FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A self-described genius (Clifton Webb) comes to work as a live-in babysitter for a couple (Maureen O’Hara and Robert Young) with three unruly boys, provoking much discussion among the townsfolk.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Clifton Webb Films
• Comedy
• Ed Begley Sr. Films
• Governesses and Nannies
• Maureen O’Hara Films
• Richard Haydn Films
• Robert Young Films
• Small Town America

Review:
A few years after his infamous turn as Waldo Lydecker in Otto Preminger’s Laura (1944), Clifton Webb gave a similarly acerbic — and equally memorable — performance in this adaptation of Gwen Davenport’s 1947 novel Belvedere. Although clearly dated in many ways, Sitting Pretty still packs a surprising amount of comedic punch — thanks almost entirely to Webb, who never falters in his depiction of Mr. Belvedere as an outrageously self-congratulatory man, a philosopher and “genius” who never harbors the slightest doubt in his abilities to handle any situation that arises. Indeed, as the story progresses, Belvedere’s list of professed accomplishments and prior occupations grows so outlandishly long (“Mr. Belvedere, is there anything you haven’t been?” “Yes, Mrs. King — I’ve never been an idler or a parasite.”) that we eventually realize he’s a superhuman entity; while he never actually opens up an umbrella to go soaring through the air like Mary Poppins, his ability to achieve such a feat is somehow never in doubt.

Given that Mr. Belvedere is decidedly asexual (or, depending on how you look at it, secretly “coded” as homosexual), the fact that the film’s storyline eventually hinges on Robert Young’s jealous suspicions that his wife is engaging in a romantic dalliance with her nanny is simply ludicrous. Yet such narrative quibbles are somehow easily forgiven, given the overall outlandish flavor of the screenplay — which eventually takes an unexpected twist that places the entire story in a new context. And Webb is given so many delicious lines to spout that it’s pure fun simply waiting to hear how he’ll handle the next one. Watch for an enjoyable supporting turn by British comedic actor Richard Haydn (who played a dramatically different character in Preminger’s Forever Amber the previous year).

Note: This film (or rather, Webb’s impersonation as Mr. Belvedere) was so popular that two sequels — Mr. Belvedere Goes to College (1949) and Mr. Belvedere Rings the Bell (1951) — quickly followed; while they get half-hearted ratings, I’ll admit I’m smitten enough by Webb-as-Belvedere to want to check them out.

UPDATE, 12/9/11: I recently watched Mr. Belvedere Goes to College (1949) on YouTube (some kind soul uploaded it there), and thought I would write a quick capsule review here (especially given that no reviews at all are linked to this obscure little title on IMDb). As expected, it’s not nearly as “complete” a comedy as Sitting Pretty, and certainly isn’t must-see viewing for film fanatics — but fans of Webb won’t regret checking it out. His “Lynn Belvedere” remains in peak form in the sequel, responding to the rhetorical question, “You’re not serious…?!” with a resolute, “I’m grim.” (Only HE could make that retort sound convincing!) The film’s title explains itself: given that his formal education apparently consisted of no more than “two revolting weeks of Kindergarten”, Belvedere decides — for reasons I can’t name without spoiling the first picture a bit — to finally get a college degree. This allows the filmmakers ample opportunity to expose the hazards of freshman hazing — to which, interestingly enough, Mr. Belvedere allows himself to be subjected (to a certain extent, anyway).

Unfortunately, far too little time is actually spent on Belvedere’s travails in the classroom; NONE, actually (we simply see him reading books wherever he goes). Instead, a rather insipid subplot is allowed to dominate the proceedings, involving a would-be romance between a grown-up Shirley Temple (whose annoying character possesses a significant secret identity) and Tom Drake (of boy-next-door Meet Me in St. Louis fame); as might be expected, whenever this narrative takes center stage, things grind to a deadening halt. Enter Mr. Belvedere again, however, and one’s energies are immediately restored: he’s just THAT delightful. As Bosley Crowther laudingly describes him in his review for the New York Times, he’s “brilliantly, classically clever and often delightfully droll, but he is also profoundly earnest”; in sum, he’s “a fellow who knows himself thoroughly and who has the good sense to realize that modesty would be false”. Indeed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Clifton Webb as Mr. Belvedere (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Richard Haydn as Mr. Appleton
  
• Plenty of delightfully droll dialogue: “Intoxication is a form of escape often sought by the mentally immature.”

Must See?
Yes, simply for Webb’s iconic performance. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Alt Film Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
During the height of World War II, German college student Sophie Scholl (Lena Stolze) discovers that her brother Hans (Wulf Kessler) is involved in an underground anti-Nazi movement known as the White Rose, and decides to join in the group’s efforts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• German Films
• Historical Drama
• Resistance Fighters

Review:
The gripping true story of Sophie Scholl — a young German woman who was murdered, along with several others, for daring to voice anti-Nazi sentiments during the height of WWII — was brought vividly to life in the Oscar-nominated film Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005), a powerful, must-see modern movie. More than twenty years earlier, Michael Verhoeven’s The White Rose told the same story, from a slightly different perspective. While Sophie Scholl was based on recently unearthed transcripts of Sophie’s interrogation after being caught distributing anti-Nazi flyers at Munich University, and essentially begins at this late point during her “final days”, The White Rose depicts the evolution of the titular group’s activities, showcasing how a handful of German youths eventually came to believe that their country was headed for imminent disaster under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, and were determined to try to bring the war to an end.

Unlike in Sophie Scholl — which, as its name implies, is primarily concerned with showcasing the final days of Sophie herself — the screentime here is shared amongst a number of different White Rose protagonists, thus allowing us to learn a bit more about the group’s clandestine efforts to spread its urgent message. Through close attention to detail, the film effectively reminds us of the sobering truth, that during this infamous period of European history, one could lose one’s life for daring to write an anti-government missive — and that an act as simple as buying several dozen postage stamps could mark one immediately as a potential traitor to one’s country. Unfortunately, there are a few too many narrative threads hanging loose throughout the screenplay — such as a confusing subplot about Hans’s apparent romantic dalliances with two different women (Anja Kruse and Mechthild Reinders); but admirers of Sophie Scholl are sure to want to check out this essential cinematic counterpart, which fills in the gaps about an infamous, little told episode in German history.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lena Stolze as Sophie Scholl
  
• A powerful, unique perspective on German anti-Nazi sentiments
  

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth viewing, and must-see for those interested in this historical era.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
During World War I, a teenager (Fabrice Rouleau) pretending to be the nephew of an esteemed general helps a widowed princess (Emmanuelle Riva) with her humanitarian efforts, and falls in love with her daughter (Sophie Dares).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• French Films
• Georges Franju Films
• Mistaken Identities
• World War One

Review:
As I noted in my review of Therese Desqueyroux (1962), French director Georges Franju only made a handful of films seen in the United States — and among these, his undisputed masterpiece is Eyes Without a Face (1960), a haunting classic of psychological horror. Unfortunately, neither Therese… nor this later literary adaptation (of a 1923 novel by surrealist Jean Cocteau) are nearly as successful. According to Wikipedia’s article on the director, Franju himself noted that he did “not have the story writing gift”, instead preferring to focus on the visuals of a film — and to that end, Thomas… is certainly arresting throughout. But ultimately, most films are only as captivating as the stories they attempt to tell, and this one — about a young man so desperate to see action on the front that he adopts a false identity — should be much more compelling than it is. While this is ostensibly Thomas’s story (per the title), the screenplay primarily focuses on Riva’s do-gooding princess — an intriguing character (nicely played by Riva) who we wouldn’t mind learning even more about. Unfortunately, the film’s events — Riva’s dedication to helping wounded soldiers access medical care; her tentative romance with an insistent newspaper editor (Jean Servais); Thomas’s budding romance with Dares — fail to cohere or leave a lasting impression, and by the film’s end, we wonder what the point of it all was, exactly.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Emmanuelle Riva as the Princesse de Bormes
  
