FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When a frustrated interior designer (Doris Day) lashes out at the playboy composer (Rock Hudson) who’s been monopolizing their party line, Hudson retaliates by wooing her in the guise of Texas oilman “Rex Stetson” — much to the chagrin of her would-be suitor (Tony Randall), who also happens to be good friends with Hudson.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Doris Day Films
• Love Triangle
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Rock Hudson Films
• Romantic Comedy
• Thelma Ritter Films
• Tony Randall Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary labels this “Stanley Shapiro-scripted American sex comedy, co-written by Maurice Richlin, lavishly produced by Ross Hunter, and bringing together Doris Day and Rock Hudson ([in] his first comedy) for the first time” as “quintessential”. Yet he simultaneously refers to it as a “claustrophobic comedy… full of unfunny sexual innuendo” which “has a smutty feel to it”. He argues that the “film seems to imply that because [Day] has a job rather than a love/sex life, she feels much anger and hostility”; at the same time, however, he concedes that Day’s character is actually quite laudable and progressive, given that “she seems more determined to maintain personal integrity than her virginity; [she believes] having a boyfriend is more important than having a husband; she is as successful at work as Hudson is; [and] she does not take being treated badly lying down — she has claws”.

I’m not quite sure I agree with Peary’s cynical take on this one. Surprisingly, I didn’t find it “smutty”; instead, I simply enjoyed the calculated sexual banter liberally sprinkled throughout the screenplay:

Day: “I have no bedroom problems; there’s nothing in my bedroom that bothers me.”
Hudson: “Oh, that’s too bad…”

Yes, Day and Hudson go at it like the inevitable to-be-couple they’re posited as from the beginning — but them’s the rules of this particular genre. And it’s exactly Day’s strength and feistiness as a female protagonist (outlined by Peary himself) that prevent the film from descending into ho-hum mid-century mores. Meanwhile, though one really should detest Hudson’s character on some level (given that the charade he’s carrying out it with Day is questionable at best, and mean-spirited at worst), somehow his character remains oddly likeable throughout. I’ll bet this is due in large part to the fun Day and Hudson admitted to having with each other on set; their (asexual) attraction to one another is in clear evidence.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Doris Day as Jan Morrow
  
• Rock Hudson as Brad Allen/”Rex Stetson”
  
• Tony Randall as Jonathan Forbes
  
• Thelma Ritter as Day’s tippling housemaid
  
• Fun use of split-screen filming
  
  
  
• A fine, witty, Oscar-nominated screenplay by Stanley Shapiro and Maurice Richlin:
  

  “There are plenty of warm rolls in the bakery; stop pressing your nose against the window.”

Must See?
Yes, as a classic mid-century romantic comedy.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Edwin Jahiel’s Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Bright Lights Film Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In 1850s Oregon, a woodsman (Howard Keel) comes to town to find a wife (Jane Powell), who he brings back to the cabin he shares with his six rough-and-tumble brothers (Jeff Richards, Russ Tamblyn, Tommy Rall, Marc Platt, Matt Mattox, and Jacques d’Ambois). Soon the brothers decide they want to be married, too, and take extreme measures to achieve this goal.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Battle-of-the-Sexes
• Howard Keel Films
• Jane Powell Films
• Kidnapping
• Musicals
• Russ Tamblyn Films
• Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
When I first saw this “joyful, colorful” Technicolor musical as a teenage film fanatic, I recall finding its very premise (in which “lovesick brothers kidnap the town girls they desire and bring them home”) so distasteful that I failed to see how it could have any kind of a fan-base at all. Therefore, upon a recent revisit, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself largely in agreement with Peary’s positive review, in which he refers to it as “a lot of fun”, calling it a “rare musical that even young boys will love”, given that “Keel is handsome and masculine enough to get away with love songs” and “the dancers are extremely athletic”. He points out that the “score by Johnny Mercer and Gene DePaul has some excellent, catchy songs”, and accurately notes that “the Michael Kidd-choreographed dances” — performed by a team of “marvelous dancers” (many professionals) — are “terrific”, calling out “the exuberant, spectacular ‘barn-raising’ number” as the film’s definitive “show-stopper”.

Rewatching the film recently, I was gratified to find that the seemingly distasteful storyline — “based on Stephen Vincent Benet’s ‘The Sobbin’ Women'”, which in turn “was inspired by Plutarch’s ‘The Rape of the Sabine Women'” — actually possesses a relatively strong feminist strain. Spunky Powell’s foolhardy willingness to marry Keel the day she meets him (and to wax rhapsodic in song about her desire to cook and clean for him) is tempered by her savvy calculation that this is likely her best possible option in life; it’s certainly better than the thankless work as a servant-for-hire she’s been doing until then. Of course, she didn’t bargain on Keel having six lunk-headed brothers who she’d also be expected to cook and clean for — but she quickly asserts her dominance in their household, “playing Snow White” as she attempts “to turn the ruffians into gentlemen”. And, once the film’s infamous kidnapping occurs, she retains her authority, dictating at every moment exactly what will happen next. She’s a refreshingly strong “Western” woman, and this remains one of Powell’s best roles.

Interestingly, Jonathan Rosenbaum — in his review of the film for 1,001 Movies You Must See (2003) — refers to it as “a profoundly sexist” (albeit “eminently hummable”) movie, one which provides a “fascinating glimpse at the kind of patriarchal rape fantasies that were considered good-natured and even ‘cute’ at the time”, with a bevy of tunes that “accurately pinpoint the movie’s sexual politics” (such as “Bless Your Beautiful Hide” and “I’m a Lonesome Polecat”). His take is exactly how I felt as a much younger film fanatic; but at this point, I’m willing to simply place the film within its historical context, and recognize that for women at that time and in that geographical situation, finding a suitable husband really was likely the cleanest path to security and happiness. Regardless, I’m now able to appreciate Seven Brides… for its merits — vibrant widescreen Technicolor cinematography, “hummable” tunes, and truly fantastic dancing — rather than its questionable premise.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jane Powell as Milly
  
• Many fine dancing sequences
  
  
• Vivid cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic Hollywood musical. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Qwipster Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• TCM: The Big Idea
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A rakish count (Maurice Chevalier) marries the queen of Sylvania (Jeanette MacDonald), but finds his masculinity threatened by his new role as “Prince Consort”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Battle-of-the-Sexes
• Ernst Lubitsch Films
• Jeanette MacDonald Films
• Marital Problems
• Maurice Chevalier Films
• Musicals
• Royalty and Nobility
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that “Ernst Lubitsch’s first sound film revolutionized the screen musical because he integrated numbers into the storyline and used non-synchronized sound… so he could move his camera without fear of losing some lyrics and picking up stage noise”. Indeed, film fanatics interested in the evolution of early sound cinema will surely be fascinated to watch this movie and see how much Lubitsch was able to accomplish, relatively speaking, within his technological constraints. What’s most surprising, however, is how enjoyable this witty pre-Code “bedroom comedy” remains on multiple other levels. The clever, often racy storyline “deals with a husband and wife who have troubles because neither is satisfied with their roles in [a] marriage”; what makes this particular variation on the theme so unusual is that it’s Chevalier who is dissatisfied with the back seat he must take to the demands of his royal wife. The ultimate resolution of this tension is dated and somewhat unsatisfying — but as Peary argues, “it’s all so silly that no one could be seriously offended”.

At the heart of the film’s success are its charismatic lovers. In her screen debut, MacDonald is “glowing” — as Peary notes, this “film is a reminder that [she] was not just a singer, but an okay comedienne and also an extremely sexy actress when given a chance”.

Meanwhile, Oscar-nominated Chevalier cemented his American screen presence here as a “bubbling” ladies’ man; it’s easy to see why MacDonald’s “virgin queen” would fall head-over-heels for him. Most film fanatics will also be interested to see a very young Lillian Roth in her breakthrough comedic role as MacDonald’s maid:

She performs a couple of enjoyable ditties and dances with “acrobatic, elastic-legged Lupino Lane” (playing Chevalier’s loyal servant). While its pacing is occasionally off (it could have easily been trimmed by half-an-hour or so), this early Lubitsch outing remains worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Maurice Chevalier as Alfred (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Jeanette MacDonald as Queen Louise
  
• Lillian Roth and Lupino Lane’s energetic dances together
  
• Plenty of enjoyably racy pre-Code “innuendo”
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as a ground-breaking early (narrative) musical.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A musician (Henry Fonda) is falsely accused of being a thief, and struggles to assert his innocence; meanwhile, his wife (Vera Miles) descends into a mental breakdown from the strain of the situation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Quayle Films
• Courtroom Drama
• Falsely Accused
• Henry Fonda Films
• Hitchcock Films
• Living Nightmare
• Mental Breakdown

Response to Peary’s Review:
Alfred Hitchcock’s dramatization of the travails of falsely accused New York musician Christopher Emmanual Ballestreros is his most documentary-like feature — and also, perhaps not coincidentally, the most depressing film in his entire oeuvre. As Peary notes, the “first part of the picture, in which Fonda is arrested outside his home, questioned, fingerprinted, paraded in front of witnesses, and tossed in jail, is masterfully directed with a sense of precision that’s even above Hitchcock’s usual standards”, and “perfectly illustrates [his] lifelong terror of being arrested for a crime he knew nothing about.” Peary argues that “this Kafkaesque sequence is so frightening that everything that comes afterward seems anticlimactic”, positing that “Miles’s breakdown is bothersome rather than compelling because it takes time away from the mystery” — but I don’t quite agree; rather than finding Miles’s mental collapse distracting, I feel it actually deepens the power and heartbreak of the screenplay, given that it shows the truly irreparable harm done by the false accusation.

Fonda is well-cast in the title role; he’s the ideal “everyman”, an “initially dull Hitchcockian hero whose every minute is planned out and whose life doesn’t vary at all from day to day” — and a rare Hitchcockian protagonist “without any sense of humor” whatsoever. Miles provides a nuanced, sensitive portrayal as his increasingly disturbed wife, and the supporting performances throughout the film — many by seemingly unknown actors — are finely rendered; note, for instance, the utter believability of the three terrified women in the Social Security office who initially accuse Fonda’s character. Meanwhile, Robert Burks’s stark cinematography perfectly captures the nightmarish noir milieu within which Fonda and his family find themselves, and fine use is made of authentic New York City locales.

With all that said, I must now admit to postponing my revisit of this highly regarded Hitchcock title for as long as possible; as DVD Savant puts it, “There’s nothing wrong with this picture except that it breaks Hitchcock’s primary rule – it doesn’t please the audience.” Hitchcock’s fidelity to the real-life story he was telling results in an oddly depressing and disturbing viewing experience; while The Wrong Man is undeniably a masterful film on many levels, it’s one which most film fanatics will probably want to consider a “once and done” title. At the very least, any viewer will come away with a heightened understanding of the importance of never, ever providing information to the police without first consulting a lawyer; Fonda’s best intentions here (giving lie to the oft-repeated quote that “an innocent man has nothing to fear”) do nothing but get him even deeper into trouble.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Henry Fonda as Manny Ballestreros
  
• Vera Miles as Ruth Ballestreros
  
• Robert Burks’ noir-ish cinematography
  
• Fine use of authentic New York locales
  

Must See?
Yes, once — but don’t expect to want to return to this one.

Categories

• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A wheelchair-bound photographer (James Stewart) confined to his NYC apartment begins to suspect that one of his neighbors (Raymond Burr) has killed his wife. With help from his glamorous girlfriend (Grace Kelly), his personal nurse (Thelma Ritter), and a former war buddy (Wendell Corey), he tries to gather evidence to support his claim.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Grace Kelly Films
• Hitchcock Films
• Jimmy Stewart Films
• Murder Mystery
• Peeping Toms
• Raymond Burr Films
• Thelma Ritter Films
• Wendell Corey Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary rightfully refers to this Alfred Hitchcock thriller — adapted from a short story by Cornell Woolrich — as an “undisputed masterpiece”, and spends the bulk of his review analyzing the film’s multiple enticing themes. He asserts, however, that while “much has been written about this film being about how we are all Peeping Toms… too much is made of [this] theme; that we are all snoopers is a given.” Instead, he argues that “what [Hitchcock is] most interested in is what we discover when we study people”, beginning with the fact that “people are into such dull, regimented lives that when they do anything that varies from their routines (as Burr does), neighbors will become suspicious and may suspect them of doing something terrible.” Indeed, part of what makes the film so consistently engaging on a narrative level is that we’re never quite sure whether Stewart is right in his suspicions, or simply suffering from an overly active imagination; the various “clues” we’re given throughout the storyline (such as the fact that “Burr’s wife’s handbag is still in the Burr apartment”) remain circumstantial evidence at best.

As Peary notes, a “related and equally important theme (central to most Hitchcock films) is that even the most [seemingly] predictable people are capable of doing wildly unpredictable things” — demonstrated by the fact that “Kelly, who’s the type to fret over a broken fingernail, can be gallant enough to climb up a railing into a murderer’s apartment”. Speaking of Kelly, she’s not only as gorgeous as ever here (wearing “Edith Head’s lavish, sexy costumes”), but, as noted by Vincent Canby in his NY Times review of the film for its 1983 re-release, gives “probably her most successful performance, one in which the facts of her public personality and the fiction of the film become marvelously mixed”. We are actually able to have some fun with her notorious ice-princess persona, since it’s called out time and again by Stewart.

Ultimately, Kelly’s impossible beauty and charm (could she BE any more perfect?) simply serve to heighten the fact that Stewart is scared to death of marital commitment (as wryly evidenced by his silently judgmental observations of various married couples in apartments across the way). As noted by Gary Mairs in his review of the film for Culture Vulture, “he fears domestication… and the stories he watches in his neighbors’ windows come to resemble projections of all his worst connubial fantasies”. To that end, Mairs picks up on the Peeping Tom theme once again by arguing that Stewart’s “desire to watch overwhelms his desire for [Kelly], and he only really becomes aroused when she joins him in peeping.” Speaking of such matters, Hitchcock and screenwriter John Michael Hayes get away with an astonishing amount of sexual subtext for the times — most notably in Kelly’s brazen assertion that she’ll be spending the night in Stewart’s apartment, followed by pulling out and donning a sexy negligee; as Jonathan Rosenbaum points out in his analysis of the film, “one suspects the censors were placated only because Jeff’s plaster cast made sex between him and Lisa seem unlikely.”

Any discussion of Rear Window‘s multiple merits as a cinematic masterpiece would be incomplete without mentioning its sheer technical bravado. Hitchcock was clearly at the top of his game when planning and executing his vision for the film, given his consistently innovative approach to the material. Collaborating with DP Robert Burks — and given a truly impressive set to work with (possessing no less than 31 apartments!) — Hitchcock tells nearly the entire story from a camera “situated in the living room of [Stewart]… so we sense how trapped he feels while stuck in his apartment”. Until Stewart pulls out his camera’s zoom lens as makeshift binoculars, we’re restricted to the same limited view of his neighbors’ existence as he is; we’re never privy to anything more than what Stewart himself can see — which is what makes the finale so terrifying (though I won’t say more about that here, at risk of revealing spoilers).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jimmy Stewart as Jeff
  
• Grace Kelly as Lisa (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Thelma Ritter as Stella
  
• Robert Burks’ cinematography
  
• The truly impressive set
  
• Edith Head’s outfits
  
• Masterful direction

Must See?
Of course; this one merits multiple enjoyable viewings.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• NY Times Retrospective Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Greatest Films Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM’s Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review