Second viewing; first seen on October 19, 1992.
Based on the novel by John Buchan, first published in 1915.
A Canadian man visiting London is wrongly accused of murdering a woman. She was a secret agent, and was murdered by members of a secret spy organization who is trying to smuggle military secrets out of the country.
Entertaining thriller with overtly comic touches, and subtly dramatic ones as well. The ultimate meaning of the plot is not so easy to fathom; I vaguely suspect it to be a commentary about the Commonwealth, since you have a Canadian hero who tries to save England from an organization which operates out of Scotland. The thesis might be that Canada, although separated by an entire ocean, and not a part of the United Kingdom, may be a valuable ally against treacherous forces encroached in a neighboring nation who is a part of that Kingdom. Now that Scotland has decided to remain joined with England, instead of going its own way as an independent member of the (Afro-Asian-)European Union, this film may prove healthy food for meditation. Or not. Anyway, I had a jolly good time reading every single line of dialogue of it from a transcription in the internet, as I went along watching it. Thanks to the transcriber for a job well done, although I still think that the farmer's coat was not "his son's" but instead "his sunday best". TV Guide has a well-written review of this film. That reviewer is considerably more enthusiastic than I am, but that is just as well, maybe on my next viewing of The 39 Steps I will come to his senses.
Rating: 58 (up from 50)
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Saturday, September 27, 2014
The Breaking Point (1950)
*Spoilers below (sort of).
Second viewing; first seen on April 21, 1991.
Based on the novel To Have and Have Not, by Ernest Hemingway, first published in 1937.
Harry owns and operates a charter boat as a living. He has a wife and two little daughters. Business is low, and his financial situation is not very good. He takes a man and his alluring girlfriend to Mexico, but things get complicated over there. The upshot is that he is pushed into even more trouble.
The criminal developments in this film are very entertaining, and by themselves justify it. There is, however, a subterranean theme that runs through it -- its subconscious mind, so to speak -- and gives it just that extra mojo. It concerns a man with such an intense attractiveness that women are irresistibly drawn to him, and even men have trouble keeping apart. This may seem like a desirable quality, but, like most things in life that seem desirable at first, it turns into a problem in the long run. The movie consists in the difficult process of getting rid of that problem. It is a subconscious process, of course, which in the conscious surface takes the form of inescapable situations of financial and legal trouble. The ultimate goal is to restrain oneself to one's wife and family, and lead an orderly and quiet life. It is achieved eventually, yet at a very high price. The first, and possibly not the most painful, part of that price is getting his best friend killed; the latter's subservient attachment to the protagonist is the crux of the problem and ultimately his doom. The second part of the price is having his own arm amputated, so that women will not find him attractive anymore and thus will stop harassing him. This is a very realistic and honest film, and the camerawork impressed me very much as well. It is also fascinating to see how much trouble one could get into back then (according to the film) by smuggling a few foreigners into the United States of America.
Rating: 74 (up from 70)
Second viewing; first seen on April 21, 1991.
Based on the novel To Have and Have Not, by Ernest Hemingway, first published in 1937.
Harry owns and operates a charter boat as a living. He has a wife and two little daughters. Business is low, and his financial situation is not very good. He takes a man and his alluring girlfriend to Mexico, but things get complicated over there. The upshot is that he is pushed into even more trouble.
The criminal developments in this film are very entertaining, and by themselves justify it. There is, however, a subterranean theme that runs through it -- its subconscious mind, so to speak -- and gives it just that extra mojo. It concerns a man with such an intense attractiveness that women are irresistibly drawn to him, and even men have trouble keeping apart. This may seem like a desirable quality, but, like most things in life that seem desirable at first, it turns into a problem in the long run. The movie consists in the difficult process of getting rid of that problem. It is a subconscious process, of course, which in the conscious surface takes the form of inescapable situations of financial and legal trouble. The ultimate goal is to restrain oneself to one's wife and family, and lead an orderly and quiet life. It is achieved eventually, yet at a very high price. The first, and possibly not the most painful, part of that price is getting his best friend killed; the latter's subservient attachment to the protagonist is the crux of the problem and ultimately his doom. The second part of the price is having his own arm amputated, so that women will not find him attractive anymore and thus will stop harassing him. This is a very realistic and honest film, and the camerawork impressed me very much as well. It is also fascinating to see how much trouble one could get into back then (according to the film) by smuggling a few foreigners into the United States of America.
Rating: 74 (up from 70)
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Sabotage (1936)
Second viewing; first seen on August 15, 1992.
*Warning* Spoilers Below*
Loosely based on the novel The Secret Agent, by Joseph Conrad, first published in 1907.
A London cinema owner executes acts of sabotage for a foreign terrorist organization. He lives with his wife and her schoolboy brother who do not suspect of his criminal activities. A Scotland Yard detective is investigating him while undercover as the next door grocer.
The plot is full of absurdities, as the review which I transcribe below hopefully will show. I took it from the User Review section on this film's IMDB page (filtered by the 'Hated It' option):
[begin quote]
Worst Hitchcock Film Ever!
Author: krdement from United States
8 June 2008
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I cannot imagine how people rate this film highly. Have you ever seen the brief bit on Hitchcock between movies on TCM? Andre de Toth lambastes Hitch as a lazy and sloppy film-maker. After seeing Sabotage for the first time, I now understand why.
I don't think Oscar Homolka is intended to be funny in this drama, he's dumb as a box of rocks! (In fact, every character in this movie is conveniently stupid!) In the aquarium scene, Homolka's contact informs him that he won't get paid until he accomplishes his job; Homolka's minor interruption of electric service did not do the trick! But Homolka just says, "Huh? I don't understand?" He is equally slow to catch on to the idea of bombing Picadilly Circus. HELLO! Then he stumbles into the wrong side of the exit turnstile, can't figure it out and struggles there until the next person to exit pulls him into the right side. (Otherwise, I guess he'd still be struggling like a wind-up toy spinning its wheels in futility against a wall!) Then he has to be fed constant reminders about "Saturday at 1:45." He is so incompetent and stupid that it is difficult to see his being used in a spy ring - even as a dupe.
The scene where Homolka goes to the bomb-maker's bird shop is totally inexplicable. In the spy game, contacts among agents are strictly minimized. Yet Homolka's visit serves no purpose. We meet the bomb-maker's family. We see his daughter's toys mixed up in his bomb-makings. We see that he keeps his ingredients in ketchup bottles and jam jars. But Homolka doesn't need to be there when the film-maker shows us these things. He risks going there just to be told that he will receive the bomb in a birdcage??? Why didn't the aquarium contact tell him that?
The undercover Scotland Yard man is equally dumb. We never hear him explain to either Sydney or Homolka who he is or show them any identification. He just launches into his interrogation of Sylvia Sydney in the open theater right under Homolka's nose. Now that's smart and discreet! He ends up revealing more to her than she reveals to him, even though she should logically still be under suspicion. He promptly interrogates Homolka in the same way. He doesn't ever identify himself, but just launches into an interrogation. But he ends up giving Homolka more information than he gets. It's a cinch that Scotland Yard didn't build its reputation on the likes of that agent!
When Sydney learns of her brother's death, things really start to fall apart. Thereafter nobody behaves in a logical way or in a way that I could identify with. Apparently convinced of Homolka's responsibility, Sydney doesn't go immediately to the undercover agent, like any rational person. Instead she exposes herself and invites her doom by directly confronting her husband - who she apparently believes is a ruthless murderer. For his part, Homolka just says,"Sure I was responsible, but, hey, it's no use crying over spilt milk; why can't the cook ever prepare green veggies." THAT whole scene between Sydney and Homolka is surreal - not a syllable of dialog that seems to ring true under the circumstances! Sydney cries, but she never seems to portray either real shock and/or grief or SUPPRESSION of shock and/or grief in order to maintain Homolka's trust. The little boy's death is an emotional footnote in this story. Even when Sydney awakens from fainting and envisions her brother's image among the faces peering at her, or when she stops the child wearing the identical tie during her flight after killing Homolka, there is negligible emotional impact.
When the bomb-maker's wife urges her husband to retrieve the birdcage from Homolka, we are left to ask,"Why???" What is so incriminating about a couple of birds in a cage that Homolka gave the boy? So, she shoves him out the door of their shop with his hat, coat and umbrella. No bomb. No time to make one. Does he just keep 'em lying around ready-made "just in case???" No bomb when he hails the cab. No bomb in the cab. No bomb when he goes up to Homolka's apartment. But - PRESTO, bomb! when he locks himself in the apartment and threatens the detectives banging on the door!
Then after the bomb goes off, the detective in charge just tells Sydney she is free to go. The good inspector knows enough to absolve the wife of a terrorist without any investigation! In fact it is NOT apparent to anybody in the film - ONLY to us the audience - that Sydney is innocent! Unless you assume some uncorroborated statements she has provided the investigator - which the audience didn't hear!
This is just a sampling of the holes in this movie that are so big and so numerous and so glaring that, like Andre de Toth, I am compelled to conclude that Hitchcock was a very sloppy and lazy filmmaker. Could Hitch have imparted missing information to both the audience and the characters in the film? You bet, easily! Could he have imparted it in scenes that were more credible in a supposed spy-story? Absolutely! Could he have created characters who didn't have to be dumb or defy professional standards in Scotland Yard to advance this story. DUH! One commentator characterized this story as "tightly written." He must have gotten this film confused with some other movie. This movie absolutely fails to hang together at all. ALL of Hitchcock's British films are vastly superior to this piece of swiss cheese.
I chuckled at this movie - just not at the parts that were intended to be funny. Mostly I just scratched my head. How could this mess have been directed by one of cinema's greatest?
[end quote]
Although I found the sharpness of the above observations delightful, I do not have as negative an opinion of Sabotage as this person. In particular, the main character is not without a certain fascinating repellence, especially as rendered by Homolka; the most shockingly outrageous scene is probably when, after having caused his wife's brother's death, he suggests they should have a child of their own. But it is true that overall this is not a successful film.
Rating: 37 (up from 35)
*Warning* Spoilers Below*
Loosely based on the novel The Secret Agent, by Joseph Conrad, first published in 1907.
A London cinema owner executes acts of sabotage for a foreign terrorist organization. He lives with his wife and her schoolboy brother who do not suspect of his criminal activities. A Scotland Yard detective is investigating him while undercover as the next door grocer.
The plot is full of absurdities, as the review which I transcribe below hopefully will show. I took it from the User Review section on this film's IMDB page (filtered by the 'Hated It' option):
[begin quote]
Worst Hitchcock Film Ever!
Author: krdement from United States
8 June 2008
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I cannot imagine how people rate this film highly. Have you ever seen the brief bit on Hitchcock between movies on TCM? Andre de Toth lambastes Hitch as a lazy and sloppy film-maker. After seeing Sabotage for the first time, I now understand why.
I don't think Oscar Homolka is intended to be funny in this drama, he's dumb as a box of rocks! (In fact, every character in this movie is conveniently stupid!) In the aquarium scene, Homolka's contact informs him that he won't get paid until he accomplishes his job; Homolka's minor interruption of electric service did not do the trick! But Homolka just says, "Huh? I don't understand?" He is equally slow to catch on to the idea of bombing Picadilly Circus. HELLO! Then he stumbles into the wrong side of the exit turnstile, can't figure it out and struggles there until the next person to exit pulls him into the right side. (Otherwise, I guess he'd still be struggling like a wind-up toy spinning its wheels in futility against a wall!) Then he has to be fed constant reminders about "Saturday at 1:45." He is so incompetent and stupid that it is difficult to see his being used in a spy ring - even as a dupe.
The scene where Homolka goes to the bomb-maker's bird shop is totally inexplicable. In the spy game, contacts among agents are strictly minimized. Yet Homolka's visit serves no purpose. We meet the bomb-maker's family. We see his daughter's toys mixed up in his bomb-makings. We see that he keeps his ingredients in ketchup bottles and jam jars. But Homolka doesn't need to be there when the film-maker shows us these things. He risks going there just to be told that he will receive the bomb in a birdcage??? Why didn't the aquarium contact tell him that?
The undercover Scotland Yard man is equally dumb. We never hear him explain to either Sydney or Homolka who he is or show them any identification. He just launches into his interrogation of Sylvia Sydney in the open theater right under Homolka's nose. Now that's smart and discreet! He ends up revealing more to her than she reveals to him, even though she should logically still be under suspicion. He promptly interrogates Homolka in the same way. He doesn't ever identify himself, but just launches into an interrogation. But he ends up giving Homolka more information than he gets. It's a cinch that Scotland Yard didn't build its reputation on the likes of that agent!
When Sydney learns of her brother's death, things really start to fall apart. Thereafter nobody behaves in a logical way or in a way that I could identify with. Apparently convinced of Homolka's responsibility, Sydney doesn't go immediately to the undercover agent, like any rational person. Instead she exposes herself and invites her doom by directly confronting her husband - who she apparently believes is a ruthless murderer. For his part, Homolka just says,"Sure I was responsible, but, hey, it's no use crying over spilt milk; why can't the cook ever prepare green veggies." THAT whole scene between Sydney and Homolka is surreal - not a syllable of dialog that seems to ring true under the circumstances! Sydney cries, but she never seems to portray either real shock and/or grief or SUPPRESSION of shock and/or grief in order to maintain Homolka's trust. The little boy's death is an emotional footnote in this story. Even when Sydney awakens from fainting and envisions her brother's image among the faces peering at her, or when she stops the child wearing the identical tie during her flight after killing Homolka, there is negligible emotional impact.
When the bomb-maker's wife urges her husband to retrieve the birdcage from Homolka, we are left to ask,"Why???" What is so incriminating about a couple of birds in a cage that Homolka gave the boy? So, she shoves him out the door of their shop with his hat, coat and umbrella. No bomb. No time to make one. Does he just keep 'em lying around ready-made "just in case???" No bomb when he hails the cab. No bomb in the cab. No bomb when he goes up to Homolka's apartment. But - PRESTO, bomb! when he locks himself in the apartment and threatens the detectives banging on the door!
Then after the bomb goes off, the detective in charge just tells Sydney she is free to go. The good inspector knows enough to absolve the wife of a terrorist without any investigation! In fact it is NOT apparent to anybody in the film - ONLY to us the audience - that Sydney is innocent! Unless you assume some uncorroborated statements she has provided the investigator - which the audience didn't hear!
This is just a sampling of the holes in this movie that are so big and so numerous and so glaring that, like Andre de Toth, I am compelled to conclude that Hitchcock was a very sloppy and lazy filmmaker. Could Hitch have imparted missing information to both the audience and the characters in the film? You bet, easily! Could he have imparted it in scenes that were more credible in a supposed spy-story? Absolutely! Could he have created characters who didn't have to be dumb or defy professional standards in Scotland Yard to advance this story. DUH! One commentator characterized this story as "tightly written." He must have gotten this film confused with some other movie. This movie absolutely fails to hang together at all. ALL of Hitchcock's British films are vastly superior to this piece of swiss cheese.
I chuckled at this movie - just not at the parts that were intended to be funny. Mostly I just scratched my head. How could this mess have been directed by one of cinema's greatest?
[end quote]
Although I found the sharpness of the above observations delightful, I do not have as negative an opinion of Sabotage as this person. In particular, the main character is not without a certain fascinating repellence, especially as rendered by Homolka; the most shockingly outrageous scene is probably when, after having caused his wife's brother's death, he suggests they should have a child of their own. But it is true that overall this is not a successful film.
Rating: 37 (up from 35)
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Marie Antoinette (1938)
Second viewing; first seen on May 21, 1992.
Fictional biography of the Austrian-born wife of Louis XVI of France.
Despite showing some respect (but not enough of it) for the victims of the Revolution, and depicting its perpetrators with acceptable accuracy, the screenplay is otherwise not very good, its weakest point being perhaps an ill-conceived love affair between the titular character and a Swedish nobleman. Overall, I found the film vaguely amusing, more watchable than it appeared to me when I first saw it (I was anti-monarchy then, I think).
Rating: 38 (up from 30)
Fictional biography of the Austrian-born wife of Louis XVI of France.
Despite showing some respect (but not enough of it) for the victims of the Revolution, and depicting its perpetrators with acceptable accuracy, the screenplay is otherwise not very good, its weakest point being perhaps an ill-conceived love affair between the titular character and a Swedish nobleman. Overall, I found the film vaguely amusing, more watchable than it appeared to me when I first saw it (I was anti-monarchy then, I think).
Rating: 38 (up from 30)
Je t'aime je t'aime (1968)
Second viewing; first seen on November 22, 2005
Title's literal translation: I Love You I Love You
A failed suicide agrees to be the subject in an experiment involving time travel. He is expected to go back one year, during one minute, but there are complications and he gets trapped in a succession of snippets of his past. The main focus is his relationship with a depressed woman, for whose death he feels somewhat responsible.
As any art form gets older, the tendency to self-reference is inevitable. You see, film is by itself a time machine; what we see here is an allegory of cinema, and of the modern ability to watch films repeatedly (like I just did). The kind of play with repetition in which this film engages is somewhat derivative from works such as the novel The Invention of Morel, by Adolfo Bioy Casares, and previous films from I Love You I Love You's director, especially Last Year in Marienbad, by Alain Robbe-Grillet. While not as bad as I first thought, I again failed to see what the big deal is with this film. Call me a conservative, but the formal apparatus was distracting and mostly perfunctory; a more direct exposition would perhaps have resulted in a better film, yet, alas, still not good enough, whence the need to worsen it so it could seem better to the impressionable ones. Anyway, it is curious as a sign of the times, and in the plotline too, with characters that reflect the post-modern age in its beginnings; and they surely hit a bull's eye with the casting of the female lead, judging from her biography.
Rating: 31 (up from 18)
Title's literal translation: I Love You I Love You
A failed suicide agrees to be the subject in an experiment involving time travel. He is expected to go back one year, during one minute, but there are complications and he gets trapped in a succession of snippets of his past. The main focus is his relationship with a depressed woman, for whose death he feels somewhat responsible.
As any art form gets older, the tendency to self-reference is inevitable. You see, film is by itself a time machine; what we see here is an allegory of cinema, and of the modern ability to watch films repeatedly (like I just did). The kind of play with repetition in which this film engages is somewhat derivative from works such as the novel The Invention of Morel, by Adolfo Bioy Casares, and previous films from I Love You I Love You's director, especially Last Year in Marienbad, by Alain Robbe-Grillet. While not as bad as I first thought, I again failed to see what the big deal is with this film. Call me a conservative, but the formal apparatus was distracting and mostly perfunctory; a more direct exposition would perhaps have resulted in a better film, yet, alas, still not good enough, whence the need to worsen it so it could seem better to the impressionable ones. Anyway, it is curious as a sign of the times, and in the plotline too, with characters that reflect the post-modern age in its beginnings; and they surely hit a bull's eye with the casting of the female lead, judging from her biography.
Rating: 31 (up from 18)
Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Farmer's Daughter (1947)
Second viewing; first seen on January 4, 1994.
The titular character leaves her parents' farm for nursing school in Capital City (I am guessing this is Washington, D.C.). She loses her money and thus has to work as a maid for a rich politician. She is very opinionated and makes an impression.
Liberal ideas aren't always aligned with populist ones. In fact, I suspect they are really on opposite ends of the political spectrum, most of the time. However, when it comes to selling liberal ideas, they must be coated with a populist veneer. See, for instance, how billionaires are trying to get Immigration Amnesty passed in the U.S.A. by appealing to humanitarian instincts and the like. The Farmer's Daughter is a good example of those tactics. It is based on a play by an Estonian-born Finnish authoress who was a spy for the Soviet Union (need I say more?). As for the screenwriters who adapted it, I do not know much about their political leanings, but could make an educated guess. Anyway, the movie's first half is about minimum wages and milk for schoolchildren, and then it becomes something about the Ku Klux Klan, of which the villain, a politician, is a high-ranking official. As a piece of political mythology this film is at least curious, and it works passably as a comedy (it has a very well-made brawling-and-mayhem sequence near the end). Also curious is that the female lead won an Oscar for it, and was a life-long Republican.
Rating: 43 (up from 30)
The titular character leaves her parents' farm for nursing school in Capital City (I am guessing this is Washington, D.C.). She loses her money and thus has to work as a maid for a rich politician. She is very opinionated and makes an impression.
Liberal ideas aren't always aligned with populist ones. In fact, I suspect they are really on opposite ends of the political spectrum, most of the time. However, when it comes to selling liberal ideas, they must be coated with a populist veneer. See, for instance, how billionaires are trying to get Immigration Amnesty passed in the U.S.A. by appealing to humanitarian instincts and the like. The Farmer's Daughter is a good example of those tactics. It is based on a play by an Estonian-born Finnish authoress who was a spy for the Soviet Union (need I say more?). As for the screenwriters who adapted it, I do not know much about their political leanings, but could make an educated guess. Anyway, the movie's first half is about minimum wages and milk for schoolchildren, and then it becomes something about the Ku Klux Klan, of which the villain, a politician, is a high-ranking official. As a piece of political mythology this film is at least curious, and it works passably as a comedy (it has a very well-made brawling-and-mayhem sequence near the end). Also curious is that the female lead won an Oscar for it, and was a life-long Republican.
Rating: 43 (up from 30)
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Caged (1950)
Second viewing; first seen on December 15, 1990.
Marie is sent to prison for being an accessory to armed robbery (committed by her husband, who died). Inside she will get in touch with a world of corruption, humiliation, and suffering.
An excellent movie where practically every scene has become a template for the imagination of the prison world, every frame a cultural icon. The film has some possible imperfections derived perhaps from a supposed liberal agenda of denunciation of the penal system. This is a screenplay problem which pales in face of the film's artistic strength, but let's get down to it anyway. One example of a detail which I found puzzling: when Marie tells the prison interviewer she and her husband tried to rob a convenience store and were about to steal forty dollars, the interviewer tells her that "Five bucks less, and it wouldn't be a felony". It seems to me that the screenwriter was trying to convey the idea that her punishment was too harsh for such a small amount, and how arbitrary the sentences are. Well, I can't help wondering if this has any base in reality; I mean, does the criminal categorization and the sentence really depend on how much is available in the cash register at the moment? Doesn't pointing a gun at the store clerk count as a felony by itself? Anyway, these are just doubts of a man with little or no knowledge of the law. The reception of this film is also a factor of puzzlement. In the reviews I read, Marie is invariably described as an innocent person when she enters the prison, and yet, when asked if that was the first and only time when she accompanied her husband in a crime, she answers: "I don't want to talk about it, please." And the fact that she is emotionally fragile does not imply that she is morally irreprehensible. The way she progressively hardens herself is interesting and may be seen as the thematic center of the movie. In that regard, prison may be seen as a liberating experience for her. A variation of that theme is found in Pickpocket, where mere imprisonment has an immediate releasing effect on the protagonist.
Rating: 72 (up from 69)
Marie is sent to prison for being an accessory to armed robbery (committed by her husband, who died). Inside she will get in touch with a world of corruption, humiliation, and suffering.
An excellent movie where practically every scene has become a template for the imagination of the prison world, every frame a cultural icon. The film has some possible imperfections derived perhaps from a supposed liberal agenda of denunciation of the penal system. This is a screenplay problem which pales in face of the film's artistic strength, but let's get down to it anyway. One example of a detail which I found puzzling: when Marie tells the prison interviewer she and her husband tried to rob a convenience store and were about to steal forty dollars, the interviewer tells her that "Five bucks less, and it wouldn't be a felony". It seems to me that the screenwriter was trying to convey the idea that her punishment was too harsh for such a small amount, and how arbitrary the sentences are. Well, I can't help wondering if this has any base in reality; I mean, does the criminal categorization and the sentence really depend on how much is available in the cash register at the moment? Doesn't pointing a gun at the store clerk count as a felony by itself? Anyway, these are just doubts of a man with little or no knowledge of the law. The reception of this film is also a factor of puzzlement. In the reviews I read, Marie is invariably described as an innocent person when she enters the prison, and yet, when asked if that was the first and only time when she accompanied her husband in a crime, she answers: "I don't want to talk about it, please." And the fact that she is emotionally fragile does not imply that she is morally irreprehensible. The way she progressively hardens herself is interesting and may be seen as the thematic center of the movie. In that regard, prison may be seen as a liberating experience for her. A variation of that theme is found in Pickpocket, where mere imprisonment has an immediate releasing effect on the protagonist.
Rating: 72 (up from 69)
Monday, September 15, 2014
Pat and Mike (1952)
Second viewing; first seen on January 18, 1990.
A Physical Education teacher decides to get away from her boyfriend for a while, and try her luck as a sportswoman (in golf and tennis). She finds she has a better chemistry with her agent (who is also her coach) than she had with her boyfriend.
A comedy about the effect of being watched on the watched person, a topic which has been acquiring increasing relevance in our world of today. The film seems to imply that overt 24-hour monitoring and control is liberating (because it is caring) for the one being watched, but may have a subjugating effect on the watcher. On the other hand, a casual look, smile and remark may have an insidious effect on the object, perhaps because ambiguity is more menacing than certainty. There is a subtheme of beating oneself over beating your adversary, which I am not sure is properly developed. Some of the film's comicity is derived from the somewhat ridiculous outer aspects of golfing, which the non-initiated will probably "get" better than followers of that sport. The film seems also to be a satire of both the upper and lower classes, somehow implying that when they mingle it is good for both. The intrinsic dullness of tennis is masterfully upended in a hilariously delirious sequence which sums up much of the film. Overall, this film is consistently entertaining, with a nice flow and a well thought-out progression towards the untying of its plot's knots.
Rating: 72 (up from 69)
A Physical Education teacher decides to get away from her boyfriend for a while, and try her luck as a sportswoman (in golf and tennis). She finds she has a better chemistry with her agent (who is also her coach) than she had with her boyfriend.
A comedy about the effect of being watched on the watched person, a topic which has been acquiring increasing relevance in our world of today. The film seems to imply that overt 24-hour monitoring and control is liberating (because it is caring) for the one being watched, but may have a subjugating effect on the watcher. On the other hand, a casual look, smile and remark may have an insidious effect on the object, perhaps because ambiguity is more menacing than certainty. There is a subtheme of beating oneself over beating your adversary, which I am not sure is properly developed. Some of the film's comicity is derived from the somewhat ridiculous outer aspects of golfing, which the non-initiated will probably "get" better than followers of that sport. The film seems also to be a satire of both the upper and lower classes, somehow implying that when they mingle it is good for both. The intrinsic dullness of tennis is masterfully upended in a hilariously delirious sequence which sums up much of the film. Overall, this film is consistently entertaining, with a nice flow and a well thought-out progression towards the untying of its plot's knots.
Rating: 72 (up from 69)
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Gentleman Jim (1942)
Second viewing; first seen on February 4, 1990.
A fiction incorporating some biographical elements -- and the name -- of real prizefighter Jim Corbett, one of the first boxers who, in the late 19th century, fought by the Queensberry rules.
I have been reading about transgenic organisms, and, while thinking on something to write about this movie, realized that biopics, old Hollywood ones anyway, are a lot like them, or, if you prefer a more literary reference, like those creatures created by H. G. Wells' Dr. Moreau. In this case, the monster could be named Flynnbett or Corlynn. Of course films vary in how much of the subject's personality is brought to the screen; in this case, I doubt there is anything other than some superficial data (he lived in such time, fought such and such guys, had such boxing style, etc.). Be that as it may, as a generic picture of the beginnings of boxing, this is very convincing and exciting; as a vehicle for the flamboyant leading man, it is also highly satisfactory. The love interest appears to be fictionalized, and is consistent with the ideas the film is trying to convey about class mobility, self-confidence, and so on; the name 'Victoria Ware' is very funny, whether intended as a joke or not.
Rating: 77 (up from 70)
A fiction incorporating some biographical elements -- and the name -- of real prizefighter Jim Corbett, one of the first boxers who, in the late 19th century, fought by the Queensberry rules.
I have been reading about transgenic organisms, and, while thinking on something to write about this movie, realized that biopics, old Hollywood ones anyway, are a lot like them, or, if you prefer a more literary reference, like those creatures created by H. G. Wells' Dr. Moreau. In this case, the monster could be named Flynnbett or Corlynn. Of course films vary in how much of the subject's personality is brought to the screen; in this case, I doubt there is anything other than some superficial data (he lived in such time, fought such and such guys, had such boxing style, etc.). Be that as it may, as a generic picture of the beginnings of boxing, this is very convincing and exciting; as a vehicle for the flamboyant leading man, it is also highly satisfactory. The love interest appears to be fictionalized, and is consistent with the ideas the film is trying to convey about class mobility, self-confidence, and so on; the name 'Victoria Ware' is very funny, whether intended as a joke or not.
Rating: 77 (up from 70)
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Big Jake (1971)
A ranch is raided by a gang, who kidnap the owner's eight-year-old grandson after killing and injuring several people. The woman who owns the ranch decides to summon her estranged husband, who has been away for several years, to lead the rescue team.
Routine Western, with some curious touches, fine cinematography, and acceptable action sequences. The curious touches are mostly related to it being set at a later date than usual for the genre, in 1909, which allows for the presence of motor vehicles in it.
Rating: 40
Routine Western, with some curious touches, fine cinematography, and acceptable action sequences. The curious touches are mostly related to it being set at a later date than usual for the genre, in 1909, which allows for the presence of motor vehicles in it.
Rating: 40
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Madhouse (2004)
A new intern at a psychiatric institution is intrigued by several strange occurrences, and by some stories about the place.
There are similarities with Shutter Island. Neither is of any interest.
Rating: 11
There are similarities with Shutter Island. Neither is of any interest.
Rating: 11
What Price Glory (1952)
Based on the play by Maxwell Anderson, first performed in 1924.
During World War I, a Marine outfit is stationed in France. The Captain who commands the outfit has a rivalry with the top sergeant over the love of the innkeeper's daughter. When she talks about marriage, however...
The gorgeous Technicolor cinematography is the highlight of this otherwise mediocre sentimental comedy. What, a sentimental comedy about World War I? You bet! I guess if one is the sentimental type, it does not really matter what one is sentimental about.
Rating: 39
During World War I, a Marine outfit is stationed in France. The Captain who commands the outfit has a rivalry with the top sergeant over the love of the innkeeper's daughter. When she talks about marriage, however...
The gorgeous Technicolor cinematography is the highlight of this otherwise mediocre sentimental comedy. What, a sentimental comedy about World War I? You bet! I guess if one is the sentimental type, it does not really matter what one is sentimental about.
Rating: 39
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Sundown (1941)
Second viewing; first seen on February 4, 1989.
During World War II, a British outpost in Kenya gets a change in command with the arrival of a strict British officer. He brings bad news about natives getting guns from the Nazis, and an upcoming riot. The arrival of a beautiful woman who owns a trading chain adds to the complexity of situation. To complete the picture, there are three other characters, the outpost's Italian cook and two new arrivals: a mineralogist and a white hunter.
This film is an example of Hollywood fighting World War II before the U.S.A. entered it. Colonialism is also a factor, and the conjugation of European self-interest and African improvement provides the theoretical thrust; the central idea is, on the geopolitical angle, that the Axis is concentrating on land movements, and their success will render the Allies' control of the oceans "useless". On the African human angle, the notion they come up with is that the black man is like a plant that, properly watered, will bloom. The subtheme of Trust, which I discussed recently in my review of Saboteur, appears here too, in very similar terms: here too, "instinct" is a better guide than institutions. I guess this was a recurring dramatic motif. The film chooses to solve its particular political conundrums by revoking the separation of Church and State, in a touching dying speech. I will upgrade my rating a few points because, on one hand, I understand the dialogue better this time, and, on the other, because there are some visually arresting scenes (it was filmed in New Mexico).
Rating: 33 (up from 30)
During World War II, a British outpost in Kenya gets a change in command with the arrival of a strict British officer. He brings bad news about natives getting guns from the Nazis, and an upcoming riot. The arrival of a beautiful woman who owns a trading chain adds to the complexity of situation. To complete the picture, there are three other characters, the outpost's Italian cook and two new arrivals: a mineralogist and a white hunter.
This film is an example of Hollywood fighting World War II before the U.S.A. entered it. Colonialism is also a factor, and the conjugation of European self-interest and African improvement provides the theoretical thrust; the central idea is, on the geopolitical angle, that the Axis is concentrating on land movements, and their success will render the Allies' control of the oceans "useless". On the African human angle, the notion they come up with is that the black man is like a plant that, properly watered, will bloom. The subtheme of Trust, which I discussed recently in my review of Saboteur, appears here too, in very similar terms: here too, "instinct" is a better guide than institutions. I guess this was a recurring dramatic motif. The film chooses to solve its particular political conundrums by revoking the separation of Church and State, in a touching dying speech. I will upgrade my rating a few points because, on one hand, I understand the dialogue better this time, and, on the other, because there are some visually arresting scenes (it was filmed in New Mexico).
Rating: 33 (up from 30)
Monday, September 08, 2014
The Ten Commandments (1956)
Second viewing; first seen on an unremembered date, before 1983.
Moses is a Hebrew man who was abandoned as an infant and was raised as a son by the Pharaoh's daughter. He becomes the following Pharaoh's favorite, arousing his brother's jealousy. His destiny, however, lies with his co-ethnics, whom he endeavors to free from captivity and into a new land.
Visually beautiful and expressive rendering of the ancient Biblical story. Drama-wise, however, it is unsatisfactory, due to all sorts of anachronistic concessions to liberal ideas, erotic appeal, and other melodramatic distortions.
Rating: 51 (down from 56)
Moses is a Hebrew man who was abandoned as an infant and was raised as a son by the Pharaoh's daughter. He becomes the following Pharaoh's favorite, arousing his brother's jealousy. His destiny, however, lies with his co-ethnics, whom he endeavors to free from captivity and into a new land.
Visually beautiful and expressive rendering of the ancient Biblical story. Drama-wise, however, it is unsatisfactory, due to all sorts of anachronistic concessions to liberal ideas, erotic appeal, and other melodramatic distortions.
Rating: 51 (down from 56)
Saboteur (1942)
Second viewing; first seen on February 5, 1989.
During World War II, a man is wrongfully accused of sabotage of a aeroplane factory. While hiding from the police, he tries to locate the real culprit and in the process uncovers a sabotage ring.
Entertaining thriller. Much of it is propaganda, but ultimately it sends the wrong message by implying that one should trust a suspect of sabotage just because one's "instinct" says he's innocent. Of course the correct message would be to simply hand matters over to the police. Perhaps the film reflects a mistrust of that institution at that time, or maybe they were only thinking on how to give some length to the plot. The film's patriotic speeches are mostly quite awkward or downright hilarious, such as when the opposing sides of the War are identified as, respectively, Love and Hate. Despite being marred by its simplistic politics, Saboteur does not do badly overall, and I had a fairly good time watching it. Taken as a cinematic dream, it is just an expression of subjectivity and thus obeys its logic, which is one of desire, fear, etc. As is sometimes the case with films, Saboteur's frequent incursions into absurdity are perhaps part of its oneiric charm.
Rating: 55 (up from 49)
During World War II, a man is wrongfully accused of sabotage of a aeroplane factory. While hiding from the police, he tries to locate the real culprit and in the process uncovers a sabotage ring.
Entertaining thriller. Much of it is propaganda, but ultimately it sends the wrong message by implying that one should trust a suspect of sabotage just because one's "instinct" says he's innocent. Of course the correct message would be to simply hand matters over to the police. Perhaps the film reflects a mistrust of that institution at that time, or maybe they were only thinking on how to give some length to the plot. The film's patriotic speeches are mostly quite awkward or downright hilarious, such as when the opposing sides of the War are identified as, respectively, Love and Hate. Despite being marred by its simplistic politics, Saboteur does not do badly overall, and I had a fairly good time watching it. Taken as a cinematic dream, it is just an expression of subjectivity and thus obeys its logic, which is one of desire, fear, etc. As is sometimes the case with films, Saboteur's frequent incursions into absurdity are perhaps part of its oneiric charm.
Rating: 55 (up from 49)
Sunday, September 07, 2014
The Egg and I (1947)
Second viewing; first seen on February 6, 1989.
A newlywed couple move to their recently bought rural property. The husband wants to set up a chicken farm. The place needs a lot of work. The city wife is not used to farm life. The neighborhood is full of odd types.
Most of it is rather tedious; some of it is mildly enjoyable.
Rating: 34 (up from 30)
A newlywed couple move to their recently bought rural property. The husband wants to set up a chicken farm. The place needs a lot of work. The city wife is not used to farm life. The neighborhood is full of odd types.
Most of it is rather tedious; some of it is mildly enjoyable.
Rating: 34 (up from 30)
Saturday, September 06, 2014
Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
Second viewing; first seen on March 3, 1987.
In a society where books have been banned and houses are fireproof, the firemen's job is to find and burn books. One of them begins to question his work.
As a serious tale about a political dystopia, this movie is wrong on so many levels that the task of analyzing it is simply senseless. Suffice it to quote IMDB user reviewer Theo Robertson on perhaps its most basic assault on reason:
[begin quote]
A society where books are banned ! It's not a fantasy . Consider the likes of Nazi Germany , Stalin's Russia , Mao's China etc , but the flaw with FAHRENHEIT 451 lies in the idea that not certain books are banned but ALL books are banned . Think about that for a moment then ask yourself this question : How would a society be able to function under this law ? We're shown schools still exist but how do pupils learn without being able to read text , and if people can not read text then how will they be able to write ? It seems impossible that a society would still be able to function without books
[end quote]
As an absurdist comedy, on the other hand, it is not bad. Not having read the novel, I can only assume it was written (in the early 50s) as a kind of resentful apocalyptic rant against television by someone who took it upon himself to be the spokesman for the supposedly moribund class of fiction writers (even though he makes all class of books the victims of this fictitious law). I note also that the movie uses what is called a "straw man argument" in rhetoric: you take an obviously bad deed and condemn it energetically, thereby reviling the one whom you accused of that deed, in this case an authoritarian government. As a consequence, all authoritarian governments are now seen in a bad light, even though most of them would never do such a thing in the real world.
Rating: 51 (up from 37)
In a society where books have been banned and houses are fireproof, the firemen's job is to find and burn books. One of them begins to question his work.
As a serious tale about a political dystopia, this movie is wrong on so many levels that the task of analyzing it is simply senseless. Suffice it to quote IMDB user reviewer Theo Robertson on perhaps its most basic assault on reason:
[begin quote]
A society where books are banned ! It's not a fantasy . Consider the likes of Nazi Germany , Stalin's Russia , Mao's China etc , but the flaw with FAHRENHEIT 451 lies in the idea that not certain books are banned but ALL books are banned . Think about that for a moment then ask yourself this question : How would a society be able to function under this law ? We're shown schools still exist but how do pupils learn without being able to read text , and if people can not read text then how will they be able to write ? It seems impossible that a society would still be able to function without books
[end quote]
As an absurdist comedy, on the other hand, it is not bad. Not having read the novel, I can only assume it was written (in the early 50s) as a kind of resentful apocalyptic rant against television by someone who took it upon himself to be the spokesman for the supposedly moribund class of fiction writers (even though he makes all class of books the victims of this fictitious law). I note also that the movie uses what is called a "straw man argument" in rhetoric: you take an obviously bad deed and condemn it energetically, thereby reviling the one whom you accused of that deed, in this case an authoritarian government. As a consequence, all authoritarian governments are now seen in a bad light, even though most of them would never do such a thing in the real world.
Rating: 51 (up from 37)
Friday, September 05, 2014
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Second viewing; first seen between 1983 and 1986.
A man is vacationing in Morocco with his wife and nine-year-old son. They are befriended by a man on a bus, and get dragged into a political conspiracy.
Moderately entertaining thriller. It is very implausible, but the best sequence is probably the most implausible of all (it involves a church bell). It is not exactly suspenseful, although it supposedly intends to be; the sequence at the concert hall is rather awkward: you get to hear good music while you wait, and that is all. The featured song is puzzlingly out of place in a film like this: if "what will be, will be", why should I care what happens next?
Rating: 53 (down from 58)
A man is vacationing in Morocco with his wife and nine-year-old son. They are befriended by a man on a bus, and get dragged into a political conspiracy.
Moderately entertaining thriller. It is very implausible, but the best sequence is probably the most implausible of all (it involves a church bell). It is not exactly suspenseful, although it supposedly intends to be; the sequence at the concert hall is rather awkward: you get to hear good music while you wait, and that is all. The featured song is puzzlingly out of place in a film like this: if "what will be, will be", why should I care what happens next?
Rating: 53 (down from 58)
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
The Decks Ran Red (1958)
The chief mechanic at a ship concocts a murderous plan to get rich. He has a faithful accomplice and a recalcitrant one. The new captain knows there's something fishy going on, but at first has no clue about who's pulling the strings. To complicate things further, the new cook comes aboard with his sexy wife.
Cheap thriller shot at a real ship, allegedly based on a 1905 incident about which nobody seems to know anything (perhaps this is a joke with the Potemkin revolt). The film is moderately enjoyable and well-made, although the plot is not very plausible.
Saw it dubbed in Portuguese.
Rating: 51
Cheap thriller shot at a real ship, allegedly based on a 1905 incident about which nobody seems to know anything (perhaps this is a joke with the Potemkin revolt). The film is moderately enjoyable and well-made, although the plot is not very plausible.
Saw it dubbed in Portuguese.
Rating: 51
Ace in the Hole (1951)
Third viewing; first seen on October 18, 1987, then on April 8, 1994.
A down-and-out journalist gets a job in a small town, in the hopes of finding a story that will enable him to make a comeback in a big newspaper. He thinks he has found such a story when a man gets trapped inside a cave.
New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote a very sensible and down-to-earth review of this movie, stressing the improbability of the journalist's scheme. I would go even further than him in pointing out that the whole mob gathering and media circus has been exaggerated, and is more akin to surrealism than realism. But I also think that movie plots shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value, and sometimes exaggeration and implausibility are valid tools to make a point, as is the case here. In terms of social and political comment, I am under the impression that Ace in the Hole is a necessary complement to Ninotchka, which was written (or co-written, if you prefer) by the same man. While Ninotchka was a critique of communism, Ace in the Hole is a critique of capitalism. As for Crowther's objections, he is right of course that no journalist could pull such a plan through. But the point is that some of them wish they could. And the film has some important insights into the inherent duality of men's actions: a good deed needs the evil which it corrects in order to exist, and it is a natural tendency of people to perpetuate good things (which in turn would call for a perpetuation of bad ones).
Rating: 80 (down from 91)
A down-and-out journalist gets a job in a small town, in the hopes of finding a story that will enable him to make a comeback in a big newspaper. He thinks he has found such a story when a man gets trapped inside a cave.
New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote a very sensible and down-to-earth review of this movie, stressing the improbability of the journalist's scheme. I would go even further than him in pointing out that the whole mob gathering and media circus has been exaggerated, and is more akin to surrealism than realism. But I also think that movie plots shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value, and sometimes exaggeration and implausibility are valid tools to make a point, as is the case here. In terms of social and political comment, I am under the impression that Ace in the Hole is a necessary complement to Ninotchka, which was written (or co-written, if you prefer) by the same man. While Ninotchka was a critique of communism, Ace in the Hole is a critique of capitalism. As for Crowther's objections, he is right of course that no journalist could pull such a plan through. But the point is that some of them wish they could. And the film has some important insights into the inherent duality of men's actions: a good deed needs the evil which it corrects in order to exist, and it is a natural tendency of people to perpetuate good things (which in turn would call for a perpetuation of bad ones).
Rating: 80 (down from 91)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
