Man Between, The (1953)

Man Between, The (1953)

Comments 1 comment

“Berlin is a strange, large city; there are many reasons why a girl should simply vanish from the streets.”

Synopsis:
When a young British woman (Claire Bloom) comes to visit her brother (Geoffrey Toone) and his new wife (Hildegard Knef) in West Berlin, she quickly finds herself caught up in a complex web of intrigue involving a man (James Mason) with mysterious ties to both Knef and East Berlin.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carol Reed Films
  • Claire Bloom Films
  • Cold War
  • James Mason Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Refugees

Review:
The Third Man (1949) was such a success for director Carol Reed that his choice to make a similarly themed film just two years later (this time based on a screenplay by Harry Kurnitz and Eric Linklater, set in Berlin eight years before the construction of the Wall) seems to have colored critics’ perceptions. As in Jacques Tourneur’s Berlin Express (1948) — and, to a certain extent, Billy Wilder’s more satirical, American-centric A Foreign Affair (1948) — we’re presented with the stark reality of a traumatized, war-damaged German landscape.

It’s clear from the opening scenes that Knef (who looks astonishingly like Ginger Rogers) is distressed and distracted about something, though we don’t know what:

Meanwhile, her over-worked husband (Toone) is so busy helping refugees (shown here jam-packed in the background):

… that he doesn’t appear to notice his wife’s concerns. Once Mason enters the picture, we suspect we’ll begin to learn more about Knef’s past and his involvement in it — which we gradually do.

Following a key kidnapping sequence, however, the focus shifts away from Knef and towards Bloom, who seems to have fallen for Mason but isn’t sure who to trust or believe.

To say more would give away key elements of the twist-laden, at times Hitchcockian narrative, which merits watching without spoilers. Suffice it to say that Reed (with support from DP Desmond Dickinson) once again brings a particular city to life (as he did for Vienna in The Third Man, and [unnamed] Belfast in Odd Man Out), filling it with atmospheric sets and locations — including a meet-up in a skating rink:

… a stalking on snowy winter streets:

… an escape from an opera house:

… a clever ruse at a generator site:

… an encounter with a wary prostitute (Hilde Sessak):

… and a tense climax at the border, among others:

This film remains well worth a look on its own merits, as long as viewers can resist comparing it to The Third Man.

Note: Having just watched a History Channel documentary about the Berlin Wall to help my older daughter with a school project, I found myself particularly interested in seeing how Berliners’ lives and loyalties might be portrayed at the time this film was made — and to me, Reed’s depiction rings reasonably true (albeit with plenty of added atmosphere and adventure and romance). Just fyi, the Wall was constructed in 1961 to physically prevent Eastern Bloc citizens from fleeing to the West in droves, as we see happening in this film:

The Wall went through several iterations of increasing solidity and oversight until finally… it was torn down (starting in 1989) at the first indication this was possible.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • James Mason as Ivo
  • Claire Bloom as Susanne
  • Fine location shooting in Berlin


  • Desmond Dickinson’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a well-crafted outing by a master director.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964)

Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964)

Comments 1 comment

“It’s getting strange; the Earth is going mad.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after a mysterious meteorite crashes down in Japan, a police officer (Yosuke Natsuke) is assigned as a bodyguard to a visiting princess (Akiko Wakabayashi), who is nearly assassinated and then develops amnesia while being possessed by aliens on her trip over. Meanwhile, Natsuke’s reporter-sister (Naoko Shindo) reaches out to a pair of twin fairies (Yumi and Emi Ito) in touch with Mothra, who comes to help resolve a situation involving Godzilla and Rodan fighting against each other, and eventually against a new three-headed monster who has hatched from the meteorite: King Ghidorah.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Japanese Films
  • Mutant Monsters

Review:
Director Ishiro Honda and special effects master Eiji Tsuburaya collaborated once again for the fifth entry in their Godzilla franchise, this time featuring not only the lead creatures from Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956), Rodan (1957), and Mothra (1961), but the new title beast, King Ghidorah — a golden, three-headed dragon capable of emitting powerful lightning bolts.

The human-driven portions of the storyline are surprisingly jam-packed and fast-paced, with Princess Selina’s (Wakabayashi’s) weird story alone enough to fill an entire narrative, given her catatonic amnesia, claims of being a Venusian, and sudden somber prophecies:

… as well as constant assassination attempts made on her life by sunglasses-clad Malmess (Hisaya Itô) and his crew:

The inclusion of no less than four kaiju monsters simply adds to the density of the overall storyline — and it’s quite hilarious not only watching Rodan and Godzilla fight pettily with each other (Rodan picks Godzilla up and drops him down on an electrical tower; Godzilla throws and kicks rocks non-stop at Rodan), but Mothra’s attempt to intervene, first by spinning silk at both of them (!) and then diplomatically urging them to unite against a common enemy, Ghidorah. We’re also treated once again to the delightful Twin Fairies of Infant Island, first (re)introduced through a “Where Are They Now?”-type game show:

It’s all silly, colorful, and fanastical, and will surely appeal to fans of the genre — but it isn’t must-see for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine special effects (for the time)

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its cult status. Listed as a Camp Classic in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Rodan / Rodan, The Flying Reptile (1957)

Rodan / Rodan, The Flying Reptile (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“Captain, I believe that thing is our murderer!”

Synopsis:
Shortly after an amnesiac engineer (Kenji Sahara) who was recently trapped in a mine remembers witnessing the birth of a prehistoric bird, two gigantic winged creatures known as Rodan are seen flying in the sky, wreaking havoc across Asia.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Japanese Films
  • Mutant Monsters

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “sci-fi fantasy about Japan being terrorized by two 100-ton flying reptiles that hatched deep in a coal mine” ranks “just below Godzilla, King of the Monsters on the Japanese best monster-movie list.” He notes that “early scenes in the mine are a little spooky:

… influenced perhaps by the scenes of giant ants in L.A. sewers in Them!” — but “about halfway through, it becomes a war film, with the army using tremendous firepower to battle the reptiles on land and over sea.”

He points out that this film was “directed by Inoshiro Honda, who collaborated with his Godzilla special-effects expert, Eiji Tsuburaya, to again create some extremely impressive scenes of destruction (a preoccupation of post-WWII Japanese SF directors).”

Peary mentions this film (listed at only 70 minutes in his review) as having “good dubbing for English-language distribution,” but I’ve been advised that watching these kaiju (Japanese monster) films in their original language is best, so the version I watched was 82 minutes and lacked several sequences called out in reviews of the dubbed version (including opening footage of a nuclear blast). Regardless, not enough ultimately happens in the storyline to make it of serious interest for anyone other than those who follow and love kaiju films; of course they’ll want to see it, but all-purpose film fanatics don’t need to seek out Rodan unless they’re curious.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine effects for the period

Must See?
No, though obviously fans of this genre will find it essential.

Links:

Last Tango in Paris (1972)

Last Tango in Paris (1972)

Comments 1 comment

“I don’t want to know your name!”

Synopsis:
When a grieving widower (Marlon Brando) whose wife recently committed suicide meets a young woman (Maria Schneider) in an abandoned Parisian apartment, the two begin a passionate sexual affair without revealing any information about themselves. Meanwhile, Schneider’s clueless fiance (Jean-Pierre Leaud) attempts to make a documentary film about their romance, and Brando visits his wife’s lover (Massimo Girotti) in an effort to learn more about her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bernardo Bertolucci Films
  • Jean-Pierre Léaud Films
  • Marlon Brando Films
  • May-December Romance
  • Sexuality
  • Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “erotic psychodrama” by Bernardo Bertolucci — “one of the most argued-about films ever made (is it art or p***ography?)”, and “banned in Bertolucci’s native Italy” — “blazed new cinematic frontiers because its lovers communicate through sex (sex expresses their drives) rather than having sex… merely to excite an audience.” However, he points out that it’s “not about sex per se but about a broken, tortured man” who is “reacting to his wife’s suicide with confusion, sadness, anger, guilt that his inability to show his love might have driven her to her drastic act, and shame that she would reject him so brutally.”

Brando’s response is to “separate sex from all else” while repudiating “God, his name, his bourgeois life, and the outside world.”

Peary notes that Brando regresses “into childish actions at the flophouse” he owns and manages, having “temper tantrums, [having] crying fits, slam[ming] doors, break[ing] things, bit[ing] his mother-in-law’s [Maria Michi’s] hand, turn[ing] out [the] lights to scare everyone”:

… and he accurately describes Brando’s encounters with Schneider as “childish adult games” — that is, “a sophisticated, perverse version of little kids playing house.”

Peary points out that “Bertolucci was rightly attacked for having Schneider be nude through most of the picture, while not including nude scenes he’d shot with Brando.” (Bertolucci himself admitted, “I had so identified myself with Brando that I cut it out of shame for myself. To show him naked would have been like showing me naked.”) However, Peary adds that “few will dispute that this is the one film in which Brando reveals himself, dark side and all, through scenes he wrote, through improvisation, and by letting us witness his acting technique.”

He argues that Brando is “continuously dazzling,” appearing “alternatively ferocious and tender, confident and confused, polite and vulgar, touching and pathetic, tense and wickedly funny.” Peary names Brando Best Actor of the Year in his Alternate Oscars, where he adds that, “At his best Brando plays this broken, confused man with feelings that come from deep inside,” stripping “away all that protects both his character and himself.”

Peary spends a lot less time analyzing Schneider’s character — who, truthfully, is more of an enigma. He does assert that Brando represents “the father she lost,” and is “also another old relic in her collection (she collects antiques as a hobby and as a job” (though we have no idea why):

— but “she is most attracted to [Brando] because he gets her to reject those bourgeois shackles that have kept her sexually inhibited” (again, we see no evidence to support this) and “because he lets her remain a child” (once, again, we’re not sure why she would want this, other than resisting having to make a decision about marriage with Leaud). Speaking of Leaud, in Cult Movies 2 Peary describes him as “a Godardian documentarian with Truffaut’s exuberance,” someone who “uses his camera to keep a distance between Jeanne [Schneider] and him; between the real Jeanne and his idealized Jeanne.”

However, while Leaud is undeniably annoying, it’s hard to make a case he’s worse than Brando (!). Ultimately, Last Tango… really remains a male-centric film, utilizing a conveniently “available” woman to play out a troubled man’s ongoing catharsis, with Schneider inexplicably agreeing to his nasty treatment time and again — until, suddenly, she’s not.

Regardless of whether one relates to or appreciates the storyline, however, there’s no denying that this film — which features “standout cinematography” by Vittorio Storaro — remains a cultural touchstone, and should be seen once by all film fanatics.

Note: Schneider (who passed away in 2011) admitted that her only regret in life was participating in this film, and that she felt thoroughly violated by one infamous scene in particular, which was sprung on her without prior permission or discussion.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Marlon Brando as Paul
  • Maria Schneider as Jeanne
  • Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography

  • Numerous memorable moments

Must See?
Yes, for its notoriety and Brando’s performance.

Categories

  • Controversial Film
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (1970)

When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (1970)

Comments 2 comments

“Akita!”

Synopsis:
In fantastical prehistoric times, a blonde named Sanna (Victoria Vetri) who is about to be sacrificed escapes at sea and is rescued by a man from a rival tribe named Tara (Robin Hawdon), much to the consternation of his would-be lover, Ayak (Imogen Hassall). Sanna is soon driven away from her new tribe, where she must survive among dinosaurs and avoid being captured by her vengeful former tribemates; will she eventually reunite with Tara?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fantasy
  • Prehistoric Times
  • Rivalry
  • Survival

Review:
Val Guest directed this Hammer Studios follow-up to One Million Years B.C. (1966), offering more of the same fare that drew audiences in the first time: gorgeous women scantily clad in all-natural bikinis (this time starring former Playboy Playmate Victoria Vetri):

… minimal “dialogue” (though at least the characters’ vocabulary expanded from simply grunting each other’s names up to 27 words):

… and (Oscar-nominated) stop-motion animation — this time from Jim Danforth.

