Incredible Shrinking Woman, The (1981)

Incredible Shrinking Woman, The (1981)

Comments 1 comment

“To my family, I’d become a doll — and to our dog, a chew-stick.”

Synopsis:
After exposure to a multitude of household chemicals, a housewife (Lily Tomlin) begins shrinking, much to the horror of her husband (Charles Grodin) and two kids (Shelby Balik and Justin Dana). Meanwhile, her husband’s boss (Ned Beatty) conspires with her doctors (Henry Gibson and Elizabeth Wilson) and the leaders (Tom Keller, Jim McMullan, and Pamela Bellwood) of a secret organization to capture Tomlin and use her blood as part of a plan for world domination.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Fantasy
  • Lily Tomlin Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Ned Beatty Films
  • Science Fiction
  • World Domination

Review:
Joel Schumacher made his directorial debut helming this reasonably entertaining — though clearly inferior — comedic follow-up to the 1957 sci-fi classic The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) (based on Richard Matheson’s novel The Shrinking Man). In this modernized version of Matheson’s story (scripted by Tomlin’s long-time collaborator and parter, Jane Wagner), the protagonist is a woman instead of a man, and the proposed culprit for her situation — a deluge of household chemicals:

— plays upon newfound societal fears about environmental contaminants. Unfortunately, Tomlin is a bit too bland in the title role as a happily married housewife faced with the ultimate nightmare:

(though she has fun in a secondary role playing a helpful neighbor named Judith Beasley), and the screenplay misses out on ripe opportunities for more incisive social commentary — either about the contested role of housewives in a male-dominated society, or the escalating presence of unknown chemicals in our everyday lives. Sadly, the film eventually devolves into a silly world-domination subplot involving — sigh — a captive humanoid gorilla (famed makeup artist Rick Baker in a suit), rather than allowing Tomlin’s character to sink ever further into the horrors of increasing diminution (as is handled so effectively in the original film). However, while The Incredible Shrinking Woman is certainly no classic, the special effects are nicely handled, and it’s enjoyably loopy enough to merit a look by curious film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lily Tomlin as Judith Beasley
  • Impressive special effects and sets

Must See?
No, though film fanatics may be curious to check it out given its connection to Jack Arnold’s 1957 classic (and Matheson’s novel).

Links:

Windy City (1984)

Windy City (1984)

Comments 1 comment

“I have nothing to say. I am not a writer.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring writer (John Shea) enlists the help of his childhood buddies in supporting their dying friend (Josh Mostel); meanwhile, he reminisces about a former girlfriend (Kate Capshaw) who has since become engaged to another man.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Friendship
  • Winning Him/Her Back

Review:
Two years after penning the uninspired screenplay for Francis Ford Coppola’s otherwise impressive One From the Heart (1982), Armyan Bernstein wrote and directed this dull ensemble piece about a group of lifelong friends growing up in Chicago and facing a variety of concerns. The film is eminently forgettable on every count, given that we don’t care about any of the poorly developed characters, who spout trite dialogue (“I guess some people aren’t replaceable”) and generally act like overgrown adolescents. There’s potential for something heartfelt in a subplot about a dying friend in the gang, played with pathos by Mostel (the one live spark in the bunch):

— but this is swallowed up by the shallow central narrative about Shea’s longing for his now-engaged former girlfriend (Capshaw).

Bernstein is clearly a film buff, given how many cinematic allusions he incorporates throughout his movie — i.e., the film opens on a scene of the boyhood friends watching an Errol Flynn swashbuckler on television:

and at one point the camera pans strategically past a revival theater marquee advertising A Guy Named Joe. However, these allusions simply highlight how shallow Bernstein’s own picture is. Ironically, Shea’s character (an aspiring writer, ostensibly based on Bernstein himself) breaks up with his girlfriend after they argue about his failure to work on his craft; she insists that he “has stories to tell”, while he yells back, “I have nothing to say” — a point we (sadly) can’t help immediately agreeing with.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Not much.

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

Links:

Woman of the Year (1942)

Woman of the Year (1942)

Comments 1 comment

“You don’t think I can do all the ordinary little things that any idiot can do, do you?”

Synopsis:
A globe-trotting political journalist (Katharine Hepburn) and an easy-going sports writer (Spencer Tracy) fall in love, but find their marriage strained by Hepburn’s hectic lifestyle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Career-versus-Marriage
  • Fay Bainter Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • George Stevens Films
  • Journalists
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Spencer Tracy Films
  • Strong Females
  • William Bendix Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that just as “Spencer Tracy’s sportswriter and Katharine Hepburn’s political columnist… can feel the chemistry” the first time they “lay eyes on each other”, viewers “can immediately feel the chemistry between the stars in their first scene together on screen”. He points out that we get to experience the unique “joy” of “watching their characters get to know each other”, given that we now know “we’re also watching the stars develop their inimitable interplay” — one that endured throughout their real-life romance as well as through eight additional films together. He argues that the “film is hurt by silly and overly sentimental plot contrivances, and because once they’re married neither character is very appealing”, but counters that “Tracy and Hepburn ride out the rocky road”.

I’m actually more a fan of Ring Lardner, Jr. and Michael Kanin’s Oscar-winning script than Peary is. While there are certainly some “silly… plot contrivances” — as when Hepburn “adopts a Greek orphan without consulting Tracy and then hasn’t the time to be a mother” — this is par for the course in a screwball romantic comedy like WOTY, which is never anything less than delightfully zany in its portrayal of Hepburn’s over-the-topness (after all, her “Tess” is shown speaking no less than half a dozen languages fluently!). Meanwhile, as Peary argues, “what’s most fascinating about the film is Hepburn’s uninhibitedly sexual performance”, with her “sexiness com[ing] from how she uses her eyes, voice, body, and, more significantly, her mind prior to lovemaking”. Indeed, Hepburn’s intelligence is a major turn-on — not just for Tracy (who secretly seems to love his wife’s genius), but for audience members, who can easily embrace Hepburn’s Tess Harding as a feminist icon for the ages. (Now this is the pioneering female journalist we wanted to see more of in A Woman Rebels!)

The enduring question about Woman of the Year is whether its views on gender roles and marital responsibilities have dated terribly (as Peary argues is the case with all the Tracy-and-Hepburn films). It’s true that the final scene — showcasing Hepburn’s disastrous attempts to make breakfast for her husband, a la Buster Keaton in The Navigator (1924) — would seem to hint that the characters have finally caved to sexist mid-century mores; but listen carefully, and you’ll find that this really isn’t the case. Indeed, while Hepburn is clearly made out to be the “villain” throughout the film — with poor, put-upon Tracy simply enduring her hectic lifestyle until he finally puts his foot down — the moral of the story isn’t that Hepburn should give up her phenomenal success for the sake of being a housewife. Rather, the lesson being taught is a remarkably modern one: the need for compromise and balance in any relationship.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Tess Harding (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Spencer Tracy as Sam Craig (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Plenty of believable onscreen chemistry between Hepburn and Tracy
  • Tess’s addled attempt to make breakfast; click here to listen to a fun podcast by www.thescarlettolive.com about “food in film” which briefly addresses this scene
  • An enjoyably witty screenplay by Ring Lardner, Jr. and Michael Kanin

Must See?
Yes, as one of Tracy and Hepburn’s most enjoyable pictures together.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Adam’s Rib (1949)

Adam’s Rib (1949)

Comments 1 comment

“Lawyers should never marry other lawyers; this is called in-breeding.”

Synopsis:
A lawyer (Katharine Hepburn) defending a woman (Judy Holliday) who shot her faithless husband (Tom Ewell) and his lover (Jean Hagen) finds her marriage strained when her husband (Spencer Tracy) is assigned as prosecutor in the case.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Battle-of-the-Sexes
  • Courtroom Drama
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • George Cukor Films
  • Jean Hagen Films
  • Judy Holliday Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Lawyers
  • Marital Problems
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Spencer Tracy Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Real-life lovers Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy co-starred in no less than nine films together, beginning with Woman of the Year in 1942 (where they met on set and fell in love), and culminating shortly before Tracy’s death with Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967). This “middle entry” in their collective oeuvre — directed by George Cukor — represents the duo at their most comfortable, playing (appropriately enough) a childless, middle-aged couple (“Adam” and “Amanda”) at the height of their careers, happily married until they become pitched in an ideological battle against one another. As Peary writes, the “bright script by married Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon deserves praise for being a Hollywood film that not only mentioned the term ‘sexual equality’ back in 1949, but also attempted to be something much more significant than the typical battle of the sexes.” He writes that Amanda “uses the trial as a forum to denounce the sexism that prevails in society”; and while “[Adam] accuses her of making a mockery of the law”, in reality it’s “his masculine pride [that] is hurt”, forcing him to “use feminine wiles to get his wife back”.

Peary argues that Adam’s Rib is “probably Hepburn and Tracy’s best film” (I disagree; I think Woman of the Year merits that slot), but that “it has dated as badly as the others”. He accurately notes that “like the others, it must be seen in the light of its era to appreciate that it was ahead of its time in its treatment of sexual politics” (though isn’t that advice true when viewing most early-20th-century Hollywood films?). He further notes that “the characters do so much grandstanding that the issues get blurred”, which doesn’t really bother me; what I find much more irritating (though unmentioned in Peary’s review) is David Wayne’s performance as Amanda’s would-be suitor, playing an annoying songwriter whose interest in Amanda is poorly conceived through and through. Fortunately, he’s mostly overshadowed by his co-stars — not just Tracy and Hepburn (both in fine if somewhat predictable form), but a memorable Judy Holliday in her breakthrough film role. Meanwhile, Kanin and Gordon’s script is generally smart enough to overcome its occasional narrative flaws, particularly in its honest depiction of marital tensions experienced by an older-than-Hollywood-average couple (in their 40s!).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Amanda Bonner (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • Spencer Tracy as Adam Bonner
  • Judy Holliday as Doris Attinger
  • A refreshingly candid look at a happy marriage under tension

Must See?
Yes, as one of Tracy and Hepburn’s best outings together.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Blonde Bombshell / Bombshell (1933)

Blonde Bombshell / Bombshell (1933)

Comments 1 comment

“Deep down in every girl’s heart there’s the desire for the rite of real womanhood.”

Synopsis:
Fed up with her mooching brother (Ted Healy), tippling father (Frank Morgan), overbearing publicist (Lee Tracy), and demanding director (Pat O’Brien), a sexy movie star (Jean Harlow) makes various attempts to escape from her hectic Hollywood lifestyle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Adoption
  • Comedy
  • Hollywood
  • Jean Harlow Films
  • Pat O’Brien Films

Review:
Victor Fleming directed this relentlessly-paced, incisive pre-Code satire, starring Jean Harlow in a role purportedly based on Clara Bow. The clever storyline — adapted from a 1928 stage play by Caroline Francke and Mack Crane — shadows Harlow’s numerous failed attempts to seek some semblance of privacy and autonomy in Hollywood, first by nearly marrying a questionable marquis (Ivan Lebedeff):

then by trying to adopt a baby:

and finally by becoming engaged to a wealthy American (Franchot Tone) whose snooty parents (C. Aubrey Smith and Mary Forbes) are distinctly wary of their son’s new love interest.

Meanwhile, her meddling publicist — played by heavy-drinking pre-Code actor Lee Tracy, probably best known for his role the same year in Dinner at Eight (1933) — tries to earn Harlow’s romantic affections while strategically foiling each of her ventures.

There’s plenty here for fans of pre-Code comedies to enjoy, from racy dialogue to impressively frantic pacing to Harlow’s spot-on screechy performance; it’s definitely worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Jean Harlow as Lola
  • Lee Tracy as Space
  • An enjoyably loopy screenplay
  • Clever pre-Code dialogue:

    “Your day off is sure brutal on your negligee.”
    “Where I kick her, the camera’ll never pick up the scar.”

Must See?
Yes, as a fine vehicle for Harlow. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Woman Rebels, A (1936)

Woman Rebels, A (1936)

Comments 1 comment

“Even though I’m a woman, I have brains — I intend to use them.”

Synopsis:
A defiant young woman (Katharine Hepburn) in Victorian England rebels against her autocratic father (Donald Crisp) by having an affair with a man (Van Heflin) she soon learns is already married. When her newly married sister (Elizabeth Allan) dies shortly before giving birth, the secretly pregnant Hepburn decides to raise her child as her niece while forging a career for herself as a groundbreaking journalist; meanwhile, she refuses to marry a kind diplomat (Herbert Marshall) out of fear that her secret will be revealed and cause a scandal.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Donald Crisp Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Herbert Marshall Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Morality Police
  • Van Heflin Films

Review:
This little-seen Katharine Hepburn vehicle (based on Netta Syrett‘s 1930 novel Portrait of a Rebel) is primarily remembered as Hepburn’s third box office flop in a row for RKO studios — and unfortunately, it’s easy to see why the film failed to catch on with audiences. It’s ultimately a missed opportunity, relying far too heavily on melodramatic conventions rather than capitalizing on its more interesting feminist premise. Although Hepburn’s “Pam Thistlewaite” defiantly declares that she “has brains and intends to use them”, we see only snippets of her brave attempts to penetrate the glass ceiling in Victorian England — as epitomized in the following reactions to her attempts to seek employment in “men’s work”:

“A girl as a secretary! Why, bless my soul… I’d be the laughing stock of London.”
“Sorry, can’t be done — a salesgirl in a shop? Unthinkable. My customers wouldn’t tolerate it.”

Her character does eventually find success as an agitating feminist journalist, but unfortunately, little to no time is spent dwelling on this aspect of her life. Instead, the bulk of the narrative focuses on issues of dubious morality, as Hepburn’s “sins” of the past come back to haunt both her and her grown daughter.

With that said, Hepburn is as luminous and charismatic as always, fully embodying a role tailor-made for her sensibilities; and the Oscar-nominated period costumes she wears over the decades are a delight.

However, this one remains must-see only for Hepburn enthusiasts (and those curious to see Herbert Marshall bathing a baby while wearing an apron!).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Pamela
  • Fine period costumes

  • Robert De Grasse’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though Hepburn fans will want to check it out.

Links:

Chilly Scenes of Winter (1982)

Chilly Scenes of Winter (1982)

Comments 1 comment

“You have this exalted view of me, and I hate it.”

Synopsis:
An unhappy man (John Heard) with a mentally ill mother (Gloria Grahame) and a deadbeat roommate (Peter Riegert) reminisces obsessively about the love of his life (Mary Beth Hurt), who has left him to return to her A-frame selling husband (Mark Metcalf).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Flashback Films
  • Gloria Grahame Films
  • Obsessive Love
  • Winning Him/Her Back

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that Joan Micklin Silver’s “offbeat” adaptation of Ann Beattie’s novel — about a man whose “obsessiveness, jealousy, and constant flattery drive [the married woman he loves] back to her husband” — has “many special, funny, charming moments”; but he complains that “Heard and Hurt [are] off putting” as “screen characters”. It’s true that Heard’s boring, whiny protagonist isn’t exactly likable (he edges dangerously close to stalker tendencies), while Hurt’s chronic indecisiveness about her romantic life eventually becomes simply tiresome. Then again, these characters — effectively played by Heard and Hurt — are both eminently realistic: who hasn’t known people struggling with similar concerns, if to a less extreme degree?

Indeed, it’s exactly such fidelity to real-life relationship woes that likely endears audiences to both the film and the book, which collectively possess a small cult following.

In his review, Peary argues that while Heard and Hurt “may be real characters”, he “never believe[s] their responses to each other” — a complaint which seems to speak to the screenplay’s literary origins. While I don’t personally have any trouble believing in Heard and Hurt’s interactions, other elements of the screenplay — such as Heard’s repeated dealings with a frustrated blind vendor — come across as overly scripted. It’s also frustrating to see so little made of some of the most interesting supporting characters — i.e., Gloria Grahame as Heard’s loony mom (film fanatics will be thrilled to recognize her, and disappointed by how little screentime she’s given):

and Hurt’s put-upon husband “Ox” (with a name like that, wouldn’t you like to learn just a bit more about him?).

However, the film itself — expertly directed by Silver — is certainly worth a one-time look, especially given its minor cult status.

Note: Peary concludes his review by noting that he finds “the original [upbeat] ending” from the film’s previous release (in 1979, under the alternate title Head Over Heels) to be “more logical” — but this will be a moot point for modern viewers, who unfortunately won’t have the opportunity to compare versions.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Mary Beth Hurt as Laura
  • John Heard as Charles
  • Fine wintertime cinematography (appropriately enough!)

Must See?
Yes, once — as a cult favorite.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Muppet Movie, The (1979)

Muppet Movie, The (1979)

Comments 1 comment

“All I can see is a million frogs on tiny crutches.”

Synopsis:
A talent agent (Dom DeLuise) convinces Kermit the Frog (Jim Henson) to leave his Mississippi home and pursue a career in Hollywood. Along the way, Kermit encounters a host of Muppet friends eager to join him on his trip, and tries to evade capture by the nefarious owner (Charles Durning) of a frog leg-serving restaurant chain.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aspiring Stars
  • Carol Kane Films
  • Madeline Kahn Films
  • Puppets and Ventriloquism
  • Road Trip
  • Telly Savalas Films

Review:
Two years after “The Muppet Show” became a worldwide hit on television, Jim Henson and his creative team brought Kermit, Miss Piggy, and their friends to big-screen fame in this first (and best) of several full-length Muppet features (including the Peary-listed The Muppets Take Manhattan [1984]). While geared primarily towards kids, the screenplay of this first entry was clearly designed to appeal to adult fans of the TV series as well, given that it’s littered with witty one-liners, cameo appearances, and genre-specific homages, and doesn’t shy away from placing its characters in decidedly precarious situations. Indeed, I recall how, when watching this film for the first time as a child, I was traumatized by the fact that Kermit is pursued by an evil restauranteur whose primary goal in life is to chop off frogs’ legs (eek!); and the scene in which a sadistic professor (Mel Brooks) attempts to turn Kermit’s brain to mush was equally disturbing to my young sensibilities. As an adult viewer, however, I’m better able to appreciate how slyly screenwriters Jack Burns and Jerry Juhl play upon various generic tropes, ranging from the central conceit of a road trip (the bulk of the story) to romance (embodied in Kermit and Piggy’s infatuation) to mad scientist (the scene with Brooks) to western (the climactic finale). A couple of catchy tunes by Paul Williams — most notably the Oscar-winning tune “The Rainbow Connection” — and some impressive Muppeteering (check out Kermit on a bike!) make this an enjoyable flick for both adults and (older) kids to visit every now and then.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A fun storyline featuring the beloved Muppet clan

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

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

Links:

Five Came Back (1939)

Five Came Back (1939)

Comments 1 comment

“Chance is too tricky — the wrong people might win; we’ve got to be logical.”

Synopsis:
When a motley group of airplane passengers — including an elderly botanist (C. Aubrey Smith) and his wife (Elisabeth Risdon); a millionaire (Patric Knowles) eloping with his fiancee (Wendy Barrie); a condemned anarchist (Joseph Calleia) and his keeper (John Carradine); a gangster (Allen Jenkins) caring for his boss’s son (Casey Johnson); and a woman (Lucille Ball) with a questionable past — crash into the Amazonian jungle, they learn valuable lessons about themselves and each other as they struggle to survive. Meanwhile, the co-pilots (Chester Morris and Kent Taylor) work diligently to fix the broken plane — but will they succeed in helping all their passengers escape in time to avoid a tribe of headhunters looming close to their encampment?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ensemble Cast
  • John Carradine Films
  • Lucille Ball Films
  • Survival

Review:
This early “airplane disaster flick” (helmed by John Farrow, who also directed its 1956 remake, Back From Eternity) remains an iconic forerunner of just about every other ensemble-cast survival tale released since. The diverse characters, naturally, represent a true gamut of personality types, with plenty of opportunities for character arcs to reveal individuals’ better (or worse) natures once they’re stranded together miles away from modern civilization. Much like in Cecil B. DeMille’s silent flick Male and Female (1919), class barriers melt away in the face of the need to survive, with those best suited to lead (in this case, Morris):

tasked with taking charge — though naturally, not without contention. At just 75 minutes long, the pithy script (co-written in part by none other than Nathaniel West and Dalton Trumbo) wastes no time at all in presenting each of the characters and allowing them to interact with one another in strategic ways, so that we’re easily able to see the shifts that take place once they’re plunged into survival mode — i.e., while Ball was once judged too “loose” to help care for the gangster’s son (Johnson), she’s soon entrusted with this role:

… Smith’s browbeating wife (Risdon) is “domesticated” in the jungle:

… etc. Watch for the nicely handled final scene, which packs a true emotional punch, and is seamlessly directed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine ensemble performances (particularly by Calleia)

  • Nicholas Musuraca’s cinematography
  • A pithy B-level script

Must See?
Yes, as an all-around “good show”. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Turtle Diary (1985)

Turtle Diary (1985)

Comments 1 comment

“Nobody’s interested in turtles — except the keeper, me… and you.”

Synopsis:
An author (Glenda Jackson) and a bookstore clerk (Ben Kingsley) conspire with a zookeeper (Michael Gambon) to steal caged sea turtles at the zoo and free them into the ocean.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ben Kingsley Films
  • Do Gooders
  • Glenda Jackson Films
  • Misfits

Review:
The synopsis for this unusual “caper flick” — based on a novel by the eclectic expat author Russell Hoban, and scripted by playwright Harold Pinter — is a bit misleading, given that the turtle heist in question is essentially a proxy for the deeper theme of how finding a sense of purpose and passion in one’s life can serve as the ultimate liberating force. The characters played by Kingsley and Jackson are both deeply idiosyncratic misfits, living on the fringes to one extent or the other — Jackson is oddly emotionally reserved; Kingsley rooms in a boarding house despite having a wife and kids somewhere in his past — and while the thematic parallel between freeing turtles and freeing one’s inner self is perhaps a bit too obvious, it’s thankfully never hammered over our heads. The literate screenplay goes in unusual directions (i.e., romance emerges, but not as expected), making this one worth a look for fans of eclectic character studies.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ben Kingsley as William Snow
  • Glenda Jackson as Neaera Duncan
  • An unusual tale of a uniquely formed bond

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

Links: