 Director: Jack Arnold Writer: Robert M. Fresco and Martin Berkeley; story by Jack Arnold; based on "No Food for Thought" (teleplay, Science Fiction Theatre, May 17, 1955) by Robert M. Fresco Cinematographer: George Robinson Producer: William Alland by Jon Cvack I’m running low on solid 1950s creature features, surprised I hadn’t seen or even heard of this film (or at the very least that it’d be worth checking out). Released alongside such legends from the genre as Them! ('54), The Thing from Another World ('51), Creature of the Black Lagoon ('54), The Blob ('58), Godzilla ('54), The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms ('53), or the tragically underrated Night of the Demon ('57), they captured the fears of a Red Scare, coupled with fears of nuclear fallout, what they really provided was the first modern look at monster movies. The films never contained the high and ultra modern craftsmanship found in more laudable fare from the decade such as Anatomy of a Murder ('59), The Enemy Below ('57), or Touch of Evil ('58), the films weren’t all that far behind; likely constrained by budget more than ingenuity, in which most of the funds either went toward star power, or if they were smart, toward the monsters themselves. What makes Tarantulas outshine much of its competition was abandoning the inevitable difficulty in constructing a monster, instead relying on some type of superimposed creature shadow; shooting what looks like an actual Tarantula and laying it over the film stock, ensuring that the scene’s lighting would justify a silhouetted creature. It opens up in Desert Rock, Arizona where a facially deformed man dies running through the desert, escaping from something or someone. An attractive man and young doctor from the city, Matt Hasting (John Agar) completes the autopsy, discovering that the person died from acromegaly which is a form of excessive growth hormones that can cause deformity over the long term. Yet while it should have taken years, he believes he saw the same man just days before. Dr. Gerald Deemer signs off on the autopsy (Leo G. Carroll) while also conducting his own experiments back at his mansion home located far in the middle of the desert, which we later learn is using growth hormones to create giant versions of rabbits, mice, and of course, a tarantula. His newest assistant is the gorgeous Stephanie Clayton (Mara Corday) who takes a liking to Hasting and slowly unravels Deemer’s plans, soon connecting them to the attacks. 1950s sci-fi films are often divided between the scientists and the army/police, each doubting the other side’s ability to resolve the problem, reflecting a conservative/liberal split. The Thing and It Came from Outer Space ('53) took the scientific point of view, while Them! and Tarantulas took the military’s. Deemer’s intention might have been honorable, but the dangers of science led to the creation of the monster and the police are aware of that fact. It’s only when they call in the air force that the creature can be destroyed, as fighter jets dump their entire stock of napalm and burn the thing to a crisp, with Hasting and Deering having close to no role in the resolution, serving as a rare conservative voice in a genre that seems increasingly determined to utilize allegory rather than demonstrate a terrifying view of the world that has no explanation. Both can be effective. Tarantulas is a great creature feature, able to stand with all the rest of them, and yet a film I’ve heard very little about. BELOW: A brilliant use of lighting to pull of a simple effect. The same technique today, updated correctly, could achieve some cool stuff Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 The most disproportionate ratio of how cool the movie looks:how bad the movie is Director: Henry Hathaway Writer: Nunnally Johnson; based on Rommel: The Desert Fox by Desmond Young Producer: Nunnally Johnson Cinematographer: Norbert Brodine by Jon Cvack This year I’ve noticed myself coming across James Mason films more and more, starting with A Star is Born (1958), then to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), then to Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959), and now to The Desert Fox. I had first heard of the film when I was assembling a list of great WWII films, and figured this sounded pretty good. Although the comparisons are clear, James Mason would never achieve the fame of Cary Grant, and his body of work reflects such; in that he with the exception of Lolita (1955) and North by Northwest (1959), he hasn’t really been in all that many classic popular films. The story involves a first address by Lt.-Colonel Desmond Young, who plays himself, describing how he’s going to try and understand the man who was Rommel, who served as one of the more foremost threats to civilization. We flashback to North Africa circa 1942, where Rommel fails to counter Montgomery’s attack and was forced to retreat, leaving Rommel less certain of Nazi Germany’s future. Back home, he’s approached by an old friend , Dr. Karl Strölin (Cedric Hardwicke), who asks Rommel if he wants to join their anti-Hitler group. Rommel refuses and is later assigned to the Atlantic Wall, where Operation D-Day shortly follows. Rommel implores Hitler to reinforce certain positions, which Hitler denies, leaving the despondent Rommel to then join the anti-Hitler group. We then get to see the Valkyrie July 20, 1944 assassination plot, which fails, leaving Hitler hyper paranoid, soon implicating Rommel. Writing this out