Between Heaven and Hell (1956)

Between Heaven and Hell (1956)

“I’ve heard about you, Gifford. First you go get yourself a silver star, then you get busted to private. Oh, it’s a rough war, ain’t it?”

Synopsis:
A spoiled Southerner (Robert Wagner) serving under a sadistic commander (Broderick Crawford) experiences a fundamental attitude shift.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Broderick Crawford Films
  • Character Arc
  • Flashback Films
  • Richard Fleischer Films
  • Robert Wagner Films
  • Ruthless Leaders
  • Soldiers
  • Terry Moore Films
  • World War Two

Review:
Starring matinee-idol Robert Wagner, this unassuming WWII-era film (based on a novel by Francis Gwaltney) offers yet another perspective on the brutal ravages of war. Unfortunately, the ostensible focus of the film — arrogant Sergeant-turned-Private Gifford (Wagner) learns to love and respect his fellow soldiers, regardless of their station in life:

— comes across as somewhat heavy-handed, given that the brief flashbacks to his life as a callous plantation owner (married to Terry Moore) aren’t lengthy enough to give us a really good sense of who Gifford once was (or why).

Much more effective is director Richard Fleischer’s ability to show us how the random brutality of wartime violence — starting with the death of his beloved father-in-law (Robert Keith):

— has a deeply powerful effect on Wagner’s psyche; the type of PTSD he experiences wasn’t explored nearly enough in other wartime films of the era.

Broderick Crawford is appropriately unhinged as a Kurtz-like commander slowly going off the deep end (with a weirdly homoerotic attachment to his two buff young henchmen, who often roam around shirtless):

My favorite performance in the film, however, is given by Buddy Ebsen as Wagner’s lower-class “buddy”, who quietly befriends him and helps him see the good in himself.

Much less fortunate is the casting of Harvey Lembeck as — what else? — an obnoxious wiseacre; fortunately, his role is relatively small.

Note Hugo Friedhofer’s Oscar-nominated score, which draws heavily — and to nice effect — upon the “dies irae” motif.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A powerful portrait of the effects of wartime death on soldiers
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look, and WWII film fans will certainly want to check it out. Listed as a Sleeper and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1934)

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1934)

“Tell her they may soon be leaving us — leaving us for a long, long journey.”

Synopsis:
A man (Leslie Banks) vacationing in Switzerland with his wife (Edna Best) and teenage daughter (Nova Pilbeam) becomes privy to knowledge about an assassination plot, and must rescue his kidnapped daughter from the clutches of the plot’s ringleader (Peter Lorre).

Genres:

  • Assassination
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Kidnapping
  • Peter Lorre Films
  • Search

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this early version of Hitchcock’s 1956 remake is rated more” highly by many, but ultimately isn’t quite “as enjoyable” as its later counterpart. Yet it remains an economic little thriller which “blends droll wit and suspense”, and has plenty to recommend in its own right, including exciting sequences staged “in intriguing settings”, and an interesting mix of “refined continental types with sleazy, though educated East Europeans (like Peter Lorre’s strange-looking, memorable villain)”.

While I agree with Peary that the 1956 version is ultimately the more enjoyable of the two, certain elements of this earlier film work better — namely the setting of the opening sequences in Switzerland:

… rather than Morocco (I prefer Banks’ urbane Brit to Stewart’s “ugly American”):

… and the fact that Banks’ wife (Best) is a savvy sharpshooter rather than a ’50s housewife.

As Peary notes, however, 15-year-old Pilbeam (lovely as the central protagonist in Hitchcock’s The Young and Innocent, released three years later) “looks much too old for her part” — her age and gender imply the threat of something more egregious happening to her when she’s kidnapped, but these potential threats are simply ignored in the script.

Peary describes the “climactic shootout” — in which Best uses her shooting skills to rescue Pilbeam much like Day uses her singing skills to rescue Olsen — as something “straight out of American gangster films”:

… but it drags on for a bit too long. Much more rewarding is the earlier Albert Hall assassination sequence (with many shots duplicated in the 1956 version).


NB: This was Lorre’s first English-speaking role; accounts differ on whether he learned the language within three months, or recited most of his lines phonetically, but he does a remarkably polished job, and remains one of the film’s creepy highlights.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Lorre as Abbott
  • An exciting, fast-paced plot

Must See?
Yes, simply as one of Hitchcock’s better early thrillers — and “his most commercially successful” British film.

