Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983)

Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983)

Comments 1 comment

“Would you like to talk about the meaning of life, dear?”

Synopsis:
British comedy troupe Monty Python enacts a series of sketches about the absurdity of birth, child-rearing, and human existence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Episodic Films
  • Monty Python Films

Review:
The Trivia section on IMDb provides some revealing insights into the inception and production of this final Monty Python collaboration, openly acknowledged by the troupe as one of its lesser (and less coherent) efforts. Python claims to have refused to show Universal Studios a script, instead relying on collective inspiration and strategic ad-libbing to produce a series of loosely linked vignettes — some of which are (inevitably) more successful than others. It opens with a Terry Gilliam-directed live short entitled “The Crimson Permanent Assurance” — originally conceived as an homage to the cinematic convention of showing a short film before the feature presentation, though in typically surreal Python fashion, it re-emerges later as part of the overall episodic arc. Next we’re presented with a developmental overview of humanity, beginning with the Miracle of Birth and proceeding through Growth and Learning, Middle Age, Live Organ Transplants (!), the Autumn Years, and Death (with the Middle of the Film and the End of the Film — as well as an exploration of the Meaning of Life — thrown in for the sake of cohesion and philosophical rigor).

Sketches in Part I (The Miracle of Birth) and Part II (Growth and Learning) are the most memorable and inspired, and could easily be considered must-see viewing in their own right — indeed, all film fanatics should likely be familiar with the magical “machine that goes ping”, with what happens when one believes that “every sperm is sacred”, and with the fact that a classroom setting can turn even a live sex act into a humdrum, yawn-inducing mundanity. Unfortunately, most of the later vignettes are decidedly less amusing, though the infamous “Mr. Creosote” sketch — in which a morbidly obese man is enjoined to eat one more “wafer thin” treat before literally exploding — should likely be endured once, simply for its cultural relevance. (Quentin Tarantino apparently admitted to finding it beyond his own considerable gruesome-tolerance level — no small admission.) Ultimately, however, film fanatics unfamiliar with Monty Python’s cinematic genius should start with their cult masterpiece, Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) — and decide from there whether they’re interested in exploring more.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Several genuinely surreal, hilarious, and memorable sequences

Must See?
No, though it’s obviously must-see for Monty Python fans, and certainly worth a look by all film fanatics. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Life With Father (1947)

Life With Father (1947)

Comments 1 comment

“Vinnie, we have four children — if we’re not married now, we never will be!”

Synopsis:
In 1880s New York, the domineering father (William Powell) and scatterbrained mother (Irene Dunne) of four red-headed boys (Jimmy Lydon, Derek Scott, Johnny Calkins, and Martin Milner) deal with a series of household challenges — including Lydon’s crush on a beautiful visiting teen (Elizabeth Taylor), and Dunne’s distress that Powell has never been baptized.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Edmund Gwenn Films
  • Elizabeth Taylor Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Irene Dunne Films
  • Michael Curtiz Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • William Powell Films
  • Zasu Pitts Films

Review:
Clarence Day Jr.‘s affectionate homage to his Victorian-era upbringing was originally published as an autobiographical memoir in 1935, then turned into the longest-running non-musical play on Broadway before gaining an even wider audience via this cinematic adaptation (directed by Michael Curtiz) and finally being made into a T.V. series in the mid-’50s. Clearly, Day’s recollections of his parents’ loving yet contentious pre-Suffrage marriage struck a nerve with audience members of the day, many of whom likely appreciated watching a domineering control freak effectively “managed” by his clever wife. To that end, Dunne’s ability to run her household the way she wants to — through strategic use of deception, feigned ignorance, and passive-aggressive techniques — is played for laughs, most notably in her extended ploy to trick her reluctant husband into getting baptized.

While dosing his anecdotal storyline with plenty of humor and nostalgia, Day makes it clear that one of his primary goals is to reveal the inanity (and futility) of his father’s dated patriarchal beliefs:

“Men have to run this world, and it’s not an easy job. It takes work and it takes thinking. A man has to reason things out. Now you take a woman, a woman doesn’t think at all. If a man thinks a certain thing is wrong, he shouldn’t do it. If he thinks it’s right, he should do it. You just have to let the women know that what you’re doing is for their good. Be firm.”

