Author: Snugglecub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lawrence of Arabia – 1962

Lawrence of Arabia was yet another epic war movie.  This time we go back to World War I with another exotic location.  Obviously, the film is set in Arabia, and follows the military exploits of T. E. (Thomas Edward) Lawrence.  It was truly a grand and epic film.  The music was beautiful and memorable, the cinematography was incredible, and the acting was fantastic.  Certainly, this was one of the giants in the list of Best Picture winners.

The film was enormous!  It had hundreds of extras, many of whom had to be able to ride a horse or a camel.  It had some really big name actors like Sir Alec Guiness, Anthony Quin, Jack Hawkins, Omar Sherif, and Claude Rains.  It had plenty of action and great emotional depth.

Of course, I could not give a fair review of a film based on an actual historical figure without doing a bit of research on the actual historical figure.  How accurately did the art resemble the reality?  Well, apparently, there is some debate on the subject.  As far as I could tell, the events themselves were fairly accurate; however, Lawrence’s personality, motives, and behavior were not.  In the film he is portrayed as a megalomaniac, when in reality, he was charismatic and possibly even enigmatic, but certainly had no delusions of godhood.

The film also portrayed him as a man with divided loyalties between his Arab comrades and the British military.  This also did not seem to be the case.  Apparently he was quite loyal to his native country.  That being said, I’m sure these inaccuracies were allowed to increase the drama of the character.  Though many people who actually knew Lawrence were upset by the portrayal, I was not.  It made for a good movie.

The film actually starts out with Lawrence’s (Peter O’Toole’s) death and funeral, and then goes back to the beginning of his military service in Arabia.  He is portrayed as a man who has no fear of danger or pain, and who has no concept of what cannot be done.  These two qualities give him the unique ability to accomplish the impossible.  His superior officers assign him to travel to Arabia, find Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness), and assess the situation.  What he finds is that the Arabs are salves, both to the Turks who are occupying their territories, and to the British who are controlling their every move in the war, serving their own interests.

O’Toole was a relatively unseasoned screen actor who had only been in three films prior to Lawrence of Arabia.  He was mostly known for his extensive stage work, but he did a fine job.  His character goes through huge and life-altering changes and O’Toole made it all seem believable.  Guiness, who we have seen before in Bridge On the River Kwai, did a truly fantastic job as Prince Faisal.  His role had limited screen time, but he really played it superbly and made the character stand out.  There is a particular scene in which he is negotiating with the British officers in Damascus where he really displays Faisal’s true colors.

Seeing no way out of their situation, Faisal agrees to go along with British advice and retreats to Yenbo after a major defeat.  Lawrence, however, disobeys his orders and organizes a daring, yet successful attack on the city of Aqaba, thus giving the Arabs a victory and a port where the British could off-load much needed supplies.  Despite the fact that he disobeyed orders, his success earns him a promotion, and he is sent back to the Arab front.

Along the way he becomes friends with Faisal’s military leader, Ali Sherif (Omar Sharif).  More than once, Ali sees Lawrence accomplish things which he would have considered impossible.  He begins to respect Lawrence and follow him as if he was the leader.  Thus his delusions of grandeur begin.  Ali stayed with him and watched, as only a friend could, as he moved back and forth through his mania.  Omar Sharif was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for the role.  The character was actually a composite of several Arab military leaders, and Sharif did a great job in his portrayal.

Historical accuracy aside, the story was a very dramatic one that delved into Lawrence’s psyche as he journeyed from man to legend, and then back to man again.  The writers kept enough truth in the character to allow O’Toole to be convincing.  At times he was sane, at times he was crazed, and at times he was lost between the two.  Sometimes he seemed to hate killing while at other times, it is revealed that he actually derived pleasure from it.  Sometimes he was full of confidence, and the next minute he would be completely deflated.  These contradictions made him seem simply unstable, but very interesting to watch.

There was one thing that caught my attention, something that knocked him off his high pedestal at one point in the film.  It was an event that changed the man on a fundamental level.  He was doing reconnaissance in the city of Daraa.  At this point in the film, he has somehow convinced himself that he is not a blonde, blue-eyed British Officer, and that he is actually of Arab descent.  He is so sure he can pass himself off as a native Arab that he casually walks into the city that is occupied by the Turks.  He is arrested, tortured, beaten to within an inch of his life, and then thrown out into the street.  As I watched, I began to suspect that he was also sexually abused by his captors, though this is shown very carefully and subtly.  I did a little research and discovered that my suspicions were correct.

Interesting note:  Apparently the real life Lawrence was so changed by the experience that he thereafter developed masochistic tendencies.  At one point after the war, he paid a military colleague to administer beatings to him.

The movie was filmed mostly in Jordan and Morocco, and I have to give a huge thumbs-up to the cinematographer, Frederick A. Young, who won an Oscar for his work on the film.  He was really able to capture the vastness of the desert as well as the horrible carnage of the war.  It was really an impressive aspect of the film.  Add to that the grand and sweeping music by composer Maurice Jarre, for which he also won an Oscar, and you have a very moving spectacle.

Interesting note:  During filming, O’Toole found that riding a camel was not very comfortable, so he bought a piece of foam rubber to add to his saddle.  Many of the extras followed his example, causing the native Bedouins to nick-name him “Ab al-‘Isfanjah” meaning, “Father of the Sponge”   The idea spread and to this day, some Bedouins add foam rubber to their saddles.

Another interesting note:  During filming, O’Toole was almost killed when he fell off his camel.  To prevent him from being trampled by the horses running along-side him, his camel stood over him protectively until he was out of danger.

If I had any complaints about the film, it would be the length.  It had a running time of 3 hours and 36 minutes, but I think the story could have been told in less time.  Maybe shave off around 40 minutes and I would have been just as happy.  But that is only a minor complaint.  The screen-writers and the director, David Lean did a great job in their story-telling.  Their attention to details, their depiction of the horrific battles, and their unwillingness to shy away from the darker aspect of Lawrence’s unstable psyche and experiences, made for a powerful and memorable movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Side Story – 1961

OK – this is going to be a difficult review for me.  It has been my goal to be as objective as possible in my reviews, and though I know I am not always successful, I do my best.  West Side Story is a film that I have seen more times than I can remember.  I am a fan of musicals and this show has always been one of my favorites, largely because of the movie.  I have enjoyed watching it since I was a child.  How can I be objective?

This was an incredible movie, well worth the Best Picture award.  The word that keeps coming to mind is GENIUS.  And I associate that word with three aspects of the film.  First is the music.  Leonard Bernstein’s score is one of the best scores ever written for the musical genre.  It covers the entire spectrum of emotions so perfectly that it tells the story nearly as well as the actors.  Second are the lyrics.  Stephen Sondheim is widely considered one of the most talented lyricists of the twentieth century.  His words are always appropriate and specific to the character singing them.  And third is the choreography.  The dancing in this movie is beyond incredible.  The phenomenal dance moves actually have a huge part in telling the story.  But I’ll look at these three things more closely later.

I do have to mention one thing that I always notice when watching this movie: something I don’t care for.  The actors are all wearing a ton of makeup – especially the characters who are supposed to be Puerto Rican.  There are plenty of close-ups in the film, making the heavy makeup painfully obvious.  But that is easy to get past.  There are so many other things going on to distract you from that one minor problem.

The story is a modern (at least for 1961) telling of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, and it follows the original story remarkably well.  The two lovers become Tony and Maria, played by Richard Beymer and Natalie Wood.  These two are primarily singing parts with light dancing.  Also in the film are Russ Tamblyn, Rita Moreno and George Chakiris, playing the parts of Riff, Anita and Bernardo, respectively.  These are dance parts, and boy, were they challenged – Moreno and Chakiris in particular.

Of course, West Side Story was a stage musical before it was made into a film and I found that there were a number of differences between the two.  For example, there are several places in which the lyrics were changed for the film to tone down some of the raciness.  Another example is the character of Ice played by Tucker Smith, who was written specifically for the film.  The addition of this character had the effect of changing the dynamics among the gang members.

Also, several songs were moved to different places in the show to assist with the pacing of the action.  For the most part, I found that the changes that were made for the movie actually improved the show significantly, especially the order of the songs.  They made much more sense within context of the plot.

One of the best changes that was made was in the song America.  In the stage show, this song was sung by just the Sharks’ women.  In the film the men were added to the number.  It made just as much sense and added a new element to the dance number.  It also added another level of complexity to the relationship of Bernardo and Anita, as the back and forth bickering in the song is mostly between them.

Interesting note:  In the stage show, it is A-Rab who gets beaten up by the Sharks at the beginning, before the free-for-all breaks out between the two gangs.  In the film, it is Baby John who gets chased and beaten up after being caught changing some wall graffiti from “SHARKS” to “SHARKS STINK”.  It is interesting, that as David Winters played Baby John in the stage show and A-rab in the film, he avoided being chased and beaten-up both times.

Another interesting note:  Elvis Presley was originally approached for the role of Tony.  However, his manager, Colonel Tom Parker, strongly believed the role to be wrong for Elvis and made him decline in favor of other movie musicals.  According to legend, the Colonel didn’t want Elvis associated with gang warfare and knife crime.  After the incredible success of West Side Story, Presley regretted turning down the role.

So, let’s take a closer look at those three aspects of genius associated with West Side Story.  Bernstein’s music was truly inspired.  I believe this was some of his best work, and that is saying a lot for the prolific composer.  The score was so memorable that some of the songs have become staples of American pop culture.  The songs One Hand, One Heart and Somewhere are used over and over again for weddings.  America and Tonight are instantly recognizable hits.  Even songs like Gee, Officer Krupke and I Feel Pretty are fun songs that are beloved by anyone who knows musical theatre.  The score is exciting and full of energy and is a pleasure to listen to.

Sondheim’s lyrics are pure gold.  One of the challenges that a lyricist faces is differentiating the characters so that words are appropriate to the character singing them.  Sondheim does this and makes it seem effortless.  The rhymes work and there are no awkward spots where the words do not seem to fit.  The lyrics are joined seamlessly with Bernstein’s music.  Sondheim is truly a master of the craft.  Gee, Officer Krupke is a personal favorite when it comes to the lyrics.

Interesting note:  Nearly all the lead actors in the movie were dubbed by professional singers whose voices were better able to handle the demanding vocals of Bernstein’s score.  In fact, Marnie Nixon was hired to dub for both Maria and Anita.  The song Quintet was really a quartet, as Nixon dubbed both female parts and sang opposite herself.

However, it was Jerome Robbins’ choreography that really stole the show for me.  Now, before I get into that I have to mention that the choreography doesn’t mean much without dancers that are able to realize the choreographer’s vision, and the entire cast of actors and dancers really had to work their tootsies off to keep up with the demands placed upon them.  But the result was purely magical.  The complexity of the score demanded choreography that was equally complex.

Robbins truly delivered with dance moves that were more than just inane dancing or showing off.  For example, there is no denying that Gene Kelly was an excellent dancer and his choreography was complex and beautiful to watch.  But his choreography in An American in Paris, the 1951 Academy Award Best Picture winner, was almost meaningless.  At a stretch, it attempted to set a mood or accompany a song.  But for the most part, I found it to be nothing more than a vehicle for Kelly to show off his considerable skills as a dancer.  But the choreography in West Side Story was an integral part of the story-telling.  The dance moves were nearly as important as the lyrics or the dialogue.  They actually helped to tell the story, and were every bit as important as the music they accompanied.  The pace was fast and the energy was high, and the cast really stepped up to the plate, turning in stellar performances.  Rita Moreno stood out to me as the shining jewel of the dancing.  She was beautiful, feisty, and an incredible dancer.

The film was nominated for eleven Academy Awards and won all of them except one.  In addition to Best Picture, it took home Oscars for Best Supporting Actor (George Chakiris), Best Supporting Actress (Rita Moreno), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Director (Robert Wise), Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Sound.  In my humble opinion, this is truly one of the greatest movie musicals ever made, well deserving of the Academy Award for Best Picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Apartment – 1960

Goodness gracious, we are back to black and white!  (OK, enough said about that.)

The Apartment was a cute movie.  Honestly, I’m not sure if it really deserved the Best Picture Academy Award.  I didn’t dislike the film, and I didn’t see any of its competitors, but after coming off the high of Ben-Hur, I felt sort of let down by this rather tame story.  I’m not sure if the term Romantic Dramady had been invented back in 1960, but it could easily be applied to The Apartment.  It was peculiar in the way it started out as a bit of a comedy, but then turned toward towards drama about half way through.  Knowing next to nothing about the movie before watching it, I found the change in genre unexpected.

The problem was that as a comedy, it wasn’t that funny.  As a drama, it wasn’t overly dramatic.  The romantic aspect was nice, but mostly because of the two lead actors, Jack Lemon and Shirley MacLaine, both of whom did a fine job.  It felt like they made the film more romantic than the script called for, and thank goodness they did.  Otherwise, the movie would have been pretty dull.

Jack Lemon played the part of C. C. Baxter, a single man who rents an apartment in New York.  But you immediately learn that the apartment doesn’t seem to belong to him exclusively.  In fact, it is quickly established that he can’t even go home after work.  For some reason, he has to stay away, even waiting in the rain if necessary, until the apartment is empty.  The reason?  Four co-workers who are promising him a promotion are using his apartment to have secret rendezvous with their mistresses.

It sounds like the set-up for a screwball comedy, right?  And from Jack Lemon, I was expecting just that.  After all, he was most known for his roles in Mister Roberts and Some Like it Hot, both of which were delightful comedies.  Baxter is a nice and thoroughly average guy.  He is easy to like and easy on the eyes as well.  But you quickly get the feeling that he is being taken advantage of.  In fact, he is allowing himself to be used.  He is actually a pretty spineless guy.

Then the romance comes in as we are introduced to Elevator Operator, Fran Kubelik, played by MacLaine.  Baxter tries to ask her out, but she is seeing someone else.  She is sweet and likeable as well, and it isn’t until the third member of the plot’s love triangle shows up, that we learn that she is just as spineless as Baxter.  Fred MacMurray plays the part of Jeff Sheldrake, the personnel director who can give Baxter the promotion he is after.  He learns of Baxter’s apartment situation and figures out his dirty little secret.  But instead of reprimanding Baxter for his unethical behavior, he decides to make use of it, himself.  And who is the mistress he brings to the apartment…?  Why, Miss Kubelik, of course.

And there, finally, we have the main conflict of the movie.  From the beginning, it is easy to see that Baxter and Kubelik will end up together in the end.  The plot was predictable and took very few twists.  I found the story to be fairly average and uninteresting.  It had the potential to be clever or witty, but for the most part, it just wasn’t .

And there was one other thing about the plot that I found a little disturbing.  The movie seemed to glorify some pretty bad behavior.  It seemed that most men were expected to have a mistress, and women were both portrayed as and treated as bubble headed toys to be owned, used, and fairly laughed at when they are mistreated, and it was all done with light-hearted humor.  I mean, I get it – that was the little joke that the entire plot was based on.  But it just wasn’t funny enough.  To make it a good comedy, the dialogue needed to be wittier, maybe add a little slapstick, or maybe create some really awkward situations – something!

Interesting note:  Due to its themes of infidelity and adultery, the film was controversial for its time. It initially received some negative reviews for its content. Film critic Hollis Alpert of the Saturday Review called it “a dirty fairy tale”. According to Fred MacMurray, after the film’s release he was accosted by a strange woman in the street who berated him for making a “dirty filthy movie” and hit him with her purse.

Of course, Baxter, the All-American good guy, is the only man in the movie who treats women with respect and compassion.  He is unmarried, so he is not cheating, meaning that there is not much drama surrounding him.  To his character’s credit, when he finally realizes that he is in love with Miss Kubelik he grows a spine and rebels against the cheating men who are using him.  But even that is not terribly dramatic.  To make it a better drama, his rebellion should have had more serious consequences, a physical confrontation, perhaps, or (dare I say…) Kubelik’s suicide attempt might have been successful!  That would have made the movie a serious drama, and changed the ending… well, dramatically!

All that being said, I think that the flaws were in the script, not in the way the actors played their parts.  Lemon and MacLaine both did a good job with what they were given, but the movie itself was, in my opinion, no more of a stand-out than any cute romantic comedy/drama ever made.  A Best Picture winner should have something that puts it a cut above the rest of its genre.  For example, the great comedy of You Can’t Take It With You, or the quick wit and weight of the drama All About Eve.  But I thought that it fell just as flat as It Happened One Night.

Interesting note:  This was the last black and white film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture until Schindler’s List in 1993, and then again, the Artist in 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ben-Hur – 1959

The 1959 Best Picture winner is a big one.  Here we have a great film which had incredible production values, an awesome score worthy of the emotionally powerful story being told, thousands of extras, each of whom needed to be dressed in period specific clothing, an epic story on a mighty and grand scale, a capable cast of actors, and an attention to detail in the sets and costumes that was staggering.  I would even venture to say that in scale and scope, Ben-Hur is able to hold its own with films like 1939’s Gone with the Wind and 1997’s Titanic.

A few Interesting notes:  Director, William Wyler, spearheaded the film that won 11 Academy Awards, a record that was not matched until Titanic in 1997 and again by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in 2003.  Ben-Hur had the largest budget and the largest sets built for any film produced. The nine-minute chariot race has become one of cinema’s most famous sequences. The score composed by Miklos Rozsa was highly influential on cinema for more than 15 years, and is the longest ever composed for a film.

This incredible version of Ben-Hur was not the first version of the story ever filmed.  The original book, Lew Wallace’s Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, written in 1880 actually spawned two film versions in the silent era, one in 1907 and another in 1925.  There seems to be no question that this is one of the most successful films in the list of Best Picture winners.  The question I need to answer is: why?  I’m not disputing that  the movie deserved all the awards it won.  I think it deserved them all.  But what was it that made this movie so great?  Many things.  It had a great director, great cast, great score, great costumes, great sets, and great story.

Wyler really seemed to know what he was doing.  He was incredibly ambitious.  His vision of the grand and epic scale the film needed was spot-on.  The huge number of extras provided an anchor of reality to the story that was set in ancient Rome, and yet at times, he knew when to delve into the realm of the supernatural, portraying biblical miracles with finesse and subtlety.  In particular, the very first scene of the film was the Nativity of Christ.  It was done so beautifully that I was nearly brought to tears by the imagery on the screen.

The character of Judah Ben-Hur was certainly a believable hero.  He was flawed enough to be completely human.  He was real enough to fall victim to his own dangerous passions.  He allowed himself to be driven by hate and a need for revenge, a path that can only lead to self-destruction in the end.  But even after that revenge is won, it seems to be a hollow victory.  We see him fall into the dark depths of despair, and we see him lifted back into the light as he is changed, redeemed by his encounters with the man Jesus.

Judah Ben-Hur is played by Charlton Heston, a man who many consider one of the greatest actors of all time.  I feel he performed adequately in Ben-Hur, turning in a deep and emotional performance.  The role itself required an actor that has a strong yet vulnerable personality, someone who was able to portray the heights and depths of love, anger, and despair.  Heston did it all well enough, but I have always found his acting style to be a little forced, his movement stilted, and his delivery a bit jerky, as if he is trying too hard to be “dramatic.”

Playing opposite Heston was Haya Harareet, performing the role of Esther.  As Judah’s love interest, Harareet did a great job, exuding a calm and subservient demeanor.  She was absolutely gorgeous, and was able to convincingly cry on cue – not an easy thing to do.  Another stand-out member of the cast for me was Stephen Boyd as Messala, Judah’s boyhood friend.  The main plot opens as Messala returns to Jerusalem as a Roman tribune and commander of the local Roman garrison, charged with rooting out and arresting Jews who criticize the Romans.  The trouble is that despite the fact that they were once friends, Judah Ben-Hur is a Jew who is not at all happy with how his people are treated at the hands of the Roman conquerors.

When Judah refuses to turn in any of his people, Messala finds an excuse to persecute him in the worst way.  He is unjustly accused of a crime, and not only is he arrested, but his mother and sister are arrested as well.  Of course, he swears revenge before being shipped off to become a galley slave.  But his chance meeting with Jesus of Nazareth changes his life in ways that he cannot possibly comprehend.  Whose life would not be changed by such an encounter?

Boyd did a great job.  At first you like him.  While he and Judah are still getting along, they actually share a strange relationship, which I found to be a bit homoerotic.  They expressed a peculiar love for each other that seemed to go a bit beyond fraternal affection.  I thought it odd, and nearly dismissed it as my imagination, but in my research, I found that I was not the only viewer to sense the homosexual tension in that scene.  Then after Judah is arrested, Messala shows his true colors and he instantly becomes the bad guy.  You want to see him get his just desserts.

And does he ever!  Skip ahead to the great chariot race which was amazing to watch.  The way it was filmed, the dramatic tension, the fast paced action, the incredible stunts, the way it captivated my attention – it was phenomenal!  The supremely arrogant Massala, despite using tactics that could only be called cheating, not only loses the race, but loses his life in the process!  There is a reason the chariot race sequence is one of the most famous scenes in cinema history.  Audiences loved it and so did I.

Interesting note:  The chariot race was filmed in a rock quarry outside of Rome.  The economic situation in Italy was fairly poor at the time and 7000 people answered the casting call to be employed as spectators at the race.  However, on June 6, 3000 people showed up, though only 1500 extras were needed.  The crowd rioted, throwing stones and assaulting the set’s gates until police arrived and dispersed them.

Another interesting note:  The chariot arena was modeled on a historic circus in Jerusalem.  Covering 18 acres, it was the largest film set ever built at that time. Constructed at a cost of $1 million, it took a thousand workmen more than a year to carve the oval out of the rock quarry.

And finally, I have to mention the music.  It was wonderful!  Miklos Rozsa, of course, won his Oscar for the score.  It was grand and majestic, and it blended seamlessly with the action taking place in the film.  Many critics consider the score for Ben-Hur to be Rozsa’s greatest work, though at the time he was writing the music for most of MGM’s epics.  It is interesting to note that he also composed the score for another Best Picture sinner: 1945’s The Lost Weekend.

This was an impressive movie on so many levels.  The plot was full of action, but the underlying emotional content of the film was never absent.  I have never been a huge Charlton Heston fan, but I have to admit he did a great job, and so did his talented supporting cast.  But the film was really a wonderful conglomeration of effort from the thousands of people involved in its making.  So I think the biggest applause has to go to director, William Wyler.  The film’s greatness is due in large part to his brave and ambitious vision.  Well done, Wyler.  Well done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gigi – 1958

Gigi seems to be a bright and colorful precursor to the decade of the musical.  This is the Best Picture winner for 1958 and there seem to be a number of them coming up in the next decade.  Up until now the only musicals to have won Best Picture are Broadway Melody of 1929 and An American in Paris.  (Going My Way was really a movie that had music in it.)  Then West Side Story, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, and Oliver all won their Oscars in the 1960s.  After that, the next and only musical to take home the Best Picture Award is Chicago in 2002.

I’ll be honest.  I was not terribly impressed with Gigi.  I felt like it was trying too hard to be something it wasn’t.  The music was written by the wonderful team of Alan Jay Lerner and Fredrick Loewe.  They wrote such other great shows as Brigadoon, My Fair Lady, Camelot, and Paint Your Wagon.  You see, even though Gigi was written after My Fair Lady, the movie was made first.  My Fair Lady had been a very successful Broadway show before being made into a movie, but Gigi was a film first, and a stage show second.

Gigi had several things most musicals from that era had.  It had a few catchy tunes, characters who were insanely wealthy, beautiful costumes, and elaborate sets.  But there was, in my humble opinion, an underlying dullness to the plot that caused the movie to fall flat.  The story was predictable and slow, and there didn’t seem to be much of a climax.  The characters were shallow and pretty one-dimensional.  And at times, there was a creepiness that made me slightly uncomfortable… but we’ll get to that in a minute.

Leslie Caron, whom you might remember as the female lead in An American in Paris, plays the title role of Gigi, a young girl in Paris being raised by her grandmother, played very well by Hermione Gingold.  Gigi is innocent and childish, almost tom-boyish.  A friend of the family is the rich young playboy, Gaston, played by Louis Jourdan.  Hmmm… I wonder if they will end up together in the end.  Yes, of course they will, so maybe the plot is about the obstacles they have to overcome.  Nope, no real obstacles.  Maybe another man or another woman might enter the picture to pull them apart.  No, no other serious prospects.

As far as I can tell, the only believable conflict in the relationship is that Gaston loves Gigi because of her innocent vivaciousness and her tom-boyish personality.  Her grandmother and her great-aunt, played by Isabel Jeans think that in order for Gaston (or any man with money, for that matter) to want Gigi, she needs to be a proper lady who knows how to behave in high society.  Their solution is to train her and change her into the woman they think Gaston wants.  But when Gaston sees this change, sees that the machinations of Gigi’s tutors have actually caused Gigi to grow up, he explodes in a fit of fury and rejects her.  But don’t worry, his anger inexplicably vanishes in seconds and he loves her too much to let her go.  Hooray for the happy ending.

And therein lay the creepy aspect that I mentioned earlier.  He only seems to like her when he sees her as a child.  This questionable sentiment is epitomized by the character of Honore Lachaille, played by Maurice Chevalier.  Normally, I like Chevalier.  He has a manner that is utterly charming and delightful.  But in this film, the word pedophile kept touching my thoughts whenever he was on the screen.  He plays the part of Gaston’s older (almost elderly) uncle who is coaching his nephew in the ways of being a rich Parisian playboy.  Right from the very beginning of the movie, Honore is singing about how much he loves little girls because they have a tendency to grow up into beautiful young women.  Creepy!!  He spends the entire movie chasing after and carousing with women who are less than half his age.  Creepy!!

Next we come to the music.  With one or two exceptions, the music was unmemorable.  One thing that Lerner and Loewe do that might lend to this is the speaking song.  When most people see a musical they want a catchy tune, something they can hum along with.  But when a song has no discernible melody, there is no tune to hum.  To emphasize that Gaston in one of his fits of anger, he speaks his way through his song in a voice of extreme irritation.  The lyrics rhyme and the orchestra is playing in the background, but the song has no real melody.  They did the same kind of songwriting for the stuffy British bachelor in My Fair Lady.

And I have to mention the choreography.  Some of it seemed awkward, and at times, even silly.  When Gigi is singing about what it is like to be a young girl in Paris (The Parisians) some of her movements seemed tailor made to drive home the point.  This had the effect of making the choreography look forced.  Come on, people – Caron was a dancer.  They should have let her dance.

Now, all that being said, there were a few things about the movie that I enjoyed.  They really spared no expense on the costumes and sets.  They were lush and gorgeous, again, making great use of bright colors whenever possible.  I especially liked how they made a distinction between the generations for the women’s fashions.  The older women wore beautiful dresses that seemed old-fashioned, even for 1900.  The younger women wore gowns that seemed like couture for the 1910s, even moving towards a 1920s sensibility.

As far as the acting went, Hermione Gingold stood out as a pleasure to watch.  I remember seeing her in The Music Man, and hearing her distinct voice on the soundtrack of A Little Night Music.  She turned in another delightful performance in Gigi.  There were a few songs that also stood out as memorable.  The Night They Invented Champagne and I Remember it Well were wonderful songs.  Chevalier and Gingold only shared a brief moment together, but their on-screen chemistry was delightful to see.

This was not one of my favorites when it comes to the Best Picture winners.  It was too much fluff and foo-foo, and not enough substance.  I had the plot figured out before five minutes had passed.  And it all happened too slowly for my tastes.  The gem had a few sparkles, but for the most part, it was a pretty dull diamond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bridge on the River Kwai – 1957

Here we go with another World War II movie, this one taking place in Western Thailand.  I had seen the film before, so I already knew the plot, though it has been a while.  I had forgotten many of the details and found that I enjoyed seeing it again.  The climax of the film, in particular, was very intense and well acted.  It was one of those scenes in which you see disaster coming and are ready to start shouting at the characters on the screen.  “No!  No!  What are you doing??”

While this movie was a WWII film, it took place away from any fighting or action.  The characters are Prisoners of War being held by the Japanese who are using them as laborers to build a bridge.  The POWs are Brits under the command of Lt. Colonel Nicholson, played by Alec Guinness.  He played the part incredibly well.  Right from the very beginning, he is established as the perfect British Soldier.  He is always confident, in command, and in control.  He takes a certain amount of pride in remaining civilized in an uncivilized situation.  Playing opposite Guinness is the Japanese commandant, Colonel Saito, played by Sessue Hayakawa.  Saito has been commanded to complete the bridge by a certain date.  If he fails in his task, he will be forced to commit ritual suicide.  An American soldier who has been in the labor camp for a long time is Navy Commander Shears, played by William Holden.  He manages to do the impossible and escape back to the free world.  But he is forced to join a task force charged with destroying the bridge at any cost.

Using this as set-up, the rest of the plot can be divided up into three stories.  First, there is the power struggle between Saito and Nichols for control of the POWs as an effective labor force.  Second, there is the building of the bridge.  Third, there is Shears’ escape and the destruction of the bridge.  The film gives sufficient time to each of these sub-plots and in the end all three of them come together for a very exciting climax.

Guinness really did a great job in this role.  You start off really admiring the character of Colonel Nichols, and gradually you begin to see what his biggest flaw is: pride.  He becomes so proud of the bridge he has created that he is blinded to the fact that he has built it for the enemy.  And why did he do it?  He wanted to prove that the British were better than the Japanese.  They were smarter, tougher, and more civilized.  It isn’t until the very end when he discovers the plot to destroy the bridge, when he has his “What have I done?” moment.  In fact, he actually says those words.  Not only has his arrogant pride caused him to build a sturdy bridge for the enemy, but he comes close to foiling the plot to destroy it, getting several people killed in the process, including Colonel Saito, whom he had come to respect.

Interesting note:  Though the film was set in Burma, it was filmed mostly in what is now Sri Lanka.  The bridge for the film was built over the Kelani River.  During filming, director David Lean was nearly drowned when he was swept away by a river current during a break in filming.  He was saved by actor Geoffrey Horn who played the part of Canadian Officer Lieutenant Joyce.

There was one aspect of the film that I didn’t particularly care for: the music.  There were times when the film score was just fine.  The orchestral score complimented the plot and showed up in all the right places.  But there were other times when I felt like I was at a college football game.  I understand and am OK with the fact that a march tune entitled “Colonel Bogey” was whistled by the POWs marching into the labor camp.  That was the only place in the film where the marching band music seemed appropriate to me.

But that being said, there were several places in the movie where the marching band music was used that I just didn’t understand.  It was used in such a way that it completely pulled me out of the jungles of Thailand and dropped me in the middle of half-time at the USC Friday night game.  For example: when Saito finally let Nicholson out of the hot box, losing a battle of wills, the POWs began to cheer.  The marching band music started up again and I thought that someone had just scored a touch-down.  The sentiment for victory may have been appropriately accompanied by a victory march, but I found it so distracting that I was taken out of the story.  But my opinion regarding the music aside, everyone else seemed to have loved the music.  Malcolm Arnold actually won the Academy Award for Best Music.

In fact, the film took home seven Academy Awards in all.  Guinness won for Best Actor, David Lean won for Best Director, in addition to Awards for Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (which I assume is like the modern Best Adapted Screenplay category), Best Film Editing, and Best Cinematography.  Hayakawa was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

Interesting note:  I found this fun fact while reading Wikipedia.  “According to Turner Classic Movies, the producers nearly suffered a catastrophe following the filming of the bridge explosion. To ensure they captured the one-time event, multiple cameras from several angles were used. Ordinarily, the film would have been taken by boat to London, but due to the Suez crisis this was impossible; therefore the film was taken by air freight. When the shipment failed to arrive in London, a worldwide search was undertaken. To the producers’ horror the film containers were found a week later on an airport tarmac in Cairo, sitting in the hot Egyptian sun. Though it was not exposed to sunlight, the heat-sensitive colour film stock should have been hopelessly ruined; however, when processed the shots were perfect and appeared in the film.”

All in all, and despite the marching band music, I enjoyed the film.  Guinness did a fantastic job and the climax was very exciting to watch.  Even though I knew how the film ended, I was still on the edge of my seat.  This was definitely a deserving Best Picture winner!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around the World in 80 Days – 1956

This movie was wonderful for several reasons.  First – It was in color!  And I think we have finally made it past black & white.  As far as I know, the next black & white film to win Best Picture is The Artist in 2011.  Next, the actors did a fantastic job creating memorable characters.  The score was written in a grand style befitting the epic journey that takes place in the film.  And all this is applied to one of Jules Vern’s most beloved classic novels.  I have actually read and enjoyed this book.

Location, location, location!!  As you might imagine, this movie goes around the world and offers somewhat of a travelogue, showing us all the foreign locations through which the characters travel.  We get to visit London, Spain, India, Thailand, Japan, The United States, and of course, all the oceans in between.  Of course, the story takes place in 1872, so much of what was shown had to be dated to that time period.  The lucky cast and crew filmed most of the movie on location so they all got to visit all of the exotic places.

Let’s start off with the cast.  David Niven did a fine job as the quintessential Proper English Gentleman, Phileas Fogg.   He was always serious, to the point, punctual, strict, and had little patience for even the smallest deviations from his plans.  He is always in control of himself, even if he cannot control the world around him.  His character followed the book very closely, except for one point.  In the book, he loses control of his emotions at the end, even going so far as to punch Inspector Fix for making him lose his bet.

Interesting note:  David Niven was very eager to play the role of Phileas Fogg, so much so that when asked to do it, he exclaimed that he would do it for free.  He later commented that he was glad they did not take him up on that offer.

Playing opposite Niven was a Mexican actor and comedian named Cantinflas, playing the part of Fogg’s manservant, Passepartout.  In contrast to Fogg, Passepartout is the comic relief of the film.  He is a Jack-of-all-Trades with an eye for the ladies, which sometimes leads him into trouble.  In the book he was a Frenchman, but because they were able to get such a big name comedian to play the part, they changed the character to be Latin.

Now, here is the trick with the casting of those two parts:  David Niven was a well-known actor, but apparently, Cantinflas was an even bigger name on the world-wide level.  This was a little backwards because Fogg is the main character of the film, but because Cantinflas was better known, the posters and advertisements for the film in most countries around the world gave him top billing, as if his character was the focus of the film.  In fact, Charlie Chaplin even called Cantinflas “the world’s greatest clown.”  Of course, today, I think more people remember Niven.

Princess Aouda, the lovely Indian girl, was played by a very young Shirley MacLaine.  She didn’t really do much in the film except follow Fogg on his travels, but that’s alright.  Her character also remained pretty true to the book.  And finally, we have Robert Newton playing the part of the determined Inspector Fix.  He follows Fogg all around the globe, trying to arrest him for a crime he didn’t commit.  Again, pretty true to the book.

As a matter of fact, the entire movie was very faithful to the book, so in that respect I was rather impressed.  There were only two minor differences and both were easy to forgive.  One was that at the start of Fogg’s journey, he flew over the Alps in a hot-air balloon.  That was not in Vern’s novel.  Second was a sequence in which Passepartout does some comedic bull-fighting to help him and his master acquire passage on a ship.  This was also not in the book, but it was put in the film to give more screen time to Cantinflas, who had actually done some bull-fighting in the past.

Interesting note:  This movie used a ton of cameo appearances.  There were around 48 in all.  Some of the bigger names were Charles Boyer, Cesar Romero, Reginald Denny, Peter Lorre, Red Skelton, Marlene Dietrich, Frank Sinatra, Buster Keaton, and John Gielgud.

As I already mentioned, this was filmed in color.  The movie would not have been as good if it had been black & white.  This was important because of all the varied and exotic locations:  The blues and greens of the sky and the far landscapes during the balloon ride over the Alps.  The beautiful red and gold costumes of the matadors in Madrid.  The vibrant reds and oranges of sunsets over the seas off the coast of Bombay.  The dark greens of the jungles on the road to Calcutta.  The bright and colorful robes of the geishas in Yokohama.  The striking pinks and purples of the stockings worn by the dancing girls in San Francisco.  The film really made great use of color to catch the attention of the audience.

That being said, I do have one little complaint.  Everywhere they went the extras were all dressed in the traditional costumes of the region.  While such clothing is generally bright and fancy, I doubt that people really wear it every day.  In that respect, I thought it was a bit too “Hollywood” – almost a little fake.  But I can understand why they did it for several reasons.  First, it was a clear indication to let the audience know where the characters were.  If you see the women on the screen all wearing rainbow colored saris, you know they have made it to India.  Second, it gave the filmmakers the opportunity to show off bright colors on the screen, while the majority of the industry was still producing black & white movies.  And third, I think the audiences of 1956 were more interested in seeing glamorous fantasy than the drab squalor of reality, a sentiment that seems to have changed for audiences of today.

This was a very memorable film that won five of the eight Academy Awards it was nominated for.  As you might expect it also took home the Oscar for Best Cinematography, but also Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Music Scoring, and Best Film Editing.  At its core, the story is just a fun story.  It is a great and grand adventure that takes the audience to different and exciting places.  Great book, great characters, great locations, and great plot.  Great movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marty – 1955

I have to start this review by saying that this was a very sweet movie.  The story was a good one on a number of levels.  It was one that I think nearly everyone can identify with.  It dealt with deep human emotions that made me feel strongly for the characters involved.  The two leads did a great job and for a number of reasons, I really cared what happened to them.  When the movie was over, I wanted it to keep going.  I wanted to know what happened next.

The story revolves around the title character, Marty, played by Ernest Borgnine.  He really was incredible in this film.  Marty was a 35 year old single man who had very little experience with women.  He had little self-esteem and little self-confidence.  He seemed to be the loneliest guy in the world.  But he was such a nice guy with such a gentle manner that I instantly liked him.

I think that most people have felt lonely and depressed at one time or another.  Most of us have experienced insecurity when dealing with the opposite sex.  So when we see what Marty is going through, we automatically want him to succeed.  Everybody loves the underdog, and Marty is a complete emotional underdog.  He even refers to himself as fat and ugly on more than one occasion.

Sure, jokes have been made about how Borgnine is such an unattractive actor.  In fact, it was because he was not the typical Hollywood pretty-boy that he was cast in the role.  But as we all know, a person’s personality can have a direct effect on how attractive or unattractive others perceive them to be.  A handsome man who is a jerk will seem less physically attractive.  On the flip side, an unattractive man who is a great guy will seem to be more handsome to others.  And despite all his handicaps and his lousy luck with women, he does his best to maintain a positive attitude.  He desperately wants to find love.

Marty is a butcher who lives at home with his Italian mother, played by Esther Minciotti.  His best friend Angie, played by Joe Mantell, is constantly trying to get Marty to go out with him to meet women.  However, Angie’s motives are more selfish than generous.  He really only wants Marty along as his wing-man.  One Saturday night, Marty’s mother convinces him to go out to a dance-club and Angie goes with him.

But as fate would have it, Marty actually meets a girl.  The trick is that he meets the homeliest girl in the club.  She is Clara, played by Betsy Blair.  She is just as shy, lonely and emotionally damaged as Marty.  Because she is not a beauty, she has an incredibly low opinion of herself.  At the club, her blind date treats her horribly and abandons her.  Marty sees her crying and approaches her to comfort her.  She is so distraught that before she even knows who he is, she breaks down and cries into his shoulder.  It is always hard to see someone in that much pain, even when it is a fictional character in a movie.

But love can arise out of the most terrible situations.  Marty and Clara really hit it off and spend the rest of the evening together.  They talk, they laugh, they confide in each other and in the end, they fall in love.  Borgnine and Blair did a fantastic job of conveying the excitement of new love on the screen.  I smiled with them and cheered them on, wanting them to overcome their fears and mental blocks, and hoping for the success of their relationship.  It was a situation that they were both so unaccustomed to, that neither of them knew exactly how to relate to each other.  Their behavior was so believable and well written.

Borgnine was particularly wonderful to watch.  I have always liked him as an actor, but he really shined in this role.  He did an incredible job and really deserved the Best Actor Oscar he was awarded.  The scene after he takes Clara home is really satisfying to watch.  He is so happy that he has met someone worth being in love with, and knowing that she feels the same way about him, he is nearly running through the streets with joy!

The conflict comes when Angie, who on some level is actually envious of Marty’s new relationship, makes fun of Clara, calling her a dog and convincing Marty to brush her off.  As a spectator, I was heartbroken when he gave in to peer-pressure and failed to call Clara as he promised.  I was so emotionally involved that I was ready to shout at the screen, “Call her you idiot!  Call her!”  The single scene that shows Clara at home watching TV with her parents, waiting for Marty to call, and all the while silently crying in supreme disappointment, shame and loneliness was just like a knife to my heart.  I felt so bad for her.

But it all turned out well in the end.  When faced with the prospect of another boring night of misery and lonely sorrow, Marty finally finds the courage to fight back.  Addressing his friends who have convinced him to stay with them rather than pursuing the homely Clara, he finally does the right thing.  His little speech at the end brings the relief that the audience is hoping for and it is worth repeating here.

“You don’t like her, my mother don’t like her, she’s a dog and I’m a fat, ugly man! Well, all I know is I had a good time last night! I’m gonna have a good time tonight! If we have enough good times together, I’m gonna get down on my knees and I’m gonna beg that girl to marry me! If we make a party on New Year’s, I got a date for that party. You don’t like her? That’s too bad!”

It made for a great and satisfying ending.  The movie made the point that there is somebody for everybody, and when you find the person who is right for you, never let them go.  I have to give two thumbs up to Paddy Chayefsky for his excellent screenplay.  He also deserved the Oscar he won for his work on the film.

Interesting note:  The running time of the film is 90 minutes, making it the shortest movie to ever win the Academy Award for Best Picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the Waterfront – 1954

My goodness, this was an intense movie!  It had a great story, great plot developments, cool and very believable characters, and a wonderful, satisfying ending.  It also had an incredible score by Leonard Bernstein.  I must also mention that I have never seen Marlon Brando in a movie before, except for his fairly small role as Jor-El in the 1978 version of Superman: The Movie.  And before going any further, I have to say that Brando was brilliant in this Best Picture winner.

Brando was 30 years old when this was released, but he looked young enough to pass for 25, and he was a good looking guy back then.  There was a softness about his persona that was reflected in his character.  It made him seem innocent and gentle, but tough at the same time.  It made me instantly like his character.  He played Terry Malloy, an ex-boxer who’d had a shot at the big-time as a prize fighter.  Thus we have that famous line, “I coulda been a contender.”  This line actually has a pretty profound meaning within the context of the plot.

Brando deservedly won the Best Actor award for the role.  In fact, the film won eight of the twelve awards for which it was nominated.  In addition to Brando’s Oscar, Elia Kazan won for best Director, Eva Marie Saint won for Best Supporting Actress, as well as awards for Best Story and Screenplay, Best Art & Set Direction (B&W), Best Cinematography (B&W), and Best Film Editing.

Interesting note:  After Brando won his Oscar, it was stolen from him.  It did not turn up until much later when a London auction house contacted the actor and informed him of its whereabouts.

In my opinion, the movie should have won one more award for Best Score.  The music was incredible and was nominated for the category, though it did not win.  Leonard Bernstein wrote a truly powerful score that really stepped up to the plate and did its job.  It enhanced the tension of the plot, was integral as part of the story-telling, and yet it had its moments of simple beauty.  Sometimes, a solo instrument like a flute set the mood of a love scene.  At other times, a barrage of brass would make you nearly jump out of your seat when someone was getting ready to do something dangerous.  And if you know the music of West Side Story, you will instantly recognize Bernstein’s style.  The whole score was very energetic and exciting.  Very well done, Leonard!

The plot is a simple one, but the writers took the time to develop characters well, making you really identify with them.  Terry, not being a terribly bright guy, is duped into setting up his friend Joey to be murdered.  Mob-connected Union Boss Johnny Friendly, played by Lee J. Cobb, controls the waterfront (the docks and the dock workers) with an iron grip through intimidation and violence.  Terry is a lowly dock worker, even though he once had a promising career as a boxer.  Terry’s brother Charlie, wonderfully played by Rod Steiger, is in Friendly’s employ.  And it is because of Friendly, and consequently, Charlie, that Terry never got that shot.  Friendly effectively ruined Terry’s life, and Charlie not only allowed it to happen, he helped it to happen.

The murdered man’s sister Edie, played by Eva Marie Saint, is desperate to find out who killed her brother.  Terry becomes romantically involved with her, but refuses to tell her what he knows, fearing the wrath of the Union Boss.  But that is not his only fear.  Speaking of the incident to the wrong people would cause him to be ostracized by his fellow dock workers, among whom the general policy is to be D & D (Deaf & Dumb) when it comes to the Boss’s corrupt business.  However, Edie and the local Priest, Father Barry, played by Karl Malden, attempt to convince him to go to the police and become a stool pigeon.

Most of the film tells the story of Terry as he struggles with doing what is right despite the consequences.  But another aspect of the movie is the struggle of the dock workers against the corrupt Union Boss.  Apparently, the Script writer, Budd Schulberg spent a great deal of time doing research, conducting interviews, and attending court hearings in Hoboken New Jersey, the location of the real-life events on which the film is based.

And finally, there is one last thing that needs attention.  The cinematography was amazing.  It was so realistic!  The filming locations were so gritty that they were not at all the fabricated sets Hollywood usually shows us.  The alley ways were not made to look dirty.  They were dirty.  The slums were not decorated to look impoverished.  They were impoverished.  I have to applaud the director and the actors for working in those locations, under those conditions.

I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would.  I went into it with no expectations and only a vague concept of what the movie was about.  The phenomenal acting, the great directing, and the incredible score all combined to make a very memorable film, well worthy of the Best Picture Oscar.

Interesting note:  Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden, and Rod Steiger were each nominated for Best Supporting Actor for On the Waterfront, though none of them won.  They all lost to Edmund O’Brian in The Barefoot Contessa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Here to Eternity – 1953

Here we have another war-time drama, this one taking place in Hawaii in 1941, just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  The tragic event took place on December 7^th, a date which President Roosevelt called “a date which will live in infamy.”  However the entire film actually takes place in the months leading up to the attack.  The movie was nominated for thirteen Academy Awards and won eight.  Fred Zinnemann won for Best Director, Frank Sinatra won for Best Supporting Actor, and Donna Reed won for Best Supporting Actress.

I can easily see why this was such a popular movie.  It had several things going for it.  It had a cast with some pretty big names such as Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Frank Sinatra, Donna Reed, and even Ernest Borgnine.  It was set in an emotional time in our nation’s history that was intimately familiar to its audiences. The attack on Pearl Harbor had taken place only twelve years earlier.  It had a somewhat exotic location, and a heavily dramatic plot.

Most of the movie actually moved a little slow.  It seemed like it was all set-up for the last forty minutes of the film.  We start out as a young bugler, Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Clift) arrives on the island of Oahu, wanting just to play his bugle or be an infantry soldier.  His Captain, Dana Holms, played by Philip Ober, has other plans for him.  You see, Prewitt used to be a good boxer and Holms wants him to be on the company boxing team.  Prewitt refuses, saying that he gave up the sport after seriously injuring his sparring partner at his last post.  The Captain responds by giving him “the treatment”, forcing him to endure the hardest and most miserable duties army life has to offer.  Prewitt stubbornly refuses to box and this goes on for the first hour of the movie.

The next half an hour fleshes out three smaller story-lines.  First is First Sargent Milton Warden (Lancaster) as he starts a love affair with Captain Holm’s wife, Karen (Kerr).  It is from this that we have that famous scene of the two lovers kissing on the beach as the waves rush over them.  It is interesting to note that the film-makers took every opportunity to have Lancaster without his shirt.  He was actually pretty fit and muscly.  The second story-line followed Private Angelo Maggio (Sinatra) as he gets drunk and makes an enemy of Staff Sergeant James R. Judson (Borgnine).  The third story involved Prewitt and his love affair with a hired girl / dance hall hostess, Lorene (Reed).

I can’t say for sure if this movie portrays army life in the 1940s accurately, but all the soldiers seem to be drunks and letches.  Whenever they got permission to leave the army base, they immediately got rip-roaring drunk and hit the dance halls.  They got into fist-fights that all too quickly turned into knife fights.  Was this really the typical life of the American soldier?  Did they really behave like that?  But the more I think about it, I am guessing that yes, they probably were.  First, what else was there to do?  Second, audiences in 1953 didn’t question that aspect of the film.  In fact, the movie was praised for its realism.  Third, the army is known for the machismo of its soldiers.  It is easy to imagine that in the 1940s, just as today, drinking, womanizing, and fighting were considered to be manly behavior.

Interesting note:  One thing that the movie overlooked in the book, on which it is based, was Private Maggio working as a male hustler, and the gay nightlife of Waikiki.  Apparently, in the book, he is paid to have oral sex with another man.  I doubt Sinatra would have taken the part if that had made its way into the script.

As it was, Sinatra actually fought to get the part.  In fact, he sent letter after letter to the head of the studio, Harry Cohn, asking for the part.  After Eli Wallach, who was originally cast as Maggio, walked away from the role to appear on Broadway, Sinatra got the part, and he really did a fine job.  I think he deserved his Supporting Actor Oscar.  His character was really sort of a tragic one.  He was the first to befriend Prewitt while the Captain was mistreating him.  But he was also a horrible drunk who got himself into trouble.  And in the end, he died as a result of his excessive extreme behavior.

Interesting note:  Sinatra’s screen-test was used in the final cut of the film, showing him drunkenly throwing olives across a bar, pretending they were dice.

 

Burt Lancaster actually did a pretty good job as well.  He looked good, and his character was likeable.  He did his best to protect Prewitt from the cruelty of Captain Holms in subtle ways.  He was believable as the lover and capable as the fighter.  As a matter of fact, I thought he was really the only intelligent character in the whole movie.  When the inevitable Japanese attack happens, he immediately takes command, saving the lives of many of his troops.  Sure, he drank as much as any other soldier, but he proved himself a competent soldier.

But that demonstrates the problem I had with Prewitt, the main character.  Prewitt may have been a polite pretty-boy with a conscience, but he was a moron.  He made several pretty stupid decisions, eventually getting himself killed by his fellow soldiers.  Fortunately, the film didn’t shy away from acknowledging how unintelligent he was.  The character knew he wasn’t very smart, but he was really a good guy, so it was alright.

And Finally, I have to mention Donna Reed.  Most people know her from The Donna Reed Show and It’s a Wonderful Life.  But here she gave a performance with more drama than I am used to seeing from her.  Watch for one scene in particular near the end of the film.  As her boyfriend, Prewitt, is leaving her home to join the fighting at the army base, even though he is wounded and bleeding, and certain to die needlessly, she frantically, even hysterically begs him not to go.  Reed did a great job in that scene.

In the end, I found that I enjoyed the movie – mostly because of Sinatra, who did a great job, and Lancaster, whose character I liked.  But also because, though the main plot was a little slow, the three main sub-plots were engaging and interesting to watch.  Like I said, it is easy to see why this one was awarded the Academy Award for Best Picture.