Categories

Links:

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1956)

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1956)

“Don’t you realize that Americans dislike having their children stolen?”

Synopsis:
An American doctor (Jimmy Stewart) traveling in Morocco with his wife (Doris Day) and son (Christopher Olsen) becomes unwittingly embroiled in an assassination plot, and must find a way to rescue his kidnapped son while preventing the assassination from taking place.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Assassination
  • Carolyn Jones Films
  • Doris Day Films
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • Kidnapping
  • Search

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, although this remake of Hitchcock’s 1934 British film of the same name was “long regarded as one of [his] lesser efforts of the fifties”, it’s actually a “well-made, truly enjoyable thriller” with a number of “clever and suspenseful” scenes, and plenty of “wit” throughout. Doris Day is surprisingly well-cast as a once-famous singer (now housewife) whose rendition of “Que Sera, Sera” plays a pivotal part in the film’s suspenseful ending.

(NB: This song won the film an Oscar, but it’s actually a bit saccharine and repetitive; Hitchcock himself apparently hated it.)

Stewart is serviceable but not particularly distinctive in the title role; his “Ugly American” treatment of Morocco during the film’s opening half-hour is truly off-putting:

and makes it difficult to sympathize as much with his predicament as one otherwise would. In addition, while it’s somewhat pointless to quibble over plot holes in Hitchcock’s films (he was notoriously indifferent to their presence), I can’t quite get beyond the fact that Day and Stewart allow relative strangers (new “friends” they only just met the night before — Bernard Miles and creepy Brenda De Banzie):

to take off with their child in a strange city; then again, without this pivotal plot twist, there would be no story.

Watch for composer Bernard Herrmann in a cameo as the conductor at Albert Hall, where the film’s exciting, oft-studied climax takes place.

Also of note: skeletal Reggie Nalder as the assassin (has there been a creepier face in cinematic history?).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Doris Day as Jo Conway
  • The amusing taxidermist sequence — a classic Hitchcockian red herring
  • The suspensefully filmed and edited Albert Hall sequence

Must See?
Yes. While it’s not one of his best films, this is certainly worthy Hitchcock viewing — and film fanatics will enjoy comparing it with his earlier version.

Categories

Links:

Parallax View, The (1974)

Parallax View, The (1974)

“There is no evidence of a conspiracy.”

Synopsis:
While investigating a string of deaths associated with the murder of a politician (William Joyce), a journalist (Warren Beatty) learns about the mysterious Parallax Corporation, which trains assassins.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan J. Pakula Films
  • Assassination
  • Hume Cronyn Films
  • Journalists
  • Paula Prentiss Films
  • Political Conspiracy
  • Warren Beatty Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this “strangely satisfying” thriller by Alan J. Pakula largely focuses on its status as a “blueprint for conspiratorial machinery” and as the “definitive paranoia film”. Peary argues that the film effectively demonstrates how “even the cleverest, most resourceful individual cannot triumph against the corporation”, and that “truth [cannot] win out as in [Pakula’s next film] All the President’s Men.” While it’s true, as Peary notes, that the film’s “major flaws result from Pakula sacrificing story-clarifying scenes for pacing” (it’s often devilishly difficult, as in Pakula’s Klute, to follow what’s happening from one scene to the next), I also agree with him that in this case, “the information left out [simply] builds our paranoia and disorientation”. Visually, The Parallax View is a triumph: Pakula’s stylized direction (utilizing many longshots or extreme close-ups) and Gordon Willis’s masterful camerawork make this a film one doesn’t mind viewing key sections of several times. Especially notable are the opening assassination sequence atop the Space Needle in Seattle, and the deeply disturbing “brainwashing montage”, watched by Beatty when he visits the Parallax Corporation for the first time (see DVD Savant’s review for a more detailed analysis of this sequence’s progression). Beatty is fine and believable in the central role, but the supporting cast is even more impressive — particularly Paula Prentiss in an all-too-brief early role as Beatty’s former girlfriend (whose fear of being the next in line for assassination is realized all too quickly.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Warren Beatty as Joseph Frady (nominated by Peary as one of the best actors of the year in his Alternate Oscars book)
  • Paula Prentiss in an early supporting role
  • Hume Cronyn as Beatty’s editor
  • The opening Space Needle assassination sequence
  • The eerie brainwashing montage
  • Gordon Willis’s cinematography
  • Pakula’s effective directorial style

  • Michael Small’s distinctive, trumpet-heavy score

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful thriller by a master director. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 2, and nominated by Peary as one of the best movies of the year in his Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links:

Ecstasy (1933)

Ecstasy (1933)

“My marriage was a mistake.”

Synopsis:
A sexually neglected newlywed (Hedy Lamarr) finds love and passion in the arms of a handsome young foreman (Aribert Mog).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Eastern European Films
  • Hedy Lamarr Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Sexual Liberation

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “once banned picture” — refused importation into the United States until 1940, and publicly denounced by Pope Pius XII — is a “surprisingly impressive work considering that its reputation is based solely on its trouble with censors and [19-year-old Hedy] Lamarr’s nudity.” While its controversial scenes — naked Lamarr swimming and dashing through the forest after her runaway horse; a close-up of Lamarr’s face in “ecstasy” with her handsome new lover — are indeed somewhat “startling” for a film made in the early 1930s, Peary accurately notes that the film remains “an extremely bold, erotic exploration of a woman’s need for sexual fufillment”. Shot much like a silent picture (with limited dialogue), Ecstasy is a visual treat throughout, with effectively dreamy cinematography and many memorable images (see stills below). Unfortunately, the final half hour of the film — in which director Gustav Machaty has Lamarr pay for the sin of “yielding to her sexual desire and seeking out a man for sex” — starts to drag, and an ending montage sequence of industrious workers (which seems to belong to another Soviet-era propaganda movie entirely) is a truly “bizarre” capstone to what’s come before. Despite its disappointing ending, however, Ecstasy remains worthy viewing, not just for its controversy (which makes it an automatic must for all film fanatics) but for its sensuous depiction of young lovers finding short-lived happiness in each others’ arms.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An effective tale of sensual awakening
  • Striking cinematography and creative direction


Must See?
Yes, as a controversial film with cinematic significance.

Categories

Links:

Buddies (1985)

Buddies (1985)

“AIDS is not a gay disease — it hurts everybody.”

Synopsis:
A young gay man (David Schachter) in New York City volunteers as a hospice “buddy” for a man (Geoff Edholm) dying of AIDS.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Death and Dying
  • Homosexuality

Review:
Gay filmmaker Arthur J. Bressan died of an AIDS-related illness in 1987, two years after this quietly incendiary indie film was released. Bressan, eager to alert Americans to the increasingly dire spread of AIDS across the gay community and beyond, apparently wrote the film in a week and filmed it in two — but, despite its obvious low-budget and (at times) overly didactic script, it remains a surprisingly sincere and heartfelt two-character drama. In essence, it shows us Schachter’s growing political consciousness about homosexuality and AIDS, along with Edholm’s gradual acceptance of his impending death; perhaps predictably, hints of a (mostly one-sided) infatuation between the two emerges as well. But Bressan’s primarily goal with his film was to infuriate audiences about the American government’s apathy over the AIDS crisis — as Edholm’s character notes, there wasn’t even a single AIDS clinic in New York City at the time. To that end, Bressan’s decision to begin and end the movie by scrolling the names of people dying each day from AIDS in America:

… is a particularly potent cinematic device, one that packs a punch almost as powerful as the rest of the film.

Note: Bressan’s Abuse (1983) — about a filmmaker initiating an affair with an abused gay teen — is also listed in Peary’s book, and is another noteworthy (albeit highly controversial) film to seek out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A touching portrait of friendship and caring in the face of death

Must See?
Yes, as the first American feature film about the AIDS pandemic. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

Links:

Massacre (1934)

Massacre (1934)

“You used to shoot the Indian down. Now you cheat him and starve him and kill him off by dirt and disease. It’s a massacre, any way you take it!”

Synopsis:
An Indian rodeo-star (Richard Barthelmess) returns for a visit to his native Sioux reservation, where he discovers that a corrupt federal agent (Dudley Digges) and his henchmen are taking advantage of his people.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ann Dvorak Films
  • Corruption
  • Native Americans

Review:
As one of the first Hollywood films to take the plight of reservation-bound Native Americans seriously, this heavy-handed but sincere drama is a welcome antidote to early 20th century shoot-’em-up westerns. It’s refreshing, if depressing, to see how Indians were patronized, lied to, raped, and taken advantage of in every way possible; indeed, an incredibly strong case is made in Massacre for legal intervention, which is ultimately the direction the narrative — based on the real-life actions of John Collier, one-time commissioner for the Bureau of Indian Affairs — takes. The rest of the fictional storyline, unfortunately, is less than convincing, with Richard Barthelmess’s anglicized Chief Joe Thunderhorse single-handedly riding into town and exposing corruption and vice:

…. while conveniently falling for a local girl (Ann Dvorak in skin-darkening make-up):

… and forgetting all about the blonde socialite (Claire Dodd) waiting for him back in Chicago.

But the power of the movie’s social-justice message is compelling enough to make it worthy one-time viewing for historically-minded film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A refreshingly sincere attempt to portray the struggles of reservation-bound Native Americans

Must See?
Yes, for its historical value. Listed as a Sleeper and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

Links:

Taxi Driver (1976)

Taxi Driver (1976)

“Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.”

Synopsis:
An alienated veteran (Robert De Niro) working as a nighttime cabbie in New York plots to assassinate a political candidate (Leonard Harris) while becoming increasingly obsessed with “rescuing” a 12-year-old prostitute (Jodie Foster) from her pimp (Harvey Keitel).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cybill Shepherd Films
  • Harvey Keitel Films
  • Jodie Foster Films
  • Martin Scorsese Films
  • Misfits
  • New York City
  • Paul Schrader Films
  • Peter Boyle Films
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos
  • Robert De Niro Films
  • Veterans
  • Vigilantes

Response to Peary’s Review:
Martin Scorsese has made so many highly regarded movies over the past few decades that it’s difficult to call out which ones are most enduring, but I cast my vote for placing this “controversial, disturbing character study” — a true neo-noir classic — at the top of the list. A rare marriage of polished directorial style, stunning cinematography (by Michael Chapman), sharp script (by Paul Schrader), haunting score (by Bernard Herrmann — his last), and a chilling central performance, Taxi Driver is one of the most memorable character studies in cinematic history. Yet while Peary notes that the “film remains an enormous favorite among critics and fans who are impressed by its gritty realism, orgiastic violence, standout performances, and overwhelming cynicism”, he argues that “an equal number resent it because of its bleak resolution.” It’s difficult to tell exactly where Peary himself falls along this spectrum of opinions: while he notes that “De Niro has never been better”, he simultaneously argues that “too often Scorsese lets his favorite actor do a standard ‘De Niro bit'”, and he questions what he sees as the film’s ultimate claim that “a maniac can rid himself of inner demons… and become all civilized by committing cold-blooded murder.”

Regardless of one’s view on the film’s unexpected ending — which I see as an appropriately bizarre capstone to the dizzying parable that’s come before, akin to the controversial ending in Scorsese’s later King of Comedy (1982) — there is much to admire in Taxi Driver, including uniformly excellent performances by all involved — including Foster as a remarkably self-assured preteen hooker:

… Harvey Keitel as her creepy pimp:

… Cybill Shepherd as a WASP-y electioneer (De Niro’s love interest):

… and (despite Peary’s guarded protestations) De Niro himself in the title role. While his infamous “You talkin’ to me?” mirror scene is deservedly lauded (De Niro is indeed “terrifying” during this moment):

… his entire characterization of Travis Bickle is fascinating to watch, as Bickle gradually descends into righteous madness, driven by a complex cocktail of PTSD, sleeplessness, headaches, and a confused moral compass.


(Interestingly, we never learn why Bickle — a Vietnam vet — was discharged from the army, but he’s clearly deeply damaged, and remains alienated from those around him — as evidenced most clearly in his futile attempt to turn to a colleague, Peter Boyle, for help).

While Taxi Driver is undeniably a violence-filled movie, Peary accurately notes that many of the film’s “best moments” are those without violence — such as the “surreal rides De Niro takes in his cab”, which (thanks in large part to cinematographer Michael Chapman) are “beautifully shot mood pieces”; as Peary points out, “no director has better captured the peculiarly wretched feel and odor, as well as the look, of the underbelly of New York.”

Another of my favorite scenes (among many) shows Jodie Foster picking at a grilled cheese sandwich while defending her lifestyle in front of De Niro’s incredulous Bickle; it’s clear that Bickle’s noble obsession to “rescue” her from her pimp — much like John Wayne’s quest to rescue Natalie Wood from her Indian captors in The Searchers (Peary calls out this parallel in his review) — will be met with a decided lack of gratitude, further complicating this enigmatic tale of a self-made redeemer in search of “justice”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Robert De Niro as Travis Bickle (voted Best Actor of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars book, where he changes his tune slightly and insists his “gripes about Travis’s character have only to do with the script, not De Niro’s performance”)
  • Jodie Foster as Iris
  • Michael Chapman’s cinematography
  • Scorsese’s direction
  • Paul Schrader’s uncompromising script
  • Bernard Herrmann’s score

Must See?
Of course — numerous times. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 2.

Categories

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

Links:

Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

“The simplest tasks are by no means the easiest.”

Synopsis:
A sickly young priest (Claude Laydu) in the French countryside struggles to bond with his suspicious parishioners.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Character Studies
  • Downward Spiral
  • French Films
  • Priests and Ministers
  • Robert Bresson Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “award-winning film” by writer/director Robert Bresson — based on a novel by Georges Bernanos — is “somber and slow” but sustains a “haunting, almost poetic quality” throughout. Peary argues that the film’s titular protagonist (effectively portrayed by non-actor Laydu, who went on to pursue a film career) is “a typical Bresson hero in that he is extremely introverted and incapable of social conversation; … feels isolated; … has grave self-doubts; and suffers terribly, … not only from guilt and spiritual malaise… but physically as well”. Yet “Bresson admires this individual because he somehow retains his faith through [a lengthy] period of terrible despair”. The storyline itself is sparse but oddly compelling, simply following Laydu as he attempts (usually in vain) to connect spiritually with his parishioners, meanwhile assuaging his increasingly crippling stomach pains with wine (leading those around him to unfairly suspect him of alcoholism — though he’s never overtly seen as “under the influence”). What lingers longest in one’s memory of this introspective film are its many “memorable images”, courtesy of both Bresson’s unique vision and Leonce-Henri Burel’s “exquisite” cinematography; see below for a few representative stills.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A powerful tale of spiritual longing
  • Leonce-Henry Burel’s cinematography


Must See?
Yes, as Bresson’s acknowledged “masterpiece”.

Categories

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

Links:

Argent, L’ (1983)

Argent, L’ (1983)

“Oh, money, visible god — what we wouldn’t do for you.”

Synopsis:
A delivery man (Christian Patey) finds his life changed forever when he’s handed several counterfeit bills by an unscrupulous photography store owner (Didier Baussy).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Downward Spiral
  • Falsely Accused
  • French Films
  • Robert Bresson Films

Review:
Based on Tolstoy’s story “The Forged Coupon”, Robert Bresson’s final film is a clear indictment against a mercenary society in which an innocent worker can be forced to pay dearly for the callous indifference and moral bankruptcy of the bourgeoisie. What begins as a naughty schoolboy prank — a wealthy teenager, miffed at his father’s refusal to give him extra pocket money, uses a forged bill to get change at a frame shop:

— quickly shifts to criminal activity, as the shop’s irritated owner (Didier Baussy) knowingly pawns the money off onto Patey, who is subsequently arrested when he innocently tries to spend his earnings. When Baussy convinces his employee (Vincent Risterucci) to lie against Patey in court, Patey’s downward spiral continues, leading him to a life of petty crime, violence, and imprisonment:

which are ultimately viewed as catalysts for the death of his daughter and the dissolution of his marriage. In the film’s tragic denouement, Patey impacts the lives of yet another innocent family — thus perpetuating the cycle of devastation sparked by the film’s opening “boyish prank”. It’s bleak stuff, to be sure, and Bresson’s signature application of stylized detachment makes it particularly difficult to watch the story with anything other than morbid curiosity. Indeed, the entire screenplay — which borders strategically on contrivance — seems more like a formalized exploration of moral ambiguity than a living narrative, and I’ll admit I’m not sure where my sentiments on it lie. With that said, as the capstone of Bresson’s unique oeuvre, most film fanatics will at least be curious to check it out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A disturbing and provocative screenplay

Must See?
No, but it’s worth viewing once. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links: