FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An aspiring ballerina (Moira Shearer) is accepted into a troupe run by a dictatorial manager (Anton Walbrook), and soon gains fame as his leading dancer — but her romance with the company composer (Marius Goring) jeopardizes her chances at lasting fame.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anton Walbrook Films
• Aspiring Stars
• Ballet
• Career versus Marriage
• Michael Powell Films
• Ruthless Leaders

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger” — “regarded as the best ballet film ever” — is “simultaneously romantic and expressionistic, a daydream and nightmare, a psychological drama and fairy-tale, a typical backstage musical and highbrow art”. He notes that its “glorious… movement, color, opulent sets, lavish costumes, all surrounded by music” — along with “the identifiable career-vs.-marriage conflict which Shearer tries to resolve” — make it a film “many American females… have the most emotional attachment to, along with The Wizard of Oz, another film that blends fantasy and reality”. I’m not sure how widely viewed The Red Shoes is anymore these days — Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan (2010) seems to have usurped its status as the hippest, most psychologically complex ballet drama — but there’s no debating it remains a mesmerizing classic of the genre, accurately and respectfully showing us life behind the scenes for dedicated performers who put dance above all other goals in their lives.

In his Alternate Oscars, Peary names Walbrook Best Actor of the Year for his role as Boris Lermontov, and provides a detailed analysis of his character. He writes that Walbrook “gives a sad, disturbing portrait of a complex, frustrated man who is so dedicated to his art — he calls ballet his religion — that he suppresses his human qualities”, hiding “behind a defense comprised of a stone face, an authoritative position that allows for no dissenters, and smart, smug remarks and answers to everything”. He points out that Walbrook is “so devoted… to ballet that he feels betrayed when anyone fails to share his vision and would compromise their talents for something as trivial as love and marriage”. Of course, these days, the choice between marriage and a career — or even motherhood and a career — isn’t nearly as black-and-white, thus dating this critical element of the storyline; but Walbrook’s personal insistence that the two are mutually exclusive (Shearer and Goring rightfully disagree) is what lies behind the film’s driving dilemma.

Peary has some quibbles about the film. He posits that the central rendition of “The Red Shoes” ballet “shouldn’t be stylized at all” given that “it was staged by purist Walbrook”, and that “because of the cinematic liberties and excesses of the ballet sequences, it’s impossible to readjust to [the] realistic sequences that follow”. Hogwash on both counts: the mix works just beautifully, and there’s no reason to believe Walbrook’s character wouldn’t stage such elaborate ballets. Meanwhile, Peary argues that while “the first half of the film is masterful, the second half is miserable”, given that “the male directors [have] manipulated us into disliking Walbrook so much that we have trouble realizing that what he wants for Shearer is what is best for her”. In Alternate Oscars, he writes that Walbrook “is presented… as if he were a sinister villain in this modern-day fairy tale”, but that “the selfish [Goring] is [actually] the piece’s villain” given that he has apparently asked Shearer “to give up dance”. I don’t see this as the case at all. While it’s true that Walbrook’s character has “finer qualities” — i.e., “he gives both Julian [Goring] and Vicky [Shearer] their big breaks, instinctively believing in them and putting himself on the line on their behalf” — he’s ultimately a brilliant yet flawed petty tyrant whose narcissistic worldview and insistence on maintaining absolute control become his (and Shearer’s) fatal undoing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Anton Walbrook as Lermontov
  
• Moira Shearer as Victoria Page
  
• A fascinating look at behind-the-scenes ballet life
  
• Many stunning dance sequences
  
  
  
• Jack Cardiff’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of diverse and exotic locales
  

