David Copperfield (1935)

David Copperfield (1935)

Comments 1 comment

“You have to be educated, David, and take your place in the world.”

Synopsis:
After the death of his mother (Elizabeth Allan), a young orphan named David Copperfield (Freddie Bartholomew) escapes from the clutches of his evil stepfather (Basil Rathbone) and step-aunt (Violet Kemble Cooper), and goes to live with the family of kind but chronically in-debt Mr. Micawber (W.C. Fields); when Micawber is carted off to debtors’ prison, David makes his way towards the house of his kind Aunt Betsey (Edna May Oliver) and her eccentric friend, Mr. Dick (Lennox Pawle). Upon growing up, David (Frank Lawton) falls in love with a ditzy but beautiful girl named Dora (Maureen O’Sullivan), not realizing that his long-time friend Agnes (Madge Evans) — whose father (Lewis Stone) is being manipulated by an unctuous clerk named Uriah Heep (Roland Young) — is secretly enamored with him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Basil Rathbone Films
  • Charles Dickens Films
  • Coming of Age
  • Freddie Bartholomew Films
  • George Cukor Films
  • Lewis Stone Films
  • Maureen O’Sullivan Films
  • Orphans
  • Roland Young Films
  • W.C. Fields Films

Review:
Charles Dickens’ beloved eighth novel (published in serial form between 1849-1850) was admirably condensed into 133 minutes of running time by screenwriters Hugh Walpole and Howard Estabrook, and released as a Christmas-time treat by MGM Studios. All but the nitpickiest of literary fans will surely appreciate how lovingly their favorite scenarios and characters have been brought to life by a roster of the finest studio actors — most notably Edna May Oliver as a nuanced, refreshingly kindhearted Aunt Betsey; Freddie Bartholomew as a sensitive young David:

… Roland Young as the inimitably oily Uriah Heep; jolly-faced Lennox Pawle (was this his one claim to cinematic fame?) as the lovably loopy Mr. Dick; Maureen O’Sullivan as the impossibly childlike but angelically beautiful Dora; and, of course, W.C. Fields as Mr. Micawber (whose failure to drop his American accent somehow doesn’t affect the veracity of his performance in the slightest).

With that said, the storyline itself, while carefully crafted, is a tad too episodic and melodramatic for its own good; the noble intention of staying as true as possible to the lengthy source material means that — inevitably — far too many characters and subplots are ultimately introduced, thus diluting the power of the narrative. Meanwhile, grown David (played competently but without much charisma by Lawton) doesn’t really register as a complex individual; he comes across more like the lynchpin around which multiple scenarios conveniently revolve.

Indeed, when it comes to Dickensian adaptations, I prefer David Lean’s Great Expectations (1946) — and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Lean’s Oliver Twist (1948) — both darkly atmospheric renderings of inherently gripping tales. Yet David Copperfield, expertly directed by George Cukor, remains a unique classic in its own right — and as long as one watches it with its literary and historical contexts firmly in mind, it remains an enjoyable treat.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Superb casting of all characters — most notably Roland Young as Uriah Heep, Edna May Oliver as Aunt Betsey, Freddie Bartholomew as young David, W.C. Fields as Mr. Micawber, Lennox Pawle as Mr. Dick, and Maureen O’Sullivan as Dora




  • Atmospheric cinematography and direction

Must See?
Yes, as a beloved early literary adaptation.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Daddy Long Legs (1955)

Daddy Long Legs (1955)

Comments 1 comment

“Sure, the girl is much younger than I am — there’s no denying that!”

Synopsis:
A middle-aged millionaire (Fred Astaire) spies a young orphaned woman (Leslie Caron) in France and arranges to secretly sponsor her education in America, sending her to the same college attended by his niece (Terry Moore). Although Caron writes monthly letters to her anonymous benefactor (who she refers to as “Daddy Long Legs”), Astaire pays her no attention — until his secretary (Thelma Ritter) and business manager (Fred Clark) guilt him into paying her a visit, at which point he refers to himself simply as Moore’s “Uncle Jervis”, and the two fall in love.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fred Astaire Films
  • Jean Negulesco Films
  • Leslie Caron Films
  • May-December Romance
  • Millionaires
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Musicals
  • Orphans
  • Terry Moore Films
  • Thelma Ritter

Review:
Jean Webster’s classic coming-of-age epistolary novel — available for free reading through Project Gutenberg — has been adapted for the screen numerous times (including once in 1935 with Shirley Temple as Curly Top) — but this musical, directed by Jean Negelescu, is likely the best-known version. Although the age difference between Astaire (56) and Caron (24) is certainly noticeable, the fact that it’s acknowledged as a concern — and actually functions as a critical element in the plot — allows us to feel much more comfortable watching them falling in love. Indeed, while DVD Savant complains that Astaire’s “complicated millionaire comes off as a real cradle-robber, and Leslie Caron’s child-woman doesn’t seem mature enough to make a good choice”, I disagree: Caron is posited from the beginning as mature-beyond-her-years (she’s a war orphan, seen caring in a motherly way for other children in her group home), and Astaire’s status as a fun-loving millionaire makes him an obvious catch for any sophisticated young woman. With that said, the storyline and Johnny Mercer’s soundtrack — other than the duo’s fun performance of “Something’s Gotta Give” — aren’t really exceptional or memorable enough to elevate this film into classic status; it’s fun Cinemascope escapism, but nothing more.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Leslie Caron as Julie
  • Astaire and Caron performing “Something’s Gotta Give”

Must See?
No, though fans of Astaire and/or Caron will likely want to check it out.

Links:

Shop Around the Corner, The (1940)

Shop Around the Corner, The (1940)

Comments 1 comment

“Just a lovely average girl; that’s all I want.”

Synopsis:
The top clerk (James Stewart) in a small gift store quibbles with his new colleague (Margaret Sullavan), not realizing she’s his secret romantic pen pal; meanwhile, their boss (Frank Morgan) becomes increasingly distracted and moody as he learns his wife is carrying on an affair with one of his employees.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ernst Lubitsch Films
  • Frank Morgan Films
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • Margaret Sullavan Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Play Adaptations
  • Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “enchanting Ernst Lubitsch comedy” (like most of Lubitsch’s farces) “has to do with mistaken identity, deception, and characters masking their true selves”. He points out that “Stewart and Sullavan (a marvelous team!) conceal their idealistic, romantic visions of the world, life, and love”, “Morgan conceals the depth of of his humanity behind a gruff exterior”, and other characters eventually turn out to be more (or less) than they seem. He notes that despite the presence of a “gossipy, word-twisting, back-stabbing sneak” in the store (I won’t say more at risk of giving away mid-narrative spoilers), this remains “Lubitsch’s gentlest, most chaste … comedy, one in which he was more interested in revealing the humanity of [most of] his characters … than in sexual innuendo”. Meanwhile, as Peary writes, “we fall in love with the people at [the store], as individuals and as a family” — indeed, despite the obvious stagebound origins of the story (it’s based on a play by Hungarian Miklos Laszlo), we can’t help solidly believing in these characters and their unique milieu.

The subplot involving Morgan’s discovery of his wife’s infidelity plays an important role in the overall storyline (and it’s wonderful to see Morgan given such a meaty, nuanced part) — but at the heart of the film lies the love-hate relationship that develops between Stewart and Sullavan. We know from the beginning that they are each others’ secret paramours, and Stewart finds out roughly half-way through the film — so the crux of the narrative tension revolves around how, when, or if Stewart will choose to reveal what he’s discovered. To that end, the scene in which Stewart initially learns about Sullavan’s identity is decidedly bittersweet; Sullavan’s reaction to Stewart “barging in” on her intended rendezvous shows her in a surprisingly negative light, and it took me a while to understand how Stewart could so easily forgive her and reconcile her “real life” persona with the one she’d revealed to him in letters (there’s clearly more going on in his mind than we’ve privy to). Ultimately, however, their complicated dance of gradual recognition rings true — now more so than ever, as more and more individuals (myself included) meet their beloved in virtual reality before encountering one another in person. Film fanatics should certainly check out this finely acted, expertly directed human comedy at least once.

Note: Laszlo’s play was remade two more times — first as the Judy Garland/Van Johnson musical In the Good Old Summertime (1949), and later as You’ve Got Mail (1993), starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan; neither is must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Margaret Sullavan as Klara Novak (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • James Stewart as Alfred Kralik (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek
  • Felix Bressart as Pirovitch

Must See?
Yes, as a classic romance by a master director. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Lilies of the Field (1963)

Lilies of the Field (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m gonna’ build me a chapel.”

Synopsis:
An itinerant African-American (Sidney Poitier) is waylaid in his journeys when the head (Lilia Skala) of a group of nuns in the desert enlists his help in building a chapel — despite the fact that they have no money and few supplies.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Nuns
  • Race Relations and Racism
  • Sidney Poitier Films

Review:
Although Peary doesn’t review Lilies of the Field in GFTFF, he does discuss it a bit in his Alternate Oscars, where he notes that Poitier’s selection as Best Actor came “at a time when millions of whites across America were deeply involved in the Civil Rights movement”, and thus his award may have been “given because Academy voters… felt pressure to show the world they were willing to give their major awards to blacks”. While he acknowledges that Poitier “had given consistently excellent performances” since “beginning his film career in 1950”, Peary argues that “with the possible exception of his performance in A Raisin the Sun, he was never worthy of a Best Actor Oscar” — especially not for playing “likable” handyman Homer Smith in this “pleasant but unremarkable” film by director Ralph Nelson, based on a novel by William Edmund Barrett. He asserts that “Homer is [Poitier’s] least interesting and least complex character”, not to mention “least threatening” given that “he can even take his shirt off around nuns.”

With that said, Poitier brings some much-needed energy to this otherwise overly-twee tale of a no-nonsense head nun and her gaggle of nondescript “sisters”. The storyline is far too simple to engage on anything other than a vaguely metaphorical level, and even then we’re not quite sure exactly what to make of its fable-like qualities. I suppose the primary moral is that persistence and faith pay off, given how Skala’s stubborn insistence that her chapel WILL be built eventually bears fruit; meanwhile, a message about the importance of relying on others for strategic help is slipped in as well. Ultimately, this film remains worth a one-time look both for historical reasons (Poitier’s landmark Oscar) and as a fine early attempt at intimate, low-budget filmmaking — but the narrative (apparently based on a true story) isn’t compelling enough to make it must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Sidney Poitier as Homer Smith
  • Lilia Skala as Mother Maria

Must See?
No, though of course it’s of interest for historical reasons.

Links:

High Society (1956)

High Society (1956)

Comments 1 comment

“I will not have my wedding spoiled by intruders!”

Synopsis:
The day before her marriage to a boring millionaire (John Lund), an exacting heiress (Grace Kelly) must deal with the presence of both her jazz-playing ex-husband (Bing Crosby) and a Spy Magazine reporter (Frank Sinatra) and photographer (Celeste Holm), who intend to cover the nuptials in exchange for not printing a revealing article about Kelly’s philandering father (Sidney Blackmer).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bing Crosby Films
  • Celeste Holm Films
  • Frank Sinatra Films
  • Grace Kelly Films
  • Louis Calhern Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Musicals
  • Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “even if you didn’t know this pleasing musical was a remake of The Philadelphia Story, you’d still guess that Grace Kelly (in her last screen role) was basing her spoiled society girl on something Katharine Hepburn did”. Yet I would argue that Kelly admirably holds her own in a role tailor-made for her patrician sensibilities; indeed, the “criminally beautiful” Kelly — who “is dressed to match the sets” of this “nice-looking film” — “turns in an acceptable comedic performance”, and in some ways is almost better suited for the story than Hepburn (who, as noted by Peary in his review of TPS, “never seems like a prig or someone who will accept only perfection”).

Peary posits that “the major problem is that Kelly is so energetic that Crosby, 25 years her senior, seems much too old for her” — but I disagree; in fact, I actually find it easier to imagine that the uptight character of “Tracy Lord” (Hepburn/Kelly) would have a problem with Crosby’s easy-going jazz musician than with Cary Grant’s alcoholic (perhaps because we never actually see evidence of the latter issue in TPS).

Meanwhile, Sinatra and Holm make a suitable impact in the roles originated by James Stewart and Ruth Hussey:

— and while the narrative has been watered down quite a bit, the film “moves at a brisk pace” and contains “many musical highlights”.

As Peary notes, “Cole Porter songs serve for memorable duets by Crosby and Kelly (their hit ‘True Love’), Crosby and Sinatra (‘Did You Evah?’), Crosby and Louis Armstrong (‘Now You Has Jazz’), and Sinatra and Holm (‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’)” — in addition to “Sinatra sing[ing] Kelly an emotional… ‘You’re Sensational'”. While this one isn’t quite a classic like its predecessor, it’s a surprisingly enjoyable remake, and remains worthy viewing in its own right.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Grace Kelly as Tracy Lord
  • Some fun performances of Cole Porter songs — including “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” and “Well, Did You Evah”

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended.

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

Links:

Prince and the Showgirl, The (1957)

Prince and the Showgirl, The (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“With such a girl like that, anything can happen — anything.”

Synopsis:
Just before the coronation of King George V in 1911 London, the Prince Regent of Carpathia (Laurence Olivier) woos a sexy American showgirl (Marilyn Monroe) while feuding with his son (Jeremy Spencer) and dealing with attempts to take over his throne.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Historical Drama
  • Laurence Olivier Films
  • Marilyn Monroe Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Showgirls

Review:
Laurence Olivier’s first non-Shakespearean effort as a cinematic director was this lightweight historical romantic comedy, based on Terence Rattigan‘s play The Sleeping Prince, and best known by modern audiences as the subject of the 2011 film My Week With Marilyn (starring Michelle Williams). Indeed, MWWM offers such a fascinating — if potentially apocryphal — glimpse behind the scenes of the film’s notoriously troubled production that most film fanatics will want to take a look simply out of curiosity; but unfortunately, it hasn’t held up as engaging entertainment on its own. The primary problem is that Olivier isn’t comfortable enough with the comedic genre to elevate the material: his one-note portrayal as the Teutonic prince regent feels strained, as does the entire stagy scenario. Monroe gives a typically appealing performance as a sexpot who isn’t quite as naive as she looks or acts (and wow, how she fills out that dress!) — but her interactions with Olivier are consistently painful, given that he’s not only a complete user (he simply wants to bed her and discard her — end of story), but never manages to redeems himself as anyone worthy of her romantic interests. Meanwhile, the way in which Monroe’s character does eventually fall for Olivier’s character completely discredits her intelligence, making it a challenge to respect her throughout the rest of the film. The best aspect of the movie by far is Jack Cardiff’s incomparably luminous cinematography, which showcases Monroe and her vibrantly colored surroundings to wonderful effect.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Marilyn Monroe as Elsie
  • Jack Cardiff’s cinematography

Must See?
No – though naturally it will be of interest to those who’ve seen My Week With Marilyn, or to Monroe completists.

Links:

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“That’s beautiful, see — that’s really a lovely thing.”

Synopsis:
After returning from a weekend retreat on sensitivity, a documentary-maker (Robert Culp) and his wife (Natalie Wood) decide to be completely open with one another — but when Culp admits to having a sexual fling and an unperturbed Wood thanks him for being honest, their married best friends (Dyan Cannon and Elliott Gould) don’t know what to make of the situation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Counterculture
  • Dyan Cannon Films
  • Elliott Gould Films
  • Infidelity
  • Marital Problems
  • Natalie Wood Films
  • Paul Mazursky Films
  • Sexuality

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “still funny debut film by Paul Mazursky, about the changing and confused sexual mores of the upper middle class in Southern California during the late sixties… was not as thematically daring as it pretended to be”, and ends with a “cop-out” — but that until its final moments, it is “well written and contains many hilarious vignettes, including an aroused Gould and a disinterested Cannon (both new film stars) in bed after hearing of Culp’s infidelity:

… Culp telling Wood of his affair and becoming slightly annoyed that she’s not jealous:

… Cannon talking to her psychiatrist about her sexual confusion:

… [and] Culp offering a drink to a nervous lover”.

While I agree with Peary that each of the above scenes (among others) is cleverly written and dryly humorous, I disagree with his assertion that the film’s ending is disappointing in any way. This may be a “mainstream movie with an ending… that allowed middle-class viewers to go home happy”, but Culp’s willingness to be open with his wife about his infidelity actually comes across as quite radical, and leads to an equally “radical” response by Wood — not to mention an incisive skewering of gender norms (there’s a dilly of a double-standard that emerges at a certain point in the script, and is nicely handled).

Peary also asserts that “one problem” in the film is that “all four characters come across like jerks by the end,” but I think this is exactly the point. When given permission to follow their desires at whim, without concern for (traditional) social conventions, these characters temporarily devolve into expected narcissism — which doesn’t exactly make them likable; they’re experimenting, and part of the fun in watching their travails is to see how foolishly they flounder.

The only character who emerges semi-triumphant within the new state of affairs (at least until the culminating scene) is Wood — who, on a side note, was indeed “never prettier” (a fact which slyly contributes to the inanity of Culp’s decision to cheat on her). The picture’s ultimate moral, I think, is that social strictures and contracts (complete with strategic deception, as needed) exist for a reason, serving as useful tools for navigating the undeniably tricky waters of long-term relationships; it’s to Mazursky’s credit that his film — rather than seeming dated — remains such a potent example of this fact.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Natalie Wood as Carol
  • Dyan Cannon as Alice
  • Elliott Gould as Ted
  • Robert Culp as Bob
  • The hilariously incisive opening sequence at the retreat
  • Mazursky’s surprisingly sharp script

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance, and as an engaging marital drama.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Rain (1932)

Rain (1932)

Comments 1 comment

“Yes, I can see how a reformer might feel a little out of place here — sort of like a schoolteacher waking up in a harem.”

Synopsis:
While stranded in a hotel on a South Seas island, a prostitute (Joan Crawford) on the lam from San Francisco is proselytized by a judgmental “reformer” (Walter Huston) and his wife (Beulah Bondi); meanwhile, a kind American soldier (William Gargan) woos Sadie (Crawford) by tempting her with marriage and a new life in Australia.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Beulah Bondi Films
  • Character Arc
  • Joan Crawford Films
  • Lewis Milestone Films
  • Missionaries and Revivalists
  • Morality Police
  • Play Adaptation
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos
  • South Sea Islands
  • Walter Huston Films

Review:
Although Joan Crawford purportedly hated her performance in this pre-Code adaptation of Somerset Maugham’s story-turned-play — originally filmed with Gloria Swanson in a silent version, and remade with Rita Hayworth in 1953 — she’s actually quite effective in the challenging role of a bold, fun-loving woman who’s cowed into submission by a bullying, hypocritical missionary. With that said, I’m not really a fan of the storyline itself; the primary problem is that we sympathize immediately with Crawford’s Sadie — especially when, after a rocky initial interaction, she makes a sincere effort towards compromise and reconciliation with Huston and Bondi — and it’s thus painful to watch her treated so badly. In addition, later climactic events between Crawford and Huston, elided over even in this relatively sassy pre-Code version, are both too vague and too unexpected to fully convince. Nonetheless, the film remains worthy viewing both for Crawford’s dynamic performance, and for how wonderfully atmospheric the entire production remains, thanks to nifty camera movements and editing, fine cinematography, and effective use of insistent rain on the soundtrack to underscore the claustrophobia experienced by all inhabitants in the hotel.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joan Crawford as Sadie
  • Effective cinematography and directorial flair (by Lewis Milestone)
  • Fine use of atmospheric sound effects

Must See?
Yes, as a classic Pre-Code adaptation of Maugham’s play, and for Crawford’s performance. Listed as a film with Historical Interest in the back of Peary’s book. Available for free viewing at www.archive.org.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Letter, The (1940)

Letter, The (1940)

Comments 2 comments

“This letter places an entirely different complexion on the whole case.”

Synopsis:
When the wife (Bette Davis) of a plantation manager (Herbert Marshall) is accused of murdering a man (David Newell) who tried to rape her, a family-friend lawyer (Joseph Stephenson) is determined to get her acquitted; but when he learns from an envoy (Victor Sen Yung) about a letter possessed by Newell’s wife (Gale Sondergaard) — supposedly sent to Newell by Davis on the day he was murdered — circumstances suddenly become much more challenging.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bette Davis Films
  • Blackmail
  • Cecil Kellaway Films
  • Herbert Marshall Films
  • Lawyers
  • Plantations
  • Play Adaptation
  • William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “second film adaptation of Somerset Maugham’s play” — originally starring Oscar-nominated Jeanne Eagels in a 1929 silent version — features a “fine performance by Davis”, who he argues is better than all other actresses “at playing characters who act their way through life”; indeed, thanks to superb direction by Wyler (with whom she had a close romantic and professional connection), Davis never hits a false note in her portrayal as an endlessly deceptive woman whose true motivations and loyalties we’re kept guessing about until the very end.

However, Peary accurately points out that “perhaps the most interesting character is Stephenson, who despises Davis yet commits a crime for her… that could ruin his career”.

Peary argues that “obviously, [Stephenson] finds himself intrigued by [Davis’s] wicked nature because that’s what makes her special and excitingly different from his conventional wife”; however, it’s equally plausible that Stephenson merely feels loyalty to his long-time friends, and dedicated to carrying out his promise of acquittal.

Character motivations aside, the film itself remains a wonderfully produced and directed piece of exotic noir. As Peary writes, “Wyler’s direction is moody” (I would use the word “atmospheric” instead), and “there are long passages in which dialogue is sparse or nonexistent and the erotic tension is built through Max Steiner’s music, shadows, sounds (wind, wind chimes), the moon floating through the clouds, character movements and expressions”; Tony Gaudio’s stark cinematography contributes as well to the film’s sense of mystery and menace. However, while Peary argues that “the worst aspect of the film is the embarrassingly invidious portrayal of the non-white characters, which almost justifies the colonialists’ matter-of-fact racism”, I can’t really agree with this assessment. True, it would have been better to cast an Asian (or Eurasian) actress in Sondergaard’s role:

… but her performance as a bitter woman grieving her murdered husband isn’t particularly offensive (I don’t blame her for feeling vindictive!); and Victor Sen Yung’s portrayal as her deceptively obsequious courier is far from dumb or demeaning, instead effectively demonstrating alternate forms of power played out by savvy non-Europeans in a neo-colonial arena.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bette Davis as Leslie (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • James Stephenson as Howard
  • Victor Sen Yung as Ong
  • Tony Gaudio’s cinematography

  • Wyler’s confident direction

  • Evocative sets
  • Max Steiner’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Silk Stockings (1957)

Silk Stockings (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“I didn’t do anything to the commissars — Paris did!”

Synopsis:
When three bumbling Soviet commissars (Peter Lorre, Jules Munshin, and Joseph Buloff) fail to convince a composer (Wim Sonneveld) to return from Paris to Russia, a hard-nosed female agent (Cyd Charisse) is sent to investigate the situation — but she soon finds herself falling for the suave producer (Fred Astaire) of the musical production Sonneveld is involved with.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Character Arc
  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Cyd Charisse Films
  • Fred Astaire Films
  • Musicals
  • Peter Lorre Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Rouben Mamoulian Films

Review:
This musical version of Ernst Lubitsch’s Ninotchka (1939), based on a 1955 Broadway production with music by Cole Porter, is an unfortunate misfire on most accounts. While Lubitsch’s comedy effectively incorporated an unconventional romance into a boldly satirical skewering of early Communist Russia, this unfunny Cold War-era remake simply feels stale. It’s embarrassing enough to see Lorre reduced to playing such a silly part:

… but poor Charisse fares even worse; her wooden performance can’t help evoking consistently unkind comparisons to Garbo.

On the plus side, there’s plenty of Charisse’s incomparable dancing to enjoy: her “Silk Stockings” solo is a highlight:

… as are her performances with Astaire (“Fated to Be Mated”) and the rest of the cast (“Red Blues”).


Also adding to the film’s enjoyment is a spirited performance by Janis Paige as “Peggy Dayton”, whose character — “America’s swimming sweetheart” — was obviously modeled after Esther Williams; her “Stereophonic Sound” duet with Astaire is especially fun and lively. However, while those enamored with Charisse’s uniquely fluid cinematic dancing style will clearly want to check this one out, others needn’t bother.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Cyd Charisse’s lovely dancing
  • Janis Paige as Peggy Dayton
  • Astaire and Paige performing “Stereophonic Sound”

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for musical fanatics.

Links: