Category: Winners – 1950s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ben-Hur – 1959

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gigi – 1958

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bridge on the River Kwai – 1957

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around the World in 80 Days – 1956

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marty – 1955

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the Waterfront – 1954

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Here to Eternity – 1953

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Greatest Show on Earth – 1952

Who doesn’t love the circus?  Well, that is what this Best picture winner was about, plain and simple.  The movie tried to tell the real story of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, both in the spotlight and out of it.  But they attempted to do it by writing a fictional story, tailor made by Hollywood, that involved both the public and private lives of the performers and the manager.  The research I did indicated that many critics consider this film to be one of the least deserving Best Picture winners.  Not having seen its competition, I can’t say for sure whether that is true or not.  All I can do is compare it to the other winners I’ve seen and see how it measures up.

My opinion is divided.  In some respects, it seemed a bit too frivolous and shallow to deserve the award.  The plot seemed a little too contrived and the subject matter to juvenile.  However, in other ways, it had a grand scale and a subtle self-importance about it that made me feel the opposite.  There was a certain amount of gravitas, and possibly even pathos, centered on the big-top that made me feel for the characters.  You see, these people’s lives revolved around their work: the circus.  They had the innate need to perform dangerous and even death-defying stunts for the approval of the screaming crowds.

And why not the circus?  Technicolor films were finally starting to take hold in Hollywood and there is no arena that is more colorful, bright, and glitzy.  The movie was like a kaleidoscope of bold and beautiful glamour.  It was a true sparkling, Technicolor spectacle.  In that respect, this is what previous Best Picture winner The Great Ziegfeld would have done if it had the chance.  The plot was no more shallow than It Happened One Night or Broadway Melody of 1929.  It had a touch of fantasy and a touch of reality, just like Gone With the Wind, or Casablanca.  If these films won, then why not The Greatest Show on Earth?

And this film had a few other tricks up its sleeve: Charlton Heston for one, and James Stewart for another.  Heston played Brad Braden, the circus manager.  He is the guy that lives, eats, and breathes circus.  He knows and cares for all the 1,400 circus employees and is the real engine behind the big show.  He is the hirer and the firer.  He makes all the big decisions except for the money, though he is portrayed as persuasive enough to get what he wants when it comes to that.  But being that obsessed with his job has its drawbacks when he is romantically involved with Holly, the beautiful trapeze artist played by Betty Hutton.  In order to draw the crowds needed to keep the show going, Brad hires another trapeze artist named Sebastian, played by Cornel Wilde.  Unfortunately for Holly, this pushes her out of the center ring.  Thus, we have the plot’s main conflict.

Then we had James Stewart playing the part of Buttons the Clown.  To me, his was a much more interesting story line, though in the context of the film, it was only a sub-plot.  Buttons wore his clown make-up all the time whether he was performing or not.  But it wasn’t because he was quirky or trying to “stay in character”.  It is established early on in the film that he is secretly hiding from something, though we don’t learn until almost the end what he is hiding from.  I thought Stewart did a great job, both as a clown, and as a man with a dark secret in his past.    The moments when he was not performing his clown act, there was a seriousness about him that was very interesting to see through the happy, comical make-up.

The film’s climactic sequence was, in my opinion, incredibly well done.  The circus train crashed.  The train wreck scene was very well done and exciting to watch.  It caught me off guard and I didn’t see it coming.  The “bad guys” got their just desserts, though the tragedy threatened to close the show.  Fortunately, the circus is portrayed as an industry that deals with hardship on a regular basis and always comes up smiling for the crowds.  They are depicted as a rare and special breed of folk who have a history of taking their lumps and being able to greet their audiences with the unquenchable merriment that is expected of them.  They are survivors.  Despite losing half their acts in the phenomenal accident, they get right back up and draw in the spectators to watch The Greatest Show on Earth!

But even putting all that aside, I enjoyed the movie simply because it was the circus.  They actually used Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus to make up the cast of extras.  Actual circus performers got to do their acts for the cameras.  The acrobats were thrilling, the performing animals were exotic and amazing, the clowns were funny, and the pageantry parades were dazzling.  The film does a great job of capturing the excitement of going to the circus.  That part of the movie was fun to watch.  Just the sheer volume of the circus acts they were able to fit into the film made it worth watching.

However, in my research, I found that many critics consider this movie to be the worst of the Best Picture winners.  So I have to ask the question:  Why did it win?  Some say that it was because the Director, Cecil B. DeMille was a supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  McCarthy, at the time, was pursuing Communists, and Carl Foreman, who was a producer of the main competition for the Best Picture award, High Noon, was soon to be on the Hollywood Blacklist.  Thus it was a political decision.

But there was another reason that sounded just as plausible.  This was the Academy’s last chance to vote for Cecil B. DeMille, to honor him for a lifetime of film making going well back into the silent movie era.  The members of the Academy (which included many veterans of the silent era) felt that as an elder statesman of Hollywood, he deserved the honor even if films like The Quiet Man, High Noon, Singin’ in the Rain, and Ivanhoe were seen as better movies.

For me, it was the movie’s contrived plot that was its ultimate failing.  The acting was passable, the stand-outs, of course, being Heston and Stewart.  But I found myself not caring who ended up with whom at the end.  Like I mentioned earlier, the sub-plot centered around Buttons the Clown was more interesting to me than the main plot.  (Unfortunately, the character’s back-story was never fully explained.)  But that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy the film.  I think Leonard Maltin summed it up pretty well in 1999: “Like most of DeMille’s films, this may not be art, but it was hugely enjoyable.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An American in Paris – 1951

Yay!!  Color!!  Gone With the Wind won the Best Picture Award in 1939 – twelve years earlier.  It was the first winner that was filmed in Technicolor.  After that we went directly back in to black and white.  What is taking movie makers so long to start making color films on a regular basis?  Was it really that much more expensive, unwanted, or difficult to produce color movies?  An American in Paris finally stepped up to the plate.  That being said, I found it ironic that in the wild party scene before the big ballet sequence, the party-goers were all dressed in costumes that were completely black and white.

Yes, I said ballet.  This movie was a musical, but not just a musical.  It was a dance-musical.   This is the first time I have watched it, and I have to admit that I went into it thinking that the plot would be practically non-existent.  I thought that the movie would be nothing more than an excuse for Gene Kelly to show off his skills as a dancer and choreographer.    But after watching the movie, I was pleasantly surprised.  I mean, sure, Kelly got to show off a lot, but the story was a little deeper than I expected… but only a little.

The plot revolves around three men and two women.  Gene Kelly plays Jerry Mulligan, the painter who is in love with Lise Bouvier , played by Leslie Caron.  Georges Guetary plays Henri  “Hank” Baurel, the singer who is also in love with Lise.  Nina Foch plays Milo Roberts, the rich heiress who is in love with Jerry.  And finally, Oscar Levant plays Adam Cook, the concert pianist who is in love with himself.  Throw them all together and you get a light-hearted plot that thankfully doesn’t try to take itself too seriously.  Because we all know why we are really here:  To hear the music of George  and Ira Gershwin and to see Gene Kelly dance to it.

And we really do get what we came for.  Kelly’s dancing is incredible!  He was young, fit, and very attractive.  His dance moves were performed with a grace and ease that made them seem like they were effortless, like the practiced and complex steps were second nature to him.  And his choreography was so appropriate to Gershiwn’s music.  The musical styles that were represented ranged from classical to ballet, from jazz to show-tune, with maybe even touches of big-band and Vaudeville.  Kelly’s dance moves kept pace, showing off his incredible talent and an obvious love for the art form.  And who knew you could tap-dance in loafers?

Interesting note:  Gene Kelly received an Academy Honorary Award that year for “his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film.” It was his only Oscar.

Leslie Caron was able to keep pace with Kelly quite well, though to be honest, it sometimes didn’t appear as effortless for her as it was for him.  Every now and then, she looked as if she really had to concentrate on what she was doing.  Then again, she did much of her work in toe-shoes, standing, walking, spinning, and leaping on the tips of her toes.  Not being a dancer, myself, I can only imagine how difficult that kind of dancing is.  But she did it all with a big brilliant smile.

Really, Kelly and Caron were the only members of the main cast who did any dancing.  Guteary was cast for his voice, and did a fine job, especially in his big number, I’ll Build a Stairway to Paradise.  If I had any complaint about his character, it would be that he had a very strong French accent.  Appropriate for a movie set in France, but sometimes, the accent was so thick that you couldn’t understand what he was saying, and for a song sung in English, that would seem to be a necessity.  Foch neither sang nor danced, but she was gorgeous, and she played the part of the spoiled rich girl well.

Finally we come to Oscar Levant.  Goodness gracious!  He was incredible.  As I have mentioned before in an earlier review, I can always tell if someone in a movie is actually playing their instrument, or if he is just pretending.  There is no doubt – Levant was really as talented as his character was supposed to be.  His piano playing was spell-binding.  He was amazing and flawless.  There is a scene in which he plays Gershwin’s Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra.  I was riveted as I watch his fingers fly over the keyboard.  True, the scene itself was obviously gratuitous, not at all necessary to the plot in any way, but the performance was so incredible, I didn’t mind.

And the same could be said for a lot of dancing in the film.  Sometimes it came out of nowhere, and it almost felt like it was there despite the story, of which, I admit, there wasn’t a lot.  But the dancing was so good, it didn’t matter that it wasn’t always necessary.  And as for the plot, it had its moments that caught my interest.  There was one scene in particular that was cute and clever.  At one point, Jerry is at a café with Henri and Adam.  Henri tells his friends of the girl he loves, and how he will marry her.  Jerry tells them of his girlfriend, and how he wants to do the same.  Neither of them realize that they are talking about the same girl, but Adam does.  Then the scene moves into the great song S Wonderful.  It was a very clever little moment.

There were a few other great Gershwin tunes that were used, such as Embraceable You, Nice Work If You Can Get It, and I Got Rhythm.  But then again, Gershwin’s music is always great to listen to.  The movie’s big finish was the American in Paris Ballet sequence.  It was sixteen minutes long and cost an unbelievable $500,000 to film.  Gershwin’s symphonic tone poem, An American in Paris, was written in 1928 and remains one of his most popular works, probably second to his most famous work, Rhapsody in Blue.  His music has a staggering complexity about it, but despite that fact, it has a way of remaining accessible to the listener.  It is incredibly impressive, but at the same time, it sounds right in the ear.

The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, and won six of them, but nobody expected it to take home the coveted Best Picture Award.  It wasn’t the favorite, as it was up against Decision before Dawn, A Place in the Sun, Quo Vadis, and most notably, A Streetcar Named Desire.  Stiff competition, to be sure, but apparently the voters were ready for something more light-hearted and fun.

Interesting note:  This is just an odd little observation, I noticed.  The 1951 movie poster for An American in Paris shows Leslie Caron in a yellow tutu and toe-shoes, dancing with Gene Kelly, wearing black pants and shirt.  That particular tutu Caron is wearing was blue in the film and she never danced with Kelly while wearing it.

Another interesting note:  I found a tiny inconsistency in the film.  At one point, during the song Tra-la-la (This Time It’s Really Love), Gene Kelly is lying on top of a piano and playing notes on the keyboard, thus playing the keys backwards.  But they messed up.  When he played notes higher on the keys, the notes you hear were lower, and when he played notes lower on the keys, the notes you hear were higher.  Kelly apparently forgot he was playing from the opposite side of the piano.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All About Eve – 1950

The 1950 winner of the Academy Award Best Picture is a wonderful film starring Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, George Sanders, Celeste Holm, Gary Merrill, and Hugh Marlow.  Already, we have a pretty good cast of actors.      Bette Davis, of course, is well known as an incredibly accomplished actress with a film career that lasted from her debut in 1931’s The Bad Sister, to her final appearance in 1987’s The Whales of August.  Fifty-six years!  She had under her belt, ten Academy Award nominations, two of which she won.  What an incredible career!

But the rest of the cast, although not as well known today, was quite well known in 1950.  Celeste Holm, you may remember, won the Best Supporting Actress award for her part in Gentleman’s Agreement.  George Sanders was a great British actor who was in over 130 films between 1929 and 1972.  I mention these two because they did a particularly fine job in All About Eve.  Their roles were very different and they performed them with what seemed like ease and skill.

Contained in this film is a very famous line spoken by Davis.  Her character, Margo Channing, is a highly respected and well-loved actress who is at the peak of her career, though she is getting too old for the young roles she plays on stage.  She is at her lover’s birthday party and she has seen her man, Bill Sampson, played by Gary Merrill, talking to the young and beautiful Eve Harrington, played by Anne Baxter.  She is just beginning to suspect that Eve’s mysterious adoration and ambition might be some kind of a creepy threat.  She assumes the worst and begins downing martinis like they were water, turning herself into a vicious woman who casually throws around incredibly witty insults at anyone in range.  Upon hearing some icy comment from Margo, her best friend Karen Richards, wonderfully played by Celeste Holm asks something like, “So, Margo, are you finishing up, or are you just getting started?”  Margo walks away from the conversation, but turns around long enough to deliver that famous line, “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!”  What a great line!

Her co-stars all did a great job as her supporting cast, but really, Davis was the real scene stealer.  She seemed to draw my attention.  Maybe it was her attitude, her poise, or her unconventional good-looks.  Maybe it was her famous eyes that made me focus on her.  Maybe it was the mystique of a diva-like actress with such a big name.  Whatever it was, she had a presence about her that made her a pleasure to watch.  She really did command my attention.

With one exception.  Even Bette Davis had to give up the spotlight when it came to a bit part played by an actress that was not well known at the time.  Playing the minor role of Claudia Caswell, a hopeful but slightly air-headed young actress, whom the character of DeWitt described as a “graduate of the Copacabana School of Dramatic Arts”, was Marilyn Monroe.  She had such a small part but she milked it like you wouldn’t believe!  As hard as I tried, I couldn’t keep my eyes off of her.  Her lines were delivered in such a way as to make her tiny, one-dimensional character fascinating and captivating, charming and memorable.  The camera really did love Monroe.

Interesting note:  This was Monroe’s eighth film appearance.  The inexperienced Monroe was cowed by Bette Davis, and took 11 takes to complete the scene in the theatre lobby with the star.  When Davis barked at her, Monroe left the set to throw up.

But back to the film.  The plot was an interesting one that gave the audience a glimpse into the fictionalized lives of the rich and beautiful.  It had sophistication, style and glamor.  Add to that a touch of creepy and razor sharp wit, and you have a delightful film.  It is always interesting to hear insults which are thinly disguised as compliments.  It is an indication of very clever writing.

In the title role of Eve Harrington, Baxter actually made you believe her lies which made the big reveal in the end that much more satisfying to watch.  You see, her whole goal was to steal Margo’s entire life – her career, her success, her money, and yes, even her lover.  However, fortunately for Margo, Sanders’ character, Broadway critic, Addison DeWitt, was the first one to definitively see through Eve’s falsehoods.  And being the cold-hearted and vicious man he was, he used them to his advantage.  The scene in which he confronted Eve and told her in no uncertain terms that because he knew all her dirty little secrets, he owned her, even going so far as to slap her into submission.  That was especially satisfying to watch!  At that point in the film, you see just how low and evil Eve really is, and it was nice to see her finally get put in her place.

The final scene was also interesting to watch.  As the now successful actress, Eve, returns to her hotel after receiving a prestigious award, a star-struck and adoring fan has crept into her room.  She begins to show behavior that seems disturbingly similar to Eve’s own behavior at the beginning of the film.

All that being said, it was nice to get back to a film that did not have, for lack of a better term, a specific agenda.  Movies like Mrs. Miniver, The Lost Weekend, The Best Years of Our Lives, Gentleman’s Agreement, and All the King’s Men had their own agendas.  Whether it was to address a social issue, explore a difficult subject, or show support for a war effort, these films had an agenda that had a specific purpose and were trying to effect some kind of change in those who watched them.  But All About Eve had no such designs on its audiences.  It was just a cleverly written fictional story that was well acted and fun to watch.  I didn’t feel like I was being educated or like I was suddenly being expected to do something from having watched the film.  And it didn’t take itself too seriously.  It had both dramatic and reflective scenes and brief moments of light-hearted comedy.

Interesting note: Davis apparently read the script in one sitting and immediately accepted the role, knowing that the film would be a winner.  The role of Margo Channing is widely considered one of the best performances of Bette Davis’ career, and though both she and Anne Baxter were nominated for Best Actress, neither of them won the award.