and reading this story I first have to say that this is an amazing story that I never knew about and highly recommend checking out. This is a remake waiting to be told, as it examines a complex character torn between loyalty to country versus all mankind. Unfortunately, this film falls far short of catching that. I suppose it’s impressive for even attempting to examine the man, and made only six years after WWII I wonder what the American military would’ve thought of it. Would they despise the man for butchering their brothers, respect his vast military intelligence, or celebrate the secret? One of the biggest problems is that James Mason maintains his British accent, along with most of the Nazi soldiers. While it left wondering when exactly the movies decided to add the accent, I just couldn’t believe the world because of it. Would it be more offensive for Rommel to have someone attempt his accent, or have Mason preserve his own? I would take the accent as I was immediately pulled out of the film every time he spoke. There’s also a scene with Hitler, which while interesting for historical purposes (this was one of the first dramatic Hitler performances), was way too goofy to work. It was another film that used actual war footage to intercut the timelines, and while it was kind of justified given Young’s narration, it made the narrative scenes look cheap as a result. I’ve got a few more decent James Mason films to get to and I’m excited to see what else the man can do, but it all reminds me of his connection to A Star is Born; a man who was at the top and fell. In some ways Rommel shows the same trajectory, as though anticipating where Mason would head. BELOW: One of - if not the first - dramatic portrayal of Hitler, which somehow feels comedic and shallow Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  In terms of cinematic history, an underrated performance from Welles Director: Richard Fleischer Writer: Richard Murphy; Based on Compulsion by Meyer Levin Cinematography: William C. Mellor Producer: Richard D. Zanuck by Jon Cvack Last time I saw Rope we were a few weeks out from entering into production for Road to the Well, which gets better with every viewing and left me all the more inspired to work on our film's blocking. For a few days, our DP Tim convinced me to name the RttW’s production company Leopold and Loebe, until our producer made us realize that having a company named after two psychotic murderers wasn’t the smartest a move. The more I read about the crime, the eerier they became; committed by two Northwestern Law students, taking the ideas of Nietzsche and his thoughts on the übermensch in order to try and commit the perfect murder. I went to school directly beneath Evanston, in Rogers Park and there’s something especially chilling about the cold Chicago weather and frozen Lake Michigan that paints a creepy portrait. I had no idea that there was a crime drama about the actual Leopold and Loebe, let alone one that stars Orson Welles. So on it went. First off, like El Dorado for a B&W crime film, this is a brilliant transfer, showing off every wrinkle beneath Orson’s scolding eyes, shot by William C. Miller, who didn’t really do much else beyond The Greatest Show on Earth; as neither did director Richard Fleischer (who did such films as Soylent Green and The Jazz Singer remake with Neil Diamond, and portions of Tora! Tora! Tora! a few years before that). The forces formed a near perfect story, examining the two students as they plan, execute, and fess up to a murder. I was especially excited to see how they dealt with the gay undertones that have been reported in the story. The film finds the perfect balance between suggestion and subtly. Friends Judd Steiner (Dean Stockwell) and Artie Strauss (Bradford Dillman) are two law students with genius IQs, who believe they could use their supreme intellect to commit the perfect murder. Artie professes his knowledge of Nietzsche and his ideas that moral subjectivity, based upon the individual, and uses the logic for evil. I wrote my philosophy thesis back in college on this exact idea, working with my professor Tom Carson to explain the few conditions necessary to make Nietzsche’s ideas work. One of the most significant qualities was that the individual needed to be “psychologically healthy” (with the arbiter of “healthy” reserved for a different paper). Point being that Artie was immediately misinterpreting the message, twisting it to include cold blooded murder. The story proceeds into a cat and mouse game, with Artie caught in a love triangle between Ruth Evans (Diane Varsi) and her current boyfriend and fellow law student Sid Brooks (Martin Milner), who got a job at the Chicago Globe, investigating the body that Artie and Judd killed off, discovering Artie’s pair of glasses that he left there. The police take whiff, and in a brilliant scene involving the detectives asking Artie to demonstrate how he would have lost his glasses, they eventually book the two, bringing in the best part of the movie - Mr. Orson Welles. Part of me thinks that Orson Welles only signed onto this movie in order to complete the last scene’s monologue, as he doesn’t appear until over halfway through, and while commanding each and every moment from there on out, it’s the final monologue where he argues for the boy’s to be spared the death penalty that he really shines. The role is brilliantly complex, in that on the one hand Jonathan Wilk (Welles) is an exceptionally well paid attorney and atheist, acting for the prestige, power, and money the case could bring, others might see him acting as a man solely against the death penalty in whatever facet. The only concern I had is with the abrupt conclusion. I’m aware that there wasn’t more to see or experience. The boys were going to be killed and that was that. It’s this fact that makes me all the more appreciative of what Hitchcock did with his version. He seemed to understand that there wasn’t much drama come the conclusion of Leopold and Loebe, instead focusing on the smaller moments, condensing the story and creating something equally terrifying. Compulsion’s a great film. I’d love to see it on the big screen, but it’s more about the performances and photography than the story. Definitely worth checking out. BELOW: How I've never heard of this scene, let alone the film, is beyond me Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  One of Bergman's better roles Director: Mark Robson Writer: Isobel Lennart; based onThe Small Woman by Alan Burgess Cinematographer: Freddie Young Producer: Buddy Adler by Jon Cvack This is one of the earlier versions of the white-person-goes-to-war-torn- foreign-country-and-saves-the-people-of-color I’ve ever seen (i.e., Dangerous Minds, Seven Years in Tibet, The Last Samurai, etc), featuring Ingrid Bergman as Aylward, a impecunious and real life Swedish missionary who’s determined to get to China in order to help the poor and spread the Christian word. She boards the Train-Siberian railway and heads to Yang Cheng, where she meets fellow missionary Jeannie Lawson (Athene Seyler) who begins working at an old Inn - newly named The Sixth Inn of Happiness - where in exchange for a meal, patrons will get Biblical stories and a free copy of the book. Soon Jeannie dies, leaving Aylward in charge of the place. The town is controlled by a type of mayor (I’d like to know the proper noun for this position), who provides us with our second white person, Lin (Curt Jürgens) - white in the sense that it’s a very white British actor playing a half white/half Chinese man in a way that leaves me wondering just how many other white men dressed up like Chinese people, as Mickey Rooney would go on to do the same thing just a few years later in 1961’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Alec Guinness would do in A Passage to India (1984). Jürgens’ comes to complete with a grating high pitched squeaky voice that makes his character almost as annoying as it offensive. And still there’s a third half white/half Mandarin man called "The Mandarin", also played by a white actor (Robert Donat). Not to go too far into the politics, but it really leaves you wondering whether it was that no one thought to cast an actual Chinese person, or that the studios forbid the possibility due to some racist policy, as regardless of which, it’s so glaringly offensive, that each scene was smothered by this fact, preventing me from being fully drawn in. Nevertheless, Gladys Ayward goes onto to complete some incredible work, reforming much of the town and gaining the people’s affection - much to the chagrin of Lin. She gets the town to ban foot binding, cares and educates the town’s children, and ushes in better prison conditions, dedicating her entire life toward helping out others. I recommend checking out Ayward’s wikipedia page, as her story is a pretty cool read. The Japanese soon invade China, during the Second-Sino Japanese War, heading straight for Yang Cheng, forcing the Mandarin to go join the military. During a bombing run, the town is nearly destroyed and Japanese forces just days away. With many of the townspeople gone, Ayward is left in charge of the dozens and dozens of children, leading them through the mountains and back to safety. While Ayward’s life and what she accomplishes is great, the white actors playing Chinamen is distracting. It’s a long film, clocking in a two and a half hours, and while I’m sure at the time it could have been a great movie, I’ve just felt like I’ve seen it so many times before. It’s worth checking out, as Ingrid Bergman’s performance is worth the viewing alone. BELOW: Pretty good final scene (also not finding anything else on the YT) Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  It all starts with a tiara Director: Howard Hawks Writer: Charles Lederer; based on Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1949 musical) by Anita Loos and Joseph Fields Cinematographer: Harry J. Wild Producer: Sol C. Siegel by Jon Cvack It’s been a long time since since I’ve How to Marry a Millionaire (1953), but I really didn’t like the film’s overall message, which is that women should use their charms, looks, and sexuality to find rich and successful men who can lavish them with gifts and launch them into the upper echelons of high society. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is a lighter version of this same philosophy, except with Marilyn Monroe being the sole proprietor of this twisted worldview. Monroe’s iconic look has marketed ad nauseum through places such as Hot Topic, Kohl’s, H&M and other mass chain stores. Given the continued success of all this stuff - ranging from posters to t-shirts to people continuing to dress like her, you can’t help feeling nostalgic for the days when celebrities could take on a such a high place in culture, and maintain it for nearly seventy years. In a time when entertainment extends beyond the big screen, allowing for famous tv stars, video gamers, musicians, reality stars, YouTubers and other social media influencers, I’m not sure anyone could ever hold the same place within culture, as we’re so over saturated with celebrity in all avenues of life, that it seems nearly impossible. The story revolves around two women Lorelei Lee (Monroe) and her dance song and dance partner Dorothy Shaw (Jane Russell) who travel to France for work. Lorelei’s engaged to the extravagantly wealthy man, Gus Esmond (Tommy Noonan), whose father refuses to let him get married, fearing that Lorelei is only interested in his money. Aboard the ship, Lorelei then grows enamored with diamond businessman, Sir Francis Beekman (Charles Coburn), who’s about 75 years old when the filming place, whose wife has a diamond studded tiara worth about $12,000 (about $107k in today’s money). Meanwhile, Dorothy meets and quickly falls in love with Ernie Malone (Elliot Reid), who’s a private detective hired by Gus’s father in order to spy on Lorelei, who later gets caught with Beekman - and while not showing or specifying what they’re doing, there’s heavy suggestion that Lorelei might have slept with Beekman in order to get the tiara, which then leads to the police getting involved, landing the two women in court, with a bunch of musical numbers scattered about. When Michelle Williams portrayed the legend in My Week With Marilyn (2011), we got to see a very confused woman, who struggled with her international stardom and sex appeal. Having seen most of Monroe’s more popular work, I’m increasingly blown away by how lascivious even the simplest seen with her can be. Looking at both this film and what I remember from How to Marry a Millionaire, Marilyn’s character of Lorelei Lee is about as far from a bluestocking as you can get, playing the traditional ditzy blond whose entire worldview revolves around money and diamonds; culminating in their classic “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend” routine. Rather than looking for a partner that can provide a loving and interesting relationship, she focuses on rich and boring men who can provide all she materially desires. In one scene between her square fiance Gus Esmond (Tommy Noonan) and his father who directly accuses Lorelie of gold digging, we’re offered one of the few enlightening philosophies Lorelei possesses, which is that just as a man wants a good looking woman, women want rich men who they know can take care of her (Lorelei must have taken an evolutionary biology course or two). Edmond’s father isn’t really sure what to make of it, finally capitulating and supporting the engagement. The older I get the more I can see why Monroe soared to popularity, with movies such as The Seven Year Itch (1955) demonstrating the weakness of men when confronted with overwhelmly and salacious beauty. Such a character allowed men to live out their lustful fantasies. What I find strangest of all, though, and which seems to be much a more antiquated idea, is the puerile attitude Lorelei possesses. She feigns stupidity and dizziness, showing us how men created female characters back in the day; that women shouldn’t have high minded interests, as it’s better if they’re completely dependent on men, looking to material objects for their entire life’s purpose. I found myself getting frustrated every time Lorelie would put on the tiniest dress she could find and rely overwhelmingly on her sexuality to get what she wanted rather than any form of intellectual trickery. I suppose the point was to foil against Dorothy’s more analytic and thoughtful approach, but it remained just as frustrating, leaving me to turn back to the film Marilyn, which showed that even Monroe-herself had likely grown frustrated as being nothing more than a sex object for most men, with those in power demanding she preserve her whimsical character type all the way up to the end. It makes it all the more tragic to watch a film like this, knowing that its design likely contributed to Monroe’s sense of alienation. In some ways it offers an historical portrait of the woman, and what would soon lead up to her tragic demise. BELOW: Between ostensibly providing sex for money and calling her fiancé "Daddy", it's all very bizarre Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The best I can find of Charles Lang's gorgeous photography Director: John Ford Writer: Written by Nardi Reeder Campion; Screenplay by Edward Hope (not sure of the difference between Campion and Hope); based on Bringing Up the Brass: My 55 Years at West Point by Martin Maher Cinematographer: Charles Lawton Jr. and Charles Lang Producer: Robert Arthur by Jon Cvack In a complete departure from the westerns and/or many John Wayne collaborations typically associated with the star, John Ford turned the camera a bit inward, focusing on the true story of Irish immigrant Marty Maher (Tyrone Power), who arrives at West Point Military Academy to become a cook, immediately enamored with the institution’s commitment to tradition and prestige. The film is strikingly similar to Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939) and therefore, by extension, the film I compared Goodbye, Mr. Chips to, Mr. Holland’s Opus (1995); all three involve the story of one person who gets whisked away by the spirit of education and having an impact on students. I’m not sure if the three films is the minimum for qualifying as a sub-genre, but like its brethren, The Long Gray Line doesn’t have much of a plot beyond following one man’s life throughout his many years, facing the occasional historical event, including both World Wars. The movie starts