Holiday (1938)

Holiday (1938)

Comments 1 comment

“I’ve got all the faith in the world in Johnny.”

Synopsis:
When an heiress (Doris Nolan) brings home the man (Cary Grant) she intends to marry, her eccentric sister (Katharine Hepburn) is thrilled to learn that Grant possesses a rebellious, anti-materialist streak; but will their fiscally conservative father (Henry Kolker) approve of Grant as a future son-in-law, given Grant’s desire to retire as soon as possible and explore the world?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cary Grant Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • George Cukor Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Nonconformists

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes in his brief review, “Philip Barry’s play… makes an excellent vehicle for Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn”, who would more famously co-star in an adaptation of another Barry play two years later — The Philadelphia Story (1940). Peary argues that while the “story is predictable” — we know from the beginning that Hepburn and Grant will fall for each other, and that Nolan will turn out to be a bad match for Grant — the “writing is first-rate”, the “stars, particularly Hepburn, [are] excellent”, and it’s “well directed by George Cukor”. The supporting actors are all excellent as well — most notably Edward Everett Horton as one of Grant’s lifelong friends (while still undeniably fey, he’s nonetheless quite convincing as a happily married professor), Jean Dixon as Horton’s wife, and Kolker as Hepburn and Nolan’s father.

While Holiday can certainly be enjoyed on a surface level as simply a smart romantic comedy, it possesses nuanced social and psychodynamic subtexts. As noted in Stephanie Zacharek’s touching homage-review (she considers it a personal favorite), “a mantle of sadness hangs over this most stylish of comedies”, which in its “ruthlessness” not only “makes a case for building a life in which you’re surrounded by people you love” but is “also unflinching about steeling yourself against people who can only hurt you, no matter who they are”. With that said, as DVD Savant points out, the play/screenplay, for better or for worse, “pussyfoots around its central issue without ever really addressing it”, given that we never really learn “what the blazes [Grant’s character is] babbling about, and how… a kid who supported himself from age ten and rose to become a Wall Street genius fit[s] into [the nebulous] philosophy” of “big, exciting new ideas coming into the world” (will he join the war in Spain?). Regardless, we’re clearly meant to see that nonconformist Grant and zany Hepburn (who, in Zacharek’s words, “is not just stifled by her upper-crust lifestyle but almost destroyed by it”) are a couple simply meant to be — and we take immense pleasure in watching how they will finally come to this realization themselves.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Cary Grant as Johnny
  • Katharine Hepburn as Linda (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Henry Kolker as the Seton patriarch
  • Edward Everett Horton (reprising his role from the 1930 version of the film) and Jean Dixon as Professor and Mrs. Horton
  • A fine screenplay by Donald Ogden Stewart and Sidney Buchman (based on Philip Barry’s play):

    “You know, most people, including Johnny and yourself, make a big mistake about Julia. They’re taken in by her looks. At bottom, she’s a very dull girl and the life she pictures for herself is the life she belongs in.”

Must See?
Yes, as an excellent, expertly directed romantic comedy, and for the fine performances.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967)

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967)

Comments 1 comment

“A lot of people are going to think we are a shocking pair.”

Synopsis:
A liberal white couple (Spencer Tracy) find their beliefs challenged when their daughter (Katherine Houghton) brings home a black fiance (Sidney Poitier).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • African-Americans
  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Race Relations
  • Sidney Poitier Films
  • Spencer Tracy Films
  • Stanley Kramer Films

Review:
Although Peary doesn’t review this Oscar-nominated Stanley Kramer film in GFTFF, in his Alternate Oscars book he refers to it as a “dismal interracial-marriage comedy-drama”, and notes that “Hepburn’s [Oscar-winning] portrayal of a patient housewife who… must come to terms with daughter Katharine Houghton’s decision to marry” Poitier was the “blandest of her career”.

He writes that “you keep expecting her to have a tremendous scene all to herself, but it never happens”; indeed, her performance is really more of a supporting one, with nearly all the characters given equal air time (though Tracy’s white male opinion, perhaps predictably for the times, ultimately emerges as the definitive one). Speaking of Tracy, it’s hard not to be moved when watching what turned out to be his final performance (he died 17 days after production ended).

Meanwhile, the actors playing Poitier’s parents (Roy E. Glenn, Sr. and Beah Richards) are touching and believable in their scenes, and Poitier gives a solid if undistinguished performance in a role which he could surely relate to on a personal level.

The primary problem with William Rose’s well-meaning, occasionally incisive script is that — despite being written specifically for this production — it comes across as little more than a filmed play, with one intense, two-person dialogue scene coming right after the other; the only minor relief we’re given from this basic set-up is when Tracy and Hepburn stop to get some ice cream while out on a drive (but even this scenario — in which Tracy can’t remember the type of ice cream he once loved so much, takes a chance on a flavor he thinks might have “been the one”, is disappointed to find it isn’t the one he originally had, then concedes that it’s not too bad in its own right — devolves into a cliched metaphor).

The other enormous problem — one apparently lamented by Houghton herself — is how poorly written her central character is; we never once feel that her one-dimensional “Joey” will actually make a good partner for Poitier, given how little we learn about her own passions and interests.

While I’m recommending this film as a one-time “must see” film simply for its historical significance, it’s ultimately both too dated and too “safe” to be considered a classic.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Christina Drayton
  • Spencer Tracy as Matt Drayton
  • Fine supporting performances by Roy E. Glenn, Sr. and Beah Richards

Must See?
Yes, once — simply for its historical significance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Picnic (1955)

Picnic (1955)

Comments 1 comment

“What good is it just to be pretty?”

Synopsis:
A hunky drifter (William Holden) arrives in a small Kansas town over Labor Day weekend, intending to look up his old college friend (Cliff Robertson) and secure some work — but he soon finds himself falling in love with Robertson’s beautiful girlfriend (Kim Novak), whose single mother (Betty Field) is eager to see Novak married off to wealthy Robertson. Meanwhile, a spinster schoolteacher (Rosalind Russell) despairs over whether her boyfriend (Arthur O’Connell) will ever marry her, and Novak’s bookish younger sister (Susan Strasberg) longs to become a writer in New York.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Betty Field Films
  • Cliff Robertson Films
  • Joshua Logan Films
  • Kim Novak Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Play Adaptations
  • Rosalind Russell Films
  • Small Town America
  • Susan Strasberg Films
  • William Holden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this adaptation (by Joshua Logan) of William Inge’s play about a drifter “whose presence arouses passions” in a town where everyone “seemed repressed” is “badly dated, especially in its portrayal of women” — given that “Novak actually starts to believe her mother’s… propaganda that a woman must marry”. He argues that “Holden seems miscast”:

and that the “film would have worked better with Douglas Sirk directing Rock Hudson” — an interesting proposition, given that so much of the film (helped not at all by George Duning’s overbearing score) comes across as almost laughably melodramatic, as in the following exchange:

Novak: I’m only 19.
Field: And next summer you’ll be 20…
Novak: And then 21, and then…
Field: 40.
Novak: You don’t have to be morbid!

Meanwhile, Russell is, as Peary points out, “pretty intolerable”:

and Strasberg’s character — “an intellectual [who] isn’t supposed to need a man” — comes across as simply whiny and obnoxious.

Peary argues that the film’s “highlight is the hot ‘mating’ dance (to ‘Moonglow’) of Holden and Novak” — and this scene is handled nicely by both Logan and DP James Wong Howe (who infuses the entire film with a soft glow).

But my favorite section of the film is when Logan opens up Inge’s play to highlight various vignettes from the Labor Day picnic (only discussed in the play, rather than shown). In truth, I’m simply not a fan of this story at all — and Novak’s vacuous central performance doesn’t help matters any. Despite its status as one of the top moneymakers of its time, modern film fanatics needn’t bother checking this one out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The fun “picnic activities” montage

  • James Wong Howe’s cinematography

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one.

Links:

Sylvia Scarlett (1935)

Sylvia Scarlett (1935)

Comments 1 comment

“Are you a girl dressed as a boy? Or are you a boy dressed as a girl?”

Synopsis:
A young French woman (Katharine Hepburn) flees to England with her embezzling father (Edmund Gwenn), disguising herself as a boy to escape notice. During their voyage, they befriend a con-artist (Cary Grant) and begin a life of crime and performance-art together, joined by a ditzy maid (Dennie Moore) who Gwenn soon marries. When Hepburn becomes enamored with a handsome artist (Brian Aherne), she exposes her true identity — but is Aherne really in love with a beautiful Russian (Natalie Paley)?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Brian Aherne Films
  • Cary Grant Films
  • Edmund Gwenn Films
  • Gender Bending
  • George Cukor Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this unusual cult flick (also discussed at length in his first Cult Movies book, which I cite here) by noting that “for years [director] George Cukor would say this box-office flop was the one embarrassing blot on his and Katharine Hepburn’s illustrious careers”, but that “in the mid-sixties it began turning up with increasing frequency on college campuses and in repertory theaters, and a cult for the film took root” — one that is “equally the result of both the unique style of the picture and the unconventional presentation of sex roles”. Interestingly, “critics of thirties never mentioned the sexual implications of the film”; indeed, given that “during this period… subjects like transvestism and bisexuality were taboo”, it’s “remarkable that… no one mentioned the strange things that happen”, such as “Hepburn kissed on the lips by Paley, who thinks she’s a boy and tries to seduce him” (the point at which 3/4ths of the preview audience walked out), or Aherne “invit[ing] ‘Sylvester’ to sleep with him”, and later quipping, “I don’t know what it is that gives me a queer feeling when I look at you”.

While Sylvia Scarlett‘s transgressive sexual politics surely make it a favorite with the LGBTQ crowd, it’s also notable for its transgressive gender politics — i.e., the way in which Sylvia “gains [both] stature… in [her father’s] eyes [as well as] independence” once she cuts off her hair and pretends to be a boy, and how “by dressing in men’s clothes, she is able to free that latent part of herself” — i.e., “being athletic” and “speak[ing] her mind for the first time” — that was “previously kept hidden by convention”. Indeed, “only by pretending to be a male can Sylvia open up the world for herself and bring out her real self”; and “only as a male can Sylvia control her own destiny and make her own rules”. Along those lines, Peary points out that “few pictures are so rooted in theater”, and that “no film is more concerned with ‘acting’ as a method (rather than a profession) for living one’s life”, given that “it’s populated by characters whose lives revolve around disguise and deception”.

In Cult Movies, Peary ends his review by conceding that “Sylvia Scarlett is far from a great film”. He points out that Cukor couldn’t “decide whether he was filming a comedy or a drama”, that it’s “dull at times”, and that there are “too many moments when characters display cruelty that is sadistic and hard to watch”. I would also add that Dennie Moore’s performance as Maudie the maid very quickly gets on one’s nerves, and that the character played by Paley is sorely underdeveloped. Yet Sylvia Scarlett remains “one of the most interesting films of the thirties” despite its flaws and faults, and is certainly must-see viewing for all film fanatics simply for its enduring cult status.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Sylvia/Sylvester (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • A refreshingly fluid presentation of sexuality and gender

Must See?
Yes, for its cult status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Philadelphia Story, The (1940)

Philadelphia Story, The (1940)

Comments 1 comment

“You have everything it takes to make a lovely woman except the one essential: an understanding heart. And without that, you might just as well be made of bronze.”

Synopsis:
An exacting heiress (Katharine Hepburn) finds her upcoming marriage to a wealthy social climber (John Howard) disrupted by the presence of her alcoholic ex-husband (Cary Grant), who has sought revenge by enlisting the help of a meddling magazine reporter (James Stewart) and his photographer (Ruth Hussey) to cover the wedding — but the situation becomes even more complicated when Stewart falls for Hepburn himself, ignoring the fact that his colleague (Hussey) is smitten with him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cary Grant Films
  • George Cukor Films
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Play Adaptation
  • Revenge
  • Roland Young Films
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Weddings

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic screwball comedy” — “adapted from Philip Barry’s 1939 Broadway success, which he’d written especially for… Hepburn” — was Hepburn’s strategically chosen “vehicle for her return to Hollywood after a two-year hiatus” due to being “designated box office poison”. Peary notes that Hepburn “got to play with her own public image, in an effort to show that underneath her haughty, classy exterior… she was vulnerable and loyal”. Indeed, the central premise of the film revolves around Hepburn’s character “com[ing] to see her own imperfect side”, and embracing herself as a “woman” rather than a “priggish goddess”. Yet as Peary points out, “the major problem with the play-film is that [Hepburn’s] Tracy Lord never seems like a prig or someone who will accept only perfection”, given that “she is eccentric, funny, wild, and tolerant of unconventional people, like her flighty mother (Mary Nash), quirky younger sister (Virginia Weidler), and dirty old uncle (Roland Young).”

Peary further writes that “two other problems are that Grant is too passive a character and that Hussey really gets mistreated by Stewart without telling him off” — but he notes that “despite all, this is a scintillating comedy, because the acting by the wonderful cast transcends the material”. In addition, “as directed by George Cukor, the comic dialogues have a marvelous rhythm… The characters could be speaking Japanese, but so snappy are their comebacks and so sly are their expressions that we’d laugh anyway”. I’m in full agreement with Peary’s overall assessment: it’s the stellar performances and witty dialogue that ultimately “sell” me on The Philadelphia Story, which I’ll admit to finding a tad too romantically convoluted for my tastes (though at least we’re kept in genuine suspense until the very end about who will end up with whom, and why). However, while not a personal favorite, this classic “comedy of remarriage” — remade with Grace Kelly and Bing Crosby in 1956 as the musical High Society — is most definitely must-see viewing for all film fanatics at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Tracy Lord
  • Jimmy Stewart as Macaulay Connor
  • Ruth Hussey as Liz Imbrie
  • Cary Grant as C.K. Dexter Haven
  • Virginia Weidler as Dinah Lord
  • Witty dialogue:

    Nash: “We must just be ourselves… Very much ourselves.”
    Weidler: [Without missing a beat] “But you want us to make a good impression, don’t you?”

Must See?
Yes, as a beloved classic and for the standout performances.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

I Was a Male War Bride (1949)

I Was a Male War Bride (1949)

Comments 1 comment

“Who cares about regulations at a time like this?”

Synopsis:
Shortly after WWII, a French soldier (Cary Grant) marries an American WAC (Ann Sheridan), but finds he must label himself a “war bride” in order to get into the U.S. with her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ann Sheridan Films
  • Cary Grant Films
  • Gender Bending
  • Howard Hawks Films
  • Military
  • Romantic Comedy

Review:
As noted by DVD Savant in his perceptive review, this “lightly amusing comedy” by Howard Hawks — based on Henri Rochard’s autobiography I Was an Alien Spouse of Female Military Personnel Enroute to the United States Under Public Law 271 of the Congress — has “probably… dated more than a lot of other 1950 comedies”, and requires an understanding of its geopolitical “context to become fully functional”. Its primary calling card is the image of Cary Grant in drag — but this only occurs for about 10 minutes late in the film:

The bulk of the storyline (once quibbling Grant and Sheridan realize they’re a perfect romantic fit for one another) revolves around Sheridan’s attempts to get her new husband back to the United States with her, coupled with an ongoing “gag” about their inability to consummate their marriage. Fortunately, the script (by Charles Lederer, Hagar Wilde, and Leonard Spigelgass) keeps one engaged even when the premise itself starts to feel somewhat tiresome — and Sheridan’s feisty performance reminds one that she was an underutilized presence in Hollywood.

But this one will primarily be of interest to Hawksian completists.

Note: Interestingly, Peary nominates Grant as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars — though Grant never even bothers to attempt the requisite French accent for his Belgian character (!), and his performance is really nothing special.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ann Sheridan as Lt. Catherine Gates
  • An amusing script by Charles Lederer, Hagar Wilde, and Leonard Spigelgass

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Beast With Five Fingers, The (1945)

Beast With Five Fingers, The (1945)

Comments 1 comment

“In my mind, there is no doubt the hand is walking around.”

Synopsis:
When a one-handed pianist (Victor Francen) dies, his loyal secretary (Peter Lorre) is distressed to learn that he’s been left out of his will, and soon comes to believe that Francen’s disembodied hand is stalking him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Disembodied Parts
  • Horror
  • Peter Lorre Films
  • Revenge

Review:
Robert Florey directed dozens of forgettable B-level flicks throughout his career (see his profile at IMDb), yet a small handful of his titles remain worth a look — most notably Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932), The Face Behind the Mask (1941) (with Peter Lorre), and this later Lorre vehicle, perhaps best known for being the first “disembodied hand” flick to emerge from Hollywood. Unfortunately, the screenplay for … Beast (scripted in part by Curt Siodmak) is poorly paced and a bit of a mess, shifting aimlessly between various characters throughout the first half; but once it finally settles on Lorre — the most interesting character by far — the horror vibes really start to fly, as truly impressive special effects — coupled with atmospheric cinematography and excellent use of creepy piano music — begin to dominate the proceedings.

As noted in Time Out’s capsule review, “The fudged ending imposed by the studio deflates much of the mystery” — but the half-hour or so that comes before makes The Beast With Five Fingers a once-must classic of the genre.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Lorre as Hilary Cummins
  • Fine direction by Robert Florey
  • Exciting, remarkably impressive special effects
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Powerful use of classical music

Must See?
Yes, as a flawed but memorable horror classic.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

On the Town (1949)

On the Town (1949)

Comments 1 comment

“You know, somewhere in the world there’s a right girl for every boy.”

Synopsis:
Three sailors on leave for the day in New York City become romantically involved with a trio of girls: Ozzie (Jules Munshin) encounters a sexy scientist (Ann Miller) in a museum; Chip (Frank Sinatra) is aggressively pursued by a cab driver (Betty Garrett); and Gabey (Gene Kelly) falls for the girl of his dreams (Vera-Allen) when he spots her on a poster as “Miss Turnstiles”, not realizing she actually hails from a small town.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ann Miller Films
  • Frank Sinatra Films
  • Gene Kelly Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Musicals
  • New York City
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Sailors
  • Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “irresistible, cheer-you-up Betty-Comden-Adolph Green musical” — “directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen” — features “lively” songs and “exuberant” dancing. He points out that Kelly’s character “is extremely likable” (note how sweet he is to his “ugly blind date” [Alice Pearce]), and notes how nice it is “to see how well the three female characters get along”, despite having just met each other hours earlier. Of the female leads, Garrett is especially memorable — and “really appealing” — in a hilariously aggressive turn as a “spunky cabbie” who immediately knows what she wants from Sinatra’s “initially shy” character. As for Vera-Allen, while Peary argues that she “makes a good dancing partner for Kelly because she also has an athletic style”, he complains that she lacks the “‘star power’ of some of his other partners”; I agree that she’s well-cast but not all that charismatic in the role.

Peary complains that the wonderful “Bernstein-Edens score could use a couple of more standards to go with ‘New York, New York'”, but I heartily disagree; there are enough clever, memorable songs strewn throughout this one (“Come Up To My Place”, “You’re Awful”, and “Count On Me”, to name just a few) to satisfy most musical lovers, and the accompanying choreography is consistently enjoyable. Meanwhile, the film’s fabled location shooting — particularly during the opening sequence — is deservedly noteworthy; one wishes for even more. Although the storyline is incredibly simple and straightforward — the biggest conflict revolves around Miss Turnstiles’ hidden identity, which we know won’t be a problem for amiable Kelly — this allows us to simply sit back and enjoy the show, which remains enormously entertaining up until the tiresome final chase sequence (but who’s quibbling).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine location shooting in the charming opening musical sequence, “New York, New York”
  • Many enjoyable musical numbers and dance sequences


  • Betty Garrett as Hilde
  • Alice Pearce as Lucy Schmeeler
  • A memorable score by Leonard Bernstein and Roger Edens (with fun lyrics by screenwriters Adolph Green and Betty Comden)

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

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Pride and Prejudice (1940)

Pride and Prejudice (1940)

Comments 1 comment

“Look at them — five of them without dowries! What’s to become of them?”

Synopsis:
In 19th century England, the mother (Mary Boland) of five young women — headstrong Lizzie (Greer Garson), beautiful Jane (Maureen O’Sullivan), musical Mary (Marsha Hunt), and uniform-loving Lydia (Ann Rutherford) and Kitty (Heather Angel) — attempts to marry them off, given that a distant relative, Mr. Collins (Melville Cooper), will inherit their estate once her husband (Edmund Gwenn) passes on. Jane soon becomes infatuated with wealthy Mr. Bingley (Bruce Lester), while Lizzie fends off advances from Mr. Collins, and engages in heated discussions with a would-be suitor, mysterious Mr. Darcy (Laurence Olivier).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross Class Romance
  • Edmund Gwenn Films
  • Greer Garson Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Karen Morley Films
  • Laurence Olivier Films
  • Looking for Ms./Mr. Right
  • Maureen O’Sullivan Films

Review:
While literary fans may continue to quibble over the details of how Jane Austen’s beloved novels have been translated to the screen over the years, it’s generally acknowledged that this early MGM adaptation of Austen’s most beloved book deserves recognition as one of the best, and is notable for sparking a renaissance of interest at the time in Austen’s work. Despite the decision to place the story within a slightly later historical setting — and the inevitable truncation of various thematic elements from the novel — the film feels relatively faithful to the spirit of the book, merging more serious social concerns (a family will be forced to hand over its entire estate simply given lack of a male heir!) with plenty of levity, most specifically in the character of Mr. Collins (who is accompanied by his own musical motif whenever he enters the screen). The complex but never too-complicated plot — revolving around class relations, romantic infatuations, and hidden secrets of character — is portrayed in such a way that even modern audiences will be able to understand the nuances of life in Austen’s unique historical milieu.

Thirty-six-year-old Garson — fresh from her Hollywood debut in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939) — nicely inhabits the pivotal role of 20-year-old Elizabeth “Lizzie” Bennett, investing her with requisite amounts of intelligence and independence while simultaneously demonstrating her enduring loyalty towards her (often wacky) family members. Olivier, meanwhile, is suitably handsome and mysterious as Mr. Darcy — perhaps literature’s most desirable bachelor. Indeed, the central storyline of P&P — a seemingly arrogant millionaire turns out to have secret depths of compassion, generosity, and romantic desire — is so compelling that it’s nearly impossible not to get caught up in it. Meanwhile, the screenplay — co-written by none other than Aldous Huxley (!) — nicely preserves much of Austen’s witty, trenchant dialogue, respecting audience members’ intelligence and desire for authenticity:

Mr. Darcy: “She looks tolerable enough, but I am in no humor tonight to give consequence to the middle classes at play.”

Note: While Garson turns out to be nicely cast as Lizzie, one can’t help wondering what Vivien Leigh — Olivier’s original choice for the role — would have done with the character…

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Laurence Olivier as Mr. Darcy
  • Charming period sets (though the costumes themselves are too contentiously anachronistic to praise — see IMDb message boards for evidence of the ongoing debate)

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable literary adaptation. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

Comments 2 comments

“My son and I had a rare and wonderful love and trust between us — a sort of contract, a covenant.”

Synopsis:
A wealthy widow (Katharine Hepburn) attempts to convince a renowned brain surgeon (Montgomery Clift) to perform a lobotomy on her niece (Elizabeth Taylor) in exchange for a generous endowment to a cash-strapped mental hospital — but Clift soon learns that Hepburn’s request is motivated by a desire to suppress memories of her beloved son’s unsavory death.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Elizabeth Taylor Films
  • Flashback Films
  • Joseph L. Mankiewicz Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Mercedes McCambridge Films
  • Montgomery Clift Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • Tennessee Williams Films

Review:
Based on a one-act play by Tennessee Williams, this Gothic Freudian “horror” story — directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, with a screenplay by Gore Vidal and Williams — tells a surprisingly suspenseful tale of toxic secrets and dysfunctional maternal love, with “homosexuality, incest, lobotomy, [and] even cannibalism… discussed or implied”. The storyline revolves around a mysterious character (“Sebastian Venable”) whose figure we only glimpse briefly in flashback:

The fact that we never actually “meet” him adds to the power of the narrative, as we struggle to understand exactly what caused his gruesome death, and why his mother is so determined to conceal the truth about her enigmatic son. Vidal and Williams’ screenplay is wonderfully dense, full of hidden insinuations — indeed, one spends the entire movie in awe by how cleverly layers of implications are stacked. Sebastian was gay, no doubt about it, and his homosexuality drives the entire tragedy in question; yet this is never openly stated.

Katharine Hepburn is truly chilling in the pivotal role of Mrs. Venable — perhaps theater/cinema’s most inappropriately protective mother ever, she’s unafraid to make her character completely evil, and entirely unsympathetic.

Meanwhile, Taylor is equally fine in the challenging role as her troubled niece:

… who must deal not only with the trauma of what she saw and experienced while vacationing with Sebastian, but fear for her very life, as her (greedy) mother (Mercedes McCambridge) and brother (Gary Raymond) seem willing to “trade” her mind in exchange for financial recompense by Hepburn.

Gothic sets contribute to the film’s overall sense of psychological terror, while smartly chosen costumes — in particular Hepburn’s hideous “feather hat” (reminiscent of Cruella De Vil):

… accentuate the heightened melodrama of the material.

The only section of this undeniably dialogue-bound film that feels overly staged is the climactic finale, as all the “players” gather ’round to hear Taylor (who’s been given a “truth serum”) spill the beans about what, exactly, happened “last summer”.

The choice to literalize Sebastian’s death is probably necessary, but doesn’t prevent all sorts of lingering questions from remaining in viewers’ minds. While it’s not for all tastes, I’m recommending Suddenly, Last Summer for one-time viewing, as an engrossingly tawdry melodrama and for Hepburn’s unforgettable performance.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Mrs. Venable
  • Elizabeth Taylor as Catherine
  • Effectively “spooky”, Oscar-nominated sets

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful melodrama, and for the Oscar-nominated lead performances.

Categories

  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links: