FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A woman (Hideko Takamine) seeks out the man (Masayuki Mori) she had an affair with in French Indochina during the war, only to find him still married to his sickly wife (Chieko Nakakita) and flirting with a much younger married woman (Mariko Okada). Will Takamine, who eventually turns to prostitution to survive, be able to forget about Mori and leave him behind — or are they destined to somehow live a life together?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Japanese Films
• Star-Crossed Lovers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “most famous film in the 37-year career of Mikio Naruse” features the star of 17 of his movies — “beautiful Hideko Takamine,” who “gives a sympathetic performance as a young woman” who “will suffer great indignities” because of her enduring love for a married man.

He argues that “Naruse wanted the misery of Takamine and the women who are exploited by insensitive men to reflect the depressed, defeated country,” and asserts that Naruse “believed that the widespread ill-treatment of women was the reason postwar Japan was such a miserable place.” He points out that the “direction by Naruse is typically unobtrusive,” with the camera rarely moving “away from the actors” — but he notes that rather than “being static,” this “unusual film” has “a distinct romantic flow,” and we “feel deeply about what happens to these interesting people.”

I agree with Peary’s points. These flawed characters — who often don’t make “smart” decisions, instead basing their responses on passion or familiarity — feel very real. To that end, however, viewers should be forewarned that the storyline is almost relentlessly bleak; there are no easy solutions or outcomes for these protagonists.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Hideko Takamine as Yukiko
  
• Masayuki Mori as Kengo
  
• Fine cinematography and sets
  

Must See?
Yes, to see Naruse’s most celebrated film — but be sure to check out When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (1960) as well.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Slant Magazine Review

Synopsis:
When the foreman (Williams Tubbs) of an American oil company in a poverty-ridden South American town puts out a call for drivers to make a dangerous but lucrative trip across the mountains with nitroglycerine, four men — Corsican Mario (Yves Montand), Parisian ex-gangster Jo (Charles Vanel), German Bimba (Peter van Eyck), and fatally ill Luigi (Folco Lulli) — volunteer.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• French Films
• Henri-Georges Clouzot Films
• Survival
• Truckers
• Yves Montand Films

Response to Peary s Review:
As Peary writes, this “unbearably suspenseful existential classic by writer-director Henri-Georges Clouzot, who adapted Georges Arnaud‘s novel” is about a “heart-stopping” trip in which the four protagonists “may be dead” at any moment. It features no less than “three unforgettable scenes” that “rate with the most thrilling sequences in cinema history”: “the trucks back onto rotting planks over a mountain ledge”:

… “Van Eyck uses nitro to blow up a boulder that blocks the road”:

… and “Montand drives his truck through a lake of spilled oil while Vanel swims in the black liquid, trying to get out of the way.”:

Peary notes that “Clouzot’s film is, in part, about how men are considered expendable,” with Clouzot openly attacking “corporations (the U.S. oil firm) which continually exploit individuals and let them risk their lives — especially non-union workers in Third World countries — so that the company profits.”

He adds that Clouzot is “equally disappointed in men (such as our ‘heroes’) who are careless with their own lives” — but I take the opposite view; these men are far from “careless,” but instead simply feel they have no other options left. (The film was originally released in a truncated version which left out portions of the first establishing hour; this could help explain Peary’s stance.)

Regardless, there is very little about this relentlessly bleak film that’s easy to take — from opening lines spouting blatantly racist and colorist notions, to the miserable treatment of “Vera Clouzot as the knocked-about barmaid who loves Montand”:

… to every single moment of the drivers’ harrowing journey.

Indeed, this is such a deeply uncomfortable and stressful film that I put off re-watching it for decades, and will admit it’s not one I plan to return to. However, it is most definitely must-see viewing at least once.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Yves Montand as Mario
  
• Charles Vanel as Jo
  
• Armand Thirard’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a knuckle-biting classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• Washington Post Review
• Criterion Essay by Peary
• Criterion Essay by Dennis Lehane
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When a widowed bureaucrat (Takashi Shimura) learns he has stomach cancer and will die within six months, he begins to reassess his life — including his relationship with his son (Nobuo Kaneko) and daughter-in-law (Kyôko Seki). He heads out on the town, where he encounters a drink-loving writer (Yûnosuke Itô) and hangs out repeatedly with a young colleague (Miki Odagiri) who has just quit. Will Shimura be able to find purpose and meaning in his final months?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Akira Kurosawa Films
• Character Arc
• Death and Dying
• Do-Gooders
• Flashback Films
• Japanese Films
• Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “precious film” — loosely inspired by Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886) — may be Akira Kurosawa’s masterwork.” He notes that the storyline begins by showing us a “pathetic, self-pitying, insignificant person” (Shimura) who is “ignored by his grown son” at home and “part of the do-nothing Japanese bureaucracy, a minor government worker who has spent 25 years rubber-stamping the papers that pile on his desk.”

When Shimura “is told he is dying of cancer,” he wants to live (this is what the film’s title translates into), and thus “withdraws his money and goes out on the town for a night of pleasure” — but “when drinking and carousing don’t please him, he “decides to find happiness through another person” (Odagiri), only to find that “still he is unsatisfied.”

The film pivots in its second half to “five months in the future [at] Shimura’s wake, where family and fellow employees praise (but not too much) what he accomplished before he died.” We are shown through a series of flashbacks how Shimura goes “on a one-man crusade to build a park for children where a dangerous cesspool stands” and “becomes indomitable as he goes through bureaucratic red tape, taking insults right and left, ignoring negative responses, circumventing runarounds.”

Peary notes that this picture — a “beautiful film in every way” — is a “strong indictment of Japanese bureaucracy, a wonderful character story, [and] a heartfelt meditation on the meaning of living and doing one’s part.” He adds that “Shimura’s performance is exquisite,” with “many great moments,” but perhaps the “most memorable has Shimura… sitting on a swing and, while snow falls gently on him, singing softly about the shortness of life.”

In addition to focusing on one of life’s enduring challenges — finding meaning in one’s existence — we see incontrovertible evidence of the need to value human well-being over bureaucracy. Indeed, in this case, without deliberate disruption of dysfunctional norms, children will be harmed and society overall will be much worse off. This lesson remains as important as ever these days, making Ikiru truly a timeless classic.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Takashi Shimura as Watanabe
  
• Asakazu Nakai’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a foreign gem.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Genuine Classic
• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
When Mexican president Porfirio Diaz (Fay Roope) ignores complaints by peasants brought to him by revolutionary Emiliano Zapata (Marlon Brando), Zapata and his brother Eufernio (Anthony Quinn) join forces with Pancho Villa (Alan Reed) and Francisco Madero (Harold Gordon) to take over leadership — but as corruption and deaths continue, Zapata wonders what it will take to bring justice (and land) back to the peasants.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Quinn Films
• Biopics
• Elia Kazan Films
• Historical Drama
• Jean Peters Films
• Marlon Brando Films
• Mexico
• Mildred Dunnock Films
• Revolutionaries

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “controversial film about Mexican hero Emiliano Zapata’s… rise (or is it moral decline, as the film contends?) from peasant revolutionary leader to President and, following his voluntary abdication, return to the peasant movement” is “a fairly exciting action-adventure film,” but he notes that it’s “historically inaccurate” given that “Zapata never was President, [and] he was not illiterate.”

Peary argues the film is “politically confusing,” noting that “Kazan and [screenwriter John] Steinbeck wanted to make an anti-communist tract, equating the Mexican revolution to what happened in Russia” — but “while they get across their central theme that power corrupts anybody,” they “are also responsible for making viewers realize the necessity of armed insurrection in some countries, which is certainly a revolutionary stance for an American film.” He asserts that the “film is depressing because, while it shows that revolution is sometimes necessary, there can never be success because the leaders of a revolution will invariably sell out their followers.”

As someone unfamiliar with the complexities of the Mexican Revolution, I watched this film less with an eye towards historical accuracy and more as a tale of a determined man-of-the-people rising to power, and the choices he must make once he’s “arrived”. To that end, Brando’s Oscar-nominated performance — which Peary refers to as “surprisingly subdued” (“probably because the corners of his eyes were glued down”) — is an interesting one. Even while courting his soon-to-be-wife (Jean Peters):

… he is deadly serious; however, once he realizes the political shenanigans he’s been caught up in, we can see a palpable shift occurring, as he understands he will need to make some challenging choices.

Peary writes that the “film’s most striking scenes are those that show the peasants working together at revolutionary action”:

… and points out the “impressive outdoor photography by Joseph MacDonald.” This earnest biopic isn’t must-see viewing, but is worth a one-time look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marlon Brando as Emiliano Zapata (at least during the second half of the film)
  
• Fine location shooting
  
• Joseph MacDonald’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
In the Deep South, lecherous cotton gin owner Archie Lee (Karl Malden) lusts after his young wife “Baby Doll” (Carroll Baker), who he’s not “allowed” to sleep with until she turns 20 and he can provide her with a fitting lifestyle. Meanwhile, after his business is burnt down, local Sicilian gin operator Silva Vicarro (Eli Wallach) comes to visit Archie Lee’s home and uses his wiles to seduce Baby Doll into confessing what she knows about the arson.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Carroll Baker Films
• Deep South
• Eli Wallach Films
• Elia Kazan Films
• Karl Malden Films
• Marital Problems
• May-December Romance
• Mildred Dunnock Films
• Play Adaptations
• Rip Torn Films
• Tennessee Williams Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “‘white trash’ comedy by Elia Kazan, who adapted two Tennessee Williams plays,” is “meant to convey how Williams visualized the New South, where chivalry, honor, and hospitality (the ‘Good Neighbor Policy’) have been replaced by depravity and decadence, men coveting what their neighbors have (money, work, or women), and ‘carpetbagging’ outsiders/foreigners taking over work and stealing women — just as during the Reconstruction.”

He writes that “dumb, bigoted, middle-aged cotton-gin owner Archie Lee (Karl Malden has problems,” and describes what happens after “Archie secretly burns down Vicarro’s mill” and Vicarro “comes to Archie’s house when he’s not home and proceeds to seduce Baby Doll, who doesn’t put up much resistance.”

Peary notes that “Vicarro’s expressions and movements will at times remind you of a sneaky fox” who is “too clever for the naive Baby Doll, one of many Williams heroines who are betrayed by men supposedly befriending them.”

He further adds that “the unknown Baker became a sex symbol as a result of this film,” given “she never is seen wearing less than a slip” and “lies in a crib and sucks her thumb.”

To that end, “Cardinal Spellman and the Legion of Decency condemned this film when it was released” — and “surely those who criticized it on moral grounds didn’t think the scene in which Vicarro rubs the merrily squirming Baker’s tummy with his foot was in good taste.” However, Peary points out that “it’s a perfect example of how Kazan uses sex in an intentionally ludicrous manner, making it a key element in what is much like an absurdist play;” he adds that “Williams believed that Kazan could have played up the humor even more.”

Peary notes that the film co-stars Mildred Dunnock as Aunt Rose Comfort:

… but he doesn’t mention a notable cameo with Rip Torn as a smiling dentist who enjoys flirting with Baker:

While this movie isn’t a personal favorite — I’m not a fan of films about young women being used as pawns by men — it remains noteworthy for its erstwhile notoriety and for Baker’s breakthrough performance, and should be seen at least once by film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Carroll Baker as Baby Doll
  
• Eli Wallach as Silva
  
• Boris Kaufman’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical notoriety, and Baker’s performance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

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

Synopsis:
Shortly after the birth of Jesus Christ, a Jewish prince named Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) visits with his former childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd) who has become a military commander for Rome. When Judah refuses to share names of Jews who are resisting Roman imperialism, Messala teaches him a lesson by sending him to work as a galley slave, and his mother (Martha Scott) and sister (Cathy O’Donnell) to prison. Years later, Judah rescues the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) from drowning during a battle at sea, and is rewarded by being made Arrius’s honorary son. Soon Judah reunites with his sweetheart (Haya Harareet), but remains more determined than ever to seek revenge on Messala.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ancient Greece and Rome
• Biblical Times
• Charlton Heston Films
• Christianity
• Historical Drama
• Hugh Griffith Films
• Jack Hawkins Films
• Revenge
• Sam Jaffe Films
• Slavery
• Stephen Boyd Films
• William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “colossal remake of the 1925 silent classic” by noting that it “won a record-breaking 12 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director (William Wyler), Best Actor (Charlton Heston), Best Supporting Actor (Hugh Griffith), Best Cinematography (Robert Surtees), Best Scoring (Miklos Rozsa), and Best Visual Effects (A. Arnold Gillespie [and] Robert MacDonald).” He writes that this “big-budget epic is quite watchable, but a bit syrupy once Messala is no longer around:”

… and he feels that Heston merely “does a credible job as Ben-Hur” — a “tormented, wrathful” man who “is striving for inner peace, which he can achieve only by accepting Christ and his message of love and forgiveness.”

He notes that “the chariot-race sequence and the sea battle still hold up nicely” (true):

… but argues that “there is nothing else exciting in the picture.” Regardless, he concedes that the “scenes in which Christ is seen from the back only are nevertheless quite effective because just from seeing the watery eyes and smiles of those who behold him, we can imagine his face and the love and calmness it projects.”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s assessment of this enormously expensive, hugely popular film, which is visually stunning but will ultimately appeal primarily to those who enjoy epic historical dramas. While Peary’s assertion that “none of the acting is particularly impressive” is somewhat true (only Heston’s character is really memorable), the actors here do serviceable work and are overshadowed by the spectacle of it all anyway.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Charlton Heston as Judah Ben-Hur
  
• Robert Surtees’ cinematography
  
• The exciting action sequences
  

Must See?
Yes, as an Oscar-winning favorite, and for its historical importance.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• Film Site Review

Synopsis:
In colonial India, a young woman (Patricia Walters) and her beautiful best friend (Adrienne Corri) are both smitten by a visiting American veteran (Thomas E. Breen) who has lost one of his legs. Meanwhile, a half-Indian woman (Radhi) returns home to visit her widowed father (Arthur Shields), and Walters’ mother (Nora Swinburne), father (Edmond Knight), and their beloved nanny (Suprova Mukerjee) care for Walters’ younger siblings — including their only son, snake-loving Bogey (Richard R. Foster) — while Swinburne prepares to give birth to another child.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming of Age
• Expatriates
• India
• Jean Renoir Films
• Love Triangle
• Veterans

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Jean Renoir’s lyrical film about an English family living in Bengal, on the Ganges” — based on a semi-autobiographical novel by Rumer Godden, who co-wrote the screenplay with Renoir — “deals with the merging of cultures” and “how these four young characters” (Walters, Breen, Corri, and Radha) “overcome their various forms of self-hatred.” He points out “it is beautifully shot by the director’s nephew Claude Renoir” and “there are some powerful passages,” with Walters giving “a lovely performance”:

… but he argues, “I don’t like the characters, and I believe that half the cast should have been replaced and that more emphasis should have been placed on how India affects the family.”

Peary’s complaints are rather broad and difficult to challenge. However, knowing the history of the film — that it was made with a number of non-actors (Walters, Breen, Radha), funded by an L.A. florist, and filmed on location in India for the first time (for a Hollywood movie) — adds to its unique stamp in world cinema; it’s especially noteworthy that Satyajit Ray was Renoir’s Assistant Director.

It seems that Godden’s intent (unnecessarily reinforced through an earnest voiceover) is simply to show a coming-of-age tale with all its emotional complexities and uncertainties, and to that extent it’s reasonably successful.

Meanwhile, there are numerous beautifully filmed sequences showing daily life in India, which must surely have been revelationary for viewers at the time. Indeed, Martin Scorsese’s 12-minute discussion of seeing the film as a child and the enormous impact it had on him is quite touching and worth seeking out, either on the DVD or on YouTube.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine location shooting in India
  
  
• Claude Renoir’s beautiful Technicolor cinematography
  
  

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
During the Korean War, a traumatized sergeant (Gene Evans) encounters a South Korean boy (William Chun) and a Black medic (James Edwards), and soon they all join forces with a patrol led by rule-following Lt. Driscoll (Steve Brodie), with other members of their ragtag platoon including a Japanese-American Nisei (Richard Loo), a former conscientious objector (Robert Hutton), a bald private (Richard Monahan), and a mute (Sid Melton). When they set up an observation post in a Buddhist temple and learn a North Korean soldier (Harold Fong) is lurking in their midst, their existence becomes even more tense.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Korean War
• Misfits
• Prisoners of War
• Sam Fuller Films
• Soldiers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “unusual, surprisingly powerful low-budget war film, written and directed by Samuel Fuller” is “about a hard-bitten sergeant (Gene Evans) whose platoon is wiped out but who survives himself because of his helmet” (hence the film’s title).

He notes that “Fuller’s unsentimental, deglamorized portrait of war is highly atmospheric, tense” and — despite the extremely low budget — “realistic,” with “the character relationships, particularly those between Evans and Chun and Brodie … intriguing.”

Made in just ten days on a budget of ~$100K, The Steel Helmet — Fuller’s third film, after I Shot Jesse James (1949) and The Baron of Arizona (1950) — was loosely based on journal entries made during his own time as a soldier. Fuller’s inclusion of a multi-ethnic cast allows him to touch upon topics otherwise undiscussed in Hollywood films at the time — such as Loo’s family being imprisoned in an internment camp during World War II, despite his own active involvement in the segregated Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team. “We have the same kind of eyes,” the North Korean soldier — known as The Red — goads him.

Meanwhile, Edwards’ Cpt. Thompson — trained as a surgeon — must take subtle and not-so-subtle racist jabs at every turn.

While chatting with Evans about his stint volunteering for a rifle outfit during WWII, for instance, Evans bluntly responds, “Yeah, that was to prove you guys could shoot besides drive trucks. I remember.” (Blacks were primarily relegated to logistics positions in the war.) When Edwards tells Evans he went back to school after WWII on the G.I. bill to study surgery, surly Evans retorts with: “Where? In a butcher shop?” Edwards seems to simply put up with such comments, though later we’re privy to some of his reasoning:

The Red: I just don’t understand you. You can’t eat with them unless there’s a war. Even then, it’s difficult. Isn’t that so?

Cpl. Thompson: That’s right.

The Red: You pay for a ticket, but you even have to sit in the back of a public bus. Isn’t that so?

Cpl. Thompson: That’s right. A hundred years ago, I couldn’t even ride a bus. At least now I can sit in the back. Maybe in fifty years, sit in the middle. Someday even up front. There’s some things you just can’t rush.

Fuller makes excellent use of sparse, fog-shrouded sets:

… and his pulpy script is filled with zingy lines (most mouthed by Evans):

“When my face gets tired, I sit down.”

“Nobody knows where we are except the enemy.”

“You got nothin’ out there but rice paddies crawlin’ with commies just waitin’ to slap you between two big hunks of rye bread and wash you down with fish eggs and vodka.”

This indie classic remains a tense and gritty portrayal of the inherent insanity of war (and racism), and is worthy of multiple viewings.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gene Evans as Sgt. Zack
  
• Fine supporting performances by the diverse and eclectic cast
  
• Good use of low-budget locales and sets
  
• Ernest Miller’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an indie classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
During World War II, a Naval minesweeper captain (Tom Tully) is replaced by a strict new captain (Humphrey Bogart) who quickly exhibits signs of extreme mental strain. When a lieutenant (Fred MacMurray) tries to warn his colleagues that Captain Queeg (Bogart) is paranoid, at first the ship’s executive officer (Van Johnson) doesn’t believe him — but soon Johnson and a new recruit (Robert Francis) are worried enough about Queeg’s competence that they take a drastic step.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Courtroom Drama
• Cowardice
• Edward Dmytryk Films
• E.G. Marshall Films
• Fred MacMurray Films
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• Jose Ferrer Films
• Lee Marvin Films
• Mutiny
• Ruthless Leaders
• Sailors
• Van Johnson Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary isn’t a big fan of this adaptation of “Herman Wouk’s exciting novel” about a commander (Bogart) who had “been a hero, but too much combat has had an effect on his mind” and thus “he suffers from acute paranoia,” “drives the men too hard,” and “even conducts a full-scale investigation to determine who pilfered a quart of strawberries.”

Peary argues that the “picture seems more concerned not to hurt the image of the Navy than to condemn Queeg, or to probe the military mentality and suggest that his phobias are not rare among military leaders.” He further adds that “the direction by Edward Dmytryk is stagy — one never feels that the men are actually on a ship in mid-ocean.”

I disagree with Peary’s sentiments. While the studio-mandated inclusion of an insipid romance between Francis and his singer-girlfriend (May Wynn) is an annoying waste of screentime:

… the rest of the storyline plays out in an engaging and suspenseful fashion. MacMurray gets to play one of his anti-nice-guy roles as an aspiring novelist who means well with his armchair analysis of Queeg, but ends up (arguably) causing harm:

… while Johnson is solid as an uneducated but savvy officer, and Jose Ferrer is nicely cast as a lawyer who openly wishes he were defending someone other than Johnson and Francis, but steps up to the task.

However, it’s Bogart’s Oscar-nominated performance which really holds one’s attention, especially during the riveting final courthouse sequence.

Bogart’s Queeg is a complicated character, as are the others around him — and I appreciate the culminating sequence in which the courtroom verdict is complexified even a bit further. By the end of this film, we definitely understand that leading is hard, and that knowing what to do under extraordinary circumstances is rarely straightforward.

Note: Watch for former-Marine Lee Marvin in a small role as a lieutenant nicknamed “Meatball”:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg
  
• Jose Ferrer as Lt. Greenwald
  
• Van Johnson as Lt. Maryk
  
• Fred MacMurray as Lt. Keefer
  

Must See?
Yes, as a good show with a strong performance by Bogart.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Greatest Films Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Ivan, Tsar of Russia (Nikolai Cherkasov), reflects back on formative events as a young boy (Erik Pyryev) which led him to become so “terrible” and distrusting of the aristocratic boyars. Meanwhile, Ivan’s power-hungry Aunt Efrosinia (Serafima Birman) continues to do whatever she can to bring her son Vladimir (Pavel Kadochnikov) to the throne.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Royalty and Nobility
• Russian Films
• Ruthless Leaders
• Sergei Eisenstein Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “this continuation of Sergei Eisenstein’s epic about Ivan IV… is more stylized than Part I” given that he “uses color at times, and he has [his] characters sing.”

However, he argues this “doesn’t help” the movie, noting that he’s “never seen so many people in a theater dozing off as when [he] last saw this film.” While he concedes the movie is “beautifully shot,” he also notes that it’s “slow-moving and lacking some of the pivotal characters of the first part.”

I actually don’t agree with Peary: while I share his sentiment that Part I is “ludicrously melodramatic” and over-rated, there’s a lot going on this time around, with the storyline heading in a more interesting (and dangerous) direction — and we definitely see “pivotal characters” from the first movie, most notably Aunt Efrosinia and her son, who is as infantilized as ever but now has the beginnings of a beard:

In Part II we’re given better insight into Efrosinia’s naked ambitions (“I’d suffer the pangs of your birth a hundred times over to see you seated on the Tsar’s throne!”), and we actually begin to feel compassion for idiotic Vladimir, who pitifully asks, “Why are you always trying to make a leader of me, mother?” To that end, the “lullaby” Efrosinia sings to Vladimir is appropriately creepy:

A black beaver was bathing in the river,
in the frozen Moscow River.
He didn’t wash himself cleaner;
he only got blacker.
Having taken his bath, the beaver
went off to the capital’s high hill
to dry himself, shake himself, and look around,
to see if anyone was coming to look for him.
The hunters whistle, searching out the black beaver.
The hunters follow the scent:
they will find the black beaver.
They want to catch and skin the beaver,
and with its fur then to adorn a kingly mantle
in order to array Tsar Vladimir!

The final sequence — involving carefully crafted deception and violence — really jolted me, making me realize how invested I’d become in this scenario.

Meanwhile, the early inclusion of a flashback sequence showing the trauma young Ivan experienced when his mother was brutally killed by boyars helps us to better understand his enduring hatred for them:

It’s too bad that Eisenstein passed away before he was able to complete the intended third portion of this epic, given that he was going to continue to build on Ivan’s paranoia. Peary writes that “obviously, Eisenstein’s czar is meant to represent Stalin’s view of himself” — and this time around, that makes a lot more sense.

Note: Putting an accurate date on this film is tricky; Peary lists 1945, but I’ve put 1958 given the following information (from Wikipedia): “Part II, although it finished production in 1946, was not released until 1958, as it was banned on the order of Stalin, who became incensed over the depiction of Ivan therein.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Atmospheric cinematography and memorable imagery
  
  
• Sergei Prokofiev’s score

Must See?
Yes, as the powerful second part of Eisenstein’s final work.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article