strong, with the technicolor shining bright, and once again, after seeing El Dorado (1966), it made me wish that I had the high def version, as regardless of the simple story, some of the scenes are absolutely breathtaking, having mostly - if not all - been shot on the actual West Point campus. Maher decides to enlist in the Army in order to get the steady paycheck and better treatment. There’s an awkward class tension between Maher who starts off as a enlisted private, caring for the students who’re half his age and destined to be his superior. I’ve never really understood the strict line between the two positions, but from what I gather in a quick Google search an officer is someone with at least a bachelor’s degree who’s trained to eventually to supervise enlisted men. We explore the campus along with Marty, discovering the duties of an enlisted officer at a prestigious university. There are ideas about honor and code involved, with the young cadets following a strict set of rules and rigid schedules, which upon being a minute late, could result in disciplinary action. Opening, closing, and scattered throughout, we see the students marching over and over and over again, with their legs moving in perfect synchronicity. Although I’ve seen many scenes with marches before, it was between this and a recent half-viewing of A Few Good Men (1992) and its introductory drill platoon, that I began to understand synchronicity as both an exercise and a metaphor. In both marching and drill, any single soldier that messes up makes the entire unit suffer - whether in image or performance, with A Few Good Men exploring this exact topic. In The Long Gray Line, the title says it all. We never get to meet the majority of the men, but we see them marching, and understand that their purpose is as significant as any of the others we get to know more intimately. However, it’s shortly after Marty meets Mary O’Donnell (Maureen O’Hara) and their awkward romance blooms, involving Mary’s refusal to talk to him, resulting in Marty slapping her in the chin, not playfully, but hard, out of frustration, causing me to remember Ford’s prior film The Quiet Man (1952), and John Wayne’s equally abusive relationship that was meant to come across as innocuous. For whatever reason, after this slap, Mary starts talking to him, and thus begins a really annoying relationship where the two are chronically screaming at one another in a way that I suppose was meant to be playful and cute, but became near insufferable by the tail end of the film; that is until Mary’s passing, which again, seems drawn exactly from Goodbye, Mr. Chips (along with the child’s death). The fact that this is a true story makes the similarities all the more strange… As opens the film so closes it, with Marty petitioning the President of the United States to let him remain at the academy in his old age, who I assume is meant to be Eisenhower (who graduated from West Point and was president during this filming), though we never see who it is. The government lets him stay, and so the students put on a grand show for Marty - reminiscent of Mr. Holland’s Opus’ closing scene where his present and former students finally play his composition. In this case the students march for him, in perfect formation, and for some reason Marty begins having hallucinations of Mary and his father standing before his home. It’s a very odd scene, nearly destroying all the emotion as it’s clear that they were inserting shots that simply didn’t match. I’m not sure what the point was here that wasn’t already known or imagined by the audience. The film contains other flaws, chiefly in one of the most bizarre moments when a man who is clearly about 45 years, with a barrage of wrinkles and thinning hair, is confronted by Marty for making some incendiary remarks. Turns out the guy was plaing the youngest governor of New York at the time who was 22 years old. I’m not sure if this was one of Ford’s investors or good buddies or what, but the fact that we’ve spent time with all these soldiers who’re 18 years old, and that this old middle aged man was supposed to be only four years their senior left me rewinding the movie to make sure I heard it right. Even worse, is that some of the cadets who were clearly pushing middle age, such Chuck Dotson (Philip Carey) who was 30 years old at the time production, were meant to play an 18 year. So the old people are meant to be young, and the young are meant to be old and the entire thing really pulls you out of the movie, as so few look the age they are to the point of distraction. Nevertheless, to get a glimpse into the life into this prestigious world was awesome to see, especially with Charles Lang’s incredible technicolor photography. I would love to check it out again, hopefully getting hold of a high def version. While the story often focused far too much on uninterest relationships (I haven’t even mentioned the father for this exact reason), it does contain some fascinating moments about the institution’s tradition of honor and code. BELOW: Not much on YouTube, but here's a bunch of short clips that show how beautiful this movie is Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  One of cinema's best slimy celebrity characters Director: Federico Fellini Writer: Federico Fellini, Tullio Pinelli, and Ennio Flaiano; Story by Michelangelo Antonioni, Federico Fellini, Tullio Pinelli Cinematographer: Arturo Gallea Producer: Luigi Rovere by Jon Cvack With a signature magical realism style that would carry on throughout most of Fellini's major works, it’s no surprise that his first film would contain the same elements. It was the director’s solo feature debut, having co-directed Variety Lights with Alberto Lattuada two years prior, and for a debut, it’s no wonder that Fellini would rocket to the top of world cinema. It’s a lean 86 minute film that cuts straight to the good stuff and doesn’t relent until the very last minute; full of all the memorable characters you’d expect from Fellini - even Giulietta Masina. The story involves newlywed couple Wanda (Brunella Bovo) and Ivan (Leopold Trieste) who arrive in Rome to celebrate their honeymoon. Ivan’s family then comes arrives in town the next day in order to meet the new bride. Ivan is an anxious and high-strung man, clearly out of Wanda’s league and all them more anxious because of it. He likes to keep a tight control on things, planning out each day to the hour. Obsessed with “The White Sheik” soap opera photo story (think a comic book that uses actual photographs), specifically the title character. When The White Sheik arrives in town for the latest production, Wanda convinces Ivan to run her a bath, which she then ditches to go and try and meet her obsession. Her journey is successful, as she’s taken away with the wild and magical production and they head to the beach in order to shoot the story’s latest installment. As Fellini does best, we get to watch as these fascinating characters operate behind the scenes, with their temperaments and colorful personalities creating chaos, shining in each and every moment. Eventually Wanda is able to meet The White Sheik (Alberto Sordi), discovering a towering and lecherous man who’s anxious to seduce his newfound superfan. Soon the two end up alone on a boat, where Wanda gets to see her celebrity crush as the scumbag he really is. She quickly leaves the production, begrimed and embarrassed, attempting to kill herself and ending up in a mental institution. Meanwhile, Ivan does all he can to try and find her, finding a mistakenly suggestive letter to the “White Sheik”, ending up at the police who offer little help. His parents arrive the next day to meet the bride, forcing Ivan to create every excuse in the book in order to prevent embarrassment; made all the worse by his family’s piety and determination to see the pope before they leave. Looking at the trivia, it turns out that Woody Allen’s recent 2012 To Rome With Love stole this exact plot line. The White Sheik is a perfect romantic comedy, offering all you’d want from the master, balancing irreverent humor with great heart. From the leads to the minute supporting roles, each character in White Sheik is memorable, with Leopoldo Trieste stealing the entire show; possessing a magnificent ability to play such a goofy role with such heart, as each new scene punches his personality up just a little bit more than before. It’s a funny and fast film. BELOW: No subtitles, but with Fellini you don't need them Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  In terms of lizards used as dinosaurs, this is one of the better sequences Director: Henry Levin Writer: Charles Brackett and Walter Reisch; based on Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne Cinematographer: Leo Tover Producer: Charles Brackett by Jon Cvack My mother had bought me the four-books-in-one volume of Jules Verne’s classic quad - 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Mysterious Island, Around the World in 80 Days, and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Similar to when I read a four-books-in-one from H.G. Wells, discovering that while the stories overall are appealing to young kids, the reading level can be fairly difficult, and best reserved for much later in life. I had read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea some time in grade school, expecting some type of wild adventure story where a submarine dives deep down into unexplored waters, 20,000 leagues beneath the surface, where terrifying creatures reside and attack them. Instead, similar to what makes Moby Dick so boring, are the, at times, unbearably dense taxonomy and geography passages that drone on for pages upon pages. For aspiring scientists everywhere, I’m sure it’s thrilling. To the lay reader, it’s distracting. Still, considering when the books were published I can appreciate what Vernes’ prescient writings, though I still think the movie is far greater than the book, as it takes out all of the boring parts. However, it was The Mysterious Island that really took me for a loop, allowing Verne’s imagination to soar in impressive and imaginative ways as he creates his Lincoln Island from scratch, walking us precisely through how a group of men would survive on the Island, along with a plot that leaves you unable to put the book down. It was one of the best books I had read in 2016, leaving me excited to take on Journey to the Center of the Earth, as it had to be the best book of the series. While not terrible, and containing some exciting puzzles, again Verne falls victim to his own gross knowledge, leaving us with more geology lessons than we hope for, though still better than 20,000 Leagues. I was excited for the movie version, expecting that like Disney’s 20,000, it would remove most of the boring elements and cut right to the action. Instead, it takes about 45 minutes of not all that exciting exposition until we finally begin the journey. It focuses on geologist Professor Sir Oliver Lindenbrook (James Mason) who’s given a piece of volcanic rock by one of his students. With the help of his assistant Mr Paisley (Ben Wright), they begin running experiments on the mysterious element and discover a plumb bob inside with a mysterious inscription. They soon discover it was made by the Icelandic scientist Arne Saknussemm who allegedly found a passage to the center of the Earth. The two then embark on a mission to Iceland in order to find the passage, joined by Icelander Hans Bejlke (Petur Ronson) and Saknussemm’s widowed wife Carla (Arele Dahl). However, they’re not the only ones who are determined to get to the center of the earth, with a villainous Count Saknassem’s (Ivan Triesault and Arne’s descendant) also making the journey with his band of cronies who will stop at nothing to make the discovery. Even after 45 minutes, it takes quite some time before we end up seeing anything all that interesting. By about halfway through, we see where Spielberg grabbed his inspiration for Indiana Jone’s boulder run. Later they discover a room with overgrown mushrooms that satiates their starving bodies, which quickly leads to discovering the book’s best section - the vast underworld ocean that’s guarded by dinosaur sized reptiles. It was here that that the classic special effects really shine, as they make the lizards they superimposed look fairly real - fitted with stegosaurus-like derma plates. The problem is that Verne’s commitment to staying within the limits of science prohibits the story from ever going to the places that you hope it will go. I’m not rushing to go check out the 2008 remake with Brendon Frasier, but I do think the set pieces could benefit from today’s technology, as the 1957 didn’t seem the best year to create extravagant designs that were dependent on the limits of science. It’s a film that fails to meet the expectations you have for a movie called Journey to the Center of the Earth. BELOW: Hate watching clips of people shooting clips on their tv but at least you can see the dinosaurs Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Charles Laughton seems like one of few who could play a solid Donald Trump Director: David Lean Writer: Harold Brighouse, Wynyard Browne, David Lean, and Norman Spencer Cinematographer: Jack Hildyard Producer: David Lean by Jon Cvack Drifting from Daivd Lean’s usual fair, Hobson’s Choice is neither a romance nor a war film, but instead a type of chamber drama, movie-based-on-a-play, taking place within a boot making shop, owned by the tippling and officious Henry Hobson (Charles Laughton). Each day he barks orders to his three daughters and single employee, before heading off to the public house to get crocked, with Lean immersing the viewer into Hobson’s drunkenness, tripling up the frame and adding a spinning effect to perfectly capture what one too many does. In one brilliant scene, Henry chases the moon that’s reflecting on a bunch of puddles, before finally into a storage container, destroying a bunch of property and being slapped with a hefty lawsuit. Henry refuses to acknowledge that he has any type of drinking problem, worsened by the fact that once fully loaded, he starts deriding his friends with harsh personal attacks. As funny as the performance is at times, David Lean is a master at making us just as quickly feel embarrassed and pity the man. Given that most of his days are spent in bed, recovering from a hangover, before checking in on the books, and heading off to the public house once again, Hobson’s reluctant to marry off his three daughters who control the shop. His best weapon is refusing the dowry that any man would covet in order to marry one of the daughters, leaving them with few options. That is, except for Henry’s eldest Vicky (Prunella Scales), who wishes to open her own boot making shop when an elderly and wealthy patron enters, demanding the cobbler who made her boots; considering them the greatest pair she’s ever owned. She discovers that the artisan is the soft-spoken and passive Willie Missop (John Mills) who works in the shop’s basement. Vicky pursues Willie, much to his discomfiture, using sex as her primary weapon to lure him away from Hobson in order to create her own boot business. Willie and Vicky’s shop proves to be a wild success, with Vicky showing that Henry’s domineering attitude runs deep in the genes. She’s a formidable competitor, and within a year the pair attract most of Henry’s clients. Henry’s drinking eventually catches up to him, leaving him bedridden, to which Vicky and Willie offer a partnership between the stores. After a lengthy and entertaining argument, Henry finally capitulates and they shake on it. Charles Laughton’s performance is genius, with Mills and Scales following just behind, but I’m just not sure what the film was necessarily about. It didn’t seem to take on a meaning or scope the way Lean’s other films have. And while I can look past the lack of scope in that this is very much a film version of a play, the nebulous theme left me kind of disappointed. It felt far more about focused on characters than theme or message. In refusing to let his daughters marry off in order to preserve his drunken lifestyle, Henry seems to embody capitalist vice; to make enough so that you can make others work for you while reaping all the profits and benefits. Henry is entirely oblivious or even careless about his own selfishness that I found myself resenting the man far more than I did at the beginning of the film. Vicky continued this tradition by coveting Willie for his talent and profitability