• Some memorable imagery
  
  
• Georges Auric’s musical score

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Franju completists.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Orphaned Jane Eyre (Joan Fontaine) accepts a position as a governess for a domineering father (Orson Welles) with a tragic secret, and soon finds herself falling in love with him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Agnes Moorehead Films
• Cross-Class Romance
• Elizabeth Taylor Films
• Governesses and Nannies
• Henry Daniell Films
• Joan Fontaine Films
• Margaret O’Brien Films
• Orphans
• Orson Welles Films

Review:
George Stevenson’s adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s classic gothic novel is a highly atmospheric, if ultimately undistinguished, literary drama. As a number of critics have noted, the most powerful moments occur during the film’s opening sequences, as young Jane (Peggy Anne Garner, perfectly cast):

is sent away by her forbidding aunt (Agnes Moorehead, also perfectly cast):

to live in a boarding school, where she’s cruelly mistreated by its brutal headmaster (Henry Daniell):

… yet manages to form a fleeting friendship with tragic Helen Burns (a young, beautiful, uncredited Elizabeth Taylor).

Unfortunately, the second half of the film isn’t as convincing or compelling. While not all agree, Joan Fontaine’s grown Jane simply didn’t impress me as the “fiercely independent” heroine Bronte wrote her to be.

Fontaine spends most of her screentime looking plaintively at “fearsome” Mr. Rochester (Orson Welles) — who, for his part, never quite manages to shed his own out-sized, Wellesian persona.

(When Rochester bellows at the world, it’s Welles-as-Rochester making his presence known). Their budding relationship does gradually pull one in, but never really emerges as anything more complex than a schoolgirl crush made manifest. Meanwhile, the critical “subplot” concerning the mysterious woman locked away in Rochester’s home is given surprisingly short shrift, and is resolved far too quickly:

… and the inevitable compression of the rest of the novel’s events towards the final half hour of the film presents another challenge for viewers hoping to feel more invested in Jane’s fate.

With all those complaints aired (my, how hard we are on literary adaptations!), this remains solid filmmaking, with George Barnes’ moody camerawork particularly striking throughout. As noted in Slant Magazine’s review, in a nutshell, this is “a well-constructed piece of studio work” — and overall, it’s certainly worth a look, particularly given its historical interest as an early “Orson Welles film”. (While he didn’t officially direct, he undeniably had a hand in the production).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• The opening childhood sequences
  
• George Barnes’ atmospheric cinematography
  
• Bernard Herrmann’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth checking out. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Slant Magazine Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
While leading an investigation to determine if the new Secretary of State candidate (Henry Fonda) selected by the President of the United States (Franchot Tone) is qualified for the position, a young senator (Don Murray) finds his own life scrutinized.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Blackmail
• Burgess Meredith Films
• Charles Laughton Films
• Cold War
• Don Murray Films
• Franchot Tone Films
• Gene Tierney Films
• Henry Fonda Films
• Otto Preminger Films
• Peter Lawford Films
• Political Corruption
• Walter Pidgeon Films

Review:
Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Allen Drury, this fascinating, boldly themed film by director Otto Preminger never dumbs down its source material, instead providing attentive viewers with an unparalleled look at the inner workings of Washington, D.C. Unabashedly “political” (on more than one level), Advise & Consent exposes — and ultimately censures — the unbelievably treacherous nature of high-level politics, in which a person’s past actions and acquaintances, no matter how private, can come back to haunt him — and lobbying for one’s beliefs can cause irreparable (if unintended) harm to others.

Other than the slowly gripping storyline itself (which takes its time getting to the crux of the drama), what’s perhaps most memorable about Advise & Consent are the documentary-like glimpses it affords of Washington, D.C. at work, complete with underground shuttles taking the senators to and from their sessions, and highly realistic interactions on the senate floor (with the senators referring to each other in third person). And, as Eric Henderson writes in his review of the film for Slant Magazine, “Preminger’s filmed version of the novel makes up for the various excised subplots and legal-procedural nitty-gritty with a typically unerring sense of spatial intrigue” — in other words, it’s surprisingly visually arresting for a “courtroom” drama.

Meanwhile, the ensemble performances throughout are largely top-notch, and feature some unexpected surprises (i.e., a young Betty White in her film debut as an outspoken senator). Don Murray (whose notable earlier roles included ‘Bo’ in Bus Stop, and Johnny in Hatful of Rain) is perfectly cast, and entirely believable, in what turns out to be the film’s tragic central role — that of Senator Brigham Anderson, a “family man” with a conflicted history he’s determined to keep hidden at all costs. In his final role (playing Southern Senator “Seab” Cooley), Charles Laughton gives a typically nuanced yet showy performance; and Walter Pidgeon is solidly effective in a smaller role as the Senate House Majority Leader.

P.S. If you haven’t seen the film or read the novel, be careful reading reviews online; almost all give away the central plot “twist”, which I’ve only hinted at here.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Don Murray as Brig
  
• Charles Laughton as Seab
  
• Walter Pidgeon as the Senate Majority Leader
  
• A fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of the U.S. government
  
• Wendell Mayes’ smart, thematically bold screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as one of Preminger’s most powerful films.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
An ex-con (Jackie Gleason) is summoned by his former crime boss (Groucho Marx) to kill a prison inmate (Mickey Rooney); meanwhile, his daughter (Alexandra Hay) is seduced by a group of hippies (including John Phillip Law) who move in with her and her mother (Carol Channing).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cesar Romero Films
• Comedy
• Counterculture
• Ex-Cons
• Gangsters
• Mickey Rooney Films
• Otto Preminger Films

Review:
Otto Preminger’s notoriously bad counterculture comedy only played in theaters for about a week (Vincent Canby of the New York Times called it “something… for people whose minds need pressing by a heavy, flat object”), and was only recently released for home viewing. Nonetheless, it’s developed a strong cult following by those who consider its very existence a juicy feat to behold. Gathering together an eclectic host of “big names” (including a surprising number of TV actors), Preminger puts his characters into situations that simply defy logic and expectations; indeed, whatever one feels about the ultimate success of the film — and opinions vary wildly! — what definitively cannot be denied is that one is never sure exactly what will happen next.

The brief synopsis provided above only hints at the wacky trajectory of Skidoo‘s storyline, which eventually devolves into massive LSD tripping and the most creative prison break ever depicted on-screen. Preminger had apparently experimented with acid himself, and was genuinely interested in attempting to portray such experiences on film — indeed, it’s Preminger’s sincerity with the entire venture that ultimately affords it its campy seal of “approval”. Taken strictly on face value — as an earnest attempt to tell a tale of redemption and cross-cultural understanding — the characters and situations are undeniably ludicrous and naive; viewed as a wacky congruence of fearless caricatures and boldly outrageous scenarios, it may provide you with just the type of cinematic misadventure you can’t look away from.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Maybe – just maybe – the hallucinogenic “Dance of the Garbage Cans”
  
• The truly unique (entirely sung) closing credits
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its bad-movie cult notoriety.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Austin Chronicle Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
A pair of middle-aged men (Ernest Borgnine and Carroll O’Connor) fed up with the rampant crime in their city join an auxiliary police force.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Ernest Borgnine Films
• New York City
• Police

Review:
Based on the intriguing premise of ordinary citizens who become so fed up with the unresolved crime in their city that they decided to become deputized volunteer policemen (who knew such a possibility even existed?!), this uneven black comedy ultimately fails to deliver on its thematic potential. As in his American debut film, Born to Win (1971), Czech director Ivan Passer can’t quite seem to decide whether he wants to make an outright farce (as in the opening scenes, with various criminal acts being comedically carried out in broad daylight) or offer a more serious character study about blue collar men longing for some sense of authority and control in their lives.

Indeed, the film is frustratingly skimpy on details about what exactly goes into the duties and responsibilities of a volunteer policeman. The two central protagonists and their cronies are shown simply basking in the glory and fun of police accoutrement — uniforms and weapons and vehicles with sirens — rather than undergoing any kind of serious training. And once they do start patrolling the streets, we’re only shown a few instances of the types of dilemmas and situations they might encounter (including one particularly annoying “running gag” involving a young man who insists on drawling “f*** you” to every authority figure he encounters; not funny or insightful at all).

Instead, the screenplay shifts its meandering focus onto the midlife crises of Borgnine and O’Connor, good friends who are both unhappy (to varying degrees) in their jobs. Borgnine is a hairdresser with a dwindling clientele and an obnoxious employee (Karen Black, giving a weird, ineffective caricature of a performance); O’Connor is a taxi driver who longs to own his own business, and feels deep regret over lost opportunities in the past. Yet for every scene that provides an authentic glimpse into these characters’ lives — i.e., O’Connor taking his wife to the diner he desperately hopes to purchase — there are countless others that feel either random or misguided.

One of the film’s most awkwardly handled moments, for instance, shows O’Connor’s teenage daughter (Leslie Ackerman) — who has just been “attacked” on the street — berated by O’Connor for wearing a sexy shirt; a group of women sitting around the table (presumably all neighbors; we’re never told) proceed to advise her to wear a bra so her breasts don’t start to sag. The next time we see this girl, she’s out on the street with her sleazy boyfriend (Lionel Pina), looking for all the world like a prostitute. What’s the connection here? We’re not told. It’s narrative flaws like this that eventually detract from what seems to be Passer’s primary (worthy) goal: a desire to portray the motivations, disappointments, and daily challenges of working class life in New York.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Ernest Borgnine as Cy
  
• Willie’s “diner scene” with his wife
  

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A heroin addict (George Segal) begins a romance with a woman (Karen Black) whose car he attempts to steal; meanwhile, he tries to secure his next fix while outsmarting his dealer (Hector Elizondo).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• George Segal Films
• Karen Black Films
• Paula Prentiss Films
• Robert De Niro Films

Review:
Czech New Wave director Ivan Passer’s American film debut was this uneven portrayal of the vagaries of heroin addiction in New York. Shaggy-haired George Segal tries his best but is ultimately unable to generate much interest in his character, given that “J” is all the typical things you’d expect from a heroin addict — self-absorbed, pathetic — and thus not really all that sympathetic.

He whines that nothing ever goes right for him in life, but why should it? Meanwhile, everything about his new relationship with Karen Black’s “Parm” feels contrived, starting from the moment she stupidly picks him up in her own car as he’s attempting to hijack it (hello? how DUMB can you get?).

She insists almost immediately that she’s really “into him”, yet there’s absolutely no reason why she should be; while there’s potential here for portraying an interesting relationship between an addict and a non-addict who’s desperately curious about the life of drug use (Panic in Needle Park, anyone?), that’s merely hinted at rather than exploited fully.

There are a few cleverly bizarre scenes throughout that elevate one’s interest temporarily, and show evidence of Passer’s absurdist sensibility: Segal attempting (unsuccessfully) to hide from a cop in a laundromat:

… and Segal attempting (successfully) to escape from the clutches of some drug dealers through creative flashing.

But ultimately, by the end of this inevitably bleak story, the main point one has taken away is that the world of drug addiction and dealing is brutally dog-eat-dog — not exactly an earth-shattering revelation.

Note: Robert De Niro has all of maybe 10 minutes of screentime in a tiny role as one of two cops shadowing Segal:

When the film went into public domain and random copies were produced for sale on DVD, De Niro’s face was marketed to fill the entire cover, leading would-be viewers (presumably De Niro fans) down the garden-path. Paula Prentiss has just as little screentime; she’s believable if underused as Segal’s sorry sack of an ex-wife.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Several original, darkly humorous scenes

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one unless you’re curious. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

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