FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An elderly professor (Victor Sjostrom) travelling to an awards ceremony reflects upon the joys and pains of his past, attempting to understand why he is seen by many as cold and unforgiving.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• Elderly People
• Flashback Films
• Ingmar Bergman Films
• Max von Sydow Films
• Road Trip
• Scandinavian Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this enduring “journey of self-knowledge” by master writer/director Ingmar Bergman as “cinematic storytelling at its best” — a beloved film which “defies criticism” given how great its “impact [has] been on ‘art’-film lovers, film students, and filmmakers.” He notes that watching it is akin to being “with Scrooge on a look at Christmas Past“, as the film’s protagonist (Victor Sjostrom, giving a “captivating performance” as “cold” professor Isak Borg) slowly “begins to display traces of humanity and compassion”. Indeed, it’s impossible not to be moved by Borg’s haunting process of self-discovery, as he’s forced (through insistent dreams and visions) to acknowledge aspects of his personality that have caused him unspoken grief over the years.

Wild Strawberries is, in essence, an elaborate “flashback film”, yet with a strategic thematic twist, given that Borg is privy to life-altering scenes he could never have seen in real life. Indeed, Bergman daringly plays with the viewer’s notion of cinematic continuity and integrity in a way that audiences at the time found either frustrating or thrilling (Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, for instance, referred to the film as “so thoroughly mystifying that we wonder whether Mr. Bergman himself knew what he was trying to say”.) Peary, however, argues in retrospect that “rather than being as intimidating as later Bergman films, [Wild Strawberries] is simple enough on the surface for viewers to have the energy to dig for the inner meanings and complexities” — and it’s certainly the best film to introduce to budding film fanatics interested in exploring Bergman’s esteemed oeuvre.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Victor Sjostrom as Isak Borg
  
• Ingrid Thulin as Marianne (Borg’s daughter-in-law)
  
• The opening nightmare sequence
  
• Gunnar Fischer’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an undisputed foreign classic by a master director.

Categories

• Foreign Gem
• Important Director

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (make sure to read the “Also on the program…” note at the bottom of this review! random, but it tickled me somehow)
• Jigsaw Lounge Review
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A bitterly divorced detective (Clint Eastwood) with two young daughters (Alison Eastwood and Jenny Beck) delves into the underworld of New Orleans while pursuing a wily, mask-wearing serial killer (Marco St. John).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cat-and-Mouse
• Clint Eastwood Films
• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Genevieve Bujold Films
• Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “Clint Eastwood psychological thriller, written and moodily directed by his protege, Richard Tuggle”, as “atmospheric and suspenseful”, noting that it’s “a bit overrated but still compelling”. He points out that this was “the picture that swayed the critics of America to finally take Eastwood seriously”, given his attempt to break away from his Dirty Harry persona and delve in murkier psychological waters. Yet Peary argues that this film actually wasn’t a “rare attempt” in this regard, given that “Eastwood [plays] with his image in all his films”; Peary posits that far from being a “variation” on Dirty Harry, Harry and the character of “Wes Block” in Tightrope represent “antithetical attitudes toward law enforcement”, given that “Harry is a maverick cop, [while] Block plays it by the book”, among other reasons.

The in-depth character analysis provided in Peary’s review of Tightrope hints at part of the reason for its inclusion in his book, which is that audiences and critics at the time (including Peary) were understandably intrigued by Eastwood’s cult of personality, and eager to see what he would come up with next. Unfortunately, viewed years after the fact, this particular entry in Eastwood’s estimable oeuvre comes up short. While it’s certainly “suspenseful” during key sequences (indeed, there are some genuinely freaky moments that had me glued to the screen), it’s ultimately too cliched and derivative to be entirely successful as a thriller. The trope of a cop seduced by the underbelly of the city he’s paid to serve and protect has been handled numerous times on-screen (most recently in Werner Herzog’s smarmy but effective Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans, taking place in the same city); and while the cat-and-mouse maneuvers between Eastwood and St. John are predictably chilling, they don’t really offer anything new to the genre.

Meanwhile, we don’t learn enough about Eastwood’s divorce to understand why he’s so bitter about women, or what role his own character flaws might have played in the breakup of his marriage. (His ex-wife literally appears as a cipher on-screen, and, if I recall correctly, may not even speak any lines.) If you do decide to check this one out, however, watch for Genevieve Bujold in a “strong and appealing” role as a “rape-crisis therapist who gets [Eastwood] to confront his hostility toward women”; she’s one of the film’s strongest elements.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Genevieve Bujold as Beryl
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re an Eastwood completist.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A cynical young girl (Natalie Wood) who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus befriends an older man (Edmund Gwenn) who claims to be Kris Kringle himself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Christmas
• Courtroom Drama
• Do-Gooders
• Edmund Gwenn Films
• Fantasy
• John Payne Films
• Maureen O’Hara Films
• Mental Illness
• Natalie Wood Films
• Thelma Ritter Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary lauds this heartwarming family favorite as a “marvelous adaptation of Valentine Davies’s [short story],” noting that it’s appropriate “for children and adults (who will better appreciate the social satire) — every Christmas season”. He accurately notes that the film possesses “excellent acting down to the smallest parts”, as well as “off-beat humor, sharp satire, tremendous warmth, and scenes that will have you choking up”. He argues that George Seaton’s “intelligent, skillfully plotted Oscar-winning” screenplay “zeroes in on the American character”, given that the film’s characters have “become so ambitious in their careers, [so] power-hungry, and [so] interested in money, that they have suppressed their finer values” — just in time for Kris Kringle to show up and put “life in perspective” for them.

Indeed, the film’s Christmas-time setting is apt, given that this is when the “good-versus-greedy battle within each person” is especially evident — as epitomized by the scene involving Thelma Ritter’s harried mother, whose son wishes for a certain toy she can’t find anywhere (the more things change, the more they stay the same!); it’s up to Kringle to manifest the true spirit of Christmas by breaking allegiance with Macy’s and telling her precisely where she can go to find one. Of course, one could argue that Kringle’s brilliant “marketing scheme” — co-opted immediately by all of Macy’s significant rivals — merely perpetuates the commercialism so rampant during the holidays. Yet tapping into the power of the “Christmas spirit” is also shown to signify a potentially deeper change of heart: for Maureen O’Hara (Susan’s mom, a cynical divorcee), it means opening herself up to both new romance (with suitor John Payne) and a life outside of the corporate ladder; for Wood, it means learning how to fantasize, dream, and “make-believe” for the first time in her young life.

Part of the film’s success lies in the fact that we (especially adult viewers) never really know how much of the story is fantasy versus a manifestation of Kringle’s highly creative take on reality. As a result, we’re left to wonder — is Kringle “really” Santa Claus? And if so, what does that mean, pragmatically speaking? Why would Santa be living in a halfway home in New York, rather than at the North Pole? The mere fact that we’re led to contemplate these questions, however, speaks to the strength and veracity of Seaton’s screenplay — and of the stellar performances given throughout. O’Hara and Payne are well-cast in critical supporting roles, and the entire ensemble cast provides “splendid characterizations”, with “no one play[ing] their parts tongue-in-cheek”. Gwenn, of course, is notoriously “perfect” as Santa (Peary opens his review by stating, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and, using Edmund Gwenn’s SAG card, he gave a convincing performance as himself”). Perhaps most impressive, however, is Natalie Wood, who gives one of the single best child performances ever — watch how convincingly she portrays young Susan as alternately cynical, hopeful, playful, dejected, and overjoyed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Natalie Wood as Susan
  
• Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle (nominated by Peary as Best Actor of the Year, rather than Best Supporting Actor, in his Alternate Oscars book)
  
• Maureen O’Hara as Susan’s mother
  
• John Payne as Fred Gailey
  
• Fine supporting performances by the entire cast
  
  
  
• George Seaton’s heartwarming script
  

Must See?
Yes, naturally, as an enduring classic. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
A doctor (Ray Milland) develops a serum which gives him x-ray vision, but soon finds that his new power causes him more trouble than glory.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Dick Miller Films
• Downward Spiral
• Fugitives
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Ray Milland Films
• Roger Corman Films
• Science Fiction
• Supernatural Powers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “philosophical sci-fi film, directed by Roger Corman for AIP”, as “competent”, arguing that the “story is predictable but Milland makes a good lead — a man who’s not entirely sympathetic”, and accurately noting that the “final few seconds are powerful”. I actually disagree that it’s merely “competent”, however, given that Robert Dillon and Ray Russell’s smart script effectively exploits the clever concept of what might happen to a person blessed (or cursed) with x-ray vision. The timbre of their screenplay shifts from the giddy delight experienced by Milland as he engages in pleasant voyeurism at a party:

… to the ethical dilemma he faces when he knows without a doubt that his medical colleague’s diagnosis of a patient is wrong:

… to the (perhaps) inevitable downward spiral of a man who has so clearly become a “freak” of nature (albeit a self-created one) — and by the end, it manages to argue that a man who can see “everything” may have access to universal secrets best left untapped.

With that said, in many ways the film is typically low-budget Roger Corman fare — though it should be noted that his budget and the production values are clearly higher than what he was working with for his more outrageously campy earlier sci-fi outings in the ’50s. The special effects are occasionally laughably cheap (i.e., when Milland sees through flesh to drawings of people’s innards), but at other times are remarkably chilling — most notably the final physical transformations that take place in Milland’s eyes.

And while there’s a smattering of awkwardly handled dramatic moments (c.f. the pivotal “murder” scene that drives Milland underground, or Milland’s tentative flirtations with his colleague, Diana van der Vlis), other scenes hit surprisingly hard — such as Milland’s interactions with Don Rickles as a manipulative carnival manager who recognizes Milland as a lucrative cash cow.

Note: Milland gives a believably tortured performance here as the fatally obsessed title character, perhaps his best since his Oscar-winning role in The Lost Weekend (1945) nearly 20 years earlier.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Ray Milland as Dr. Xavier
  
• Don Rickles as Crane
  
• A smart, suspenseful script
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic by Corman.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
After emerging from a fatal car crash, a young woman (Candace Hilligoss) travels to her new job as a church organist in Utah, but remains haunted by the presence of a ghoulish man (Herk Harvey), and unable to emotionally connect with anyone around her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror
• Living Nightmare
• Untimely Death

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this low-budget cult classic as a “sleeper that moviegoers always mention as one of their personal discoveries”. He comments on its “many clever ‘eerie’ scenes”, such as the two times when “Mary [Hilligoss] finds that she can’t hear anything and that people neither hear nor see her” (reminiscent of a “Twilight Zone” episode); the scene when she “climbs onto a bus, only to find that it is full of ghouls”; and the creepy finale at a deserted carnival pavilion. Indeed, for such a low-budget venture by a relatively novice director (this was Herk Harvey’s first and only feature-length narrative movie after a career in industrial film production), it possesses a surprising amount of atmosphere and panache, with striking b&w cinematography, creative direction, and a particularly noteworthy organ score by Gene Moore.

In his review, Peary argues that “rather than being a straight horror film, [Carnival of Souls] delivers a message similar to the one in Invasion of the Body Snatchers about how we are turning into pod people”, given that “Mary is such a passive, uninvolved (soulless) character”. (Interestingly, the Strasberg-trained Hilligoss apparently complained about this very description, and attempted to inject even more life into her protagonist.) Unfortunately, Peary’s review glibly gives away spoilers, as do other online reviews — so be duly forewarned; but chances are you’ll find yourself guessing the truth about Mary’s “situation” long before the end. Remade in 1998 by Wes Craven.

Note: According to TCM, Carnival of Souls was restored and revived in theaters in 1989, and made available on home video the following year, thus entering into mainstream moviegoers’ cultural consciousness just a few years after Peary’s GFTFF was published.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Candace Hilligoss as Mary
  
• Many genuinely frightening images
  
• Striking cinematography by Maurice Prather
  
• Effective use of pre-existing locales
  
• Creative direction and editing
  
• Gene Moore’s organ score

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine cult classic.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Moria Review
• Q Network Review
• TCM Articles (spoiler alert!)
• Washington Post Review
• Time Out Capsule Review