Author: Snugglecub

Shane – 1953

This was an OK movie.  It wasn’t great, but it also wasn’t bad.  It was altogether average.  Some things were good, like the cinematography, the costume design, and the music.  But other things were lacking, like some of acting, the lighting, and the fact that the film had a lot of set up for a climax that was far too short.

Alright, I’ll start with the good things.  The story took place in Wyoming, and cinematographer Jack Schaefer took home an Oscar for his work on the film.  He really did a great job of showing of the natural beauty of the landscape.  Plus it was filmed in Technicolor, giving him a wonderful pallet with which to work.

The costume and set design was spot on.  At first I was a little confused by Shane’s costume.  I was expecting a western and his outfit looked like it belonged in a film about Louis and Clark.  But upon reflection, the film’s plot took place in 1892  This was a period of transition, when the trappers, traders, and explorers were becoming ranchers and farmers.  The film was definitely a Western, but had more to do with frontier pioneers and less to do with classic cowboys.

The story was really about a group of farmers who owned land next to a mean old cattle rancher named Rufus Ryker, played by Emile Meyer.  The unspoken leader of the farmers was Joe Starrett, wonderfully played by Van Helfin.  Ryker gathered a group of friends and brutally oppressed the farmers, trying to drive them and their families off their land so he could have it for himself.  The farmers were all men of peace and did little to fight back.

Then along came Shane, played by Alan Ladd.  He was the strong and silent type with a dark past as a dangerous gun-slinger.  He showed up and became a farm hand for Joe, trying to leave his past behind him.  He meets Joe’s wife, Marian and his little boy, Joey, played by Jean Arthur and Brandon deWilde.  The child falls in love with Shane as only a young and innocent youth can.  Even Marian falls in love with him, though maybe just a little too much.  It was a little awkward, but that was on purpose because it becomes a minor plot point in the latter half of the film.

Shane raises his fists to defend the oppressed farmers, making an enemy of Ryker.  Despite that, everything seems to be going alright until Ryker hires a cold-blooded killer named Jack Wilson, played by Jack Palance to help him drive off the farmers.  When Wilson murders one of the farmers, the game is up and the peaceful farmers start packing up their belongings.

But here is where the filmmakers seemed to drop the ball.  The big climactic gun fight at the end lasted for all of ten seconds, if that.  It was over so quickly that it was almost anticlimactic.  Incidentally, the DVD provided that film’s original trailer, which I watched.  The entire gun-fight was included in the trailer, so if I had watched that first, the ending would have been ruined for me.

Another thing that really got on my nerves about the movie was the little boy, Joey.  Now, I know that there was a certain amount of realism in his whiney voice, dialogue, and behavior, but he was so incredibly annoying that I was hoping he would get killed by a stray bullet.  Every time he called out with that high-pitched, sing-song, “Shaaaaain?”  I wanted something bad to happen to him.

This is the first movie in which I have not rolled my eyes at Jean Arthur’s performance.  I have never been a huge fan of her acting, but here she played a more dramatic role that had a little realism and depth so I applaud her for a job well done.  My research uncovered an interesting tidbit about her participation in the film.  This was the first film she ever did that was in color, but it was the last feature film she was ever in.

The lead, Alan Ladd did a good enough job, though his character was a little one-dimensional.  But it was his final parting words to little Joey that I found interesting.  He said “There’s no living with a killing.  There’s no goin’ back from one.  Right or wrong, it’s a brand… a brand sticks.”  In other words, a tiger can’t change his stripes?  I disagree, Mr. Shane.  You were put into a bad situation, but now that it is over, there is no reason you can’t settle down.  Oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roman Holiday – 1953

On a general scale of one to ten, I’m confident in giving Roman Holiday an eight.  As a romantic comedy, actually on par with many movies made today, it was a bit predictable, and yet sweet in its own way.  It had an ending that, though it was completely appropriate, wasn’t exactly expected, and for that, I have to give the film proper credit.

It starred Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn in her first American movie role.  The plot was simplistic and has been used in many different films, in many different ways.  A poor little rich girl, in this case, an actual princess, escapes her overly-structured and pampered life.  While she is exploring the outside world and discovering how the common folk live, she finds love, which inevitably leads us back to the ending.  Will she get to stay with him, or will the lovers be forever parted by their separate stations in life?

The young ingenue, Hepburn, who was bubbling over with sweetness and innocence, stole the show.  She was incredible as Princess Ann of an unspecified country.  She was a mere 24 years old when the film was released, and she charmed all of Hollywood with her beauty, poise and innocence.  She had that long, graceful neck, natural beauty and a smile that could light the world.  In fact, she was so good that she took home the Oscar for Best Actress.

Peck, did his usual good job, though it was a slight departure for the actor who normally did not perform comedic roles.  He had an easiness about him that was disarming and pleasant to watch.  He played Joe Bradley, an American newspaper reporter in Italy.  When Ann falls asleep on a park bench, Joe takes her to his apartment rather than letting her get arrested.

He doesn’t realize who she is until the next morning.  Then he decides to make some money by getting the “exclusive” story on the Princess.  He takes her all over Rome, giving her the experiences she has never had but has always wanted.  Of course, they fall in love.  Why wouldn’t they?

To complete his exploitation of Ann’s secret escapades around the city, he enlists the help of his photographer friend, Irving Radovich, played by Eddie Albert.  Albert was like the comic relief in a mildly comedic film.  He did a few pratfalls and got drinks spilled on him several times.  He also got a few laughs in his exaggerated efforts to snap candid photos of the Princess.  The two men go out of their way to hide their true motives from the girl, just as Ann tries to hide her identity from her new friends.

The movie was filmed on location in Rome and shows off a few of the great attractions the city has to offer: The Colosseum, the Mouth of Truth, a street-side café, or even the Palazzo Barberini, which was actually used as the exterior of the Princess’s embassy.  The beautiful locations seemed to be just as much a part of the storytelling as were the actors and the script.  Director William Wyler did a fantastic job of showing them all off.

By the end of the movie, I was expecting the typical Hollywood ending.  I thought I would see the two lovers find a way to make the relationship work.  Somehow, they would stay together and throw caution to the wind.  But I was happily surprised that Wyler did the right thing.  There was no way that such a relationship would be allowed, and both Joe and Ann knew it.  They made their peace with their situation and said their goodbyes, sharing a teary-eyed kiss before parting.  Joe never wrote his exclusive story, deciding not to exploit the girl with whom he had fallen in love.

The film was a wonderful blend of romance and humor, making it the perfect example of a romantic comedy.  But therein lies its only flaw.  Romantic comedies are generally very predictable.  You usually know how the story is going to end before the film is half over.  But that being said, its realistic ending was one of its saving graces.  That, and the fact that Hepburn was incredibly beautiful and mesmerizing to watch.  She was young, fresh, and vivacious, and Roman Holiday was a wonderful way to introduce her to the American movie-going public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Robe – 1953

Here we are with another Biblical Epic, on par with other great films like Quo Vadis, Ben-Hur, and The Ten Commandments.  It was well made and had a competent cast of actors.  This one had a rather unique perspective and was the story about the Roman soldier who won the Robe of Christ after the crucifixion

He was Marcellus Gallio, played by Richard Burton.  He was a very young and very attractive lead who was not portrayed as a saint until the end of the film, though I suppose that is part of the point.  He started out with very human, or should I say “Roman” flaws.  But he also has that classic transformation in which he changes from a dim-witted heathen to a Christian.  Burton did a fine job.  He was not overly dramatic, nor was his performance lacking in energy or skill.

Opposite him was the character of Diana, played by the beautiful Jean Simmons.  The two had been lovers since before the time of the plot and, of course, they ended up together in the end.  Still, the writer did a fine job of doing it in a slightly unexpected way… slightly.  Simmons seemed to have a good on-screen chemistry with Burton, and they looked natural together.

But it was the next most prominent role that I didn’t particularly care for.  Demetrius, played by Victor Mature, Marcellus’s Greek slave, just didn’t sit right with me.  First of all, Mature’s acting didn’t seem up to par with his co-stars.  It was almost as if he had been used to acting for the stage, and didn’t seem to know how to act in front of a movie camera.  I am well aware that this was not the case.  This film came right in the middle of his busy career as an actor.  But for my tastes, he just seemed slightly hammy and overdone.

Jay Robinson also did a good enough job as the Roman Emperor, Caligula.  He had that edge of childish insanity and pulled it off fairly believably though, to be honest, there were moments where he seemed to be a bit over-the-top.  But I’ll be the first to admit that maybe I am being a little too harsh.  Maybe the wild and grandiose portrayal was more accurate than I am giving it credit for.

The Robe was interesting in that it took a nearly negligible character from the Bible and made up a complete story around the small part he played in the crucifixion.  Not only did Marcellus win the garment, they also made him the soldier that did the actual crucifying.  He gives the robe to his slave, Demetrius, who is already a follower of the teachings of Christ.  Demetrius takes the robe and runs away.

Marcellus becomes haunted by the experience and loses his mind.  In order to regain his sanity, he is sent on a mission to find the robe, thinking that it was the bewitched cloth that cursed him with madness.  He finds it, and Demetrius, in the company of the Christians.  He learns of their gentle, peace-loving ways and gradually begins to see the evil inherent in the leaders of Rome.  His conversion to Christianity ends up getting him, and subsequently, his girlfriend Diana, put to death, and who doesn’t appreciate the noble deaths of martyrs.

I’m not sure if I would call the plot inspirational or stirring, but it was certainly interesting and cleverly written.  It was complete fiction, but it had just the right mixture of religious mysticism and reality to draw me in to the story.  Grand or not, it was a well-made film.  The sets and costumes were good and the sweeping cinematography really stood out.  The film’s score, written by Hollywood veteran Alfred Newman, was always appropriate and did a fine job of enhancing the action taking place on the screen.

And just as an interesting note, this was a pretty special film in cinema history.  It has the distinction of being the first movie released in the widescreen process CinemaScope.  However, it should also be noted that because very few movie theaters were equipped to show widescreen films, many scenes were filmed a second time.  Actors and sets had to be crowded closer together to accommodate the smaller screens in most movie houses.  In fact, some of the dialogue between the two versions was even different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julius Cesar – 1953

I finally understand the context of the famous line, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.”  It is the beginning of a speech given by Mark Antony after the death of the Emperor Julius Cesar, during which he uttered another famous line.  “Et tu, Brute?”  Somehow, Shakespeare never seems to get old. Over the years, there have been at least six filmed version of the famous tragedy and one TV miniseries.  That’s pretty good for a play that was written 415 years ago.

The stories are good and the characters have depth.  This version of Julius Cesar, starring Marlon Brando, James Mason, John Gielgud, and Louis Calhern, kept the original text and appeared to be pretty accurate with the costumes and sets.  It all seemed to be done with respect to the original play, although it did seem a little odd to hear Elizabethan speech coming from the mouths of men dressed as Roman soldiers.

Brando got top billing, though he was not the main character.  The real main character was Brutus, played by James Mason.  Mason did a great job and handled the language well.  It seemed almost natural for him, as opposed to Brando’s portrayal of Mark Antony.  While Brando wasn’t struggling with the language, he did sound like he was putting on a performance, especially compared to Mason.

There were also two women in The Bard’s play, Portia, Brutus’s wife, played by Deborah Kerr, and Calpurnia, Cesar’s wife, played by Greer Garson.  The two women turned in good enough performances, but their parts were so small as to be almost negligible.  Portia’s part can be summed up as, “Brutus, tell me what’s troubling you.”  Likewise, Calpurnia’s can be summed up as, “Cesar, I dreamed you were going to die if you left the house.  Stay home today.”  That was about it for the women.  I don’t know the original play well enough to be sure, but I would guess that their parts were somewhat bigger.

For the most part, the acting was all top notch.  Critics praised all the performances, especially Brando’s, which is something I don’t totally agree with.  When he was cast, everyone was dubious, since he had just come off of portraying Stanley Kowalski so believably in A Streetcar Named Desire the year before.  In that film, his accent was almost a mumble, and people were concerned that he didn’t have good enough diction to do Shakespeare justice.  However, he had veteran Shakespearean actor and co-star, John Gielgud coach him, and he apparently did everything just like he was told.  So I stand by my earlier statement.  He gave us a competent performance, but had to work at it.  It wasn’t natural for him.

Mason, however, was incredibly good and, really, the play was about his character, Brutus, and the crisis of conscious that he goes through both in deciding to murder the Emperor, his friend, and then dealing with the consequences of that decision.  Then, after the citizens of Rome condemn him for his actions, which he believes were fueled by patriotism, he flees Rome and is pursued by Mark Antony.  When he is defeated in battle, he commits suicide to avoid capture.

However, Brando was the big name in Hollywood and kept stealing scenes from him.  Brando seemed to want the focus of the plot to be Mark Anthony, and it simply wasn’t.  Mason reportedly asked director Joseph L. Mankiewicz to stop Brando from dominating the film and “put the focus back where it belongs.  Namely on me!”  Mankiewicz tried to do just that, but when Brando saw what he was doing, he threatened to walk off the film.  However, Brando was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role instead of Mason, which makes no sense to me, since Mark Antony was a supporting role.  But hey, what do I know?

If I had any complaint it would be in a small aspect of Shakespeare’s original play.  Cesar is shown refusing the crown over and over again, but Brutus agrees to become part of the murder conspiracy just in case Cesar ever decides to take it.  That doesn’t make sense to me.  He might become powerful someday, so let’s kill him now… because you never know.  Wow.  With friends like that, who needs enemies?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moulin Rouge – 1952

This was a surprisingly dark and depressing film which starred Jose Ferrer as Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec.  He is portrayed as the epitome of the tortured artist.  But his case is special.  He is physically crippled and in constant pain.  He sees himself as a monster and is filled with self-loathing.   He is also an emotional cripple, unable to love or be loved.

The film starts out in the bohemian pleasure palace, the Moulin Rouge, famous for its burlesque decadence.  There are acrobats, musicians, and of course, can-can dancers.  The star of the show is the songbird, Jane Avril, played by Zsa Zsa Gabor.  But she is only a minor character.  Peter Cushing plays Marcel de la Voisier, a dancer with a somewhat deformed face.

Toulouse is a patron who comes to watch the entertainment and draw his drawings.  He is an artist with a unique style, one that seems to capture the essence of the times, and specifically of the Moulin Rouge, itself.  In his art, there is a strange mix of the beautiful and the grotesque, the result of which is a profound truth that is impossible to deny.  Toulouse has a habit of drinking heavily to dull both the pain of his body and of his soul.

The plot then follows his tempestuous relationship with a wretched and crazy prostitute named Marie Charlet, played by Colette Marchand.  He loves her but she cannot love him in return.  She stays with him because he gives her money.  But she eventually leaves him, and he becomes more depressed.  He drinks even more.  Then he meets a woman who truly loves him, but because of his experience with Marie, he cannot see it, though he has fallen deeply in love with her.  When she gives up on him and leaves, Toulouse becomes so depressed, he drinks himself to death.  The end.

The film was shot in Technicolor, but it was done so in such a way as to minimize the brightness of the film’s palette.  Technicolor, while not new, was still not the industry standard.  Many films were still being shot in black and white.  The Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation was responsible for other bright film spectacles like Robin Hood and The Wizard of Oz, movies that were known for their over-saturated, vibrant colors.  However, director, John Huston wanted the film to be more realistically colored, something the developing company was reluctant to do.

But the result was a gritty realism which, much like the paintings of Toulouse-Lautrec, held an unusual amount of truth.  Ferrer was very convincing, as long as he was shown from the waist up.  Huston made use of clever camera angles, cut-outs in the floors of the sets, and prosthetic legs to create the illusion of Toulouse’s dwarfism.  There were even scenes in which Ferrer had his legs strapped behind him while he walked on his knees.  Unfortunately, the false appendages always looked incredibly fake.

A small sub-plot involving the star can-can dancer from the Moulin Rouge, La Goulue, excellently played by Katherine Kath, was utterly pathetic and yet very poignant at the same time.  She is shown several years after the Moulin Rouge has evolved from a bawdy nightclub for the misfits of society to a respectable upper-class establishment, thanks to one of Toulouse’s paintings.  She has become a crazy, drunken hag on the streets, yelling at the scoffing crowds that she used to be the most famous dancer of the Moulin Rouge.  It was a pitiful and heart-wrenching scene to watch.

Moulin Rouge was a film that did an incredible job of bringing many of his most famous sketches and paintings to life.  The cast and their costumes so closely resembled Toulouse-Lautrec’s paintings that they appeared to have jumped right off the canvases.

A rather daring thing that the film could have done would have been to include the fact that Toulouse’s death was more than just severe alcoholism and a fall down a flight of stairs.  In reality, there was no fall and he died from complications with syphilis along with the alcoholism.  But maybe that would have been too much for the audiences of the 1950s.  I guess they only wanted to take their realism so far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Noon – 1952

Gary Cooper is back in a role that some call his best.  This film was a western, but it wasn’t your traditional western.  Most westerns of the era were packed full of fast-paced action sequences, but High Noon threw that formula out the window.  The only action in the film took place in the last ten minutes.  The rest of it was really a drama about a man who was the Marshall in a town full of fair-weather friends.

Aside from Cooper, playing the part of Marshall Will Kane, the film also starred a virtual newcomer to world of film, Grace Kelly, playing the part of Amy Fowler Kane, his new wife.  But the film also boasted a few other names that I already knew from more modern times.  A young Lloyd Bridges played Kane’s faithless deputy, Harvey Pell.  Harry Morgan played a craven townsperson.  Another favorite of mine, Thomas Mitchell, played the selfish mayor Jonas Henderson.

The story can actually be summed up pretty quickly.  The evil Frank Miller, played by Ian MacDonald, was coming to town on the noon train to murder Marshall Kane with his three cohorts.  The three killers spend most of the film waiting at the train station, allowing the tension to build and build to a shoot-em-up climax.

Kane is first seen getting married to Amy, a Quaker who is against killing.  When he hears of his gathering executioners, he is told to leave town with his new bride, but his conscience will not allow him to abandon the town he has cleaned up and grown to love.  He returns to the town to take care of his responsibilities like a man, even though Amy threatens to leave him if he fights the men.

Kane goes to all the men of the town to enlist them as emergency deputies in order to meet the threat and keep the streets safe.  But each of them, for their own reasons, refuses him.  One after another rejects him and leaves him to face his suicide mission alone.  In the end, he is forced to realize that those who called themselves his friends when there was no trouble, have abandoned him when he is up against four killers.

Miller’s train arrives right no time and the gunfight begins.  The only way Kane is able to survive is with the help of the one person who should have never been involved.  His wife, Amy, kills one of the men herself, allowing Kane to beat his final foe.  And I loved how, after the fight is over, Kane throws his badge to the ground at the feet of all his so-called friends who had left him to die alone, as if to say, “It is done.  I owe you traitors nothing, ever again.”

It was a drama that could easily be translated to almost any other time period.  It just happened to take place in the Old West.  The director, Fred Zinnemann, who was nominated for Best Director, though he did not win, made a film that was actually quite controversial for its time.  It was filmed and released during the second Red Scare and the Korean War.  The House Un-American Activities Committee was finding Communists in everything.

Actor John Wayne disliked the film because he felt it was an allegory for blacklisting, which he actively supported.  He called High Noon “the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life.”  He actively helped to blacklist the film’s screenwriter, Carl Foreman, from Hollywood.  When Gary Cooper, who later strongly opposed blacklisting, won the award for Best Actor for his work on the film, he was not able to be at the awards ceremony to accept the award.  Ironically, John Wayne accepted it for him.

However, I personally didn’t see anything un-American about the film at all.  Apparently, critics thought that it was un-American for a U.S. Marshall to ask for help in solving his problems, and that he was saved by a woman in the end.  Balderdash!  All I saw a film that was well-made and interesting to watch.  Zinnemann did a fantastic job of building tension to a point where you can’t help but get wrapped up in the drama.  And I thought it was powerful story-telling in the way that the woman had to go entirely against her principles to save her husband’s life.  I’m generally not a big fan of westerns, but this one was unconventional enough that it won me over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Quiet Man – 1952

My opinion of this film is divided.  On the one hand, it had a cute story and most of the acting was good.  On the other hand, the principles behind the story are either very antiquated, extremely sexist, or both.  It starred John Wayne in a role that was not quite typical for him, and Maureen O’Hara, in a role that was easily typical for her.

The plot centered around Sean Thornton, an ex-boxer from Pittsburgh who has a dark secret in his past.  He moves to Inisfree, the small Irish town in which he was born.  He is met by the quirky and quaint townsfolk, and in particular, by Michaeleen Flynn, wonderfully played by Barry Fitzgerald, who offers him a carriage ride back to his ancestral home.  Before they arrive, they pass a woman tending a flock of sheep.  Their eyes meet and lock, and that’s all she wrote.  They are madly in love with each other.

The shepherdess is the fiery red-head, Mary Kate Danaher, played by Maureen O’Hara.  She is known for having a temper.  The film’s main complication comes in the form of Mary Kate’s older brother, Will, played by Victor McLagen.  He has interests in purchasing the vacant property in which Sean intends to live.  But when Sean buys it out from under him, he is infuriated.  In retaliation, he refuses to give his sister permission to marry the Yankee.

What follows is a little pastiche that shows the strange and antiquated customs of the land, specifically in regards to proper courtship.  But in the end of the film, the final ten minutes, their differences are resolved in a grand and somewhat comedic brawl between the two opponents.  After refusing to fight for the entire film, Sean proves his love for Mary Kate for all to see.  He not only earns her respect, but the respect of Will, himself.  Once they have beaten the crap out of each other, they get drunk and stumble home, leaning on each other and singing together.

And there is Mary Kate, waiting at the house with dinner sitting on the table.  She scolds the two drunkards while trying to hide her grin.  Incidentally, she did that several times in the course of the movie.  She yelled at the men for behaving like men, but her hidden grin tells the audience that she is actually pleased, and possibly even a little turned on, by their manly misbehaving, presumably because it is how “real men” should act.

But therein lies the heart of the plot’s main failing.  The film is incredibly sexist.  First, it says that women are only truly happy when they are cooking and cleaning for a man.  Men are only truly happy when they are getting drunk and fighting.  Second, it is not only a husband’s prerogative to beat his wife when she misbehaves, it is his duty.  At one point, when Sean is physically abusing Mary Kate for being a bad wife, in front of the entire town, no less, an old woman actually hands Sean a large switch with witch to more efficiently beat his bride.  And third…well, there isn’t a third, but aren’t the first two enough?

Still, despite its antiquated, sexist ideals, it was still a fun movie to watch.  It had a bit of humor, a bit of heart, and a bit of drama.  It didn’t take itself too seriously, which was all for the better.  And I have to make special mention of the fantastic cinematography.  Winton C. Hoch and Archie Stout did a fantastic job of showing off the Irish Countryside in a way that was grand and inspiring, yet at the same time, they captured the feel of the small and charming village of Inisfree, despite the fact that it was a fictional town.

I mentioned earlier that most of the acting was good.  Unfortunately, I was slightly disappointed in the film’s lead, John Wayne.  He was out of his element and it showed.  Everyone was used to seeing him play the parts of cowboys and war heroes.  But when he was walking down the streets of the town, he still had that cowboy swagger that he was known for.  It was a walk that made him look like he had a bad leg and swishy arms.  It was either that, or he was drunk.  I suspect that it might have just been his own way of walking, slightly hunched over and swaying.  Either way, it looked really out of place and I sometimes had trouble seeing the character of Sean Thornton instead of actor, John Wayne.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ivanhoe – 1952

I went into watching this movie having already seen it once before, and that was after I had already read the book.  The story is great.  The film has plenty of complex character development, fast-paced and exciting action, and lots of great sets and costumes.  It is just a lot of fun to watch.

Robert Taylor stars as the title character Ivanhoe, son of a wealthy land owner, Cedric, played by Finlay Currie.  The film starts as Ivanhoe is searching for the missing King Richard, the Lionhearted.  He is supposedly Richard’s bravest and most loyal knight, most skilled in battle and tournament.  He finds Richard locked in an Austrian prison with a ransom of 150,000 marks of silver.  He starts making plans to raise the ransom to set his king free.

But we all know the story.  The Normans, led by Richard’s evil brother Prince John, oppress Richard’s Saxon subjects, keeping them down and trying to seize the throne of England for themselves.  In challenge, Ivanhoe enters a jousting tournament to draw out his enemies, but fails!  He takes on the four best Norman knights and unhorses three of them.  But the fourth one, Sir Brian De Bois-Guilbert, excellently played by George Sanders, almost kills him!

The story smacks a little of Robin Hood, doesn’t it?  Well, it should.  It takes place during the same historical period.  In fact, the character of Robin Hood is a part of the plot, though he is called only Locksley.

Joan Fontaine plays Ivanhoe’s love interest, Rowena, Cedric’s ward.  I actually loved the way Rowena’s character was written.  She loved Ivanhoe, but also understood that he had duties of danger and honor.  She knew that because of them, he could not always be safely at her side, even when that meant rescuing another beautiful maiden who she knew to be in love with him.  She trusted him and was not so jealous as to forbid him to have any contact with her.

That other woman was the Jewess, Rebecca, played by the beautiful Elizabeth Taylor.  The secondary plot of the film involved Rebecca’s father, Isaac, played by Felix Aylmer.  Ivanhoe saves Isaac’s life and in return, he agrees to use all his resources and contacts to raise King Richard’s ransom.  And lest I forget, I have to mention the wonderful portrayal of the court jester who becomes Ivanhoe’s faithful squire, Wamba, played by Emlyn Williams.  Surprisingly enough, his character is actually killed off during an act of heroism.

Now, one of the really big themes in the original novel, written by Sir Walter Scott, was the oppression of the Jews.  They were treated like homeless vagabonds and looked down upon as money-grubbers.  I am happy that the film did not shy away from the subject of the negative stereotype.  On top of that, they made the incredibly popular Elizabeth Taylor play one of the wrongly oppressed race.  I have to give them props for including the touchy subject, which, in its way, was just as relevant in the 1950s as it was in 1194, when the story takes place.

The fighting sequences were certainly exciting, though the director tried to add a little more intensity by speeding up the film during a few of the sword fights.  Sure, it made the sword-play faster and dazzling, but it was obvious and looked unnatural.  The siege of the castle of Front de Boeuf was amazingly well done.

And though I wouldn’t have expected to enjoy it as much as the battle, I really enjoyed the jousting tournament scene and the final contest between Ivanhoe and his arch enemy, De Bois-Guilbert.  You see, the characters were so well written, that even though De Bois-Guilbert was the obvious bad guy, he was portrayed as a somewhat noble character.  He falls in love with Rebecca and is willing to give up everything, including his life to save her.

And that is why Ivanhoe was such a good movie.  The good guys were not flawless.  The bad guys were partly noble.  The Jews were selfless.  The maidens were smart without being sassy.  The jester is not just comic relief.  Everything seemed to fly in the face of the typical Hollywood stereotype.  Well done, Ivanhoe.  Well done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Streetcar Named Desire – 1951

The first word that comes to mind when I recall watching this film is sleazy.  It was so appropriately seedy and base.  You could almost smell the dirty sweat and grease in the projects of New Orleans, where the story took place.  The movie starred Marlon Brando, Vivian Leigh, Kim Hunter, and Karl Malden as the poor and wretched people living in those filthy slums.  It was a rough and violent place, but one that was all too real.

Leigh is a Blanche DuBois, a Southern Belle who has fallen on hard times, so she has to move in with her sister, Stella, played by Hunter, and her terror of a husband, Stanley, played by Brando.  Blanche’s past is something that she hides, ferociously guarding her dirty little secrets.  She puts on the frilly and flowery airs of her affluent, southern ancestry.  Stanley, though, is a violent, bully, without an ounce of sensitivity in him.  He sees right through Blanche’s affectations.

The two of them butt heads from their first meeting.  Stella, who is pregnant, does her best to be a mediator and keep them away from each other’s throats, but Stanley’s temper can’t be controlled.  Malden plays Mitch, one of Stanley’s poker buddies that falls in love with Blanch and her genteel mannerisms.

Stanley’s cruelty toward Blanche comes to a head when he investigates her past on his own.  He finds that she had a history of mental instability and sexual promiscuity, even going so far as to have an affair with a 17 year-old student, for which she is fired from her teaching job.  Stanley ruins the relationship between Mitch and Blanch by telling Mitch about all of Blanche’s skeletons.

The plot is complex and deep and the cast of actors did a fine job of bringing out the essences of the larger than life characters.  And it is no wonder they all did so well.  Brando, Hunter, and Malden had all originated their roles on Broadway in the original play, while Leigh was brought in from the London Theatre production to play Blanche.  They were all fantastic and worked well together as an ensemble.

The look and atmosphere were very real, as were the characters.  The dialogue, while a bit flowery and verbose at times, was deep and meaningful.  The author of the original play, Tennessee Williams, who also penned such other hard-hitting dramas as The Glass Menagerie, The Rose Tattoo, and Cat On a Hot Tin Roof, obviously had a talent for writing wonderful and complex characters with which many people could identify.

I’d like to take a moment to focus on Malden’s portrayal of Mitch.  The character was a stand-out to me.  He showcased, through his mild mannerisms, his shy hesitance, and his hopeful yet desperate need for companionship, inner pains, and conflicts of the role.  Malden did a fantastic job, and took home the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his work.  In fact, both Hunter and Leigh took home Awards for Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress, respectively, as well.  Brando was nominated, but he did not win.  He lost to Humphry Bogart in The African Queen.  I’ve not seen that film, but I have heard that Bogart was exceptional.

All that brings me around to Brando.  When you mention the film A Streetcar Named Desire, Brando is the first actor that comes to most people’s minds.  It was the movie that really elevated him to the level of the superstar.  The famous line in which he is screaming Stella’s name over and over again is much more impactful now that I understand the context from which it came.  He has just gotten into a drunken fight, during which, he accidentally hits his wife.  She runs to the upstairs neighbor’s apartment as he stands on the ground in tears, shouting her name.  It is actually a very moving scene that really proved how much he loved his wife.

Of course, that particular character development only makes the rape scene even that much more confusing.  After Stanley confronts Blanche with his knowledge of her past, he rapes her and has her taken away to spend the rest of her life in a mental hospital.  It was an act that was part in character, and part not.

The film was good and the acting was first rate.  Sure, it was a bit of a downer, but who doesn’t enjoy a good depressing drama from time to time.  And why not?  Williams seemed to have a knack for writing harsh dramas, and this one translated very well from the stage to the big screen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quo Vadis – 1951

Quo Vadis was a gigantic, three hour spectacle, a feast for the senses, a production on a massive scale.  It was a big MGM blockbuster on par with Ben-Hur, except that… it came first.  Ben-Hur would not be hitting the screen for another eight years.  In fact, it is doubtful that Ben-Hur would ever have been made if Quo Vadis had not been as big a hit as it was.

True, it was not, by any means, the first biblical epic ever made.  In fact, it was not the first time Quo Vadis had been made.  It had first been made as a silent film in 1901, a second time in 1912, a third time in 1924, and finally, a fourth time, in 1951.  Incidentally, it was also made a fifth time in 2001, and as a 6 hour miniseries in 1985.  Obviously, it is a popular story.

But what made the 1951 version stand out enough to be nominated for Best Picture?  This was the first sound version of the film ever made, and it was in glorious Technicolor, something of which it took full advantage.  Director Mervyn LeRoy and producer Sam Zimbalist took on the massive project that was nominated for a total of 8 Academy Awards, though amazingly enough, it didn’t win a single one.

Quo Vadis, which is a Latin phrase meaning, “Where are you going?” is about a Roman Commander, Marcus Vinicius, played by Robert Taylor.  He is, of course, a heathen, a stereotypical example of a pompous, pig-headed legionnaire and soldier.  He returns to Rome after a 3 year campaign of war and slaughter.  He sees a beautiful girl who was once a slave, but has become the adopted daughter of an old friend.  She is Lygia, played by the beautiful Deborah Kerr.  He desires her and is willing to do anything to get her.  So he goes to his uncle, Petronius, wonderfully played by Leo Genn, who is one of Emperor Nero’s advisors.  Nero was wonderfully played by Peter Ustinov.  As a gift to his favored Commander, Marcus, Nero gives him Lygia by royal order.

The performances of all the actors were good, but I would have to call those of Genn and Ustinov inspired.  Ustinov’s childish and blithely cruel Nero was one of the best parts of a good film.  He was so appropriately bonkers.  And Genn’s portrayal of Nero’s trusted advisor who secretly despised him was perfectly executed.  At first, I thought his character was one of the bad guys, but I eventually learned that he, while not one of the good guys, was at least an honorable character.

The huge and epic nature of the film was, from what I have read, historically accurate, especially the sets and costumes.  Apparently the original author of the 1896 novel, Henryk Sienkiewicz, had actually traveled to the historical sites in Italy, saw and studied the ancient ruins, and learned about the ancient Roman customs and culture.  However, the focus of the novel was actually on the character of Saint Peter, played in the film by Finlay Currie, and his vision of Christ as he is fleeing Rome.  This does happen in the film, but it is only a sub-plot next to the romance between Lygia and Marcus, and Marcus’ conversion to Christianity.

The film got so many things right, but I have to mention a few minor things that I think they got wrong.  I realize that I am being incredibly nit-picky, but if I wasn’t I wouldn’t have any criticisms at all.  For example, when a woman is speaking in a gigantic coliseum, it would be difficult to hear her from too far away.  But don’t worry.  This woman was obviously using a microphone.  But the one thing that really stuck in my craw was the depiction of the Last Supper.  As Peter is describing the famous meal, we see his memory of the scene, showing that he was actually there.  But then we are shown a live recreation of the Leonardo Da Vinci painting.  Why?!?  It is an artist’s famous representation of the event, painted 1500 years after the story of Quo Vadis takes place!

But Nero’s burning of Rome was a particularly exciting scene to watch and was well done.  The large, screaming mobs and the crumbling buildings were great.  Just watch out for the blue-screening.  It was awesome that they had such technology at their disposal, but it didn’t really hold up to my modern eyes.  The bright purple lines around the figures really stood out like sore thumbs.  But I’m not complaining.  It was still a great movie that took a lot of risks and competently paved the way for other great biblical epics like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, and King of Kings.  And thank goodness it was in Technicolor.  It wouldn’t have been nearly as exciting to watch in black and white.