FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
After returning from a weekend retreat on sensitivity, a documentary-maker (Robert Culp) and his wife (Natalie Wood) decide to be completely open with one another — but when Culp admits to having a sexual fling and an unperturbed Wood thanks him for being honest, their married best friends (Dyan Cannon and Elliott Gould) don’t know what to make of the situation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Counterculture
• Dyan Cannon Films
• Elliott Gould Films
• Infidelity
• Marital Problems
• Natalie Wood Films
• Paul Mazursky Films
• Sexuality

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “still funny debut film by Paul Mazursky, about the changing and confused sexual mores of the upper middle class in Southern California during the late sixties… was not as thematically daring as it pretended to be”, and ends with a “cop-out” — but that until its final moments, it is “well written and contains many hilarious vignettes, including an aroused Gould and a disinterested Cannon (both new film stars) in bed after hearing of Culp’s infidelity:

… Culp telling Wood of his affair and becoming slightly annoyed that she’s not jealous:

… Cannon talking to her psychiatrist about her sexual confusion:

… [and] Culp offering a drink to a nervous lover”.

While I agree with Peary that each of the above scenes (among others) is cleverly written and dryly humorous, I disagree with his assertion that the film’s ending is disappointing in any way. This may be a “mainstream movie with an ending… that allowed middle-class viewers to go home happy”, but Culp’s willingness to be open with his wife about his infidelity actually comes across as quite radical, and leads to an equally “radical” response by Wood — not to mention an incisive skewering of gender norms (there’s a dilly of a double-standard that emerges at a certain point in the script, and is nicely handled).

Peary also asserts that “one problem” in the film is that “all four characters come across like jerks by the end,” but I think this is exactly the point. When given permission to follow their desires at whim, without concern for (traditional) social conventions, these characters temporarily devolve into expected narcissism — which doesn’t exactly make them likable; they’re experimenting, and part of the fun in watching their travails is to see how foolishly they flounder.

The only character who emerges semi-triumphant within the new state of affairs (at least until the culminating scene) is Wood — who, on a side note, was indeed “never prettier” (a fact which slyly contributes to the inanity of Culp’s decision to cheat on her). The picture’s ultimate moral, I think, is that social strictures and contracts (complete with strategic deception, as needed) exist for a reason, serving as useful tools for navigating the undeniably tricky waters of long-term relationships; it’s to Mazursky’s credit that his film — rather than seeming dated — remains such a potent example of this fact.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Natalie Wood as Carol
  
• Dyan Cannon as Alice
  
• Elliott Gould as Ted
  
• Robert Culp as Bob
  
• The hilariously incisive opening sequence at the retreat
  
• Mazursky’s surprisingly sharp script

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance, and as an engaging marital drama.

Categories

• Good Show
• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When the wife (Bette Davis) of a plantation manager (Herbert Marshall) is accused of murdering a man (David Newell) who tried to rape her, a family-friend lawyer (Joseph Stephenson) is determined to get her acquitted; but when he learns from an envoy (Victor Sen Yung) about a letter possessed by Newell’s wife (Gale Sondergaard) — supposedly sent to Newell by Davis on the day he was murdered — circumstances suddenly become much more challenging.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bette Davis Films
• Blackmail
• Cecil Kellaway Films
• Herbert Marshall Films
• Lawyers
• Plantations
• Play Adaptation
• William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “second film adaptation of Somerset Maugham’s play” — originally starring Oscar-nominated Jeanne Eagels in a 1929 silent version — features a “fine performance by Davis”, who he argues is better than all other actresses “at playing characters who act their way through life”; indeed, thanks to superb direction by Wyler (with whom she had a close romantic and professional connection), Davis never hits a false note in her portrayal as an endlessly deceptive woman whose true motivations and loyalties we’re kept guessing about until the very end.

However, Peary accurately points out that “perhaps the most interesting character is Stephenson, who despises Davis yet commits a crime for her… that could ruin his career”.

Peary argues that “obviously, [Stephenson] finds himself intrigued by [Davis’s] wicked nature because that’s what makes her special and excitingly different from his conventional wife”; however, it’s equally plausible that Stephenson merely feels loyalty to his long-time friends, and dedicated to carrying out his promise of acquittal.

Character motivations aside, the film itself remains a wonderfully produced and directed piece of exotic noir. As Peary writes, “Wyler’s direction is moody” (I would use the word “atmospheric” instead), and “there are long passages in which dialogue is sparse or nonexistent and the erotic tension is built through Max Steiner’s music, shadows, sounds (wind, wind chimes), the moon floating through the clouds, character movements and expressions”; Tony Gaudio’s stark cinematography contributes as well to the film’s sense of mystery and menace. However, while Peary argues that “the worst aspect of the film is the embarrassingly invidious portrayal of the non-white characters, which almost justifies the colonialists’ matter-of-fact racism”, I can’t really agree with this assessment. True, it would have been better to cast an Asian (or Eurasian) actress in Sondergaard’s role:

… but her performance as a bitter woman grieving her murdered husband isn’t particularly offensive (I don’t blame her for feeling vindictive!); and Victor Sen Yung’s portrayal as her deceptively obsequious courier is far from dumb or demeaning, instead effectively demonstrating alternate forms of power played out by savvy non-Europeans in a neo-colonial arena.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bette Davis as Leslie (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• James Stephenson as Howard
  
• Victor Sen Yung as Ong
  
• Tony Gaudio’s cinematography
  
  
• Wyler’s confident direction
  
  
• Evocative sets
  
• Max Steiner’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Articles
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
A pair of on-leave sailors — bashful Clarence (Frank Sinatra) and ladies’ man Joe (Gene Kelly) — both fall for the beautiful singing aunt (Kathryn Grayson) of a young would-be sailor (Dean Stockwell), and promise her an audition with famed conductor Jose Iturbi, despite not really knowing him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Animated Features
• Dean Stockwell Films
• Frank Sinatra Films
• Gene Kelly Films
• George Sidney Films
• Kathryn Grayson Films
• Musicals
• Sailors

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that while “Kelly became a big star as the wolf of the navy” in this George Sidney-directed MGM wartime musical, “Sinatra is better as his best friend, a bashful manchild from Brooklyn” who “falls for sweet… Grayson” and “tries to impress her by promising her a singing audition with Jose Iturbi”. He argues that the “flimsy plotline is not helped by timid romantic leads Kelly and Grayson” — but this complaint doesn’t quite hold water, since Kelly and Grayson are justifiably reticent to express their feelings for one another given Sinatra’s initial interest in Grayson (and Kelly’s noble attempt to step out of his way). Meanwhile, Peary asks, “Who cares about a story centered on orchestra conductor Iturbi?”, but this complaint also isn’t quite accurate, given that Iturbi only shows up to contribute some musical numbers, and his presence primarily functions as a plot device.

With that said, I do have some complaints of my own: while Grayson’s romantic timidity makes sense to me, she’s simply not a very nuanced or interesting character (and her singing style is way too dated to appeal to most viewers). Even worse, the film goes on for far too long (2 hours and 20 minutes!), and the storyline really isn’t all that compelling. Its primary calling card — what all viewers immediately think of when they recall the film in their minds — is Kelly’s “celebrated duo with MGM cartoon star Jerry the mouse”, executed to perfection; any film fanatic unfamiliar with this number should immediately check it out on YouTube. In addition, as Peary notes, “Sinatra’s singing (of okay songs by Jules Styne and Sammy Cahn) is silky smooth” and the “MGM Technicolor is gorgeous”. However, while it’s recommended for one-time viewing, this film is only must-see for musical fans and/or devotees of either Kelly or Sinatra.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Frank Sinatra as Clarence Doolittle
  
• Kelly’s justifiably famous animated dance with Jerry the Mouse
  
• Kelly and Sinatra’s energetic performance of “I Begged Her”
  

Must See?
No, though Kelly’s dance with Jerry is definitely must-see — check it out on YouTube.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Classic Film Guide Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A nebbishy short-order cook (Dudley Moore) enlists the help of the Devil (Peter Cook) in attracting the attention of a pretty waitress (Eleanor Bron) he has a crush on.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Dudley Moore Films
• Pact With the Devil
• Raquel Welch Films
• Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “although [it’s] dated, Dudley Moore and Peter Cook’s irreverent Faust tale in mod clothing was much funnier than other British imports of its day”. He notes that it “combined the absurdity and breezy style of Richard Lester; the mixture of ridiculousness and sophistication of early Peter Sellers/Alec Guinness/Ian Carmichael/Alistair Sim films; the verbal outrageousness and slapstick of the later Peter Sellers; [and] the lowbrow comedy of the Carry On Series,” while also drawing upon Moore and Cook’s Beyond the Fringe revue act. He points out that while “Cook and Moore don’t do much visual comedy… much of the verbal repartee is brilliant”, and he praises “how adeptly their voices and mannerisms change as they change characters and move from class to class, in the various segments that comprise the film”. He argues that while the “vignettes aren’t particularly clever, [they] all have funny moments”, and points out that the “film dares make God, who no longer pays attention to human prayers and whose petty feud with Satan causes misery among mortals, into the villain of the piece”.

I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s review — though I disagree with his assertion that its “delight today is to catch a nostalgic glimpse of [the] once-wonderful comedy team”. Indeed, most modern viewers will never have heard of Cook-and-Moore (unless they’ve seen the duo in The Wrong Box), and will primarily be familiar with Moore from his later (solo) work, in 10 (1979) and the Arthur films. Therefore, the film must stand on its own as a comedy — and to that end, I believe it still “works”. While it may not be uproariously funny, the very premise itself — that “Cook’s Satan is more of a prankster than Evil personified” — is clever enough to keep one consistently engaged; I found myself especially eager for the “inter-vignette” moments, to see where and how Cook would next be wreaking gentle havoc on the Earth (by, for instance, “ripping out the last page of Agatha Christie mysteries, scratching record albums, making grocery bags tear open, setting wasps loose on picnickers”:

… or “calling up women and revealing to them their husbands’ infidelities”:

… as Peary writes in his Cult Movies 2 review). It’s all good fun, and certainly worth a one-time look by film fanatics, especially given its (onetime?) cult status.

Note: Raquel Welch’s appearance here — as Lust personified — is brief but memorable.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Peter Cook as George Spiggott/the Devil
  
• Eleanor Bron as Margaret
  
  
  
• A clever, fast-paced screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review