Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

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

Footlight Parade (1933)

Footlight Parade (1933)

“Aw, talking pictures — it’s just a fad.”

Synopsis:
The producer (James Cagney) of live musical prologues for movies struggles to come up with new concepts while dealing with his mercenary ex-wife (Renee Whitney), an in-house spy who is leaking his ideas to a rival company, and shady colleagues (Guy Kibbee and Hugh Herbert) swindling him out of his profits; meanwhile, his loyal secretary (Joan Blondell) — who harbors a secret crush on him — is distressed to see him falling for a two-faced gold-digger (Claire Dodd).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Busby Berkeley Films
  • Depression Era
  • Jimmy Cagney Films
  • Joan Blondell Films
  • Let’s Put On a Show
  • Musicals
  • Rivalry
  • Ruby Keeler Films
  • Spies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Cagney and Blondell make a good match” in this “Depression Era musical” — as do “Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler”, playing secondary romantic roles as (respectively) the protegee of a wealthy patron (Ruth Donnelly) and a mousy secretary who takes off her glasses and instantly becomes a performer.

Peary argues that while the movie is “great fun”, it “would be [a] touch better if [the] screenwriters had simply put in a few lines about how the success of the… numbers is as important to the welfare of the dancers and singers (who need jobs!) as it is to Cagney’s peace of mind” — a point which doesn’t bother me personally, given that Warner Brothers’ other two musicals released the same year (42nd Street and Gold Diggers of 1933) both did an admirable job covering that sociological base. Peary goes on to write that “with the plot out of the way, Busby Berkeley stages three of his greatest, most innovative, and sexiest musical numbers, back to back: ‘Honeymoon Hotel’, ‘By a Waterfall’ (with the chorines, shot from above, creating amazing patterns in the water), and ‘Shanghai Lil’.” Indeed, it’s Berkeley’s concluding masterpieces that constitute the film’s primary calling card — but the storyline itself remains a fun (if occasionally convoluted) backstage drama about an interesting historical topic (trailers have long since replaced live prologues), and it features fine performances by all involved.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • James Cagney as Chester Kent
  • Joan Blondell as Nan Prescott
  • Several exceptional Busby Berkeley-directed musical numbers



Must See?
Yes, as a classic Depression Era musical.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

42nd Street (1933)

42nd Street (1933)

“Sawyer, you’re going out a youngster — but you’ve got to come back a star!”

Synopsis:
An aspiring chorine (Ruby Keeler) in Depression-era New York accidentally meets a performer (Dick Powell) who helps her break into a new show being staged by a stressed-out director (Warner Baxter) hoping to retire after one last hit; meanwhile, the show’s star (Bebe Daniels) tries to hide her long-time lover (George Brent) from her sugar-daddy (Guy Kibbee), who’s bankrolling the production.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aspiring Stars
  • Busby Berkeley Films
  • Depression Era
  • Dick Powell Films
  • Ginger Rogers Films
  • George Brent Films
  • Let’s Put On a Show
  • Musicals
  • Ruby Keeler Films
  • Warner Baxter Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately refers to this cult favorite as “the best of Warner Bros. thirties musicals, with wonderfully wild and innovative choreography by Busby Berkeley; strong, snappy direction by Lloyd Bacon; an enjoyable, well-written putting-on-a-show plot in the Broadway Melody tradition; a realistic glimpse of life in the musical theater; some social consciousness that other studios’ musicals lacked during the Depression; and a particularly fine cast”. He compares 42nd Street to Warner Brothers’ other two major musicals from the same year — Gold Diggers of 1933 and Footlight Parade — and argues that “this film is strongest because we root for the lead singers and dancers, the crew, and particularly the chorines (who have to put up with selfish slavedriver Marsh), whom we see in numerous montages working endlessly, desperately driving themselves past tears and exhaustion, their faces revealing that the show’s success means their survival”. He notes that while the “film has elements of camp”, it also “has unmatched vitality, a strong sense of unity among its characters, and a great deal of honesty”.

Peary notes that the “picture ends with a bang”, with a production number (“42nd Street”) that — in typical Berkeley fashion — is clearly “too elaborate ever to be performed on a real stage, with sections filmed from above, women used as props to form geometric patterns, closeups, dollies, pans, and an ending in which Berkeley thrusts his camera forward between the spread legs of numerous chorines who stand on a revolving stage”. Before this extravaganza, however, we’re treated to several other enjoyable numbers (check out the surreal final moment of “You’re Getting to Be a Habit With Me”, performed by Bebe Daniels), as well as an enjoyably sassy Pre-Code script. (My favorite throwaway one-liner is Ginger Rogers’ snappy retort to a snarky competitor in line at a casting call: “It must have been tough on your mother, not having any children.”)

Regarding the film’s reputation as campy, the primary element that causes one to guffaw these days is the notion that Keeler has any kind of viable or visible leading-lady potential; when Rogers gives away her own chance at fame, humbly allowing Keeler to take her place while citing Keeler’s superior dancing capacity, one literally gasps at the ludicrousness of her statement. Speaking of Keeler’s overall talents, this topic has been debated for years (a debate which continues on IMDb’s message boards). Peary — who writes bluntly in his Cult Movies essay that Keeler “taps like an elephant” — is not alone in his derision, but others come to her defense by noting that her unique tap style (known as “buck dancing”) was intentional, and deserving of the praise it received by critics at the time. My own two cents is that Keeler (or at least her character here) possesses nothing close to the requisite star-power needed to replace Daniels and wow the film’s fictional audiences — but she does adequately represent the fantastical notion that “any woman” might have a chance at fame, if only the stars align in just the right way; such was the power of escapist Depression-era cinema, of which this is likely the epitome.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • James Seymour and Rian James’ sassy Pre-Code script, full of unexpected zingers and scenarios:

    Male Dancer (to Una Merkal, sitting on his lap): Where ya sittin’ — where ya sittin’?!
    Merkel: On a flagpole, dearie — on a flagpole.

    Guy Kibbee (to Bebe Daniels): I’d like to do something for you — if you’d do something for me.

    George E. Stone (having just run into Ginger Rogers): Not ‘Anytime Annie’? Say, who could forget her? She only said ‘no’ once, and then she didn’t hear the question!

  • Many fun musical numbers — i.e., “You’re Getting to Be a Habit With Me”, “Shuffle Off to Buffalo”, and “Young and Healthy”
  • The especially impressive title finale number (“42nd Street”)
  • Busby Berkeley’s inimitable choreographic style

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine cult classic. Selected by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant

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

Links:

Dames (1934)

Dames (1934)

“I’m free, white, and 21. I love to dance, and I’m going to dance!”

Synopsis:
A priggish multi-millionaire (Hugh Herbert) promises $10 million to his relative (Guy Kibbee) if Kibbee and his wife (Zasu Pitts) prove that they live morally upright lives; but the couple’s chance at wealth is compromised by both their performance-loving daughter (Ruby Keeler) — who is secretly dating a songwriter (Dick Powell) — and a blackmailing gold-digger (Joan Blondell) who takes advantage of innocent Kibbee.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blackmail
  • Busby Berkeley Films
  • Dick Powell Films
  • Inheritance
  • Joan Blondell Films
  • Millionaires
  • Morality Police
  • Musicals
  • Ruby Keeler Films
  • Zasu Pitts Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately writes that “Busby Berkeley production numbers give needed flash to [this] lackluster comedy and make it a suitable second feature to the Gold Diggers films, Footlight Parade, or 42nd Street.” Indeed, it’s the three finale numbers — most notably the surreally choreographed “I Only Have Eyes For You”, in which Ruby Keeler’s image is replicated ad infinitum — that will stick in one’s memory after the film is over; you’ll likely quickly forget most of the ho-hum plot, featuring an unconvincing (miscast?) Hugh Herbert as an “eccentric millionaire”, and Joan Blondell (“seven months pregnant at the time”) as a surprisingly unlikable blackmailer whose manipulative treatment of “befuddled” Kibbee doesn’t seem fair or justified.

Peary — clearly not an enormous Ruby Keeler fan — writes that she “does about 20 clunky tap steps to win a part in the show and does little else memorable except wear shorts” (!); and he further notes that Powell, while “obnoxiously brash”, “does a good job crooning”. Ultimately, this one is only must-see viewing for Berkeley completists — but the culminating numbers (including the “extravaganza [title] finale… featuring lots of beautiful chorus girls swooping into dramatic close-ups and… forming bizarre geometric patterns”) are most definitely worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Berkeley’s marvelous finale songs: “The Girl At the Ironing Board”, “I Only Have Eyes for You”, and “Dames”


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

Links:

Bus Stop / Wrong Kind of Girl, The (1956)

Bus Stop / Wrong Kind of Girl, The (1956)

“I know she’s my angel — and that’s good enough for me!”

Synopsis:
While on his way to a rodeo competition with his buddy (Arthur O’Connell), a romantically inexperienced young cowboy (Don Murray) meets the woman of his dreams (Marilyn Monroe) at a saloon, and attempts to convince her to marry him by kidnapping her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Betty Field Films
  • Cowboys
  • Don Murray Films
  • Hans Conried Films
  • Hope Lange Films
  • Joshua Logan Films
  • Kidnapping
  • Marilyn Monroe Films
  • Obsessive Love
  • Play Adaptations
  • Rodeo
  • Romance
  • Singers

Response to Peary’s Review:
In a decidedly dubious endorsement, Peary writes that “if you like William Inge’s play, you’ll be more than satisfied with this version, directed by Joshua Logan [and] scripted by George Axelrod”. Personally, I’ve never been a fan of Inge’s tale about an “infantile” cowboy who “pays no attention to [Monroe] when she attempts to say they are unsuitable for each other”, but who eventually “learns that men should respect women”, at which point “Monroe falls for the suddenly tender young man”. I agree with Peary that it’s “hard to watch Murray’s overly aggressive, obnoxious cowboy”:

and concede that “Monroe is sexy and beautiful and gives one of her best performances” — a frustrating dilemma for film fanatics, who will want to check this one out simply to see Monroe in “the film that won her the first critical praise for her thespian skills”, but will likely find themselves irritated by the vehicle itself. With that said, while Logan should have dialed Murray’s performance w-a-a-a-y back:

he does a nice job opening up the stagey scenario (originally taking place exclusively in a diner), and incorporating live rodeo footage:

— and he elicits fine performances from the rest of his cast (most notably Monroe, but also Eileen Heckart as Monroe’s coworker, Betty Field as the randy owner of the diner, Robert Bray as Carl the bus driver, and O’Connell as Murray’s father-figure friend).


Note: This would make a sociologically interesting double-bill with the similarly-themed Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954) — another ’50s film about male courting aggression taken to extremes.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Marilyn Monroe as Cherie (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Eileen Heckart as Vera

Must See?
No, though of course it’s worth a look for Monroe’s performance.

Links:

Suspect, The (1944)

Suspect, The (1944)

“Just to be suspected leaves a mark.”

Synopsis:
A kind shopkeeper (Charles Laughton) with an unbearably shrewish wife (Rosalind Ivan) befriends and romances a pretty young woman (Ella Raines). When his wife threatens to expose his affair with Raines, Laughton kills Ivan, making it look like an accident — but a suspicious investigator (Stanley Ridges) is convinced Laughton is guilty, and won’t leave him alone.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blackmail
  • Charles Laughton Films
  • Ella Raines Films
  • Henpecked Husbands
  • Henry Daniell Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Homicidal Spouses
  • Robert Siodmak Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Charles Laughton gave one of his best but least-known performances” in this “outstanding melodrama” (set in 1902 London) about a “fat and middle-aged” but “kindly” tobacconist who is “unable to take [his] shrewish, shrieking wife Rosalind Ivan any longer”, so “kills her”. It features “expert, atmospheric direction by [Robert] Siodmak”, who pulls us ineluctably into this tale of a man who “makes his own decisions rather than being controlled by fate”, and is “caught because of a choice he makes” but “does not suffer guilt”. Indeed, we’re astonished to find ourselves actually rooting for Laughton, and perhaps even agreeing that he’s done the right thing — such is the seductive power of Siodmak’s direction, Laughton’s performance, and the taut screenplay (by Bertram Millhauser and Arthur T. Horman). As Peary writes, “Laughton’s a sweet soul and you have to resent the smug Ridges for wanting to arrest him, especially since Ridges takes advantage of Laughton’s decency”; with that said, the film ends on the perfect note for such a morally ambiguous scenario.

While Laughton’s performance stands above the rest, Ivan is effective and convincing as the wife any man would be desperate to get away from; it’s interesting to contrast her performance with that of Flora Robson in an earlier iteration of the same general story, We Are Not Alone (the latter based on a novel by James Hilton, who was apparently inspired by the real-life case of murderous Dr. Crippen). In Hilton’s version, not only is the husband (played by Paul Muni) completely innocent, but his wife is a much more complex villainess; here, however, there are no two ways around it: Ivan’s a true henpecking b*tch. Raines, meanwhile, is appropriately sweet as Laughton’s romantic interest — and it’s at least partly to her credit that we are easily able to believe someone so young and beautiful would genuinely fall for an older, less-than-physically-attractive man like Laughton. Finally, Henry Daniell is perfectly cast as the wife-beating “rotter” of a neighbor who propels Laughton towards his ultimate fate; in an interesting bit of trivia, he played a small role in We Are Not Alone as well (as the lawyer working to convict Muni).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Laughton as Philip
  • Rosalind Ivan as Cora
  • Ella Raines as Mary
  • Henry Daniell as Mr. Simmons
  • Fine attention to period detail
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Strong direction by Siodmak

Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyable unsung classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Wuthering Heights (1939)

Wuthering Heights (1939)

“Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest so long as I live on!”

Synopsis:
When a traveler (Miles Mander) arrives at the estate of Wuthering Heights, a housekeeper (Flora Robson) recounts the tale of how its original owner (Leo G. Carroll) brought home a gypsy foundling named Heathcliff (Rex Downing), who was resented and belittled by Carroll’s son Hindley (Douglas Scott) but befriended by his daughter Cathy (Sarita Wooton). As they grew up, Heathcliff (Laurence Olivier) and Cathy (Merle Oberon) fell in love, though Cathy decided to marry her more “respectable” neighbor (David Niven) — but their love for one another would not die, even as Heathcliff eventually married Niven’s sister (Geraldine Fitzgerald) in revenge for the loss of Cathy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • David Niven Films
  • Donald Crisp Films
  • Flashback Films
  • Flora Robson Films
  • Geraldine Fitzgerald Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Laurence Olivier Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Merle Oberon Films
  • Star-Crossed Lovers
  • William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Emily Bronte’s harsh, haunting love story became one of the screen’s classic romances, thanks to director William Wyler, producer Sam Goldwyn, cinematographer Gregg Toland, and the inspired casting of Merle Oberon as Cathy and Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff”. He writes that “Goldwyn was chiefly responsible for the elegance of the film (with its lush music, vast two-room sets that are lit by candles and fireplaces, lovely costuming, romantic dialogue, handsome actors, and beautiful actresses) and reconstructing the Yorkshire moors in the Conejo Hills in California”. (According to TCM’s article “Behind the Camera”, “About 500 acres of the hills were stripped of their natural vegetation, and 15,000 pieces of tumbleweed were brought in and topped with purple-painted sawdust to resemble heather.”) Peary notes that working together, “Wyler and Toland (who used deep focus and close-ups that are diffused with soft candle-lighting effects) turn the [Wuthering Heights] manor into a haunted house: bleak, brooding, oppressive, dark with anger and hatred”; meanwhile, “the tumultuous atmosphere — with electrical storms, heavy rains, and driving snowstorms — perfectly defines ‘wuthering'”.

However, Peary argues that “too often the atmosphere conveys characters’ emotions that otherwise wouldn’t be evident from the acting alone”, and that “unlike in the book, the characters don’t come across as being forces of nature more than human beings”. He spends the rest of his review comparing the book (mostly unfavorably) with the film — and in his Cult Movies 2 essay on the film, he admits bluntly: “I like Wuthering Heights very much. Yet I am disturbed by how much [screenwriters Ben] Hecht and [Charles] MacArthur changed the novel”. He writes that while in the novel, “Heathcliff’s fight is with all who are civilized”, in the film his “anger is directed toward Cathy for marrying rich Edgar Linton (David Niven),” and “all that he intentionally does wrong — including marrying Edgar’s naive sister, Isabella (Geraldine Fitzgerald) — is his way of getting revenge.” Peary complains that Hecht and MacArthur’s “biggest crime is to turn Cathy into the film’s villain”, and writes that while the “film has a polished veneer”, the “issues are far more complex in the novel, as are the characters — and they are far more interesting”.

The film does — for better or for worse — reduce the novel’s complex narrative into a “simple” story of star-crossed lovers and revenge. However, as Peary writes, “there’s no denying that Oberon and Olivier are a wonderful couple, and their scene in the make-believe castle on Peniston Crag” — “original to Hecht and MacArthur”, who “wanted to humanize the characters” — is “one of the most romantic [and iconic] bits in cinema history”. He notes that “Oberon is surprisingly good” (this was almost certainly her best, most impassioned performance), and that Olivier’s “delivery has such strength that we tend to overlook those lines which make no sense”; he’s fully invested in his role. Ultimately, Olivier and Oberon make such a handsome, romantically tragic couple — representative of all would-be lovers kept apart either through fate or social constrictions — that we can’t help becoming involved in their plight, despite knowing from the beginning how things will turn out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff
  • Merle Oberon as Cathy
  • Flora Robson as Ellen
  • Gregg Toland’s deep-focus cinematography
  • Impressive sets
  • Wyler’s confident direction

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Gaslight (1944)

Gaslight (1944)

“Jewels are wonderful things; they have a life of their own.”

Synopsis:
A manipulative jewel-fiend (Charles Boyer) weds the niece (Ingrid Bergman) of a woman he murdered years ago, intending to slowly drive her mad in order to safely search her house for her aunt’s hidden jewels — but a curious detective (Joseph Cotten) living nearby soon begins to suspect Boyer may have something to do with the aunt’s unsolved murder case, and investigates the situation.

Genres:

  • Angela Lansbury Films
  • Charles Boyer Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Domestic Abuse
  • Gaslighting
  • George Cukor Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Ingrid Bergman Films
  • Joseph Cotten Films
  • Play Adaptation

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “venerable psychological melodrama” — based on a popular 1938 play by Patrick Hamilton, originally starring Vincent Price — is a “terrifying study of how a husband can dominate and abuse his wife through manipulative words and actions as easily as with fists”. He writes that while “Bergman won Best Actress Award for her convincing portrayal of a victimized woman”, it’s “Boyer’s slimy cad who makes an unforgettable impression” — indeed, in his Alternate Oscars, Peary names Boyer Best Actor of the Year, and argues that he is “marvelous as this sick fiend who drives Paula [Bergman] to the edge with his accusing eyes and manner, but quickly and nervously pulls back each time he goes so far that she might see through him”.

In his more in-depth analysis of Boyer’s performance, Peary writes that this “villain… is unique in the cinema and one of the most dastardly men ever portrayed… yet… one monster that no one will dispute exists in the real world”; he “never lets up on [Paula], always acting smug and patronizing, using her name as if it were an icepick: ‘You are inclined to lose things, Paula…’; … ‘Are you becoming suspicious as well as absentminded, Paula?'”

In addition to strong lead performances by Bergman and Boyer, the film remains a satisfying thriller thanks to “unusually powerful direction by George Cukor”, as well as highly atmospheric cinematography by Joseph Ruttenberg and an “intricate scenic design”. With that said, the level of tension in the storyline suffers a bit from our knowledge at the outset that Boyer’s character is a murderous cad — and that Cotten (giving an undistinguished performance) will eventually come to Bergman’s assistance; the bulk of the film’s suspense lies in wondering how and when Bergman will finally come to realize she’s being duped. But while Peary argues (in Alternate Oscars) that throughout most of her performance she merely acts “docile and dazed” — and “only at the end… does [her] character switch from being infuriatingly ignorant to interesting” — I disagree: luminous Bergman is as compelling, convincing, and nuanced here as always.

Watch for a young (17-year-old!) Angela Lansbury in her debut role as a tarty maid, and Dame May Whitty (providing mild relief from the film’s otherwise relentlessly gloomy air of oppressiveness) as a snoopy neighbor.

Note: Peary points out that “an earlier [cinematic] version [of the play] was made in England in 1939-40, but MGM kept it out of circulation to benefit its own film”; this original version — co-starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard — is a worthy film in its own right, and recommended as an interesting comparative study. The two films are available as a double-feature on the 2004 DVD release.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ingrid Bergman as Paula
  • Charles Boyer as Gregory (named Best Actor of the Year by Peary in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Joseph Ruttenberg’s atmospheric cinematography
  • Paul Huldschinsky’s Oscar-winning sets
  • Strong direction by Cukor

Must See?
Yes, for the lead performances, and as a fine thriller. Also be sure to check out the original 1940 British version.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

Shop Around the Corner, The (1940)

Shop Around the Corner, The (1940)

“Just a lovely average girl; that’s all I want.”

Synopsis:
The top clerk (James Stewart) in a small gift store quibbles with his new colleague (Margaret Sullavan), not realizing she’s his secret romantic pen pal; meanwhile, their boss (Frank Morgan) becomes increasingly distracted and moody as he learns his wife is carrying on an affair with one of his employees.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ernst Lubitsch Films
  • Frank Morgan Films
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • Margaret Sullavan Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Play Adaptations
  • Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “enchanting Ernst Lubitsch comedy” (like most of Lubitsch’s farces) “has to do with mistaken identity, deception, and characters masking their true selves”. He points out that “Stewart and Sullavan (a marvelous team!) conceal their idealistic, romantic visions of the world, life, and love”, “Morgan conceals the depth of of his humanity behind a gruff exterior”, and other characters eventually turn out to be more (or less) than they seem. He notes that despite the presence of a “gossipy, word-twisting, back-stabbing sneak” in the store (I won’t say more at risk of giving away mid-narrative spoilers), this remains “Lubitsch’s gentlest, most chaste … comedy, one in which he was more interested in revealing the humanity of [most of] his characters … than in sexual innuendo”. Meanwhile, as Peary writes, “we fall in love with the people at [the store], as individuals and as a family” — indeed, despite the obvious stagebound origins of the story (it’s based on a play by Hungarian Miklos Laszlo), we can’t help solidly believing in these characters and their unique milieu.

The subplot involving Morgan’s discovery of his wife’s infidelity plays an important role in the overall storyline (and it’s wonderful to see Morgan given such a meaty, nuanced part) — but at the heart of the film lies the love-hate relationship that develops between Stewart and Sullavan. We know from the beginning that they are each others’ secret paramours, and Stewart finds out roughly half-way through the film — so the crux of the narrative tension revolves around how, when, or if Stewart will choose to reveal what he’s discovered. To that end, the scene in which Stewart initially learns about Sullavan’s identity is decidedly bittersweet; Sullavan’s reaction to Stewart “barging in” on her intended rendezvous shows her in a surprisingly negative light, and it took me a while to understand how Stewart could so easily forgive her and reconcile her “real life” persona with the one she’d revealed to him in letters (there’s clearly more going on in his mind than we’ve privy to). Ultimately, however, their complicated dance of gradual recognition rings true — now more so than ever, as more and more individuals (myself included) meet their beloved in virtual reality before encountering one another in person. Film fanatics should certainly check out this finely acted, expertly directed human comedy at least once.

Note: Laszlo’s play was remade two more times — first as the Judy Garland/Van Johnson musical In the Good Old Summertime (1949), and later as You’ve Got Mail (1993), starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan; neither is must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Margaret Sullavan as Klara Novak (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • James Stewart as Alfred Kralik (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek
  • Felix Bressart as Pirovitch

Must See?
Yes, as a classic romance by a master director. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

High Society (1956)

High Society (1956)

“I will not have my wedding spoiled by intruders!”

Synopsis:
The day before her marriage to a boring millionaire (John Lund), an exacting heiress (Grace Kelly) must deal with the presence of both her jazz-playing ex-husband (Bing Crosby) and a Spy Magazine reporter (Frank Sinatra) and photographer (Celeste Holm), who intend to cover the nuptials in exchange for not printing a revealing article about Kelly’s philandering father (Sidney Blackmer).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bing Crosby Films
  • Celeste Holm Films
  • Frank Sinatra Films
  • Grace Kelly Films
  • Louis Calhern Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Musicals
  • Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “even if you didn’t know this pleasing musical was a remake of The Philadelphia Story, you’d still guess that Grace Kelly (in her last screen role) was basing her spoiled society girl on something Katharine Hepburn did”. Yet I would argue that Kelly admirably holds her own in a role tailor-made for her patrician sensibilities; indeed, the “criminally beautiful” Kelly — who “is dressed to match the sets” of this “nice-looking film” — “turns in an acceptable comedic performance”, and in some ways is almost better suited for the story than Hepburn (who, as noted by Peary in his review of TPS, “never seems like a prig or someone who will accept only perfection”).

Peary posits that “the major problem is that Kelly is so energetic that Crosby, 25 years her senior, seems much too old for her” — but I disagree; in fact, I actually find it easier to imagine that the uptight character of “Tracy Lord” (Hepburn/Kelly) would have a problem with Crosby’s easy-going jazz musician than with Cary Grant’s alcoholic (perhaps because we never actually see evidence of the latter issue in TPS).

Meanwhile, Sinatra and Holm make a suitable impact in the roles originated by James Stewart and Ruth Hussey:

— and while the narrative has been watered down quite a bit, the film “moves at a brisk pace” and contains “many musical highlights”.

As Peary notes, “Cole Porter songs serve for memorable duets by Crosby and Kelly (their hit ‘True Love’), Crosby and Sinatra (‘Did You Evah?’), Crosby and Louis Armstrong (‘Now You Has Jazz’), and Sinatra and Holm (‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’)” — in addition to “Sinatra sing[ing] Kelly an emotional… ‘You’re Sensational'”. While this one isn’t quite a classic like its predecessor, it’s a surprisingly enjoyable remake, and remains worthy viewing in its own right.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Grace Kelly as Tracy Lord
  • Some fun performances of Cole Porter songs — including “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” and “Well, Did You Evah”

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended.

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

Links:

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)

“That’s beautiful, see — that’s really a lovely thing.”

Synopsis:
After returning from a weekend retreat on sensitivity, a documentary-maker (Robert Culp) and his wife (Natalie Wood) decide to be completely open with one another — but when Culp admits to having a sexual fling and an unperturbed Wood thanks him for being honest, their married best friends (Dyan Cannon and Elliott Gould) don’t know what to make of the situation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Counterculture
  • Dyan Cannon Films
  • Elliott Gould Films
  • Infidelity
  • Marital Problems
  • Natalie Wood Films
  • Paul Mazursky Films
  • Sexuality

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “still funny debut film by Paul Mazursky, about the changing and confused sexual mores of the upper middle class in Southern California during the late sixties… was not as thematically daring as it pretended to be”, and ends with a “cop-out” — but that until its final moments, it is “well written and contains many hilarious vignettes, including an aroused Gould and a disinterested Cannon (both new film stars) in bed after hearing of Culp’s infidelity:

… Culp telling Wood of his affair and becoming slightly annoyed that she’s not jealous:

… Cannon talking to her psychiatrist about her sexual confusion:

… [and] Culp offering a drink to a nervous lover”.

While I agree with Peary that each of the above scenes (among others) is cleverly written and dryly humorous, I disagree with his assertion that the film’s ending is disappointing in any way. This may be a “mainstream movie with an ending… that allowed middle-class viewers to go home happy”, but Culp’s willingness to be open with his wife about his infidelity actually comes across as quite radical, and leads to an equally “radical” response by Wood — not to mention an incisive skewering of gender norms (there’s a dilly of a double-standard that emerges at a certain point in the script, and is nicely handled).

Peary also asserts that “one problem” in the film is that “all four characters come across like jerks by the end,” but I think this is exactly the point. When given permission to follow their desires at whim, without concern for (traditional) social conventions, these characters temporarily devolve into expected narcissism — which doesn’t exactly make them likable; they’re experimenting, and part of the fun in watching their travails is to see how foolishly they flounder.

The only character who emerges semi-triumphant within the new state of affairs (at least until the culminating scene) is Wood — who, on a side note, was indeed “never prettier” (a fact which slyly contributes to the inanity of Culp’s decision to cheat on her). The picture’s ultimate moral, I think, is that social strictures and contracts (complete with strategic deception, as needed) exist for a reason, serving as useful tools for navigating the undeniably tricky waters of long-term relationships; it’s to Mazursky’s credit that his film — rather than seeming dated — remains such a potent example of this fact.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Natalie Wood as Carol
  • Dyan Cannon as Alice
  • Elliott Gould as Ted
  • Robert Culp as Bob
  • The hilariously incisive opening sequence at the retreat
  • Mazursky’s surprisingly sharp script

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance, and as an engaging marital drama.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Historically Relevant

Links: