Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

In a Lonely Place (1950)

In a Lonely Place (1950)

“I didn’t say I was a gentleman; I said I was tired.”

Synopsis:
A screenwriter (Humphrey Bogart) with a pugilistic bent becomes the primary suspect when a hat-check girl (Martha Stewart) dies after spending a platonic evening at his house. The loyalty and love of a new neighbor (Gloria Grahame) gives Bogart renewed energy and hope — but as Grahame sees increasing evidence of his violent nature, she, too, begins to question his innocence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Frank Lovejoy Films
  • Gloria Grahame Films
  • Hollywood
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Nicholas Ray Films
  • Romance
  • Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Nicholas Ray made several films about decent men who couldn’t control violent tempers”, including this “onetime ‘sleeper'” (based on a novel by Dorothy B. Hughes) that “has come to be regarded as one of Bogart’s classics”. The “terrific, unusual script” (by Andrew Solt and Edmund H. North) “includes sharp dialogue” and “some peculiar secondary characters” — including Stewart, who is perfectly cast as an ill-fated young lover of melodramatic fiction.

But it’s the primary players here who really hold our attention: Bogart’s “Dixon Steele” (what a name!) — an “ex-GI who’s been trying to make a comeback since the war ended”, and whose “frustrations have manifested” in both “cynical remarks about the movie industry” and repeated “violent tantrums” — is presented as an admirably complex protagonist.

Meanwhile, sexy Grahame (who in real life “was about to get her divorce from Ray”) transcends her initial characterization as a presumed-femme fatale to emerge as a loving and supportive romantic partner.

As detectives continue to probe the mysterious case, we’re kept on the edge of our seats: we don’t want to believe that Bogie (our hero!) could possibly have committed the murder, but we slowly see — through the perspective of Grahame, who has “become the main character” — that he’s certainly “capable of such an act”, and we begin to genuinely fear for her safety.

The surprisingly downbeat ending packs a punch: it’s realistic, respectful, and decidedly unusual for Hollywood fare at the time. With its smart script, solid direction by Ray, atmospheric cinematography by Burnett Guffey, and fine performances across the board, this fatalistic noir remains a must-see classic for all film fanatics.

Note: In Hughes’ original novel, Steele is “a serial sex murderer” who relates the story from his own perspective; clearly, some adjustments were needed before Hollywood would consent to telling this tale!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Humphrey Bogart as Dixon Steele
  • Nice use of authentic L.A. locales
  • Burnett Guffey’s cinematography
  • A gripping script with plenty of memorable lines:

    “I was born when you kissed me,
    I died when you left me,
    I lived a few weeks while you loved me.”

    “You knew he was dynamite — he has to explode sometimes!”

Must See?
Yes, as a fine and unusual romantic noir. Nominated as one of the Best Films of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Fame (1980)

Fame (1980)

“A real artist must never be afraid of what other people will say about him.”

Synopsis:
A group of aspiring performing artists — including a nervous actress (Maureen Teefy) with an overly enmeshed mother (Tresa Hughes); an illiterate dancer (Gene Anthony Ray) with ample raw talent; the synthesizer-playing son (Lee Curreri) of a cab driver (Eddie Barth); an arrogant, spoiled ballerina (Antonia Franceschi); a dubiously talented lifelong dancer (Laura Dean); a closeted young gay actor (Paul McCrane); a hopeful but naive singer/dancer (Irene Cara); and a Freddie Prinze-worshiping stand-up comedian (Barry Miller) — audition for placement at the prestigious New York High School of Performing Arts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan Parker Films
  • Coming-of-Age
  • Dancers
  • Ensemble Cast
  • High School
  • Musicals

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “extremely entertaining and original seriocomic musical” — about a group of diverse students struggling to survive and thrive at a competitive performing arts high school in New York — not only demonstrates the development of their “individual talents”, but, “more significantly”, shows how they “simultaneously strip off their defenses and discover their elusive self-identities”. He writes that “director Alan Parker obviously has respect for [these] young people and their great talents (which are evident on the screen) as well as sympathy for their brave, masochistic attempts to make a living through their art”. As Peary points out, “the film’s comedy is consistently bright” and “the drama works well as long as Parker strives for poignancy rather than pathos (which occurs too often in the later stages of the film).”

What stands out most vividly about the movie are the “imaginatively staged, free-for-all musical production numbers”, during which “everyone in the school jumps in spontaneously”, with “blacks, whites, and hispanics dancing together, ballet dancers rocking with students in wild street clothes, cellists jamming with drummers”; we truly “see spirited democracy at work, and no one worries about making fools of themselves”. While these numbers are far from realistic (who cares?), they nonetheless perfectly capture the vibrancy, enthusiasm, diligence, and creativity of this immensely talented group of teens — which makes it especially depressing to see how much they inevitably struggle to “make it” as artists in the “real world” (though Parker should be commended for authentically representing this aspect of their young existence, too).

As Peary writes, the “entire film, not just the music, has rhythm”, which is “most evident in the dialogue [Christopher Gore wrote the screenplay] and the editing” (by Gerry Hambling). Indeed, other than its catchy score (by Michael Gore), the film’s fast-paced, finely calibrated editing is one of its most distinctive features — particularly during the first section (entitled “Auditions”; the remaining sections are divided into the four high school years). I also love how Parker manages to capture not only the immense ethnic and social diversity of these New York youths, but how multi-talented they must become to have a fighting chance of success as working artists.

They must also prove themselves academically, at least in order to graduate — and it’s on this latter topic that the film ultimately flails a bit, as demonstrated in the interactions between Ray and his English teacher (Anne Meara), who doesn’t seem to have a clue that her defiant student may be struggling with issues far more complicated than mere motivation. I wish the screenplay spent more time on Ray (whose complex character is the most interesting by far) and less on the friendship/love “triangle” between Teefy, Miller and McCrane — though their outing to see a midnight screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show remains a fun cultural artifact. While Fame may ultimately try to cover a bit too much territory in one feature-length film (the 1982-1987 T.V. show spin-off made complete sense!), it’s easy enough to focus on the parts that work exceptionally well — and, thankfully, many do.

Note: Sadly, Ray (who played Leroy in both the film and T.V. series) apparently struggled enormously in his personal life, becoming HIV-positive and dying far too young (of a stroke) at 41.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A refreshing representation of diverse, talented New York teens
  • A fun glimpse at The Rocky Horror Picture Show in live action
  • Michael Seresin’s cinematography

  • Excellent use of authentic New York locales
  • Louis Falco’s choreography
  • Michael Gore’s vibrant score
  • Seamless editing by Gerry Hambling

Must See?
Yes, as a (mostly) strong and unusual high school musical.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

All of Me (1984)

All of Me (1984)

“Inside your new body will be the same old sourpuss.”

Synopsis:
An overworked lawyer (Steve Martin) experiencing a midlife crisis is accidentally injected with the soul of a recently deceased millionaire (Lily Tomlin), whose original intent was to occupy the body of her stablehand’s sexy daughter (Victoria Tennant).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Reiner Films
  • Comedy
  • Heiresses
  • Lily Tomlin Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Steve Martin Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that Steve Martin “was denied an Oscar nomination” for his “terrific… physical comedy” work in this otherwise painfully unfunny flick about a “soul-transmigration experiment” that becomes all “fouled up” as Martin and Tomlin “vie for control of his body”. Peary points out that “Carl Reiner’s direction is slipshod and obvious”, and that “the script by Phil Alden Robinson… is so stupid” we’re asked to believe in a completely ludicrous ending. He does concede that the film “is saved at times by the originality of Martin and Richard Libertini, who plays a silly swami”:

— indeed, we can’t help liking Martin and relating to his understandable identity crisis; but Tomlin is (as scripted) a completely self-absorbed, whiny pill, and thus entirely unpleasant even when “limited to just being a head-and-shoulders reflection in mirrors”.

I’ve never been a huge fan of life-after-death flicks (see, for instance my review of Topper and its two sequels), and this one does nothing to convince me it’s a particularly fertile sub-genre.

Note: A much more successful collaboration between Martin and Reiner is Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid — a truly enjoyable must-see treat for all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Selma Diamond as Martin’s secretary
  • A few mildly clever lines, interactions, and physical gags (by Martin)

Must See?
No; definitely feel free to skip this one unless you think it’s your cup of tea — which many do (see reviews below).

Links:

More the Merrier, The (1943)

More the Merrier, The (1943)

“These days, Miss Milligan, everybody’s business is everyone’s business.”

Synopsis:
A retired millionaire (Charles Coburn) visiting Washington D.C. during a severe wartime housing shortage convinces a young woman (Jean Arthur) to share her apartment with him — then offers to rent half of his section to a G.I. (Joel McCrea) in hopes of setting up the young couple and distracting Arthur away from her impossibly dull fiance (Richard Gaines).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Charles Coburn Films
  • George Stevens Films
  • Jean Arthur Films
  • Joel McCrea Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “sparkling George Stevens comedy” possesses “deft performances by the leads and brilliant dialogue by Robert Russell, Frank Ross, Richard Flourney, and [uncredited] Garson Kanin”. He points out that while “the ending fizzles a bit”, “along the way there are many great scenes” — including the classic sketch in which “Coburn and Arthur try to adhere to her impossibly rigid morning schedule”, but find that they “constantly bump into each other as their schedule goes awry”. Coburn won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his fun performance — though equally deserving is McCrea, “a truly underrated comic actor”, as evidenced specifically in “the scene in which [he and Coburn] lie on the roof reading the Sunday comics out loud”. Meanwhile, Arthur and McCrea do indeed “make an appealing romantic team”: the “scene in which they lie on single beds that are separated only by a thin wall” is particularly sensual and provocative, evoking “the classic ‘Walls of Jericho’ bit in It Happened One Night.”

In his Alternate Oscars book, where he names Arthur Best Actress of the Year for her role as Constance Milligan, Peary elaborates on her impressive acting chops and delightful screen presence. He writes that she’s “thoroughly charming as a kind, unaggressive — she fights for herself, but doesn’t have the heart for it — underdog who is trapped in a dull life until two men magically appear”. He writes that “funny as she is” — she shows her skills as an exceptionally adroit slapstick comedienne — “what is most memorable about [her] characterization is how sexual it is.” Indeed, she shifts from a classically repressed “spinster” (engaged in name only) to a remarkably sensual creature, “quite physical [with McCrea] as they stroll and spin down the street” after a night out. She’s really a pleasure to behold, and we take delight in her complete transformation.

Finally, it’s impossible to discuss The More the Merrier without referencing its very specific historical context: during World War II, the housing shortage was so severe that many people felt it was their patriotic duty to take in boarders (an issue only very briefly mentioned here in Wikipedia’s article about life on the American homefront during WWII). Meanwhile, there were apparently eight women for every available man (!), and fuel shortages necessitated waiting for a “full load” before taxis could take off. Despite the obvious challenges of the situation, there’s nonetheless vicarious enjoyment to be had in glimpsing this unique era in American history, one most film fanatics have likely never experienced. To that end, while clearly presenting circumstances from a satirically over-the-top and humorously sanitized perspective, the film remains an interesting sociological time-capsule as well as a fun comedy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Jean Arthur as Constance Milligan
  • Charles Coburn, who deservedly won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Benjamin Dingle
  • Joel McCrea as Joe Carter
  • Fine direction by Stevens
  • Plenty of authentically sizzling romance between McCrea and Arthur

  • Fun “vintage footage” of wartime housing shortages

Must See?
Yes, for the fine lead performances. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Conversation, The (1974)

Conversation, The (1974)

“If there’s one surefire rule that I have learned in this business it’s that I don’t know anything about human nature.”

Synopsis:
An increasingly paranoid surveillance expert (Gene Hackman) becomes convinced that his most recent assignment — trailing the young wife (Cindy Williams) of a business executive (Robert Duvall) as she meets her lover (Fredric Forrest) — will result in murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Allen Garfield Films
  • Francis Ford Coppola Films
  • Fredric Forrest Films
  • Gene Hackman Films
  • Guilt
  • Harrison Ford Films
  • Robert Duvall Films
  • Spies
  • Teri Garr Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary reveals his true feelings about this quietly tense thriller (written and directed by Francis Ford Coppolla) in his Alternate Oscars, where he names Hackman Best Actor of the Year for his role as Harry Caul but asserts that “the picture is extremely flawed”. He argues that “Coppola’s worst mistake is to delve into pretentious fantasy (Harry’s nightmares) and arty images when realism is the picture’s strongest suit”; however, he concedes that “as a character study it works quite well, because Gene Hackman is brilliant at portraying a unique movie protagonist: … a dull man, a paranoid man, a secretive man, an isolated man, [and] a very, very guilty and depressed man”. While I agree with Peary’s assertion about Hackman’s excellent, nuanced performance, I disagree with his overall assessment of the film: by intentionally making it unclear whether Harry’s paranoid suspicions are grounded in reality or his own mind, the movie becomes an increasingly haunting meditation on how guilt effects a “moral (Catholic) man whose work is sleazy and immoral”; the “arty images” and fantasy elements work extremely well in the context of what’s slowly unfolding.

While Peary claims that “Coppola’s pacing is a bit too methodical”, I find the entire narrative gripping from beginning to end — including the intriguing mid-script scenes in which Hackman attends a surveillance expo, reconnects with a sleazy rival (Allen Garfield), and is bedded by one of Garfield’s acquaintances, a frantically seductive middle-aged call girl (Elizabeth MacRae). Peary complains that this seduction turns Harry into a “foolish amateur”, given that his tapes disappear while he’s sleeping with her, but he concedes that “in Coppola’s defense, he may have been showing Harry’s slip-ups as being symptomatic of his deteriorating mental condition” — an assertion I fully support. To that end, The Conversation bears close thematic resemblance to several other paranoia-themed films of the (Watergate) era — including Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Tenant (1976), as well as Allan J. Pakula’s The Parallax View (1974). The Conversation remains a powerful, masterfully crafted tale — one well worth repeated viewings.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Gene Hackman as Harry Caul
  • Fine cinematography
  • Excellent use of strategically designed sets

  • Powerful editing (of both visuals and sound)
  • Coppola’s provocative script
  • David Shire’s haunting score

Must See?
Yes. This classic merits multiple viewings.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

Barbarella (1968)

Barbarella (1968)

“An angel does not make love; an angel is love.”

Synopsis:
In the distant future, a sexually liberated female astronaut (Jane Fonda) is sent by the President of Earth (Claude Dauphin) to find a nefarious scientist (Milo O’Shea) who has invented the ultimate weapon — the Positronic Ray.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Jane Fonda Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Revolutionaries
  • Roger Vadim Films
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Science Fiction
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that despite the dizzying amount of activity occurring throughout this cult futuristic film — based on an adult comic strip by Jean-Claude Forest — it’s nonetheless “quite dull”. He writes that “the whole production… lacks imagination” and that “Barbarella herself is a weak heroine”, given that “her actions have little effect on what transpires at the end”. He notes that the “film’s cult has to do with [both] the campy humor” — which he finds “unintentionally amusing” — as well as the “uninhibited, scandalously garbed Fonda”, who “gives her body to all men who assist her”. He complains that director Roger Vadim (married to Fonda at the time) “subjects his heroine to ghastly tortures while she is either nude or having her clothes ripped off”, and posits that “trying to stimulate men by showing pretty women being physically abused is irresponsible”.

In Cult Movies 2 (where he analyzes the film in more detail), Peary notes that Fonda herself has claimed Barbarella isn’t one of her “many mistakes” (“I like it — it’s fun”, she’s insisted, without elaboration). Actually, the erstwhile brouhaha over Barbarella‘s role in Fonda’s otherwise (mostly) esteemed acting career feels entirely irrelevant these days, given that she’s no longer so actively in the limelight, and her recent attempts at an acting comeback have been less-than-memorable. Ultimately, I agree with Peary that the film — while undeniably visually provocative — is essentially an “innocuous” and dull piece of ’60s soft-core fantasy erotica. For instance, where’s the humor in exchanges like the following (taken from IMDb’s Quotes page)?:

Dildano: [radioing instructions to the rebel army] And our password will be… Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.
Barbarella: You mean the secret password is Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch?
Dildano: Exactly.

I’ve seen Barbarella twice, and read about it plenty — but the point of its needlessly convoluted storyline continues to elude me, and I can only understand its cult appeal on an intellectual level.

Note: The best-known piece of trivia associated with Barbarella is the fact that the ’80s English rock band Duran Duran named itself after the central villain, “Durand-Durand” (O’Shea).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Imaginative set designs and costumes


Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

And Then There Were None (1945)

And Then There Were None (1945)

”Let’s face it – we’re in a trap.”

Synopsis:
A group of strangers invited to an isolated island learn that they all have one thing in common: they caused someone’s death in the past and were never punished. Soon they’re being killed off one by one, and must discover the identity of the murderer in their midst before it’s too late.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barry Fitzgerald Films
  • Ensemble Cast
  • Judith Anderson Films
  • June Duprez Films
  • Louis Hayward Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Old Dark House
  • Rene Clair Films
  • Richard Haydn Films
  • Walter Huston Films

Review:
As Peary notes, this “highly entertaining adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians (called Ten Little Niggers in England, as was the film)” features “an unbeatable cast” (most notably Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston, Judith Anderson, and Louis Hayward), and benefits from both a “witty script by Dudley Nichols and light-touch direction by Rene Clair, who effectively keeps the multi-murder story from becoming bleak” (in part by making “good use of lively music”). He points out that while “it’s fun trying (and most likely failing) to figure out the murderer’s identity… this mystery is just as interesting the second time around when you can watch the killer closely and see how cleverly we are being manipulated by Christie and the filmmakers”.

I’m in complete agreement with Peary’s assessment of this enjoyable, surprisingly light-hearted “Old Dark House” mystery — based on the best-selling mystery novel of all time (though its ending was changed to that of Christie’s stage play of the same name). The characters are all smartly cast and play nicely against one another; this is truly a seamless ensemble piece, with no one performance standing out above the other (though the interactions between Walter Huston as Dr. Armstrong and Barry Fitzgerald as Judge Quinncannon are especially fun). Clair’s creative direction — beginning with the cleverly shot silent opening sequence on the boat, and extending through the exposure of each murder — is seamlessly fluid, keeping us consistently visually engaged, and on the edge of our seats in nervous anticipation.

Note: Film fanatics will likely recognize that this movie serves as a forerunner — both thematically and tonally — for the cult satire Murder By Death (1976); they would make a fun double-bill.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective direction by Clair

  • Fine ensemble performances
  • Atmospheric cinematography by Lucien Andriot
  • Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco’s levity-inspiring score

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable example of the “Old Dark House” genre.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Shot in the Dark, A (1964)

Shot in the Dark, A (1964)

“I suspect everyone!”

Synopsis:
A bumbling detective (Peter Sellers) is assigned to investigate a series of murders in which a beautiful maid (Elke Sommer) is the prime suspect.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blake Edwards Films
  • Comedy
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • George Sanders Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Peter Sellers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly an enormous fan of this sequel to Blake Edwards’ The Pink Panther (1963), with Peter Sellers returning as the inimitably “prideful yet stupid, bumbling, and accident-prone Inspector Clouseau”. He argues that it’s a “hilarious… farce”, and that while “the storyline” (based on a play) “is fairly conventional”, “Sellers makes it unique”. He writes that “like Don Adams’s Maxwell Smart, [Clouseau] never realizes that he’s anything but a lethal, supercool detective, although everyone else sees that he’s a fool”. I’ll agree with Peary that Sellers is masterful here; one watches his portrayal with admiration and an occasional chuckle. But the film itself — while certainly watchable — simply hasn’t held up all that well. Comedies are notoriously challenging to call out as either successful or not, given how uniquely each viewer will respond to (potentially) humorous material; for my money, the Pink Panther films are semi-decent vehicles for Clouseau’s pratfalls, but little else.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • The clever opening credits
  • Henry Mancini’s score

Must See?
Yes, simply to see the best of the popular “Pink Panther” series. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars, though I don’t believe it deserves this status.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Pink Panther, The (1963)

Pink Panther, The (1963)

“I’m sure no one ever had a husband like you.”

Synopsis:
A British playboy (David Niven) and his nephew (Robert Wagner) separately attempt to steal a valuable jewel from a princess (Claudia Cardinale) while bumbling police inspector Jacques Clouseau (Peter Sellers) — whose wife (Capucine) is having an affair with Niven — tries to determine the identity of a notorious jewel thief known as “The Phantom” (Niven).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blake Edwards Films
  • Capucine Films
  • Claudia Cardinale Films
  • Comedies
  • David Niven Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Peter Sellers Films
  • Robert Wagner Films
  • Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “overrated Blake Edwards comedy at least gave Peter Sellers his first chance to play bumbling Inspector Closeau”, and that “Sellers completely steals the film from the other stars, including topbilled David Niven”. He points out that beautiful Capucine (whose personal life was quite tragic) is “surprisingly good doing physical comedy with Sellers”; indeed, the “abundance of sight gags” — primarily between these two characters — are what stand out most in one’s memory. Unfortunately, the “film drags badly when Clouseau isn’t on the screen”, with the forgettable storyline seemingly designed as an excuse merely for audience members to drool at the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Of note are Henry Mancini’s beloved score, and DePatie-Freleng‘s animated opening credits — but this one really can be skipped.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau and Capucine as his deceptive wife
  • The clever animated opening credits
  • Henry Mancini’s score

Must See?
No; stick with A Shot in the Dark (1964) if you’d like to see a reasonably worthy entry in the series.

Links:

Dark Victory (1939)

Dark Victory (1939)

“Confidentially, darling, this is more than a hang-over.”

Synopsis:
A headstrong young heiress (Bette Davis) with an inoperable brain tumor falls in love with her surgeon (George Brent), believing he’s cured her — but how will she react when she finds out that both Brent and her best friend (Geraldine Fitzgerald) are lying to her?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bette Davis Films
  • Death and Dying
  • Edmund Goulding Films
  • George Brent Films
  • Geraldine Fitzgerald Films
  • Heiresses
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Illness
  • Romance
  • Ronald Reagan Films
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “famous Warner Bros. weeper features [a] powerhouse performance from a truly lovely, appealing Bette Davis”, who — “in her favorite role” — plays “a kind, strong-minded heiress who has frittered her life away partying, riding horses, [and] shopping”:

… but must confront her own mortality when she begins “suffer[ing] vision problems” and learns that her “prognosis is negative”.

I wouldn’t necessarily choose the words “kind” or “appealing” when describing Davis’s “Judy Traherne”, given that she initially comes across as sullen, brash, and spoiled — “When I tell you to do something, do it!” she barks at her horse trainer, played by a notoriously miscast Humphrey Bogart:

— but she does indeed later “demonstrate a tremendous reserve of strength that few women in film have shown and it’s quite moving”. As with so many “Bette Davis films”, Davis is truly the highlight of the show here: Brent (her real-life lover) is more or less “stiff and wimpy as usual” as her surgeon/love interest:

… and while Peary refers to Fitzgerald as “superb”, I find her doting character oddly opaque.

With that said, the “direction by Edmond Goulding is both strong and sensitive”, and Davis’s character arc is compelling. As Peary notes, despite the “morbid” subject matter and the “tears caused by the drawn-out finale, the triumph of this woman at the point of death actually has a cheering effect”. Watch for Ronald Reagan in a supporting role as Davis’s consistently inebriated party companion.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bette Davis as Judith Traherne (nominated by Peary in Alternate Oscars as one of the Best Actresses of the Year)

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic, and for Davis’s performance.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links: