Chimes at Midnight / Falstaff (1965)

Chimes at Midnight / Falstaff (1965)

Comments 0 Comment

“I know thee not, old man.”

Synopsis:
As King Henry V (John Gielgud) approaches death, his son Hal (Keith Baxter) is called back home and must negotiate a new relationship with his long-time carousing companion, Sir John Falstaff (Orson Welles).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Father and Child
  • Friendship
  • Jeanne Moreau Films
  • John Gielgud Films
  • Margaret Rutherford Films
  • Orson Welles Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Shakespeare

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Orson Welles’s final masterpiece” — which “received almost no U.S. distribution after it got a devastating review in the New York Times by Bosley Crowther” — is based on a story by Welles “which he mounted as a play in Belfast in 1960,” “taken from Shakespeare’s Henry IV Parts I & II, with bits from Henry V, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Richard II” alongside “narration… taken from Raphael Holinshed‘s Chronicles.” He notes it is “told with warmth, wit, and surprising poignancy,” portraying a story that “is simple and on a human level, since Welles makes Falstaff… the hero.” With that said, he’s a most unusual hero, given that he’s “a fat, cowardly, bawdy, lying figure” — however, “he gives Hal genuine love while the rigid, humorless Henry pays little attention to him.”

Peary points out that “Welles often played characters whose ascent to power was characterized, like Hal’s, by their quick exchange of idealism for ruthlessness” — but “while characters like Kane or Harry Lime did their friends wrong, few ever actually betrayed friendships.” To that end, he notes that “Falstaff is surely the character who, with warts, weight, and all, was closest to the real Welles.” While Falstaff “isn’t the type of guy you’d bring to a society function,” he’d “make a great Santa Claus.”

Most importantly, he may fib “constantly, but is honest; he fits in with the town dunce and senile old men, yet he has a unique knowledge of what’s important in life (love, loyalty, friendship, a good chat, a good roll in bed with a wench, a good bowel movement)” — ultimately representing “goodness in a cruel world.”

Peary points out that while the “film’s low budget caused Welles problems,” he encourages viewers to “wait out the early scenes in which the dialogue is often out of synch” and enjoy the “superb” acting (“Welles was never better”) and “often stunning” visuals.

He adds that “Welles’s choreography of the battle sequence is spectacular — only in Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky does a battle have such impact.” (Indeed, the scene is so kinetically filmed and edited that it’s hard to do it justice with a still.)

The production history of this movie is, naturally, a thing unto itself (what else would you expect with Welles?); you can read more at Wikipedia or watch some of the DVD extras (Criterion has put out a newly remastered version).

Watch for Jeanne Moreau as the prostitute Doll Tearsheet (you can see Moreau’s real-life friendship with/affection for Welles shining through her characterization):

… and Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Orson Welles as Jack Falstaff
  • Keith Baxter as Hal
  • John Gielgud as Henry IV
  • Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly
  • Highly atmospheric cinematography and sets

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful Shakespearian adaptation and for Welles’s performance.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

Slither (1973)

Slither (1973)

Comments 0 Comment

“It’s working, man: you’re playing right into their hands.”

Synopsis:
After his murdered companion (Richard B. Shull) tells him about a stash of embezzled money, a just-released ex-con (James Caan) hits the road and encounters a variety of kooky individuals — including pill-popping Kitty (Sally Kellerman) and a couple (Peter Boyle and Louise Lasser) travelling around in their brand new Airstream R.V.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Ex-Cons
  • James Caan Films
  • Peter Boyle Films
  • Road Trips
  • Sally Kellerman Films

Review:
It’s challenging to know quite what to make of this unconventional road-trip comedy — directed by Howard Zieff, and scripted by W.D. Richter — in which each scene seems designed for maximum “What will come next?” randomness. From the opening sequence in which Shull is fatally gunned down but manages to tell Caan about hidden dirty money:

… to Caan’s encounters with a peculiar hippie (Kellerman) who is ready for adventures of many kinds:

… to Caan’s interactions with a quirky RV-loving couple (Boyle and Lasser):

… and then meeting back up again with Kellerman (all while being followed by a bizarrely angular black van accompanied by menacing music on the soundtrack):

… we know there is not a lot of point in trying to predict where things will go. If you’re up for this type of comedic experience, by all means check it out; but it’s not must-see viewing unless you’re curious to see Lasser in one of her very few post-Woody Allen cinematic roles (she’s great).

And no — the title doesn’t seem to make any sense, and is never explained. The filmmakers have only themselves to blame that viewers will forever confuse this with a later movie about an alien plague.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the primary cast
  • Numerous surreally absurd moments
  • László Kovács’s cinematography

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

Links:

Hammett (1982)

Hammett (1982)

Comments 2 comments

“Go home and type, Hammett.”

Synopsis:
In 1920s San Francisco, former-detective-turned-writer (Frederic Forrest) is lured by his friend (Peter Boyle) into exploring a case involving a mysterious Chinese prostitute (Lydia Lei), receiving help from both his neighbor (Marilu Henner) and a cabbie (Elisha Cook, Jr.).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Elisha Cook, Jr. Films
  • Frederic Forrest Films
  • Peter Boyle Films
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos
  • Sylvia Sidney Films
  • Wim Wenders Films
  • Writers

Review:
Francis Ford Coppola executive-produced this neo-noir by German director Wim Wenders — fairly fresh off of his success with helming The American Friend (1977) — whose production history was legendarily challenging, with the entire first draft (co-starring a couple of different key actors) scrapped in favor of this version. As noted by Vincent Canby in his review for The New York Times:

Hammett, the first major American movie by Wim Wenders, the sometimes excellent German director… isn’t quite the mess one might expect, considering the length of time it’s been in production and the number of people who seem to have contributed to it. It’s not ever boring, but heaven only knows what it’s supposed to be about or why it was made.

Indeed, this is a good question. The film — based on a 1975 novel of the same name by Joe Gores — is beautifully produced, and one definitely feels the filmmakers’ devotion to recreating an overall ambience meant to be evocative of Hammett’s detective novels.

We’re clearly meant to understand that Hammett took inspiration from his earlier work for the Pinkerton National Detective Agency to fuel his own narratives:

… and there are obvious parallels in the story told here with The Maltese Falcon, including motifs like the falcon itself serving as the base of his writing-desk lamp:

… as well as the inclusion of a portly older Englishman (Roy Kinnear) playing a crucial role later in the story:

… and a significant cameo by Elisha Cook, Jr. (in his final role) playing a cabbie named Eli.

Meanwhile, there is nearly non-stop drinking and smoking (Hammett was an alcoholic):

… a hard-boiled, sexy dame (Henner):

… and plenty of back-stabbing intrigue (alongside blatant Orientalizing).


Most film fanatics will know — simply from watching Julia (1977), if for no other reason — that Hammett had a years-long affair with playwright Lillian Hellman and helped her with her work; and his later-life involvement in Leftist politics — chronicled in the 1999 TV drama Dash and Lilly (co-starring Sam Shepard and Judy Davis) — is likewise not touched upon here at all. This is strictly, as noted in the opening title card:

“… an entirely imaginary story about the writer Samuel Dashiell Hammett who… in the words of one of his most gifted contemporaries [Raymond Chandler]… helped get murder out of the Vicar’s rose garden and back to the people who are really good at it. The detective story has not been the same since.”

Watch for brief appearances by Sylvia Sidney:

… Royal Dano:

… and Sam Fuller.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Joseph Biroc’s highly atmospheric cinematography

  • John Barry’s jazzy score

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Ulysses (1967)

Ulysses (1967)

Comments 0 Comment

“History is a nightmare from which I’m trying to awake.”

Synopsis:
A Jewish adman named Leopold Bloom (Milo O’Shea) wanders the streets of Dublin with young poet Stephen Dedalus (Maurice Roëves), reflecting on his adulterous wife (Barbara Jefford) back at home while engaging in his own adventures, both real and imagined.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ireland
  • Marital Problems

Review:
Peary isn’t a big fan of “Joseph Strick’s adaptation of James Joyce’s epic novel.” He argues that the character of Stephen Dedalus (a stand-in for Joyce) is “on screen too briefly and makes insignificant impact,” and notes that while “college lit majors and Joyce scholars will be thankful that this film was made by a devotee of Joyce,” “Strick proves — as he did with Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer [not listed in GFTFF] — that the source is unfilmable, as anyone who has read it (or carried the heavy thing in a bookbag) could have told him.” He argues that this “sleep-inducing, confusing film never sustains [the] flavor or power of [the] novel,” and that “it’s also hard to recognize Joyce’s Dublin or his colorful characters.”


He further asserts that while the “narration is from Joyce,” “Strick’s slapdash choice of images to accompany it is disconcerting.”

He concludes by noting that the “most interesting narration is by Molly as she lies in bed with the sleeping Leopold, whose feet are by her head”:

… and points out that “because the film was made back in 1967 when there were censorship problems, it’s jarring to hear her strong language,” yet “even today it’s still interesting listening to her lengthy discourse on the men in her life” (I agree).

However, I don’t quite agree with the rest of Peary’s take on this film — which is indeed super-challenging to follow, but that’s the nature of the book itself (which I’ll confess to not having read). As I’ve done more research into the storyline and structure of the novel, it seems to me that Strick admirably captures much of the flavor of the story and its characters (though maybe I would feel differently if I’d read and absorbed it first).

While I don’t fully “get” all of Joyce’s allusions, one isn’t supposed to; this is a novel meant to be explored and enjoyed over time, in conversation with others — and I can see how this film might be an interesting accompaniment to that process.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Milo O’Shea as Leopold Bloom
  • Barbara Jefford as Molly Bloom
  • Wolfgang Suschitzky’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though of course anyone interested in this novel or James Joyce more broadly will certainly want to give it a look.

Links:

Fixer, The (1968)

Fixer, The (1968)

Comments 0 Comment

“Confessing to lies takes a talent I haven’t got.”

Synopsis:
When an apolitical, non-religious Jewish handyman (Alan Bates) in Ukraine is wrongly accused of egregious murder, he finds some support from a sympathetic lawyer (Dirk Bogarde) but must face the harsh bigotry of an antisemitic investigator (Ian Holm).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan Bates Films
  • Character Arc
  • David Warner Films
  • Dirk Bogarde Films
  • Elizabeth Hartman Films
  • Falsely Accused
  • Historical Drama
  • Hugh Griffith Films
  • Ian Holm Films
  • Jews
  • John Frankenheimer Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Prisoners
  • Racism and Race Relations

Review:
A year before starring in Ken Russell’s Women in Love (1969), Alan Bates played the title role in this relentlessly depressing — perhaps it could only be so — adaptation of Bernard Malamud’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel (directed by John Frankenheimer, with a script by Dalton Trumbo), based on the unjust imprisonment of Menahem Mendel Beilis in early-20th-century Russia. It was bold of the filmmakers to directly address antisemitism — and specifically the issue of blood libel — so clearly in their film, which doesn’t shy away from showing how challenging it was to be a Jew (practicing or not) at this time. From the brutal opening pogrom:

… to Bates being falsely accused of rape by the entitled daughter (Elizabeth Hartman) of his employer:

… to his imprisonment and torture for a crime he had nothing to do with, we gradually see him developing a stronger sense of political agency and identity.

It’s a grueling 2 hours and 20 minutes to sit through, however — and chances are only fans of Bates (excellent), Bogarde, or the original novel will want to seek it out.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Alan Bates as Yakov Bok
  • Dirk Bogarde as Bibikov
  • Marcel Grignon’s cinematography

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

Links:

Candidate, The (1972)

Candidate, The (1972)

Comments 0 Comment

“Let’s get this straight: I want to know what in the hell this campaign is!”

Synopsis:
When a liberal lawyer (Robert Redford) — the son of a former governor (Melvyn Douglas) — is convinced by a persuasive campaign manager (Peter Boyle) to run a seemingly unwinnable race for senator, he quickly finds himself much more invested than he anticipated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Melvyn Douglas Films
  • Michael Ritchie Films
  • Peter Boyle Films
  • Political Corruption
  • Robert Redford Films

Review:
Director Michael Ritchie’s follow-up to Downhill Racer (1969) and Prime Cut (1972) was this incisive, documentary-style political satire based on an Oscar-winning original screenplay by Jeremy Larner (who once wrote speeches for 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy). Redford is perfectly cast as a well-meaning liberal who seems to be genuinely questioning the entire process happening around him as he quickly climbs the polls, and whose wife (Karen Carlson) is almost eerily ready to jump right into a life of politics with him.

Bearded Boyle is menacing as a campaign manager who promises Redford he’s guaranteed to lose, yet seems to be doing everything he can to push him forward:

… while Douglas is convincing as an aging politician who’s lost none of his savvy or clout:

… and Gidget’s dad — er, Don Porter — is note-perfect as the incumbent Redford is running against.

Watch for a cameo by Natalie Wood, Redford’s real-life friend and former co-star from Inside Daisy Clover and This Property is Condemned.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Robert Redford as Bill McKay
  • Peter Boyle as Marvin Lucas
  • Fine cinematography and production design

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful political satire. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Getting Straight (1970)

Getting Straight (1970)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m not putting it down; I’ve just done it already!”

Synopsis:
After returning from serving in Vietnam, a former college radical (Elliott Gould) earning his master’s degree on a campus rife with student protests struggles to meet the demands of both his department chair (Jeff Corey) and his girlfriend (Candice Bergen).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Candice Bergen Films
  • Cecil Kellaway Films
  • College
  • Counterculture
  • Elliott Gould Films
  • Veterans

Review:
After showing success with AIP’s Hells Angels on Wheels (1967) and Psych-Out (1968), Richard Rush — perhaps best known for helming The Stunt Man (1980) — directed this topical flick (an adaptation of Ken Kolb’s novel of the same name) about campus unrest during the late 1960s. It covers the gamut of timely issues, ranging from veteran reintegration (Gould is trying hard to secure a meaningful career after his service):

… to draft-dodging (Robert F. Lyons plays Gould’s wacky, wily friend who is willing to try anything and everything to avoid serving):

… to relationship problems (Gould and Bergen go back and forth numerous times about whether to stay with one another — and if so, in what way):

… to campus unrest in various forms (the movie was filmed at Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon).

Unfortunately, all of this is way too much territory for one film — and most problematic is that we don’t really feel invested in Gould’s desired outcome of earning a teaching credential (which was the primary focus of the source novel).

The college protest scenes are well worth a look (László Kovács’ cinematography is top notch as always), but this is otherwise only must-see viewing for fans of the stars. Watch for Harrison Ford in a bit role as a fellow college student:

… Jeff Corey as Gould’s stern committee chair:

… Cecil Kellaway (in his last role) as a kindly professor:

… and Jeannie Berlin in her cinematic debut as a student activist.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Elliott Gould as Harry Bailey
  • Candice Bergen as Jan
  • László Kovács’ cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its historicity.

Links:

Gertrud (1964)

Gertrud (1964)

Comments 0 Comment

“The man I am to be with must be mine entirely.”

Synopsis:
When a former opera singer named Gertrud (Nina Pens Rode) decides to divorce her work-obsessed husband (Bendt Rothe) to be with her younger lover (Gustav Kanning), her former flame (Ebbe Rode) tries to warn her against this and win her back himself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Theodor Dreyer Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Historical Drama
  • Infidelity
  • Love Triangle
  • Marital Problems
  • Play Adaptations
  • Scandinavian Films

Review:
Carl Theodor Dreyer’s final film was this slow-moving, contemplative adaptation of Hjalmar Söderberg’s 1906 play. While it’s now generally highly regarded — earning a spot in 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die — critics at the time of its release were much more divided and/or derisive. Before saying more, it seems worth citing 75-year-old Dreyer himself, as quoted in James Steffen’s article for TCM:

Declaring it to be “a film about words,” Dreyer said of his basic approach to Gertrud: “What interests me – and this comes before technique – is reproducing the feelings of the characters in my films… The important thing … is not only to catch hold of the words they say, but also the thoughts behind the words. What I seek in my films, what I want to obtain, is a penetration to my actors’ profound thoughts by means of their most subtle expressions. For these are the expressions … that lie in the depths of his soul. This is what interests me above all, not the technique of the cinema. Gertrud is a film that I made with my heart.”

Fair enough. With all that in mind, viewers will have to decide for themselves what they think of a ~2 hour film with less than 90 overall shots, consisting primarily of measured dialogue between two people who rarely look at one another. It’s a stylistic choice that of course any director should feel free to make, but one that risks alienating and/or boring viewers. At least Gertrud herself is a consistent and insistent feminist protagonist; she is clear on what she wants from life, and unafraid to share this with her husband:

… her callow new lover:

… or her loyal former flame.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Henning Bendtsen’s cinematography

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re a Dreyer fan. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

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

Links:

Firemen’s Ball, The (1967)

Firemen’s Ball, The (1967)

Comments 1 comment

“We want the beauty queen! We want the beauty queen!”

Synopsis:
At a small town Czechoslovakian celebration meant to honor a retiring fireman with cancer, absolutely nothing goes as expected.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Beauty Contests
  • Black Comedy
  • Eastern European Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Milos Forman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this film — “the last movie [Milos Forman] made in his native Czechoslovakia” — is “somewhat reminiscent of Bunuel’s The Exterminating Angel, in which bourgeois party guests can’t get home — [only] here the party guests stick around to commit mean acts or have them perpetrated on them.” When “firemen decide to throw a ball to honor their retired chief” because “it will be good for their own image”:

… “everything goes wrong: the leering, dirty old firemen decide to hold a beauty contest, but only ugly girls enter”:

… “the firemen are late to a fire that burns down an old man’s house”:

… “people steal the raffle prizes meant to benefit the old man”:

… “a respected fireman is caught red-handed with stolen meat;” and “the ex-chief’s gift disappears.” Peary argues that the “laughter comes from watching self-serving people try to show off their ‘generosity, benevolence, [and] solidarity’,” but he argues that “cruelty often overwhelms the humor.”

To be honest, Peary’s review weirdly misses the point of this 72-minute satire, which is clearly a direct allegory for the corruption of the Czech government, pre-Prague Spring. Nothing taking place here is kind, respectful, or even logical — presumably because nothing about how the government was being run at the time felt humanistic or made sense. The country was metaphorically burning down, and even its designated “firemen” weren’t able to save it. Thankfully, Forman got out, came to America, and started his own career anew; this remains a potent cinematic artifact of why that was necessary (at the time).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Numerous surreally outlandish moments

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as Forman’s final film before leaving Czechoslovakia, and for its Oscar nomination.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

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

Links:

Fistful of Dollars, A (1964)

Fistful of Dollars, A (1964)

Comments 1 comment

“I never saw a town as dead as this one.”

Synopsis:
A gunslinger (Clint Eastwood) wandering into a desolate town on the border between Mexico and the United States hires himself out as a hitman for rival feuding families.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clint Eastwood Films
  • Feuds
  • Sergio Leone Films
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “this seminal spaghetti western” — “released in the U.S. in 1967” — was “the breakthrough film for both director Sergio Leone and star Clint Eastwood, whose portrayal of the Man With No Name” — the “most ruthless hero in western-movie history” — “quicky established him as the screen’s most charismatic action hero,” all while having “ripped off” the story “from Kurosawa’s samurai tale Yojimbo.”

He notes that while it’s “not on the level of For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” it “did anticipate those films in several ways: the ritualistic, oddly humorous shootouts; the brutal violence; the use of music (by Ennio Morricone) to comment on the action; the near-death and Christlike resurrection of the hero (a theme Eastwood would use in his own films); a West that is populated mostly by ugly, unwashed, Fellini types”:

… and “an America where every person’s death means someone else makes a financial profit.” He adds that “most interesting is the Eastwood character,” who is “distinctively dressed in a tattered poncho over a sheepskin vest, a black cheroot… wedged in his mouth”:

… “and, with an air of casual sadism,” one “of the few survivors of a dying race of mythological super-warriors whose divine powers enable them to outdraw and outshoot anyone, to withstand terrible punishment, to have no fear of death, and to sense impending danger and have the cunning to get out of it.”

I happened to revisit this film before rewatching Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo (1961), which I quickly realized I needed to do before I could post a review — and to be honest, it’s now hard for me to get past the fact that this movie is literally (without permission) a near-remake of Kurosawa’s earlier work. I keep hearing Kurosawa’s letter of protest to Leone in my head: “I like your film very much. It’s a very interesting film. Unfortunately, it’s my film not your film.” Thankfully, Kurosawa earned the right to 15% of all revenue from the movie, which helped fund his own future projects — so I suppose it worked out in the end.

Regardless, this film now has a mythos all its own, with plenty written about how Eastwood (then star of the T.V. show “Rawhide”) stumbled into his first cinematic leading role after numerous others turned it down — and was mostly eager for a trip to Europe; how the film was made without dialogue and completely dubbed later; how Eastwood took his costume home every night to keep it safe for filming the next day (and still owns the original poncho); how Eastwood’s iconic squint and scowl were partly a result of his genuine dislike for smoking; how Morricone wrote most of the highly distinctive score ahead of time; and how critics mostly panned the movie at the time of its release, but eventually revised their assessment. It remains worth a look as an effective low-budget film which wasn’t precisely the first of its genre, but helped to spark the craze.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Distinctive direction by Leone
  • Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as the first major title in the Spaghetti Western sub-genre.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links: