tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80679025505041896212024-03-14T04:29:53.298+00:00Black and White: Cinema and ChocolateThe opinions, thoughts, feelings, concerns, passions and irritations on films, books and other minor pursuits of a Portuguese in London.
Twitter: @cinemaandchocMiguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.comBlogger303125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-50198807342628411652016-07-01T13:27:00.000+01:002016-07-10T13:32:19.430+01:00Olivia is 100<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqg2BdIoiDDJvSSYO74GXZsMqw0kcKIIUsQSLf8Gm667wxd4rjAbhaFbf0JY1-orDRBk5WZMC-0nTLWg1tssBOabFlPRk_FgMEGVVokj3skU7bl3tbydK4bRx_MlypkfaXG90L-dszrWsM/s1600/Olivia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqg2BdIoiDDJvSSYO74GXZsMqw0kcKIIUsQSLf8Gm667wxd4rjAbhaFbf0JY1-orDRBk5WZMC-0nTLWg1tssBOabFlPRk_FgMEGVVokj3skU7bl3tbydK4bRx_MlypkfaXG90L-dszrWsM/s320/Olivia.jpg" width="228" /></a></div>
Text to come soon, but for all my Olivia related posts, just follow the tab.<br /><br />Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-12882414693069920552016-01-14T22:55:00.001+00:002016-01-14T22:55:53.758+00:00Alan Rickman (1946-2016)I saw him on stage as Elyot in "Private Lives" almost 15 years ago, but it'll be his cinematic roles, mostly his villains and his role in "Galaxy Quest" that I'll remember him for.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-88741147136005851852016-01-13T00:25:00.002+00:002016-01-19T00:14:49.717+00:00The Women (1939)<div class="western">
In 1939, MGM arranged to have two of their biggest
female starts, Norma Shearer and Joan Crawford together in George
Cukor’s “The Women”. The film was shot with an all-female cast
(animals included) and has remained famous for that, for it’s one
liners (Crawford’s final line is priceless as is daring for Hays
era Hollywood) and for the backstories of egos and rivalries between
the two leading actresses and Rosalind Russell. </div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqNsk6_9lZJh7VWnfgE2HB2Fw6fReOlF7cEnvmPWVqbLKxMDgXM3733QsOZCupurGr_BMwwZWxwXXdI7oWNgmwOnkUB3jBO4iRf_IWW157bnUx-jtGhpACfcKb05-Ssaqu222vrX9zUOf8/s1600/The+Women.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqNsk6_9lZJh7VWnfgE2HB2Fw6fReOlF7cEnvmPWVqbLKxMDgXM3733QsOZCupurGr_BMwwZWxwXXdI7oWNgmwOnkUB3jBO4iRf_IWW157bnUx-jtGhpACfcKb05-Ssaqu222vrX9zUOf8/s320/The+Women.jpg" width="213" /></a>The film’s admirable idea of an all-female cast,
something which was probably not ever done to this extent before or
since, disappoints quickly once the film starts. The reality is that
it’s treated as a gimmick; as the posters say, “it’s all about
men”. In reality it is all about promoting obedient and complacent
wives who get rewarded (Shearer, Joan Fontaine) against disagreeable
wives (Russell) or gold diggers (Crawford). Despite being written by
women, at times it feels incredible misogynist (starting with the
credits) with women being reduced to one dimensional figures – or
animal like behaviours, and the men implied to be simple things which are played by them. </div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Yet, the film has several good moments. There are
wonderful lines (the film was co-scripted by Anita Loos) – my
favourites are the aforementioned Crawford’s final line and one
involving a mention to a swastika (the actual shape) meaning it has being tainted by
history – I most recently watched the film at the BFI and the
audience laughed at the line and then immediately felt like they
shouldn’t have. There are also good scenes, brilliantly directed:
Crawford and Shearer’s first confrontation; all the scenes with
Olga the manicurist; the exercise sequence for Russell.
</div>
<br />
<div class="western">
And there a lot of famous names in the film (the
cast is absolutely massive): Shearer, Crawford, Russell in career
changing role, Paulette Godard, Marjorie Main and Joan Fontaine are
probably those better remembered today. But they aren’t evenly
matched. Fontaine is painful to watch, and Russell is the main
reason I can’t love the film as much as others do. She overacts to
a degree that’s antagonises me and makes me wonder why she felt she needed
to do it like that. On the other hand, both Goddard and Shearer are
good; with Shearer giving one of her best latter career performances
(I prefer her performance in “Escape” but alas the film is much
worse, courtesy of Robert Taylor). Of the lesser known names, Lucile Watson as Shearer's mother is great, as is Hedda Hopper as the gossip columnist, antecipating real life.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
But the best performance is undoubtedly
Crawford’s. In a clearly supporting part (I think she might even
appear less than Russell onscreen), she steals every scene she is in;
if the film has passed the test of time is in no small to her efforts.<br />
<br />
Finally, Adrian's clothes. I think that too often Adrian created gowns that no sensible woman would ever wear but here, the clothes he designed for Russell's character are so excessive, so much more than required, that it helps tremendously put me off her character - too cartoonish for the rest of the film. Oh, and then there's the pointless Technicolor fashion show...</div>
Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-76175944516903183302015-12-24T16:18:00.001+00:002015-12-27T01:03:24.732+00:00Red Dust (1932)Sometimes there's something about watching a film projected that makes you change your mind about it (or maybe is just watching it again with different expectations). First time I saw it, "Red Dust" left me a bit cold; seeing it projected I realised how steamy and how much fun it was.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWTEusPna0f9i6ygBlVeGrOlndorA4JA8cIaBKc_XfkfxFHpWDxKNNAzsFghYPuootMisk3lQS4Wtsx1QaXMYzk2WDKhyuGaHUOLu1mrt42VcjPffEjqDD397qubUE8f6TG0lkGu40pYzx/s1600/red+dust+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWTEusPna0f9i6ygBlVeGrOlndorA4JA8cIaBKc_XfkfxFHpWDxKNNAzsFghYPuootMisk3lQS4Wtsx1QaXMYzk2WDKhyuGaHUOLu1mrt42VcjPffEjqDD397qubUE8f6TG0lkGu40pYzx/s320/red+dust+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Set in a plantation in what was then French Indochina, it stars Clark Gable, Jean Harlow and Mary Astor in a love and lust triangle (or square, if we count Gene Raymond). Harlow plays a prostitute going upstream from Saigon and ending in
Gable's plantation. For a while they live in a blissful Eden, until Mary
Astor's prim and proper lady arrives as the wife of the plantation's
new engineer (Gene Raymond). Of course, as any film with such settings, there is a huge amount of casual racism thrown about. There are several uncomfortable moments regarding Gable's treatment of the plantation workers and the Chinese cook is a series of horrifying cliches with more than a passing hint of homophobia here and there. <br />
<br />
Despite this, the film has the power to grasp your attention. It's a key title in both of its two stars' careers, helping confirm Gable and Harlow's super star and sex symbol statutes. In fact, Sex pervades through the film. In fact, it's impossible not to speak of the film without speaking of sex. It's treated casually, and Harlow brings a lightness and energy to it. Her profession is never hidden and she is clearly into Gable. Then there's that bath scene in the barrel. She really had a gift for just bringing out the most fun, lighter side of sexiness on screen. Gable also exudes sex. He has shirtless scene that he would echo later in "It Happened One Night" and for sure didn't harm the box office. Interestingly, that scene proved too much for the censors - Gable's navel couldn't be shown. In the end, one way of seeing the film is as a battle between a more repressed and a freer sexual attitude represented by Astor and Harlow; a very twisted version of the Old World vs New World view of the period. And of course, in the end the winner is clear - a very pre-Code win for Sex.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC9pXK769SlDci_5LrzozgAW7wWxDk3tOpaMCNAb7JEtTc_Ntg3nhIK-Je2yx15qa-Z-5HFzAQ0ctmzPTsjvtEmtx8bQz33TZscNPz0GYpH6II6M-DCVjOPJ55X38PAPcijXYWP1zzRXsv/s1600/red+dust+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC9pXK769SlDci_5LrzozgAW7wWxDk3tOpaMCNAb7JEtTc_Ntg3nhIK-Je2yx15qa-Z-5HFzAQ0ctmzPTsjvtEmtx8bQz33TZscNPz0GYpH6II6M-DCVjOPJ55X38PAPcijXYWP1zzRXsv/s320/red+dust+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
While the two leads shine, the supporting cast is mostly unremarkable. Donald Crisp is very underused, but still very good is two bigger scenes. Mary Astor is ok, but far from her best parts, and <br />
Gene Raymond is as bland as the part required and probably more. Even is school kid crush on Gable seems devoid of any interest. Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-28408329960644891552015-10-24T22:47:00.001+01:002015-10-27T23:58:12.194+00:00Maureen O'Hara (1920-2015)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaVIZTkRejtyY7krnFJhU1js0ZVjKdk9aggk1xTh5UFRb54HUysW9sQTpWtEuIY_EhjJB_fdpni2rSNml_-IPoPFea6er8Y-ykgU0rZnMKQ-_nnMqA49YcUPj0g1FFRGKo5lhFz8rCya2V/s1600/Maureen+Ohara.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaVIZTkRejtyY7krnFJhU1js0ZVjKdk9aggk1xTh5UFRb54HUysW9sQTpWtEuIY_EhjJB_fdpni2rSNml_-IPoPFea6er8Y-ykgU0rZnMKQ-_nnMqA49YcUPj0g1FFRGKo5lhFz8rCya2V/s320/Maureen+Ohara.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
She had the reddest hair in Hollywood, often shot in gorgeous Technicolor, and I think I was aware of her since I saw "Against All Flags" as a very young boy. She was fun to watch. Other films only reinforced that: "The Quiet Man" (which I caught a glimpse of a few hours her death was announced), "The Parent Trap", "The Black Swan". Fiery and funny, she conquered her place in my love of film.<br />
<br />
While I didn't like "How Green Was My Valley" (nor do I want to revisit it any time soon), she was also great in a minor Nicholas Ray "A Woman's Secret" with Melvyn Douglas and Gloria Grahame and "Our Man in Havana".<br />
<br />
I don't think I have seen as many of her films as I thought I have (the above, "The Spanish Main", "Miracle on 34th Street", "The Hutchback of Notre Dame"). But in all of those she was unforgettable.<br />
<br />
She never got an Oscar nomination but finally got a Life Achievement Award last year - aged 94. I am glad she got it on time.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-87489987645637641772015-07-04T10:36:00.000+01:002015-07-04T10:36:03.050+01:00More stuff that shouldn't happen in a cinemaAnnouncing a 12 minute short film before the main feature and then, unexpectedly and unexplained, only show the first half. However, in this instance during the recent D.W. Griffith season at the BFI, not sure if it wasn't for the best (the first half was very, very, very long).Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-83152845487346845092015-04-04T00:11:00.002+01:002015-04-04T12:23:48.974+01:00Practically Yours (1944)As I (finally) watched this, my only thought was "well, you wanted to see it". <br />
<br />
I had high expectations, which were unlikely to be met, but at the very least I was expecting to enjoy it: I love Claudette Colbert and like Fred MacMurray, the two leads, and I think Mitchell Leisen is one of the most underrated directors of the 1930s and 1940s. The three together produced <a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2013/05/no-time-for-love-1943.html">an unusual 1940s comedy</a> which I liked very much. So how could the follow-up be anything if not entertaining? From that opening line go, you can guess that I wasn't particularly impressed with the film. And not for the reasons that MacMurray mentioned somewhere (that they were too old, which is actually irrelevant for this story). No, the problem is that the premise isn't in the right tone and the plot is badly constructed.<br />
<br />
The premise is that a pilot about to embark on a suicide mission says he'll miss Peggy the most in his farewell message. Except he didn't say Peggy (a former co-worker) but Piggy (his dog). This would have worked wonderfully in another context than a suicide mission during WWII and filmed straight (as it should). As he survives, the mistake needs to be upheld to the obvious conclusion. The problem is that we are expected to move from serious (and real) drama to light romance (and back again a few times). This is never an easy change in key and not Norman Krasna (the writer), not Leisen nor the actors manages to do so. And as the key keeps changing, we go from MacMurray's female pursuits to serious war concerns back to romance. You would need a better script, better motivated actors and more inspired director to do it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjljhDwYCCHXSlVxXSpsagb2JqiE33es_09Mmfy9l3X1I8HDacdoiU-VyQ0VZsEoE_ULtOR4_Cr0sIOhnUEDXI8RITUBhBLHcCkcdnXx9JH3P8PcSZ58Vhv6X8RcKGf1mxmPTw76oD3dfH4/s1600/Practically+Yours.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjljhDwYCCHXSlVxXSpsagb2JqiE33es_09Mmfy9l3X1I8HDacdoiU-VyQ0VZsEoE_ULtOR4_Cr0sIOhnUEDXI8RITUBhBLHcCkcdnXx9JH3P8PcSZ58Vhv6X8RcKGf1mxmPTw76oD3dfH4/s1600/Practically+Yours.jpg" height="320" width="208" /></a>If the wrong tone can be ascribed to everyone, Krasna is the sole responsible for the bad plot. Following a clear (and perhaps forced) three-act structure, implausibility sinks in when the two leads, allegedly in love, are never left alone for the whole of Act I. At this stage, the truth comes out and for the sake of war effort, they decide to continue with the deception. The plot is further contrived by the fact that they are "invited" to spend his two week leave in a house of a millionaire who decides he can meddle in other people's affairs and treating them as children (locking a door?!). By the end of Act II there has been way too much fuss about sleeping bags and other nonsense, but there was a decent, even amusing, Act III (with even a dig at twin beds).<br />
<br />
The cast is painfully underused. Colbert's part is very one-dimensional, and her performance lacks any spark, only allowing some rather welcome mischief in the last third. This was her last film for Paramount, and by golly, it shows it was an obligation. MacMurray is wrong for the part and probably lacked any interest to do something with it, as around this time he was showing he could actually act in Billy Wilder's "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2010/10/stanwyck-in-noir-iii-double-indemnity.html">Double Indemnity</a>". And there is a major problem in the architecture of 1940s romantic comedies. The <i>de facto</i> lead was always the woman. A few exceptions apply, as usual. Here the female lead is reduced to a cardboard figure, and MacMurray carries the film through the first hour. Or rather doesn't. Ray Milland, who usually got the not so wholesome leading ladies'
leading men parts at Paramount would have been a better choice. Because the part <i>is </i>less than wholesome for the first two acts, and at times could be a young Sheldrake, his part in Wilder's "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-apartment-1960.html">The Apartment</a>".<br />
<br />
This is the weakest of all Leisen's films I have seen (although I stopped "The Lady is Willing" because I thought it was atrocious) and second <a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2014/02/family-honeymoon-1948.html">weakest </a>of the seven Colbert/MacMurray pairings. I am glad to have seen it - I would have been very frustrated otherwise - but not something I intend to do again. Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-36501657804447971322015-03-08T21:27:00.001+00:002015-04-05T01:25:09.063+01:00Los Amantes Pasajeros (2013)I originally watched Almodóvar's "Los Amantes Pasajeros" when it came out in 2013. At the time, I ended not writing about it, thinking it silly and generally agreeing with the poor reviews. Watching it again, I couldn't help thinking how hollow it really is. There really isn't much holding it together. Almodóvar was clearly trying to emulate his earlier comedies but failed completely to capture the effortlessness and the energy of, say, "<span class="st">Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios"</span>.<br />
<br />
A technical problem in a flight causes the plane to have to circle for hours on the air, in the hope that an empty runaway is found to have it land. Despite the (preposterous) catastrophe film premise, this is just an excuse to put crew and first class passengers together, exposing their problems. The economy class (and the female crew) are drugged - a political satire element that the director hammered in press interviews at the time of the release. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw6i_2FkpOQJS3V5sWjqhKoRS1-D1KSwvqeiSwfs1Zm_k6aMNSnK9dnlzBd-043CexB67p6PgWRYSSSr7aH9H5aWWwqnOjHY63KW7r4G8JUKIHmlCO1pjwEIgNN9mUlMboWZN08Sd1BL-c/s1600/Los+amantes+pasajeros.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw6i_2FkpOQJS3V5sWjqhKoRS1-D1KSwvqeiSwfs1Zm_k6aMNSnK9dnlzBd-043CexB67p6PgWRYSSSr7aH9H5aWWwqnOjHY63KW7r4G8JUKIHmlCO1pjwEIgNN9mUlMboWZN08Sd1BL-c/s1600/Los+amantes+pasajeros.jpg" height="320" width="222" /></a>Many of director's usual actors were on call: Javier
Cámara, Lola Dueñas, Cecilia Roth, Antonio Banderas, Penélope Cruz,
etc.. However, while he may have relished the opportunity to
work again with many favourites, the character list is too long and in need of an edit. This is a major problem - the first class passenger list is too big for a 90
minute film and we spend too much time changing from one to the other. Random subplots go nowhere, most noticeable the actor who decides to take sleeping pills and the newly weds, who contribute little more than eye candy
to the film. As a result, and with the exception of Lola Dueñas's character, I couldn't
care less if all of them had disappeared or died when the plane finally
lands. The crew fared better, partly because their soap-opera style antics are far more relatable
than pseudo-political/financial/sexual scandals, some of them perhaps too specific to the Spanish context.<br />
<br />
Javier Cámara makes the most of having the best character in the film
and gives the best performance. Whether he is panicking or drunk, he
commands your attention. Alas, this says far more of his acting ability than anything to do with the film. Banderas and Cruz provide cameos (while causing the aforementioned technical problem), Dueñas and the actors playing the rest of the crew do well and Roth is completely wasted.<br />
<br />
At the time of "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2011/08/la-piel-que-habito-2011.html">La Piel que Habito</a>" I mention "the absence of his trademark random strange
characters (again, no transsexuals, no drag queens, although there is a
surrogate mother) and the colour palette which has toned down the reds
and oranges that intoxicated "La Mala Educación" and "Volver"". These are back - sort of. The colour palette is toned up again, even if only a little bit, and while there aren't transsexuals or drag queens, there are plenty of random strange characters (a dominatrix and most of the crew come to mind). But disappointingly, most parts often drift to stereotypes that would cause an outcry if not coming from an openly gay director. Having said that, the relationship between the captain and Cámara's character is by far the most rewarding element of the film, with Hugo Silva's closeted co-pilot storyline the funniest (if not particularly original or deep) mostly thanks to the actor's charm.<br />
<br />
The bizarre "I'm so Excited" sequence, where Cámara and the other two gay stewarts perform and lipsync to the song is both surreal and technically the most interesting sequence in the film. But it serves no other purpose than providing an odd English title of the film, missing the double meaning of the word "pasajeros" in Spanish (i.e. passengers and transient). <br />
<br />
His next film, coming out in 2016, is supposed to be a melodrama. My hopes are still high. Melodrama has suited him better in recent years. And even if it ends an honourable failure like "La Piel que Habito", surely it won't be as hollow as this. But perhaps the lesson here is that one shouldn't try to redo the past. In trying to do so, Almodóvar missed its soul. Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-73548294491751366242014-12-30T10:34:00.000+00:002014-12-30T10:34:08.938+00:00Luise Rainer (1910-2014)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjklXac6bKkT3QDUQ7AyELZ6zFpIg5z38-r1m19HHd9v2veGsAGW-85-YmBqdgq4xmvwykWWDJCHJMfqXc4uudTs4e6s0yMthDJorizOqr8tB6ow4m79QehOaEJhgPtwWnFTqHVxyxvFnUv/s1600/Luise+Rainer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjklXac6bKkT3QDUQ7AyELZ6zFpIg5z38-r1m19HHd9v2veGsAGW-85-YmBqdgq4xmvwykWWDJCHJMfqXc4uudTs4e6s0yMthDJorizOqr8tB6ow4m79QehOaEJhgPtwWnFTqHVxyxvFnUv/s1600/Luise+Rainer.jpg" height="320" width="264" /></a></div>
I think I only have seen "The Great Ziegfeld" but her interviews were marvelous and her contribution for "When the Lion roars" a key one.<br /><br />Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-26508677126574131472014-12-05T23:17:00.002+00:002014-12-05T23:17:58.626+00:00Something else that shouldn't happen in a cinemaThere's a Maggie Smith season and the BFI is showing a rare late 1950s TV play, Somerset Maugham's "For Services Rendered". Yet, the version is in colour and Maggie Smith-less. On the plus side, the version they actually showed is so rare, it's not on IMDb.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-42489996184333466292014-10-26T10:33:00.001+00:002015-04-04T00:25:00.198+01:00Zaza (1938)In George Cukor's career, "Zaza" comes after "Holiday" and before "The Women" and "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-philadelphia-story-1940.html">The Philadelphia Story</a>". In Claudette Colbert's, it comes between "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2013/04/bluebeards-eighth-wife-1938.html">Bluebeard's Eighth Wife</a>"
and "Midnight", two wonderful Wilder/Brackett scripted films. And yet,
the film is little more than a footnote in both their careers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1YhFhHYE7z_VuuxPOnzLTy9qkcJ4hOQJtbkIYUE_GVcqjRQlfcjpJtn4v8TMZ9WowHrlBjyigY0o8QP0i3Euyw3Bsi72XHXEz6OqlkTUZD_zUP2ZL2Drc9Y2w3qJCv-r9T5wqVxDw4gxS/s1600/Zaza.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1YhFhHYE7z_VuuxPOnzLTy9qkcJ4hOQJtbkIYUE_GVcqjRQlfcjpJtn4v8TMZ9WowHrlBjyigY0o8QP0i3Euyw3Bsi72XHXEz6OqlkTUZD_zUP2ZL2Drc9Y2w3qJCv-r9T5wqVxDw4gxS/s1600/Zaza.jpg" height="320" width="213" /></a></div>
While
the film's story is perfectly banal (doomed love affair with a married
man), for once I don't think the problems start with the script. It's solid,
competent, gives characters a chance to develop and keeps the story moving at a
good pace. To me the main problem are the two leads: Colbert and
Herbert Marshall. Marshall has even less presence than <a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-ladies-meet-1933-vs-1941.html">in other films</a>,
and devoids his character of any charm - although to be fair he doesn't
have as much screen time as his character should have. But I don't like
him, and it pains me to see him on screen. Colbert on the other hand is
completely miscast, despite a few glorious moments. When she plays
Marshall (the meeting at the station, the backstage meeting) she excels -
but then she overdoes the innocent girl moments. And this is the key -
she is far too knowing for me to believe she could ever be deceived by a
man, any man.<br />
<br />
Cukor himself, should have been more at
ease with the material - we are in his favoured milieu of the theatre
("A Double Life", "Les Girls"). The Portuguese Cinematheque note on film
also draws comparisons with "Camille". But I never felt his heart was
on this. The good moments - the opening and closing, the scenes I
mentioned above, and Colbert's scene with the doll - are few and far
between. The opening scene in particular, with the camera travelling
through the occupants of third class train carriage ending in Colbert in a
shot that anticipates her similar introduction in "Midnight" On the
other hand, certain scenes drag (Colbert's visit to Marshall's Paris
apartment) or fail to achieve the right tone (most of the backstage
scenes, where there is a lot of repetition).<br />
<br />
The best
thing in the film are the three supporting actors, playing Colbert's
stepmother, her maid and her agent/partner (respectively Helen Westley,
Constance Collier and Bert Lahr). Their presence helps bridge the duller moments of the film.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-25789761086613352232014-08-13T01:15:00.003+01:002014-08-14T22:25:12.978+01:00Lauren Bacall (1924-2014)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHmBh2zxxGBRnmvGweMMF8_EZShOVuYr9w51O1uO_0gZdPoRnnA4Uk1tVqsMSEGxpYYHaVTSqycBLfgHOaSxvex4m3dZoucbyTswXSq_yCYcoZGdBlNo5OLng00mBytKpns4fiUdF7V7To/s1600/Lauren+Bacall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHmBh2zxxGBRnmvGweMMF8_EZShOVuYr9w51O1uO_0gZdPoRnnA4Uk1tVqsMSEGxpYYHaVTSqycBLfgHOaSxvex4m3dZoucbyTswXSq_yCYcoZGdBlNo5OLng00mBytKpns4fiUdF7V7To/s1600/Lauren+Bacall.jpg" height="320" width="233" /></a></div>
She was discovered by Hawks, met Bogart and became a legend. And that was only her first film.<br />
<br />
But a 70 year career is often reduced to four years and four films made at its very beginning is over simplistic (actually, usually only two or three - no one ever remembers "Dark Passage", sometimes probably not even "Key Largo"). As is to focus on her status as a fashion icon, on "The Look" or her looks (and by the way, she still looked amazing in her last public appearances). Bacall was much more interesting both off and on screen. I will focus on the second. This was a woman that worked both in Hollywood's Golden Age and in 21st Century arthouse. She was directed by Hawks, Minnelli and Sirk. But she was also directed by Lars von Trier and Jonathan Glazer.<br />
<br />
And while an icon of Hollywood, she did surprisingly little film work during the Golden Age, just over a dozen films between 1944 and 1960. But she certainly knew how to pick them. In the early 1950s she played a lesbian in Curtiz's "Young Man with a Horn"(*), stealing the film from under Kirk Douglas and Doris Day's feet, and a romantic gold digger in the Cinemascope delight that is "How to Marry a Millionaire". As the decade moved on, she starrred in "Written in the Wind" for Sirk and "The Cobweb" and "Designing Woman" for Minnelli. The latter is one of her most memorable performances, in a opposites attract romantic comedy with Gregory Peck. She also played Elvira in a rarely seen TV adaptation of Noël Coward's "Blithe Spirit".<br />
<br />
For the next couple of decades she worked on television and theatre and her film work was in waves, but included a supporting role in a guilty pleasure of mine ("Sex and the Single Girl"), the leading lady in John Wayne's last film and a scene stealing performance in "Murder in the Orient Express".<br />
<br />
In 1996, she ran away with "The Mirror Has Two Faces", her only Oscar nomination (which she lost unexpectedly to Juliette Binoche). In 2009, she finally got an special achievement award - but then she got the limelight slightly stolen, as it was the first year where special Oscars were presented separately.<br />
<br />
Yes, she taught Bogart how to whistle, but she did so much more than that.<br />
<br />
(*) Until her death, "Young Man with a Horn" was likely to have been the oldest film with all leads still alive. Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-85530027581933407562014-08-12T00:41:00.000+01:002014-08-12T00:42:45.949+01:00Robin Williams (1951-2014)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEfvGgCEtNv6WbaxwidLB61TDqGAIO1wVslNALFdbsuZx0ofjDQ2oSVi4-KMMP1MIerJ7V6dfbb1WB0DRbmn7zX8cKJyn6gQ2qfeujZ-3V2ZQLpcTNtQpQv-AtlJdWNEIp0r67Bqk0XjZb/s1600/Robin+Williams.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEfvGgCEtNv6WbaxwidLB61TDqGAIO1wVslNALFdbsuZx0ofjDQ2oSVi4-KMMP1MIerJ7V6dfbb1WB0DRbmn7zX8cKJyn6gQ2qfeujZ-3V2ZQLpcTNtQpQv-AtlJdWNEIp0r67Bqk0XjZb/s1600/Robin+Williams.jpg" height="193" width="320" /></a></div>
This was a shock. Can't remember what was the last film with him I saw ("Insomnia"?) but from the late 1980s to the late 1990s he had a touch of Midas in him. In "Aladdin" he stole the show with a perfect performance.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/99Op1TaXmCw" width="420"></iframe><br />Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-51183062513817248892014-07-20T10:41:00.001+01:002014-08-14T22:25:47.722+01:00James Garner (1928-2014)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGpSLCDk_b2H1ISdvv5LALiHaIaQWdh4TqV88it8G189cagII8feEXSNRXT1V2q7j_7_FK2f8h0AxmkVR71KfuZ_SAdV1fbWjDy9JFpqNKxru53OaXCZsoD63vIbb02x1mHUPIjcpWs6H3/s1600/James+Garner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGpSLCDk_b2H1ISdvv5LALiHaIaQWdh4TqV88it8G189cagII8feEXSNRXT1V2q7j_7_FK2f8h0AxmkVR71KfuZ_SAdV1fbWjDy9JFpqNKxru53OaXCZsoD63vIbb02x1mHUPIjcpWs6H3/s1600/James+Garner.jpg" height="320" width="225" /></a></div>
I don't think I have seen more than four or five of his films, but twice with Julie Andrews - in "The Americanization of Emily" and "Victor, Victoria" - he created something I loved.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-40017700263644341162014-06-08T13:33:00.001+01:002014-06-08T13:33:13.104+01:00The Story of Temple Drake (1933)The opening credits of "The Story of Temple Drake" start with the image of a decaying Southern plantation house during a storm. Immediately you are aware that something darker is coming. But this is not a horror film. Instead is an adaptation of Faulkner's novel "Sanctuary". What follows is one of the most unique, key films from the 1930s that due to rights issues (methinks) has lingered around in vaults (originally a Paramount production, if I am not mistaken 20th Century Fox now holds the rights).<br />
<br />
From the introduction and the introduction to her lingerie, we know
Temple Drake is not as virtuous as her grandfather would like, and
certainly not as girls should be. She herself states she isn't, even if
there is a half hearted attempt to disguised it later on when we see
what some of the more frustrated men wrote on the toilet's wall. The
character enjoys sex and she knows it: later there is a clear
implication that during their time together, the only moments when she
"doesn't look down" on Trigger are those in bed.<br />
<br />
It is surprising that the film was made at all. The novel was deemed
innappropriate material for cinema audiences, and while the film presents (as far as I know) a
more sanitised version of the story, it still manages in its very short
and fast paced 70 minutes to be extremely dark covering murder, rape and Stockholm Syndrome. As if to provide the contrast, the film is beautifully shot by Karl Struss (who won an Oscar for "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2009/11/sunrise-1927-and-how-my-taste-has.html">Sunrise</a>") with the key night sequences shot with a very noir feel.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm85ox9Dz8EEFu7DgtptB2QqP9caHLNBLgmEvYML2dETdbaZk9XN_LMbWW3_q8CfCi6eliMQrxzm7wnncjNGG73PVc7hoXiUjxRWnZ8Ns3G3l7EzeqFfVAl-SqcbgIK5dASlBX0smP3wz4/s1600/The+Story+of+Temple+Drake.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm85ox9Dz8EEFu7DgtptB2QqP9caHLNBLgmEvYML2dETdbaZk9XN_LMbWW3_q8CfCi6eliMQrxzm7wnncjNGG73PVc7hoXiUjxRWnZ8Ns3G3l7EzeqFfVAl-SqcbgIK5dASlBX0smP3wz4/s1600/The+Story+of+Temple+Drake.jpg" height="320" width="260" /></a></div>
This is arguably Miriam Hopkins' best performance. While the final sequences provide her with the showcase piece that most actors love to have (and she's very good in those), her best moments come after the rape scene: the blank expression being the most outwardly expression of the shock she has just experienced. But generally, there are no hysterics, not even small ones, and in the end the all scenery is intact. And it's not just Hopkins that give a career best. Jack La Rue as Trigger is unforgettable. His close-ups are the most menacing of the 1930s. His presence alone is enough to make the audience unconfortable.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, it's not just Temple and Trigger, all the characters are unsympathetic except the murdered boy: the judge, the grandfather, the boy who abandons Temple, the couple, even the lawyer who wants to marry Temple Drake. The film neither needs or asks for your sympathy. "Baby Face" the closest I can think in that it doesn't ask sympathy from the viewer. The irony is that two of the most daring films of the 1930s in terms of characterisation (along with Mae West) helped a new order that enforced the Production Code and forced into the underground the seedier side of life.<br />
<br />
"The Story of Temple Drake" is a very special film. For a moment in
time, it promised to set a direction for a (Hollywood) Cinema that never came to be.
The surest sign of this is the impact the film continues to have in the
lucky few than have found it. If you have a chance to watch it, grab it.<br />
<br />Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-48955980384085863432014-06-01T14:50:00.000+01:002015-04-25T22:25:35.983+01:00Kay Francis' diamonds: Jewel Robbery (1932) and Trouble in Paradise (1932)<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">In
1932, Kay Francis twice got her jewels stolen by very skilled
thieves. First, William Powell took her new diamond ring in “Jewel
Robbery”; then Herbert Marshall took her new diamond purse in
Lubitsch's “Trouble in Paradise”. In both instances, the thieves
returned the stolen item and return for her. I have now watched both
films three times over the last 18 months or so, the last time as a
double bill at the BFI. So I have decided to write about them
together as well.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span lang="en-GB">Trouble
in Paradise” is one Ernst Lubitsch's most famous titles. Along with
Francis, it stars Herbert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins as the duo
intent in stealing as much as possible from Francis' Madame Colet, a
widow who owns a perfume company. William Dieterle's “Jewel
Robbery” co-stars William Powell as the thief with designs on
Francis. The first was made by Paramount, the second by Warner Bros.,
but in an atypical style – in fact, if you showed me the film
without credits, I'd have bet on Paramount. I love both films. But if
I have to chose a favourite, I'd go with “Jewel Robbery”, as I
feel it has improved with every viewing. However, it suffers
from two obvious disadvantages even before one watches it: its
availability and its similarity to Lubitsch's film.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLSm-zPI-PEhg7xr_IHhzMoDwxSaCMVsJ4j-FRAt3ZNefFC0vIEt9I3V19t4IYfJ_tnuvcsakIwOxe1GdO4jPU0-Z2FrdZo4xy8i8pa-AOOgyxqsCO0QchGU_IV9h9zXTaR6WRtdSLJViu/s1600/Jewel+Robbery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLSm-zPI-PEhg7xr_IHhzMoDwxSaCMVsJ4j-FRAt3ZNefFC0vIEt9I3V19t4IYfJ_tnuvcsakIwOxe1GdO4jPU0-Z2FrdZo4xy8i8pa-AOOgyxqsCO0QchGU_IV9h9zXTaR6WRtdSLJViu/s1600/Jewel+Robbery.jpg" height="320" width="215" /></a><span lang="en-GB">On
the first point, one of the great problems in defining the film canon
(or any other canon) is availability. If a film is not shown, how are
we to judge it? “Jewel Robbery” is neither well-know nor was it
easily available or screened: and if no one can see it, no one can
judge it. If it has no reputation, then it's forgotten. Fortunately,
more recently it seems to have been rescued and it even has made it
into the wonderful “Forbidden Hollywood” DVD sets (which is how I
first discovered it). Don't get me wrong, this a Hollywood factory
product; just a damn good one. On the second point, the film probably
struggled with is its thematic similarity to the better known
Lubistch and more important its well-deserved reputation in his
canon. I have no idea of the production order of the films, and
whether WB copied Paramount or vice-versa (since Kay Francis was
borrowed from WB I wouldn't discard it) or if it was just a
coincidence, but “Jewel Robbery” made into the screens two months
earlier according to IMDb. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">Kay
Francis is, of course, the obvious thing the two films have in
common. And despite the many, many wardrobe changes (the most extreme
example being the “Yes Madam Colet/No Madam Colet” sequence in
“Trouble in Paradise”), the characters are quite different.
Lubistch goes at lengths to show that Madame Colet, while a bit naïve
and very rich and keen on pretty things, isn't a bad person – she
fights her boardroom quite charmingly saying she won't lower her
employees wages. By contrast, in “Jewel Robbery” and by her own
admission, Francis' character is a thrill seeking, superficial and
bored lady who lunches. This is maintained throughout the film, from
her glorious awakening and bath to her final close-up. What both
films show is that Francis was a good comedienne and ask an
interesting “what if” her career had been in Paramount comedies
rather than the WB cheaper women's pictures. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">Both
films are also prime Pre-Code examples. Just to stick to “Jewel
Robbery”: suggestive dresses (the dressing gown), drug use,
adultery for thrills, trivialisation of marriage (the suggestion that
she should be faithful because of diamonds) and several
stages of undressing, many, many hints of sex and of course, Kay
Francis' glorious, naughty final close-up. At moments it feels like
it out-Lubistches Lubitsch...</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">But
“Jewel Robbery” has two great advantages over the Lubitsch. The
most obvious is the leading man. William Powell is a perfect cast as
the suave, seducing thief. The initial robbery sequence is a
perfect display of his easiness in the role. Herbert Marshall is
just flat. It's his best performance as far as I can tell, but there
isn't much competition there. The
second is the flow of the film. The tight timescale (the action lasts
less than 24h) helps maintain a coherence that is missing in “Trouble
in Paradise”, which goes from Venice to Paris over the course of
several months, and more importantly the way it frames the two women
in the picture: Miriam Hopkins dominates the first 20min or so, then
disappears for a considerable amount of time and never fully
reappears.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEJ92Ju6gSHctKMEHwh4eUWFwYgM-XVdyjsfMCxEuMso_8jacPKE-lGNPWRGDFvLkFDgwPrJqFMSVJqPrylGYpc7qBgjrqRP5i8TEi_bNx-wutjRZBR3bt05E9s2iXMzy94JP7f2MFdiwi/s1600/Trouble+in+Paradise.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEJ92Ju6gSHctKMEHwh4eUWFwYgM-XVdyjsfMCxEuMso_8jacPKE-lGNPWRGDFvLkFDgwPrJqFMSVJqPrylGYpc7qBgjrqRP5i8TEi_bNx-wutjRZBR3bt05E9s2iXMzy94JP7f2MFdiwi/s1600/Trouble+in+Paradise.jpg" height="320" width="233" /></a><span lang="en-GB">But
it is the Hopkins/Francis duality that actually gives “Trouble in
Paradise” its strongest grip over the audience. Like in “<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-philadelphia-story-1940.html">The Philadelphia Story</a>” a few years later, you are never sure
which woman will win – for this is a duel between the two and the
spoils are the man and the jewels he steals. Then, there are the many
wonderful witty moments Lubitsch filled his films with. From the
dialogue (e.g. “maybe I am wrong, maybe he is her secretary”);
the closed doors and changing clocks; and finally the two most
obvious sexual moments in Lubitsch's work I am aware, the two moments
when Hopkins and Marshall out-steal each other.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">The
other thing that works well in the Lubitsch film is that is clearly
an ensemble piece. Hopkins is wonderful whenever she's given a
chance (as she would be later in “Design for Living”) even if her
mannerisms occasionally are a bit too much. Then there are Charlie
Ruggles and Edward Everett Horton in one of his less prissy roles,
albeit the one that suggests that he may prefer “business
associates” of both genders. C. Aubrey Smith and Robert Greig
complete the cast. By contrast, “Jewel Robbery” becomes quickly a
two hander between Francis and Powell (in their sixth of seven
collaborations).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">I
think these are two of the best Pre-Code comedies Hollywood produced. They are precursors of the elegant comedies to come, mostly
done by Paramount and starring the likes of Claudette Colbert, Carole
Lombard and Barbara Stanwyck. They're also more adult that what
would become the norm in film; films where excitement and thrills (or lust,
if you prefer) win over love and wholesome values. Which probably
make them perfect for the 21st century.</span></div>
Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-36841509207151715522014-04-30T21:51:00.002+01:002014-04-30T21:51:51.392+01:00Bob Hoskins (1942-2014)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLufOrkpFBiMzm9oW1vkr4EkVxY3pTClytmqNxY6NUuoaSeB_vatRnlkUvVT59uZy05luXuEvfCUTe4txm8UzuugMoPX9qex4umXdgT31QJ2D9XcwCtcdqKAMUaxdtCoQ7z1zLQqLNqlTG/s1600/Bob+Hoskins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLufOrkpFBiMzm9oW1vkr4EkVxY3pTClytmqNxY6NUuoaSeB_vatRnlkUvVT59uZy05luXuEvfCUTe4txm8UzuugMoPX9qex4umXdgT31QJ2D9XcwCtcdqKAMUaxdtCoQ7z1zLQqLNqlTG/s1600/Bob+Hoskins.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
With Betty Boop, in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-57245365374437653832014-04-29T00:05:00.002+01:002014-04-29T00:05:23.154+01:00The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
"The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" is one of Billy Wilder's last films - released in 1970, there would be only three more films before he retired just over ten years later. Starting off as a
humourous take on the famous detective, the film ends as a more
classic, if still deliciously funny, Sherlock Holmes adventure. It mostly covers two episodes, the first concerning a Russian ballerina, the second a Belgian woman in search for her husband.<br />
<br />
There are many Wilder touches throughout the film that alone would be worth the price of admission: the wonderful dialogue in the ballerina's dressing room; the scene backstage at the theatre when gossip spreads like fire and one set of dancers replaces another; the special appearance of Queen Victoria (and his own "we are not amused"); the monks at the end. But interestingly, the ending. The mastery of Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond's script is that the tone darkens so progressively, so subtly, that the rather bleak ending is neither out of place nor could allow a happier one.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7X2LzE8fht9rsyLF2i2UNq5rFksPflGx4_GOLfxmw1MeNsA9RS1pTfDnacz4V9DNSDS3Nm2oBMXipCJXbFiYPziGALgCYswLJjSSZZ-OJWGJs8r6OkQhOlJp6IqERwlj2LLvM7-nOH0op/s1600/The+Private+Life+of+Sherlock+Holmes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7X2LzE8fht9rsyLF2i2UNq5rFksPflGx4_GOLfxmw1MeNsA9RS1pTfDnacz4V9DNSDS3Nm2oBMXipCJXbFiYPziGALgCYswLJjSSZZ-OJWGJs8r6OkQhOlJp6IqERwlj2LLvM7-nOH0op/s1600/The+Private+Life+of+Sherlock+Holmes.jpg" height="251" width="320" /></a></div>
Of course what we see
is not what Wilder intended to be seen. While I feel that the film
works perfectly well as it is, it’s well known that two
whole episodes, accounting for over an hour of footage, were cut and
the footage lost. With time, the sound of one of these episodes
and the images of the other have been found, and were presented as
extras in the US release of the film. Regretfully, I do not own it,
so (annoyingly) I haven’t seen them.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The perfomances are wonderful throughout, with Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely wonderful as Holmes and Watson. Christopher Lee is also a delight as Mycroft Holmes, as a mastermind of British Intelligence which Mark Gatiss (co-creator of the BBC's "Sherlock") admited in the screening's introduction that he used as an inspiration for his own performance as Mycroft.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Alexandre Trauner, one
of the greatest art directors and a regular Wilder collaborator also
shines here. The sets are impeccable, detailed, lived in – as they
were, for instance, in “The Apartment”. I think it’s a serious
praise to his work, that while I am convinced that the London
exteriors were sets, I am still wondering it they might have been the
real thing.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In a career that includes "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2010/10/stanwyck-in-noir-iii-double-indemnity.html">Double Indemnity</a>", "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2008/09/sunset-blvd-1950.html">Sunset Blvd.</a>", "Some Like it Hot" and "<a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-apartment-1960.html">The Apartment</a>", a film like this is easily eclipsed. But even if it's not a first rate
Wilder, it's still a delight and won’t disappoint.</div>
Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-75722379592301633822014-04-17T11:45:00.001+01:002014-04-17T11:45:14.198+01:00The Philadelphia Story (1940)I have no idea how many times I have watched "The Philadelphia Story". Three at least, very likely more. I remember for a while it being my most wanted in my "must watch" list, the high expectations and the deception it followed. I really didn't like it. I found it flat. None of the subsequent viewings (on TV/VHS/DVD) changed it. However, watching it at the cinema I fell for it and realised how good it is. But I am wondering what changed. Did I become more agreeable to the film with age? Or watching a nice print at the cinema made a difference? Or possibly both.<br />
<br />
Based on a play by Philip Barry, "The Philadelphia Story" was directed by George Cukor and starred Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant (in their last film together) and James Stewart. It's a story of woman having to choose between three men while finding out that the flaws in oneself are what make us human and life worth living. It's also funny and at moments, very tender. The film also has an interesting backstory, with Hepburn (for whom the play was written) outsmarting Hollywood and ensuring the film was done on her terms, and in the process relaunching her career.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgHOMNmAnfufc58kxUwgtUdcUc7EaQ8t1Y95clhTAm4cyXpKuIWRoGXobu3enwtjaHquJv9Osr1pqC3s83DB3fH2xhihvcxIqBQF6_mrJFijY3uHz_Hk_g0mZ_da1ut7p1Ovs1pU1wKl4j/s1600/The+Philadelphia+Story.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgHOMNmAnfufc58kxUwgtUdcUc7EaQ8t1Y95clhTAm4cyXpKuIWRoGXobu3enwtjaHquJv9Osr1pqC3s83DB3fH2xhihvcxIqBQF6_mrJFijY3uHz_Hk_g0mZ_da1ut7p1Ovs1pU1wKl4j/s1600/The+Philadelphia+Story.jpg" height="320" width="166" /></a>One of the things I noticed for the first time is how little Cary Grant (top billed) appears - or is perceived to appear - compared to James Stewart. Both are good, and Stewart got an Oscar for this (or as most people see it, a delayed one for "Mr Smith goes to Washington"). They both play well against each other, particularly in a key scene after the party in Grant's house: Stewart does a very good drunk, with Grant playing his straight man. Grant's character is actually the most interesting one to me, because he is the one that reveals the least. He is smart and aware. He is loyal to his ex-wife and clearly is in love with her, but we know very little more. But what's special is that this is not because he is underwritten but because he is a fully rounded character, acting consistently but choosing to do more than hint at his thoughts.<br />
<br />
Another character the films gets extraordinarily well is Ruth Hussey's photographer. Her character shows an unusual maturity, almost modern, for 1940s films, waiting quietly for the right time to show her feelings (which technically she never really does, as I don't think she thinks the time was right). This was Hussey's career high and she got an Oscar nomination out of it, losing to Jane Darwell for "The Grapes of Wrath". <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfPAKtrGDBriu6kCDiekn66xrzVqlbTzqpLFEi2qA4i287VPFt8UEegfzjnfHtDJ34GsDnKrFHr0eFkyfsOZXewr2LCF0yboC4aN3sburdCui_a-9xpypRD6Ftu7hyphenhyphenD17vcIOSiMKA7jO5/s1600/The+Philadelphia+Story+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfPAKtrGDBriu6kCDiekn66xrzVqlbTzqpLFEi2qA4i287VPFt8UEegfzjnfHtDJ34GsDnKrFHr0eFkyfsOZXewr2LCF0yboC4aN3sburdCui_a-9xpypRD6Ftu7hyphenhyphenD17vcIOSiMKA7jO5/s1600/The+Philadelphia+Story+2.jpg" height="320" width="206" /></a>But the film belongs to Katharine Hepburn. She's is the focus of your attention <i>despite </i>the fact the film is constructed around her. Yet, she's never showy and delivers her character's transformation from self-righteous goddess to human being in a organic way. The final scenes are among her finest screen moments, particularly when she relinquishes one of her two men. She also looks amazing, exactly like one the many drawings <a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2014/02/al-hirschfeld-and-ultimate-solution-of.html">Hirschfeld </a>did of her.<br />
<br />
Of course the film is not without faults. Virginia Weidler's performance hasn't aged well (or it could be that I never liked her in any of her films... I vaguely remember her being particularly annoying in "All this, and Heaven too"). The subplot with the father made me cringe: blaming the daughter's lack of devotion for his affairs?! This is probably the greatest plausibility <br />
hole in Philip Barry's play and David Odgen Stewart's Oscar winning script.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-42903726520832800232014-04-07T23:00:00.000+01:002014-04-07T23:00:04.123+01:00Mickey Rooney (1920-2014)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQkEj7GCoXR6_6XND802MqprMS_Hsg7YT5ys8TZ0H_QIWpTEufS0j2lL6dYm376H1yotqvjDx-i4pNL0jCrbgSJkJoNVFNe3Ej4ZP-NxHqRcK9p-5udePc_uxxdImuQpDwz1Cqxvdu9jqM/s1600/Mickey+Rooney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQkEj7GCoXR6_6XND802MqprMS_Hsg7YT5ys8TZ0H_QIWpTEufS0j2lL6dYm376H1yotqvjDx-i4pNL0jCrbgSJkJoNVFNe3Ej4ZP-NxHqRcK9p-5udePc_uxxdImuQpDwz1Cqxvdu9jqM/s1600/Mickey+Rooney.jpg" height="320" width="260" /></a></div>
The second most famous child actor of the 1930s and one of the most memorable presences in film. My favourite role is as the young Clark Gable in "Manhattan Melodrama". But that is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-7234389820828198152014-03-14T11:55:00.001+00:002014-06-21T12:51:21.848+01:00Funny Face (1957)Audrey Hepburn's male partners are a good case study for Hollywood
sexism and ageism. In the 1950s and 1960s, she was often paired with
older men, some old enough to be her father (Bogart, Cooper, Astaire, Fonda and
Cary Grant - although he was in a category of his own). While we are
expected that this bright, gorgeous creature could fall in love with
older men; <a href="http://cinemaandchocolate.blogspot.com/2007/07/all-that-heaven-allows-1955.html">older women often had to suffer</a>
if they dared wishing to be interested in virile young men. This is one of the more extreme cases in this series - at some stage
Astaire actually says that he doesn't care for her intellect. In the
same vein, there is a scene where domestic violence turns rebellious
women into devoted ones (this is set in France, so it could be aimed at
French women). In fact, faced with Astaire's irrestitible charm, she
abandons all intellectual preocupations for love.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoFqrhOqoB1oGmZWwmIansR1j0sMMl5ddTdhOSGwJ4zj4CF1WbNfE0kmNDFm9mMCusFCZ_7D3UT0s0sGM3P9LWuNLaiK8O6CX7omn_ItwZxeZYWyn2vmbdxbhLNZwwv2W7M22PQEgOptSt/s1600/Funny+Face.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoFqrhOqoB1oGmZWwmIansR1j0sMMl5ddTdhOSGwJ4zj4CF1WbNfE0kmNDFm9mMCusFCZ_7D3UT0s0sGM3P9LWuNLaiK8O6CX7omn_ItwZxeZYWyn2vmbdxbhLNZwwv2W7M22PQEgOptSt/s1600/Funny+Face.jpg" height="250" width="320" /></a></div>
Stanley Donen directed "Funny Face", which tells the story of a pretty young girl with
intellectual ambitions that accepts a job as a modelling job in Paris
so she can meet her favourite philosopher. Recycling Gershwin songs, it
really intended to cash on Audrey Hepburn's stardom. <br />
<br />
The
satire has dated badly (the intellectual circles, the philosopher
more interested in more material pursuits), and the romantic bits are
over the top (the swans and the barge are really good examples). Hepburn
is beautifully photographed (and the new restoration looks
impeccable) and murders a few Gershwin songs (particularly "How long has
this been going on?") but she has nothing else to do other than showing
pretty clothes - although she does it well, creating an iconic image in
the Louvre sequence. As for
Astaire, all he does is repeat all he had spent the previous two and
half decades doing. And while it's fun to see Paris in the 1950s (and
how little the city centre has
changed) and Givenchy and Edith Head get to show off their talent as
designers, I fear this one is for hardcore Audrey fans only.<br />
<br />
The
sole redeeming feture of the film is Kay Thompson who gets the best
number ("Think Pink!") and lightens up the others she appears. Oh, and
Audrey's photographs within the film are very good indeed.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-7826927673793355712014-02-28T21:48:00.000+00:002014-04-29T00:07:21.636+01:00Al Hirschfeld and The Ultimate Solution of Grace Quigley (1984)I love Al Hirschfeld's work, but it's always a pleasant surprise when I accidentally stumble against a new poster or cover art, or a caricature that I particularly like. Due to his longevity, his work covered the 20th century greats of Hollywood, Broadway and the West End. If there's no Hirschfeld drawing of you and you were working at that time, you really didn't make it.<br />
<br />
So, by accident, I found the poster for "The Ultimate Solution of Grace Quigley" (1984), which has the distinction of being Katharine Hepburn's last film starring role (opposite Nick Nolte). I had never heard of the film, and from online clips it looks a lot like a cheap TV film. It has a interesting premise, though - but best of all, is the poster (particularly Kate's drawing).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmSV8Df3LW5B6cLsrolRSb9D_LvbCHDbZeh6yUmGM0tigNR5RU0yEwnvx9lqe3UNk4QA65be96gi33YCdWwLjO9q_yixybAwaYTsI8HQzYRfl4zVrcrKYLpwbH8MtNmY8NkZZ_Xeighl19/s1600/The+Ultimate+Solution+of+Grace+Quigley.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmSV8Df3LW5B6cLsrolRSb9D_LvbCHDbZeh6yUmGM0tigNR5RU0yEwnvx9lqe3UNk4QA65be96gi33YCdWwLjO9q_yixybAwaYTsI8HQzYRfl4zVrcrKYLpwbH8MtNmY8NkZZ_Xeighl19/s1600/The+Ultimate+Solution+of+Grace+Quigley.jpg" height="320" width="206" /></a></div>
Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-66328781041832850112014-02-24T18:51:00.000+00:002014-04-29T00:08:02.405+01:00Harold Ramis (1944-2014)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0tn4et8NGkG42JpPO1q8eRZOvAlP6_-Mnd6u3TAyk469HhtOXrcJgrBr-mMPukclFCfkV30AUVkznF-SND3zFImqu55y5UbolnEpappLq4RVFgpzzmLBVgIt4d1f-TCp9-r9kbk2MaKK1/s1600/harold+ramis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0tn4et8NGkG42JpPO1q8eRZOvAlP6_-Mnd6u3TAyk469HhtOXrcJgrBr-mMPukclFCfkV30AUVkznF-SND3zFImqu55y5UbolnEpappLq4RVFgpzzmLBVgIt4d1f-TCp9-r9kbk2MaKK1/s1600/harold+ramis.jpg" height="191" width="320" /></a></div>
"Animal House", "Ghostbusters" and "Groundhog Day". No need to say add anything else.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-62179796664205023382014-02-22T12:18:00.000+00:002014-04-17T17:53:06.851+01:00I Married a Witch (1942)Veronica Lake is a strange one in Hollywood stardom. She had an iconic hairstyle which propelled her to stardom. She was in a few movies ("Sullivan's Travels", the Alan Ladd noirs) which have endured well, and partly because of this, she has a reasonable cult following. What she didn't have was a wide range in her acting skills, and in René Clair's "I Married a Witch" she is absolutely dreadful - and I am aware I am in a minority here.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtEdvIdrULTCNIC1xtb-Nh7Pt7hnJSFTW39fLm0GJQhaOc2pxXtczgqBNiFeUjYvLt6Mg_-2UQOL6eVeJO2Ge2ZJI17m3ZondMZghG-yviAUYcr2GgGBTvpwbsk73IDFDdTOmJQURdWCik/s1600/I+married+a+witch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtEdvIdrULTCNIC1xtb-Nh7Pt7hnJSFTW39fLm0GJQhaOc2pxXtczgqBNiFeUjYvLt6Mg_-2UQOL6eVeJO2Ge2ZJI17m3ZondMZghG-yviAUYcr2GgGBTvpwbsk73IDFDdTOmJQURdWCik/s1600/I+married+a+witch.jpg" height="320" width="208" /></a></div>
Actually the whole film is somewhat odd, on and off screen. Produced by Paramount, it was sold by the studio to United Artists when Paramount had a surplus of films and UA not enough. Assuming the film was sold after Lake's peekaboo hair made its first screen appearance (I have no evidence for making this assumption), Paramount only would have sold it either they thought the film was a sure hit and a lot of money passed hands or if the studio had little faith in the film and disposed of it as quickly as it could. I have to say that with the film as the only evidence, I am inclined for the second option.<br />
<br />
The film tells the story of a witch falling in love and marrying a man (Fredric March) whose family condemned her to burn centuries before. It is perhaps better known as one of the inspirations of the TV series "Bewitched". Originally set to be produced by Preston Sturges and starring Joel McCrea, that might have resulted in a better film, as March and Lake famously didn't get along. This occasionally shows - Lake lacks the catlike playfulness she should have had while seducing him (I keep thinking what Barbara Stanwyck, Carole Lombard or Irene Dunne could have done with it). Only at the very end of the film (when she sorts things out), was I happy with her performance.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzc_iwvHElCuUPuwF-vg3EXrcmQ62KgL7CsDA9Zs20X51LZNS5eFEYB5q4df6AfrFFdjtjccNQw5zcH5RIuuIh55St8IsZtajcKl1c_nYFCSg8BioVbq_TzmLz71MTFqEn5KNQPJUtu9-y/s1600/I+married+a+witch+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzc_iwvHElCuUPuwF-vg3EXrcmQ62KgL7CsDA9Zs20X51LZNS5eFEYB5q4df6AfrFFdjtjccNQw5zcH5RIuuIh55St8IsZtajcKl1c_nYFCSg8BioVbq_TzmLz71MTFqEn5KNQPJUtu9-y/s1600/I+married+a+witch+2.jpg" height="320" width="147" /></a>Of course, the film fails elsewhere and I am not blaming Lake for it all. March is best described as competent here (and he could so much better) and the film takes a while to gather pace, with the first half dragging a bit. It does improve in the second half, particularly in the wedding scenes and the build-up to the climax. I also loved the epilogue (possibly the most Paramount-like moment of the whole film). The supporting cast, particularly a young Susan Hayward as the always nagging fiancée, is very good. She also would also have been a good choice for the lead. Oh, and the posters are great (and Lake does look very good indeed).Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8067902550504189621.post-63900197870898945472014-02-16T02:06:00.000+00:002014-02-16T02:15:09.645+00:00Family Honeymoon (1948)"Family Honeymoon" is the last pairing of Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray. And of the six I have seen (I am missing the elusive "Practically Yours"), it is the dullest and most uninspired. It is also the most reactionary, even if it starts off with a good premise. A widow with three children is to marry an academic. However, the kids babysitter (her spinster sister) breaks her leg and is unable to manage the kids who tag along on the honeymoon. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjurwAkIUsRsWVyrYzlmvVQv2BM8yd6GrhYzidcjUiEuYtANLKtOsjtJwRoP1vpoMbbnUKm2DQbBQbbY6OxL3imZXYXwg0QR2xJeNNktmOZl-X4MpDofk9wcWFMaAjHkkIWCWJaieGDVC3j/s1600/Family+Honeymoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjurwAkIUsRsWVyrYzlmvVQv2BM8yd6GrhYzidcjUiEuYtANLKtOsjtJwRoP1vpoMbbnUKm2DQbBQbbY6OxL3imZXYXwg0QR2xJeNNktmOZl-X4MpDofk9wcWFMaAjHkkIWCWJaieGDVC3j/s1600/Family+Honeymoon.jpg" height="252" width="320" /></a></div>
Up to the end of WWII, marriage meant the couple was finally allowed to have sex (e.g. Minnelli's "The Clock"). This meant that the film (and its leads) could, particularly in comedy, increase and escalate tension with the audience knowing that at the end there would be some release (yes, I know awful pun). Whereas here the children are the excuse to keep everything censor friendly. Colbert dexterously avoids any move from MacMurray; one scene has her giving a stern look, completely emasculating him: MacMurray is an an absent minded professor who is not will not be rewarded until he ascertains his masculinity over an over feminine Colbert, who seems to have failed to notice her children are unruly until she looses her man - the double implication that a) a woman can't raise children without a man and b) a woman needs a man to guide her to life. These are lazy post-war Hollywood stereotypes at their worst.<br />
<br />
The plot is also full of preposterous incidents (a mother not paying
attention to their kids at a train stop?!) and a predatory woman (Rita
Johnson, failing to do what Gail Patrick could do so well) to keep the
story moving to its 90th minute. This latter point is actually extraordinarily annoying, as it passes
all possible suspension of disbelief, with Johnson's character too eager
to disrupt the honeymoon. Although I must confess that the party sequence at the end was a slight improvement over the rest of the film.<br />
<br />
Neither Colbert or MacMurray do more than the bare minimum and I would suggest that all they thought of was the pay check, and honestly I can't blame them. Hattie McDaniel has a small role, just a bit more than a cameo, and looks very ill in what was one of her last film roles. Only Lilian Bronson as Colbert's sister manages to make something interesting of what is an disappointing <br />
farewell of one of my favourite actor pairings of old Hollywood.Miguelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04531415630123832435noreply@blogger.com0