Petrified Forest, The (1936)

Petrified Forest, The (1936)

Comments 1 comment

“There’s something in me that wants something different.”

Synopsis:
A penniless writer (Leslie Howard) stops at a roadside diner and becomes enamored with a poetic waitress (Bette Davis) who longs for a more exciting and romantic life. When notorious gangster Duke Mantee (Humphrey Bogart) and his men arrive and hold the diner’s inhabitants hostage, both Davis and Howard suddenly face life-changing choices.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bette Davis Films
  • Gangsters
  • Hostages
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Leslie Howard Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this adaptation of “Robert E. Sherwood’s philosophical play” by noting it “provided the cinema with one of its few intellectual protagonists who wasn’t a mad scientist”, and adds that while the “adaptation is a bit stagy” it’s “generally well directed by Archie Mayo”. He notes that “wide-eyed Davis gives a fine, unassuming performance, and Howard, if he’d just stop talking for five seconds, is a good match for her”, while “Bogart and the other supporting players are well cast.” He points out a particularly interesting scene “in which a black gangster [Slim Thompson] reminds a black chauffeur [John Alexander], who needs orders from his rich white boss before doing anything, that they’ve been emancipated”, and notes that “Sherwood’s play is about the need for every repressed person to rebel against the particular ‘order’ — be it sexual, financial, racial, physical — in which he finds himself.” While I agree the film is a “bit stagy”, it never feels slow or boring, and I find it particularly interesting for both Davis’s uncharacteristically subdued performance and Howard’s charismatic presence — they make an appealing if star-crossed pair of would-be lovers.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bette Davis as Gabrielle
  • Leslie Howard as Alan
  • Humphrey Bogart as Duke Mantee
  • Sol Polito’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, for its historical importance (as Bogart’s breakthrough role) and strong performances.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Body and Soul (1947)

Body and Soul (1947)

Comments 1 comment

“Everything is addition or subtraction — the rest is conversation.”

Synopsis:
An amateur boxer (John Garfield) goes against the wishes of his mother (Anne Revere) when agreeing to work for a corrupt promoter (Lloyd Gough) in hopes of earning enough money to marry his artist-sweetheart (Lilli Palmer) — but will Garfield be able to resist the lure of easy money and women?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boxing
  • Corruption
  • John Garfield Films
  • Robert Rossen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “this anti-boxing noir classic was powerfully directed by Robert Rossen” and features “John Garfield, the screen’s romantic rebel and symbol for the immigrant poor”, who “found an ideal role as Jewish boxer Charley Davis, a decent tenement dweller who becomes a boxer to earn much-needed money and is quickly corrupted”. (Peary adds that “as in Golden Boy, the boxing arena represents hell.”) Highlights include the “thrilling boxing finale, intensely shot by James Wong Howe”, and “a fine performance by Lilli Palmer” as Garfield’s “smart fiancee”. Peary provides an analysis of the “script by Marxist Abraham Polonsky” as “an indictment of capitalism”, with “boxing shown to be similar to any ruthless mainstream business” in which “employers not only exploit their boxer employees but own them by virtue of a contract; the employees, having no union, literally fight against one another in order to gain a higher rank.” He adds that “Polonsky speaks of the dignity of poverty (as represented by Revere, who will take none of her son’s earnings) and, through designer Palmer (whose career moves along as swiftly as Charley’s, without her selling her soul), he pays respect to the artist.”

For better or for worse (or perhaps simply inevitably), Rossen and Polonsky’s film feels just as timely and relevant today as ever. Nothing about Garfield’s quest for money — earned through satisfyingly brutal fights that allow him to vent his anger at the world — or his relatively easy fall into corruption is unrealistic; aspiring boxing and wrestling stars today face exactly the same lures and corruptive oversight. Palmer’s character is refreshingly nuanced: she loves and supports Garfield, but knows her own limits and sticks to them.

Hazel Brooks does a fine job playing a seductive groupie in it for the money:

and Canada Lee is highly memorable in a critical supporting role as the black boxer who Garfield almost fatally knocks out, then hires to help him train; his story is nearly as impactful as Garfield’s.

Howe’s cinematography is phenomenal throughout, and Rossen directs with a fine sense of composition and atmosphere. This one remains well worth a visit.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • John Garfield as Charley
  • Lilli Palmer as Peg
  • Canada Lee as Ben
  • Fine direction by Rossen
  • Francis Lyon and Robert Parrish’s Oscar-winning editing
  • Excellent cinematography by James Wong Howe

Must See?
Yes, as a boxing classic and all-around good show.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Women, The (1939)

Women, The (1939)

Comments 1 comment

“I knew this sort of thing happened to other people — but I never dreamed it could happen to us!”

Synopsis:
When a wife (Norma Shearer) learns her husband has been stolen by a ruthless golddigger (Joan Crawford), she files for divorce and soon finds herself in similar company with many of her friends — some old, some new. Will she find a way to get her husband back — and does she even want to?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Divorce
  • George Cukor Films
  • Gold Diggers
  • Infidelity
  • Joan Crawford Films
  • Joan Fontaine Films
  • Norma Shearer Films
  • Paulette Goddard Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • Rosalind Russell Films
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly a fan of this “delicious adaptation (by Anita Loos) of Clare Boothe’s classic stage comedy, directed by George Cukor, and starring a peerless all-female cast”. He notes that “the characters are like wild animals — claws and fangs bared — let out of their cages”, and writes that the “picture is an ideal starting point for discussions on how women are portrayed in film”: while “some find the film’s portrayal of women objectionable”, these “women are resilient, always pulling through when men let them down”. He adds that “it’s a joy watching scenes between women who are friends — because, of course, friendships between women have traditionally been ignored by male filmmakers”; and “even though they often betray each other through gossip (a habit they don’t wish to break), there is camaraderie among them. They obviously care for one another, know the petty problems the others have living in a society where the men control the money.” Peary concludes his review by noting that “most unique is that all these women have a genuine sense of humor” — “Cukor obviously loves these characters”, so “we can forgive him for intentionally over-doing it.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment. Despite the story being set in a very specific time and place (an era when divorces necessarily involved a trip to Reno), and perhaps coming across as dated for that reason, it remains timeless in many ways, thanks to the nuanced portrayals of the various women. As Peary writes, “Shearer’s friends range from young to old (she also has a special relationship with her mother and daughter) and include golddiggers (Goddard), passive wives (Fontaine), those who financially support their men, those who use their husbands’ money to fritter their days away, those who push men around, and those who have been dumped by their wayward husbands”. The lack of any actual men in the cast or on screen (a clever convention of the original play) allows us to concentrate exclusively on the women of this story, which is surprisingly refreshing. Of course, it’s lacking in diversity in countless ways (we see no women of color or lesbians) — but it’s authentic to its milieu and realistically doesn’t stretch farther than Shearer’s actual life would. Speaking of Shearer, she’s in top form here, easily holding her own against Crawford’s iconically shrewish Crystal. The direction and cinematography are top-notch as well.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Norma Shearer as Mary
  • Joan Crawford as Crystal
  • Fine direction and cinematography

  • A witty, often biting script

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

Categories

  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Loving (1970)

Loving (1970)

Comments 1 comment

“Do it your own way, your own style — have fun with it. “

Synopsis:
A commercial illustrator (George Segal) hoping to land an account with a local business owner (Sterling Hayden) cheats on his wife (Eva Marie Saint) with his friend’s niece (Janis Young) while flirting with his neighbor’s sex-crazed wife (Nancie Phillips).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Eva Marie Saint Films
  • George Segal Films
  • Infidelity
  • Keenan Wynn Films
  • Midlife Crisis
  • Sterling Hayden Films

Review:
The primary element to recommend about this portrait of a privileged man in midlife crisis is Gordon Willis’s typically evocative cinematography. (I’ve learned over many years of writing reviews for this site that cinematography is often the saving grace of an otherwise irredeemable film. I’ve also learned that nearly any film showing a parent slipping in to wistfully watch their child’s school play performance is a lost cause.) Now, Loving isn’t quite irredeemable — it simply doesn’t feel necessary, unless you want to watch a man obsessing over his lost artistic potential (never mind that he’s making excellent money in a field notoriously challenging to crack into), and neglecting his lovely family on behalf of his young mistress who — in the movie’s dialogue-free opening sequence — clearly just wants him to go away and leave her alone. Do such conflicts consume some people? Sure. Are they worth watching and empathizing with? No, not really. At least Segal is made to look utterly ridiculous in the film’s final sequences, which is something.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Gordon Willis’s cinematography

Must See?
No. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Humoresque (1946)

Humoresque (1946)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m tired of playing second fiddle to the ghost of Beethoven.”

Synopsis:
A married socialite (Joan Crawford) becomes smitten with an aspiring violinist (John Garfield), and the pair are soon lovers — but will Crawford’s meek husband (Paul Cavanagh), Garfield’s disapproving mother (Ruth Nelson), or Garfield’s former girlfriend (Joan Chandler) stand in the way of their forbidden romance?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Jean Negulescu Films
  • Joan Crawford Films
  • John Garfield Films
  • Musicians
  • Oscar Levant Films

Review:
Clifford Odets co-wrote the screenplay for this adaptation (by Jean Negulescu) of Fannie Hurst’s melodramatic cross-class romance. One is tempted to say this is Joan’s show all the way, given she’s in peak form (her final moments on-screen are iconic) — but Garfield more than holds his own as a determined musician so devoted to his craft he has little authentic room for anything (or anyone) else. Levant becomes somewhat tiresome as Garfield’s always-wisecracking pianist-friend, though at least many of his lines are amusingly droll. The music (performed by Isaac Stern) is suitably moving, and Ernest Haller bathes the entire affair in a romantic glow. This would make an interesting double-bill with Rouben Mamoulian’s adaptation of Odets’ Golden Boy (1939), given that they serve as counterpoint stories about the choices and sacrifices one inevitably makes on behalf of talent, love, and family.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joan Crawford as Helen Wright
  • John Garfield as Paul Boray
  • Ernest Haller’s cinematography

  • Many fine musical sequences

Must See?
No, though naturally it’s a must for Crawford fans. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

Comments 1 comment

“He doesn’t punish men for discipline; he likes to see men crawl.”

Synopsis:
When sadistic Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton) mistreats his crew to the point of abuse and death, his first officer (Clark Gable) leads a mutiny despite the protests of Bligh’s loyal midshipman (Franchot Tone).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • At Sea
  • Charles Laughton Films
  • Clark Gable Films
  • Donald Crisp Films
  • Franchot Tone Films
  • Mutiny
  • Ruthless Leaders
  • South Sea Islands

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic sea drama” about “a historical mutiny that took place in the 18th century on a British ship making a two-year voyage to retrieve breadfruit plants from Tahiti” still “holds up” well today. He argues that while the “film hasn’t the sense of adventure, eroticism, or psychological complexities of the 1962 remake with Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando… or the revisionist 1984 film, The Bounty, starring Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson”, it remains “the superior film”, and that “its power comes from neither Bligh nor Christian ever backing down from each other during an argument, even when the other has the upper hand.” In Alternate Oscars, however, Peary amends his assessment by noting it’s “too grouchy a picture”, given that “for two hours we see Laughton demean sailors and get away with it”; he asserts it’s not a film “you want to see every time [it turns] up at a repertory cinema or TV.” Meanwhile, he notes that while “Laughton’s Bligh is a villain for the ages, one of the most contemptuous figures in cinema history”, he believes “the role lets him down because it is without nuance — there is no way we can get into his head, no way to figure out if something in his past was responsible for his cruelty.”

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s points. While Mutiny on the Bounty is an impressive production on nearly every count — from the on-location shooting to meticulous set design (both historical ships were recreated), expert editing, and fine performances — it is challenging to watch Bligh’s (fictionalized) behavior and then see him retaining loyalty from a reasonably large group of men, who are either deathly afraid of treason and/or believe his behavior is somehow justifiable. In addition, the film is a tad overlong, with too much time spent lingering on romantic dalliances in Tahiti (where the female characters aren’t given any dimensions other than beauty and loyalty). However, enough about this adventure-filled nautical movie remains powerful and well-crafted that it’s certainly worth a look by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh
  • Clark Gable as Christian Fletcher
  • Arthur Edeson’s cinematography

  • Margaret Booth’s masterful editing

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

Categories

  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

You Were Never Lovelier (1942)

You Were Never Lovelier (1942)

Comments 1 comment

“I know women — they always fall in love with an illusion.”

Synopsis:
In Buenos Aires, the headstrong father (Adolphe Menjou) of four grown daughters — who insists they get married in chronological order — tries to get his second child (Rita Hayworth) in a romantic mood by sending her letters from a secret admirer. When Hayworth accidentally believes a visiting American dancer (Fred Astaire) is her paramour, they begin a romance, much to Menjou’s chagrin.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Adolphe Menjou Films
  • Fred Astaire Films
  • Musicals
  • Rita Hayworth Films
  • Romantic Comedy

Review:
Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth’s follow-up to their successful pairing in You’ll Never Get Rich (1941) was this fluffy romantic musical with an edge — namely in the form of Menjou’s unlikable cad of a dad. While Menjou’s foolishness and stubborn streak is necessary for the plot, he’s such a pill (and a semi-creepy one at that, writing love letters to his own daughter) that he puts a pall on what would otherwise be perfectly acceptable, lighthearted fun. At least Hayworth looks relaxed, happy, and as sexy as ever, and she and Astaire are once again magical when dancing together; thankfully, these scenes are available for easy viewing on YouTube. The subplot about Hayworth’s younger sisters (Leslie Brooks and Adele Mara) unable to marry their own beaus until Hayworth is married is a mere convention, but provides some additional amusing pressure on the proceedings; meanwhile, Gus Schilling gets to fuss about as Menjou’s put-upon secretary.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Astaire and Hayworth’s lovely dances together

Must See?
No, though it’s an enjoyable trifle if you’re in the mood for some lovely dance numbers.

Links:

Captains Courageous (1937)

Captains Courageous (1937)

Comments 1 comment

“Fifteen years I been fisherman — first time I ever fish a boy like you!”

Synopsis:
The spoiled son (Freddie Bartholomew) of a distracted magnate (Melvyn Douglas) accidentally falls overboard and is rescued by a Portuguese fisherman (Spencer Tracy) who takes him under his wing. Soon Bartholomew has learned to work hard and take responsibility, and develops deep respect for Tracy and the rest of the ship’s crew, including the captain (Lionel Barrymore) and his son (Mickey Rooney). Will his new work ethos last beyond the duration of the trip?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • At Sea
  • Character Arc
  • Coming of Age
  • Fishermen
  • Freddie Bartholomew Films
  • John Carradine Films
  • Lionel Barrymore Films
  • Melvyn Douglas Films
  • Mickey Rooney Films
  • Spencer Tracy Films
  • Victor Fleming Films

Review:
Spencer Tracy won his first Oscar playing a quirky, music-loving Portuguese fisherman in this adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s novel, which nicely shows the progression of a manipulative boy — who’s authentically confused about why no one seems to like him — into someone who’s learned the value of hard work and cooperation. The storyline is very clearly set up for Tracy to serve as an alternative father figure for Bartholomew, which he does admirably — and Bartholomew himself turns in a nuanced, empathetic performance (not easy when playing a spoiled rich kid). Most of the film takes place during rocky days at sea, showing ample footage of fishing and rivalry with a nearby ship; I got a little bit seasick watching the proceedings, but can imagine young boys fantasizing about just such a real-life adventure. While not quite a classic, this one has held up reasonably well.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Freddie Bartholomew as Harvey
  • Spencer Tracy as Manuel (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links:

Boys Town (1938)

Boys Town (1938)

Comments 1 comment

“There is no bad boy.”

Synopsis:
An idealistic but fiscally irresponsible priest (Spencer Tracy) opens a home for delinquent boys named Boys Town, but meets his match when an unruly youngster (Mickey Rooney) refuses to fall in line with the community’s principles.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Do-Gooders
  • Juvenile Delinquents
  • Mickey Rooney Films
  • Orphans
  • Priests and Ministers
  • Spencer Tracy Films

Review:
Spencer Tracy won his second Best Actor award in a row for his portrayal as the real-life Father Flanagan, a saintly and sympathetic father figure renowned for his pioneering efforts in providing a meaningful, respectful alternative to reform school. Unfortunately, MGM’s fictional accounting of Flanagan’s work comes across as hopelessly simplistic and unrealistic. DVD Savant, not a fan of this film, writes that “Boys Town now seems painfully dated, wrong-headed and, worst of all, smugly insincere”. While I don’t agree it’s wrong-headed, it’s certainly whitewashed beyond belief — starting from the near total lack of diversity despite the proclamation that all races and creeds are welcome. The plot twists are all cliched heart-wrenchers, and the final narrative turn — with Rooney running into his criminal brother (Edward Norris) at just the wrong moment — beggars belief. With that said, Tracy does turn in a respectable and respectful performance; one can see why he and the film were popular with audiences of the day. Meanwhile, Rooney is full of energy and can’t be faulted for his efforts, either.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Spencer Tracy as Father Flanagan

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for Tracy’s Oscar-winning performance and for its erstwhile popularity. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

All the King’s Men (1949)

All the King’s Men (1949)

Comments 1 comment

“Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption.”

Synopsis:
A small-town farmer-turned-lawyer (Broderick Crawford) rises to prominence in politics, aided by a hard-talking political aide (Mercedes McCambridge) and a sympathetic reporter (John Ireland) whose girlfriend (Joanne Dru) becomes Crawford’s lover. However, as Crawford becomes increasingly corrupt, he puts the well-being and reputations of many — including his own son (John Derek) and Dru’s esteemed uncle (Raymond Greenleaf) — at risk.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Broderick Crawford Films
  • Joanne Dru Films
  • John Ireland Films
  • Journalists
  • Mercedes McCambridge Films
  • Political Corruption
  • Robert Rossen Films

Review:
Loosely based on the life of Louisiana politician Huey Long, this adaptation of Robert Penn Warren’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel — directed and scripted by Robert Rossen — won an Academy Award as Best Picture of the Year, and a Best Actor of the Year award for Crawford. Peary disagrees with both these choices in his Alternate Oscars, where he notes that “cynical movies about the simultaneous moral corruption of individuals and society — with the sheeplike masses just waiting to be manipulated by false prophets — flourished in the postwar years”, including such 1950s titles as “Billy Wilder’s The Big Carnival/Ace in the Hole and Elia Kazan’s A Face in the Crowd” which “made viewers ashamed of themselves”. He writes that while some elements of All the King’s Men — particularly “those [scenes] that illustrate how our political system ‘works'”, as well as the many “authentic crowd scenes” — remain powerful, “the politics get lost because of some romantic subplots and a conventional secondary story involving Stark’s relationship with his disrespectful son”.

Regarding Crawford, Peary asserts that he “became arguably the worst actor ever to win a Best Actor Academy Award” (!), cynically noting that “after a dozen undistinguished years of performances that failed to prove he deserved anything better than to be in films nobody saw”, he was lucky enough to be “perfectly cast” here as “a two-fisted corrupt politician.”

While I’m not well-versed enough in Crawford’s career to comment on him, I’ll agree this character study remains one of the lesser (though still intermittently powerful) attempts by Hollywood to expose political corruption and herd-like adoration of a Strong Leader — which, it should be noted, remain salient themes today. The framing narrative by and about Ireland is particularly weak; we lose respect for him fairly early on, as he remains committed to a man who may once have had good intentions but has clearly turned rotten. However, the direction and cinematography are strong, and the final scenes remain shocking and unexpected. Check out TCM’s article for a fascinating overview of the unconventional editing process that pared this film down to manageable size.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective direction by Rossen and cinematography by Burnett

Must See?
Yes, for its historical importance as an Oscar winner. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

Links: