I will admit - the only reference I had to Little Women previous to this, was the 1994 movie version of the book that I never read. But in my defense, I was a dedicated Lucy Maud Montgomery fan, so my youth and early teens were already full of reading about historical families and friendships. But I was a very loyal fan to the 1994 movie, which is why I have no interest in seeing the 2019 version. But this 1933 version stars Katharine Hepburn as Jo, so of course I had to see it.
I was really struck by the similarities between the two versions, and I have to wonder if both movies took lines from the book verbatim. Because of this, this 87 year old movie didn't at all seem dated to me. It did not lack for production value, or acting chops - noting that in 1994, the movie was very much an all-star-cast, and in 1933 the only truly famous actors (or at least still well known 87 years later) are Hepburn and Joan Bennett, who plays Amy. Hepburn, of course, was brilliant as Jo. If this hadn't been a well-known book, I would have sworn the role was created for her.
While there was surprisingly little difference between productions, I can't help but be aware that there would have been a vastly different audience reception. Little Women takes place during the civil war, and while the patriarch of the family is off fighting, the mother and her daughters must make sacrifices at home, while also giving to the poor. Beyond the stark reminder that this is in fact what we now know as middle-class, those of us in 1994 and 2019 could not fully appreciate the lives of the March family. But in 1933, viewers were in the middle of the great depression, and WWII was just a few years away. So I now lament that you really don't know what the world is about to throw at you, as I sit here just three months after the release of the 2019 version, in the midst of the COVD-19 pandemic. Family, sacrifice, and staying positive are indeed messages that are never going to go out of style.
Monday, March 23, 2020
Monday, March 16, 2020
Angel Face (1952)
It has Robert Mitchum in it. There; I've said every good thing I can about this movie.
I recently blogged about another movie that was criticized for being formulaic, which I thought was unfair. It's this movie that deserves that criticism. Here's the formula: spoiled rich girl hates her step mother and tries to kill her. She seduces an older man. Things don't go as she planned. The end.
Mitchum plays Frank Jessup, an ambulance driver who is called to the mansion of a woman who has been poisoned with gas from her bedroom fireplace. It's thought by everyone to be an accident - or possible suicide attempt. Diane, the bratty step-daughter falls for Frank and does everything she can to separate him from his nurse girlfriend - including convincing him to leave the hospital and work for them as a chauffer. Men being men, Frank falls for it. Frank does try a few times to go back to his girlfriend and his old life, but pretty little Diane seduces him each time and he falls for it.
Because Diane needs to have her way, and be done with her step-mother, Diane tinkers with her step-mother's car and sends Frank on an errand. When the step-mother needs to go out, Diane encourages her not to wait for Frank, and to drive herself. So she does - and she ends up driving backwards off the steep cliff they live on. What Diane hadn't planned for was that her beloved father asks his wife at the last minute to drive him somewhere, so he too is killed. Frank, naturally is accused of the murder as it's not initially thought a female could make such adjustments in the car. The two marry, as a legal strategy by her lawyer, as both are eventually arrested for the murder and tried together - Diane having confessed to her lawyers out of guilt of killing her father. They are both found not guilty and free to live their lives. But how? Both are miserable now. Diane doesn't have her father, and Frank really has nothing now. No girlfriend, no more plans of opening up his own shop, and neither really has each other; all love - or lust - is gone. So Diane does what she knows best, and pulls the same car trouble move on herself and Frank; and we see them fly off the cliff in a dramatic and slightly shocking end.
I recently blogged about another movie that was criticized for being formulaic, which I thought was unfair. It's this movie that deserves that criticism. Here's the formula: spoiled rich girl hates her step mother and tries to kill her. She seduces an older man. Things don't go as she planned. The end.
Mitchum plays Frank Jessup, an ambulance driver who is called to the mansion of a woman who has been poisoned with gas from her bedroom fireplace. It's thought by everyone to be an accident - or possible suicide attempt. Diane, the bratty step-daughter falls for Frank and does everything she can to separate him from his nurse girlfriend - including convincing him to leave the hospital and work for them as a chauffer. Men being men, Frank falls for it. Frank does try a few times to go back to his girlfriend and his old life, but pretty little Diane seduces him each time and he falls for it.
Because Diane needs to have her way, and be done with her step-mother, Diane tinkers with her step-mother's car and sends Frank on an errand. When the step-mother needs to go out, Diane encourages her not to wait for Frank, and to drive herself. So she does - and she ends up driving backwards off the steep cliff they live on. What Diane hadn't planned for was that her beloved father asks his wife at the last minute to drive him somewhere, so he too is killed. Frank, naturally is accused of the murder as it's not initially thought a female could make such adjustments in the car. The two marry, as a legal strategy by her lawyer, as both are eventually arrested for the murder and tried together - Diane having confessed to her lawyers out of guilt of killing her father. They are both found not guilty and free to live their lives. But how? Both are miserable now. Diane doesn't have her father, and Frank really has nothing now. No girlfriend, no more plans of opening up his own shop, and neither really has each other; all love - or lust - is gone. So Diane does what she knows best, and pulls the same car trouble move on herself and Frank; and we see them fly off the cliff in a dramatic and slightly shocking end.
His Girl Friday (1940)
Why didn't I watch this gem sooner??? That was the question I asked myself as I watched Cary Grant (Walter Burns) and Rosalind Russell (Hildy Johnson).
Having seen Russell in two other amazing movies (Night Must call, 1937; and The Women, 1939), I have to say that I think her talent was overshadowed before. I had no idea that she would be able to match the quick, snappy dialogue and physical comedy for which Grant is known.
Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell play ex-spouses and ex-coworkers as Hildy was the ace reporter to Walter's newspaper editor. Hildy returns to the office, to much applause and adoration of her colleagues to tell Walter of her upcoming nuptials. Walter then tries every trick in the book to stop her from remarrying, and stop her from leaving the business. Hildy naturally refuses all attempts made by Walter...until she gets a news story she cannot let go, when a convicted murderer (unfairly tried and convicted) is up for execution.
Watching this with now I can appreciate that Hildy was working in a male-dominated world. Because of this, I actually question the title of the movie, because Hildy was certainly not a Girl Friday. Russell plays the role of a woman in a male dominated world flawlessly. Watching so many classic movies one can become accustomed to stunningly beautiful women floating around in the most luxurious gowns, night dresses, and every day wear. Russell's Hildy Johnson was a breath of fresh air, as she stomped throughout the movie, her physical character embodying that of a woman working amongst men. Every single movement and mannerism from Russell was perfectly suited to the ace reporter.
It's clear from early on in the movie that Hildy and Walter are meant to be together. And while we feel bad for the ill-suited fiancé, and don't necessarily agree with the shadier ploys Walter executes, we know this is all for the greater good; and we cheer Hildy on as she works all of her reporting skills and influences to help the man who should not be hanged; and we cheer on Walter as through all the chaos he tries to achieve his one goal - getting Hildy back.
It's a thoroughly enjoyable movie from beginning to end, and one I will want to watch again.
Having seen Russell in two other amazing movies (Night Must call, 1937; and The Women, 1939), I have to say that I think her talent was overshadowed before. I had no idea that she would be able to match the quick, snappy dialogue and physical comedy for which Grant is known.
Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell play ex-spouses and ex-coworkers as Hildy was the ace reporter to Walter's newspaper editor. Hildy returns to the office, to much applause and adoration of her colleagues to tell Walter of her upcoming nuptials. Walter then tries every trick in the book to stop her from remarrying, and stop her from leaving the business. Hildy naturally refuses all attempts made by Walter...until she gets a news story she cannot let go, when a convicted murderer (unfairly tried and convicted) is up for execution.
Watching this with now I can appreciate that Hildy was working in a male-dominated world. Because of this, I actually question the title of the movie, because Hildy was certainly not a Girl Friday. Russell plays the role of a woman in a male dominated world flawlessly. Watching so many classic movies one can become accustomed to stunningly beautiful women floating around in the most luxurious gowns, night dresses, and every day wear. Russell's Hildy Johnson was a breath of fresh air, as she stomped throughout the movie, her physical character embodying that of a woman working amongst men. Every single movement and mannerism from Russell was perfectly suited to the ace reporter.
It's clear from early on in the movie that Hildy and Walter are meant to be together. And while we feel bad for the ill-suited fiancé, and don't necessarily agree with the shadier ploys Walter executes, we know this is all for the greater good; and we cheer Hildy on as she works all of her reporting skills and influences to help the man who should not be hanged; and we cheer on Walter as through all the chaos he tries to achieve his one goal - getting Hildy back.
It's a thoroughly enjoyable movie from beginning to end, and one I will want to watch again.
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Undercurrent (1946)
Despite the mediocre ratings on IMDB for this film, I was looking forward to watching this "all-star cast" of a movie. And personally, I was not disappointed.
Ann Hamilton (played by Katharine Hepburn) is a middle-aged bride who begins to suspect that her charming husband Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor) plans to murder her. Neither can she ignore her brother-in-law, Michael Garroway (Robert Mitchum), whom she has never met, but has been told so much about.
The (unfair) criticism of this movie, is that Hepburn and Mitchum are cast against-type; Hepburn playing the homely-come-pretty, naïve wife, and Mitchum playing the unassuming good guy. But to those criticism I say this: all of us fans of classic movies have the unique benefit of hindsight. We already know all of the roles these actors played in their careers; and personally we know what we know of these actors because they have already lived their lives (and are no longer with us). So you can't say that this is against type, when (at least perhaps for Mitchum) that "type" hadn't yet been solidified. Additionally, isn't it a good thing that we see actors play outside of their typical roles? This is acting after all! Some people feel that Joan Crawford or Bette Davis would have been better suited for the role that Hepburn. Davis I can totally see in the role. Crawford (sorry, I love you, but) no. It definitely required the acting chops of someone that could take the character of a middle-aged, naïve woman, convincingly dressed in plain clothes, to a Cinderella of a wife, with the hair, make-up, and gowns, who eventually gets wise to her no-good groom. Those are roles made for Hepburn and Davis.
The other criticism is that the movie is formulaic: domineering husband tries to control wife, who is completely unsure of herself until the very end. Yes, there are other movies that have used this formula to produce far superior movies, but that doesn't mean this one isn't worth the watch. Mitchum and Hepburn playing against-type is reason enough alone, because they actually pull off the characters very well!
As Ann is getting to know her new husband, he has sporadic violet tempers - especially when it comes to mentioning his brother Michael, who he claims is a terrible, horrible human being. Alan says is brother stole money, and was actually the violent one in the family. Ann becomes obsessed with learning about Michael, and we the viewer get to go along on her journey for knowledge. While it's never really explained why she becomes obsessed, I can only surmise that Ann subconsciously knows it is the key to getting to know the real man she married. We (and Ann) learn things about Michael, and eventually get to meet him. It becomes clear to us that the quiet, nature loving, poetry reading, kind soul that Michael is, is really who Ann should be with. And Alan, probably realizes that too, as he spirals out of control and tries to run her and her horse off a cliff near Michael's ranch.
My favourite part of film noirs (if I haven't said this already) is the shocking twist at the end. And while Ann fights for her life on that Cliffside, Alan looses control of his horse and is stomped to death. Due to the shocking nature of this scene, and the fact that nothing graphic is ever shown in these old movies, I immediately had to rewind it and watch it again. The pace was that quick; the surprise that satisfying.
As Alan's now- rich widow, Ann now gets to live her life as she chooses; and she gives back all the money and power that Alan stole from Michael and others in his life. It's a happy ending, which does sometimes happens in noirs, but it was fitting.
Ann Hamilton (played by Katharine Hepburn) is a middle-aged bride who begins to suspect that her charming husband Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor) plans to murder her. Neither can she ignore her brother-in-law, Michael Garroway (Robert Mitchum), whom she has never met, but has been told so much about.
The (unfair) criticism of this movie, is that Hepburn and Mitchum are cast against-type; Hepburn playing the homely-come-pretty, naïve wife, and Mitchum playing the unassuming good guy. But to those criticism I say this: all of us fans of classic movies have the unique benefit of hindsight. We already know all of the roles these actors played in their careers; and personally we know what we know of these actors because they have already lived their lives (and are no longer with us). So you can't say that this is against type, when (at least perhaps for Mitchum) that "type" hadn't yet been solidified. Additionally, isn't it a good thing that we see actors play outside of their typical roles? This is acting after all! Some people feel that Joan Crawford or Bette Davis would have been better suited for the role that Hepburn. Davis I can totally see in the role. Crawford (sorry, I love you, but) no. It definitely required the acting chops of someone that could take the character of a middle-aged, naïve woman, convincingly dressed in plain clothes, to a Cinderella of a wife, with the hair, make-up, and gowns, who eventually gets wise to her no-good groom. Those are roles made for Hepburn and Davis.
The other criticism is that the movie is formulaic: domineering husband tries to control wife, who is completely unsure of herself until the very end. Yes, there are other movies that have used this formula to produce far superior movies, but that doesn't mean this one isn't worth the watch. Mitchum and Hepburn playing against-type is reason enough alone, because they actually pull off the characters very well!
As Ann is getting to know her new husband, he has sporadic violet tempers - especially when it comes to mentioning his brother Michael, who he claims is a terrible, horrible human being. Alan says is brother stole money, and was actually the violent one in the family. Ann becomes obsessed with learning about Michael, and we the viewer get to go along on her journey for knowledge. While it's never really explained why she becomes obsessed, I can only surmise that Ann subconsciously knows it is the key to getting to know the real man she married. We (and Ann) learn things about Michael, and eventually get to meet him. It becomes clear to us that the quiet, nature loving, poetry reading, kind soul that Michael is, is really who Ann should be with. And Alan, probably realizes that too, as he spirals out of control and tries to run her and her horse off a cliff near Michael's ranch.
My favourite part of film noirs (if I haven't said this already) is the shocking twist at the end. And while Ann fights for her life on that Cliffside, Alan looses control of his horse and is stomped to death. Due to the shocking nature of this scene, and the fact that nothing graphic is ever shown in these old movies, I immediately had to rewind it and watch it again. The pace was that quick; the surprise that satisfying.
As Alan's now- rich widow, Ann now gets to live her life as she chooses; and she gives back all the money and power that Alan stole from Michael and others in his life. It's a happy ending, which does sometimes happens in noirs, but it was fitting.
Monday, March 9, 2020
State of the Union (1948)
This movie can and should be watched by all today!
Spencer Tracy plays Grant Matthews, a successful business man who is recruited by his girlfriend, Kay (played by Angela Lansbury) to run for the Republican nomination for President. This of course means bringing is estranged wife, Mary (naturally played by Katharine Hepburn) back into the picture, but Kay is willing to make the personal sacrifice for the sake of becoming the real power-house behind the man. And let the true-to-life back-stabbiness of politics begin.
Tracy and Hepburn are supposed to play and estranged couple, and I can't say that they don't exceed at this role. However, there is always an underlying love, and on-screen chemistry that simply cannot be ignored with these two. I remember the very first movie I saw with this real-life couple was Adam's Rib (1949). I knew very little about the actors at the time, but the on-screen chemistry was like nothing I had ever seen before or since. I remember distinctly saying to myself as the characters bantered on screen "Whoa! If those two aren't married, then they are definitely having an affair on set?" The chemistry was that electric. And while the acting skills of Tracy and Hepburn
Director and Producer Frank Capra is true to his style with a sharp story, and witty lines. Having watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington several times, and now this movie, I feel that Capra was made to create these political satires. I only wish he made more.
In the beginning of Grant's campaign, he speaks from the heart and gives an impassioned speeches about politics and the American way. He calls out Labour Unions and Big Business which could be given easily today. He was the candidate we all wish - or I certainly wish - would come along in real life US or Canadian politics. The people of this fictional America agree, and letters of support come flooding in.
However - and again, from what I do know of the inside bubble of the political sphere - politics and the human heart do not mix; and during his campaign Grant losses his voice to the polished speeches written by his political strategizers. Needing a Capra-esq happy ending, both Mary and Grant realize Grant's moral compass has been lost and Mary initially refuses to give a speech introducing her husband. However, she perseveres only for Grant some 'come to the rescue' of sorts, and rather than giving his speech, he denounces his backers (and now himself) as frauds and withdraws from the campaign. Mary and Grant embrace, and we can assume (and hope) the "estranged" aspect of their marriage is over.
The above description of the movie truly does not do it justice. But to capture how smart and witty the script, the actors, and the production is, would take far more than a quick one-page synopsis on a private blog.
Spencer Tracy plays Grant Matthews, a successful business man who is recruited by his girlfriend, Kay (played by Angela Lansbury) to run for the Republican nomination for President. This of course means bringing is estranged wife, Mary (naturally played by Katharine Hepburn) back into the picture, but Kay is willing to make the personal sacrifice for the sake of becoming the real power-house behind the man. And let the true-to-life back-stabbiness of politics begin.
Tracy and Hepburn are supposed to play and estranged couple, and I can't say that they don't exceed at this role. However, there is always an underlying love, and on-screen chemistry that simply cannot be ignored with these two. I remember the very first movie I saw with this real-life couple was Adam's Rib (1949). I knew very little about the actors at the time, but the on-screen chemistry was like nothing I had ever seen before or since. I remember distinctly saying to myself as the characters bantered on screen "Whoa! If those two aren't married, then they are definitely having an affair on set?" The chemistry was that electric. And while the acting skills of Tracy and Hepburn
Director and Producer Frank Capra is true to his style with a sharp story, and witty lines. Having watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington several times, and now this movie, I feel that Capra was made to create these political satires. I only wish he made more.
In the beginning of Grant's campaign, he speaks from the heart and gives an impassioned speeches about politics and the American way. He calls out Labour Unions and Big Business which could be given easily today. He was the candidate we all wish - or I certainly wish - would come along in real life US or Canadian politics. The people of this fictional America agree, and letters of support come flooding in.
However - and again, from what I do know of the inside bubble of the political sphere - politics and the human heart do not mix; and during his campaign Grant losses his voice to the polished speeches written by his political strategizers. Needing a Capra-esq happy ending, both Mary and Grant realize Grant's moral compass has been lost and Mary initially refuses to give a speech introducing her husband. However, she perseveres only for Grant some 'come to the rescue' of sorts, and rather than giving his speech, he denounces his backers (and now himself) as frauds and withdraws from the campaign. Mary and Grant embrace, and we can assume (and hope) the "estranged" aspect of their marriage is over.
The above description of the movie truly does not do it justice. But to capture how smart and witty the script, the actors, and the production is, would take far more than a quick one-page synopsis on a private blog.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Village of the Dammed (1960)
Despite the fact that this movie was remade in the 1990s, and that it likely airs on TCM every Halloween time, I have never seen either adaptation of this movie before, nor did I really know what it was about. But sometimes that's the fun of watching a movie' and this movie did not disappoint! This movie can be summed up in one sentence: a movie length production of an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Centered in a small British Village, one quiet day, everyone in the village suddenly passes out for several hours. The military is brought in, and the test the air, but there is no reason to explain why the entire village has collapsed. Just as suddenly, everyone awakes - seemly fine. Professor George Zellaby (George Sanders) and his wife, continue their lives, only to discover a few months later that she is pregnant. They are extremely happy about the news, until they realize that in fact every woman of a 'certain age' has also become pregnant - including a very upset and very innocent teenager, and her mother. There is confusion and chaos in the town, as the women's' pregnancies progress faster than normal. The children are all born on the same day, and the viewer is told they have very arresting eyes, platinum blonde hair, and unusually long fingernails.
I love the fact that we don't see the children as infants. It reminds me of the famous scene in Rosemary's Baby (1968) when Rosemary looked in the bassinette to see the child of Satan/her baby, and she exclaims "What have you done to him? What have you done to his eyes, you maniacs!" The unseen is far more chilling than the seen.
The children develop quickly, and Zellaby realizes they have a telepathic bond to each other. By the age of three, all of the children exhibit the physical and mental attributes of children four times that age. They all look the same, dress the same, and walk together in groups. Most startling of all is that they show no capacity for love or feelings, and they can in fact read the minds of their "parents" and other villagers. In fact, the children are seen causing the deaths of other villagers through what look like accidents. The military soon realizes that this phenomena has occurred elsewhere in the world. Though the solution in every country where these children lived was to annihilate the town.
Hoping to avoid this drastic measure, and to save all of the villagers, Zellaby places the children in a separate building where he can learn from them, and he can teach them to live peacefully. And for some reason, I as a viewer, actually thought this might work. Zellaby was so passionate about his desire to learn from them and to truly want to make the best out of this situation. But the children resist, and Zellaby compares the children's resistance to reasoning with a brick wall.
After the children's inhuman nature becomes clear to him, Zellaby realizes that the only action he can take to save the village is to use the same force and destruction as was used in other parts of the world. Zellaby develops a plan to plant a bomb in the bulding with the children, and he uses this motif as self-protection against their mind. "Think of a brick wall..." Zellaby repeats as he enters the building with a bomb in his bag. David, Zellaby's "son" sees his father trying to mask the thoughts in his mind. But as soon as the children fully realize Zellaby's thoughts, it's too late for everyone - including Zellaby, who has been cornered by the children - and the bomb explodes in a fiery burst.
For me, the ending was delightfully shocking. But I am left with so many questions! Who are they?Where did they come from? What was their ultimate goal? But as with the unseen, the unknown is often far more chilling than the known.
Centered in a small British Village, one quiet day, everyone in the village suddenly passes out for several hours. The military is brought in, and the test the air, but there is no reason to explain why the entire village has collapsed. Just as suddenly, everyone awakes - seemly fine. Professor George Zellaby (George Sanders) and his wife, continue their lives, only to discover a few months later that she is pregnant. They are extremely happy about the news, until they realize that in fact every woman of a 'certain age' has also become pregnant - including a very upset and very innocent teenager, and her mother. There is confusion and chaos in the town, as the women's' pregnancies progress faster than normal. The children are all born on the same day, and the viewer is told they have very arresting eyes, platinum blonde hair, and unusually long fingernails.
I love the fact that we don't see the children as infants. It reminds me of the famous scene in Rosemary's Baby (1968) when Rosemary looked in the bassinette to see the child of Satan/her baby, and she exclaims "What have you done to him? What have you done to his eyes, you maniacs!" The unseen is far more chilling than the seen.
The children develop quickly, and Zellaby realizes they have a telepathic bond to each other. By the age of three, all of the children exhibit the physical and mental attributes of children four times that age. They all look the same, dress the same, and walk together in groups. Most startling of all is that they show no capacity for love or feelings, and they can in fact read the minds of their "parents" and other villagers. In fact, the children are seen causing the deaths of other villagers through what look like accidents. The military soon realizes that this phenomena has occurred elsewhere in the world. Though the solution in every country where these children lived was to annihilate the town.
Hoping to avoid this drastic measure, and to save all of the villagers, Zellaby places the children in a separate building where he can learn from them, and he can teach them to live peacefully. And for some reason, I as a viewer, actually thought this might work. Zellaby was so passionate about his desire to learn from them and to truly want to make the best out of this situation. But the children resist, and Zellaby compares the children's resistance to reasoning with a brick wall.
After the children's inhuman nature becomes clear to him, Zellaby realizes that the only action he can take to save the village is to use the same force and destruction as was used in other parts of the world. Zellaby develops a plan to plant a bomb in the bulding with the children, and he uses this motif as self-protection against their mind. "Think of a brick wall..." Zellaby repeats as he enters the building with a bomb in his bag. David, Zellaby's "son" sees his father trying to mask the thoughts in his mind. But as soon as the children fully realize Zellaby's thoughts, it's too late for everyone - including Zellaby, who has been cornered by the children - and the bomb explodes in a fiery burst.
For me, the ending was delightfully shocking. But I am left with so many questions! Who are they?Where did they come from? What was their ultimate goal? But as with the unseen, the unknown is often far more chilling than the known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)