War and Peace (1956)

War and Peace (1956)

Comments 3 comments

“War is the most horrible thing in life.”

Synopsis:
In Napoleonic-era Russia, the illegitimate son (Henry Fonda) of a dying count marries a beautiful woman (Anita Ekberg) who simply wants his inheritance. Meanwhile, Prince Andrei (Mel Ferrer) falls in love with the sister (Audrey Hepburn) of Fonda’s friend Nikolai (Jeremy Brett) — but when both Andrei and Nikolai go off to fight, Hepburn is seduced by Ekberg’s scheming brother (Vittorio Gassman), thus putting her romance with Andrei in jeopardy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anita Ekberg Films
  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • Historical Drama
  • King Vidor Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Mel Ferrer Films

Review:
King Vidor directed this sprawling, 3-1/2 hour adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s epic novel, with many characters and scenes necessarily reduced but the story’s essential narrative threads kept intact. Hepburn is well-cast (and luminously beautiful) as Natasha Rostova:

… and it’s satisfying seeing her romanced on-screen by her real-life husband Ferrer.

Gassman — soon to star as a boxer in Big Deal on Madonna Street (1958) — is appropriately smarmy and charming as the man who manages to cruelly seduce Natasha away from her true love:

… and Ekberg is likewise well-cast (in her breakthrough role) as a woman so sexy that Fonda throws all better sense out the window to marry her.

Unfortunately, it’s universally agreed that middle-aged Fonda was not a good choice to play the central young protagonist Nikolai. Whenever he refers to Natasha as “Na-TASH-a” you hear Fonda’s folksy American roots — and his delivery of the line “Damn you, Napoleon; damn you to hell!” is appropriately lambasted.

The biggest “stars” of this film, however, are Jack Cardiff’s consistently stunning cinematography and the fine historical sets and costumes, which are a pleasure to behold.

Meanwhile, in a story entitled War and Peace, you can expect to see plenty of battles and troops, which are indeed on ample display here, all effectively framed in VistaVision.

However, while Hepburn fans will surely want to see her in this central 1950s starring vehicle — made in between Sabrina (1954) and Funny Face (1957) — it’s not must-see for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jack Cardiff’s cinematography

  • Rich sets and costumes

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a one-time look.

Links:

Verboten! (1959)

Verboten! (1959)

Comments 1 comment

“I will show you there is a difference between a Nazi and a German!”

Synopsis:
When an American sergeant (James Best) is wounded while exploring a sniper-infested village in Germany near the end of World War II, he’s nursed to health by a German woman (Susan Cummings) who he marries — but is Cummings genuinely in love with Best, or just exploiting his access to food? Meanwhile, Cummings’ impressionable younger brother (Harold Daye) becomes more deeply involved in a group of neo-Nazi “werewolves” whose deceptive leader (Tom Pittman) works alongside Best.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • Nazis
  • Sam Fuller Films
  • World War II

Review:
Former G.I. Samuel Fuller wrote, directed, and produced this punchy look at life in post-war Germany, as former Nazis and everyday Germans tried to find a place for themselves in a landscape run by the American Military Government. Made on an incredibly low budget, the film’s sparse sets nonetheless effectively set the tone for a politically confused nation with starving citizens unsure where to turn or what to do next.

Verboten! is notable for preceding Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) in its frank depiction of the atrocities of concentration camps, with ample use made of actual footage — and if Fuller is typically blunt in his handling of dramatic scenes, it’s in service of a story worth telling.

This one is a must-see for Fuller fans, and recommended for others.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Expressive low-budget sets

  • Joseph Biroc’s atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look as a unique film by a unique director.

Links:

Hound-Dog Man (1959)

Hound-Dog Man (1959)

Comments 3 comments

“There comes a time when a boy can lay his belly to the ground and feel the heartbeats of the earth coming up to grass roots; that’s his time to prowl.”

Synopsis:
A boy (Dennis Holmes) and his teenage brother (Fabian) leave their farming parents (Arthur O’Connell and Betty Field) to go on a hunting trip with a womanizing older friend (Stuart Whitman) who flirts with a pretty teen (Carol Lynley). Will Spud (Holmes) be able to keep the hound dog he finds on their journey — and will Whitman keep away from a married woman (Margo Moore) long enough to recognize Lynley is a better match for him?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Betty Field Films
  • Carol Lynley Films
  • Coming of Age
  • Don Siegel Films
  • Musicals

Review:
Following the success of Old Yeller (1957) (based on a children’s novel by Fred Gipson), Jerry Wald at 20th Century Fox secured the film rights for an earlier novel by Gipson, and Don Siegel was hired to direct. The result is this inconsequential coming-of-age tale which turned into a starring vehicle for teen heartthrob Fabian:

… whose character has a crush on pop singer Dodie Stevens (similarly cast for her timely appeal).

While this is purportedly a tale of a boy desperately wanting a dog:

… much more narrative focus is placed on Lynley’s hope that Whitman will take her seriously as a romantic partner.

It’s all innocuous enough but not very engaging — and the songs (other than the earworm refrain to the title song) aren’t all that memorable.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Good use of outdoor locales

Must See?
No; you don’t need to seek out this hard-to-find title. It’s likely included here given Peary’s love of ’50s rock ‘n roll.

Links:

Richard III (1956)

Richard III (1956)

Comments 1 comment

“Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead.”

Synopsis:
In 15th century England, hunchbacked Richard the Duke of Gloucester (Laurence Olivier) seeks support from his cousin the Duke of Buckingham (Ralph Richardson) in gradually bringing down all those ahead of him in line to the throne — including King Edward (Cedric Hardwicke) himself, their brother George (John Gielgud), and Edward’s young children; but Richard soon becomes increasingly paranoid that his newly won success is in jeopardy.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Claire Bloom Films
  • John Gielgud Films
  • Laurence Olivier Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Ralph Richardson Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Ruthless Leaders
  • Shakespeare
  • Siblings

Review:
Peary doesn’t review this BAFTA-winning adaptation of Shakespeare’s play, but he does name Laurence Olivier Best Actor of the Year in his Alternate Oscars, where he describes Olivier’s work as “riveting” and calls it “one of the finest performances of the decade.” He points out that “Olivier the director wisely had Olivier the actor deliver Richard’s soliloquies to us, in a direct manner to suggest it gives him pleasure to reveal his diabolical nature, confess heinous past crimes, and plot aloud his future atrocities to an audience who can do nothing about it.”

He notes that Olivier’s Richard “is as straightforward with us as he is duplicitous with those in the English court,” and writes, “As he strides into a long shot so we can get a good look at his gnarled form or moves to within an inch of the camera, he reveals a sly wit, a frightening ferocity and egocentricity, and a snide superiority and vengeful anger toward the nondeformed world he wants to ‘bustle in’.”

He adds, “What is jolting as he speaks to us is that he isn’t the typical madman lusting for power, but a clear-headed, ambitious schemer extraordinaire.”

For those unfamiliar with the play (like me), it will take a bit of research to understand how all the specific characters fit into place — but the overall sense that no one will be spared from Richard’s evil is crystal clear. Peary writes that “Olivier’s Richard expresses the same amusement and amazement as we do that his bold plot works so smoothly, that he can eliminate his opposition one by one without anyone being the wiser, and that, in a creepy scene, he can seduce the virtuous Lady Anne [Claire Bloom] and have her kiss him lewdly although she wants him dead and is not physically attracted to him.”

The supporting performances throughout are excellent; while Olivier wanted Orson Welles to play Buckingham, I think Richardson fits the bill nicely as his right-hand schemer:

… and the VistaVision cinematography and historic sets are gorgeous. This film isn’t an easy watch, but it’s worth the effort.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Laurence Olivier as Richard III
  • Otto Heller’s cinematography
  • Roger Furse’s production design and Carmen Dillon’s art direction

Must See?
Yes, for Olivier’s performance and as an overall powerful Shakespearean adaptation. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book, and nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Horse Soldiers, The (1959)

Horse Soldiers, The (1959)

Comments 1 comment

“War isn’t exactly a civilized business.”

Synopsis:
During the Civil War, a cavalry brigade led by Col. Marlowe (John Wayne) is sent behind Confederate lines to destroy a railroad, accompanied by a surgeon (William Holden) who Marlowe has issues with. When the unit stops at a plantation owned by Miss Hunter (Constance Towers), she and her slave Lukey (Althea Gibson) are caught spying and taken along as prisoners during the rest of the raid.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cavalry
  • Civil War
  • Deep South
  • Doctors and Nurses
  • John Ford Films
  • John Wayne Films
  • Westerns
  • William Holden Films

Review:
Loosely based on Grierson’s Raid during the Vicksburg Campaign of the American Civil War, this wartime-western by director John Ford gave John Wayne and William Holden their sole opportunity to co-star in a feature — and is notable for a brief (albeit interrupted) fist fight between the two when they try to “duke it out” (sorry, couldn’t resist that one).

It’s also noteworthy for featuring color-line-breaking tennis star Althea Gibson as Towers’ slave Lukey:

… and for affording Towers — probably best known by film fanatics for her starring roles in Sam Fuller’s Shock Corridor (1963) and The Naked Kiss (1964) — her breakthrough leading role. Ford’s direction and cinematography (with support from DP William Clothier) is as top-notch as always:

… but the storyline isn’t particularly memorable (other than showing us how very, very young — or old — so many Confederate soldiers were).

Note: Watch for Anna Lee in a bit part as a Confederate mom desperate for her young son to stay behind when the only “men” left in town are sent to fight.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine direction and cinematography


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

Links:

Wings of Eagles, The (1957)

Wings of Eagles, The (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“Say it, mister: I’m gonna move that toe!”

Synopsis:
After becoming paralyzed due to a fall, former WWI ace flier Frank “Spig” Wead (John Wayne) — who is separated from his wife (Maureen O’Hara) and two young girls — receives help from a longtime friend (Dan Dailey) in learning to walk again, and starts a new life for himself as a Hollywood writer before returning to service in WWII.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Biopics
  • Dan Dailey Films
  • Disabilities
  • John Ford Films
  • John Wayne Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Maureen O’Hara Films
  • Military
  • Ward Bond Films
  • Writers

Review:
John Ford’s affectionate homage to his screenwriter friend Frank “Spig” Wead — perhaps best knowing for writing the play upon which Howard Hawks’s Ceiling Zero (1936) was based, and for scripting Ford’s They Were Expendable (1945) — is a classic inspirational biopic which plays loose with the facts to portray a man obsessively dedicated to his craft, living through a troubled marriage, and rallying to recover after a seemingly devastating accident. The film’s best-known scene shows the ever-chipper Dailey encouraging Wayne to “move that toe!” and get circulation back into his paralyzed body:

… which, by gum, he manages to do. Ward Bond has fun impersonating a Ford-like director who gives Wayne his chance at success in Hollywood:

… and O’Hara is ever-feisty as his disillusioned wife (who somehow thinks it’s okay to leave her young girls alone at home to fend for themselves while she’s off at a bridge club; what a different era that was).

This one is only must-see for John Ford completists or diehard fans of the lead stars.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
No; you can skip this one.

Links:

Big Deal on Madonna Street (1958)

Big Deal on Madonna Street (1958)

Comments 1 comment

“Are we going through with this job or not?”

Synopsis:
A group of inept thieves — including a boxer (Vittorio Gassman), a ladies’ man (Renato Salvatori), a safecracker (Totò), a Sicilian (Tiberio Murga) who keeps his chaste sister (Claudia Cardinale) locked away, and a photographer (Marcello Mastroianni) caring for his young son — attempt to carry out a heist but find their plans continually foiled.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Claudia Cardinale Films
  • Ex-Cons
  • Heists
  • Italian Films
  • Marcello Mastroianni Films
  • Satires and Spoofs

Review:
This comedic caper flick by Italian director Mario Monicello — a spoof of Jules Dassin’s Rififi (1955) — shows exactly how many things can go wrong (and will) when a group of bumbling crooks attempt to pull off a heist they’re so clearly incapable of.

Running throughout the featherweight screenplay are two would-be romances. Salvatori is interested in Cardinale:

… while Gassman woos a beautiful young woman (Carla Gravina) working as a maid for the elderly women who live next door to the joint they want to break into.

Meanwhile, Mastroianni takes loving care of his squalling toddler, whose mom is in prison for smuggling cigarettes.

Do the bungling thieves get away with their heist? (Your first guess is probably the correct one.) I’m sure audiences at the time enjoyed this type of escapist fare, but it’s not must-see viewing for modern film fanatics — unless you happen to have a specific interest in Italian cinema.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Gianni de Venanzo’s atmospheric cinematography
  • Good use of neorealist sets

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

Links:

Seven Samurai, The / Magnificent Seven, The (1954)

Seven Samurai, The / Magnificent Seven, The (1954)

Comments 3 comments

“When you think you’re safe is precisely when you’re most vulnerable.”

Synopsis:
In 16th century Japan, a group of farmers offer food to an aging samurai (Takashi Shimura) in exchange for protection against an impending raid by bandits, and Shimura soon gathers six other men to assist him: an old friend (Daisuke Katō), the son (Isao Kimura) of a wealthy samurai, a good-humored fighter (Minoru Chiaki), a skilled swordsman (Seiji Miyaguchi), a skilled archer (Yoshio Inaba), and an untrained wanderer (Toshirô Mifune).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Akira Kurosawa Films
  • Japanese Films
  • Medieval Times
  • Samurai
  • Toshiro Mifune Films
  • Village Life

Response to Peary s Review:
In his overview of this “tremendous achievement by Akira Kurosawa, regarded by most everyone as one of the all-time great films,” Peary points out that each of the samurai join the rag-tag group of defenders for different reasons, ranging from Shimura being “touched that [the farmers] would sacrifice their rice and be stuck eating millet” in order gain protection, to Inaba “who joins because Shimura’s personality intrigues him,” to Chiaki being welcome “because his sense of humor will more than compensate for him being just an average fighter.”

Peary notes that the final battle — which “takes place in the day during a hard rain, with the men racing back and forth through the mud to block off the road into the village and to battle the horsemen who get through the lines” — is “one of the greatest action sequences in the history of cinema:”

… but he adds that “since Kurosawa’s epic… is peerless as action-adventure, one tends to forget that it’s also a remarkably poignant human drama” — a “brilliant character study where we come to understand that each of the seven samurai takes part in the defense of the village for a personal reason.”

Peary points out that “in addition to dealing with the samurai as individuals and as a group”:

… “Kurosawa takes time to probe the nature of farmers, as individuals and as a group,” leading us to understand “that they are selfish, cruel, and cowardly” but have become that way due to, as Mifune’s character points out, “the looting, raping, enslaving samurai of Japan.”

Peary writes that the “best known directorial element” of this “visual tour-de-force” is that “there is always movement within the frame”; indeed, it’s challenging to capture the film’s essence with stills for this very reason. Ultimately, it’s a movie that needs to be seen to be appreciated — and given how much has already been written about it by others, I humbly defer interested readers to any of the many links below, and/or the Criterion disc’s notable extras.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Takashi Shimura as Kambei Shimada
  • Gorgeous cinematography
  • Many memorable sequences

Must See?
Yes, as a masterful classic.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Ashes and Diamonds (1958)

Ashes and Diamonds (1958)

Comments 1 comment

“I’d like to change some things; rearrange my life.”

Synopsis:
Just after the end of Nazi occupation, a Polish Resistance fighter (Zbigniew Cybulski) and his partner (Adam Pawlikowski) accidentally assassinate innocent men rather than their intended target (Waclaw Zastrzezynski) — and Cybulski soon has a change of heart about his career when he falls for a beautiful bartender (Ewa Krzyzewska).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Assassination
  • Character Arc
  • Eastern European Films
  • Resistance Fighters
  • World War II

Response to Peary s Review:
Peary argues that this “thematically ambiguous Andrzej Wajda film” — about a Resistance fighter who “checks into the same hotel as the aged Communist [he was meant to assassinate] and looks for an opportunity to complete his mission,” but then “has an affair with [a] pretty barmaid… that affects him greatly” — does not successfully convince “American viewers… that Wajda is on the side of the anti-community resistance fighters,” and fails to evoke our sympathy for the two assassins given that the “Party Leader… is old, humble, walks with a cane,” and has a son who “was raised by people of whom he didn’t approve.”

This is likely due to the fact, as DVD Savant points out, that “A popular pro-Communist novel was the source, a choice that insured smooth sailing during production” — although “the powers that be didn’t know that Wajda’s rewrite would displace the central figure of a People’s Minister in favor of a minor character, a hit-man for the nationalists.” To that end, while his actions at first are questionable (given his seeming lack of remorse for killing “the wrong men at the beginning”), Cybulski — “who became a major Polish star because of this film”, and is often likened to James Dean — eventually garners our sympathy given the vulnerability he displays with Krzyzewska.

Peary notes that the “early and late scenes, those in which guns are fired, are fairly exciting”:

… but the “middle scenes” — while “artistically photographed” — are “slow and deadly.” I’m not sure I fully agree, given that the “middle scenes” are designed to show us both Cybulski falling for Krzyzewska (and thus undergoing a transformation), and the humanity of Zastrzezynski (who wasn’t yet tainted by Stalin’s venom) — and there are enough strikingly shot moments to keep us engaged.



Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Zbigniew Cybulski as Maciek
  • Jerzy Wojcik’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as international classic.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

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

Links:

Kanal (1957)

Kanal (1957)

Comments 1 comment

“I know this sewer; the way’s not difficult.”

Synopsis:
During the waning days of the Warsaw Uprising against the Nazis, a dedicated commander (Wienczyslaw Glinski) leads his platoon down into the sewers of the city, where a beautiful blonde (Teresa Izewska) carries a wounded soldier (Tadeusz Janczar), an inexperienced composer (Vladek Sheybal) goes mad, and a married aide (Emil Karewicz) travels alongside his young lover (Teresa Berezowska).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Eastern European Films
  • Resistance Fighters
  • World War II

Response to Peary s Review:
As Peary writes, this “breakthrough film of the Polish cinema, directed by Andrzej Wajda,” centers on “survivors of the Warsaw uprising” — a “platoon of resisters” that “goes below and in the chaos gets split into three groups,” with most becoming “hopelessly lost in the dark.” He points out that as the resisters “wallow waist-deep in filth, they become delirious from the intoxicating fumes,” and “even the strongest and bravest men act helpless, go berserk.”

Only “a young woman (Teresa Izewska) who is alone with her wounded, dying boyfriend knows the escape route, and he is incapable of undertaking the difficult climb.”

Peary notes this film’s similarities with Das Boot (1982) in that is also “shows the claustrophobic horrors endured by soldiers who are trapped below and are at the mercy of both the enemy above and their watery environment” — and both feature “a leader who disagreed with the orders that placed him and his men in such an insane situation, but who would never disobey orders or go off to safety and desert his men.”

Peary argues, however, that this “film is not as impressive as it once seemed” given that “the characters aren’t very well drawn; and once the platoon goes into the sewers, we lose all track of time — it seems the men are hysterical and exhausted after being below for 20 seconds and having walked five steps.” He asserts that the “premise is intriguing, but [the] execution is more punishing than exciting.” While I don’t find any problem with the fighters’ responses to being in the sewers, I agree that this is a relentlessly grueling flick to sit through — especially hearing in voiceover as we’re introduced to the main players, “These are the heroes of the tragedy; watch them closely, for these are the last hours of their lives.”

Note: Film fanatics will likely recognize distinctive character actor Sheybal (the mad composer), who would appear in a number of other Peary-listed films — including From Russia With Love (1963), Casino Royale (1967), Billion Dollar Brain (1967), Women in Love (1969), Leo the Last (1970), The Last Valley (1971), The Boy Friend (1971), and Red Dawn (1984).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jerzy Lipman’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance within Polish cinema.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links: