FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An Irish-American ex-boxer (John Wayne) returning to his birth town falls in love with a beautiful, red-headed lass named Mary Kate (Maureen O’Hara) — but their happiness is foiled when Mary Kate’s bullish brother Will (Victor McLaglen) refuses to relinquish her dowry, Mary Kate refuses to consummate their marriage without it, and Sean (Wayne) refuses to confront Will.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barry Fitzgerald Films
• Battle-of-the-Sexes
• Ireland
• John Ford Films
• John Wayne Films
• Marital Problems
• Maureen O’Hara Films
• Romantic Comedy
• Victor McLaglen Films
• Ward Bond Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
After noting that John Ford visited his parents’ birthplace of County Galway in Ireland to “make this classic”, Peary writes that “the rolling countryside is so green, the village of Innisfree is so quaint, and the people whom [Ford’s] stock company portrays are so charmingly eccentric that we understand his love for his native land”. In his more extensive review of the film for Cult Movies 3 (where he refers to The Quiet Man as “the cult movie of the American Irish who are nostalgic for their homeland”), he goes into detail about the film’s production history — including the many years it took Ford to get his dream project off the ground, and the fact that it was truly a “family affair”, with siblings and children of not only Ford but Wayne, O’Hara, Barry Fitzgerald, and McLaglen involved (!). Peary describes the movie as “leisurely paced, lovely-to-look-at, [and] spiritedly acted”, but wonders if Ford and DP Winton C. Hoch were “trying to capture the look of a fairy tale or one of Ford’s daydreams about Ireland”; he further argues that — just like in Ford’s westerns, which are filled with stereotypical stock characters — this film represents Ford’s vision of a “romanticized, ideal Ireland”, rather than a more “authentic” Ireland. [That latter vision — driven by Irish filmmakers themselves — would come right around the time Peary’s book was published, with movies such as Jim Sheridan’s My Left Foot (1987) and Neil Jordan’s The Crying Game (1992).]

In his GFTFF, Peary analyzes the film’s sexual politics, noting that Mary Kate’s refusal to “consummate [her] marriage if she doesn’t have the dowry” makes her like a “modern woman”, given that she “doesn’t want to enter a relationship unless it’s on equal terms”. He writes how refreshing it is that, despite their obvious challenges, Mary Kate and Sean ultimately both view each other with maturity, love, and respect. Mary Kate “decides to have sex with Sean although he has not come through for her”, given that she “senses that he has reasons for not challenging her brother, although she herself may not understand them”. Similarly, Sean “challenges Will for Mary Kate’s sake”, conceding “that her reasons for wanting the dowry are not trivial, although he doesn’t understand them”. Peary goes on to note that “there’s so much Irish humor in this film and so many quirky characters that one tends to overlook that just below the surface there is much seriousness, hurt, and guilt; both Sean and Mary Kate are tormented in real ways and we feel for them”.

Finally, Peary points out that while “Ford was never known for ‘love scenes’… the silent passage in which Sean and O’Hara hold hands, race for shelter from the sudden rain, and then stop, clutch (he drapes his sweater over her), and kiss as the rain soaks through their clothing is incredibly sexy”; I agree. Wayne and O’Hara are both in top form here, and are indeed — as Peary notes — “one of the screen’s most romantic couples”. In Alternate Oscars, Peary names Wayne Best Actor of the Year for The Quiet Man, and provides a detailed analysis of why this performance was one of Wayne’s best and “most relaxed”. He notes that Sean “is Wayne’s gentlest character”, that he’s “formidable” but without McLaglen’s “need to be a bully or braggart”. As Peary writes, “He has such confidence in his masculinity that he is polite, emotional, sentimental, and sweet enough to plant roses”, never “hid[ing] his love from Mary Kate, [and] never assum[ing] a paternal or authoritarian stance with her”. Indeed, it’s easy to see why O’Hara would fall in love with him — though naturally, she’s equally appealing, for her own reasons. This romantic couple is one we truly enjoy watching on screen.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Maureen O’Hara as feisty Mary Kate Danaher (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  
• John Wayne as Sean Thornton (voted Best Actor of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Barry Fitzgerald as Michaleen Oge Flynn
  
• Plenty of romantic tension between Wayne and O’Hara
  
• Excellent use of authentic Irish countryside
  
• Oscar-winning cinematography by Winton C. Hoch
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Ford’s finest films. Nominated as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• ReelViews Review
• FilmSite Review
• TV Guide Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A beloved politician (Jimmy Stewart) returns with his wife (Vera Miles) to the small Western town where he’s famous for having killed a bullying gunslinger named Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin); but as he begins to relate the story of his relationship with the recently deceased town drunk, Tom Doniphon (John Wayne), new details about the killing emerge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• John Carradine Films
• John Ford Films
• John Qualen Films
• John Wayne Films
• Lee Marvin Films
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Revenge
• Westerns
• Woody Strode Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “marvelous John Ford western” — about the transition from an untamed western frontier to an era of “law and order”, as well as our tendency to valorize legends at the expense of the grittier truth — “looks better with every viewing”, and “certainly… summarized themes that were vital to earlier Ford westerns”. He notes that “for Ford, the real heroes were men like Tom who tamed the wilderness and made it possible for civilization to take root”, and he points out that “it is a shame that such pioneers have no place in civilization”, given that “in a law-and-order world of lawyers and politicians, Tom is just as anachronistic as gunslingers like Liberty”. He writes that the “picture has interesting characters and their relationships with each other are complex”, and he argues that the “picture has strong emotional resonance”. As noted in TCM’s article, upon its release …Valance was apparently dismissed as a lesser entry in Ford’s lengthy oeuvre, with specific criticisms leveled at Ford’s choice to make the film in black-and-white and primarily on a sound-stage; but in later years, critics (like Peary and many others) began to recognize its thematic and aesthetic values.

While I appreciate much about how …Valance is constructed, I’ll admit it’s not a personal favorite. Ford’s characteristic inclusion of comedic supporting characters — most specifically Andy Devine’s cowardly sheriff, presumably meant to provide some levity to the proceedings — simply feels forced and out of place here; and Stewart’s idealistic, stubborn “young” lawyer comes across as merely another iteration of his earlier starring roles for Frank Capra. With that said, I admire the craftsmanship of the script (based on a story by Dorothy M. Johnson), which manages to evoke a surprising amount of tension despite the fact that we can guess the truth behind the title from the beginning; however, it starts to bog down a bit towards the end, when Stewart goes head-to-head with Marvin in a contrived, Capra-esque town hall scene, and Wayne (“Think back, pilgrim.”) conveniently saves the day. Speaking of Marvin, he deserved the notoriety he gained for his key role here as Liberty Valance; he represents everything corrupt and vile about a lawless west in which might overtakes right every time.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lee Marvin as Liberty Valance
  
• William Clothier’s cinematography
  
  
• The impressive final shoot-out
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Ford’s acknowledged classics. Listed as one of the Best Films of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• ReelViews Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Articles
• Q Network Review

Synopsis:
A group of diverse British children are interviewed at the ages of 7, 14, 21, and 28.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Michael Apted Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
I’ll be cheating a bit in my review of this “unique, fascinating documentary” by Michael Apted, which “began as a television short called 7 Up,” in which a “crew interviewed 14 seven-year-old school-children about what they wanted in their futures in regard to education, occupation, money, and marriage”, and then interviewed them again every seven years, with snippets from each set of interviews strategically interwoven. Peary’s review in GFTFF is of 28 Up (1984), but most film fanatics today will likely also have seen the follow-up entries — 35 Up (1991), 42 Up (1998), 49 Up (2005), and 56 Up (2012) — and I find it impossible not to reference the entire series in my own response. With that said, Peary makes a few key points in his review that remain relevant for all of the films in the series: he writes, for instance, that “the viewer is placed in an awkward position in that s/he becomes a judge as to whether these 28-year-olds [or 35, 42, 49, 56-year-olds] have succeeded, as most contend they have, in reaching their potential happiness; and the unfortunate tendency… is to feel superior to most of these people who have lives we don’t envy”.

Peary further asserts that in 28 Up, “the ‘successes’ we see are those subjects who have somehow achieved some freedom” — such as Nick, “the science researcher who… fled with his wife to Wisconsin” and Paul, “the bricklayer who is raising a family in Australia”; but he pities both Neil, the “near-genius who has dropped out altogether and lives on welfare” and “a cabbie [Tony] who is satisfied with [the] ‘freedom’ he gets from his job and his close family life, but whose poor education deprived him of what a person of his natural intelligence and warmth deserves”. He argues that the “picture leaves you sad”, but notes that “surely a documentary on any seven [sic] subjects taken over 20 [sic] years would have the same result because, let’s face it, kids look happier, cuter, and more enthusiastic than adults”. Interestingly, seeing the participants at later ages (specifically 56, as in the most recent entry) allows one to feel a little less melancholy about the inevitability of both heredity and class, as nearly every participant seems to have achieved some measure of happiness and contentment — whether through (re)marriage, grandchildren, and/or career. Few, for instance, would feel sorry at this point for Tony, who has actually achieved an enviable measure of financial success (he owns a second home in Spain); and while Neil has continued to struggle with his mental challenges, he’s been able to pursue his dream of a career in politics.

Apted’s series has been rightfully praised over the years as an invaluable longitudinal document of humanity itself — regardless of its specificity in following Britons from a certain generation (and mostly white males, an initial “casting” choice Apted apparently regrets). While there’s nothing particularly innovative about the way in which Apted films his subjects, or the questions he asks them, his devotion in tracking down the participants like clockwork every seven years (or occasionally in between, as when he filmed a participant’s wedding) is an impressive feat in itself. (Apted is reportedly so devoted to this project that he’s said he hopes someone else will take up the mantle in the event of his own death; he’d like to follow the participants to the ends of their lives.) One also feels appreciation for the dedication of the participants, all but one of whom have chosen to reappear in most (or all) of the episodes; long before the advent of “reality T.V.”, they have graciously allowed at least portions of their lives to be on public display. Most film fanatics will eagerly await the next installment, and hope that all the “children” — Andrew, Bruce, Jackie, John, Lynn, Neil, Nick, Paul, Peter, Sue, Suzy, Symon, and Tony — will still be alive and well at the age of 63 and beyond.

Note: Devoted followers will enjoy watching the entire “Up Series” (as the DVD set is referred to); others may simply want to watch 56 Up and work backwards as desired.

Update (1/9/21): Rest in Peace, Michael Apted. Thank you for your contributions to cinema and our understanding of humanity.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• An enduringly fascinating long-term social document
  

Must See?
Yes, as part of a deservedly classic documentary series.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• ReelViews Review
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review

Synopsis:
A diverse group of passengers — including a prostitute (Claire Trevor), an alcoholic doctor (Thomas Mitchell), a gambler (John Carradine), a whiskey seller (Donald Meek), a shady banker (Berton Churchill), a sheriff (George Bancroft), and the pregnant wife (Louise Platt) of a cavalry officer — embark on a stagecoach trip led by a nervous driver (Andy Devine), despite warning of warring Apaches up ahead. Along the way, Bancroft picks up an escaped prisoner (John Wayne) who falls for Trevor — but will they survive both the rigors of their journey, and the outlaws waiting for Wayne at their final destination?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Claire Trevor Films
• George Bancroft Films
• John Carradine Films
• John Ford Films
• John Wayne Films
• Morality Police
• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Road Trip
• Thomas Mitchell Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this “seminal” John Ford western — written by Dudley Nichols, whose “script was adapted from Ernest Haycox‘s story ‘Stage to Lordsburg'” — by accurately referring to it as “the type of film you’ll take for granted”, and noting that “between viewings, one forgets what a magnificent film [it] is”. He adds that “Ford kept it simple — it is a simple morality play — but directed with great feeling for the West, the time, and for his characters”, and notes that “it’s obvious that the actors really cared about the people they played”. He points out that while “we may [primarily] recall the action scenes — a lengthy Indian attack on the stage, John Wayne as the Ringo Kid shooting it out with three bad guys” — one “sees that Ford is more interested in how characters respond to danger — for instance, are they worrying about themselves or others when lives are at stake?” Indeed, Stagecoach is essentially a compelling, character-driven drama couched within a consistently suspenseful western-adventure, and bolstered by a sweet romance — the perfect recipe for a genuine American classic!

I believe this was the film that sparked my admiration for character-actress Claire Trevor as a teenage film fanatic; I recall learning that she considered herself merely a “working stiff” in Hollywood, trying to survive as a single mother, and that I felt intense admiration for her no-nonsense approach to a notoriously ego-filled field. She’s top-billed among the ensemble cast here, and deserves this status, given that she’s the emotional glue holding the stagecoach passengers together. When Platt suddenly gives birth along the journey (during the film’s most heartfelt extended sequence), Trevor selflessly cares for the newborn while Platt recovers; and when she’s given the unprecedented opportunity (by Wayne) to turn her life around, she cares more about his safety than her own future. Speaking of Wayne, he’s never been more charismatic or appealing than he is here (as Peary points out, “What an entrance Ford gave him!”); and the rest of the “marvelously cast” supporting players — Mitchell, Meek, Carradine, unknown Platt, and others — are excellent as well. I especially like how nearly every character in the story is given an arc of some kind, and allowed to emerge by the film’s end as someone much more nuanced than we could ever have expected.

All this in a “mere” western! — one which, on the surface, seems like simply a conglomeration of conventional characters and situations, yet comes together so seamlessly it’s been studied as a masterwork by countless famed directors (most notably Orson Welles). Indeed, Stagecoach is an excellent example of a solid genre flick which simultaneously functions as a vehicle for deeper musings on human nature. To that end, Peary notes that “the coach serves as an arena for a clash between those who represent society” (the banker, the doctor, the married woman, and the salesman) and “those whom society considers outsiders” (the escaped prisoner, the prostitute, the gambler) — with nearly all the former passengers (the corrupt banker being a key exception) “won over” by the latter, and the driver and sheriff remaining “outside on the ride through the wilderness” (they represent “neutral figures who are part of civilization but have open minds towards those who don’t fit in”).

While I’m not generally a fan of Ford’s characteristic incorporation of humor throughout his films (usually in the form of buffoonish characters), in this case he uses humor as a starting point for some surprisingly heartwarming revelations: Mitchell’s tippling doctor, for instance, eventually sobers up enough to deliver Platt’s baby (and to be of genuine help during the pivotal, excitingly directed Indian attack); Meek may initially stand “meekly” by while Mitchell downs his supply, but he ultimately proves he’s more than merely a spineless sap; Devine’s whimpering ninny of a stagecoach driver keeps going despite his own worst fears (which come true); etc.

Regardless of whether one chooses to view this film as part of Ford’s broader oeuvre — or merely as an engaging flick in its own right — it remains a must-see classic, one worthy of multiple enjoyable visits.

Note: Interestingly, at the time he directed Stagecoach, Ford — who’s largely remembered these days for helming countless classic westerns — hadn’t made one in 13 years, since the silent western Three Bad Men (1926).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Claire Trevor as Dallas
  
• John Wayne as the Ringo Kid
  
• Donald Meek as Mr. Peacock
  
• Thomas Mitchell as Doc Boone
  
• Bert Glennon’s “magnificent” cinematography
  
• Iconic use of Monument Valley as a backdrop
  
• Expert direction by Ford
  
• The genuinely exciting Apache attack sequence
  
• An Oscar-winning score “adapted from American folk songs”

Must See?
Yes, of course — this one is a genuine classic, and ranks among my
personal favorite westerns. Nominated one of the Best Films of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

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

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• Q Network Review
• TV Guide Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
The youngest son (Cay Kristiansen) of a cynical Danish farmer (Henrik Malberg) wishes to marry the daughter (Sylvia Eckhausen) of a religiously fundamentalist tailor (Ejner Federspiel), though both fathers disapprove; meanwhile, Malberg’s son Johannes (Preben Lerdorf Rye) believes he’s Jesus Christ, while the gentle wife (Birgite Federspiel) of his son Mikkel prepares to give birth to her third child.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carl Theodor Dreyer Films
• Death and Dying
• Mental Illness
• Play Adaptations
• Religious Faith
• Scandinavian Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary posits that the theme of Carl Theodore Dreyer’s adaptation of a “play by [Danish hero] Kaj Munk” — about “a proud, elderly Christian farmer whose faith has all but disappeared because of the lack of miracles in modern times” — “is that people, even priests, shouldn’t let faith in God diminish”, and that “those who are regarded as insane are actually closest to God”. To that end, one’s appreciation for this critically lauded parable will depend upon one’s willingness to accept it as something other than a traditional cinematic tale; Dreyer’s intention is not to entertain, but to provoke. However, as Peary notes, while the “beginning of the film is charming due to the simplicity of the sets and the characters” (he jokingly writes that “it wouldn’t be jarring if June Lockhart, Tommy Rettig, and Lassie dropped in for a visit”), it “becomes drawn out and silly”; he argues that while “it might work as a story told in church”, “as a film it is far-fetched”.

I’ll admit I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s take on this one. Unlike most other reviewers (whose praise is unreserved), I find it overly slow and a tad pretentious, not to mention terribly depressing — in sum, everything Scandinavian films from this era are stereotyped as being (but see Bergman’s Smiles of a Summer Night [1955] for a refreshing counter-example). With that said, there’s no denying either the power of Dreyer’s imagery, or the integrity of his intentions; film fanatics will want to check this one out at least once, and make up their own minds about its ultimate place in the world’s cinematic canon.

Note: I was fascinated to learn (from a citation on Wikipedia) that this film was not only a critical success but a financial success as well; my, how audience tastes have changed…

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Committed performances by the entire cast
  
  
• Dreyer’s typically stunning visual sensibility
  
  

Must See?
Yes, simply as one of Ordet’s most celebrated works — though your enjoyment will be highly variable.

Categories

• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review