FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A new doctor (Pierre Fresnay) in a French village accused of committing adultery with the wife (Micheline Francey) of a psychiatrist (Pierre Larquey) is seduced by a lonely handicapped girl (Ginette Leclerc) with a nosy teenage sister (Liliane Maigné), and becomes one of many suspects — including Francey’s embittered sister (Héléna Manson) — when poison-pen letters by a mysterious author named “The Raven” begin to circulate, leading to death and misery in the town.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Blackmail
• Doctors and Nurses
• Falsely Accused
• French Films
• Henri-Georges Clouzot Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Village Life

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “unusual film” perfectly reflects director Henri-Georges Clouzot’s “suspicious, cynical view of people — particularly the French during the Occupation”, given that “the only characters who come through unscathed are those who are persecuted”. Peary argues (I disagree) that “the doctor’s past story is hokey, and the ending… is too berserk”, but concedes that “the picture succeeds because of its fabulous premise, excellent direction, and theme (which was relevant in 1943).” As DVD Savant writes in his review, “This is the anti-Capra film, a frightening stew of misanthropy.” He adds that:

Clouzot’s pitiless community is a satire, but we immediately recognize the group behaviors as authentic. Rumors are accepted as truth, and privacy and presumption of innocence fall by the wayside. Pretty soon nobody respects anybody and the town is overrun by civilized savagery.

The imagery, cinematography, sets, and plot twists in Le Corbeau are all noteworthy, and there are more than enough embittered would-be suspects to keep viewers authentically on their toes. Film fanatics should certainly check this thriller out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many memorable, haunting scenes
  
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
• A suspenseful script
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful wartime classic.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Fantastic Movie Musings Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A kind and generous doctor (Fredric March) engaged to a high-society girl (Rose Hobart) begins torturing a local dancer (Miriam Hopkins) when his frustration over a delayed marriage date prompts him to take a potion that transforms him into a sadistic monster.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fredric March Films
• Horror
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Miriam Hopkins Films
• Multiple Personalities
• Rouben Mamoulian Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “rare venture into horror films by Paramount in the wake of success by Universal” resulted in “one of the classiest entries in the genre, a true ‘A’ production” featuring a “forceful performance” by March. He notes that March’s Mr. Hyde is “one of the cinema’s most terrifying monsters, a sadistic female-batterer of the first order” who “resembles a demented monkey”, and points out that this pre-Code film “has strong sexual context and is too gruesome for young kids or the squeamish” — indeed, even seasoned film fanatics will likely recoil at how loathsome Hyde is, particularly given the lack of sufficient explanation for how such a monster could co-exist within saintly Dr. Jekyll. The film strongly promotes the notion that those perceived as most noble may harbor the most insidious pathologies — but what a terribly depressing “message” that is for humanity! It’s perhaps easier to focus on the film’s daring condemnation of sexual repression: with Hobart’s stodgy father (Halliwell Hobbes) insisting that March and Hobart postpone their marriage for eight months, Jekyll apparently feels justified in releasing his sexual tension through a manufactured alter ego. What’s unclear (and deeply unsettling) is why the Neanderthal-ish Mr. Hyde perpetrates such evil while satisfying his lust — and how gleeful he is whenever he emerges.

Hopkins gives the performance of her (early) career in this film, playing a visibly traumatized and terrorized young prostitute who understands that her life as she knew it is over. (Check out the very bottom photo and caption in And You Call Yourself a Scientist‘s extensive review; I agree with her sentiment — and her review is well worth a read.) Also noteworthy is Mamoulian’s “innovative, influential direction”, including experimentation “with split frames, superimposed shots (during impressive man-to-monster transformations), and point-of-view shots.” James Wong Howe’s stunning cinematography and Norbert A. Myles and Wally Westmore’s groundbreaking make-up and special effects merit mention as well; as noted in Moria’s review, “The transformation sequences were conducted by the unique effect of painting Frederic March’s face with certain types of greasepaint, the effects of which became more pronounced on the black-and-white film stock as different coloured lights were projected on his face.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fredric March as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Miriam Hopkins as Ivy
  
• Impressive make-up and special effects
  
• Atmospheric, innovative cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a disturbing classic — though you may not want to stomach it more than once.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• And You Call Yourself a Scientist! Review
• Classic Horror Review

Synopsis:
A Jewish labor organizer from New York (Ron Leibman) visits a textile mill in the deep South and convinces a feisty single mother (Sally Field) to assist him in forming a union, despite strong opposition from management and some frustration from Field’s new husband (Beau Bridges).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Beau Bridges Films
• Deep South
• Labor Movement
• Martin Ritt Films
• Pat Hingle Films
• Sally Field Movies
• Single Mothers
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this Martin Ritt-directed film about “a stubbornly independent single mother who … becomes so obsessed with organizing that she has trouble with her employers… her minister… the law, and her new husband” is “extremely progressive: not only is it pro-union, but it also builds strong cases for women to be involved in political action (so they can enjoy personal growth) and for their men to share the housework…; it advocates friendships between blacks and whites and Jews and Christians, and says that men and women can work together without becoming lovers:

… and that husbands and wives can be friends as well as lovers”. He notes that “scenes that could come across as being extremely self-conscious… make us feel touched by their honesty”, and adds that the “picture has authentic atmosphere, surprising toughness, and characterizations by Field and Leibman that are downright inspirational”.

Peary elaborates on Field’s performance in his Alternate Oscars, where he agrees with the Academy in awarding Field Best Actress of the Year for her portrayal as “the closest to perfect any woman has been on the screen since Ingrid Bergman’s nun in The Bells of St. Mary’s.” He writes:

“Here’s a woman who has little education, who has a bad reputation, and who has never been kind to herself. Yet she says, ‘One of these days I will get myself all together’, and proceeds to pick herself up. And making good use of her heart, guts, hard head, and big mouth accomplishes so much that she deserves all the admiration she receives. What’s most commendable is that she isn’t interested in just improving her own life… She wants to improve the lot of all mill workers, which will make her own job more respectable.”

Peary further adds that “Field does an extraordinary job as this woman who displays remarkable courage and tenacity. It’s fun seeing this small-framed woman with a teenager’s face stand up to intimidating men, ignoring their threats, shouting at them, issuing threats of her own”, and notes that she “touches every scene with honest emotions”.

Peary’s praise is well-deserved: Field carries this film upon her tiny yet firm shoulders with incredible courage and chutzpah — speaking of which, Leibman’s role is equally critical to the film’s success, and his performance just as powerful as Field’s. The direction their relationship takes is both unexpected and refreshing. Meanwhile, the supporting cast and all details of this place-based film feel spot-on (check out TCM’s article for more details about filming on location in Alabama). The level of ongoing hubbub in the textile factory is authentically deafening, giving the film’s most famous scene additional “emotional impact: when Field stands on a table at the mill, holding high a sign that reads ‘Union’:

… [director] Ritt has all the workers look straight ahead at her so that it’s clear each of them turns off his or her machine because of Field and not because fellow workers are doing so.”

In an era of truly unsettling unknowns about the future of human labor, Norma Rae is a much-needed reminder that staunch activism, fearless leaders, and unwavering support are needed more than ever.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sally Field as Norma Rae (named Best Actress of the Year by Peary in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Ron Leibman as Reuben (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Strong supporting performances
  
• A humane, realistic script
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a worthy Oscar-winner. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
When Pullman porter Rufus Jones (Paul Robeson) accidentally kills a friend (Frank Wilson) in a craps game, he’s sent to a prison chain gang, but manages to escape to a Caribbean Island, where he’s bought by a white trader (Dudley Digges) and eventually comes to rule the island — for awhile.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African-Americans
• Fugitives
• Paul Robeson Films
• Play Adaptations
• Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “curious adaptation of Eugene O’Neill[‘s] play” — inspired by the United States’ occupation of Haiti and the rise to power of repressive President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam — suggests “that one of [Jones’] crimes is that he comes to regard himself as better than his people, but in fact this character is shown to be better than the rest,” given that “of the blacks in the film, Jones is the only one with dignity or intelligence”, and he “certainly doesn’t fit in with the blacks in Harlem or the equally uncivilized natives.” He adds that “it’s good seeing a defiant black man on the screen, particularly in 1933, and one wonders how white audiences of the day reacted to Jones — or, more likely, Robeson — standing up to a white guard and outsmarting the others”. (According to an unsubstantiated claim on Wikipedia, “particularly in the South, the response [to the film’s release] was virulent: more than forty lynchings erupted in its opening week across the South where it wasn’t showing yet.”) Peary notes that “this is one of Robeson’s few opportunities to play a black man whose role isn’t to improve the lot of whites” but “it’s probable Jones is punished at the end because he overstepped his bounds when he didn’t kowtow to whites.”

It’s truly challenging to know how to respond this film, which paradoxically broke new ground by starring an African-American in a strong leading role while simultaneously presenting countless problematic elements — including ample use of the “n” word and stereotypical presentation of most blacks as either religious naifs, clueless natives, or wily hucksters. Jeffrey C. Stewart‘s “academicky” but insightful commentary on the Criterion DVD release helps contextualize the story as one of internalized colonialism, with whitewashed Jones eager to take an imperial stance rather than work with and for “his people” (especially ironic given Robeson’s notorious Communist leanings in real life), and is recommended. This curious tale of ambition run amok remains troublesome on multiple levels, but Robeson’s commanding performance is well worth a watch, and film fanatics will want to at least be familiar with this pre-Code oddity.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine cinematography and art direction
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
The wife (Jane Fonda) of a marine heading overseas to fight in the Vietnam War volunteers with her new friend (Penelope Milford) at a local vet hospital, where she meets and falls in love with a paraplegic (Jon Voight) — but what will happen to their romance once Dern returns home?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Dern Films
• Character Arc
• Disabilities
• Hal Ashby Films
• Homecoming
• Infidelity
• Jane Fonda Films
• Jon Voight Films
• Love Triangle
• Sexuality
• Veterans
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this Hal Ashby-directed “breakthrough anti-Vietnam War film” also “makes a persuasive plea for more sensitive treatment of returning vets… whether they are physically injured, thoroughly disillusioned by their experiences, or having difficulty with readjustment to wives, the rhythm of civilian life, and a country filled with war protestors”. In his Alternate Oscars, Peary names this film Best Picture in place of The Deer Hunter, writing that Coming Home “deals with issues that are still timely, such as our government and military’s insensitivity and indifference toward… vets with physical and/or psychological problems”. In GFTFF, he notes that the “Oscar-winning script” is “powerful, yet sensitive to all the major characters, including Dern” — indeed, the complexity of their relationship (he’s far from a one-dimensional “hawkish career marine”) is key to our engagement with the story: while it’s impossible not to root for Fonda and Voight’s romance, we also feel genuinely terrible for Dern when “he learns about Fonda’s infidelity”. Indeed, in Alternate Oscars, Peary adds that “startingly, we end up with more sympathy for Dern — his pain breaks your heart — than for anyone else. Unlike Voight, whose anger was tempered by Fonda’s understanding, Dern hurts too much to wait patiently for Fonda to heal him”.

In GFTFF, Peary writes that “Fonda won an Oscar with her appealing performance, playing one of her naive women who bravely step into unknown territory and become politicized” — but he adds that “Voight is even better in his Oscar-winning performance”, playing “his character with amazing intelligence, sensitivity, restraint, and lack of pretension”. In Alternate Oscars, he writes that Voight’s “role was hard to play for several reasons. Luke [Voight] is in a wheelchair yet must come across as physically fit and sexually desirable. He must display hostility and rage, yet still seem reasonable and not scare viewers into thinking he shouldn’t be welcomed back into society. He must elicit audience sympathy for all disabled vets by complaining about his own treatment, yet not display self-pity” (the latter takes time, but we can see his transformation through the arc of the storyline). Peary adds that he “turns out to be one of the nicest, most admirable, most desirable of movie heroes”.

There are many memorable scenes in Coming Home, including “one of the cinema’s most famous erotic scenes”, in which Voight “and Fonda make love in bed”, and “Voight speaking to a high school about the amoral war” — but other moments stand out as well. Near the beginning of her volunteer work, for instance, Fonda attempts to communicate with a black veteran without realizing he needs his voice box plugged in; when she begins to feed him, she drops his first mouthful of food, and then they engage in an awkward back-and-forth over whether she’ll give this piece to him or not — it’s a version of two people attempting to walk by each other and getting the direction wrong each time. Robert Carradine as Milford’s emotionally damaged brother is also memorable, showing how trauma manifests in mysterious ways; his suicide scene is deeply disturbing. Coming Home isn’t a film one can watch easily, but it’s well-worth viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jane Fonda as Sally (nominated by Peary as one oof the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Jon Voight as Luke (selected by Peary as Best Actor of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Haskell Wexler’s fine cinematography and good use of natural locales
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring post-war classic.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
After years of colonial governance by the French, North Vietnamese soldiers fight back against an American military presence that supports the corrupt South Vietnamese government.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Corruption
• Documentary
• Emile de Antonio Films
• Revolutionaries
• Vietnam War

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Emile de Antonio’s sober documentary account of what was happening in Vietnam, and how the war had escalated to such a point, was required viewing among war protestors in 1969 and the early seventies”. He makes note of the lack of narration as well as the highly deliberate editing “showing us our higher-ups in government… making speeches about our policy in Vietnam and then showing footage that contradicts what they said”. Much of what’s here may feel or look familiar to modern viewers who’ve seen other documentaries about the war, such as Hearts and Minds (1974) or the recent docu-series by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick (2017); unique to this film are “interviews with Wayne Morse and Ernest B. Gruening, the only senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that really escalated the war”, as well as other individuals (primarily white males) solicited to share their talking-head thoughts.

To a certain extent, In the Year of the Pig is a documentary very much of-its-time: it had a certain power in 1969 when we were still deeply embroiled in the Vietnam War, and decisions discussed on-screen related to current life-or-death outcomes. However, Peary argues that while the “film has an undeniable fascination… too much serendipity is evident in the choice of footage and interview subjects”. He notes his frustration that “we never feel we’re getting a full story about any aspect of the war”, and shares that “even in 1969 [he] thought the film was weak”, given de Antonio’s clear bias in favor of the North Vietnamese. I disagree: it was de Antonio’s prerogative as a creative montagist to pull together clips that supported his argument, and his documentary — while certainly not comprehensive — prompts us to interpret the conflict in a unique and provocative way.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many powerful, heartbreaking images and scenes
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as a seminal anti-war film.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Review