June 26, 2006

Melancholy romance: The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

I haven't posted anything about an older film for a bit, so I thought I'd post my take on The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947). (This was written a year or two ago when the DVD came out.) ...

If you’re looking to be frightened by a ghost movie, this is not the movie for you. While to some extent it is dressed up in the look of one, it’s a romance, and a melancholy one at that.

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir is a beautiful example of black and white filmmaking. There are some great shots and it's interesting to see how the movie uses camera technique and other tools to create mood etc. as opposed to using special effects. (For example, Harrison as the ghost appears out of shadows rather than "materializing.")

The movie is about a recent widow (Gene Tierney) who leaves the oppressive environment of her mother-in-law and sister’s home to take her daughter and live by the sea. She rents a home on the coast, one the real estate man urges her not to take. He reluctantly confesses it is haunted and, because of this, a problem house.

But Tierney’s Lucy Muir falls in love with Gull Cottage and takes it. After a few introductory “haunting” type scenes (less scarey than moody), she meets the ghost, a sea captain played by Rex Harrison. The relationship begins, and so does the real story.

While never explicitly stated (until the end), as an audience we know a romantic relationship is developing – each is falling in love with the other. I think this is because they recognize they share the same independent, uncompromising spirit. One is more overt (the ghost) and the other more restrained (Lucy), but both are informed by individuality.

Of course, the relationship is doomed since she is a living woman and he is a ghost.

Eventually the captain leaves Mrs. Muir because of this. He wants her to live as a flesh and blood woman and to find love with a living man, though he warns, “… there may be breakers ahead.”

There are and Lucy hits them.

The movie shows us an unusually independent woman. She asserts herself again and again though always with a contradictory sense of apology.

Tierney plays Lucy in a playful way (as the DVD notes say, almost screwball). This quality she gives the character allows the film to show us the passage and transformations of time. The playfulness gives her a youthful quality in the first half of the film. As the movie progresses, and time passes, this becomes less and less, replaced by an introverted quietness. This interpretation, along with the wonderful score by Bernard Hermann, creates the melancholy feeling the movie’s opening scenes announced.

As time passes and the ghost of the sea captain is no longer in her life, Gene Tierney’s character becomes a lonely woman, almost eccentric.

The film gives us the inevitable Hollywood happy ending but it’s not enough to take away the essential sadness at the heart of the film. Tierney’s Lucy is a wonderful woman but out of step with her environment.

The only person she truly connects with, and who appreciates her independent spirit, is a ghost. The price for her independence is loneliness.

Tierney plays her part perfectly. Harrison, on the other hand, is a little over the top.

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir is a marvellous film. While it contains a lot of humour, it's primarily a romance, a sweetly melancholic one.

June 19, 2006

I love Gilbert Grape

I’ve only a moment but I wanted to say, for what it is worth, I love What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. I just watched it again, this time in the new DVD “Special Collector’s Edition” which includes commentary by director Lasse Hallström and writer Peter Hedges (along with some special features).

I think, for me, Hallström may be one of those “under the radar” directors. There seem to be a number of his films I love, not just Gilbert Grape; movies like An Unfinished Life and My Life as a Dog. Not being a director of blow-everything-up movies but of quieter, gentler films (for the most part), his work in the big arena seems to go unnoticed (though he has done pretty well, despite that).

Whatever … I seem to watch Lasse Hallström’s films over and over because I enjoy them so much. In the case of What’s Eating Gilbert Grape I’d also point out that there is some splendid photography thanks to cinematographer Sven Nykvist.

If you haven’t seen it, or if you have but haven’t seen it for a while, do yourself a favour and watch it.

And for those of you into the star thing: Johnny Depp! Leonardo DiCaprio! What more could you ask for?

June 16, 2006

Matrix meets Shopgirl - one loses

I tried watching The Matrix Reloaded tonight. After 30 minutes I was so bored I gave it the heave-ho. I put Shopgirl into the DVD player.

I was no longer bored. While I would call it a "flawed film," Shopgirl is pretty good as far as being what it is trying to be, and being engaging. And as opposed to the The Matrix Reloaded, there was a legitimate story and actual characters - always a plus.

I realise they are very different movies, aiming at different audiences and with different goals in mind. But one comes close to being what it aspires to be and the other ... well, it's a lot of noise, cool pictures and green tinted images.

Anyway ... that was my movie experience tonight.

(I should probably add, I've seen both films previously. I didn't care for The Matrix Reloaded the first time. That's why I tried it again. I thought I'd give it a second chance. I've seen Shopgirl previously, and only sort of liked it. I liked it more this second time - usually a sign that a film that has somthing going for it (like a modicum of substance.)

June 4, 2006

The combustible Ava Gardner

I recently finished reading Ava Gardner: ‘Love is Nothing’ by Lee Server and it’s nothing if not entertaining. Somewhere, he makes mention of her living life “like a rocket.”

It’s an apt description but I think I’d say she lived like she drove cars – fast, carefree and just a little bit out of control (and with more than a few crashes).

It really is an extraordinary life and, if the end has a bit of sadness to it, it should be seen in context. Her highs were very high and the lows – well, very low. It strikes me as a life characterized by extremes.

I found the biography very good and, as one reviewer mentioned (I can’t remember who it was), while Server details the good and the bad he does appear to have an affection for his subject. But then, really, who didn’t? One thing the biography makes fairly clear is how easily most people found Ava to like, even to love.

And yes, the book covers all the marriages and the affairs and, good grief, there were a helluva a lot of them.

As for her film work, one thing that comes across (for me, at least) is how much we missed of some fine acting – for several reasons. In part, a studio that seemed incapable or indifferent to placing her in good roles, and also Ava’s own insecurities and capriciousness. She was better than she knew, better than the studio allowed her to be and so she probably never achieved what she might have on film.

We do, however, have Ava Gardner in some gems, like The Killers and (my favourite) The Night of the Iguana. (Server often mentions the film Pandora and the Flying Dutchman and, while Gardner is quite fine in the film, as is James Mason, the movie as a movie is a bit of a turkey.)

If I have any objection to the biography I think it is that an explanation for the kind of personality Ava Gardner had may be absent, though I’m not sure anyone could actually explain what went into making Ava Gardner. This is not to say the book omits anything or is remiss in anyway. But she seems to have experienced major swings in mood (many, I would imagine, caused by alcohol – she was, I think, an alcoholic, taking it in like water). She was also plagued by insecurities.

And really, what explains that relationship with Sinatra? Alcohol and combustible personalities … It’s an explanation but I’m not sure that fully accounts for it.

Whatever the reasons, Ava Gardner’s life is utterly fascinating. And perhaps more than just the endless incidents and relationships, it may be its inexplicable quality that makes it most compelling.

Also see:
Ava Gardner, last studio-made star, subject of new biography

Tags: ,

May 29, 2006

What a difference - Kingdom of Heaven

The theatrical version of Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven was an okay action film. This was the version initially released on DVD. Now they've released the 4-dics version - the Director's Cut, what Scott calls his favourite version.

It's like a completely different movie and it rocks! Maybe the best thing he's done. I can't get over how much better it is than the theatrical version - they've added 50 minutes (from 144 minutes to 194) but the edit has also changed, to some degree. And what they've added isn't extended battle scenes but character development and plot (especially in the beginning). Wow.

Anyway ... I'm not much of a Ridley Scott fan but I absolutely loved this. And while it's longer, somehow it doesn't seem a long film.

For me, the difference between the two versions is amazing. Usually these director cuts are a waste of time. This time, it's a better movie. A much better movie.

May 20, 2006

What kind of movie is The Big Heat?

I watched The Big Heat (1953 – Fritz Lang) again this week. I love this movie. Lee Marvin and Gloria Grahame are fabulous. (In both cases, the performances are up there with their best – and in Grahame’s case, I think it is the best, at least of what I’ve seen).

And Glenn Ford plays the central "hero" character bang on. Although this lead character, Bannion, makes this film noir not really a noir. Although it feels like one and has that look.

But he’s not really flawed in a self-destructive way like noir heroes (or anti-heroes) normally are. No, he’s really a good guy with a hate on. This is really more a template for those films Clint Eastwood became successful with (like Dirty Harry or his westerns). It’s a revenge story.

But however it’s described or categorized, The Big Heat is one of my favourite movies. (And I’ve always loved Gloria Grahame’s look – must be her mouth and that pout. Or is it the eyes? I’m not sure …)

By the way ... The DVD (Columbia Pictures, or Sony if you prefer), released in late December 2001 I believe, is adequate although there is a great deal of wear, such as flecking, at the beginning and end of the film. In other words, it could stand a bit of restoration work.)

Tag: , , , , ,

May 14, 2006

Why I like Tom Cruise

It boils down to this: he’s been in a lot of movies that I love. I pay as little attention as possible to his public appearance hoo-hah, his marriage to Katie whoever, the baby, Scientology … blah blah blah. Though, obviously (since I’ve mentioned them) I can’t escape that crap.

But for the most part I don’t pay attention. I roll my eyes and change the channel or whatever.

Everything about the Tom Cruise public image makes him someone that makes me want to tear my hair out. And I wish to heaven he’d stop making the work-out movies like those endless Mission Impossible films. (As an aside, when any film is associated with the term “franchise” I head for the hills. It means it’s a hamburger.)

But … Cruise has been in great movies and, part of why they have been great is – hang on to your drawers – Tom Cruise. That’s the puzzler about him. He’s remarkably good. So why is he connected with all the other nonsense?

Well, people are odd. All of them. Including, and perhaps moreso than others, Tom Cruise.

But look at what he’s been involved with (when not flying planes or jumping on Oprah’s couch):

- Collateral
- The Last Samurai
- Minority Report
- Jerry Maguire
- A Few Good Men
- Rain Man


Those films make it difficult for me to dismiss Mr. Cruise. In fact, I prefer to dismiss the other nonsense and see him in terms of those films. He’s really very good at what he does. Perhaps too much so – maybe when you are that good it gets too easy to be self-indulgent and follow whatever random notion captures your imagination.

Whatever the true view of Tom Cruise is there’s no denying he’s good at what he does when he commits to it. So my hope is the current nonsense passes soon and, as I suspect is the case, he gets back quickly to simply bringing great performances to films of good stories.

Tom Cruise, the actor (as opposed to the celebrity) is extraordinarily good at his job. The celebrity is simply annoying. The actor, on the other hand, is about as good as it gets.

May 13, 2006

Mrs. Stone’s grim spring

Much as I like Vivien Leigh, and the work of Tennessee Williams, I can’t say I was terribly taken by The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (1961 - directed by José Quintero). I’m pretty sure this was the first time I had seen it and I’m also pretty sure I’ve never read the short novel it was based on (by Williams).

I think I like the idea of the movie less than the actual film itself. I wish there were more films about people in their latter years. But this one was just too … I dunno. Bland, I guess (though that seems an odd descriptive for something based on a work by Tennessee Williams).

Part of the problem is there is a bit of an anachronistic feel to the film. It looks and feels very sixties – but maybe that’s just the hairstyles and clothes. More seriously, it is just too somber. Not that that is inappropriate, but it is unrelieved. So there is no sense of balance.

Oddly, there was drama going on around the filming, at least with Vivien Leigh and her break up with Lawrence Olivier, and that probably informed her performance, which is quite good.

And Lotte Lenya is extremely good as an evil procuress. As for Warren Beatty, I was fine with his performance (though others are not so kind) but still would have preferred an actual Italian in the role.

Yes, I think my biggest problem is the seriousness of tone that never lets up. Somewhere in all this there should have been some “oomph,” whatever that might be. On the whole, I found Mrs. Stone’s spring slow-moving and grim.

Much more like fall.

May 4, 2006

Tonight I watched The Night of the Iguana

Today was a happy day as my order arrived – the DVD set Tennessee Williams Film Collection. So that’s six movies plus a disc with a documentary (Tennessee Williams’ South).

While I’ve always liked Williams, and thus have a fondness for films based on his plays (and one novel), I really bought this set for one movie, the one I watched tonight: The Night of the Iguana (1964), directed by John Huston (and starring Richard Burton, Ava Gardner and Deborah Kerr).

While I don’t think it’s a great movie I certainly think it’s very good. And I suppose it’s also what the movie is about, and how it is about it, that appeals to my own tastes in film and art generally.

It’s about frail people at the edge of endurance. The how, that appeals to me, is that it is through character and dialogue (Williams is, after all, a playwright) and it’s done with great empathy – kindness, I suppose, though it also has its harshness.

Williams work, at least as done cinematically, does have a certain histrionic quality seen at this distance (2006, whereas most of the films were made in the fifties and early sixties) but that doesn’t really bother me. I find it pretty easy to settle into the tone of the films. But that may not be so for everyone.

In The Night of the Iguana, by the way, as much as I like Richard Burton, and particularly like Deborah Kerr (her character has some of the best speeches), it is Ava Gardner who really stands out for me. Her performance is wonderful.

And now I have five more films to look forward to. The only problem is deciding which one is next. The set, by the way, includes these films:

- A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) Two-Disc Special Edition
- Baby Doll (1956)
- Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) Deluxe Edition
- The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (1961)
- Sweet Bird of Youth (1962)
- The Night of the Iguana (1964)

Tag: , , , , ,

May 2, 2006

Reading about Clark Gable, movie star

I'm currently reading Clark Gable: a Biography by Warren G. Harris. While not great, it's certainly pretty good. I'm almost finished it and I have to be honest, what I find most interesting is how uninteresting Clark Gable is.

Perhaps a more rigorous biography might have helped this - a bit more psychological focus, assuming there is sufficient information available to do that.

The book itself is interesting enough, but it just seems a bit odd that someone of that "star" stature should be so ... well, bland. But perhaps that's the real story of Gable - a huge success in that Hollywood world, yet really just an average guy.

Of course, I should also say that while I've never disliked Clark Gable movies, and there are few I like quite a lot (Gone With the Wind and Run Silent Run Deep, for instance) I've never been a huge fan of his.

Tag: , ,

April 27, 2006

Shopgirl – and a couple of other films

Yes, the Carole Lombard movies are behind me. I’ve been watching other movies and a number of them are relatively recent films. Three of the best I’ve seen recently are:
- Shopgirl
- An Unfinished Life
- Mrs. Henderson Presents
In fact, I watched Shopgirl tonight and loved it. All three of these films are good and not one is a Hollywood action-thriller-special effects extravaganza. What they all have in common is a good story and interesting characters.

At the same time, they have enough Hollywood sensibility not to be drearily realistic films – not that films such as that are terribly realistic, they just think they are because they begin and end in tragedy.

That is definitely not these films.

Tags: , ,

April 24, 2006

Six Carole Lombard movies - a wrap

Hopefully this will be the last of my Carole Lombard postings for a while. Much as I like Carole Lombard, it's time to move on. But I did what I had wanted to do - scribble some comments on each of the six films that made up Carole Lombard - the Glamour Collection. If you want to have a look, here's what I thought about each one:

- Man of the World (1931)
- We're Not Dressing (1934)
- Hands Across the Table (1935)
- Love Before Breakfast (1936)
- The Princess Comes Across (1936)
- True Confession (1937)

Interestingly, there was only one that I didn't particularly like.

Carole Lombard - the Glamour Collection:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: , , , ,

April 23, 2006

True Confession – truly wonderful

Of the six movies on the set Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection the last is True Confession (1937) and I think this may be the best. I loved this one.

Once again it teams Carole Lombard with Fred MacMurray – and they make a great combination. This time, however, MacMurray gets to play something a little bit different. No longer the cocksure young man with a secret or two and a bit cagey, here he plays the gullible innocent.

While this film is kind of romantic-comedy, it probably more properly belongs in the screwball category. Here, Lombard is the ditzy star and she’s absolutely wonderful.

The basic premise of the film is a husband and wife (MacMurray and Lombard). He’s innocent and bullheadedly honest and she’s a compulsive liar. In fact, Lombard does a little thing of putting her tongue in her cheek each time she embarks on another lie.

He’s a struggling lawyer. He won’t take cases unless his clients are innocent. The family bank account is suffering because of his high standards, and because he refuses to allow his wife (Lombard) to work. Meanwhile she is at home, desperate for her husband to get some cases and passing her time typing out stories – an outlet for her imagination (and lies).

She has also managed to land herself a job – pretty high pay for little work as a secretary. As it turns out, her potential employer has some less than respectable notions of secretarial work. Lombard also must keep the job hidden from her husband.

As it turns out, she must flee her potential employer in order to maintain her wifely virtue … and the potential employer ends up dead. Murdered. Lombard is the prime suspect.

Although she didn’t do it, her husband (MacMurray) is to defend her, believes she did but thinks he has a defense for her, so she admits to the crime.

And so on. Lombard’s troubles compound with her insistence on telling ever more elaborate lies, and with her husband’s insistence on truth and honesty (and his irritating innocence).

And then into the mix comes a cynical and cultured, but down on his luck, legal aficionado, John Barrymore.

The pacing is fast and the situations ludicrous and hilarious. While the business of the tongue in the cheek may be a little over done, Lombard is as funny as she ever was. This is Lombard at her absolute peak as a comic-romantic actress. This is Lombard as the queen of screwball. With the possible exception of My Man Godfrey, I don’t think I’ve ever seen her better.

Personally, I watch Carole Lombard movies to see this Carole Lombard. (Fred MacMurray is pretty darn good too – as are the supporting performers in this film, especially Una Merkel as Lombard’s best friend.)

This movie’s a gem. Recommended.

True Confession:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: , , , , ,

April 22, 2006

Lombard does Garbo – sort of

Slowly, I am making my way through Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection. There’s just one movie left to watch as last night I took in the awkwardly named The Princess Comes Across (1936).

I have to assume the 1935 film Hands Across the Table had some success as The Princess Comes Across teams Lombard once again with Fred MacMurray. The 1935 film is a good movie (thus far the best of this six movie collection) and this attempt to recapture its successful elements works pretty well also, though not to quite the same degree.

It also does a few new things. It’s essentially a romantic comedy but it also blends in a murder mystery, so there are some suspense elements. These, however, aren’t particularly strong – the emphasis is on romance-comedy.

The film also seems to have some fun with having Carole Lombard do something of a send-up of Greta Garbo. Lombard plays a woman from Brooklyn, a struggling actress, who has scammed her way onto a cruise ship and into a movie by pretending to be a Swedish princess. When in her princess mode, Lombard puts on an accent and strikes an attitude that is pure Garbo. It’s very successful and also very funny.

MacMurray, on the other hand, is basically playing the same character he does in Hands Across the Table (though with a different name). Here, he’s a musician – a concertina playing band leader. But he’s also a smart-alecky, young man “on the make,” so to speak. He’s very breezy, throws out one liners and, soon, is in love with the princess.

He eventually discovers, or at least suspects, there is something not quite right about “the princess” but doesn’t let on that he knows. As with the earlier teaming with Lombard, both actors play characters who are in love but keeping secrets from the other – each is trying to maintain the upper hand.

In this sense, it is pretty standard 30’s romantic-comedy material. But with films like this the success lies less in the originality of the script than in the execution. In this case, with Lombard and MacMurray making a good pairing, the execution is pretty darned good – though I think Hands Across the Table works a bit better.

The one criticism I would have with The Princess Comes Across would be with the murder mystery aspect. That element often seems to strike a wrong note in the context of the rest of the film. I don’t think it is so much that the murder element doesn’t belong as it isn’t handled terribly well.

But that’s a fairly small quibble. Overall, this is a pretty good example of a 30’s romantic comedy and worth a viewing. And if you like Carole Lombard you’re sure to get a kick out of her take on Greta Garbo.

The Princess Comes Across:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: , , , , ,

April 17, 2006

Love Before Breakfast – awful, just awful

Although this is a structurally sound film, the end result is not and it is due to the characterizations, at least for me.

This is a Carole Lombard film but unlike Hands Across the Table, this film, Love Before Breakfast, is a mess. In the first half of the film we get Preston Foster as the love interest, Scott Miller. But he’s so obnoxious as the wealthy guy who has decided he wants Lombard’s Kay Colby character, you just want him to blow up or something. Good grief, he’s annoying.

In the film’s second half, his character Miller more or less gets his way and what we end up with is Lombard playing a twit – and now you want her to blow up or something.

In other words, the extremes they put the characters to in order to manage the storyline are ... well, too extreme. Neither is particularly likeable; both are actually quite annoying.

So while in a formal sense you can see how it probably should work in terms of execution it’s a disaster.

It’s a shame too, because some of the root elements are there. And certainly the actors are, at least as far as Lombard goes. But the role dissolves into such an idiot you just can’t get behind the story.

This is a good example of what does not work in romantic comedies.

Tag: , , , ,

April 15, 2006

Watching Visonti’s The Leopard

As it’s a fairly pricey three disc set, I’ve been holding off on getting the DVD of Lucino Visconti’s The Leopard (1963) from The Criterion Collection. But I found it this weekend at 20% off and I think that’s about as cheap as I’ll ever find it, so I finally picked it up.

So last night I watched it, the Italian version – not the dubbed American version which is also included, though from everything I’ve heard about that version I’m not sure why they bothered.

I think this is the first time I’ve seen it from start to finish. When I was younger, I saw it in bits and pieces on TV – both the Italian and American versions. It’s long and epic and elegiac. And it’s beautifully shot.

The film shows “… the tumultuous years of Italy’s Risorgimento – when the aristocracy lost its grip and the middle classes rose and formed a unified, democratic Italy.” It certainly does, but it does this through the eyes of Prince Don Fabrizio Salina (Burt Lancaster) and because it does the film has the elegiac quality I mentioned. The Prince is probably the only one who knows and understands what is happening. He realizes he is old now; his world has past so he sees the events that go on around him with somewhat tired, bemused eyes – tinged a bit with regret but accepting nonetheless.

Visually, Lancaster is perfect as the Prince. He has the stature and bearing, as well as the world-weariness necessary for the role. (Although Visconti wasn’t exactly thrilled to get Lancaster, “a cowboy.”)

As the world is changing around him, the Prince sees someone will have to take his place. With not a great deal to choose from, he focuses on his nephew Tancredi (Alain Delon) as the best bet. The Prince also sees Tancredi will need to make a marriage that will provide him a fortune (as the Prince’s estate will be divided among all his children). This, he determines, should be the beautiful Angelica Sedara (Claudia Cardinale), daughter of Don Calogero Sedara, mayor of the town of Donnafugata. This would be a good marriage for the Prince’s family as the mayor, something of an oaf, has managed to become wealthy through land.

The Prince, in other words, is trying to arrange his world (his family) for when he he is gone – and it won’t be the same world he has known.

And it’s this that is most fascinating about The Leopard. While the social change may be inevitable and necessary, something is also lost and we see what is being lost in some of the low comedy and the boorish manners of the classes that are rising. In the first part of the film where we see the violence of the rebellion, there is also a sense of comedy to it. The rebels win less because of their ability to defeat the soldiers they face than through sheer numbers and disorganization.

Perhaps Claudia Cardinale best captures the change Visconti wants to show. She’s stunningly beautiful and appears perfectly suited for the formality of the world she’s entering (the Prince’s aristocratic world of privilege). Later, we see her at the dining table chewing her bottom lip nervously. Later still, her elbow is on the table, her chin resting in her hand as she slumps over listening to Tancredi and others. While she has the look to capture everyone, she doesn’t have the social niceties.

The Leopard (Il Gattopardo):
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: , , , ,

April 11, 2006

Love and money – Hands Across the Table

I’ve just watched Hands Across the Table (1935), yet another of the six films in the Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection and it is nothing less than fantastic. I loved it.

It’s a wonderful romantic comedy.

Unlike the previous two films where Lombard was really playing second fiddle to lead male actors (William Powell and Bing Crosby) this is clearly Carole’s film augmented by a great and spirited performance from a young Fred MacMurray.

Thematically and structurally the story is pretty conventional (though maybe not so conventional in 1935, but certainly in terms of today). A young woman who has grown up poor, scrimps to save as a manicurist, believes she absolutely must marry for money – love is nonsense, money is the only intelligent choice.

She meets a man she believes has money. This notion is quickly dissuaded as she learns that not only does he not have money but he’s just as she is – angling for a marriage that will pay the bills.

If you’re at all familiar with films you can guess how this plays out.

The script's originality is not the issue here, though. It’s a conventional plot. What makes this such a marvelous film are the performances and the cinematic execution, especially in 1935 terms. This film just moves. It totally engages and completely delights.

There are several great moments in it – most with between Carole Lombard and Fred MacMurray but also those with Ralph Bellamy (who again plays a nice guy who ends up losing but we feel okay with that – hmm).

I’m particularly thinking of the scenes with Lombard and the drunken MacMurray. And, later, the scenes between the same two the night before they are to go their separate ways and, finally, Carole’s crying jag in Bellamy’s room.

Ultimately, what I liked so much about this film has nothing to do with originality. It has everything to do with execution. There are fine supporting performances to buttress the great performances we get from the leads – Lombard, MacMurray and Bellamy. The pacing is crisp and the sets and lighting are excellent, particularly in some of the more serious scenes.

The film is also fun for some of the sexual aspects that get through … There’s a certain amount of suggestion and innuendo that, had the film been made a few years later, I don’t believe would have made it to the final cut.

I’ve watched three of the six films in the set Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection and, thus far, while I’ve enjoyed them all, this is easily the best. If you like romantic comedies, or you like Carole Lombard or both, this is highly recommended.

Hands Across the Table:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: , , , , ,

April 10, 2006

Watching The Last Samurai yet again

As well as I can remember, I’ve never posted about Edward Zwick’s The Last Samurai (2003). This surprises me because I like the movie so much. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve seen it.

I know that with all the media nonsense about Tom Cruise these days that the default response is to hate anything he’s involved with but, let’s be honest, for all his annoying media hoo-hah and some of those tedious action figure movies, he’s been involved in some great films and has given some great performances.

I’m not sure how he’s managed it, but manage it he has.

But The Last Samurai … it’s essentially an epic western, which may be why I like it so much. Now, by western I’m not referring to cowboys and shootouts and so on. I’m referring to the fact that this is essentially a romantic morality tale, which the best westerns almost always are. (And by romance I’m not referring to love stories but to a way of seeing and feeling about the situation and the characters and this also is informed by the moralistic aspect of the film.)

By morality I’m referring to the way a code of honour is in the background of everything the characters do or do not do. It’s implicit in some way in all their choices and in the way they feel about those choices and the situations they are in. Here, with this film, that code of honour is much more explicit – it is the Samurai’s code which, as it turns out, is very similar to the “the western code” that informed so many of the great Hollywood westerns.

Now you may wonder why the Tom Cruise character (Nathan Algren) is so prominent in the film when the “last samurai,” and the heart of the film, is Ken Watanabe’s character (Katsumoto). I think there are two reasons for this (ignoring the third, for the moment, which would be the marketing aspects of the Tom Cruise face and name).

First of all, Cruise’s Algren is us, the western audience. While the movie is set largely in Japan and it is about samurai it is not to be taken as a Japanese film. It is Japan seen through western eyes, in this case, Algren’s. So what he sees and how he interprets it is from the perspective of the west.

This leads to the second reason his character is significant. He provides the movie's major story arc. He begins in despair – no real sense of honour remaining to him, just cynicism and a kind of animalistic sense for survival. His journey to Japan becomes a spiritual one as he finds the honour feels he’s lost (and the west has lost) lives in the way the samurai conduct themselves, their code.

The film does not go for an easy (and unrealistic) happy ending, however (though it doesn’t leave us in despair either). While it’s suggested Algren may have gone on to a happier life, or at least one less troubled, the samurai are clearly through, falling ultimately to the mindless and amoral technology of the west.

The new displaces the old but, the film suggests, there is a spiritual vacuum at its heart … though perhaps not necessarily as the final gesture of the Japanese soldiers suggests a hunger for what the samurai represented.

In the end, what I most like about the film is that I find it compelling from beginning to end. Both Cruise and Watanabe are perfect in their performances and they are supported by actors who seem to be flawless in their roles.

It’s also visually riveting – both the action scenes (and their great representation of chaos) and the more subdued, character focused scenes.

As mentioned in one of the features on the DVD, some of the best scenes involve no dialogue at all – they are strictly visual, driven by great performances and cinematography.

I really cannot imagine someone not enjoying this film. I think it’s one of the best to come out in the last few years.

Note: The Last Samurai is currently available in standard DVD (widescreen and full screen editions) and will also be released on HD-DVD on April 18, 2006.

The Last Samurai:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tags: , , , ,

April 8, 2006

Narnia – now here’s a good movie

There have been a number of over-hyped movies that have come to DVD recently and I’ve seen many of them. Frankly, almost all of them left me shrugging my shoulders and wondering what the fuss was about. Lots of cinematic hoo-hah and very little substance.

But tonight I watched Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Yes, it’s rather a long title but the movie is excellent. Actually, it’s better than excellent. It’s a real movie – one with an actual story.

I suppose C. S. Lewis can be credited with that as he wrote the book. Much like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the film succeeds to a large extent because of its source material and the way the filmmakers approach that material.

To be honest, I’ve never actually read the C.S. Lewis books (unlike Tolkien’s trilogy) so I’m just guessing here. But I can't see this kind of story coming out of the movie world unless it was based on something written in a previous era.

Anyway … I highly recommend this one. It beats the pants off of most contemporary movies and, of those contemporary movies that employ big budgets, special effects and so on, none are even close to The Chronicles of Narnia. Forget King Kong – this is the movie you should see.

Tags: , ,

April 7, 2006

We’re not making a good movie

I’ve just watched the second movie from the set Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection. It’s called We’re Not Dressing (1934) starring Bing Crosby and Carole Lombard.

This isn’t Carole Lombard’s film. As with Man of the World (which featured William Powell) this movie is about Bing Crosby, the male lead. Lombard is in a supporting role – a large supporting role, mind you, but supporting nonetheless.

And this is why the film leaves a great deal to be desired. It is a Crosby vehicle. It’s about Crosby the crooner and from the very opening, the guy is singing to beat the band. That he is singing isn’t the problem. The problem is that there is so much of it and that the songs, when you get down to it, are okay at best. Most sound like pale imitations of “Cheek to Cheek.”

The movie, therefore, is more than a little flat. However, there are some wonderful moments in it, most of them being the Lombard scenes. In fact, you really wish the emphasis had been switched and it had been a Lombard movie with Crosby playing second banana.

The Lombard scenes are pure Lombard. They have the sexiness and feistiness and humour you expect from Carole Lombard. She shines whenever she appears.

Then there are George Burns and Gracie Allen, who are screamingly funny. Though I’ve heard of their team for many years it is seldom I’ve had a chance to see them. While I assume this is just a taste of what they were together, they are just so funny.

And then there are Ethel Merman and Leon Errol. They, too, are fabulously funny, especially Errol as the drunken uncle.

I kept wishing Crosby would stop singing so we could get back to the interesting characters.

The Crosby hero character, by the way, has little development and little substance. It’s just a stereotype. Clearly, his job was simply to sing his way into the heroine’s heart, and the audiences too. That’s too bad. It’s not that he is poor in the role; it’s that there is nothing to it and, since it is the focus of the film, the movie suffers greatly.

But … for some of its sporadic better moments, We’re Not Dressing is worth a look.