The fact that Day manages to salvage his father’s character while simultaneously skewering such nonsensical drivel reveals the secret to the film’s blockbuster success. Meanwhile, Michael Curtiz’s solid direction helps move the proceedings along smoothly. With that said, Life With Father will likely only hold minimal appeal for modern film fanatics, and remains of interest primarily to see Dunne and Powell’s typically solid lead performances. Fans of Elizabeth Taylor will also, of course, want to watch it for her:

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • William Powell as “Father”
  • Irene Dunne as Vinnie

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for Dunne and Powell’s performances.

Links:

Our Town (1940)

Our Town (1940)

Comments 1 comment

“The day wouldn’t come when I wouldn’t want to know everything about our town.”

Synopsis:
A narrator (Frank Craven) reflects on the lives, hopes, and dreams of citizens in the small American town of Grover’s Corners, focusing specifically on young sweethearts Emily (Martha Scott) and George (William Holden).

Genres:

  • Beulah Bondi Films
  • Fay Bainter Films
  • Flashback Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Play Adaptation
  • Sam Wood Films
  • Small Town America
  • Thomas Mitchell Films
  • William Holden Films

Review:
This early cinematic adaptation of Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 1938 play remains a solid telling of an oft-staged, deeply philosophical tale about the beauty and value of everyday life. With effectively stylized sets by William Cameron Menzies, atmospheric cinematography by Bert Glennon, a typically distinctive score by Aaron Copland, and confident direction by Sam Wood, the film successfully “opens up” Wilder’s play, maintaining some theatrical conventions while also making creative use of cinematic possibilities. Other than a substantial change to a major event in the third act (sanctioned by Wilder himself, who agreed the play’s original ending would be too downbeat for movie audiences), the film remains relatively faithful to its source material. Watch for fine performances by Oscar-nominated Martha Scott (in her cinematic debut):

a very young William Holden:

and stalwart character actors Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Guy Kibbee, and Thomas Mitchell as Emily and George’s parents.




Note: Film fanatics may be curious to watch this title on a “double bill” with Wood’s 1942 melodrama Kings Row, which offers a less nostalgic, more cynical glimpse into small town life in early-20th-century America.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography by Bert Glennon
  • William Cameron Menzies’ stylized sets
  • Aaron Copland’s memorable score

Must See?
Yes, as a solid adaptation of an American theatrical classic.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

And Then There Were None (1945)

And Then There Were None (1945)

Comments 4 comments

”Let’s face it – we’re in a trap.”

Synopsis:
A group of strangers invited to an isolated island learn that they all have one thing in common: they caused someone’s death in the past and were never punished. Soon they’re being killed off one by one, and must discover the identity of the murderer in their midst before it’s too late.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Barry Fitzgerald Films
  • Ensemble Cast
  • Judith Anderson Films
  • June Duprez Films
  • Louis Hayward Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Old Dark House
  • Rene Clair Films
  • Richard Haydn Films
  • Walter Huston Films

Review:
As Peary notes, this “highly entertaining adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians (called Ten Little Niggers in England, as was the film)” features “an unbeatable cast” (most notably Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston, Judith Anderson, and Louis Hayward), and benefits from both a “witty script by Dudley Nichols and light-touch direction by Rene Clair, who effectively keeps the multi-murder story from becoming bleak” (in part by making “good use of lively music”). He points out that while “it’s fun trying (and most likely failing) to figure out the murderer’s identity… this mystery is just as interesting the second time around when you can watch the killer closely and see how cleverly we are being manipulated by Christie and the filmmakers”.

I’m in complete agreement with Peary’s assessment of this enjoyable, surprisingly light-hearted “Old Dark House” mystery — based on the best-selling mystery novel of all time (though its ending was changed to that of Christie’s stage play of the same name). The characters are all smartly cast and play nicely against one another; this is truly a seamless ensemble piece, with no one performance standing out above the other (though the interactions between Walter Huston as Dr. Armstrong and Barry Fitzgerald as Judge Quinncannon are especially fun). Clair’s creative direction — beginning with the cleverly shot silent opening sequence on the boat, and extending through the exposure of each murder — is seamlessly fluid, keeping us consistently visually engaged, and on the edge of our seats in nervous anticipation.

Note: Film fanatics will likely recognize that this movie serves as a forerunner — both thematically and tonally — for the cult satire Murder By Death (1976); they would make a fun double-bill.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective direction by Clair

  • Fine ensemble performances
  • Atmospheric cinematography by Lucien Andriot
  • Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco’s levity-inspiring score

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable example of the “Old Dark House” genre.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (1952)

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (1952)

Comments 1 comment

“At least when you’ve got money, you can afford to buy your own kind of misery.”

Synopsis:
An eccentric millionaire (Charles Coburn) decides to secretly live with the descendants of a woman who once turned down his proposal of marriage, to determine whether they’re worthy of becoming his heirs. He quickly grows to like the Blaisdell family — including beautiful Millicent (Piper Laurie), her young sister Roberta (Gigi Perreau), her brother Howard (William Reynolds), her parents (Lynn Bari and Larry Gates), and her boyfriend (Rock Hudson) — but when he anonymously gifts the Blaisdells with $100,000, he learns that money is actually causing them more grief than true joy.

Genres:

  • Charles Coburn Films
  • Douglas Sirk Films
  • Inheritance
  • Millionaires
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Musicals
  • Piper Laurie Films
  • Rock Hudson Films
  • Small Town America

Review:
The premise of this frothy ’20s-era “musical” by Douglas Sirk is preposterous — but it’s fun seeing bristly character-actor Coburn in a rare leading role as an avuncular if screwy benefactor, and we can’t help hoping his “Secret Santa” maneuvers will yield positive results. Unfortunately, once Bari’s character shifts into bitchy petulance and snobbery, we get the feeling that Coburn has put all his eggs-of-charity in the wrong basket. One wonders what Sirk’s satirical and narrative aims here are, exactly — especially given that the ultimate moral of the story (money can’t buy love or happiness) isn’t exactly groundbreaking. Sirk’s production values are as colorful as always, and the opening credits are fun — but this one ultimately remains simply a curiosity in Sirk’s oeuvre. For a more potent example of how unexpected wealth can yield surprising challenges, see the fast-paced comedy Brewster’s Millions (1945).

Note: Step away and you’ll miss a brief appearance by James Dean as an (uncredited) “youth at the soda fountain”! (Check out the strange writing on his pants in the still below… I can make out “HOT DOG”.) Does anyone have more info on his presence here?

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Coburn as “John Smith”
  • Coburn’s fun interactions with Gigi Perreau (as young Roberta)
  • Typically fine “Sirk-ian” production values
  • Fun opening credits

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

October Man, The (1947)

October Man, The (1947)

Comments 1 comment

“An injured brain isn’t always logical.”

Synopsis:
A brain-injured man (John Mills) suffering from PTSD feels renewed hope for the future when he falls in love with a caring, beautiful young woman (Joan Greenwood) — but when he’s falsely accused of murdering a neighbor (Molly Newman), he must struggle to clear his name and convince police about the true identity of the killer.

Genres:

  • Falsely Accused
  • Joan Greenwood Films
  • John Mills Films
  • Roy Ward Baker Films

Review:
Roy Ward Baker’s directorial debut — based on a novel and screenplay by Eric Ambler, who also produced the film — remains an intriguing if mildly disappointing exploration of the effects of trauma on one’s sanity and well-being. After a taut opening sequence — during which Mills’ “Jim Ackland” witnesses the death of his friend’s young child (Juliet Mills) in a train crash while sustaining a significant brain injury — we experience brief joy on his behalf as he slowly begins to find peace and happiness, then suffer with him as he’s cruelly taken advantage of by both a vicious gossip (Joyce Carey) and a sociopathic boarder (Edward Chapman). The parallels between Jim’s story and those of countless other WWII veterans suffering from PTSD are unmistakable and poignant — so it’s especially frustrating to find that the pacing and tone of the film become far too leisurely for the potentially gripping material. Atmospheric cinematography and fine performances (by Mills and the supporting cast) make it worth a one-time look — but, as noted by Craig Butler in his All Movie Guide review, “There’s so much that’s good about The October Man that it’s a shame it doesn’t end up as a really good film, rather than a merely satisfactory one”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • John Mills as Jim Ackland
  • A fine supporting cast
  • Erwin Hillier’s noir-ish cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended.

Links:

Shot in the Dark, A (1964)

Shot in the Dark, A (1964)

Comments 2 comments

“I suspect everyone!”

Synopsis:
A bumbling detective (Peter Sellers) is assigned to investigate a series of murders in which a beautiful maid (Elke Sommer) is the prime suspect.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blake Edwards Films
  • Comedy
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • George Sanders Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Peter Sellers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly an enormous fan of this sequel to Blake Edwards’ The Pink Panther (1963), with Peter Sellers returning as the inimitably “prideful yet stupid, bumbling, and accident-prone Inspector Clouseau”. He argues that it’s a “hilarious… farce”, and that while “the storyline” (based on a play) “is fairly conventional”, “Sellers makes it unique”. He writes that “like Don Adams’s Maxwell Smart, [Clouseau] never realizes that he’s anything but a lethal, supercool detective, although everyone else sees that he’s a fool”. I’ll agree with Peary that Sellers is masterful here; one watches his portrayal with admiration and an occasional chuckle. But the film itself — while certainly watchable — simply hasn’t held up all that well. Comedies are notoriously challenging to call out as either successful or not, given how uniquely each viewer will respond to (potentially) humorous material; for my money, the Pink Panther films are semi-decent vehicles for Clouseau’s pratfalls, but little else.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  • The clever opening credits
  • Henry Mancini’s score

Must See?
Yes, simply to see the best of the popular “Pink Panther” series. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars, though I don’t believe it deserves this status.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Pink Panther, The (1963)

Pink Panther, The (1963)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m sure no one ever had a husband like you.”

Synopsis:
A British playboy (David Niven) and his nephew (Robert Wagner) separately attempt to steal a valuable jewel from a princess (Claudia Cardinale) while bumbling police inspector Jacques Clouseau (Peter Sellers) — whose wife (Capucine) is having an affair with Niven — tries to determine the identity of a notorious jewel thief known as “The Phantom” (Niven).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blake Edwards Films
  • Capucine Films
  • Claudia Cardinale Films
  • Comedies
  • David Niven Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Peter Sellers Films
  • Robert Wagner Films
  • Thieves and Criminals

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “overrated Blake Edwards comedy at least gave Peter Sellers his first chance to play bumbling Inspector Closeau”, and that “Sellers completely steals the film from the other stars, including topbilled David Niven”. He points out that beautiful Capucine (whose personal life was quite tragic) is “surprisingly good doing physical comedy with Sellers”; indeed, the “abundance of sight gags” — primarily between these two characters — are what stand out most in one’s memory. Unfortunately, the “film drags badly when Clouseau isn’t on the screen”, with the forgettable storyline seemingly designed as an excuse merely for audience members to drool at the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Of note are Henry Mancini’s beloved score, and DePatie-Freleng‘s animated opening credits — but this one really can be skipped.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau and Capucine as his deceptive wife
  • The clever animated opening credits
  • Henry Mancini’s score

Must See?
No; stick with A Shot in the Dark (1964) if you’d like to see a reasonably worthy entry in the series.

Links:

Dark Victory (1939)

Dark Victory (1939)

Comments 1 comment

“Confidentially, darling, this is more than a hang-over.”

Synopsis:
A headstrong young heiress (Bette Davis) with an inoperable brain tumor falls in love with her surgeon (George Brent), believing he’s cured her — but how will she react when she finds out that both Brent and her best friend (Geraldine Fitzgerald) are lying to her?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bette Davis Films
  • Death and Dying
  • Edmund Goulding Films
  • George Brent Films
  • Geraldine Fitzgerald Films
  • Heiresses
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Illness
  • Romance
  • Ronald Reagan Films
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “famous Warner Bros. weeper features [a] powerhouse performance from a truly lovely, appealing Bette Davis”, who — “in her favorite role” — plays “a kind, strong-minded heiress who has frittered her life away partying, riding horses, [and] shopping”:

… but must confront her own mortality when she begins “suffer[ing] vision problems” and learns that her “prognosis is negative”.

I wouldn’t necessarily choose the words “kind” or “appealing” when describing Davis’s “Judy Traherne”, given that she initially comes across as sullen, brash, and spoiled — “When I tell you to do something, do it!” she barks at her horse trainer, played by a notoriously miscast Humphrey Bogart:

— but she does indeed later “demonstrate a tremendous reserve of strength that few women in film have shown and it’s quite moving”. As with so many “Bette Davis films”, Davis is truly the highlight of the show here: Brent (her real-life lover) is more or less “stiff and wimpy as usual” as her surgeon/love interest:

… and while Peary refers to Fitzgerald as “superb”, I find her doting character oddly opaque.

With that said, the “direction by Edmond Goulding is both strong and sensitive”, and Davis’s character arc is compelling. As Peary notes, despite the “morbid” subject matter and the “tears caused by the drawn-out finale, the triumph of this woman at the point of death actually has a cheering effect”. Watch for Ronald Reagan in a supporting role as Davis’s consistently inebriated party companion.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bette Davis as Judith Traherne (nominated by Peary in Alternate Oscars as one of the Best Actresses of the Year)

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic, and for Davis’s performance.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Of Human Bondage (1934)

Of Human Bondage (1934)

Comments 1 comment

“There’s usually one who loves, and one who is loved.”

Synopsis:
A club-footed medical student (Leslie Howard) falls obsessively in love with a cold, calculating waitress (Bette Davis) who repeatedly leaves him for other men.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alan Hale Films
  • Bette Davis Films
  • Femmes Fatales
  • Frances Dee Films
  • John Cromwell Films
  • Leslie Howard Films
  • Obsessive Love

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this adaptation of the second half of W. Somerset Maugham’s thrice-filmed novel — directed by John Cromwell — is “static, claustrophobic, and uninterestingly acted by Howard”:

… but that it’s “worth watching” as “the film which really launched Davis’s career”.

In Alternate Oscars, Peary names Davis Best Actress of the Year for her performance as the “mean and menacing” Mildred, a “cold-hearted, money-loving opportunist who treats Philip like dirt” — or, in the words of New York Times film critic Mourdant Hall, “a heartless little ingrate”. In Alternate Oscars, Peary provides more detailed information on how and why Davis came to take on this role, which “no major Hollywood actress would consider playing” — she apparently “wasn’t concerned about image because no one really knew who she was after twenty-one pictures”, and she “figured [this was] her one shot at stardom”.

Peary writes that this role “made such an impression because it was conceived and played in such an original manner” by Davis, given that her Mildred “isn’t especially pretty… or alluring” and “isn’t smart or knowledgeable”. He points out that she “is not a vamp, she is just cheap, stupid, and shallow” — which is precisely why Howard’s relentless obsession with her is so fascinating.

As Peary argues, Philip “hates himself for being a cripple… [and] Mildred is his punishment”. Indeed, Davis’s Mildred is a unique variation on a femme fatale: she’s clearly Philip’s undoing, yet he’s almost entirely responsible for their continued dysfunctional “relationship”. She could genuinely care less about him, but — almost to her own surprise — he continues to make himself available to her time and again; and so, as an inveterate manipulator, she takes easy advantage. Theirs is a morbidly fascinating dynamic — not one I find pleasant to watch, but certainly one film fanatics should see at least once.

Note: Peary ends his review by stating he’s “never seen a film in which so many letters are read” — really? That’s somehow hard to imagine.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bette Davis as Mildred

Must See?
Yes, for Davis’s Oscar-nominated performance.

Categories

  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Categories

Links: