Charade (1963)

Charade (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“I already know an awful lot of people; until one of them dies, I couldn’t possibly meet anyone else.”

Synopsis:
A young widow (Audrey Hepburn) pursued by three ex-compatriots (James Coburn, George Kennedy, and Ned Glass) of her deceased husband seeks solace and protection from a mysterious but friendly man (Cary Grant), who may or may not be equally interested in obtaining the $250,000 her husband supposedly had in his possession.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Cary Grant Films
  • George Kennedy Films
  • James Coburn Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Murder Mystery
  • Stanley Donen Films
  • Walter Matthau Films
  • Widows and Widowers

Review:
Infamously referred to as the “best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never made”, this Stanley Donen-directed romantic thriller has a lot going for it — including the only on-screen pairing of Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (who apparently loved working together), a clever script which offers plenty of surprises and violent shocks, and an overall air of breezy Parisian chic. Given its obvious credentials — and the wonderfully escapist enjoyment it offers — I was puzzled about my own niggling reticence with labeling it a true “classic”, until I read DVD Savant’s insightful (as always) review and realized I agree with his assessment that the film’s “only drawback [is]… a serious case of ‘the cutes’, a malady that seems to affect many ’60s films that want to capture a tongue-in-cheek cleverness.” Savant points out that “every word out of the mouths of Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn is a guaranteed clever comeback, smart remark or flip observation, each delivered with more drollery than the last”; indeed, my primary complaint about the film is how easily Hepburn is able to glibly switch her focus back (again and again) to flirting with Grant, in the midst of her life being seriously in danger. Perhaps this is a function of the script having been changed (at the request of Grant) to make the much-younger Hepburn Grant’s pursuer, rather than the other way around; is it possible the same behavior coming from a man wouldn’t be quite so discomfiting?

At any rate, despite this minor complaint, the film as a whole remains eminently enjoyable, and is guaranteed to keep you glued to the screen as you watch in anticipation to see which of the candidates (is it one of the three “baddies”, or the ever-elusive Grant himself?) will ultimately prove to be the real menace. Chances are you won’t guess correctly. Meanwhile, Donen makes very effective use of (largely) on-site locations in Paris; the performances (both lead and supporting) are all top-notch; and Hepburn is as lovely as ever in Givenchy (though it’s too bad she doesn’t get a chance to dress in at least one evening gown… oh well!). Hepburn and Grant possess fine chemistry together; Grant’s concerns about being too old as a romantic lead for her (perhaps in reaction to the lambasting Gary Cooper received after Love in the Afternoon) are ultimately unfounded. The final plot twist — where exactly is that stash of a quarter million dollars hidden? — is very cleverly handled as well.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Audrey Hepburn as Regina Lampert
  • Cary Grant as “Peter Joshua”
  • James Coburn as “Tex”
  • Fine use of authentic Paris locales
  • Lovely Givenchy outfits
  • Maurice Binder’s stylish opening titles

Must See?
Yes, as a stylishly classic thriller.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Wait Until Dark (1967)

Wait Until Dark (1967)

Comments 1 comment

“This is the big bad world, full of mean people, where nasty things happen.”

Synopsis:
The blind wife (Audrey Hepburn) of a man (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.) who unknowingly possesses a doll stuffed with heroin is terrorized by three men (Alan Arkin, Richard Crenna, and Jack Weston) determined to get the doll back at any price.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan Arkin Films
  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Blindness
  • Con-Artists
  • Play Adaptation<

Review:
Wait Until Dark — based on a Broadway play by Frederic Knott (who also wrote Dial M for Murder) — is an often chilling and well-acted but ultimately frustrating thriller. It’s undone by its very premise, which is simply too contrived to swallow — beginning with the opening scenes, in which Hepburn’s naive husband (Zimbalist) befriends a beautiful woman (Samantha Jones) on a plane and agrees at the last minute to take a (heroin-filled, though he doesn’t know that) doll from her. After this puzzling, dialogue-free scene (frustratingly, we don’t learn until far too much later the rationale behind why Jones gave up the doll, and why Zimbalist accepted it), we’re suddenly plunged into the heart of the thriller, as we learn that the doll is now somewhere in Hepburn’s house — though once again, we’re given too little information to go on (what does Hepburn know about the doll, if anything?). Next, we’re introduced to an inexplicably bratty neighbor girl (Julie Herrod) who magically transforms into the more helpful assistant/accomplice Hepburn needs her to be, and we begin to learn more about the needlessly convoluted scenario the three con-men have devised in order to befriend Hepburn and convince her to give up the doll’s location.

Clearly, there are flaws in the essential construction of the plot — yet director Terence Young does a fine job building and maintaining a fair amount of tension throughout; we can’t help wondering what will happen next, and how/when Hepburn will finally realize she’s being duped (then survive). The last half-hour of the film is particularly chilling, and is notable for supposedly offering audiences only the second on-screen instance of a now-very-common kind of horror thrill (which I can’t give away here at risk of divulging spoilers). The film as a whole remains of historic interest as well, given that it offered Audrey Hepburn her last significant role before her semi-retirement at the age of 38; along with Young, she trained extensively beforehand at a nearby institute for the blind, and is remarkably convincing. She deserved her Academy Award nomination for the role — though interestingly, Peary insists she actually should have been given the award for her performance the same year in Stanley Donen’s Two for the Road, and neglects to even nominate her for her work here.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Audrey Hepburn as Susy Hendrix
  • Alan Arkin as Roat
  • The chilling finale
  • Henry Mancini’s score

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly recommended for one-time viewing.

Links:

Sullivan’s Travels (1941)

Sullivan’s Travels (1941)

Comments 1 comment

“There’s a lot to be said for making people laugh.”

Synopsis:
A successful comedy film director (Joel McCrea) hoping to make more “meaningful” social dramas decides to dress in hobo clothing and hit the road to learn first-hand what poverty is like. Soon he meets a beautiful young ingenue (Veronica Lake) who accompanies him on his travails — but events quickly turn much more serious than he intended.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Comedy
  • Depression Era
  • Hollywood
  • Joel McCrea Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Movie Directors
  • Preston Sturges Films
  • Veronica Lake Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary votes this “marvelous social satire” by Preston Sturges as Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book, though he wishes he could call it a tie with Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be Or Not To Be, which he considers an equally worthy contender. He argues that Sturges proves “that a good Hollywood film can mix outrageous comedy with a social message”, given that we “laugh at the hysterical dialogue, the farcical situations…, the satirical barbs against Hollywood, and the slapstick”, yet also “pay attention to the parade of poverty’s victims during Sullivan’s Swiftian journey”. However, I’m not quite sure I agree with this latter point. At the risk of sounding like a Grinch about a Certified American Classic, I don’t actually believe audiences are forced to pay enough attention to “poverty’s victims” in this film — which is all about Sullivan, all the time. While Peary notes that Sturges “democratically gives all his characters, even his supporting players, important and wise things to say”, the voices of the downtrodden he’s so interested in speaking to and learning about are, with just a couple of exceptions, noticeably absent.

Now that my gripe is over, however, I’ll concede that there is much to admire about the film. Its Hawksian dialogue does indeed “have humor and rhythm”; Peary accurately describes it “like a relay race, with words used like batons”, in which “the second one character finishes a sentence, another starts his; characters join in, there are no gaps, and the pace becomes frenetic”. He also notes that “McCrea, who is well over six feet tall, and Lake at five-foot-two and 90 pounds [though pregnant!]… make a wonderful screen team”, given that they “have sweet feelings toward each other from the beginning, and are always protective of one another”; they are indeed “an ideal couple”. As Peary notes, this “was the picture that confirmed [they] were versatile performers”. Watch for a host of fine supporting performances, lovely b&w cinematography, and numerous memorable scenes.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joel McCrea as John Sullivan (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Veronica Lake as “the Girl” (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Wonderful supporting performances throughout

  • John Seitz’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, of course — as an undisputed classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Comments 1 comment

“We must forget if we want to go on living.”

Synopsis:
A retired American judge (Spencer Tracy) is appointed to preside over a set of trials at Nuremberg, in which four German judges — Burt Lancaster, Werner Klemperer, Torben Meyer, and Martin Brandt — are accused of crimes against humanity.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Burt Lancaster Films
  • Cold War
  • Courtroom Dramas
  • Judy Garland Films
  • Marlene Dietrich Films
  • Montgomery Clift Films
  • Nazis
  • Richard Widmark Films
  • Spencer Tracy Films
  • Stanley Kramer Films

Review:
Stanley Kramer’s dramatic reenactment of the infamous post-WWII military tribunals — known collectively as the Nuremberg Trials — boldly attempts to engage audiences in a solemn examination of weighty moral dilemmas, most specifically the question of whether those who have committed crimes against humanity under the authority of their own government should be held responsible for their actions. There is clearly no simple answer to such a complicated question, and the film spends its lengthy three-hour-plus running time reiterating just this point; much like Spencer Tracy’s Justice Hayward and his fellow American judges, we simply don’t know what “should” be done with the high-level German judges sitting before them — men who authorized the execution or sterilization of countless innocent individuals, yet were expected to do so by their government.

Judgment at Nuremberg, despite its strengths, is a uniquely challenging courtroom drama to sit through, given that we’re not meant to judge whether the sentences received by the two victims who testify in court — a mentally challenged laborer (Montgomery Clift) sterilized for his Communist associations, and a young Aryan woman (Judy Garland) imprisoned for her friendship with an older Jewish gentleman — were just or not; of course they weren’t. What’s actually at stake here is whether the judges on trial were right to sentence these individuals as they did. Interestingly, the broader context of the trials — i.e., the question of whether Americans and others even had a “right” to come in to Germany and prosecute its citizens in such a manner — is only explored through the perspective of the Germans (such as Marlene Dietrich’s widow, Maximillian Schell’s defense attorney, and Burt Lancaster’s judge) who bitterly resist this imposition. Otherwise, the only non-German perspective we get on the matter is when a judge is cautioned to acquit the defendants as a strategic Cold War maneuver, to maintain good relations with the country. Viewers will be left to decide for themselves whether the trials themselves were ultimately warranted or not.

The Oscar-nominated performances throughout, naturally, are top-notch, beginning with Tracy’s subtle yet powerful turn in the tricky central role; we empathize with his situation every minute he’s on-screen. Clift is simply phenomenal in a scene-stealing turn as a mentally challenged young man who struggles to articulate his thoughts, yet knows that what was done to him was not right. Garland’s supporting role is less showy, but she’s also impressive — and, as many have noted, her performance here was clear evidence of the type of “serious” role she could have excelled at if her life had taken a different set of personal turns. Richard Widmark is appropriately cast as a righteous prosecutor convinced that the judges must pay for their actions, while Oscar-winner Maximillian Schell (who Peary argues didn’t actually deserve the Best Actor award, given that his role is more of a supporting one) convincingly portrays the pride and indignation felt by occupied Germans after the war.

Note: Kramer’s attention to detail throughout the film is rigorous and noteworthy — including the clever way in which he has the actors switch from engaging in simultaneous German/English translation to simply speaking in English, with the implicit acknowledgement that we’re meant to “hear” them as still speaking in their native language.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Spencer Tracy as Justice Hayward
  • Maximillian Schell as Hans Rolfe
  • Montgomery Clift as Rudolph Peterson
  • Judy Garland as Irene Hoffman
  • Richard Widmark as Colonel Lawson
  • Marlene Dietrich as the widowed Mrs. Bertholt

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as an Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning drama.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Love in the Afternoon (1957)

Love in the Afternoon (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“You know who I am, Mr. Flanagan — the girl in the afternoon, the apertif, as we say in the Left Bank.”

Synopsis:
The daughter (Audrey Hepburn) of a private investigator (Maurice Chevalier) in Paris goes to warn a wealthy playboy (Gary Cooper) that the husband (John McGiver) of his lover (Lise Bourdin) is coming to kill him — then finds herself falling for Cooper.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Billy Wilder Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Gary Cooper Films
  • Maurice Chevalier Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Womanizers

Review:
Poor Gary Cooper has been raked over the coals so often for his purported miscasting in this Billy Wilder romantic comedy (he was 56 at the time, Hepburn just 28) that it feels unkind to perpetuate the discussion. Actually, despite my complaint about Hepburn’s casting opposite 58-year-old Fred Astaire in Funny Face the same year, I wasn’t all that disturbed by the romantic leads’ age difference here, given that Cooper’s Frank Flanagan (unlike Astaire’s “lowly” fashion photographer) is clearly presented as a handsome, worldly playboy industrialist, and such individuals are notorious for appealing to women of all ages. Indeed, Hepburn’s schoolgirl crush on Cooper makes complete sense: he represents everything she naively longs for (mystery, intrigue, romance, adventure) from the cloistered comfort of her single-parent home, where her doting father (Chevalier, wonderfully cast) naively entices her with stories of his clients’ misadventures.

Unfortunately, the film as a whole isn’t entirely successful. It’s too long by far, and its pacing is off, particularly during the first hour; things don’t really heat up until the second half of the story, when Hepburn suddenly begins “playing” Cooper, and we’re eager to see how she’ll manage to keep him enticed. It’s frustrating, however, that the mores of the time made it difficult for Wilder to definitively show one way or the other whether Hepburn and Cooper are actually lovers during the afternoon, or simply companions; it’s difficult to believe they would remain the latter, yet we’re simultaneously meant to suppose that Hepburn stays conveniently “innocent” throughout. Meanwhile, it’s frustrating to witness Hepburn’s persistent infatuation with Cooper, given what we understand about his inveterate playboy tendencies (witness the opera intermission scene, for instance, when Cooper’s eyes wander uncontrollably); we know that he’ll never be able to devotes his attentions solely to her, in the way she clearly hopes for and deserves.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Audrey Hepburn as Ariane Chavasse
  • Maurice Chevalier as Claude Chavasse
  • Luminous b&w cinematography

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Hepburn or Wilder fans. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book, though I’m not quite sure why.

Links:

Sabrina (1954)

Sabrina (1954)

Comments 1 comment

“I want him; I’ve been in love with him all my life.”

Synopsis:
The daughter (Audrey Hepburn) of the chauffeur (John Williams) for a family of wealthy industrialists is sent to cooking school in Paris, where she continues to pine away for the family’s playboy son, David (William Holden). Upon her return, David — despite being strategically engaged to the daughter (Martha Hyer) of another industrialist scion — is suddenly smitten by Hepburn’s chic transformation, and vows to marry her; but his more practical older brother (Humphrey Bogart) is determined to intervene.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Billy Wilder Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Siblings
  • William Holden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “Billy Wilder comedy” — adapted from a Samuel Taylor play — by noting that “only in America could the daughter of a mere chauffeur be courted by not one but two millionaires and have the opportunity to marry into an established Eastern family. Sure, sure — if you happen to have the beauty and charm of Audrey Hepburn”. Indeed, it’s Hepburn’s undeniable charisma — and flattering appearance in Givenchy, her designer of choice — that fuel this “Hollywood fluff”, which will appeal most “to those who prefer glamour to content, actors to characters”. The storyline itself is pure fairy tale — and as Peary notes, “Hepburn, of course, is ideal, once again playing a variation on Cinderella”, an archetype she portrayed to cinematic perfection throughout the 1950s. Unfortunately, other than Hepburn, there’s precious little else to hold on to here, given that Sabrina’s schoolgirl crush on David (while understandable) is so clearly wrong-headed, Bogart’s “self-sacrificing” character remains a cypher throughout, and the romantic direction things eventually go in doesn’t make much sense. Film fanatics will be primarily interested in this one simply to see Hepburn at her loveliest — and to catch a glimpse of some truly stunning Givenchy gowns.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Audrey Hepburn as Sabrina
  • Lovely Givenchy dresses

  • Charles Lang’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended, and famous enough that most film fanatics will probably be curious to at least check it out.

Links:

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“Wilfrid the Fox! That’s what they call him, and that’s what he is!”

Synopsis:
An ailing barrister (Charles Laughton) receiving full-time care from a nurse (Elsa Lanchester) reluctantly agrees to defend a man (Tyrone Power) accused of murdering a wealthy dowager (Norma Varden).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Billy Wilder Films
  • Charles Laughton Films
  • Courtroom Dramas
  • Elsa Lanchester Films
  • Lawyers
  • Marlene Dietrich Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Play Adaptation
  • Tyrone Power Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary boldly asserts — and I think I may agree — that “there is no courtroom drama more enjoyable than this adaptation of Agatha Christie’s play,” directed as a “high comedy” by Billy Wilder (who co-wrote the script with Harry Kurnitz). He notes that “like all Christie stories, this [one] has innumerable twists and a surprise ending”, and argues that “the most fun comes from trying to figure out if the obvious overacting by the defendant and witnesses is being done by the actors or by the characters they’re portraying”. He specifically highlights Laughton’s central turn as “an aged London barrister with a heart condition”, noting that he “is just marvelous, making a difficult role — one which most actors (and you’d expect, Laughton) would have hammed up — seem easy”, and pointing out that “his comical scenes with wife Elsa Lanchester, who plays his doting nurse, are gems”. In addition to Laughton’s noteworthy performance, this “well cast” film features a host of fine supporting performances — including that given by Dietrich, who, “in her last strong movie role, seems comfortable working again with Wilder” (she starred in his A Foreign Affair back in 1948). Tyrone Power, meanwhile — in his final role before dying of a heart attack at the age of just 44 — is appropriately “foppish” in the critical role of Leonard Vole.

Naturally, the less said about the plot of this gripping whodunit, the better. If you haven’t seen it in a while (and have thus forgotten all the many plot twists), you’re in for a treat; enjoy!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfrid: “I’m constantly surprised that women’s hats don’t provoke more murders”
  • Marlene Dietrich as Christine Helm Vole
  • Tyrone Power as Leonard Vole
  • Norma Varden as Mrs. French
  • Elsa Lanchester as Nurse Plimsoll
  • Una O’Connor as Janet
  • A wonderfully suspenseful and tightly crafted script

Must See?
Yes, as a top-notch murder mystery and courtroom drama.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Funny Face (1957)

Funny Face (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“Every girl on every page of Quality has grace, elegance, and pizzazz. Now what’s wrong with bringing out a girl who has character, spirit, and intelligence?”

Synopsis:
When the editor (Kay Thompson) of a women’s fashion magazine declares that she wants a fresh face for the new edition, a photographer (Fred Astaire) points her towards a waifish, philosophy-loving bookstore employee (Audrey Hepburn) who agrees to become a model in exchange for a trip to Paris.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Fred Astaire Films
  • Models
  • Musicals
  • Photographers
  • Romance
  • Stanley Donen Films

Review:
From its vibrant Technicolor palette, to George Davis and Hal Pereira’s stylized art direction, to Givenchy’s seemingly endless display of stunningly chic couture, Stanley Donen’s Funny Face is a stylishly retro visual treat, one it’s truly difficult to tear your eyes away from. The storyline itself, unfortunately, is a little less impressive. Essentially a Pygmalion-tale about an innocent waif seduced by an older mentor into a world of glamour and fame, Hepburn’s “transformation” never rings quite true. She’s a philosophy-loving beatnik who inexplicably falls in love with the much-older Astaire the first time he kisses her, and allows both her weird crush on him — as well as her desire to travel to Paris to meet the fabled philosopher Emile Flostre (Michel Auclair) — to convince her to give the glamorous world of modeling a try. (Oh, how would-be models in the audience at the time must have been simultaneously drooling and seething at the fairy-tale opportunity Hepburn nearly gives up!)

Yet the entire affair — like most musicals at the time — is best viewed simply as a fairy tale, one that shouldn’t be analyzed too closely; as DVD Savant puts it, “Funny Face is meant to be a carefree bubble of jokes and music, and on those terms there’s little to complain about.” While the age difference between Hepburn and Astaire really is too much to swallow (after all, Astaire is no debonairly graying Cary Grant), it’s nonetheless a delight to watch these two dancing on-screen together — or apart, for that matter. Indeed, Hepburn’s best dance is her stunning solo outing in the Beatnik cafe, which is out of sight, man! Meanwhile, Astaire does a fine ditty with a “red cape” outside Hepburn’s apartment window, and there are numerous other fun songs (courtesy of a fine Gershwin score) and dances sprinkled throughout. Film fanatics will also surely be interested to see polymath Kay Thompson — known, among other things, for being one of Judy Garland’s closest confidantes, as well as the creator of the children’s book character Eloise — in one of her precious few screen appearances, here playing the delightfully acerbic, Diana Vreeland-esque fashion magazine editor who drives the entire narrative.

Note: Even non-fashion-lovers will be tempted to rewind the lovely Parisian fashion shoot montage several times — quelle magnifique!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Audrey Hepburn as Jo
  • Kay Thompson as Maggie
  • The opening “Think Pink” musical montage
  • The Givenchy fashion shoot montage across Paris


  • Hepburn’s dazzling beatnik dance
  • Astaire’s solo “bullfight” dance
  • Marvelous sets, costumes, and art direction

  • Ray June’s luminous Technicolor cinematography
  • Chic opening titles
  • A fine and memorable Gershwin score

Must See?
Yes, as a classic and stylish ’50s musical.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Harvey Girls, The (1946)

Harvey Girls, The (1946)

Comments 1 comment

“A Harvey Girl is more than a waitress; whereever a Harvey House exists, civilization is not far behind.”