than any type of genuine love. With her complete teetotalism, it left me wondering if she too would one day fall victim to the bottle like Henry; except she seems so hungry for the work and in need of Willie’s abilities that it doesn’t seem likely. It all left me wondering what I’m supposed to take from this beyond a few great performances. BELOW: A nice taste of Laughton Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The Rival Men each furtively tip the bartender to make the other's drink stronger, providing the movie's best scene Director: George Seaton Producer: William Perlberg and George Seaton Writer: Fay Kanin and Michael Kanin Cinematographer: Haskell B. Boggs by Jon Cvack Every time I see Clark Gable in his later films, I’m left wondering how in the world this dude ever pulled off the charming and attractive older man who was able to get beautiful women; with his rugose and pot marked face, his lower mouth which is either missing a tooth or in serious need of some fine orthodontics, or that disgusting mustache. Gable isn’t the phlegmatic or stoic type by the likes of Eastwood or Charles Bronson, so how this haggard man had become one of the most popular Romantic Leads of all time is beyond me. Teacher’s Pet is the epitome of the Rom Com structure - featuring a structure that would continue to this day with films like She's All That, 10 Things I Hate About You, etc. - with the rough, though charming Leading Man who meets a Beautiful Woman, tells a Big Lie in order to increase his chances with the Beautiful Woman, which the Beautiful Woman will of course discover, leading to the Official Break Up, reconciled by the Leading Man’s Changed Behavior and then they Fall in Love. It’s a tale that I’ve seen so many times that the only thing I could appreciate was that this formula has been around in films far longer than I ever knew. The Leading Man in this case is James Gannon (Clark Gable), a successful and older newspaper man, whose office is filled with young aspiring writers. Gannon believes it best that they all start from the bottom and work their way up, whether a high school dropout or Phi Keppa Beta Ivy League honor student. Gannon is invited to Professor Eric Stone’s (Doris Days) classroom, where she teaches novice students the fundamentalism of journalism. Gannon resents the offer, but is implored to accept by his boss, eventually giving in and there he meets the beautiful Doris Da, later pretending to be a student in order to woo her over. His first assignment is a 250 word piece on a recent murder, which Gannon completes in minutes, much to Stone’s amazement. She believes she has found a wunderkind and wants to take Gannon under her guidance to hone and craft his skill. This eventually leads to her hitting up Gannon’s boss, urging him to hire Gannon, and blah blah blah - you know where this goes. She finds out who Gannon actually is, breaks things off, and it’s only once her friend and psychological Dr. Hugo Pine (Gig Young) implores her to given Gannon another chance that the two reconcile and all is resolved. I haven’t seen much from Doris Day, but the song that kicks off the film during the title credits reminds me just how great her voice is. She’s an exceptionally charming and attractive individual, sexy in that conservative and clean cut way, exuding confidence, and giving her all to the role. While it’s a little hard to believe she couldn’t piece the puzzle together within the first five minutes of Gannon’s arrival, her enthusiasm and commitment to creating honest future journalists always plays true. I never saw her as the larger than life Doris Day playing a fluffy character (as a few of her the films provide), but as a strong woman, pushed a bit too much in the role of hot teacher, though still giving the character depth. Her love for her father is one of the most touching moments, providing a great quote that further depresses me to the state of modern media - “If you deceive, you’ll sell papers tomorrow… If you’re honest, you’ll sell papers for all of time” (or something like that). I always have appreciation for Rom Coms that attempt to integrate heavier ideas into the shallow story. Beneath the hackneyed plot is a great discussion about the state of journalism at the time, offering a prescient view of where we were going, and making you all the more frustrated for where we are today. If only more of these lessons were taken to heart, then maybe we wouldn’t be at this point where the we’re covering presidential races as a form of reality television, ostensibly ignoring every other piece of news going on in the world, unless it’s about another mass murder or disaster, or a politician’s infidelities, or whatever bleeding news there is. As much as I’d want to believe that deceit can only last so long, I just don’t think it’s true. Deceit directed toward the right minds will last just as long as any amount of honesty. It leaves me wondering if maybe that’s why Netflix streams these films. Between this and Desk Set’s analysis of the oncoming technological revolution, I think Netflix is providing a look back at history - of how some films knew what was coming, with a few anticipating exciting new directions, and others seeing the terror in where we’re going. Teacher’s Pet is 75% Rom Com. The other 25% has left me thinking for quite a few days. BELOW: I'm not sure if Doris Day falling for Clark Gable should be disgusting or commendable (due to his writing abilities, that is). Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed