FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An aggressive sports writer (Leon Niemczyk) and his wife (Jolanta Umecka) pick up a young hitchhiker (Zygmunt Malanoqwicz) on their way to a weekly boating trip, and invite him to accompany them — but tensions and rivalries continue to mount as the two men show off their prowess in front of bikini-clad Umecka.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Marital Problems
• Masculinity
• Rivalry
• Roman Polanski Films

Review:
Peary writes that “Roman Polanski’s first film, his only Polish film, is an enigmatic three-character piece he wrote with Jerzy Skolimowski and Jakub Goldberg”, which “concentrates on the stiff competition between the two men [Niemczyk and Malanoqwicz] at sailing, at pickup sticks, at knife playing”. He points out the “sense of claustrophobia (heightened when they go below) that dramatically builds tension; just as the wind determines the boat’s movements, fate seems to control the characters” — and while “we expect that in this natural setting the characters will lay bare their deepest emotions”, they “never really strip off their defenses and totally reveal themselves”. Peary further notes that “Niemczyk desires to show off for his wife and to himself by humiliating the younger man; but while he wins his small victories, he seems increasingly infantile” — and ultimately, the “immense problems in the relationship between Niemcyzk and Umecka… come to [the] surface” and must be confronted. Other than pointing out Jerzy Lipman’s “excellent hand-held photography”, however, Peary’s review neglects to highlight the visual strengths of this unusual and surprisingly potent chamber piece — including and perhaps primarily its camera angles, strategic blocking of characters, and highly effective editing. While this isn’t a film I would choose to return to repeatedly, it should be seen at least once for its technical brilliance.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Solid direction, cinematography, and editing throughout
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as Polanski’s worthy debut feature.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• BBC Review
• TV Guide Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Jigsaw Lounge Review

Synopsis:
Along with others in her community, the wife (Rosaria Revueltas) of a zinc mine worker (Juan Chacon) resists traditional gender norms in supporting the men in their strike for better working and living conditions.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Labor Movement
• Marital Problems
• Mining Towns
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “remarkable, stirring political film” by explaining that it “tells the true story of a successful 13-month strike at a zinc mine in New Mexico, begun in 1953… that was won because the wives of the miners took over the picket line after a Taft-Hartley injunction enjoined their husbands from picketing.” He writes that “not only does this film give women proper recognition for their contribution to the labor movement of the seventies, in that it makes an issue of equality in jobs, equality in the home, and sexual equality” but that “this was the first American narrative film set in America that dared to have women standing with their husbands against the oppressors”: “Significantly, their liberation is achieved by them independently — it is not, cannot, be given them by men; their liberation is then in turn a liberating catalyst for men, who are also trapped by sex-role conventions.” He adds that “the film’s strong theme is that the liberated woman is no real threat to her man; her existence will benefit him.”

Despite being “called a subversive film in Congress and the New York Times before its release”, this is actually a “pro-human rather than anti-American” film, one “which makes no pitch for revolution — just solidarity against the power elite, encompassing racial brotherhood and sexual equality”. Peary notes that the “script was written with cooperation of the participants in the strike, many of whom act in the film”, and that “we are touched by the characters because they are not epic figures — only when they stand together do they take on heroic proportions.” This engaging film (one that “lives up to the legend”) possesses “many scenes [that] will cause smiles, tears, cheers”, and was selected by Peary (over On the Waterfront, which he doesn’t even nominate) as Best Movie of the Year in his Alternate Oscars, where he refers to it as “the greatest political narrative ever made in the United States.”

In his Alternate Oscars review, Peary notes his pleasure in giving the award to a film “made by people blacklisted in Hollywood (director [Herbert] Biberman, producer Paul Jarrico, writer Michael Wilson, cinematographers Leonard Stark and Stanley Meredith, composer Sol Kaplan, [and] actor Will Geer, among them), television workers, and blacks not allowed in Roy Brewer’s segregated International Alliance of Theatrical and State Employees; was cast mostly with the working people the film is about; was condemned in the Hollywood Press, The New York Times, and by RKO box Howard Hughes and members of HUAC; was processed surreptitiously because Hollywood labs refused to handle it; was edited secretly; and was booked into only thirteen theaters nationally (and those theaters were picketed) because Brewer’s IATSE projectionists refused to show it.” With such a lengthy list of constraints, one might expect this movie to be both less polished and more pedantic than it is — but it remains surprisingly engaging, and more relevant than ever. It’s a pleasure to know, as Peary writes from taking with producer Jarrico, that it “has been seen, probably, by more people than any film in history.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Rosaura Revueltas as Esperanza
  
• Fine performances by the non-professional cast
  
• Powerful direction and cinematography
  
  
• Appropriately disturbing evidence of entrenched racism and sexism
  
  

Must See?
Yes, both for its historical relevance and as a still-noteworthy drama. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 2 book.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Historically Relevant

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When four friends (Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox) go on a canoeing vacation in the backwoods of Georgia, they quickly find themselves endangered by both extreme rapids and brutal local denizens.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Burt Reynolds Films
• Class Relations
• Deep South
• John Boorman Films
• Jon Voight Films
• Living Nightmare
• Masculinity
• Ned Beatty Films
• Rape
• Survival
• Vacation

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this disturbing thriller by noting that “in some of our more terrifying dreams we may find ourselves thrust into an alien, hostile environment where we are at the mercy of strangers from another culture who want to kill us for reasons we can’t comprehend”. He argues that “no film better captures the essence of this particular nightmare than this thrilling version of James Dickey’s novel, directed by John Boorman and scripted by Dickey”: “Indeed, this film depicts the male’s worst nightmare — having his masculinity threatened.” Peary describes the “illiterate hillbillies” encountered by the vacationing quartet as people “whose bodies and brains seem to have been damaged by malnutrition, disease, and inbreeding”; when Voight and Beatty “take the wrong fork in the river and find themselves threatened by two vile and frightening backwoodsmen (Bill McKinney, Herbert ‘Cowboy’ Coward)”, viewers are subjected to “an unforgettably shocking scene”.

Peary argues that the “film is both provocative and an extremely powerful nail-biter”, and adds the weirdly unnecessary caveat that “it’s too intense and violent for kids” (no kidding!!!). Finally, he points out that the movie is “beautifully filmed by Vilmos Szigmond”, and that a “highlight is when Cox plays ‘Dueling Banjos’ with a young hillbilly” (Billie Redden, a local who was cast for his appearance rather than actual ability to play the banjo). I have little to add to Peary’s accurate review, other than stressing that this is a film I fully acknowledge as brilliant, but don’t want to watch again for a really, really long time. With that said, I adore everything about the dueling banjos scene — from the creative camera angles (it’s no coincidence that Redden is placed far above Cox) and close-ups of Redden’s face, to the juxtaposition of the beginning of this scene with Reynolds’ negotiations to find drivers for their trip, to Beatty’s disparagingly throwaway comment about “genetic deficiencies” as Redden deftly strums, to the old man in a hat hopping around in dancing delight (while Beatty openly mocks him), to Cox’s humble admission near the end of the song (“I’m lost”) as Redden’s grin widens and he continues playing. This group does indeed become lost, unaware of the dangerous and impenetrable power dynamics they’re about to enter into.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Strong lead performances
  
• Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography
  
  
• Ronny Cox and Billy Redden’s banjo duet/duel (and the soundtrack based on the tune)
  

Must See?
Yes, as a disturbing and powerful classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Review
• Moria Review
• FilmSite Review

Synopsis:
In medieval Paris, a hunch-backed bell-ringer (Charles Laughton) at Notre Dame Cathedral provides sanctuary for a young gypsy woman (Maureen O’Hara) falsely accused of murder by an insanely jealous chief justice (Cedric Hardwicke) who lusts after her. Will Esmeralda (O’Hara) be saved by her new husband (Edmond O’Brien), the King of the Beggars (Thomas Mitchell), or Quasimodo (Laughton) himself?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Laughton Films
• Disfigured Faces
• Edmond O’Brien Films
• Falsely Accused
• Gypsies
• Historical Drama
• Maureen O’Hara Films
• Misfits
• Thomas Mitchell Films
• William Dieterle Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “visually impressive telling of Victor Hugo’s classic, set in 11th-century Paris”, features an “excellent cast” — including a young Edmond O’Brien “looking skinny”.

He notes that director William Dieterle handles “the crowd scenes (more than 3000 extras were employed) expertly” and instructed “cameraman Joseph H. August to use some interesting angles.” However, he argues that while “Laughton has received a great deal of praise for his performance”, he “doesn’t really get much opportunity to act” given that “what few lines he has are intended to make us (or Esmeralda, or the Parisians in the streets) feel sorry for him”.

Peary believes “the film surely would have worked better if Laughton’s hunchback didn’t let his physical appearance completely dominate his every thought and word, because he’ll get enough pity as it is just from his hideous looks (the make-up people must have used a deformed walrus as Quasimodo’s model”). He argues that “O’Hara, who is breathtakingly beautiful, comes across better.”

I’m less critical of Laughton’s performance and make-up than Peary, though I’ll admit to not being a huge fan of the storyline either in this adaptation or the earlier silent version with Lon Chaney, Sr. — Quasimodo’s personality and background ultimately seem under-developed (is he mentally challenged, and/or simply irreparably traumatized?), as does that of Hardwicke’s character:

… and the damsel-in-distress, Beauty-and-the-Beast narrative hook doesn’t do much for me. It’s once again the sets and crowds (along with atmospheric cinematography) that most impress in this film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Charles Laughton as Quasimodo
  
• Maureen O’Hara as Esmeralda
  
• Van Nest Polglase’s sets
  
• Joseph August’s cinematography
  
• Perc Westmore’s make-up
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look as an Oscar-nominated classic.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review
• TCM Articles
• NY Times Original Review
• Fantastic Movie Musings Review
• FilmSite Review
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
A deformed bell-ringer (Lon Chaney, Sr.) in Notre Dame Cathedral provides sanctuary to a young gypsy woman (Patsy Ruth Miller) falsely accused of killing a nobleman (Norman Kerry) who was actually stabbed by the jealous and unscrupulous brother (Brandon Hurst) of an archdeacon.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Disabilities
• Falsely Accused
• Gypsies
• Historical Drama
• Lon Chaney, Sr. Films
• Misfits
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary recommends that film fanatics see this “first of many screen adaptations of Victor Hugo’s classic” before any others. He notes that it’s an “impressive production with large sets and hundreds of extras”, “beautifully photographed, ambitiously staged by director Wallace Worsley, and marvelously acted” by Chaney and Miller. He points out that the “key to Chaney’s definitive performance as Quasimodo is that his expressions and gestures are subtle, not demonstrative as one would expect in a silent picture”; he argues that while “later actors who played the hunchback hammed it up and worked too hard to get our pity”, “Chaney realized that the make-up alone was strong enough to make viewers feel sympathy for the hunchback — he wanted to show that Quasimodo’s personality was opposite of his monstrous exterior”. Peary concludes his review by noting that “the finale is extravagant and exciting, then poignant.” While I’m suitably impressed with how lavishly well-mounted this early silent flick is, I share less of Peary’s overall enthusiasm. It’s certainly worth a look for Chaney’s memorable performances, but the storyline creaks.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lon Chaney, Sr. as Quasimodo
  
• Impressive sets (spanning 19 acres) and handling of large crowds
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look as a lavish early silent adaptation, and to see Chaney, Sr. in one of his signature roles.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Silent Volumes Review
• Fantastic Movie Musings Review