Category: Nominees – 1960s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Music Man – 1962

The first thing that comes to mind when I think about The Music Man is how I always enjoyed watching it when I was a child.  I really loved all the wonderful music and the bright costumes.  I loved the film’s light-hearted air and the feel-good ending.  I’ve also seen it a few times as an adult, and I’m still mesmerized by the energetic dancing and the vaguely campy comedy.  It is a film that can’t help but leave a smile on my face.

The film was perfectly cast with Robert Preston playing the lead, Professor Harold Hill, a traveling sales man and successful con-artist.  His scam is simple.  He tells people he is selling bands.  He collects money for instruments and uniforms, and promises to organize the young boys in a town into a top-notch marching band.  The trouble is, he doesn’t know a thing about music.  Then, when he has everyone’s money, and has given them cheap instruments and ill-fitting uniforms, he leaves town with his pockets full of cash.

However, in River City, Iowa, he has bitten off more than he can chew.  In an effort to cement his scam of the whole town, he charms the beautiful young librarian, who also happens to be a widow.  Shirley Jones plays Marion Paroo, the woman who refuses the smooth salesman’s advances and quickly learns that he is a fraud.

Her younger brother Winthrop is played by a 7 year old Ron Howard.  The child has emotional issues over the death of his father and rarely speaks to anyone.  When he does, he has a very prominent lisp.  But when Hill convinces Mrs. Paroo, his mother, played by Pert Kelton, that he has the makings of natural-born coronet player, Winthrop gets so excited, he starts talking.  Now, believe it or not, this is the basis for most of the film’s emotional content.  Hill becomes a sort of a father figure to the boy, allowing him to overcome his mental blocks.  And when his healing process becomes evident, the cold heart of his sister warms until she falls in love with Hill, knowing perfectly well what kind of a man he truly is.

Her reasoning is perfectly reasonable, from an emotional standpoint.  Sure, he was a liar and a con-artist, but from a certain perspective, he actually made good on all his promises.  When he promised the town a band, what he was actually promising them was something to hope for, something to dream about, something to fall in love with.  He gave the town excitement, waking them up from the drudgery of their day to day lives.  He gave them happiness.

The music by Meredith Wilson is wonderful and memorable.  Even people who have never seen the show know the song 76 Trombones.  But I also loved Ya Got Trouble, Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Marion the Librarian, The Wells Fargo Wagon, and Shipoopi.  And who can forget the softer love songs like Goodnight My Someone and Being in Love?  This film was nominated for 6 Oscars and took home only 1: Best Musical Score.

Aside from the main cast, comedian Buddy Hackett played Hill’s partner in crime and friend, Marcellus Washburn.  He was wonderful in the song Shipoopi.  Timmy Everett and Susan Lucky played the cute young couple, Tommy Djilas and Zaneeta Shinn.  Paul Ford played Mayor Shinn.  The actor had a talent for constantly bumbling words and phrases in ways that were hilarious.  He’d say “I’ll settle your hash as soon as I get these premises off my oldest girl!”  And I have to make special mention of Hermione Gingold who was absolutely wonderful as Eulalie Mackechnie Shinn, the Mayor’s wife.  She was comedy gold in her stuffy but likable role.  She was overwhelmingly nose-in-the-air and pretentious, but she played it all tongue-in-cheek.  I love the Grecian Urn dances!

Now, I know I probably shouldn’t do this, but I have to do a little movie bashing.  In 2003 a version of The Music Man was filmed as a made-for-TV movie.  It starred Matthew Broderick, Kristen Chenoweth, Victor Garber, and Molly Shannon.  Without putting too fine a point on it, it was horrible, especially when put next to the 1962 version.  And as much as I like Broderick, his performance had no energy, no charisma, and not an ounce of the pizzazz that a flashy traveling salesman like Harold Hill needed to have.  He sounded like he was reading his lines out of a phone book.  I only mention it because if you want to watch The Music Man, avoid the 2003 version.  It was disappointing on so many levels.  It doesn’t hold a candle to the original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Longest Day – 1962

There was so much about this film that was done right.  The size and scope of the narrative was epic in nature, even though the events depicted in the film only cover the space of two days.  The complex battle scenes, the humongous cast full of stars, the historical accuracy of the plot, and the fast paced action all made for a memorable film on a grand scale.

The film is a telling of the events of the Allied invasion of Normandy in WWII, covering June 5^th and 6^th of 1944.  The film was like a docudrama in that it told of one of the biggest turning points of the war, in which 3,000,000 men, 11,000 planes, and 4,000 ships turned the tide history.  The epic events are told from the perspectives of French, English, German, and American soldiers, each speaking in their own native languages with the use of subtitles.

The film covers the massive preparations, mistakes, decisions, and random events that led to one of the greatest offensives in human history.  It went into the reasons why certain people made certain decisions, and showed the results of those decisions.  And of course, the 8 exciting battle scenes, each of which must have been a logistical nightmare to film, came out realistic and engaging.

The most exciting of them was the storming of the beaches of Normandy.  I also really loved the liberation of Ouistreham and the breaching of the wall on Omaha Beach.  The sheer number of extras and the constant barrage of machine-gun fire and exploding shells kept me on the edge of my seat.  The action sequences were so bold and non-stop, that they started about an hour and a half into the three hour movie and didn’t stop until the end.

The film also touted incredible star power with a long list of big-name actors like John Wayne, Eddie Albert, Paul Anka, Richard Beymer, Red Buttons, Henry Fonda, Jeffrey Hunter, Roddy McDowall, Robert Mitchum, Edmond O’Brian, Rod Steiger, Robert Wagner, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, and Leo Genn. They all played key historical figures, from common infantry soldiers and paratroopers, to commanders and generals.

Some of the more prominent figures were Brigadier General Norman Cota and Colonel Thompson, who led the soldiers inland, up the beaches of Normandy, played by Mitchum and Albert, respectively.  John Wayne played Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Vandervoort, who commanded the 505^th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

But just as important to the film as the Allied forces, were the German actors who most people probably haven’t heard of, playing the roles of Nazi officers.  These actors played their parts incredibly well.  I’ll never forget Hans Christian Blech playing the part of Major Werner Pluskat.  He was the man who first saw the fleet of thousands of Allied ships appearing on the horizon as they approached Omaha Beach.  Blech was incredible as he shouted into the phone, while shells exploded all around him, “You know those five thousand ships you say the Allies haven’t got?  Well, they’ve got them!”

But I think that one of the most memorable lines in the film was spoken in German by Major General Günther Blumentritt, the Chief of Staff at OB West, played by Curt Jürgens.  Upon learning that the panzer units could not be sent to reinforce the German soldiers defending Normandy, he calmly remarks, “This is history.  We are living an historical moment.  We are going to lose to war because our glorious Führer has taken a sleeping pill and is not to be awakened.”  Then, as an afterthought, he adds, “Sometimes I wonder which side God is on,” an echo of a sentiment given earlier by John Wayne.

The entire cast did a fantastic job, but I think the highest praise has to be given to Cornelius Ryan, writer of the original novel upon which the film is based, Darryl F Zanuck, the film’s producer, and the film’s three directors, Ken Annakin, Andrew Marton, and Bernhard Wicki.  The size and scope of this film was truly epic, a must-see for anyone who enjoys movies.  I’m not even a huge fan of war films, but this one gave me such an accurate depiction of all the key points of the famous day, that I came away from it, not just feeling like I had been entertained, but somewhat educated, as well.  This was really a great film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hustler – 1961

The Hustler was a movie that, on the surface, was about a small-time pool hustler who wanted to be a big-time hustler.  He is a world-class pool player, but he has one major flaw.  He doesn’t know when quit, which, I think, is one of the film’s biggest themes.  As in most things, part of being good is knowing when to quit.

Paul Newman plays Fast Eddie Felson.  He has dreams of challenging the best pool player in New York, Minnesota Fats, played by Jackie Gleason.  When he has taken Fats for thirteen thousand dollars, he keeps going, playing against the man for 25 hours, and eventually loses it all back to his opponent.  Fats never loses his composure, but Eddie plays till he drops to the floor, drunk and sloppy.

Penniless, Eddie falls in love with a good woman he meets at a bus station.  She is Sarah Packard, played by Piper Laurie, who is a cripple and a lush.  He moves in with her and the two end up caring deeply for each other.  But then Eddie makes a deal with the devil and the devil doesn’t want her around.  George C. Scott plays Bert Gordon, a professional gambler.  He fronts Eddie enough money to make a play for the big leagues.

Sarah, feeling like she is losing Eddie to a lifestyle she hates, tries to get him to walk away.  But once again, Eddie doesn’t know when to quit.  Even after Bert propositions Sarah and has a drink thrown in his face, she still fights for Eddie’s heart.  But after Bert proves that he has won Eddie’s soul, she knows that she has also been beaten.  Eddie now belongs to Bert and not her.  So, in her defeat, she gives up and sleeps with Bert.  Afterword, realizing that she is already a part of the pathetic lifestyle from which she has been trying to save Eddie, she kills herself.

His grief over her death suddenly makes him emotionally able to start hustling in the big leagues.  After he suffers, he is suddenly able to return to Minnesota Fats and beat him.  But in his victory, he also has the heart to reject Bert, blaming him for Sarah’s death and admitting how much he loved her.  As Eddie learns to be a better hustler, he matures as a person, until finally, he becomes a better adult, so to speak.  The trick is that he had to endure great loss before that could happen.  The filmmakers did a good job of portraying that parallel, almost making pool hustling a metaphor for life.

The four principal actors, Newman, Gleason, Laurie, and Scott, were all praised by the critics for their performances.  In particular, I was impressed with both Newman and Laurie.  The relationship that was built between them was strange and complex, but at the same time, undeniable.  Director Robert Rossen did his job well, giving them just enough time to be believable in their tragic romance.  However, though I thought Gleason and Scott did just fine, I didn’t see where they were extraordinary.

Still, there was one thing that really caught my attention.  During some of the scenes where pool was being played, both Gleason and Newman were shown making some pretty difficult shots.  Today, any actor could make any shot with the aid of CGI, but these two obviously knew what they were doing on the felt.  They made some incredibly difficult shots look easy, and I was properly impressed.

Something else that I’d like to mention is the music.  The film’s high-energy jazz score was written by Kenyon Hopkins.  While the music itself was not overly-remarkable, I thought that it fit the feel of the story incredibly well.  It had an air of being fast and loose, just like Eddie’s character.  It was also slightly chaotic and almost seedy, just like the life of a hustler.  It was a well-written score, perfectly crafted to give the film perfect feel.

The film was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, winning 2:  One for Best Art Decoration/Set Decoration, Black & White, and the other for Best Cinematography, Black & White.  According to my research, the cinematography was lauded because, depending on how many people were in a shot, and which character was dominant within the context of the plot, attention was paid to whose head was highest and whose was lowest on the screen, though to be honest, the subtle distinction was lost on me.  Clever, yes, but pointless if nobody gets it.  Fortunately, someone did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judgment at Nuremberg – 1961

I think that any film that deals with the Holocaust in a factual and graphic way is a daring film.  This one was even more so because it was the first main-stream motion picture to use actual footage that, even by today’s standards, was graphic and disturbing.  It showed film footage of the rows and rows of dead bodies being disposed of after the end of WWII.  Especially unnerving were the shots of corpses being shoveled into a mass grave by a bulldozer.  Films like this are difficult to watch, but they are powerful.  It is impossible to see those kind of images and not be affected.  I can’t say I loved watching it, but it was certainly well-made and superbly acted.  And just as a side note, I can’t help but think of what kind of emotional scars the driver of that bulldozer must have endured.

The film was a fictionalized account of one of the twelve U.S. military tribunals that took place in Nuremberg, and dealt with Nazi war crimes.  This particular trial dealt with the non-combat crimes of four German judges, each of whom sentenced people, including women and children, to be moved to concentration camps, where death was a certainty.  They also sentenced people to forced sexual sterilization in accordance with the Nuremberg laws.  The four judges were Emil Hahn, played by Werner Klemperer, Werner Lampe, played by Torben Meyer, Friedrich Hofstetter, played by Martin Brandt, and Ernst Janning, wonderfully played by Bert Lancaster.

Lancaster, whose understated performance was a great contrast to his overacted performances in other Oscar nominated films I’ve seen, was just one of the huge names in this film.  I read that many of the actors played their parts for significantly less money than they were used to because they believed in the importance of the subject matter.  Spencer Tracy played the Chief Judge presiding over the trial, Judge Dan Haywood.  A very young William Shatner played Captain Harrison Byers, Judge Haywood’s aid and acting bailiff of the trial. Richard Widmark played the passionate prosecuting attorney, Colonel Ted Lawson, while Maximillian Schell played Hans Rolfe, the equally passionate defense attorney.

Marlene Dietrich played Frau Bartholt, a widow who befriends Judge Haywood, offering a different perspective on the Holocaust from a German point of view.  Montgomery Clift was incredible as Rudolph Peterson, a victim of sterilization and witness at the trial.  Judy Garland was just as incredible, playing Irene Wallner, another witness, who had earlier been sentenced to prison for two years for crimes she did not commit, involving alleged sexual relations with an old Jewish man who had been her dear friend.  Garland and Clift’s performances were remarkably powerful and realistic.

I was very impressed with the way the filmmakers handled the issue of the language barrier.  The judges, attorneys, witnesses and defendants were all required to wear headphones throughout the entire trial, through which translators were shown doing their jobs.  The film started out with the some actors speaking English, while others spoke German.  Then, during Schell’s opening argument, delivered in German, the camera did a quick zoom to a close-up of his face, and he began speaking English.  From then on, even though the headphones were never discarded, all the dialogue was delivered in English.  Whenever a German character spoke without the translators, the point was made that the character knew how to speak English.  I like that the filmmakers relied on the intelligence of the movie-going audiences to understand that distinction.

Another thing I liked was the ending of the film.  One of the movie’s biggest themes, of course, was the guilt, of lack of guilt, of the defendants.  Were they innocent of the charges being brought against them because they were just following orders, or did they have knowledge of the criminal nature of sentences that they delivered when they had been on the bench?  Were they, in their capacity as judges, accomplices to the atrocities of the Holocaust?

In the final scene, after Judge Haywood has found all four of the defendants guilty and sentenced them to life in prison, Ernst Janning, asks to see Haywood alone in his prison cell.  He says, “Judge Haywood… the reason I asked you to come:  Those people, those millions of people… I never knew it would come to that.  You must believe it.  You must believe it!”  To which Haywood replies, “Herr Janning, it ‘came to that’ the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”  That’s some great writing!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Guns of Navarone – 1961

Yes, this was a very good movie.  The acting was good, the characters were cool, the action sequences were exciting, and the plot was engaging.  This was part of a cycle of big-budget WWII films that came out in the late 50s and early 60s.  Other films in this little sub-genre were 1957’s Bridge on the River Kwai, 1962’s The Longest Day, and 1963’s The Great Escape.

The basic plot is fairly simple, and just to give proper credit, I lifted this entire paragraph from Wikipedia.  In 1943, the Axis Powers plan an assault on the island of Keros where 2,000 British soldiers are marooned.  Rescue by the Royal Navy is prevented by two massive radar-directed superguns on the nearby island of Navarone. When aerial bombing efforts fail, Allied Intelligence gathers a team of commandos to infiltrate Navarone and destroy the guns. Led by Major Roy Franklin, played by Anthony Quayle, the team is composed of American Captain Keith Mallory, played by Gregory Peck, a renowned spy and mountaineer, Colonel Andrea Stavrou, played by Anthony Quinn, from the defeated Greek army, Franklin’s best friend Corporal Miller, played by David Niven, an explosives expert and former chemistry teacher, Greco-American Spyros Pappadimos, played by James Darren, a native of Navarone, and “Butcher” Brown, played by Stanley Baker, an engineer and expert knife fighter.

Along the way they add two women to their party.  One is Pappadimos’ sister Maria, played by Irene Papas.  The other is her friend Anna, played by Gia Scala.  The two women are natives of Navarone, freedom fighters who are sent to help the commandos.  Anna had once been a school teacher until she was extensively tortured by the Germans.  She no longer speaks.  They help the men sneak into Navarone.

The intense action was inherent to the plot, but the human drama was written in to the characters.  Each man had a story of his own, a history that sometimes got in the way of the mission.  But, in thinking about it, there was never any doubt in my mind that the mission would be completed.  Of course, the heroes would win.  But the question was:  Which of them would survive and what would they have to go through to get the job done?

The answer?  Dangerous sailing over rough waters, a daring climb up a steep cliff, close combat with German soldiers, a cross-country trek carrying Major Franklin who has broken his leg, capture, escape, and a traitor in their midst.  Add to that dissention among the men who disagree with the command decisions made by Captain Mallory after Major Franklin is incapacitated.  It seems like the team has everything against them with little hope of succeeding.  But that was what made the film so exciting.

I particularly liked Anthony Quayle and Gregory Peck.  I thought they both played their parts especially well.  Peck actually surprised me.  He was the all American man, both on the screen and off.  As an actor, he had an image of being honorable, honest, and gentle, a man of integrity and compassion.  But in this film, he really played a cold-blooded, hard-nosed killer.

This point is really brought into the spotlight when the traitor is discovered.  It was the silent Anna.  The men were then faced with a tough decision.  They could not continue on with the girl, but to leave her behind would endanger the success of the mission.  After some heated arguing, Captain Mallory agreed that she would have to be killed.  And he was prepared to do it.  He actually raised his gun to murder an unarmed woman, something which was surely not in keeping with Peck’s squeaky clean image.  Fortunately, that image did not have to be tarnished.  Maria shoots the girl at the last instant, saving Captain Mallory from having to do it himself.

And the final scene is visually stunning.  Not only do they disable the superguns, they practically blow up half the Island.  Fortunately, they made a point of showing that the town of Navarone had been evacuated of its civilian population.  It was a spectacular ending to an exciting and well-made film.  The film was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, and won only 1:  Best Effects, Special Effects.  But as for Best Picture, it lost to West Side Story.  It must have been a tough choice, but though I really liked the Guns of Navarone, I think the Academy made the right decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fanny – 1961

Oh My Goodness!  Two thirds of this movie was pure drivel!  It was trying to be both a light-hearted comedy and a deep romance at the same time, and it failed at both.  The comedy was horribly executed and the romance was both dreary and creepy, all at once.  Let me explain.

First of all, if you have seen the 1958 Best picture Winner, Gigi, you have seen Fanny.  Both movies took place in France, had a similar plot, two cast members who were in both films, and that same creepy pedophile vibe.  What is it about the way these two films portray an old Maurice Chevalier as romantically lusting after teenage women?  Seriously!  The guy was in his 70s and he is drooling over Leslie Caron’s character, Fanny, who is supposed to be 17 years old, staring down the front of her dress at her breasts at very close range!  It was a little disturbing.

Second, let’s take a look at the ridiculous comedy.  OK, I get that it was a different time and that comedy is not what it is today, but this kind of stupid, juvenile humor seemed fit for a Vaudeville stage.  For example, the film spent several minutes on a little game the old men on the waterfront of Marseille had a habit of playing.  They would place a rock in the middle of the sidewalk and then cover it with a bowler hat.  Then they would watch until a pedestrian would see the hat.  Naturally, his inclination would be to kick the hat, right?  Huh?  And then, of course, the passers-by would kick the rock and hurt their feet.  Haha!!  What a riot!  Never mind that everyone kicked the hat hard enough to send it and the rock tumbling down the sidewalk, but it never even budged.  That’s comedy!  Right?  Right?!?

The humor just wasn’t funny.  All the actors behaved as if they were on that same Vaudeville stage, complete with overdone double-takes, silly garbled voices when they are supposedly being choked, slapstick humor, and even a few village idiots.  When characters are portrayed in such an over-acted way as to make me think they belong in strait jackets, something is wrong.

And then there was the crazy camera work.  At least five or six times in the course of the 2 hour and 13 minute film, a silly technique was used in which a character had a surprise, and the camera would do a quick zoom to a close-up of the shocked face.  It just looked like the trick of an amateur director.

Next, I have to mention the bad dubbing.  It seemed pretty obvious that some of the voices were dubbed, and the worst offender was Fanny’s mother Honorine, played by Georgette Anys.  Like all the other actors, she played her part so over-the-top that it was nearly clownish.  Her mouth didn’t seem to move very much when she spoke and her voice didn’t seem to belong to her.

Playing opposite Leslie Caron as the male romantic lead was Horst Buchholz.  I’m sorry to say that his acting was terrible.  He was supposed to have a great longing to be a sailor and travel over the open sea, but whenever he talked about it, the camera would focus on a tight close-up.  The overly-passionate expression on his face was unnerving.  I couldn’t tell if he was about to cry or have an orgasm.  Either way, I wanted him to stop.  He seemed to be trying too hard to be deep and dramatic, and unfortunately he failed at both.

Now, all that being said, about a third of the film was passable.  The story centered around Fanny and her star-crossed lover Marius, played by Buchholz.  He gets her pregnant before going to sea and so she agrees to the marriage proposal of the wealthy Panisse, played by Chevalier.  Marius’ father, Cesar, played by Charles Boyer, was the best part of the film.  He still played it a little silly, but was not as bad as everyone else.  Cesar agrees to be the godfather of the baby, knowing that it is his true grandchild.  But when Marius returns unexpectedly and demands his fatherly rights, Cesar turns him away, saying that Panisse is the father that has loved the boy.

There were a few slightly dramatic moments that worked for me, like the scene when Marius leaves to become a sailor, or the scene in which Fanny finds out that she is pregnant.  But for the most part, the ridiculous humor distracted me from the human drama that the filmmakers were trying to portray.  I hold Best Picture nominations to a higher standard than this.  Silly films have their place, but not as Best Picture nominations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sundowners – 1960

I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie.  True, there were no big action sequences of any real significance, the music was strangely laughable, and the muddy Australian accents were often distracting, but the story was well structured and the character development was spot on.

The four leads each turned in some pretty competent performances. Robert Mitchum played Irish-born Australian sheep herder, Paddy Carmody.  He has a wanderlust that that he cannot deny.  His wife Ida, played by Deborah Kerr, agreed to live his nomadic lifestyle when she married him, but has since changed her mind.  Their 14 year old son Sean, played by Michael Anderson Jr., wants nothing more than to put down roots and settle in a single place.  Along the way, the meet a British jack-of-all-trades named Rupert, played by Peter Ustinov.

They each did a pretty good job, except with the foreign accents.  They just weren’t very consistent.  Sometimes they sounded perfectly natural, at other times they sounded forced, and still at other times they seemed to disappear completely.  As much as I respect her work, Kerr was the worst offender.  I loved her character, and she played it well, but the accent just wasn’t convincing.  Mitchum did better, but still wasn’t perfect.

The story followed the Carmody family through their ups and downs, the main conflict being Paddy’s aversion to owning a home, and his wife and son’s desire to have one.  The conflict was both believable and interesting because the characters were so well written.  Each of them had their flaws and their own motivations, making them realistic.  Rupert didn’t seem to have any part in their difficulties except that he, like Paddy, had no desire to settle in one place for too long.

At one point, Ida convinces her husband to take a job at a sheep shearing ranch, keeping them in place for several months.  He reluctantly agrees to take the job, giving his wife and son a taste of settled life.  They make friends and they make money.  But when Paddy feels like he needs to leave the sedentary life, he breaks their hearts, saying that he would rather leave them behind than be tied down.

I have been trying to decide whether I disliked his character or not.  If the only way he could be happy was by living out in the open country, and the only way his wife and child could be happy was in a home, then maybe he was making the right decision.  On the other hand, he should have been sensitive enough to the needs of his family to give them what they needed.  Surely a compromise could have been arranged, like buying a home to have, but allowing him to be a roaming sheep herder in a seasonal fashion.

Anyway, that was how the film ended.  The family lost all their money, or rather I should say, Paddy lost all their money gambling, though he promised to earn it back to purchase a farm for them to settle on.  So they ended up remaining on the road with the prospect of putting down roots in the future.

And finally, I’ll end this review by talking about something I really liked and something I didn’t.  The thing I liked was the character of Mrs. Firth, wonderfully played by Glynis Johns.  She was fantastic.  She was the owner and bartender of the local pub near the sheep shearing ranch.  She had a bright and bubbly personality that was easy lo like.  When Rupert wooed her with his British charms, she happily took him into her heart and into her bed.  But what was so great about her character was that when he inevitably left her to go back out on the road, her spirit wasn’t dampened in the least.  She never lost that beautiful smile.  Well played Glynis!

But the thing I really didn’t like was the film’s score.  Sometimes, it seemed like it didn’t fit at all.  It constantly maintained this happy-go-lucky feel, no matter what was happening.  For example, when there is a brush fire that puts everyone’s lives in danger, the music continued to be perky, bordering on silly.  It had a similar feel to those old Disney nature documentaries, and I kept expecting to hear a narrated voice-over saying, “Now what have those two bear cubs found to play with?  They better be careful!  That skunk doesn’t look like he wants to play!”  The score should have made me feel like Paddy might get injured or even burned to death, but the tension inherent in the scene was completely lost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sons and Lovers – 1960

This was a little British film whose major themes appeared to be young love, sexual frustration and repression, and dysfunctional families.  It starred Dean Stockwell as Paul Morel, Wendy Hiller as his long-suffering mother, Gertrude, Trevor Howard as Walter, his violent, alcoholic father, Heather Sears as Miriam Leivers, his sexually repressed childhood sweetheart, and Mary Ure as Clara Daws, his married lover.  The film could so easily have been melodramatic and too much like a sappy soap-opera, but director Jack Cardiff took it in a serious and insightful direction.

The story took place in Nottingham, England, a coal-mining town, in the early 20^th century.  Paul Morel is a young boy who wants to be an artist and has the natural talent to become one.  His mother, who has found no joy in her marriage to a man she no longer loves, focuses all her attentions on him, manipulating his life in the name of motherly love, so that he can never have a healthy relationship with another woman.

Miriam, Paul’s girlfriend, has been raised under the boot-heel of her overly-religious mother who believes that sex is a dirty thing that is only to be endured for the purpose of procreation.  She pushes Paul away any time he starts to get too physically close.  Sears did a good job with her part, portraying a fear of intimacy, and shame for her desire for intimacy.

Paul gets a job in a factory, instead of the mines, like his father and grandfather, a fact which makes Walter feel like his family looks down upon him.  Paul begins a physical relation with a sexually liberated woman who happens to be married.  His mother, in an unconscious effort to put an end to his love affair, becomes ill and dies, forcing Paul to realize that all his emotional efforts had really been focused on her instead of on Clara.  As a result of Gertrude’s death, Paul decides that he will never again have a serious relationship with any woman.  The end.

As it turns out, this seems like it was the perfect film to start off the 60s, the era of free love and the sexual revolution.  The problems it dealt with seemed to be very relevant to the times.  The world, like the main character of Paul, seemed to be searching for freedom from the past generation, like a child yearning to stretch its legs and run.  The film successfully looked at this desire for sexual liberation from a number of different angles.

The actors all did a great job and I have to give a special nod to both Trevor Howard and Wendy Hiller for some wonderful performances.  Howard played the part of a low-born man who feels unloved and unwanted by his family, as his sons express their desires for lives of their own that are not fashioned after his.  Even his wife can’t stand to be in the same room with him.  The actor did a great job of portraying the emotional roller-coaster of the depressed alcoholic.

At first, I didn’t understand that one of the biggest themes in the movie was the codependent relationship between Paul and his mother, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that Paul’s emotional failings all stemmed from that relationship.  Hiller’s performance was subtle, but the character’s motivations were all quite evident.  I almost missed the little ways she discouraged him from seeing Miriam, saying that the girl wanted him all to herself and that he would never be happy with her.  I almost overlooked the way she told him he would never be happy with a married woman who could never truly be his.  I almost failed to understand how she actually turned him against his father in subtle and yet effective ways.  The part was well written and well played.

I wouldn’t say that the film was great, but it was definitely good.  Sure, the ending was a little depressing, but I felt it was realistic.  Paul walks away from Miriam, saying that he will never love again.  But who, after losing the love of their life, hasn’t thought the same thing?  Except that in this messed-up Oedipal case, his love is his mother.  I tend to think that the statement was only the impassioned declaration of a troubled young man.  Time heals all wounds, and Paul will eventually discover that love is still not only possible, but needed.

And just as a side note:  This film displays how the style for feminine beauty was slowly becoming that classic 60s look.  Even though the story took place in the early 1900s, Ule’s bouffant hairstyle was hard to miss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Alamo – 1960

John Wayne is back once again, this time playing the famous historical figure, Colonel Davey Crockett.  Alongside him is Colonel Jim Bowie, played by Richard Widmark, and Colonel Barrett Travis, played by Lawrence Harvey.  These three men were the leaders of the doomed forces who were slaughtered at the Alamo Mission in 1836.  The film, of course, is a dramatic telling of the story of the famous battle, and as such, finally explains why we should always, as the saying goes, “Remember the Alamo.”

Now, I’m no history buff, so I needed to do my research, just to see if the film told the true story, or if Hollywood got their meddlesome little hands on it and messed things up.  So here’s the history lesson, according to the film:  Travis is the commander of the Mission’s defending Texan troops.  Bowie, arrives with some volunteer men of his own, and the two Colonels lock horns, disagreeing on nearly every point of command.  Then Crockett arrives with his Tennessee men and gets caught in the middle of the feud.  They are all there fighting for Texan independence from Mexico.  The Mexican army is led by Gereralissimo Antonio Miguel Lopez de Santa Anna

Their plan is to hold out in the Alamo until the arrival of the reinforcements of Colonel James Fannin.  However, when Fannin and his reinforcements are slaughtered by the Mexican army, under Santa Anna’s orders, the 187 men defending the Alamo are doomed to a quick death.

 

Why, then, did they stay, even when they knew that defeat and death were inevitable?  What was the point in defending the Mission?  What did their deaths accomplish?  They bought General Sam Houston time to train an army of volunteers that could defeat Santa Anna’s troops.  The men of the Alamo sacrificed their lives to give General Houston time to prepare his men to fight for the independence of Texas.  Their sacrifices allowed Texas to win the war, and those brave and selfless sacrifices shouldn’t ever be forgotten.  Remember the Alamo.

So, how accurate was the film?  Apparently, according to Wikipedia, not very.  Alamo historian Timothy Todish was quoted as saying, “There is not a single scene in The Alamo which corresponds to a historically verifiable incident”. Historians J. Frank Dobie and Lon Tinkle demanded their names be removed as historical advisors.  However, I found that the changes were too insignificant to warrant complaint.  For example, Wikipedia states that “Bowie did not brandish a six barrel volley gun, nor was he wounded in the leg during the final assault, nor did his wife die during the time of the siege. He fell ill due to typhoid fever and was barely awake during the final attack.”  I say, who cares what kind of gun Bowie used except for Alamo historians?  The six-barrel volley gun looked cool and gave his character the look of a butt-kicker!  Plus the fact that he kept on trying to fight after his leg wound made him seem even tougher.  The point is that he was out of the main battle, just like in reality.  So, were the details completely accurate?  No.  But accurate enough?  Yes.

The film also put a special and noticeable emphasis on freedom and the right of every man to make his own choices.  This is not surprising, considering the film was written and directed by the epitome of American patriotism and pride, John Wayne.  Fortunately, there were a few night-time raids, a few quick skirmishes, and the big final battle that helped stir the blood.

As for the acting, Wayne played Wayne and Widmark did a good enough job as a tragic figure.  I ended up liking Harvey’s portrayal of Colonel Travis, though now that I am thinking about it, why would a Texan have a slightly British accent?  However, I am baffled by the only actor in the film to be nominated for an Academy Award.  Actor Chill Wills was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.  He played the part of one of Crockett’s rowdy Tennessee volunteers.  Huh?  The character was annoying.  I think he was supposed to be comic relief, but he had no dramatic scenes, no deep or insightful speeches.  His only purpose was to behave like a drunken half-wit.  Even his comic moments weren’t very funny.  Best Supporting Actor?  I don’t get it.  I thought he was the weakest part of the film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elmer Gantry – 1960

Now, here we have a drama that hit the mark on a number of levels.  The lead character was dynamic and larger than life, the supporting characters were interesting and complex, the cast was fantastic, the plot was engaging, and the directing was excellent.  I have to give the director, Richard Brooks, props for putting together a good film.

The movie starred Burt Lancaster as Elmer Gantry, a traveling salesman with ambitions of becoming a Revivalist preacher.  But his motives are entirely suspect.  He isn’t in it for the religion, but for the money.  Basically, he is a con man.  He smooth talks his way into the company of Sister Sharon Falconer, played by Jean Simmons.  She is a Revivalist tent-preacher who is in it for the religion.  She has a true desire to bring people closer to God.  In fact, she has an inner belief that she has actually been touched by God.

When the two of them team up, it is a match made in heaven.  Gantry brings the fire, the brimstone, and the financial ambitions, while Sister Sharon brings the love, the forgiveness, and the honesty.  Together, they set their followers on fire with religious zeal.  But the film was actually a controversial one because it showed a bit of a seedier side of organized religion, something at which conservative Christians probably cringed.  It portrayed Christianity as a circus side-show.

Now, I have to mention that I have never been a huge fan of Lancaster’s acting.  Everything he does seems to be either forced or overdone.  When he laughs, he laughs maniacally.  When he cries, he sobs and bellows.  There is such a lack of subtlety that I often have a hard time taking him very seriously.  But here, I think that his overbearing eagerness as an actor worked in his favor.  The character was one who had a personality like a sledge hammer.  He was supposed to have been both bold and fast-talking, and he played those qualities well.  Still, I think he could have toned it down a bit.  But the Academy did not agree with my assessment and he won the Oscar for Best Actor for his performance.

That being said, I thought there were some pretty terrific performances by Lancaster’s supporting cast.  The woman who Gantry wronged in the past, and who turned to prostitution in the present, was Lulu Bains, masterfully played by Shirley Jones, earning her the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.  I also loved the performance of Dean Jagger, playing the part of the Revival show’s manager, William Morgan.

Once Gantry joins Sister Sharon’s tent show, his flamboyant sermonizing draws in the crowds.  He gets Sharon and Morgan to take the show to a larger town where the local church leaders are divided on whether or not to let them stay.  The plot goes over some difficulties that the tent-revival show has to overcome, like Jim Lefferts, an atheist newspaper reporter, played by Arthur Kennedy, who tries to ruin the reputations of the revivalists, or Lulu going out of her way to get revenge on Gantry for the way she feels he ruined her life.  She invites him to her hotel room, only to make sure photos are taken of him that make him appear like a client.  Then she give the photos to the press.

But in the end, these obstacles are overcome, and it was the ending that really caught my attention.  Sister Sharon has been saving money for years in an effort to build a church of her own, believing that she is being moved by the hand of God, himself.  When the church is finally complete, a large crowd of parishioners attend her first gathering.  But before the service can really begin, a man who has lost his hearing approaches the altar and begs for healing.  Sister Sharon was so sure that she had personally been touched by the divine, she put her hands on the man’s ears and prayed over him.  And it worked!  The man regained his hearing, which would lead me to believe that she had been right all along, that her belief in her own special relationship with the Almighty was not simply arrogance.  God truly was working through her!

But as soon as that was revealed, the ending took a turn for the tragic.  A fire broke out and burned the divine Sister Sharon and her new temple to the ground, as if to say “I’ll give you that one miracle, but after that, you’re finished.”  Once the fire has been put out, Gantry simply strolls away with a smile on his face, his con having successfully ended.