There is truly nothing more to the storyline than what’s described in the synopsis above, with an emphasis on Hassall’s jealousy of her new rival:

Be forewarned that this movie’s score is a total earworm which will get on your nerves and stay there.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jim Danforth’s special effects

  • Reasonably creative direction and cinematography by Val Guest and Dick Bush


Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one unless it sounds like your cup of tea.

Links:

Thunder Road (1958)

Thunder Road (1958)

Comments 1 comment

“I reckon you can do all you say, only first you got to catch me — if you can.”

Synopsis:
A Tennessee moonshiner (Robert Mitchum) whose younger brother (Jim Mitchum) is eager to enter the family profession visits his singer-girlfriend (Keely Smith) as often as possible in between carrying out his work and refusing to make a deal with a bigwig bootlegger (Jacques Aubochon) hoping to take over all business in the area. Meanwhile, Lucas (Mitchum Sr.) is hunted down by a U.S. Treasury agent (Gene Barry) and pursued by a local beauty (Sandra Knight) who worries (rightfully so) about his safety.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bootlegging
  • Car Chase
  • Deep South
  • Robert Mitchum Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “drive-in favorite” — written by, produced by, and starring Robert Mitchum — is “the first and choicest of the many car-chase films in which lawmen race after moonshine runners on twisting Southern backgrounds.” He notes that the “picture has exciting scenes and offbeat touches by director Arthur Ripley, but its reputation is inflated” given that “the low budget hurts” and the “supporting actors — including Mitchum’s son, Jim, who plays his younger brother [Robin] — are weak” (agreed).

Indeed, Peary argues that senior “Mitchum carries [the] film alone on his massive shoulders.”

He adds that the film includes “interesting, if not always proper, use of music” — though I’m not quite sure why he considers it improper. In one scene, for instance, Lucas listens to his girlfriend (Smith) singing at a club:

… and we see how he handles a patron who won’t shut up during her performance, which adds to our understanding of his no-nonsense, take-care-of-problems nature.

The film’s drive-in appeal makes sense, given Mitchum’s stardom, an action- and conflict-filled storyline, and behind-the-scenes glimpses at how a moonshine operation works:

… but it’s also (unintentionally) humorous at times, thanks primarily to Mitchum Jr.’s earnest but wooden performance:

… and singer Smith’s similar lack of acting experience (her voice is beautiful but she’s an interesting choice to play Mitchum Sr.’s love interest).

When Mitchum advises lovestruck Knight, “Find someone content to punch a time clock, plough a field, have a mess of kids,” and she responds, “I would — if they looked like you”:

… we can’t help thinking how convenient it is that there’s someone who looks ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE HIM waiting in the wings (Mitchum, Jr.).

Favorite random line (Mitchum Sr. speaking to Smith): “I’ve been across an ocean, met all the pretty people. I know how to read an expensive restaurant menu. I know what a mobile is.” (?!?!?!)

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Robert Mitchum as Lucas Doolin

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Separate Tables (1958)

Separate Tables (1958)

Comments 2 comments

“Why does anybody do anything that they shouldn’t?”

Synopsis:
At a British seaside boarding house, a spinster (Deborah Kerr) dominated by her nosy mother (Gladys Cooper) nurses a crush on a former major (David Niven), while a young medical student (Rod Taylor) fends off distracting amorous advances from his girlfriend (Audrey Dalton), and a drink-loving ex-con (Burt Lancaster) recently engaged to the hotel’s manager (Wendy Hiller) is visited by his glamorous former wife (Rita Hayworth). When a significant secret is revealed about Niven’s past, how will his various housemates — also including a former schoolteacher (Felix Aylmer), a butch female gambler (May Hallatt), and Cooper’s kind friend (Cathleen Nesbitt) — respond?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Burt Lancaster Films
  • David Niven Films
  • Deborah Kerr Films
  • Ensemble Cast
  • Mistaken and Hidden Identities
  • Morality Police
  • Rita Hayworth Films
  • Rod Taylor Films
  • Wendy Hiller Films

Review:
This cinematic adaptation of Terrence Rattigan’s two inter-related one-act plays underwent significant changes for the screen: it was originally designed to be performed by just two actors shifting roles throughout, but by the time Hollywood got its gears in action (hiring Delbert Mann to direct), original co-stars Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh were no longer involved, and the broad cast of characters were all played by different actors.

The dominant theme throughout the storyline is moral condemnation against anyone straying even slightly from “proper” British norms, as embodied by Cooper’s stereotypically tut-tutting busybody:

The sway she holds over her dowdy, severely repressed grown daughter (Kerr) would be tragic if it weren’t so Hollywoodized (Kerr is oh-so-clearly “acting”).

The gradual revealing of Niven’s shocking secret drives the narrative, though even that has been seemingly modified from its original impact. (Harassing random women in dark movie theaters is gross — but not anything close to what his character is accused of in the play.)

The parallel subplot about beautiful Hayworth coming to visit the boarding house and disrupting Lancaster’s new life is meant to shock its residents (and us) out of whatever complacency we exist in, but frankly, she’s a non-starter.

Hiller (who won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar) provides a solid grounding to the film as the house’s ever-present manager, but her romance with Lancaster is underdeveloped and not terribly realistic:

Meanwhile, blink a few times and you’ll miss Rod Taylor in a throwaway narrative thread about unmarried lovers (shocking!) trying to hide their obvious affair — which wouldn’t be nearly such a problem if progressive Dalton would just agree to get married already:

Peary doesn’t review Separate Tables in GFTFF, but he comments on David Niven’s Best Actor win in Alternate Oscars, where he notes that “Niven gave what was probably his most respectable performance… playing what was probably his least respectable character.” He adds that, “As usual, Niven gave a solid, professional performance,” though “this time he was more serious than he had been in the many thankless roles he’d had in his career” — and he argues that “Niven’s popularity in the Hollywood community — he was a nice, witty, gracious gentleman — was a contributing factor to his victory.” Indeed, Niven’s fine performance here is noteworthy, and one wishes the story focused even more on his character’s troubled past; at least he’s provided a measure of compassion in the film’s moving final moments.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • David Niven as Major Angus Pollock
  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look if you’re curious.

Links:

Entertainer, The (1960)

Entertainer, The (1960)

Comments 1 comment

“As Phoebe always says, ‘Better to be a has-been than a never-was.'”

Synopsis:
An aging vaudeville star (Laurence Olivier) living off the charity of his wife (Brenda de Banzie) and elderly father (Roger Livesey) — and emotionally supported by his stagehand son (Alan Bates) and do-gooding daughter (Joan Plowright) — romances a young beauty pageant contestant (Shirley Anne Field) while dreaming about his next big hit, evading taxmen, and avoiding news of his son Mick (Albert Finney) fighting in the Suez Crisis.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Alan Bates Films
  • Albert Finney Films
  • Has-Beens
  • Laurence Olivier Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Roger Livesey Films
  • Shirley Anne Field Films
  • Tony Richardson Films
  • Vaudeville and Burlesque

Review:
Following his cinematic directorial debut Look Back in Anger (1959) (based on a play by John Osborne), Tony Richardson adapted Osborne’s next play, written with Laurence Olivier in mind. It’s difficult to say which of these two films/plays is more depressing — though I give my vote to The Entertainer, which is only 103 minutes long but feels twice that given its relentlessly bleak trajectory. That’s not to say the film isn’t well-made, because it is — but watching a nice young woman like Plowright postpone her engagement to a solid guy (Daniel Massey) in order to stick around and support her deeply dysfunctional family is a rough way to start the storyline off.

Meanwhile, as soon as we learn more about both Archie Rice (Olivier) and his troubled wife Phoebe (de Banzie), we know we’re in for a rocky ride, given that Archie doesn’t want to face the fact of his financial troubles, and Phoebe is perpetually on her last nerve about it.

Making matters worse, Archie is a chronic womanizer who somehow manages to woo a pretty young beauty pageant contestant through an aspirational lie about featuring her in his upcoming (as of yet unfunded) production:

… not fully realizing what his affair will do to his wife, whose brother in Canada is willing to help pay their bills and get them started on a new life if only Archie were open to this option. Bosley Crowther describes the overall scenario perfectly, referring to the film (which he nonetheless seems to recommend) as “a devastating picture of a hollow, hypocritical heel and of the pitiful people around him who are drowned in his grubby vanity.”

Precisely. Is there anything worse than a once-well-known performer past his prime who refuses to step down from his perch, and drags everyone else along with him on his descent? Well, clearly there are many things worse — but this film makes a good argument on behalf of Archie as a top Pathetic Loser of cinema. Because he’s played by Olivier (giving a marvelous performance), we want very much to seek empathy with him:

… but frankly, it’s hard. Archie doesn’t necessarily mean to be cruel, but his own needs are so dominant that he can’t or won’t stop to reflect on what he’s doing to others. To that end, the film is littered with distressing and/or depressing scenes, including a beauty pageant in which several contestants are described matter-of-factly as having “no hobbies” (ouch):

… Archie’s employees hovering in the background to eavesdrop while he hears bad news on the telephone (they know this means their own paychecks will be further delayed, but are perhaps experiencing schadenfreude as well):

… de Banzie’s multiple hysterical breakdowns:

… and the terrible culminating scenes with Livesey (about which I won’t say more at risk of spoiling). With that said, as with other films of the British New Wave, Richardson makes excellent use of authentic locales, very much bringing the seaside world of low-brow entertainment to life:

… and Oswald Morris’s cinematography throughout is stellar. Both Alan Bates:

… and Albert Finney (appearing only in an early sequence):

… made their cinematic debuts in this film, and it’s also notable for bringing together Olivier and Plowright romantically (they went on to marry and have three kids). However, it’s hard to recommend a film that’s such a consistently bleak downer — so consider yourself forewarned.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Laurence Olivier as Archie Rice (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Brenda de Banzie as Phoebe Rice
  • Fine use of location shooting
  • Oswald Morris’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a one time look simply for its historical relevance, as well as Olivier’s stand-out performance.

Links:

Taste of Honey, A (1961)

Taste of Honey, A (1961)

Comments 1 comment

“We don’t ask for life; we have it thrust upon us.”

Synopsis:
A teenager (Rita Tushingham) whose flighty single mother (Dora Bryan) leaves her on her own to marry a younger man (Robert Stephens) has a brief cross-racial romance with a black sailor (Paul Danquah), then befriends a gay young man (Murray Melvin) eager to support Tushingham through her pregnancy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Homosexuality
  • Play Adaptation
  • Pregnancy
  • Rita Tushingham Films
  • Single Mothers
  • Tony Richardson Films

Review:
Tony Richardson’s fourth cinematic directorial outing — after Look Back in Anger (1959), The Entertainer (1960), and Sanctuary (1961), and just before The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962) — was this adaptation of a play by 18-year-old Shelagh Delaney (who co-wrote the screenplay with Richardson). Tushingham is vibrant and perfectly cast in her debut role as Jo, playing an “angry young woman” whose unique eyes pierce the screen with intensity:

We can see from the film’s opening moments what a pickle she’s in, given her mother’s penchant for evading responsibility at every turn. (Bryan is shown below leaving her residence without paying back rent, with Tushingham following.)

Indeed, Bryan is truly a sorry lot, seeking escape and a sense of purpose at a local pub where a glass-eyed lout (Stephens) takes a fancy to her:

For better or for worse, Stephens can’t stand Tushingham — which is refreshing given that it breaks with expectation (we anticipate he’ll instantly hit on his aging fiancee’s nubile daughter), but also leads to Tushingham being abandoned yet again as her mother chooses Stephens over her. It’s no wonder Tushingham finds solace in the caring arms of Danquah, who she fantasizes is a descendant of African princes:

The screenplay doesn’t make much of the inter-racial aspect of their romance other than Tushingham reassuring Danquah that her mother won’t care he’s Black (not quite true). Meanwhile, the second half of the film focuses on another “controversial” topic of the day: homosexuality.

Shortly after being introduced to Murray Melvin’s Geoffrey (the pair meet in the shoe shop where Tushingham works):

… we learn that he was kicked out of his apartment for being caught having sex with a man. (I immediately thought of another British film from that year, Victim, which addresses the same topic from a more central angle.) Tushingham’s Jo — not the most mature of young women — teases Melvin endlessly about this, wanting to know details of his sex life (“You can stay if you tell me what you do,” she bargains with him. “Go on, Geoffrey. I’ve always wanted to know about people like you.”)

Eventually they develop a workable friendship, with Melvin clearly taking solace in the fact that he’s found a purpose in his life: caring for Tushingham. (“Somebody’s got to look after you. You can’t look after yourself, that’s obvious.”) As he tells Tushingham:

“Before I knew you I didn’t care much whether I lived or died, y’know. But then I met you and, well, being with you’s me life.”

Meanwhile, Tushingham continues to struggle with her unwanted pregnancy. (“I don’t want to be a mother! I don’t want to be a woman!” she wails at Melvin when he attempts to give her a “training doll” from a local clinic.)

We grow to care for these individuals, and stay invested until the very end (which is distressing, but perhaps realistic). Adding to our engagement is ample use of authentic locales around or near Manchester, nicely filmed by DP Walter Lassaly.

This “kitchen sink drama” remains worth a look by film fanatics, as a valuable female-centric entry in the genre.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Rita Tushingham as Jo
  • Murray Melvin as Geoffrey
  • Dora Bryan as Helen
  • Robert Stephens as Peter
  • Excellent use of authentic locales
  • Walter Lassaly’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, for its important role in the British New Wave movement, and for Tushingham’s breakthrough performance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Enter Laughing (1967)

Enter Laughing (1967)

Comments 1 comment

“The only way to learn to act, is to act!”

Synopsis:
When an aspiring actor (Reni Santoni) in 1938 NYC meets a grandiose acting school owner (Jose Ferrer) eager to take his “tuition” money in exchange for a part in a play, Ferrer’s daughter (Elaine May) convinces her father to hire Santoni for the role. Meanwhile, Santoni’s overbearing parents (Shelley Winters and David Opatoshu) — who want him to enter pharmacy school — are against his career choice, Santoni’s employer (Jack Gilford) is upset that Santoni is always late for work, and Santoni’s girlfriend (Janet Margolin) tries to be supportive but gets suspicious about May’s interest in Santoni, as well as Morris’s friendship with a gorgeous secretary (Nancy Kovack).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Aspiring Stars
  • Carl Reiner Films
  • Elaine May Films
  • Janet Margolin Films
  • Jose Ferrer Films
  • Shelley Winters Films

Review:
Carl Reiner’s directorial debut was this adaptation of Joseph Stein’s 1963 play, originally featuring Alan Arkin in a Tony-winning performance. Unfortunately, Santoni doesn’t seem to be up to the task of embodying the lead role, as we quickly lose interest in him and his goals: his character is a terrible actor (and he’s meant to be), but aren’t we simultaneously supposed to be rooting for his success in his chosen field? Or should we take it as a telling sign that this would-be actor doesn’t even realize that “(Enter laughing)” refers to stage directions rather than dialogue?

Meanwhile, he’s surrounded by a cast of well-known (real life) supporting actors trying hard but unable to resurrect the production — including Jose Ferrer as the world-weary Great Actor gladly taking Santoni’s money, and Shelley Winters as a stereotypically overbearing Jewish mother:

Coming across the best — simply because she’s as wacky and unpredictable as always — is Elaine May as Ferrer’s romantically inclined daughter:

… who is primarily interested in rehearsing her love scene with Santoni as often as possible. Clearly, audiences at the time resonated with a story set back in the 1930s, when free theater in NYC was apparently a thing if you were willing to sit through a crappy production featuring actors paying for the privilege of appearing on stage (this was a different era of entertainment opportunities).

Note: There should be a category on this review site called “Overbearing Parents”, since that’s really the dominant theme in this movie; consider it an honorary one designated as of now.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Elaine May as Angela Marlowe

Must See?
No. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: