FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Private eye Philip Marlowe (Elliott Gould) drives his old friend (Jim Bouton) to Tijuana in the middle of the night, only to unexpectedly find himself embroiled in a complex plot involving murder, missing money, and an alcoholic writer (Sterling Hayden) with a concerned wife (Nina van Pallandt).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Elliott Gould Films
• Literature Adaptation
• Los Angeles
• Murder Mystery
• Robert Altman Films
• Sterling Hayden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “offbeat version of Raymond Chandler’s next-to-last Philip Marlowe novel is one of his finest films”. With a script by Leigh Brackett (who also co-wrote the screenplay for Howard Hawks’ 1946 version of Chandler’s The Big Sleep), the “story is updated from the dark forties to modern, sun-drenched, washed-out, neon-lit LA”, reimagining gumshoe Marlowe as a “Jew from the East” with “old-fashioned views on loyalty and morality who can’t find his niche in a seventies me-generation playground”.

While Marlowe purists are perhaps understandably bothered by these changes — as well as Brackett’s infamous rewritten ending — those willing to accept the movie on its own terms are guaranteed to appreciate the brilliance of Altman’s unique vision.

There’s much to admire about the film, which features uniformly excellent performances, creative cinematography (by Vilmos Zsigmond), and a distinctive sense of time and place. Gould brings an improvisational air to his incarnation of Marlowe, demonstrating his ability to roll with the punches and find humor in the most absurd situations (he famously ad-libbed during Marlowe’s initial interrogation scene with the cops, for instance, smearing fingerprint ink all over his face while rapping about Notre Dame football and miming Al Jolson).

Newcomer Nina van Pallandt — best known at the time for being the mistress of Clifford Irving, who penned a faux biography of Howard Hawks — is appropriately mysterious and haunted as an over-tanned Malibu housewife:

… whose husband (a shaggy, ominous Sterling Hayden) causes her ongoing distress.

Other minor roles are creatively cast as well — including director Mark Rydell as one of the most vicious thugs in 1970s cinema:

… and baseball star Jim Bouton as Marlowe’s border-hopping buddy.

Altman’s eternally roaming camera is used to great effect throughout the film, keeping the storyline continually moving without resorting to the hectic jump cuts and rapidfire editing so prevalent — and headache-inducing — in modern gangster flicks. He utilizes plenty of slow zooms and “shots in which people speak in the foreground while action takes place in the distance, sometimes through glass” — the latter unmistakably evoking Hitchcock; not a single scene is boringly directed. Meanwhile, Altman’s choice of locales are distinct and irrefutably authentic — from Marlowe’s funky Hollywood apartment “on Camrose just South of the Hollywood Bowl” (complete with yoga-loving hippies across the way), to the Wades’ Malibu Colony beach house:

… to the grocery store Marlowe visits during the film’s intriguing opening sequence (which effectively establishes him as a down-on-his-luck loner who can’t even please — or fool — his own cat).

The Long Goodbye has been called a satire or parody by many (including Peary), but this label isn’t entirely accurate. While there are definite undercurrents of humor throughout — particularly during Gould’s interactions with an utterly clueless thug who’s been tasked with following him — it’s deadly serious at other times. And while violence is rare in the film, it’s there, brutal and lurking; as Peary notes, “what we witness, we realize, is only the tip of the iceberg”. The film’s most infamous scene involves a thug (Rydell) inexplicably smashing a glass Coke bottle across his mistress’s face, simply to show Gould what he’s capable of. It may not be plausible, but it sure as hell is frightening.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Elliott Gould as Philip Marlowe
  
• Nina van Pallandt as Eileen Wade
  
• Sterling Hayden as Roger Wade
  
• Mark Rydell as psycho-thug-extraordinaire Marty Augustine
  
• Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography
  
• Fine use of distinctly L.A. locales
  
• Leigh Brackett’s cleverly updated script of Raymond Chandler’s pulp novel
• John Williams’ score — consisting of creative variations on “The Long Goodbye” (written by Johnny Mercer)

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite by a master director. Nominated by Peary as one of the best pictures of the year in his Alternate Oscars book, and discussed at length in his first Cult Movies book.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Jigsaw Lounge Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
On the eve of America’s bicentennial celebration, a diverse group of aspiring and successful performers interact with one another in Nashville, while preparations for a political rally ensue in the background.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Allen Garfield Films
• Aspiring Stars
• Barbara Harris Films
• Ensemble Cast
• Geraldine Chaplin Films
• Jeff Goldblum Films
• Karen Black Films
• Keenan Wynn Films
• Keith Carradine Films
• Lily Tomlin Films
• Michael Murphy Films
• Musicals
• Musicians
• Ned Beatty Films
• Robert Altman Films
• Scott Glenn Films
• Shelley Duvall Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this classic Altman ensemble flick as a “crazy-quilt vision of America”, noting that the “excitement of [the] film comes from Altman’s innovative storytelling techniques, how he plays musical chairs with his characters’ destinies, moving them in and out of each other’s lives until they all gather together for the tragic ending.” However, while he concedes that “the actors are well chosen and their characters make strong initial impressions”, he complains that “few are developed sufficiently”, and further notes that “the reason [he] can’t ever fully appreciate this picture is that, with the exception of Henry Gibson’s parody songs, none of what Altman and music director Richard Baskin try to pass off as country music… is country music.” He complains in particular about the songs sung by “Ronee Blakley as the Loretta Lynn-like Barbara Jean and Karen Black as the Tammy Wynette-like Connie White”, insisting that “it’s not fair to pass off these two as the best country music has to offer.” He argues that the “music works best [in part] when we’re watching Lily Tomlin and a black chorus perform gospel music” — an ironic statement, given that Tomlin’s singing voice (c.f. Altman’s last film, A Prairie Home Companion, as well) really isn’t all that strong or impressive.

Tomlin’s acting, however, is another matter altogether: her role here as the mother of two deaf children, intrigued and bothered by insistent phone calls from an aggressive rock star (Keith Carradine), is quite impressive, and she deserved her Oscar nomination — as did Ronee Blakley in what is arguably the film’s “central” (or at least most pivotal) role. Indeed, the entire ensemble cast is in fine form — and while it may be true, as Peary points out, that none of their characters are “developed sufficiently”, this is simply part of Altman’s unique vision for the story; to give each of them more screentime would require a mini-series (not a bad idea, really!).

While I agree with Peary that “this is a cynical film”, I’m not sure I believe that “Altman and [screenwriter Joan] Tewkesbury are condescending toward” the characters, given that they simply represent a cross-section of America, flawed aspirations and all. As Peary notes, “almost all of these people are unhappy or pathetic” — and several subplots hint at the quiet tragedies of their lives: Gwen Welles’ pathetic insistence on trying to “make it” as a singer despite lacking any talent; Blakley’s unhinged attempt at a comeback, which is met with jeers by her suddenly unsupportive fans; and Carradine’s mind-boggling treatment of Tomlin. It’s to Altman’s enormous credit, then, that we remain so invested in these diverse characters’ lives, despite the gloominess that pervades.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lily Tomlin as Linnea
  
• Henry Gibson as Haven Hamilton
  
• Ronee Blakley as Barbara Jean
  
• Gwen Welles as Sueleen
  
• Memorable supporting performances by the remaining cast members

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine classic of American cinema.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Greatest Films Review
• James Berardinelli’s Reelviews Review
• Greatest Films Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A once-famous director (Hugo Haas) moves to a condemned housing project and decides to cast his quibbling neighbors in a documentary-style movie — without using film.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Do-Gooders
• Has-Beens
• Hugo Haas Films
• Marie Windsor Films
• Movie Directors

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of Paradise Alley by commenting on director Hugo Haas’s unique claim-to-fame as a “genuine auteur who starred in, directed, produced, and wrote a string of independently made melodramas” with “unorthodox themes” (such as multiple personalities, miscegenation, and death row), long before “indie films” became a burgeoning cottage industry. Indeed, Paradise Alley — Haas’s “crowning achievement and most personal film” — is a fitting swan song to his endearing oeuvre of unconventional films. It may be “hokey” and poorly acted (by former Miss Universe Carol Morris and others), but it’s also “heartfelt and harmless and offbeat”. Haas’s self-referential character — a humble, mysterious man who goes by the name “Mr. Agnus”, but is actually “Al von Stollberg”, a once world-famous director — wants nothing more than to help end both “the despair in [his poverty-stricken] neighborhood and the hostility that everyone feels for each other”. Indeed, Agnus could be seen as a “fairy godfather” of sorts in this modern-day fairytale, which has a most satisfying happy ending. In addition to the cast of mostly amateurs, watch for several famous faces — including Margaret Hamilton (typecast as a snippy bitch), Billy Gilbert (as her nemesis), Marie Windsor, and silent film comedian Chester Comedian (who shows off his impressive collection of movie memorabilia to Agnus).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Hugo Haas as “Mr. Agnus”
  
• A truly heartwarming story
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as Haas’s moving swan song.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• All Movie Guide Review

Synopsis:
Shortly after the Civil War is over, a Yankee colonel (John Wayne) joins forces with two Confederates (Jorge Rivero and Chris Mitchum) in confronting a corrupt rancher (Victor French) who betrayed his platoon during the war.

Genres:

• Howard Hawks Films
• John Wayne Films
• Ranchers
• Revenge
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Howard Hawks’ final film is traditionally viewed as the informal “third part of [his John Wayne] trilogy”, preceded by Rio Bravo (1959) and El Dorado (1966) — and while Peary argues that it’s “still quite entertaining” despite not being “as strong or complex” as either of these two earlier films, I disagree. Immediately after a rousing, finely crafted opening sequence — in which a team of Rebs carry out an elaborate act of sabotage against a gold-carrying Union train by creatively using hornets, smoke, and rope — the film quickly becomes rather boring “good guys against bad guys” western fare, with some obligatory romance and broad humor thrown in. Making matters worse is that none of the supporting actors are particularly convincing or interesting: former-model Jennifer O’Neill (playing a vengeful, hot-spirited townswoman) is simply annoying:

and Jorge Rivero is surprisingly uncharismatic as her French-Mexican love interest and Wayne’s right-hand man.

Meanwhile, Wayne (who was already suffering from the cancer that eventually killed him) seems to be mostly walking through his scenes.

In his review, Peary spends a substantial amount of time analyzing Wayne’s character, who he notes comes across as “less of a superman”, “less dominant than in early films, and mellower”, “more of a father figure than a leader” — but it’s difficult not to interpret these characteristics as merely symptomatic of his personal exhaustion, and perhaps a weariness with the type of cliched roles he was being asked to play again and again (throughout his lengthy career, he starred in nearly 250 movies — of which no less than 36 are listed or discussed in Peary’s book!). Howard Hawks completists and/or fans of Wayne will likely be curious to check out this rather pedestrian western, but all-purpose film fanatics needn’t bother.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• The initial train sabotage sequence
  
• Fine cinematography
  

Must See?
No; despite its historical significance as Hawks’ last film, this one isn’t must-seeing viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A European prince (John Gilbert) falls for an American showgirl (Mae Murray) but is forbidden by his parents from marrying her. Heartbroken, she weds an elderly baron (Tully Marshall) who promptly dies, leaving her free to marry again — but will the newly wealthy widow forgive Gilbert, or accept the proposal of his nefarious cousin, Crown Prince Mirko (Roy D’Arcy)?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Class Romance
• Erich von Stroheim Films
• John Gilbert Films
• Play Adaptation
• Royalty and Nobility
• Showgirls
• Silent Films
• Star-Crossed Lovers
• Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
This little-seen adaptation of Franz Lehar’s operetta (remade in 1934 by Ernest Lubitsch) is primarily notable as the first film Erich von Stroheim directed for MGM immediately after the studio butchered his ten-hour epic Greed (1923). As Peary notes, it’s a rather “odd film”, given to “bursts of bizarre slapstick humor” and full of “weird characters” (including one with an amusing foot fetish); meanwhile, the story is relatively trite and predictable (especially given its studio-added happy ending). What’s most memorable about The Merry Widow is its visual creativity: soft matte backgrounds evoke an appropriately fairytale-like European ambience, while Oliver Marsh’s cinematography — though badly glaring and/or washed out in the print I saw — is boldly luminous, and Von Stroheim adds plenty of unique touches (a pair of blindfolded musicians lurk in the background as Gilbert romances Murray; D’Arcy sees only Murray’s glowing jewels once she’s become a wealthy widow). Gilbert — who was on the cusp of a brief rise to stardom before the arrival of “talkies” dashed his career — is a solid, sympathetic lead, while silent star Murray (a notorious diva who apparently made life miserable for von Stroheim on set) had what many consider her greatest role here. Film fanatics will likely be curious to take a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• John Gilbert as Prince Danilo
  
• Resplendently baroque sets
  
  
• Fairytale-like matte backgrounds
  
  
• Oliver Marsh’s luminous cinematography
  
  
• Evidence of von Stroheim’s unique directorial touch
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A small-town detective (Donald Sutherland) searching for a missing friend (Robert Milli) enlists the help of a call girl (Jane Fonda) who is being stalked by a mysterious psychopath.

Genres:

• Alan J. Pakula Films
• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Donald Sutherland Films
• Jane Fonda Films
• Mysterious Disappearance
• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Roy Scheider Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this psychological thriller by Alan J. Pakula as “exceptional”, pointing out Pakula’s “striking, highly atmospheric direction”, the inclusion of several “genuinely frightening” scenes, and Jane Fonda’s “remarkable” Oscar-winning performance. I agree with all of these assertions: Klute is effectively eerie in parts, gorgeously filmed by d.p. Gordon Willis, and contains one of Fonda’s best performances (Peary notes that “obviously she’s fascinated by Bree and wants to figure her out”). Unfortunately, however, the plot itself is needlessly confusing; while a second viewing helps to clarify exactly what’s going on, a really tight thriller shouldn’t require this. Yet the “murder mystery” ultimately could be seen as merely an elaborate MacGuffin, given that Klute is primarily concerned with exploring Bree’s life as a call girl, and the romantic relationship she slowly develops with Klute.

Indeed, many have noted that a more accurate title for the film would be Bree, given that she, rather than Klute, is really the central protagonist; Klute himself (Sutherland gives a mellow, restrained performance) is merely a catalyst in Bree’s well-ordered life — someone who subtly “convinces” her to open up emotionally to a man for the first time, and take a risk. Bree’s sessions with a psychotherapist (Vivian Nathan) — which were apparently semi-improvised by Fonda — are particularly revealing, and help us understand that Bree finds “her job liberating because she feels in control in her life only when turning tricks”; thus, her “movement toward real-life liberation takes a dramatic leap when she learns to trust Klute”. Fonda’s vulnerable, nuanced performance is the primary reason to watch this flawed but engaging and atmospheric film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jane Fonda as Bree Daniels (Peary, like the Academy, gives her an Alternate Oscar as Best Actress of the Year)
  
• Gordon Willis’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for Fonda’s Oscar-winning performance. Peary nominates it as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review

Synopsis:
A trio of fugitives (Keith Carradine, Bert Remsen, and John Schuck) rob banks in Mississippi while trying to stay out of the hands of the law; meanwhile, Carradine develops a crush on a gas station attendant (Shelley Duvall), Remsen falls for a blonde beauty school student (Ann Lathan), and Schuck shows increasingly violent tendencies.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Depression Era
• Fugitives
• Keith Carradine Films
• Louise Fletcher Films
• Robert Altman Films
• Shelley Duvall Films
• Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Robert Altman’s period drama about thievery and young love during the Great Depression was adapted by Altman, Calder Willingham, and Joan Tewksebury “from Edward Anderson’s novel, which was also the source for Nicholas Ray’s 1948’s classic They Live By Night.” Peary refers to it as a “masterpiece”, noting that it’s “terrifically acted”, has “exceptional, flavorful dialogue”, utilizes sets that “look lived in”, is masterfully cast “down to the bit parts”, and is filmed by cinematographer Jean Boffety in a way that “adds to the film’s lyricism and sense of a bygone time”. Indeed, its sense of period authenticity is especially striking; as Peary notes, Altman achieves this “through carefully chosen sets and props, hairstyles, clothes, and cars; and by establishing a lifestyle for his characters… that seems perfectly credible.” The use of radio programs in the background (sometimes realistically ambient, at others more strategically chosen) is striking, giving one the distinct sense that radio was the “television” of the day — something that would likely be on in most households or cars, as a part of everyday life.

Parallels between Thieves Like Us and Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde (1967) are inevitable, given that both tell stories about “everyday” citizens during the Depression who are drawn to the glory and seemingly simple allure of bank robberies (indeed, no guards or policemen are ever shown nearby; Carradine and his team simply get away without a problem). To that end, Altman noticeably chooses “to treat the action sequences the same as the dialogue scenes, without suspense or exciting climaxes” — most likely because “Carradine himself doesn’t regard the robberies and shootouts as particularly interesting events in his life”; he’s much more concerned with making it back to his true love, “simple, scrawny” Keechie (Duvall), who possesses a strange appeal despite her odd looks (it’s easy to see why Carradine’s needy character falls for her). Duvall is excellent here, as are Carradine and the other male leads. Schuck — playing a psychopath — becomes increasingly terrifying as the film progresses, while Remsen is uniquely memorable as the oldest of the three thieves, who nonetheless possesses the strongest libido.

As always with Altman’s best films, part of the allure of Thieves Like Us is waiting to see how events will unfold, since nothing is telegraphed ahead of time, and Altman strategically leaves out certain “key” scenes (i.e., only one bank robbery of several is actually shown on film, and the death of a major character is simply mentioned). Throughout, we feel like we’re simply watching “real life” as it happens — which is why the bloody climax (which deviates noticeably from the film’s previous air of hyper-realism) is a bit of a let-down; Altman utilizes slow-motion rather than allowing the scene to play out in “real time” as it should. This is a minor complaint, however, about an otherwise bleakly powerful film, one which leaves a lasting effect, and should be seen by all film fanatics at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Keith Carradine as Bowie (Peary nominates him as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Bert Remson as T-Dub
  
• John Schuck as Chickama
  
• Shelley Duvall as Keechie (Peary nominates her as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Louise Fletcher as Mattie
  
• Fine period detail
  
• Jean Boffety’s cinematography
  
• Memorable imagery
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Altman’s best early films. Peary nominates it as one of the Best Movies of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• All Movie Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Rodeo star Roy Rogers is asked by his governor (Russell Hicks) to help locate a gang of saboteurs who have been setting fires and explosions in towns across Texas. When a carnival comes to town, Rogers and his sidekick (Smiley Burnette) begin to think a phony mind reader (Gerald Mohr) may have something to hide; meanwhile, Rogers kindles a romance with Mohr’s pretty assistant (Peggy Moran).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Cowboys
• Musicals
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “enjoyable Roy Rogers western” was “possibly his best” — and I’ll have to believe him, since I haven’t seen any others. It’s full of hummable songs (Rogers has a fine voice) and a host of serial-flick conventions: a dastardly “bad guy” (black mustache and all) whose crimes of sabotage have suitably vague motives; a message in invisible ink; a mysterious code word (“triplets”); cars being run off cliffs; and more. Fortunately, it’s all “brisk” and “witty”, and, as Peary notes, “it’s easy to see [Rogers’] appeal.” Film fanatics will surely be curious to check out at least one film starring the “King of the Cowboys”, and this one should likely be it.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Plenty of suspenseful serial-flick sequences
  
• Some charming cowboy ditties
  

Must See?
Yes, simply as a representative Roy Rogers film.

Categories

• Representative Film

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• All Movie Guide Review

Synopsis:
Bored with life in retirement, world-renowned bullfighter Carlos Arruza returns to the ring on horseback as a rejoneador.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Budd Boetticher Films
• Bullfighting
• Documentary
• Retirement

Response to Peary’s Review:
This hard-to-find documentary about famed Mexican bullfighter Carlos Arruza was the picture Budd Boetticher “wanted to make all along” during his lengthy career as a Hollywood director of westerns and other fictional dramas (including two about bullfighting). As Peary notes, since “the film was so important to Boetticher, who certainly didn’t make it with commercial goals in mind, there has been a tendency among his fans to overpraise it”‘; yet the unfortunate truth is that Arruza — shot over a period of seven years, and completed after Arruza’s freak death in a car accident at the age of 46 — is “sadly, a disappointment, lacking the excitement and even the charismatic protagonist that distinguished Boetticher’s fiction films”. Neither Arruza nor anyone else in his circle is interviewed (or at least none of this footage shows up in the finished film), so we never get any real sense of who this iconic man was or even what he sounded like.

Instead, the bulk of the film consists of medium to long shots of Arruza fighting in various arenas (there are noticeably no dramatic close-ups — this was “real life”, after all), as well as footage on his ranch, with shots of his docile wife and cute kids in the background. While it “contains interesting, even poignant moments” (there was real potential here for a story about a man at the top of his game whose ego and love of the sport wouldn’t allow him to quit), non-bullfighting fans will find their patience sorely tested long before the movie is over — and as Peary notes, “if you don’t like bullfighting to begin with, you probably won’t share Boetticher’s respect for Arruza or his ‘art’.” Arruza is primarily of interest to film fanatics these days given what we know about the circumstances surrounding its making: “Boetticher nearly starved (he had an account at a tamale stand), was divorced, spent time in prison, suffered a mental breakdown, and nearly died from a lung ailment”; meanwhile, “most of his crew died”. See the excellent, must-see documentary Budd Boetticher: A Man Can Do That (2005) to learn more about this intriguing director.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lucien Ballard’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended simply for its historical notoriety.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A young British woman (Margaret Lockwood) travelling on a trans-European train befriends an elderly governess (Dame May Whitty) who suddenly disappears. When nobody on board the train will believe her story, Iris (Lockwood) turns to a musicologist (Michael Redgrave) for help in unraveling the mystery.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Hitchcock Films
• Michael Redgrave Films
• Mistaken Identities
• Mysterious Disappearance
• “No One Believes Me!”
• Paul Lukas Films
• Spies
• Trains and Subways

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary and many other critics have noted, this “vastly entertaining thriller ranks with The 39 Steps as the best of Alfred Hitchcock’s British films”. It’s filled with “wit, suspense, sex, romance, a wonderful array of characters (enthusiastically played by an excellent cast) and a fascinating mystery”, and features characters who all “turn out to be different than they first appear”. Unfortunately, it takes a while for things to get going: the first twenty minutes or so merely serve to establish the characters and their relationships with one another, and first-time viewers may become impatient. Once the train has boarded, however, the excitement really begins, as Hitchcock explores one of his favorite cinematic tropes: the nightmare of not being believed.

Lockwood is “most appealing” as the leading protagonist (a “frivolous” rich girl who essentially “comes of age” on the train), and Whitty — who “has spirit and energy that belie her age” — is perfect as the mysterious title character; meanwhile, Redgrave (in his film debut) slowly grows on you as his character matures and he rises to the task of assisting Iris. The remaining supporting characters are all perfectly cast as well — though I must admit I’m not a fan of comedic team Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford, playing a pair of self-absorbed, cricket-obsessed Brits (they went on to star in several other films together — including the anthology horror flick Dead of Night, co-starring Redgrave). Peary notes that they provide “much of the film’s humor”, but I find them merely distracting and annoying. With that said, they — along with several other passengers — show their true colors in the film’s final dramatic sequences, when all loyal Brits are called upon to fight against corrupt Balkan police; indeed, this film — made just before the dawn of World War II — is, among other things, a clarion call to action against fascist forces.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Margaret Lockwood as Iris
  
• Michael Redgrave as Gilbert
  
• Dame May Whitty as Miss Froy
  
• A highly suspenseful script (by Sidney Gilliat, Frank Lauder, and Alma Reville)
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic Hitchcock thriller. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Dial H for Hitchcock
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review