Rebecca (1940)

Rebecca (1940)

“Marriage with Max is not exactly a bed of roses, is it?”

Synopsis:
The shy personal assistant (Joan Fontaine) of a brash society lady (Florence Bates) falls in love with a wealthy widower (Laurence Olivier) whose deceased wife, Rebecca, continues to haunt the memories of those she left behind.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • George Sanders Films
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Joan Fontaine Films
  • Judith Anderson Films
  • Laurence Olivier Films
  • Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
The unnamed heroine in Daphne DuMaurier’s best-selling gothic romance novel — simply referred to as “the second Mrs. DeWinter” — represents the fulfillment of most girls’ dreams: a mousy, self-effacing young woman in an unsatisfying job, she is literally swept off her feet by a handsome millionaire, and taken to live in a gorgeous, postcard-perfect mansion in the English countryside. The fairy tale quickly turns sour, however, once the new Mrs. DeWinter (played here by Joan Fontaine in her “captivating” leading-role debut) encounters the household’s domineering housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson) — a “witch in black” — and realizes that her position as lady of the house will be continuously overshadowed by a “ghost” (the memory of her husband’s larger-than-life former wife, Rebecca). The tautly scripted three-act narrative of this Oscar-winning “best picture” neatly takes us through Fontaine’s whirlwind romance with Mr. DeWinter (Laurence Olivier), her insecurity as mistress of a household haunted by its troubled past, and a police investigation in which numerous secrets are revealed and Fontaine’s loyalty to her husband is severely tested.

If Rebecca isn’t “great Hitchcock” (it doesn’t stand among his very best work), it’s still fine entertainment. The performances throughout are uniformly excellent, with Olivier appropriately haunted and restrained as Fontaine’s brooding husband, and Fontaine perfectly portraying the brew of conflicted emotions felt by her character, who remains both nervously submissive and incredulous about her position until a pivotal shift in the plot later on (a point at which Peary argues the film “loses its power”, but I disagree). The supporting cast is fine as well, with Anderson delivering the performance of her lifetime as disturbed Mrs. Danvers (Peary refers to her portrayal as “chilling” and “soulless”); George Sanders briefly stealing the scenery in a characteristically smarmy role later in the film; and Florence Bates nicely capturing the essence of an overbearing society woman who borders on caricature but just manages to avoid this fate (listen to her conflicted reaction upon hearing about her assistant’s sudden engagement to Mr. DeWinter). A combination of appropriately spooky sets (Manderlay is a truly haunted house), George Barnes’ Oscar-winning “atmospheric cinematography”, “Franz Waxman’s moody score”, and “the clever way Hitchcock uses space so that Fontaine seems dominated by her surroundings” contribute to the film’s “amazing tension”, and turn it into a suspenseful mystery we’re eager to keep watching.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joan Fontaine as the second Mrs. DeWinter (nominated by Peary as Best Actress of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book)
  • Laurence Olivier as Mr. DeWinter
  • Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers
  • George Sanders as Jack Favell
  • Florence Bates as Mrs. Van Hopper
  • Impressive sets
  • George Barnes’ cinematography
  • Franz Waxman’s score

Must See?
Yes, as Hitchcock’s only Oscar-winning picture (and one of only a few, shamefully, to even have been nominated).

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

Suspicion (1941)

Suspicion (1941)

“Johnnie, I’m just beginning to understand you.”

Synopsis:
A bookish wallflower (Joan Fontaine) marries a charming rake (Cary Grant) who quickly arouses her suspicions when she discovers he is both a liar and a penniless thief.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cary Grant Films
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Homicidal Spouses
  • Joan Fontaine Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Newlyweds
  • Plot to Murder

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary spends the bulk of his review of this early American Hitchcock film — his follow-up to Rebecca (1940) — complaining about its ending (which, by the way, is discussed to some extent in nearly every online review — so be forewarned if you’ve never seen it). He notes that Fontaine “saves [the] picture with [her] gusty performance”, but claims that Grant simply “looks stiff”. He points out a couple of “good scenes — Grant carrying [a] glowing glass of milk to sick Fontaine, a dinner conversation about murder”, but ends his review by once again arguing that “the disappointing resolution keeps it from being top-grade Hitchcock”. I actually agree with Peary that this isn’t “top-grade Hitchcock” — but not just because of the ending. Although there’s a credible amount of tension throughout the entire film (which is told from Fontaine’s point of view), we’re quickly frustrated by her simpering unwillingness to act on her increasingly mounting suspicions.

It’s relatively easy to accept Fontaine’s whirlwind marriage to Johnnie as the consequence of an overly sheltered young woman fearing spinsterhood (certainly plenty of naive, desperate women in real life have married cads or outright psychopaths out of similar motivations) — but once she learns about his lies and financial indiscretions, there’s no excuse for her hesitation in getting out. We’re meant to believe that she simply can’t help herself (she’s too in love with Johnnie), but I don’t buy it. (Interestingly, she’s never given reason to worry about him cheating on her with another woman — which indicates that perhaps women will put up with a lot of nonsense in a marriage as long as they don’t believe their primacy as “woman number one” is being threatened.) Meanwhile, other elements of the screenplay are clumsy as well: how convenient is it, for instance, that Johnnie and Lina happen to be friends with a mystery novelist (Auriol Lee) who’s exploring various methods for untraceable murder? The origins of this friendship are never explained, so it comes across as simply a plot contrivance. With that said, Fontaine’s Oscar-winning performance — in a decidedly imperfectly written role — is fine, and film fanatics will likely be curious to see the movie for this reason alone.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joan Fontaine as Lina
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, simply for Fontaine’s Oscar-winning performance.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Under Capricorn (1949)

Under Capricorn (1949)

“I’m afraid I’m not very well.”

Synopsis:
In the early 19th century, an Irishman (Michael Wilding) moves to Australia, where he befriends an ex-convict (Joseph Cotten) whose fragile wife (Ingrid Bergman) has become a reclusive alcoholic cared for by her domineering housemaid (Margaret Leighton). When Wilding attempts to help cure Bergman of her neuroses (falling in love with her in the process), he quickly learns more about her unconventional marriage to Cotten, and the tragedy that sent them to Australia.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ex-Cons
  • Historical Drama
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Immigrants and Immigration
  • Ingrid Bergman Films
  • Joseph Cotten Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Marital Problems

Review:
Based on a novel by Australian author Helen Simpson, this historical melodrama was Alfred Hitchcock’s second film in Technicolor, and features several instances of the “long take” he so infamously utilized in Rope (1948) the previous year. It performed poorly at the box office, and is generally viewed as one of Hitchcock’s lesser efforts — primarily because it’s more of a domestic melodrama than a thriller, and moves at a much more leisurely, literary pace. It’s often compared (unfavorably) with Hitchcock’s Oscar-winning American debut film, Rebecca (1940), which featured a similarly overbearing housemaid intent on meddling in the private life of her mistress — though in this case, Margaret Leighton’s Millie is (unfortunately) not given nearly as much screentime as Judith Anderson’s Miss Danvers in Rebecca. Indeed, given what a pivotal role Leighton ends up playing in the denouement of Under Capricorn, it’s especially frustrating to see how underdeveloped her character is; she’s given one excellent, intriguing monologue mid-way through the movie, but otherwise simply comes and goes until the film’s final scenes bring her back with a wallop.

At the film’s heart, however, is Ingrid Bergman, giving a typically mesmerizing performance as a conflicted woman driven to drink and seclusion by both her tragic past and her challenging present circumstances. Also effective is Michael Wilding (best known as Elizabeth Taylor’s second husband — though, interestingly, he later married Leighton), as the do-gooding man determined to help rescue Bergman from her self-imposed exile. Meanwhile, Jack Cardiff’s luminous cinematography bathes the entire film in gorgeous, painterly hues. It’s all the more disappointing, then, that the movie itself ultimately doesn’t move in a very interesting direction: we wouldn’t mind learning a lot more about life during this very specific time in Australia’s history (when it was still largely comprised of ex-convicts), but instead must be content with the melodramatic tensions between Cotten (giving an overly restrained performance), Bergman, Wilding, and Leighton. It’s far from boring, and beautifully shot, but is really only must-see for Hitchcock completists.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ingrid Bergman as Lady Henrietta
  • Michael Wilding as Charles
  • Margaret Leighton as Millie
  • Jack Cardiff’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly recommended to Hitchcock enthusiasts and/or fans of Ingrid Bergman. In 1958, voted by the Cahiers du Cinema as one of the ten greatest films of all time. Available for free viewing on the Internet Archive.

Links:

Broken Blossoms (The Yellow Man and the White Girl) (1919)

Broken Blossoms (The Yellow Man and the White Girl) (1919)

“The Yellow Man watched Lucy often. The beauty which all Limehouse missed smote him to his heart.”

Synopsis:
A teenage waif (Lillian Gish) abused by her adoptive father (Donald Crisp) finds refuge in the home of a kind Chinese shopkeeper (Richard Barthelmess).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Asian-Americans
  • Child Abuse
  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Donald Crisp Films
  • D.W. Griffith Films
  • Lillian Gish Films
  • Racism and Race Relations
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “D.W. Griffith classic” — an unflinching early look at child abuse and racial prejudice — as “perhaps the cinema’s first outright tragedy”, yet points out that the use of various tints and the strategic employment of a “special soft-focus lens” gives the film “an almost poetic feel that tempers the harshness of the story”. He notes that the “overly sentimental” storyline (based on a short story by Thomas Burke) “surely appealed to Griffith because it again let him lash out at the evil city, again deal with miscegenation and suicide, and again — and this is the disturbing element — sacrifice an innocent girl to our cruel, immoral world.” Indeed, the three central characters are so elemental in their attributes — “snarling Crisp”, “stoical Barthelmess”, and timid Gish — that the wafer-thin story (not really suitable for a feature length film) comes across as more of a fable or a fairy tale than any kind of realistic narrative. This is especially true given that the age and developmental maturity of Gish’s character (Lucy) is left so vague: the 26-year-old Gish* could literally be either 10 or 15 or 20; she’s so petite and huddled over from fear at all times that we can’t really tell — and when Barthelmess hands her a doll to play with (!), we get seriously confused. (In the original short story, the character was 12 — which I suppose lends some credence to this scene.)

The film’s terribly antiquated, casually racist subtitle will likely turn many modern film fanatics off; but once they make tentative peace with both this and the (then standard) casting of white men in both central Asian roles, they’ll likely be pleasantly surprised to find that Griffith — the infamous director of America’s most egregiously racist classic film, Birth of a Nation (1915) — seems to at least be trying to portray the film’s Chinese-American protagonist (Cheng) in a reasonably respectful light. Indeed, it’s gratifying to know that Griffith “considered the main theme of his film to be that Americans wrongly consider themselves superior to foreigners, including the Chinese, who have a noble, peace-loving philosophy”. Cheng is shown at the beginning of the film to be a noble-minded Buddhist missionary hoping to convert European heathens to more peaceful ways — and thus his quick descent into opium addiction after arriving on the sordid shores of London is given a bit of context and justification, rather than simply perpetuating the trope of drug-addled Asians. (Actually, as I think about it, this piece of the narrative could easily have been expanded upon: I’d love to have seen more of Cheng’s travails upon arrival in London.)

At any rate, Cheng’s poetically romantic yearnings towards Lucy could be (and are) explained away as merely a platonic desire to love and assist that which is most pure and good in the world — though, again, it would have been much more fulfilling to see this most unusual cinematic couple actually moving towards something “real” together. This would have required a more substantial storyline in general, but at least would have given a shred of credence to the fantastical poster (shown above). In terms of the lead performances, Peary accurately argues that “Crisp overacts”, “Barthelmess under-acts (as if he believed one change of expression would let us know that he isn’t really Oriental after all)” — but Gish “acts up an exciting storm”. He notes that “from her timid talking, stooped, crooked posture, and terrified eyes, Gish immediately gets us to understand that her beatings are a daily thing for her”, and she is “totally convincing” in the role. Her character’s ability to “smile only if she lifts the sides of her mouth her fingers” was apparently thought up by Gish herself, and remains one of the film’s most indelible (recurring) images.

* TCM’s article lists Gish as 23-years-old when the film was made, but this doesn’t make mathematical sense, given that IMDb cites 1893 as her birth year.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lillian Gish as Lucy, “the waif”
  • A (relatively) bold exploration of both child abuse and cross-cultural companionship
  • Billy Bitzer’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes; despite being “a bit disappointing”, it’s nonetheless considered a silent classic, and “is essential to any study of Griffith”. Selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress, in 1996. Available for free viewing at www.archive.org.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Animal Farm (1954)

Animal Farm (1954)

“No animal shall kill another animal. All animals are equal.”

Synopsis:
A group of farm animals rebel against their cruel owner and take over the farm themselves. But soon two head pigs (Napoleon and Snowball) are vying for leadership, and the animals find themselves back in dire straits.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Animated Features
  • Revolutionaries
  • Rivalry
  • Talking Animals

Review:
Most definitely NOT for little ones, this animated version of George Orwell’s classic anti-Communist allegory has been criticized as merely a serviceable adaptation of the novel (minus its downbeat ending), and viewed as most suitable for teens required to read the book in school. While there’s some truth to this (the translation is quite literal, and will likely be of most interest to those who’ve read the novel), this assessment isn’t quite fair, given that the high-quality animation throughout is consistently impressive, and the animators effectively utilize the medium to tell a tale it would undoubtedly be challenging to relate in any other format. (I haven’t seen the 1999 live version, so I can’t comment on this, but I’ve heard it’s even more disappointing.) Ultimately, as other critics have pointed out, the use of animation to tell this “fairy tale” (the novel’s subtitle) is actually appropriate — as long as viewers are prepared for a truly dark and disturbing narrative journey.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Creative animation

  • An appropriately dark adaptation of Orwell’s classic

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical relevance as the first British feature animated (entertainment) film. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

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

Links:

Million Dollar Legs (1932)

Million Dollar Legs (1932)

“What the country needs is money, and it’s up to you to get it for me!”

Synopsis:
The president (W.C. Fields) of Klopstokia tasks the suitor (Jackie Oakie) of his daughter (Anne Fleming) with raising money for his bankrupt country. When Oakie realizes how athletic all of Klopstokia’s citizens are, he decides to enter them in the 1932 Olympics — but Fields’ detractors are anxious to ruin him, and enlist the help of seductress Mata Machree (Lydi Roberti) in distracting the athletes.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Joseph L. Mankiewicz Films
  • Olympics
  • Ruthless Leaders
  • W.C. Fields Films

Review:
Film fanatics might be forgiven for assuming that the film in GFTFF called Million Dollar Legs would either be about Betty Grable (nope, that’s the 1939 film of the same title) or Esther Williams (nope, that’s the 1952 film Million Dollar Mermaid, which isn’t included in Peary’s book — speaking of which, NONE of Williams’ films are listed in GFTFF, which seems like an oversight…). At any rate, this early W.C. Fields feature (his first for Paramount Studios) is a surprisingly zany outing, similar in many ways to the following year’s Duck Soup (1933), and also to Fields’ final starring-role film, Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941) (complete with goat milk jokes and a fictional European-esque destination). In his article for The New Yorker, David Denby refers to Million Dollar Legs as “about as close as Hollywood… ever came to the spirit of Dada”, and this is an accurate description. While it’s not entirely successful, there are enough wacky surprises, off-the-wall interactions, and random elements (all the girls in Klopstokia are named Angela, and all the boys are named George; when asked why, Fleming simply replies, “Why not?”) to keep viewers at the very least interested in what happens next. Watch for a weird performance by blonde bombshell Lyda Roberti (who died at the age of 31 from a heart attack), in her best known role.

Note: The film’s title most likely refers to the insanely fast running speed of Klopstokia’s Major Domo (Andy Clyde), but is still rather a strange choice.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An enjoyably zany screenplay (by Joseph Mankiewicz and others)

Must See?
No, but it’s strongly recommended. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941)

Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941)

“He didn’t get that nose from playing ping-pong.”

Synopsis:
W.C. Fields (as himself) tries to convince movie producer Franklin Pangborn (as himself) to make a surreal movie starring Fields and his singing niece, Gloria Jean.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Hollywood
  • W.C. Fields Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “last starring role” for W.C. Fields isn’t “top-grade Fields because he isn’t on-screen enough…, he isn’t bombastic or aggravating enough, and he isn’t being constantly harassed by the nincompoops that usually populate his films” — but I have to say I disagree. While Fields might not be on-screen continuously, his presence as screenwriter (writing under the typically creative pseudonym of Otis Criblecoblis) is fully felt throughout, to joyfully surreal effect. Indeed, Peary does acknowledge that this is “the film where the surrealistic nature of Fields’s comedy is most evident”, given that the film-within-the-film (pitched by Fields to an exasperated Franklin Pangborn; what brilliant casting!:

transpires in a fantastical alter-universe: Fields is traveling with his niece, Gloria Jean, on an airplane, when suddenly he “leaps… to retrieve his whiskey bottle and falls thousands of feet before landing safely on Margaret Dumont’s mountaintop estate, where she lives with her pretty young daughter:

… a gorilla:

… and [a] Great Dane with fangs”:

… and later arrives at a Russian village in Mexico (!).

Truly, the preposterous scenario proposed by Fields — which Pangborn, naturally, rejects as “impossible, incomprehensible, inconceivable; and besides that, it’s no good” — seems to be the loopy product of both Fields’s accumulated years of experience on wackily hybrid studio sets (viz. the film’s opening sequences), and his constant inebriation, which is referenced continually throughout both the meta-narrative and the fantasy film. In one classic scene, for instance, Fields enters “an ice-cream parlor, where, before blowing the head off his ice-cream soda, he turns to us to reveal that censors wouldn’t let him stage the scene in a saloon”. Within the fantasy film, numerous laughs are milked (sorry) when Fields shares a stiff drink of goat’s milk (!) with an engineer (Emmett Vogan):

Fields would find intoxicating substances under a rock if necessary, it seems.

At any rate, your enjoyment of this film will ultimately depend upon how much you’re willing to forgo straightforward narrative in favor of something much more — dare I say, post-modern? Rewatching it again last night, after viewing and posting on numerous “pure” Fields films, I find myself enjoying it perhaps most of all, simply for its perversely illogical and “messy” status. Knowing in hindsight that this was to be Fields’s final starring role, it could be viewed as an especially apt “sayonara” — i.e., Fields’s attempt to throw everything plus the kitchen sink into his grand finale. At the same time, as Dave Kehr notes, the film “has an appealingly inward, mournful quality, as if it were a swan song that only its singer could hear. Unconcerned with reaching the audience, Fields seems to be muttering to himself through much of the movie, his barely audible remarks often achieving a strange poetry: ‘The chickens lay eggs in Kansas. The chickens have pretty legs in Kansas.'”

Note: My single favorite moment (over in an instant): Franklin Pangborn, agitatedly trying to help Gloria Jean rehearse, is momentarily caught up in a male chorus line dancing through the studio.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • W.C. Fields as himself
  • Franklin Pangborn as himself
  • Fields’s early interactions with a surly waitress (Jody Gilbert)
  • Fields’ enjoyably surreal screenplay
  • Plenty of characteristically zingy one-liners:

    “She drove me to drink, the one thing I’m indebted to her for.”

Must See?
Yes, as a truly surreal comedic effort — and for its historical relevance as Fields’ last film.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Sally of the Sawdust (1925)

Sally of the Sawdust (1925)

“I don’t believe that talk, Henry. I believe she is a good girl, no matter what anyone says.”

Synopsis:
Carnival cardsharp Eustace McGargle (W.C. Fields) adopts the daughter (Carol Dempster) of a society woman who ran away from her disapproving parents (Erville Alderson and Effie Shannon) after marrying a circus man. When Sally (Dempster) grows up, McGargle decides it may be time to introduce her to her real family, and takes her to her hometown of Green Meadows, where Sally falls in love with a wealthy young man (Alfred Lunt).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carnivals and Circuses
  • Comedy
  • D.W. Griffith Films
  • Orphans
  • Play Adaptation
  • Silent Films
  • W.C. Fields Films

Review:
Critics have noted that this relatively late-career outing by D.W. Griffith (which unfortunately displays none of his distinctive directorial genius) would have remained merely a historical curiosity if it hadn’t offered W.C. Fields his first leading role in a film. Based on a 1923 musical play, the film’s storyline — as in the 1936 remake, Poppy — is strictly pedestrian melodrama, complete with an unrealistically happy ending and far too much slapstick humor. What makes it worth at least a cursory look are two primary elements: the opportunity to see a slightly slimmer Fields in a non-speaking role, performing some of his most famous carnival routines without the benefit of his characteristically nasal twang; and the remarkably “modern” central performance by Griffith’s real-life mistress, Dempster, a leggy, athletic, unconventional beauty reminiscent of Australian actress Rachel Griffiths.

Note: Apparently Dempster’s best role was in Isn’t Life Wonderful? (1924), a highly regarded Griffith film which isn’t listed in Peary’s book, and which I haven’t seen.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An interesting glimpse at Fields in a non-speaking role
  • Carol Dempster as Sally

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for diehard W.C. Fields fans.

Links:

Blackmail (1929)

Blackmail (1929)

“Detectives in glass houses shouldn’t wave clues.”

Synopsis:
The flirtatious girlfriend (Anny Ondra) of a Scotland Yard detective (John Longden) accompanies an artist (Cyril Ritchard) to his apartment one night and ends up killing him with a knife when he tries to rape her. A loiterer (Donald Calthrop) sees Longden leaving the scene of the crime with a crucial piece of evidence, and decides to blackmail Ondra — but a snoopy landlady (Hannah Jones) has seen Calthrop entering Ritchard’s apartment, and soon he’s wanted by the police himself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blackmail
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Play Adaptations

Review:
I was pleasantly surprised to finally check out this early Hitchcock thriller, which is famous for being his first “talkie” but remains remarkably enjoyable in its own right. All of the trademark qualities of Hitchcock’s best films are present here, starting with a tension-inducing screenplay in which our heroine — who is far from sympathetic, at least at first — is caught up in a nightmare of her own accidental making, existing in guilt-ridden angst and fear throughout the remainder of the film. Meanwhile, Hitch effectively employs both visual and aural cues via strategic editing for heightened suspense and impact — as when Ondry continually hears the word “knife” being used in punctuated bursts during a conversation following the homicide, or when she looks up at a flashing neon sign for a cocktail which has transformed into a plunging knife. While Hitchcock’s use of real-time off-camera dubbing for Ondry’s voice (she had a heavy German accent) has been called out as somewhat obvious, I must admit I was never bothered by it. Atmospheric cinematography (by Jack Cox), a smarmy turn by Calthrop as Ondry’s would-be blackmailer, and an exciting (if too brief) climactic chase scene through a famous location add to this film’s overall enjoyment — it’s certainly worth a look.

Note: Hitchcock filmed a silent version of this movie as well, which is available on the DVD release. Even the “talkie” edition, however, starts off (for the first 8 minutes) mostly like a silent film, with just a few noise effects added — so be patient. (I mention this because I wondered for a while whether I was watching the “right” version.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Anny Ondra as Alice
  • Nice use of the British Museum for the climactic final chase — though the scene is over far too quickly
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Creative use of sound for heightened effect (as in the “KNIFE” scene)
  • A clever sense of visual play

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance — and also as an enjoyably tense thriller. Listed as a film with historical importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Nutty Professor, The (1963)

Nutty Professor, The (1963)

“Professor Kelp’s just the kind of guy who might fool you.”

Synopsis:
Julius Kelp (Jerry Lewis) — a nerdy chemistry professor with a crush on a beautiful student (Stella Stevens) — develops a potion which turns him into a narcissistic, womanizing singer named Buddy Love.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Jerry Lewis Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Multiple Personalities
  • Professors
  • Stella Stevens Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary has written quite a bit about this most famous of Jerry Lewis films, not only discussing it in the front section of his Guide for the Film Fanatic, but analyzing its cult appeal in his first Cult Movies book, and outlining the brilliance of Lewis’s dual performances in his Alternate Oscars book (where he casts a controversial vote for Lewis as Best Actor of the Year).

He refers to the film in general as “wildly inventive”, calling out Lewis’s “innovative direction and… witty screenplay” (co-written with Bill Richmond), which is full of countless hilarious moments — including inventive sight gags (such as the surreal consequence of Kelp trying to lift weights in a gym):

… remarkably effective use of sound effects for humor (as when Kelp enters his class with a raging hangover, and over-reacts to every noise made by his students):

… and plenty of darkly humorous sequences with Buddy Love (which indicate that this film could in some ways be more accurately described as a “black comedy” than a straight “comedy”).

Indeed, Peary writes that “If The Nutty Professor is Lewis’s best film, and I believe it is, it is not so much because it is his funniest as because it is his most daring… in the sense that Lewis, who begs for love in all his other films, knew he was making a picture to which his greatest fans, children, would probably react negatively.” Love is a truly provocative character — someone so outrageously, obnoxiously arrogant (and cruel!) that one hesitates to laugh at him. (An exception is during the one Love scene played strictly for laughs: the truly chuckle-worthy sequence in which Love “gets into the… good graces of the dean [an excellent Del Moore] by complimenting him on his suit and flattering his acting ability, coaxing him into reciting Hamlet’s soliloquy while standing on top of a table and wearing the weird attire that Buddy hands him every time he tries to begin.”)

The rest of the time, however, one simply squirms uncomfortably at the notion that a half-rate, oily slickster like Love could genuinely charm an entire population of college students, and Stella Stevens in particular.

With that said, Stevens’ attraction to Love is decidedly complex: while Stevens (Peary argues this is her “best role in a comedy”) spends a bit too much time simply staring at Love or Kelp with either puzzled sympathy or annoyance, it’s clear that she’s genuinely trying to tease out the nature of her attraction to both men. She’s turned on by Kelp’s intelligence, but simultaneously drawn in — as if by hypnotic spell — to the web of Love’s allure, despite clearly recognizing the folly of her conflicted desire. Love himself has traditionally (and most facilely) been viewed as representing “Lewis’s ex-partner, the cocky, romantic-singing, and boozing Dean Martin” — but Peary (and others) note that Buddy is perhaps more accurately the “alter-ego of Jerry Lewis, the Lewis we see each year on the telethon: that conceited, sanctimonious, singing, angry older fellow who tries unsuccessfully at times to keep the funny-voiced ‘Kid’ bottled up inside him”. Check out Lewis’s 1969 interview with Dick Cavett (available on YouTube) for a classic representation of just this dynamic.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Jerry Lewis as Julius/Buddy (selected by Peary as Best Actor of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Del Moore as Dr. Warfield
  • Stella Stevens as Stella Purdy
  • Hal Pareira’s memorable set designs
  • The humorously frightening initial “transformation” scene

Must See?
Yes, as Lewis’s acknowledged cult classic — and a rare Lewis film guaranteed to appeal to most viewers, regardless of their tolerance for Lewis.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links: