FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A draftsman (Kent Smith) marries an enigmatic Serbian woman named Irena (Simone Simon) who fears that sexual intimacy with her new husband will turn her into a predatory panther. Smith sends her to a psychiatrist (Tom Conway) for help, and seeks advice from his beautiful co-worker (Jane Randolph) — but Irena’s neurosis and increasing jealousy of Randolph continue to wreak havoc on her unconsummated marriage.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Jacques Tourneur Films
• Marital Problems
• Newlyweds
• Psychological Horror
• Sexual Repression
• Simone Simon Films
• Val Lewton Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “first of producer Val Lewton’s facinating ‘psychological’ horror films displays the subtlety, imagination, intelligence, and respect for audiences that would distinguish all his projects at RKO from 1942 to 1946” (including I Walked With a Zombie, The Leopard Man, The Seventh Victim, The Ghost Ship, The Curse of the Cat People, The Body Snatcher, and Bedlam, among others). He writes that “Simone Simon” — giving an “erotic, sympathetic performance” — is “perfectly cast” in her most iconic role as a “sweet, lonely” woman who has avoided intimate relationships her entire life out of fear that her sexual desires will cause “the evil inside her [to] be released” — and who (in a bold narrative move for a film of this era) informs her husband after their marriage that she’s not yet ready to sleep with him (“I want to be Mrs. Reed, really — I want to be everything that name means to me, and I can’t.”).

Peary notes that, “as in several other Lewton films, evil and good fight for control of his characters” — and, “like Lewton’s other tragic heroines… Irena doesn’t have the willpower to reject her evil side”, especially when she begins experiencing (justifiable) jealousy towards her husband and his co-worker, Jane Randolph (waiting conveniently in the wings).

As so many have noted, Lewton’s RKO “horror” films were true masterpieces of suggested terror — and Cat People is a prime example of this. With the exception of a few highly contested shots of a giant cat later in the film (most likely inserted by the studio against Lewton’s will), Irena’s neuroses could be viewed as purely psychological. Each of the film’s justifiably “classic horror sequences” — “terrified Alice [Randolph] being followed through a dark park, jumping when a bus screeches to a halt next to her:

… Judd (Conway) trying to seduce Irena, only to be attacked by a giant cat:

… Alice swimming alone in an indoor pool when the lights go out, [as] cat shadows appear on the wall and growling can be heard”:

— succeeds largely because of what’s implied rather than what’s actually seen. To this end, as Peary notes, director Jacques Tourneur “does a wonderful job of creating tense atmosphere”, and he’s helped in no small part by d.p. Nicholas Musuraca, who “does wonders with light and shadows”.

Cat People is a rare breed of literate horror film that — even at just 73 minutes long — merits repeat viewings in order to allow for full appreciation of the nuanced plot. Much like with its sequel (The Curse of the Cat People, a masterful film in its own right), Cat People is rich enough to be viewed and debated on numerous levels; a quick glance at IMDb’s message boards provides evidence of this ongoing phenomenon. Peary suggests that this would make a good double bill with Hitchcock’s Marnie (1964), “because of strikingly similar sexual themes and plot elements”. Remade by Paul Schrader in 1982 in a much more literal fashion (a title included in Peary’s book as well).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Simone Simon as Irena
  
• Numerous powerful, memorable sequences
  
• Jacques Tourneur’s direction
  
• Nicholas Musuraca’s hauntingly noir-ish cinematography
  
  
• DeWitt Bodeen’s screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as one of Val Lewton’s true cult classics.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Greatest Films Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Moria Review
• TV Guide Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A lonely, imaginative girl (Ann Carter) befriends a beautiful apparition (Simone Simon) who looks just like the deceased wife of her father (Kent Smith); meanwhile, she becomes acquainted with a dotty neighbor (Julia Dean) who refuses to acknowledge the existence of her own increasingly distraught daughter (Elizabeth Russell).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Childhood
• Friendship
• Psychological Horror
• Robert Wise Films
• Simone Simon Films
• Val Lewton Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this “truly imaginative, magical little sleeper” from “producer Val Lewton’s ‘B’ unit at RKO” a “gem”, noting that it bears “no resemblance” to “any other horror film ever made”. Essentially the story of a lonely, socially awkward only child who imagines herself a beautiful playmate (Lewton’s preferred title for the film was Amy and Her Friend):

it actually defies categorization, and should probably not be labeled a “horror” film at all. In classic Lewton fashion, its chills and frights are suggested rather than shown; indeed, the only monsters here are ones created through the tragedy of life — such as the nearly psychotic Russell, who is being slowly driven off the deep end by her mother’s maddening refusal to acknowledge her existence.

Screenwriter DeWitt Bodeen’s inclusion of this subplot in the storyline at first appears a bit odd — until one begins to recognize the parallels between Russell and Amy: both are lonely, misunderstood individuals who are alienated from their parents, but while one chooses fantastic escape, the other wallows in increasingly hostile and dangerous bitterness to soothe her emotional wounds.

Interestingly, while Peary labels this a “so-called sequel” to Cat People, arguing that it “has no resemblance to its predecessor”, this isn’t technically accurate: Bodeen’s screenplay actually creatively imagines what might have happened to each of the central protagonists of Cat People a few years after that film’s tragic denouement. In this follow-up story, Smith is now (predictably) married to sympathetic Randolph, and they have a child:

— but Smith remains so haunted and guilt-ridden by his troubled past that he suspects Carter of somehow representing or channeling his late wife. Meanwhile — depending upon how literally one wishes to view Carter’s imaginative friendship — Simon’s character here could be viewed (as one contributor on IMDb’s message board posits) as finally having achieved some peace after her tortured life, and bringing her new-found happiness to the daughter who might have been her own. Despite a few creakingly dated elements (wait until you hear Carter’s teacher’s opinion about spankings!), this remains a true sleeper, one which all film fanatics are sure to want to check out.

Note: This was, as Peary notes, “probably the first horror film ever screened at child-psychology courses”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Ann Carter as Alice
  
• Nicholas Musuraca’s cinematography
  
• DeWitt Bodeen’s lovely, sensitive screenplay about childhood and loneliness
  

Must See?
Yes, as an acknowledged classic by Lewton.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Moria Review
• Another Old Movie Blog Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An evil fairy named Maleficent (Eleanor Audley) — upset about not being invited to the birth celebration of Princess Aurora (Mary Costa) — curses her to die on her 16th birthday. In an attempt to keep the princess safe from harm, a trio of goodnatured fairies — Flora (Verna Felton), Fauna (Barbara Jo Allen), and Merryweather (Barbara Ludd) — raise her in the forest; but will she remain safe from Maleficent’s wrath?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Folk Tales, Fairy Tales, and Mythology
• Royalty and Nobility
• Revenge

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “elaborate, charming animated feature by Walt Disney” — the second highest grossing film of the year (after Ben Hur) — has been “criticized for not being humorous enough or exciting enough (until the end) to please children”, but notes that he saw it in a “theater full of quiet kids who were absolutely spellbound”. He argues that while “the animation is not as flamboyant as in other Disney cartoons”, there is nonetheless “some fine detail work” (sadly, this was the last Disney film in which cels were inked by hand), and the Technicolor hues are truly gorgeous. Indeed, the animation style (inspired by European medieval painting and architecture — see stills below) is strategically different from that found in other Disney features, in part because — according to a bit of IMBd trivia — Disney’s “constant mantra to his animators” was that Sleeping Beauty could NOT be like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).

While Peary refers to Aurora as “one of the sexiest and most beautiful of Disney’s animated heroines”, she unfortunately — much like Snow White — can’t really be considered the film’s central protagonist, given that she only appears on-screen for 18 minutes. Meanwhile, her romance with Prince Philip (Bill Shirley) is as slight and meaningless as Snow White’s with Prince Charming. Instead, it’s Aurora’s fairy godmothers — “who are like three lovable, squabbling, slightly daffy maiden aunts” — who drive the story forward, and are featured in some of the film’s most enjoyable scenes. The most justifiably celebrated sequence, however, is the “spectacular” “climactic battle on Forbidden Mountain”, between Prince Philip and the evil Maleficent — this scene, while far too scary for young viewers, is a truly thrilling, masterfully animated denouement.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A unique animation style
  
• An eye-popping technicolor palette
  
• Many enjoyable sequences
  
  
• The exciting climax on Forbidden Mountain
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Disney’s enduring classics.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A baby elephant is ridiculed because of his enormous ears, and exiled to working as a clown — but with the help of his friend Timothy Q. Mouse (Edward Brophy), he soon discovers his true potential.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Carnivals and Circuses
• Misfits
• Talking Animals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this classic animated feature about a misfit/freak who is “laughed at and rejected by the ones [he tries] to befriend” a “Disney film with heart”, noting that while it was “made on the cheap, to help recoup heavy studio losses”, it nonetheless remains one of the studio’s “finest, sweetest, least pretentious films”. He points out that “the characters are a memorable lot and are drawn expertly”, that the “action animation is exceptional” (with “excellent use… made of quick cuts and extreme angles”), and that “the story… manages to be both frightening (like, say, Oliver Twist) and charming.” He calls out in particular the famed “Pink Elephants” dance sequence — representing a “nightmare the drunk Dumbo is having” — as “one of the greatest bits of animation in all of Disney”. At just an hour long, the heartwarming story literally flies by, from its inspired opening sequence (involving a stork — Sterling Holloway — delivering Dumbo to his eagerly awaiting mother), to the infamously distressing scene in which Dumbo attempts to communicate with his wrongly caged mother, to its triumphant finale (preceded by a pivotal scene involving a quartet of helpful jivin’ crows). Dumbo deserves its celebrated spot in animation history, and merits multiple enjoyable viewings by all film fanatics.

Note: Other than the “traumatic” mother-child separation scene cited above, Dumbo is probably the film most suitable for young children out of all of Disney’s early features.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A truly heartwarming (and at times heartbreaking) screenplay
  
• Creative animation
  
• The memorably infamous “pink elephants” sequence
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Disney’s most justifiably acclaimed classics.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Ultimate Disney Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A recently deceased man (Don Ameche) reflects on his womanizing past and troubled marriage to a beautiful midwestern girl (Gene Tierney), as he tries to convince the Devil (Laird Cregar) that he belongs in Hell.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Coburn Films
• Death and Dying
• Don Ameche Films
• Ernst Lubitsch Films
• Fantasy
• Flashback Films
• Gene Tierney Films
• Historical Drama
• Laird Cregar Films
• Louis Calhern Films
• Marital Problems
• Play Adaptations
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Critics remain divided about this late-career outing by Ernst Lubitsch, a film which Peary refers to as “an immensely enjoyable comedy of manners”. He notes that, “with the exception of one early scene”, it’s a “rare Lubitsch film in which the characters don’t take turns successfully deceiving one another into believing they’re someone they’re not” — yet, ironically, it’s about a “self-deluded man” trying (unsuccessfully) to convince the Devil (a perfectly cast yet underused Cregar) that he’s “sinned so much in his life playing Casanova that he qualifie[s] for entrance into Hades”.

Peary argues that while the “film is a bit too long”, “its rewards are plenty”: in addition to its “superb” acting, he calls out the “consistently splendid dialogue by Samson Raphaelson”, noting that “every time anyone says anything, you’ll think that’s exactly what should have been said”. He cites a number of “wonderfully written, beautifully played two-character scenes”, and notes that, “this being Lubitsch’s first color film, much attention was paid to period detail and art design”.

Interestingly, the film’s flashback structure — beginning and ending in a remarkably tasteful Art Deco Hell — wasn’t part of the original play upon which the film is based (Birthday, by Leslie Bush-Fekete); yet it firmly grounds this episodic story as the reflective tale of a man who feels deeply guilty for not being more faithful to his gorgeous, loyal wife (Tierney, truly stunning in Technicolor turn-of-the-century outfits).

Ironically, it’s this very premise (Ameche’s enduring playboy lifestyle) that’s somewhat lacking in the film’s screenplay — perhaps to strategic effect. One’s first reaction while watching this film is, “Hey! When are we going to see some evidence of Ameche’s supposed Casanova ways?”, given that other than his nicely handled wooing of Tierney — and a later seduction scene with a young chorus girl (in which all is not what it seems):

— we really don’t see adult Ameche playing the field at all. Instead, we’re a witness to his extreme devotion to Tierney over several decades — a devotion which belies his own belief that he’s somehow sullied their marriage enough to merit a permanent spot in Hell. And perhaps — as Peary suggests — that’s the film’s essential point.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Don Ameche as Henry Van Cleve
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Vibrant technicolor cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Lubitsch’s (contested) classics. Nominated as one of the best films of the year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Moria Review (spoiler alert)
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A henpecked store owner (W.C. Fields) receives an inheritance and dreams of moving to California, against the wishes of his overbearing wife (Kathleen Howard).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Family Problems
• Henpecked Husbands
• Inheritance
• W.C. Fields Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “side-splitting W.C. Fields comedy” — essentially “a series of set-pieces strung together” — is “the best showcase for the comedian’s unique brand of humor, which is based on characters annoying one another.” He notes that “it is these annoyances, piled one on top of the other, that in Fields’s eyes summed up the life of a married man in America”; indeed, It’s a Gift probably remains the most iconic representation of henpecked-dom in cinematic history. Peary points out, however, that while “the domesticated Fields is suffocating, he isn’t entirely defeated by his constrained life”, given that he “still has his wonderful vices”, and “remains an iconoclast in a world of conformists”. Indeed, Peary argues that while Fields’s Harold Bissonnette apparently “endures indignities without self-pity or complaints” and “accepts the absurdity of his world”, we are nonetheless privy — at least in the final shot — to “how Harold feels about his life under his expressionless facade”.

I recall being truly enamored by It’s a Gift when I first saw it years ago, and was looking forward to a revisit — yet I must admit that I no longer find the film quite as “side-splitting” as Peary (and so many other diehard fans) consider it to be. While I continue to appreciate the craftsmanship of each “hilarious”, expertly orchestrated vignette (which Peary spends the remainder of his review summarizing), I apparently wasn’t in the right mood to enjoy watching Bissonnette passively accepting one indignity after the other: a little of Fields’s characteristic sarcasm and mean-spirited retorts were actually missed! With that said, first time viewers (at the very least) are sure to enjoy watching the classic grocery sequence (involving a reckless blind patron, an irate kumquat requester, and a molasses-spilling child):

… the attempted porch-sleeping sequence (interrupted by countless annoyances, both inanimate and human):

… and the truly jawdropping manor picnic sequence (in which Bissonnette and his family cluelessly trash the lawn of an estate they’ve mistaken for a park).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Numerous humorous vignettes
  

Must See?
Yes, as an acknowledged comedic classic. Peary nominates the film as one of the best pictures of the year — and Fields himself as one of the best actors of the year — in his Alternate Oscars book. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Greatest Films Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young pigkeeper named Taran (Grant Bardsley) is sent on a mission to locate and destroy a magical black cauldron coveted by the evil Horned King (John Hurt).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Coming of Age
• Fantasy
• John Hurt Films
• Search

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “25th cartoon feature” by Disney — its “first 70 mm cartoon since Sleeping Beauty” — by noting that “critics overpraised” it “out of appreciation for the studio’s attempt to return to old-style, ambitious animation”. He argues that it “doesn’t have the subtlety of the Disney classics”, but notes that “while the backgrounds are lifeless”, obvious “care was taken in animating foreground action, as well as character movements and facial expressions”. He accurately points out that “the human characters are a bit innocuous” (indeed, they’re imminently forgettable), and that “the plot has few surprises and many weak points”. However, he argues that kids “won’t be bored”, that it’s a “pleasant diversion” for adults, and that it “makes the refreshing point that loyalty and friendship are more important than heroism”.

These days — especially knowing that a handful of neo-Disney masterpieces (i.e., The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast) were yet to come — The Black Cauldron definitely strikes one as more of an innocuous “miss” than anything worth celebrating as a come-back. Indeed, Time Out calls it a “major disappointment”, while many others note that it simply recycles a number of cliches from earlier Disney films while failing to bring any charm or originality to the proceedings. Meanwhile, Richard Scheib of Moria points out that the film’s timing was unfortunate as well, given that it was conceived right around the time when Star Wars (1977) was enjoying tremendous popularity, but not released until the mid-80s, when “the genre had moved on”. Ultimately, then, this one is only must-see for Disney completists.

Note: The “cowardly half-human-half-creature Gurgi” — erroneously labeled by Peary as “cute” and “cuddly” — has got to be one of Disney’s most annoying sidekicks EVER. (“Oh, poor miserable Gurgi deserves fierce smackings and whackings on his poor, tender head. Always left with no munchings and crunchings.” Arrgh!). He’s eerily reminiscent of Andy Serkis’s Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy (which in itself was a clearly an inspiration for Lloyd Alexander’s original children’s fantasy series, upon which this film was based).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some effectively creepy animation
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re a Disney completist.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• Stomp Tokyo Review
• Moria Review
• DVD Dizzy Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A young American (Joel McCrea) sailing the South Seas falls in love with a Polynesian princess (Dolores del Rio) doomed to a fiery fate.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Cultural Romance
• Dolores del Rio Films
• Joel McCrea Films
• King Vidor Films
• Play Adaptation
• South Sea Islands

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this “exotic South Seas romance” by director King Vidor, Peary notes that it’s “very stilted” and “doesn’t hold up as well as” either its thematic predecessor — F.W. Murnau’s Tabu (1931) — or Tarzan the Ape Man, released the same year. In typical Peary fashion, he argues that “the major enjoyment comes from looking at [the] healthy bodies of [the] two leads and hoping that the wind blows up the lei that covers Del Rio’s naked breasts” (!!) — a point which, to give him credit, is actually not that far from the truth. McCrea and del Rio (both just 27 years old at the time) are enormously striking young lovers, and — given the film’s pre-Code release date — their physical attraction to one another is presented in a refreshingly sensuous manner. Peary accurately notes that this early talkie is shot and scored (by Max Steiner) like a silent film; indeed, without too much effort, it could easily have been one. With that said, however, it’s refreshing to hear how Luana (del Rio) and Johnny (McCrea) are unable to communicate with each other verbally for a realistic period of time — that is, Luana doesn’t suddenly become fluent in English after just a few weeks in Johnny’s presence. Watch for the erotic and touching final scene between the two lovers, which also highlights the enormous cultural divide that exists between them.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Sexy Joel McCrea and Dolores del Rio
  
• Creative direction
  
• Clyde de Vinna’s atmospheric cinematography
  
• Max Steiner’s historically groundbreaking score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• SciFilm Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review