Synopsis:
A young midwestern woman (Judy Garland) travels to the Southwest to marry a rancher (Chill Wills) she’s never met; but when she learns he’s a hick, she decides to become a “Harvey Girl” waitress instead, and finds herself falling for the owner (John Hodiak) of a rival saloon.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Angela Lansbury Films
  • George Sidney Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Judy Garland Films
  • Musicals
  • Preston Foster Films
  • Ranchers
  • Westerns

Review:
I was disappointed to revisit this MGM musical western (inspired by the Broadway success of Oklahoma!), which features a memorably catchy Oscar-winning tune — “On the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe” — but fails to really deliver on most other counts. The remainder of the Harry Warren/Johnny Mercer score is largely forgettable (though I did enjoy Virginia O’Brien’s droll delivery of “The Wild, Wild West”), and the story’s dramatic tension hinges upon an overly simplistic division between two types of erstwhile “working girls” (saloon performers — a.k.a prostitutes, though naturally they’re not named as such here — and waitresses). Other than through one musical montage (“The Train Must Be Fed”), we don’t learn nearly enough about what life was really like for Harvey Girls, other than to believe they were consistently badgered by nefarious townsfolk threatened by their “civilizing” presence. Ray Bolger is on hand to offer a bit of comedic dancing relief, but his presence seems calculated simply to remind audiences of his former pairing with Garland in The Wizard of Oz (1939). Garland is as charming and sassy as ever (she has one especially good scene when she goes on a rampage to collect some stolen steaks); however, this ultimately remains one of her lesser roles for MGM.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Judy Garland as Susan
  • Virginia O’Brien singing “The Wild, Wild West”
  • The “Atchison-Topeka” musical sequence

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Garland fans.

Links:

I Could Go On Singing (1963)

I Could Go On Singing (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“I can’t be spread so thin; I’m just one person.”

Synopsis:
While on tour in London, world-famous singer Jenny Bowman (Judy Garland) visits her former lover (Dirk Bogarde) and asks to see her son (Gregory Phillips), who was adopted by Bogarde and his recently deceased wife years earlier. Soon Bowman finds herself wanting to spend more and more time with Phillips, much to the anger and chagrin of Bogarde.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Dirk Bogarde Films
  • Father and Child
  • Judy Garland Films
  • Musicals
  • Singers

Review:
Judy Garland’s final movie — released after John Cassavetes’ A Child is Waiting (1963), though it was actually filmed before — remains a personal favorite of many diehard Garland fans, given how closely it seems to mirror certain aspects of her own fabled (but deeply troubled) existence. As a melodrama, it’s flawed and often overly maudlin; for instance, presumably to add to the film’s narrative tension, we don’t learn about the circumstances behind why Garland gave up her own child until very late (far too late) in the story — and even once we do, what we hear is simply not very convincing. [This is not to imply that someone like Bowman wouldn’t give up her own child the way she does here; just that the explanation given doesn’t suffice.] Meanwhile, Garland’s erstwhile romance with Bogarde never quite rings true, either — we see evidence of Garland’s lingering infatuation with him, but, quite honestly, wonder why they ever ended up together in the first place.

However, what saves the film from its own faults are the truly fine central performances by Garland and Bogarde, who somehow manage to transcend the limitations of both the script and their respective characterizations. Even if we (I) don’t believe in the viability of their romantic potential together, there’s nonetheless a clear “charge” between the two — one which, more than anything, comes across like immense professional respect and regard. Garland in particular immerses herself in her role to an extent light years away from her pallid performance in A Child is Waiting; more than ever before, we feel we’re being given a glimpse into the soul of Garland herself through her character here, particularly in her phenomenal final interaction with Bogarde. Phillips, for his part, holds his own admirably in the face of two such estimable co-stars; Garland’s enormous base of gay fans will surely be tickled by his cross-dressing performance in an all-boys rendition of HMS Pinafore (see still below). (What a curious choice to include in the script! It surely must have been intentional…)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Judy Garland as Judy Bowman
  • Dirk Bogarde as David
  • Gregory Phillips as Matt
  • Garland’s final emotional interaction with Bogarde

Must See?
Yes, simply for Garland’s outstanding final performance on the big screen.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links: