Category: Nominees – 1950s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Room at the Top – 1959

This was a strange little British movie that had some good points and some bad.  It wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t great either.  It was largely average, both in the plot and in the acting.  It starred Lawrence Harvey, Simone Signoret, Heather Sears, and Donald Houston.

The plot can be summed up fairly easily.  Joe, played by Harvey, is a jerk, a womanizer, and an ambitious social climber.  He comes from a lower-class background, buts get a job at a big city company.  His quickly finds Susan, the richest and most beautiful girl in the area, the young daughter of the company’s president, played by Sears.  He pursues her relentlessly, and when he does not immediately get her, he settles for an older, married woman named Alice, played by Singoret.  The two fall deeply in love.  He finally gets Susan in bed and gets her pregnant.  Susan’s father demands that he marry the girl and take a high paying job at the company.  He leaves Alice to marry Susan.  Alice gets so drunk that she crashes her car, killing herself.  Joe goes through with the marriage, depressed at all the lives he has ruined, most of all his own.

That’s it, in a nutshell.  There are very few complexities, and no unexpected plot twists or character transformations.  There were no characters who were especially likeable except for Joe’s co-worker and friend, Charlie, played by Houston.  He seemed to provide the occasional voice of reason among all the over-blown, soap opera-like events taking place.

And maybe, that is why I found the film to be so average.  I think the plot would have been better served as a series or a soap opera.  It was almost episodic in nature.  The main character, Joe, went from one scene to another, doing whatever pleased him at the moment, behaving however he wanted to satisfy himself and nobody else.  Last week, Joe had an affair with Alice.  This week, Joe Seduces Susan.  Next Week Susan will find out she is pregnant with Joe’s baby.

I’m not exactly sure why this film was nominated for Best Picture, but in fact, it was nominated for six Academy Awards.  One, I can understand: Signoret actually took home the Oscar for Best Actress, which, I’ll admit, was well deserved.  But really, she was the best part of the film.  As for the rest, Harvey was nominated for Best Actor, Jack Clayton was nominated for Best Director, and the final nomination was a bit of a surprise to me.  Alice’s roommate, Elspeth, played by Hermione Baddeley, who had a total of 2 minutes and 20 seconds of screen time, was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.  Again, I’m not exactly sure why.

Now, all that being said, it wasn’t an especially bad movie either.  As I mentioned, Signoret’s performance was very good.  She displayed a realism at times that was honest and serious.  She had what I might call a heavy beauty.  She was, by no means, delicate, but she had a very sensual and lusty glamour about her.  Her casting was perfect.

Also, the feeling of the small British town was well portrayed, thanks to Director Jack Clayton.  It was a plot device that also seemed to serve the lead character of Joe at the end of the film.  He feels like he is trapped in a confined space, not only in his location, but in his situation, and I think the audience was right there with him.

The film was based on the book written by John Braine.  From time to time, I like to read a bit about the source material and see how faithful the film adaptation was.  For Room at the Top, it seems that very little was changed, however, I found one little tidbit of information that I found interesting.  In the film, when Joe gets Susan pregnant, he seemed surprised, but in the novel, Susan’s pregnancy was part of Joe’s plan to marry into a higher social class.  Not only did it force Susan’s father to insist on the marriage, but it gave him added incentive to offer Joe a higher-paid position in his company so that his daughter would be well supported.  I think the movie would have benefited if that motive had been left in.

But I don’t want to leave the impression that it was a bad film.  It was entertaining enough, but I didn’t feel it went above and beyond enough to earn a Best Picture nomination.  When I compare it to the other great films it was up against like The Diary of Anne Frank, The Nun’s Story, and Ben-Hur, it just didn’t measure up.

The Nun’s Story – 1959

For some reason, I was not really expecting to like this movie.  I went into it thinking that it was about a nun so good and pious that she would put Mother Theresa to shame.  She would travel to a foreign country and perform miracles of kindness and love.  She would face insurmountable odds and triumph because of her remarkable faith.  This might sound backwards, but I’m happy to report that I couldn’t have been more wrong.  This was an excellent film.

Audrey Hepburn starred as Gabrielle Van Der Mal, otherwise known as Sister Mary Luke.  As it turns out, the film was about the strict and rigorous training that young women wishing to become Catholic nuns must go through.  That alone took up the first half of the film.  The second half was devoted to what they are required to do, the sacrifices they must make, and the internal struggles they wrestle with once they become nuns.

I found the first half to be fascinating.  It was like an in-depth look into a world I knew very little about.  The subject was handled so well that my respect for the religious order has increased immensely, because not only did the film show what the process is and what trials and tests the prospective nuns are expected to perform, it was very clear about the reasons that governed everything they did.

The film made everything seem high and noble, though not for the faint hearted.  It portrayed something more than just mere commitment to the beliefs and ideals of the church.  It showed devotion, understanding, and supreme faith.  It was done respectfully and with great reverence for the women who choose the life of servitude to their Lord.

Hepburn once said that of all the films she ever made, this was one of her favorites.  It isn’t very hard to see why.  It was grand and inspiring, and yet at the same time it was all too human and realistic.  It showed that nuns in authority, Mother Superiors in different convents or orders, do not always make the right decisions.  It showed that once a woman becomes a nun, the struggles of faith and conscious do not end.

This is made all too evident by the unexpected ending.  The second half of the movie told the story of how Sister Luke became a surgical nurse, being sent to the Congo to assist Dr. Fortunati, played by Peter Finch.  He is a surgeon who has a habit of working his assistants hard, sometimes to the point of exhaustion, expecting them to give nothing less than their best.

Sister Luke loves her assignment in the Congo, despite rigorous conditions, natives who are not Christians, and threats of tuberculosis and leprosy.  The scene in which a native murders a nun because a Witch Doctor ordered him to, was actually a bit horrifying to watch.  However, Sister Luke is eventually sent back to Belgium, and is there when WWII breaks out.  While there, she learns that her father has been killed by the Nazis.

This proves to be too much for her faith.  A nun’s objective it to love all and forgive all, but she finds she cannot forgive the German soldiers for her father’s death.  And this is what was so unexpected, and yet all too realistic about the ending.  Despite the fact that she has become a wonderful and well respected nun, has gone through tremendous hardship and monumental internal conflict, she quits!  She cannot get past her hate for the Nazis, and so feels like a hypocrite to her holy vows.  She is granted a dispensation from those vows, and leaves the church quietly.  Usually, in movies of this kind, the hero triumphs over all adversity, overcomes any struggle, and proves to have a strong enough will and unbreakable determination than will surpass any conflict.  But Sister Luke fails.  She fails!  Hepburn’s performance was incredibly good, a fact that was never better illustrated than in this final scene.

And just as a side note: In my research, I found that critics of the film complained about the sexual tension between Sister Luke and Dr. Fortunati because it was not present in the book upon which the film is based.  I disagree.  The sexual tension portrayed in the film was barely perceptible and Sister Luke rebuffed it completely and without regret, just as the virtuous character should have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Diary of Anne Frank – 1959

I saw this movie a very long time ago when I was in High School, and I had forgotten how amazing the film was.  Not only was the acting fantastic, but the directing was masterfully done.  The incredible score and the wonderful cinematography combined to create a tension that was an integral part of the plot.

The film starred Milly Perkins as Anne Frank, a 13 year-old Jewish girl living in Amsterdam during WWII.  Her family went into hiding above a spice factory, aided by Kraler and Miep, played by Douglas Spencer and Dodie Heath, respectively, owners of the factory who were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews.

The Frank family included Anne’s father, Otto, played by Joseph Schildkraut, her mother, Edith, played by Gusti Huber, and her sister, Morgot, played by Diane Baker.  With them were the Van Daan family with Lou Jacobi playing the part of the father, Hans, Shelly Winters playing the part of the mother, Petronella, and Richard Beymer playing the part of their son, Peter.  And finally, Ed Wynn played the part of Albert Dussell, a dentist who needed a place to go into hiding.

I think it is important to mention the entire cast because they all did such a wonderful job, turning in some masterful performances.  Winters, Perkins, and Huber, in particular, caught my attention.  The realistic quality of the entire film was incredible, and was really driven home by the director, George Stevens.  The film is, of course, based on a Broadway play, which was based on the actual diary of Anne Frank, which offered a unique perspective on the horrors of the Second World War, arguably one of the darkest and most gruesome events in human history.

The two families, three if you include Mr. Dussell as a family, spent two years cooped up in the loft of the factory.  That means 8 people living in one tiny apartment from 1942 to 1944, never leaving, never having privacy, and never fully understanding what is happening in the outside world.  And if that were not enough, the conditions under which they were forced to live were strict and inviolate.  Between the hours of 8:00 in the morning and 5:00 in the evening, every day, they were required to live in a world of complete silence.  No noise of any kind could be made, ever, or all their lives would be forfeit.  How they survived that long under those conditions is beyond me.

But what was even more amazing was the fact that they were all, for the most part, able to keep their spirits up.  There were times when they quarreled, and even a major argument where Mrs. Frank was ready kick the Van Daan family out into the street.  But they endured, and they survived.  And Anne was the most amazing one of them all.  After everything, after all that she was being forced to endure, she still believed in the innate goodness of mankind.

The romance that evolved between Anne and Peter was almost inevitable, and Perkins and Beymer played it perfectly.  It was not about sex or teenage hormones, but about shared hardship and the desire to comfort and be comforted.  Of course it was believable.  It happened, though Hollywood made it just a little more romantic than reality.

The film’s best moments were those in which the tension inherent in the silent hiding was brought to the foreground.  The ultimate downfall of the poor people was a thief who broke into the factory, trying to steal the contents of a safe.  During the hours when the family could live without the fear of making any noise, the criminal forced them into silence while he burglarized the factory, eventually getting away with a typewriter.  It was this stolen typewriter that eventually led the Nazis to the factory, and the arrest of the Jewish families.

The film is nearly 3 hours long, but it felt shorter.  It is a story that is easy to get drawn into.  The excellent score by Alfred Newman did a great job of helping to build the claustrophobia and the tension that dominated the narrative.  The tight camera angles and the confined set were well thought out, and the engaging plot was actually one that celebrated the resilience of the human spirit, despite the sad and tragic ending.

Incidentally, it is interesting to know that after their arrest, the Frank Family was deported to Auschwitz.  There, Anne was separated from her father.  Later, she and Margot were sent to Bergen-Belsen without their mother.  It is believed that the two sisters died of typhus within days of each other in February of 1945, only months before the camp was liberated by the British.  It was a tragic and horrible end for an innocent 15 girl who, even today, continues to inspire hope in many, along with a belief in the innate goodness of the human race, despite everything that happened to her.  I believe that the film is a fitting tribute to her memory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anatomy of a Murder – 1959

Here we have another courtroom drama, the last one being Witness for the Prosecution in 1957.  1957 has the distinction of being the year the hit TV show Perry Mason began its first season.  Hmmm…  This movie stars James Stewart, Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, Arthur O’Connell, Eve Arden, Kathryn Grant, and George C. Scott.  Quite an impressive list of names.

Stewart, of course, played the lead, a country lawyer named Paul Biegler.  He was a simple man who loved fishing more than anything else.  His friend and fellow lawyer whose career has tanked because of his alcoholism, is Parnell McCarthy, played by O’Connell.  Arden was wonderful as Biegler’s secretary.  The case that was the centerpiece of the film is that of Fredrick Manion, played by Gazzara, an Army officer who has murdered a man for allegedly raping his wife, Laura, played by Remick.

The question is not whether Manion has committed the murder, but whether Manion was in control of himself when he did it.  The plea?  Irresistible impulse, otherwise known as temporary insanity.  The prosecuting lawyer, played by Brooks West is an idiot, but he brings in a big-shot lawyer, Claude Dancer, played by Scott, to help him win the case, which ended up involving not only murder, but spousal battery, and rape.

In general, the movie was competently made, but I have to mention a few things that I felt to be poorly done.  For example, the filmmakers kept trying to throw unnecessary humor into the script.  That, in itself, isn’t a bad thing, but it was poorly executed, and here’s why.  Whenever a witness, or a lawyer, or even the judge said something amusing, you would hear a pre-recorded laugh track that would have done well on a low-budget TV sitcom.  But if that weren’t bad enough, it wasn’t even done right.  The people laughing were supposed to be the audience at the trial, which could be clearly seen behind the lawyers.  However, I noticed that when you could hear them laughing, not a single spectator was moving a muscle.  They all appeared stone-faced and serious.  Huh?

Another thing that caught my attention was the music.  In my research, I found that the music was supposedly something special and spectacular, but I just don’t agree.  Duke Ellington wrote a jazz score which has been described as evocative and eloquent.  But to me, it just sounded jarring and inappropriate, meaning that it didn’t always seem to fit.  A film score is supposed to compliment the action taking place on the screen, but more often than not, Ellington’s crazy score dominated the film and distracted me from what was happening like an obnoxious bully.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the remarkable acting.  The talented cast all did a great job, but I need to point out Remick, Gazzara, Arden, and Scott as stand-outs.  Scott, in particular, did a good job.  He was almost portrayed as the bad guy, or at least the guy who is opposing our hero, Stewart.  He seemed to be ruthless in his pursuit of a guilty verdict.  When he got into a witness’s face, the camera angle they used made it seem like he was getting into my face, making his cross-examination even more intense.

And finally, I have to make mention of something that I found interesting, only because I know this movie came out in the late 1950s.  It was a time when certain things were just not discussed in public, a time when the Hays code was still in effect, a time when the use of a certain word would have surely been controversial.  The prominent use of the word ‘panties,’ I imagine, must have been quite a surprise to many people.  But the film made the decision to be refreshingly adult and matt-of-fact about the scandalous word.

I thought it was smart of the filmmakers to have the judge say, “For the benefit of the jury, but more especially for the spectators, the garment mentioned in the testimony was, to be exact, Mrs. Manion’s panties.  (The spectators laugh loudly)  I wanted to get your snickering over and done with. This pair of panties will be mentioned again over the course of this trial, & when it is, there will not be one laughter, one snicker, one giggle or even one smirk in my courtroom. There is nothing comic about a pair of panties that resulted in the violent death of one man, & the possible incarceration of another.”  Yes, you 1959 audiences.  It’s just a word.  Get over it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Defiant Ones – 1958

This film was not bad.  It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad.  Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier, play the leads, John “Joker” Jackson and Noah Cullen, two convicts who have escaped from a chain gang, chained together at the wrists.  They run from Sheriff Max Muller, played the Theodore Bikel, and his deputized band of locals, trying to make their way out of the South.  They face many challenges like crossing rivers, evading blood hounds, and getting over their own prejudices toward each other.  The fact that the two men are chained together forces them to work together to survive.

The film’s main issue, of course, was racism, and it made a point of the fact that racism is nine-tenths ignorance.  Getting to know the object of your prejudice leads to understanding and friendship.  The plot was told in a very focused and singular way.  There were very few subplots and only one or two characters that were not necessary to advance the film’s anti-racism agenda.

For example, there was a character, played by Carl “Alfalfa” Switzer.  He was annoying and unnecessary.  He was part of the hick posse chasing after the convicts.  He carried a transistor radio around his neck and had it tuned in to 50s style rock-and-roll music.  He annoyed the police he was with and annoyed me at the same time.  He was constantly breaking the dramatic tension in the film and I wanted the Sheriff to take the radio and smash it to pieces.  Unfortunately, that never happened.

The acting was very good, Curtis and Poitier turned in some deep and insightful performances.  Curtis starts out as an angry and aggressive character who wants to live a life of wealth and ease.  There are moments in the film in which he really gets to show off his skill as a dramatic actor.  Poitier was just as good.  Cullen just wants to live in a world where he is free, not only from his physical chains, but also from the unfair and oppressive bonds of his race. Eventually, the two learn to trust each other and find that a friendship has formed while they aren’t looking.

The film had only one female character whose name was never given.  The escaped cons find a young boy in a field who they capture, and they force him to take them to his home where their chains are removed.  There, they meet the boy’s mother, played by Cara Williams.  Here is a lady who is so messed up, she is desperate to go on the lamb with Joker just to appease her own loneliness.  She is aware that he is a criminal, but for him, she is willing to leave her son with relatives, give him her entire life savings of $400.00, and move to a big city where he can avoid capture.

Williams did a good job, and while her role might seem superfluous, she actually served several functions.  She was extremely prejudice towards black people.  In an effort to get Joker to stay with her, she tells Cullen how to get to the train tracks.  She directs him to go through the swamp.  What she lets slip to Joker after Cullen leaves, is that Cullen will never make it through the dangerous swamp alive.

This gives Joker the opportunity to realize just how much Cullen has come to mean to him.  He discovers that he has made a friend who he cannot abandon to his death.  He leaves the woman and runs off to save his friend, knowing that it might just cost him his own life in the process.  Oh, and the boy shoots him in the shoulder as he runs off.

Every little scene had its purpose.  There was nothing extraneous, nothing unnecessary.  Every conversation, every line of dialogue, every bit of action, and every character were there for a very specific reason: to expose racism and offer a solution.  The film ended when the two were caught.  The Sheriff stands in front of them when they can run no more.  The end.  Literally.  No final thoughts, no moral statements.  The two men have overcome their natural prejudices.  Roll credits!

But apparently, the entire plot can be debunked with one little tidbit of fact that I found in my research, and it sounds to me to be absolutely plausible.  The story could never have actually taken place.  In the 1950s, segregation was still a prevalent and common problem.  In the South, a black man would never have been chained to a white man.  The whole premise of the plot is based on a falsehood.  But no matter.  It still made for an entertaining film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Separate Tables – 1958

There wasn’t much to this film.  It had a few big names, and a few mildly interesting scenes, but not much else.  To put it more plainly, it was a bit boring.  It was an American film disguised as a British film, and as such, it seemed that much of its drama relied on subtlety and subtext.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it translated as conflicts that are not very intense and characters who don’t get very emotional.  In other words, the drama is there, but you really have to look for it.

The main plot dealt with issues of class and prejudice, lost souls in search of companionship, and love that cannot be denied.  It sounds like a recipe for something deep and meaningful, but I felt like it was a poor man’s version of a mix between Grand Hotel and the Monty Python comedy series Fawlty Towers… except without the comedy.  The whole film took place in a quiet little English boarding house.  The various residents, each of whom had their own unique personality, all had their own moments of importance.  I think the real interest of the film was supposed to be getting to know them all and seeing how they each reacted to the quaint happenings that took place amongst them.

There were two main stories going on at the same time, so it was difficult to nail down a main protagonist.  It might have been Burt Lancaster, playing the part of John Malcolm, an American who’d once had a rocky marriage with the gorgeous Ann Shankland, a dishonest and desperate woman, played by Rita Hayworth.  Unfortunately, she books a room at the hotel just as John becomes engaged to the establishment’s homely proprietress, Pat Cooper, played by Wendy Hiller.

Then again, the protagonist might be Major Pollock, played by David Niven.  He is involved in a budding relationship with an extremely socially repressed girl named Sybil, played by Deborah Kerr.  Sybil has lived her entire life under the strict and self-righteous thumb of her classist mother, Mrs. Railton-Bell, played by Gladys Cooper.  When she finds out that the Major isn’t really a Major at all, and that he has recently been arrested for publicly molesting women in a cinema, Mrs. Railton-Bell gathers all the residents together and rallies them into forcing him from the hotel.

Each story seemed to have equal prominence, and the two sometimes overlapped, though not very often.  In the end, John seemed to reconcile with Ann on some vague level, and Sybil, along with the rest of the guests, for that matter, finally defied her mother enough to convince the Major to stay at the boarding house, despite his indiscretions.   But the problems never got too intense.  The forbidden romance never got too steamy.  Nearly everyone turned out happy in the end.

For my tastes, the drama just wasn’t dramatic enough for a Best Picture nomination.  Granted, some of the acting was good.  I’m used to seeing Niven as being very proper and British without being stuffy, like his portrayal of Phineas Fogg in Around the World in 80 Days.  Here, he moved outside that role, being blustery and stodgy.  I’m also used to seeing Kerr as being very proper and British, with confidence, like her role as Anna Leonowens in The King and I.  She, too, broke out of her usual mold, and played a mousy character with severe social anxiety.

I was also impressed with Gladys Cooper.  She represented intolerance and prejudice, qualities that were very unpopular in a world that was in the middle of the Vietnam War.  We were quickly moving towards the 60s and their groovy ideas of total acceptance of one’s fellow man.  Cooper might be called the film’s villain, from a certain perspective, and she played the part well.  She was appropriately old and crotchety, and, lest we forget, completely self-righteous.

But I think it was the film’s other centerpiece that was the film’s biggest failing.  The tempestuous relationship between John and Ann tried to be subtle by hinting at things that had taken place in the past while being a bit vague about things that were happening in the present.  They made the point of saying “When you’re together, you slash each other to pieces. When you’re alone, you slash yourselves to pieces.”  And then they leave their reconciliation a mystery, never answering the question of whether they will end up together or apart.  A soft ending, I thought, for a soft plot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof – 1958

Wow!  This was an incredible movie!  Great story, great characters, great cast, great sets and costumes.  Nearly everything about this movie was amazing.  Notice I use the word “nearly.”  There was one issue in particular that I would have changed, but I know exactly why the film was made as it was.  But I’ll get to that in a bit.

This was, first and foremost, a drama done right.  It starts with a one of the world’s most dysfunctional families and when the wealthy patriarch, Big Daddy, wonderfully played by Burl Ives, learns that he is dying of cancer, the crocodile tears begin to flow, the vultures descend, and the claws come out.  The interactions of the individual characters as they each deal with the situation in their own ways was incredibly well written and fascinating to watch.

Big Daddy is a mean and nasty man who appears to hate his entire family. His wife, Big Mama, played by Judith Anderson, goes through life with blinders on, trying to defend her acerbic husband and pretends that they are both happy.  His oldest son, Gooper and his wife called Sister Woman, played by Jack Carson and Madeleine Sherwood, respectively, hate the old man and are positioning themselves to inherit his vast fortune.  The two have a brood of children who have never learned any manners.

But the two real stars of the film are Big Daddy’s younger son Brick, played perfectly by Paul Newman, and his wife Maggie “the Cat,” played by Elizabeth Taylor.  These two were amazing to watch.  The couple start off estranged from each other.  Apparently something has happened between them that has their marriage on the rocks.  She spends her time desperately trying to win back his affections, and he spends all his time drinking himself to a stupor.

The film follows the family as they learn of Big Daddy’s impending death.  They all deal with the news in their own ways.  Secrets are kept and revealed, lies are told and uncovered, emotions run high, and after a night of shouting and arguing, many truths are finally told.  And the family somehow survives the ordeal!  Big Daddy makes his peace with most of the family, Brick and the Cat are reconciled, and the ending is a happy one for everybody… well, except for Sister Woman.

The drama was engaging and the characters created by Tennessee Williams, the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning play upon which the film is based, were real and complex.  The cast all did such an incredible job, giving us both the lines on the pages and the turbulent emotions that ran beneath the words.  I particularly loved Burl Ives, whose performance was nothing short of genius.

What, then, you might ask was the one thing about this film that I would have changed?  I would have left the original script alone.  Once again that blasted Hays Code stepped in and changed the motivations of a single character, motivations that drove most of the film’s hardest drama.  There was a reason for Brick’s voracious drinking.  It is revealed that he never touched alcohol until the suicidal death of his dear friend Skipper, a character who was dead before the start of the film.

His dear friend…  Apparently, in Williams’ original play, Brick and Skipper had homosexual feeling for each other.  When Maggie confronted Skipper about those feelings, Skipper takes her to bed to prove her wrong.  But he can’t go through with it.  He confesses his feelings to Brick, but Brick rejects him, causing him to commit suicide.  Unfortunately, the Hays code wouldn’t allow any allusion to a homosexual relationship to enter the movie, though if you know what to listen for in the subtext, it is pretty darn clear.  Brick hates himself for rejecting both Skipper’s love for him and his own love for Skipper, which ultimately led to his friend’s death.

As it was, the film made it so that Maggie had tried to seduce Skipper in order to drive a wedge between him and Brick.  Brick believes that she has cheated on him with his best friend, thus creating the rift between them.  They did a good enough job of working around the subject to appease the Motion Picture Production Code, but I wish they could have stuck to the original material.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auntie Mame – 1958

Rosalind Russell was fantastic as the title role of Auntie Mame.  She was over-the-top and dramatic, which is what the role demanded.  As a matter of fact, her flamboyant personality was the plot point that drove most of the story.  The essence of the film is actually an easy one to sum up in just a few sentences.  The character’s motto was that “Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death.”  Mame didn’t intend to miss a single bite.

The plot is also fairly simple.  Young Patrick, played by Jan Handzlik, comes to live with his Auntie Mame, a wealthy socialite, after the death of his father.  Growing up in Mame’s New York house, which seems to be party central, Patrick has an unusual and fabulous childhood.  When Mame falls on hard times, the love that they share sustains them until Mame marries into money.  While Mame and her husband travel the world, Patrick, played as an adult by Roger Smith, grows up in danger of turning into the kind of uptight square that Mame detests.  There is a hilarious scene in which Mame gets rid of the snobbish family of the girl Patrick is expected to marry.  The two reaffirm their love for each other and give us our happy ending.

The story is actually pretty original and the relationship between Patrick and his Auntie Mame is a simple one.  The two adore each other.  No matter what changes life throws at them, their love is a constant that never wavers.  Now, that being said, one of the things I loved most about the film was the ever changing set that was Mame’s home.  The décor seemed to change with Mame’s ever shifting moods.

The first time we see her home, it is furnished with a Chinese motif that is loud, shocking, and bordering on gaudy, but never crossing the line into bad taste.  It is bold and striking, and yet chic and fashionable.  The front door portraying a gold Chinese dragon that spouted smoke whenever the doorbell was rung was a bit much, but that was more for comedic effect.

Next we saw a minimalistic apartment that had plenty of open space and clean lines.  The walls were white with strategically placed curtains and sculptures.  The furniture was bare and unornamented.  It was beautiful.  Several more changes happened throughout the course of the film until it finally settled on an Indian motif with murals of misty jungles and statues or panthers as accents.

The Art Director and the Set Decorator, Malcolm Bert and George James Hopkins, respectively, really had their work cut out for them and they came through with flying colors.  They were nominated for Academy Awards in Art Design, but unfortunately lost those honors to Gigi.  Listen, I’ve seen Gigi, and I can say with confidence, Auntie Mame got robbed.  And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the incredible and glamorous costumes.  Perfection!

The entire cast did a fantastic job, but I need to mention a few that stood out to me as particularly good.  Keeping in mind that the movie was a comedy, Mame’s best friend Vera Charles, played by Coral Browne, was extremely funny with her acerbic one-liners and witty quips.  Forrest Tucker, playing the part of Mame’s wealthy husband, did a great job.  He was lovable and loyal to Mame.  Yuki Shimoda played the part of Mame’s Chinese butler, Ito.  Sure, he was portrayed as a horrible stereotype, but he was actually pretty funny.  And then there was Joanna Barnes, playing the part of Gloria Upson, Patrick’s boorish snob of a fiancé.  I didn’t like her character, but then, I wasn’t supposed to.  She played the part perfectly.

But the real star of the movie was, of course, Rosalind Russell.  She was fantastic, playing the quick-talking partier with just as much ease and skill as the deep and emotional woman who loves her nephew more than anything.  The scenes in which Mame has to deal with sudden poverty were a nice break from the fast-paced comedy that dominated the film.  She had an air of grace and aristocracy about her that went a long way to defining her endearing character.

Mame is like the eccentric aunt that we all wish we had.  She is charming and personable, and yet fun and exciting.  Without intending to, I think the film makes the point that a little zaniness in life is good, so never stop seeing the world with the wonder of a child.  But the motto still holds true.  Life is a banquet, and most poor sucker are starving to death.  Live!  Live!  Live!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Witness for the Prosecution – 1957

The defining aspect of this movie was the ending.  I’m going to say that right off the bat because not only did I not see it coming, it was completely plausible.  This film masterfully delivered the classic movie trope of the surprise twist, accomplishing the feat through the incredible talents of its cast of actors.  This switch was a trait that was common to the works of the writer of the original play upon which the film is based: none other than Agatha Christi.

The film touted several big names like Tyrone Power, Charles Laughton, and Marlene Dietrich.  I’ve seen the two men in other films I’ve watched like Mutiny on the Bounty, Les Miserables, In Old Chicago, and The Razor’s Edge, so I know their talents, but Dietrich surprised me.  This is the first of her films I have had the pleasure to watch.  She did a fantastic job, and in order to explain why, I’ll have to give away the movie’s big finish.

Laughton played Sir Wilfrid Robarts, a British barrister in ill health who takes on Leonard Vole, played by Power, as a client.  He is being charged with the murder of a woman who was in love with him, and who, it turns out, left him a very large sum of money in her will.  Vole claims innocence.  Then his wife Christine, played by Dietrich, enters the picture.  She seems cold and studied, but devoted to her husband.

What follows is a trial in the British court system.  I was reminded of the stereotypical courtroom drama TV shows like Perry Mason and Matlock.  The prosecution called witnesses who gave their testimony and Sir Wilfrid did his best to discredit them.  But things got interesting when Mrs. Vole was called to the stand as a Witness for the Prosecution.  (Roll credits!)  She gave testimony that strongly pointed to her husband as the murderer who she now claimed to hate.  I didn’t know it at the time, but it was all set-up for the big plot-twist that was to come.

But just when things seemed to be going badly for our main characters, a mysterious Cockney woman shows up who provides the perfect evidence to prove that Vole was completely innocent, and that Mrs. Vole had lied on the stand, committing perjury.  Because of this convenient evidence, Vole is found not guilty and set free.

Here is where I found Dietrich’s acting to be incredible.  When Mr. Vole was acquitted, we learn that he actually had killed the deceased woman, and that his wife knew it.  It was she, in disguise, who was the mysterious woman, providing the perfect evidence to set her beloved yet guilty husband free.

As I was watching, I was slightly incredulous, thinking that there was no way Sir Wilfrid would not have recognized the woman in disguise.  But after thinking about it, I realized that I had certainly been fooled.  Why would the barrister be any different?  When Dietrich played the mysterious woman, her entire persona transformed into another character.

Dietrich, as an actress, was known for having that calm and cold exterior, and that’s exactly what she gave us for most of the movie.  But when she put on that disguise, I had no idea that it was her.  Her voice, her mannerisms, her posture, and of course, her look all changed so completely that the thought that it was Dietrich playing the part never even occurred to me.  Sure, I’ll admit that I was also fooled by my own expectations and perceptions of who the actress, Marlene Dietrich was, but however it happened, I was indeed fooled.  Well played, Marlene.

Just as an interesting note, when the film was originally shown in theatres, there was a voice-over at the end of the movie which gave an instruction to the watching audiences.  This instruction is now part of the movie and is retained on the DVD.  It said “The management of this theatre suggests that for the greater entertainment of your friends who have not yet seen the picture, you will not divulge, to anyone, the secret of the ending of Witness for the Prosecution.”  I wonder how well this ploy worked.  But that was not the end.  There was one more twist that happened in the last few minutes… but I’ll leave that one for you to find out about on your own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sayonara – 1957

I really enjoyed this film.  It had some incredible acting, a great plot that dealt very strongly with racism and prejudice, beautiful cinematography, and fantastic and poignant drama.  This one really delivered.  Where to begin?

The movie starred Marlon Brando, Red Buttons, James Garner, Miiko Taka, and Miyoshi Umeki.  Ricardo Montalban and Patricia Owens rounded out the supporting cast. The acting was top-notch.  I have never been a huge Brando fan, but every movie review I read, every film historian who has an opinion, keeps going on and on about how much of a wonderful actor he is.  Finally, I’m starting to see why.  There is an honesty and an ease in his delivery that is uniquely his own.  I was really impressed with him.

He played Air Force Pilot Lloyd “Ace” Gruver, stationed in Tokyo during the Korean War.  He starts out as the Air Force poster boy, and has no problem toting the company line which discourages American soldiers from fraternizing with Japanese women.  When one of the men under his command wants to marry one, he initially tries to talk him out of it.

But Airman Joe Kelly, fantastically played by Red Buttons, is truly in love with his intended bride, Katsumi, played by Umeki.  In fact, Kelly convinces Ace to be the best man at the wedding.  Then, Ace, himself falls in love with a Japanese woman named Hana-ogi, played by Taka.  And therein lies the film’s drama.  It is an examination of extreme prejudice and discrimination.  The military goes to extraordinary lengths to keep American men from associating with Japanese women.

Sure, the plot mostly focuses on Ace and Hana-ogi, but for me, the real drama of the film came from Joe and Katsumi.  The four friends go to see a play that tells the tale of two lovers who, when they are pulled apart, commit double suicide so that their spirits can be together forever.  Lt. Gen. Mark Webster, played by Kent Smith, tells Joe that he is being reassigned to the United States, and that the U.S. does not recognize his marriage.  He will be forcibly parted from his pregnant wife.  The couple follow the example of the lovers in the play and commit suicide together.

I’m only used to seeing Red Buttons in comedic roles, but he turned in a fantastic performance.  The actress who played his wife, Umeki, was incredibly good as well.  I became emotionally invested in their story and wanted them to be together.  They both did such a good job that they each won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress, respectively.  Incidentally, Umeki is the only Asian woman to win an Academy Award for acting.

Another reason I really enjoyed this film was the cinematography.  Japan is a beautiful country with a rich culture, full of ancient and time honored traditions.  The filmmakers took full advantage of the serene and yet spectacular locations.  The costumes were also wonderfully done and fascinating to see on the screen.  I especially liked the scenes that showed Kabuki theatre, an all-male style of theatre, and the fictional Matsubashi theatre, an all-female theatre company, though such a company called the Takarazuka Theatre Company, actually does exist.

However, in my research, I found that there were some critics of the film who claimed that the film was “… one in a long list stereotyping Asian American women as ‘lotus-blossom, geisha girl, china doll, or Suzie Wong’ by presenting Asian women as ‘passive, sexually compliant, and easy to seduce’ or as downright prostitutes.”  I find this to be a ridiculous claim because the movie was not presenting Asian American women at all.  The characters portrayed in Sayonara were Japanese women who belonged to a very particular subculture within Japanese society.  I have seen a documentary or two that confirms the fact that the characters were played very true to life.

I was quite pleasantly surprised by this wonderful movie and I thought that Buttons and Umeki really deserved the awards they were given.  Brando was also nominated for Best Actor, though he lost the honor to Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai.  That one must have been a pretty close race, but I think the Academy made the right decision.  Sorry Marlon.