Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

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

Letter, The (1940)

Letter, The (1940)

“This letter places an entirely different complexion on the whole case.”

Synopsis:
When the wife (Bette Davis) of a plantation manager (Herbert Marshall) is accused of murdering a man (David Newell) who tried to rape her, a family-friend lawyer (Joseph Stephenson) is determined to get her acquitted; but when he learns from an envoy (Victor Sen Yung) about a letter possessed by Newell’s wife (Gale Sondergaard) — supposedly sent to Newell by Davis on the day he was murdered — circumstances suddenly become much more challenging.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bette Davis Films
  • Blackmail
  • Cecil Kellaway Films
  • Herbert Marshall Films
  • Lawyers
  • Plantations
  • Play Adaptation
  • William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “second film adaptation of Somerset Maugham’s play” — originally starring Oscar-nominated Jeanne Eagels in a 1929 silent version — features a “fine performance by Davis”, who he argues is better than all other actresses “at playing characters who act their way through life”; indeed, thanks to superb direction by Wyler (with whom she had a close romantic and professional connection), Davis never hits a false note in her portrayal as an endlessly deceptive woman whose true motivations and loyalties we’re kept guessing about until the very end.

However, Peary accurately points out that “perhaps the most interesting character is Stephenson, who despises Davis yet commits a crime for her… that could ruin his career”.

Peary argues that “obviously, [Stephenson] finds himself intrigued by [Davis’s] wicked nature because that’s what makes her special and excitingly different from his conventional wife”; however, it’s equally plausible that Stephenson merely feels loyalty to his long-time friends, and dedicated to carrying out his promise of acquittal.

Character motivations aside, the film itself remains a wonderfully produced and directed piece of exotic noir. As Peary writes, “Wyler’s direction is moody” (I would use the word “atmospheric” instead), and “there are long passages in which dialogue is sparse or nonexistent and the erotic tension is built through Max Steiner’s music, shadows, sounds (wind, wind chimes), the moon floating through the clouds, character movements and expressions”; Tony Gaudio’s stark cinematography contributes as well to the film’s sense of mystery and menace. However, while Peary argues that “the worst aspect of the film is the embarrassingly invidious portrayal of the non-white characters, which almost justifies the colonialists’ matter-of-fact racism”, I can’t really agree with this assessment. True, it would have been better to cast an Asian (or Eurasian) actress in Sondergaard’s role:

… but her performance as a bitter woman grieving her murdered husband isn’t particularly offensive (I don’t blame her for feeling vindictive!); and Victor Sen Yung’s portrayal as her deceptively obsequious courier is far from dumb or demeaning, instead effectively demonstrating alternate forms of power played out by savvy non-Europeans in a neo-colonial arena.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bette Davis as Leslie (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • James Stephenson as Howard
  • Victor Sen Yung as Ong
  • Tony Gaudio’s cinematography

  • Wyler’s confident direction

  • Evocative sets
  • Max Steiner’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Anchors Aweigh (1945)

Anchors Aweigh (1945)

“You saved my life, so you owe me something.”

Synopsis:
A pair of on-leave sailors — bashful Clarence (Frank Sinatra) and ladies’ man Joe (Gene Kelly) — both fall for the beautiful singing aunt (Kathryn Grayson) of a young would-be sailor (Dean Stockwell), and promise her an audition with famed conductor Jose Iturbi, despite not really knowing him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Animated Features
  • Dean Stockwell Films
  • Frank Sinatra Films
  • Gene Kelly Films
  • George Sidney Films
  • Kathryn Grayson Films
  • Musicals
  • Sailors

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that while “Kelly became a big star as the wolf of the navy” in this George Sidney-directed MGM wartime musical, “Sinatra is better as his best friend, a bashful manchild from Brooklyn” who “falls for sweet… Grayson” and “tries to impress her by promising her a singing audition with Jose Iturbi”. He argues that the “flimsy plotline is not helped by timid romantic leads Kelly and Grayson” — but this complaint doesn’t quite hold water, since Kelly and Grayson are justifiably reticent to express their feelings for one another given Sinatra’s initial interest in Grayson (and Kelly’s noble attempt to step out of his way). Meanwhile, Peary asks, “Who cares about a story centered on orchestra conductor Iturbi?”, but this complaint also isn’t quite accurate, given that Iturbi only shows up to contribute some musical numbers, and his presence primarily functions as a plot device.

With that said, I do have some complaints of my own: while Grayson’s romantic timidity makes sense to me, she’s simply not a very nuanced or interesting character (and her singing style is way too dated to appeal to most viewers). Even worse, the film goes on for far too long (2 hours and 20 minutes!), and the storyline really isn’t all that compelling. Its primary calling card — what all viewers immediately think of when they recall the film in their minds — is Kelly’s “celebrated duo with MGM cartoon star Jerry the mouse”, executed to perfection; any film fanatic unfamiliar with this number should immediately check it out on YouTube. In addition, as Peary notes, “Sinatra’s singing (of okay songs by Jules Styne and Sammy Cahn) is silky smooth” and the “MGM Technicolor is gorgeous”. However, while it’s recommended for one-time viewing, this film is only must-see for musical fans and/or devotees of either Kelly or Sinatra.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Frank Sinatra as Clarence Doolittle
  • Kelly’s justifiably famous animated dance with Jerry the Mouse
  • Kelly and Sinatra’s energetic performance of “I Begged Her”

Must See?
No, though Kelly’s dance with Jerry is definitely must-see — check it out on YouTube.

Links:

Bedazzled (1967)

Bedazzled (1967)

“You see, a soul’s rather like your appendix — totally expendable.”

Synopsis:
A nebbishy short-order cook (Dudley Moore) enlists the help of the Devil (Peter Cook) in attracting the attention of a pretty waitress (Eleanor Bron) he has a crush on.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Dudley Moore Films
  • Pact With the Devil
  • Raquel Welch Films
  • Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “although [it’s] dated, Dudley Moore and Peter Cook’s irreverent Faust tale in mod clothing was much funnier than other British imports of its day”. He notes that it “combined the absurdity and breezy style of Richard Lester; the mixture of ridiculousness and sophistication of early Peter Sellers/Alec Guinness/Ian Carmichael/Alistair Sim films; the verbal outrageousness and slapstick of the later Peter Sellers; [and] the lowbrow comedy of the Carry On Series,” while also drawing upon Moore and Cook’s Beyond the Fringe revue act. He points out that while “Cook and Moore don’t do much visual comedy… much of the verbal repartee is brilliant”, and he praises “how adeptly their voices and mannerisms change as they change characters and move from class to class, in the various segments that comprise the film”. He argues that while the “vignettes aren’t particularly clever, [they] all have funny moments”, and points out that the “film dares make God, who no longer pays attention to human prayers and whose petty feud with Satan causes misery among mortals, into the villain of the piece”.

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review — though I disagree with his assertion that its “delight today is to catch a nostalgic glimpse of [the] once-wonderful comedy team”. Indeed, most modern viewers will never have heard of Cook-and-Moore (unless they’ve seen the duo in The Wrong Box), and will primarily be familiar with Moore from his later (solo) work, in 10 (1979) and the Arthur films. Therefore, the film must stand on its own as a comedy — and to that end, I believe it still “works”. While it may not be uproariously funny, the very premise itself — that “Cook’s Satan is more of a prankster than Evil personified” — is clever enough to keep one consistently engaged; I found myself especially eager for the “inter-vignette” moments, to see where and how Cook would next be wreaking gentle havoc on the Earth (by, for instance, “ripping out the last page of Agatha Christie mysteries, scratching record albums, making grocery bags tear open, setting wasps loose on picnickers”:

… or “calling up women and revealing to them their husbands’ infidelities”:

… as Peary writes in his Cult Movies 2 review). It’s all good fun, and certainly worth a one-time look by film fanatics, especially given its (onetime?) cult status.

Note: Raquel Welch’s appearance here — as Lust personified — is brief but memorable.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Cook as George Spiggott/the Devil
  • Eleanor Bron as Margaret


  • A clever, fast-paced screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Singin’ in the Rain (1952)

Singin’ in the Rain (1952)

“Well of course we talk. Don’t everybody?”

Synopsis:
During the advent of talkies in Hollywood, a conceited movie star (Jean Hagen) with a terrible voice struggles to make the transition; meanwhile, her costar (Gene Kelly) falls in love with a young ingenue (Debbie Reynolds) who begins dubbing Hagen’s voice, invoking Hagen’s wrath and jealousy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Cyd Charisse Films
  • Debbie Reynolds Films
  • Gene Kelly Films
  • Hollywood
  • Jean Hagen Films
  • Musicals
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “most uplifting of films” remains “one of the great joys of the cinema”, and is the “ultimate musical for lovers of the film medium”. He notes that “not only do innovative directors Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen use ‘film’ (color, lighting, editing, special effects, camera placement and movement, and sound) to enhance the fabulous songs and dances, but, as scripted by Adolph Green and Betty Comden, [it’s] also one of the best, funniest, most perceptive and informative pictures ever made about the movie industry”. He notes that “Green and Comden beautifully spoof numerous Hollywood types: suicidal stuntmen who’ll do anything to be in pictures; starlets with pretensions of being serious thespians who will jump out of cakes to be part of show biz; brainless gossip columnists; tough directors who think the set is a battlefield; smug diction coaches; confused producers; flaky music coordinators; cocky actors who know the importance of ‘image’ to stardom…; and stupid, conceited actresses who believe their own press”. The gamut is covered!

Peary accurately argues that the “musical numbers are all outstanding, with Kelly, [Donald] O’Connor [as Kelly’s friend], and Reynolds displaying amazing athletic dancing skills”. He points out that some “unforgettable highlights include the three dancing on furniture and singing ‘Good Morning’; O’Connor running up walls and flipping during ‘Make ‘Em Laugh'” (an astonishing number no matter how many times you’ve seen it!); “the ‘Broadway Rhythm’ number, especially when Kelly and Cyd Charisse perform a dreamlike ballet; and the [incomparable] title number, which has Kelly happily dancing through puddles”. Peary notes that “in the film’s great[est] moment, the camera moves directly over Kelly’s beaming face for a close-up just as he sings ‘There’s a smile on my face’.” In his Cult Movies book, he lists several other musical highlights; a personal favorite is “Don and Cosmo [O’Connor] bewildering their diction teacher with some tongue twisters and flying feet in the ‘Moses’ number” (I’d forgotten how fun that one is!).

Meanwhile, Peary writes that “the scenes without music are [also] delightful”, and in Cult Movies he points out some specific ones: “Don’s [Kelly’s] hilarious movie stunts which somehow he survives; the knife-in-the-back squabbling between Don and Lina [Hagen]; Lina’s unsuccessful diction lessons, where she can’t learn to properly pronounce the letter a in the phrase ‘I can’t stand it’; the fascinating film at [a producer’s] party in which a weird man explains the ‘sound film’; the many humorous incidents with microphones; [and] the finale…”. I agree that each of these scenes or sequences are gems — masterfully written, directed, and acted; indeed, the entire fast-paced screenplay is “delightful movie fare”, as Peary writes.

In his Alternate Oscars (where he votes the film Best Picture of the Year), Peary nominates Kelly as one of the Best Actors of the Year, and Reynolds as one of the Best Actresses (in Cult Movies he writes “how absolutely great, how bubbly, how vivacious she is!”). However, he rightfully acknowledges that Kelly “allows Jean Hagen ample opportunity to walk away with acting honors” — indeed, while her role is perhaps not quite large enough to be considered in the “Best Actress” category, you could argue that her consistently hilarious, memorable performance plays an enormous part in the film’s overall success. Peary writes that “from this picture, we see that Hagen was never allowed the chance to be the fine comedienne… she was obviously capable of being”, and credits “Kelly, the star, the codirector, [for] willingly shar[ing] his picture with his costars.” He argues that “it is not by mere chance that Reynolds, O’Connor, and Hagen have never been better” — and one can’t help agreeing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont
  • Gene Kelly as Don Lockwood
  • Debbie Reynolds as Kathy Selden
  • Donald O’Connor’s phenomenal “Make ‘Em Laugh” number
  • Kelly’s iconic “Singin’ in the Rain” number
  • Kelly, O’Connor, and Reynolds performing “Good Morning”
  • Kelly and O’Connor performing “Moses”
  • A hilarious, incisive satire of early Hollywood’s transition to talkies
  • Vibrant Technicolor cinematography (by Harold Rosson)

Must See?
Yes, of course!

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Gigi (1958)

Gigi (1958)

“They’ve pounded into my head I’m backward for my age — but I know what all this means.”

Synopsis:
In turn-of-the-century Paris, a teen (Leslie Caron) living with her grandmother (Hermione Gingold) is groomed by her great-aunt (Isabel Jeans) to be a courtesan — but when a family friend (Louis Jourdan) takes a romantic interest in young Gigi (Caron), she begins to question her future.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming-of-Age
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Historical Drama
  • Leslie Caron Films
  • Louis Jourdan Films
  • Maurice Chevalier Films
  • May-December Romance
  • Musicals
  • Vincente Minnelli Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes — and I agree — that Vincente Minnelli’s “exuberant musical, the winner of nine Academy Awards including Best Picture”, features a “bright and witty” script (based on Colette’s 1944 novella), “appealing” stars, “colorful costumes and sets [evocative of] Paris [in] 1900”, and “some charming songs” — including Peary’s (and my) favorite, “I Remember It Well”, as Gingold and Maurice Chevalier “warmly sing of their long-ago romance”. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised to revisit this film for the first time in over 20 years (I last saw it as a teenage ff), and to find that I appreciate it much more now that I’m better able to understand the nuances of its social milieu. Without a grasp of the “Belle Epoque” societal norms that Colette was depicting in her story, it’s difficult to understand the basic premise of the story, or to fully appreciate the type of dilemma faced by Gigi and Jourdan’s “Gaston” — so younger film fanatics should be duly forewarned.

Storyline aside, however, the film — often designated as the last great MGM musical — works on nearly all other levels. To elaborate on Peary’s points above, it also features excellent use of authentic outdoor locales in France, vibrant Technicolor cinematography, and songs that are integrated seamlessly into the narrative (I’m especially fond of how “Waltz at Maxim’s [She’s Not Thinking of Me]”, with Eva Gabor as Jourdan’s mistress, is handled). Meanwhile, most of the cast is top-notch, with Caron in particular demonstrating a tremendous leap in acting ability since her 19-year-old debut in Minnelli’s An American in Paris (1951). She manages to effectively portray Gigi both as an innocent adolescent and as an emergent courtesan; we can easily understand why Jourdan would fall for her. Jourdan (second choice after Dirk Bogarde, who would have been wonderful) capably embodies bored Gaston (his clever duet with Chevalier — “It’s a Bore” — allows us to understand his character within just a few minutes); but I’ll admit I find Chevalier — especially as he sings “Thank Heaven for Little Girls” (my least favorite number) — a tad creepy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Leslie Caron as Gigi
  • Hermione Gingold as Madame Alvarez
  • Lovely musical numbers — especially Gingold and Chevalier’s duet “I Remember It Well”
  • Fine period production design and costumes
  • Vibrant Technicolor cinematography
  • Excellent use of authentic Parisian locales

Must See?
Yes, as an Oscar-winning classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

American in Paris, An (1951)

American in Paris, An (1951)

“What gets me is, I don’t know anything about her.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring painter (Gene Kelly) in post-WWII Paris, living in the same building as his piano-playing buddy (Oscar Levant), is discovered by a beautiful patroness (Nina Foch) who hopes Kelly will become her new lover; meanwhile, Kelly falls in love with a shopgirl (Leslie Caron) he spies in a restaurant, not realizing that she’s engaged to the man (Georges Guétary) who kept her safe during the war.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Expatriates
  • Gene Kelly Films
  • Leslie Caron Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Musicals
  • Oscar Levant Films
  • Romance
  • Vincente Minnelli Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, it’s too bad that the “potentially interesting storyline” for this “lavish M-G-M musical” is “given short shrift by Alan Jay Lerner”, who fails to exploit what should be the “intriguing relationships” between the four romantic leads. He argues that “instead of a steamy, complicated love affair between Kelly and Caron… their romance is movie-musical predictable” and “too proper”, and he notes that “Caron’s character, who no doubt had an interesting past, is very artificial”. He accurately points out that while “it’s nice to see her dance” (she’s given a clever introduction in a colorful montage early in the film), she “doesn’t yet look like a romantic lead”; he quips that “they hadn’t figured out her makeup, I suppose”, which isn’t all that far off the mark, given that she’s not nearly as attractive as she appears in her later films.

Peary further posits that “Minnelli’s elegant balletic style of dancing is too tame for [Kelly]” — though he concedes that Kelly is finally allowed to “let loose in the extravagant 20-minute musical finale” which features “several striking ballet interludes”; he notes that with its “imaginative use of color, costumes, and sets to create scenes in the styles of French artists … it is [indeed] one of the best production numbers in cinema history”. He argues that “the other, shorter song-and-dance numbers shouldn’t suffer so badly in comparison” — but I don’t quite agree with this sentiment; I’m fond of Kelly performing “I Got Rhythm” with a group of street kids, as well as his joy-filled tap dance routine to “Tra-la-la (This Time It’s Really Love)” in his friend Jerry’s apartment.

The primary problem with An American in Paris is its insufficiently developed storyline. Kelly’s crush on Caron is so paper-thin (especially given, as noted above, that she’s not particularly stunning — and he doesn’t see her opening dance sequence, as we do) that we simply can’t understand his instant obsession; meanwhile, Levant’s character is little more than a standard comedic foil, and Guetary is essentially a one-dimensional sap. What we’re left to enjoy are the stunningly vibrant Technicolor sound stage sets, fun costumes (particularly during the black-and-white ball), the Gershwin brothers’ incomparable score, and world-class dance routines — but without a suitable narrative to back all this up, An American in Paris comes up sadly short. It’s certainly worth at least a one-time look, but hasn’t endured as one of the best MGM musicals.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Caron’s impressive dancing in her cinematic “introduction”
  • Kelly performing “I Got Rhythm”
  • Vibrant Technicolor cinematography
  • Impressive sets and costumes
  • The justifiably lauded ballet finale

Must See?
Yes, once, as an Oscar-winning (if flawed) classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

Two For the Road (1967)

Two For the Road (1967)

“That’s marriage for you.”

Synopsis:
An unhappy wife (Audrey Hepburn) reflects back on her troubled marriage to an architect (Albert Finney).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Albert Finney Films
  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Flashback Films
  • Jacqueline Bisset Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Road Trip
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this Stanley Donen-directed romantic comedy (written by Frederic Raphael, who also scripted John Schlesinger’s Darling and Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut) is a “cult film for romantics”, “many [of whom] have been known to become emotionally attached to it”. He notes that “while watching Finney and Hepburn at various times in their relationship”, we “can examine their marriage from the outside”, and clearly “see the road-as-life and trip-as-marriage metaphors”. He argues that “we come to like these two people more than they do themselves”, and to “understand why their marriage has lasted and will survive”. He states that “they are a great couple, flaws and all”, and refers to them as “one of the few screen couples since William Powell and Myrna Loy who make marriage seem exciting”, given that “even their squabbling is romantic”. He argues that Raphael’s script possesses “excellent” dialogue, and that “he smoothly blends comedy… painful drama… and sentimentality”. Finally, he notes that “Donen does a good job handling the changes in tone, except when he attempts some speeded-up slapstick during the film’s least successful sequence, in which Hepburn and Finney travel with super-punctual William Daniels, his wife, Eleanor Bron, and their bratty daughter”.

Unfortunately, I’m not nearly as enamored with this nouvelle vague-inspired cult classic as Peary (and many others) are. I’ve seen it twice now — once many years ago, and again just recently — and still find myself unable to engage with either the characters or their travails. While Raphael’s screenplay was indeed innovative for the time, it now seems like merely an excuse for cinematic trickery, with form trumping content; we focus so much on watching Hepburn’s Joanna and Finney’s Mark shifting between various eras of their relationship (coded primarily by Hepburn’s haircuts and outfits) that we lose all sense of why we should care about these individuals to begin with. Indeed, I disagree with Peary’s assertion that “we come to like these two people”, given that we never learn who, exactly, they are, other than partners in an endlessly contentious marriage; meanwhile, the specifics of their livelihoods — including an unlikely encounter with a wealthy European couple who just happen to be looking for a sharp young architect like Finney — further strain the film’s credibility. Ultimately, at risk of sounding like a philistine, I find myself agreeing most with Bosley Crowther’s review for the NY Times, where he argues that the film “doesn’t tell us very much about marriage and life, other than the old romantic axiom that lovers are likelier to be happy when poor than when rich.”

Yet clearly Two for the Road resonates on a deeply personal level for Peary — and a quick glance at IMDb’s message boards and user reviews reveals that quite a few others feel the same way. In his first Cult Movies book, Peary relates an anecdote of going to see this film while on a road trip heading towards college for the first time, and how it “was a revelation to a college freshmen who hadn’t known there was life after high school”. In this essay, he offers an in-depth analysis of sections from Raphael’s script, arguing that “no contribution [to the film] is more significant than the screenplay”, and that it’s “a writer’s movie”. He points out how the script is rare in paying “as much attention… to gestures as… to dialogue”, and, given that it was written specifically for the screen, in specifying “every effect, movement and motivation” in cinematic terms. Indeed, reading Peary’s analysis provides me with better insight as to why it’s so critically lauded; yet while it may be true, as Peary writes, that “Joanna and Mark are emotional mosaics of the problems and roadblocks we each may bring to a relationship: the selfishness, the intolerance, the egotism, the misguided values, the impulsiveness, the thoughtlessness, the infidelity”, my inability to care about these particular characters makes it difficult for me to glean as much from the film as others apparently can.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Audrey Hepburn as Joanna (voted Best Actress of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • Fine cinematography
  • Henry Mancini’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look, and may even become a personal favorite — it’s just not mine. Listed as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Links:

Holiday (1938)

Holiday (1938)

“I’ve got all the faith in the world in Johnny.”

Synopsis:
When an heiress (Doris Nolan) brings home the man (Cary Grant) she intends to marry, her eccentric sister (Katharine Hepburn) is thrilled to learn that Grant possesses a rebellious, anti-materialist streak; but will their fiscally conservative father (Henry Kolker) approve of Grant as a future son-in-law, given Grant’s desire to retire as soon as possible and explore the world?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cary Grant Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • George Cukor Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Nonconformists

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes in his brief review, “Philip Barry’s play… makes an excellent vehicle for Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn”, who would more famously co-star in an adaptation of another Barry play two years later — The Philadelphia Story (1940). Peary argues that while the “story is predictable” — we know from the beginning that Hepburn and Grant will fall for each other, and that Nolan will turn out to be a bad match for Grant — the “writing is first-rate”, the “stars, particularly Hepburn, [are] excellent”, and it’s “well directed by George Cukor”. The supporting actors are all excellent as well — most notably Edward Everett Horton as one of Grant’s lifelong friends (while still undeniably fey, he’s nonetheless quite convincing as a happily married professor), Jean Dixon as Horton’s wife, and Kolker as Hepburn and Nolan’s father.

While Holiday can certainly be enjoyed on a surface level as simply a smart romantic comedy, it possesses nuanced social and psychodynamic subtexts. As noted in Stephanie Zacharek’s touching homage-review (she considers it a personal favorite), “a mantle of sadness hangs over this most stylish of comedies”, which in its “ruthlessness” not only “makes a case for building a life in which you’re surrounded by people you love” but is “also unflinching about steeling yourself against people who can only hurt you, no matter who they are”. With that said, as DVD Savant points out, the play/screenplay, for better or for worse, “pussyfoots around its central issue without ever really addressing it”, given that we never really learn “what the blazes [Grant’s character is] babbling about, and how… a kid who supported himself from age ten and rose to become a Wall Street genius fit[s] into [the nebulous] philosophy” of “big, exciting new ideas coming into the world” (will he join the war in Spain?). Regardless, we’re clearly meant to see that nonconformist Grant and zany Hepburn (who, in Zacharek’s words, “is not just stifled by her upper-crust lifestyle but almost destroyed by it”) are a couple simply meant to be — and we take immense pleasure in watching how they will finally come to this realization themselves.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Cary Grant as Johnny
  • Katharine Hepburn as Linda (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Henry Kolker as the Seton patriarch
  • Edward Everett Horton (reprising his role from the 1930 version of the film) and Jean Dixon as Professor and Mrs. Horton
  • A fine screenplay by Donald Ogden Stewart and Sidney Buchman (based on Philip Barry’s play):

    “You know, most people, including Johnny and yourself, make a big mistake about Julia. They’re taken in by her looks. At bottom, she’s a very dull girl and the life she pictures for herself is the life she belongs in.”

Must See?
Yes, as an excellent, expertly directed romantic comedy, and for the fine performances.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Picnic (1955)

Picnic (1955)

“What good is it just to be pretty?”

Synopsis:
A hunky drifter (William Holden) arrives in a small Kansas town over Labor Day weekend, intending to look up his old college friend (Cliff Robertson) and secure some work — but he soon finds himself falling in love with Robertson’s beautiful girlfriend (Kim Novak), whose single mother (Betty Field) is eager to see Novak married off to wealthy Robertson. Meanwhile, a spinster schoolteacher (Rosalind Russell) despairs over whether her boyfriend (Arthur O’Connell) will ever marry her, and Novak’s bookish younger sister (Susan Strasberg) longs to become a writer in New York.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Betty Field Films
  • Cliff Robertson Films
  • Joshua Logan Films
  • Kim Novak Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Play Adaptations
  • Rosalind Russell Films
  • Small Town America
  • Susan Strasberg Films
  • William Holden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this adaptation (by Joshua Logan) of William Inge’s play about a drifter “whose presence arouses passions” in a town where everyone “seemed repressed” is “badly dated, especially in its portrayal of women” — given that “Novak actually starts to believe her mother’s… propaganda that a woman must marry”. He argues that “Holden seems miscast”:

and that the “film would have worked better with Douglas Sirk directing Rock Hudson” — an interesting proposition, given that so much of the film (helped not at all by George Duning’s overbearing score) comes across as almost laughably melodramatic, as in the following exchange:

Novak: I’m only 19.
Field: And next summer you’ll be 20…
Novak: And then 21, and then…
Field: 40.
Novak: You don’t have to be morbid!

Meanwhile, Russell is, as Peary points out, “pretty intolerable”:

and Strasberg’s character — “an intellectual [who] isn’t supposed to need a man” — comes across as simply whiny and obnoxious.

Peary argues that the film’s “highlight is the hot ‘mating’ dance (to ‘Moonglow’) of Holden and Novak” — and this scene is handled nicely by both Logan and DP James Wong Howe (who infuses the entire film with a soft glow).

But my favorite section of the film is when Logan opens up Inge’s play to highlight various vignettes from the Labor Day picnic (only discussed in the play, rather than shown). In truth, I’m simply not a fan of this story at all — and Novak’s vacuous central performance doesn’t help matters any. Despite its status as one of the top moneymakers of its time, modern film fanatics needn’t bother checking this one out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The fun “picnic activities” montage

  • James Wong Howe’s cinematography

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one.

Links:

Sylvia Scarlett (1935)

Sylvia Scarlett (1935)

“Are you a girl dressed as a boy? Or are you a boy dressed as a girl?”

Synopsis:
A young French woman (Katharine Hepburn) flees to England with her embezzling father (Edmund Gwenn), disguising herself as a boy to escape notice. During their voyage, they befriend a con-artist (Cary Grant) and begin a life of crime and performance-art together, joined by a ditzy maid (Dennie Moore) who Gwenn soon marries. When Hepburn becomes enamored with a handsome artist (Brian Aherne), she exposes her true identity — but is Aherne really in love with a beautiful Russian (Natalie Paley)?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Brian Aherne Films
  • Cary Grant Films
  • Edmund Gwenn Films
  • Gender Bending
  • George Cukor Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this unusual cult flick (also discussed at length in his first Cult Movies book, which I cite here) by noting that “for years [director] George Cukor would say this box-office flop was the one embarrassing blot on his and Katharine Hepburn’s illustrious careers”, but that “in the mid-sixties it began turning up with increasing frequency on college campuses and in repertory theaters, and a cult for the film took root” — one that is “equally the result of both the unique style of the picture and the unconventional presentation of sex roles”. Interestingly, “critics of thirties never mentioned the sexual implications of the film”; indeed, given that “during this period… subjects like transvestism and bisexuality were taboo”, it’s “remarkable that… no one mentioned the strange things that happen”, such as “Hepburn kissed on the lips by Paley, who thinks she’s a boy and tries to seduce him” (the point at which 3/4ths of the preview audience walked out), or Aherne “invit[ing] ‘Sylvester’ to sleep with him”, and later quipping, “I don’t know what it is that gives me a queer feeling when I look at you”.

While Sylvia Scarlett‘s transgressive sexual politics surely make it a favorite with the LGBTQ crowd, it’s also notable for its transgressive gender politics — i.e., the way in which Sylvia “gains [both] stature… in [her father’s] eyes [as well as] independence” once she cuts off her hair and pretends to be a boy, and how “by dressing in men’s clothes, she is able to free that latent part of herself” — i.e., “being athletic” and “speak[ing] her mind for the first time” — that was “previously kept hidden by convention”. Indeed, “only by pretending to be a male can Sylvia open up the world for herself and bring out her real self”; and “only as a male can Sylvia control her own destiny and make her own rules”. Along those lines, Peary points out that “few pictures are so rooted in theater”, and that “no film is more concerned with ‘acting’ as a method (rather than a profession) for living one’s life”, given that “it’s populated by characters whose lives revolve around disguise and deception”.

In Cult Movies, Peary ends his review by conceding that “Sylvia Scarlett is far from a great film”. He points out that Cukor couldn’t “decide whether he was filming a comedy or a drama”, that it’s “dull at times”, and that there are “too many moments when characters display cruelty that is sadistic and hard to watch”. I would also add that Dennie Moore’s performance as Maudie the maid very quickly gets on one’s nerves, and that the character played by Paley is sorely underdeveloped. Yet Sylvia Scarlett remains “one of the most interesting films of the thirties” despite its flaws and faults, and is certainly must-see viewing for all film fanatics simply for its enduring cult status.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Sylvia/Sylvester (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • A refreshingly fluid presentation of sexuality and gender

Must See?
Yes, for its cult status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links: