FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
The ambitious eldest daughter (Brenda de Banzie) of a patriarchal shoe store owner (Charles Laughton) woos her father’s best employee (John Mills) into marrying her and setting up their own shop, much to the consternation of Laughton and her two class-conscious sisters (Daphne Anderson and Prunella Scales).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Laughton Films
• Class Relations
• Cross-Class Romance
• David Lean Films
• Father and Child
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Historical Drama
• John Mills Films
• Play Adaptation
• Strong Females

Review:
It’s actually somewhat astonishing to be reminded that this classic comedy by director David Lean (one of only two in his oeuvre) is based on a stage play, given how utterly un-stagebound it feels. Lean’s masterful direction opens up the story to show us a pre-Industrial England in which feminism was just beginning to emerge, and women like Brenda de Banzie’s Maggie were truly unsung mavericks. Indeed, Hobson’s Choice is not only a droll comedic delight, but a notable feminist film, in addition to offering a refreshing skewering of class relations. To that end, Laughton’s Henry Hobson is a genuine paradigm of his time: he’s a self-satisfied, condescending patriarch who believes his position in life (as both a father and a business owner) provides him with de facto entitlement to boss others around, and to spend his own time lolling about in a local pub.

The storyline centers on Hobson’s delicious come-uppance — with the title itself ultimately referring to the fact that Hobson really has no choice in mending his ways. Interestingly, while he’s the clear antagonist of the story, we can’t help feeling a bit of compassion for him, given how inevitable his downfall is — and how clueless he is about its coming. Meanwhile, de Banzie’s Maggie makes for a most unlikely protagonist, but that’s precisely the point: from the very beginning, she’s posited (by Laughton) as someone too old and too plain to marry or make anything more of her life than what she has; she spends the rest of the storyline proving him wrong. It helps that de Banzie herself is a somewhat unknown cinematic face: her only other notable (supporting) film roles were as a female baddie in Hitchcock’s second version of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), and as Laurence Olivier’s wife in The Entertainer (1960). This makes her emergence as an unexpectedly strong force-to-be-reckoned-with all the more pleasantly surprising.

Peary nominates Laughton as one of the Best Actors of the Year for his work in this film, and it does remain one among many of his impeccable performances; no one was better at embodying grotesque disdain than Laughton. John Mills is equally delightful (if unexpectedly cast) in the pivotal role as Willie Mossop, a gifted yet intellectually challenged shoemaker who slowly comes into his own as a man of means. Every scene he’s in is delightful, but my favorite is probably the one showcasing the moments before and after his wedding night (with the night itself, naturally, cut out); with help from Lean, Mills masterfully conveys everything we need to know about this critical facet of his shifting relationship with de Banzie. Also worth pointing out is Malcolm Arnold’s instantly hummable score, which seems as much a part of the film experience as the visuals and storyline. This one is a true delight, and should be seen by all film fanatics at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Brenda de Banzie as Maggie Hobson
  
• Charles Laughton as Henry Hobson (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• John Mills as Willie Mossop
  
• Fine direction by Lean
  
• The effective opening sequence
  
• Malcolm Arnold’s jaunty score

Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyable dramatic comedy. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A forever-boy named Peter Pan (Bobby Driscoll) flies into the nursery of the Darling children — Wendy (Kathryn Beaumont), John (Paul Collins), and Michael (Tommy Luske) — and takes them to Never Land, where they battle against evil Captain Hook (Hans Conreid).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Fantasy
• Hans Conried Films
• Pirates
• Revenge

Review:
Walt Disney’s animated version of J.M. Barrie’s play-turned-novel is beloved by many, but ultimately remains one of his lesser classics. With the exception of the catchy tune “You Can Fly!”, the songs aren’t very memorable, and the animation — while representative of the fine work Disney Studios produced — isn’t all that distinguished. What hurts the film the most, however, is its disjointed storyline, which flits around through various scenarios (including a typically offensive one involving “redskins”), and simply never feels focused. In addition, we’re not quite sure who to be rooting for: while Peter Pan would be the obvious choice, he’s too much of a scampish scoundrel to feel much sympathy for; and though Wendy is a lovely character, she’s not sufficiently developed to be viewed as a central protagonist.

Other characters, meanwhile, are simply disappointing and/or ill-conceived: as Richard Scheib of Moria Reviews puts it, “the Lost Boys look… like anthropomorphized fluffy bunnies and Smee [Hook’s right-hand-man] looks like he has strayed in from a casting call for one of the Seven Dwarves.” Meanwhile, Hook (wonderfully voiced by Hans Conried) is too buffoonish to represent a real threat; his interactions with both Peter and “The Crocodile” rely far too heavily on tiresome slapstick. The most intriguing character in the film by a long shot is Tinkerbell, who never says a word, but says PLENTY with her expressions, body language, and actions.

Other than Tinkerbell, the most interesting aspect of this film for me (as a mom of two little kids) was the fact that young Michael Darling wears pink the entire time. This prompted me to do a bit of research, and I came upon this short article, which states: “Pink and blue arrived, along with other pastels, as colors for babies in the mid-19th century, yet the two colors were not promoted as gender signifiers until just before World War I—and even then, it took time for popular culture to sort things out.” Since the original Peter Pan was written (and takes place) near the turn of the century, this choice makes sense.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Typically fine Disney animation
  
  
• The refreshingly feisty character of Tinkerbell
  

Must See?
No, though naturally it holds some cultural interest (it was the highest grossing film of 1953), and is a must for Disney fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
When a writer (Bill Travers) and his wife (Virginia McKenna) inherit a rundown cinema (the Bijou) previously manned by three aging employees — a doorman (Bernard Miles), a ticket-taker (Margaret Rutherford), and a tippling projectionist (Peter Sellers) — they attempt to turn it into a going concern in order to convince their competitor (Francis De Wolff) to buy them out.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Inheritance
• Margaret Rutherford Films
• Peter Sellers Films
• Rivalry

Review:
Film fanatics will surely be inherently drawn to the subject matter of this comedy about a young couple trying to revive an ailing independent cinema house (which shows nothing but westerns!). Unfortunately, while there are some genuinely charming moments scattered throughout — and one definitely gains a renewed appreciation for the skill involved in running a movie theater — the storyline itself never really takes off, making this a good-natured situation comedy with much potential but too little pay-off. Once the central conflict is established — McKenna and Travers must convince De Wolff that they’re serious in their commitment to running the Bijou — all that’s left is to watch our intrepid cast attempt to make a go of things; but their antics are mildly amusing at best. Meanwhile, none of the three “elderly” characters — played by cinematic favorites Sellers, Rutherford, and a nearly-indistinguishable Miles — are sufficiently developed (or given enough screentime):

… and the understated denouement is surprisingly discomfiting.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• An amusing look at the challenges of running an independent cinema house
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look, and will likely be endearing to most film fanatics, given its subject matter. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A race of sexy blonde Venutians, led by Moana (Mamie Van Doren), are threatened by the arrival of a small crew of astronauts on their planet.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Astronauts
• Mamie Van Doren Films
• Peter Bogdanovich Films
• Science Fiction
• Space Exploration

Review:
This bizarre early entry in Peter Bogdanovich’s directorial career was produced by Roger Corman as a way to gain additional mileage from two Soviet space exploration films he had purchased and already used to make Battle Beyond the Sun (1963) and Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet (1965). The resulting film is — perhaps inevitably — a jarring mish-mosh of scenes, with most of the film’s running time spent following a crew of dubbed Soviet astronauts and their robot as they explore Venus, and additional scenes showing a bevy of telepathic blonde Venutians (wearing skin-tight pants and seashell bras) worshiping their god:

… and reacting with silent horror to the invasion of their planet. The two cohorts, naturally, never actually meet. It’s all frightfully sub-par — but interestingly enough, the storyline moves along at a quick enough pace that you’ll likely never be bored, exactly. You can’t help wondering what the astronauts are really saying (how closely is writer Henry Ney sticking to the original script?), and thinking about whether he was inspired at all by Woody Allen’s spoof What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966).

My favorite exchange:

Astronaut #1: It almost sounds like a girl…
Astronaut #2: Or a monster!

Same difference, naturally.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Moments of campy appeal
  

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one. Listed as a Camp Classic in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• SciFilm Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
A gambler (Antonio Cantafora) in debt to the Mafia seduces the nymphomaniac owner (Joan Collins) of a failing discoteque.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Joan Collins Films

Review:
This trashy sequel to a title mercifully missing from Peary’s book (1978’s The Stud) similarly stars Joan Collins in an adaptation of a blockbuster novel written by her sister, Jackie Collins. I was genuinely hard-pressed to come up with a meaningful synopsis of The Bitch, given that the “storyline” (such as it is) is simply an excuse to get the various characters into bed with each other, in between showing off numerous high-end locales. I presume we’re supposed to enjoy watching a still-sexy 40-something “bitch” like Collins seducing young men left and right (including her hapless chauffeur; ha ha), but ultimately it all simply comes across like badly-directed soft core porn, without nearly enough unintentional laughs to merit its labeling by Peary as a Camp Classic. (Naturally, it does have its base of fans, as evidenced by comments on IMDb, including some calling for its remake — heaven help us!)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Joan Collins’ unabashedly raunchy portrayal as Fontaine Khaled
  

Must See?
No; skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review