FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A young woman (Sarmila Tagore) whose father-in-law (Chhabi Biswas) believes she is an incarnation of the goddess Kali sends for her husband (Soumitra Chatterjee) to return home from his studies — but will Chatterjee be able to stop the process of deification that’s been put into motion before someone is hurt?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Indian Films
• Religious Faith
• Satyajit Ray Films

Review:
This follow up to Satyajit Ray’s The World of Apu (1959) featured the same young actors (Chatterjee and Tagore) playing a newly married couple once again — but in this case, the narrative (based on a story by Prabhat Kumar Mukhopadhyay) heads in a uniquely spiritual direction. “Devi” translates to “goddess,” which is what Tagore’s deluded father-in-law insists she has become simply because of a dream he’s had (and his belief in the veracity of his own faith):

Given power and gender dynamics in their household — Biswas is an older male with all the money; Chatterjee has gone off to school, leaving Tagore to fend for herself — Tagore is powerless to do anything but accept her new designation and ask for her husband to be sent for. We see numerous shots of her luminous face trembling with fear and uncertainty as she’s put on a pedestal and worshipped:

We also see her justifiably perturbed sister-in-law (played by Karuna Bannerjee from the Apu trilogy) wondering what in the world is happening in their household; the eventual involvement of Banerjee’s young son Khoka (Arpan Chowdhury) in Tagore’s trajectory becomes a pivotal turning point in the storyline.

As in other stories about “faith healers,” we’re shown the near-instantaneous impact on communities when they hear about a figure who might save them or their loved one from death or illness. The desire to believe — whether through Christianity, Hinduism, or another faith entirely — is powerful enough to drive people many miles.

This disturbing tale is a fine follow-up to Ray’s masterful trilogy about Apu, and should be seen by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Sarmila Tagore as Doya
  
• Soumitra Chatterjee as Uma
  
• Chhabi Biswas as Kalikinkar Roy
  
• A powerful portrait of religious fanaticism
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a good show by a master director. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Seattle Times Review
• TV Guide Review (spoiler alert)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When the admiral (Walter Pidgeon) of a U.S. naval submarine known as the Seaview learns that the Van Allen radiation belts have caused an Earth-destroying fire, he heads with his crew — including his captain (Robert Sterling), his trusty commodore (Peter Lorre), and a scientist (Joan Fontaine) studying stress — to seek permission from the U.N. science chief (Henry Daniell) to blast a nuclear missile at the belts; but when Daniell says no, Admiral Nelson (Pidgeon) proceeds with his plans anyway, leading Sterling and Fontaine to wonder if he may be suffering from a psychological breakdown.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Disaster Flicks
• Henry Daniell Films
• Joan Fontaine Films
• Nuclear Threat
• Peter Lorre Films
• Science Fiction
• Submarines
• Walter Pidgeon Films

Review:
Irwin Allen (the “Master of Disaster”) is perhaps best known by film fanatics for producing The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and The Towering Inferno (1974) — though he did actually direct a few titles as well, including the Oscar-winning documentary The Sea Around Us (1953) (not listed in GFTFF), the notoriously awful “historical drama” The Story of Mankind (1957), The Lost World (1960), The Swarm (1978), and this Fox CinemaScope production featuring a never-ending series of (what else?) calamities.

Even for a relatively uninformed viewer like myself, it’s obvious that the “science” behind just about every plot element in this film is nonsensical, leading one to focus instead on the visuals (Winton Hoch’s cinematography is beautiful):

… the reasonable special effects:

… the corny dialogue (“This ‘toy’ of mine is a demanding lady”), and the overly earnest performances by a cast of Big Names:

Poor Lorre is relegated to an initial scene showing him “walking” a (plastic) shark:

… and then otherwise simply lurks around the set looking supremely glum.

Meanwhile, Fontaine has primarily one (concerned) expression on her face throughout the entire film:

… while Daniell is given exactly one scene:

… and Barbara Eden’s sexy lieutenant is stuck trying to keep things hot with her fiance (Sterling):

… while mediating his increasing distrust of Pidgeon. Watch for Frankie Avalon (who sings the title song) in a bit role as a music-loving lieutenant:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine widescreen cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• All Movie Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
In turn-of-the-century Russia, a married father (Aleksey Batalov) has an affair in Yalta with a newlywed young woman (Iya Savvina) who is equally unhappy in her marriage — but do the lovers have any chance of a life together?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Infidelity
• Russian Films
• Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
This adaptation of Anton Chekhov’s 1899 short story — helmed by Soviet director Iosif Kheifits (also known by the alternate spellings of Jossif Cheifiz, Yossif Cheifiz, Iosif Heifits, Josef Heifitz, Josif Hejfits, and I. Kheyfits) — tells a straightforward, beautifully shot tale of married lovers who don’t really have a chance at long-term happiness. Without having read Chekhov’s original story (or at least not in many years), I struggled to engage on a meaningful level with either of these protagonists, and found myself wondering what was going on in their minds as we see them clearly deeply reflecting on… something:

While Savvina is certainly beautiful to look at:

… and the couple’s time together is spent in gorgeous locales:

… there doesn’t really seem to be anywhere for this doomed tale to go.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Fine cinematography and sets
  
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look if you’re a fan of the short story.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Village Voice Review

Synopsis:
Concert promoter Bill Graham manages five final performances by various musical bands at the Fillmore West auditorium in San Francisco as it’s about to close in 1971.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Concert Films
• Documentary
• Rock ‘n’ Roll

Review:
This documentary about the final performances given at the Fillmore West auditorium in San Francisco is widely considered a downer given over-inclusion of footage showing promoter Bill Graham acting about as obnoxious as possible. While learning about his traumatic past as an orphan fleeing from Nazi Germany helps us have some insight into why he acts the way he does, it’s still unpleasant seeing him at work.

On the plus side, of course, are the performances, filmed in just 16 millimeter but creatively edited here using split screen and double exposure.

Fans of any of the bands on stage — including Quicksilver Messenger Service, New Riders of the Purple Sage, Jefferson Airplane, The Grateful Dead, and (infamously) Santana — will certainly want to check this one out, but it’s in no way must-see viewing for others.

Favorite random scene: A man (musician?) in a cowboy hat reassures a young girl with all sincerity that he may not be able to get her a pink balloon to play with, but will try his best to get her a balloon.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Creative use of split screen cinematography
  

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Pittsburgh Press Review
• Village Voice Review
• Time Out Capsule Review