Must See?
Yes, as a unique cult classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Q Network Review
• DVD Talk Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When psychopathic criminal Cody Jarrett (James Cagney) is released from prison, he immediately enlists his gang in holding up a train, resulting in the death of four workers and the fatal wounding of one gang member (Ford Rainey). While in hiding with his mom (Margaret Wycherly) and his bored, gold-digging wife (Virginia Mayo), Cody cleverly confesses to a smaller crime to distance himself from the train robbery, and gets sent back to prison, where he befriends an undercover cop (Edmond O’Brien) hoping to discover who Cody’s “fence” (Fred Clark) is. Meanwhile, Mayo carries on an affair with hunky gang member “Big Ed” (Steve Cochran), causing “Ma” (Wycherly) to intervene on behalf of her beloved son.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Edmond O’Brien Films
• Gangsters
• Jimmy Cagney Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Psychopaths
• Raoul Walsh Films
• Virginia Mayo Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “superb gangster film” — which reunited “director Raoul Walsh and James Cagney, who had starred in his The Roaring Twenties” — has “remarkable pacing; great touches; [and] hard-hitting, brilliantly edited action sequences”. He spends most of his review lauding Cagney’s bravura performance as “Cody Jarrett”, who is “more cunning, energetic, humorous, violent, suicidal, more everything than any of his gang members”, and who, despite being “cynical about the world”, remains “optimistic about his own future” and certain about “his own immortality”. Peary points out that unlike Cagney’s ’30s gangsters, who “became tough, bitter killers because of the cruel Depression Era”, Cody “is insane”, with a “criminal father [who] died in an institution”, and a “shrewd Ma (who never blinks)” who “would have trouble passing a lunacy test”. Speaking of Cody’s “Ma” (played “brilliantly” by Wycherley), Peary notes that Cody’s “mother fixation is so weird — he even sits on her lap — that [he’s] sure the film would have run into censorship problems if Cody hadn’t also had a wife”.

Peary goes on to write that Cody is “older and paunchier than we think of Cagney the gangster, but he’s still intense, his eyes are fiery, and his energy is ferocious”. Cody truly is “terrifying” when, “with wild eyes, he half strangles Verna [Mayo] for betraying him”, and “pathetic… during his headache bouts” and “in the classic prison-cafeteria scene when he learns that Ma is dead”. Peary argues that “Walsh treats the story’s potential hero — undercover policeman Hank Fallon (Edmond O’Brien), who infiltrates Cody’s gang and gains his trust — as the story’s villain, no better than a filthy spy”, noting that “Walsh obviously felt for Cody, who’s at least honest where his friends are concerned”, and thus deserves his “‘happy’ ending” by “achiev[ing] immortality” (“Made it, Ma! Top of the world!”). However, I disagree that O’Brien is posited as a villain; I actually see him as one of the bravest, noblest fools ever to risk his life on screen. (Who in the world would willingly try to pull a long one over on the notoriously trigger-happy Cody Jarrett?!)

Cagney’s performance is clearly a stand-out, but the entire supporting cast of White Heat is excellent as well — most notably beady-eyed Wycherly as Ma. (In the pantheon of villainous “screen moms”, she lands near the top.) The narrative — based on a story by Virginia Kellogg (who wrote the script for Caged) — is tense from the get-go and never lets up; with a deranged, manipulative psychopath like Cody on the loose, there’s no telling what kind of violence will happen next, or whose life will casually be snuffed out. In addition to scenes already mentioned, particularly memorable moments include Cody lying to a blinded, severely burned gang member he intends to have killed after leaving him behind; all scenes in which O’Brien must successfully pass himself off to Cody as a would-be hoodlum; and Ma’s ride home after buying strawberries.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jimmy Cagney as Cody Jarrett (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Edmond O’Brien as Vic Pardo
  
• Margaret Wycherly as Ma Jarrett
  
• Virginia Mayo as Verna
  
• Effective cinematography
  
• Good use of authentic L.A. locales
  
• Strong direction by Walsh
  

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine classic of the genre. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars. Added to the National Film Registry in 2003.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)

Synopsis:
A married New Yorker (Al Pacino) hoping to pay for a sex-change operation for his male lover (Chris Sarandon) collaborates with a trigger-happy partner (John Cazale) to rob a bank; but when things go horribly wrong, they end up holding the entire staff hostage while a negotiating police captain (Charles Durning) manages increasingly circus-like crowds outside the bank.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Al Pacino Films
• Carol Kane Films
• Heists
• Hostages
• Media Spectacle
• Sidney Lumet Films
• Underdogs

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “black comedy based on a real-life incident” is “a big favorite of many fans and critics”, but he thinks “it smacks of ‘Wouldn’t this true story make a great movie!’ attitude” and that it “all rings false”. He further adds that “every unbearable moment when we laugh because the situation is so pathetic, every introduction of another offbeat character, every character expression seems calculated to elicit an audience response”, and he argues that Lumet’s “direction of the extras who make up the crowds outside the bank is surprisingly lame”, given that they “are obviously acting for our benefit”. While a couple of Peary’s points have merit (the crowds seem staged, and some of the “offbeat characters” are cliched), I happen to enjoy this flick a lot more than he does: the “based on real events” storyline is so consistently unpredictable and wacky that we can’t help getting caught up during the two-hours-plus running time, despite knowing that things won’t end well for the luckless would-be robbers.

Strong performances by Pacino, Cazale, Durning, and others ground the film, presenting us with a slate of real people deeply invested in a hideously gone-bad situation; they’re all simply trying to climb their way out intact and preserve lives. Pacino’s character is so genuinely on-edge that he cares more about pragmatics than his newfound fame, and remains refreshingly unfazed by having his sexuality publicly “outed” (though Cazale is predictably agitated by being mistakenly labeled on the news as one of two “homosexuals”). Sully Boyar and Penny Allen are excellent as protective bank employees watching out for their colleagues, and Sarandon’s Oscar-nominated supporting performance as the transgendered lover behind Pacino’s actions is memorable. Watch for a particularly ironic moment early on, as an African-American bank guard is unexpectedly released first and unleashes a flurry of movement to arrest him; some things haven’t changed.

Note: Fans of this flick will likely enjoy Spike Lee’s Inside Man (2006), also about a heist-gone-wrong.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Al Pacino as Sonny
  
• Chris Sarandon as Leon
  
• Sully Boyar as Mulvaney
  
• Charles Durning as Moretti
  
• John Cazale as Sal
  
• Penny Allen as the no-nonsense head bank teller
  
• Excellent use of authentic NY locales
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, primarily for Pacino’s performance.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
After two men attempting escape die in a German prisoner-of-war camp, a cynical wheeler-dealer (William Holden) is falsely accused of being an informant to the barrack’s Kommandant (Otto Preminger). Someone is sending secret messages to their presiding guard (Sig Rumann) — but who could it be?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Billy Wilder Films
• Falsely Accused
• Neville Brand Films
• Otto Preminger Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Play Adaptation
• Prisoners of War
• Spies
• William Holden Films
• World War Two

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this wartime spy flick — directed by Billy Wilder, and based on a Broadway play by Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski — “stumbles along at the beginning, as we try to adjust to the rowdy comedy that plays a major part in the film” (he asserts that “these men need laughter in their lives”), but argues that “it really gets exciting once we viewers are let in on the spy’s identity”, at which point we “can’t wait till Holden traps the culprit”. I essentially agree with Peary’s assessment, though I feel more strongly that the “rowdy comedy” detracts from an otherwise powerful drama — I’ve learned that the presence of character actor Harvey Lembeck automatically makes me think of awful Beach Party flicks and brings to mind terms like “annoying” and “obnoxious”. Regardless, Holden’s performance is excellent, and the spy storyline is quite compelling: despite guessing the spy’s identity fairly early on, this didn’t detract from my enjoyment, instead allowing for a creepy “close-read” of a man so easily able to fool so many people under such high stakes. The moral of the story is: beware of false accusations and crowd mentality.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• William Holden as Sefton
  
• Creative direction

Must See?
Yes, once, for Holden’s Oscar-winning performance.

Categories

• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

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

Synopsis:
After confessing to crushing her husband in a mechanical press, a distraught woman (Patricia Owens) tells her sympathetic brother-in-law (Vincent Price) and an inquiring detective (Herbert Marshall) the bizarre story of how her scientist-husband (David Hedison) ended up as part-human, part-fly.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Flashback Films
• Herbert Marshall Films
• Horror
• Insects
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Mutant Monsters
• Science Fiction
• Strong Females
• Vincent Price Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “most enjoyable science fiction film” — based on a “tongue firmly in cheek” script by James Clavell — is “mostly amusing” despite also possessing “one of the greatest moments in horror movies” as “Owens pulls off her husband’s hood and sees his fly head”. He points out that this “scientist-treading-where-man-shouldn’t tread movie” is uniquely “feminist” in that “the emphasis is placed on the wife as she endures tragedy and tries everything in her power to save her [foolhardy] husband”, and in the process “becomes extremely capable”. Price’s role is sympathetic but rather small; this is Owens’ show all the way, and she more than carries it. The movie gets off to a somewhat slow start, with a flashback to the main events of the storyline not occurring for about half-an-hour — but once we’re in, we’re in, both for laughs and shocks; the final few moments are especially intense. The costumes and special effects are quite effective, and the cinematography is nicely done. After viewing this film, you will likely never look at a common housefly (or a spider web) in the same way again.

Note: David Cronenberg remade this film in 1986 with Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum; it’s listed as an additional “must-see” title in the back of Peary’s book.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Patricia Owens as Helene
  
• Fine Cinemascope cinematography
  
• Creepy costumes and special effects
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable classic of the genre.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review