Dan O’Herlihy (of Robinson Crusoe fame) as Macduff:

… and Welles’ daughter Christopher as Macduff’s son:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• John L. Russell’s atmospheric cinematography
  
• Effectively stylized sets and costumes
  
• Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth
  

Must See?
Yes, as a fine low-budget adaptation by a master director.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A family of Sicilian fishermen in the coastal village town of Aci Trezza struggle to open and keep their own business going, rather than selling to middlemen.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fishermen
• Italian Films
• Labor Movements
• Luchino Visconti Films

Review:
Luchino Visconti’s second feature-length narrative film was this “docufiction” outing with a cast of all uncredited native Sicilians, very loosely based on Giovanni Verga’s 1881 novel I Malavoglia. It tells a brutal tale of a working class family (the Valastros) attempting to exercise their right to self-determination, but failing miserably through no fault of their own (their boat is destroyed in extreme weather), then being mocked or shunned by nearly all around them.

Anyone expecting a happy resolution will be disappointed; rather, one should go into this film knowing that Visconti meant to make a trilogy (with the final film ending on a more triumphant note), but stopped here. On the plus side, the non-professional cast is highly photogenic, and effective at simply playing a version of themselves (below is Antonio Arcidiacono as the oldest son in the Valastro family):

There are a few moments of gentle poignancy and sweetness:

… but for the most part, we are simply reminded by this movie that life in post-WWII Italy was hard-scrabble for most, and that it was nearly impossible to survive without relying on noblesse oblige and unquestioningly accepting one’s role in the class-based status quo.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine cinematography
  
  
• Excellent use of authentic locales and daily life
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance within neo-realist cinema. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When the beloved commander (Gary Merrill) of a bombing crew is deeply shaken after a casualty-filled flight, his superior (Millard Mitchell) orders him replaced by a hard-nosed general (Gregory Peck) who preaches hard work and relentless courage above all else. Will Peck’s unemotional approach help his men reduce their heavy losses, or demoralize them even further?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Airplanes and Pilots
• Dean Jagger Films
• Gary Merrill Films
• Gregory Peck Films
• Henry King Films
• Hugh Marlowe Films
• Military
• Paul Stewart Films
• World War II

Review:
This Oscar-nominated adaptation of a 1948 novel by screenwriters Sy Bartlett and Beirne Lay, Jr. (veterans of the U.S.’s Eighth Air Force) is highly regarded as a powerful and authentic depiction of the human toll of combat, and was lauded for shifting away from the more optimistic tone of most wartime films until then. Given that this is a movie about air force pilots, we see surprisingly little combat or flights; instead, after opening with a framing flashback involving a major (Dean Jagger) visiting a now-empty empty airfield, the film shows us pilots arriving back after a traumatic flight with one asking outright, “What do I do with an arm, sir?”

This intentionally shocking line is meant to show us how normalized horrific scenarios have become for these men — and we sympathize completely not only with the traumatized pilots but with their commander (Merrill), who wonders how much the boys can handle:

“Do they know up here what my boys have been taking for three days in a row? That they’ll be up all night to get 18 in the air for tomorrow? How much do you think they can take? You know they’re falling asleep at briefing? Are you gonna drive them till they crack? … Those boys are flesh and blood. They’ll die for you, but they’ve got to have a chance and they know they haven’t got one.”

The remainder of the film pivots to Peck, whose approach is polar opposite to Merrill’s:

“I’m not trying to tell you not to be afraid. Fear is normal. But stop worrying about it and about yourselves. Stop making plans. Forget about going home.”

To the film’s credit, no artificial dramas or conflicts are created between individuals jockeying for power. Instead, we get the real sense that these leaders are trying to figure out precisely the best way to motivate their men to knowingly risk their lives for the sake of a bigger cause — even if this involves using harsh language to call out cowardice, as when Peck speaks bluntly to a legacy pilot (Hugh Marlowe) who has not been pulling his weight:

“You’re the son of one fine officer and the grandson of another… As far as I’m concerned, you’re yellow. A traitor to yourself, to this group, to the uniform you wear… I hate a man like you so much that I’m gonna get your head down in the mud and tramp on it. I’m gonna make you wish you’d never been born.”

Yikes. Will this approach work? Eventually, we find out. By the time we finally see later fight sequences (including Peck himself up in the air):

… we know that none of the choices that have been made are easy, and that all men eventually “break” at some point. What matters is the collective efficacy they’ve built together.

Note: In case you’re wondering about the film’s title (I was), according to Wikipedia:

The term “twelve o’clock high” refers to the practice of calling out the positions of attacking enemy aircraft by reference to an imaginary clock face, with the bomber at the center. The terms “high” (above the bomber), “level” (at the same altitude as the bomber) and “low” (below the bomber) further refine the location of the enemy. Thus “twelve o’clock high” meant the attacker was approaching from directly ahead and above. This location was preferred by German fighter pilots because, until the introduction of the Bendix chin turret in the B-17G model, the nose of the B-17 was the most lightly armed and vulnerable part of the bomber. Enemy fighter aircraft diving from above were also more difficult targets for the B-17 gunners due to their high closing speeds. Bartlett’s wife, actress Ellen Drew, named the story after hearing Bartlett and Lay discuss German fighter tactics, which usually involved head-on attacks from “twelve o’clock high”.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gregory Peck as General Savage
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Leonard Shamroy’s cinematography
  
• A strong screenplay by Sy Bartlett and Beirne Lay, Jr.

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful military drama. Selected in 1998 for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

Categories

• Good Show
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When Prince Hamlet of Denmark (Laurence Olivier) returns home to Elsinore, he is distressed to learn that his recently widowed mother (Eileen Herlie) has married his father’s brother (Basil Sydney), and becomes even more agitated when his dead father’s ghost appears and explains how he was murdered by Sydney. Lashing out in grief and anger, Hamlet feigns to be mad, and spurns his would-be lover, Ophelia (Jean Simmons), whose father Polonius (Felix Aylmer) and brother Laertes (Terence Morgan) are understandably upset by this turn in events.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Quayle Films
• Grown Children
• Jean Simmons Films
• Laurence Olivier Films
• Peter Cushing Films
• Play Adaptations
• Revenge
• Royalty and Nobility
• Shakespeare

Review:
Peary doesn’t discuss Laurence Olivier’s Oscar-winning adaptation of Shakespeare’s play of the same name in his GFTFF, but he does comment on it in his Alternate Oscars, where he writes:

“What true movie fan wouldn’t prefer watching John Huston’s The Treasure of the Sierra Madre for the hundredth time to squirming through [this film]? But prestige-minded Academy members were blinded by the imposing specter of Shakespeare, Olivier, and a British cast that dressed in royal garb and didn’t trip over difficult lines.”

He concedes, “Hamlet isn’t without merits, of course — not with Olivier himself in the lead.” But he argues that “Olivier’s direction isn’t imaginative, he pretty much ignores the other actors, his visuals have little thematic relevance (it isn’t enough just to move the camera), and much of the production looks no better than a kinescope of some fifties American television drama.” Ouch! I disagree with each of these points. Olivier’s direction and visuals (aided by DP Desmond Dickinson) are highly atmospheric and innovative throughout:

… and the supporting actors all do a fine job:

Numerous scenes are quite haunting, including Hamlet seeing his father’s ghost:

… and the discovery of the jester Yorick’s skull:

(Complaints have been made over Olivier casting a woman 11 years younger than him as his mother in the film, but this age difference isn’t all that noticeable; we simply believe Queen Gertrude was a young-ish mother, and Hamlet may have aged a bit prematurely due to stress.)

Peary further asserts that “until Hamlet’s swordfight with Laertes:

… the picture drags,” and he notes that while “Olivier deleted almost two hours from the play,” “it still seems too long.” I’ll agree the film feels long at points, but it’s hard to determine how Olivier could have made too many more cuts given how much flack he already received over removing the supporting characters of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Fortinbras, as well as a couple of key soliloquies. We see just enough here to get the strong gist of the tragic storyline, and are treated to the cast’s expressive handling of the dialogue throughout.

Finally, Peary argues this film “doesn’t equal either [Olivier’s] earlier Henry V or his later Richard III.” I haven’t seen Richard III recently enough to comment, but I prefer this over Henry V, which is visually innovative but lack’s Hamlet’s narrative depth and inherent interest. This adaptation remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Laurence Olivier as Hamlet
  
• Highly atmospheric cinematography and sets
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful, Oscar-winning adaptation.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Criterion Essay

Synopsis:
A Lithuanian refugee (Ingrid Bergman) marries an Italian fisherman (Mario Vitale) as a way to stay in the country, but is instantly miserable when they move to Vitale’s home island of Stromboli, where citizens are highly moralistic and an active volcano threatens daily life.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ingrid Bergman Films
• Italian Films
• Marital Problems
• Newlyweds
• Roberto Rossellini Films

Review:
Roberto Rosellini’s first film made with his soon-to-be-wife Ingrid Bergman was this neo-realist tale of a beautiful refugee who grabs opportunities when they arise — including accepting a marriage proposal from a man she can barely communicate with, simply because no other options are available:

It’s impossible to see this marriage-of-convenience going in a positive direction — though surprisingly enough, Vitale is a mostly decent guy who simply wants to live a quiet life with Bergman on his island, and it’s Bergman who reveals herself to be a classist prig:

When she tells Vitale, “I’m different. I’m very different from you. I belong to another class” (and maintains he’ll never earn enough money to deserve her), we struggle to maintain our compassion for her plight. Sure, it’s ridiculous to see local villagers criticizing Bergman for being so artistic and independent, but this is their home town, after all — she’s the newcomer.

The bulk of the film consists of Bergman simply wandering the island and trying to pass the days, including accompanying her husband and other men on an energetic fishing trip:

… and appealing to a kind local priest (Renzo Cesana) for help, confessing her “sinful” past and even seeming to awkwardly come on to him at one point.

Clearly, there isn’t much room for anything to happen in this loosely improvised storyline other than for Bergman and Vitale to acknowledge they’re not compatible — but getting Bergman off the island turns out to be an insurmountable challenge, given lack of funds and the presence of a pesky active volcano.

It was interesting reading the following anecdote in TCM’s article:

The actual filming of Stromboli on a primitive island [in the Tyrrhenian Sea] with no modern conveniences proved to be a physically exhausting experience for Bergman and her co-workers. It was also frustrating for an actress used to working with Hollywood professionals. Now she was acting with amateurs who rarely knew their lines or when to deliver them. “So to solve it,” Bergman wrote in her autobiography, “Roberto attached a string to one of their big toes inside their shoes. Then he stood there, holding this bunch of strings, and first he’d pull that string and one man spoke, and then he’d pull another string and another man spoke. I didn’t have a string on my toe, so I didn’t know when I was supposed to speak. And this was realistic filmmaking! The dialogue was never ready, or there never was any dialogue. I thought I was going crazy.”

Poor Bergman — and yet, she invited herself into the situation by writing a fan letter to Rossellini and offering her acting services to him. The rest, as film lovers know, is cinematic and romantic history, with the couple making three children and five more films together — including Voyage to Italy (1954).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ingrid Bergman as Karen
  
• Fine neo-realist cinematography
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
When an RAF pilot (David Niven) in a burning plane calls a ground operator (Kim Hunter) to inform her he’ll be jumping to his death, the two fall instantly in love. Meanwhile, up in heaven, Niven’s dead co-pilot (Robert Coote) asks the main attendant (Kathleen Byron) about Niven’s absence, and when Byron determines that an error has occurred, she sends an angel (Marius Goring) down to Earth to retrieve him. However, Niven — alive but with headaches — has no intention of leaving Hunter, who has enlisted the help of a surgeon (Roger Livesey) in determining why Niven has been “hallucinating” visits from Goring.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Airplanes and Pilots
• Courtroom Drama
• David Niven Films
• Death and Dying
• Fantasy
• Kim Hunter Films
• Life After Death
• Michael Powell Films
• Raymond Massey Films
• Roger Livesey Films
• Romance

Review:
Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s follow-up to I Know Where I’m Going! (1945) was this beautifully filmed fantasy-romance about the liminality of life and death, paying homage to the many brave RAF pilots who lost their lives during World War II.

The idea of a pilot-in-crisis being able to reach a beautiful operator on the ground and connect with her romantically:

… then survive a fall without a parachute:

… plays into the ultimate fantasy so many must have held about their sons, brothers, and partners during the war: they’re only missing, not deceased; they will reconnect with their loved ones; they can fight back against death. It’s a lovely wishful vision, richly portrayed here through Jack Cardiff’s lush cinematography (Technicolor on Earth, b&w for heaven):

… Alfred Junge’s other-worldly sets:

… and a storyline that repeatedly goes in unexpected directions. We wonder — what role will Livesey’s motorcycle-riding neurosurgeon play in the drama?

Will effete Goring be successful in his ploys to bring Niven over to the heavenly side?

What function will Raymond Massey play in the “courtroom” proceedings — and why does it seem like the storyline has suddenly become a referendum on British-American relations?

While I’m not a huge fan of the final “movement” of this cinematic symphony (i.e., the heavenly courtroom scenes), this doesn’t really matter given that it’s the visuals and sentiments that count the most, and those are on ample display throughout. This unique film should be seen by all film fanatics as a fine example of creative, romantic expression at its most liberated.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jack Cardiff’s stunning cinematography
  
  
• Alfred Junge’s sets
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique outing by master directors.

Categories

• Important Director

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
During Italy’s year of liberation from German occupation, Americans interact with citizens across a variety of settings.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Episodic Films
• Italian Films
• Roberto Rossellini Films
• Soldiers
• World War II

Review:
Roberto Rossellini’s follow-up to Open City (1945) was this episodic tale of Italian-American collaboration across the nation, moving from south to north. Each episode is differently dark, with brief moments of respite but an overall fidelity to the harsh reality of Italians’ (and American soldiers’) existence during this time. In the first sequence (“Sicily”), a teenage girl (Carmela Sazio) agrees to accompany an American reconnaissance group as they navigate past a German minefield to local seaside caves; along the way, she is left with a non-Italian-speaking G.I. named Joe (Robert Van Loon), and the two tentatively connect, word by word, before tragedy strikes:

In the second episode (“Naples”), a Black G.I. (Dots Johnson) befriends an orphaned street urchin (Alfonsino Pasca):

… and at first is disturbed to have his shoes stolen, but then learns how truly poverty-stricken Pasca is. In Episode 3 (“Rome”), a prostitute (Maria Michi) — the same actress playing the drug-addicted femme fatale in Open City — solicits a date with a passing G.I. (Gar Moore), only to find he is morbidly fixated on how much things have changed for the worse since the city was liberated six months earlier.

The fourth episode (“Florence”) brings us to the frontlines of street violence, as an American nurse (Harriet Medin) and an Italian partisan (Renzo Avanzo) risk their lives to cross the Arno River so Medin can learn the fate of her lover, and Avanzo can check on his wife and child.

Episode five (“Bologna”) seems at first to offer some literal respite from the war, as a trio of American chaplains (William Tubbs, Newell Jones, and Elmer Feldman) are allowed to stay in a Roman Catholic monastery — but the monks react with genuine dismay when they learn that only Tubbs is Catholic (Jones is Protestant and Feldman is Jewish).

Finally, Episode 6 (“Po Delta”) brings us back to straight-up wartime aggression, as American O.S.S. members fight alongside Italian partisans in the delta.

Rossellini’s neo-realist approach throughout each episode of this film brings with it numerous moments of heart-wrenching grief and insight.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Sazio experiences a brutal, misunderstood end:

Johnson learns that his own impoverished background as a Black American doesn’t compare to the squalor Pasca and his community are currently living through:

Moore doesn’t realize that the woman soliciting him is actually the same girl he fell in love with months earlier, and skips out on a reunion:

Medin and Avanzo can barely make it across a city without being killed; monks hold such engrained prejudices against non-Catholics that we can easily see how intolerance persists across Europe; and a young child cries with anguish in the night when his parents are brutally killed.

Obviously, none of this is light-hearted or easy to get through — but one finishes Paisan with gratitude for its harsh authenticity (we see the bitter “truth” here), and a sense of hope that things will at least start to get better by the end of the war.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Excellent use of authentic settings across Italy
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance, and as a powerful neo-realist movie. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• Criterion Essay

Synopsis:
After escaping from prison, a career criminal (George Sanders) and his accomplice (Akim Tamiroff) pose for a painting of Saint George and his dragon, then begin new lives with help from Tamiroff’s uncle (Vladimir Sokoloff). Sanders steals a ruby garter from a beautiful singer (Carole Landis), then later meets a wealthy marquise (Alma Kruger) who invites them to her chateau, where her granddaughter (Signe Hasso) recognizes him as the man in the Saint George painting and falls in love with him. Meanwhile, Landis — who has married an ineffectual police chief (Gene Lockhart) — meets up with Sanders (now the new police chief) once again, and is determined to get payback for her stolen garter.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Akim Tamiroff Films
• Black Comedy
• Douglas Sirk Films
• George Sanders Films
• Historical Drama
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Revenge
• Signe Hasso Films
• Thieves and Criminals

Review:
Before beginning his string of lush Technicolor “women’s pictures” for Universal Pictures, Douglas Sirk made this dark comedy based on the real-life adventures of French criminal-turned-memoirist Eugène François Vidocq. Sanders is perfectly cast as (what else?) a droll cad who coolly woos women while carrying out well-executed crimes and working his way up in the world (below he’s seen by the gravestone of the man whose identity he steals):

Flirtatious Landis (just a couple of years before her untimely death) is his perfect counterpart:

… and steals the movie in later scenes, as both her vengeance and her obsession with hats take full form.

Less effective is Hasso as a reverent young woman who falls in love with the saintly painting of Sanders, then goes silent each time she sees him in real life:

For some reason her silence is appealing to Sanders, and a love triangle of sorts is thus set in motion, all while Tamiroff and his extended criminal family are busily plotting (with Sanders) to carry out the ultimate heist:

The storyline is mostly light-hearted, with plenty of mistaken identity kerfuffle (and a pet monkey!), but it turns fairly dark by the end:

Fans of Sirk’s work will likely be curious to check this film out, but it’s not must-see viewing.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Carole Landis as Loretta
  
• Fine cinematography (by Eugene Shuftan)
  
  
• Ellis St. Joseph’s often witty script: “Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy that they have to be carried by three.”

Must See?
No, though Sirk fans will probably want to check it out. Listed as a Sleeper and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Bright Lights Film Review