FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
The alcoholic playboy son (Robert Stack) of an oil magnate (Robert Keith) woos and marries a secretary (Lauren Bacall) who his best friend (Rock Hudson) is secretly in love with; meanwhile, Stack’s nymphomaniac sister (Dorothy Malone) will stop at nothing to convince Hudson — her lifelong crush — to marry her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Class Relations
• Dorothy Malone Films
• Douglas Sirk Films
• Lauren Bacall Films
• Love Triangle
• Millionaires
• Robert Stack Films
• Rock Hudson Films
• Siblings

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “tempestuous melodrama” — “produced by Albert Zugsmith… and directed by Douglas Sirk, the German emigre who made films about American life and family” — features “strong performances, especially by an extremely sexy Dorothy Malone” (who won an Oscar for her supporting work here), and “ranks with The Tarnished Angels [1957] as Sirk’s best work”. He points out that “as in all good potboilers, the characters are driven by their passions and are surrounded by destructive forces: those characters who are destroyed also have destructive forces emanating from the inside”. As argued by Tim Dirks on his Greatest Films site, the film critiques “the underlying hollowness and shallowness of American society in the placid 1950s,” portraying “misfit lives stunted and corrupted by mental anguish, alcoholism, sexual frustration, and corruptible materialistic wealth”. And, as noted in Bright Lights’ review, the presence of “private jets, rivers of booze, barroom fisticuffs, shiny clothes, and a forest of phallic oil derricks” link this film inextricably to its heirs apparent — the popular television series “Dynasty” and “Dallas”.

While Sirk’s previous films — such as Magnificent Obsession (1954) and All That Heaven Allows (1955) — afforded audiences the opportunity to relate to the central female protagonist’s romantic and social crises, such an association is less obvious here. Presumably, audiences were meant to primarily sympathize with Bacall’s character:

… who is lured into a world of wealth and privilege in part due to her compassion for such an obviously “broken” man as Stack (who comes across as oddly sympathetic, despite his character’s deep-seated flaws; Stack is in fine form).

Meanwhile, Hudson’s “Mitch Wayne” is a likable, no-nonsense counterpart for male audiences to relate to.

But it’s Malone’s sexy, deeply troubled “Marylee” who is ultimately most memorable here, with her drunken, frenzied dervish (cross-cut with her father’s death) a disturbing highlight of the film.

She and her brother are clear cautionary evidence of the way in which “those who have money… are doomed, as if money created bad genes”. One may leave the film feeling oddly grateful for not being wealthy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Dorothy Malone as Marylee Hadley
  
• Robert Stack as Kyle Hadley
  
• Rock Hudson as Mitch Wayne
  
• Vibrant sets and Technicolor cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a mid-century melodramatic classic — and for Malone’s Oscar-winning supporting performance.

Categories

• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• Greatest Films Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Articles
• Bright Lights Film Review (scroll down to second review)
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
A con-artist (Barbara Stanwyck) on-board a cruise ship with her cardsharp father (Charles Coburn) falls in love with a naive ophiologist (Henry Fonda) she originally sets out to dupe. Before she can reveal her true identity to him, however, he becomes wise to her scam and shuns her completely. Stanwyck seeks revenge by posing as the aristocratic niece of a con-artist Earl (Eric Blore), and seduces Fonda all over again — but what are her ultimate intentions?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Stanwyck Films
• Charles Coburn Films
• Con-Artists
• Gold Diggers
• Henry Fonda Films
• Millionaires
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Preston Sturges Films
• Revenge
• Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this critically acclaimed romantic comedy by writer/director Preston Sturges, Peary notes that “Sturges takes standard screwball-comedy material” — reminiscent of other notable titles in the genre, including both Bringing Up Baby and The Awful Truth — and “turns it into a zany classic”. He points out that the “film has an irresistible blend of quirky characters, snappy dialogue, slapstick, and sex” — an abbreviated listing of all the critical elements that make Sturges’ best work so memorable. Of these elements, the latter is perhaps the most surprising and refreshing (how in the world did Sturges get his script past the Hays Office???). Roger Ebert, in his “Great Movies” review, argues that the infamous ~4 minute static shot about 20 minutes into the story — when Stanwyck “toys with Fonda’s hair” — is his personal selection for the “single scene in all of romantic comedy that [is] sexiest and funniest at the same time”; indeed, it’s likely the humor of the scene that managed to assuage would-be morality police from complaint — but it remains a dilly of an erotic/romantic moment on-screen!

What’s most memorable about The Lady Eve, however, are the performances by the odd-couple leads — both at the top of their game. Peary accurately notes that Fonda (never the most exciting of actors) “will surprise you with his skillful pratfalls” (they’re numerous, and all exceedingly well-done), and argues that “Stanwyck is so personable and vivacious that you feel… all the men whose money she stole got their money’s worth”. Peary names Stanwyck Best Actress of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book for 1941, though he ultimately selects her performance in Ball of Fire over this one simply because he “likes her character better” in that film; but he rightfully argues that she’s “flawless in both comedies”. Her complex character here undergoes a tremendous character arc, allowing herself to unexpectedly fall in love, then reverting to wily cynicism when her heart is broken, and magically transforming into a glamorous, seductive, yet hilarious noblewoman who convincingly has dozens of men literally drooling at her feet. She bats not an eye when silently daring Fonda to doubt the veracity of her outrageous assumed persona — yet we can easily see both her vulnerability and her scorned-woman wrath hovering close beneath the surface.

Peary culminates his brief review of The Lady Eve by arguing that the “film would match Sullivan’s Travels” — which he nominates as Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars — “if it didn’t peter out near the end”; however, I’m actually a bigger fan of this title, made the same year. I disagree completely that the film’s ending (reminiscent, in a way, of the denouement to Billy Wilder’s The Major and the Minor) is a cop-out; as Ebert puts it in his “Greatest Films” review, the final two lines are “equal to the classic line ‘Nobody’s perfect!” at the end of Some Like It Hot.” A final kudos should be given to Edith Head and her minions for a set of marvelous outfits; Stanwyck has never looked more enticing. As Peary puts it, “cheers to her wardrobe designer”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Barbara Stanwyck as Eve (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book)
  
• Henry Fonda as Charles
  
• Edith Head’s costumes
  
• A consistently delightful and witty script, full of intriguing throw-away lines:
  

  “I used to go with a little Eskimo dame…”
  “I knew a guy who married the same woman three times, then turned around and married her aunt.”

Must See?
Yes, as a true classic of the screwball genre.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Articles
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
When his plane crashes, a boxer (Robert Montgomery) with fifty years left to live is prematurely brought to heaven by an overly zealous angel (Edward Everett Horton). Because his earthly body has been cremated, Montgomery enlists the help of administrative angel “Mr. Jordan” (Claude Rains) in finding a new one to inhabit. Out of pity for a beautiful young woman (Evelyn Keyes) whose father has been falsely accused by a heartless millionaire named Farnsworth, he takes over Farnsworth’s body just after his wife (Rita Johnson) and her lover (John Emery) have tried to murder him. Soon Montgomery finds himself eager to get his new body into shape for a boxing match, and enlists the help of his befuddled former manager (James Gleason).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Angels
• Boxing
• Claude Rains Films
• Death and Dying
• Evelyn Keyes Films
• Fantasy
• Life After Death
• Millionaires
• Robert Montgomery Films
• Untimely Death

Response to Peary’s Review:
Given that I’m not generally a fan of the film blanc genre (discussed at length here), I was surprised to find myself enjoying this Oscar-winning supernatural tale — remade by Warren Beatty in 1978 as Heaven Can Wait — as much as I did. Peary argues that “while there are some delightful moments” in the script, it’s ultimately “schmaltzy and morbid and never hilarious”. He uncharacteristically gives away major spoilers when describing why he feels the film’s ending essentially cheats viewers on an emotional level (I won’t say more), and argues that Beatty’s remake “was ruined by the same unsatisfying resolution”. I don’t agree. In this case, I’m more in line with DVD Savant’s sentiment that Here Comes Mr. Jordan remains a “rare Hollywood classic that hasn’t dated and never fails to raise one’s spirits.”

In his review, Savant aptly describes the film’s “optimistic and uplifting message” as follows: “the human soul is a wondrous thing that lives after us, even if it takes new forms and new identities”, and “our essential goodness will be passed on to those that follow”, given that “love doesn’t die with one’s mortal body”. Even for hard-headed cynics like myself, this message is simply too appealing not to want to believe — and thus, I gave myself over to the story. To that end, I appreciated the care taken to resolve the undeniably tricky dilemma of Montgomery’s character supposedly inhabiting new bodies while WE still see Montgomery himself; appropriately enough, other players in the “outstanding supporting cast” are given ample time to adjust to the astonishing truth of Montgomery’s bodily inhabitance — most notably James Gleason as a cynical manager who takes some convincing that his former boxing champion now resides in a wealthy financier’s body.

Peary accurately notes that Montgomery is “perfect as [boxer Joe] Pendleton”, but I can’t quite agree with his assertion that “Rains’s role should have been stronger”. I was actually quite impressed by how seamlessly the screenplay incorporates his presence in a story that really should be all about Pendleton. Yet I wasn’t especially enthused by Rains’s performance here.

He’s certainly competent, and projects just the right amount of avuncular wisdom, but — perhaps strategically? — he’s simply not very charismatic. Meanwhile, Evelyn Keyes (probably best known for playing “Suellen” in Gone With the Wind) gives a delightful performance in a minor yet essential role as the woman who inspires Montgomery to give Farnsworth’s body a try; it’s a joy to watch her slowly learning to trust, and then love, the man who once caused her indescribable grief.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Robert Montgomery as Joe Pendleton (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book)
  
• James Gleason as Mr. Corkle
  
• Evelyn Keyes as Bette
  
• Sidney Buchman and Seton I. Miller’s fine, Oscar-winning, feel-good script

Must See?
Yes, as a feel-good classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When a frustrated interior designer (Doris Day) lashes out at the playboy composer (Rock Hudson) who’s been monopolizing their party line, Hudson retaliates by wooing her in the guise of Texas oilman “Rex Stetson” — much to the chagrin of her would-be suitor (Tony Randall), who also happens to be good friends with Hudson.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Doris Day Films
• Love Triangle
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Rock Hudson Films
• Romantic Comedy
• Thelma Ritter Films
• Tony Randall Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary labels this “Stanley Shapiro-scripted American sex comedy, co-written by Maurice Richlin, lavishly produced by Ross Hunter, and bringing together Doris Day and Rock Hudson ([in] his first comedy) for the first time” as “quintessential”. Yet he simultaneously refers to it as a “claustrophobic comedy… full of unfunny sexual innuendo” which “has a smutty feel to it”. He argues that the “film seems to imply that because [Day] has a job rather than a love/sex life, she feels much anger and hostility”; at the same time, however, he concedes that Day’s character is actually quite laudable and progressive, given that “she seems more determined to maintain personal integrity than her virginity; [she believes] having a boyfriend is more important than having a husband; she is as successful at work as Hudson is; [and] she does not take being treated badly lying down — she has claws”.

I’m not quite sure I agree with Peary’s cynical take on this one. Surprisingly, I didn’t find it “smutty”; instead, I simply enjoyed the calculated sexual banter liberally sprinkled throughout the screenplay:

Day: “I have no bedroom problems; there’s nothing in my bedroom that bothers me.”
Hudson: “Oh, that’s too bad…”

Yes, Day and Hudson go at it like the inevitable to-be-couple they’re posited as from the beginning — but them’s the rules of this particular genre. And it’s exactly Day’s strength and feistiness as a female protagonist (outlined by Peary himself) that prevent the film from descending into ho-hum mid-century mores. Meanwhile, though one really should detest Hudson’s character on some level (given that the charade he’s carrying out it with Day is questionable at best, and mean-spirited at worst), somehow his character remains oddly likeable throughout. I’ll bet this is due in large part to the fun Day and Hudson admitted to having with each other on set; their (asexual) attraction to one another is in clear evidence.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Doris Day as Jan Morrow
  
• Rock Hudson as Brad Allen/”Rex Stetson”
  
• Tony Randall as Jonathan Forbes
  
• Thelma Ritter as Day’s tippling housemaid
  
• Fun use of split-screen filming
  
  
  
• A fine, witty, Oscar-nominated screenplay by Stanley Shapiro and Maurice Richlin:
  

  “There are plenty of warm rolls in the bakery; stop pressing your nose against the window.”

Must See?
Yes, as a classic mid-century romantic comedy.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Edwin Jahiel’s Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Bright Lights Film Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In 1850s Oregon, a woodsman (Howard Keel) comes to town to find a wife (Jane Powell), who he brings back to the cabin he shares with his six rough-and-tumble brothers (Jeff Richards, Russ Tamblyn, Tommy Rall, Marc Platt, Matt Mattox, and Jacques d’Ambois). Soon the brothers decide they want to be married, too, and take extreme measures to achieve this goal.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Battle-of-the-Sexes
• Howard Keel Films
• Jane Powell Films
• Kidnapping
• Musicals
• Russ Tamblyn Films
• Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
When I first saw this “joyful, colorful” Technicolor musical as a teenage film fanatic, I recall finding its very premise (in which “lovesick brothers kidnap the town girls they desire and bring them home”) so distasteful that I failed to see how it could have any kind of a fan-base at all. Therefore, upon a recent revisit, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself largely in agreement with Peary’s positive review, in which he refers to it as “a lot of fun”, calling it a “rare musical that even young boys will love”, given that “Keel is handsome and masculine enough to get away with love songs” and “the dancers are extremely athletic”. He points out that the “score by Johnny Mercer and Gene DePaul has some excellent, catchy songs”, and accurately notes that “the Michael Kidd-choreographed dances” — performed by a team of “marvelous dancers” (many professionals) — are “terrific”, calling out “the exuberant, spectacular ‘barn-raising’ number” as the film’s definitive “show-stopper”.

Rewatching the film recently, I was gratified to find that the seemingly distasteful storyline — “based on Stephen Vincent Benet’s ‘The Sobbin’ Women'”, which in turn “was inspired by Plutarch’s ‘The Rape of the Sabine Women'” — actually possesses a relatively strong feminist strain. Spunky Powell’s foolhardy willingness to marry Keel the day she meets him (and to wax rhapsodic in song about her desire to cook and clean for him) is tempered by her savvy calculation that this is likely her best possible option in life; it’s certainly better than the thankless work as a servant-for-hire she’s been doing until then. Of course, she didn’t bargain on Keel having six lunk-headed brothers who she’d also be expected to cook and clean for — but she quickly asserts her dominance in their household, “playing Snow White” as she attempts “to turn the ruffians into gentlemen”. And, once the film’s infamous kidnapping occurs, she retains her authority, dictating at every moment exactly what will happen next. She’s a refreshingly strong “Western” woman, and this remains one of Powell’s best roles.

Interestingly, Jonathan Rosenbaum — in his review of the film for 1,001 Movies You Must See (2003) — refers to it as “a profoundly sexist” (albeit “eminently hummable”) movie, one which provides a “fascinating glimpse at the kind of patriarchal rape fantasies that were considered good-natured and even ‘cute’ at the time”, with a bevy of tunes that “accurately pinpoint the movie’s sexual politics” (such as “Bless Your Beautiful Hide” and “I’m a Lonesome Polecat”). His take is exactly how I felt as a much younger film fanatic; but at this point, I’m willing to simply place the film within its historical context, and recognize that for women at that time and in that geographical situation, finding a suitable husband really was likely the cleanest path to security and happiness. Regardless, I’m now able to appreciate Seven Brides… for its merits — vibrant widescreen Technicolor cinematography, “hummable” tunes, and truly fantastic dancing — rather than its questionable premise.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jane Powell as Milly
  
• Many fine dancing sequences
  
  
• Vivid cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic Hollywood musical. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TV Guide Review
• Qwipster Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• TCM: The Big Idea
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A rakish count (Maurice Chevalier) marries the queen of Sylvania (Jeanette MacDonald), but finds his masculinity threatened by his new role as “Prince Consort”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Battle-of-the-Sexes
• Ernst Lubitsch Films
• Jeanette MacDonald Films
• Marital Problems
• Maurice Chevalier Films
• Musicals
• Royalty and Nobility
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that “Ernst Lubitsch’s first sound film revolutionized the screen musical because he integrated numbers into the storyline and used non-synchronized sound… so he could move his camera without fear of losing some lyrics and picking up stage noise”. Indeed, film fanatics interested in the evolution of early sound cinema will surely be fascinated to watch this movie and see how much Lubitsch was able to accomplish, relatively speaking, within his technological constraints. What’s most surprising, however, is how enjoyable this witty pre-Code “bedroom comedy” remains on multiple other levels. The clever, often racy storyline “deals with a husband and wife who have troubles because neither is satisfied with their roles in [a] marriage”; what makes this particular variation on the theme so unusual is that it’s Chevalier who is dissatisfied with the back seat he must take to the demands of his royal wife. The ultimate resolution of this tension is dated and somewhat unsatisfying — but as Peary argues, “it’s all so silly that no one could be seriously offended”.

At the heart of the film’s success are its charismatic lovers. In her screen debut, MacDonald is “glowing” — as Peary notes, this “film is a reminder that [she] was not just a singer, but an okay comedienne and also an extremely sexy actress when given a chance”.

Meanwhile, Oscar-nominated Chevalier cemented his American screen presence here as a “bubbling” ladies’ man; it’s easy to see why MacDonald’s “virgin queen” would fall head-over-heels for him. Most film fanatics will also be interested to see a very young Lillian Roth in her breakthrough comedic role as MacDonald’s maid:

She performs a couple of enjoyable ditties and dances with “acrobatic, elastic-legged Lupino Lane” (playing Chevalier’s loyal servant). While its pacing is occasionally off (it could have easily been trimmed by half-an-hour or so), this early Lubitsch outing remains worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Maurice Chevalier as Alfred (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Jeanette MacDonald as Queen Louise
  
• Lillian Roth and Lupino Lane’s energetic dances together
  
• Plenty of enjoyably racy pre-Code “innuendo”
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as a ground-breaking early (narrative) musical.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A musician (Henry Fonda) is falsely accused of being a thief, and struggles to assert his innocence; meanwhile, his wife (Vera Miles) descends into a mental breakdown from the strain of the situation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Quayle Films
• Courtroom Drama
• Falsely Accused
• Henry Fonda Films
• Hitchcock Films
• Living Nightmare
• Mental Breakdown

Response to Peary’s Review:
Alfred Hitchcock’s dramatization of the travails of falsely accused New York musician Christopher Emmanual Ballestreros is his most documentary-like feature — and also, perhaps not coincidentally, the most depressing film in his entire oeuvre. As Peary notes, the “first part of the picture, in which Fonda is arrested outside his home, questioned, fingerprinted, paraded in front of witnesses, and tossed in jail, is masterfully directed with a sense of precision that’s even above Hitchcock’s usual standards”, and “perfectly illustrates [his] lifelong terror of being arrested for a crime he knew nothing about.” Peary argues that “this Kafkaesque sequence is so frightening that everything that comes afterward seems anticlimactic”, positing that “Miles’s breakdown is bothersome rather than compelling because it takes time away from the mystery” — but I don’t quite agree; rather than finding Miles’s mental collapse distracting, I feel it actually deepens the power and heartbreak of the screenplay, given that it shows the truly irreparable harm done by the false accusation.

Fonda is well-cast in the title role; he’s the ideal “everyman”, an “initially dull Hitchcockian hero whose every minute is planned out and whose life doesn’t vary at all from day to day” — and a rare Hitchcockian protagonist “without any sense of humor” whatsoever. Miles provides a nuanced, sensitive portrayal as his increasingly disturbed wife, and the supporting performances throughout the film — many by seemingly unknown actors — are finely rendered; note, for instance, the utter believability of the three terrified women in the Social Security office who initially accuse Fonda’s character. Meanwhile, Robert Burks’s stark cinematography perfectly captures the nightmarish noir milieu within which Fonda and his family find themselves, and fine use is made of authentic New York City locales.

With all that said, I must now admit to postponing my revisit of this highly regarded Hitchcock title for as long as possible; as DVD Savant puts it, “There’s nothing wrong with this picture except that it breaks Hitchcock’s primary rule – it doesn’t please the audience.” Hitchcock’s fidelity to the real-life story he was telling results in an oddly depressing and disturbing viewing experience; while The Wrong Man is undeniably a masterful film on many levels, it’s one which most film fanatics will probably want to consider a “once and done” title. At the very least, any viewer will come away with a heightened understanding of the importance of never, ever providing information to the police without first consulting a lawyer; Fonda’s best intentions here (giving lie to the oft-repeated quote that “an innocent man has nothing to fear”) do nothing but get him even deeper into trouble.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Henry Fonda as Manny Ballestreros
  
• Vera Miles as Ruth Ballestreros
  
• Robert Burks’ noir-ish cinematography
  
• Fine use of authentic New York locales
  

Must See?
Yes, once — but don’t expect to want to return to this one.

Categories

• Important Director

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

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A wheelchair-bound photographer (James Stewart) confined to his NYC apartment begins to suspect that one of his neighbors (Raymond Burr) has killed his wife. With help from his glamorous girlfriend (Grace Kelly), his personal nurse (Thelma Ritter), and a former war buddy (Wendell Corey), he tries to gather evidence to support his claim.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Grace Kelly Films
• Hitchcock Films
• Jimmy Stewart Films
• Murder Mystery
• Peeping Toms
• Raymond Burr Films
• Thelma Ritter Films
• Wendell Corey Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary rightfully refers to this Alfred Hitchcock thriller — adapted from a short story by Cornell Woolrich — as an “undisputed masterpiece”, and spends the bulk of his review analyzing the film’s multiple enticing themes. He asserts, however, that while “much has been written about this film being about how we are all Peeping Toms… too much is made of [this] theme; that we are all snoopers is a given.” Instead, he argues that “what [Hitchcock is] most interested in is what we discover when we study people”, beginning with the fact that “people are into such dull, regimented lives that when they do anything that varies from their routines (as Burr does), neighbors will become suspicious and may suspect them of doing something terrible.” Indeed, part of what makes the film so consistently engaging on a narrative level is that we’re never quite sure whether Stewart is right in his suspicions, or simply suffering from an overly active imagination; the various “clues” we’re given throughout the storyline (such as the fact that “Burr’s wife’s handbag is still in the Burr apartment”) remain circumstantial evidence at best.

As Peary notes, a “related and equally important theme (central to most Hitchcock films) is that even the most [seemingly] predictable people are capable of doing wildly unpredictable things” — demonstrated by the fact that “Kelly, who’s the type to fret over a broken fingernail, can be gallant enough to climb up a railing into a murderer’s apartment”. Speaking of Kelly, she’s not only as gorgeous as ever here (wearing “Edith Head’s lavish, sexy costumes”), but, as noted by Vincent Canby in his NY Times review of the film for its 1983 re-release, gives “probably her most successful performance, one in which the facts of her public personality and the fiction of the film become marvelously mixed”. We are actually able to have some fun with her notorious ice-princess persona, since it’s called out time and again by Stewart.

Ultimately, Kelly’s impossible beauty and charm (could she BE any more perfect?) simply serve to heighten the fact that Stewart is scared to death of marital commitment (as wryly evidenced by his silently judgmental observations of various married couples in apartments across the way). As noted by Gary Mairs in his review of the film for Culture Vulture, “he fears domestication… and the stories he watches in his neighbors’ windows come to resemble projections of all his worst connubial fantasies”. To that end, Mairs picks up on the Peeping Tom theme once again by arguing that Stewart’s “desire to watch overwhelms his desire for [Kelly], and he only really becomes aroused when she joins him in peeping.” Speaking of such matters, Hitchcock and screenwriter John Michael Hayes get away with an astonishing amount of sexual subtext for the times — most notably in Kelly’s brazen assertion that she’ll be spending the night in Stewart’s apartment, followed by pulling out and donning a sexy negligee; as Jonathan Rosenbaum points out in his analysis of the film, “one suspects the censors were placated only because Jeff’s plaster cast made sex between him and Lisa seem unlikely.”

Any discussion of Rear Window‘s multiple merits as a cinematic masterpiece would be incomplete without mentioning its sheer technical bravado. Hitchcock was clearly at the top of his game when planning and executing his vision for the film, given his consistently innovative approach to the material. Collaborating with DP Robert Burks — and given a truly impressive set to work with (possessing no less than 31 apartments!) — Hitchcock tells nearly the entire story from a camera “situated in the living room of [Stewart]… so we sense how trapped he feels while stuck in his apartment”. Until Stewart pulls out his camera’s zoom lens as makeshift binoculars, we’re restricted to the same limited view of his neighbors’ existence as he is; we’re never privy to anything more than what Stewart himself can see — which is what makes the finale so terrifying (though I won’t say more about that here, at risk of revealing spoilers).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jimmy Stewart as Jeff
  
• Grace Kelly as Lisa (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Thelma Ritter as Stella
  
• Robert Burks’ cinematography
  
• The truly impressive set
  
• Edith Head’s outfits
  
• Masterful direction

Must See?
Of course; this one merits multiple enjoyable viewings.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• NY Times Retrospective Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Greatest Films Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM’s Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The dowdy daughter (Bette Davis) of a domineering matriarch (Gladys Cooper) is encouraged by a friendly psychiatrist (Claude Rains) to take a trip abroad, where she transforms into a sleek and elegant young woman, and soon falls in love with a troubled married man (Paul Henreid) whose daughter (Janis Wilson) is just as insecure as Davis herself once was.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bette Davis Films
• Bonita Granville Films
• Character Arc
• Claude Rains Films
• Irving Rapper Films
• Romance
• Spinsters

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “shrewdly” scripted adaptation of Olive Higgins Prouty‘s novel by labeling it “a ridiculous soap opera that is great fun”. He refers to it as “both one of cinema’s great romances and one of the most manipulative tearjerkers about female sacrifice”, noting that it’s “full of dramatic love scenes, verbal battles, humor, tears, and, best of all, mature dialogue between Davis and men.” He calls out in particular the film’s infamous “final scene” between Davis and Henreid, featuring “Davis acting both noble and sacrificial; Max Steiner’s swelling music coaxing tears to our eyes; Henreid, for the umpteenth time, lighting two cigarettes simultaneously and handing one to Davis (their inhaling and smoky exhaling is the equivalent of sexual intercourse); and Davis delivering that beautiful last line: ‘Don’t let’s ask for the moon when we have the stars’.”

The storyline for Now, Voyager is contrived beyond belief, but enjoyably so — if you’re willing to go along for the ride. A classic “women’s picture” (DVD Savant refers to it as “the perfect distillation of narrative themes and romantic elements to attract the female audience in 1942”), Now, Voyager chronicles Davis’s magical transformation from a beetle-browed, plump spinster on the verge of a nervous breakdown, to the most popular guest on board a cruise ship — a woman unafraid to finally emerge from under the crippling dominance of her abusive mother and spread her wings, exactly how she chooses. Davis, naturally, is superb in this tricky central role, while Claude Rains is top-notch in a too-small (but critical) role as her kindly psychiatrist (if only we all had such a guardian angel/father-figure waiting for us in the wings!). Henreid, despite Davis’s apparent initial misgivings, is finely cast as her illicit European “lover”, and Gladys Cooper is appropriately hiss-worthy as her villainous mother (as noted by DVD Savant, “Not until Psycho did the movies come up with as potent a horror-mother as old Mrs. Vale”).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bette Davis as Charlotte Vale (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
  
• Paul Henreid as Jerry
  
• Claude Rains as Dr. Jaquith
  
• Gladys Cooper as Mrs. Vale
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic “women’s picture”.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• TCM Articles
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
On a dark and stormy night, a group of travelers — including a honeymooning couple (Raymond Massey and Gloria Stuart) and their friend (Melvyn Douglas), as well as a portly young widow (Charles Laughton) and his female companion (Lilian Bond) — seek refuge in the house of two eccentric siblings (Ernest Thesiger and Eva Moore), their butler (Boris Karloff), and various other mysterious family members.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boris Karloff Films
• Charles Laughton Films
• Horror Films
• James Whale Films
• Melvyn Douglas Films
• Old Dark House
• Psychopaths
• Raymond Massey Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “splendid, much overlooked” (is it, still?) horror film by director James Whale “exhibits his usual flair, wit, sophistication, and fascination with perverse characters.” Indeed, as Peary points out, the “five inhabitants” of the titular house “make the eccentric families found in screwball comedies seem normal”: after being “greeted” at the front door by the family’s “mad, mute butler (Boris Karloff) with scars on his forehead, a scruffy beard on his chin, and a constant urge to drink himself into a violent rage”, the clueless visitors quickly encounter “elderly, prissy, cowardly, atheist Ernest Thesiger and his partially deaf, unfriendly, fanatically religious sister, Eva Moore” — only to find that the family’s eccentricity extends much further, as they are introduced to the elderly siblings’ “heavily-whiskered 102-year-old father” (played by a woman, Elspeth Dudgeon!), and the most mysterious family member of all (Brember Wills).

As Peary argues, the “film is outrageous from the outset and becomes increasingly bizarre”. Although “Whale displays tongue-in-cheek humor at the beginning to lull viewers into a false sense of security”, he then “plays up the suspense and terror in the final few scenes”. (If you’ve never seen Old Dark House, don’t read reviews, as most will give away spoilers, and it’s much more fun to simply watch how things unfold.) Peary points out that “as always, Whale makes dramatic use of shadows, sound effects, wild angles (especially when filming faces), and dramatic close-ups”, and notes that DP Arthur Edeson provides “standout [cinemato]graphy” which “greatly contributes to the atmosphere” (check out the stills below). Also of note is the stunning make-up work done for both Karloff and (in particular) Dudgeon.

Interestingly, Peary’s review neglects to point out the film’s historical significance as the forerunner of all such “old dark house” films. What’s especially remarkable is how successful Whale is at satirizing the nascent genre he was simultaneously introducing: as creepy as events do eventually become, we’re treated to plenty of campy humor throughout, notably in the laughably mundane romance which immediately flourishes between Douglas and Bond (their dialogue together is priceless), and in some of the banter offered by Thesiger and Moore (who are as kooky as all get out, but never posited as any kind of a genuine threat themselves). Meanwhile, the family members are such a collectively outlandish bunch — and the visitors’ reactions to them so hilariously muted — that, at least until the very end, one can’t help viewing the entire affair as some kind of fantastical joke.

Note: Modern film fanatics will naturally be interested to know that the gorgeous blonde here (Gloria Stuart) is none other than “Old Rose” from Titanic (1997).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fabulously creepy make-up
  
  
• Arthur Edeson’s cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an early horror masterpiece by a famed director.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review